The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
W . N. DOAK, Secretary
CHILDREN’S BUREAU
G RACE ABBOTT. Chief
JUVENILE-COURT STATISTICS
1929
BASED ON INFORMATION SUPPLIED
BY 96 COURTS
THIRD ANNUAL REPORT
«
Bureau Publication No. 207
UNITED STATES
GOVERNMENT PRINTIN G OFFICE
WASHINGTON : 1931
For sale by the Superintendent of. Documents,, Washington. E). Q.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Çrjçp \% cent#
CONTENTS
Page
Plan of the report__________________ ___________________________________
Part I.— General discussion and summary tables________________________
The courts cooperating____________________________________________
Delinquency c a
s e
s _____f ____ _ _ . ______ ___________
Children involved in the cases_____________________ U:_:________
Sources of reference to court____________ ________ t -_______ 7
Places of care pending hearing or disposition___________________
Reasons for reference to court. _ __________________________ 10
Dispositions_________________ _______________ 1________ -_ v -___
Dependency and neglect cases__________________________
Children involved in the cases__________________________ ______
Sources of reference to court and reasons for reference_________
Places of care pending hearing or disposition____________ _______
Dispositions_______ lüL _
[»JMsfL _ _ _._______________________
Cases of children discharged from supervision______________________
Part II.— Comparative tables for 1927, 1928, and 1929_________________
Trends in juvenile delinquency.________________________ I __________
Comparative summary tables_____________________________________
Part III.— Source tables__________________________________________________
Appendix.— Courts furnishing statistical material for 1929______________
ii
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
1
2
2
5
5
8
13
19
21
22
23
24
26
26
26
31
60
JUVENILE-COURT STATISTICS, 1929
PLAN OF THE REPORT
This report, which is the third annual report based on data supplied
by courts cooperating with the Children’s Bureau in the plan for
obtaining uniform statistics of delinquency, dependency, and neglect
cases dealt with by juvenile courts, is arranged in three parts: I. Gen
eral discussion and summary tables based upon figures received from
all courts reporting in 1929; II. Comparative tables for the three
years 1927, 1928, and 1929, including a table showing increase or
decrease in the number of delinquency cases reported by courts send
ing cards for two or more years, and comparative summary tables for
the three years; and III. Source tables giving figures for individual
courts reporting in 1929. The courts for which figures are shown in
the source tables comprising Part III fall into two groups: (1) Those
serving populations of 100,000 or more and (2) those serving popula
tions of 25,000 to 100,000 according to the census of 1920.1 The
tables dealing with what seem to be the more significant items show
figures for both groups; the remainder of the tables show figures for
the first group only. Figures reported by courts serving areas with
populations of less than 25,000 in 1920 are not shown in the source
tables but are included in the summary tables of Part I. The number
of cases of each type reported by these courts is shown in the first of
the summary tables (p. 3).
1Population figures for 1930 were not available when these tabulations were made.
1
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
PART I.— GENERAL DISCUSSION AND SUMMARY TABLES
THE COURTS COOPERATING
Ninety-six courts sent in statistical data for the entire calendar year
1929, as compared with 65 courts for 1928 and 43 for 1927.2 The
names of the 96 courts reporting for 1929, with the largest city or town
in the area served by each court, are given in the appendix (p. 62).
For convenience each court will be designated in all other places only
by the territory over which it has jurisdiction. The cooperating
courts reported 46,312 delinquency cases, 18,805 dependency and
neglect cases, and 10,493 cases of children discharged from supervision.
The number of cases reported by each court for the year is shown in
Table 1. Although all the courts have jurisdiction over both delin
quency and dependency or neglect cases, 7 courts reported delinquency
cases only and 3 reported dependency or neglect cases only. Ninetythree of the courts, therefore, reported cases of delinquency, and 89
reported cases of dependency and neglect. Sixty-six courts reported
cases of children discharged from supervision; 61 of these courts
reported cases of delinquent children, and 48 courts cases of dependent
and neglected children. These figures, representing the number of
courts reporting each type of case, will be used in the summary tables
and discussions in this report.
The work of the court as to both number and types of cases was
reported more completely by some courts than by others. Incom
plete records or divided responsibility in checking cards was respon
sible for many of the failures to report.3 All the courts were asked to
report unofficial cases, but no such cases were reported by 25 4 courts,
although it is probable that in some of these courts a few complaints
are adjusted unofficially. In some courts records are not kept of
unofficial work.
The failure of 30 courts to report cases of children discharged from
supervision may be due to incomplete probation records or to the prac
tice of allowing cases to become inactive without dismissal or removal
from the list or index of active cases.
Table 1 shows wide variation among the courts in the relative
number of delinquency and of dependency and neglect cases reported
for the year. This variation is due in part to the extent to which
local agencies other than the court are caring for dependent and neg
lected children in the different communities.
>Juvenile-Court Statistics, 1927 and 1928. United States Children’s Bureau Publications No. 195 (Wash
ington, 1929) and No. 200 (Washington, 1930).
s The organization of the probation office associated with the court, from which most of the cards were
received, and its relation to the court differ from place to place. In some localities this office is an integral
part of the court; in others it is a separate organization. The office may function as a unit or, especially
in the larger courts, be divided into separate departments. In some communities, the court receives case
work service from another agency; for example, a county child-welfare department.
* Alabama—Franklin County, Mobile County; Illinois—Rock Island County; Louisiana—Bossier and
Webster Parishes; Michigan—Kent County; Minnesota—Hennepin County, Ramsey County; New
Jersey—Hudson County, Mercer County; New York—Buffalo, Chemung County, Delaware County,
Erie County, New York City, Ontario County, Orleans County, Rensselaer County; North Dakota—
Third judicial district; Ohio—Franklin County, Lake County; Pennsylvania—Allegheny County, Mont
gomery County; Virginia—Lynchburg, Norfolk; Washington—Pierce County.
2
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
JUVENILE-COURT STATISTICS, 1929
3
Number o f boys’ and girls’ delinquency and dependency and neglect
cases disposed o f and number o f cases o f children discharged from supervision
by 96 specified courts during 1929
y
T a b l e 1.
Dependency and neglec t Cases of
cases
children
Delinquency cases
Court
Total________________
Alabama:
Autauga County..............
Baldwin County______
Bullock County___
Calhoun County__
Chambers County___
Cherokee County
Chilton County. __
Clarke County_____
Cleburne County__
Coosa County____
Crenshaw County.
Dale County____
Dallas County___
Elmore County..........
Escambia County
Etowah County_____
Fayette County............ i
Franklin County..
Houston County__
Jackson County.
Lauderdale County___
Lee County........
Limestone County
Lowndes County_____
Marengo County___
Marshall County___
Monroe County____
Morgan County_______
Perry County________
Pickens County___
Talladega County_______
Tallapoosa County.
Washington County
California: San Diego County
Connecticut: Bridgeport
District of Columbia..
Illinois: Rock Island County
Indiana:
Clay County....... ......
Lake County_______
Marion County____
Monroe County___
Steuben County
Union County.
Vanderburg County
Iowa: Polk County
Louisiana:
Bossier and Webster Parishes
Caddo Parish........
Ouachita Parish..
Michigan: Kent County
Minnesota:
Hennepin County
Ramsey County
Winona County
New Jersey:
Hudson County...
New York:
Buffalo............
Chemung County.
Columbia County
Delaware County
Erie County.
Monroe County..
New York C ity ..
Ontario County..
Orleans County__
Rensselaer County
Westchester County
North Carolina: Buncombe County
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
.
Total
Boys
46,312
38,461
16
3
62
6
2
28
9
2
18
1
13
3
48
5
14
Girls
2
8
1
1
20
3
i
H
11
22
6
11
18
61
4
13
10
18
12
iA
3
7
2
3
8
219
1
21
4
3
19
6
7
1,666
461
1,947
34
49
1,417
391
1,623
17
19
242
985
21
17
24
92
747
134
653
14
11
16
37
569
4
275
269
431
236
252
346
1,097
396
38
897
309
32
1,846
433
1,584
414
262
19
100
118
14
200
8
2
23
932
133
126
16
223
203
233
7,956
86
30
318
888
146
12
Boys
Girls
18,805
9,567
9,238
24
16
63
11
7
30
21
13
9
33
23
7
6
5
16
1
34
2
16
8
10
2
72
12
1
17
6
31
1
2
1
49
15
26
38
7
9
54
53
15
6
23
239
70
438
70
17
7
6
8
55
178
1
38
631
1
39
5
107
85
279
10
16
23
39
11
5
7
44
5
15
23
4
65
15
10
23
28
3
3
28
17
26
28
20
17
234
33
151
92
6
113
163
7
133
119
5
from su
pervision
10,493
12
16
15
5
i
3
7
6
20
16
22
14
6
8
26
22
1
59
16
11
9
18
2
11
24
4
7
7
14
168
624
16
10
92
278
11
12
309
322
51
60
133
3
56
50
146
20
182
71
10
562
312
31
161
67
1
60
139
22
41
15
33
4
6
26
13
38
25
22
10
10
204
37
197
70
5
189
148
133
293
1,088
29
258
749
124
3
5
43
16
8
170
Total
73
24
187
270
103
48
65
65
154
41
144
2,045
29
15
100
134
57
24
70
68
139
27
140
1,846
44 _
9 .
87 .
136
46
142
46
6
95
148
3,313
407
4
JUVENILE-COURT STATISTICS, 1929
1.— Number o f boys’ and girls’ delinquency and dependency and neglect
cases disposed of and number of cases of children discharged from supervision
by 96 specified courts during 1929— Continued
T able
Delinquency cases
Court
Total
North Dakota: Third judicial district (in
Ohio:
Pennsylvania:
Utah:
Virginia:
Boys
Girls
Dependency and neglect Cases of
cases
children
discharged
from su
Girls pervision
Total
Boys
7
4
3
10
2
8
95
401
3,883
473
2,034
59
2,021
752
69
902
80
326
3,172
274
1,394
48
1,689
'523
42
750
15
75
711
199
640
11
332
229
27
152
28
78
1,396
659
468
31
292
385
40
443
16
35
720
342
213
16
145
190
22
202
12
43
676
317
255
15
147
195
18
241
1,290
19
55
6,955
126
1,090
9
47
6,089
103
200
10
8
866
23
756
39
13
3,670
' 114
364
15
8
1,918
54
392
24
5
1,752
60
1,611
75
279
535
871
385
601
'59
264
250
473
710
317
537
52
236
29
62
161
68
64
7
28
18
130
19
27
4
7
11
67
11
19
3
1
7
63
8
8
1
6
41
3
55
48
14
246
852
135
211
709
100
35
143
35
12
209
61
8
103
37
4
106
24
64
197
59
703
345
25
130
14
97
Most of the courts reporting have county-wide jurisdiction, but
a few are serving a city only.6 In most of the State of Utah the juve
nile courts are organized on a district basis, each district including
several counties.6 Utah is the only State in which all the juvenile
courts reported.
The populations of the areas served by the courts, shown in Table
1, varied from less than 25,000 to 500,000 or over in 1920. Six of the
courts served populations of 500,000 or over; 24, populations of
100,000 to 500,000; 49, populations of 25,000 to 100,000; and 17,
populations of less than 25,000. Eighty-nine per cent of the delin
quency cases and 85 per cent of the dependency and neglect cases
were reported by courts coming within the first two groups.
The maximum age of original jurisdiction of the 96 courts varied
from 16 to 21 years. Fifty-seven courts had jurisdiction over children
under 16 years of age; 7 5 had jurisdiction under 17 years;825 had juris
diction under 18 years;9 and 1 (San Diego County, Calif.)had jurisdic
tion under 21 years. Of the remaining 8 courts, 7 (in Indiana) had
jurisdiction over delinquent and dependent and neglected boys under
16 years, delinquent girls under 18 years, and dependent and neglected
girls under 17 years; and 1 (Kock Island County, 111.) had jurisdic
tion over boys under 17 years and girls under 18 years.
» New York City includes five boroughs, or counties, each of which has a subdivision of the court.
6 The courts for each of the remaining counties, although not organized on a district plan, have been
dealt with in two groups for statistical purposes, “ Carbon County” and “ Other Counties. ”
736 in Alabama, 1 in Connecticut, 2 in New Jersey, 12 in New York, 1 in North Carolina, 4 in Pennsyl
vania, and 1 in South Carolina.
8 1 in the District of Columbia, 3 in Louisiana, and 1 in Michigan.
91 in Iowa, 3 in Minnesota, 1 in North Dakota, 9 in Ohio, 1 in Oregon, 7 in Utah, 2 in Virginia, and 1 in
Washington.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
5
JUVENILE-COURT STATISTICS, 1929
DELINQUENCY CASES
CHILDREN INVOLVED IN THE CASES »
Age.
The extent to which the age limitation of original jurisdiction of
the court affected the number of cases dealt with is shown in Table 2.11
The cases of 16 and 17 year old children constituted almost one-third
of the boys’ cases and almost two-fifths of the girls’ cases for which
the age of the child was reported in courts having jurisdiction over
children under 18 years, and more than one-third of the boys’ cases
and almost two-fifths of the girls’ cases in the one court having juris
diction over children under 21 years. Cases of 14 and 15 year old
children constituted the largest group in courts of each age jurisdic
tion under 18 years.
T a b l e 2 .— A ge limitation o f original court jurisdiction and age o f boys and girls
dealt with in delinquency cases disposed o f by 93 courts during 1929 1
Delinquency cases
Age limitation of original court jurisdiction
Age and sex of child
Total
Under 16 years * Under 17 years
Under 18 years •Under 21 years *
Num Per ceni Num Per cent Num Per cent Num Per cent
distri
distri
distri
ber
distri
ber
ber
ber
bution
bution
bution
bution
Total cases_______ 46,312
23,973
2,943
17,740
Boys’ cases_______ 38,461
20,863
2,477
13,704
Aee reported___
_ .
1,656
1,417
38,043
20,635
100
2,462
100
13,531
100
1,415
100
Under 10 years
2,630
10 years, under 12___ 4,736
12 years, under 14___ 9,626
14 years, under 16___ 16,259
16 years, under 18___ 6,698
18 years and over___
94
1,572
3,068
6,182
9,533
275
5
8
15
30
46
1
201
286
571
875
527
2
8
12
23
36
21
768
1,286
2,666
4,404
4,381
26
6
10
20
33
32
89
96
207
447
515
61
6
7
15
32
36
4
Agenot reported_____
(9
(9
(9
418
228
15
173
2
7,851
3,110
466
4,036
239
___
7,753
3,066
100
466
100
3,984
100
237
100
Under 10 years
10 years, under 12___
12 years, under 14___
14 years, under 16___
16 years, under 18___
18 years and over
286
426
1,434
3, 765
1,800
42
117
208
699
1,945
93
4
4
7
23
63
3
27
45
116
188
90
6
10
25
40
19
132
167
579
1,566
1,527
13
3
4
15
39
38
10
6
40
66
90
25
4
3
17
28
38
11
98
44
Girls’ cases_______
Aee reported____
Aee not reported__ __
(9
------------------------ — L
j f®°f tile
52
(9
2
courts reported boys’ cases and 86, girls’ cases.
C0Unty’ N * Y - (Where iurisdiction t0 17 years authorized by
3Includes San Diego County, Calif., only.
* Less than l per cent.
number of the children were dealt with more than once, the 46,312 delinquency cases rennrtert
for 1929 represented 41,101 children-33,793 boys and 7,308 girls. In 1927 a id 1928 tables s S
t?nialnKlar? tierlSv,1M?i0f th.e .childFen involved in the cases were based on children, not cases the informa?
^^^n about the child contained in the record of the first case disposed of during the year being used A
i?n“ ?racfnTdfetr^utionat^All tobW orm ^Q f e<rhn e^ildr1?n a? d on cases revealed no significant differences
• e i ^ u?^on,^n,
tables of a few cases of children beyond the age of original iurisdiction mav ha
iact that some courts have jurisdiction beyond the age of original jurisdiction in certain
a cas?
*hich the offense was committed before the ag™^^^^
though the case did not come to the attention of the court until afterward, and a case in which a child made
a ward before reaching the age limit was brought before the court on a new charge,
•
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
(5
JTJVENILE-COURT STATISTICS, 1929
Color and nativity.
Colored boys were involved in one-sixth and colored girls in onefifth of the delinquency cases for which color of child was reported
by the courts. (See Table 3 a , below)
Few children of foreign birth are reported to the courts in delin
quency cases. This is doubtless, due, at least in part, to the fact that
a smaller proportion of the foreign-bom white population than of the
native-born white population is of juvenile-court age.
Information regarding the nativity of the parents of the nativeborn white children, whose cases constituted the largest proportion
of the delinquency cases, was obtained in the 31,264 cases shown in
Table 3 b . In only two-fifths of the delinquency cases of native-born
white girls were one or both parents foreign bom. The situation is
reversed, however, in cases of native-born white boys who became
delinquent. In slightly more than one-half of the boys’ cases, one
or both parents were foreign born.
T a b l e 3 a .— Color and nativity of boys and girls dealt with in delinquency cases
disposed of by 93 courts during 1929 1
Delinquency cases
Girls
Boys
Total
Color and nativity of child
Number
Per cent
Per cent
Per cent
distri
distri Number
distri Number
bution
bution
bution
7,851
38,461
46,312
Color reported_________________________
45,183
100
37,438
100
7,745
100
White_____________________________
Native-------------------------------------Foreign born—.
------ --------------Nativity not reported............ ........
37,832
33,195
743
3,894
84
73
2
9
31,613
27,469
595
3,549
84
73
2
9
6.219
5,726
148
345
80
74
2
4
Colored---------- -------------------------------
7,351
16
5,825
16
1,626
20
106
1,023
1,129
189 of the 93 courts reported boys’ cases, and 86, girls’ cases.
T a b l e 3 b .— Parent nativity of native white boys and girls 1 dealt with in delinquency
cases disposed of by 93 courts during 1929 2
Delinquency cases of native white children
Girls
Boys
Total
Parent nativity
Number
Per cent
Per cent
Per cent
distri
distri Number
distri Number
bution
bution
bution
Total cases_______________________
31,264
100
25,658
100
5,606
10G
Native parentage....................... ..................
Foreign or mixed parentage--------------------
15,775
15,489
50
50
12,375
13,283
48
62
3,400
2,206
61
39
l Excludes cases of children for whom parent nativity was not reported.
«89 of the 93 courts reported boys’ cases, and 86, girls’ cases.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
7
JUVENILE-COURT STATISTICS, 1929
Where living when referred to court.
In two-thirds of the cases of delinquent boys, but in slightly less
than one-half of the cases of delinquent girls for whom this informa
tion was reported (Table 4), the children were living with both their
own parents when they were referred to court. This rather striking
difference between boys and girls is probably due to several factors.
The lack of normal family life may play a more significant part in the
delinquency of girls than of boys. It is generally conceded that the
difficulties which bring girls into court are usually more serious in
character and more closely related to home conditions than the diffi
culties of boys.
T a b l e 4. — Whereabouts, when referred to court, of boys and girls dealt with in
delinquency cases disposed of by 93 courts during 1929 1
Delinquency cases
Whereabouts of child
Total
Number
Boys
Per cent
distri Number
bution
Girls
Per cent
Per cent
distri-. Number
distri
button
bution
Total cases_______________________
46,312
Whereabouts reported__________________
40,503
100
33,538
100
6,965
100
With both own parents_____________
With mother and stepfather .. _
With father and stepmother_________
With mother only.._______________
With father only__________ ____
In adoptive home__________ ______
In other family home........................
In institution_____ _______________
Other..___________________
25,833
2,136
1,255
5,755
2,382
202
2,159
336
445
64
5
3
14
6
22,487
1,596
974
4,508
1,836
128
1,491
231
287
67
5
3
13
5
3,346
540
281
1,247
546
74
668
105
158
48
s
4
18
8
1
10
2
2
Whereabouts not reported_____________
38,461
0)
6,809
5
1
1
7 851
(2)
4
1
1
4,923
189 of the 93 courts reported boys’ cases, and 86, girls’ cases.
* Less than 1 per cent.
SOURCES OF REFERENCE TO COURT
The distribution of the sources from which cases are referred to
court is some indication of the relation of the court to the community.
The proportion referred by such sources as parents and relatives,
other individuals, and social agencies shows to a certain extent whether
the court is regarded as a general agency to deal with all conduct
problems or only as an agency to deal with cases of marked conflict
with public authority. More than half the cases shown in Table 5
were reported by the police. Parents or relatives, or other individuals,
referred one-fourth of the cases. Probation officers were reported as
source of reference in a small percentage of the cases.12
“ Some courts may have reported the person signing the petition rather than the persor making the
original complaint, thus reporting “ probation officer” as the source in cases actually referred ay others.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
JUVENILE-COURT STATISTICS, 1929
8
T a b l e 5.— Source of reference to court of delinquency cases disposed o f by 93 courts
during 1929
Delinquency cases
Source of reference to court
Per cent
Number distribu
tion
46,312
46,262
100
26,350
4,293
7,461
4,929
2,634
967
638
55
9
16
11
6
2
1
50
PLACES OF CARE PENDING HEARING OR DISPOSITION
Table 6 a shows that more than half the delinquent children were
not detained pending the hearing or disposition of their cases, or their
cases were disposed of on the day the complaint was made. For the
children who were detained, a diversity of places were used according
to the facilities available in the local community. Detention homes
were used in one-fourth of the cases. Practically all the cases of
children cared for in detention homes were reported by courts situ
ated in cities or counties of 100,000 or more population. Although a
number of courts reported the use of institutions other than deten
tion homes, including the institutional resources of private agencies,
the majority of the cases in which children were so cared for were
reported by the New York City court. (See Table VII, p. 51.)
Five per cent of the boys and two per cent of the girls were detained
in jails or police stations. In all 1,896 children, of whom 713 were
under the age of 16 years, were detained in jails or police stations.13
A marked difference is shown in the type of detention care given
children over 16 years of age and that given younger children. A
smaller percentage of the older children were detained in detention
homes and other institutions and a larger percentage in jails or police
stations.
is Although courts using the cards were instructed that a child held for a few hours only should not; be
considered detained, it is probable that some of the children reported as detained in jails or police stations
were held for a few hours only, and not overnight. 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.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
9
JXJYENILE-COURT STATISTICS, 1929
T a b l e 6 a .— Place of care pending hearing or disposition and age of boys and girls
dealt with in delinquency cases disposed of by 93 courts during 1929 1
Delinquency eases
Age of child
Place of care and sex of
child
Total
Under 14
years
Per
Per
Num cent
Num cent
dis
dis Num
ber
ber tribu ber tribu
tion
tion
4fi 312
Total cases_________ 46,312
Boys’ cases.
Boarding home...........
D etention home or
other institution 3___
Detention home 3..
Other institution...
Jail or police station__
Only place of care..
One of the places of
care______...------More than one place of
care4______________
Other place of care____
Place of care not reported_
Girls’ cases.
Place of care reported.
Own home or case dis
posed of same day___
Boarding home_______
D etention home or
other institution3___
Detention home 3_.
Other institution...
Jail or police station__
Only place of care..
One of the places of
care___________ t.
More than one place of
care4_____ _________
Other place of care____
22,035
131
Per
cent Num
dis
tribu ber
tion
Per
Per
Per
cent Num cent
cent
dis ber dis Num
dis
tribu
tribu ber tribu
tion
tion
tion
19,138
19,024
7,498
136
516
15, 259
5,698
94
418
100 16,890
100 15,158
100 5,664
100
94
100
53 3,301
32
58
1
49
6
52
6
254
63
1 0
42 1,184
29 1,072
13
112
3 1,066
3 931
21
19
2
19
16
11
10
1
23
23
12
11
1
24
24
135
118
17
9
8
135
2
1
29
52
1
1
1 0
1
5
0
13,891
9,935
3,956
1,741
1,503
58 10,355
47
0
238
1
28
1
96
38
0
61 8,076
45
0
37 6,363
25 4,448
11 1,915
1 487
1 413
36 6,198
26 4,287
10 1,911
5
156
4
128
249
164
(J)
74
i
0
123
64
0
1
0
5
250
102
101
34
7,851
2,146
3,765
1,800
7,790
100 2,136
100 3,735
100 1,783
100
41
3,865
94
50 1,278
1
11
60 1,646
1
33
44
1
872
50
49
3
3,437
2,233
1,204
155
117
44
29
15
2
2
788
454
334
12
11
37 1,892
21 1,167
735
16
1
58
1
37
51
31
20
2
1
712
590
122
76
60
40
33
7
4
3
21
1
16
1
1
2
20
27
40
66
1
2
11
62
1
3
38
73
166
Place of care not reported..
61
Not re
ported
16,992
38,461 —
38, 211
Place of care reported_____ ¡38,211
18 years
and over
16 years,
under 18
14 years,
under 16
1
0
10
0
1
1
30
17
5
405
100
33
29
4
2
2
0
13
42
98
95
100
14
55
58
18
14
4
6
6
27
18
9
3
3
. 28
19
9
3
3
1
2
1
9
1
9
1
3
0
189 of the 93 courts reported boys’ cases and 86, girls’ cases.
3 Less than 1 per cent.
3Includes 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 detention homes, jails, or police stations.
3Not shown because number of cases was less than 50.
Table 6 b shows that white boys were more frequently cared for in
their own homes or had their cases disposed of the same day, than the
colored boys, and that a larger proportion of the colored than of the
white were cared for in detention homes or in jails or police stations.
Approximately the same proportion of white and colored girls had
their cases disposed of the same day or were allowed to remain in
their own homes. But in the case of girls cared for in places other
than their own homes, detention homes were used more frequently
for colored girls and institutions other than detention homes for the
care of white girls.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
10
JTJVENILE-COTJBT STATISTICS, 1929
T able
6 b .— Place o f care pending hearing or disposition and color o f hoys and girls
dealt with in delinquency cases disposed o f by 93 courts during 1929 1
Delinquency cases
White children
Place of care and sex of child
Total
Colored children
Children
whose
color
Per cent
Per cent was
not
Number distri Number distri reported
bution
bution
46,312
37,832
7,351
38,461
31,613
5,825
Place of care reported------ ------------------------------
38,211
31,391
Own home or case disposed of same day------
22,035
131
13,891
9,935
3,956
1,741
l ’ 503
' 238
249
164
19,199
123
10,393
7,039
3,354
1,321
1.143
178
214
141
250
222
Detention home or other institution3........
Detention home 3-------------------------------
100
5,797
61
2,637'
8
2,674
2,072
602
420
360
60
35
23
(3)
33
22
11
4
4
1
1
(’)
1,129
1,023
100
(J)
1,023
45
199
46
36
10
7
6
1
1
824
824
(?)
28
1,526
7,851
6,219
Place of care reported________________________
7,790
6,164
100
1,520
100
106
Own home or case disposed of same day____
3,865
94
3,437
2,233
1,204
155
117
38
73
166
3,093
86
2,669
1,652
1,017
120
89
31
59
137
50
1
43
27
16
2
1
1
1
2
742
8
692
506
186
35
28
7
14
29
49
1
46
33
12
2
2
30
61
55
Detention home or other institution 3. ........
Detention home 3_______ ____ _______ _
Other institution_____________________
106
(>)
76
75
1
1
2
6
189 of the 93 courts reported boys’ cases and 86, girls’ cases.
* Less than 1 per cent.
3Includes 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.
‘ Excludes cases of children held in detention homes, jails, or police stations.
REASONS FOR REFERENCE TO COURT «
Although an attempt is being made to secure uniformity in the use
of terms, the reasons reported for referring children to courts as
delinquents give a very incomplete picture of their behavior problems.
A child may have committed several offenses at or about the same time
but be referred to the court on only one of them. The specific offense
for which he is referred may be much less serious than offenses dis
covered in the course of the social investigation. When the case is
investigated before the filing of a petition instead of afterward, the
formal charge is usually more accurate, but even in such cases the
offense stated in the complaint may reflect the desire of the court to
protect the child.15 These differences in the attitudes and practices
of the court are apparent in the proportion of cases referred for the
various reasons by the different courts. (See Tables I I I a , I J I b ,
pp. 40, 42.)
m The term “ charge” was used in earlier reports.
13A girl may he charged with incorrigibility instead of a sex offense, a boy with mischief instead of stealing,
or a charge.of burglary and entry be reduced to trespassing and taking the property of another.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
11
JUVENILE-COURT STATISTICS, 1929
It is generally accepted that the offenses for which boys and girls
are referred to court represent different delinquency problems. Table
7a shows that “ stealing or attempted stealing” and “ act of careless
ness or mischief” were the most usual offenses reported in boys’ cases,
whereas the closely related offenses of “ running away,” “ ungovern
able or beyond parental control,” and “ sex offense” were reported
more often in girls’ cases.
T a b l e 7 a .— Reason for reference to court and color o f boys and girls dealt with in
delinquency cases disposed o f by 93 courts during 19291
Delinquency cases
Reason for reference to court, and sex of
child
Total cases______________________
Reason reported_______________________
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_______
Violating liquor or drug law, or intoxication__ ________________________
Other reason_______________________
Total
White children
cent
Num Per
distri
ber
bution
cent
Num Per
distri
ber
bution
Colored children
Children
whose
color
Per
cent
Num distri was not
ber
bution reported
46,312
37,832
7,351
38,461
31, 613
5,825
1,129
1,023
38, 339
100
31,510
100
5,806
100
1,023
15,954
2,575
4,585
830
5,392
2,572
3,326
2,433
42
7
12
2
14
7
9
6
12,827
2,182
3,927
682
3,985
2,051
2,936
1,854
41
7
12
2
13
7
9
6
2,681
335
541
105
1,179
521
377
. 368
46
6
9
2
20
9
6
6
446
58
117
43
228
2,696
608
1,053
10,999
7
2
3
29
2,158
478
814
9,380
7
2
3
30
482
120
228
1,377
8
2
4
24
56
10
11
242
356
914
1
2
309
754
1
2
44
129
1
2
3
31
13
211
Reason not reported___________________
122
103
19
Girls’ cases______________________
7,851
6,219
1, 526
Reason reported_______________________
7,778
100
6,171
100
1, 501
100
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_______
Violating liquor or drug law, or intoxication____________________ _____ _
Other reason______________________
853
15
62
59
451
266
1,093
1,290
11
11
8
1
1
5
4
16
17
187
1
13
11
117
45
110
203
12
i
1
6
3
14
17
658
14
46
48
329
221
981
1,020
1
1
8
3
7
14
3
2,060
1,512
201
566
26
19
3
7
1,561
1,269
100
433
25
21
2
7
478
239
101
131
32
16
7
9
74
129
1
2
58
91
1
1
16
,36
1
2
Reason not reported___________________
(J)
73
48
(2)
106
(2)
106
5
2
67
21
4
2
2
25
189 of the 93 courts reported boys’ cases and 86, girls’ cases.
3 Less than 1 per cent.
The distribution of offenses for white and colored children, though
apparently quite similar, is significantly different. White boys were
referred to court more frequently than colored for “ truancy” and
act of carelessness or mischief, whereas colored boys were referred
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
12
JUVENILE-COURT STATISTICS, 1929
for stealing and “ injury or attempted injury to person ” more‘frequently
than the white boys. An analysis of the various forms of stealing
shows that white boys were reported for “ burglary or unlawful entry”
more often than colored boys and that colored boys were referred for
“ other type of stealing” more often than the white. White girls
were referred more frequently“ than colored for truancy, whereas
colored girls were referred more often than white for injury to person.
The other offenses showed little difference for white and colored girls.
T a b l e 7 b .— Per cent distribution according to reason for reference to court o f cases of
boys and girls of each age period dealt with in delinquency cases disposed of by 93
courts during 19291
v
Delinquency cases
Age of child
Beason for reference to court, and sex of child
!
18
14
12
16 '
Total Under1 10
years, years, years, years, years, Not
10
re
and
under
under
under
under
years
over ported
14
18
12
16
100
100
100
100
100
Stealing or attempted stealing.. . . ___________
Automobile stealing..._________________
Burglary or unlawful e n try ..____ _______
Bobbery___ _____ ________________ ____ _
Other type of stealing__________________
Type of stealing not reported____________
T ru an cy.._________ ______________________
Bunning 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 reason___________________ _______ ___
42
7
12
2
14
7
9
6
7
2
3
29
1
2
37
1
13
2
16
7
7
6
9
1
4
35
1
44
2
15
2
17
7
5
6
8
1
3
31
(2)
1
45
4
14
2
17
8
8
7
7
1
3
28
l2)
2
42
9
12
2
13
7
10
6
7
2
3
27
1
3
Girls’ cases___________________________
100
100
100
100
100
11
(3)
1
1
6
3
14
17
26
19
3
7
1
2
22
K
(3)
12
5
19
4
18
7
4
26
(2)
(2)
23
1
1
2
12
7
11
8
22
7
8
20
16
(2)
1
1
9
5
13
14
30
14
4
8
(2)
1
Boys’ cases__________________________
Bobbery____________________________ ...
Other type of stealing----------------------------
Injury or attempted injury to person....... .......
1
100
100
9
(2)
(2)
1
4
3
15
21
28
19
2
5
1
2
100
41
36
13
13
8
10
4
2
12
9
3
5
10 _____ _
5
6
19
6
3
5
3
14
29
4
7
4
7
(8)
8
100
28
2
7
3
10
6
6
10
4
2
3
46
(2)
1
100
5
(2)
(2)
1 ____,__
5 ____
2
14
14
23
30
2
5
2
3
3
1
1
14
15
27
10
2
23
3
189 of the 93 courts reported boys’ cases and 86, girls’ cases.
2 Less than 1 per cent.
3Not shown because number of cases was less than 50.
The types of offenses committed by children vary with their age,
reflecting changing interests and pursuits. Table 7b shows that the
offenses committed by girls under 12 years of age corresponded more
closely to those committed by boys of that age group than did the
offenses of older girls to those of older boys. In boys’ cases stealing
and acts of carelessness or mischief were the major offenses in each
age group under 18 years, although the type of stealing changed as
the boys grew older. For the group 18 years and over, in which the
majority of the cases were reported by San Diego County, Calif.,
stealing was still one of the major offenses, but the percentage re
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
JUVENILE-COURT STATISTICS, 1929
13
ferred for being ungovernable was greater than that referred for acts of
carelessness or mischief. (In California, courts have only concurrent
jurisdiction between the ages of 18 and 21 years, and many cases of
young people in this age group are dealt with by adult courts.) In
girls’ cases the percentages referred for running away, being un
governable, and sex .offenses were larger for the higher than for the
lower age groups. In both boys’ and girls’ cases the percentage re
ferred to court for acts of carelessness or mischief decreased as the
age of the children increased, although the decrease was much more
pronounced in girls’ than in boys’ cases, while the percentages re
ferred for sex offenses and violations of liquor or drug laws or intoxi
cation rose as the age of the children increased.
DISPOSITIONS
Individual courts showed wide variation in the extent to which
different types of dispositions were used (See Tables IV a , IV b , pp.
44, 46.) 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 16 is small if cases are in
vestigated before the filing of a petition and trivial cases are dealt
with unofficially and 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 children are selected for probation both as to those likely
to profit by it and as to the court’s facilities for giving adequate
supervision.
Official cases.
Table 8 a shows the extent to which different types of dispositions
were used by the courts in. official delinquency cases. Placing the
child on probation was the disposition most frequently used. The
number of cases dismissed or continued indefinitely was also large;
in a smaller number the children were committed to institutions.
Only about one-seventh of the cases were disposed of by any other
method than one of these three. Although the same percentage of
boys and girls were placed on probation, the percentage of cases dis
missed or continued indefinitely was larger for boys and the per
centage of commitments to institutions was larger for girls. Other
slight differences in the methods of dealing with boys and girls are
shown in this table. The types of dispositions reported in cases of
white and colored children show some differences: white children
were relatively more apt to be fined than the colored; colored children
were more often committed to boards, departments, or agencies than
the white.
'6 The classification “ case dismissed” was used for cases closed without further action, cases referred to
other courts for commitment to institutions for the feeble-minded, and eases dismissed because of lack
of jurisdiction in the juvenile court. Cases were considered as “ continued indefinitely” when no further
action was taken or supervision given the children, but when jurisdiction was maintained so that if a
like situation arose later the case might be brought into court again without the filing of a new petition.
Cases of children placed on probation to parents or committed to 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
14
JUVENILE-COURT STATISTICS, 1929
T a b l e 8 a .— Disposition o f case and color of boys and girls dealt with in official
delinquency cases disposed of by 89 courts during 1929 1
Official delinquency cases
Disposition of case and sex of child
Total cases__________________ ____
Total
White children
Colored children Children
whose
color
Num Percent Num Percent Num Per cent was not
distri
distri
distri
re
ber
ber
ber
bution
bution
bution ported
31,814
25,964
5,144
706
Disposition reported................................... 31, 806
100
25,956
100
5,144
100
706
Dismissed or continued indefinitely-- 9, 561
Child placed on probation........... ...... 12, 588
Child committed to institution. _____
5,029
State institution for delinquent
children_____________
1,974
Other institution for delinquent
children___________ ______
2,603
Type of institution for delinquent
children not reported.................
189
Other institution_______
263
Restitution, fine, or costs
2,260
Fine imposed or payment of costs
ordered__________________
1, 579
Restitution or reparation ordered.
681
Other disposition____________
2,368
Child placed under supervision of
individual other than probation officer...................
609
Child committed to board, departaient, or agency__________
1,109
Child returned hom e.. ____
353
Child referred for criminal prosecution_____________
38
Child otherwise cared for...........
359
Disposition not reported..........
8
30
40
16
8,151
10,047
4,025
31
39
16
1,341
2,178
822
26
42
16
69
363
182
6
1,462
6
466
9
46
8
2,221
9
261
5
121
1
1
7
157
185
2,056
1
1
8
32
63
196
1
1
4
15
8
5
2
7
1, 457
599
1,677
2
6
74
607
1
12
8
84
2
397
2
111
2
1
3
1
653
279
3
1
386
63
8
1
70
11
1
33
315
8
1
4
43
1
1
1
26. 566
100
21,851
100
4,093
100
622
Dismissed or continued indefinitely.. 8,464
Child placed on probation..
10, 503
Child committed to institution
3,626
State institution for delinquent
children_____________
1,499
Other institution for delinquent
children___________
1,847
Type of institution for delinquent
children not reported...........
108
Other institution___
172
Restitution, fine, or costs
2,205
Fine imposed or payment of costs
ordered___________
1, 542
Restitution or reparation ordered
'663
Other disposition... . _____
1,768
Child placed under supervision
of individual other than probation officer________
385
Child committed to board, departaient, or agency_________
779
Child returned home_______
247
Child referred for criminal prosecution..___________
37
Child otherwise cared fo r ...
320
Disposition not reported_________
3
32
40
14
7,263
8,478
2,873
33
39
13
1,138
1, 696
596
28
41
15
63
329
157
Boys’ cases.................................
Disposition reported____________
(*)
26, 569
(J)
21, 854
(J)
622
4,093
6
1,098
5
359
9
42
7
1,555
7
184
4
108
1
8
95
125
2,008
1
9
13
40
189
1
5
7
8
6
2
7
1, 42fi
582
1,229
7
3
6
73
474
2
12
8
65
(*)
(J)
(2)
1
303
1
81
2
1
3
1
412
196
2
1
314
42
8
1
53
o
(2)
(2)
i
33
3
1
1
1
285
34
3
189 of the 93 courts reporting delinquency cases reported official delinquency cases: 87 of the 89 courts
reported boys cases and 76, girls’ cases.
* Less than 1 per cent.
(2)
1
»\
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
15
JUVENILE-COURT STATISTICS, 1929
T a b l e 8 a .— Disposition of case and color of boys and girls dealt with in official
delinquency cases disposed of by 89 courts during 1929— Continued
Official delinquency cases
Colored children Children
whose
color
Num Percent
was not
Num Percent
Num Percent
distri
distri
distri
ber
re
ber
ber
bution ported
bution
bution
White children
Total
Disposition of case and sex of child
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
1,051
4,110
5,245
Disposition reported___________________
84
5,240
100
4,105
100
1,051
100
84
1,097
2,085
1,403
21
40
27
888
1, 569
1,152
22
38
28
203
482
226
19
46
22
6
34
25
475
9
364
9
107
10
4
756
14
666
16
77
7
13
81
91
55
2
2
1
62
60
48
2
1
1
19
23
7
2
2
1
8
1
31
17
448
1
11
6
1
133
Other institution__________ ____
Fine imposed or payment of costs
Restitution or reparation ordered.
Other disposition__________________
Child placed under supervision of
individual other than probation
Child committed to board, department, or agency....... ..........
Child returned home_____ ______
Child referred for criminal prose-
37
18
600
(*)
11
(?)
1
(»)
124
2
94
2
30
3
330
106
6
2
241
83
6
2
72
21
7
2
1
30
5
1
1
9
(i)
1
39
5
(2)
19
13
17
2
1
2Less than 1 per cent.
T a b l e 8 b .— Per cent distribution, according to disposition of cases of boys and
girls of each age period dealt with in official delinquency cases disposed of by 89
courts during 1929 1
Official delinquency cases
Age of child
Disposition of case and sex of child
14
18
12
16
10
Total Under years,
years, years, years, years Not re
10
under under under and ported
years under
18
over
14
16
12
_
Boys’ 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
Other institution___________ ___________
Restitution, fine, or costs..... .............. ............ .
Other disposition____ _____________________
Girls’ cases__________________________
State institution for delinquent children...
Type of institution for delinquent children
100
32
40
14
6
7
100
38
37
8
1
5
100
32
42
12
3
8
100
31
43
14
5
8
100
33
40
14
6
7
100
28
33
15
10
4
(¡0
1
8
7
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(•*)
2
8
8
1
9
5
1
8
5
7
6
1
11
13
100
21
40
27
9
14
100
42
29
11
2
7
100
28
41
16
4
9
100
21
42
27
8
15
100
20
41
26
9
15
100
19
34
32
14
15
2
2
1
11
2
3
15
i
3
3
13
2
2
1
10
1
1
1
11
2
2
1
13
100
29
37
10
8
100
39
26
21
11
7
2
6
19
1
2
7
7
(3)
0
189 of the 93 courts reporting delinquency cases reported official delinquency cases; 87 of the 89 courts
reported boys’ cases and 76, girls’ cases.
2 Less than 1 per cent..
! Not shown because number of cases was less than 5Q,
51303°— 31------ 2
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
T a b l e 8 c .— Per cent distribution according to disposition of cases of boys and girls referred to court for each type of reason in official delin-
quency cases disposed of by 89 courts during 19 291
^
03
Official delinquency eases
Reason for reference to court
Disposition of case and sex of child
Boys’ cases__________________ ___________________________
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................. ............... .
32
40
14
6
7
22
51
17
8
8
37
32
15
3
11
(2)
(2)
(2)
Sex
offense
Injury
Act of Violating
Not
or
liquor or
attempt careless
drug law Other report
ness or or
ed injury mischief
intoxi
ed
to person
cation
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
23
18
45
40
23
18
8
6
12
10
1 . ir O v r
2
2
2
«
8
24
21
55
17
10
5
1
1
3
5
48
33
8
4
3
53
20
3
1
2
38
30
8
6
2
50
16
4
1
2
58
26
7
2
6
19
5
20
4
1
27
3
8
100
100
25
27
37
28
7
25
47
26
100
(2)
1
8
7
1
5
5
1
4
13
Girls’ cases___________ _____ _____________________________
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
21
40
27
9
14
2
2
1
11
22
51
17
5
10
42
31
9
3
5
16
38
27
7
16
2
2
14
46
30
8
18
2
2
11
34
45
19
20
3
3
49
36
7
1
4
55
27
5
2
3
1
10
10
(2)
1
2
8
(2)
1
3
15
(2)
19
(2)
1
7
4
(2)
(?)
Restitution, fine, or costs_______________ >................... .......................
2
6
2
189 of the 93 courts reporting delinquency cases reported official delinquency cases; 87 of the 89 courts reported boys’ cases and 76, girls’ cases.
* Less than 1 per cent.
•Not shown because number of cases was less than 50.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
(3)
26
1
7
7
11
1
JUVENILE-COURT STATISTICS, 1929
Stealing
Ungov
or
ernable
attempt Truancy Running
or beyond
away
parental
ed steal
ing
control
Total
JUVENILE-COURT STATISTICS, 1929
17
Both the age of the child and the character of his offense affect the
disposition of his case. Table 8 b shows the relation between the dis
position of the case and the age of the child, and Table 8c, between
the disposition of the case and the reason given for referring the child
to court.
Table 8 b shows a larger percentage of cases of boys under 1 0 years
of age than of older boys dismissed or continued indefinitely and a
steadily increasing percentage of commitments to institutions in each
higher age period. Comparison of the age group 16, under 18 years
with age groups under 16 years shows that in a smaller percentage of
the older group than of each of the younger groups the case was dis
missed or continued indefinitely or the boy placed on probation. In a
higher percentage of the older group than of each of the younger
groups the disposition was one of a miscellaneous list classed as
“ other.” The age group 18 years and over in which percentages
were based on a small number of cases (52), the majority reported by
one court (San Diego County, Calif.), may be excluded from con
sideration.
In cases of girls under 10 years of age dismissal or indefinite contin
uance constituted a much larger percentage and probation a much
smaller percentage of the dispositions than in each of the higher age
groups. As in boys’ cases, commitment to institutions constituted
an increasing percentage of the dispositions as the age of the girls
increased.
Table 8c shows that with a few exceptions the treatment for differ
ent types of offenses was quite similar in boys’ and girls’ cases.
Dismissal or indefinite continuance was the disposition most often
used in both boys’ and girls’ cases when the offense was truancy,
injury or attempted injury to person, and act of carelessness or mis
chief. Probation was the most usual disposition in cases of both
boys and girls charged with stealing, running away, and being un
governable. The contrast in methods of dealing with boys and girls
committing sex offenses is striking, probation being used most often
for boys and commitment to an institution for girls. In a group of
miscellaneous offenses classed as “ other” dismissal or indefinite con
tinuance was used most often for the boys and commitment to an
institution for the girls.17
Unofficial cases.
Sixty-four of the 93 courts reporting delinquency cases disposed of
cases unofficially. . Table 9 shows that a large percentage of these
cases were dealt with either by adjusting the difficulty or by dropping
the case without action of any sort. In a small percentage of the
cases children were placed on unofficial probation, and in still smaller
percentages they were referred to institutions or agencies. The return
of runaways or children living away from home to their homes also
constituted a small percentage of the cases.
17
high percentage of commitments to institutions in the cases of girls whose offense was classed at
other is due to the #H*res reported by one court.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
18
JUVENILE-COURT STATISTICS, 1929
T a b l e V.— Disposition of case and color o f boys and girls dealt with in unofficial
___________ delinquency cases disposed of by 6 4 courts during 19291
Unofficial delinquency cases
Total
’ Disposition of case and color of child
Number
Total cases____________
Disposition reported__________
Dismissed_______ ______
Difficulty adjusted______
Child placed on unofficial probation.
Child returned home 2__
Placement of child in institution recom
mended- ______
Placement of child elsewhere recom
mended. ___________
Referred to agency or other court
Other disposition._______
Disposition not reported
White......................
Disposition reported________
Dismissed_____ ____ ____
Difficulty adjusted______
Child placed on unofficial probation____
Child returned home 2
Placement of child in institution recom
mended________
Placement of child elsewhere recom
mended . . ________
Referred to agency or other court. .
Other disposition__
Disposition not reported
Colored_______________
Disposition reported .
Dismissed_____________
Difficulty adjusted______
Child placed on unofficial probation. .
Child returned home 2_.
Placement of child in institution recom
mended____________
Placement of child elsewhere recom
mended___________
Referred to agency or other court .
Other disposition____________
Boys
Per cent
Per cent
Per cent
distri Number distri Numbei distri
bution
bution
bution
14,498
14,484
3, Oil
7, 553
1, 615
901
Girls
11,892
2,606
100
11,883
100
2,601
100
52
11
2, 535
6, 392
1,302
21
54
11
476
1,16Î
313
228
18
45
12
9
97
4
54
216
56
2
8
2
334
167
488
415
1
272
2
14
11, 868
11, 854
2.471
6,349
1,237
718
9,759
2,109
100
9, 750
100
2,104
100
64
10
6
2,126
5,389
979
523
22
55
10
345
960
258
195
16
46
12
9
259
78
388
354
1
195
307
540
988
272
118
71
3
2
35
193
47
2
9
2
9
14
2,207
2,207
(3>
1,732
475
100
1,732
100
475
100
45
12
409
793
220
88
24
46
13
131
195
52
30
28
41
11
6
51
33
18
4
89
97
52
70
74
19
23
4
4
5
1
7
Disposition not reported..
Color not reported . .
423
Disposition reported___________
423
100
216
106
65
51
25
15
210
103
62
24
6
16
3
9
1
2
3
Dismissed._______________
Difficulty adjusted_____ ______
Child placed on unofficial probation
Placement of child in institution recom
mended______ ____
Placement of child elsewhere recom
mended____________
Referred to agency or other court
Other disposition__________
401
22
100
22
52
26
6
3
3
«
8
1
4*
’
g
Disposition not reported_______
reportedboys3’ c ^ a n d ’S S ^ S 611^ 08568 r6P°rted Un°ffiCiaI de!inquen°y casesl 56 of the 64 courts
co2^PPlies only to runaways or children living away from their own homes at time they were referred to
3Less than 1 per cent.
4Not shown because number of cases was less than 50.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
JUVENILE-COURT STATISTICS, 1929
19
DEPENDENCY AND NEGLECT CASES
Although the proportions of dependency and neglect and of delin
quency cases reported by the different courts showed much variation,18
dependency and neglect cases generally constituted a smaller part of
the work of the courts than delinquency cases.19 Seven courts dealing
with delinquent children did not report dependency and neglect
C& S6S.
CHILDREN INVOLVED IN THE CASESM
Tables 10, 1 1 a , 1 1 b , and 12 show the age, sex, race, nativity,
nativity of parents, and whereabouts when referred to court of chil
dren dealt with in dependency and neglect cases. Nearly as many
boys as girls were dealt with in these cases in which the children
were fainy evenly distributed in the age groups under 14 years.
The number who were 14 and 15 years of age was slightly smaller
than the numbers in the lower age groups, and the number 16 years
of age or older was very small.
A comparison of Tables 1 1 a and 3a shows practically no difference
in the distribution of dependency and neglect cases and delinquency
cases among white and colored children; neither is there any signifi
cant difference in the percentage of native and foreign-born children
referred in these two types of cases.21 However, there is a marked
difference in the two types of cases if the parent nativity of the native
white group is considered, a much larger proportion of the children
dealt with in dependency and neglect cases being of native parentage
than of those dealt with in delinquency cases (Tables 1 1 b and 3b ).
In little more than one-fourth of the dependency and neglect cases
were the children living with both of their own parents when referred
to court. Families were broken by death, divorce, desertion, or
other cause in about one-half of the cases, as shown by the number of
children living with a parent and step-parent or with only one parent,
and it is probable that most of the families were similarly broken
in the remainder,of the cases, almost one-fourth, in which children
were living in adoptive or other family homes, institutions, and else
where (Table 12).
18 This variation in the proportion of dependency and neglect and delinquency cases is due to several
factors, among them the practice in some courts of filing the complaint against the adult responsible for the
dependency or neglect instead of bringing the children into court as dependent or neglected. Another
factor is the policy in some localities of bringing to the attention of the court only those dependency and
neglect cases which require commitment or legal decision as to custody or parental obligation. In other
localities the court is the principal or only local agency caring for such children. Cases of mothers’ allow
ances, which frequently are administered by courts, are not included in the tabulations.
19 In 32 of the courts reporting both delinquency and dependency and neglect cases the number of de
pendency and neglect cases was greater than the number of delinquency cases. Most of these were small
courts in Alabama where the county superintendent of child welfare is also probation officer of the juvenile
court. In such situations it is frequently difficult for the worker to distinguish between unofficial juvenilecourt cases and other child-welfare cases. Three Alabama courts reported dependency and neglect cases
but no delinquency cases.
,
, .
80 As a number of the children were dealt with more than once, the 18,805 dependency and neglect cases
represented 18,287 children. In 1927 and 1928 tables showing age and social characteristics of the children
involved in the cases were based on “ children” not “ cases,” the information about the child contained in
the record of the first case disposed of during the year being used. A comparison of tables relating to social
data based on children and on cases revealed no significant differences in per cent distribution. All tables
for 1929 are therefore based on cases, each child being counted as many times during the year as he was
referred on a new cgmplaint.
,
■ ■.
,,
21 The apparent difference in the tables is due to the large number of delmquency cases in which nativity
of child was not reported.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
20
JUVENILE-COURT STATISTICS, 1929
T a b l e 10.— Ages o f children dealt with in dependency and neglect cases disposed
of by 89 courts during 1929
Dependency and
neglect cases
Age of child
Number
Total cases_____________________
Per cent
distri
bution
18,805
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..._____________ _______
18,487
100
2,186
2,396
2,453
2,578
2,656
2,190
2,073
1,660
295
12
13
13
14
14
12
11
9
2
318
T a b l e 11 a .— Color and nativity o f boys and girls dealt with in dependency and
neglect cases disposed o f by 89 courts during 19 291
Dependency and neglect cases
Color and nativity of child
Total
Boys
Girls
Per cent
Per cent
Per cent
Number distribu Number distribu Number distribu
tion
tion
tion
Total cases_______________________
18,805
Color reported_________ _______________
18, 668
100
9,487
White.......................... .........................
Native____________ __________
Foreign born_______ ________. . . .
Nativity not reported................. .
Colored________________________ ___
16,186
15, 556
194
436
2,477
87
83
1
2
13
8,196
7,894
93
209
1,291
Color not reported_____________________
9,567
142
9,238
..
100
9,176
100’
86
83
1
2
14
7,990
7,662
101
227
Î. 186
87
83
1
2
13
80
62
•87 of the 89 courts reported boys’ cases and 88, girls’ cases.
T a b l e 11 b .— Parent nativity of native white boys and girls1 dealt with in dependency
and neglect cases disposed of by 89 courts during 1929 2
Dependency and neglect cases of native white children
Parent nativity
Total
Number
Total cases_______________________ '
Native parentage___ _______ ___________
Foreign or mixed parentage_____________
Boy?
4
Per cent
distri Number
bution
Per cent
Per cent
distri Number
distri
bution . i
bution
15,352
100
7,790
100
7,562
100'
9,988
5,364
65
35
5,042
2,748
65
35
4,946
2,616
66
35
1 Excludes cases of children for whom parent nativity was not reported.
* 87 of the 89 courts reported boys' cases and 88, girls’ cases.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Girls
21
JUVENILE-COURT STATISTICS, 1929
T a b l e 12.— Whereabouts when referred to court of children dealt with in dependency
and neglect cases disposed oj by 89 courts during 1929
Dependency and
neglect cases
Whereabouts of child
Number
Per cent
distri
bution
Total cases______________
18,805
Whereabouts reported_________
16,156
100
With both own parents____
With mother and stepfather.
With father and stepmother.
With mother only_________
With father only__________
In adoptive home____ _____
In other family home______
In institution_____________
Other____ ________________
4,345
365
265
4,971
2,828
132
2,551
521
178
27
2
2
31
18
1
16
3
1
Whereabouts not reported.
2,649
SOURCES OF REFERENCE TO COURT AND REASONS FOR REFERENCE
Since several children in a family may be referred to court at the
same time and for the same reason, the families represented as well as
the children’s cases are shown in Tables 13 and 14. Each family was
counted only once for each time it was dealt with by the court on a
new complamt 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 13 shows that the largest group of
families were referred by social agencies and the next largest by
parents and relatives, these two groups referring almost three-fourths
of the families.
Some form of neglect22 on the part of parents or guardians, and
situations involving dependency23 primarily, were the two major
reasons for referring families to court. The proportion of families
referred for each of these two reasons was the same, more than twofifths of the total number. Less than one-tenth of the families were
referred for reasons related to questions of custody and a still smaller
proportion for other reasons.
” Abandonment or desertion, abuse or cruel treatment, improper conditions in the home.
»3 Thecourtswere asked to interpret the term “ insufficient parental care, ” as well as “ financial need,” as
inability, rather than neglect, to provide for children.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
22
JUVENILE-COURT STATISTICS, 1929
T able
13.— Source of reference to court and families represented in dependency
and neglect cases disposed of by 89 courts during 1929
Dependency and neglect cases
Total cases
Families represented
Source of reference to court
Number
Per cent
distri Number
bution
Per cent
distri
bution
9,253
18,805
18,786
100
9,245
100
7,736
6,236
1,594
1,135
1,096
'776
213
41
33
8
6
6
4
1
3,424
3,138
896
681
581
373
152
37
34
10
7
6
4
2
8
19
T a b l e 14.— Reason for reference to court and families represented in dependency
and neglect cases disposed of by 89 courts during 1929
Dependency and neglect cases
Total cases
Families represented
Reason for reference to court
n
Number
Total
.........................................................
Per cent
Per cent
distri
distri Number
bution
bution
9,253
18,805
18,773
100
9,230
100
1,711
661
6,134
6,109
2,352
997
809
9
4
33
33
13
5
898
334
2,730
2,988
1,038
714
498
10
4
30
32
12
8
5
4
32
23
PLACES OF CARE PENDING HEARING OR DISPOSITION
The detention of dependent and neglected children presents
problems different from those involved in the detention of delinquent
children. A comparison of Tables 6 a and 15 shows that boarding
homes and other institutions were used more frequently in depend
ency and neglect cases than in delinquency cases, i The large number
of cases in which dependent and neglected children were detained
in “ other institutions’’ is due primarily to the inclusion qf figures for
New York and Philadelphia. Almost three-fourths o f the cases of
children so detained were reported by these two courts. (See Table
X II, p. 58.) The percentage of cases in which children were left in
their own homes or which were disposed of on the day the complaint
was made was slightly larger in dependency and neglect cases than
in delinquency cases.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
23
JUVENILE-COURT STATISTICS, 1929
T a b l e 15.
Place o f cave o f child pending hearing or disposition in dependency
and neglect cases disposed o f by 89 courts during 1929
Dependency and
neglect cases
Place of care of child
Number
Total cases________________________
Per cent
distri
bution
18,805
Place of care reported____________________
18,581
100
Own home or case disposed of same day.
Boarding home___ ____ ______________
Detention home or other institution 1__
Detention home *_______ _____ ____
Other institution____________ I.III!
Jail or police station.................................
More than one place of care 3__......... ......
Other place of care__ ____ ____________
11,476
881
5,654
1,213
4,441
8
140
422
62
5
30
7
24
Place of care not reported_________________
224
(9
1
2
J i'S S S S S i cases of,ch“ ren 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.
* Excludes cases of children held in detention homes, jails, or police stations.
DISPOSITIONS
The majority of dependency and neglect cases were official, but 58
courts reported some unofficial cases. The extent to which individual
courts dealt unofficially with dependency and neglect cases varied
considerably. (See Table IX , p. 54.)
As is shown by Table 16, some definite action such as committing
the child to an institution or agency or placing him under the super
vision of an officer of the court or some individual was taken in fourfifths of the official cases. In more than one-fourth of the unofficial
cases placement or supervision of the child was advised, as is shown by
Table 17, the proportion placed under the supervision of the probation officer being much larger in 1929 than in 1928. One-half 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
24
JUVENILE-COURT STATISTICS, 1929
T a b l e 16.— Disposition o f official dependency and neglect cases disposed o f by 81
courts during 1929 1
Official d e p e n d
ency and neglect
cases
Disposition of case
Number
Per cent
distri
bution
Total cases-----
14,763
Disposition reported.
14,754
100
2,818
3,496
1,127
3,657
451
3,117
89
3,514
216
2,856
149
78
30
76
109
142
19
24
8
25
3
21
1
24
1
19
1
1
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------------------- ----------------- - .....................
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----------------- ----------------------------------- ------------ -----Other disposition---------------------- ----------------------------- ----- ------------ -
(2)
1
1
1
9
Disposition not reported.
181 of the 89 courts reporting dependency and neglect cases reported official dependency and neglect cases,
s Less than 1 per cent.
T a b l e 17.— Disposition o f unofficial dependency and neglect cases disposed of by
68 courts during 1929 1
Unofficial depend
ency and neglect
cases
Disposition of case
Number
Per cent
distri
bution
4,042
4,027
100
199
2,139
408
99
161.
923
98
5
53
10
2
4
23
2
15
_________ 4______
158 of the 89 courts reporting dependency and neglect cases reported unofficial dependency and neglect
CASES OF CHILDREN DISCHARGED FROM SUPERVISION
Cases of delinquent children discharged from supervision or proba
tion were reported by 61 courts and cases of dependent and neglected
children discharged from supervision by 48 courts. Tables 18 and 19
show that in the majority of cases children were discharged from
supervision because of improvement in conduct or home conditions or
because further supervision seemed unnecessary. Almost one-tenth
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
25
JUVENILE-COURT STATISTICS, 1929
of the delinquent children were reported as discharged because they
had reached the age limit of court jurisdiction, without comment as to
improvement or lack of improvement in behavior. Failure of
probation as indicated by commitment to an institution for delin
quent children was shown in about one-eighth of the cases. Some
interesting differences as to the length of the supervision period in
different courts are shown in Tables X IV and X V I. (See pp. 60, 61.)
T a b l e 18.— Reason for discharge in cases o f delinquent children discharged from
supervision by 61 courts during 1929
Cases of delinquent
children discharged
from supervision
Reason for discharge of child
Per cent
Number distribu
tion
Total cases___________________ '________
8,026
Reason reported______________________
8,018
Further supervision not recommended, or discharged with improvement before
age limit_________ ______
Child committed to institution______________
Institution for delinquent children.... ........
Other institution......... ...........
Child committed to agency or individual___
Child reached age lim it ...............................
Other reason_______ ____ __________
Transferred to other court_____ ____
Whereabouts unknown. _____
Moved from jurisdiction of court__________
Other reason.....................................
5,111
1,104
1,007
97
376
701
726
57
202
292
175
Reason not reported_______________
T able
100
64
14
13
1
5
9
9
1
3
4
2
8
19.— Reason for discharge in cases o f dependent and neglected children
discharged from supervision by 1+8 courts during 1929
Reason for discharge of child
Cases of dependent
an d
neglected
c h i l d r e n dis
charged
from
supervision
Per cent
Number distribu
tion
Total cases_______________________
2,467
Reason reported_______________________
2,457
100
1,509
282
213
88
46
319
61
11
9
4
2
13
Further supervision #st recommended, or discharged with improvement before
age lim it.._______ _____ ____
Child committed to institution_____________
Child committed to agency.. __________ _
Child coimnitted to individual______ . .
Child reached age limit..................................
Other reason__________________
Reason not reported_______________
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
10
PART II.— COMPARATIVE TABLES FOR 1927, 1928, AND 1929
TRENDS IN JUVENILE DELINQUENCY
Table A shows the number of delinquency cases disposed of during
1927, 1928, and 1929 by courts which dealt with at least 50 cases and
reported for two or three years. Figures for the total number of
cases reported by the courts during a 2-year or a 3-year period show a
definite increase in the number of delinquency cases. The 21 courts
reporting for the three years show an increase of 11 per cent in 1929
over the number reported for 1927, and an increase of 7 per cent over
1928. For the courts reporting for 1928 and 1929 only, the percentage
increase was higher, but this increase is due in part to the figures of
one court which failed to report all of its cases in 1928.
It is difficult to determine how much of this increase may be at
tributed to an actual increase in delinquency and how much to other
causes. It should be borne in mind always that the amount of
delinquency which comes to the attention of the juvenile court is only
a, small part of the total amount in the community and may or may
not be a reliable index of the actual delinquency situation.
Growth in population is one factor which may affect the increase in
cases reported by the courts. Information as to increase in the
number of children of juvenile-court age in the areas served by the
courts is not available, but during the 10-year period 1920-1930 there
was an average annual increase of 2 per cent in the total population of
these areas. In several jurisdictions, including suburban areas, the
increase in population considerably exceeded this 2 per cent.
The extent to which the courts kept complete statistical records
would also affect the number of cases reported to the Children’s
Bureau. In one instance it is stated that reporting was less complete
in 1928 and in 1929 than in 1927. In most instances, however, it is
believed that it has been growing more, rather than less, complete and
that this fuller reporting has influenced the figures of many of the
courts.
In individual courts a certain amount of variation in the number of
cases dealt with from year to year is to be expected on the basis of
chance alone. In courts reporting a small number of cases, a notice
able increase or decrease in numbers may be due entirely to this
factor. The marked variations in the number of cases reported by
some courts, which might easily be assumed to indicate changes in
delinquency, are frequently due to changes in the policy, personnel, or
equipment of the court or to changes in the law that revise the age of
jurisdiction or bring children before the court for offenses not previ
ously considered of juvenile-court jurisdiction. The number of cases
reported may also be affected by alterations in the policy, personnel,
or equipment of other official and nonofficial agencies dealing with
children who exhibit conduct difficulties.
COMPARATIVE SUMMARY TABLES
Although the reasons for referring children to court and the methods
of dealing with them differ somewhat from court to court, the per cent
distributions of the combined figures for all courts reporting in each
of the three years 1927, 1928, and 1929, as shown in the following
2Q
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
27
JTJYENILE-COURT STATISTICS, 1929
tables, reveal only minor differences. This similarity is found also
with respect to sex, age, and social characteristics of the children
concerned. That the data are similar, despite the increase in the
number of reporting courts and in the number of cases reported, sug
gests that the uniform reporting of juvenile-court statistics has made
available information fairly representative for the United States
regarding the nature of the problems dealt with by the juvenile court,
the sex, ages, and social characteristics of the children involved, and
the extent to which certain types of treatment are used.
T a b l e A.— Number o f delinquency cases disposed of during 1927, 1928, and 1929,
by specified courts reporting 50 or more delinquency cases
Delinquency cases
Courts reporting 50 or more delinquency cases
1929
1928
1927
All courts reporting in 192& and 1929__
41,037
37,115
Courts reporting in 1927, 1928, and 1929.
29,543
27,579
26,538
Connecticut: Bridgeport__________________
District of Columbia______________________
Indiana:
Lake County_________________________
Marlon County_______________________
Minnesota:
Hennepin County_____________________
Ramsey County______________________
New Jersey:
Hudson County_______________________
Mercer County_________ ________ ______
New York:
Buffalo_______________________________
Columbia County_______ __________ ...
Erie County__________________________
New York City_______________________
Westchester County___________________
North Carolina: Buncombe County______ _
Ohio:
Frahjflin County______________________
Hamilton County_____________________
Mahoning County____________________
Pennsylvania:
Montgomery County__________________
Philadelphia__________________ _______
Virginia: Norfolk_________________________
Washington: Pierce County_______________
461
1,947
431
2,004
516
1,976
242
985
454
822
527
892
1,097
396
1,149
375
966
342
1,846
433
1,850
294
1,685
215
932
126
203
7,956
888
146
938
65
197
7,204
888
106
836
98
177
16,102
1,104
144
473
21,394
2,021
763
1 1,097
1,854
883
21,332
1,684
55
6,955
852
135
65
6, 200
669
154
53
6,152
728
126
Courts reporting in 1928 and 1929 only..
11,494
9,536
Iowa: Polk County_______ .________________
Louisiana:
Caddo Parish_________________________
Ouachita Parish_______________________
New York:
Chemung County_____________________
Monroe County___ ____________________
Ontario County_______________________
Ohio:
Clark County___ ____________________ _
Cuyahoga County_____________________
Lake County_____ 4»__________________
Montgomery County__________________
Pennsylvania: Allegheny County___________
South Carolina: Greenville County_________
Utah: :
First district.______________ __________
Second district________________________
Third .district_________________________
Fourth district............................................
Fifth district.......................... ....................
Carbon County_______________________
Other counties________________________
Virginia: Lynchburg........................................
747
753
275
269
232
257
133
233
86
124
222
100
401
3,883
59
752
1,290
126
395
» 2,636
67
534
1,243
105
279
535
871
385
601
59
264
246
347
318
825
308
453
97
241
279
1 Figures incomplete, cases pending on Jan. 1, 1927, not included.
2Includes boys’ cases only.
3 Exclusive of unofficial cases not reported for three months.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
28
JUVENILE-COURT STATISTICS, 1929
T a b l e B .— Per cent distribution according to color and nativity of boys and girls
dealt with in delinquency cases disposed of during 1927, 1928, and 1929 by
juvenile courts reporting statistics to the Children’s Bureau 1
Children dealt with in delinquency cases
1927
Total....................................................... - .............
Girls
Boys
Color and nativity of child
1929
1928
1928
1927
1929
100
100
100
100
100
100
85
72
4
9
85
74
2
10
85
73
2
10
79
68
5
6
79
73
' 2
5
80
74
2
5
15
15
15
21
21
20
142 courts reported delinquency cases in 1927, 62 in 1928, and 93 in 1929.
T a b l e C . — Per cent distribution according to parent nativity of native white boys
and girls dealt with in delinquency cases disposed of during 1927, 1928, and 1929
by juvenile courts reporting statistics to the Children s Bureau
Children dealt with in delinquency cases
1927
1929
1928
100
100
100
O
Ci
■'T
Foreign or mixed parentage-------------------------------------
Girls
Boys
Nativity of parents
44
56
43
57
1927
1928
1929
100
100
100
55
45
55
45
61
39
i 42 courts reported delinquency cases in 1927, 62 in 1928, and 93 in 1929.
D .— Per cent distribution according to place of care pending bearing or
disposition of boys’ and girls’ delinquency cases disposed of during 1927, 1928,
and 1929 by juvenile courts reporting statistics to the Children s Bureau
T able
Delinquency cases
Girls
Boys
Place of care of child
1927
1928
100
61
(?)
34
4
1
(J)
.
1929
100
100
59
(2) .
36
4
1
(?)
58
c2)--36'.
5*
1
(?)
1927
1928
1929
> 100
100
100
51
1
43
2
2
2
50
1
1 45
■ 2
4 1
1
50
1
2
1
2
i 42 courts reported delinquency cases in 1927, 62 in 1928, and 93 in 1929.
3 todudefcaseso'chiidren held part of the time in detention homes and part of the time elsewhere, but
time injaiis or police stations and part of the time elsewhere.
•Excludes cases of children held in jails, police stations, or detention homes.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
29
JUYENILE-COXJRT STATISTICS, 1929
T a b l e E . — Per cent distribution according to reason for reference to court of boys’
and girls’ delinquency cases disposed of during 1927, 1928, and 1929 by juvenile
courts reporting statistics to the Children’s Bureau 1
Delinquency cases
Girls
Boys
Reason for reference to court
1927
1928
1927
1929
1928
1929
Total_______________________________________
100
100
100
100
100
100
Stealing................. ...........................................................
Truancy_________________________________________
Running away____________________________________
Ungovernable------------------------- ---------------------------Sex offense___________ __ _______ __________________
Injury to person____ __________ _______ _____ ______
Act of carelessness or mischief____________ _________
Violating liquor or drug law or intoxication..................
•Other reason______________ _____ ___ _____ _________
42
8
7
7
2
3
28
1
2
43
9
6
7
2
3
28
1
1
42
9
6
7
2
3
29
1
2
13
10.
19
28
19
3
7
1
1
12
12
15
28
19
3
8
1
1
11
14
17
26
19
3
7
1
2
142 courts reported delinquency cases in 1927, 62 in 1928, and 93 in 1929.
T a b l e F . — Per cent distribution according to disposition of boys’ and girls’ official
delinquency cases disposed of during 1927, 1928, and 1929 by juvenile courts
reporting statistics to the Children’s Bureau 1
Official delinquency cases
Girls
Boys
Disposition of case
1927
1928
1927
1929
1928
1929
100
100
100
100
100
100
36
39
14
7
4
30
43
14
7
6
32
40
14
8
7
27
41
22
2
8
22
41
26
1
9
21
40
27
1
11
142 courts reported official delinquency cases in 1927, 61 in 1928, and 87 in 1929.
T a b l e G . — Per cent distribution according to color and nativity of children dealt
with in dependency and neglect cases disposed of during 1927, 1928, and 1929 1
by juvenile courts reporting statistics to the Children’ s Bureau 2
Children dealt with in de
pendency and neglect cases1
Color and nativity of child
1927
w
Nativity not reported___________________________________________
1928
1929
100
100
100
87
79
5
3
86
82
1
3
87
83
1
2
13
14
13
i Figures for 1927 and 1928 are based on children, each child being counted only once during the year;
figures for 1929 are based on cases, a child being counted each time he is dealt with by the court on a new
charge during the year.
234 courts reported dependency and neglect cases in 1927, 63 in 1928, and 89 in 1929.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
30
JUVENILE-COURT STATISTICS, 1929
T a b l e H. — Per cent distribution according to parent nativity of native white children
dealt with in dependency and neglect cases disposed of during 1927, 1928, and
1929 1 by juvenile courts reporting statistics to the Children’ s Bureau 2
Nativity of parents
Children dealt with in de
pendency and neglect cases1
1927
Total._________________________________________
Native parentage______________________________________
Foreign or mixed parentage_______________________
1928
100
60
40
1929
100
61
39
100
65
35
1 Figures for 1927 and 1928 are based on children, each child being counted only once during the year;
figures for 1929 are based on cases, a child being counted each time he is dealt with by the court on a new
charge during the year.
234 courts reported dependency and neglect cases in 1927, 53 in 1928, and 89 in 1929.
T a b l e I. — -Per cent distribution according to place of care of child pending hearing
or disposition of dependency and neglect cases disposed of during 1927, 1928, and
1929 by juvenile courts reporting statistics to the Children’s Bureau 1
Place of care of child
Dependency and neglect cases
1927
Total— _______________ ,________
'Own home or case disposed of same day.
Boarding home............ .____ __________
Detention home or other institution2__
Jail or police station3___ _____________
More than one place of care3__________
Other place of care___________________
1928
100
56
5
36
«
1
3
1929
100
61
5
31
<‘)
1
2
100
62
5
30
(<)
1
2
134 courts reported dependency and neglect cases in 1927, 53 in 1928, and 89 in 1929.
2 Includes cases of children held 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.
8 Includes cases of children held part of the time in jails or police stations and part of the time elsewhere,
* Less than 1 per cent.
* Excludes cases of children held in jails, police stations, or detention homes.
T a b l e J .— Per cent distribution according to reason for reference to court o f families
represented in dependency and neglect cases disposed of during 1927, 1928, and
1929 by juvenile courts reporting statistics to the Children’s Bureau 1
Reason for reference to court
Families represented in de
pendency and neglect cases
1927
Total________________
Abandonment or desertion...
Abuse or cruel treatment___
Improper conditions in home.
Insufficient parental care____
Financial need_____________
Question of custody________
Other reason_______________
100
10
3
20
34
15
10
7
1928
1929
100
12
3
22
36
12
8
. 7
100
10
4
30
32
12
8
5
133 courts reported families represented in dependency and neglect cases in 1927, 53 in 1928, and 89 in 1929.
T a b l e K . — Per cent distribution according to disposition of official dependency
and neglect cases disposed of during 1927, 1928, and 1929 by juvenile courts
reporting statistics to the Children’ s Bureau 1
Disposition of case
Official dependency and neg
lect cases
1927
Total_________________:________________________________________
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_____________________
•Child committed to institution____ i ______________________________ . . . .
•Other disposition.__________________ ________________________________
100
25
19
1928
100
20
19
24
8
25
24
1
6
22
27
1
134 courts reported official dependency and neglect cases in 1927, 53 in 1928, and 81 in 1929.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
1929
100
23
7
26
22
1
PART III.— SOURCE TABLES
51303'
T a b l e I.— Number o f white and colored boys’ and girls’ delinquency and dependency and neglect cases disposed of by 79 specified courts during
19291
Delinquency cases
Colored children
Court
Total
Total
Boys
Girls
Total
COUETS SERVING AREAS WITH 100,000 OR
MORE POPULATION
Boys
Girls
Total
1,129
Colored children
Total
Boys
Girls
Total
Boys
Girls
16,038
13,606
6,924
6,682
2,290
1,207
1,083
të . f> : IT
Ils S > 3
927 ■y. 22i
9
438
70
348
8
416
67
146
5
194
35
75
3
222
32
71
1
22
3
202
1
10
2
122
12
1
80
246
282
631
279
190
238
562
279
93
136
279
133
97
102
283
146
56
44
69
20
27
30
36
17
39
y , 343
< jL38
323
136
147
65
176
71
20
2
14
2
6
72
68
284
3,891
187
270
71
< 68
281
3,520
185'
230
48
41
143
1,833
98
112
23
27
138
1,687
87
118
3
371
2
40
1
212
2
22
2
159
f
5,341 ' -1*417
Total___________________________
41,213
33,326
27,817
5,509
6,758
Alabama: Mobile County
California: San Diego County________
Connecticut: Bridgeport___________
District of Columbia_________________
Indiana:
Lake County_______________
Marion C ou n ty ______
Iowa: Polk County____________
Michigan: Kent Countv_____
Minnesota:
Hennepin County_____________
Ramsev Countv _
New Jersey:
Hudson Countv ___
Mercer County_________________
New York:
Buffalo___________________________
Erie County___________________ .__
Monroe Coiintv ___ .. .
New York C ity.............
Rensselaer Coüntv_
....
Westchester County - -
219
1,656
461
1,947
118
1,580
447
799
90
1,352
380
696
28
228
67
103
101
76
14
1,148
242
985
747
431
200
683
662
414
114
422
511
330
86
261
151
84
42
302
85
17
20
231
58
16
22
71t
27
1
1,097
396
1,065
386
872
302
193
84
32
10
25
7
7
3
1,846
433
1,741
358
1,495
343
246
15
105
75
89
71
16
4
932
203
233
7,956
318
888
881
193
232
7,108
315
793
825
56
51
41
183
10
10
9
1
1
193
39
6,173
935
848
695
257
58
3
1
678
115
95
71
1Includes all courts reporting that served areas with 25,000 or more population in 1920.
10
1
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
White children
Chil
dren
whose
color
was
not re
ported
(jOk
153
2
24
1
Chil
dren
wheee
color
was not
reported
142
JUVENILE-COURT STATISTICS, 1929
White children
Dependency and neglect cases
i
18
CO
T able L
— Number of white and colored boys’ and girls’ delinquency and dependency and neglect cases disposed of by 79 specified courts during
1929— Continued
Dependency and neglect cases
Delinquency cases
White children
Colored children
Court
Total
Boys
Girls
Total
Boys
Girls
Children
whose
color
was
Colored children
White children
Total
Total
Boys
Girls
Total
Boys
Girls
ported
Ohio:
Cuyahoga County.___ . . . _______
Franklin County_________________
Hamilton County_________ _______
Mahoning County________________
Montgomery County_____________
Oregon: Multnomah County_________
Pennsylvania:
Allegheny C ou n ty ..______________
Montgomery County----- -------------Philadelphia_____________________
Utah: Third district__________________
Virginia: N orfolk...._________________
Washington: Pierce County___________
3,883
473
2,034
2,021
752
902
3,367
321
1,470
1,773
612
889
2,774
166
1,000
1,497
417
741
593
155
470
276
195
148
516
152
564
248
140
13
398
108
394
192
106
9
118
44
170
56
34
4
1,290
55
6,955
871
852
135
1,101
49
4,372
868
399
130
941
42
3,877
708
342
96
160
7
495
160
57
34
189
6
1,454
3
453
5
149
5
1,189
2
367
4
40
1
265
1
86
1
Total___________
4,884
4,302
3,641
661
582
475
107
Alabama:
Bullock County___
Calhoun County__
Chambers County..
Clarke County____
Colbert County___
Dallas County____
Elmore County___
Etowah County___
Houston County__
Jackson County___
Lauderdale County.
Lee County_______
Limestone County..
3
62
5
9
18
22
6
61
18
12
14
3
7
3
51
4
8
14
22
6
49
18
10
13
3
2
38
4
7
7
18
4
37
16
7
6
3
2
11
1
1
4
10
1
1
4
1
12
12
2
1
2
1
5
4
1,129
1,396
659
468
292
385
443
1,152
562
321
265
300
424
594
295
138
129
146
193
558
267
183
136
154
231
244
97
147
27
85
19
756
13
3,670
130
209
61
670
13
2,823
129
169
58
312
8
1,493
67
78
34
358
5
1,330
62
91
24
86
52
34
705
1
40
3
345
360
1
15
2,501
2,324
1,150
1,174
177
80
97
63
44
16
32
72
84
2
17
46
6
104
26
19
50
38
16
32
65
83
2
15
46
6
104
26
19
25
19
9
16
37
42
2
9
23
2
39
11
9
25
19
7
16
28
41
13
6
5
2
8
4
7
1
1
1
6
6
23
4
65
15
10
2
1
1
126
47
75
16
44
9
25
3
118
- 50
72
11
41
10
COURTS SERVING AREAS WITH 25,000 TO
100,000 POPULATION
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
3
13
1
7
4
2
12
2
3
7
Ì
Chil
dren
whose
color
was not
reported
142
JUVENILE-COURT STATISTICS, 1929
Total
CO
to
f ___ ^ _______
Marshall County............................ ---
----------TctlldtiuObci County——------- —
IlliiiOLSi UtOcli Island C o u n t y »»■--Indiana:
Now York:
"North Carolina: Buncombe County-----North Dakota: Third judicial district
(in part)
Ohio:
2
2
17
1
7
2
2
1
7
2
2
13
16
6
42
34
21
13
3
160
214
32
i
25
11
6
90
44
76
38
14
6
33
7
2
21
18
1
6
6
5
1
2
g
i
21
4
31
19
6
34
19
4
2
12
32
13
3
2
g
4
15
19
92
19
58
275
269
38
185
225
38
133
126
133
120
1
1
6
i
4
223
86
30
146
211
84
29
57
100
113
14
190
66
28
51
7
7
4
3
95
401
59
69
19
126
95
307
57
64
17
80
251
46
40
7
75
15
56
11
24
10
14
535
385
601
264
246
524
382
600
260
158
462
315
536
233
142
62
67
64
27
16
Utah:
Stsoond district—» » —
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—— —
—
—
—
—
12
2
1
’ 89
10
1
1
73
37
75
2
2
2
28
4
11
3
1
4
88
4
11
2
1
3
69
94
2
5
2
1
16
19
3
9
i
i
19
22
28
3
28
16
25
28
19
13
92
54
30
64
53
42
23
162
15
33
4
26
13
36
25
20
10
69
13
13
6
5
107
110
17
5
79
109
17
2
38
59
7
3
41
50
10
135
133
135
127
65
62
293
73
24
103
274
71
23
89
10
1
1
1
3
2
1
1
3
2
1
1
1
28
1
13
1
70
65
6
3
3
146
27
14
51
128
44
9
38
19
2
1
14
8
2
1
6
11
10
2
8
28
78
31
40
39
114
28
62
26
39
39
74
16
28
14
21
15
36
12
34
12
18
24
38
16
5
1
7
2
1
9
3
40
18
22
. 18
19
27
7
12
18
19
27
7
6
11
11
19
1
5
7
8
8
6
1
6
3
3
1
7’
15
_______
8
—
JUVENILE-COURT STATISTICS, 1929
Louisiana:
Bossiui and Wctstci r&iisIigs
2
3
37
61
7
54
29
61
53
39
23
161
38
61
2
2
3
1
CO
co
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
34
JUVENILE-COURT STATISTICS, 1929
T a b l e I I a .— Age limitation of original court jurisdiction and age of boys dealt
with in delinquency cases disposed of by 77 specified courts during 1929 1
Boys’ delinquency cases
Court
Age limi
tation of
original
court juris
Total
diction
Age of boy
18
16
14
12
Not
U?0dOT years, years, years, years, years report
lu
under under under under and
ed
18
over
16
14
COURTS SERVING AREAS WITH
100,000 OR MORE POPULATION
Total cases.
34,181
2,246
4,226
8,735 13,867
4,671
5
515
350
52
65
27
170
16
Alabama: Mobile County........... Under 16—
447
207
96
California: San Diego County----- Under 21— 1,417
89
152
128
68
Connecticut: Bridgeport.............. Under 16—
391
43
578
373
187
District of Columbia................... Under 17„ 1,623
124
Indiana:
63
‘ 47
20
Lake County......................... Under 16—
134
4
2
334
182
106
Marion County________________ do
653
29
182
158
64
Iowa: Polk County...................... Under
18 - 569 66
71
119
40
Michigan: Kent County............... Under
17—346 20
Minnesota:
•
298
336
165
80
Hennepin C o u n ty ................. Under
18—89715
102
119
62
18
Ramsey County----------------------- do------309
7
New Jersey:
678
493
16—1,584134
Hudson County...................... Under
140
149
74
Mercer County------------------ —-do--------414
51
New York:
375
295
141
Buffalo____—
_________________ do--------866
51
87
61
28
Erie County__________ . . . ------do--------192
15
111
62
18
Monroe County............................ do------194
3
31
2
623 2,128 3,402
New York City________________do------- 6,868
382
4
40
133
58
12
Rensselaer County---------- —|—_do~------258
11
1
82
323
172
109
749
62
Westchester County..........— ~ .d o ------ Ohio:
_
...
124
889
644 1,054
Cuyahoga County__________ Under
18—3,172155 299
1
130
64
47
24
274
6
Franklin County______________ do------5
496
441
268
120
Hamilton County__________ ...d o -------- 1,394
61
6
483
559
366
151
Mahoning County___ ____
do-------- 1,689 * 123
13
128
180
102
44
Montgomery County..... .......... .d o-------523
55
224
10
250
166
72
Oregon: Multnomah County----------- do.
750
28
Pennsylvania:
37
541
296
16—1,09067 147
Allegheny C ounty................. Under
1
27
11
6
Montgomery County................ —d o 47
2
135
81
2,668
1,708
924
Philadelphia_____ ____________ do-------- 6,089
568
184
246
159
91
18..710 29
Utah: Third district____________ Under
309
198
58
11?
Virginia: Norfolk__________________do-------709
29
42
32
15
10
Washington: Pierce County------------ do-------100
1
served
areas
with 25,000 or more population
i Includes all courts reporting boys’ delinquency cases that
in 1920.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
35
JUVENILE-COURT STATISTICS, 1929
T a b l e I I a .— Age limitation of original court jurisdiction and age o f boys dealt with
in delinquency cases disposed of by 77 specified courts during 1929— Contd.
Boys’ delinquency cases
Court
Age limi
A ge of bo y
tation of
original
court juris
Total Under
10
12
14
16
18
diction
Not
10 years, years, years, years, years report
under
under
under
under
and
years
ed
12
14
16
18
over
COURTS SERVING AREAS WITH
25,000 TO 100,000 POPULATION
Total cases______________
Alabama:
Calhoun County.... „ .............
Chambers County_________
Clarke County____________
Colbert County.....................
Dallas County.......................
Elmore County____ ____ _
Etowah County___________
Houston County...... ........... .
Jackson County.... ........... .
Lauderdale County________
Lee County...........................
Limestone County_________
Lowndes County_______ . . .
, Marengo County...................
/
Marshall County...................
Morgan County___________
Perry County_____________
Pickens County___________
Talladega County...............
Tallapoosa C oun ty..............
Illinois: Rock Island County___
Indiana:
Clay County________ _____
Vanderburg County_______
Louisiana:
Bossier and Webster Parishes.
Caddo Parish....................
Ouachita Parish.......... ......
Minnesota: Winona County
New York:
Chemung County________
Columbia County________
Delaware County______
Dutchess County..... ...........
Ontario County...................
Orleans. County_________
North Carolina: Buncombe
County..... ........... ...........
North Dakota: Third judicial
district (in part)....... .........
Ohio:
Auglaize County__________
Clark County____________
Lake County...................
Sandusky County_____
Pennsylvania: Lycoming County....................................... .
South
Carolina:
Greenville
County..... ...............................
Utah:
First district______ _______
Second district_________
Fourth district_______
Fifth district___ _______
Other counties______ . . . . .
Virginia: Lynchburg....................
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Under 16..
___do—.......
___do..........
do—____
___do_____
___do_____
___do_____
-.-d o _____
-__do_.........
--_do..........
-.-d o _____
-__do_____
-_-do_____
Under 17..
4,116
365
486
866
1,316
48
5
8
11
18
4
49
16
9
5
4
1
1
2
2
4
19
2
2
5
3
20
3
5
3
7
3
23
7
3
3
1
2
1
2
6
1
1
3
i
3
6
2
2
8
15
3
3
15
6
17
8
3
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
i
i
6
2
3
1
14
53
47
13
37
1
1
10
Under 17..
3
236
252
32
25
30
27
31
100
118
14
200
67
29
10
16
1
32
9
1
23
27
124
22
Under 18..
2
2
Under 16..
Under 18..
12
5
4
3
1
2
7
1, on
8
64
1
1
1
12
i
9
4
5
4
12
4
2
1
1
48
2
91
8
50
13
1
26
45
9
1
22
1
1
5
18
30
4
68
25
10
24
32
43
1
3
12
13
44
1
i
35
6
4
9
27
10
80
326
48
42
19
35
2
6
9
i
2
9
103
13
15
30
250
473
317
537
236
211
20
49
19
39
14
17
24
60
25
59
22
13
43
1
101
124
68
91
30
32
93
112
79
75
73
139
1
36
JUVENILE-COURT STATISTICS, 1929
T a b l e I I b .— Age limitation o f original court jurisdiction and age o f girls dealt
with in delinquency cases disposed of by 78 specified courts during 1929 1
Girls’ delinquency cases
Court
Age limi
tation of
original
court
jurisdic
tion
Age of girl
12
14
18
Total Under 10
16
years, years, years, years, years Not
10
re
under
under
under
under
and
years
14
over ported
12
16
18
COURTS SERVING AREAS WITH
100,000 OR MORE POPULATION
221
379
1,295
3,415
1,594
40
88
10
5
14
10
3
6
9
34
33
66
40
137
3
90
25
2
108
-. 332
178
85
3
17
7
7
17
4
49
31
200
2
9
262
19
11
66
11
1
2
1,088
29
7,032
Total cases______________
California: San Diego County-.- Under 21—
Indiana:
49
239
70
324
Minnesota:
____do___
New Jersey:
New York:
1
101
22
4
78
29
88
54
56
5
179
1
1
16
4
73
]
3
260
10
22
48
5
28
717
30
74
14
31
30
1
29
4
10
20
107
18
88
46
54
15
293
80
208
140
82
51
233
88
286
115
63
76
48
3
181
115
5
534
63
43
16
23
70
63
13
15
2
39
____d o ___
Ohio:
Cuyahoga County................. Under 18—
Mahoning County_________
Montgomery County---------Oregon: Multnomah County___
Pennsylvania:
Allegheny County—....... ......
____do____
____do___
*___do____
Under 16—
Washington: Pierce County____ ____ do___
711
199
640
332
229
152
200
8
866
161
143
35
53
53
172
52
32
87
60
139
40
16
86
9
9
13
1
21
21
11
19
16
8
7
10
26
4
5
78
3
7
21
24
6
33
61
21
1
12
\
9
14
1
5
4
18
3
24
3
1
1
3
3
24
1
i Includes all courts reporting girls’ delinquency cases that served areas with 25,000 or more population
in 1920.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
37
JUVENILE-COURT STATISTICS, 1929
I I b — Age limitation of original court jurisdiction and age o f girls
dealt with m delinquency cases disposed o f by 73 specified courts during 1929 —
Continued
T able
Girls’ delinquency cases
Court
Age limi
tation of
original
court
jurisdic
tion
Age of girl
Total Undei
10 1 12
14
16
18
Not
10 years, ! years, years, years, years
re
under
i
under
under
under
and
years
ported
12
14
18
over
16
COURTS SERVING AREAS WITH
25,000 TO 100,000 POPULATION
Total eases.
Alabama-.
Bullock County..................... Under 16.
Calhoun County__________ *____ do___
Clarke County_________________ do___
Colbert County______ j ___ _|........do___
Dallas County.
.d o___
Elmore County____
.d o___
Etowah County____
.d o___
Houston County___
.d o___
Jackson County____
.d o ___
Lauderdale County.
.d o ___
Limestone County. .
.d o ___
Marengo County___
.d o___
Monroe County____
.d o___
Morgan County____
.d o___
Perry County______
.d o___
Illinois: Rock Island County__ Under 18..
Indiana:
Clay County______________
Vaiiderburg County_______ ____do____
Louisiana:
Bossier and Webster Par
ishes____________________ Under 17—
Caddo Parish________ _____
Ouachita Parish___________
Minnesota: Winona County
Under 18..
New York:
Chemung County_________ Under 16..
Columbia County.. _ _ . _
Delaware County.
Dutchess C o u n ty .......
Ontario County___________
Orleans County___________
North Carolina: Buncombe
County.._______ _________ _.
North Dakota: Third judicial
district fin part)...................
Under 18..
Ohio:
Auglaize C oun ty..___ _____
Clark County_____________
Lake County______________
Sandusky County_________
Pennsylvania: Lycoming County Under 16..
South
Carolina:
Greenville
County............—........... .........
Utah:
First district____ __________ Under 18..
Second district____________
Fourth district____________
Fifth district._____________
Other counties_____________
Virginia: Lynchburg_________ ....... do____
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
62
i
43
129
330
3
3
9
2
1
1
1
3
2
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
...........I...........
1
3
1
2
9
1
6
1
3
1
5
5
25
21
6
4
3
8
1
1
12
7
2
1
9
6
1
1
5
3
1
9
5
1
20
5
1
12
13
1
2
1
2
2
2
8
10
2
1
3
2
3
2
1
4
1
1
1
1
9
6
31
1
11
4
6
28
7
4
1
4
6
11
6
2
2
1
3
4
14
5
6
6
10
13
17
31
23
9
11
4
13
3
2
3
7
3
9
______1
1 ______
1
1
5
2
1
3
1
J -,
2
2
2
6
2
2
4
1
193
1
1
2
8
12
9¡7
31
13
8
38
JUVENILE-COURT STATISTICS, 1929
T a b l e I I I a .— Reason for reference to court in boys’ delinquency cases disposed o f
by 77 specified courts during 19291
Boys’ delinquency cases
Other
Not reported
Violating liquor or drug
law or intoxication
Act of carelessness or
mischief
Injury or attempted in
jury to person
Sex offense
Ungovernable or beyond
parental control
Running away
Truancy
Total
Court
Stealing or attempted
stealing
Reason for reference to court
COURTS SERVING AREAS WITH 100,000
OR MORE POPULATION
Total cases__________________ 34,181 14,260 2,773 2, .229 2,509
Alabama: Mobile County....... - _____
California: San Diego County______
Connecticut: Bridgeport...____ _____
District of Columbia_______________
Indiana:
Lake County_____________ :_____
Marion County______ ____ _____
Iowa: Polk County________________
Michigan: Kent County..... ......... ......
Minnesota:
Hennepin County______________
Ramsey County..___________ . ..
New Jersey:
Hudson County_________ ______
Mercer County_______ . . . ______
New York:
Buffalo______________;_______ _
Erie County..................................
Monroe County_______________
New York City. _______________
Rensselaer County____ ____ ____
Westchester County____________
Ohio:
Cuyahoga County_______ . . . . . . .
Franklin County_______ _______
Hamilton County______________
Mahoning County_________ ____
Montgomery County..... .......... .
Oregon: Multnomah County_______
Pennsylvania:
Allegheny County______________
Montgomery County___________
Philadelphia___________________
Utah: Third district________________
Virginia: Norfolk_________ ........... .
Washington: Pierce County________
170
1,417
391
1,623
69
412
222
691
40
115
44
48
12
155
18
16
134
653
569
346
83
338
225
196
27
92
14
18
897
309
564
207
1, 584
414
531
881 9,856
202 819 121
185
26
167
3
39
6
4
17
17
5
50
21
404
68
630
5
23
1
4
3
67
1
13 —
1
14
33
4
10
79
43
20
5
3
5
7
14
14
8
8
89
214
89
4
9
2
20
12
2—
28
3
5
1
87
18
41
5
12
3
133
57
14
1
13
14 —
535
277
490
,25
10
4
174
9
17
3
33
11
320
84
1
1
4
866
584
192
90
194
132
6,868 2,485
258
71
749 250
1
4
3
96
112
203
35
4
13
508
10
4
46
11
7
555
17
64
12
3
6
56
2
18
3,172 1,459
274 209
1, 394
655
1,689
346
523
191
750 400
369
19
23
242
134
63
240
4
199
114
36
19
219
3
49
132
35
61
58
28
18
21
22
10
20
168
9
64
3
30
248 2,548
9
36
14
191
88
5
12
44
22
17
728
2
378
689
75
126
7
1 251 120
1
1 4—
7 8
1
4
17 43
13 88
5 3
15 39 —
1,090
646
185
84
81
17
18
53
1
5
47
39
2
3
1
1
1
6,089 2,243
192
617
329
98
152 2,226
27 205
710
354
154
36
25
13
6
103
15
4
709 208
25
29
54
10
34
313
26 10
100
2
79
4
8
7
i Includes all courts reporting boys’ delinquency cases that served areas with 25,000 or more popula
tion in 1920.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
JUVENILE-COURT STATISTICS, 1929
T able
IIIa.
39
-Reason for reference to court in boys’ delinquency cases disposed of
by 77 specified courts during 1929— Continued
Boys’ delinquency cases
Reason for reference to court
Court
a
CD
C3
O
E-i
CO
s03
to
Truancy
Stealing
s
03.9
»x
TD
O
° <
.9
*9
§
d
©o
■S3
Bp
g
s
>
O c8
Qi
to
^
a
à
i-4
O
II
CD
d
u
11
to
p
r5
T3 P
g
Ots
uo
l ì
H
’5*
M
T
<3
D
11
§1
©
Sex offens
Pi
P
.g o
o
S «
■35
>
a
<1
y
Other
'Ò
g
t>>^
rS 2
'd
CD
pi
Ui
•4-s
O
£
COUBTS SERVING AREAS WITH 25,000
TO 100,000 POPULATION
Total cases_________________
Alabama:
Calhoun County__________ ....
Chambers County. ___________
Clarke County_______________
Colbert County_______________
Dallas County________________.
Elmore County___________ ____
Etowah County_______________
Houston County______________
Jackson County______________
Lauderdale County.._______3333
Lee County____ ______________"
Limestone County____________
Lowndes County...............
Marengo County.......... ..............
Marshall County______________
Morgan County__________ 33333
Perry County......... ..............." . 3
Pickens C ou n ty ...____________
Talladega County___________ _
Tallapoosa County____________
Illinois: Rock Island County
Indiana:
Clay County__________________
Vanderburg County.............
Louisiana:
Bossier and Webster Parishes___
Caddo Parish____ ___________
Ouachita P a rish ...................
Minnesota: Winona County______
New York:
Chemung C oun ty..____________
Columbia County_________
Delaware County______________
Dutchess County__________ " 3
Ontario County______________ 3
Orleans County.....................3; 13
North Carolina: Buncombe County..
North Dakota: Third judicial district
(in part)......................
Ohio:
.................
Auglaize County_________ _____
Clark County____ ________
3'
Lake County_____________ 33333"
Sandusky County_____ 111111111!
Pennsylvania: Lycoming County___
South Carolina: Greenville County
Utah:
First district____ ________. . .
Second district__________
Fourth district.............. ! ! ! ! ! !
Fifth district_______________ 3 !!!
Other counties_____________ ! ! ! ! !
Virginia: Lynchburg___________ 3133
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
4,116 1,610
48
5
8
11
18
4
49
16
9
7
31.
6
2
31
4
4
5
6
2
34
13
5
2
6
2
2
4
8
52(
19f
182
73
•7
]
5
4
4
4
2
3
5
1
1
2.
1
2
2
1
4
2
1
1
13
37
8
24
4
9
1
1
3
236
252
32
2
78j
47
20!
5
25
12
35
1
7
15
100
37
38
10
631
46j
211
63
20
3
3
15
39
2
5
1
5
10
3
8
2
19
3
4
2
77
1
1
3
5
6
32
1
1
7
36
4
1
1
6
5
2
2
1;
II
2
4
28
1
1
3
6-
111
13
12,
1
9.
67
29
124
4
3
80
326
48
42
9
103
40
92
250
473
317
537
236
79
190.
144|
207
91
59,
1
211
30
Ê
57
1
1
1
2
1
2
4
3
1
1
8
5
12
200
151! 9£
j
li
....
1
1
2
8
15
3.
3.
15
6
17
118
14
166 1,114
i
i
i
1
1
2
1
2
5
29
17
1
94
89
1
2
3
3
1
1
1
1
5
30
47
l|
83
9
7
40
2
9
17
2
1
1
1
1
47
40
51
68.
33
46
15
8
27
13
5
1
_
1
6
3
3
2
8
6
30
6
15
7
8
7
82
15j
5
7
71
134
70
162
53
85
1
d.
1
9!
3
13 11
8 3
91 h
60, 23.
28^ 7
6^
Ï
40
JUVENILE-COURT STATISTICS, 1929
T a b l e I I I b .— Reason for reference to court in girls’ delinquency cases disposed of
by 73 specified courts during 19291
Girls’ delinquency cases
U
CD
rtf
6
Not reported
Violating liquor or
drug law or intoxi
cation
Act of carelessness or
mischief
Injury or attempted
injury to person
Sex offense
Ungovernable or be
yond parental con
trol
Running away
Truancy
Total
Court
Stealing or attempted
stealing
Reason for reference to court
COURTS SERVING AREAS WITH 100,000
OR MORE POPULATION
Total cases..i_________ ______
7,032
758
899 1,186 1,919 1,340
161
515
62 119
73
9
9
7
1
1
2
3
17
49
Alabama: Mobile C ounty.................
21
6 ___
44
48
3
7
68
27
239
15
California: San Deigo County............
9
7
8
2
34
10
Connecticut: Bridgeport...... ..............
21
79
8
2
9
3
18 112
324
72
—
District of Columbia______________ _
Indiana:
7
6
1
1
21
57
15
Lake County.......... - ......... ......... .
2
11 ___
24
172
47
7
332
46
23
Marion County________________
1
53
9 ___
22
11
60
7
178
15
Iowa: Polk County— . .................
3
24
8
2
3
27
85
Michigan: Kent County-------- --------P
Minnesota:
7
68
9
2
10
290
62
42
Hennepin County............. ..........
5
48'_____
18
87
16
Ramsey County_______________
!
New Jersey:
1
2
34;
2
53
140
10
262
20
Hudson County----------------------2j
?
1
4
2
1
Mercer County_______________
New York:
15
9
1
2
23
16
66
Buffalo_______________________
11
1
4
...
1
Erie County............... —...............
3
6
9
21
39
Monroe County................. .........
76
3
67
11
72
279
407
26
147
New York City________________ 1,088
1
15:
t
2
2
3
33
60
Rensselaer County____________
7
40
1
139
21
70
Westchester County___________
I. Ohio:
14
149
119
31
7 2
223
96
711
70
Cuyahoga County_____________
1
2
12(
21
3
3 3
28
12
199
6
Franklin County.-------------------32
3
16833
6 18
165
28
136
640
51
Hamilton County_____________
4 12 ___
65
68
3f
65
6Î 1
332
13
Mahoning County____________
3
1
23
44
481
4
5
54
34
229
16
Montgomery County________ ~
4
34
10
152
9
7
10
Oregon: Multnomah County...........
7 7 ;--—
Pennsylvania:
53!
2
3
200
46
32
35
29
Allegheny County...................... .
3
Montgomery County_____ ____
81
6 19
247
39:
23
27
335
Philadelphia.._________ _______
866
89
___
8
4'
22
27
35_____
161
19
Utah: Third district______ . . ______
(
<1
3
15
14V
10
6'
Virginia: N orfolk..............................
2Ò:_____
1
1
10[
35
3
Washington: Pierce C ounty.............
1Includes all courts reporting girls’ delinquency cases that served areas with 25,000 or more population
in 1920.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
JUVENILE-COURT STATISTICS, 1929
T a b l e I I I b .-
41
R m son for reference to court in girls’ delinquency cases disposed of
by 73 specified courts during 1929— Continued
Girls’ delinquency eases
Other
Not reported
Violating liquor or
drug law or intoxi
cation
Act of carelessness or
mischief
Injury or attempted
injury to person
---- - -------------------------- £
Sex offense
Running away
Ungovernable or be
yond parental con
trol
Truancy
Total
Court
I Stealing or attempted
stealing
Reason for reference to court
COURTS SERVING AREAS WITH 25,000
TO 100,000 POPULATION
Total cases
„ _.
Alabama:
Bullock County______
Calhoun County____ _____
Clarke County...................... ■____
Colbert County______
Dallas C ounty.. ____
Elmore County_______
Etowah County__
Houston County________
Jackson C o u n ty .___
Lauderdale County_______
Limestone County.. . . .
Marengo County....... .........
Monroe C oun ty......... .
,
Morgan County____
Perry County.............................
Talladega County. . ________
Illinois: Rock Island County . .
Indiana:
Clay County___________
Vanderburg County_____
Louisiana:
Bossier and Webster Parishes
Caddo Parish___________
Ouachita Parish______
Minnesota: Winona County
New York:
Chemung County_______
Columbia County_______
Delaware County.....................
Dutchess County____________
Ontario County_______
Orleans County__
North Carolina: Buncombe County..
North Dakota: Third judicial distriet (in part)________ ____
Ohio:
Auglaize C o u n ty ..._____
Clark County................
Lake County____________
Sandusky C ou n ty ________
Pennsylvania: Lycoming County
South Carolina: Greenville Countv....
Utah:
First district_____________
Second district_________
Fourth district_________
Fifth district___________
Other counties........ .....
Virginia: Lynchburg................
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
768
89
189
90
134
1
6
3
1
3
34
1
7
4
2
12
2
3
7
1
1
1
6
1
4
17
2
3
6
55
1
4
2
17
1
3a,
17
6
33!
8|
2l
23
19
1
22
2
4
1
1
1
1
1
1
7
1
1
29
62
68
6?
28
35
1
35
3
^2
2
12
1
2
3
1
2
2
3
1
4
1
3
I
24
3
j
1
7
10 ___
'
1
j
j "
1
4
50
.
3
1
2
1
3
6
1
-
3
3
4
4
2
1
13
1
1
3
7
6
2
2j
2
2
1
9
4
—
6
1
1
3
15
75
11
27
10
23
153
2'
15i
M
4
2
3
4
10
8
12
1
43
1
1
1
2
7
2
13
1
6
6
8
11
30
16
18
2
7
19
1
5
1 . . . . . .1. .
6
2
1
2
2
8
li
1?
I
2
7
9
4
2
9
1
15
7
5
11
5
ß
3
7
5
1
g
ß
18
ß
1
1
3
1
1
2
3
4
14
1
13
ß
1
1I
0
42
JUVENILE-COURT STATISTICS, 1929
T a b l e I V a .— Disposition and manner of handling boys’ delinquency cases dis
posed of by 77 specified courts during 1929 1
Boys’ delinquency cases
Official
Disposition
Court
Total
Dis Child
Total missed placed
or con
tinued pro
indefi bation
nitely
' Restic°m- ¡tntlfm
Not
mitted fine, Other report
to ined
stitu- costs
tion
Unof
ficial
COURTS SERVING AREAS WITH 100,000
OR MORE POPULATION
Total eases Alabama: Mobile County-----California: SanDiego County..
Connecticut: Bridgeport.........
District of Columbia...............
Indiana:
Lake County____________
Marion County_____ - —
Iowa: Polk County............ —
Michigan: Kent County..........
Minnesota:
Hennepin County.........
Ramsey County______ *~
New Jersey:
Hudson County_________
Mercer County.................
New York:
Buffalo_________________
Erie County— ............ . . .
Monroe County....... ........
New York C ity_________
Rensselaer County.........
Westchester County........
Ohio:
Cuyahoga County-----Franklin County----------Hamilton County---------Mahoning County— .......
Montgomery County-----Oregon: Multnomah County.
Pennsylvania:
Allegheny County............
Montgomery County.......
Philadelphia___________
Utah: Third district------------Virginia: Norfolk............ .......
Washington: Pierce County..
• Includes all courts reporting boys'
in 1920,
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
34,181 24,109
7,728
9, 747
3,259
1,567
10,072
170
1,417
391
1,623
170
548
242
1,114
51
193
34
272
10
100
165
508
93
39
40
36
1
214
3
283
869
149
509
134
653
569
346
114
595
225
346
14
271
92
115
34
176
53
115
30
86
50
93
26
16
7
11
897
309
897
309
184
32
484
219
218
50
1,584
414
1,584
414
723
263
334
210
866
866
192
193
474
38
162
115
167
2,525
9
308
106
28
26
576
28
24
750
403
18
7
192
194
6,868
258
749
6,868
258
599
3,172 1,832
274
274
84
1,394
377
1,689
523
296
620
750
3,010
205
220
177
12
12
35
62
429
155
21
188
165
65
1,805
20
58
344
71
88
41
63
59
37
124
.5
11
28
7
4
19
150
365
1,340
11
10
29
9
22
1,310
1,312
227
130
91
172
822
5
1
17
5
24
3,131
278
441
728 1,413
522
14
23
54
57
40
102
105
38
229
235
7
6
42
12
33
100
100
delinquency cases that served areas with 25,000 or more population
1,090
47
6,089
710
709
1,090
47
2,958
188
709
JUVENILE-COURT STATISTICS, 1929
T able
43
lY^.— Dispositionand manner of handling hoys’ delinquency cases dis
posed of by 77 specified courts during 1929— Continued
Boys’ delinquency cases
Official
Disposition
Court
Total
DisTotal missec Child
or con i placed
on
tinuec
indefi pro
bation
nitely
Child
com- Resti
mitte j tution ’ Other Not
report
to in1 fine,
or
ed
stitu
tion costs
Unof
ficial
COURTS SERVING AREAS WITH 25,000
TO 100,000 POPULATION
Total cases____________________
Alabama:
Calhoun^ C ounty________________
Chambers County_______________
Clarke C ounty_____________ I___I
Colbert C ounty__________¿ I 'll H I
Dallas County________ H i l l ' l l "
Elmore County...............
II.IH
Etowah C ounty___________
Houston County____ I I I I I .I I I I I I
Jackson C ounty_________
~~
Lauderdale County_____________
Lee C ounty______ _____IIIIIIIII
Limestone C ounty__________
Lowndes County____ H IIIIIIH II
Marengo C ounty_______H I
Marshall County.............
Morgan C ounty............ H I.............i
Perry C ounty...............
Pickens C ounty..........
Talladega C ounty......... .IIIIIIIII
Tallapoosa C ounty_____________ _
Illinois: R ock Island County
Indiana:
Clay C ounty___ :_______ ____
Vanderburg C ounty .
Louisiana:
Bossier and Webster Parishes
Caddo Parish.____ ______
Ouachita Parish................IIIIIIII
Minnesota: Winona County
N ew York:
.
Chemung C ounty...............
Columbia C ounty___ ____ I.......... |
Delaware C ounty___ H .I I I
""
Dutchess County______ IIIIIIIIII
Ontario C ounty__________
Orleans C ounty__ IIIIIIIIIIIIIII
North Carolina: Buncombe County
North Dakota: Third judicial dis-"
triet (in partL.........
Ohio:
....................
Auglaize C ounty..............................
Clark C ounty_______ ______
Lake County__________
Sandusky C o u n ty .IIIIIIIIIIIIIII
Pennsylvania: Lycom ing C ou n ty ..Ill
South Carolina: Greenville County
Utah:
First district____________________
Second district______
Fourth district..................... H
Fifth district.... ................111.11111
Other counties________
Virginia: L yn chburg........ H I................
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
4,116
2,323
727
695
333
48
5
'8
11
18
4
49
16
9
7
3
6
2
2
8
15
3
3
15
6
17
30
4
5
10
4
4
48
14
8
5
1
6
1
2
13
2
2
1
3
1
24
13
6
13
3
1
4
4
2
16
1
2
5
6
15
3
1
3
13
1
2
14
5
17
1
2
2
9
1
7
3
6
2
13
37
12
24
1
4
15
6
6
3
236
252
32
3
173
60
11
80
12
2
2
11
21
6
1
48
23
2
100
118
14
200
67
29
124
100
117
14
194
67
29
2
51
69
4
93
13
6
19
16
5
34
50
17
1
13
8
2
19
2
3
4
4
4
80
326
48
42
9
103
17
114
48
19
9
89
1
23
5
1
38
12
47
21
10
3
26
25
1
6
6
10
250
473
317
637
236
211
98
151
161
235
162
211
27
36
24
91
22
112
17
71
71
42
37
. 56
13
12
20
5
10
4
1
3
—
4
392
176
1,793
2
18
2
14
5
3
1
1
1
1
1
2
13
31
3
4
1
21
14
7
3
17
3
23
6
3
1
122
25
2
1
1
13
15
3
6
6
2
7
8
14
17
2
17
2 .
26 .
8 .
152
322
156
302
74
24
30
29
95
67
31
212
23
J U V E N I L E -C O U R T S T A T I S T I C S , 1929
44
T a b l e I V b .— Disposition and manner of handling girls' delinquency cases dis
posed of by 78 specified courts during 1929
Girls’ delinquency cases
Official
Disposition
Court
Total
Dis- i rhild
Total missed
or con- ^ „n
tinued
indefi-d u ?
nitely batlon
Child
committed
to institution
Resti
Not
tution,
fine, Other -eported
or
costs
Unof
ficial
COURTS SERVING AREAS WITH 100,000
OR MORE POPULATION
Total cases -
7,032
4,810
1,002
1,939
49
65
48
247
15
3
27
17
116
45
553
3
7
1
40
5
2,222
49
Alabama: Mobile County----174
20
239
California: San Diego County
22
18
70
Connecticut: Bridgeport........
77
3
38
324
District of Columbia..............
Indiana:
25
21
1
18
15
83
108
Lake County....................
188
10
61
50
144
332
Marion County................
105
6
3
13
12
73
178
Iowa: Polk County.------ -----5
17
34
85
85
Michigan: Kent County------Minnesota:
102
37
200
200
Hennepin County---------1
37
6
87
87
Ramsey County—. -------New Jersey:
18
28
50
127
262
262
Hudson County-----------1
11
2
19
19
Mercer County— ......... .
.
New York:
2
17
19
66
66
Buffalo------------------------5
3
11
11
Erie County.......- ...........
2
13
39
39
Monroe County-----------1
566
284
1, 088 1,088
New York City-----------1
48
60
60
Rensselaer County-------'
15
9
47
46
124
139
Westchester County.......
189
Ohio:
,
132
218
30
522
»11
Cuyahoga County-----------------5
23
65
12
199
Franklin County----------------------- j
610
8
2
2
30
Hamilton County.......................... : 640
257
12
24
6
75
Mahoning County—.................... 334
131
15
30
28
98
Montgomery County—.................. j 429
29
13
34
17
123
Oregon: Multnomah County
Pennsylvania:
34
118
1
Allegheny County-------1
1
Montgomery County—
276
152
250
590
Philadelphia....................
124
4
10
37
Utah: Third district..............
33
59
37
143
Virginia: Norfolk
2
_____
35
Washington: Pierce C o u n ty .......... - I
35
1Includes all courts reporting girls’ delinquency cases that served areas with 25,000 or more population
in 1920.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
J U V E N IL E -C O T J R T S T A T I S T I C S , 1 9 2 9
Table
, a n d f f t o o f M i n g g irls’ d elin g u en cy cases
posea oj b y 7 3 sp ecified courts d u rin g 1 9 2 9 —Continued
45
U s-
Girls’ delinquency eases
Oficial
Disposition
Court
Total
Dis
Total missed |Child
or con ¡placed
tinued on
indefi pro
nitely bation
Unof
ficial
comd Restimitted totion,
Not
to in- ¡ flne> Other report
ed
stitu° r.
tion costs
COURTS SERVING AREAS WITH 25,000
TO 100,000 POPULATION
Total cases.
Alabama:
Bullock C ounty________________
Calhoun C ounty________
Clarke C ounty____ l - ' i l l ..........
Colbert C ounty___ . . . . ” 111111
Dallas County_________
Elmore C ou n ty._IIIIIIIIIIII” II
Etowah C ounty_________
Houston C ounty______
Jackson C ounty______
Lauderdale C ounty.” ” ” ” I ” ”
Limestone C ounty___
Marengo C ounty___ III
M onroe C ou n ty.........
Morgan C ou n ty........................... "
H
Perry C o u n t y ...................
Talladega C ounty_________ I I " " '
Illinois: Rock Island County
Indiana:
Clay C o u n t y ..........
Vanderburg C o u n t y ...I ll............
Louisiana:
Bossier and Webster Parishes
Caddo Parish_______
Ouachita Parish________ IH H
Minnesota: Winona County
New York:
Chemung C ounty_____
Columbia County..........I I "............
Delaware C ounty_____ I.IIIIIII"
Dutchess County__________II
Ontario C ounty_________
Orleans C ounty
1.1
I
N orth Carolina: Buncombe C ou n ty"’
North Dakota: Third judicial dis"-"
tn ct (in part).............
Ohio:
..............—
Auglaize C ounty____________
Clark C ounty_______ IIIIII
Lake C ounty..^ ___
Sandusky C o u n t 'y lllllllH ........
Pennsylvania: Lycom ing C o u n ty ”
South Carolina: Greenville C ountv'
Utah:
First district..............
Second district........ .....................
Fourth district............. I l l
Fifth district_________IIIIIIII "
Other counties_______ II”
Virginia: Lynchburg__ IIIIIIII
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
768
137
130
356
4
18
3
5
3
2
3
1
7
3
2
2
13
. 2
20
7
1
1
3
7
1
3
6
2
11
6
4
1
2
27
1 .
9
20
54
31
48
21
J U V E N I L E -C O U R T S T A T I S T I C S , 1929
46
T a b l e V a — Color, nativity, and parent nativity o f boys dealt with in delinquency
cases disposed o f by 80 specified courts during 1929
Boys’ delinquency cases
boys
Court
Total
Alabama: Mobile County-----California: San Diego County.
Connecticut: Bridgeport..........
District of Columbia------------Indiana:
Lake County............ —
Marion County........... ......
Iowa: Polk County..................
Michigan: Kent C o u n ty ......
Minnesota:
Hennepin County.—------Ramsey County................
New Jersey:
Hudson County.................
Mercer County--------------New York:
Buffalo_________________
Erie County-----------------Monroe County------------New York City-------------Westchester County..........
Ohio:
Cuyahoga County----------Franklin County-----------Hamilton County----------Mahoning County---------Montgomery County.......
Oregon: Multnomah County.
Pennsylvania:
Allegheny County---------Montgomery County----Philadelphia................ —
Utah: Third district...............
Virginia: Norfolk— . . . . -----Washington: Pierce C ounty-
12,893
34,181 27,817
9,107
1,417
• 391
1,623
90
1,352
380
696
90
951
86
209
272
294
134
653
569
346
114
422
511
330
28
389
475
229
82
1
36
80
897
309
872
302
408
166
442
136
. 1,584
414
1,495
343
303
79
1,149
259
_
825
183
193
6,173
257
678
240
53
52
1, 577
111
166
552
124
141
4,361
137
3,172 2,774
166
274
1,394 1,000
_. 1,689 1,497
417
523
741
750
331
161
64
270
370
505
941
. . 1,090
42
47
. . 6,089 3,877
708
710
342
709
96
100
258
22
684
431
318
81
.
.
866
192
194
. 6,868
1 258
749
Col
ored
Na
tivity boys
not re
ported
Native, Native,
Native, foreign parent For
native
age not eign
Total parent- r
report born
age p
ed
age
1,797
573
3,447
5,341
80
65
11
927
24
56
49
54
g
378
2
32
2
10
25
7
38
5
1
89
71
2
33
3
1
8
2
3
217
1
22
10
6
4
470
731
1
255
44
2
1
27
18
5
22
17
50
22
41
9
1
695
1
71
_
398
_
108
394
192
106
9 ...........
250
11
28
2
1
1,936
4
3
1,023
20
231
58
16
19
4
Boys
whose
color
was '
npt re
ported
149
5
1,189
2
367
4
1,023
1
i Includes all courts reporting boys’ delinquency cases that served areas with 100,000 or more population
in 1920.
\
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
47
JUVENILE-COURT STATISTICS, 1929
T able V b .
Color, nativity, and parent nativity o f girls dealt with in delinquency
cases disposed o f by SO specified courts during 1929 1
Girls’ delinquency cases
White girls
Court
Total
Total cases.............. .............. 7,032
Alabama: Mobile County____
California: San Diego County.
Connecticut: Bridgeport.......
District of Columbia_________
Indiana:
Lake County____________
Marion County__________
Iowa: Polk County........... .......
Michigan: Kent County_____
Minnesota:
Hennepin County________
Ramsey County_________ _
New Jersey:
Hudson County__________
Mercer County___________
New'York:
Buffalo__________________
Erie County................
’
Monroe County__________
New York City........... .......;
Rensselaer County_______
Westchester County............
Ohio:
Cuyahoga County...............
Franklin County_________
Hamilton County________
Mahoning County_______ I
Montgomery County.........
Oregon: Multnomah County...
Pennsylvania:
Allegheny County...............
Montgomery County_____
Philadelphia_____________
Utah: Third district_______ I
Virginia: N orfolk ....................
Washington: Pierce County___
Girls
Native,
Col whose
color
Native foreign 1Native
Na
ored
was
or 1parent- For tivity girls
Total native
not re
parent mixed [ age not eign not re
report
born
ported
age parent
ported
ed
age
5,509
2,768
49
239
70
324
28
228
67
103
27
147
17
41
108
332
178
85
86
261
151
84
200
87
2,154
117
144
2
1
6
1
1
326
1,417
23
51
21
11
3
221
6
22
71
27
1
50
49
5
5
31
251
143
62
53
1
193
84
103
48
85
36
2
262
19
246
15
57
5
175
10
14
16
4
66
11
39
1,088
60
139
56
10
39
935
58
115
13
4
18
285
34
29
41
6
21
593
21
79
2
10
1
711
199
640
332
229
152
593
155
470
276
195
148
117
135
394
108
168
115
319
15
15
121
18
30
200
8
866
161
143
35
160
7
495
160
57
34
70
5
150
107
66
28
89
2
248
42
1
6
8
16
1
1
10
3
7
3
56
1
4
2
1
153
2
24
3
14
1
12
2
4
3
2
1
64
3
54
30
6
2
118
44
170
56
34
4
1
2
5
17
4
78
2
40
1
265
1
86
1
2
81
106
106
inl920 U<leS a11 courts reporting girls’ delinquency cases that served areas with 100,000 or more population
51303°— 31------ 4
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
48
JUVENILE-COURT STATISTICS, 1929
T a b l e V I.— Source of reference to court of delinquency cases disposed of by SO spec
ified courts during 19291
Delinquency cases
Source of reference to court
Court
Total
Total cases.
Alabama: Mobile County-----California: San Diego County.
Connecticut: Bridgeport-------District of Columbia------------Indiana:
Lake County..---------------Marion County.. ..............
Iowa: Polk County__________
Michigan: Kent County-------Minnesota:
Hennepin County----------Ramsey County_________
New Jersey:
Hudson County............... .
Mercer County— - ..... —
New York:
Buffalo------- -----------------Erie County.......... ...........
Monroe County.................
New York C it y ...............
Rensselaer County---------Westchester County-------Ohio:
Cuyahoga County.............
Franklin County___------Hamilton County----------Mahoning County---------Montgomery County-----Oregon: Multnomah County..
Pennsylvania:
Allegheny County............
Montgomery County— *
Philadelphia-----------------Utah: Third district...............
Virginia: Norfolk----------------Washington: Pierce C ounty-
Parents) Other 1School ProPolice or rela- indi- depart- bation I
tives vidual ment officer
1
41,213 23,660
3,958
57
709
410
1,307
32
200
17
214
219
1,656
461
1,947
Other
Not
reported
43
6, 515 1 4,057
1,584
888
508
60
211
8
4
15
38
6
180
5
29
6
17
7
221
3
1
5
12
15
16
11
61
43
247
11
223
242
985
747
431
88
569
291
289
26
143
73
58
23
80
257
43
49
149
41
19
50
16
9
6
1,097
396
621
158
193
52
50
2
33
33
4
8
7
1,846
433
510
332
104
7
430
51
647
21
57
20
15
2
83
18
38
1,156
25
49
28
2,070
53
154
2
205
150
309
Ì
3
5
1
10
9
21
226
1
143
4,289
75
306
752
902
2,036
258
1,272
860
195
650
268
55
246
201
114
22
706
30
232
467
157
116
645
58
100
426
192
85
105
35
20
14
75
12
1,290
55
6,955
871
852
135
386
112
14
463
42
56
7
583
31
126
3
68
4
229
247
52
10
691
5,641
416
554
98
932
203
233
7,956
318
888
3,883
473
2,034
2,021
22
1
112
56
5
1
1
5
1
6
2
1
8
1
3
5
53
4
5
1
1
68
115
31
110
49
18
9
1
1
3
15
3
30
8
8
7
8 _____
12
1
7
1
8
* Includes all courts reporting delinquency cases that served areas with 100,000 or more population in 1920.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
JUVENILE-COURT STATISTICS, 1929
49
T a b l e V II.— Place o f care o f child pending hearing or disposition in delinquency
^
cases disposed of by SO specified courts during 1929,1
Delinquency cases
Place of care of child
Court
Total cases.
Alabama: Mobile County__________
California: San Diego County..
Connecticut: Bridgeport.........
District of Columbia__________
Indiana:
Lake County_____________
Marion C o u n ty ..__ ____
Iowa: Polk C ou n ty ...........
Michigan: Kent County______
Minnesota:
Hennepin County________
Ramsey County__________
New Jersey:
Hudson County___________
Mercer C ounty...________
New York:
Buffalo.................................
Erie County______________
Monroe County___________
New York City___________
Rensselaer County________
Westchester County___
Ohio:
Cuyahoga County________
Franklin County_______
Hamilton County_______
Mahoning C o u n ty ......I I I !
Montgomery County______
Oregon: Multnomah County
Pennsylvania:
Allegheny County...............
Montgomery County.......... "
Philadelphia______________
Utah: Third district____
Virginia: Norfolk....... ...........I{j3
Washington: Pierce County.......
Own
home
More
Total or cas<
Jailor than
dis Board Deten Other police one
Not
tion insti
posed ing
Other
re-.
home home2 tution sta place
of
ported
tion 3
of
same
care 1
day
41,213 21,777
219
219
1,656
461
1,947
89
1,053
399
1,275
242
747
431
158
794
456
239
1,097
396
833
253
1,846 1,259
406
171 11,873
5,040
1,542
280
260
270
I 108
29 i 382
4 1
2
250
1
21
33
375
21
90
24
6
2
70
1
6
9
32
53
173
250
187
8
3
■7
1
18
71 ...........
2
16
71
172
70
580
21
4
2
1
4
328
4
31
104
4,039
104
93
5
5 !
3
2
2
932
203
233
7, 956
318
888
600
151
126
3,838
210
598
o
3,883
473
2,034
2,021
752
902
2,273
31
697
1,062
452
671
6
4
9
3
1
1
1,250
265
1,209
630
193
113
1,290
55
6, 955
871
852
135
326
23
2,503
534
442
26
3
1
771
30
4,441
282
276
81
2
3
4
7
27
2
8
4
1
3
1
42
31
2
163
32
2
2
6
2
6
2
19
3
50
16
9
5
19
3
17
14
4
8
2
184
ft
1
1
1
14
21
36
10
10
14
300
144
10
284
77
88
3
3
1
9
5
1
40
133
28
17
1920.
. r t S “ " “ “ 010 M i™ M
' » » • » ' • ¿ ' S X f e P C * , stm om c d
* Excludes cases of children held in detention homes, jails, or police stations.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
1
C the [¡mg
50
JUVENILE-COURT STATISTICS, 1929
T able V III.— Reason for reference to court of families represented in dependency
and neglect cases disposed of by 74 specified courts during 19291
Families represented in dependency and neglect cases
Reason for reference to court
Court
Total
ImIn
Aban- Abuse proper
suffidon- I or
con- I cient Fi° a,n- tionof Other Not re
ment cruel ditions paren
ported
n lä
cusor de- treatneed tody
tal
sertion ment home care
COURTS SERVING AREAS WITH 100,000
OR MORE POPULATION
Total families.
7,966
787
277
2,455
2,612
770
598
445
22
1
Alabama: Mobile County...................
6
2 ...........
3
28
61
California: San Diego County.............
271
30
30
94
7
Connecticut: Bridgeport......................
31.
7 --------15
20
173
District of C olum bia........... - ........—
240
5
3
33
Indiana:
63
150
18
8
23
Lake County.........—......... - .........
21
Marion County________________
158
37
6
83
117
Iowa: Polk County_________ ----------361
36
10
62
64
Michigan: Kent County— -------------136
3
—
12
Minnesota:
32
Hennepin County______________
176
18
1
53
50
Ramsey County-----------------------68
6 --------12
New York:
22
Buffalo.;_______________________
37 ------------------15
6
Erie County---- -------------- ------- —17 . . . --------------11
111
Monroe County....... —.................
119 .......................
8
415
New York City............................. 1,813
49
21 1,289
55
Rensselaer County______________
102
10 ---------10
100
Westchester County____________
124
6
1
17
Ohio:
277
Cuyahoga County______________
608
59
40
99
148
Franklin County__________
418
20
6
62
46
Hamilton County......... ................
264
22
14
124
99
Mahoning County.— .................
157
3
1
17
88
Montgomery County----------------245
20
6
33
95
Oregon: Multnomah County.............
227
21
8
78
Pennsylvania:
Allegheny County--------------------.
322
70
35
74
Montgomery County___________
7
1 —------1
185
205
Philadelphia___________________ 1,683
314
80
158
390 | 351
3
1
Utah: Third district________________
61
17
1
9
25 I
5
18
Virginia: Norfolk______________
123
4
5
55
40
1
10
Washington: Pierce County................
42
9
11
5
5
6
x Includes all courts reporting dependency and neglect cases that served areas with 25,000 or more popu
lation in 1920.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
51
JUVENILE-COURT STATISTICS, 1929
T a b l e V I I I — Reason for reference to court of families represented in dependency
and neglect cases disposed of by 74 specified courts during 1929— Continued
Families represented in dependency and neglect cases
Reason for reference to court
Court
Abuse
Total Aban
don
or
ment cruel
or de treat
sertion ment
Im
proper
con
ditions
in
home
In
suffi
1Ques
cient Finan tion of
Not re
paren cial
cus Other ported
need
tal
tody
care
COURTS SERVING AREAS WITH 26,000
TO 100,000 POPULATION
Total families________________
Alabama:
Bullock County_______________
Calhoun County_______________
Chambers County_____________
Clarke County_________________
Colbert County___________ ____
Dallas County_________________
Elmore County________________
Etowah County________________
Houston County_______________
Jackson County________________
Lauderdale County____________
Lee County____________________
Limestone County_____________
Lowndes County_______________
Marengo County_______________
Marshall County_______________
Monroe County________________
Morgan County...................... I __
Perry County__________________
Pickens County________________
Talladega County______________
Tallapoosa County_____________
Illinois: Rock Island County_______
Indiana: Clay County______________
Louisiana:
Bossier and Webster Parishes___
Caddo Parish.................................
Ouachita Parish._______________
Minnesota: Winona County________
New York:
Chemung County______________
Columbia County_______ ____ II
Dutchess County_______________
Ontario County________________
Orleans County________________
North Carolina: Buncombe C ounty..
North Dakota: Third judicial district
(in part)_________________________
Ohio:
Auglaize County_______________
Clark County________________I
Lake County______________ ____
Sandusky County_________ ____
Pennsylvania: Lycoming County.......
South Carolina: Greenville County
Utah:
Second district_________________
Fourth district_________________
Fifth district.................. .........
Other counties_________________
Virginia: Lynchburg_____________ II
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
1,179
97
50
244
352
280
109
46
27
30
9
17
24
31
1
12
15
4
41
12
8
14
18
2
13
10
23
24
21
12
104
3
2
8
1
3
5
3
1
11
1
11
2
2
9
4
29
2
4
1
6
10
6
5
3
4
7
1
13
4
2
4
21
1
2
3
3
8
'
1
3
1
1
5
1
1
1
3
2
1
2
1
2
1
1
11
2
70
46
11
3
5
1
5
66
54
120
32
15
70
3
3
2
2
9
10
3
1
2
2
7
4
9
2
7
23
1
2
2
3
16
i
48
2
6
11
5
2
5
5
1
22
25
21
9
1
20
2
4
1
3
17
10
41
15
29
23
69
2
2
6
5
4
6
3
1
1
1
i
2
1
i
2
1
2
11
17
ii
2
4
2
i
i
2
20
19
4
36
8
12
59
20
3
26
14
9
21
10
2
10
2
9
5
6
6
5
7
25
8
7
3
16
1
11
i
26
2
2
1
2
2
1
2
6
12
2
5
1
Î*
1
1
2
3
3
1
2
1
2
1
3
3
4
1
7
2
1
1
5
5
2
a
2
13
1
9
1
52
JUVENILE-COURT STATISTICS, 1929
T a b l e I X .— Disposition and manner of handling dependency and neglect cases
disposed of by 74 specified courts during 1929 1
Dependency and neglect cases
Official
Disposition
Court
Total
Dis- Child
Total missed placed
under
court
indefi supernitely vision
Child
placed Child
Ununder comoffisuper- mitted! Child
cial
Not
comvision
to
of indi- board, mitted Other reportto invidual deed
other part- stituthan ment, tion
proba- or
tion agency
officer
COURTS
SERVING
AREAS
WITH
100,000 OR MORE POPULATION
Total cases________________ 16, 038 13, 253
9
133
51
348
3,155
813
1
1
3,545
3,206
3
2
38
1
95
9 2,785
Alabama: Mobile County— ....... .
305
2
65
438
California: San Diego County-----3
19
70
Connecticut: Bridgeport.............. .
1
216
n
348
118
District of Columbia..------- -------Indiana:
77
12
58
34
46
5
169
246
Lake County--------- ------------178
72
22
1
282
282
Marion C oun ty......................
346
136
8
51
3
285
631
Iowa: Polk County....... .............. 1
50
12
19
11
279
2
Michigan: Kent County...............
Minnesota:
9
29
115
18
343
343
Hennepin County........ ............
19
33
138
138
Ramsey County.................—
New York:
14
51
72
72
Buffalo— __________________
3
36
68
68
Erie County.............................
194
62
284
284
Monroe County_____________
2
1,131
7
23
1,713
3,891
3,891
New York City_____________
151
187
181
Rensselaer County------- ------ 1
5
3
167
6
1
269
270
Westchester County................
Ohio:
336
15
20
582
263
•68
1,060
1,396
Cuyahoga County...................
7
7
245
145
17'
1 , 70
659
659
Franklin County.....................
Q/
]
]
357
111
468
Hamilton County........ ..........
95
121
20
IS
197
292
Mahoning County..................
118
31
129
13
385' 267
Montgomery County..............
5f
110
4
20
85
333
443
Oregon: Multnomah County........
Pennsylvania:
25
402
17
3
312
756
756
Allegheny County...................
____
13
13
Montgomery County...... .......
992
5
IQ
"
481
1,374
Philadelphia________________ 3,670 2,678
29
IÜ
4
ei
81
101
130
Utah: Third district____________
K
A
I
13
209
209
Virginia: Norfolk------ ---------------«
ii
4
ir
61
61
Washington: Pierce County-------1Includes all courts reporting dependency and neglect cases that served areas with 25,000 or more
population in 1920.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
53
JUVENILE-COURT STATISTICS, 1929
T a b l e I X .— Disposition and manner o f handling dependency and neglect cases
disposed o f by 74 specified courts during 1929— Continued
Dependency and neglect cases
Official
Disposition
Court
Total
DisTotal missed
or con
tinued
indefi
nitely
Child
placed Child
under com
Child super mitted
placed vision
to
under of indi board,
court vidual de
super other part
vision than ment,
proba or
tion agency
officer
Child
com
Not
mitted Other re
to in
port
stitu
ed
tion
Unoffi
cial
COURTS SERVING AREAS WITH 25,000
TO 100,000 POPULATION
Total cases_________________
Alabama:
Bullock County_____________
Calhoun County____________ _
Chambers County___________
Clarke County_______________
Colbert County___ _______ ____
Dallas C ou n ty ...____________
Elmore County______________
Etowah County..____________
Houston C ounty...__________
Jackson County______________
Lauderdale County__________
Lee County_________________
Limestone County___________
Lowndes County_____ _______
Marengo County_____________
Marshall County____________
Monroe County______________
Morgan County_____________
Perry County..______________
Pickens County._____________
Talladega County,____________
Tallapoosa County___________
Illinois: Iiock Island County_____
Indiana: Clay County_________
Louisiana:
Bossier and Webster Parishes...
Caddo Parish_________ ____
Ouachita Parish_____________
Minnesota: Winona County______
New York:
Chemung County____________
Columbia County____________
Dutchess County____________
Ontario County______________
Orleans County______________
North Carolina: Buncombe County.
North Dakota: Third judicial dis
trict (in part)__________________
Ohio:
Auglaize County__!'__________
Clark County________________
Lake County________________
Sandusky County_____ ____ _
Pennsylvania: Lycoming County..
South Carolina: Greenville Countv
Utah:
Second district_______________
Fourth district_______________
Fifth district________________
Other counties_______________
Virginia: Lynchburg_____________
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
501 1,474
382
310
63
44
16
32
72
84
2
17
46
6
104
26
19
38
61
7
54
30
64
53
42
23
162
13
32
8
5
1
9
5
2
6
3
1
6
3
162
13
15
41
8
40
5
107
110
17
5
105
55
6
11
13
4
21
53
6
135
133
293
73
24
103
135
133
265
73
24
37
102
87
84
7
2
2
20
78
52
11
3
10
5
68
2
3
20
10
10
1
5
28
78
31
40
39
114
28
77
31
19
38
84
11
6
12
3
1
18
19
27
7
12
1
2
7
4
12
4
17
5
9
14
1
2
15
3
1
328
1
4
12
104
305
1
1
1
2
7
4
2
1
2
20
3
1
5
8
4
5
1
4
1
1
1
2
1
2
1
3
1
20
1
24
4
4
2
1
1
8
2
1
33
4
8
2
45
7
1
2
1
4
4
1
51
5
14
5
37
7
4
21
19
8
2
9
1,027
59
27
11
23
58
83
2
43
6
72
18
14
37
52
2
52
24
61
52
36
23
2
55
11
1
2'
28
1
66
1
4
2
21
1
30
4
11
16
6
1
3
1
25
11
18
2
1
2
1
6
7
51
18
4
14
11
3
2
1
17
17
20
3
54
JUVENILE-COURT STATISTICS, 1929
T a b l e X . — Color, nativity, and parent nativity o f children dealt with in dependency
and neglect cases disposed of by 28 specified courts during 1929 1
Dependency and neglect cases
White children
Court
Total eases Alabama: Mobile County-----California: San Diego County.
Connectieut: Bridgeport-------District of C olum bia..............
Indiana:
Lake County—- .................
Marion C ounty--..............
Iowa: Polk County..................
Michigan: Kent County-------Minnesota:
Hennepin County..............
Ramsey County---- ---------New York:
Buffalo--------------------------Erie County____________
Monroe County-------------New York C it y .............—
Rensselaer County............
Westchester County..........
Ohio:
Cuyahoga County.............
Franklin County...............
Hamilton County----------Mahoning County.-..........
Montgomery County------Oregon: Multnomah County..
Pennsylvania:
Allegheny County............ .
Montgomery County-----Philadelphia-.................
Utah: Third district.......... —
Virginia: Norfolk----------------Washington: Pierce C ounty-
Native,
Native, foreign
Total
or
native
Total parent mired
parent
age
age
16,038 13,606
7,684
5,159
Children
Col whose
ored color
Native,
Nativ-j
parent For ity not chil
was
age not eign report dren not re
report born
ported
ed
ed
197
97
40
7
16
100
2
438
70
348
416
67
146
230
27
5
246
282
631
279
190
238
562
279
237
528
233
34
36
343
138
323
136
203
99
107
37
72
68
284
3,891
187
270
71
281
3, 520
185
230
34
40
141
1,471
170
109
37
28
140
1,907
14
114
419
527
306
96
280
322
625
26
9
136
67
1
274
1
1,241
31
3
68
1,396
659
468
292
385
443
1,152
562
321
265
300
424
756
13
3,670
130
209
61
670
13
2,823
129
169
58
12
1, 395
163
55
184
4
9
382
2,290
69
1
22
3
202
125
1
2
8
1
12
142
56
44
69
20
2
1
14
ID
9
1
2
3
371
2
40
11
4
1
]
30
4
5
33
9
2
244
97
147
27
85
19
5
86
41
66
705
1
40
3
5
11
80
1
142
i includes all courts reporting dependency and neglect cases that served areas with 100,000 or more popu
lation in 1920,
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
55
JUVENILE-COURT STATISTICS, 1929
T a b l e X I.
Source o f reference to court of families represented in dependency and
neglect cases disposed of by 28 specified courts during 1929 1
Families represented in dependency and neglect cases
Source of reference to court
Court
Total
Total families.
Alabama: Mobile County____
California: San Diego County.
Connecticut: Bridgeport_____
District of Columbia_________
Indiana:
Lake County____________
Marion County__________
Iowa: Polk County__________
Michigan: Kent County_____
Minnesota:
Hennepin County___ ____
Ramsey County________ _
New York:
Buffalo.____________ ;____
Erie County_____________
Monroe County____________
New York City____ *_____
Rensselaer C o u n ty ...____
Westchester County______
Ohio:
Cuyahoga County________
Franklin County_________
Hamilton County________
Mahoning County________
Montgomery County_____
Oregon: Multnomah County...
Pennsylvania:
Allegheny County________
Montgomery County..........
Philadelphia_____________
Utah: Third district__________
Virginia: Norfolk.......................
Washington: Pierce County__
Par
Proba Sehool
Social ents or Other
de
Not re
agency rela indi Police tion part Other ported
vidual
officer ment
tives
7,966
3,209
2,635
644
644
450
251
129
6
271
31
240
1
51
26
36
4
75
2
66
1
77
29
4
71
11
3
24
24
17
24
2
150
158
361
136
15
37
98
33
43
43
118
40
17
18
79
45
15
51
17
7
45
3
4
5
15
176
68
166
63
2
3
37
17
119
1,813
102
124
19
17
114
1,018
1
116
8
3
1
413
79
3
1
41
20
2
284
1
4
608
418
264
157
245
227
269
106
112
97
61
43
195
122
51
23
113
60
19
81
53
10
29
75
51
16
6
11
6
37
42
83
15
10
28
3
322
7
1,683
61
123
42
143
2
514
30
14
7
27
1
1,065
5
63
16
11
3
19
4
18
2
2
1
5
10
8
5
7
23
5
6
22
1
10
3
53
1
3
29
9
15
6
5
7
3
1
10
134
3
2
3
7
17
6
6
4
3
4
71
2
3
2
2
lation°in 192Q11C0Urts reporting dependency and neglect cases that served areas with 100.000 or more popu-
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
4
1
56
JUVENILE-COURT STATISTICS, 1929
T able
X I I .— Place of care of child pending hearing or disposition in dependency
and neglect cases disposed of by 28 specified courts during 1929 1
Dependency and neglect cases
Place of care of child
Court
Total cases Alabama: Mobile, County-----California: San Diego County.
Connecticut: Bridgeport..........
District of Columbia------------Indiana:
Lake County.......... —........
Marion County--------------Iowa: Polk County..................
Michigan: Kent County-------Minnesota:
Hennepin C ou n ty ............
Ramsey County.................
New York:
Buffalo............. ...... ..........
Erie County..................
Monroe C oun ty............
New York City................ .
Rensselaer County............
Westchester County.------Ohio:
Cuyahoga County----------Franklin County-----------Hamilton County............
Mahoning County---------Montgomery County-----Oregon: Multnomah County.
Pennsylvania:
Allegheny County............
Montgomery County.......
Philadelphia.....................
Utah: Third district— .........
Virginia: Norfolk-------------Washington: Pierce County—
Own
More
home
Total or case Board Deten- Other Jail or than
Not
one
police
dis
re
tion I insti- sta
ing
place Other ported
posed home
home 2 tution tion 3
of
of
care4
same
day
16,038
9, 269
438
70
348
7
279
43
276
246
282
631
279
146
137
350
206
343
138
245
65
72
68
284
3,891
187
270
45
43
61
1,288
163
65
1,396
659
468
292
385
443
1,037
307
318
191
277
255
756
13
3,670
130
209
61
222
6
3,006
37
156
28
694
1,188
1
4,320
128'
242
i
22
2
2
21
1
4
149
57
16
18
41
206
1
5
12
11 ___
214
2,574
161
151
6
16
63
45
335
7
9
57
11
7
76
8
3
2
1
4
2
2
6
18
25
13
14
37
9
1
1
4
182
■
■:
BI
1
10
2
1
6
1Includes all courts reporting dependency and neglect cases that served areas with 100,000 or more popU^Indudes^cases of children cared for part of the time in detention homes and part of the time elsewhere,
h n f e x c l u d e s cases of children also held in jails or police stations.
,.____,
2Includes cases of children eared for part of the time in jails or police stations and part of the ame elseExcludes cases of children held in detention homes, jails, or police stations.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
57
JUVENILE-COURT STATISTICS, 1929
T a b l e X III.
-R e a s o n f o r disch a rg e in cases o f d elin q u en t ch ild ren d isch a rg ed fr o m
s u p er v is io n by 21 sp e c ified co u rts d u rin g 1929 1
Cases of delinquent children discharged from supervision
Reason for discharge
Further
supervision
not recom
mended or
discharged
with improvement
before reaching age limit
ted to
7,521
4,760
1,063
18
166
617
12
94
299
4
22
47
75
278
47
177
562
237
Court
Total
Total cases.... ........... .
Alabama: Mobile C ounty...
Connecticut: Bridgeport___
District of Columbia_______
Indiana:
Lake County__________
Marion County________
Minnesota:
Hennepin County..........
Ramsey County.........._
New Jersey:
Hudson County________
Mercer County_________
New York:
Buffalo.____ _________...
Erie C o u n ty ................
Monroe County________
New York City________
Westchester County___
Ohio:
Cuyahoga County...........
Hamilton County______
Montgomery County.—..
Oregon: Multnomah County.
Pennsylvania: Philadelphia..
Utah: Third district________
Virginia: Norfolk....................
Child
tion
commit- Child
ted to reached
agency
age
or indilimit
vidual
361
Not
reported
669
661
7
1
147
40
69
2
8
55
1
6
28
8
2
4
28
9
43
1
418
194
130
34
2
1
2
3
9
4
1
1
189
148
125
40
35
48
5
139
95
124
1,994
406
104
56
96
1,507
341
35
13
23
234
29
1
1
6
4
23
3
194
4
545
344
129
38
1,179
41
197
283
130
51
3
610
30
144
127
46
40
7
127
4
24
42
• 20
5
7
105
13
44
8
10
211
1
4
24
60
12
2
1
53
28
81
103
25
11
125
6
13
1
1
witt^lOO.OOO or more po^latìonI n '1920.delÌnqUen!; Children discharged from supervision that served areas
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
58
JUVENILE-COURT STATISTICS, 1929
T a b l e X I V .— Duration of supervision in cases o f delinquent children discharged
from supervision by 21 specified courts during 1929 1
Cases of delinquent children discharged from supervision
Duration of supervision
Court
Total
Total cases____________
Alabama: Mobile County— .
Connecticut: Bridgeport____
District of Columbia________
Indiana:
Lake County___________
Marion County............... .
Minnesota:
Hennepin County______
Ramsey County________
New Jersey:
Hudson County________
Mercer County_____ ...
New York:
Buffalo________________
Erie County___________
Monroe County________
New York City________
Westchester County____
Ohio:
Cuyahoga County...........
Hamilton County....... —
Montgomery County----Oregon: Multnomah County.
Pennsylvania: Philadelphia—
Utah: Third district________
Virginia: Norfolk__________
Less
than?) months,
less
months than
12
18
1 year,
less months, 2 years, 3 years Not re
and
than
less
less
than than 3 over ported
18
months 2 years
1,136
7,521
2,672
2,924
18
166
617
17
55
179
1
75
278
28
157
562
237
289
98
189
148
42
28
59
139
95
124
1,994
406
19
1,025
47
850
164
52
49
48
98
84
545
344
129
38
1,179
41
197
184
89
27
14
208
41
40
263
116
25
15
510
68
248
379
236
168
29
101
24
20
243
69
27
40
6
93
62
60
2
227
i Includes all courts reporting cases of delinquent children discharged from supervision that served areas
with 100,000 or more population in 1920.
T a b l e X V . — Reason for discharge in cases o f dependent and neglected children
discharged from supervision by 13 specified courts during 1929 1
Cases of dependent and neglected children discharged from supervision
Reason for discharge
Court
Further su
pervision not
Child
Child
Child
Total recommended Child
or child dis commit commit comm it reached Other Not re
ported
charged with ted to in ted to ted to in age
improvement stitution agency dividual limit
before reach
ing age limit
Total cases____________ 2,099
2
Connecticut: Bridgeport------7
District of Columbia---------- —
17
Indiana: Lake County---------Minnesota: Ramsey C ountyNew York:
Buffalo_________________
24
Monroe County_________
New York C ity.—............ 1,319
1
Westchester County-------Ohio:
Cuyahoga County............. 158
1
Hamilton County_______
1
Montgomery County-----59
Oregon: Multnomah County.
Pennsyl vania : Philadelphi a - - 432
22
1,429
248
200
3
12
47
3
8
15
1
14
1,035
1
3
204
i
7
27
78
1
6
35
1
1
6
17
2
111
17
238
2
10
1
153
2
1
2
1
27
25
1
1
33
5
35
53
4
37
4
9
i Includes all courts reporting cases of dependent and neglected children discharged from supervision
that served areas with 100,000 or more population in 1920,
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
59
JUVENILE-COURT STATISTICS, 1929
T a b l e X V I .— Duration o f supervision in cases o f dependent and neglected children
discharged from supervision by IS specified courts during 1929 1
Cases of dependent and neglected children discharged from
supervision
Duration of supervision
Court
Total
Total cases_________________•
Connecticut: Bridgeport__________
District of Columbia.___________
Indiana: Lake County_____ ___
Minnesota: Ramsey County__
New York:
Buffalo. _____________
Monroe County___A
New York C ity ...
Westchester County________
Ohio:
Cuyahoga County____________
Hamilton County___________
Montgomery County________
Oregon: Multnomah C o u n ty ___
Pennsylvania: Philadelphia_____
2,099
1 year,
18
6
Less
less months, 2 years, 3 years
than 6 months, than
less
less
and Not re
months less
18
than than 3 over ported
than 12 months
2 years
961
739
204
110
41
41
2
7
17
75
1
8
30
2
6
9
11
12
9
11
2
3
24
1,319
1
2
6
754
1
1
1
470
10
67
7
28
158
1
1
59
432
33
82
1
37
6
21
135
6
72
5
55
2
28
2
37
1
23
102
3
3
1 Includes all courts reporting cases of dependent and neglected children discharged from supervision
that served areas with 100,000 or more population in 1920.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
APPENDIX.— COURTS FURNISHING STATISTICAL
MATERIAL FOR 1929
Cards were received from 95 courts in 20 States and the District of Columbia
for the entire calendar year 1929, and tables were prepared by 1 court (Philadel
phia).- The names of these courts with the largest city or town in the area served
by each court are as follows:
Largest city or town m
Alabama:
^
“reserved
Juvenile court of Autauga County------------------------------ Prattville.
Juvenile court of Baldwin County------------------------------ Bay Minette.
Juvenile court of Bullock County------------------------------- Union Springs.
Juvenile court of Calhoun County------------------ &---------Anniston.
Juvenile court of Chambers County--------------- ----------- Lanett.
Juvenile court of Cherokee County----------------- -----------Cedar Bluff.
Juvenile court of Chilton County---------------- - - - ---------- Clanton.
Juvenile court of Clarke County--------------------- -----------Jackson.
Juvenile court of Cleburne County----------------------------- -• Heflin.
Juvenile court of Coosa County------- -------------------------- Goodwater.
Juvenile court of Crenshaw County---------------------------- Luverne.
Juvenile court of Dale County----------------- - - - ------------- Ozark.
Juvenile court of Dallas County--------------------------------- Selma.
Juvenile court of Elmore County-------------------------------- Tallassee.
Juvenile court of Escambia County--------------- ------------ Brewton.
Juvenile court of Etowah County----------- - - ---------------- Gadsden.
Juvenile court of Fayette County------------------------------- Fayette.Juvenile court of Franklin County------------------ - - -------- Russellville.
Juvenile court of Hale County------------------------------------ Greensboro.
Juvenile court of Houston County------------------------------ Dothan.
Juvenile court of Jackson County------------------------------- Bridgeport.
Juvenile court of Lauderdale County------------------------- Florence.
Juvenile court of Lee County------------------------------------- Phénix.
Juvenile court of Limestone County--------------------------- Athens.
Juvenile court of Lowndes County------------------------------Fort Deposit.
Juvenile court of Marengo County---------------- ------------ Demopolis.
Juvenile court of Marshall County
----------------------- Guntersville.
Juvenile court of Mobile County-------------------------------- Mobile.
Juvenile court of Monroe County------------------------------- Monroeville.
Juvenile court of Morgan County------------------- - - J i— Albany.
Juvenile court of Perry County---------------------------------- Marion.
Juvenile court of Pickens County------------------------------- Reform.
Juvenile court of Talladega County---------------------------- Talladega.
Juvenile court of Tallapoosa County--------------------------Alexander City.
Juvenile court of Washington County------------------------- ----------- I
California: Juvenile court of San Diego County------ --------- San Diego.
Connecticut: Juvenile court of the city of Bridgeport.------- .Bridgeport.
District of Columbia: Juvenile court of the District of
Columbia______________________________________________ Washington.
Illinois: Juvenile court of Rock IslandCounty--------------------Rock Island.
Indiana:
-d m
Juvenile court of Clay County------------------------------------ Brazil.
Juvenile court of Lake County----------------------------------- Gary.
Juvenile court of Marion County-------------------------------Indianapolis.
Juvenile court of Monroe County------------------------------- Bloomington.
Juvenile court of Steuben County------------------------------Angola.
Juvenile court of Union County---------------------------------Liberty.
Juvenile court of Yanderburg County------------------------ Evansville.
Iowa: Polk County juvenile court------------------------------------- Des Moines.
Louisiana:
,
Juvenile court of Bossier and Webster Parishes----------Mmden.
Juvenile court of Caddo Parish----------------------------------Shreveport.
Juvenile court, Parish of Ouachita------------- - - - ----------- Monroe.
Michigan: Juvenile court, Kent County---------------------------- Grand Rapids.
60
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
JUVENILE-COURT STATISTICS, 1929
61
Largest city or town in
Minnesota:
area served
Juvenile court of Hennepin County___________________ Minneapolis.
Juvenile court of Ramsey County_______ _____________ St. Paul.
Winona County juvenile court_______________________ Winona.
New Jersey:
Juvenile court of the County of Hudson______________ Jersey City.
Juvenile court of the County of Mercer_______________Trenton.
New York:
Children’s court of Buffalo__________________ ________ Buffalo.
Chemung County children’s court____________________ Elmira.
Columbia County children’s court____________________ Hudson.
Delaware County children’s court_______ _____________ Walton.
Children’s court of Dutchess County_________________ Poughkeepsie.
Erie County children’s court_________________________ Lackawanna.
Monroe County court, children’s divisoli______________Rochester.
Children’s court of the city of New Y ork_____________ New York.
Ontario County court, children’s part_________________Geneva.
Orleans County children’s court______________________ Medina.
Children’s court of Rensselaer County________________ Troy.
Westchester County children’s court_______________ Yonkers.
North Carolina: Juvenile court of Buncombe County_____ Asheville.
North Dakota: District court, third judicial district_______ Wahpeton.
Ohio:
Juvenile court of Auglaize County____ _______________ St. Marys.
Juvenile court of Clark County_______________________Springfield.
Juvenile court, County of Cuyahoga__________________ Cleveland.
Court of cohimon pleas, division of domestic relations,
Franklin County__________________________________ Columbus.
Common-pleas court of Hamilton County, division of
domestic relations, juvenile court, and marital rela
tions ------------------------------------------------------- I_________ Cincinnati.
Juvenile court of Lake County________________ ______ Painesville.
Common-pleas court of Mahoning County, division of
Youngstown.
domestic relations______________
Court of common pleas, division of domestic relations,
Montgomery County______________________________ Dayton.
Juvenile court of Sandusky County___________________Fremont.
Oregon: Court of domestic relations, County of Multnomah. Portland.
Pennsylvania:
Juvenile court of Allegheny County___________________Pittsburgh.
Juvenile court of Lycoming County___ _______________ Williamsport.
Juvenile court of Montgomery County_______________ Norristown.
Municipal court of Philadelphia, juvenile division_____Philadelphia.
South Carolina: Children’s court of Greenville County____ Greenville.
Utah:
Juvenile court, first district1_________________________ Logan.
Juvenile court, second district2__________________ ____ Ógden.
Juvenile court, third district3________________________ Salt Lake City.
Juvenile court, fourth district4_______________________ Provo.
Juvenile court, fifth district5_________________________ Richfield.
Juvenile court, Carbon County_______________________ Price.
Juvenile courts, other counties 6______________ _______ Cedar City.
Virginia:
Juvenile and domestic-relations court of Lynchburg__ Lynchburg.
Juvenile and domestic-relations court of Norfolk__ _ Norfolk.
Washington: Juvenile court of Pierce County____________ Tacoma.
1 Cache, Boxelder, and Rich Counties.
8Weber, Morgan, and Davis Counties.
8 Salt Lake, Summit, and Tooele Counties.
4Utah, Juab, and Wasatch Counties.
8 Piute, Sanpete, Sevier, and Wayne Counties.
• Beaver, Duchesne, Emery, Garfield, Grand, Iron, Kane, Millard, San Juan, Uintah, and Washington
Counties.
o
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
@FedFRASER