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
FRANCES PERKINS. Secretary
CHILDREN’S BUREAU
K ATH AR IN E F. LENROOT. Chief
JUVEN ILE-CO U R T STATISTICS A N D
FEDERAL JUVENILE OFFENDERS
1932
BASED ON INFORMATION SUPPLIED BY 267 JUVENILE
COURTS AND BY THE UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
SIXTH ANNUAL REPORT
t
Bureau Publication No. 226
l i b r a r y
Africuttural &Mechanical College of Texas
Texas.
GOVERNM ENT PRINTIN G OFFICE
W ASHIN GTON : 1935
For sale by the Superintendent of Document*. Washington, D . C.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Price 10 cent*
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
CONTENTS
♦
Page
Development of statistical reporting_______________________
The cooperating courts_______________________________
State-wide reporting__________________________________
Statistics of Federal juvenile offenders_________________
Juvenile-court statistics_______ » _________________________ "]
Juvenile-delinquency rates____________________________
Trends in general delinquency rates_______________
Delinquency rates and age jurisdiction of the court
Delinquency rates and race_______________________
Trends in delinquency cases___________________________
Number of cases disposed of__ !___________________
Sex and age of children___________________________
Home conditions_________________________________
Reason for reference to court_____________________
Place of care pending hearing or disposition_______
Disposition of cases______________________________
Trends in dependency and neglect cases_______________
Number of cases disposed of_________ .____________
Ages of children_________________________________
Home conditions________________________________
Disposition of cases____________________________
Delinquency cases reported in 1932____________________
Sex and age of children___________________________
Color and nativity_____________________________
Home conditions______________________________
Source of reference to c o u rt.__________________ _
Reason for reference to court_____________________
Previous court experience_________________________
Place of care pending hearing or disposition____ ! . .
Disposition of cases___________________________
Dependency and neglect cases reported in 1932._I I I I I I
Sex and age of children___________________________
Color and nativity_______ __________________
Home conditions______________________________
Source of reference to court_____________________
Reason for reference to court___________________
Place of care pending hearing or disposition_______
Disposition of cases______________________ ;_____
Other types of children’s cases_________________ I I I I I I I
Cases of children discharged from supervision________
Federal juvenile offenders_________________________
Program of the United States Department of Justice___
Statistical data available____________________
Indications as to trends______________________
Cases reported in 6 months, July to December 1932__ "
Number of cases__________________________
Geographical distribution________________________
Sex and age of children______________________
Race_______________________________~
State of home residence___________
Offense_____________________________
~~ I ”
Period between arrest and disposition________I I I I I
Release prior to final disposition_____
Bail______________
Place of detention______________________
Length of detention_________________________
Disposition of cases________________ IIIIIII]
Term of probation________________ I I I IIII IIII
Term of commitment to juvenile in s titu tio n s 1 1 . II]
Term of sentence to jails and other penal institutions
Source tables_______________
1
1
3
4
5
5
5
8
9
13
13
15
16
17
19
21
23
23
24
25
25
27
27
29
30
32
32
34
35
37
40
40
41
42
44
44
45
45
46
47
49
49
49
50
51
51
52
57
58
58
59
61
63
64
67
69
70
75
75
75
77
in
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
JUVENILE-COURT STATISTICS AND FEDERAL
JUVENILE OFFENDERS, 1932
DEVELOPMENT OF STATISTICAL REPORTING
The report on juvenile-court statistics for 1932 is the sixth annual
report based on data supplied by courts cooperating with the Chil
dren’s Bureau in furnishing statistical information. During 1932
progress was made in the number of courts reporting and in the
development of State-wide reporting. Since 1931 the Children’s
Bureau has been cooperating with the Bureau of Prisons of the United
States Department of Justice in the development of methods of dealing
with juvenile offenders who violate Federal laws and come to the
attention of Federal authorities. Statistical information for the year
1932 concerning these juveniles, compiled from records on file in the
Bureau of Prisons, are presented, for the first time, as part of this
report.
The fifth annual report1 discussed in some detail the material pre
sented on children involved in delinquency and dependency cases,
the methods of detention, reasons for reference of the child to the
court, and the dispositions made by the court. In this report tables
showing these items will be presented with only brief comment. The
section on trends in delinquency, on the other hand, will be presented
more fully, for the purpose of showing such significant variations as
may be revealed, not only in delinquency rates but also in such items
as age, race, reason for reference, and action taken by the courts.
Similar material on trend is presented for the first time for cases of
dependency and neglect.
THE COOPERATING COURTS
For the calendar year 1932 reports were received from all the courts
in three States (Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Utah); from 38
courts in New York, serving 90 percent of the population of that
State; from 48 courts in 20 other States; and from the District of
Columbia. The total number of courts reporting on an individual
or State-wide basis was 267. Massachusetts and New York (incom
plete) were added to the reporting area during the year. Twentyfive courts serving areas of 100,000 or more population2 and 76 serving
smaller areas were added from these two States. Thirteen courts
serving areas of less than 100,000 population discontinued reporting.
Reports for the 6-year period 1927 to 1932 have been received from
18 courts serving areas of 100,000 or more population,3 and 12 other
courts have reported consecutively from 1928 or 1929 to 1932. These
1Juvenile-Court Statistics, 1931. U.S. Children’s Bureau Publication No. 222. Washington, 1933
1Includes 8 courts serving the city of Boston, not all of which served areas of 100,000 population
3 Previous reports showed this group as 19 courts; 2 courts—those of Buffalo and Erie County, N. Y —have
been consolidated into a single court.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
2
DEVELOPMENT OF STATISTICAL REPORTING
courts form the basis for much of the discussion of trends in
delinquency rates and other items.
.
Included in the 267 courts cooperating on an individual or State
wide basis are 68 serving areas of 100,000 or more population, of
which 33 reported on an individual basis and 35 on the State-wide
system; and 199 courts serving areas of less than 100,000, of which
16 reported on an individual basis and 183 on the State-wide system.
It is estimated that these courts serve areas including about 28 percent
of the population of the United States.
Information for 1932 was obtained from the courts reporting for
65,274 delinquency cases, 23,235 dependency or neglect cases, and
1,171 children’s cases of other types. Reports were also received
concerning 18,737 cases of children who had been discharged from
probation or supervision during the year. More detailed informa
tion was submitted by the courts reporting on an individual basis
than by courts reporting as part of a State-wide plan. (See p. 3.)
The former group with one exception (Philadelphia) filled out an
individual card for each case reported, so that it was possible to make
correlations between two or more of the items reported; for example,
the age of the child and the reason for reference to the court, or the
age of the child and the place of care pending hearing. The courts
included in State-wide reporting plans furnished the State department
responsible for collecting the information with summary tables, which
did not show extensive correlations.
For each year of the 6-year period during which the plan for pro
moting and assembling uniform statistics has been in operation, the
number of courts cooperating, the percentage of the total population
served by these courts, and the number of States represented are
shown in table 1, and the number of cases of various types reported
are shown in table 2.
T able 1.— Number of courts included in a State-wide system of reporting, and number
of individual courts reporting, that served areas with 100,000 or more and with less
than 100,000 population according to the 1980 census, and percentage of population
served; 1927—82
Courts reporting
Included in State-wide
system
Total
Serving areas
with—
Serving areas
with—
Year
Number
States of popu
Number ofrepre
lation
sented 1 served
243
1928 ........................
1929..........................
1930 ................ ........
1Q31
Individually
_________
1932..........................
65
96
92
169
267
16
17
21
24
24
25
15
17
18
20
22
28
Total
7
7
8
97
»218
100,000 Less than
or more 100,000
popula popula
tion
tion
1
1
1
4
35
6
6
7
93
183
Total
100,000 Less than
or more 100,000
popula popula
tion
tion
»43
58
89
84
72
49
i Includes the District of Columbia.
r
, —
^
^ . . .
s Includes the District of Columbia; cards received after tabulations were completed
* includes New York State courts serving 90 percent of the total population of that state.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
»27
31
33
36
39
33
16
27
56
48
33
16
3
DEVELOPMENT OF STATISTICAL REPORTING
T able 2.— Number of cases of each specified type reported by cooperating courts;
1927-82
Year
1927...............................
1928.................................
1929............................
1930...............................
1931............................
1932..........................
Total
49,562
65,600
75,610
82,963
100,669
108,417
Delin
quency
Depend
ency and
neglect
Children
discharged
from su
pervision
12,552
16,289
18,805
20,711
22,317
23,235
6,647
10,429
10,493
* 7,562
17,356
18,737
30,363
38,882
46,312
53,757
59,880
65,274
Special
proceed
ings 1
933
1,116
1,171
i Special-proceedings cases were not reported prior to 1930. They include cases of petitions for commit
ment of feeble-minded children, adoption cases, controversies regarding custody of a child, children held as
material witnesses, and certain other types.
* Exclusive of New York City, for which a complete report was not available.
STATE-WIDE REPORTING
Twenty-nine States 4 have made some provision, by statute, for
reporting juvenile-court statistics through a State department of
welfare or some other State agency concerned with juvenile-court
and probation work. In a few other States some interest in develop
ing State-wide reporting has been shown from time to time. Very
few State departments, however, have the personnel required for
statistical and promotional service in this field. In some of the
States with legal provision for reporting, the statute is practically
inoperative. When the Children’s Bureau, therefore, initiated its
plan for collection of juvenile-court statistics it was necessary to deal
with individual courts, enlisting their cooperation in reporting: directlv
to the Bureau.
From the beginning, however, the cooperation of State agencies
was sought, and the ultimate development of State reporting systems
that would function in harmony with a national plan was recognized
as an important objective. State welfare departments and other
State agencies cooperated cordially with the Children’s Bureau in
calling the plan to the attention of judges and probation officers in an
endeavor to harmonize with the national plan their own requirements
for monthly and annual reports from courts and probation officers.
As the program developed, the expense of direct national contact
with small courts having only a few children’s cases during the year
came to be disproportionately great, and the cooperation of State
departments in reaching these courts was recognized as essential.
Simple forms, calling for fewer items than those furnished by the
larger courts, were drawn up for use of State departments. Under
this plan the courts usually submit monthly reports to the State
agency, which summarizes them and furnishes the Children’s Bureau
with an annual report for each court in the State. The policy was
adopted of gradually limiting direct reports to the Children’s Bureau
to courts serving areas of 100,000 or more population. The 18
courts serving areas of small populations which discontinued reporting
m 1931 and the 13 courts serving areas of small populations which
discontinued reporting in 1932 were dropped in accordance with this
policy.
t ~Alv,banJa’
4 f k» ? sas’ California, Colorado, Connecticut, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky,
(P?rt)> Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New York
B S ^ S ^ a i w ^ V 2 S 2 i a 0iaah0ma’ Pe^
anla’ Rb°*>
SoutE Carolina ( p f i
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
4
DEVELOPMENT OF STATISTICAL REPORTING
Because of its centralized plan of juvenile-court administration
through a State juvenile-court commission, Utah has been able since
1928 to furnish reports for the entire State. Through field service to
State departments in the development of State reporting plans, it
has been possible to add Connecticut, Massachusetts (delinquency
cases only), and New York (reports covering 90 percent of the
population) to the State-reportmg areas. Encouraging progress
toward State-wide reporting in Alabama was interrupted by the
assignment of county child-welfare workers to emergency relief
administration. Early in 1934 definite arrangements were completed
for the inclusion of Indiana through cooperative plans developed with
the State probation department, in which the University of Indiana
is also interested. New Jersey is experimenting with State-wide
reporting for 1933. Considerable service has been given to other
States, looking toward the development of State-reporting plans.
The gradual extension of these State systems throughout the country
in accordance with a uniform plan would afford a foundation for
Nation-wide statistics on an inclusive rather than a representative or
sample basis.
STATISTICS OF FEDERAL JUVENILE OFFENDERS
The Bureau of Prisons of the United States Department of Justice
maintains a current “ juvenile index file” made up from reports of
juvenile cases dealt with by Federal authorities throughout the
country. From the cards in this file tabulations have been made by
the Children’s Bureau for all cases of persons under 19 years of age
disposed of during the period July 1 to December 31, 1932, showing
age, sex, race, reason for apprehension, release, detention pending
trial, disposition of the case, and certain other items. These cases
are not included in the statistics obtained from juvenile courts in the
States, unless Federal jurisdiction is waived and arrangements are
made for these juvenile offenders to be dealt with under State law in
their home communities.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
JUVENILE-COURT STATISTICS
JUVENILE DELINQUENCY RATES
Trends in general delinquency rates
In 1931 a definite drop in delinquency rates (number of delinquent
children referred to the juvenile court per 10,000 children of juvenilecourt age and of the same sex) was reported for the 18 courts reporting
from 1927 to 1932 for both boys and girls, following a period of grad
ually diminishing increase in the rates. In 1932 delinqqency rates
continued to decrease. The juvenile delinquency rate for boys in
that year was identical with the rate in the first year of the period
(1927), and the delinquency rate for girls was lower in 1932 than in
1927. For 25 courts reporting for a 5-year period, 1928 to 1932, and
for 30 courts reporting for a 4-year period, 1929 to 1932, the trends
are similar. The figures are shown in table 3.
T able 3.— Juvenile delinquency rates per 10,000 boys and girls of juvenile-court
age dealt with by courts serving areas with 100,000 or more population in 1930,
reporting throughout specified periods
Juvenile delinquency rates
Year
18 courts reporting
1927-32
Boys
1929....... ........................................................
1930................................................................
1931................................................................
1932................................................................
i Only 17 courts reported girls’ cases.
162
174
183
184
172
162
Girls«
31
33
34
34
30
25
25 courts reporting
1928-32
Boys
164
172
170
159
149
Girls*
32
34
33
29
25
30 courts reporting
1929-32
Boys
177
177
166
154
Girls
38
37
32
28
* Only 24 courts reported girls’ cases.
Juvenile delinquency rates are given in table 4 for 42 court sserving
areas of 100,000 or more population that reported in 1932, the highest
rate for each court being in bold-face italics. The trend for 30 of
these courts reporting for 4 years follows in general that of the
smaller group of 18 courts reporting for 4 years or more, but great
variations are shown in the trends for individual courts. Twentysix of the 39 courts reporting for both years had lower boys’ delin
quency rates in 1932 than in 1931, 15 having decreases sufficient to be
statistically significant.1 Thirteen had higher rates, but in only four
was the difference great enough to be statistically significant.2 Com•Decreases statistically significant: San Diego County, Calif.; Lake County, Ind.; Orleans Parish, La.:
Wayne County, Mich.; Hennepin County, Minn.; Hudson and Mercer Counties, N.J.; Erie, Monroe, and
Rensselaer Counties, N.Y.; Franklin County, Ohio; Multnomah County, Oreg.; Allegheny County and
Philadelphia, Pa.; third district of Utah. Decreases not statistically significant: Mobile County, Ala.;
District of Columbia; Dade County, Fla.; Fulton County, Ga.; Syracuse and Westchester County,
N.Y.; Montgomery County, Ohio; Fayette County, Pa.; Greenville County, S.C.; Pierce County, Wash.;
Milwaukee County, Wis.
■
_ ■ ■
_
,
i increases statistically significant: Marion County, Ind.; Ramsey County, Minn.; Mahoning County,
Ohio; Norfolk, Va. Increases not statistically significant: San Francisco County, Calif.; Bridgeport,
Conn.; Polk County, Iowa; Baltimore, Md.; Kent County, Mich.; New York, N .Y.; Hamilton County,
Ohio; Montgomery County, Pa.; Spokane, Wash.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
6
JUYENILE-COTJRT STATISTICS, 1932
T able 4.— Juvenile delinquency rates per 10,000 boys and girls of juvenile-court
age dealt with by courts serving areas with 100,000 or more population in 1980;
1927-82 1
Girls
Boys
Area served by court
1927
1928
California:
1929
1930
1932
1932
95
86
35
22
14
7
454
74
392
75
103
82
95
24
73
22
50
65
72
60
49
79
52
47
50
79
63
70
64
73
58
47
41
49
75
52
67
82
52
76
■87
37
8S
100
71
77
81
41
54
57
38
43
56
30
32
(»)
19.
33
46
17
34
39
29
22
32
17
33
15
276
265
District o Columbia______
417
409
361
417
337
308
306
430
414
311
301
Indiana:
Lake County_________
Marion County_______
141
181
133
150
327
57
186
325
100
146
252
82
113
202
49
168
217
, (2>
185
181
309
(3)
170
347
173
143
352
155
183
152
176
138
181
121
Minnesota:
Hennepin C ounty.___
Ramsey County______
New Jersey:
Hudson County______
Mercer County_______
New York:
Erie-County_________
1931
123
270
168
1930
1929
501
258
387
448
Maryland: Baltimore (city).
Michigan:
1928
484
293
420
427
Louisiana:
1927
143
143
Connecticut:
Bridgeport (city)_____
1931
13
31
(’)
164
96
178
109
167
108
163
138
188
106
148
126
42
27
50
30
42
33
41
28
41
36
32
23
206
106
218
143
219
219
232
210
206
198
121
131
29
11
39
12
40
10
- 36
13
26
26
20
16
139
157
40
122
209
85
41
114
115
125
59
11
14
13
16
18
12
12
.20
48
16
10
19
43
35
30
27
iü
15
9
16
37
10
11
8
5
14
18
4
12
65
64
108
97
76
59
116
113
88
‘ 58
105
115
85
‘ 50
104
117
75
‘ 42
79
90
63
52
46
43
33
13
11
8
5
13
10
10
7
3
1
New York (city)______
83
148
52
115
146
58
124
177
Westchester County__
Ohio:
Franklin County_____
203
164
154
100
166
53
110
162
146
69
190
230
438
161
201
477
127
80
244
489
182
<89
248
496
132
‘ 82
294
444
121
‘ 66
304
497
107
221
283
310
218
70
61
51
19
72
40
18
23
20
36
15
27
44
27
10
30
6
5
4
5
4
4
320
287
42
43
48
51
47
42
93
16
41
115
17
59
113
15
88
98
12
65
96
8
60
113
16
20
22
17
. . 57
25
59
‘ 21
54
68
68
78
Mahoning County____
O r e g o n f M u lt n o m a h
Pennsylvania:
Montgomery County . .
Philadelphia (city and
county). ---------------South Carolina: Greenville
Virginia: Norfolk (city)____
Washington:
Pierce C o u n ty ............
Wisconsin:
289
280
320
342
60
• 252
398
467
78
258
533
56
261
470
55
320
422
46
271
507
76
58
80
342
50
324
‘ 49
333
......
254
370
368
61
Milwaukee
1 Courts reporting in 1932 that reported 2 or more years during the period 1927-32. The highest delin
quency rate of each court is shown in bold-face italic type.
> Rate not computed, as number of colored delinquent children was not reported.
* Rate not computed, as the ages of the majority of boys and girls were not reported.
‘ Based on official cases only, as unofficial cases were not reported in previous years. U ;
,
.•
.....
.
uS'.'fo .
•.
parison of the 1932 rates for 38 areas which began reporting before
1931 (1927 to 1930) with the rates for the earliest years for which
figures are available shows that 24 of the 38 areas had lower rates in
1932, and 14 had higher rates. For 19 areas the 1932 boys’ delin-
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
JUVENILE-COURT STATISTICS, 1932
7
quency rate was lower than either the rate for 1931 or that for the
earliest year reported, and for 9 it was higher.3
Delinquency rates for girls were lower in 1932 than in 1931 for 32
of the 39 areas reporting in both years, and for 15 the decreases were
statistically significant.4 Seven areas had higher rates in 1932 than
in 1931, and in one of these the increase was statistically significant.6
Comparison of the 1932 rate with the rate for the earliest year (1927
1928, 1929, or 1930) for which figures were available shows that 27 of
the 38 areas reporting before 1931 had a lower delinquency rate for
girls in 1932 than in the earliest year reported, 9 had a higher rate,
and 2 had the same rate. The 1932 rate for 23 areas was lower than
either the rate in 1931 or that in the earliest year reported; for 3 areas
it was higher.®
Among the 18 courts reporting continuously from 1927 to 1932, the
year in which the highest delinquency rate for boys occurred was as
follows:
1927— 3 courts (Lake County, Ind.; Westchester County, N .Y .; Franklin
County, Ohio).
1928— 1 court (District of Columbia).
1929— 4 courts (Marion County, Ind.; Mercer County, N.J.; New York
City; Norfolk, Va.).
1930— 5 courts (Ramsey County, Minn.; Hudson County, N.J.; Mont
gomery County and Philadelphia, Pa.; Pierce County, Wash.).
1931— 2 courts (Hennepin County, Minn.; Erie County, N.Y.).
1932— 3 courts (Bridgeport, Conn.; Hamilton and Mahoning Counties,
Ohio).
The peak year of the delinquency rate for girls was not always the
same as that for the boys. The years of highest rates for girls for
the 17 courts reporting continuously throughout the period 1927-32
are as follows:
1927— 3 courts (Westchester County, N .Y .; Franklin County, Ohio;
Montgomery County, Pa.).
1928— 3 courts (Bridgeport, Conn.; Hennepin County, Minn.; Norfolk,
Va.).
1928 and 1929— 1 court (District of Columbia— rate same for both years).
1929— 3 courts (Marion County, Ind..; Hudson County, N.J.; New York
City).
1930— 3 courts (Lake County, Ind.; Erie County, N .Y .; Philadelphia,
Pa.).
1931— 4 courts (Ramsey County, Minn.; Mercer County, N.J.; Mahoning
County, Ohio; Pierce County, Wash.).
* In 4 of the 18 areas having lower rates in 1932 than in both the earliest year reported and in 1931, the
difference between the earliest year and 1932 was sufficient to be statistically significant, whereas the dif
ference between 1931 and 1932 was not (Mobile County, Ala.; Fulton County, Ga.; Westchester County,
N.Y.; Montgomery County, Ohio). In 3 other areas (Hennepin County, Minn.; Multnomah County,
Oreg., and Philadelphia) the reverse was true, the difference between 1931 and 1932 being statistically
significant and that between 1932 and the earliest year not important. In the remaining 11 areas there were
similar differences for the 2 periods.
In 4 of the 9 areas having higher rates in 1932 than in both 1931 and the earliest year in which the court
cooperated (Baltimore city; New York City; Hamilton County, Ohio; and Montgomery County, Pa.)
the difference between the earliest year and 1932 was statistically significant, whereas that between 1931 and
1932 was not. In Norfolk, Va., the difference between 1931 and 1932 was significant but not so the difference
between 1927 and 1932. For the other 4 areas the differences were similar for the 2 periods.
* San Diego County, Calif.; District of Columbia; Marion County, Ind.; Hennepin and Ramsey Coun
ties, Minn.; Hudson County, N.J.; Erie County, Monroe County, New York City, Rensselaer County,
and Syracuse, N .Y.; Hamilton and Mahoning Counties, Ohio; Montgomery County and Philadelphia,
* Milwaukee County, Wis.
6 In 7 of the 23 areas having lower rates in 1932 than in both the earliest year reported and 1931 the differ
ence between the earliest year and 1932 was sufficient to be statistically significant, whereas the difference
between 1931 and 1932 was not. (Mobile County, Ala.; Fulton County, Ga.; Lake County, Ind.; Polk
County, Iowa; Wayne County, Mich.; Franklin County, Ohio; Multnomah County, Oreg.). In 2 areas
(Ramsey County, Minn., and Erie County, N.Y.) the reverse was true, the difference between 1931 and 1932
being significant and that between 1927 and 1932 not so important. In the remaining 14 areas similar differ
ences held for the 2 periods. Of the 3 areas having higher rates in 1932 than in both the earliest year in which
the court cooperated and 1931 the differences in Baltimore and Norfolk were not significant in either period.
In Milwaukee County, Wis., they were significant in both periods.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
8
JUVENILE-COURT STATISTICS, 1932
Variations in delinquency rates may be due to change in personnel
or in the policy of the juvenile court and may not reflect a true change
in the size of the community’s juvenile-delinquency problem. In 2 7of
the 18 courts reporting throughout the period a new judge took office
in 1932. Other conditions also influence the rates, such, for example,
as the absorption of parents and social workers in problems of unem
ployment relief, curtailment in school-attendance services, or lenient
policies in the enforcement of school attendance because of extreme
deprivation in the homes of the children. Unquestionably there is
variation from year to year in the point of view of administrative
officials and of the general public as to the types of children who
should be taken before the juvenile court, either for their own protec
tion or in the public interest.
Delinquency rates and age jurisdiction of the court
Delinquency rates, based on cases dealt with by the courts, vary
widely from community to community, as table 4 shows. In 1932 the
highest delinquency rate for boys in the group of 42 courts was 507,
in Norfolk, Va., and the lowest was 10, m Fayette County (Uniontown), Pa. Delinquency rates for girls ranged from 113 in Norfolk,
Va., to 1 in Montgomery County (Norristown), Pa.
Many factors, such as the population and character of the area
served, administrative policies, and public attitudes, are responsible
for these variations. One factor of some, though not the predominat
ing, influence is the age jurisdiction of the juvenile court. Twentythree of the 42 courts serving areas with populations of 100,000 and
more that reported in 1932 had jurisdiction over children who had
passed their sixteenth birthday.8 Table 5 shows the 1932 delin
quency rates for children from 7 to 15 years of age for all 42 areas and
for all children within the courts’ jurisdiction for areas served by
courts having jurisdiction over children 16 years of age and over.
Norfolk, Va., had the highest rates for both boys and girls, when ali
ages were included, but its rate for boys was exceeded in two areas,
Mahoning County, Ohio, and Hartford, Conn., when comparisons
were confined to cases of boys under 16. It still had the highest delin
quency rate for girls when age differences were eliminated, though the
rate was considerably lower for the younger age group than for the
total.
7 Ramsey Comity, Minn., and Erie County, N.Y.
* Includes 2 with jurisdiction over 16 years of age extending only to girls.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
9
JUVENILE-COURT STATISTICS, 1932
T able 5.— Ag§ limit of original court jurisdiction and juvenile delinquency rates
per 10,000 boys and girls o f juvenile-court age dealt with by courts serving areas
with 100,000 or more population in 1930; 1932
Delinquímcy rates
Area served by court
Age under
which ju
venile court
has original
jurisdiction
Courts with jurisdiction beyond 16th birthday:
California:
San Diego County__________________
San Francisco County_______________
District of Columbia_____ ______________
Florida: Dade County____ _____________
Indiana:
Lake County.........................................
Marion County_____________________
Iowa: Polk County... _ .................
Louisiana:
Caddo Parish........... .............. ..............
Orleans Parish________________ _____
Michigan:
Kent County_______________________
Wayne County_____________________
Minnesota:
Hennepin C ou n ty ..._______________
Ramsey County____________________
Ohio:
Franklin County___________________
Hamilton County___________________
Mahoning County______ ___________
Montgomery County_______________
Oregon: Multnomah County____________
Utah: Third district....................................
Virginia: Norfolk (city)..............................
Washington:
Pierce County_____ ________________
Spokane County____________________
Wisconsin: Milwaukee County__________
Courts with jurisdiction under 16 only:
Alabama: Mobile C ou n ty.........................
Connecticut:
Bridgeport (city)____________ _______
Hartford (city)______________________
Georgia: Fulton County________________
Maryland: Baltimore (city)_____________
New Jersey:
Hudson County____________________
Mercer County....... ...............................
New York:
Erie County__________ ______ _______
Monroe County_______ ______ ______
New York (city)____________________
Rensselaer County_____ ____ ________
Syracuse (city).......................................
Westchester County________________
Pennsylvania:
Allegheny County__________________
Berks County______________________
Fayette C ou n ty ..._______ __________
Montgomery County_______ ________
Philadelphia (city and county)___ _
South Carolina: Greenville County
1Age jurisdiction under 16 years (or boys.
Boys
7 to 15
years
21
21
17
17
312
54
372
295
118
118
18
49
168
199
17
17
Girls
7 to upper
age limit,
16 and over
7 to 15
years
7 to upper
age limit,
16 and over
392
75
414
311
48
16
41
69
73
22
49
75
217
31
35
44
38
43
56
135
132
173
143
37
14
46
17
17
17
152
104
181
121
27
12
33
15
18
18
91
87
148
126
17
15
32
23
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
>45
225
391
79
165
194
390
>66
304
497
107
218
271
507
>29
48
60
46
24
41
83
*42
79
90
63
33
60
113
18
18
18
>33
218
271
>49
333
368
» 17
32
48
* 21
54
78
(0
(*)
16
86
7
16
16
16
16
306
430
301
352
47
41
52
34
16
16
121
131
20
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
85
41
114
115
125
59
14
18
4
12
16
16
16
16
16
16
44
27
10
30
287
46
10
7
3
1
42
8
s
¡Based on official cases only.
Delinquency rates and race
Delinquency rates are generally much higher for Negro children
than for white children. Delinquency rates for all boys were more
than 20 percent above the delinquency rates for white boys in 12 of
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
10
JUVENILE-COURT STATISTICS, 1932
the 25 areas 9for which rates for white and Negro boys were computed
separately.10 In the District of Columbia, where 27 percent of the
population was Negro, the rate for all boys was 68 percent higher than
the rate for white boys. In Fulton County, Ga., where 31 percent o f
the population was Negro, the rate for all boys exceeded the rate for
white boys by 67 percent. Delinquency rates for all girls were more
than 20 percent higher than delinquency rates for white girls in all
but 2 (Montgomery County, Pa., and Greenville County, S.C.) of
these 12 areas and in 2 other areas (New York City and Westchester
County, N .Y.). In 11 of the 13 areas in which the rate for all boys
was less than 20 percent higher than the rate for white boys, the
Negro population comprised less than 10 percent of the total popula
tion. (Table 6.)
T a b l e § .—r Percentage of Negroes in the total population in 1930, and juvenile
delinquency rates per 10,000 white and Negro boys and girls o f juvenile-court age
dealt with by courts serving areas with 100,000 or more total population and 10,000
or more Negro population in 1980; 1932
Delinquency ratés
Area served by court
Alabama: Mobile C o u n t y _________ ii___
District of Columbia____________________
Florida: Dade: County...¿¡11_______ £1____
Georgia: Fulton County.... .........................
Indiana:
Lake County. ______________________
Marion County____ ¿'i_________. . . ___
Louisiana:
. Caddo Parish_______ A ______________
Orleans Parish_________________ _____
Maryland: Baltimore (city)..........................
Michigan: Wayne County................i _____
New Jersey:
Hudson County_____________ ________
Mercer County___________ _____ _____
New York:
Erie County______ ___________ ¿ i.......
New York (city)_______________ _____
Westchester County_____________I.......
Ohio:
Franklin County____________________
Hamilton County______ i _______ ____ _
Mahoning County.................. ................
Montgomery County__________ ______
Pennsylvania::
Allegheny County___________________
Fayette County____________ _________
Montgomery County_________ _______
Philadelphia (city and cou n ty )..._____
South Carolina: Greenville County_______
Virginia: Norfolk (city)................ ................
Percent of
Negroes
in total
popula
tion
Boys
Girls
Total
White
Negro
35.7
27.1
20.9
31.3
86
414
311
301
71
246
289
180
119
,837
394
551
7.
49
75
53
9.1
10.6
49
168
45
128
115
519
38
. 43
45.8
28.3
17.7
7.0
173
143
352
121
163
102
264
106
184
351
834
384
46
17
34
15
2.3
6.4
121
131
116
115
366
403
2.1
4.7
4.4
85
114
59
80
108
55
9.9
9.4
7.4
1 6.7
166
304
497
107
6.1
5.3
4.7
11.3
23.8
33.9
44
10
30
287
46
507
Total
White
Negro
1 ,
. 23
78
25
16
107
65
103
35
29
91
154
45
8
23
13
47
39
83
54
20
16
19
14
82
44
342
282
181
8
14
13
,7
11
9
43
86
94
146
244
474
97
1260
878
884
255
142
79
90
63
29
62
83
60
1153
226
193
105
38
9
24
234
37
377
159
19
157
760
76
787
10
3
1
42
8
113
9
3
1
29
10
83
32
,
•
148
169
1Based on official cases only.
Delinquency rates of 400 or more among boys were found in four
areas, three with more than 10,000 Negro population (District of
Columbia; Mahoning County, Ohio; and Norfolk, Va.), and one
with less than 10,000 Negro population (Hartford, Conn.). In the
District of Columbia and in Norfolk, Va., the rate for white boys was
» Mobile County, Ala.; District of Columbia; Fulton County, Ga.; Marion County, Ind.; Orleans Parish
La.; Baltimore, M d.; Franklin and Hamilton Counties, Ohio; Montgomery County and Philadelphia
Pa.; Greenvilie County, S.C.; and Norfolk, Va.
io Areas having 10,000 or more Negro population in 1930.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Il
JUVENILE-COURT STATISTICS, Ì932
A
much lower than the rate for all boys, but in Mahoning County, Ohio,
the rate for white boys was nearly as high as the rate for all boys (474
white, 497 total). _ __ ___
In all areas the rate for Negro boys was higher than the rate for
white boys, sometimes four or more times as high; but in one area
(Dade County, Fla.) the rate ,for Negro girls was somewhat lower
than the rate for white girls. In some areas the community takes
relatively little cognizance of problems of sexual misconduct among
Negro girls, and the extent to which such problems are ignored affects
the delinquency rate. The ratios of delinquency rates for Negro boys
to white boys and for Negro girls to white girls in 1932 are shown for
25 areas in table 7.
The general trend in delinquency rates for Negro children appears
to be similar to the trends in rates for all children and in rates for
white children. For 14 areas with 100,000 or more total population
including 10,000 or more Negro population in 1930 that reported
throughout the period 1927 to 1932, the rate for both Negro boys and
Negro girls was somewhat lower in 1932 than in any previous year,
as is shown in table 8. The rates for white and Negro children in 19
areas reporting for 1932 and at least 3 years immediately preceding
(1929 to 1931) are shown in table 9.
T able 7.—-Ratio of delinquency rates for Negro boys to white boys and for Negro
girls to white girls dealt with by courts serving areas of 100,000 or more total popu
lation and 10,000 ór more Négro population in 1980; 1982
Boys
Area served by court
Alabama: Mobile County..
District of Columbia______
Florida: Dade' County__ JL
Georgia: Fulton Chanty.—
Indiana:
Lake County_________
Marion County-____ JL
Louisiana:
Caddo Parish...!______.
Orleans Parish..!____ JJ
Maryland: Baltimore (city)
Michigan: Wayne County!
'New Jersey:
Hudson County_______
Mercer County..'____ Z.
Girls
■ Area served by court
1.7
3.4
1.4
3.1
16.0
4.7
.8
4.1
2.6
4.1
2.6
5.3
1» 1
2.5
3.2
3.6
1.0
4.9
3.6
4.2
3.2
3i«5
4.3
3.1 *
Boys
New Y o rk :!
>•
Erie County_____ sLiiststxiiA.
New York (c it y )...................
Westchester C o u n t y . . . ____
Ohio:
Franklin County___________
Hamilton C ou n ty ...— — . . .
Mahoning County_____ i j ù Montgomery County— ___ _
Pennsylvania:
Allegheny County...............
Fayette County....................
Philadelphia (city and count y ) .. . . . . . .................... .
South Carolina: Greenville Coun-
Virginia: Norfolk (city)-—— ! —
Girls
4.3
2.6
3.3.
61
7.8
10.4
5.7
3.6
1.9
2.6
5.3
3. 6
2.3
1.8
4.2
2.1
6. 5
3.6
3.2
5.1
2.1
2.1
2.0
T able 8.—-Juvenile delinquency rates per 10,000 white and Negro boys and girls of
juvenile-court age dealt with by courts serving areas with 100,000 or more popula. tipn and 10,000 or more Negro population in 1980, that reported through specified
periods
;
. liv.
k
;v
___i f
iliii
*
Juvenile ¡delinquency rates
19 courts reporting 1929-32
14 courts reporting 1927-32
Year
f' ■!-
;\:
:
Boys
White
■: Negro
139
152
1929........................... .........159
.... 161
1930............................
’ : 148
1931........................—
•
'
138
1932............................
i Only 13 courts reported girls’ cases.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
vj
566
6Ò7
614
604
575
559
Guis*..........
W hite- ; Negro
23
26
27
27
22
18-
3
141
135
139
135
125
- Ì17
; — vjtsoys
Ji ;
White
White
Negro
149
515
- 148 ........502
, 136
475
126
■ ,467
y ins
29
28
23
20:
Negro
128
130
118
104
12
JUVENILE-COURT STATISTICS, 1932
T able 9.— Juvenile delinquency rates per 10,000 white and Negro boys and girls of
juvenile-court age dealt with by courts serving areas with 100,000 or more total
population and 10,000 or more Negro population in 1980; 1927-82 1
1927
1928
1930
1929
1931
1932
%
o
S
©o
z
©
2
*
z
oH
bfl
©
©
2
►
z
o
&>
©
©
2
%
z
©
©
43
2
p
z
o
S
©o
©
2
Alabama: Mobile County..
District of Columbia___ . . .
234
922
275
892
112
265
205
808
91
229
189
866
Georgia: Fulton County__
Indiana:
Lake County_________
Marion County_______
Louisiana:
Caddo P arish..............
220
644
70
239
339
184
149
865
332
554
71
246
289
180
119
837
394
551
139
154
189
422
126
119
256
421
54
139
115
601
97
114
160
420
77
87
172
347
45
128
115
519
277
(»)
240
125
206
154
244
139
672
392
(*)
112
285
122
(»)
328
689
414
163
102
264
106
184
251
834
384
Area served by court
©
2
S3
o
Ü
bo
©
z
Boys
Maryland: Baltimore (city).
Michigan: Wayne County.
New Jersey:
Hudson County______
Mercer County_______
New York:
Erie County........... ......
New York (city)______
Westchester County__
Ohio:
Franklin County_____
Hamilton County_____
Mahoning County____
Montgomery C ounty..
Pennsylvania:
Allegheny County........
197
97
698
270
211
134
627
306
211
193
658
690
225
183
632
694
198
184
635
441
116
115
366
403
137
79
196
194
170
404
147
108
153
299
342
486
142
116
144
468
377
456
153
113
94
406
384
273
160
102
67
559
342
147
80
108
55
342
282
181
154
179
411
589
776
935
133 435
172 509
443 1,105
105 464
<67 <225
238 834
415 888
106 343
<46
244
474
97
<260
878
884
255
65
216
64
198
56
148
14
136
23
40
19
52
30
193
44
14
25
184
30
100
38
9
24
159
19
157
245
761
238
713
269
809
295
788
269
788
234
760
345
712
52
284
86
630
75
394
85
817
48
331
81
756
44
327
90
623
37
377
76
787
District of Columbia..........
30
171
35
182
29
39
45
169
15
20
33
160
35
135
10
21
72
31
19
160
78
109
1
23
78
25
Indiana:
Lake County_________
Marion County_______
Louisiana:
16
107
65
103
61
57
163
287
49
64
109
174
32
77
117
160
62
67
197
153
35
36
124
200
35
29
91
154
67
(*)
38
24
25
35
(»)
9
19
20
98
48
(3)
42
17 112
1 5 1 42
45
8
23
13
47
39
83
54
Montgomery County..
Philadelphia (city and
county)____________
South Carolina: Greenville
County_________ ____ _
Virginia: Norfolk (city)___
Girls
New Jersey:
Hudson County______
Mercer County_______
New York:
Erie County_________•_
New York (city)...........
Westchester C ou n ty ...
Ohio:
Franklin County..........
Mahoning County____
Virginia: Norfolk (city)____
«59 <376
204
686
463 1,006
362
117
29
7
37
76
36
11
177
31
38
9
101
29
35
12
105
28
26
21
70
91
19
14
82
44
10
13
30
89
53
179
12
17
25
58
63
149
10
18
23
106
83
122
15
17
17
59
87
91
14
14
9
74
70
43
7
11
9
43
86
94
<41 < 128
77 344
346
101
63
230
<29
62
83
60
< 153
226
193
105
9
32
54
164
59
109
94
344
87
60
259
298
50
94
100
80
134
324
316
188
11
67
11
53
8
52
33
4
21
3
10
4
29
3
35
9
19
3
5
29
170
30
174
34
174
39
161
34
151
29
148
3
143
20
80
15
72
22
185
15
73
16
142
9
78
22
128
10
83
169
Pennsylvania:
Montgomery C ounty..
Philadelphia (city and
county)____________
South Carolina: Greenville
55
332
200 695
459 1,011
155 601
64
178
<46 < 160
75 383
101
319
246
73
7
4
i Courts reporting in 1932 that reported 2 or more years during the period 1927-32.
* Rate not computed as number of Negro delinquent children was not reported.
* Rate not computed as the ages of the majority of children were not reported.
<Based on official cases only as unofficial cases were not reported in previous years.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
1
JUVENILE-COURT STATISTICS, 1932
13
TRENDS IN DELINQUENCY CASES
Number of cases disposed of
In this section trends in number of cases, age and sex, parental
status, reason for reference to court, place of care pending hearing or
disposition, and dispositions are analyzed for 30 courts serving popula
tions of 100,000 or more, which reported delinquency cases disposed of
throughout the 4-year period, 1929 to 1932. By means of percentage
changes, figures for the year 1932 are compared with 1931 and with
the first year of the period, 1929. As is indicated by figures for 6
years, 1927 to 1932, available for 18 courts, 1929 may be taken as
representing a period of fairly high delinquency. (See table 3, p. 5.)
It is used as a base year for measuring social statistics in other fields
rel^f S^U<*ied ky the Children’s Bureau, especially dependency and
j'1?™
t° 1932 there was a 9-percent decrease, and between 1929
and 1932 an 11-percent decrease in the total number of delinquencv
cases reported by these 30 courts. More cases were reported in 1930
than in any other year. The number of cases reported in each of the
4 years was as follows:
19^9---------------------------- 37, 731 I 1931____________________ 37 073
1930---------------------------- 38, 536 I 1932___________________3 3 ’ 707
Figures showing trends for individual courts (table 10) show great
variation. Twenty-one of the 30 courts reported fewer cases in 1932
than m 1931, and for all but 1 of these (Pierce County, Wash ) the
decrease was statistically significant. On the other hand, 9 courts
reported more cases m 1932 than in 1931, the increase being statisti
cally significant for all but 1 court (Montgomery County, Pa )
Ihe greatest decrease (49 percent) was in Erie County (including
Buffalo), JN Y. The greatest increase (27 percent) was in Marion
courts had fewer cases in 1932 as compared
with 1929, and 10 had more cases.
While there was considerable difference in the amount of increase or
decrease m 1932 as compared with 1929 and 1931, in many cases the
change was in the same direction. Seventeen courts showed decreases
for both periods, 6 showed increases for both periods. For 4 courts
there were decreases between 1931 and 1932 and increases between
a 1 1 , 2 ; for 3 courts there was an increase between 1931 and
1932 and a decrease between 1929 and 1932.
70355°
35-
2
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
T able
10.— Number o f boys’ and girls’ delinquency cases disposed of, and percentage change in 1982 as compared with 1981 and 1929; cases
disposed of by 80 courts reporting throughout the period 19 29 -82 ______ ____________________ ______
Percent change in 1932—
Delinquency cases disposed of
Total
Boys
Girls
Total
Boys
Girls
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Total
Boys
37,073 31,365
142
160
1,617 1,384
445
376
1,927 1,668
Total Boys' Girls' Total Boys' Girls'
cases cases cases cases cases cases
Boys
Girls
5,708 33,707 28,767
126
140
18
233 1,385 1,196
444
511
69
259 1,799 1,604
4,940
14
189
67
195
-9
-1 3
-1 4
+15
-7
-8
-11
—14
+18
-4
Girls
Total
As compared with
1929 »
-2 3
-1 9
-3
—25
-n
-3 6
—16
+11
—8
-8
-2 6
—16
+14
—1
-21
—4
—40
+4
—8
—30
+18
—44
—42
-1 3
350
617
457
338
507
221
404
360
277
431
129
213
97
61
76
266
785
502
304
549
139
598
398
234
466
127
187
104
70
83
-2 4
+27
+10
-1 0
+8
-3 7
+48
+11
-1 6
+8
-2
-1 2
+7
+15
+9
+10
—20
—33
“Fli
+27
+35
—2
1,203
409
990
310
213
99
940
461
770
398
170
63
-2 2
+13
-2 2
+28
-2 0
-3 6
-1 4
+16
-1 4
+29
-1 5
—28
1,696
443
1,520
391
176
52
1,025
291
885
263
140
28
-4 0
-3 4
-4 2
-3 3
-2 0
—46
-4 4
—33
-4 4
—36
-4 7
1,399
224
7,299
243
397
1,291
190
6,416
195
338
108
34
883
48
59
715
167
7,366
190
382
657
150
6,584
150
310
58
17
782
40
72
-4 9
-2 5
■FI
-2 2
-4
-4 9
-21
+3
-2 3
-8
-4 6
-3 8
—23
—4
—42
-5 9
-2 5
+22
-3 7
—28
—7
—40
-5 7
575
2,550
1,979
578
1,247
395
1,941
1, 613
360
1,110
180
609
366
218
137
470
2,418
2,110
493
839
311
1,951
1,825
315
731
159
467
285
178
108
-1 8
-5
+7
-1 5
-3 3
-2 1
“FI
+13
-1 3
-3 4
-1 2
-2 3
-2 2
-1 8
-2 1
-1
+19
+4
—34
-7
+14
+40
+8
—40
—3
-2 0
—27
—14
—22
—29
853
74
7,390
91
1,149
728
128
721
65
6,524
75
978
595
84
132
9
866
16
171
133
44
794
76
6,711
80
943
869
126
639
73
5,898
69
776
721
86
155
3
813
11
167
148
40
-7
+3
-9
-1 2
-1 8
+19
-2
-11
+12
-1 0
-8
-21
+21
+2
+17
-3 8
+38
-4
-3 7
+8
+2
-7
-11
-6
-2
+11
-2 8
—33
-4 8
-2 3
-41
_____
-3
-3 3
+9
+2
—14
JUVENILE-COURT STATISTICS, 1932
Total cases_________________________ 37,731 31,348 6,383 38,536 32,342 6,194
25
152
170
49
177
219
191
239 1,640 1,449
1,656 1,417
402
68
470
391
70
461
251
324 1,893 1,642
1,947 1,623
Indiana:
262
215
134
477
108
242
301
517
653
332
818
985
463
147
610
569
178
747
40
251
236
291
39
275
450
70
520
346
85
431
Minnesota:
853
200
897
200 1,053
1,097
80
437
309
517
87
396
New Jersey:
238
262 1,974 1,736
1,846 1,584
24
425
449
414
19
433
New York:
110
77 1,306 1,196
1,135 1,058
32
138
170
194
39
233
7,956 6,868 1,088 7,867 6,857 1,010
85
414
329
318
258
60
104
493
749
597
139
888
Ohio:
345
197
542
274
199
473
586
640 2,072 1,486
2,034 1,394
349
332 2,151 1,802
2,021 1,689
230
368
598
523
752
229
148
152 1,172 1,024
750
902
Pennsylvania:
173
955
200 1,128
1,290 1,090
11
85
8
96
47
55
888
866 7,517 6,629
6,955 6,089
21
85
106
23
103
126
732
240
972
710
161
871
644
130
774
852
709
143
30
135
165
100
35
1 Percentage change not shown where number of cases was less than 50.
1932
1931
1930
1929
Area served by court
As compared with
1931 »
—
-6
+4
+3
* Includes only official cases, as court did not report unofficial cases every year.
;>
15
JUVENILE-COURT STATISTICS, 1932
Sex and age of children
The decrease in number of cases was considerably more marked in
girls’ cases than in boys’ cases. From 1931 to 1932 boys’ cases de
creased 8 percent and girls’ cases 13 percent. Boys’ cases decreased
8 percent and girls’ cases 23 percent in 1932, as compared with 1929.
Because of the preponderance of boys’ cases, trends for boys follow
closely trends for all cases of boys and girls. Exceptions are noted in
Caddo Parish, where the total number of cases was 11 per cent more
in 1932 than in 1929, whereas in boys’ cases the number was 1 per
cent less; also in Franklin County, Ohio,, the total number of cases
was 1 percent less in 1932 than in 1929 and the number of boys’
cases 14 percent more. The fluctuations in girls’ cases from year to
year are less significant, because of the small number of cases, than the
fluctuations in boys’ cases or in the total number of cases.
Decreases in the number of cases in 1932, as compared with 1931,
are shown in table 11 for all age groups except boys 18 years of age and
over, and girls under 10 years of age. Among boys the largest de
crease occurred in the 14- to 16-year age group, and among girls, in
the 12- to 14-year age group. Only 1 of the 30 courts (San Diego,
Calif.) has original jurisdiction over minors 18 years of age and over.
The increase in 1932 in cases of boys of this age (13 percent over 1931
and 90 percent over 1929) may be partly explained by the fact that,
in the early years of reporting, cases of minors over the age of juvenilecourt jurisdiction were questioned and excluded. Later they were
included because it was learned that many courts handle such cases
unofficially.
11.— Age o f boys and girls when referred to court in specified year and per
centage change in 1932 as compared with 1931 and 1929; boys’ and girls’ delin
quency cases disposed of by 30 courts reporting throughout the period 19 2 9 -3 2 1
T able
Percent change in
1932—
Delinquency cases disposed of
Age and sex of child
1929
1930
Total cases________________
37,731
Boys’ cases.................. ........
31,348
Under 10 years___ ________________
10 years, under 12_________________
12 years, under 14..... ................ .......
14 years, under 16_____ ___________
16 years, under 18__________ .._____
18 years and over_________________
Not reported_____________ ____ ___
As com
As com
pared
pared
with 1931 with 1929
1931
1932
38,536
37,073
33,707
-9
32,342
31,365
28,767
-8
-8
2,129
3,969
8,174
12,939
3,831
79
227
2,096
4,084
8,094
13,281
4,289
149
349
1,702
3,856
7,451
13,053
4,372
133
798
1,631
3,545
6,920
11,687
4,282
150
552
-4
-8
-7
-1 0
-2
+13
-2 3
-11
-1 5
-1 0
+12
+90
Girls’ cases............................
6,383
6,194
5,708
• 4,940
-1 3
-2 3
Under 10 years.................................
10 years, under 12_______ ________
12 years, under 14_____ ____ _
14 years, under 16._________ ____
16 years, under 18_________________
18 years and over________________
Not reported______ ____ __________
198
358
1,201
3,145
1,370
39
72
187
325
1,089
3,080
1,411
69
33
176
303
939
2,785
1,329
57
119
190
283
794
2,396
1,167
49
61
+8
-7
-1 5
-1 4
-1 2
-1 4
-4
-21
-3 4
-2 4
-1 5
-11
(?)
1Includes only official cases for Franklin County, Ohio, and Pierce County, Wash., as these courts did
not report unofficial cases every year.
•
1Not shown, as number of cases was less than SOin 1929.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
JTJVENILE-COURT STATISTICS, 1932
16
Except in one age group (boys 16 to 18 years of age) and in the
groups with ago not reported, the number of cases was smaller m
1931 than in 1930, and in most age groups the number was smaller
in 1931 than in 1929. It follows that the percentage change in 1932
as compared with 1929 was greater in most age groups than the
percentage change in 1932 as compared with 1931. The greatest
decreases in 1932 as compared with 1929 occurred among boys in
the age groups under 10 and from 12 to 14 years. The number of
cases of 16- and 17-year-old boys declined slightly from 1931 to 1932
but was 12 percent larger in 1932 than in 1929. The greatest decrease
in girls’ cases occurred in the 12- to 14-year age group, which had onethird (34 percent) fewer cases in 1932 than in 1929.
Home conditions
Changes in the number of children living in homes of normal com
position and the number in broken homes are shown in table 12.
The reporting of this information has improved since 1929, a fact which
accounts for a decrease of only 5 percent in reported cases but 11 per
cent in all cases, in 1932 as compared with 1929. The number of
cases in which information as to home conditions was not reported
has remained fairly constant from 1930 to 1932— 8 or 9 percent.
Percentage changes in 1932 as compared with 1931 show decreases
in the number of delinquency cases for all types of home conditions,
the percentage change being considerably greater than the decrease
for all cases in the following groups: Child with one parent and a
step-parent, child with one parent only, parents divorced, father
deserting, mother deserting, parents not married. The number of
cases in which children were living with one parent, the mother had
deserted, or the parents were not married was small throughout the
period. The decrease in cases of children living with the father, the
mother being dead, was much smaller than the decrease for all cases.
T able 12.— Marital status o f parents, place child was living when referred to court,
and percentage change in 1932 as compared with 1931 and 1929; delinquency
cases disposed of by 30 courts reporting throughout the period 19 29 -32 1
Delinquency cases disposed of
Marital status of parents, and place child was liv
ing when referred to court
1929
1930
1931
1932
37,731
38,536
37,073
33,707
Percent change in
1932—
As com As com
pared
pared
with 1931 with 1929
-9
-11
Marital status and place reported................... ........ 32, 210 35,633 34,147 30,682
Child living in own home......... ........... —......... 29,680 32,671 31,254 28,082
With both own parents^..........................-- 20,496 22,739 21,826 19,780
2,166
2,812
2,567
With one parent and step-parent------------- 2,664
6,136
6,861
7,120
With one parent only......................... ........ 6,620
2,579
3,014
2,901
Father dead________________ _______ 2,596
1,293
1,333
1,400
1,556
Mother dead_______________________
741
613
600
643
Parents divorced.......... ........................
574
706
657
713
Father deserting m other-----------------80
120
130
125
Mother deserting father---------- -------- 124
164
93
125
Parents not married to each other-----Parents living apart for other or not
873
946
945
993
specified reasons__________________
-1 0
-1 0
-9
—16
—11
-11
-3
-1 7
-1 3
-3 3
-2 4
-5
-5
-3
—19
—6
-1
-8
+2
-1 9
-3 6
+33
—8
—12
-1 0
+3
Total cases______________________________
ChiM living in other place.. .............. - .............
2,530
2,962
2,893
2,600
5,521
2,903
2,926
3,025
1Includes only official cases for Franklin County, Ohio, and Pierce County, Wash., as these courts did
not report unofficial cases every year.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
17
JUVENILE-COURT STATISTICS, 1932
The decrease for 1932 as compared with 1929 was greater for chil
dren living with one parent and a step-parent and for children whose
mother or father had deserted than for all cases. The decrease was
less for children living with either mother or father, the other parent
being dead, than the decrease for all groups of children. An increase
was shown in the number of cases of illegitimate children living with
one parent, due probably in part to changes in methods of tabulating
home conditions, and a small increase in the group living with neither
parent. Information as to legitimacy of birth often is not obtained,
especially in cases not receiving extensive investigation.
Reason for reference to court
The reasons for referring delinquency cases to the courts are given
in table 13. The number of boys’ cases reported for each type of
reason, except acts of carelessness or mischief (including traffic
violation), decreased from 1931 to 1932. The largest decreases were
in offenses connected with the use, possession, or sale o: liquor or
drugs and in a miscellaneous group of offenses classified as “ other.”
From 1929 to 1932 there were similar changes, but the greatest change
in this period was the 43-percent decrease in truancy. To evaluate
this decrease, which is apparent in the reports of most of the courts
in this group, is difficult. In Hudson County, N.J., the decrease in
truancy was 67 percent in 1932 as compared with 1929. This decrease
was directly attributable to the establishment in 1931 of a special
bureau which deals with most of the truancy cases. In some com
munities there is said to be an actual decrease in the amount of
truancy from school, in others it is admitted that provision for the
enforcement of school-attendance laws is less adequate than formerly,
and cases are allowed to remain without attention.
13.— Reason for reference to court, and 'percentage change in 1982 as compared
with 1981 and 1929; boys’ and girls’ delinquency cases disposed of by 80 courts
reporting throughout the period 1929—82 1
T able
Delinquency cases disposed of
Reason for reference to court, and sex of child
Total cases______________________________
Boys’ cases_____________________________
Stealing______________________ ________ _______
A ct of carelessness or mischief, and traffic viola
tion_______________ ______ __________ _______
Truancy___________________ ;__________ ____~~~~
Running away______________________
ZIZII-ZI'
Ungovernable.________________________
"III
Sex offense________________ I.IIIIIIIIIIII
Injury to person_____________ ____ * '*;**“**.„.;'
Use, possession, or sale of liquor or "drugs
II"
Other reason___________________________ _____ I
Reason not reported_________________ I.I I I I I II I
Girls’ cases.....................................................
Stealing.......................
*
A ct of carelessness or mischief, and_traffic viola
t io n ...____ ______ _____ _____ ............ .
Truancy__________________________ IIIIIIIIIII"
Running away___________________ IIIIIIIIIIII"
Ungovernable_______________________ IIIIIIIII"
Sex offense____ _____________________IIIIIIIIIII!
Injury to person....................
IIII.IIIIIII
Use, possession, or sale of liquor or drugs' " !
Other reason.......................... ........................ ............
Reason not reported__________________ IIIIIIIII!
Percent change in
1932—
As com
As com
pared
pared
with 1931 with 1929
1929
1930
1931
1932
37, 731
31.348
12,936
38, 536
32,342
13,536
37,073
31,365
13, 759
33, 707
28,767
11,826
-9
-8
-1 4
-11
-8
-9
9,229
2,414
2,016
2,303
475
835
200
820
120
6,383
698
9,726
2,340
2,011
2,104
545
794
147
1,122
17
6,194
755
9,302
1,721
2,217
2,007
442
779
203
847
88
5,708
722
9,883
1,385
1,993
1,724
420
732
143
595
66
4,940
522
+6
-2 0
—10
-1 4
-5
-6
-3 0
-3 0
+7
—43
—1
—25
—12
—12
—28
—27
-1 3
-2 8
-2 3
-2 5
491
678
1,100
1,815
1,198
156
55
119
73
542
703
1,049
1,654
1,254
129
48
49
11
563
510
990
1,572
1,098
97
63
56
37
499
458
885
1,365
920
119
53
68
51
-11
-1 0
-11
-1 3
-1 6
+23
-1 6
+21
+2
—32
—20
—25
—23
—24
—4
—43
» Includes only official cases for Franklin County, Ohio, and Pierce County, Wash as these courts did
not report unofficial cases every year.
J
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
18
JUVENILE-COURT STATISTICS, 1932
In girls’ cases, also, for 1932 there were decreases in the number
reported for most types of reasons for referring cases to the juvenile
court. In 1932 as compared with 1931 the largest decrease was in
the group referred because of stealing, and in 1932 as compared with
1929, in the groups referred for truancy and for reasons classified as
“ other.”
.
,
The only increases in girls’ cases from 1931 to 1932 were in cases of
injury to person (23 percent) and in reasons classified as “ other”
(21 percent), but the number of cases on which these percentages were
based was small; the increases, however, are sufficient to be statis
tically significant.
•r \
Table 14 shows for individual courts the changes in the total
number of cases and in three main groups of cases—stealing, acts of
carelessness or mischief, and a group including truancy, being un
governable, and sex offenses.
♦
14.— Percentage change in 1982 as compared with 1931 and 1929 in total
delinquency cases and in cases of specified types disposed of by 30 courts reporting
throughout the period 1929-82
T able
Percent change 1in 1932 as com
pared with 1931 in—
Area served by court
Cases
involv
Total
ing acts
delin Stealing of
care
cases
quency
lessness
cases
or mis
chief
Percent change 1in 1932 as com
pared with 1929 in—
Cases Cases of
Cases of
involv truancy,
truancy, Total
ing
acts being
being
delin Stealing of care
ungov
ungov
cases
lessness ernable,
ernable, quency
cases
or mis sex of
sex of
fense
chief
fense
Total cases___________
-9
-1 5
+5
-1 5
-a
-9
+7
-2 9
Alabama: Mobile County—
California: San Diego County.
Connecticut: B r i d g e p o r t
(city).......... ........................
District of Columbia_______
Indiana:
-1 3
-1 4
-1 5
-2 9
-1
-2 0
-1 5
-3 6
-1 6
-1 4
-1 8
+26
-4 4
-4 0
+15
-7
+17
+9
+15
-1 7
+8
-2 3
+11
-8
+4
+23
+101
-3 6
-2 7
-1 3
-24
+27
+10
—10
+8
-33
+34
-1 2
—10
+1
+36
-5 2
+8
-1 8
+1
+11
+14
+10
-2 0
-3 3
+11
+27
-1 2
+8
-3 8
+29
+19
+11
-4 4
-5 5
+49
-2 2
+13
-2 0
+13
-26
+40
-1 6
+3
-1 4
+16
-2 8
+10
+78
+47
-3 2
+2
-4 0
-3 4
-4 6
-4 2
-3 6
-1 3
—36
-1 8
-4 4
-3 3
-3 5
-4 8
-3 8
-1 5
-5 7
-4 9
—25
+i
—22
-4
-4 4
-2 6
-1 4
-3 0
—12
-6 9
-3 8
-3 4
—28
- 11
-2 8
-2 9
-4 1
-7 -1 4
+13
-3 7
—28
-7
-4 0
-5 7
-51
+37
+15
-8 6
-r30
-3 7
-6 6
-1 8
-5
+7
-1 5
-3 3
-1 5
-9
+32
-3 3
-4 2
+6
+14
+2
-3 0
-2 8
-1 9
-2 1
-1 4
—31
-1
+19
+4
-3 4
-7
+18
+32
+115
-4 3
-1 9
+38
-1 5
-9
+54
-2 4
-2 2
-2 3
-4 2
-4 1
-7
+3
-1 8
. +43
—10
-3 8
+38
-5 6
+106
-2 6
-9
-2 1
+3
—11
-4
-2 3
+26
—14
—5
+12
+60
-7
+89
-3 2
-2 8
-1 9
Iowa: Polk C ou n ty ..............
Michigan: Kent County.......
Minnesota:
Hennepin County______
Ramsey County________
New Jersey:
Hudson County...............
Mercer County................
New York:
Erie County_____ ______
New York (city)_______
Ohio:
Hamilton County______
Mahoning County______
Montgomery County. . . .
Oregon: Multnomah County.
Pennsylvania:
Allegheny County...........
Montgomery County___
Philadelphia (city and
county)................... —
South Carolina: Greenville
Utah: Third district________
Virginia: Norfolk (city)..:___
Washington: Pierce Countys
—12
-1 8
+19
-2
-1 1
-1 9
+27
+4
+11
+23
-2 9
-2
—37
■ +8
+2
-7
•Not shown where number of cases was less than 50.
1Includes only official cases, as court did not report unofficial cases every year.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
A
+13
-4 3
+8
+31
Vi
19
JUVENILE-COURT STATISTICS, 1932
Twenty-one areas showed decreases in cases of stealing in 1932
from 1931, and 18 areas showed such decreases in 1932 from 1929.
Decreases in cases of truancy, being ungovernable, and sex offenses
were shown in 19 areas in 1932 as compared with 1931, and in 20 areas
in 1932 as compared with 1929. On the other hand, cases involving
acts of carelessness or mischief, including traffic violations, increased
between 1931 and 1932 in 12 of 20 areas reporting 50 or more of these
cases in 1931, and between 1929 and 1932, in 12 of 22 areas reporting
50 or more cases in 1929.
Place of care pending hearing or disposition
Although a number of changes in detention policies are indicated in
table 15, especially during thè period 192C to 1932, general conclusions
as to trends in detention care are difficult. In several instances the
change was confined to a few courts, or even to one court having cases
sufficient to modify total figures. For example, Philadelphia, Pa., is
responsible for a large part of the decrease in 1932 from 1929 in cases
m which boys are detained over night (27 percent) and in detentionnomo care (29 percent).. In tlie District of Columbia a juvenile detention home was established in 1929 (previously juveniles were
cared for in a house of detention which served both women and
children). The District and New York, where there was a marked
drop in the number of children detained in the shelter of the Society
Place of care pending hearing or disposition and percentage change in
1982 as compared with 1981 and 1929; delinquency cases disposed o f by 80 courts
reporting throughout the period 1929-82 1
Delinqùency cases disposed
of
Percent change in
1932—
Place of detention care, and sex of child
1929
1930
1931
1932
As com As com
pared with pared with
19313
1929
Total cases_____________ _
37, 731
38,536
37,073
33,707
-9
Boys’ cases..... ..........................
31, 348
32,342
31,365
28, 767
-8
-8
No detention care______
Detention care overnight or longer__
16,858
14,291
17,077
11,172
19,174
10, 917
17,577
10,363
-8
-5
+4
-2 7
97
8,816
3,876
1,178
324
-6
-7
-1 4
+140
-2 9
-2 1
-3 3
-9 9
. 827
4,940
2,340
2,438
78
1,469
831
57
3
-1 3
-1 3
-1 1
+30
-1 4
-4
+6
53
226
46
6,646
3,299
917
8
1
1,274
5,708
2,689
2,725
60
1,714
862
54
34
: 1
294
233
6,276
3,060
791
3
199
6,383
2,961
3,369
72
1,842
1,156
104
195
41
6,214
3,689
1,225
2
1
4,093
6,194
2,936
3,032
67
1,813
1,053
64
35
Boarding home or other family home . .
Detention home3____ _____
Other institution_______
Jail or police station4_____
Other place of care ................
Place of care not reported..
Not reported whether detention care was given..
Girls’ cases_________ ____
No detention care............
Detention care overnight or longer
i Boarding home or other familv home _
Detention home3__
, Other institution______ .
j Jail or police station 4______ _
: Other place of care 5____
Place of care not reported__
Not reported whether detention care was given_
-11
-2 3
-21
-2 8
+8
-2 0
-2 8
-4 5
-9 8
162
^
* * Franklin County, Ohio, and Pierce County; Wash., as these courts did
not report unofficial cases every year.
n
•” •
l Not shown where number of cases was less than 50 in 1931.
, 3.1° ckld,ef 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.
elsewhere CS * ^ CaS6S of children care(i lor part of the time in jails or police stations and part of the time
h o E CS . o r f poh^SlLtionsildren * *
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
thW 1 place oi Care but * Places other ^
detention
20
JUVENILE-COURT STATISTICS, 1932
for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, were responsible for prac
tically all the decrease in the use of institutions other than detention
homes for both boys and girls. Developments in Erie County, N .Y.,
account for the 140-percent increase in the use of boarding or other
family homes in boys’ cases. When the new court which serves both
Erie County and the city of Buffalo was organized in 1932 the board
ing-home plan was substituted for detention-home care pending
hearing or disposition of cases. Changes in “ other place of care” are
due chiefly to changes in classification made when the statistical cards
were revised in 1930. An encouraging decrease in the use of police
stations and jails is shown. There were still in 1932, however, 791
cases of boys and 57 cases of girls under the jurisdiction of the 30
courts who were detained in police stations or jails.
Figures for jail detention are in most courts too small to afford a
basis for percentage changes. The actual figures for the 4 years are
shown in table 16. Although jail detention decreased in most courts
in 1932 from 1929, the greatest decrease was shown in Mahoning
County, Ohio, which reduced the number of cases of children held in
jail from 284 in 1929 to 67 in 1932, through changes in the detention
home which provided greater security. Courts with more than 100
cases of children detained in jail in 1932 were those serving Hennepin
County, Minn., Franklin County, Ohio, and Multnomah County,
Oreg. In the Oregon court the number of cases of children so detained
was larger in 1932 than in 1929, as was also the case in Ramsey
County, Minn. A few other courts showed increases, but the number
of cases in both years was very small.
T able 16.— Number o f delinquency cases in which children were detained in jail or
police station pending hearing or disposition disposed o f by 26 courts reporting
throughout the period 1929—32 1
Area served by court
-*
Total cases..,____________________________ ___________
Indiana:
Minnesota: _
New Jersey:
New York:
Ohio:
Pennsylvania:
1930
1929
1932
1931
1, 282
21
90
24
6
1,289
2
90
5
971
10
77
1
848
6
42
18
27
4
6
10
21
13
8
2
30
10
9
2
17
9
172
70
193
164
129
70
165
98
1
4
1
1
1
144
10
284
77
88
143
276
67
130
147
8
75
65
183
3
1
36
40
133
28
4
1
29
16
88
29
18
28
80
29
1
1
1
126
1
67
58
117
1
1
16
20
58
33
1 No cases of detention in jails or police stations were reported for 4 courts (Kent County, Mich.; Monroe
and Rensselaer Counties, N .Y.; and Philadelphia, Pa.).
1Includes only official cases, as court did not report unofficial cases every year.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
21
JUVENILE-COURT STATISTICS, 1932
Disposition of cases
Changes in the number of dispositions of various types are shown in
table 17. In boys’ cases there was a decrease in each type of disposi
tion m 1932 from 1931 and in all but two types in 1932 from 1929
The encouraging decrease in the use of fines, restitutions, and costs
(36 per cent from 1931 to 1932, and 62 percent between 1929 and 1932)
is due primarily to the decline in this type of disposition reported by
Hudson County, N.J., and New York City. The decrease in proba
tion was greater than the decrease in the total number of cases but
there was a more significant decline in institutional commitments
(including boys placed in institutions without official commitment).
Fifteen percent fewer boys were committed to institutions in 1932 as
compared with 1931, and 18 percent fewer in 1932 as compared with
1929. There was also a significant decrease in the cases of girls com
mitted to institutions in 1932 as compared with both 1931 and 1929__
19 percent and 29 percent, respectively.
In boys’ cases only two types of dispositions increased in 1932 as
compared with 1929— those dismissed, adjusted, or held open without
further action and a miscellaneous group classified as **oth er”
Analysis of the dispositions made by individual courts shows that
New York City and Philadelphia are chiefly responsible for the in
crease in dismissals, and Philadelphia and Hamilton County Ohio
for the increase in the dispositions classified as “ other.” In both
these courts the increase in “ other dispositions” was due to changes
in the classification of certain types of dispositions.
\7' y P ^ r Si!i0n> °f T eV a n t a g e change in 1982 as compared with
1981 ana 1929, boys and girls delinquency cases disposed o f bv 80 courts re*
porting throughout the period 1929—82 1
Delinquency cases disposed of
Percent change
in 1932—
Disposition of case, and sex of child
1929
1930
1931
1932
Total cases...
37, 731
38,536
37,073
33,707
Boys’ cases.
31,348
32,342
31,365
28,767
14,333
9,758
3,119
15,830
9,370
3,197
15,305
9,349
2,992
14,775
8,346
2,552
1,128
1,825
1,182
3
1, 213
1,601
1,128
3
1,119
1,087
1,502
11
1,061
692
1,340
1
6,383
6,194
5,708
4,940
2,262
1,921
1,238
2,316
1,842
1,190
2,185
1,650
1,095
1,840
1,536
882
568
47
341
6
439
39
365
3
419
28
330
1
382
29
270
1
Dismissed, adjusted, or held open without
further action_____________ ________________
Child supervised by probation officer________ I!
Child committed or referred to an institution....
Child committed or referred to an agency or
individual________________________________
Restitution, fine, or costs ordered________ I I I ."
Other disposition of case_____________________
Disposition not reported__________________ HI"
Girls’ cases.
Dismissed, adjusted, or held open without
further action..................................... ........
Child supervised by probation officer III IIII
Child committed or referred to an institution..!!
Child committed or referred to an agency or
individual_________________________ ___
Restitution, fine, or costs ordered.IIIIIIIIIIIIII
Other disposition of case____________ IIIIIIIIII!
Disposition not reported______ __ IIIIIII!
■imduuK uuijr umumi cases ior r ranunn uounty, Ohio, and Pierce (
not report unofficial cases every year.
* Percentage change not shown, as number of cases was less than 50.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
As com- As com
pared
oared
with 1931 with 1929
-1 1
-3
-1 1
-1 5
-5
-3 6
-1 1
-1 6
-7
-19
(?)
+3
-1 4
-1 8
-6 2
+13
-1 9
-2 0
-2 9
(2)
22
JUVENILE-COURT STATISTICS, 1932
In girls’ cases the number of dispositions of every type decreased in
1932 as compared with 1931 and with 1929 except for a very minor
increase in fines, restitutions, or costs in 1932 as compared with
1931. The greatest decreases were in the commitment or reference to
institutions and to agencies or individuals in 1932 as compared
with 1929.
T able 18.— Percentage change in 1982 as compared with 1981 and 1929 in totaldelinquency cases disposed of and in cases with specified type of disposition by 30
courts reporting throughout the period 1929-82
Percent change in 1932 as compared
with 1Ö311
Area served by court
Total cases_____ '.Z----Alabama: Mobile County....
California: San Diego County.
C onnecticut: B ridgeport
(city)....... ......... - ................
District of Columbia-------.....
Indiana:
Lake County_______ ...
Marion County-----------Iowa: Polk County.. . -------Louisiana: Caddo Parish......
Michigan: Kent County-----Minnesota:
Hennepin County--------Ramsey County----------New Jersey:
Hudson County-----------Mercer County________
New York:
Erie County___________
Monroe County________
New York (city)_______
Rensselaer County..........
Westchester County-----Ohio:
,
Franklin County *_____
Hamilton County--------Mahoning County-------Montgomery C oun ty....
Oregon: Multnomah County.
Pennsylvania:
Allegheny County_____
Montgomery County___
Philadelphia (city and
county).............. ..........
South Carolina: Greenville
County-------------- ----------Utah: Third district..............
Virginia: Norfolk (city)____
Washington: Pierce County3.
Percent change in 1932 as compared
with 1929 i
Case disChild
Cáse disChild
commissed, Child
missed, Child
comTotal adjusted, super- mitted
Total adjusted, super- mitted
delinor held vised by or redelin- or-held vised by or reopen
probaferred quency
quency
open
probaferred
tion
cases without
cases without
to an
tion
to an
further officer institufurther officer institution
action
action
tion
-1 0
-1 6
-U
(»)
-1 5
-2 1
-^11
-1 3
-1 1
—23
-3 6
-1 6
—65
+11
-3 4
-41
-7
+15
-7
+9
+9
+48
-15
+27
+11
-8
+30
-1 9
. +2
-6
-4 0
+24
-2 4
+27
+10
—10
+8
-23
+16
+45
-1 0
-27
+13
+10
-2 0
-3 3
+ 11
+27
-1 8
-3
-4 3
-1 0
+40
+22
-2 8
+122
+29
-3 7
+34
-1 0
+7
-1 0
+48
+13
-1 3
-4 2
-8
+12
-2 2
+13
-2 2
-1 9
-3 2
+36
(»)
+2
-1 4
+16
+46
-4 3
+15
-3
+1
-4 0
—34
-4 5
-3 5
-31
-2 9
-5 6
-4 4
-3 3
-6 1
-3 4
-2 8
+49
—55
-4 9
—25
-6 5
-1 2
-3 6
-6
-5 9
-2 7
-1 6
-4 5
-6
-6 1
-4 8
-3 4
—22
—4
-3 7
-2 8
-7
-4 0
-5 7
-4 3
+19
—23
+10
-4
-1 6
+11
-3 7
-2 3
-3 2
-2 7
+4
+11
-4 0
-1
+19
+4
-3 4
-7
—15
+54
-3 8
+38
+2
-4
-4
+2
-3 9
-3 7
+8
+2
-7
-9
—13
-1 4
—18
-5
+7
-1 5
—o3
-5
+10
-1 3
-4 5
—7
-f-3
-9
—12
-1 8
+19
-2
-1 1
+16
+28
-1 9
-1 0
-4 1
+25
+10
-49
-8 2
-3 9
+12
-3
+31
-6 6
+197
—15
-2 5
+2
-5
-2 7
-3 2
-3 0
4“25
-5 7
-2 7
+54
(2)
+76
+24
-8 0
+18
+3
-3 2
-3 9
-3 0
1 Not shown where number of cases was less than 50.
* Less than 1 percent.
•Includes only official cases as court did not report unofficial cases every year.
Table 18 shows for individual courts the percentage change in the
total number of delinquency cases and in three groups of cases: (1)
Those dismissed, adjusted, or held open without further action; (2)
those in which the child was placed under the supervision of a pro
bation officer, and (3) those in which the child was committed or
referred to an institution. In some courts decreases or increases in the
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Jt
j y e n il e
-
c o u r t
s t a t is t ic s
, 1932
23
number of dispositions were approximately the same as decreases or
increases in the total number of delinquency cases. Eighteen courts
disposing of 50 or more cases placed fewer children on probation in
1932 than in 1931, and 14 courts, fewer than in 1929. In 5 courts in
1931, and 6 in 1929,_ the total number of probation cases was less
than 50, and comparisons were not attempted. Fourteen of the 22
courts for which changes in commitments or referrals to institutions
between 1931 and 1932 were shown in terms of percentages, reported
fewer such dispositions in 1932 than in 1931, and 19 of the 25 for
which such comparisons between 1929 and 1932 were made, reported
smaller numbers of commitments or referrals.
TRENDS IN DEPENDENCY AND NEGLECT CASES
Number of cases disposed of
Twenty-eight courts reported dependency and neglect cases
throughout the period 1929 to 1932. The total number of cases
reported by these courts in each of the 4 years is as follows:
1929--------------------------- 14,863 I 1931........... ...................... 14,473
1930---------------------------- 15, 012 I 1932_________ ______ 13j 188
In each year except 1930 the number of cases disposed of was less
than in 1929. In 1932 the decrease from 1931 was 9 percent and
from 1929, 11 percent. These decreases correspond closely to those
shown in delinquency cases.
The trend toward fewer dependency and neglect cases was general.
In 1932, 17 courts reported fewer cases than m 1931, and 21 courts,
fewer than in 1929. The percentage decrease varied from 1 to 35, as
compared with 1931, and from 3 to 67, as compared with 1929.
Philadelphia, Pa., was responsible for more than half the decrease in
cases from 1931 to 1932.
No doubt several factors are responsible for the drop in dependency
cases in most courts. Decrease in budgets of courts, agencies, and
institutions is partly responsible. It is believed that some cases are
not referred to court because it is known that money for care outside
the child’s home is not available. On the other hand, it is undoubt
edly true that families from which children would otherwise be
removed are being kept together by relief funds. It is also possible
that under the pressure of heavy case loads some situations of neg
lect are being overlooked which normally would be brought to the
attention of the courts. Large increases in 1932 over 1929 were
shown in Caddo Parish, La., and Westchester County, N.Y. (table
19). In Caddo Parish the court was assuming greater responsibility
for dependent and neglected children because of the weakening of
other community resources for their care. In Westchester County,
N .Y., part of the increase was due to changes in methods of clas
sifying cases as delinquent or neglected.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
24
JUVENILE-COURT STATISTICS, 1932
19.— Number o f dependency and neglect cases and percentage change in
1982 as compared with 1981 and 1929 in cases disposed of by 28 specified courts
reporting throughout the period 1929—82______ __________ _________________ _
T able
Percent change in
1932—
Dependency and neglect cases
Area served by court
Indiana:
Minnesota:
New York:
Ohio:
Pennsylvania:
As com
As com
pared with pared with
1929 »
19311
1929
1930
1931
1932
14,863
9
438
70
348
15,012
4
395
51
315
14,473
5
349
49
297
13,188
5
437
71
303
+25
+2
+1
-1 3
246
282
631
107
279
326
282
559
53
338
225
242
404
155
275
173
260
278
202
236
-2 3
+7
-3 1
+30
-1 4
-3 0
—8
—56
+89
—15
343
138
349
115
296
193
344
125
+16
-3 5
140
284
3,891
187
270
148
228
3,890
161
394
178
192
4,173
162
438
136
175
4,230
146
532
-2 4
—9
-3
—38
-1 0
+21
—22
+97
659
468
292
385
443
462
442
214
321
475
280
371
188
348
646
217
344
137
266
423
-2 3
-7
-2 7
-2 4
-3 5
-6 7
—26
—53
—31
—5
756
13
3,670
114
130
209
61
970
10
4,060
74
175
152
49
909
7
3,654
58
172
159
48
705
29
2,966
53
171
180
44
-2 2
-7
-1 9
-9
-1
+13
-2 0
—54
+32
-1 4
-28
-1 1
-9
«
«
—9
i Not shown where number of cases was less than 50.
8 Less than 1 percent.
_ . .
8Includes only official cases, as court did not report unofficial cases every year.
Ages of children
There were decreases in 1932 from 1931 and from 1929 in depend
ency and neglect cases in each age group except that of minors 16
years of age and over. This small group of older children in most of
the courts showed an increase which is no doubt related to economic
conditions. (Table 20.)
20.— Age of child and percentage change in 1982 as compared with 1931
and 1929 in dependency and, neglect cases disposed of by 28 courts reporting
throughout the period 1929—82 1________ ________ _________________________ _
T able
Dependency and neglect cases
disposed of
Age of child
1929
Total cases____________________________
1930
14,863 15,012
1,843
1,764
1,841
1,930
1,946
1,982
2,037
2,042
2,103
2,077
1,790
1,697
1,660
1,651
1,348
1,265
222
206
222
249
1931
1932
14,473 13,188
1,653
1,799
1,692
1,636
1,716
1,760
1,742
1,915
1,738
1,972
1,641
1,881
1,458
1,498
1,140
1,266
257
207
207
483
Percent change in
1932—
As com As com
pared with pared with
1929
1931
-9
-8
—3
-3
—9
-1 2
-1 3
-3
-1 0
+24
-1 1
-6
—15
—13
—15
—16
—3
—12
—10
+25
— --------------------
i Includes only official cases for Franklin County, Ohio, and Pierce County, Wash., as these courts
did not report unofficial cases every year.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
25
JUVENILE-COURT STATISTICS, 1932
Home conditions
Changes in home conditions are shown in table 21. When 1932 is
compared with 1931, there were decreases in numbers of cases from all
types of home conditions reported, but the greatest decreases occurred
m cases m which the child was living with one parent owing to the
desertion of the father (29 percent), death of the father (27 percent), or
desertion of the mother (24 percent). When the comparison is extended
back to 1929, even more marked decreases in the desertion groups are
shown (desertion of father, 35 percent, and desertion of mother, 39
percent), and also significant decreases in cases of children with
divorced parents (30 percent), widowed fathers (30 percent), widowed
mothers (26 percent), and step-parents (28 percent). On the other
hand, small but significant increases in children living with both their
own parents (3 percent), and in children with parents separated for
reasons other than death, divorce, or desertion (2 percent), occurred
m 1932 as compared with 1929. There was a marked increase of 16
percent in children born out of wedlock who were living with one
parent, due probably in part to changes in methods of statistical
treatment. As in delinquency cases, the total number of children of
illegitimate birth is not shown. Mkny such children are doubtless
included in tlie group living with, neither parent and in other groups
Marital status o f 'parents and place .child was living when referred to
court and percentage change in 1932 as compared with 1931 and 1929; dependency
and neglect cases disposed o f by 28 courts reporting throughout the period 1929—3 2 1
T able 21.
Dependency and neglect cases
disposed of
Marital status of parents, and place child was
living when referred to court
1929
Total cases________
1930
1931
1932
Percent change in
1932—
As com As com
pared with pared with
1931
1929
14,863
15.012
14,473
13,188
-9
Marital status and place reported
12,220
1», 376
12,386
10,956
-1 2
-1 0
Child living in own home
9,540
10,404
9,544
8,412
-1 2
-1 2
3,022
447
6,071
3,295
493
6,616
3,141
401
6,002
3,121
320
4,971
-1
-2 0
-1 7
+3
-2 8
-1 8
693
1,097
420
1,055
541
495
753
1,073
329
1,248
517
607
708
853
340
967
436
693
515
764
295
689
332
572
-2 7
-1 0
-1 3
-2 9
-2 4
-1 7
-2 6
-3 0
-3 0
-3 5
-3 9
+16
With both own parents.
With one parent and step-parent
With one parent on ly..
Father dead__________
Mother dead....... .
Parents divorced.
Father deserting mother
Mother deserting father .
Parents not married to each other..
Parents living apart for other or not
specified reasons
Child living in other place
Marital status and place not reported
-1 1
1,770
2,089
2,005
1,804
-1 0
+2
2,680
2,972
2,842
2,544
-1 0
-5
2,643
1,636
2,087
2,232
■includes only official cases for Franklin County, Ohio, and Pierce County, Wash., as these courts
did not report unofficial cases every year.
’
ei>0 courts
Disposition of cases
Changes in dispositions of cases are shown in table 22. The
increase in dismissals in 1932 as compared with both 1931 and 1929
is due entirely to the large increase in the number of dispositions of
tms type reported by New York City. If figures for this court were
excluded there would have been a decrease in 1932 as compared with
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
26
jUYENlLË-CÔtrRT STATISTICS, 1932
both 1931 and 1929. The increase in dispositions reported as “ other”
in 1932 over 1929 is due to the inclusion in this group since 1930 of cases
of physically handicapped children. In Westchester County, N.Y.,
especially, the court deals with a number of handicapped children.
The disposition in these cases is frequently an order for appliances,
transportation, or other care outside an institution. With these
exceptions there was a decrease in 1932 in each type of disposition
as compared with the years 1931 and 1929. Proportionately the
largest decreases occurred in the number of cases of children com
mitted or referred to agencies or individuals and to institutions.
This doubtless reflects m part curtailed intake of agencies and
institutions due to financial difficulties and difficulties in discharging
children on account of economic conditions.
22.— Disposition of case and percentage change in 1932 as compared with
1931 and 1929; dependency and neglect cases disposed o f by 28 courts reporting
throughout the period 1929-32 1
T able
Dependency and neglect cases
disposed of
Disposition of case
Dismissed, adjusted, or held open without fur
ther action____________ ________ ________
Child supervised by probation officer__________
Child committed or referred to institution_____
Child committed or referred to agency or indi-
Percent change in
1932—
As com
As com
pared with pared with
1931
1929
1929
1930
1931
1932
14,863
15,012
14,473
13,188
-9
-1 1
4,181
3,036
3,283
4,537
3,057
3,252
4,111
2,918
3,197
4,535
2,572
2,636
+10
-1 2
-1 8 .
+8
-1 5
-2 0
4,192
162
9
3,930
232
4
4,032
214
1
3,232
213
-2 0
(»)
-23
+31
1 Includes only official cases for Franklin County, Ohio, and Pierce County, Wash., as these courts
did not report unofficial cases every year.
J Less than 1 percent.
Analysis for 28 individual courts of dependency and neglect cases
disposed of through commitment or reference to institutions or
agencies, or in some cases to individuals, shows a decrease from 1931 to
1932 in 15 courts reporting 50 or more cases and an increase in 7 (table
23). The other six courts reported no cases or a very small number
and the percentage change was not computed. Decreases in 1932 as
compared with 1929 occurred in 16 courts and increases in 8; in the
other 4 the numbers were so small that the percentage change was
not computed. Decreases in commitments or referrals to child-caring
institutions or agencies were usually greater than decreases in the
total number of dependency and neglect cases disposed of. The very
large increase in Westchester County, N.Y., is due in part to a change
in policy according to which many cases formerly classified as
delinquent are now classified as neglected.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
27
JUVENILE-COURT STATISTICS, 1932
23.— Percentage change in 1982 as compared with 1981 and 1929 in total
dependency and neglect cases disposed of and in cases o f children committed or
referred to institutions, agencies, or individuals by 26 courts reporting throughout
the period 1929-82 1
Table
Percent change in 1932 as
compared with 19312
Area served by court
Total cases.
California: San Diego County____
Connecticut: Bridgeport (city).......
District of Columbia_____________
Indiana:
Lake County________________
Marion County________
Iowa: Polk C ou n ty...............
Louisiana: Caddo Parish______
Michigan: Kent County..................
Minnesota:
Hennepin County____________
Ramsey County___________
New York:
Erie County_________________
Monroe County______________
New York (city).......................
Rensselaer County___________
Westchester County. .
Ohio:
Franklin County 4____________
Hamilton County____________
Mahoning County____________
Montgomery County____ _____
Oregon: Multnomah County.......... .
Pennsylvania:
Allegheny County................. .
Philadelphia (city and county)..
South Carolina: Greenville County.
Utah: Third district______ _ .
Virgini : Norfolk (c it y )..................'
Washington: Pierce County 4. _ .......
Total
dependency
and neglect
cases
Child com
mitted or
referred to
institution,
agency, or
individual
Percent change in 1932 as
compared with 19291
Child com
mitted or
referred to
institution,
agency, or
individual
Total
dependency
and neglect
cases
-9
-1 9
+25
+53
+2
+10
+1
-1 3
-2 3
+7
-31
+30
-1 4
-1 2
+3
+8
-1 8
-4 0
-3 0
-8
-5 6
+89
-1 5
+16
-35
+23
-41
-24
-9
+1
-1 0
+21
-23
-1 1
(3)
(s)
-2 1
+70
+26
.
-2 3
-2 4
-5 5
+7
-2 0
-9
+78
+81
-3 6
-2 6
-3 5
-2 6
+63
-3
-3 8
+9
-2 2
+97
-1 0
-5 0
-1 2
-31
+116
-2 7
-2 4
-3 5
-9
-1
-43
-2 0
-2 4
-6 7
-2 6
-5 3
-31
-5
-65
+30
-6 0
-1 4
-1 3
-2 2
-1 9
-9
-1
+13
-3 3
-3 7
+26
-2 0
-54
+32
-14
-2 8
-8 5
-3 0
-6 2
-2 1
+11
n u tte r
cases wSkiss Mum 50° achyean0mery C0UDty’ P a ) reported
* Not shown where number of cases was less than 50.
* Less than 1 percent.
4Includes only official cases as court did not report unofficial cases every year.
DELINQUENCY CASES REPORTED IN 1932
Sex and age of children
J s c l u d e < t h n267 courts reporting cases of all types disposed of in
1932 were 33 small courts reportmg no delinquency cases for that year.
I he remaining 234 courts reported a total of 65,274 cases. Of these
cases 56,639 (87 percent) involved boys and 8,635 (13 percent)
involved girls. In 1931 girls’ cases represented 14 percent of the total
cases reported by 169 courts. In 1932, 22 courts disposed of boys’
cases, but no girls’ cases, and 12 courts disposed of girls’ cases only.
In noth boys’ and girls’ cases the numbers were concentrated
most heavily in the 14- and 15-year-age groups, but this was due partly
to low limits of age jurisdiction in many courts. When the age juris
diction extended through 16 years, the number of 16-year-old children
was larger than the number of any other age, except in one small group
of cases where jurisdiction extended to the age of 21 years (table 24)
1
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
28
JTJYENILE-COURT STATISTICS, 1932
T able 24.— Age limit of original court jurisdiction and age of boys and girls dealt
with in delinquency cases disposed of by 28 4 courts during 1982 1
Delinquency cases
Age limit of original court jurisdiction, and sex of child
Age of child
rotai
Under 16 years2 Under 17 years Under 18 years Under 21 years3
Boys
Girls
Boys
Girls
Boys
Girls
Boys'
Girls
66, 639
8,635
27,295
3,526
12,465
1,413
15,172
3,371
1,707
325
Under 10 years. __ 3,313
2,946
10 years___________
4,058
11 years. _________
12 years. _________
6,101
7,214
13 years__________
14 y e a r s._________ 10,204
16 years___________ 11,607
6,963
16 years___________
3,282
17 years... _______
251
18 years and over___
700
Not reported. ____
323
190
298
539
897
1,667
2,355
1,375
817
81
93
2,107
1,815
2,562
3,732
4,163
5,778
6,060
478
78
15
502
193
98
163
290
. 491
859
1,237
143
20
5
27
489
584
684
1,141
1,426
2,206
2,671
3,160
65
10
29
32
33
47
93
125
288
373
397
12
2
11
644
515
754
1,148
1,504
2,071
2,57ii
2, 9U
2,734
136
165
86
49
85
145
264
480
698
753
718
42
51
73
32
58
80
116
149
297
403
405
90
4
12
10
3
11
17
40
47
82
67
32
4
Total cases—
Boys
Girls
1 Of the 231 courts, 222 reported boys’ cases and 212 reported girls’ cases.
2Includes truancy cases in Westchester and Rensselaer Counties, N .Y. (where jurisdiction to 17 years
authorized by the State-wide education law is exercised).
3Includes only San Diego and San Francisco Counties, Calif.
T able 25.— Age of white and colored boys and girls dealt with in delinquency cases
disposed of by 68 courts in 1982 1
•
Delinquency cases
!
Boys
Age of child
52,713
Age reported---------Under 10 years..
18" years
and
51,920
Color
not re
Percent ported
Percent
Num
Num distri
distri
ber
ber
bution
bution
2
Colored
Percent
Num Percent
distri Num
distri
ber
ber
bution
bution
1,764
5,663
36,070
9,214
35,461
9,125
100
5,586
100
1,748
100
8
6
10
14
15
17
18
8
4
197
99
169
274
536
1,009
1,561
975
698
4
2
3
5
10
18
28
17
12
70
54
85
152
227
425
433
170
119
4
3
5
9
13
24
25
10
7
68
1
13
1
100
2,880
2,456
3’ 555
¿327
6,571
9’ 558
llj 130
¿012
4,099
1,883
1,740
2,401
3; 642
4, <135
6,539
7,526
4,131
2,915
5
5
7
10
13
18
21
12
8
730
563
900
1,259
1,343
1,585
1,610
736
367
332
219
1
32
793
White
Colored
White
Total
Girls
609
89
(2)
2
77
16
i Of the 234 courts reporting delinquency cases, only 68 (67 of which reported girls’ cases) furnished
information for correlating age and color.
J Less than 1 percent.
Only the 68 courts reporting on individual cards or, as did one
court, by tables prepared in harmony with the tabulations made from
cards by the Children’s Bureau, furnished information which per
mitted much detailed analysis or correlation. These 68 courts re
ported 52,713 delinquency cases, or 81 percent of the total reported
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
29
JUVENILE-COURT STATISTICS, 1932
by 234 courts. One of the 68 courts reported no girls’ cases. Fortytwo of the 68 courts served communities of 100,000 or more popula
tion, 13 served communities of 50,000 to 100,000, and 13 served
smaller communities.
The age distribution in white and colored cases reported by these
courts, presented in table 25, shows a greater proportion of younger
children among the colored than among the white.
Color and nativity
The color and nativity of the children dealt with in delinquency
cases disposed of by 68 courts, and the nativity of the parents of
native-born white children are shown in tables 26 and 27. Threefourths of the cases (76 percent of the boys’ and 74 percent of the
girls’) were of white children bom in the United States, and only 1
percent were of white children of foreign birth. One-fifth of the boys’
cases and almost one-fourth of the girls’ cases were of colored children.
N ative-born white boys in 46 percent of the boys’ cases and 37 percent
of the corresponding group in girls’ cases had one or both parents of
foreign birth. The distribution corresponds closely to that reported
in 1931.
T able 26.— Color and nativity of boys and girls dealt with in delinquency cases
disposed of by 68 courts in 1982 1
Delinquency cases
Color and nativity of child
Boys
Percent
distri
bution
Number
45, 234
100
7,427
36,070
80
5,663
76
34,529
628
913
76
1
2
5,498
111
54
74
1
1
Number
Total cases...
Color reported___
45,286
.. .
White.............................
Foreign born______ ___________________ ______ _____
Nativity not reported
...............
Colored
Girls
..
Negro
Color not reported___________ _____________________________
Percent
distri
bution
7,427
100
9,214
20
1,764
24
9,159
55
20
1,753
11
24
(s)
(«)
2
1 Of the 234 courts reporting delinquency cases, only 68 (67 of which reported girls’ cases) furnished
information on color and nativity.
* Less than 1 percent.
70355°— 35------3
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
30
JUVENILE-COURT STATISTICS, 1932
T able 27.— Parent nativity o f native white boys and girls 1 dealt with in delinquency
cases disposed o f by 68 courts in 1982 a
Delinquency cases of native white
children
I**
Parent nativity
Boys
Girls
Percent
Percent
Number distribu Number distribu
tion
tion
32,844
100
5,168
100
17,796
15,048
54
46
3,246
1,922
63
37
A
4.1
1 Excludes 1,685 boys’ cases and 330 girls’ cases in which parent nativity was not reported.
* Of the 234 courts reporting, only 68 (67 of which reported girls’ cases) reported on parent nativity.
Home conditions
In approximately two-thirds of the boys’ cases but less than half
the girls’ cases the children were living at home with both their own
parents, as table 28 shows for the 68 courts reporting this informa
tion. In general, the distribution of cases according to the place
where the child was living was practically the same in 1932 as in 1931.
T able 28.— Place where boys and girls were living when referred to court in de
linquency cases disposed o f by 68 courts in 1982 1
Delinque ncy cases
Boys
Girls
Place child was living when referred to court
Number
Percent
distri
bution
Number
45,286
Percent
distri
bution
7,427
Place reported........................ ...................................... ................
42,523
100
6,892
100
In own home_____________________ ____________ ________
39,426
93
5,799
84
With both own parents_________ ___________________
27,828
2,106
938
6,409
2,145
65
5
2
15
5
3,287
523
252
1,274
463
48
8
4
18
7
2,390
315
392
6
1
1
867
116
110
13
2
2
With mother only..*.___ _____ ______________________
In other family home___________________________________
In institution__________________________________________
In other place_________________________________________
2,763
535
i Of the 234 courts reporting delinquency cases, only 68 (67 of which reported girls’ cases) furnished Infor
mation on the place where the child was living when referred to court.
In two-thirds of the boys’ cases, but in only half the girls’ cases,
were the parents married and living together (table 29). Broken
homes due to death or to desertion were more common in cases of
delinquent girls than in cases of delinquent boys. The distribution
of cases according to marital status of the parents corresponds closely
to that reported in 1931. Marital status of parents and place where
the child was living when referred to court are shown in table 30.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
41
31
JUVENILE-COURT STATISTICS, 1932
T able 29.— Marital status o f parents in boys’ and girls’ delinquency cases dis
posed of by 68 courts in 1982 1
Delinquency cases
Boys
Girls
Marital status of parents
Number
Percent
distri
bution
Number
45,286
42,037
28,224
O) 034
936
5,149
2,949
4,291
1,744
960
142
1,445
470
18
3,249
100
67
21
2
12
7
10
4
2
(*)
3
1
(*)
7,427
6,737
3,432
2,005
223
1,002
780
1,139
512
211
40
376
158
3
690
Total cases_____________________ _____________________
Parents separated................. .......................................... ........
Percent
distri
bution
100
51
30
3
15
12
17
8
3
1
6
2
(»)
i Of the 234 courts reporting delinquency cases only 68 (67 of which reported girls’ cases) furnished infor
mation on marital status of parents.
3 Less than 1 percent.
T able 30.— Marital status o f parents, according to place child was living when
referred to court, in boys’ and girls’ delinquency cases disposed o f by 68 courts
in 1982 1
Delinquency cases
Place child was living when referred to court
In own home
Marital status of parents
Total
Total
With With With
both mother father With With
and
and mother father
own
par step step only only
ents father mother
Total cases__________ 52,713 45,225 31,115
Boys’ cases................ 45,286 39,426 27,828
Parents married and living
28,224 27,801 27,801
'936
5,149 4,847
2’ 949 2,357
L 744 li 561
'960
'876
142
122
Parents separated for other
1,445 1,229
Parents not married to each
24
282
other___________________
470
18
3,249
3
Status not reported_______
351
Girls’ cases____ ____ 7,427 5,799 3,287
Parents married and living
3,432 3,283 3,283
' 223
1,002
894
' 780
539
512
433
211
184
28
40
Parents separated for other
376
273
Parents not married to each
4
158
78
3
Status not reported_____ . . .
690
89
2,629
2,106
1,254
594
16
1,190
938
724
150
In
In
Not
other insti
In
fam tu other re
port
place
ily
ed
home tion
7,683 2,608 3,257
6,409 2,145 2,390
431
315
89
42
33
45
25
15
3
200
52
38
46
28
5
1
3,593
1,633
' 167
6
100
133
841
224
497
122
64
16
502 3,298
392 2,763
1
1
7
4
4
650
854
18
2
1
1,036
190
167
33
11
5
75
4
165
14
2
55
252
93
1, 274
35
463
9
2
19
116
2
165
523
175
16
135
867
341
50
1
22
27
11
19
17
11
1
172
177
5
84
202
74
209
55
21
11
3
1
236
33
74
28
3
37
4
45
13
19
12
75
3
59
266
175
198
36
6
628
s
9 2,735
no
535
34
10
15
14
13
3
1
4
18
8
3
4
3
7
9
2
1
1
526
1 Of the 234 courts reporting delinquency cases, only 68 (67 of which reported girls’ cases) furnished infor
mation on marital status of parents and place child was living when referred to court.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
32
JUVENILE-COURT STATISTICS, 1932
Source of reference to court
Police referred 65 percent of the delinquency cases reported by 68
courts in 1932 (table 31). In 1931, 63 percent were referred from this
source. School departments referred 6 percent in 1932 and 7 percent
in 1931; probation officers, 5 percent in 1932 and 6 percent in 1931.
The other percentages were identical in the 2 years.11
T able 31.— Source of reference to court of delinquency cases disposed of by 68
courts in 1982 1
Delinquency cases
Delinquency cases
Source of reference to court
Number
Percent
distribu
tion
Total cases___________
52,713
Source reported------------------
52,630
100
34,400
3,317
2,612
466
65
6
5
1
Police__________________
School department..____
Other court___ _________
Source of reference to court
Source reported—Continued
Parents or relatives______
Individual_____ ________
Other source..._________
Percent
Number distribu
tion
774
4,176
6,688
197
1
8
13
(’ )
83
1 Of the 234 courts reporting, only 68 furnished information on source of reference to court,
i Less than 1 percent.
Reason for reference to court
Variations from year to year in the number of children referred to
the court for offenses of various types have been discussed in the
section on trends. (See p. 17.) The reasons for reference in 1932
as reported by 234 courts are shown in table 32. In boys’ cases the
percentages of cases referred for automobile stealing, truancy, and
running away were somewhat smaller in 1932 than in 1931, whereas
the percentages of cases referred for acts of carelessness or mischief
and traffic violations were somewhat larger, but these variations were
slight.12 The percentages referred for other reasons were identical
in the 2 years. In girls’ cases the percentage distribution in 1932
was the same as the 1931 distribution with two very slight exceptions,
ungovernable (28 percent, 1932; 27 percent, 1931) and sex offense
(19 percent, 1932; 20 percent, 1931).
The reason for reference to the court for boys’ and girls’ cases and
the age of the child are shown in table 33, and the reason for reference
and color of the child in table 34, both tables relating to 68 courts.
The percentage distribution of cases for 1932 according to reason for
reference and color is closely similar to the distribution of cases pre
sented in the 1931 report. There were slight changes, the most
important being in the cases of white boys referred for acts of care
lessness or mischief (31 percent in 1932 as compared with 27 percent
in 1931) and in the cases of colored girls referred as ungovernable
(34 percent in 1932 and 32 percent in 1931).
u With the exception of “ other source” , from which 1 percent were referred in 1931, and less than 1 percent
in 1932.
u 1931: Automobile stealing, 5 percent; truancy, 6 percent; running away, 6 percent; act of carelessness
or mischief, 27 percent; traffic violation, 3 percent.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
33
JUVENILE-COURT STATISTICS, 1932
T able 32.
Reason fo r reference to court o f boys and girls dealt with in delinquency
cases disposed of by 284 courts in 1932 1
Delinquency cases
Boys
Reason for reference to court,
Girls
Percent
Percent
Number distribu Number distribu
tion
tion
Total cases_________
56,639
Reason reported.
...........
8,635
13
81
_
56, 330
Automobile stealine
Burglary or unlawful entry__
H oldup_____
Other stealing___
Act of carelessness or mischief
Traffic violation_____
Truancy_______
Running away_______
Ungovernable_______
Sex offense...
Injury to person___
Use, possession, or sale of liquor or drugs
Other r e a s o n ..........
1,873
7,213
Reason not reported____
29
1 Of the 234 courts, 222 reported boys’ cases and 212 girls’ cases.
1
742
9
15
6
208
121
1
309
--------------------------------
0
0
15,369
16,115
2,383
2,817
3,062
3,114
934
1,473
407
1
61
» Less than 1 percent.
T able 33. Reason for reference to court of boys and girls of each age period dealt
___________ tn delinquency cases disposed o f by 68 courts in 1982 1
Delinquency cases
Age of child
Reason for reference to court, and sex
of child
Total
Total cases________________
Boys’ cases..._____________
Automobile stealing______________
Burglary or unlawful entry__ . Z ~ . f i
Holdup._______________ ....i - ___
Other stealing_______________
Act of carelessness or mischief______
Traffic violation_____ ___________
Truancy....... ..........................
Running away________________
Ungovernable______________I
Sex offense_______________ „...III.I
Injury to person____________ ZZZZZZ'.
Use, possession, or sale of liquor or
drugs......... ........... ......... ..............
Other reason____________________
Reason not reported___ _______
Girls’ cases........________ f
Automobile stealing___________ ....
Burglary or unlawful entry__
Holdup............. ........ .......................
Other stealing______________..I.I.!
Act of carelessness or mischief...1.1.!
Traffic violation__________________
Truancy________________________
Running away___________ Z Z Z Z Z Z ...
Ungovernable________________Z .Z Z Z
Sex offense.—. . ___________ IIIIIIII
Injury to person..................—IIIIII—
Use, possession, or sale of liquor or
drugs_________ ________________
Other reason_______
I
Reason not reported______________
Under
10
years
10
years,
under
12
12
years,
under
14
14
years,
under
16
16
years,
under
18
18
Age
years
and • not re
over ported
52,713
2,880
6,011
11,898
20,688
10, 111
332
793
45,286
1, 672
5, £51
349
12,116
13,390
1, 576
2, 281
2,907
2,699
741
1,129
2,613
12
276
4
615
1,124
2
91
141
193
45
92
5,604
42
696
19
1,612
2,159
3
198
242
383
59
128
10,709
164
1,410
83
3,255
3,668
18
446
555
614
110
226
17, 260
841
2,088
135
4,678
4,836
344
1,036
1,090
1,027
287
439
8,149
593
829
99
1,799
1,385
1,159
492
578
442
228
197
251
14
27
8
58
40
36
1
14
15
10
11
700
6
25
1
99
178
14
17
287
25
2
36
351
657
67
7,427
2
16
3
56
4
407
24
122
14
1,189
92
319
48
3,428
4
20
2
306
200
22
357
, 661
1,059
647
57
. 213
134
1
1, 962
14
3
3
7
81
93
1
10
12
233
243
539
524
31
5
1
1
17
28
21
2
10
21
13
18
6
41
20
32
60
31
2
4
2
267
i2
62
6
780
655
100
720
1,153
2,117
1,411
174
111
75
51 I
5
11
45
104
81
92
22
14
39
20
9
21
38
90
39
26
16
1
221
153
1
77
159
349
142
43
4
5
2
4
3
6
10
11
'7
10
3
112
93
• Of the 234 courts reporting delinquency cases, only 68 (67 of which reported girls’ cases) furnished infor
mation for correlating reason for reference to court and age of child.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Agricultural
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
IBRARY
& Mechanical College ot Texas
34
JUVENILE-COURT STATISTICS, 1932
T able 34.— Reason for reference to court, and color o f boys and girls dealt with in
delinquency cases disposed o f by 68 courts in 1932 1
Delinquency cases
Colored children
White children
Total
Reason for reference to court, and sex
of child
Children
whose
color
Percent
Percent
Percent
distri
was
not
Number
Number distri Number distri
bution reported
bution
bution
Total cases____________________
62,713
41,733
10,978
2
Boys’ cases___________________
45,286
36,070
9,214
2
Reason reported____________________
Act of carelessness or mischief-------
Use, possession, or sale of liquor or
Act of carelessness of mischief-------
Use, possession, or sale of liquor or
45,219
100
36,020
100
9,197
100
1,672
fi' 351
349
12,116
13^390
1,576
2, 281
2,907
2,699
741
1,129
4
12
1
27
30
3
5
6
6
2
2
1,410
4,242
'226
8,934
11,092
1,500
1,941
2,398
2,070
587
792
4
12
1
25
31
4
5
7
6
2
2
262
1,109
123
3,182
2,296
76
340
509
629
154
337
3
12
1
35
25
1
4
6
7
2
4
351
657
1
1
294
534
1
1
57
123
1
1
67
50
17
7,427
6,663
1,764
7,376
12
62
6
780
655
100
720
1,153
2,117
1,411
' 174
100
(J)
1
(2)
11
9
1
10
16
29
19
2
5,632
11
43
6
580
440
96
651
923
1,517
1,160
66
100
(>)
1
(2)
10
8
2
12
16
27
21
1
1,744
1
19
111
75
2
1
84
55
1
1
27
20
51
31
1
200
215
4
69
230
600
251
108
2
2
100
(»)
1
11
12
(2)
4
13
34
14
6
2
i
20
i Of the 234 courts reporting delinquency cases, only 68 (67 of which reported girls’ cases) furnished infor
mation for correlating reason for reference to court and color of child.
1 Less than 1 percent.
Previous court experience
In 12 percent of the boys’ cases and in 7 percent of the girls’ cases
reported by 68 courts the children had been dealt with previously
in a delinquency case in 1932. In one-third of the boys’ cases and
about one-fifth of the girls’ cases the children had previous court
experiences either in 1932 or in a prior year, as shown in table 35.
The 1931 report showed approximately the same proportions of cases
of children with repeated court experiences.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
35
JUVENILE-COTJRT STATISTICS, 1932
T able 35.— Court experience o f boys and girls dealt with in delinquency cases dis
posed o f by 68 courts in 1982 1
Delinquency cases
Boys
Girls
Court experience
Percent
Percent
Number distribu Number distribu
tion
tion
Child having 1 or more court experiences previous to 1932..
Subsequent 1932 court, experience
.
.........
45,286
100
7,427
100
_ 39,891
88
6,919
93
29,799
9,943
149
66
22
5,844
1,036
39
79
14
1
12
608
7
6,395
(*)
1 Of the 234 courts reporting delinquency cases, only 68 (67 of which reported girls’ cases) furnished infor
mation on previous court experience.
3 Less than 1 percent.
Place of care pending hearing or disposition
In 64 percent of the boys’ cases and 52 percent of the girls’ cases
the child was not detained pending the court hearing or the disposition
of the case but was allowed to remain at home. The proportions are
very similar to those in the cases reported for 1931. The percentage
of boys detained increased steadily with increasing age, except for the
small group 18 years of age and over, in which it was practically the
same as for the group 16 and 17. In girls’ cases, however, a larger
percentage of those 14 and 15 years of age than those aged 16 and 17
years were given detention care (table 36).
Some slight progress in 1932, as compared with 1931, is indicated
in reduction of the use of jail detention for children in the older age
groups.13 However, in the cases of 1,150 boys (7 percent) and 87
girls (3 percent) of those detained overnight or longer, the children
were detained in jails or police stations in 1932. Among the cases of
children detained in jail were those of 66 boys and 10 girls under the
age of 14 years, and of 290 boys and 23 girls between 14 and 16 years
of age.
13
In 1931,11 percent of the boys 16 to 18 years of age were detained in jail, and in 1932, 9 percent.
hose 18 years of age and over, 16 percent in 1931 and 12 percent in 1932 were so detained.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
For
T able 36 — Place of care pending hearing or disposition, and age of boys and girls dealt with in delinquency cases disposed of by 68 courts in
1932 1
W
D clinquency cases
Age of child
Total
Under 14 years
Place of detention care, and sex of child
Percent
distri
bution
Number
Percent
distri
bution
16 years, under 18
Percent
distri
bution
Percent
distri
bution
Number
Number
18 years and over
Number
Percent
distri
bution
Age not
reported
62, 713
20, 789
20,688
10, 111
332
793
45, 286
18,926
17, 26
8,149
251
700
44,203
100
18, 558
ICO
16,921
100
8,054
100
244
100
426
Detention care overnight or longer-----------------------------------
28, 269
15,934
64
36
13,030
5,528
70
30
10,260
6,661
61
39
4,498
3, 556
56
44
140
104
57
43
341
85
1
24
8
3
1
94
3,815
1, 519
66
34
368
1,863
1
21
8
143
4,272
1,905
290
51
339
3,428
1
25
11
2
Girls’ cases__________________________ ______ - ..............
249
10,677
3, 623
1,150
230
1,083
7,427
6
2,482
171
759
138
95
1,962
Report on detention care----------------------------------- ------------------
7, 225
100
1,808
100
1,933
Report on detention care----------------------------------- ------------- -
(2)
(2)
100
(2)
3,321
(2)
31
2
9
2
1
68
3
29
3
7
81
100
85
42
58
59
26
4
50
1
3
i
18
5
2
3, 766
3,459
52
48
1,107
701
61
39
1, 528
1,793
46
54
1,039
894
54
46
1
31
14
1
1
14
402
268
10
7
1
22
15
1
57
1,097
601
23
14
1
107
2
33
18
1
33
678
105
50
27
1
29
2
35
5
3
3
39
1
2
Other place of care! __________________ ___ __________Place of care not reported.............................. ...... .........
No report on detention care_________________________________
108
2,234
980
87
48
2
2Î2
55
(2)
(2)
(2)
3
i Of the 234 courts reporting delinquency cases, only 68 (67 of which reported girls’ cases) furnished information for correlating place of detention care and age of child.
jfcdudes^asofofchildren 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 Includes a few cases of children cared for part of the time in jails or police stations and part of the time elsewhere.
•Includes a few cases of children held in more than 1 place of care but in places other than detention homes, jails, or police stations.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
5
40
30
6
4
274
93
78
Detention care overnight or longer . - ............................ —---
(2)
28
1
12
100
33
45
m
(2)
3
JXJVENILE-COURT STATISTICS, 1932
Number
14 years, under 16
37
JUVENILE-COURT STATISTICS, 1932
Disposition of cases
Cases dealt with officially by the courts constituted 68 percent of
the total number disposed of in 1932, and 63 percent in 1931 (table 37).
Thirty-two percent in 1932 were dealt with unofficially, usually by
probation officers. Many cases adjusted unofficially, usually through
office interviews, are not included in statistical reports or made a
matter of record.
In about one-third of the cases reported by 234 courts, the child
was kept under the supervision of the court, chiefly under the guidance
of a probation officer. Probationary supervision by the court was
the method of treatment employed in 32 percent of all cases, 42
percent of the official cases, and 10 percent of the unofficial cases. In
^ percent of all cases and 11 percent of the official cases was the
child committed to an institution for delinquents. Ninety-three
cases (less than 1 percent) were of children committed to penal
institutions. In a slightly larger percentage of cases the children were
placed under care of a probation officer in 1932 (32 percent) than in
1931 (29 percent). The percentage of commitments to institutions
for delinquents was the same in both years.
T able
37.— Disposition and manner of handling delinquency cases disposed of bv
234 courts in 1932 1
Delinquency cases
Disposition of case
Total
Official
Num Percent Num
distri
ber
ber
bution
Total cases.._____ _______ ___ ,_______
Disposition reported________________
Child kept under supervision of court____
Probation officer supervising________
Agency or individual supervising...... I.
Under temporary care of an institution.
Unofficial
Percent Num Percent
distri
distri
ber
bution
bution
65,274
44,643
65, 270
100 44,640
100
20,630
100
22, 452
20, 868
752
832
34 20,148
32 18, 717
1
697
1
734
45
42
2
2
2,304
2 ,151
55
98
11
10
20,631
(2)
(3)
Child not kept under supervision of court..
37,605
58
19,656
44
17,949
87
Case dismissed or adjusted__________
Committed to:
State institution for delinquents__
Other institution for delinquents...
Penal institution_______ ___
Other institution__________....III
. Agency or individual...........
II
Referred without commitment to:
Institution____________________
Agency or individual______ *_____
Referred to other court______________
Restitution, fine, or costs ordered....... I
Runaway returned_________________
Other disposition of case.............. IIIIII
25,959
40
11,070
25
14,889
72
2,623
2,436
. 93
237
517
4
4
6
5
1
2,623
2,436
93
237
517
385
1,022
537
1,726
1,721
349
1
2
1
3
3
1
l83
369
338
1, 365
265
160
1
1
3
1
202
653
199
361
1, 456
189
1
3
1
2
7
1
Case held open without further action........
5,213
8
4,836
11
377
2
Disposition not reported______ _____________
4
(J)
(s)
3
(J)
(*)
1
1
(’)
1
!
th®,234 courts reporting delinquency cases, 232 reported official cases and 66 unofficial cases
1 Less than 1 percent.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
JTJVENILE-COURT STATISTICS, 1932
38
For the cases reported by 68 courts, table 38 shows the disposition
of the case and the age of the child, and table 39, the disposition of
the case and the reason for reference to the court. In these tables,
and in table 40, showing disposition of cases of white and colored
children, the dispositions have been grouped so as to show type ot
care without regard to retention of responsibility by the court. Ihere
was little change from 1931 in the relative use of the different methods
of care, as shown for 1932 in table 40, except that fewer cases, propor
tionately, of colored girls were dismissed and .more were placed on
probation in 1932.14
T able
38.— Disposition o f cases of boys and of girls o f each age period dealt vnth in
delinquency cases disposed o f by 68 courts in ly o z
Delinquency cases
Age of child
Disposition ot case, and sex of child
Total
Age
Under 10years, L2years, L4years, 16years, 18years not
re
and
under under under under
10
over ported
18
16
14
12
years
Total cases—.
52,713
2,880
6,011
11,898
20,688
10, 111
332
793
Boys’ cases.
45,286
2,613
5,604
10,709
17,260
8,149
251
700
23,277
12,909
1,717
'505
3,179
1,490
5,552
3,221
8,436
5,421
3,982
2,141
136
55
275
76
4,284
135
456
1,049
1,830
774
21
19
11
37
282
Dismissed, adjusted, or held open
without further action..................... .
Supervised b y probation officer.——
Comm itted or referred to an institu
tion......................................................
Comm itted or referred to an agency
or individual............................. ........
Restitution, fine, or costs ordered----Other disposition................ ..................
Disposition not re p o rte d ..—-----------
1,491
1,305
2,017
92
84
80
202
160
117
336
276
273
2
575
407
590
1
271
334
647
4
7
28
7,427
267
407
1,189
3,428
1,962
81
93
Dismissed, adjusted, or held open
without further action....... . . .
.
Supervised b y probation officer
2,809
2,339
182
42
211
111
469
392
1,070
1,250
805
510
28
18
44
16
.
1,317
12
34
195
681
368
17
10
19
30
7
14
75
9
49
238
24
164
1
146
20
113
5
4
4
15
Girls’ cases.
tion.
_!
Other disposition.
517
71
373
5
13
i Of the 234 courts reporting delinquency cases, only 68 (67 of which reported girls’ cases) furnished infor
mation for correlating disposition of case and age of child.
" h 1932—38 percent dismissed and 33 percent placed on probation; 1931-43 percent dismissed and 30 percent
placed on probation.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
V
*
f
4
T able m .-D is p o s itio n and reason fo r reference to court o f boye > and girls’ delinquency cases disposed 0/ by 68 court» in 1SS*
Delinquency cases
Reason for reference to court
Total
Stealing
Injury to
person
Use, pos
session,
Other Reason
or sale
not re
of liquor reason ported
or drugs
Total cases______________________
52,713
20,348
14,045
1,676
3,001
Boys’ cases__________________
4,060
4,816
2,152
1,303
462
732
118
45,286
19,488
13,390
1,576
2,281
2,907
2,699
741
1,129
351
657
67
23,277
12,909
4,284
1,491
1,305
2,017
3
7,336
8,118
2,543
751
462
277
1
10,560
1,659
304
171
614
82
1,124
195
16
11
76
154
987
749
383
140
6
16
672
439
265
117
276
320
94
29
7
14
1
642
289
81
28
69
20
145
103
31
15
48
9
507
69
25
30
16
10
29
30
6
1,414
999
938
536
199
6
20
1
P ' f” lis?ed{ adjusted, or held open without further action
fouperyised by probation officer___
•Comunitied or referred to an institution...............................
C ommitted or referred to an agency or individuai.": ” 1’ ’
Kestitration, fine, or costs ord ered ......
Other disposition______________ _
Disposition not reported__ I I I I I I I " " " "
Girls’ cases________ _____
Dismissed, adjusted, or held open without further action
Supervised by probation officer........
Comm itted or referred to an institution.’I l l " I " “ "
Committed or referred to an agency or individual__ II
-destitution, fine, or costs ordered
Other disposition........ ............
................. ..........
Disposition not rep orted -!— " ! " " *
............... *..........
■Orth. 234 » « a reporting dalinqn.ncy
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
1
1
7,427
860
655
100
720
1,153
2,117
1,411
174
111
75
2,809
2,339
1,317
517
71
373
1
51
358
306
114
35
28
19
510
86
15
21
13
10
84
3
1
3
5
4
372
228
74
41
2
3
217
401
202
61
723
750
431
195
5
13
365
436
425
142
2
41
99
41
9
8
13
4
40
43
15
7
3
3
33
15
18
4
8
30
13
272
1
only « (67 0( which „ported girla’ « * » ,) t u r n e d internati«« ,or correlating diapoalti.n
caae and reason
4 ............
1
JUVENILE-COURT STATISTICS, 1932
Act of
careless Traffic
Running Ungovern
Sex
ness or violation Truancy
away
able
offense
mischief
for reference to court.
CO
CO
40
JUVENILE-COURT STATISTICS, 1932
T able 40.— Disposition of case and color of toys and girls dealt with in delinquency
cases disposed of by 68 courts in 1982 1
Delinquency cases
Disposition of case, and sex of child
White children Colored children Chil
dren
whose
color
Percent Num Percent was not
Num Percent
distri
distri
distri Num
re
ber
ber
ber
bution
bution ported
bution
Total
Total cases_____________ ________ . . . 52, 713
41,733
10,978
Boys’ cases--------------------- -------------- 45,286
36,070
9,214
Disposition reported_____________________
Committed or referred to an institution—
Committed or referred to an agency or
individual____________ ____________
Restitution, fine, or costs ordered_______
Other disposition__________________...
2
100
36,067
100
9,214
100
2
51
29
9
18,941
10,404
3,105
53
29
9
4,334
2,505
1,179
47
27
13
2
12, '09
4,284
1,491
1,305
2,017
3
3
4
83,
1,071
1,709
2
3
5
654
234
308
7
3
3
45,283
Dismissed, adjusted, or held open without
further action______________________ 23, 277
Supervised by probation officer--------------
2
Disposition not reported__________________
3
3
Girls’ cases__________________ - .......
7,427
5, 663
Disposition reported_______ ___ , __________
7,426
100
5,633
ICO
1,763
100
2,809
2,339
1,317
38
31
18
2,146
1,758
1,034
38
31
18
663
581
283
38
33
16
517
71
373
7
1
5
381
39
305
7
1
5
136
32
68
8
2
4
Dismissed, adjusted, or held open without
further action...................................... .
Sui rvised by probation officer____ ____
Committed or referred to an institution__
Committed or referred to an agency or
individual____ ____________________
Restitution, fine, or costs ordered_______
Other disposition_____________________
Disposition not reported__________________
1
1, 764
1
1 Of the 234 courts reporting delinquency cases, only 68 (67 of which reported girls’ cases) furnished in
formation for correlating disposition of case and color of child.
D E P E N D E N C Y AN D
N E G LEC T C ASES R E P O R TE D IN
1932
Sex and age of children
Only 177 of the 267 courts furnishing information for 1932 reported
cases of dependency and neglect disposed of in that year. Of the
remaining 90 courts, 73 were in Massachusetts and 2 in New Jersey,
where this type of case was not included in the reports made to the
Children’s Bureau, and 15 were courts not having cases of this type
to report during 1932. These 177 courts reported 23,235 cases of
dependency and neglect— 11,889 boys’ and 11,346 girls’ cases. The
age distribution, which is shown in table 41, is very similar to the
distribution reported in 1931.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
4M
41
JUVENILE-COtJKT STATISTICS, 1932
T able 41.— Age of children dealt with in dependency and neglect cases disposed of
by 177 courts in 1932
Dependency and
neglect cases
Dependency and
neglect cases
Age of child
Number
Age of child
Percent
distri
bution
Number
Total cases.....................
23,235
Age reported............... ...........
22,956
100
2 01fi
Under 2 years___________
2 years, under 4_________
4 years, under f? _
6 years, under 8_________
2,737
2,693
2,983
3,103
12
12
13
14
’ 787
Percent
distri
bution
Age reported—Continued.
279
Color and nativity
The color and nativity of 19,273 children dealt with in dependency
and neglect cases by 66 courts are shown in table 42. Eighty-six
percent of the cases were of white children and 14 percent of colored
children. Cases of foreign-born white children constituted only 1 per
cent of the total. The percentage of colored children was considerably
smaller than in delinquency cases (21 percent). (See p. 29.)
In two-thirds (67 percent) of the cases of native white children for
whom parent nativity was reported both parents were native born.
In delinquency cases only 55 percent had native-born parents. The
figures for dependency and neglect cases are as follows:
Total native white children_______________________
16, 128
Native parentage________ _______________________ _______ 10, 210
Foreign or mixed parentage_______ _____ ________________
5, H3
Parentage not reported__________________________________
805
T able 42.— Color and nativity of children dealt with in dependency and neglect
cases disposed of by 66 courts in 1932 1
Dependency and
neglect cases
Color and nativity of child
Number
Total cases.--__________
19,273
Color reported_____________
19,271
White..................
Native born__________
Foreign born.......... ..
Nativity not reported--.......................... .
Colored________________
Percent
distri
bution
_
Negro............ ................ .............
O ther.....................................
Color not reported_____________
100
16,536
86
16,128
250
158
84
1
1
2,735
14
2,633
102
14
1
2
’ Of the 177 courts reporting dependency and neglect cases only 66 furnished information on color and
nativity of child.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
42
JUVENILE-CO U RT STATISTICS, 1932
Hom e conditions
In three-fourths (75 percent) of the cases of dependent and neglected
children for whom place of living was reported the children were living
in their own homes when referred to the court, in 19 percent they were
living in other family homes, in 4 percent in institutions, and in 2
percent elsewhere, as table 43 shows. This distribution ^varied
somewhat from that in 1931, a smaller percentage living in their own
homes.15 Only 27 percent of the cases, however, were of children
living with both their own parents in 1932. This percentage is much
smaller than the 63 percent of delinquent children living with both
their own parents. (See p. 30.)
T able 43.— Place child was living when referred to court in dependency and neglect
cases disposed of by 66 courts in 19S2 1
Dependency and
neglect cases
Place child was living when referred to court
Number
Percent
distri
bution
19,273
17,001
100
12,699
75
both own parents---------- --------------mother and stepfather------------------father and stepmother............... ........
mother only.................. .....................
father only---------------------- ------------
4,612
315
238
4,987
2,547
27
2
1
29
15
In other family home---------------------------------In institution______________________________
3,237
745
320
19
4
2
In own home___ ___ — . . . —------------- . . . . . . .
With
With
With
With
With
2,272
•Of the 177 courts reporting dependency and neglect cases, only 66 furnished information on place child
was living when referred to court.
In 28 percent of the dependency and neglect cases in which informa
tion was reported the parents were married and living together, and
in the other 72 percent of the cases the home was broken through
death or separation or (in 10 percent) the parents were not married to
each other (table 44). The distribution of cases according to marital
status was practically the same as in 1931. The place where the child
was living when referred to court, and the marital status of the parents,
are shown in table 45.
u 1931; i n 0Wn homes ,77 percent; other family homes 18 percent; institutions’ 4 percent; elsewhere,
1 percent.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
43
JUVENILE-CO U RT STATISTICS, 1932
T able 44.— Marital status o f parents o f children referred to court in dependency
and neglect cases disposed o f by 66 courts in 1982 1
Dependency and
neglect cases
Marital status of parents
Number
Total eases_____________________
Percent
distributton
19,273
Status reported_______________________
16,764
100
Parents married and living together.
One or both parents dead__________
4,685
4,108
28
25
Both dead____________________
Father dead__________________
Mother dead____________ _____
581
1,334
2,193
3
8
13
Parents separated_________________
6,189
37
Divorced_____________________
Father deserting mother_______
Mother deserting father________
Other reasons___ _____ ________
1,036
1,261
606
3,286
6
8
4
20
Parents not married to each other__
Other status______________________
1,703
79
Status not reported..___ ______________
2,509
10
«
» Of the 177 courts reporting dependency and neglect cases, only 66 furnished information on marital
status of parents.
1 Less than 1 percent.
T able 45. Marital status of parents, according to place child was living when referred
to court, in dependency and neglect cases disposed of by 66 courts in 1982 1
Dependency and neglect cases
Place where child was living when referred to court
Total cases_______________ 19,273 12,699 4,612
Parents married and living to
gether......................................
Both parents dead___ . . . . . . _....
Father dead.............. ....................
Mother dead__________________
Parents divorced_____ '_________
Father deserting mother________
Mother deserting father_________
Parents separated for other reasons.
Parents not married to each other
Other status____________________
Status not reported_________ ....
4,685
581
1,334
2,193
1,036
1,261
606
3,286
1,703
79
2,509
315
With father only
238 4,987 2,547 3,237
4,536 4,536
1,072
1,314
726
1,096
502
2,385
967
2
99
Ï44
1
119
72
35
3
17
187
37
928
428
1,079
69
1,624
3 808
2
11
49
. .y1
courts reporting dependency and neglect cases, onh
status of parents and place child was living when referred to court.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
With mother only
With father and
stepmother
With mother and
stepfather
Total
With both own
parents
In own home
Marital status of parents
1,127
141
17
433
761
49
19
745
320 2,272
44
JUVENILE-COURT STATISTICS, 1932
Source of reference to court*
Thirty-seven percent of the families involved in dependency and
neglect cases reported by 66 courts were referred by parents or rela
tives, and 32 percent by social agencies, as is shown in table 46.
T able 46.— Source of reference to court of fam ilies represented in dependency and
neglect cases disposed o f by 66 courts in 1982 1
F a m ilie s repre
sented in depend
ency and neglect
cases
Source of reference to court
Percent
Number distribu
tion
Total_______________ ___________________
10,664
Source reported_______________________________
10,631
100
Parents or relatives___________________ ____
Social agency___________________ £------ ----- Individual...................... .............. .............. - - -
3,946
3,446
1,135
960
753
283
108
37
32
11
9
7
3
1
Probation officer--- ---------------- ------------------School department________________________
Other source______________________________
33
1 Of the 177 courts reporting dependency and neglect cases, only 66 furnished information on number of
families represented.
Reason for reference to court
In three-fourths of the 23,235 dependency and neglect cases dis
posed of by 177 courts in 1932 the children were referred to eourt
because they were without adequate parental care or support. The
reasons for reference were as follows:
Reason for reference
T o t a l.................................... - ..............- .................. —
Number
of cases
23,235
Without adequate care or support from parent or guardian. 17, 689
Abandonment or desertion----------------------------------------------912
Abuse or cruel treatment---------- _------------------------------------536
Living under conditions injurious to morals.-------------------- 2, 295
Physically handicapped and in need of public care------------ 1, 751
Other reasons____________________ . . j . i ---------------------------52
Frequently several children in the same family are dealt with by the
court as dependent or neglected. Figures on number of cases are
based on a count which considers each child as a separate case. For
19,273 dependency and neglect cases reported by 66 courts, informa
tion was obtained concerning the number of families represented and
is presented in table 47, which shows the reasons for reference to
the court. The percent distribution according to reason for refer
ence is closely similar to that reported for 1931, although a somewhat
smaller proportion of cases were referred for abandonment or deser
tion in 1932 (5 percent, as compared with 7 percent in 1931) and a
somewhat larger proportion because the children were physically
handicapped and in need of public care (8 percent, as compared with
6 percent in 1931).
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
45
JUVENILE-COURT STATISTICS, 1932
T able
47.— Reason for reference to court and number of families represented in
dependency and neglect cases disposed of by 66 courts in 1932 1
Dependency and neglect cases
Families repre
sented
Reason for reference to court
Total
cases
Total_______________________________
Without adequate care or support from parent or guardian
Abandonment or desertion_____________________
Abuse or cruel treatment_____ _________ ________ I I I I I I I 'I
Living under conditions injurious to morals_____________
Physically handicapped and in need of public care..!__
Other reasons____ _______ _____________ _____
Percent
Number distribu
tion
19,273
10,664
100
IS, 335
826
465
1,779
858
10
8,128
503
292
924
812
5
76
5
3
9
8
(*)
1 Of the 177 courts reporting dependency and neglect cases, only 66 furnished information on number of
families represented.
2 Less than 1 percent.
Place of care pending hearing or disposition
In 63 percent of the dependency and neglect cases disposed of by
66 courts the child remained at home pending the hearing or disposi
tion of the case. This percentage is almost the same as that reported
for delinquency cases (62 percent). Table 48 shows a relatively small
use of public detention homes for dependent children, other insti
tutions being utilized much more extensively.
T able
48.— Place o f care o f child pending hearing or disposition in dependency
and neglect cases disposed of by 66 courts in 1932
Dependency and
neglect cases
Place of detention care
Percent
Number distribu
tion
Total______ x_______________
19,273
Report on detention care....... ...... ..............
18,553
No detention care__________
Detention care overnight or loneer
.
Boarding home or other family home___
Detention home 1____ ____
Other institution.......... ...... 1
Jail or police station..........
Other place of care 5_______
Place of care not reported__
No report on detention care_____!____
11,645 „
6,908*
861'
1,308
4,717
2
15
5
100
63
37
5
7
25
(2)
(9
(2)
720
1
Includes cases of children cared for part of the time in detention homes and part of the time elsewhere
but excludes cases of children also held in jails and police stations.
* Less than 1 percent.
\
* Includes a few cases of children held in more than 1 place of care but in places other than detention homes,
jails, or police stations.
,
’
Disposition of cases
. ... .
A smaller percentage of dependency and neglect cases (17 percent)
than of delinquency cases (32 percent) were dealt with unofficially
by the courts. In 27 percent of the dependency and neglect cases the
70355°— 35------4
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
46
JUVENILE-COURT STATISTICS, 1932
child was retained under court supervision. In only 14 percent of
these cases, but in 32 percent of the delinquency cases, the child was
placed under the supervision of a probation officer. Institutional
commitments were reported in 12 percent of the dependency and
neglect cases, and in an additional 4 percent the child was placed in
an institution temporarily, the court retaining jurisdiction (table 49).
The percentage of cases in which the court retained supervision was
considerably smaller than in 1931 (35 percent, including 19 percent
in which the child was placed on probation).
T able 49.— Disposition and manner of handling dependency and neglect cases
disposed o f by 177 courts in 1932 1
Dependency and neglect cases
Unofficial
Official
Total
Disposition of case
Percent
Percent
Percent
Number distri Number distri Number distri
bution
bution
bution
Total cases____________________________
23,235
100
19,364
100
3,871
Child kept under supervision of court--------------
6,276
27
6,003
31
273
7
Probation officer supervising--------------------Agency or individual supervising........ .........
Under temporary care of an institution.........
3,341
1,892
1,043
14
8
4
3,145
1,836
1,022
16
9
5
196
56
21
5
1
1
Child not kept under supervision of court...........
15,797
68
12,394
64
3,403
88
Case dismissed or adjusted......................... —
Committed to:
6,384
27
3,945
20
2,439
63
347
2,552
950
1,934
579
1
11
4
8
2
347
2,552
950
1,934
579
2
13
5
10
3
Referred without commitment to:
Institution___________________________
Agency or individual___________ ______
Referred to other court..............— ................
Other disposition of case........ ........................
1,096
1,021
123
811
5
4
1
3
1,002
331
48
706
4
94
690
75
105
2
18
2
3
Case held open without further action— ...........
1,162
5
967
5
195
5
5
2
(*)
100
i Of the 177 courts reporting dependency and neglect cases, 175 reported official cases and 38 reported
unofficial cases.
> Less than 1 percent.
O T H E R TY P E S OF C H IL D R E N ’ S CASES
Cases classified in appendix tables I a and I b as “ Special pro
ceedings” were reported by 35 courts serving areas of 100,000 or
more population, and 23 other courts. These cases include those
inyolving provision for the care of feeble-minded children, children
dealt with as material witnesses, adoption proceedings, and pro
ceedings concerning the custody or guardianship of children. Of the
1,171 cases of this type, 606 were reported by Philadelphia, 104 by
New York City, 228 by other courts in New York State, and 57 by
the San Diego County, Calif., court. No other court reported as
many as 30 cases,
The Philadelphia court did not report the sex of the children
involved. Of the 565 cases reported by other courts 204 involved
boys and 361 involved girls.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
JUVENILE-COURT STATISTICS, 1932
47
The types of cases were as follows:
/r»,,-,
Type of case
Number
ofcam
^
Total special-proceedings cases____________
1,171
Care of feeble-minded child______ '______________________
Material witness 17__________________________ ”
Adoption proceedings_________________ l i t !
Custody or guardianship proceedings___________
Permission to marry_______________________ I III I I
Permission to enlist in Army or Navy__________
Other--------------------------------------------------------- -----Not reported______________________________ "
CASES OF C H ILD R E N D ISC H A R G E D F R O M
is 300
280
241
105
101
2
is gg
5
SU PER VISIO N
,
periodf of supervision by the court delinquent children in
2 c^ses> dePendent and neglected children in 3,156 cases, and
children in 9 cases of other types were discharged from care in 1932
as reported by 187 courts giving information on this point. Seventy
percent of the delmquency cases and 64 percent of the cases of de
pendent and neglected children were reported discharged because of
improvement m the child’s conduct or in home conditions. In 1931
somewhat smaller percentages were discharged for these reasons (64
percent of the delmquency cases and 62 percent of the dependencv
and neglect cases). . (Table 50.)
J
u-ij
T able 50.— Reason for discharge in cases o f delinquent and o f dependent and
neglected children discharged from supervision by 187 courts in 1982 1
Cases of children discharged from
supervision
Dependent and
neglected
Delinquent
Reason for discharge
Percent
Number distribu- Number distribution
tion
Total cases...
15,572
Reason reported...
15,566
100
3,155
100
10,959
1,150
242
70
7
2
2,005
79
20
64
a
I
292
1,642
212
95
2
11
1
1
110
309
308
53
3
10
1»
2:
546
428
4
3
170
98
5
3
Conduct of child satisfactory or conditions improved
Expiration of period specified by court..........
Order of court fulfilled.......................................‘ " I 'l l ” *!!'!
Conduct of child or conditions unsatisfactory but further
supervision not advised..................................
Child committed or referred to an institution..” ” ” ” ” ” !
Child committed or referred to an agency or individual
Referred to other court............................................
Whereabouts of child unknown or moved from jurisdiction"
of court___________ _______ ____ ____
Other reason_______________
Reason not reported.
ency and neglect cases! —
6
’
3,156
1
reportea aejm(iuency cases, and 40 reported depend-
t u f f i foJ the feeble-minded?S C0Urt SCtion WSS br°Ught f° r the purpose of commi«in g the child to an insti'! ^ P ^ d
*5,®following courts only: Polk County, Iowa; Baltimore, M d.; New York City Svracuse
and Westchester County, N Y .; Hamilton County, Ohio; and Philadelphia, Pa. These cases to
courts are classified as cases of delinquency, neglect, or dependency.
6 cases 111 most
Includes 20 cases of action in juvenile court to terminate parental rights or to declare child niivihia tnradoption, prior to adoption proceedings in another court.
aeciare cmicL eligible ton
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
48
JUVENILE-COURT STATISTICS, 1932
Thirty-seven percent of the delinquency cases were under super
vision less than 6 months, and 34 percent, between 6 months and 1
year. In only 11 percent of the delinquency cases had supervision
continued as long as 18 months. Thirty-five percent of the depend
ency and neglect cases were discharged within 6 months, but in
contrast with the delinquency cases, 28 percent were retained under
supervision 18 months or longer (table 51).
51.— Length of time child was under supervision in cases of delinquent
and of dependent and neglected children discharged from supervision by 187 courts
in 1982 1
T able
Cases of children discharged from
supervision
Duration of supervision
Dependent and
neglected
Delinquent
Percent
Percent
Number distribu Number distribu
tion
tion
15,572
3,156
Duration reported_________________________ _______ ________
15,523
100
3,153
100
Less than 6 months____________________________________
6 months, less than 1 yea r..,------- --------------------------------—
1 year, less than 18 months....... ...............................s_______
18 months, less than 2 years__________________. . . . _______
2 years, less than 3 years________________________ _____
3 years or more________________________________ ________
5,736
5,237
2,855
775
631
289
37
34
18
5
4
2
1,097
738
433
274
325
286
35
23
14
9
10
9
49
3
• Of the 187 courts reporting supervision cases, 186 reported delinquency cases and 40 reported depend*
ency and neglect cases.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
FEDERAL JUVENILE OFFENDERS
PROGRAM OF THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
In August 1931 the Attorney General of the United States addressed
a Department circular to officials in the Federal judicial system,
establishing the policy of turning over juvenile delinquents who come
into Federal custody to State authorities for care and supervision or
punishment whenever practicable and consistent with the due en
forcement of Federal statutes. At that time he requested the co
operation of the Children’s Bureau in ascertaining the availability of
local resources and developing cooperation between State and Federal
authorities. Since then the Children’s Bureau of the Department of
Labor and the Bureau of Prisons of the Department of Justice have
been working together to make effective the policy developed by the
Attorney General and specifically authorized by act of Congress
approved June 11, 1932.1 For administrative purposes the Depart
ment of Justice has defined “ juvenile offender” as a person under
the age of 19 years. Some young persons between the ages of 19 and
21 who are immature or who need special attention are also included.
Studies by the Children’s Bureau 2 and the National Commission
on Law Observance and Enforcement3 had emphasized the need for
treatment of Federal juvenile offenders in accordance with juvenilecourt principles, and the advisability of transferring jurisdiction from
Federal to State authorities whenever possible.
STATISTICAL DATA AVAILABLE
Prior to July 1, 1932, no adequate source of statistical information
concerning Federal juvenile offenders was in existence. Certain in
formation about juveniles had been compiled from time to time in
the course of studies of the problem. After the program of the
United States Department of Justice had been inaugurated special
counts had been made from record cards received by the Department
for persons of all ages who had been arrested by Federal authorities
and detained in jail or whose cases had been disposed of by the courts.
This was a somewhat unsatisfactory arrangement for two reasons.
The relatively few juvenile cards were filed among the cards for
adults and were therefore not easily accessible for frequent use, and
the card in use for persons of all ages did not contain many items
needed for an effective analysis of the problems connected with
1 The law provides that United States attorneys may forego prosecution and surrender any person under
21 years of age attested for a Federal offense, after investigation by the Department of Justice, if “ it shall
appear that such person has committed a criminal offense or is a delinquent under the laws of any State
that can and will assume jurisdiction over such juvenile and will take him into custody and deal with him
according to the laws of such State, and that it will be to the best interest of the United States and of the
juvenile offender to surrender the offender to the authorities of such State.” (47 Stat. 301; Sudd N o VI
to U.S. Code, Title 18, sec. 662a.)
V o.
1 The Federal Courts and the Delinquent Child; a study of the methods of dealing with children who
have violated Federal laws. U.S. Children’s Bureau Publication No. 103. Washington, 1922.
3
Report on the Child Offender in the Federal System of Justice. National Commission on Law Observ
ance and Enforcement. Washington, 1931.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
50
FEDERAL JUVENILE OFFENDERS
handling juvenile offenders in the Federal system. In the early part
of 1932 a plan was developed for prompt and separate reporting to
the Department of Justice of all cases of juveniles coming to the
attention of Federal authorities throughout the countiy. A “ juvenile
index file” maintained in the probation section of the Bureau of
Prisons, affords current information on individual cases and a ready
source for special tabulations which are made from time to time.
From this file the Children’s Bureau, as part of its service in the
development of the program, has compiled and tabulated information
concerning cases of Federal juvenile offenders (under the age of 19
years), disposed of by Federal authorities during the last 6 months of
1932. It plans to make similar tabulations for the calendar year 1933,
which will be included in the report of the Children’s Bureau on
juvenile-court statistics for that year. The information covers the
entire country.
INDICATIONS AS TO TRENDS
Because the statistics presented in this report are the first com
prehensive statistics to be compiled, it is impossible to present com
parative data as to trends over a period of years. It is known,
however, that between 1918, to which the first partial figures to be
compiled relate, and 1932 there was a marked increase in the total
number of juvenile offenders dealt with by Federal authorities, due
largely to new legislation relating to transportation of stolen motor
vehicles in interstate commerce,4 the National Prohibition Act,6 and
to the immigration acts of 1921 and 1924.® On the other hand, there
was an encouraging decrease in the number of juveniles arrested for
larceny of mail, due largely to constructive policies of the Post
Office Department with reference to (1) the employment of boys as
special-delivery messengers and (2) reference of violators of postal
laws to State authorities. In 1925 the Federal courts were given
authority to place convicted offenders, juveniles or adults, on pro
bation,7 but extensive development of the United States Probation
Service did not begin until 1930. The probation system not only
affected the number of institutional commitments, but also made
possible the development of the program inaugurated in 1931, of
waiving jurisdiction after investigation in certain juvenile cases which
can be dealt with satisfactorily by State authorities.
In the report of the study made by the Children’s Bureau for the
years 1918 and 1919 it was estimated that probably 1,000 children
under the age of 18 years were arrested for Federal violations each
year.8 Annual reports of the Bureau of Prisons on Federal offenders
show the following numbers of juvenile offenders Under the age of 18
years committed to jail to be held for trial, for the fiscal years ended
June 30: 1930, 2,795; 1931, 3,233; 1932, 3,139; 1933, 2,148.
Tabulations for 1932 are based on the age classification “ under 19
years” , established by the Department of Justice, and include only
cases disposed of during the period July 1 to December 31, 1932.
4
The National Motor Vehicle Theft Act, commonly known as the “ Dyer Act” , approved Oct. 29,1919
(41 Stat. 324; U.S. Code, Title 18, sec. 408).
* National Prohibition Act, approved Oct. 28, 1919 (41 Stat. 305), as amended by act of Nov. 23, 1921
(42 Stat. 223) and by act of Mar. 3, 1925 (43 Stat. 1116; U.S. Code, Title 27).
• The Quota A ctp f May 19, 1921 (42 Stat. 5), as amended by act of M ay 11,1922 (42 Stat. 540), and the
Quota Act of May 26,1924 (43 Stat. 53; U.S. Code, Title 8, secs. 201-226). Aliens deported Under warrant
proceedings after entering the United States totaled 1,569 in 1918, 16,631 in 1930, and 19,426 in 1932 (years
ended June 30).
1Act of Mar. 4, 1925 (43 Stat. 1259; U.S. Code, Title 18, secs. 724-727).
<The Federal Courts and the Delinquent Child, p. 64.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
51
FEDERAL JUVENILE OFFENDERS
They do not cover cases of juveniles held in jail that were not disposed
of prior to December 31. The total number of cases involving boys
and girls under 19 years reported disposed of by Federal authorities
during this period was 1,168. Repeal of the prohibition amendment,
more liberal policies with reference to deportation of aliens, and the
continued development of the program of waiving jurisdiction and
turning juveniles over to State authorities in proper cases, when local
facilities are available, are important factors which will affect later
figures as to volume and character of juvenile-delinquency problems
dealt with by Federal authorities.
Persons under the age of 18 years arrested for violation of postal
laws numbered 491 in 1918, 617 in 1919, and 381 in 1928.9 In 1918
and 1919 this group of offenses led all others; but by 1930, as judged by
statistics of commitments to the National Training School for Boys,
it was surpassed in importance by the Motor Vehicle Theft Act and
the liquor laws.10 In the last 6 months of 1932, only 62 of the 1,168
cases involved violations of the postal laws, the Dyer Act was second,
instead of first, in relative importance (180 cases), and violations
of the liquor laws led all other charges (562 cases). Viola
tions of the Immigration Act (177 cases) were almost as numerous
as Motor Vehicle Theft Act cases (table 53). Many violations of
postal laws are now reported directly to State authorities by post-office
inspectors, and thus do not appear in the statistics herein presented.
CASES REPORTED IN 6 M ONTHS, JULY TO DECEMBER 1932
Number o f cases
In the last 6 months of 1932, 1,168 cases of juveniles under the age
of 19 years, of whom 1,066 were boys and 102 were girls, were disposed
of by Federal authorities after arrest on charges of violation of Federal
laws. Of these cases only 72 were transferred to State authorities.
Many other cases, their number being unknown, were referred direct
ly to State authorities by Federal officials without the initiation of
Federal court proceedings.
•The Delinquent Child, Report of the Committee on Socially Handicapped—Delinquency, p. 421.
House Conference on Child Health and Protection. Century Co., 1932.
i* The Delinquent Child, p. 442.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
White
52
FEDERAL JUVENILE OFFENDERS
Geographical distribution
The States (and Alaska and Puerto Rico), listed in order of number
of cases of Federal juvenile offenders reported in the last 6 months of
1932, are as follows:11
Texas_________
Kentucky_____
Oklahoma____
North Carolina
Alabama______
Alaska________
Georgia_____ _
West Virginia..
Florida_______
Illinois________
Louisiana____
New York____
Mississippi___
South Carolina.
Missouri_____
Arkansas_____
Tennessee____
Arizona______
Maryland____
Virginia______
California____
Pennsylvania _.
Vermont_____
Minnesota____
Washington__
157
81
71
62
56
46
46
45
41
40
39
38
35
35
32
*27
27
26
24
21
20
15
15
14
13
New Mexico___
North Dakota...
Ohio___________
Indiana________
Idaho_____ . . .
Michigan______
Colorado_______
Maine _________
Montana______
Nebraska______
Kansas________
New Jersey____
South Dakota. _
Nevada_______
Puerto R ico___
Massachusetts . .
Oregon________
Rhode Island__
Utah_____ _—
Connecticut___
Iowa__ _______
Wisconsin_____
Wyoming_____
New Hampshire
Delaware---------
12
12
12
11
10
10
9
9
7
6
5
5
5
4
4
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
1
0
The problem of the Federal juvenile offender is chiefly a southern
problem. As table 52 shows, 767 cases, or two-thirds (66 percent) of
the total number, were reported from the three southern geographical
divisions 12 whose total population comprises less than one-third (30
percent) of the population of continental United States, Alaska, and
Puerto Rico. Only 242 cases, or one-fifth (21 percent) were reported
by the four northern divisions,13 whose total population comprises
three-fifths (59 percent) of the total population of the same territory.
The number from the two western divisions,14 109, or one-eleventh
(9 percent) of the total, was about in proportion to population. The
disproportionate number (46) from Alaska is due to the fact that all
delinquency cases in the Territory come to the attention of the Federal
authorities. (See table X V II, p. 114.)
ii in the District of Columbia all courts are Federal, and no cases from this area are included.
WSouth Atlantic—Delaware (no cases), Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia, North Carolina, South
Carolina, Georgia, Florida; East South Central— Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama, Mississippi; West South
Central—Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma,. Texas.
is New England—Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut;
Middle Atlantic—N ew York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey; East North Central—Ohio, Indiana, Illinois,
Michigan, Wisconsin; West North Central—Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri, North Dakota, South Dakota,
Nebraska, Kansas.
m Mountain—Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, Utah, Nevada; Pacific—
Washington, Oregon, California.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
53
FEDERAL JUVENILE OFFENDERS
T able
Sex and race o f Federal juvenile offenders whose cases were disposed of
by Federal
ederal authorities in each geographic division and Territory, July 1—Dec.
81, 1982
Cases of Federal juvenile offenders
Geographic division and
Territory
Race of offenders
Population,
1930
Total
Boys
Girls
Not
In
re
White Negro Mex
ican dian Other port
ed
Total. ____________
123,891,368
1,168
1,066
102
784
142
136
59
10
37
Continental United States
122,288,177
1,118
1,035
83
774
140
136
' 26
5
37
4 northern divisions_____ 73,021,191
242
217
25
214
12
6
1
9
33
58
75
76
33
51
64
69
7
11
7
33
51
65
65
5
3
1
1
5
5
3
New England______
Middle Atlantic..- .
East North Central..
West North Central—
8,166,341
26,260, 750
25. 297,185
13, 296,915
3 southern divisions___
37, 370,764
767
717
50
499
126
114
3
25
South Atlantic......... 15,306, 720
East South Central . 9,887,214
West South Central.. 12,176,830
274
199
294
263
195
259
11
4
35
216
154
129
50
40
36
114
3
5
12
11,896,222
109
101
8
61
2
22
17
3, 701, 789
8,194,433
73
36
68
33
5
3
33
28
1
1
18
4
14
3
•59, 278
1,543.913
46
4
27
4
19
g
2
2
2 western divisions__
Mountain_________
Pacific__________
Alaska............. ........
Puerto Rico__________
4
3
33
1The District of Columbia is excluded because all its courts are Federal.
Statistics furnished by the juvenile courts suggest a greater fre
quency of delinquency cases in the Southern States than in the
Northern, due in part to the greater number of Negro delinquency
cases brought to the attention of the court. This does not explain
the juvenile offenses against Federal laws, as only 142 of the 1,168
cases involved Negro juveniles, and in the three southern divisions,
only 126 of the 767 cases reported were cases of Negro boys and girls!
Violations o f different Federal laws.— Although the South exceeded
the North in all the major types of cases, the great excess was found
m liquor cases, of which 474 were reported for the 3 southern divisions
as compared with 65 for the 4 northern divisions. The 180 cases
involving violations of the Motor Vehicle Theft (Dyer) Act were
fairly well distributed among the divisions, except for a dispropor
tionately large number in the South Atlantic States. The 62 postal
cases were principally in the South Atlantic and West South Central
divisions. (Table 53.) Immigration cases were confined almost
entirely to the States on the Canadian and Mexican borders. Of
177 immigration cases, 93 were reported from Texas, as table
X V III (p. 116) shows.
Variation in State juvenile-court fa cilities.— In addition to the special
problems of certain areas where violations of liquor laws or immigra
tion laws are common, comparatively large numbers of Federal ju
venile offenders in certain States may be accounted for in part by the
limited State facilities for juvenile-court and probation work. Where
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
FEDERAL JUVENILE OFFENDERS
54
such facilities were well established the practice usually grew up, even
prior to the development of a national policy by the Department^ of
Justice, of referring to State courts for investigation and disposition
juY6nil6 offenders coming to the attention of Federal courts,
I**
many Northern and Middle-Western States juvenile court and probation service has been in existence for many years in the larger centers
and to some extent in the less populous communities.
53 .— Offense charged or reason for arrest in cases o f Federal juvenile offenders
disposed of by Federal authorities in each geographic division and Territory, July 1 Dec. 31, 1932
T able
Cases of Federal juvenile offenders
Offense charged--Violation of—
Geographic division and Territory
Total
Total cases_________________
4 northern divisions---------- ----------
1,168
242
Liquor
laws
177
180
562
48
68
65
Held as
materi
al wit
Offense
Other not re ness
laws ported
1161
13
13
11
40
4
6
1
2
i
2
2
2
62
2
11
30
25
24
6
3
15
1
8
2
2
12
11
15
474
90
94
44
59
4
2
204
147
123
42
20
28
1
93
17
9
18
10
22
27
3
2
109
18
22
35
5
22
2
5
73
36
13
5
18
4
25
10
2
3
10
12
2
3
46
4
4
1
39
1
3
33
58
75
76
5
25
19
16
3 southern divisions-------------- ------
767
South Atlantic_______________
East South Central----------------
274
199
294
2 western divisions....____________
Alaska__________________________
Puerto Rico— --------------------------
Motor Immi
Vehicle gration Postal
laws
Theft
Act
Act
1
1
i Includes counterfeiting, 39; Narcotic Drug Act, 14; Interstate Commerce Act, 13; Mann Act, 8; Na
tional Banking Act, 1; not specified, 86 (39 in Alaska).
Age limit oj original juvenile-court jurisdiction.— The age up to
which State juvenile courts have original jurisdiction is an important
factor influencing the extent to which it is possible to transfer jurisdic
tion from Federal authorities to local juvenile courts. Two-fifths of
the population of the continental United States between 7 and 19 years
of age live in States where the age under which the juvenile court has
original jurisdiction is not higher than 16 years,16 and more than onefourth in States where the original jurisdiction does not extend beyond
the seventeenth birthday (in four of these States jurisdiction is up to
18 years in girls’ cases). The age limit of original juvenile-court
jurisdiction, however, does not appear to have been & major factor,
m 1932, in determining numbers of cases dealt with by Federal
authorities.
ii The Federal Courts and the Delinquent Child, p. 6; The Delinquent Child, p. 425; Report on the
Child Offender in the Federal System of Justice, p. 149.
.
it Including Maine, where the age under which special procedure is authorized was 15 m 1932,17 in 1933,
and Indiana, where the age limit is 18 for girls.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
55
FEDERAL JUVENILE OFFENDERS
T able 54.
Number o f States in each geographic division having specified age of
original court jurisdiction, and number o f cases o f Federal juvenile offenders of
81 1982 Juvemle~court age disposed o f by Federal authorities, July 1-Dec.
Geographic division and Territory
Age under
which
juvenile
court has
jurisdiction
Cases of Federal juvenile offenders
Total
Total______________
1,168
Continental United States.
1,118
4 northern divisions___
242
9 States *.
5 States *.
7 States...
3 southern divisions.
6 States *.
6 States 4.
4 States__
1 State__
2
Of juve
Over
nile-court juvenile- Age not
age
court age reported
838
305
807
197
103
86
53
767
286
318
136
27
258
247
57
western divisions.
9 States__
2 States *.
Alaska and Puerto Rico •.
the. age iS“ 1* for special procedure in juvenile cases was 15 in 1932 (it was changed
. 7 1?33lx and Indiana, where the age limit was 18 for girls.
6
I i ncJudes Illinois, where the age limit was 18 for girls.
. P ru d es Maryland, where the age limit in Baltimore city and in counties having special“ magistrates
ehls anTun^PT^
tn/**™'’ , erea ei™uit-court judge is designated the limit was under 18 years for
girls and under 20 years for boys; elsewhere there was no provision.
Includes Delaware, Kentucky, and Texas, where the age limit was 18 for girls.
in Wyoming and Alaska there are no juvenile-court laws but certain special procedures are provided.
As is shown by table 54, only 324 of the 1,168 juvenile offenders
reported were within the age jurisdiction of the juvenile courts in
their States; 838 were over juvenile-court age, and the ages of 6 were
not reported. The three southern divisions had 66 percent of those
of juvenile-court age and 70 percent of those over juvenile-court age
in the continental United States.
The age ljfiut of original juvenile-court jurisdiction for each State,
and the number of cases of boys and girls of and over juvenile-court age
that were disposed of by Federal authorities in the last 6 months of
1932 are shown in table 55. (See also table X IX , p. 117.)
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
FEDERAL JUVENILE OFFENDERS
56
T a b l e 5 5 — Age o f original juvenile-court jurisdiction, and number o f cases of
Federal juvenile offenders of and over juvenile-court age disposed of b y te d e r a l
authorities in each geographic division, State, and Territory, July 1 Dec. SI, 1VSJ
Age under
which
juvenile
court has
jurisdiction
Geographic division, State, and Territory
Cases of Federal juvenile offenders
Over
Of juve
Age not
nile-court juvenile- reported
court age
age
Total
1,168
Total.
324
807
Continental United States.
33
New England.
Maine--------------New HampshireVermont_______
Massachusetts...
Rhode Island___
Connecticut____
Middle Atlantic.
New York---- 1.
New Jersey....
Pennsylvania.
75
East North Central.
Ohio___
Indiana.
minois.___
Michigan..
Wisconsin.
^
S—
5—
fbovs..
-\girls~
West North Central.
Minnesota-----Iow a.________
Missouri_____
North Dakota.
South Dakota.
Nebraska------Kansas______
274
South Atlantic.
Delaware..____
Maryland-------Virginia_______
West Virginia..
North Caroiina.
South Carolina.
Georgia----------Florida_______
fbovs.
-\girls-
East South Central.
Kentucky..
Tennessee. .
Alabama__
Mississippi.
West South Central.
Arkansas..
Louisiana..
Oklahoma.
Texas__ _
fboys—
-\girls —
27
56
35
294
76
26
61
fboys.
128
-\girls.
i a o-fi limit was 16 vears in Baltimore city and in counties having special “ magistrates for juvenile causes” :
where^chcuR^udge was designated the limit was under 18 years for girls and under 20 years for boys; else
where there was no provision.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
57
FEDERAL JUVENILE OFFENDERS
T able 55.— A ge o f original juvenile-court jurisdiction, and number of cases of
Federal juvenile offenders of and over juvenile-court age disposed o f by Federal
authorities in each geographic division, State, and Territory, July 1-D ec. 31,1932 —
Continued
Geographic division, State, and Territory
Age under
which
juvenile
court has
jurisdiction
Continental United States—Continued.
Mountain________________________________
Montana_______
Idaho.___ __________________ _____ ____
Wyoming_______________ _____ ___ ____
C olorado...__________________________
New Mexico_______ ___________________
Arizona____ _________________ ______ __
Utah.............. .............. ......................... .
Nevada_________________________ . .
18
18
21
18
18
18
18
18
Pacific___________________
Washington..___________________
Oregon._______________ _____ __________
California___ . ________________________
Alaska_______________________
Puerto Rico___ _____
Cases of Federal juvenile offenders
Over
Of juve
Age not
nile-court juvenile- reported
age
court age
Total
73
34
38
7
10
2
9
12
26
3
4
4
2
2
6
3
13
2
2
3
8
1
1
2
9
13
1
2
36
26
10
18
18
21
13
3
20
3
3
20
10
16
16
46
4
18
1
28
3
Sex and age o f children
Of the 1,168 Federal juvenile offenders under the age of 19 years
reported, 1,066 (91 percent) were boys and 102 (9 percent) were girls.
The percentage of boys was slightly higher than that found among
the 65,274 juvenile-delinquency cases reported by State juvenile
courts in 1932 (see p. 27).
The age distribution of the Federal juvenile offenders is shown in
table 56. Eight percent of the boys and 25 percent of the girls were
under the age of 16 years. Boys 17 or 18 years of age constituted 80
percent of the total number of boys, and girls of these ages 63 percent
of the total number of girls. The most frequent age reported, in
both boys’ and girls’ cases, was 18 years.
T able 56.— Sex and age of Federal juvenile offenders whose cases were disposed of
by Federal authorities, July 1-D ec. 31, 1932
Cases of Federal juvenile offenders
Boys
Age of juvenile
Girls
Total
Number
Age reported______________ _____ ________________
1 Less than 1 percent.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
1,168
1,066
1,162
1,060
5
15
23
68
139
334
578
3
9
15
59
126
311
537
6
6
Percent
distri
bution
Number
Percent
distri
bution
102
0)
100
102
100
1
1
6
12
29
51
2
6
8
9
13
23
41
2
6
8
9
13
23
40
FEDERAL JUVENILE OFFENDERS
58
White juveniles constituted about three-fourths (71 percent) of the
boys, but only 55 percent of the girls reported. Negroes, Mexicans,
and Indians were included in comparatively large numbers, as is
shown in table 57.
T able
57.— Sex and race o f Federal juvenile offenders whose cases were disposed of
by Federal authorities, July 1-D ec. 31, 1932
Cases of Federal juvenile offenders
Girls
Boys
Race of juvenile
Total
Number
Total cases------ ------ -----------------------------------
MThite
Percent
distri
bution
Number
Percent
distri
bution
102
1,168
1,066
1,131
1,030
100
101
100
784
142
136
59
3
7
728
134
120
41
2
5
71
13
12
4
56
8
10
18
1
2
55
8
16
18
1
2
37
36
______________________________
Race not reported......... ...... ........... ................... - ........
(>)
0)
1
i Less than 1 percent.
State of home residence
One of the problems involved in the development of adequate
methods of dealing with juveniles who violate Federal laws is the fact
that many are arrested away from their homes sometimes in fardistant States.17 This difficulty is inherent in enforcement of the
M otor Vehicle Theft (Dyer) Act, and the Mann (White Slave) Act,
since transportation across State lines (or in foreign commerce) is an
essential element of the offense. The law authonzmg transfer of
jurisdiction to State courts (see p. 49) authorizes payment by the
Federal Government of the expense of transportation to the juvenile s
home community.
State of home residence was reported m only 862 of the 1,168 cases
disposed of in the last half of 1932. Of these 862 juveniles, 614 (71
percent) were arrested in the same State in which they lived, 159
(18 percent) in contiguous States, and 89 (10 percent) m other, more
distant States.
,
n.
One child under 14 years of age, 5 children 14 years of age, 14
children 15 years of age, and 34 children 16 years of age, were arrested
outside their home States, as is shown in table 58.
n Report on the Child Offender in the Federal System
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
of Justice, pp. 23-23, 68-71.
FEDERAL JUVENILE OFFENDERS
59
T able 58.— A ge sex, and place o f arrest o f Federal juvenile'offenders whose cases
were disposed o f by Federal authorities, July 1—Dec. 31, 1982
Cases of Federal juvenile offenders
Place of arrest
Age and sex of juvenile
Other State
Total
Home
State
ported
Contigu Not con whether
ous to
tiguous
home
home
to home
State
State
State
Total cases..
1,168
614
159
89
306
Boys’ cases.
1.066
569
150
79
268
Under 14 years___
14 years__________
15 years__________
16 years__________
17 years__________
18 years..... .........
Age not reported..
12
7
1
59
126
311
537
6
37
57
160
298
1
5
15
64
63
7
17
21
33
1
4
4
10
37
66
143
4
Girls’ cases.
102
45
9
10
38
Under 14 years___
14 years__________
15 years__________
16 years__________
17 years__________
18 years__________
8
8
9
13
23
41
3
3
4
7
12
16
1
3
5
3
2
1
1
3
2
3
4
7
17
The offenses charged or the reason for arrest in the cases of 248
juveniles arrested outside their home States were as follows:
Total arrested outside own State
Boys
.......... 229
Violation of—
Liquor laws. _
Motor Vehicle Theft Act
Immigration Act_____
Postal laws______
Mann (White Slave) Act___
f Other l a w s .__
Held as material witness
Girls
19
O
A
5
19 O
4
Offense
The preponderance of arrests for violation of the liquor laws and
to a lesser extent, the National Motor Vehicle Theft Act and the
lm m i^ation Act, has been pointed out previously. Forty-nine percent of all the cases for which offense was reported were liquor cases
Motor-vehicle cases and immigration cases contributed 16 and 15
percent, respectively. Postal offenses comprised only a very small
proportion (5 percent). Girls, as well as boys, were arrested more
frequently for violation of the liquor laws than for any other offense
32 percent of the girls being charged with this offense. Seventeen
percent of the girls were held on immigration charges, 8 percent on
Mann Act charges, and 8 percent for postal offenses (table 59).
•I rw!ig w ' }' co^terfeiting, 7; Interstate Commerce Act, 5; not reported. 6.
i» Drug Act, 1; not reported, 1.
9
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
60
FEDERAL JUVENILE OFFENDERS
T able 59.— Sex of juvenile and offense charged or reason for arrest in cases of
Federal juvenile offenders disposed of by Federal authorities, July 1-D ec. SI,
1932
Cases of Federal juvenile offenders
Girls
Boys
Total
Offense charged or reason for arrest
Percent
Percent
Percent
Number distribu Number distribu Number distribu
tion
tion
tion
Total cases_______________________
Offense or reason reported----------------------Violation of—
L&\vs against. couiiti6ri6itiii§-- -- -- Interstate Commer06 Act ——
—— —
—
102
1,066
1,168
1,155
100
1,055
100
100
100
562
180
177
62
39
14
13
8
>87
13
49
16
15
5
3
i
1
i
8
1
530
178
160
54
39
11
13
50
17
15
5
4
1
1
32
2
17
8
32
2
17
8
3
3
8
18
12
8
18
12
13
>69
1
11
7
(?)
2
i Includes 1, National Banking Act.
>Less than 1 percent.
Twelve of the 27 boys and 2 of the 16 girls under the age of 15
years were charged with violation of the liquor laws. Thirty-one
boys and 2 girls of 15 years were charged with this offense, and 1 0
boys of 15 years were charged with motor-vehicle offenses. Two
children (a boy and a girl) under 1 0 years of age, 1 girl of 1 0 years, and
4 children (3 boys and 1 girl) 15 years of age were arrested on immigra
tion charges. Twelve children (9 boys and 3 girls) under 16 years of
age were charged with postal offenses. Cases arising under the Mann
(White Slave) Act were responsible for the arrests of two 14-year-old
girls, and one 15 years of age. The age of the child and the offense
with which he was charged are shown in table 60.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
61
FEDERAL JUVENILE OFFENDERS
T able 60. Age and sex of juvenile and offense charged or reason fo r arrest in
cases of Federal juvenile offenders disposed of by Federal authorities, July 1 Dec. 81, 1982
’
a
Total cases________
1,168
562
180
177
62
39
14
13
Boys’ cases..... ........ 1,066
530
178
160
54
39
11
13
1
Under 14 years. _ ___
14 years....... ...................
15 years___________ _____
16 years_______.*_________
17 years..............................
18 years............ .................
Age not reported________
1 12
15
59
126
311
537
6
3
9
31
64
140
279
4
1
10
28
66
73
3
7
58
91
2
2
5
9
16
20
Girls’ cases..............
102
32
2
17
8
Under 14 years__________
14 years_________________
15 years_______________ _
16 years.............................
17 years___ _____ ________
18 years_________________
»8
8
9
13
23
41
2
1
1
1
2
1
2
2
2
4
11
13
2
1
2
5
7
8
Offense not re
ported
Other laws
Mann Act
Interstate Com
merce Act
Narcotic Drug
Act
Laws against
counterfeiting
Postal laws
I m m ig r a tio n
Act
Liquor laws
Total
Age and sex of juvenile
Motor Vehicle
Theft Act
Offense charged —Violation of—
Held as material wit
ness
Cases of Federal juve nile offenders
87
13
13
69
11
1
1
1
4
7
27
3
s
3
1
2
10
10
1
8
18
2
12
4
2
3
1
6
1
1Includes 3 under 10 years (Immigration Act 1, other laws 2); 2 of 10 years (liquor laws 1, postal laws 1):
1 of 11 years (postal laws); 1 of 12 years (other laws); 5 of 13 years (liquor laws 2, other laws 2, not reported 1).
s Includes 2 under 10 years (Immigration Act 1, other laws 1); 1 of 10 years (Immigration Act); 5 of 13
years (postal laws 1, other laws 3, held as material witness 1).
Period between arrest and disposition
Forty-two percent of the cases of Federal juvenile offenders for
whom the period between arrest and disposition was reported were
disposed of in a period of less than 1 month, 19 percent being disposed
of in less than 1 week after arrest. Twenty-four percent were dis
posed of in a period of between 1 and 2 months, making a total of 67
percent disposed of within 2 months. In 33 percent of the cases the
period between arrest and disposition was 2 months or more. For 4 3
juveniles (4 percent) from 6 months to 1 year elapsed between arrest
and disposition. The period tended to be shorter for girls than for
boys, 57 percent of the girls’ cases, compared with 41 percent of the
boys’ cases, being disposed of in a period of less than 1 month, and a
total of 76 percent of the girls’ cases, compared with 6 6 percent of the
boys’ cases, in less than 2 months (table 61).,
70355°— 3
5
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
62
FEDERAL JUVENILE OFFENDERS
T able 61.— Sex of juvenile and period between arrest and disposition in cases of
Federal juvenile offenders disposed o f by Federal authorities, July 1—Dec. 81,1932
Cases of Federal juvenile offenders
Girls
Boys
Total
Period between arrest and disposition
Number
Percent
distri
bution
Number
Number
968
100
1,061
169
79
149
239
132
161
29
10
19
8
15
24
13
16
3
1
1200
90
160
257
141
170
31
12
100
93
100
17
8
15
25
14
17
3
1
31
11
11
18
9
9
2
2
33
12
12
19
10
10
2
2
9
98
107
Percent
distri
bution
102
1,066
1,168
Period reported________________________
Percent
distri
bution
i Includes 63, less than 1 day; 72,1 to 2 days; 65, 3 to 6 days.
A slightly smaller percentage of liquor cases than of all cases were
disposed of in less than 1 month, and liquor cases were somewhat
more likely to remain open for 3 months or more. A larger percentage
of immigration cases than of cases of other types were closed within
1 month, and no immigration case remained open as long as 6 months
(table 62).
62.— Offense charged or reason fo r arrest and period between arrest and dis
position in cases of Federal juvenile offenders disposed of by Federal authorities,
July 1-D ec. 81, 1982
T able
Cases of Federal juvenile offenders
_
450
257
141
170
31
12
107
100
42
24
13
16
3
1
506
202
96
72
102
24
10
56
100
40
19
14
20
5
2
Offense not reported
Percent dis
tribution
Number
Other
laws
13
13
167
166
100
199
100
10
13
57
60
21
25
3
1
34
36
13
15
2
1
88
58
15
5
53
35
9
3
89
39
29
37
4
1
45
20
15
19
2
1
9
1
5
3
4
1
223
177
13
* Percent distribution not shown as number of cases was less than 50.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Percent dis
tribution
Percent dis
tribution
Number
Percent dis
tribution
Number
Percent dis
tribution
Number
Period reported__________ 1,061
Immigra
tion Act
100
180
562
Total cases_________ 1,168
Less than 1 month____
1 month, less than 2___
2 months, less than 3 ...
3 months, less than 6__
6 months, less than 9—
9 months, less than 12..
. .
. -
Motor Ve
hicle Theft
Act
Liquor
laws
Number
Total
Period between arrest and
disposition
Held as material witness1
Offense charged—Violation of—
a
24
3
63
FEDERAL JUVENILE OFFENDERS
From 19 States (table X X , p. 119) cases were reported in which a
period of 6 months or more elapsed between arrest and final disposi
tion, as follows: North Carolina, 6 cases ; Mississippi, 5 cases ; Alabama,
4 cases; Kentucky, West Virginia, and Texas, 3 cases each; Arizona,
Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Tennessee, and Wyoming, 2 cases each;
and Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Maryland, Missouri, Pennsylvania,
and South Carolina, 1 case each.
Release prior to final disposition
In the development of the Federal program for dealing with juvenile
offenders, emphasis has been placed on avoiding jail detention when
ever possible.20 Jail detention may be reduced by: (1) Increased use
of release in proper cases, on the offender’s own recognizance or the
recognizance of responsible persons, a practice in juvenile-court pro
cedure generally agreed to be sound; (2) fixing bail in low amounts*
(3 ) shortening the period between apprehension and disposition; ana.
(4 ) use of local facilities for juvenile detention when available.
During the period covered by these statistics comparatively little
use was being made of these devices, as is shown by the following facts.
Of the 977 cases of juvenile offenders for whom information as to
release was reported, 250 (236 boys and 14 girls) were released on bail.
Only 23 juveniles (20 boys and 3 girls) were known to have been
released on th%ir own recognizance pending trial, and 1 2 ( 1 1 boys and
1 girl) on the recognizance of others.
Seventy-one percent were held
until final disposition, without release, and of the 692 so held (623
boys and 69 girls) 61 were under the age of 16 years (table 63). Re
lease on bail, or in a few cases, on their own recognizance or the recog
nizance of others, was much more common in liquor cases than in
cases of other types, as table 64 shows. Release on bail or personal
recognizance usually followed a period of detention.
T able 63.— Sex and age of juvenile and release pending trial in cases of Federal
juvenile offenders disposed of by Federal authorities, July 1—Dec. 81, 1982
Cases of Federal juvenile offenders
Boys
On own recognizance__
On recognizance of
974
6
102
25
77
71
816
3
87
100
24
63
Number
116 to 18 years
of age
86
U n d e r 16
years of age
___
Percent dis
tribution
1,066
Age not re
ported
U n d er 16
years of age
16 to 18 years
of age
Girls
Percent dis
tribution
1,168
Number
Number
Percent dis
tribution
Total
Release pending trial
977
100
890
100
692
285
71
29
623
267
70
30
43
28
578
238
2
1
69
18
79
21
18
6
51
12
250
23
26
2
236
20
27
2
16
6
219
14
1
14
3
* 16
3
3
3
11
12
1
11
1
1
1
191
176
6
5
15
158
3
15
1
1
14
20 See, for example, U.S. Department of Justice Circular No. 2221 to United States Marshals, dated
Sept. 25,1931, in which it is said that, “ it is the policy of the Department to avoid the use of jails for deten
tion of any juveniles of immature years or experience. To this end effort should be made by you and
your deputies to place such juveniles in custody of local detention homes or such other places of detention
as are provided by local authorities for juveniles and wayward minors whenever such course can possibly
be pursued with safety."
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
64
FEDERAL JU VEN ILE OFFENDERS
64.— Offense charged or reason for arrest and release pending trial in cases
o f Federal juvenile offenders disposed o f by Federal authorities, July 1—Dec. 81,
1982
T able
Cases of Federal juvenile offenders
Offense charged—Violation of—
Liquor laws
Release pending trial
Motor Ve
hicle Theft
Act
Immigra
tion Act
Other laws1
Of-
Total
not
Per
Per
Per
Per
re
cent Num cent Num cent ported
cent
Num
Num dis
dis
dis
dis
ber tribu ber tribu ber tribu ber tribu
tion
tion
tion
tion
Held
as
ma
terial
wit
ness1
Total cases--------------
1,168
562
13
13
Report as to release-----------
977
466
100
150
100
157
100
181
100
10
13
237
229
51
49
137
13
91
9
152
97
143
38
79
21
10
13
Released_____________
692
285
250
210
45
9
3
2
28
15
2
1
9
5
1
1
On own recogniOn recognizance of
otliBrs.
23
12
191
1
10
9
96
2
2
30
223
177
180
1
20
3
42
i In 6 of the 8 Mann Act cases the offender was not released, in 1 case release was on bail, and 1 case on
offender’s own recognizance.
* Percent distribution not shown as number of cases was less than 50.
The 35 juveniles released on their own recognizance or the recog
nizance of others were distributed among 17 States and the Territory
of Alaska, as table X X I (p. 120) shows. Arizona released 5 juveniles,
Alaska 4, and Missouri 3 in this way. In none of the other States
were more than 1 or 2 children released without bail. Of the 250
juveniles reported released on bail 40 were reported from Kentucky,
30 from North Carolina, 20 from Georgia, 16 from Alabama, 15 from
West Virginia, 14 from Oklahoma, 13 from New York, and 11 each
from Tennessee and Texas. No other State reported as many as
1 0 cases of release on bail.
Ba.il
.
,
Setting of bail, which must be furnished before a prisoner can be
released pending trial, is a common practice in criminal procedure, to
which juveniles as well as adults dealt with by Federal courts are
subject. Reports as to bail were obtained in 911 boys’ cases and 89
girls’ cases. Bail was set in 37 percent of the boys’ cases and 38
percent of the girls’ cases. In the cases of only 2 children under the
age of 14 years (a boy of 11 and a girl of 13) was bail set, but 19
boys and 6 girls 14 and 15 years of age were reported as having bail
set, in amounts ranging from $100 to $1,500 (table 65).
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
FEDERAL JU VEN ILE OFFENDERS
65
T able 65.
Sex and age o f juvenile and amount o f bail set in cases o f Federal
juvenile offenders disposed o f by Federal authorities, July 1—Dec. SI, 1932
Cases of Federal juvenile offenders
Boys
Amount of bail
Total
Total
Total cases.
Bail set______
$100, less than $500..
$500, less than $1,000
$ 1,000...........
$1,500..................
$ 2,000..................................."
$2,500 or more__________
Amount not reported.__
No bail set________
No report as to bail.
'•
Girls
Under 16 to 18 Age not
16 years years of
re
of age
age
ported
Total
Under 16 to 18
16 years years of
of age
age
1,168
1,066
86
974
6
102
25
77
372
338
20
317
1
34
7
27
>60
1134
89
12
13
‘ 14
50
52
122
81
12
13
14
44
7
4
1
8
12
8
3
4
44
118
77
11
13
14
40
628
168
573
155
53
13
518
139
2
3
4
1
a s <£«sss'ajgaM g 7*•»»■
5
7
6
i
5
55
13
17
1
38
12
$350, 1 at
th,e offenders and the types of offenses are considered, the amounts of bail appear to be high in the maioritv of
cases. In o n ly 1 9 percent of the 322 cases in which bail was set^and
the amount was reported, was the sum fixed under $500. In 42 percent of the cases it was between $500 and $1,000 and in 40 percent
nf «o%nnSeS WES $V °?°10.r m° r®* Ei^ht cases of bail in the Amount
of l l ’ 5v e »^ TV.POrtef ’ I mvoli T g a boy of 1 6 and 7 involving boys
1
Three of ,tlie eiSht cases were liquor cases, four were
f ^ r; Teh3Ce
andone was a counterfeiting case. Two boys
3 b e l l I f lx ° f 8’ Were. h? 'd/ or *3,000 bail on counterfeiting charges’;
3 boys of 18 years were held for $5,000 bad, 1 on a Honor charee In<i
2 on counterfeiting charges; and 1 boy of 18 years washeld for $ 1 0 0 0 0
than°$nilo o t arge
C0Unterfeit“ g- No giri was held for b ^ of more
Bail was much more likely to be set in liquor cases (56 percent')
than m cases of other types. In only 2 1 percent of ^the motor5ases and
.percent of the immigration cases for which
information was obtained on this point was bail set. When bail
S
e hn,Se22^fThetO
30Vp
^ le of this h?WeT
’ -he amounts
•di&
¿z of the 30
cases
class having
bail set were
at <K1 usually
non
more, and 4 of these having bail set at $2,500 or more (table d ) “
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
FEDERAL JU VEN ILE OFFENDEES
66
T a b l e 6 6 .— Amount o f bail set and offense charged or reason f or arrest ™ S ™ es f
Federal juvenile offenders disposed of by Federal authorities, July 1-D ec. SI,
1982
Cases of Federal juvenile offenders
Offense charged—Violation of—
Total
Amount of bail
Total cases.
Liquor laws
Motor Immi
Of
Vehi gra Postal Other fense
cle
Per
Per
laws laws not re
tion
ported
N um cent Num cent Theft Act
ber distri ber distri Act
bution
bution
Bail set_____________
372
Amount reported.
322
$100, less than $500...
$500, less than $1,000.
$1,000........................
$1,500....................
$2,000.........................
$2,500 or more......... .
Amount not reported—
60
134
89
No bail set...............
No report as to bail.
562
1,168
100
12
13
14
50
628
168
161
13
32
28
^4
30
25
3
180
45
107
58
6
7
4
41
6
2
12
212
121
27
82
Held
as
mate
rial
wit
ness
177
1
"2
5
1
4
2
140
19
105
28
In a large proportion of cases in New York State release was on
bail, and the bail was high. Bail was set in 21 of the 38 New York
cases, and in every case but 1 , in which the amount was not reported,
-------— More than half the total
the amount of» ,bail was $ 1 , 0 0 0 or
more.
New York' cases ( 2 0 out of 38) were liquor cases The number of
cases in which bail was set at $ 1 , 0 0 0 or more was as follows:
$ 1,000..................................... —
$1,500..................... - ...........
$ 2,000............... .............. .....................-
12
1
4
$3,000..
$5,000$ 10,000.
Twenty-five other States reported from 1 to 8 cases in which bail
of $1,000 was set; 7 other States, from 1 to 3 cases of bail oi $1,500;
9 other States, 1 or 2 cases of bail at $2,000; 7 other States, 1 or 2
cases of bail at $2,500 or $3 ,0 0 0 ; and 2 other States, 1 case each of
bail of $5 , 0 0 0 (see table X X II, p. 1 2 2 )
In 254 of the 372 cases in which bail was set, the boy or girl was
released— on bail in 250 cases and on his own recognizance in 4 cases.
The juvenile was not released before trial in 103 of the cases in which
bail was set, and information as to release was not obtained m 15
cases. In all but 12 of the 60 cases in which bail was fixed at less
than $500 the juvenile was known to have been released. In many
cases in which larger amounts were fixed the juvenile was held
throughout the period, as table 67 shows. This period ^ °ften pro
longed. In 5 of the 89 cases of juveniles whose bail was set at $ 1 , 0 0 0
the detention was for 2 to 5 months, and in 1 case it was for over 6
months. In 2 of the 12 cases in which bail was set at $1,500, and in
2 of the 13 cases in which it was set at $2 ,0 0 0 , the child was detained
from 3 to 5 months. One of the three boys held for $5,000 bail was
detained between 3 and 6 months, and the boy held for $ 1 0 , 0 0 0 was
detained for a similar period.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
67
FEDERAL JUVENILE OFFENDERS
T able 67.
Release pending trial and amount o f bail set in cases o f Federal juvenile
offenders disposed of by Federal authorities, July 1-D ec. SI, 1932
Cases of Federal juvenile offenders
No report
Released Not re
as to
leased
pending
pending release
trial
pending
trial
trial
Amount of bail
Total
Total cases__________________
1 IfiK
Bail set...... ...................
—
372
$100, less than $500......................
$500, less than $1,000_________
$1,000..................................
$1,500........................
$2,000................
$2,500 or more...............
Amount not reported________
No hail set...............
No report as to bail___________
.................
.................
60
134
48
1101
12
13
14
50
628
168
6
i 34
"i
168
j Includes 2 cases in which bail was waived and the juvenile was released on his own recognizance,
of others M 19 03868 ^ wblcl1 tbe iuvenile was released on his own recognizance and 12 on the recognizance
Place of detention
B y the last half of 1932 little progress had been made in substi
tuting detention in local juvenile detention homes for jail detention.
Of the 1,168 cases disposed of by Federal authorities, the juvenile
was known to have been detained in 983. The cases of only 3 7 were
disposed of without the juvenile having been detained at all. In
148 cases information as to detention was not obtained. In 983
cases of juveniles detained only 19 (2 percent) were in juvenile
detention homes throughout the period of detention, and 1 2 ( 1 per
cent) were elsewhere, not in jail, making only 3 percent for whom a
place of detention other than jail was provided. In 952 cases ( 9 7
percent) the juvenile was detained in jail, either a Federal jail ( 1 0 0
cases) or a county or city jail (852 cases). In 23 cases of juveniles
n G id in j&il, detention was in a juvenile detention liome or elsewhere
during part of the period. (Table 6 8 .)
T a b l e 6 8 . _ Sex and age o f juvenile and place o f detention pending trial in cases of
tederal juvenile offenders disposed of by Federal authorities, July 1-D ec. SI,
1932
Cases of Federal juvenile offenders
Place of detention pending
trial
Total Cases____
Boys
Girls
Total Num Per Under 16 to
Age Num Per Under 16 to
cent
16
18
cent
16
18
ber distri years years not re ber distri years years
bution of age of age ported
bution of age of age
1,168
1,066
No detention________ .
Place reported_____ ____ _
37
983
32
893
100
67
824
2
90
Local ja il1_________
Federal ja il2......... .
Juvenile detention home.
Other institution____
Other place...................
No report as to detention
852
100
19
4
8
148
792
85
13
89
10
1
48
18
i
742
2
60
14
124
3
7
a„JM
>
i
'
3
141
86
974
6
102
25
77
100
21
69
67
U
12
3
(3)
i
6
f ? b° j s under 16 cared for part time in jail and part time elsewhere (2 in detention home
J case °J?lr^ ^ d e r 16 cared for part time in jail and part time in an institution.
^oys^under 16 cared for part time in Federal jail and part time in local jail.
Jw,h!?6/J^ace)
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
68
FEDERAL JUVENILE OFFENDERS
Girls were somewhat less likely than boys to be detained in jail,
but even in girls’ cases jail detention was reported for 83 percent of
those detained. In the cases of 67 boys under the age of 16 years who
were held, only 1 was cared for in a detention home, and 6 6 were
held in jail— 18 in a Federal jail and 48 in local jails. In the cases of
21 girls under the age of 16 years who were held 4 were detained in
detention homes, 3 were detained elsewhere, and 14 were held in jail.
Juvenile detention homes provided care in the cases of 1 2 boys and
2 girls who were 16 years or over, including 7 juveniles who were 16
years of age, 5 who were 17 years of age, and 2 who were 18 years of
age. In the cases of the 13 juveniles detained in jail part of the
period and in juvenile detention homes the remainder of the period,
2 were under 16 years of age, and 1 1 were 16 or over.
In the 80 cases of boys and girls under the age of 16 years held in
jail the ages were as follows:
Boys
Girls
66
14
3
1
1
5
10
46
1
Total................................................................
Under 10 years____________________________________
11 years-__________________________________________
12 years______________________________________
13 years___________________________________________
14 years___________________________________________
15 years___________________________________________
-----4
4
5
The charges on which the.juveniles were held are shown in table 69.
Five girls involved in Mann (White Slave) Act cases and 1 boy and
7 girls not charged with any offense but held as material witnesses
were detained in jail.
T able 69.— Place o f detention pending trial and offense charged or reason for
arrest in cases o f Federal juvenile offenders disposed o f by Federal authorities,
July 1-D ec. SI, 1982
Cases of Federal juvenile offenders
Offense charged—Violation of—
Place of detention pending trial
Total
Total cases------- -------------------Local ja il2________________________
No report on detention--------------------
i Drug Act).
Motor Immi
Liquor Vehicle gration Postal
laws
Theft
laws
Act
Act
1,168
562
37
852
100
19
4
8
148
33
415
29
2
1
1
81
180
139
9
6
1
25
Held
as ma
terial
Other Offense
re witness
laws not
ported
177
62
161
13
145
12
2
2
48
2
1
11
s 90
•46
«7
7
2
17
Ï
3
4
14
1
8
13
1
8
1
3
« Includes 20 cases of boys detained part time in jail and part time elsewhere (12 in detention home and
8 in other place) and 3 cases of girls detained part time in jail and part time elsewhere (1 in detention home,
1 in an institution, and 1 in other place).
^
. . .
. __
* Includes counterfeiting, 28; Interstate Commerce Act, 11; Drug Act, 9; Mann Act, o; not specified, 37.
4 includes 17 boys detained part time in Federal jail and part time in local jail.
* Includes counterfeiting 6, Drug Act 4, not specified 36.
* Includes counterfeiting 3, Mann Act 3, Interstate Commerce Act 1«
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
69
FEDERAL JUVENILE OFFENDERS
Care in juvenile detention homes for part or all of the period of
detention was reported only in the following States, and in only one
of these States for more than 3 cases: Alabama, California, Florida,
Illinois, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri (7 cases), New
York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Texas, and Virginia (see table
X X III, p. 124).
Length o f detention
Of the 966 cases of juveniles for whom length of detention was
reported, 99 (10 percent) were held less than 1 day and 170 (18 percent)
1 day but less than 3.
In more than one-third (37 percent) of the
cases they were held 1 month or longer, and in 1 0 cases 6 months or
longer. Long periods of detention ( 1 month or more) were reported
for 2 1 boys and 7 girls under the age of 16 years (table 70). When it
is recalled that the juvenile in nearly all cases was held in jail, the
lengthy detention periods, due at least in part to the fact that the
court is not in continuous session and sits in different places in the
district, are seen to be especially serious. The 334 juveniles (315 boys
and 19 girls) known to have been held in Federal or local jails through
out the period of detention and for 1 month or more, were detained
for the following periods: 1 month, 182; 2 months, 73; 3 months but
less than 6 months, 72; 6 months but less than 9 months, 7.
A boy held as a material witness was detained 2 months, and in the
cases of 12 girls detained as material witnesses 7 were held for 1 month
or more (3 for 2 months and 1 for 3 but less than 6 months). Of the
8 girls involved in Mann Act cases, 3 were held for 1 month or more
( 1 for 2 months, 1 for 6 months or more).
70.— Sex and age o f juvenile and length o f detention pending trial in cases
o f Federal juvenile offenders disposed o f by Federal authorities, July 1-D ec. 31,
1932
T able
tases of Federal juvenile offenders
Length of detention reported------
2 weeks, less than 1 month___
1 month, less than 2_________
16 to 18 years of age
Under 16 years of age |
Percent distribution
Number
Age not reported
16 to IS years of age
Under 16 years of age
Percent distribution
Girls
1,168
1,066
86
974
6
102
25
77
37
966
100
32
881
100
5
69
26
810
i
2
5
85
3
2Ï
2
64
99
170
103
98
134
197
78
77
10
. 10
18
11
10
14
20
8
8
1
87
152
95
88
125
183
71
71
9
10
17
11
10
14
21
8
8
1
11
17
13
6
1
10
4
7
76
135
82
82
123
172
67
64
9
5
4
7
14
8
1
1
12
138
3
165
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Boys
Number
Number
Length of detention pending trial
Percent distribution
Total
153
12
18
8
10
9
14
7
6
i
12
100
14
21
9
12
h
16
8
7
1
4
i
4
2
1
8
10
5
1
1
h
70
FEDERAL JUVENILE OFFENDERS
Twenty-three States and Alaska reported juveniles detained for
periods of between 3 and 6 months. Periods of 6 months and more
were reported for cases in Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi,
and Wyoming (see table X X IV , p. 125).
Disposition of cases
The primary aim of the Department of Justice in its program for
dealing with Federal juvenile offenders is to encourage transfer of
juveniles to State and local authorities whenever there are available
reasonably adequate facilities for their care, having due regard to the
individual problems of the offenders and the interests of society.
For those for whom the Federal Government must assume responsi
bility the objectives include: ( 1 ) Increased use of probation in proper
cases; (2) increased use of juvenile instead of penal institutions; (3)
increased use of properly equipped State training schools in preference
to sending juveniles, often long distances, to the National Training
Schools at Washington. The program was just in process of develop
ment in 1932.
In the last 6 months of 1932, only 72 ( 6 percent) of the 1,168 cases
were transferred to State authorities. In all, one-third of the cases
( 3 3 percent) were disposed of through dismissal, transfer, release to
immigration authorities, verdict of not guilty, or fine— processes not
involving c o n t i n u i n g supervision by the court nor institutional care.
In less than one-fifth of the cases (18 percent) was the juvenile placed
on probation (see table X X V , p. 127). This percentage is lower than
that found in cases dealt with by juvenile courts reporting to the
Children’s Bureau in 1932, 32 percent of their delinquency cases being
disposed of by probation.
. . . .
The number of cases disposed of by transfer to State authorities is
shown in table X X V (p. 127). In no States were more than 7 cases
transferred, and only in Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, and Missouri
were 5 or more cases transferred. In some States many cases are
referred by investigating officers directly to State authorities and are
not included in these statistics.
Of the States disposing of 10 or more cases, Georgia ranked first
in the proportionate use of probation, this disposition being made in
18 of the 46 Georgia cases, and in 3 other cases in combination with
jail sentence. In Arkansas, Kentucky, Michigan, and Virginia
probation was used in approximately one-third or more of the cases.
In general, however, very few cases were so disposed of (table 71).
In 20 of the 72 cases transferred to State authorities the juvenile
was under the age of 16 years. In 14 cases the juvenile was 16 years
of age, in 2 0 cases he was 17, and in 15 cases he was 18. In 3 cases the
age was not reported (table 72). Thirty-two of the 72 were arrested
in the States in which they lived, 12 in contiguous States, and 13 in
more distant States: in 15 of these cases the State of home residence
was not reported. In the cases of the 208 juveniles placed on proba
tion, 2 1 were under the age of 16 years.
Almost half the cases (47 percent) resulted in commitment to insti
tutions. This percentage is in contrast to the very much lower pro
portion ( 8 percent) of institutional commitments in delinquency cases
disposed of by juvenile courts reporting in 1932 (see p. 37). Ninetenths of the institutional commitments were to penal institutions,
usually local jails. In 2 2 cases of girls and 343 cases of boys the juve
nile received a jail sentence or served time in jail for nonpayment of
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
71
FEDERAL JUVENILE OFFENDERS
T able 71.— Disposition o f case in States having 10 or more cases o f Federal
juvenile offenders disposed o f by Federal authorities July 1-D ec. 31, 1932
Cases of Federal juvenile offenders
Disposition
State and Territory
Total
Total cases_________________
1,168
States and Territory having 10 or
more cases_____________.________
1,093
Alabama_____________________
Alaska_______________________
Arizona______________________
Arkansas____________________
California____________________
Florida______________________
Georgia______________________
Idaho_______________________
Illinois_______________________
Indiana______________________
Kentucky____________________
Louisiana____________________
Maryland_____________ ______
Michigan________:__________
Minnesota_______ ____________
Mississippi___________________
Missouri_____________________
New Mexico_________________
New York___________________
North Carolina_______________
North Dakota________________
Ohio________________________
Oklahoma___________________
Pennsylvania________________
South Carolina_______________
Tennessee____________________
Texas________________________
Vermont_____________________
Virginia_____________________
Washington__________________
West Virginia____ ____________
Trans
ferred
to State
authori
ties
Probation
alone or Probation
with sus and jail
pended
sentence
sentence
Other
Not re
ported
860
190
814
66
46
26
27
20
41
46
10
40
11
81
39
24
10
14
35
32
12
38
62
12
12
71
15
35
27
157
15
21
13
45
States and Territory having less than
10 cases_________________ _______
27
24
141
15
12
11
40
46
fine. Twelve boys and one girl under the age of 16 years were com
mitted to jail. The girl was 15 years of age, and the ages of the boys
were as follows: Under 1 0 years, 1 ; 13 years, 1 ; 14 years, 4 ; 15 years, 6 .
Institutions for juvenile delinquents were used in the cases of only
55 juveniles— 53 boys and 2 girls. In 35 of the 5 5 cases commitments
were made to the National Training School for Boys at Washington,
and in 2 0 , to State training schools. The number of commitments to
the National Training School has been considerably reduced in recent
years.21 The 35 boys committed to the National Training School
came from Puerto Rico and 1 1 States, as follows: Alabama, Florida,
Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina,
South Carolina, Virginia^ and West Virginia. State training schools
were used in the following 8 States: Arkansas, California, Idaho,
Illinois, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Oregon, and Texas, and an Alaska
girl was committed to a State training school.
“ Ip the fiscal year ended June 30, 1930, 306 boys were committed to this institution.
Child, p. 441.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
The Delinauent
'
T able 72.— Sex and age o f juvenile and disposition o f cases of Federal juvenile offenders disposed o f by Federal authorities, July 1—Dec. 31, 1932
^
Cases of Federal juvenile offenders
Girls
Boys
Total
Disposition of case
Number
Disposition reported_______________________________________
Transferred, dismissed, juvenile found not guilty, juvenile
fined___ _______ ___________ ________________________
Transferred to State authorities.------- ------------------------
Percent
distri
bution
Under
16 years
of age
16 to 18
years
of age
Age not
reported Number
Under
16 years
of age
16 to 18
years of
age
86
974
6
102
25
77
1,162
1,061
100
86
969
6
101
100
25
76
386
72
13
273
g
33
6
1
23
1
2
18
5
3
2
31
3
7
2
3
16
330
66
11
225
8
20
196
53
31
6
1
21
1
2
18
5
3
2
32
3
7
2
4
16
41
17
286
46
11
206
8
15
178
42
25
17
330
30
76
23
35
166
3
3
56
6
2
48
55
6
2
48
15
3
1
11
41
3
1
37
1
12
2
12
2
4
2
8
2
22
2
7
2
22
2
7
2
1
1
1
12
1
12
11
1
7
2
1
2
120
119
6
76
20
17
14
5
1
1
3
3
3
3
3
3
6
1
6
1208
55
Juvenile committed to jail______________________________
20
! 365
34
23
39
183
123
7
79
20
17
3 25
6
1,066
35
18
343
32
79
23
38
171
7
76
20
17
19
5
11
1
7
2
2
2
19
5
17
11
10
1
12
2
3
2
5
5
1
1Includes 94 cases of boys and 7 cases of girls (3 boys and 1 girl under the age of 16 years) placed on probation under suspended sentence.
* Includes 61 cases of boys and 4 cases of girls committed to United States jails.
1Includes 8 cases in which the court ordered deportation.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Percent
distri
bution
100
1,168
Juvenile placed on probation____________________________
Juvenile committed" to institution for juveniles_____________
Juvenile committed to reformatory, prison camp, penitentiary.......................... ......................................................-
Number
1
3
21
2
7
1
11
3
1
FEDERAL JUVENILE OFFENDERS
Total cases......... .................................. ..............................
Percent
distri
bution
FEDERAL JUVENILE OFFENDERS
73
A law passed in 1930 provides that persons convicted of an offense
against the United States shall be committed for such terms of
imprisonment and to such types of institutions as the court mav
direct, to the custody of the Attorney General of the United States or
his authorized representative, who shall designate the places of confanement where the sentences of all such persons shall be served 22
Authority to make these designations has been delegated to the
probation service of the Department of Justice. The earlier practice
was to designate, generally, certain institutions for the care of juve
nile offenders committed by Federal courts. The present policy is
to make specific designation in each case. In only 41 of the 178
cases disposed of in the last half of 1932, in which the juvenile was
committed to an institution other than a jail, was individual designa®aa(l©. All these 41 cases were of boys. The designations were
as follows:
Institution
National Training School for Boys______________
United States reformatories____________ ” 1111
State training schools____________ ~~~~~~~~~
United States prison camps___________________
State reformatories_______________ZZZ-ZZZZZZ
United States penitentiary_________________ ”
______
Number
of cases
in
o
a
”
2
2
Nearly two-fifths of the liquor cases, about one-third of the motorvehicle cases and also of other cases, but only 1 0 percent of the
immigration cases, were transferred or dismissed, or the juvenile was
found not guilty, or fined, as table 73 shows. The percentages
placed on probation did not vary greatly as to type of offense, except
for immigration cases of which only 2 percent resulted in probation
I he boy or girl was committed to an institution for juvenile delin^ percent of the motor-vehicle cases but in only 3 percent
of the liquor cases. It was to be expected that few of the immigra
tion cases would result m commitments to institutions for long-time
In 80 percent of the immigration cases the juvenile was committed
to i ail, as was the case m 29 percent of the liquor cases, 19 percent of
other cases, and only 8 percent of motor-vehicle cases. The small
proportion of jail commitments in motor-vehicle cases was accom
panied by a very high percentage of commitment to other penal insti
tutions, 26 percent of these cases, as compared with 6 percent of the
liquor cases, being disposed of in this way. Combining jail com—
s ^artd^sentences to penal institutions of other types gives the
...
Type of case
All cases_____________________________
Liquor cases_________ L,ZZZZZZZZZZZl
Motor-vehicle cases____________ ~~~~~
Immigration cases__________ Z-IZaZ
Other cases___________
----------------,J 46 Stat. 326; Supp. No. V I to T7.S. Code, Title 18, sec. 763-F.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Percentage disposed of by
commitment to jails and
other p e n a l institutions
qr
”
qc
««
„„
oo
T able
73.— Disposition o f case and offense charged or reason for arrest in cases o f Federal juvenile offenders disposed o f by Federal author
ities, July 1-D ec. SI, 1982
Cases of Federal juvenile offenders—
Offense charged—Violation of
Total
Disposition of case
Liquor laws
Motor-Vehicle
Theft Act
Immigration Act
Other laws
Total cases_________ . . . ______________ ___
1,168
Disposition reported.. . . . . . . . . . . . __ ___ . . . . . . . . ___
1,162
Transferred, dismissed, juvenile found not guilty,
juvenile fined____________________________
Juvenile placed on probation________________
Juvenile committed to institutions for juveniles.
Juvenile committed to jail__________________
Juvenile committed to reformatory, prison camp,
penitentiary_____________________________
Other disposition______. . . . . _____________ __
100
180
177
178
176
100
141
80
386
208
55
365
47
Disposition not reported___ . . . . _______. . . . . . . . . . .
1 Percent distribution not shown as number of cases was less than 50.
* Includes 7 Mann Act cases (girls), 1 of which was transferred to State authorities and 6 were dismissed.
* Includes 1 Mann Act case in which the girl was placed on probation.
* Includes 8 deported by court order.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
26
13
223
562
561
221
100
Held as
material
witness1
FEDERAL JUVENILE OFFENDERS
Percent
Percent
Percent
Percent
Percent
Number distribu Number distribu Number distribu Number distribu Number distribu
tion
tion
tion
tion
tion
Offense
not re
ported
75
FEDERAL JUVENILE OFFENDERS
Term of probation
v
In all but 3 of the 169 probation cases in which the term of proba
tion was reported, definite periods were specified, ranging from under
1 month to 5 years. In 3 cases (all boys) the juvenile was placed on
probation during minority. In administrative practice, however,
probation periods are flexible and by order of the court may be termi
nated before or extended beyond the expiration of the period origi
nally specified, provided, however, that the period of probation plus
any extension may not exceed 5 years.23
The probation periods in the 166 cases for which terms other than
minority were specified were as follows:
Term of probation
Number
of cases
Total________________
Less than 6 months_________
6 months, less than 1 year___
1 year, less than 2_____ _____
166
3
12
43
Term of probation
2
3
4
5
years_________________
years_________________
years_________________
years_________________
Numbes
of caser
...........
...........
...........
______
48
18
1
41
Term o f commitment to juvenile institutions
*
In the cases of the 35 boys committed to the National Training
School for Boys, 5 were committed for minority, and the term of
commitment of 1 was not reported. The terms of commitment of the
remaining 29 were as follows: 1 year but less than 2, 15; 2 years, 7;
3 years, 3; 4 years, 3; more than 5 years, 1.
Boys in 18 cases were committed to State training schools. For
17, term of commitment was reported as follows: 1 year but less
than 2, 5; 2 years, 5; 3 years, 5; 4 years, 2. Two girls were committed
to State training schools, each for a 5-year term.
Term of sentence to jails and other penal institutions
In all but 4 cases jail sentences were for less than 1 year except
where there was a combined jail sentence and probation order. Ap
proximately two-thirds of the jail sentences were for less than 3
months, the most usual period being 1 month but less than 3, as
table 74 shows; but about one-third were for periods of 3 months or
more.
In the cases of 123 juveniles committed to institutions for adults—
reformatories, penal camps, and penitentiaries— 75 were committed
for periods of between 1 and 2 years. Only 17 were committed for as
long as 3 years.
« 43 Stat. 1269; U.S. Code, Title 18, sec. 724
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
76
FEDERAL JUVENILE OFFENDERS
74 .— Sex of juvenile and length of sentence in cases o f Federal juvenile
offenders committed to penal institutions by Federal authorities, July 1-D ec. 81,
1982
T able
Cases of Federal juvenile offenders committed to
penal institutions
Boys
Length of sentence
Total
Total
Total cases____________________________ ____
Less than 1 year_________________________________ 1
1 year, less than 2..................... .......... - ------ ------------
Com
mitted to
reforma
Com
tories,
mitted to prison
jails
camps,
and peni
tentiaries
Girls
488
463
343
120
>25
311
291
290
1
20
30
24
32
127
62
30
6
26
22
28
121
59
30
5
26
22
28
121
59
29
5
86
29
13
1
6
1
1
15
25
84
29
12
1
6
1
1
15
23
11
1
4
14
23
1
73
28
12
1
2
1
1
1
4
2
4
6
3
1
2
1
2
i includes 20 committed to jails all for less than 1 year and 3 to reformatories, 2 for 1 year but less than
2years, and 1 for 3 years.
, .
a Includes 22 cases of boys and 2 of girls serving out fines, no tune being specified, and 1 case of boy com
mitted to United States jail pending reference to immigration authorities.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
SOURCE TABLES
T a b l e I a .— Number o f boys’ and girls’ delinquency, dependency and neglect, and
special-proceedings cases disposed of, and number of cases of children discharged
from supervision by courts in 4- States, by 68 courts serving specified areas with
100,000 or more population, and by 199 courts serving areas with less than 100,000
population, in 1982 1
and
Delinquency cases Dependency
neglect cases
Cases of children
discharged from
supervision
Special-proceed
ings cases
Area served by court
Total Boys Girls Total Boys Girls Total Boys Girls Total Boys Girls
204
361 <18,737 15,014 3,723
332
25
101
11
231
14
A reas w i t h 100,000 or
M ore P opulation___ 55,687 48,223 7,464 19,610 10,104 9,506 1,108
188
314 15,849 12,463 3,386
Total cases2________ 65,274 56,639 8,635 23,235 11,889 11,346 s 1,171
State totals:2
513
595
447 1,108
4,361 3,914
560
6,971 6,411
New York___________ 111 831 10|465 1,366 8,807 4,479 4,328
115
115
337
230
Utah.............................. 2,244 1,907
Alabama: Mobile County
California:
San Diego County (San
Diego)................... .
San Francisco County
Connecticut:
District
of
Columbia
Florida: Dade County
140
Georgia: Fulton County
Iowa: Polk County (Des
Moines)___ __________
Louisiana:
Caddo Parish (ShreveOrleans Parish (New
14
5
1
1
4
5
1
4
27
189
437
227
210
57
30
647
511
136
761
383
378
1
1
511
711
340
444
650
323
67
61
17
71
169
93
41
76
59
30
93
34
1
1,799 1,604
195
303
168
135
109
702
340
362
1,264 1,074
190
348
176
172
266
139
127
173
80
93
786
598
187
260
127
133
502
398
104
278
146
132
234
70
202
101
101
1,385 1,196
619
Indiana:
Lake County (G ary)...
Marion County (Indi-
126
1
304
510
1
1
1
3
1
12
6
1,408 1,320
2,575 2,347
4,780 3,890
572
673
18
88
228
890
101
18
191
144
4
412
301
111
176
95
252
171
78
247
5
17
5
763
602
161
353
250
103
2
148
80
68
6
217
153
64
100
Maryland: B a lt im o r e
4
285 228
4
67
183
137
265 320
(city)............................. 3,060 2,795
1 Population according to the 1930 census.
a All figures for the States for which totals are given are also shown by courts for areas with 100,000 or more
population and included in the group total for areas with less than 100,000 population.
» Includes 606 cases for 1 court which did not report boys’ and girls’ cases separately.
4 Includes 16,572 delinquency cases, 3,166 dependency and neglect cases, and 9 other cases.
754
680
74
275
175
77
70355° — 35-—
e
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
78
SOURCE TABLES
T a b l e I a .— Number of boys’ and girls’ delinquency, dependency and neglect, and
special-proceedings cases disposed of, and number o f cases of children discharged
from supervision by courts in 4 States, by 68 courts serving specified areas with
100,000 or more population, and by 199 courts serving areas with less than 100,000
population, in 1982— Continued
and
Delinquency cases Dependency
neglect cases
Cases of children
discharged from
supervision
Special-proceed
ings cases
Area served by court
-fi
Total Boys Girls Total Boys Girls Total Boys Girls Total Boys Girls
A reas with 100,000 or
M ore P opulation—
Continued.
Massachusetts:5
Boston:
Boston (central sec
032
136
796
tion) _____________
2
59
57
Brighton___________
3
151
148
Charlestown________
223
207
16
Dorchester_________
441
411
30
Bast Boston________
380 355
25
Roxbury___________
10
220
210
South Boston_______
13
188
175
West Roxbury______
Second district of Bris
25
170
195
tol (Fall River)_____
Third district of Bris
152
7
145
tol (New Bedford)...
Lawrence district (Law
9
155
146
rence)------- ------------Southern Essex district
5
198
193
(Lynn)___ _________
Springfield d is t r ic t
284
254
30
(Springfield)________
First district of eastern
211
228
17
Middlesex (Medford).
Third district of east
ern Middlesex (Cam
30
275
305
bridge;_____________
14
142
156
Lowell district (Lowell)Central district of W or43
361
318
cester (Worcester)___
Michigan:
Kent County (Grand
M9
400
121
115
83
236
Rapids)____________
Wayne County (De
333
284
748 415
troit)__________ ____ 2,678 2,394
Minnesota:
H e n n e p in C o u n t y
940
770
163
181
170 344
(Minneapolis)............
Ramsey County (St.
401
398
62
63
125
63
Paul)______________
New Jersey: *
Hudson County (Jer
140
885
sey City)................ . 1,026
Mercer County (Tren
291
203
28
ton)__________ _____
New York:
Albany County (Al
394
188
206
354
69
423
bany)--------- --------- Broome County (Bing
92
66
144
32
158
176
hamton) .....................
Chautauqua County
na
46
68
16
(Jamestown)............
Dutchess County
371 , «193
178
9
81
90
(Poughkeepsie)..........
68
68
136
657
58
715
Erie County (Buffalo)..
Monroe County (Ro
i«7
16Ó :.'i i7
89
86
175
chester)................. . .
782 4,230 2,186 2,044
New York (city)______ 7,366 6,584
Niagara County (Ni
U
38
31
69
agara Falls)_________
103
84
187
32
216
248
Oneida County (Utica).
Rensselaer C o u n t y
76
70
146
40
150
190
(Troy)........................
45
46
91
224
249
25
Schenectady (city)____
Suffolk County (Pat1
1
79 * 4
83
chogue)____________
55
50
105
234
241
7
Syracuse (city)________
Westchester County
282
250
632
72
382
310
(Yonkers)__________
* Massachusetts and New Jersey reported only delinquency cases.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
449
30
66
65
161
69
82
60
330
26
65
60
154
63
79
60
119
113
109
4
88
86
2
88
87
1
47
43
4
4
1
5
7
6
3
57
53
4
125
112
13
142
23
126
21
16
2
121
113
8
1,779 1,441
338
775
561
214
259
178
81
252
207
45
11
137
126
11
1
1
36
32
4
3
3
12
12
56
215
53
202
3
13
147
128
3,193 2,505
19
688
«
4
13
2
15
27
5
4
10
23
104
37
67
6
13
3
6
10
38
34
38
33
1
2
1
7
11
93
8
83
3
10
7
17
81
17
77
4
48
326
257
69
1
9
7
85
37
79
SOURCE TABLES
T able I a .— Number o f boys’ and girls’ delinquency, dependency and neglect, and
special-proceedings cases disposed of, and number o f cases of children discharged
from supervision by courts in 4 States, by 68 courts serving specified areas with
100,000 or more population, and by 199 courts serving areas with less than 100,000
population in 1982— Continued
and
Delinquency cases Dependency
neglect cases
Cases of children
discharged from
supervision
Special-proceed
ings cases
Area served by court
Total Boys Girls Total Boys Girls Total Boys Girls Total Boys Girls
A r e a s with 100,000 o r
M o r e P o p u l a t io n —
Continued.
Ohio:
Franklin County (Columbus)____________ 1,316
Hamilton County(Cin2,418
Mahoning County
2,110
Montgomery County
(Dayton)...................
493
O r è g ò n: Multnomah
839
County (Portland).......
Pennsylvania:
A l l e g h e n y County
794
Berks County (Read74
Fayette
County
34
Montgomery County
76
Philadelphia (city and
6,711
South Carolina: Greenville County (Green
ville)_____________
80
Utah: Third district (Salt
953
Lake City)__________
Virginia: Norfolk (city)..
869
Washington:
Pierce County (Ta214
Spokane County (Spo628
Wisconsin: Milwaukee
County (Milwaukee)__ 3,730
A
1,106
210
418
226
192
11
9
2
1,951
467
344
168
176
25
1
24
252
1,825
285
137
69
68
1
1
207
45
315
178
266
131
135
3
1
2
211
144
67
731
108
423
219
204
28
7
21
396
270
126
639
155
705
351
354
59
15
28
13
15
4
4
28
6
10
4
6
1
73
3
29
11
18
1
813 2,966 1,545 1,421
606
5,898
3
3
2
2
976
645
1
1
(•)
(*)
331
69
11
53
23
30
2
1
1
50
45
5
776
721
167
148
171
180
82
103
89
77
21
1
10
1
11
327
238
271
211
56
27
1,237
851
386
157
57
161
84
77
13
7
6
546
82
201
91
110
17
10
7
3,133
597
960
499
461
7
5
2
100,000 P o p u l a t i o n ____ 9,587 8,416 1,171 3,625 1,785 1,840
63
16
47
2,888 2,551
337
31
32
10
6
21
26
967
757
1,132 1,034
789
760
210
98
29
reas
w it h
L
ess
T
han
60,000, less than 100,000.... 3,105 2,609
Less than 50,000________ 4,139 3,609
2,343 2,198
496 1,695
530 1,930
145
807
978
888
952
* Not separately reported.
7Not separately reported for areas with 50,000 to 100,000 population and areas with less than 50,000
population.
T able I b .— A rea o f court jurisdiction and number o f delinquency, dependency and
neglect, and special-proceedings cases disposed of, and number o f cases o f children
discharged from supervision by 199 courts serving areas with less than 100,000
population 1in 1982
Area served by court
Alabama:
Etowah County.'.---------------------------------------- ----i Population according to the 1930 census.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Cases of
Depend
Specialchildren
ency and proceedings discharged
neglect
cases
from super
cases
vision
Delin
quency
cases
3
20
25
6
4
_____...
6
80
SOURCE TABLES
T a b l e I b .— Area o f court jurisdiction and number o f delinquency, dependency and
neglect, and special-proceedings cases disposed o f , and number o f cases o f children
discharged from supervision by 199 courts serving areas vnth less than 100,000
population in 1932— Continued
Area served by court
Delin
quency
cases
Depend
ency and
neglect
cases
Cases of
children
Specialproceedings discharged
from super
cases
vision
Connecticut:
Andover (town)1_____________________________
17
24
Ansonia (city)...................................... ..................
Ashford (town)-------------------------------- -------------Barkhamsted (town)--------------------------------------Beacon Falls (town)___________________ ______
Berlin (town)------------------------------------------------Bethel (town)-----------------------------------------------Bloomfield (town)-----------------------------------------Branford (town)-------------------------------------------Bristol (city).--------- ------------ -------------------------Brooklyn (town)-------------------------------------------Canaan (town)---------------------------------------------Cheshire (town)*-------------------------------------------Chester (town)*......................................................
Clinton (town)---------------------------------------------Coventry (town)------------------------------- ------ ----29
Danbury (city)---------------------------------------------Darien (town)----------------------------------------------36
113
Derby (city)................ —........................................
Durham (town)*------ ------------------------------------East Hampton (town)-----------------------------------1
East Lyme (town)...........- ....................................
99
296
East Hartford (town)........- ...................................
1
East Haven (town)............................- ..................
3
East Windsor (town)*....................................... —
6
43
Enfield (town)............................................- ..........
Essex (town)------------------------------------------------26
Fairfield (town)--------------------------------------------Farmington (borough)..--------------------------------Glastonbury (town)--------------------------------------Greenwich (town)------— ---------------- — ----------Groton (town).............— .....................................
Guilford (town)*-------------------------------------------Haddam (town)-------------------------------------------12
Hamden (town)----------- -------------------------- -— Hebron (town)---------------------------------------------Killingly (town)..........- ..................... - ................
Manchester (town)_____ - ....................................
23
61
Meriden (city)...........- ..........................................
1
Middlebury (town)..........................- ...................
68
Middletown (city).............. ..................... ............
7
Milford (town)............................................- .........
20
Naugatuck (borough)------------------------------------387
New Britain (city)..........................................—
6
New Canaan (town)-------------------- ----------------1
Newington (town)*................................................
63
17
271
New London (city).............................................. .
10
New Milford (town)........................ - ...................
1
Newtown (town)------------------------------------------Norfolk (town)-------------- ------------------------------North Stonington (town).....................................
260
Norwalk (city)------ ------ -------------------------------77
Norwich (city)---------------------------------------------Norwich (town)*—........................... .....................
Old Lyme (town)-----------------------------------------Old Saybrook (town)........ .......................... .........
Orange (town)------------------------------- -------------Oxford (town).......................................................
Plainfield (town)............................................... —
Plainville (town)------- ----------------------------------Plymouth (town)---------------------------------- ------Portland (town)-------------------------------------------Putnam (city)---------------------------------------------Rockville (city)-------------------------------------------Salisbury (town)...................................................
19
Seymour (town)------------------------------------------Sharon (town).......................................................
Shelton (city)........................................................
Simsbury (town)-----------------------------------------Southington (town)..............................................
South Windsor (town)-----. . . . . . . . -----------------Sprague (town)-------------------------------------------Stafford Springs (borough).....................- ...........
Cases are for specified area although probate court serving this area has jurisdiction over wider territory.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
81
SOURCE TABLES
T
° f7court Jurisdiction and number o f delinquency, dependency and
^ f c h a r n ^ r n l al~pr0- dtT C^ 8 dt8Posed °f> and number o f cases o f children
V o ^ . i f J i n l9si~S „ V
*
eOUrt‘
areaa wi,h
than 100,000
Area served by court
Cases of
Depend
Special
children
ency and
discharged
neglect proceedings
cases
from super
cases
vision
207
48
6
29
6
1
243
10
10
4
179
60
_
.
Connecticut—Continued.
Stamford (city)__________________
Stonington (tow n)_____________"_!
Stratford (tow n)______. _______
Suffleld (tow n)___________ . . I l l 'l l !
Thomaston (t o w n )..._______
Thom pson (tow n)__________.1
Torrington (city).........................
Unionville (borough)___ _______ "I"
Wallingford (town)*.................
Washington (tow n)______________I
Water bury (c it y )..™ __________ ,_I
Waterford (tow n)____________H ill
W atertown (t o w n ).......................... ” 1
W est Hartford (tow n)_________ HI
W est Haven (tow n)___________ HI
W estport (tow n)_________________
W illim antic (city)_______ _____ "
Winchester (tow n)__________ „ H I
W indsor (tow n)_________________ I
W indsor Locks (to w n )._____ H I”
W olcott (t o w n )..____ ____. . . . . H I
W ood bridge (tow n )*.._____...H I *
W oodstock (tow n)_________
Illinois:
La Salle C ounty________ _________
R ock Island C o u n t y . . . . . . . _______
Iowa: Johnson C ounty
___ * ^
Massachusetts:
Chelsea (city)_____________________
65 courts (not separately reported).
M ichigan: Muskegon County__
N ew York:
Allegany C ounty_________________
Cayuga C ounty______________ H H
Chemung County__ _______
HI
Clinton C o u n ty ...__ . . . . ___..I.-H .
Columbia C ou n ty .™ _______ H ill"
Cortland C o u n t y ™ ™ ..___ IIIIIH
Franklin C ounty______ ____. . . I I I .
Fulton County___________ ..I .I I I I I
Herkimer C o u n t y ™ ...__ - I I .I .I l l
Jefferson C o u n ty ™ .______ IIIIIIII
Lewis C ounty__________ ...11.1-111
M adison County__________________
HI
Ontario C ounty________ .I .I H I I I I I
Orleans C ounty______ ____ IIIIIIII
Oswego County___________ IIIIIIII
Otsego C ounty________________ H II
Rockland County__ _______ *___ *’
Saratoga C ounty____________ IIIIII
Schuyler C o u n ty ™ .__________ H I"
Sullivan C ounty__ ________ I .H i l l
Tioga County____________ I I I I I H " '
Tom pkins C ounty_________ IIIIIH
Ulster C ounty____ _______.IIIIIIH
Washington C o u n t y ..._______ H U
N orth Carolina: Buncombe County
Ohio:
Allen C ounty________ . . . . . .
Auglaize County_____ _____ IIIIIH !
Clark C o u n ty ...__________ IIIIIIH
Lake C ounty.
Delin
quency
cases
Pennsylvania: Lycoming County.
Utah:
First district_______________
Second district____ ___ .11.11
Fourth district_____ ____ . . . .
Fifth district______________ _
Sixth district___________ HI"!
Seventh district____ . ____ II!
Eighth district_____ ....
Virginia:
Danville (city)................... .
Lynchburg (city).......... .........
Wisconsin: Kenosha County..........
* Cases
138
64
14
36
27
1
8
14
15
100
32
83
52
177
2,166
180
94
46
70
128
31
76
10
38
30
143
79
3
14
84
17
69
32
56
36
1
11
21
26
72
39
302
128
136
163
40
136
50
136
45
155
97
13
109
50
10
99
129
103
95
16
32
124
94
49
90
115
207
73
215
63
18
62
15
63
26
19
180
375
279
90
264
59
54
9
6
14
1
27
544
145
113
37
7
62
1
14
36
8
2
1
6
16
2
7
84
3
6
1
3
6
3
1
3
6
4
3
1
1
21
29
54
5
11
13
31
11
37
12
11
3
1
5
8
21
13
217
1
46
3
1
2
1
67
119
6
84
23
2
22
2
104
for specified areaalthough probate court serving this areahas jurisdiction over wider territory.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
82
SOURCE TABLES
T a b l e I I a .— A ge under which juvenile court has ju risd iction and age o f boys dealt
with in delinquency cases disposed o f by the courts in 4 States, 68 courts serving
specified areas with 100,000 or more population, and 154 courts serving areas
with less than 100,000 population, in 1982 1
Boys’ delinquency cases
Age
under
which
juveArea served by court
Age of boy
court
18
Age
17
16
14
12
10
rotal Un
has
der rears, rears, rears, rears, rears, years not
juris
inder
and
re
inder
inder
inder
under
10
diction
18 over iported
17
16
14
years 12
56,639 3,313 7,004 13,315 21,811 6,963 3,282
Total cases *_______ —---------------
State totals:1
Connecticut__________ __________
Massachusetts--------------------------Utah.................................................
251
700
16
362
4
19
114
13
48,223 2,774 5,992 11,417 18,833 6,517 2,853
225
612
16 3,914
17 6,411
16 10,465
18 1,907
A reas with 100,000 or M ore P opu
lation ___________________________
16
California:
Minnesota:
New Jersey:
Mercer County____________
45
11
3
277
126
274
131
12
68
22
2
2
129
67
311
135
73
119
42
204
55
204
129
189
106
402
112
316
179
214
169
590
217
417
17
4
17 1,604
510
17
16 1,074
63
103
6
106
35
98
295
73
30
6
14
139
KQ8
398
11
30
35
26
111
64
38
154
86
62
300
119
49
44
3
1
17 234
17 680
16 2,795
10
3(
292
28
86
60S
37
149
88C
88
271
865
65
108
82
23
43
2
2
6 . 11
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
r
r
r
796
57
148
207
411
355
21C
175
17C
6(
164
8
35
42
95
48
37
38
27
32
32
4Î
41
313
17
36
67
117
160
90
55
65
65
4£
73
105
192
24
52
56
76
93
51
55
5€
33
r
21 ___
i
i
i
27
14
1
i
i7
46
2,39i
26
1i
4
23
i8
i8
779
39 i
16
3
4
2!
10
6-4
21
12
i6
i6
885
263
51
24
145
47
261
63
415
121
18
Central district'bf Worcester—
Michigan:
27
66
24
Indiana: ^
Third district of eastern Mid-
18
4
4
69
4
21 1,196
21
511
16
Massachusetts:
Boston:
Boston (central section)—
Brighton_______________
Charlestown____________
Dorchester------ -------------Boston.Boxbury-----------------------South Boston___________
West Boxbury......... ..........
Second district of Bristol—
«••••
Third district of BristolLawrence district___________
Southern Essex district______
Springfield districtFirst district of eastern Mid-
9
126
Connecticut:
Louisiana:
112
693 1,174 1,480
447
588 1,177 2,464 1,935
247
191
622 1,421 2,935 5,162
430
604
284
131
64
650
1C
11
5C .
1(
1(
15
31
73
44
23
20
21
13
24
145
195
254
24
1
3
2
5C .........
41
95 .........
3(
9S
4'
25
aI
105
75
14
io:
17
1,02'
11
52
9
56
4
___
1
10
8
197
91
8
2
10 ____
2____
6
2
172
72
i Population according to the 1930 census.
„_QO„¡.i, mn nnn nr
* All figures for the States for which totals are given arealso shown by courts for areas with 100,000 or
win«» population and included in the group total for areas with less than 100,000 population.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
83
SOURCE TABLES
T a b l e I I a .—-Age under which juvenile court has jurisdiction and age o f hoys dealt
^
with in delinquency cases disposed o f by the courts in 4 States, 68 courts serving
specified areas with 100,000 or more population, and 154- courts serving areas
with less than 100,000 population, in 1982— Continued
Area served by court
A reas with 100,000 or M ore P opulation—Continued.
New York:
Albany County__________ _
Broome Cnnntv___ _ ___
Chautauqua County________
Dutchess County_______- ___
Erie County____ ___________
Monroe Onhnty__ ..
New York (c it y )....________
Niagara County
_________
Oneida County_____________
Rensselaer Cniinty. __ . .
Schenectady (city) -- . _ __
Suffolk C ounty.. _ _ _ _ _
Syracuse (city)___
...
Westchester County__ . . .
Ohio:
Franklin County__
Hamilton Conntv
Mahoning Countv _ __
Montgomery County________
Oregon: Multnomah Obhnty
Pennsylvania:
Allegheny C o u n ty ...___ ____
Berks Conntv
. . . ____ _
Fayette County
Montgomery County________
Philadelphia (city and county)......................... ................
South Carolina: Greenville County..................................................
Utah: Third district____________
Virginia: Norfolk (city)------Washington:
Pierce County______________
Spokane County ....
Wisconsin: Milwaukee County__
Boys’ delinquency cases
Age
under
which
Age of boy
juve
nile .
court
12
10
14
16
17
18
Age
has Total Un
der years, years, years, years, years, years not
juris
10 under under under under under and
re
diction
years 12
14
16
17
18 over ported
16 364
144
16
196
16
16
81
16 667
150
16
16 6,584
16
147
16 216
150
16
16 224
16
79
16 234
16 310
27
7
13
8
24
4
362
9
4
7
33
4
13
9
18 1,106
18 1,951
18 1,825
18 315
18
731
62
64
81
19
19
121
150
164
35
55
200
349
372
35
126
16
16
16
16
639
59
28
73
33
4
1
4
110
4
5
7
208
15
6
21
16 5,898
462
69
776
721
2
41
35
19
76
55
21
111
119
25
235
227
165
132
148
145
4
3
2
6
6
157
18
18
546
18 3,133
7
15
153
13
40
254
27
79
592
53
150
919
29
123
604
24
127
670
2
7
29
2
6
12
8,416
539 1,012 1,898 2,978 1,446
429
26
88
2,609
3|609
2,198
173
318
48
lfiS
261
12
14
23
65
16
18
18
37
75
215
20
59
67
32
53
85
14
21
37
75
194
344
15
54
73
886 1,885 3,307
25
33
77
30
64
118
16
19
70
28
68
93
18
29
28
34
64
120
31
70
157
1
12
1
9
2
45
3
4
1
6
3
3
93
38
12
2
27
1
8
357
630
687
101
251
185
390
299
79
139
166
342
280
43
128
8
21
17
270
32
10
39
14
1
1
1
1
3
918 1,673 2,496
9
8
2
3
7
5
25
3
11
3
2
1
340
A reas w i t h L ess T han 100,000 P optjl a t i o n ______________
____
60.000. less than 100,000
.
Less than 60,000 .
Massachusetts s
.......
302
548
162
644
964
878 1,162
376 '852
323
363
760
* Not separately reported for areas with 50^)00 to HXUXX) population and areas with less then 50,000
population.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
84
SOURCE TABLES
T a b l e I I b .— A ge under which juvenile court has ju risd iction and age o f girls dealt
with in delinquency cases disposed o f by the courts in 4 States, 68 courts serving
specified areas with 100,000 or more population, and
courts serving areas with
less than 100,000 population, in 1982 1
144
Area served by court
Total cases
Oirls' delinquency cases
Age
under
Age of girl
which
uvenile
court
has Total
18
14
16
17
Age
12
10
Ohder years,
juris
years, years, years, years, years not
10 mder under under under under and
diction
re
years 12
16
17
18 over ported
14
8,635
--------------------------
488 1,436 4,022 1,375
323
817
81
93
'
Utah................................................
A
16 447
560
17
16 1,366
18 337
41
10
53
5
with 100,000 o k M o k e P o p u LATION_____________________ ___________
reas
California:
San Diego County---------------Connecticut:
Qeorgla: Fulton County.—...........
Louisiana:
Maryland: Baltimore (city)-------Massachusetts:
Boston:
Boston (central section)--
First district of eastern MidThird district of eastern MidCentral district of Worcester.
Michigan:
Minnesota:
New Jersey:
Mercer County____________
New York:
122
92
302
46
204
244
859
110
1
35
184
67
90
3
67
2
5
6
403 1, 215 3,535 1,169
729
78
74
3
4
1
44
30
87
11
7,464
261
16
14
2
3
21
21
189
136
12
13
14
14
45
42
45
37
43
24
16
16
16
17
17
16
67
61
17
195
109
190
6
6
5
1
25
7
5
19
3
33
24
50
29
13
81
51
117
1
i
50
18
8
18
18
18
127
187
104
8
2
11
5
19
35
15
64
79
39
17
17
16
70
74
265
3
2
11
2
3
26
7
15
66
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
136
2
3
16
30
25
10
13
26
7
9
5
30
1
11
1
1
1
1
26
6
6
4
1
1
1
1
3
1
1
1
3
2
3
2
1
1
20
34
17
21
26
20
1
1
32
33
124
16
17
25
5
3
10
1
1
2
60
39
1
1
4
10
11
2
7
5
1
1
1
11
2
4
i
9
12
12
7
4
7
2
5
2
13
9
8
2
9
13
7
21
16
3
10
2
6
2
1
1
9
4
2
5
2
2
13
17
17
17
17
17
30
14
43
1
1
1
1
2
17
17
83
284
2
2
5
7
14
29
39
167
21
77
1
18
18
170
63
2
2
12
6
64
27
35
17
52
13
16
16
140
28
9
8
4
17
8
15
16
16
16
69
32
16
8
4
3
2
1
12
4
6
46
19
9
i
1
16
16
1
1
3
Chautauqua County-----------i Population according to the 1930 census.
>All figures for the States for which totals are given are also shown by courts for areas with 100,000 or
more population and included in the group total for areas with less than 100,000 population.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
85
SOURCE TABLES
T ¿X h 5 jZ r A ge UndeT Wh%CP- p e n i l e court has ju risd iction and age o f girls dealt
^ t ^ / d MUei^ y iC
^ J tl>posed o f hy the courts in 4 States, 68 courts serving
g fj& i
1001°9P or more population, and 144 courts serving areas with
less than 100,000 population, in 1982 — Continued
Area served by court
A reas with 100,000 or M ore P opu
lation—Continued.
New York—Continued.
Dutchess County,_________
Erie County_________ „ ” 11
Monroe County____________
New York (city)____ ___
Niagara County__________ ”
Oneida County____________
Bensselaer C oun ty...” ” ” ”
Schenectady (city)_______
Suffolk County___________ _
Syracuse (city)________ ” 1”
Westchester County__
Ohio:
Franklin County_____ _____ _
Hamilton County__________
Mahoning County____ ” ” ”
Montgomery C o u n ty ...!” ” ]
Oregon: Multnomah County____
Pennsylvania:
Allegheny County__________
Berks C ounty...____ ____ ! ” ]
Fayette County_________ ! ” ]
Montgomery County___ ” ” ]
Philadelphia (city and county)
South Carolina: Greenville County
Utah: Third district____
Virginia: Norfolk ( c it y ) ...!!!!!
Washington:
Pierce County___________
Spokane County____________
Wisconsin: Milwaukee County..!!
Girls’ delinquency cases
Age
under
which
Age of girl
juvenile
court
has Total
10
12
14
16
17
Undei years
juris
18 Age
years years years years years
not
10
diction
undei
undei
undei
undei
undei
and
re
years
12
14
16
17
18 over ported
1«
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
9
68
17
782
11
32
40
25
4
7
72
1
4
18
18
18
18
18
210
467
286
178
108
1
5
10
11
2
5
12
16
9
2
16
16
16
16
16
16
18
18
166
15
6
3
813
11
167
148
3
11
67
62
5
6
18
18
18
57
82
597
496
3
16
5
181
4
4
1
9
1
11
18
1
28
49
28
19
18
78
154
103
68
40
56
110
68
34
22
37
117
55
32
19
1
15
1
1
4
5
5
4
4
95
12
3
2
513
7
51
49
7
1
2
2
2
7
12
33
2
3
1
164
3
27
23
2
i
43
23
31
35
1
6
14
1
1
26
6
10
67
27
22
190
8
20
147
10
21
143
487
206
17
30
96
208
25
60
99
57
50
29
1
68
1
1
3
1
A reas with L ess T han 100,000 P opu
lation__________
60,000, less than 100,000.
Less than 60,000............
Massachusetts *___
145
1
1
1
6
5
37
11
506
6
27
19
12
2
7
36
2
1
3
19
1
1
15
3
i
8
4
2
2
88
3
19
36
52
2
i
8
11
pop^°a\ion.aratel7 r6P° rted for areas with 50' 000 to 100- « » Population and areas with less than 60.000
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
86
SOURCE TABUES
III a .— Color, nativity, and parent nativity o f boys dealt with in delinquency
cases disposed o f by the courts in 1 State, 4® courts serving specified areas, with
100,000 or more population, and 26 courts serving areas with less than 100,000
population, in 19S21
T able
Boys’ delinquency cases
White boys
Area served by court
Native,
Col
Native, foreign Native,
ored
Total
parent For Nativ
ity not boys
or
native
eign
age
not
Total parent mixed
re
bora ported
re
parent ported
age
age
17,796
15,048
1,685
628
913
9,214
1,889
1,609
232
32
14
2
18
33,494
69
15,559
67
14,764
1,639
2
623
909
8,751
57
1,151
'498
818
162
251
186
29
79
45
32
8
39
45
13
429
611
663
373
425
95
151
552
351
425
322
403
67
21
2
40
9
21
1
1
1
36
3
15
39
941
137
649
111
401
348
44
400
302
67
1
44
1
1
116
346
1,692
113
241
914
66
537
3
15
226
6
13
18
2
118
334
1,103
436
1,946
303
488
128
1,281
5
42
122
13
30
448
750
389
393
275
302
108
43
3
6
9
20
9
828
220
227
19
566
165
33
3
2
33
57
43
613
149
5,975
143
225
280
191
33
1,312
95
55
73
399
110
4,144
48
159
162
22
6
146
1
346
27
3
15
8
23
7
44
1
609
7
9
30
673
1,342
1,621
266
723
589
1,266
236
241
530
83
41
740
22
136
33
226
1
1
5
2
18
1
414
1
6
433
609
202
49
8
519
58
26
59
158
23
18
22
354
32
7
37
7
2
1
4,138
1,676
2,130
4
40
769
349
37
580
333
146
14
147
541
3,036
132
407
1,212
11
129
1,345
2,576
1,412
1,164
2,237
1,197
lj 040
284
196
88
Total cases 1_______________ 45,286 36,070
State total: Utah 1_______________ 1,907
Areas with 100,000 or more
Population.................................. 42,247
Alabama: Mobile County
126
California:
Ran Diego Connty .
1,196
611
Connecticut:
Bridgeport (city)
444
Hartford (city) —.
650
District of Columbia— ______ 1,604
Florida: Dade County. _ ,
'510
Georgia: Fulton County
1,074
Indiana:
Lake County____________
139
Marion County—
598
398
Louisiana:
234
680
Maryland: Baltimore (city )... 2,795
Michigan:
466
Wayne County__________ 2,394
Minnesota:
Hennepin County_______
770
Ramsey County
398
New Jersey:
885
263
New York:
Erie County______ _ __
657
150
New York (city)_________ 6,584
150
Syracuse (c ity )..—. . ___
234
Westchester County______
310
Ohio:
Franklin County___ . . . . 1,106
Hamilton County________ 1,951
Mahoning County. ____ 1,825
Montgomery County
315
Oregon: Multnomah County..
731
Pennsylvania:
639
59
Fayette County_________
28
Montgomery Connty .
73
Philadelphia (city’ and
county)..... ....................... 5,898
South Carolina: Greenville
69
776
721
Washington:
Pieree Connty .. .
157
546
Wisconsin: Milwaukee County. 3,133
A reas with less than 100,000
P opulation__________________ 3,039
§0,000, less than 100,000_______ 1,618
Less than 50,000 _
__ .
1|421
33
2
2
28
197
50
1
283
1,760
13
2
2
29
7
372
5
413
35
31
10
5
97
46
11
35
5
5
4
3
1
463
206
257
4
2
120
1
2
14
45
3
28
Boys
whose
color
was
not re
ported
1 Population according to the 1930 census.
* All figures for the State for which a total is given are also shown by courts for areas with 100,000 or more
population and included in the group total for areas with less than 100,000 population.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
87
SOURCE TABLES
T able III b .— Color, nativity, and parent nativity o f girls dealt with in delinquency
cases disposed o f by the courts in 1 State, 1+2 courts serving specified areas with
100,000 or more population, and 25 courts serving areas with less than 100,000
population, in 1982 1
Girls' delinquency cases
White girls
Area served by court
Native,
Native, foreign
Total
native
or
Total parent mixed
age parent
age
Native,
Col
parent For Nativ ored
ity
age
eign
girls
re
not re bom not
ported
ported
Total cases *_____________________
7,427
5,663
3,246
1,922
330
111
State total: U tah1_________ _______ ____
337
335
262
59
g
5
A reas W ith 100,000 or M ore P oppRATION___________ ____________ ______ 6,834
1,866
326
109
53
1,653
Alabama: Mobile County__________
California:
San Diego County_____________
San Francisco County__________
Connecticut:
Bridgeport (c ity )........... ..............
Hartford (city)_________________
District of Columbia_______________
Florida: Dade County
..........
Georgia: Fulton County___________ _
Indiana:
Lake County__________________
Marion County________________
Iowa: Polk County________________
Louisiana:
Caddo Parish__________________
Orleans Parish_________________
Maryland: Baltimore (city)________
Michigan:
Kent C ounty...________________
Wayne County............... ..............
Minnesota:
Hennepin County___________ . . .
Ramsey County
.
_ . .
New Jersey:
Hudson County________________
Mercer County________________
New York:
Erie County.._________________
Monroe C ounty..______________
New York (city)_______ ________
Rensselaer County_____________
Syracuse (city).............. ................
Westchester County____________
Ohio:
Franklin County__________ ____
Hamilton County______________
Mahoning County______________
Montgomery County.. ________
Oregon: Multnomah County_______
Pennsylvania:
Allegheny County______________
Berks County__________________
Fayette County________________
Montgomery County___________
Philadelphia (city and county)...
South Carolina: Greenville County..
Utah: Third district.. : .......
Virginia: Norfolk (city )... _.
... .
Washington:
Pierce Count.v___. . . _ _ ..
Spokane County_______________
Wisconsin: Milwaukee County_____
A reas W ith L ess T han 100,000 P opuLATION............................................ .........
50,000, less than 100,000 _ .......
Less than 50,000___ 1_______________
54
1,764
2
5,181
2,827
14
6
5
189
136
180
130
132
44
32
43
4
25
11
6
1
12
9
6
67
61
195
109
190
57
52
59
86
63
17
11
49
80
63
37
37
6
3
1
2
4
2
i
1
2
1
10
9
136
127
187
104
105
111
82
37
106
76
64
2
6
2
70
74
265
38
24
157
38
9
77
5
44
2
35
1
83
284
78
225
62
89
12
110
4
3
20
170
63
167
61
93
40
66
20
5
140
28
129
23
33
6
94
15
2
58
17
782
40
7
72
50
17
601
40
7
52
14
6
190
26
5
7
35
11
359
14
2
43
13
210
467
285
178
108
147
330
246
156
106
132
311
102
146
85
8
16
84
10
11
155
15
6
3
813
11
167
14S
130
15
6
3
495
11
165
69
41
7
1
1
187
10
110
64
87
6
1
2
298
2
2
4
4
2
1
9
1
57
82
597
57
82
563
45
68
202
10
12
216
2
2
133
7
5
34
593
482
419
56
4
2
1
111
332
261
278
204
232
187
43
13
2
2
1
1
1
54
57
1
41
8
4
1
127
1
22
76
22
8
32
50
108
3
3
5
59
3
2
11
5
2
1
8
38
i
181
1
2
53
4
1
1
2
6
7
2
1
63
137
39
22
2
2
20
25
1
7
5
318
2
79
i Population according to the 1930 census.
* All figures for the State for which a total is given are also shown by courts for areas with 100,000 or more
population and included in the group total for areas with less than 100,000 population.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
88
SOURCE TABLES
IV.— Source o f reference to court o f delinquency cases disposed o f by the
courts in 1 State, 4® courts serving specified areas with 100,000 or more popula
tion, and 26 courts serving areas with less than 100,000 population, in 1932 1
T able
Delinquency cases
Source of reference to court
Area served by court
Total
School
de
Police part
ment
Total cases *_______________ 52,713 34,400
State total: Utah *......... .................. 2,244
917
A reas with 100,000 or M ore
P opulation. . ............................... 49,081 32,769
140
California:
San Diego County.............. 1,385
647
San Francisco County____
Connecticut:
511
711
1, 799
619
1,264
Indiana:
266
785
502
Louisiana:
304
754
Maryland: Baltimore (city)— 3,060
Michigan:
549
Kent County...... ................
2,678
Minnesota:
940
461
New Jersey:
1,025
'291
New York:
715
167
New York (city)....... ......... 7,366
100
241
382
Ohio:
Franklin County_________ 1,316
Hamilton County________ 2,418
2,110
493
839
Oregon: Multnomah C ounty..
Pennsylvania:
794
74
34
76
Philadelphia (city and
6,711
South Carolina: Greenville
80
943
Utah: Third district_________
869
Washington:
214
628
Wisconsin: Milwaukee County. 3,730
A reas with L ess T han 100,000
P opulation. . .............................. 3,632
r,n non less than inn,non
_ .
Less than 50,000..—---------- —
1,950
1,682
Pro
Par
Social ents Other
ba
Other Source
re
agen
or indi
tion Other
vid source not
ported
offi court cy rela ual
tives
cer
3,317 2,612
361
466
450
17
2,833 2,026
422
197
83
371
22
2
743 3,971 6,079
168
70
774 4,176 6,688
8
96
53
25
3
18
1
12
27
1
675
412
133
25
2
66
220
26
20
12
132
96
193
9
8
1
2
301
601
1,323
236
943
54
30
1
26
25
232
104
65
76
15
127
146
169
6
8
4
9
3
7
16
4
8
17
98
21
36
14
110
6
58
109
315
123
73
21
98
6
11
3
6
4
4
44
171
57
26
252
217
1
10
1
104
52
2
143
46
1
4
2
5
1
3
133
46
178
68
196
12
57
1
3
22
12
128
15
216
85
13
1
1
2
62
55
17
209
54
9
12
58
14
3
32
38
69
27
31
928 1,431
11
10
17
10
26
76
1
5
11
75
1
131
12
2,674
71
19
750
15
377
1,944
26
146
15
21
538
343
19
5
3
1
431
188
184
22
81
8
579
96
4,849
54
202
165
2
1
76
98
7
82
16
1
6
3
2
782
1,956
1,056
139
599
116
68
339
135
47
118
8
24
23
1
6
44
24
24
5
25
27
45
13
22
96
174
177
80
58
161
138
444
79
93
8
2
4
1
1
11
3
264
58
28
63
102
3
321
2
14
1
8
2
3
5
1
78
7
5
6
5,320
222
1
10
350
808
61
521
505
152
55
44
78
4
5
8
56
39
19
155
186
5
148
486
3,131
9
48
203
3
IS
132
10
9
2
4
21
26
121
28 ►
36
116
1
1
1
3
1,631
484
586
44
31
205
609
29
13
924
707
261
223
194
392
34
10
21
10
137
68
355
254
18
11
6
7
1
1
2
1
1
15
2
6
1
2
1
6
i Population according to the 1930 census.
* All figures for the State for which a total is given are also shown by courts for areas with 100,000 or more
population and included in the group total for areas with less than 100,000 population.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
SOURCE TABLES
«o n , a n i I H court* seroiny areas
89
ä Ä “ ^ Ä , S Bf?^
Boys’ delinquency cases
Reason for reference to court
Area served by court
Ss
’S g
S3-g
sa
Total cases >_
56,639 24,870 16,115 2,383 2,817 3,062 3,114
State total:1
Connecticut__
M assachusetts.
New York____
Utah________
A bkas w
l a t io n
it h
100,000 O B
934 1,473
4071,155 309
666
48
103
184
402
25
85
363 231
198 75
37
48,223 20,978 13,967 1,927 2,364 2,789 2,776
772 1,194
266 1,010 180
3,914 1,770 1,458
6,411 3.077 1,246
10,465 4,312 3,679
1,907
976
336
22
126
229
424
175
117
37
501
101
135
157
M o b e P opu
....... .............
Alabama: Mobile County
126
65
California:
San Diego County___ ___
1,196
340
178 305 93 106
San Francisco County. .
511
319
81
Connecticut:
Bridgeport (city)_______
444
227
131
18
Hartford (city)______ __ '
650
257
278
15
New Haven (city).™ ”
323
197
5
District of Columbia__I .”
1,604
910
335 81
152
Florida: Dade County
510
233
131
33
Georgia: Fulton County
1,074
626
61
Indiana:
Lake County_____
139
68
18
Marion County!.” ” ” ” "
598
373
97
85
Iowa: Polk County..
398:
145
125
66
Louisiana:
Caddo Parish________
234
106
31
18
Orleans Parish
'
680
342
136
134
Maryland: Baltimore (city)” "
2,795
863 1,495
153
Massachusetts:
Boston:
Boston (central section)
796
376
Brighton...................
57
33
Charlestown_____ ” ”
148
71
38
13
Dorchester______ ™ ”
207
70
72
19
Fast Boston___ .....I .
411
174
149
17
Roxbury_____ ....I I ”
355
128
72
72 50
South Boston________
210
92
68
24
West Roxbury____” ”
175
69
53
26
Second district of Bristol” '
170
110
11
3
Third district of Bristol___
145
98
20
10
Lawrence district.......
146
100
30
5
4
Southern Essex district
193
76
77
11
5
Springfield district...
254
127
30 42
12
First district ofeastern Mid
dlesex_________________
211
44
24
„district of eastern
Middlesex_____________
275;
133
28
36
3
Lowell district____...I.IIII
142
71
38
15
1
Central district of Worcester
318
161
45
41
23
Michigan:
Kent County....
_
466
254
47
75
16
Wayne County..” . . ” ”
2,394 L524
281
65 163
Minnesota:
Hennepin County.___
770
412
141 105
9
Ramsey C o u n ty ....."!” ”
398
237
54
30
5
New Jersey:
Hudson County__ ___
885
350
107
162
28 106
Mercer County___ ___IIIII
263
139
67
23
—
j ?iiPfllatlon accordin8 to the 1930census.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
16
38
157
SOURCE TABLES
90
T able V a — Reason fo r reference to court in boys’ delinquency cases disposed o f by
the courts in 4 States, 68 courts serving specified areas with 100,000 or more popula
tion and 164 courts serving areas with less than 100,000 population, m 1982
Continued
Boys’ delinquency cases
A re as
w ith 100,000 or
ration — C ontinued.
M
ore
°l
o a
Ungovernable
Running away
Truancy
Traffic violation
Total
Stealing
Area served by court
Act of carelessness or
mischief
Reason for reference to court
P opu
New York:
Albany County---------------Broome County-------------—
Chautauqua County---------Dutchess County.................
Erie County.................. —
Monroe County---------------New York (city)— — ------Niagara County---------------Oneida County....................
Rensselaer County---------—
Schenectady (city)-----------Suffolk County...................
Syracuse (city)----------------Westchester County...........
Ohio:
Franklin County— ------ —
Hamilton County------- -—
Mahoning County-----------Montgomery County-------Oregon: Multnomah C ounty..
Pennsylvania:
Allegheny County-----------Berks County------------- —
Fayette County— ----------Montgomery C o u n ty ...—Philadelphia
(city
and
county)....... —.................South Carolina: G r e e n v ille
County....................................
Utah: Third district..................
Virginia: Norfolk (city)------—
Washington:
Pierce County-----------------Spokane C ounty... —— —A r e a s w i t h L e s s T h a n 100,000
P o p u l a t i o n . -------- ----------------- — —
60,000, less than 100,000.
Less than 50,000------ —
Massachusetts *----------
46
123
354
89
144
50
112
195
16
27
81
104
439
657
18
98
150
6,584 2,242 2,968
30
89
147
58
88
216
150
51
70
108
224
66
79
51
162
234
17
177
310
7
12
2
15
10
37
10
5
4
36 35
13
52 376 397
12
14
39
15
66
20 _
3
8
10 30
49
27
96
22
8
9
176
13 100
10
140
10 186
1 86
38
25
80
303
120
36
81
33
43
83
17
32
104
129
32
68
;
2
5
1,106
l| 951
1,825
'315
731
605
891
740
103
316
207
396
58(
639
284
73
4
.........
58
5,89? 1,701 2,74(
S
17?
...
77
72
391
33:
915
545 20
9
1,28»
3,133
664
221
3
2'
4
16
36
140
12
76
34
6:
41
83
42
2
153 7
823 27
6
18
141
13
1
11
5
264 172
106
45i5 453
273 338
162
91 224
54 174
311 55
156
133
49
12}
16<
8,416 3,892 2,148
2,609 1,308 560
3,6( 9 li 497 1.206
382
2,15 8 1,087
125
142
6
193
86
279
141
145 129
6 2 ....
56 129
* Not separately reported for areas with 50,000 to 100,000 population and areas with less than 50,000 popula
tion.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
91
SOURCE TABLES
T a b l e V b .— Reason fo r reference to court in girls’ delinquency cases disposed o f by
the courts tn 4 States, 68 courts serving specified areas with 100,000 or more
V°PuJ?l™ n> and
courts serving areas with less than 100,000 population,
tn 1982 1
,
f f
,
Girls’ delinquency cases
State totals: 1
Connecticut__
Massachusetts.
New York____
Utah_________
A
100,000 o r
r e a s w it h
u l a t i o n _________
M
ore
44)
56C
1,366
337
8C
152
159
47
71
14
5)
7,464
923
647
1(
z
4C 9C
44 154
30C 402
44
42
re
Other reason
85
61
91
77
53
12
4
7
2
12
1
5
1
1
4
1
IK
102
17€
44
21
35
717 1,149 2,115 1,425
167
34
16
106
Reason not
ported
Ungovernable
12
Running away
20
Truancy
117 86 1,25(12,43 1,66
Traffic violation
Injury to person
74.
Use, possession,
or sale of liquor
nr rim fro
8,63. 1,08S
Sex offense
Total cases >.
Stealing
Total
Area served by court
Act of carelessness
or mischief
Reason for reference to court
2Î
P op
Alabama: Mobile County__
California:
San Diego County________
San Francisco County II
Connecticut:
Bridgeport (city)_________
Hartford (city)___________
New Haven (city).___ I.H ’
District of Columbia_______ I_.
Florida: Dade County
Georgia: Fulton Countylll
Indiana:
Lake County____ ______
Marion County______
Iowa: Polk County...IIIII
Louisiana:
Caddo Parish___________
Orleans Parish...
Maryland: Baltimore (city)IH"
Massachusetts:
Boston:
Boston (central section)
Brighton_____________
Charlestown__________
Dorchester______ IIIIII
East Boston_________ I
Roxbury_________ IIIII
South Boston______ I."
West Roxbury_____ 'I
Second district of Bristol..
Third district of Bristol___
Lawrence district________
Southern Essex district____
Springfield district____
First district of eastern Midi
dlesex_________________
Third district of eastern
Middlesex_____________
Lowell district_______ IIIII
Central district of Worcester
Michigan:
Kent County__________
Wayne County..IIIIHII
Minnesota:
Hennepin County______
Ramsey County...____
New Jersey:
Hudson County_______
Mercer County________
14
10C
1
189
136
11
67
61
17
195
109
190
14
15
3
25
12
42
127
187
104
11
17
4
1
18
70
74
265
4
15
55
45
136
85
20
2
33
1
11
2
34
2e
8
6
4
31
13
60
66
21
39
112
39
3
20
6
20
11
11
4
1
2
4
1
2
1
3
1
3.
30
14
43
2
3.
15
1.
1
3
1.
3
9
83
284
7
19
4
7
1
18
50
170
63
24
8.
7
2
7
1
2
15
17
4
1
10
13
40
82
59
3
5
5
2
2
2
3
4.
2.
2.
5
8
2
1
25
13
2
91
44
42
3
16
30
25
10
13
25
7
9
5
30
1
1
18
23
11
23
20
2
2
60
71
2
2
2
3
2
10
7
2
1
1
4
6
1
1
21
3
5
1
1
1
22
3
7
4
18.
7
3
3
12
1
33
21
97
23
81
2
2
16
2
49
23
54
29
1
1
5
-
—
—
—
1
1
1
1
4
1
1
——
1
9
140
12
1.
8
55
38
23
28
9
1.
3.
9
4
2
- J I—
1Population according to the 1930 census.
1All figures for the States for which totals are given are also shown by courts for areas with 100.000 or
more population and included in the group total for areas with less than 100,000 popifiation
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
92
SOURCE TABLES
T a b l e V b .— Reason fo r reference to court in girls’ delinquency cases disposed o f by
the courts in 4 States, 68 courts serving specihed areas with 100,000 or more
population, and 144 courts serving areas with less than 100,000 population,
%n 1982— Continued
Girls’ delinquency cases
re
Other reason
I Reason not
ported
Injury to person
Use, possession,
or sale of liquor
or drugs
.
Sex offense
Ungovernable
Running away
Truancy
Stealing
Total
Area served by court
Traffic violation
Act of carelessness
or mischief
Reason for reference to court
A bbas with 100,000 or M ore P opulation—Continued.
New York:
35
8
2
4
6£
32
16
9
58
17
782
11
32
40
25
4
7
72
2
2
6
1
22
1
88
2
21C
467
285
178
108
20
39
32
14
18
7
17
48
30
7
155
15
6
13
3
2
813
83
1]
167
14£
3
24
15
7
18
4
2
Spokane County---------------Wisconsin: Milwaukee County.
5Î
82
597
8
10
51
12
56
A reas with L ess T han 100,000
P opulation____________________
1,171
166
496
53(
145
83
6S
14
Ohio:
Hamilton County-------------Montgomery County--------Oregon: Multnomah C ou n ty ...
Pennsylvania:
Phila<felphia(cityandcounty)
South Carolina: G r e e n v i l l e
Utah: Third district__________
Washington:
50,000, less than 100,000------------Massachusetts *-----------------------
1
4
1
1
6
1
1
7
4
24
9
3
9
10
5
248
20
30
2
5
4
1
25
5
13
5
239
5
11
4
6
2
3
13
26
16
55
32
4
16
105
31
38
16
6
43
31
3
155
34
41
2
1
6
5
3
11
6
77
2
1
1
1
1
1
6
23
50
1
3
3
1
19
3
45
134
57
11
22
88
102
54
48
36
2
17
2
23
8
2
4
1
220
36
1
2
2
228
64
16 ■ 10
3—
62
14
17
25
7
25
24
1
20
15
1
26
5
9
2 __
1
1
16
1
8
62
10
13
53
7
11
141
30
22
201
5
4
12 —
95
17
150
101
316
236
41
30
11
21
67
7
4
f
7
71
6£
10
49
4£
3
133
123
60
100
10€
30
7
30
4
23
6
5
3
1
11
1
1
1
5
9
2
1
1
1_
17 —
6
2—
3—
Ì—
8
5 __
8
* Not separately reported for areas with 50,000 to 100,000 population and areas with less than 50,000 popuation.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
SOURCE TABLES
93
V I .— Place o f care o f child pending hearing or disposition in delinquency
C
i^ n n n n p0sed o f by thf ?ourts ™ 1 State> 4 f courts serving specified areas with
1UU,UU0 or more population, and 26 courts serving areas with less than 100 000
population, m 19321
’
T able
Delinquency cases
Total cases s.
52, 713 32,035
2,244
A reas
w it h
357 12,911
1,923
8
123
4,608 1,237
17
Place of care not re
ported
Other place of care4
Jail or police sta
tion 5
Other institution
Detention home *
Boarding home or
other family home
Total
Area served by court
No detention care
Detention care overnight or longer in
specified place
278
76
92
333 12,642
4,544 1,096
9
69
6
2
a
#o
a
©
©
o
38
»o-4
Pi
©
Sh
O
£
1,285
5
100,000 or M ore P opu49,081 29,191
Alabama: Mobile County______
California:
San Diego County_________
San Francisco County______
Connecticut:
Bridgeport (city)__________
Hartford (city)..__________
District of Columbia___________
Florida: Dade County_________
Georgia: Fulton County_______
Indiana:
Lake County______________
Marion County___________
Iowa: Polk County_________
Louisiana:
Caddo Parish___ __________
Orleans Parish............ ______’
Maryland: Baltimore (city)_____
Michigan:
Kent County______________
Wayne County___________
Minnesota:
Hennepin County__________
Ramsey County___________ \
New Jersey:
Hudson County____________
Mercer County____________ [
New York:
Erie County_______________
Monroe County__________ _
New York (city)............
"
Rensselaer County__________
Syracuse (city).......... .......
Westchester County...
Ohio:
.......
Franklin County___________
Hamilton County__________
Mahoning County______
Montgomery County....... ” ~Oregon: Multnomah County .
Pennsylvania:
Allegheny County__________
Berks County__________ ~~~
Fayette County_________
Montgomery County___*” * J
Philadelphia (city and county)-
140
59
1,385
647
1,034
331
1
302
304
2
511
711
1,799
619
1,264
376
439
1,432
555
787
1
1
129
104
366
5
1
266
785
502
144
158
308
6
304
129
754
334
3,060 2,832
111
622
171
1
9
2
17
1
1
4
29
2
411
215
9
200
1,576
4
10
549
2,678
338
1,072
3
17
940
461
727
306
38
2
1,025
291
585
267
1
715
167
7,366
190
241
382
470
81
3,932
104
59
221
237
1,316
2,418
2,110
493
839
522
738
1,201
311
542
794
74
34
76
6,711
1 Population according to the 1930 census.
14
27
13
16
5,050
4
167
51
1
1
1
55
437
1
2
7
4
178
491
1,664
841
120
120
410
59
1,308
3
36
4
3
44
1
2
6
2
.........
134
8
8
1
4
3
165
98
9
1
24
7
85
3,388
54
2
155
1,264
42
9
8
3
473
2
1
1
1
1
254
1
67
58
117
1 _
21 .
1
....... 1
h°,“ s and part
2
1
4
1
12
44
3 1
344
“ “ ,im* e‘scwhere’
elsewhere.68 &feW C8SeS ° f chil<lren 081-6(1 ior P“ 1 oi the time in jails or police stations and part of the time
h o m S h , o r % d K a f i o Cnsildren heW to mOTe than 1 place of care but ln places other than detention
^
a lo la l’s 8lven are also shown by courts for areas with 100,000 or more
population and included in the group total for areas with less than 100,000 population
70355*— 35------ 7
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
94
SOURCE TABUES
V I .— Place o f care o f child pending hearing or disposition in delinquency
cases disposed o f by the courts in 1 State, J+2 courts serving specified areas with
100,000 or more population, and 26 courts serving areas with less than 100,000
population, in 1932 — Continued
T able
Delinquency cases
Detention care overnight or longer in
specified place
o ®
s
Area served by court
a-a
■8Ä
Mg
a ,2
•h39b
©T3
X
JÖ
O
"8
s©
A r ia s with 100,000 or M ore P opu
lation—Continued.
South Carolina: Greenville County.
80
Utah: Third district____ _______
043
Virginia: Norfolk (city)___ —___
869
Washington:
214
Pierce County_______ - _____
628
Spokane C o u n ty ...................
Wisconsin: Milwaukee County__ 3,730
60
783
427
123
374
02
391
1,924
87
201
1,773
A reas with L ess than 100,000 P opu
lation . . ............................. ..............
3,632
2,844
269
60,000, less than 100,000____ . . . . . .
Less than 60,000________________
1,950
1,682
1,500
1,344
255
14
s f
64
141
200
V II .— M anner o f handling delinquency cases disposed o f by the courts in
4 States, 68 courts serving specified areas with 100,000 or more population, and
166 courts serving areas with less than 100,000 population, in 1932 1
T able
Delinquency cases
Area served by court
Total
Official
Unofficial
65,274
44,643
20,631
State totals:*
Connecticut__
Massachusetts.
New York____
Utah_________
4,361
6,971
11,831
2,244
2,377
6,971
11,820
1,020
1,984
A reas with 100,000 or hore P opulation.
55,687
37,845
17,842
140
140
1,385
647
624
647
511
711
340
1,799
619
1,264
238
343
340
1,160
315
1,264
266
785
502
168
697
217
Total cases
Alabama: Mobile County.
California:
San Diego County-----San Francisco County.
Connecticut:
Bridgeport (city)_____
Hartford (city)_______
New Haven (city)____
District of Columbia_____
Florida: Dade County___
Georgia: Fulton County__
Indiana:
Lake County________
Marion County______
Iowa: Polk County______
11
1,224
761
—
273
368
639
304
—
98
88
285
1 Population according to the 1930 census.
courts for areas with 100,000 or
* All figures for the States for which totals are given are also shov
more population and included in the group total for areas with less than 100,000 population.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
95
SOURCE TABLES
T able V II .— M anner o f handling delinquency cases disposed o f by the courts in
4 M ates, 68 courts serving specified areas ivith 100,000 or more population, and
166 courts serving areas with less than 100,000 population, in 1982 — Continued
Delinquency cases
Area served by court
Total
A
100,000 or m o r e P o p u l a t i o n — Continued.
Louisiana:
Caddo Parish__________ ;_________
Orleans Parish___________________
Maryland: Baltimore (city)__________
Massachusetts:
Boston:
Boston (central section)______
Brighton............................... .....
Charlestown___________ . _____
Dorchester........... .............. .......
East Boston_________________
Roxbury____________________
South B oston..._____________
West Roxbury. I _____________
Second district of Bristol_____ ____
Third district of Bristol__________
Lawrence district__________ ______
Southern Essex district___________
Springfield district........ ...................
First district of eastern Middlesex..
Third district of eastern Middlesex.
Lowell district___________________
Central district of Worcester............
Michigan:
Kent County....... ....... .....................
Wayne County__________________
Minnesota:
Hennepin County________________
Ramsey County_________________
New Jersey:
,
Hudson County__________________
Mercer County__________________
New York:
Albany County.................................
Broome County........................... .
Chautauqua County_____________
Dutchess County________ ________
Erie County................................
Monroe County__________________
New York (city)_____________ """"
Niagara County................................
Oneida County__________________
Rensselaer County______________”
Schenectady (city)...........................
Suffolk County________ __________
Syracuse (city)________
”
Westchester County__________
Ohio:
Franklin County_________________
Hamilton County_______________
Mahoning County_______________
Montgomery County_____________
Oregon: Multnomah County.............Ill'
Pennsylvania:
Allegheny County__________ _______
Berks County______________ ______
Fayette County_____________ _____
Montgomery County.........................
Philadelphia (city and county)____
South Carolina: Greenville County____
Utah: Third district______________
Virginia: Norfolk (city)___ ..*..11.1.11
Washington:
Pierce County____________________
Spokane County__________________
Wisconsin: Milwaukee County________
Official
Unofficial
b e a s w it h
A r e a s with L
ess
T han 100,000 P o p u l a t i o n .
50,000, less than 100,000_.
Less than 50,000________
Massachusetts *________
population.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
246
&
3,060
932
59
151
223
441
380
220
188
195
152
155
198
284
228
305
156
361
932
59
151
223
441
380
220
188
195
152
155
198
284
228
305
156
361
549
2,678
549
2,678
940
461
940
461
1,025
291
1,025
291
423
176
211
90
167
7,366
158
248
190
249
83
241
382
423
176
211
90
715
167
7,366
158
248
190
249
S3
241
372
10
1,316
2,418
2,110
493
839
470
88
374
169
169
846
2,330
1,736
324
670
794
74
34
76
6,711
80
943
869
794
74
29
76
1,658
57
364
869
214
628
3,730
126
212
842
5
5,053
23
579
88
416
2,888
9,587
6,798
2,789
3,105
4,139
2,343
1,780
2,675
2,343
1,325
1,464
T able V IIIa
— D isposition o f boys’ delinquency cases by the courts o f 4 States, 68 courts serving specified areas with 100,000 or more popula
tion, and 164 courts serving areas with less than 100,000 population, in ly o z
Boys’ delinquency cases
Child kept under super
vision of court
Child not kept under supervision of court
Area served by court
Total
Proba
tion
officer
super
vising
Agency Under Case dis
or indi tempo missed
vidual rary care or ad
super of an in justed
vising stitution
277
757
1,643
1,915
642
4,383
707
202
26
43
83
219
340
266
20,507
3,648
20
54
18,091
State totals: »
Connecticut...
Massachusetts.
New York____
Utah................
3,914
6,411
10,465
1,907
1,460
3,418
3,953
645
48,223
15,054
126
43
,196
511
185
375
593
70
444
650
323
,604
510
,074
175
203
218
526
151
375
100,000
or
M
ore
P
o p u l a t io n .
Alabama: Mobile County------ --------------California:
San Diego County...............................
San Francisco County................... —
Connecticut:
Bridgeport (city)---------------------------Hartford (city).....................................
New Haven (city)....... ........................
District of Columbia................................Florida: Dade County..............................
Georgia: Fulton County...................... —
Indiana:
Lake County....... ................................
Marion County___ - ...............*----- —•
Iowa: Polk County_________ ______ ____
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
139
598
398
505
475
47
Insti
tution
4,195
56,639
with
Agency
or indi
vidual
23,314
Total cases J.
a h » a«
Insti
tution
370
734
70
275
923
2,201
4,633
18
1,650
670
71
1,889
4,010
SOTJKCE TABLES
575
Case
held
Disposi
open tion
not
Resti
without reported
Other
tution, disposi further
fine, or tion of action
costs
Agency
case
or indi ordered
vidual
Referred without
Committed to— commitment to—
4
234
680
2,795
69
24
321
2
796
57
148
207
411
355
210
175
170
145
146
193
254
211
275
142
318
414
25
82
72
224
169
116
75
141
123
101
83
123
129
146
111
127
466
2,394
181
1,294
770
398
885
263
354
144
195
81
657
150
6,584
147
216
150
224
79
234
310
71
101
2,009
41
152
373
2
2
11
38
8
4
44
70
61
10
33
4
2
2
11
11
13
32
2
26
7
1
15
6
5
15
9
14
16
4
17
18
19
10
14
13
10
77
1
159
469
39
271
263
275
165
42
44
57
32
14
173
229
2
3
282
316
23
132
3
62
17
277
35
3,069
73
120
86
84
34
10
59
19
23
14
7
34
17
399
12
20
13
13
17
19
11
113
78
6
49
232
95
2,434 •
48
61
31
105
17
181
207
5
17
14
1
2
1
1
11
4
6
3
2
24
7
16
50
8
7
3
10
255
4
1
3
8
4
7
3
1
4
3
3
4
6
7
3
1
1
5
2
10
22
9
13
1
3
4
2
1
1
3
3
328
20
41
72
101
106
68
51
8
11
20
69
76
48
66
15
148
1
27
3
314
2
8
5
244
1
89
5
3
8
25
9
2
11
65
5
80
4
15
147
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
12
5
12
1
35
9
46
1
4
1
20
1
4
8
2
2
5
4
6
3
1
3
1
2
238
8
1
1
6
6
1
1
12
1
40
5
3
g
15
1
392
4
14
8
2
8
1
1 Population according to the 1930 census.
* All figures for the States for which totals are given are also shown by courts for areas with 100,000 or more population and included in the group total for areas with less than
100,000 population.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
SOURCE TABLES
Louisiana:
Caddo Parish__________________ ?_________
Orleans Parish________ :__________________
Maryland: Baltimore (city)___________________
Massachusetts:
Boston:
Boston (central section)................... ........
Brighton_____________________________
Charlestown__________________________
Dorchester__________________ _______
East Boston__________________________
R o x b u r y .............................................
South Boston_________________________
West Roxbury________________________
Second district of Bristol__________________
Third district of Bristol_________ ____ _____
Lawrence district_________________________
Southern Essex district________ _______ ___
Springfield district___ ____ ______ _________
First district of eastern Middlesex_________
Third district of eastern Middlesex_________
Lowell district____________________________
Central district of Worcester_______________
Michigan:
Rent County_____________________________
Wayne County___________________________
Minnesota:
Hennepin County________________________
Ramsey County__________________________
New Jersey:
Hudson County__________________________
Mercer County___________________________
New York:
Albany County__________________________
Broome County___________ ____ __________
Chautauqua County...... ..................... ...........
Dutchess County_________ ____ ___________
Erie County_____________________________
Monroe County________________ ____ _____
New York (city)........ ...... ...............................
Niagara County__________________________
Oneida County__________ ________________
Rensselaer County_______________________
Schenectady (city)__________________ _____
Suffolk County__________________________
Syracuse (city)......... ...... ................................
Westchester County______________________
T a b l e V I I I a .— D isposition o f boys' delinquency cases by the courts o f 4 States, 68 courts serving specified areas with 100,000 or more popular-
iO
tion, and 154 courts serving areas with less than 100,000 population, in 19 8 2 — Continued
Boys’ delinquency cases
Child kept under super
vision of court
Child not kept under supervision of court
Area served by court
Total
r e a s w it h
100,000 o r
M
ore
P o p u l a t io n —
Washington:
r e a s w it h
L
ess
T
han
100,000
sn,non, i « « than inn,non
P
Insti
tution
Agency
or indi
vidual
o p u l a t i o n ............... —
681
874
1,238
128
301
74
27
61
47
10
1
23
4,147
21
405
173
110
3
7
19
299
4
25
60
157
546
3,133
5
32
691
4
7
6
35
58
295
2,133
29
53
67
8,416
3,037
125
100
2,807
15
110
92
8
1,063
1,463
281
1,106
i; 951
1,825
316
731
242
286
293
58
288
4
3
2
1
4
1
11
1
13
14
fiäQ
59
28
73
6,898
69
776
721
624
64
21
64
610
36
265
299
1
4
2,609
3,609
2,198
788
1,092
1,157
2
3
2
4
1
22
23
19
4
5
294
35
6
8
8
61
10
6
57
335
87
22
81
15
95
26
26
14
___
2
127
2
46
1
7
3
42
65
612
1
22
38
40
2
9
65
4
6
1
13
12
11
6
21
6
8
91
155
52
19
17
547
45
26
72
720
312
623
2
161
208
178
11
28
6
4
22
47
25
217
380
123
123
138
51
88
133
402
2
* Not separately reported for areas with 50,000 to 100,000 population and areas with less than 60,000 population.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Insti
tution
Con.
Pennsylvania:
A
Agency Under Case dis
or indi tempo missed
vidual rary care or ad
super of an in justed
vising stitution
66
4
51
3
SOURCE TABLES
A
Proba
tion
officer
super
vising
Case
held
Disposi
open
tion not
Resti
Other without reported
tution, disposi
further
fine, or tion of action
costs
Agency
case
or indi ordered
vidual
Referred without
Committed to— commitment
to—
T able V IIIb .
-D isposition o f girls’ delinquency cases by the courts o f 4 States, 68 courts serving specified areas with 100,000 or more popu
lation, and 144 courts serving areas with less than 100,000 population, in 1982 1
Girls’ delinquency cases
Child kept under super
vision of court
Area served by court
Total
Agency
or indi
vidual
super
vising
122
Total cases *.
8,635
2,777
State totals:1
Connecticut__
Massachusetts.
New York____
Utah................
447
560
1,366
337
91
305
624
109
2,500
A EE AS
100,000 OE
M O R E POPULATION.
7,464
Alabama: Mobile County__________ _
14
San Diego County____ __________
San Francisco County____________
Connecticut:
Bridgeport (city)_________________
Hartford (city)___________________
New Haven (city)________ ________
District of Columbia___ _____ ________
Florida: Dade County_______________
Georgia: Fulton County.........................
Indiana:
Lake County_____________________
Marion County__________________
Iowa: Polk County__________________
189
136
WITH
C alifornia:
108
Under
tempo
rary
care of
an in
stitu
tion
228
Case
dis
missed
or ad
justed
Referred without
commitment to— Restitu Other
tion,
dispo
fine,
Agency Insti Agency or costs sition
or indi tution or indi ordered of case
vidual
vidual
Committed to—
Insti
tution
2,645
1,194
197
108
2,280
967
179
98
265
83
Case
held
Disposi
open tion
not
without reported
further
action
406
580
341
502
29
23
78
127
187
104
23
1 Population according to the 1930 census.
1All figures for the States for which totals are given are also shown by courts for areas with 100,000 or more population and included in the group total for areas with less than
100,000 population.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
SOURCE TABLES
Proba
tion
officer
super
vising
Child not kept under supervision of court
eo
CQ
T a b l e V I I I b .— D isposition o f girls’ delinquency cases by the courts o f 4 States, 68 courts serving specified areas with 100,000 or more popu
lation, and 144 courts serving areas with less than 100,000 population, in 1982 — Continued
Girls’ delinquency cases
Child kept under super
vision of court
Area served by court
Total
100,000 o r M o r e P o p u l a t i o n — Con.
Louisiana:
Caddo Parish--------------- ----------------------Orleans Parish___:____________ __________
Maryland: Baltimore (city).............. ...........—
Massachusetts:
Boston:
Boston (central section)______________
Brighton___________________________
Charlestown________________________
Dorchester__________________________
East Boston________________________
Roxbury..................................................
South Boston_______________________
West Roxbury__:____________________
Second district of Bristol________________
Third district of Bristol__________________
Lawrence district___. . . ------ -t------------------Southern Essex district......................... ......
Springfield district____ _________________
First district of eastern Middlesex-----------Third district of eastern Middlesex_______
Lowell district_______________________
Central district of Worcester-------------------Michigan:
Kent County------------------------------ --------Wayne County----------------------------- ------ Minnesota:
Hennepin County------ ----------------------Ramsey County________________________
r e a s w it h
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
170
63
Agency
or indi
vidual
super
vising
Case
dis
missed
or ad
justed
Referred without
Committed to— commitment to— Restitu
Other
tion,
dispo
fine,
sition
Agency or costs
Agency
Insti or indi Insti or indi ordered of case
tution
tution
vidual
vidual
Case
held
Disposi
open tion
not
without reported
further
action
SOURCE TABLES
A
Proba
tion
officer
super
vising
Under
tempo
rary
care of
an in
stitu
tion
Child not kept under supervision of court
140
28
33
20
69
32
16
9
58
17
782
11
32
40
25
4
7
72
13
9
2
18
5
482
9
1
12
1
3
37
44
37
2
3
4
10
3
152
1
16
34
7
1
4
8
210
467
285
178
108
60
54
21
23
21
9
11
13
6
2
5
42
155
15
6
3
813
11
167
148
114
4
1
5
11
195
4
39
57
6
3
i
370
3
103
28
57
82
597
10
4
235
8
8
12
31
251
A bbas with L bss T han 100,000 P opulation.
1,171
277
14
29
365
60,000, less than 100,000_______
Less than 50,000____________. ! ! ! . ! . ! ! ! ! ! !
Massachusetts
___ . ..
496
530
146
142
81
54
6
8
28
1
152
194
19
2
39
145
183
73
28
SOURCE TABLES
New Jersey:
Hudson County__ _______ 1_____....
Mercer County.___;___i___; ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ”"
New York:
Albany C o u n ty ...._______________
Broome C ounty..___ . . . . . ______
Chautauqua C oun ty... ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
Dutchess County____ ________
Erie County______ _______ ; ! . ! . ” ! ! !
Monroe County________________ """
New York (city)____ ! . ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
Niagara County____________ ._ .!!_ !
Oneida County___ ;________ ~~ ~
Rensselaer County______ _! . ! ! ! ! ! ! !
Schenectady (city)_____ .11.1111!
Suffolk County_______
Syracuse (city)_____ ___ : ! ! ’ ! ! ! ! ! ’ ! !
Westchester County_____
Ohio:
Franklin County____ _______
Hamilton C oun ty.._________!!_ !!!!.
Mahoning County____________
Montgomery County..____ ! . ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
Oregon: Multnomah County_____
Pennsylvania:
Allegheny County____________ _____
Berks County__________________
Fayette County____________
Montgomery County_____ IIZIIIIIII!
Philadelphia (city and co u n ty )!.!!!!!
South Carolina: Greenville County__
Utah: Third district___ .
Virginia: Norfolk (city ).......... ! ! ! ! !
Washington:
Pierce County___ __________________
Spokane County___________!_
Wisconsin: Milwaukee C o u n ty !!!!!!!
.............
227
45
65
» Not separately reported for areas with 50,000 to 100,000 population and areas with less than 50,000 population
O
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
102
SOURCE TABLES
I X .— Color nativity, and parent nativity o f children dealt with in dependency
and neglect cases disposed o f by the courts in 1 State, Ifi courts serving specified
areas With 100,000 or more population, and 26 courts serving areas with less than
100,000 population, in 1932 1
T able
Dependency and neglect cases
White children
Area served by court
Total cases *_
State total: Utah *.
Chil
Col dren
whose
Native, Native,
ored
Native, foreign parent For Nativ chil color
Total
was
ity
or
native
dren
eign not
age
Total parent
re
not re
mixed not re born
ported
ported
parent ported
age
age
19,273 16,536
230
10,210
5,113
805
250
158
2,735
784
249
158
2,667
1
170
A reas W ith 100,000 or M ore
4,966
9,307
P opulation............ - ................... 1,133 15,464
4
4
5
Alabama: Mobile County-----California:
69
302
396
437
San Diego County----------277
307
673
761
San Francisco County-----Connecticut:
44
20
66
71
Bridgeport (city)________
94
42
142
169
Hartford (city) - -------------4
129
137
303
District of Columbia------------29
625
663
702
Florida: Dade County---------284
284
348
Georgia: Fulton County-------Indiana:
86
142
173
Lake County____________
192
211
260
Marion County-------------235
252
278
Iowa: Polk County_________
Louisiana:
166
166
202
Caddo Parish___________
13
121
198
275
Orleans Parish._________
34
134
254
320
Maryland: Baltimore (city) —
Michigan:
38
180
229
236
Kent County—.................
298
274
658
748
Wayne County__.1-------Minnesota:
65
181
341
344
Hennepin County_______
8
110
118
125
Ramsey County------------New York:
56
73
133
136
Erie County________ ___
33
134
174
175
Monroe County------------1,918
1,541
New York (city)------------ 4,230 3,681
18
128
146
146
Rensselaer County--------40
59
103
105
Syracuse (city)........... ......
240
203
489
532
Westchester County------Ohio:
24
305
340
418
Franklin County----------24
175
211
344
Hamilton County---------21
82
128
137
Mahoning County--------15
204
220
266
Montgomery County----58
329
416
423
Oregon: Multnomah County.
Pennsylvania:
209
375
609
705
Allegheny County..------4
23
28
28
Berks County__________
1
7
10
Fayette County— —
4
25
29
29
Montgomery County----Philadelphia (city and
943
1,188
2,966 2,178
county)___________
South Carolina: Greenville
48
49
53
County________ :....... —
36
117
170
171
Utah: Third district------14
111
180
Virginia: Norfolk (city)..
Washington:
4
150
156
161
Pierce County______
16
184
200
201
Spokane County.......
253
454
933
960
Wisconsin: Milwaukee County
A reas W ith L ess T han 100,000
147
903
1.072
P opulation------ — ..........
107
603
722
757
50,000, less than 100,000.
40
300
350
383
Less than 50,000_______
5
27
166
39
64
31
49
26
36
77
66
7
90
3
7
3
1
152
549
43
78
133
25
221
11
788
27
i Population according to the 1930 census.
,
.
.
■ ... „ „ „ „ ... —
»All figures for the State for which a total is given are also shown by courts for areas with 100,000 or macs
population and included in the group total tor areas with less than 100.000 population.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
103
SOURCE TABLES
Reason for reference to court o f children in fam ilies represented in de
pendency and neglect cases disposed of by the courts of 1 State,
courts serving
specified areas with 100,000 or more population, and 26 courts serving areas with
less than 100,000 population, in 1982 1
T able X .
40
Families represented in dependency and neglect cases
Reason for reference of child to court
Area served by court
With
out ad
equate Aban
Total care or
Abuse
support don or crue
ment treat
from
parent or de ment
sertion
or
guard
ian
Total cases J_____ ___________ ____ ___ io,
664
10,664
State total: Utah >.
A beas W ith 100,000 ob M obe P opulation
Alabama: Mobile County...__________
California:
San Diego County_______ ___
San Francisco County_____
Connecticut:
Bridgeport (city)_________________
Hartford (city)________________
District of Columbia_____________ _
Florida: Dade County__________ _ . .
Georgia: Fulton County________
Indiana:
Lake County____________________
Marion County____________IIIIII.
.Iowa: Polk County________________
Louisiana:
Caddo Parish____________________
Orleans Parish________________ __
Maryland: Baltimore (city)________ II.
Michigan:
Kent County____________________
Wayne County________________ __
Minnesota:
Hennepin County___ _____________
Ramsey County__________________
New York:
Erie County_____________________
Monroe County__________________
New York (city)__________________
Rensselaer County_______ _______ _
Syracuse (city)___________________
Westchester County
. . . _______
Ohio:
Franklin County____ ____ ________
Hamilton County______ . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Mahoning County__. . . . . . . . . . . . . ___
Montgomery County______________
Oregon: Multnomah County__________
Pennsylvania:
Allegheny County________________
Berks County_______________ ____
Fayette County__________________
Montgomery County______________
Philadelphia (city and county)______
South Carolina: Greenville County_____
Utah: Third district__________________
Virginia: Norfolk (city)_______________
Washington:
Pierce County____________________
Spokane County__________________
Wisconsin: Milwaukee County_________
A bbas W ith L ess T han 100,000 P opulation
50,000, less than 100,000.
Less than 50,000............ .
8,128
503
292
Living
under
condi
tions
injuri
ous to
morals
924
Physi
cally
handi
capped Other
and in reason
need oi
public
care
812
123
91
10
9
9
4
10,044
4
7,714
1
481
266
2
852
1
726
268
382
135
325
11
7
41
4
70
45
11
1
43
83
166
366
199
35
49
150
307
163
8
8
7
3
1
1
5
25
8
7
24
3
7
24
20
1
120
150
199
78
146
118
7
5
14
6
14
4
6
55
142
201
203
110
186
174
2
12
11
10
1
2
12
2
9
8
124
396
116
393
1
2
1
3
1
3
205
70
197
70
6
96
85
2,197
91
75
404
15
77
1,985
53
11
103
17
6
259
194
102
145
260
167
133
69
108
212
13
6
4
8
3
319
19
10
12
1,430'
29
85
101
307
5
4
10
1,016
14
67
51
4
128
136
546
620
439
181
105
104
345
414
287
127
5
—
1
16
6
1
2
1
1
18
2
8
6
167
3
9
17
72
1
9
27
55
279
11
9
2
4
8
39
20
5
19
32
29
23
22
6
5
2
1
3
235
5
9
10
51
3
5
1
2
101
7
2
39
7
9
5
5
2
49
22
14
8
1
9
26
26
20
6
4
17
117
72
47
25
5
i
5
—--
i
3
27
2
13
4
9
86
71
15
Population according to the 1930 census.
* All figures for the State for which a total is given are also shown by courts for areas with 100,000 or more
population and included in the &oup total for areas with less than 100,000 population
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
104
SOURCE TABLES
X I .— Place o f care of child pending hearing or disposition in dependency
and neglect cases disposed of by the courts in 1 State, Jfi courts serving specified
areas with 100,000 or more population, and 26 courts serving areas with less than
100,000 population, in 1932 1
T able
Dependency and neglect cases
Detention care overnight
longer in specified place
Area served by court
Total cases '
Total
cases
or
No re
port
Other
No de Board
place of as to
ing
tention
Deten Other care or deten
care home or tion
tion
insti
place
other
tution not
re care
family home 2
ported :
home
19,273
11,645
861
1,308
4,717
18,133
10,630
810
1,272
4,691
437
761
362
722
59
1
71
169
303
702
348
49
65
282
660
283
12
11
1
28
1
173
260
278
106
160
152
7
45
15
202
275
320
77
174
270
5
10
20
2
91
26
236
748
124
416
40
246
10
50
344
125
238
72
95
41
9
11
136
175
4,230
146
105
532
102
75
907
116
74
424
29
9
5
91
3,300
418
344
137
266
423
339
22
720
State total: U tah4.
A B E A S WITH
A
100,000 OB M O B E
POPU LATIO N..
Alabama: Mobile County--------------California:
San Diego County.......................
San Francisco County— . --------Connecticut:
Bridgeport (city).......................—
Hartford (city)-----------------------District of Columbia---------------------Florida: Dade County------------ -----Georgia: Fulton County.......... . . . . . .
Indiana:
Lake County-----T--------- ----------Marion County........... ................
Iowa: Polk County............................
Louisiana:
Caddo Parish_________________
Orleans Parish-----------------------Maryland: Baltimore (city)-----------Michigan:
Kent County...................- ...........
Wayne County-----------------------Minnesota:
Hennepin County------------- -----Ramsey County---------------------New York:
Erie County--------------------------Monroe County----------------------New York (city)---------------------Rensselaer County-------------- Syracuse (city)-----------------------Westchester County---------------Ohio:
Franklin County--------------------Hamilton County-------------------Mahoning County------------------Montgomery County.......... ........
Oregon: Multnomah County-----Pennsylvania:
Allegheny County............... .......
Berks County------------------------Fayette County---------------------Montgomery County.................
Philadelphia (city and county)..
South Carolina: Greenville County.
Utah: Third district--------------------Virginia: Norfolk (city)----------------Washington:
Pierce County----- ------------------Spokane County.------------------Wisconsin: Milwaukee County-----b e a s w i t h L e s s T h a n 100,000 P o p u l a t i o n
50,000, less than 100,000.
Less than 50,000_______
221
87
197
345
705
28
10
29
2,966
53
171
180
12
7
14
2,331
51
86
95
161
201
960
1,140
142
147
646
1,015
757
383
676
339
21
2
12
35
5
29
58
12
19
94
13
5
15
221
3
27
5
6
2
4
622
1
47
33
14
50
301
4
4
7
477
8
_ ,
.
1 Population according to the 1930 census.
,, ,
, ...
i includes cases of children cared for part of the time in detention homes and part of the time elsewhere,
but excludes cases of children also held in jails or police stations.
, _
, . .
3 Includes 2 children cared for in jail or police station (1 m Multnomah County, Oreg., and 1 m Fayette
County, Pa.), 15 cases of children cared for in other places, and 5 cases in winch the P la c e t s
'
« All figures for the State for which a total is given are also shown by courts for areas with 100,000 or more
Population and included in the group total for areas with less than 100,000 population.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
SOURCE TABLES
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
O
Cm
T able X II .—Disposition of dependency and neglect cases
disposed of by the courts of 8 States, Jß courts serving specified areas with 100,000
or more population, and 128 courts serving areas with less than 100,000 population, in 1982— Continued
O
Gì
Dependency and neglect cases
Child kept under supervision
of court
Child not k ept under supervision of court
Area served by court
Total
173
260
278
Louisiana:
Michigan:
Minnesota:
New York (city)__________________________
Westchester County______________________
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
8
51
72
40
35
5
Under
tempo Case dis
rary care missed
or ad
of an in
stitution justed
11
151
32
17
61
Referred without
commitment to—
Committed to—
Institu
tion
Agency
25
21
84
Institu
tion
Agency
or indi
vidual
6
1
17
30
18
10
1
3
9
2
8
75
5
6
36
117
2
3
80
202
275
320
28
20
8
71
4
1
37
29
69
20
34
66
236
748
4
99
17
454
26
6
167
75
18
14
13
4
3
8
175
64
6
47
3
17
1
95
36
1
1
161
6
1
142
4
21
1,952
3
35
27
1
104
5
5
8
1
83
925
48
23
21
28
36
47
9
3
18
11
12
13
8
9
13
11
4
6
1
6
149
394
158
113
371
136
175
4,230
69
187
146
91
1
105
532
34
46
24
1,249
1
31
19
3
23
1
9
85
♦
Other
disposi
tion of
case
Case held
open
without
further
action
Individ
ual
1
6
107
344
125
New York:'
Agency
or indi
vidual
super
vising
39
8
Ì
2
4
18
1
1
9
7
65
54
36
46
10
5
49
11
56
28
9
28
55
10
5
41
83
24
23
66
1
6
36
6
53
1
13
2
4
45
195
5
10
10
91
16
>
SOURCE TABLES
▲b ia s with 100,000 ob M obe P opulation—Con.
Indiana:
Proba
tion
officer
super
vising
Ohio:
Franklin County__________ ______
Hamilton County________________
Mahoning County_______________
Montgomery County_____________
Oregon: Multnomah County..________
Pennsylvania:
Allegheny County_______________
Berks County___________________
Fayette County__________________
Montgomery County............... .........
Philadelphia (city and county)_____
South Carolina: Greenville County____
Utah: Third district_________________
Virginia: Norfolk (city)______________
Washington:
Pierce County___________________
Spokane County_________________
Wisconsin: Milwaukee County________
60,000, less than 100,000..............................
Less than 60,000_______________________
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Ì
96
705
28
10
29
2,966
63
171
180
638
3
1
6
137
19
15
28
7
26
161
201
960
24
2
143
88
3,626
313
267
1,695
1,930
229
84
107
160
16
37
41
37
4
1
79
2
2
10
25
SOURCE TABLES
A reas with L ess T han 100,000 P opulation.
418
344
137
266
423
108
SOTJHCE TABLES
T able X I I I .— Reason for discharge in cases o f delinquent children discharged from
supervision by the courts in 4 States, 56 courts serving specified areas with 100,000
or more population, and ISO courts serving areas with less than 100,000 population,
in 1932 1
Cases of delinquent children discharged from supervision
765
216
30
35
168
84
10
113
216
430
39
11
37
40
5
28
106
47
26
144
27
126
31
9,337
745
201
1,454
184
414
572
12
1
152
358
106
246
1
2
4
13
1
38
4
11
27
37
9
11
176 '
93
252
602
214
95
157
244
136
76
212
350
179
48
94
126
1
12
19
12
20
64
10
13
32
103
2
3
10
2
4
6
13
2
2
1
6
39
12
4
10
8
17
1
4
119
3
11
8
2
449
30
66
65
161
69
82
60
113
88
88
47
57
397
22
60
59
154
125
105
864
2,189
3,009
374
12,913
18
fltah
.................... .
Areas with 100,000 or M ore P opuLATION.............- ..............................................
California:
Connecticut:
Maryland: Baltimore (city)........
Massachusetts:
Boston:
Second district of’ Bristol-----
First district of eastern MidThird
1
district of eastern
111
142
18
23
121
105
Central district of Worcester.
Michigan: Wayne County-------- 1,354 1,150
Minnesota:
559
638
164
192
33
252
155
New Jersey: Hudson County___
New York:
114
137
16
35
12
12
49
56
188 . . ___
2Ì5
Erie County______________
1
11
3
28
5
1
2
33
3
4
3
4
15
3
8
1
16
10
4
11
4
5
2
2
8
10
4
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
6
9
17
2
12
158
2
1
2
13
1
1
9
60
26
21
2
1
6
4
12
2
15
8
19
1
2
6
10
6
6
1
4
78
49
110
70
74
39
45
Other reason
Total
1,406
2,575
3|771
653
Reason not reported
Whereabouts of child un
known or moved from
jurisdiction of court
546
1,150
Child committed or re
ferred to institution
212
Total casesa_________________ 15,572 10,959
Conduct of child or condi
tions unsatisfactory but
further supervision not
advised
1,642
Expiration of period speci
fied by court
292
Area served by court
Conduct of child satisfac
tory or conditions im
proved
Child committed or re
ferred to agency or indi
vidual
Reason for discharge
2
1
1
1
2
1
2
3
1
2
31
3
4
1
30 —
i
» Population according to the 1930 census.
....
„„„
« All figures for the States for which totals are given are also shown by courts for areas with 100,000
or more population and included in the group total for areas with less than 100,000 population.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
109
SOURCE TABLES
T a b l e X III.
Reason for discharge in cases o f delinquent children discharged from
supervision by the courts in 4 States, 56 courts serving specified areas with 100,000
or more population, and ISO courts serving areas with less than 100,000 population
m 1932 — Continued
’
Cases of delinquent children discharged from supervision
A re as
w it h
Reason not reported
Other reason
Whereabouts of child un
known or moved from
jurisdiction of court
Child committed or re
ferred to agency or indi
vidual
28
Child committed or re
ferred to institution
104
1,898
27
25
Conduct of child or condi
tions unsatisfactory but
further supervision not
advised
Expiration of period speci
fied by court
Total
Area served by court
Conduct of child satisfac
tory or conditions im
proved
Reason for discharge
100,000 or M o rs P opu -
—Continued.
New York—Continued.
Monroe County
118
New York (city)
2,321
Niagara County___________
38
Oneida County____________
34
Rensselaer County_________
11
Schenectady (city)
93
Suffolk County___________
17
Syracuse (city). _
77
Westchester County _ ___
300
Ohio:
Hamilton County
238
Montgomery County
205
Oregon: Multnomah County___
276
Pennsylvania:
Berks County. ________
1
Fayette C o u n ty ............ ......
2
P hiladelphia (c ity and
county)...............................
744
South C arolina: Qreenville
County......................................
44
Utah: Third district__ _ .
313
Virginia: Norfolk (city)________
238
Wisconsin: Milwaukee County..
805
l a t io n
A re as w ith L ess than 100,000
P opulation .....................................
2
72
15
11
2
7
1
2
14
247
103
.1
161
21
120
18
9
31
2
277
7
7
19
2
2
1
2
4
5
29
4
3
42
18
42
25
76
13
17
31
20
11
10
28
14
26
1
1
50
59
15
...
1
2
61
32
248
167
644
474
7
95
10
21
1
2
1
4
23
2
3
9
6
30
28
96
17
13
2
2
46
2,659
1,622
405
91
188
28
132
193
60.000. less than 100,000
803
Less than 60,000........................... 1,067
Massachusetts«
__
789
418
556
648
157
69
56
67
65
8
52
43
142
8
248
22
12
8
20
60
1
2
* Not separately reported for areas with 50,000 to 100,000 population and areas with less than 60.000
population.
70355*— 31
8
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
110
SOURCE TABLES
X IV .— Reason for discharge in cases of dependent and neglected children
discharged from supervision by the courts in 8 States, 24 courts serving specified
areas with 100,000 or more population, and 16 courts serving areas with less than
100,000 population, in 1982 1
T able
Cases of dependent and neglected children discharged from
supervision
Reason for discharge
Area served by court
l-o a
oI
*-4bO»—
Ì I
■O« >
"8
!g 0
’ § “ 'S
g ê H «?
o
110
è s
iMob«> iOP
-oS
.2 *2
If
02
a
a to
S *»
9 or*
0
o
£
—, S a-S
8-0
<D «•o eo g £ 2
-# S
I. o r
2 ¡22 8 « a
2|
S ät:
2
o
ü
309
3,166
2,005
State totals: 1
Connecticut.
New York__
Utah.............
2
1,009
700
20
10
A reas with 100,000 ob M ore P op
ulation....... ........... - ........- ........... .
2,928
1,959
39
64
2
161
139
53
60
41
426
9
31
2
72
110
19
24
325
137
67
87
61
23
1
29
872
4
26
11
648
9
145
3
2
Total cases ».
California:
San Diego County-------------San Francisco County..........
Connecticut: Hartford (city)----District of Columbia---------------Florida: Dade County— ..........
Indiana: Lake County--------- —
Iowa: Polk County.....................
Maryland: Baltimore (city)-----Michigan: Wayne County-------Minnesota:
Hennepin County------ ------Ramsey County___________
New York:
Broome County___________
Monroe County----------------New York (city)-------- ------Syracuse (city)-----------------Westchester County— .........
Ohio:
Hamilton County------ ------Montgomery County--------Oregon: Multnomah County—
Pennsylvania:
Berks County......... ............
Philadelphia (c it y
and
county)......................- - - - South Carolina: G r e e n v ille
County........- ----------------------Utah: Third district__________
Wisconsin: Milwaukee County—
A r e a s w i t h L ess T h a n 100,000
P o p u l a t i o n . . . ........................... — —
79
2
308
170
174
25
159
2
75
295
282
123
132
12
3
1
8
12
6
120
12
1
31
227
5
14
432
228
10
12
5
2
2
36
8
343
36
26
47
60,000, less than 100,000.
Less than 60,000---------1 Population according to the 1930 census.
. ■
.
. .
...
—. _
* All figures for the States for which totals are given are also shown by courts for areas with 100,000 or
more population and included in the group total Tor areas with less than 100,000 poopulation.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
SOURCE TATmnq
T a b i ,e
111
X V --L e n g th o f time child, was under supervision in cases o f delinquent
9
2 S 2 2 S dt8char ed fr o m supervision by the courts in 4 States, 56 courts serving
?Zea*i™ 1™ *00’000! °T m<!re population, and ISO courts serving areas
with less than 100,000 population, in 1982 1
v
Cases ot delinquent children
Duration of supervision
Area served by court
Total
2
6
1 year
18
Less
less months years 3 year 3Not re
than 6 months
less
or
less than If less thaï
ported
month.
than 12 month s 2 years 1 than 3 more
years
Total cases».
15,572
5,736
5,237
2,855
775
631
289
State totals: *
Connecticut__
Massachusetts.
New York........
Utah_________
1,406
2,575
3,771
653
575
1,362
1,336
202
621
575
1,380
302
190
536
701
104
13
35
139
34
5
21
140
9
75
2
A
100,000
b e a s w it h
ob M obe
t i o n . . ....................................
P
49
2
46
opula
12,913
4,591
4,449
2,294
707
574
268
30
Alabama: Mobile County___
18
13
4
1
California:
San Diego County________
152
74
27
19
15
17
San Francisco County____
358
190
105
44
13
5
1
Connecticut:
Bridgeport (city).................
176
62
99
14
1
Hartford (city)___________
93
27
38
17
5
4
2
New Haven (city)________
252
98
147
7
District ot Columbia___ ______
602
100
239
147
57
8
51
Florida: Dade County___ ____
214
137
72
4
1
Indiana: Lake C o u n ty .....__ ____
95
40
41
14
Iowa: Polk County__________ "
157
42
54
35
18
7
1
Maryland: Baltimore (city) ,.........
244
59
93
69
15
8
Massachusetts:
Boston:
Boston (central section)___
449
268
113
56
6
6
Brighton___________ _____
30
18
6
6
Charlestown_____________
66
48
15
3
Dorchester_______________
65
34
10
20
1
East Boston_____________ I
161
136
25
Roxbury_____ ____ ____
69
23
16
26
2
South Boston____________
82
81
1
West Roxbury....................
60
32
26
1
1
Second district of Bristol...........
113
77
24
12
Third district of B r is to l........
88
46
29
11
1
1
Lawrence district_____________
88
50
18
16
3
*1
Southern Essex district ..
47
20
13
14
Springfield district___
57
16
10
17
1
6
7
First district of eastern Middle
sex__________________
125
47
55
18
4
1
Third district of eastern M id
dlesex________________ ____
142
66
46
29
1
Lowell district_________ " I I I .
23
7
1
3
1
7
4
Central district of Worcester .
121
23
16
72
4
2
4
Michigan: Wayne County..
1,354
257
567
260
121
104
44
1
Minnesota:
Hennepin County___ _____
638
258
292
61
17
7
3
Ramsey County......... .......”
192
48
65
48
13
17
1
New Jersey: Hudson County ”
252
23
18
138
28
37
8
New York:
Albany County___________
137
7
75
55
Broome County___________
35
13
5
14
3
Chautauqua C ou n ty...” 1”
12
6
6
Dutchess County_________
56
22
15
19
Erie County__________ ”
215
16
69
118
5
7
Monroe County______ ” ”
118
13
25
43
19
14
4 .
New York (city)..______ __
2,321
1,114
1,001
165
39
2
Niagara C ounty....____ I.
38
7
5
9
10
7
Oneida County________”
34
4
5
24
1
Population according to the 1930 census.
States for which total's are given are also shown by courts for areas with inn nnn nr
ore population and included in the group total for areas with less than 100,000 population.
’
W
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
112
SOURCE TABLES
X V .— Length o f time child was under supervision in cases of delinquent
children discharged from supervision by the courts in 4 States, 56 courts serving
specified areas with 100,000 or more population, and 180 courts serving areas
with less than 100,000 population, in 1982—Continued
T able
Cases of delinquent children
Duration of supervision
Area served by court
Total
A reas with 100,000 or M ore P opula
tion—Continued.
New York—Continued.
Rensselaer County-__________
Schenectady (city)___ L . .........
Suffolk County______________
Syracuse (city)______________
Westchester County___ _____
Ohio:
Hamilton County.__________
Montgomery County________
Oregon: Multnomah County_____
Pennsylvania:
Berks County_______________
Fayette County_____________
Philadelphia (city and county)
South Carolina: Greenville County
Utah: Third district_____________
Virginia: Norfolk (city)................
Wisconsin: Milwaukee County___
11
03
17
77
300
2
1 year,
18
Less
3 years Not re
less months, years,
than 6 months,
less
less
than 18 less than
ported
months than
12 months 2 years than 3
years
28
3
7
31
238
205
276
69
1
2
744
44
313
238
805
1
1
375
223
10
21
L A T IO N -............. .................................................
2,659
60,000, less than 100,000___________
Less than 50,000_________________
Massachusetts3_________________
803
1,067
789
22
72
131
83
216
1
16
9
77
88
165
1,145
788
561
348
427
370
236
401
151
130
199
232
72
21
263
15
2
25
76
21
116
A reas with L ess T han 100,000 P opu57
3
Not separately reported for areas with 50,000 to 100,000 population and areas with less than 50,000 popu
lation.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
113
SOURCE TABLES
XVI.— Length of time child was under supervision in cases of dependent and
neglected children discharged from supervision by the courts in 3 States, 34 courts
serving specified areas with 100,000 or more population, and 16 courts serving
areas with less than 100,000 population, in 1932 1
T able
Cases of dependent and neglected children discharged from
supervision
Duration of supervision
Area served by court
Total
6
1 year,
18
3
2
Less
less months, years, years Not re
than 6 months,
less than 18 less than less
or
ported
months than
12 months 2 years than 3 more
Total cases *____ ______________
3,156
1,097
738
433
274
326
286
State totals:8
Connecticut.___________________
New York______________________
Utah................................. ................
2
1,009
20
497
4
2
332
14
111
2
23
21
25
A reas with 100,000 or M ore P opuLATION............ ......................................
2,928
1,032
692
396
263
294
248
39
64
2
161
139
63
60
41
426
18
17
3
12
10
7
4
39
106
21
26
6
67
8
14
2
40
26
17
10
4
59
15
7
fi
9
12
43
36
27
3
6
13
36
6
9
6
92
128
137
67
26
9
22
18
8
19
26
3
11
9
44
9
1
29
872
4
26
1
17
467
4
6
2
309
87
1
13
1
6
8
8
7
4
1
12
6
120
1
3
13
7
3
2
227
5
14
432
37
2
California:
San Diego C oun ty...................
San Francisco County________
Connecticut: Hartford (city)_____
District of Columbia_____________
Florida: Dade County___________
Indiana: Lake County___________
Iowa: Polk County____ ____ _____
Maryland: Baltimore (city)
Michigan: Wayne County
Minnesota:
Hennepin County.___________
.Ramsey County.................. .
New York:
Broome County______________
Monroe County______________
New York (city)........................
Syracuse (city).........................
Westchester County_________
Ohio:
Hamilton County____________
Montgomery County_________
Oregon: Multnomah County_____
Pennsylvania:
Berks County_______ ________
Philadelphia (city and county).
South Carolina: Greenville County.
Utah: Third district................. ......
Wisconsin: Milwaukee County___
166
1
32
19
2
19
4
2
43
45
23
31
1
48
2
66
2
87
63
69
228
65
46
37
11
31
38
60,000, less than 100,000....................
Less than 50,000
163
65
64
40
20
17
9
15
16
25
13
6
1
1
A reas with L ess T han 100,000 P opuLATION..............................................
u
3
1
1
32
12
3
1 Population according to the 1930 census.
* All figures for the States for which totals are given are also shown by courts for areas with 100,000 or
more population and included in the group total for areas with less than 100,000 population.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
114
SOURCE TABLES
X Y II .—Sex and race of juvenile in cases of Federal juvenile offenders under
19 years of age, disposed of by Federal authorities in each State and Territory,
July 1—Dec. 31, 1932
T able
Cases of Federal juvenile offenders
State and Territory, and sex
of juvenile
Race of juvenile
Total
White
Negro Mexican Indian
Chinese
Other
Not re
ported
Total cases___________
1,168
784
142
136
59
3
7
37
Boys’ cases_________
1,066
728
134
120
41
2
5
36
Alabama__________________
Alaska____________________
Arizona__________ ____ ____
Arkansas__________________
California_________________
Colorado__________________
Connecticut....................... .
Florida______ _____________
Georgia....................................
Idaho_____________________
Illinois____________________
Indiana...................................
Iowa______________________
Kansas____________________
Kentucky_________________
Louisiana_________________
Maine____________________
Maryland_________________
Massachusetts_____________
Michigan__________________
Minnesota_________________
Mississippi________________
Missouri__________________
Montana__________________
Nebraska__________________
Nevada___________________
New Hampshire___________
New Jersey________________
New Mexico_______________
New York_________________
North Carolina...................
North Dakota______________
Ohio______________________
Oklahoma...............................
Oregon.____ _______________
Pennsylvania..........................
Puerto Rico................. ...........
Rhode Island..........................
South Carolina_____________
South Dakota______________
Tennessee...............................
Texas_____________________
Utah........................................
Vermont_____________ _____
Virginia.__________________
Washington________________
West Virginia______________
Wisconsin_________________
Wyoming_________________
65
27
22
27
19
9
2
41
44
9
34
11
2
5
80
35
9
22
3
7
12
35
30
7
3
4
1
3
12
36
59
12
10
62
2
12
4
3
35
5
25
135
3
15
20
12
42
2
2
45
8
1
22
13
6
2
35
26
8
25
11
2
3
66
20
9
18
3
7
11
15
26
4
3
3
1
2
3
32
44
12
10
52
1
11
2
3
23
1
24
21
Q
10
16
8
2
4
1
2
Girls’ cases........ ........
102
56
Alabama.................................
A laska..._________________
Arizona___________________
California_________________
Georgia___________________
Idaho.____________________
Illinois____________________
Kentucky_________________
Louisiana_________________
Maryland_________________
Michigan__________________
Minnesota_________________
Missouri__________________
Nebraska__________________
New Jersey________________
New York________________ _
North Carolina____________
1
J.9
4
1
2
1
6
1
4
2
3
2
2
3
2
2
3
1
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
4
1
- 5
15
1
1
1
3
1
4
1
12
14
x
1
4
i
2
18
2
3
1
1
1
13
8
4
1
i
2
1
1
2
11
1
11
3
4
98
15
19
11
42
2
2
2
1
1
1
5
1
3
1
3
2
2
3
2
1
3
3
i
i
8
1
1
1
1
1
16
18
17
i
1
2
2
i
115
SOURCE TABLES
X V II. — Sex and race of juvenile in cases of Federal juvenile offenders under
19 years of age, disposed of by Federal authorities in each State and Territory,
July 1—Dec. SI, 1982— Continued
T able
Cases of Federal juvenile offenders
Race of juvenile
State and Territory, and sex
of juvenile
Total
White
Negro Mexican Indian
Girls’ cases—Contd,
Ohio................................
Oklahoma_____________
Oregon________________
Pennsylvania__________
Tennessee_____________
Texas_________________
Virginia_____ -________
Washington____________
West Virginia__________
1
Chinese
Other
Not re
ported
1
2
16
X V III. — Sex of juvenile and offense charged or reason for arrest in cases of
Federal juvenile offenders under 19 years o f age disposed of by Federal authori
ties in each State and Territory, July 1—Dec. SI, 1932
T able
Cases of Federal juvenile offenders
39
14
13
8
Boys' cases..
54
39
11
13
Alabama_________
Alaska___________
Arizona__________
Arkansas_________
California________
Colorado_________
Connecticut______
Florida...................
Georgia__________
Idaho____________
Illinois___________
Indiana__________
Iowa_____________
Kansas___________
Kentucky________
Louisiana________
Maine_________. ..
Maryland.—. .........
Massachusetts____
Michigan_________
Minnesota_______
Mississippi____ . ..
Missouri_________
Montana_________
Nebraska_________
Nevada__________
New Hampshire.. .
New Jersey_______
New Mexico______
New York________
North Carolina___
North Dakota__ _
55
27
22
27
19
g
2
41
44
g
34
11
2
6
80
35
g
22
3
7
12
35
30
7
3
4
1
3
12
36
59
12
37
g
3
2
3
10
3
3
3
8
3
2
1
4
6
3
15
8
1
2
3
6
7
1
1
6
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
31
34
5
6
3
1
1
65
14
22
1
2
6
29
4
1
1
1
1
19
47
1
1
3
19
3
2
2
1
3
7
1
10
4
1
1
1
7
3
1
g
4
2
4
g
5
11
Î
4
1
2
1
5
1
1
1
7
13
11
1
25
6
1
2
2
2
2
i
1
1
4
13
1 69
2
1
2
1
1
4
187
4
1
4
2
Held as material
ness
Mann (White
Slave) Act
62
160
Other laws
Interstate Com
merce Act
177
Narcotic Drug
Act
180
178
L a w s against
counterfeiting
562
530
Postal laws
Im m ig r a tio n
Act
168
066
Liquor laws
Total cases...
Total
Motor Vehicle
Theft Act
State and Territory, and
sex of juvenile
Offense not re
ported
Offense charged—Violation of—
5
i
1
1
8
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
116
SOURCE TABLES
X V III. — Sex of juvenile and offense charged or reason for arrest in cases of
Federal juvenile offenders under 19 years of age disposed of by Federal authorities
in each State and Territory, July 1-D ec. 81, 1982— Continued
T able
Cases of Federal juvenile offenders
Boys’ cases—Contd.
Utah..
5
44
5
7
2
1
3
23
8
10
62
2
12
4
3
35
5
25
135
3
15
20
12
42
2
2
15
42
5
2
37
1
13
1
2
1
2
102
32
2
1
19
4
1
2
1
6
1
4
2
3
2
2
3
2
2
3
2
9
1
3
2
22
1
1
3
2
2
80
2
2
1
15
6
1
1
17
8
4
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
1
1
3
2
1
i
3
1
3
1
1
11
2
1
1
8
18
2
14
i
12
2
1
i
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
2
1
2
1
1
1
i
2
1
i
1
13
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
5
Held as materia]
ness
2
2
2
7
Offense not re
ported
2
4
1
i
Ï
Other laws
Mann (White
Slave) Act
Interstate Com
merce Act
Narcotic Drug
Act
*
1
1Includes 1 violation of the National Banting Act.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
L a w s against
counterfeiting
5
10
5
6
2
Postal laws
Motor Vehicle
Theft Act
Liquor laws
Total
State and Territory, and
sex of juvenile
I m m ig r a tio n
Act
Offense charged—Violation of—
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
■X
T able
Y
0
X IX .- Age limit o f original juvenile court jurisdiction and sex and age o f juvenile in cases o f Federal juvenile offenders under 19 years
o f age disposed o f by Federal authorities in each State and Territory, July 1-D ec. SI, 1982
Cases of Federal juvenile offenders
State and Territory
Age under
which juve
nile court
has original
jurisdiction
Boys
Under
14
years
1,168
1,066
•12
74
126
311
537
66
46
26
27
20
9
2
41
46
10
40
11
2
6
65
27
22
27
19
9
2
41
44
9
34
11
2
6
80
35
9
22
3
7
12
35
30
7
3
4
1
2
4
5
9
1
1
4
6
2
7
3
15
1
7
7
7
6
1
8
15
29
7
12
12
9
2
1
20
21
7
13
6
1
4
47
19
5
11
3
3
9
14
13
3
1
2
1
}
81
39
9
24
3
10
14
36
32
7
6
4
1
2
3
2
1
1
6
5
16
years
17
years
18
years
Age
not
re
ported
Total
Under
14
years
14
years,
under
16
6
102
i8
17
13
23
41
1
19
4
3
2
1
3
4
1
1
7
1
8
5
2
4
1
1
3
9
5
1
3
5
5
7
2
1
1
............
16
4
1
17
5
3
5
3
3
9
10
4
1
2
1
1
1
1
16
years
17
years
1
1
2
1
6
1
4
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
3
2
1
2
1
3
18
years
1
2
1
1
1
1
- A IN U U * WUjuvemie courts, put special proceaure is provided for delinquent children under the age of 16 years.
--------nai
w ™ m i^ y^mUviJiave;n<? juve5-iIe' c?.urt I?WS> ^ut Maine has provided special procedure in cases of children under the age of 16 years (extended to 17 bv acts of l!m oh
118), and W yommg provides certain modifications in court procedure in cases of persons under the age of 21 years.
y
textenueu 10 u °y acts of 1933, ch.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
SOURCE TABLES
I o w a ...........................................
Kansas______________________________ 11
Kentucky___________________
Tboys..
,
. .
Igirls.
Louisiana___________________________
Maine *_____________________IZH.Î3
Maryland...........................
ZZZZIIZZII
Massachusetts__________________ 3IIII"
"
Michigan_____________
..IIIZZ3IZIZIZI
Minnesota__________________I-IIIIIIIIIIIII
Mississippi____________________ IIIIIIIIII"
Missouri____________ ”_irzzzzzzzzzizz
Montana_____ : ______________ 1331131111
Nebraska....... .........................333333333333333"
Nevada........ ...........
.333.33333333
New Hampshire_________________33333333
Total
Total
Total cases_________________________
Alabama___________________________
Alaska 1________________________IIIIIII"
Arizona_______________ I.I.Z Z IIZ Z IZ Z Z
Arkansas______________________ IZZZ..I*
California________________ ____
Colorado___ ________________ I.IIIIIIII'"
Connecticut__________________ I .I I I I 'I "
Florida............................ ............
Georgia..... ...........................................
Idaho__________________________ IZ I I I Z
/b ° y s Illinois____________
T ..
\girls._
Girls
14
years,
under
16
T a b l e X I X — Age limit of original juvenile court jurisdiction and sex and age o f juvenile in cases o f
o f age disposed of by Federal authorities in each State and Territory, July 1-D ec. SI, 1932— Continued
under 19 year*
00
Cases of Federal juvenile offenders
State and Territory
Age under
which juve
nile court
has original
jurisdiction
Total
Total
16
18
16
16
18
18
16
18
16
16
16
18
18
16
17 }
18
18
16
18
18
18
18
21
5
12
38
62
12
12
71
3
15
4
3
35
5
27
157
3
15
21
13
45
2
2
3
12
36
59
12
10
62
2
12
4
3
35
5
25
135
3
15
20
12
42
2
2
Under
14
years
14
years,
under
16
16
years
i
1
2
10
1
1
9
1
2
1
1
11
15
6
3
16
1
5
3
1
4
2
12
5
8
1
4
3
1
9
1
4
7
I
2
17
years
3
6
50
1
9
8
1
10
1
1
18
years
i
9
23
30
5
6
29
5
3
1
16
2
19
70
1
6
5
10
20
1
1
Age
not
re
ported
1
2
Total
Under
14
years
14
years,
under
16
2
2
2
3
1
2
9
1
3
2
22
1
1
3
1
1
1
2
1
2
1
2
2
3
2
6
1
1
2
3
3
18
years
17
years
16
years
1
2
8
1
1
1
s Maine and Wyoming have no juvenile-court laws, but Maine has provided special procedure in cases of children under the age of 15 years (extended to 17 by acts of 1933, ch.
118), and Wyoming provides certain modifications in court procedure in cases of persons under the age of 21 years.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
SOURCE TABLES
New Jersey_______ _______________________
New Mexico______________________________
New York________________________________
North Carolina___________________________
North Dakota____________________________
Ohio_____________________________________
Oklahoma________________________________
O regon.......... ..................................................
Pennsylvania_____________________________
Puerto Rico______________________________
Rhode Island--------------------------------------------South Carolina_______________________ ____
South Dakota_____________________________
Tennessee......... .................................................
_
/boys..
Texas------ . . . . . . . ---------------------------- (girls. .
Utah...................................................................
Vermont___ . . . . . --------- --------------------------Virginia__________________________________
Washington______________________________
West Virginia_____________________________
Wisconsin______________________________—
W yoming3__ __ . . . . . --------------------------------
Girls
Boys
119
SOURCE TABLES
X X .— Sex o f juvenile and period between arrest and disposition in cases oj
Federal juvenile offenders under 19 years o f age disposed o f by Federal authorities
in each State and Territory, July 1-D ec. 81, 1982
T able
Cases of Federal juvenile offenders
2 months, less
than 3
3 months, less
than 6
6 months, less
than 9
9 months, less
than 12
65
90
160
257
141
170
31
12
107
62
57
79
149
239
132
161
29
10
98
7
10
2
6
1
2
2
1
1
i
2
1
2
5
2
4
10
10
7
3
3
Alabama_________________
Alaska____ ______________
Arizona__________________
Arkansas________________
California....... .....................
Colorado________________
Connecticut______________
Florida__________________
Georgia_____ _____ ______
Idaho. _ _ _ _____ .
Illinois__________________
Indiana__________________
Iowa____________________
Kansas__________________
Kentucky________________
Louisiana............................
Maine___________________
Maryland................. ...........
Massachusetts___________
Michigan................ .............
Minnesota______ _________
Mississippi...........................
Missouri_________________
Montana_________________
Nebraska__ _____ ________
Nevada............ ...................
New Hampshire_________
New Jersey____ __________
New Mexico_____________
New York_______________
North Carolina___________
North Dakota____________
Ohio____________________
Oklahoma_______________
Oregon__________________
Pennsylvania____________
Puerto Rico............. ...........
Rhode Island____________
South Carolina___________
South Dakota.......... ...........
Tennessee________________
Texas___________________
Utah.....................................
Vermont_________________
Virginia_________________
Washington______________
West Virginia. ___
Wisconsin_______________
Wyoming............ .............
19
9
2
41
44
9
Z4
11
2
5
80
35
9
22
3
7
12
35
30
7
3
4
1
3
12
36
59
12
10
62
2
12
4
3
35
5
25
135
3
15
20
12
42
2
2
Girls’ eases...............
102
Alabama_________________
Alaska......... .............. .........
Arizona__________________
California________________
Georgia__________________
Idaho____________________
Illinois__________________
Kentucky________________
Louisiana____ ___________
Maryland________________
Michigan________________
Minnesota_______________
Missouri_______________
1
19
4
1
2
1
6
1
4
2
3
2
2
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
7
i
3
4
1
2
3
1
1
10
i
i
2
i
2
3
5
3
1
7
3
i
5
1.
3
9
4
1
1
2
2
10
2
3
2
16
6
2
i
2
5
7
i
1
5
4
11
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
i
3
2
2
1
4
7
4
6
1
1
7
1
1
1
5
5
1
i
i
1
3
2
2
1
9
2
i
1
26
i
7
1
2
7
i
3
3
2
11
2
8
1
1
2
2
1
10
8
9
1
1
9
1
U
7
7
14
2
1
3
3
1
7
1
i
2
i
i
2
Not reported
1 month, less
than 2
72
3 to 6 days
63
50
1 to 2 days
Total cases................. 1,168
Boys* cases.............. 1,066
Total
2 weeks, less
than 1 month
1 week, less
than 2
Less than 1
day
Period between arrest and disposition
State and Territory, and
sex of juvenile
4
1
3
10
1
3
i
1
5
12
5
5
13
i
2
2
10
3
39
2
6
2
14
1
3
1
2
4
4
5
1
2
6
15
11
4
2
1
13
1
5
5
1
16
5
18
9
4
2
i
2
12
1
1
12
2
9
4
2
13
5
5
1
h
1
2
1
1
2
1
2
i
1
2
2
1
i
1
2
1
9
1
2
i
1
1
1
h
1
1
1
1
120
SOURCE TABLES
X X .— Sex of juvenile and period between arrest and disposition in cases o f
Federal juvenile offenders under 19 years of age disposed o f by Federal authorities
in each State and Territory, July 1-D ec. SI, 1982— Continued
T able
Cases of Federal juvenile offenders
Oklahoma_______________
Texas____________________
1
1
1
2
1
2
2
1
1
2
1
1
1
4
1
3
1
2
1
6
2
1
1
1
1
Not reported
9 months, less
than 12
6 months, less
than 9
3 months, less
than 6
2 weeks, less
than 1 month
1 week, less
than 2
3 to 6 days
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
1
1
2 months, less
than 3
1
1 month, less
than 2
3
2
2
3
2
9
1
3
2
22
1
1
3
1 to 2 days
Total
Girls' cases—Contd.
Less than 1
day
Period between arrest and disposition
State and Territory, and
sex ot juvenile
X X I .— Release pending trial in cases of Federal juvenile offenders under 19
years of age disposed o f by Federal authorities in each State and Territory, July
1-D ec. SI, 1932
T able
Cases of Federal juvenile offenders
Released pending trial
State and Territory, and sex of juvenile
Total
Not released
pending
trial
On bail
No report
lease
On own On recog pending
nizance
recog
trial
nizance of others
Total cases-----------------------------------
1,168
692
250
23
12
191
Boys’ cases---------------------------------
1,066
623
236
20
11
176
16
1
3
2
1
1
1
1
3
1
8
4
4
2
4
i
2
1
6
6
2
5
1
1
2
15
4
1
4
1
2
2
6
5
Iowa-------------------
New Mexico___________________________
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
55
27
22
27
19
9
2
41
44
9
34
11
2
5
80
35
9
22
3
7
12
35
30
7
3
4
1
3
13
29
19
13
14
13
8
1
24
16
5
23
8
1
3
25
29
8
10
1
4
6
20
20
7
2
4
2
8
9
1
1
9
20
2
5
2
1
1
1
39
2
7
1
1
4
9
2
1
3
1
1
1
4
121
SOURCE TABLES
X X I .— Release pending trial in cases of Federal juvenile offenders under 19
years of age disposed of by Federal authorities in each State and Territory, Julv
1-D ec. 31, 1932 — Continued
T able
Cases of Federal juvenile offenders
Released pending trial
State and Territory, and sex of juvenile
Total
Not re
leased
pending
trial
Boys’ cases—Continued.
New York........................... ........................
North Carolina___________
North Dakota___________
Ohio_____________
Oklahoma_______
Oregon_______________
Pennsylvania______________ _
Puerto Rico_______________
Rhode Island___________
South Carolina__________
South Dakota_______
Tennessee___________
Texas_______________
U tah........................
Vermont___________ _
Virginia_______________
Washington____________
West Virginia_____________
Wisconsin______ ___
Wyoming_______________
36
59
12
10
62
2
12
4
3
35
5
25
135
3
15
20
12
42
2
2
Girls* cases______________________
102
69
1
19
4
1
2
1
6
1
4
2
3
2
2
3
2
2
3
2
9
1
3
2
22
i
i
3
1
13
3
1
2
1
4
Alabama____________
Alaska______________
Arizona___________________
California_________
Georgia_______________
Idaho__________
Illinois______________
Kentucky_________
Louisiana....... .....................
Maryland_____________
Michigan_____________ ________
Minnesota_______
Missouri_____________
Nebraska__________
New Jersey_______
New York____ ____ __. . . .
North Carolina.....................
Ohio............ ...........
Oklahoma______________
Oregon___________ ____
Pennsylvania___________________
Tennessee_____________
Texas_______________
Virginia.......... ....................
Washington_________________
West Virginia____________________
On bail
18
22
8
5
37
13
28
11
2
1
1
21
3
10
108
2
12
14
9
15
1
. 2
9
1
10
9
1
i
3
1
2
2
2
2
1
2
5
i
i
17
i
i
i
3
13
No report
as to re
lease
On own On recog
recog
nizance pending
trial
nizance of others
2
2
1
13
1
1
14
3
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
15
T able
X X I I .— Sex of juvenile and amount o f bail set in cases o f Federal juvenile offenders under 19 years o f age disposed of
by Federal authorities in each State and Territory, July 1—Dec. 31, 1932
to
to
Cases of Federal juvenile offenders
Amount of bail set
State and Territory, and sex
juvenile
Total
Total cases—
Boys’ cases
Alabama________
Alaska_____ . __ ...
Arizona_________
Arkansas________
California_______
Colorado.......... . . .
Connecticut-------Florida____ _____
Georgia_________
Idaho___________
Illinois__________
Indiana_________
Iowa____________
Kansas__________
Kentucky----------Louisiana_______
Maine........--------Maryland----------Massachusetts___
Michigan_______
Minnesota______
Mississippi______
Missouri________
Montana________
Nebraska_______
Nevada.................
New Hampshire..
New Jersey...........
New Mexico____
New York______
North Carolina...
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
1,168
1,066
55
27
22
27
19
9
2
41
44
9
34
11
2
5
80
35
9
22
3
7
12
35
30
7
3
4
1
3
12
36
59
No bail
set
62S
573
21
23
18
11
12
7
1
21
17
5
24
8
1
3
24
25
8
7
1
4
5
16
22
7
2
4
2
8
12
18
$100, less $200, less $300,less
than
than
than
$500
$300
$200
Total
372
338
11
7
43
6
17
1
28
14
3
1
1
14
22
2
7
2
19
1
1
123
30
111
28
1 11
12
13
14
50
168
81
12
13
»14
44
155
1
2
2
6
4
4
2
4
1
8
2
8
4
1
1
2
1
25
3
2
2
1
5
1
2
1
2
1
3
1
7
2
1
12
2
2
5
13
3
1
1
7
7
1
2
3
7
1
4
Not re
ported
89
9
1
3
11
$2,500
or more
$2,000
$1,500
$1,000
5
2
1
$700, less
than
$1,000
$500
No re
port
as to
bail
3
4
1
1
1
1
6
5
2
3
1
1
2
13
4
1
3
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
6
5
3
3
4
8
1
1
1
1
20
33
4
13
7
à
4
12
1
4
1
1
>
3
W
O
£
U
r*
fet
oa
V
North Dakota_______________
Ohio.-----. . . . . . . . . . . . ----- -------Oregon......................... ......
Pennsylvania_________________
Puerto Rico_________
Rhode Island_____________ . . . .
South Carolina___
South Dakota________
Utah_____________
Vermont________
Virginia.........................
Wisconsin____ ___
Wyoming______
Girts’ cases.......................
California_________
Georgia_________
Kentucky____________________
Louisiana_____
Minnesota___________________
Missouri______
Oregon_______________________
Tennessee____________________
Virginia______________________
Washington_______
West Virginia_________________
12
10
62
2
12
4
3
35
5
25
135
3
15
20
12
42
2
2
Ï9
3
8
101
2
8
9
9
16
1
2
102
55
9
6
34
7
2
at
1
3
16
1
13
1
13
19
5
2
17
34
1
2
1
2
2
—
2
2
1
3
2
4
3
3
2
1
...............
4
2
1
...............
_
2
1
1 . . . ______ _. . . . ___
................
19
13
1
—
_____
4
1
2
Ï
1
1
2
1
1
1
6
3
1
1 ::::::::::
....... Ï"
4
2
2
2
2
3
1
2
2
1
2
2
....... 2 ............... ...............
3 ............2
1
2
2
2
1
1
3
1
2
2
1
1
9
4
2 ...............
............... ...............
1
3
.....
...............
............... ...............
2
1
22
14
7
1
1
1
1
- - - - 1
1
2
* 1
..............1 .............. ............
1
------ —
2
3
1
2
3 ...............
1
8
1
1
—
12
2
1
3
3
1
4
15
1
1
6
1
9
1
............ 2
1
1 ...............
5
2
10 ...............
2
2
6 ............... ...............
...............
1
12
8
6
5
...............
13
1
5
1
1
2 ...............
. . . ..
1
.....
2
.. ......... -
1 ............... ................
1
1
1
...............
1
1
4
.......... .............
..........
.............. ............... ...............
1 ...............
2
1
1
..............
.....
-----------------------»
S “ i i ? .. «?Æ < N ,e4næ , h0“ ) to wh‘oh
3
2
r
1
« r
& 8 tiX M £ 3 S g t V & S t& l to r e » £ yT
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
4 r
1
1
7
set at v$800
w /j
1to SSVS& tS 3
T
— -
—
w v “ 'iU
ua
n m t u M 3U w as
™ «* “* « “ * 2 «* « «3.™ » to Missouri,
SOURCE TABLES
Alabama______
f
124
SOURCE TABLES
X X II I. — Place o f detention pending trial in cases o f Federal juvenile offender
under 19 years of age disposed o f by Federal authorities in each State and Territory,
July 1-D ec. SI, 1932
T able
Cases of Federal juvenile offenders
Place of detention
State and Territory, and sex
of juvenile
Total
No de
tention
No re
port as
deten
Other ]to tion
place
Juve
Jail
Local
Federal and de nile de
jail
ja il2 tention tention
(city or
home
home
county)1
Total cases__________ -
1,168
37
839
100
13
19
12
148
Boys’ cases__________
1,066
32
780
85
12
13
3
141
4
41
1
17
25
15
9
2
34
34
7
29
9
1
3
62
8
9
16
2
3
10
31
20
7
3
. 4
TkivShfirnn
Girls’ cases..................
55
27
22
27
19
9
2
41
44
9
34
11
2
5
80
35
9
22
3
7
12
35
30
7
3
4
1
3
12
36
59
12
10
62
2
12
2
1
3
5
1
4
1
1
1
1
1
2
8
15
51
10
5
51
1
2
3
3
1
1
23
1
1
102
5
1
1
s!
29
3
19
104
2
14
11
11
32
1
2
59
1
1
17
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
16
1
1
3
5
4
3
7
2
1
10
2
2
4
1
5
13
1
1
6
1
10
1
1
1
1
3
1
15
1
6
1
1
1
15
19
4
3
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
4
6
1
1
2
2
4
1
1
2
1
3
1
2
1
2
2
—
2
Missouri---------- ---------------l includes 8 cases of boys and 2 of girls detained part time in jail and part time elsewhere,
iIncludes 17 cases of boys detained part time in Federal and part tune m local jail.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
3
5
2
4
1
1
2
14
3
6
1
1
8
3
35
5
25
135
3
15
20
12
42
2
2
7
3
3
1
1
23
9
7
3
1
1
SOURCE TABLES
X X III‘
125
P} ace o f detention pending trial in cases o f Federal juvenile offenders
Cases of Federal juvenile offenders
Place of detention
State and Territory, and sex
of juvenile
Total
No de
tention
Local
Jail
Juve
jail
Federal and de nile de
(city or
jail
tention tention
county):
home
home
Girls’ cases—Contd.
Nebraska_______________ ..
New Jersey_________
New York________ ..IIIIII
North Carolina________
Ohio___ ______________
Oklahoma.________ IIIIIII
Oregon___________ IIIHIII!
Pennsylvania............. II”
Tennessee....... .................
Texas__________________
Other
place
No re
port as
to deten
tion
4
2
1
1
2
3
1
8
1
2
15
1
1
3
Virginia_____________ IIIIIII
Washington.:__________ ” 11
West Virginia___________ 11
Cases of Federal juvenile offenders
1,168
37
99
170
103
98
134
197
78
77
10
165
1,066
32
87
152
95
88
125
183
71
71
9
153
10
11
12
3
3
2
1
3
4
2
2
Alâbâiiiji.
Alaska_____
Arizona______
Arkansas____
California______
Colorado______
Connecticut...
Georgia____
Idaho_____
Indiana___
Iowa______
Kentucky____
Louisiana______
Maine______
Massachusetts
M ichigan... .
Minnesota.
Mississippi___
Montana____
Nevada_____
New Hampshire.
70355°— 35------ 9
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
55
27
22
27
19
9
2
41
44
9
34
11
2
5
80
35
9
22
3
7
12
35
30
7
3
1
4
2
1
1
Total cases..
Boys’ cases______
Total
6 months, less
than 9
No report as to
tention
i
3 months, less
than 6
2 months, less
than 3
1 month, less
than 2
2 weeks, less
than 1 month
1 week, less
thah 2
3 days, less
than l week
day, less
than 3
Less than 1
day
No detention
Length of detention pending trial
btate and Territory, and
sex of juvenile
----
6
1
3
5
1
1
3
5
1
4
3
8
1
1
13
6
1
2
1
1
15
1
1
12
5
2
6
1
2
1
4
4
2
rz
3
8
1
1
1
2
5
—
1
1
3
1
1
3
6
4
4
2
6
3
5
3
4
1
2
1
8
5
5
2
1
3
3
5
. 4
5
10
8
5
1
2
5
14
1
2
6
1
11
4
2
1
2
6
2
3
1
2
2
1
1
5
2
4
10
...... .....
i
Ï
1
1
ï
3
1
1
4
3
2
5
ï
2
15
4
1
5
2
3
1
1
2
5
4
ï
6
1
2
4
3
5
4
126
SOURCE TABLES
X X IV .—Sex of juvenile and length of detention pending trial in cases of
Federal juvenile offenders under 19 years of age disposed of by Federal authorities
in each State and Territory, July 1-Dec. 81, 193#-—Continued
T able
Cases of Federal juvenile offenders
Length of detention pending trial
1
1
1
1
1
3
1
6
17
11
1
1
1
2
1
2
4
3
1
7
1
3
7
4
4
12
3
1
1
2
5
1
1
2
2
6
1
3
7
3
3
1
7
4
6
4
35
3
9
2
6
1
3
1
3
1
26
1
6
5
5
2
6
3
2
2
10
5
2
3
1
6
2
2
4
12
18
8
7
£
Girls’ cases________
102
West Virginia....... ..............
1
19
4
1
2
I
6
1
4
2
3
2
2
3
2
2
3
2
9
1
3
2
22
1
1
3
4
5
7
1
1
11
2
7
1
1
2
4
8
4
16
1
2
5
1
13
1
4
2
5
5
5
1
1
1
1
1
9
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
3
1
1
2
6
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
5
1
5
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
5
1
1
1
3
12
1
1
1
1
2
i
1
2
1
1
7
1
2
1
14
1
..
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
5
1
1
No report as t
tention
7
3
2
2
8
1
1
7
6 months, less
than 9
3 months, less
than 6
1
8
2 months, less
than 3
3
2
1 month, less
than 2
1
day, less
than 3
Less than 1
day
1
6
16
2 weeks, less
than 1 month
U tah.................................
1
1
8
8
1 week, less
than 2
Rhode Island.....................South Carolina___________
1
3 days, less
than 1 week
Pennsylvania____________
3
12
36
59
12
10
62
2
12
4
3
35
5
25
135
3
15
20
12
42
No detention
Total
Boys’ cases—Contd.
New Jersey.........................
•§
o
State and Territory, and
sex of juvenile
T able
X X V .— Sex of juvenile and disposition of cases of Federal juvenile offenders under 19 years of age disposed o f by Federal authorities
in each State and Territory, July 1-D ec. SI, 1982
Cases of Federal juvenile offenders
Not reported
Other disposition
United States
penitentiary
United States
prison camp
United States
reformatory i
reform
atory
State
Only sentence 4
Also fined 3
Later placed on
probation 2
Later released
to immigration
authorities’ 1
To serve out fine
Total
Juvenile committed to reform
atory, prison camp, or peni
tentiary
Juvenile committed to jail
Total
State training
school
National Train
ing School for
Boys
Juvenile com
mitted to institu
tion for juveniles
Total
Juvenile placed on proba
tion
Fine (paid)
Juvenile found not guilty
—
Dismissed
Juvenile released to im
migration authorities
State and Territory, and sex of
juvenile
Total cases...
,168
72
13
273
8
20
208
55
35
20
365
34
86
23
39
183
123
7
79
20
17
25
6
Boys’ cases.
,066
66
11
225
8
20
196
53
35
18
343
32
79
23
38
171
120
7
76
20
17
19
5
1
16
5
1
9
5
2
1
7
18
1
5
1
3
3
2
1
1
5
$
i
16
14
1
3
4
6
7
7
1
1
1
1
Alabama___
Alaska_____
Arizona____
Arkansas___
California__
Colorado___
Connecticut.
Florida_____
Georgia____
Idaho______
Illinois_____
Indiana____
Iowa_______
Kansas_____
Kentucky__
Louisiana__
Maine______
Maryland__
6
3
5
2
2
1
7
1
1
10
6
1
5
1
1
2
1
1
3
2
3
2
2
1
811
8
1
5
i
9
14
1
1
1
3
2
1
9
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
29
25
3
3
17
1
5
6
5
3
2
13
__
9
11
3 1
4
3
1 Includes 28 boys committed to United States jails (1 in Arizona, 4 in New Mexico, 23 in Texas)
1 Includes 1 boy committed to a United States jail (Louisiana).
* Includes 4 boys committed to United States jails (2 in Louisiana, 2 in Texas).
4 Includes 28 boys (7 in Alaska, 1 in Louisiana, 5 in New Mexico, 4 in New York, 1 in Puerto Rico,
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
1
1
1
2
7
1
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
1
1
7
3
2
2
2
4
3
10
6
1
1
9
5
9
21
1
2
3
4
1
1
3
1
1
1
3
4
i
1
1
10 in Texas) and 4 girls (Alaska) committed to United States jails.
SOURCE TABLES
T r a n s fe r r e d to State
authorities
Disposition of case
T able
X X V .— Sex of juvenile and disposition o f cases of Federal juvenile offenders under 19 years of age disposed of by Federal authorities
in each State and Territory, July 1-D ec. 31, 1932— Continued
I— ‘
to
00
Cases ô Federal juvenile offenders
Not reported
Other disposition
United States
penitentiary
United States
prison camp
United States
reformatory
reform
atory
State
Total
Only sentence
Also fined
Later placed on
probation
Later released
to immigration
authorities
Total
State training
school
1
i
1
National Training School for
Boy:
Total
Juvenile committed to reform
atory, prison camp, or peni
tentiary
Juvenile committed to jail
To serve out fine
Juvenile placed on proba
tion
Fine (paid)
Juvenile found not guilty
Dism'ssed
juvenile released to im
migration authorities
Juvenile com
mitted to institu
tion for juveniles
j
Total
State and Territory, and sex of
juvenile
SOURCE TABLES
T ra n s fe rr e d to State
authorities
Disposition of case
Boys’ cases— Contd.
Massachusetts_____ _____ _
Michigan__________________
Minnesota______ _____ _____
Mississippi______________
Missouri_____________
Montana....... .......................
Nebraska_________________
Nevada!________________
New Hampshire____________
New Jersey__________ ____ _
New Mexico_____________
New York.. ..........
North Carolina______ ______
North Dakota.___________
Ohio___________________
Oklahoma
Oregon_________ ______ _
Pennsylvania__________ ____
Puerto Rico_______________
Rhode Island
South Carolina..______*_____
South Dakota______________
Tennessee__________________
Texas________________ _____
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
3
7
12
c5
so
7
3
1
1
3
1
6
7
5
3
2
1
3
2
8
2
2
1
3
2
3
1
1
1
13
11
3
2
19
2
1
5I
2
2
3
2
2
8
1
4
5
8
8
1
1
1
4
3
20 1
1
2
7
3
2
2
6 1
3
1
1
»
3
9
1
1
4
1
4
2
20
1
1
2
3
5
8
1
ï
1
1
1
1
1
4
1
2
1
1
ï
7
7,
13
8
......
8
10
16
2
4
4
8
15
1
n
1
1
2
4
35
5
ï
1
ï
ï
1
3
25
135
2
1
2
4
1
12
36
69
12
10
62
2
12
1
1
4
12
8
1
2
5
1
1
1
11
ï
5
6
1
95
7
2
6
2
12
3
6
1
2
1
1
63
1
5
3
19
1
1
ï
3
6
....1
1
2
.............
3
1
4.
U ta h ..................................
Vermont................. ........
Virginia___________________
Washington_______________
West Virginia______________
Wisconsin___________
Wyoming______________ .
3
15
20
12
42
2
2
2
1
1
4
Girls’ cases.......... ........
102
6
2
1
19
4
1
2
1
6
1
4
2
3
2
2
3
2
2
3
2
9
1
3
2
22
1
1
3
1
1
7
1
14
1
7
1
3
48
12
2
3
1
1
1
1
6
6
3
1
2
22
2
1
7
1
1
2
1
6
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
1
1
2
3
1
1
1
2
5
2
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
6
7
1
12
2
1
1
1
2
1
3
14
1
12
3
1
5
1
2
1
2
12
3
1
1
1
1
6
1
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
3
1
3
1
2
1
1
1
2
9
1
1
5
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
o
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
12
2
1
4
1
SOURCE TABLES
Alabama________ ______
Alaska____________ _
Arizona........... .............
California________ _____ ___
Georgia________ _______ ___
Idaho____________
Illinois__________________
Kentucky______________ _
Louisiana_________________
Maryland______________
Michigan_____ ____ _____
Minnesota.......... .............
Missouri____________
Nebraska______ _____ _____
New Jersey.....................
New York_________ ____
North Carolina________ ____
Ohio_________________
Oklahoma_________ _______
Oregon____________________
Pennsylania............................
Tennessee________________
Texas__________________
Virginia.............. .....................
Washington________________
West Virginia...... ......... .........
1
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
@FedFRASER