PENNSYLVANIA JUVENILE JUSTICE

PENNSYLVANIA JUVENILE JUSTICE Statistical Bulletin Prepared on behalf of the Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency by the National Center for Juvenile Justice, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania October 2005 GIRLS INVOLVEMENT IN PENNSYLVANIA S JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM Susanna Zawacki Over the past two decades, there has been increasing attention on female offenders in the juvenile justice system both nationally and in Pennsylvania. Historically, the vast majority of juvenile offenders have been males. For this reason, the juvenile justice system has largely been designed to handle males. Although girls remain a relatively small proportion of the juvenile offender population, their numbers have increased substantially over the last two decades. In many parts of the country, their numbers have reached a threshold such that they could no longer be ignored. This statistical bulletin compiles data from diverse sources (see page 6) to profile the delinquent behavior that brings females into the juvenile justice system and describes the system s handling of females. Some findings of this bulletin include: The number of female juvenile arrests in 2003 was 2 higher than the number of female arrests in 1994, while the number of male arrests in 2003 was lower than it was in 1994. The number of female admissions to secure detention in 2003 was 3 higher than the number admitted in 1997; for males, the number of admissions in 2003 was only 10% higher than the number admitted in 1997. The number of juvenile court cases involving females in 2003 was 2 higher than it was in 1997, while cases involving males increased just 6%. The information in this bulletin serves as a baseline for comparison for juvenile justice professionals in the Commonwealth as they strive to develop gender-responsive programs and services to better meet the needs of both male and female juvenile offenders. It is important to keep in mind that this bulletin only presents the numbersof arrests, detention admissions, and dispositions, along with age, offense, and county detailof juvenile males and females whose delinquent behavior brought them to the attention of Pennsylvania s juvenile justice system. This bulletin does not provide answers for why the numbers are what they are. It is up to policy makers to look for the story behind the numbersto think about factors in their jurisdictions that may play a part in the increases in the numbers of females involved in the juvenile justice system. These factors may include environmental factors, such as family, school, and community characteristics; the availability (or lack) of prevention and intervention programs; and local policies, practices, laws, and regulations (for example, zero tolerance policies). FEMALE SERVICES SUBCOMMITTEE The Services Subcommittee (FSS) of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Committee (JJDPC) was created in 2000 in response to the concern that the numbers of females in Pennsylvania s juvenile justice system were increasing and that treatment programs originally developed to serve males were inadequate forand possibly even harmful to females. The JJDPC charged the Services Subcommittee with developing an action plan and recommendations for improving the juvenile justice system s ability to effectively respond to the unique needs of girls. The Subcommittee is comprised of practitioners, researchers and policy makers from a variety of organizations. The mission of the Services Subcommittee is to facilitate the provision of appropriate resources for girls and young women in Pennsylvania s juvenile justice system by promoting a gender-responsive service model through: Research and development of exemplary genderresponsive programs Collaboration and cooperation of key system stakeholders Advocacy of effective public policy relating to girls and young women in the juvenile justice system Training and professional development Public awareness Evaluation This bulletin was developed at the request of the Services Subcommittee to provide the most up-to-date statistical profile of females involved in Pennsylvania s juvenile justice system. In addition, the June 2005 edition of Pennsylvania Progress, Responding to Girls, examines the work the FSS is overseeing pursuant to its mandate, as well as other efforts to increase the gender responsiveness of Pennsylvania s juvenile justice system. 1

Juvenile Arrests s make up around 25% of all juvenile arrests in Pennsylvania. The number of juvenile arrests in 2003 totaled 109,883, with 82,124 (75%) male arrests and 27,759 (25%) female arrests. Juvenile arrests peaked in 1998, when there were around 93,000 male arrests and 30,000 female arrests. Although females are not arrested as often as males, the number of juvenile female arrests has been increasing. The number of juvenile females arrested in 2003 was 2 higher than the number arrested in 1994, while the number of male arrests in 2003 was lower than the number arrested in 1994. The female share of juvenile arrests rose from 2 in 1994 to 25% in 2003. Offense Differences in Arrest Trends Between s and s Depending on the offense category, from 1994 to 2003, arrests of females either increased more than arrests of males, increased while arrests of males decreased, or decreased less than arrests of males. From 1994 to 2003, arrests of females increased most dramatically for drug violationsthe number of female arrests for drugs in 2003 was 11 higher than the number arrested in 1994, while the percent change for males was only 2. arrests also increased more than male arrests for simple assault. Offenses for which female arrests increased while male arrests decreased included aggravated assault and disorderly conduct. For some offenses, including robbery, burglary, larceny-theft, motor vehicle theft, and vandalism, arrests of both males and females decreased, but the decrease for females was less than the decrease for males. The only offense where arrests of males increased but female arrests decreased was fraud. s accounted for around a quarter of total juvenile arrests in Pennsylvania in most recent years Number of Juvenile Arrests 140,000 120,000 100,000 80,000 60,000 40,000 20,000 30,000 25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 0 0 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 Number of Juvenile Arrests 35,000 Year Total 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 Year Total arrests include summary and status offenses, such as curfew and loitering violations, running away, liquor law violations, and drunkenness. In most offense categories, female arrests increased more or decreased less than male arrests Percent Change, 1994 to 2003* State w/o State Philadelphia Most Serious Offense Violent Crime Index Aggravated assault Property Crime Index Burglary 1 17% -15% -20% -26% -2-40% -3 10% 19% -1-20% -24% -2-40% -3 Larceny-theft Motor vehicle theft -14% -26% -4-40% -7% -35% -44% -4 Non-index offenses Simple assault Fraud Vandalism Weapons Drugs Disorderly conduct 65% -4% -15% 11 4 15% 55% -3-28% 2-40% -1-15% -14% 115% *Percent change shown only for offenses in which females had more than 100 arrests in 2003. In 1994, females represented 14% of juvenile arrests for violent offenses (violent crime index offenses). By 2003, this proportion increased to 20%, and the number of arrests of females for violent offenses increased by 1, while for males, arrests actually decreased by 26%. Excluding Philadelphia s arrest data leads to increases in the percent change in the number of arrests of juvenile females in the rest of the state for aggravated assault and drug abuse violations. 4 47% -3-36% 36% 2

Gender Differences in Offense Profiles This section takes a closer look at gender differences by examining the most common offenses for which females and males are arrested in Pennsylvania and the female share of particular offenses over time. Most Common Offenses for s and s Most juvenile arrests for delinquent offenses in 2003 involved a disorderly conduct violation, which accounted for 17% of female arrests and 16% of male arrests. Other than disorderly conduct, females were most frequently arrested for larceny-theft, simple assault, and other miscellaneous non-index offenses. ure Detention Capacity What Happens to Juveniles After They Are Arrested? In 2003, police departments in Pennsylvania disposed of juvenile arrest casesboth male and female as follows: 37% were referred to juvenile court or juvenile probation departments; 3 were referred to other courts, usually a district justice for petty or summary offenses; 30% were handled within the police department and released; and less than were referred to child welfare agencies or to other police agencies. Source: 2003 Online Annual Crime Report, Pennsylvania Uniform Crime Reporting System, Pennsylvania State Police; http:// ucr.psp.state.pa.us/ucr/com/main.asp Most arrests of juvenilesmale or femaleinvolve non-index offenses Violent Crime Index Murder/non-neg manslaughter Forcible rape Robbery Aggravated assault Property Crime Index Burglary Larceny-theft Motor vehicle theft Arson Non-index offenses Negligent manslaughter Simple assault Forgery/counterfeiting Fraud Embezzlement Stolen property Vandalism Weapons Prostitution/community vice Other sex offenses Drug Gambling Offenses against the family Driving under the influence Disorderly conduct Vagrancy All others (except traffic) 17% State 4% 5% Offense Profile, 2003 Philadelphia State w/o Philadelphia Note: A dash [ ] indicates offenses that made up less than of total arrests and shading indicates offenses for which there were zero arrests. Police also arrest juveniles for curfew and loitering (2 of total female arrests in 2003), liquor law violations (1), and drunkenness (less than ), which are summary offenses and would most likely be handled by a district justice rather than the juvenile court. Disorderly conduct can also be a summary offense. Juveniles may also be arrested for running away (6% of total female arrests in 2003), which is a status offense, not a delinquent offense. Typically, police refer runaways to the local child welfare agency to be handled as dependency cases. 14% 7% 8% 4% 7% 7% 1 7% 9% 5% 6% 4% 14% 7% 8% 17% 16% 4% 6% 15% 10% 4% 8% 7% 4% 10% 9% 6% 9% 16% 8% 6% 2 2 10% 1 3

The female share of arrests for larceny-theft and liquor law violations increased the most from 1994 to 2003 Age Profile of Juvenile Arrestees Like males, most females (68%) who were arrested in Pennsylvania in 2003 were older teenagers between the ages of 15 and 17. Twenty-five percent of females arrested were 13 or 14 years old, and less than 10% were 12 or younger. Total Age 12 or younger Runaw ay s Larceny -theft Liquor law s Simple assault Aggrav ated assault Disorderly conduct Curfew & loitering 0% 25% 50% 75% share of arrests 1994 2003 Note: Only offenses that had more than 500 arrests of females in 2003 and for which the female share of arrests was 25% or more are shown in the graph. National Comparison Juvenile Arrests, 2003 s account for a smaller share of juvenile arrests in Pennsylvania than in the nation as a whole, though arrests of females in Pennsylvania have risen more sharply since 1994. Juvenile arrests share of arrests Change in female juvenile arrests from 1994-2003 Change in male juvenile arrests from 1994-2003 U.S. PA 2.2 million 109,883 29% 25% - 2-3 - 100% 100% 8% 9% Share of Arrests for Selected Offenses Overall, females make up 25% of all juvenile arrests in Pennsylvania. In fact, males make up a greater share of arrests than females for all offenses except running away (which is handled as a status, not delinquent, offense). However, females have a greater share of arrests for certain offenses than expected given that they account for 25% of arrests overall. In 2003, among the offenses for which there were more than 500 female arrests, the female share of arrests was 25% or greater for running away, larceny-theft, liquor law violations, aggravated and simple assault, disorderly conduct, and curfew and loitering violations. In addition, when compared to 1994 arrests, the female share of arrests within these offense categories has increased over time. The greatest increase was in larceny-theft and liquor law violations (from 27% of total arrests in 1994 to 36% in 2003). Arrest Rates Statewide, there were 4,159 female arrests for every 100,000 females ages 10 through 17 in the population in 2003 (the juvenile male arrest rate was 11,671). Philadelphia, the most populous county, had the highest juvenile female arrest rate in the state (9,101), and it accounted for 28% of all statewide female arrestsmore than their share given that Philadelphia accounts for 1 of all juveniles (ages 10 17) in the state. The counties with the next highest arrest rates, Dauphin (6,380) and Franklin (6,335), represented only and, respectively, of the statewide number of female arrests in 2003. In comparison, Allegheny County had the second highest proportion of female arrests (7%), but arrested fewer juvenile females relative to the number residing in the county (3,017 arrests per 100,000). Age 13 14 25% 2 Age 15 17 68% 69% 4

Pennsylvania s larger counties do not necessarily arrest females at a higher rate than smaller counties County Arrest Rate, 2003 * # Arrests % of Total Arrests County Arrest Rate, 2003 * # Arrests % of Total Arrests Pennsylania Philadelphia Dauphin Franklin 4,159 9,101 6,380 6,335 27,759 7,832 892 443 100% 28% Allegheny Lawrence Adams Carbon 3,017 2,991 2,894 2,837 1,913 147 159 87 7% < Lycoming Lebanon York Delaware 5,597 5,201 4,742 4,717 356 333 1,035 1,479 4% 5% Lackawanna Centre Blair Bucks 2,810 2,775 2,715 2,630 297 156 175 921 Venango Cambria Elk Erie 4,596 4,458 4,458 4,440 146 321 83 698 < Northampton Wayne McKean Mifflin 2,544 2,511 2,494 2,488 382 68 61 65 < < < Clarion Crawford Lancaster Lehigh 4,381 4,348 4,287 4,197 87 216 1,223 740 < 4% Chester Armstrong Indiana Snyder 2,452 2,442 2,402 2,382 640 92 101 52 < < < Berks Huntingdon Cumberland Mercer 4,157 4,036 3,949 3,723 894 89 430 231 < Beaver Westmoreland Bedford Perry 2,369 2,351 2,296 2,149 219 440 60 56 < < Montgomery Schuylkill Wyoming Luzerne 3,706 3,575 3,571 3,427 1,527 253 56 527 6% < Butler Northumberland Fayette Bradford 2,080 2,060 1,988 1,953 202 96 147 72 < < Warren Monroe Jefferson Pike 3,270 3,171 3,138 3,036 79 306 78 101 < < < Washington Clearfield Somerset 1,840 1,832 1,329 190 78 54 < < *Rate is the number of arrests of females under age 18 per 100,000 females ages 10-17 in the county s population. Arrests include those for non-delinquent (summary or status) offenses. Note: To control for the inflated rates of the smaller counties with low numbers of juvenile females in their populations, counties with less than 50 female arrests in 2003 are not shown in the table. In 2003, 13 counties had fewer than 50 arrests of females (Cameron, Clinton, Columbia, Forest, Fulton, Greene, Juniata, Montour, Potter, Sullivan, Susquehanna, Tioga, and Union). Why Calculate Rate of Arrest? Rate statistics control for differences in the size of populations being compared. For example, a county with a large population would be expected to generate more arrests than a county with a smaller population, so comparing their arrest counts or their proportion of total arrests is not particularly informative. However, calculating their number of arrests relative to their populations their arrest rate equalizes the counties so that meaningful comparisons can be made. 5

Admissions to Secure Detention Pennsylvania s Juvenile Act permits the secure detention of youth prior to an adjudication of delinquency when detention is required for one of the following reasons: for public protection; for the juvenile s own protection; to ensure the juvenile s attendance at court hearings; and for court-ordered exceptions. Secure detention is also used after adjudication for youth awaiting disposition or placement and as a sanction for violating probation. In 2003, females made up 17% of the total admissions to the 22 secure detention facilities in Pennsylvania that admit females (one facility, in Lackawanna County, has a males only admission policy). Statewide, the overall number of admissions to secure detention in 2003 was 1 higher than the number of admissions in 1997. However, the increase in the number of males admitted to detention from 1997 to 2003 (10%) was smaller than the increase for females (3). Statewide, there was a 3 increase in the number of female admissions to secure detention from 1997 to 2003 Number of admissions 25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 0 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Number of admissions 4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000 0 Statew ide 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Philadelphia saw a 5 increase in the number of females admitted to its detention facility from 1997 to 2003. Statewide admissions do not include 158 admissions to an out-of-state detention facility in Jefferson County, Ohio, of which 22 (14%) were female. Eleven counties had no female admissions in 2003. Three rural counties had only females admitted to detention in 2003; however, the numbers admitted were very small.. Description of the Data Arrests Juvenile arrest data were obtained from the Pennsylvania State Police s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) program (http://ucr.psp.state.pa.us/ucr/commain.asp). The unit of count is an arrest; one juvenile may be represented multiple times depending on the number of times he or she is arrested in a year. Because all police departments in Pennsylvania do not participate in the UCR program, and the number of departments participating may vary from year to year, the number of juvenile arrests depicted may be less than the actual number of arrests. Therefore, analyses of arrest data should be interpreted with caution. Definitions of all offenses can be found in the Uniform Crime Reporting Handbook (http://ucr.psp.state.pa.us/ucr/download/comucrformdownload.asp). Detention Admissions Two sources of detention admissions data were used for this bulletin. One database, maintained by the Juvenile Court Judges Commission s (JCJC) Center for Juvenile Justice Training and Research (CJJTR), contains data on admissions reported monthly by 22 secure detention facilities across the state. The other database, maintained by the Philadelphia Department of Human Services (DHS), contains data on admissions to that city s secure detention facility, the Youth Study Center (YSC). The unit of count in both databases is an admission to a secure detention facility. A juvenile may be represented multiple times in the databases if he or she has been admitted to secure detention more than once in a year. Juvenile Court Dispositions Two sources of juvenile court data were used for this bulletin. Data for years 1997 to 2000 were obtained from the Pennsylvania Electronic Juvenile Justice Databook (http://ncjj.servehttp.com/padatabook/), and data for years 2001 through 2003 were obtained from the Juvenile Court Judges Commission s (JCJC) Center for Juvenile Justice Training and Research s (CJJTR) court databases, submitted yearly to the National Center for Juvenile Justice for its National Juvenile Court Data Archive. The databases contain the same data used for JCJC s annual Pennsylvania Juvenile Court Dispositions reports. Dispositions are the number of referrals disposed by the juvenile probation department and/or the juvenile court. The unit of count for a juvenile court case is a referral. A referral may represent more than one event; for example, juveniles with more than one arrest may have their arrests combined into one case for referral to the juvenile court. 6

Gender Differences in Offense Profile The most common type of offense for both female and male admissions to detention facilities outside of Philadelphia in 2003 was a person offense Juveniles admitted to detention facilities outside of Philadelphia in 2003 were most often charged with a person offense. More female (44%) than male (3) admissions were charged with a person offense. One-third of the person offenses among females involved either aggravated or simple assault; for males, 17% were charged with an assault offense. Property and drug offenses were more common among male than female admissions in 2003. Most Serious Offense, 2003 Person Offenses Criminal homicide Violent sex Robbery Aggravated assault Simple assault Other sex offense Other person 44% < < 15% 18% < 8% 3 < 5% 8% 9% 7% Property Offenses 2 30% Burglary 8% Larceny-theft 1 1 Arson Vandalism/Crim. mischief Trespassing Fraud Stolen property 6% Age Profile of Juveniles Admitted to Detention Older juveniles (15 years of age or older) both males and femaleswere more likely to be admitted to detention in 2003 than younger juveniles. Slightly more females (26%) than males (2) were aged 14 or younger at the time of their admission to detention. Drug Offenses Drugs, felony Drugs, misdemeanor Public Order Offenses Weapons, school Weapons, not school Obstruction of justice Disorderly conduct 7% 14% 4% 7% 7% 20% 17% 5% Total 100% 100% Other public order < Age 12 or under Probation violation 10% 9% Traffic Offenses < < Age 13 14 2 19% DUI < < Age 15 17 68% 69% Other traffic < < Age 18 or over 5% 9% Unknown 7% 6% 7

Length of Stay admissions tend to stay in detention for a shorter period of time than male admissions. In 2003, females had a shorter length of stay than males in 15 of the 22 secure detention facilities in Pennsylvania that admit females. s had a longer length of stay than males in only two facilities, and an equal length of stay in five facilities. Length of stay can be influenced by many factors. Admissions may be in and out of detention before their detention hearing is held. They may remain in detention throughout the entire processing of their case in juvenile court. They may be released into an alternative to detention program within a few daysor even hoursof their admission. They may remain in detention for months while awaiting a placement bed opening. These and other factors contribute to the wide range of lengths of stay among admissions to secure detention. In 2003, youth who were released to a dispositional placement tended to stay in detention for a longer length of time than those not released to a dispositional placement. This was especially true for females. In 2003, females admitted to facilities outside of Philadelphia who were released to private, secure or nonsecure residential placement facilities had a median length of stay of 20 days much longer than the overall statewide female length of stay of 7 days and longer than their male counterparts (16 days). admissions to detention had shorter lengths of stay than males in most facilities in 2003 Median LOS Total (Days) Facility/County Admissions Youth Study Center (Philadelphia) Shuman Juv Detention Ctr (Allegheny) Schaffner Youth Center (Dauphin) Bucks County Youth Center Delaware County Juvenile Detention Ctr Berks County Youth Center Pennsylvania Child Care (Luzerne) Lehigh County Juvenile Detention Facility Lancaster County Youth Intervention Ctr Montgomery County Youth Center Northwestern Academy (Northumberland) Northampton County Juvenile Justice Ctr E.L. Thomas Adolescent Center (Erie) Chester County Juvenile Detention Ctr Tioga County Detention Center York County Youth Development Center Westmoreland County Regional Youth Ctr Allencrest Juv Detention Home (Beaver) Cornell Abraxas Youth Center (Franklin) Lackawanna Cnty Juv Detention Facility Central Counties Youth Center (Centre) Cambria County Detention Center Blair County Juvenile Detention Home 6,010 3,343 1,129 Note: The median is the value at which half the cases fall below and half fall above. The median, unlike the average, is not affected by very high or very low values. Because of the males only policy in Lackawanna County s detention facility, the county purchases beds for females in other detention facilities. In 2003, the county sent 50 females to six different detention facilities. Under Pennsylvania law, a detention hearing before a judge or master must be held within 72 hours of a juvenile s admission to detention. During this hearing, a determination on the need for continued detention is made. More information on the use of secure juvenile detention in Pennsylvania can be found in the November 2004 edition of the Pennsylvania Juvenile Justice Statistical Bulletin, Juvenile Detention Capacity and Utilization in Pennsylvania (http:// ncjj.servehttp.com/ncjjwebsite/pdf/detcapacity.pdf). 910 897 757 633 626 619 607 478 453 429 398 373 367 325 305 305 264 N/A 251 207 89 2 6 7 14 13 19 7 13 6 12 7 15 14 12 10 8 9 6 13 15 18 8 12 8 2 4 10 18 9 14 16 21 8 13 7 15 8 15 14 14 10 6 10 14 5 8

s in detention self-report more mental health issues than males The Massachusetts Youth Screening Instrument, Version 2 (MAYSI-2) is currently being administered to youth admitted to 20 of Pennsylvania s 23 secure detention facilities as part of the Juvenile Detention Centers Association of Pennsylvania s (JDCAP) Mental Health Assessment of Youth in Detention Project, funded by the Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency. The MAYSI-2, developed by Thomas Grisso, Ph.D. and Richard Barnum, Ph.D., is a self-report screening instrument that is administered within 24-48 hours after admission to secure detention. It is being used by the facilities to identify youth with mental health problems that might be in need of further assessment and to manage and triage youth in their care. Youth are screened on the following domains (Grisso & Barnum, 2003): Alcohol/Drug Use identifies significant users of drugs or alcohol who are at risk of becoming dependent; Angry-Irritable identifies intense anger and tendency toward irritability, frustration, and tension; Depressed-Anxious identifies anxiety symptoms, feelings of inner turmoil, and depressed mood; Somatic Complaints identifies body aches and pains and bodily symptoms of anxiety; Suicide Ideation identifies thoughts and intentions of harming oneself; Thought Disturbance (intended for males only) identifies problems with reality orientation; and Traumatic Experiences identifies extent of exposure to traumatic events. Scores for each domain are compared to pre-determined cut-off scores. Scores above the Caution cut-off score indicate possible clinical significance, and scores above the Warning cut-off score indicate those most in need of further behavioral health assessment and treatment. Admissions with scores above the Caution cut-off on the Suicide Ideation scale require a clinical follow-up. Between August 2001 and February 2005, the MAYSI-2 was administered to 25,141 male and 5,537 female admissions to the detention facilities involved in the project. These numbers include multiple admissions50% of females and 57% of males were readmissions to detention. The results indicate that females are entering detention with a higher level of mental health problems than males. The proportion of females scoring above the Caution and Warning cut-offs is higher than that of males in all domains (excluding the Thought Disturbance domain, which is not shown in the graphs because it is only for males). This difference is greatest for the Depressed-Anxious, Somatic Complaints, Angry-Irritable, and Suicide Ideation domains. Caution Scores Warning Scores Somatic Complaints 4 6 Somatic Complaints 7% 16% Angry-Irritable 39% 56% Angry-Irritable 12 % 2 Depressed- Anxious 34% 54% Depressed- Anxious 9% 20% Traumatic Experiences 3 4 Traumatic Experiences 15 % 26% Alcohol/Drug Use Suicide Ideation 17% 3 36% 3 Alcohol/Drug Use Suicide Ideation 9% 1 12 % 25% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% Percent of Admissions 0% 10% 20% 30% Percent of Admissions Data source: Melissa Valentine, MSW, Project Director, JDCAP Mental Health Assessment of Youth in Detention Project For more information on the project, visit JDCAP s website (www.jdcap.org) or contact Melissa Valentine, MSW, Project Director (717-232-7554 or mvalentine@pacounties.org). Grisso, T. & Barnum, R. (2003). Massachusetts Youth Screening Instrument, Version 2: User s Manual and Technical Report. Sarasota, FL: Professional Resource Exchange, Inc. 9

Juvenile Court Dispositions Most delinquency dispositions (referrals disposed by juvenile probation departments or juvenile courts) in Pennsylvania involve males (79% in 2003). The female proportion of juvenile court cases increased slightly from 1997 through 2003, rising from 19% in 1997 to 2 in 2003. Statewide, the total number of juvenile court dispositions in 2003 was 1 higher than the number of dispositions in 1997. However, the number of dispositions involving females increased 2 from 1997 to 2003, whereas dispositions involving males increased by only 6%. Offense Differences in Disposition Trends Between s and s From 1994 to 2003, the number of female cases disposed increased in all offense categories (person, property, drug, and public order), while male dispositions either decreased or increased less than that of females. There has been a large increase in the number of female dispositions involving drug offenses. The number of female dispositions for drug offenses in 2003 was 165% higher than the number of such dispositions in 1994. The number of male dispositions for drug offenses also increased (a percent change of 50%), a much smaller increase than that of females. These increases in dispositions for drug offenses are related to the increase in arrests for drug offenses discussed earlier in this bulletin drug arrests increased 11 for females and 2 for males during this same time period. The number of juvenile court dispositions involving females increased more than that of males from 1997 to 2003 Number of dispositions 50,000 40,000 30,000 20,000 10,000 0 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Number of dispositions 10,000 8,000 6,000 4,000 2,000 0 Total 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Dispositions involving drug offenses increased 165% for females and 50% for males from 1994 to 2003 Offense Category Person Property Drug Public Order In 2000, dispositions involving females accounted for a smaller share of juvenile delinquency dispositions in Pennsylvania than in the nation as a whole. However, the number of female dispositions in Pennsylvania increased more than female dispositions in the U.S. from 1991 through 2000. U.S. Percent Change, 1994 to 2003 50% 2 165% 1 National Comparison Juvenile Court Dispositions 19% -19% 50% -3 PA Juvenile delinquency cases handled 1.6 million 41,764 share of delinquency cases 25% 20% Change in female juvenile delinquency cases from 1991-2000 5 8 Change in male juvenile delinquency cases from 1991-2000 7% 30% 10

Gender Differences in Offense Profiles The offense profile table takes a closer look at gender differences by examining the most common offenses for which males and females are referred to juvenile court in Pennsylvania. dispositions most often involve simple assault offenses18% of female dispositions involved a simple assault charge. The next most common offenses for females were larceny-theft (17%), drug offenses (9%), and aggravated assault (7%). For males, the most common offenses were drug offenses (17%), followed by larceny-theft, simple assault, and burglary. The offense profile differed for male and female juvenile court dispositions in 2003 Person Offenses Criminal homicide Violent sex offense Robbery Aggravated assault Simple assault Nonviolent sex offense Other person offense Offense Profile, 2003 < < 7% 18% < 6% 3 30% < 4% 5% 1 < 5% In 2003, female delinquency cases involving an assault charge (aggravated or simple) represented 25% of the total number of female delinquency cases. The proportion of assault offenses among male delinquency cases was lower17%. Age Profile of Juvenile Court Dispositions Property Offenses Burglary Larceny-theft Arson Vandalism Trespassing Fraud Receiving stolen property Other property offenses Drug Offenses Public Order Offenses 25% 3 8% 17% 16% < < 9% 17% 7% 6% Most juvenile court dispositions in 2003 involved males and females between the ages of 15 and 17. A slightly higher proportion of females than males were either 13 or 14 at the time of disposition (25% vs. 2). Weapons Obstruction of justice Disorderly conduct Probation violation < Other public order offense Other Offenses Total Age 12 or under Age 13 14 Age 15 17 Age 18 or over 100% 100% 6% 7% 25% 2 64% 66% 5% 6% Philadelphia accounted for 55% of the statewide dispositions of females for aggravated assault offenses, but only 5% of the dispositions of females for simple assault offenses. For males, Philadelphia accounted for 4 of the dispositions for aggravated assault and 5% of the dispositions for simple assault. Non-payment of fines (2 of female dispositions and 1 of male dispositions) is not included in the table because the originating offenses for which the ordered fines were not paid are usually summary, not delinquent, offenses. In addition, very small percentages of offenses were status offenses or were missing/unknown. 11

Referral Source Most referrals to juvenile court are made by police officers. In 2003, 8 of male and 70% of female referrals were from police officers. The next most common referral source was a district justice, with more female (2) than male (1) cases referred to juvenile court by a district justice. The fact that district justices are the second most common referral source means that many juveniles are not fulfilling the requirements of the sanctions given to them by district justices (for example, paying fines); therefore, their cases are then referred to juvenile court. Most delinquency cases are referred to the juvenile court by police departments Percent of delinquency referrals 100% 8 80% 70% 60% 40% 20% 0% Police 2 1 District Justice Other possible referral sourcesother juvenile courts, probation departments, schools, social service agencies, or relativesaccounted for or less of the referrals to juvenile court in 2003. Case flow diagrams of delinquency case processing provide a simplified view of the decision points in the juvenile justice system and the flow of cases through each of these points. The first bracket in each group represents the intake decision on the cases referred to juvenile court (whether a delinquency petition was filed or the case was handled informally). The upper branch, or the cases in which a petition was filed, displays the finding made by the juvenile court (adjudicated, non-adjudicated, or waived to criminal court) and the disposition given by the court for adjudicated and non-adjudicated cases. The lower branch, or the cases in which a petition was not filed, represents the disposition made by juvenile court intake officers. The possible dispositions shown in the diagram include placement, probation, other sanctions, and dismissal/transfer (includes dismissed cases, withdrawn petitions, or cases transferred to another jurisdiction). The other sanction category includes dispositions such as: informal adjustment; consent decree; fines and/or costs ordered; bench warrant; warned, counseled, case closed; referred to another agency or individual; deferred adjudication; and deferred placement. Flow of Cases Through Pennsylvania s Juvenile Justice System 12

Juvenile Court Processing of Delinquency Cases by Gender, 2003 1 (<) Judicial Waiver 287 (29%) Adjudicated 74 (7%) Placed 174 (17%) Probation 20 () Other Sanction 655 (66%) Petitioned 20 () Dismissed Of every 1,000 female cases 367 (37%) Not adjudicated 3 (<) Placed 5 () Probation 0 (0%) Placed 241 (24%) Other Sanction 345 (35%) Not petitioned 3 (<) Probation 117 (1) Dismissed 292 (29%) Other Sanction 50 (5%) Dismissed 5 () Judicial Waiver 157 (16%) Placed 769 (77%) Petitioned 443 (44%) Adjudicated 236 (24%) Probation 30 () Other Sanction Of every 1,000 male cases 321 (3) Not adjudicated 20 () Dismissed 3 (<) Placed 4 (<) Probation 1 (<) Placed 184 (18%) Other Sanction 231 (2) Not petitioned 3 (<) Probation 130 (1) Dismissed 190 (19%) Other Sanction 36 (4%) Dismissed Note: Detail may not add to totals because of rounding. Date source: Special analysis of data collected by the Juvenile Court Judges Commission [machine-readable data file]. More male than female delinquency cases are handled formally, through the filing of a petition, in Pennsylvania s juvenile courts. For every 1,000 typical female cases processed in 2003, 66% were petitioned for formal processing and 35% were handled informally, mainly through diversion or dismissal. For every 1,000 typical male cases, 77% were petitioned and 2 were handled informally. delinquency cases referred to juvenile court are more likely than female cases to end up on court-ordered probation or placement. cases are more likely to be handled informally, through consent decrees, informal adjustments, and other informal sanctions (which may include court orders or recommendations for services and treatment), or through dismissal of the case. cases are more likely than female cases to be waived to criminal court. Comparison of the dispositions received by male and female cases suggests that female cases receive less serious dispositions than male casesthat is, they are more likely than male cases to be handled informally or to be dismissed. The tougher sanctions (court-ordered probation or placement) are given mostly to male delinquency cases. 13

Summary and Recommendations This statistical bulletin presents arrest, detention, and court disposition data and provides a profile of females involved in Pennsylvania s juvenile justice system. Although it does not provide answers for why more girls are coming into contact with the juvenile justice system, it is hoped that local policy makers will use this report to look for the story behind the numbers. Gaining an understanding of why more females are entering the juvenile justice system can help in formulating local policies and procedures or designing programs and services geared toward the unique needs of girls. Local policy makers can look to the state-level efforts underway to increase gender responsiveness (see the June 2005 issue of Pennsylvania Progress, Responding to Girls, for information and guidance). Another purpose of the statistical bulletins is to encourage and support statewide improvements in data and other information for decision-making and reporting. State policy makers have responded to recommendations to improve detention and court disposition data that were discussed in the previous two statistical bulletins. The Juvenile Court Judges Commission (JCJC) and its Center for Juvenile Justice Training and Research (CJJTR) have begun to take steps to improve the coverage and quality of race/ethnicity data, as recommended in the Minorities in Pennsylvania s Juvenile Justice System bulletin, and to address differences between information collected by the separate secure detention databases (Philadelphia s database and the CJJTR s database of admissions to facilities outside of Philadelphia), as recommended in the Juvenile Detention Capacity and Utilization in Pennsylvania bulletin. The state has also been working on a detention module in the juvenile court database (PaJCMS, used by probation departments in most counties) that will track whether youth involved in delinquency cases had been detained during juvenile court processing. Improving the ability to determine the number of referrals to juvenile court who had been detained was recommended in both of the previous statistical bulletins. With respect to gender data, this bulletin makes two recommendations. Recommendation: Continue with efforts to improve the accuracy of data, ensure the uniform collection of data, and reduce the amount of unknown/ missing data. CJJTR is currently working with chief juvenile probation officers to improve the accuracy of disposition data through the use of validation reports (added to the JCMS system) to review and correct county data before sending them to CJJTR. Two areas in which the quality of gender data was troublesome in the 2003 court disposition data were the coding of the gender variable and the amount of unknown/missing gender data. A standardized coding of the gender variable needs to be in place and used consistently. Standardizing the coding by requiring the use of only letter or numerical codes would eliminate the extra step (during preparation of the data file for analysis) of recoding the gender variable to combine all male codes into one code and all female codes into one code. The court dispositions database had unknown/missing data on gender, or over 1,200 cases. Although the proportion is small, it can be argued that because information on gender is very easily obtained, there should be no unknown/missing gender data in the database at all. This seems to be a major problem in quite a few counties, where gender was unknown/missing in large proportions of cases. The use of validation reports for JCMS should help to reduce this problem in the future. Recommendation: The Department of Public Welfare should explore the possibility of expanding its on-line directory of licensed human services facilities to include more substantive information about programs for juvenile justice-involved youth in Pennsylvania. Local juvenile justice practitioners need an accurate and detailed source of information about programs available for juveniles involved in the juvenile justice system with search capabilities to identify programs that address certain types of problems, clients, or target populations (e.g., girls) and offer particular types of services. Pennsylvania s Department of Public Welfare (DPW) licenses human services programs throughout the Commonwealth and maintains an on-line directory of basic information about the programs, such as the name of the facility/provider, address, type of program, type of license, licensed capacity, and business status (for- or non-profit). This directory can be used as a starting point from which to expand information about residential treatment facilities, group homes, and secure detention facilities programs that are regulated by DPW s Office of Children, Youth and Families (OCYF) for delinquent youth. Information about the Youth Development Centers, which are operated by DPW, should also be added to the directory. OCYF should convene a user s group of juvenile justice practitioners to determine the uses of such an on-line resource and the new information to be included (such as completion rates and other outcomes). Other issues to consider include ensuring the accuracy of the program information posted, determining how often to update the information, and implementing quality assurance procedures. 14

PENNSYL ENNSYLVANIA JUVENILE JUSTICE Statistical Bulletin For more information: Pennsylvania Progress, Responding to Girls (June 2005) http://ncjj.servehttp.com/ncjjwebsite/pdf/ppjune2005.pdf Pennsylvania Juvenile Justice Statistical Bulletins: Juvenile Detention Capacity and Utilization in Pennsylvania (November 2004) http://ncjj.servehttp.com/ncjjwebsite/pdf/detcapacity.pdf Minorities in Pennsylvania s Juvenile Justice System (September 2003) http://ncjj.servehttp.com/ncjjwebsite/pdf/dmcbulletin1.pdf This report was supported by subgrant 2003-J-04-13525 awarded by the Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency (PCCD). The awarded funds originated with the Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. Points of view or opinions contained within this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent any official position, policy or view of PCCD or the U.S. Department of Justice. Acknowledgments NCJJ Editors: Patricia Torbet and Melissa Sickmund Production Editor: Kristy Connors NCJJ is a non-profit organization that conducts statistical, legal and applied research on a broad range of juvenile justice topics and provides technical assistance to the field. For additional information concerning the data analyzed for this report contact: Ms. Susanna Zawacki National Center for Juvenile Justice 412-227-6950 zawacki@ncjj.org www.ncjj.org 15

National Center for Juvenile Justice 3700 South Water Street, Ste. 200 Pittsburgh, PA 15203 Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency P.O. Box 1167 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1167 16