In 2021, there were about 123,000 serious violent crimes committed by youths between the ages of 12 and 17 in the United States, an increase from the year before. However, this is still a significant decrease from 1994 levels, when violent crimes committed by youths hit a peak at over 1.05 million serious crimes.

Youth and crime

According to the most recent data, criminal youths in the United States continue to participate in violent crimes each year. In 2022, there were over 1,000 murder offenders between the ages of 13 and 16 in the United States. Studies have also shown that crimes are reported against children at U.S. schools, with students aged between 12 and 14 years found more likely to be victims of violent crime and theft. However, the number of adolescent violent crime victims in the U.S. far surpasses the number of adolescent perpetrators. The number of adolescent victims has also declined significantly since the early 1990s, following the national downward trend of violent crime.

Overall downward trends

There is not only a downward trend in the number of violent crimes committed by youths, but also in the share of crimes involving youths. On a national level, the crime rate has also decreased in almost every state, showing that the country is becoming safer as a whole.

In 2023, the German police had roughly 207,150 juvenile criminal suspects. This was an increase compared to the previous year, at almost 189,150 suspects.

These data are part of NACJD's Fast Track Release and are distributed as they were received from the data depositor. The files have been zipped by NACJD for release, but not checked or processed except for the removal of direct identifiers. Users should refer to the accompanying readme file for a brief description of the files available with this collection and consult the investigator(s) if further information is needed. The research project has tested a possible explanation for the Great American Crime Decline of the 1990s and especially 2000s: the increasing rates at which psychotropic drugs are prescribed, especially to children and adolescents. Psychotropic drugs are often prescribed to youth for mental health conditions that involve disruptive and impulsive behaviors and learning difficulties. The effects of these drugs are thus expected to lead to the decrease in the juveniles' involvement in delinquency and violence. The effects of two legislative changes are hypothesized to have contributed to the increased prescribing of psychotropic drugs to children growing up in families in poverty: 1) changes in eligibility for Supplemental Security Income (SSI) that made it possible for poor children to qualify for additional financial assistance due to mental health conditions (1990 and 1996), and 2) changes in school accountability rules following the passage of No Child Left Behind Act (2002) that put pressure on schools in some low-income areas to qualify academically challenged students as having ADHD or other learning disabilities. The objectives of the project are: 1) to assemble a data set, using state-level data from various publicly available sources, containing information about trends in juvenile delinquency and violence, trends in psychotropic drug prescribing to children and adolescents, and various control variables associated with these two sets of trends; 2) to test the proposed hypotheses about the effect of increasing psychotropic medication prescribing to children and adolescents on juvenile delinquency and violence, using the assembled data set; and 3) to disseminate the scientific knowledge gained through this study among criminal justice researchers, psychiatric and public health scientists, as well as among a wider audience of practitioners and the general public. This collection includes one SPSS file (Dataset_NIJ_GRANT_2014-R2-CX-0003_DV-IV_3-29-17.sav; n=1,275, 113 variables) and one Word syntax file (doc36775-0001_syntax.docx).

The dataset contains year- and state-wise compiled data on the total number of Indian Penal Code (IPC) and other Special and Local Laws (SLL) cases registered against Juveniles, along with rate of crimes per each lakh of children population.

In 2021, around 9.7 percent of serious violent crime cases in the United States involved teenagers, an increase from the previous year, where 7.5 percent of serious violent crimes involved teenagers. The share of serious violent crimes involving children between 12 and 17 years old reached a peak in 1994, at 25.1 percent.

This data collection describes in quantitative terms the volume of juvenile cases disposed by courts having jurisdiction over juvenile matters (delinquency, status, and dependency cases). Inaugurated in 1926 to furnish an index of the problems brought before the juvenile courts, this series is the oldest continuous source of information on the processing of delinquent and dependent youth done by juvenile courts. Information is provided on state, county, number of delinquency cases by sex, number of status cases by sex, number of dependency cases by sex, and total number of cases by sex.

The data, by region, contains: * the number of violations under the Youth Criminal Justice Act * child pornography * sexual violations against children * luring a child via a computer * making sexually explicit material available to children The survey was designed to measure the incidence of crime in our society and its characteristics. The Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics, in co-operation with the policing community, collects police-reported crime statistics through the UCR survey. Adapted from Statistics Canada, CANSIM Table 252-0077, 2015. This does not constitute an endorsement by Statistics Canada of this product. *[ CANSIM]: Canadian Socio-Economic Information Management System *[UCR]: Uniform Crime Reporting

The Division of Prevention and Early Intervention (PEI) was created to consolidate child abuse prevention and juvenile delinquency prevention and early intervention programs within the jurisdiction of a single state agency. Consolidation of these programs is intended to eliminate fragmentation and duplication of contracted prevention and early intervention services for at-risk children, youth, and families:

Community Youth Development (CYD) - The CYD program contracts with community-based organizations to develop juvenile delinquency prevention programs in ZIP codes with high juvenile crime rates. Approaches used by communities to prevent delinquency have included mentoring, youth employment programs, career preparation, youth leadership development and recreational activities. Communities prioritize and fund specific prevention services according to local needs. CYD services are available in 15 targeted Texas ZIP codes.

Family and Youth Success Program (FAYS) (formerly Services to At-Risk Youth (STAR)) - The FAYS program contracts with community agencies to offer family crisis intervention counseling, short- term emergency respite care, and individual and family counseling. Youth up to age 17 and their families are eligible if they experience conflict at home, truancy or delinquency, or a youth who runs away from home. FAYS services are available in all 254 Texas counties. Each FAYS contractor also provides universal child abuse prevention services, ranging from local media campaigns to informational brochures and parenting classes.

Statewide Youth Services Network (SYSN) - The SYSN program contracts provide community and evidence-based juvenile delinquency prevention programs focused on youth ages 10 through 17, in each DFPS region.

NOTE: For FY15, as a result of a new procurement, the overall number of youth served decreased however the service requirements were enhanced with additional programmatic components.

Data as of December 11, 2024.

Over 103 thousand crimes against juveniles were registered in Russia in 2021. Over the observed years, the lowest number of such crimes was recorded in 2016, after which it sharply increased and continued to rise.

This is an independent sample of juvenile defendants drawn from the State Court Processing Statistics (SCPS) for 1998 (see ICPSR 2038). SCPS 1998 tracked felony cases filed in May 1998 until final disposition or until one year had elapsed from the date of filing. SCPS 1998 presents data on felony cases filed in approximately 40 of the nation's 75 most populous counties in 1998. These 75 counties account for more than a third of the United States population and approximately half of all reported crimes. The cases from these 40 jurisdictions were weighted to represent all felony filings during the month of May in the 75 most populous counties. Data were collected on arrest charges, demographic characteristics, criminal history, pretrial release and detention, adjudication, and sentencing. Within each sampled site, data were gathered on each juvenile felony case. Cases were tracked through adjudication or for up to one year. The source used to identify the upper age for juveniles and the filing mechanism appropriate to each state was the OJJDP publication, Trying Juveniles as Adults in Criminal Court: An Analysis of State Transfer Provisions (December 1998).

Much of the analysis of juvenile justice reform to date has focused on assessing particular programs and their impacts on subgroups of cases at a particular point in time. While this is instructive as to the effects of those initiatives, it is essential to evaluate the impact of policy across multiple levels and with multiple stakeholders in mind. Ohio has implemented a series of initiatives in its juvenile justice system designed to reduce reliance on state custody of youth in favor of local alternatives. In doing so, they have focused on multiple segments of the population of justice involved-youths throughout the state. The main vehicle for these shifts has been the state's Reasoned and Equitable Community and Local Alternatives to the Incarceration of Minors (RECLAIM) legislation and a series of initiatives that have followed from its inception. Other steps were followed and programming modifications were made during the study period as well. This research project focused on these initiatives as a case study of juvenile justice reform initiatives in order to provide insights about the impact of those recent reforms across multiple dimensions that were viewed as relevant to the discussion of juvenile justice reform. The data set analyzed at the individual level included the records of more than 5,000 youths sampled from cases processed from 2008 to 2015. First, presumed reductions in the number of youth committed to state residential correctional facilities in favor of community-based alternatives were analyzed. The relative effectiveness of residential facilities and community-based alternatives in terms of youth recidivism were then assessed with a subsample of 2,855 case records from randomly-selected counties. A third research objective focused on county-level trends and variation. Specifically, the longitudinal trends in key juvenile justice inputs and official juvenile crime rates across Ohio's 88 counties were formally modeled using data from public reports, data collection with counties, and official juvenile arrest data archived by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Elements of the previous analyses (especially comparative recidivism rates) and cost data collected from existing sources and public reports were used in a preliminary fashion to quantify the potential return on investment that accrued from Ohio's investment in these juvenile justice initiatives. This deposit contains two datasets: Individual Level Data and County Level Data. The Individual Level Data contains the following demographic data: age at admission, sex, and race (White, Black, Asian, Native American, and other).

Provide data on theft crimes committed by teenagers (12 years of age and above but under 24 years of age) (This data is preliminary statistics at the beginning of each quarter, for reference only, and the accurate statistics are still based on the annual crime statistics data of this department.)

These data, intended for use in conjunction with JUVENILE DELINQUENCY AND ADULT CRIME, 1948-1977 [RACINE, WISCONSIN]: THREE BIRTH COHORTS (ICPSR 8163), are organized into two different types: Block data and Home data. Part 1, Block Data, contains the characteristics of each block in Racine for the years 1950, 1960, and 1970 as selected from the United States Census of Housing for each of these years. The data are presented for whole blocks for each year and for blocks agglomerated into equal spaces so that comparison may be made between the 1950, 1960, and 1970 data. In addition, land use and target density (gas stations, grocery and liquor stores, restaurants, and taverns) measures are included. The data were obtained from land use maps and city directories. These block data have been aggregated into census tracts, police grid areas, natural areas, and neighborhoods for the purpose of describing the spatial units of each in comparable fashion for 1950, 1960, and 1970. The information contained within the Block Data file is intended to be used to merge ecological data with any of the files described in the ICPSR 8163 codebook. The Home datasets (Parts 2-6) contain selected variables from the Block Data file merged with the Cohort Police Contact data or the Cohort Interview data from ICPSR 8163. The Home datasets represent the merged files used by the principal investigators for their analysis and are included here only as examples of how the files from ICPSR 8163 may be merged with the Block data.

This juvenile arrest report contains all arrests made by MPD and other law enforcement agencies of individuals 17 and under, excluding any arrests that have been expunged. Only the top charge (most serious charge) is reported for each arrest.The "Home PSA" of all arrests for which a valid District of Columbia address was given are provided. For all cases where the home address was outside the District of Columbia, the home address field was manually reviewed and marked as "OUT OF STATE". "UNKNOWN" is provided for cases where no address was reported.The "Crime/Arrest PSA" field contains the PSA associated with the original crime where the arrest record could be matched against the original crime report. For cases where the DC Moultrie Courthouse was indicated as the crime address (e.g., for Juvenile Custody Order, Failure to Appear, Fugitive from Justice, and Booking Order), "COURT" was listed as the crime PSA instead of PSA 102. For cases for which the Juvenile Processing Center (JPC) was indicated as the crime address, or for cases where other processing locations were listed as the crime address (e.g., District station or MPD Headquarters), "DISTRICT/JPC" was listed as the crime PSA . For arrest cases without proper crime incident address, it was assumed that the arrest was made at the site of the crime, and the PSA associated with the arrest location was provided.

Statistics on motivations and causes of juvenile delinquency in Taoyuan City

This project is part of a larger plan to transfer commonly requested TJJD data onto the Texas Open Data Portal. This will allow for greater efficiency in sharing publicly available information and answering Public Information Requests (PIRs). County-level referral data is the source for most statistics in the “State of Juvenile Probation Activity in Texas” Report, which is published yearly. This report “provides information regarding the magnitude and nature of juvenile criminal activity and the juvenile probation system's response. This information is offered to assist the state's effort in improving the juvenile justice system and reducing juvenile crime in Texas” (State of Juvenile Probation Activity in Texas, 2020).

The number of persons aged 10 to 17 arrested per 1,000 juveniles that live in an area. This indicator is calculated by where the arrested juvenile was arrested and not by where the crime is committed. Arrests are used instead of crimes committed since not all juveniles that are arrested are charged with committing a crime. This indicator also excludes offenders who are later charged as adults for their crime(s). Source: Baltimore City Police DepartmentYears Available: 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015

Data in table tells us about the year-wise Disposal of Juveniles arrested Under IPC and SLL crimes. Parameters used in table are- Acquitted or Otherwise disposed off, Arrested and sent to courts, Dealt with fine, Pending disposal, Released on Probation under, the care of Fit Institute, Released on Probation under the care of Guardian, Sent to home after advice or Admonition and Sent to Special Homes. Data is for Indian States and UTs from 2009-2015.

Note: 1) As per revised definition of Juvenile Justice Act 2000, the boys in the age group 16-18 years have also been considered as Juveniles. 2) Females shown arrested in Rape cases are associates to males as already clarified in the past by some States/UTs. 3) Data pertaining to erstwhile Andhra Pradesh for 2013-14(P) has been bifurcated between Andhra Pradesh and newly created Telangana state.