U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Justice Programs
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

June 2009

Jeff Slowikowski, Acting Administrator

Delinquency Cases Waived to

Criminal Court, 2005

by Benjamin Adams and Sean Addie

For every 1,000 petitioned delinquency cases,
8 were judicially waived to criminal court

All States have mechanisms to handle juveniles in
criminal court

In 2005, U.S. courts with juvenile jurisdiction handled 1.7 million delinquency cases. More than half (56%) of these cases were
handled formally (that is, a petition was filed requesting an adjudication or waiver hearing). Of the petitioned delinquency caseload, less than 1% resulted in judicial waiver. The number of
delinquency cases judicially waived peaked in 1994 at 13,000
cases. This represented an 80% increase over the number of
cases waived in 1985 (7,200). Since 1994, however, the number
of cases judicially waived declined 47% (6,900 cases in 2005).

All States have established an upper age of original jurisdiction for
juvenile courts (age 15, 16, or 17, depending on the State). However, States also have various laws that allow juveniles younger
than the upper age of juvenile court jurisdiction to be tried as adults.
There are three basic types of transfer laws. Concurrent jurisdiction
laws allow prosecutors to use their discretion and decide whether to
file a case in juvenile or criminal court. Statutory exclusion laws
grant criminal courts original jurisdiction over certain classes of
cases involving juveniles. Judicial waiver laws authorize or require
juvenile court judges to remove certain youth from juvenile court
jurisdiction to be tried as adults in criminal court.

The decrease in violent crime by juveniles has driven much of
this decline. However, part of the decline in judicial waivers is
due to the simultaneous and widespread expansion of nonjudicial
transfer laws—as a result of these new and expanded laws, many
cases that might have been subject to waiver proceedings in previous years were undoubtedly filed directly in criminal court,
bypassing the juvenile court altogether.
The number of cases judicially waived to criminal court

peaked in 1994 and then fell back to the levels of the mid1980s

Number of cases judicially waived to criminal court
14,000
12,000
10,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
0
1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005

Office of Justice Programs

There are three broad categories for judicial waiver: discretionary, presumptive, and mandatory. Nearly all States (45) have discretionary judicial waiver provisions, in which juvenile court
judges have discretion to waive jurisdiction over individual juveniles to clear the way for criminal court prosecutions. These laws
authorize, but do not require, transfer in cases meeting threshold
requirements for waiver. Some States (15) have presumptive
waiver laws, which designate a category of cases in which waiver
to criminal court is presumed to be appropriate. In such cases, if
a juvenile who meets the age, offense, or other statutory criteria
that trigger the presumption fails to make an adequate argument
against transfer, the juvenile court must send the case to criminal
court. Other States (15) provide for mandatory waiver in cases
that meet certain age, offense, or prior record criteria. Proceedings against juveniles subject to mandatory waiver are initiated
in juvenile court, but the court’s only role is to confirm that the
statutory requirements for mandatory waiver are met. Once it has
done so, it must send the case to criminal court.
The National Juvenile Court Data Archive, maintained by the
National Center for Juvenile Justice, generates national estimates
of the number of cases judicially waived to criminal court. This
Fact Sheet presents estimates for 1985 through 2005.

Innovation • Partnerships • Safer Neighborhoods

www.ojp.usdoj.gov

The likelihood of judicial waiver declined after the early
1990s

Transfer mechanisms have changed and expanded over time
Transfer laws in general—including both judicial waiver laws and
other kinds of transfer laws that allow or require cases against juveniles to be filed directly in criminal court, bypassing juvenile courts
altogether—proliferated and expanded dramatically during the 1980s
and 1990s. Legislatures in nearly every State revised or rewrote their
laws to broaden the scope of transfer—lowering age/offense thresholds, moving away from individual and toward categorical handling,
and shifting authority from judges to prosecutors. Between 1992 and
1999, 27 States extended the reach of judicial waiver laws, lowered
age requirements, or otherwise broadened eligibility. New presumptive waiver laws were enacted in 13 States during the same period,
and at least 9 States expanded or enacted new mandatory waiver
laws. Nonwaiver transfer mechanisms, which had been relatively
rare before this period, became more common and also more far
reaching: at least 22 States created or expanded statutory exclusion
laws requiring that cases against some categories of juveniles be
excluded from juvenile court and filed in criminal court, and 11 States
enacted or expanded concurrent jurisdiction laws allowing prosecutors
to make that choice themselves in certain cases.

Percent of petitioned cases judicially waived to criminal court
5%
4%
3%

Property
1%

Public order

0%
1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005

than cases involving other offenses. In 2005, 1.4% of formally
handled (or petitioned) person offense cases were waived compared with 0.8% of drug offense cases, 0.6% of property offense
cases, and 0.3% of public order offense cases.

The number of waived person offense cases increased 129%
between 1985 and 1994 and then dropped 36% through 2005.
The result was an overall increase of 45% between 1985 and
2005. By comparison, waived drug offense cases peaked in 1991,
413% greater than the 1985 number. Between the peak year and
2005, waived drug offense cases declined 54%. There have also
been substantial declines since 1994 in the number of waived
property and public order offense cases (61% and 40%, respectively). From 1993 to 2005, person offenses outnumbered property offenses among waived cases. Before 1993, property offense
cases outnumbered person offense cases among waivers—at
times by a ratio of nearly 2 to 1.
Although the number of waived cases declined greatly
since the mid-1990s, the number was higher in 2005 than
in 1985 for person, drug, and public order offense cases
Number of cases judicially waived to criminal court
6,000

In 2005, half of waived cases involved person offenses
The offense profile and characteristics of cases judicially waived
to criminal court have changed considerably. From 1985 to 1992,
property offense cases made up the largest share of the waived
caseload. Beginning in 1993, person offense cases accounted for
a greater proportion of the waived caseload than property offense
cases. Compared with 1985, the waived caseload in 2005 included a greater proportion of person offense cases (51% vs. 33%)
and drug offense cases (12% vs. 5%) and a smaller proportion of
property offense cases (27% vs. 53%).
Although the proportions of waived cases involving females and
younger juveniles increased between 1985 and 2005, the vast
majority of waived cases involved males age 16 or older. The
proportion of waived cases involving males age 16 or older
decreased from 93% in 1985 to 85% in 2005. Judicially waived
cases included a greater proportion of black youth in 1994 (the
peak year) than in 2005.
The offense profile and characteristics of cases judicially
waived to criminal court have changed considerably

Person

Property
Property

Person

2%

Since 1993, most waivers have involved a person
offense as the most serious charge

5,000

Drugs

Person

4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000

Drugs

Drugs

Public

Public order

0
1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005

Trends in the use of waiver vary by the most serious
offense charged
From 1989 through 1992, petitioned drug offense cases were
more likely to be waived to criminal court than any other offense
category. The proportion of drug offense cases that were judicially waived peaked in 1991 at 4.2% (1,800 cases) and declined to
0.8% (830 cases) in 2005. Between 1993 and 2005, petitioned
person offense cases were more likely to be judicially waived
—2—

Offense/demographic

1985

1994

2005

Total cases waived
Most serious offense
Person
Property
Drugs
Public order
Gender
Male
Female
Age at referral
15 or younger
16 or older
Race
White
Black
Other

7,200

13,000

6,900

33%
53
5
9

42%
37
12
9

51%
27
12
10

95%
5

95%
5

91%
9

7%
93

13%
87

15%
85

59%
40
1

54%
43
3

58%
39
4

Notes: Data for 1994 are presented because it is the peak year for the
number of cases judicially waived to criminal court. Detail may not add
to 100% because of rounding.

Cases involving males were much more likely to be judicially waived to criminal court than those involving females
Percent of petitioned cases judicially waived to criminal court
1.4%

Percent of petitioned cases judicially waived to criminal court
3.5%

Person

Property

3.0%

1.2%

Male

Male
2.5%

1.0%

2.0%

0.8%

1.5%

0.6%

1.0%

0.4%

0.5%

Female

Female

0.2%

0.0%
1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005

0.0%
1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005

Percent of petitioned cases judicially waived to criminal court
4.5%

Percent of petitioned cases judicially waived to criminal court
0.9%

Drugs

4.0%
3.5%

0.7%

Male

3.0%

0.6%

2.5%

0.5%

2.0%

0.4%

1.5%
1.0%

Public order

0.8%

0.3%

Female

0.2%

Male

Female

0.5%

0.1%

0.0%
1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005

0.0%
1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005

■ For each year between 1985 and 2005, petitioned delinquency
cases involving males were more likely to be judicially waived than
cases involving females. This was true for each of the four general
offense categories.

■ For both males and females in all general offense categories, the
proportion of cases judicially waived was lower in 2005 than in
1985.
■ Patterns in the likelihood of judicial waiver for males were similar
to that of females across general offense categories. For example, the likelihood of judicial waiver for drug offense cases involving males increased substantially between 1985 and 1991 (from
1.1% to 4.3%) and then declined considerably through 2005 to
0.8%. Judicially waived drug offense cases involving females followed the same pattern, increasing from 0.7% in 1985 to 2.5% in
1991 and then declining to 0.4% through 2005.

■ In 2005, for males, person offense cases were far more likely to be
judicially waived to criminal court than cases in any other offense
category. For females, person and drug offense cases were most
likely to be waived.
■ In 2005, person offense cases involving males were four times as
likely to be judicially waived as those involving females.

Note: These comparisons do not control for gender differences in the seriousness of offenses within general offense categories nor in the juveniles’
offense history.

Delinquency data estimates
The 1985–2005 estimates are based on data from more than 2,100 courts with jurisdiction over 80% of the Nation’s juvenile population (youth age 10 through the upper age of original juvenile court jurisdiction in each State). Each case represents the most serious
offense of one youth processed by a court with juvenile jurisdiction on a new referral, regardless of the number of offenses contained
in that referral. A youth may be involved in more than one case during the calendar year.

—3—

Racial differences in case waivers stem primarily from differences in person and drug offense cases
Percent of petitioned cases judicially waived to criminal court
3.5%

Percent of petitioned cases judicially waived to criminal court
1.6%

Person

3.0%

Black

Property
Black

1.2%

2.5%

1.0%

2.0%
1.5%

1.4%

0.8%

White

White

0.6%

1.0%

0.4%

0.5%

0.2%

0.0%
1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005

0.0%
1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005

Percent of petitioned cases judicially waived to criminal court
6.0%

Percent of petitioned cases judicially waived to criminal court
1.2%

Public order

Drugs
5.0%

1.0%

Black

Black

4.0%

0.8%

3.0%

0.6%

2.0%

White

0.4%

White

1.0%

0.2%

0.0%
1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005

0.0%
1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005

■ For much of the period from 1985 through 2005, the likelihood of
judicial waiver for petitioned delinquency cases was greater for
black youth than white youth regardless of the offense category.
■ Although the likelihood of judicial waiver declined for white youth
and black youth between the early 1990s and 2005, the relative
decline was greater for black youth. As a result, in 2005, delinquency cases involving black youth had about the same likelihood
as cases involving white youth to be judicially waived (0.8% and
0.7%, respectively).
■ Among black youth, the likelihood of judicial waiver for person
offense cases peaked in 1993 at 3.1%, or nearly twice the likelihood for white youth. Similarly, at its peak in 1991, the likelihood

of judicial waiver for drug offense cases involving black youth
(nearly 6%) was more than three times the likelihood for white
youth.
■ Among white juveniles, person offense cases were most likely
to be judicially waived from 1985 through 2005. Among black
juveniles, drug offense cases were most likely to be judicially
waived from 1989 through 1993, and person offense cases were
most likely in the other years between 1985 and 2005.
■ In 2005, person and drug offense cases involving black youth
remained slightly more likely to be judicially waived than those
involving white youth. However, the opposite was true for property and public order offense cases.

Note: These comparisons do not control for racial differences in the seriousness of offenses within general offense categories nor in the juveniles’
offense history.

For further information
This Fact Sheet is based on the report Juvenile Court Statistics
2005, which is available through OJJDP’s Web site (www.ojp.
usdoj.gov/ojjdp). To learn more about juvenile court cases, visit
OJJDP’s online Statistical Briefing Book (www.ojjdp.ncjrs.gov/
ojstatbb/index.html) and click on “Juveniles in Court.” OJJDP
also supports Easy Access to Juvenile Court Statistics, a Webbased application that analyzes the data files used for the Juvenile Court Statistics report. This application is available from the
“Data Analysis Tools” section of the Statistical Briefing Book.

Fact Sheet

Benjamin Adams and Sean Addie, Research Assistants with the National
Center for Juvenile Justice, prepared this document as a product of the
National Juvenile Court Data Archive, which is supported by OJJDP
grants 2007–JL–FX–0007 and 2007–JL–FX–0022.
The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention is a component
of the Office of Justice Programs, which also includes the Bureau of Justice
Assistance; the Bureau of Justice Statistics; the Community Capacity
Development Office; the National Institute of Justice; the Office for Victims
of Crime; and the Office of Sex Offender Sentencing, Monitoring,
Apprehending, Registering, and Tracking (SMART).

NCJ 224539