Policymakers and state leaders concerned about youth crime, violence, and behavioral health should examine how their state handles youth who commit status offenses—behaviors such as truancy, running away, and curfew violations, which are only crimes because they are committed by minors—as a window into their broader responses for youth that are not high risk but may need services.
It’s important for states to take a closer look at this population because research consistently shows that youth in contact with the justice system—particularly lower-risk youth—are more likely to recidivate and less likely to complete high school than their similar peers who are diverted from any form of system contact, even if they receive no other services.1
This document details key findings from a 50-state scan2 conducted in 2023 by The Council of State Governments Justice Center on how states handle youth who commit status offenses. Policymakers can draw upon these findings to consider whether the justice system, and court involvement generally, is the most timely, effective mechanism to support these youth to transition to a safe and healthy adulthood or whether alternative structures and service investments are needed.
Status Offenses
~50%
States that treat youth who commit status offenses the same as youth who commit delinquent offenses—acts committed by minors that would be considered crimes if committed by adults. In other words, youth who commit any status offense can be referred to the same court that handles delinquent offenses and be subject to similar sanctions and supervision in these states.
Some states have enacted policies to treat some or all youth who commit status offenses differently from youth who commit delinquent offenses, including creating separate legal categories such as “Children in Need of Supervision.” However, even in many of these states, youth who commit status offenses can still wind up in police custody, become court-involved, and placed on supervision, including out-of-home placement.
<15%
States that restrict any form of court involvement for youth who commit status offenses.
~65%
States that allow youth who commit status offenses to be held in police custody.
~50%
States that allow youth who commit status offenses to be detained prior to being adjudicated in court.
~10%
States that don’t allow youth who commit status offenses to be detained pre-adjudication but do allow these youth to be detained for non-criminal behaviors for violating a court order.
~70%
States that can place youth who commit status offenses on some form of community-based supervision or probation.
~40%
States that allow youth whose most serious offense is, for example, skipping school or disobeying their parents’ rules, to be incarcerated in a secure facility after disposition (through placement in the custody of the state juvenile justice agency or alternative methods).
>30%
States that restrict placement in a secure facility for youth who commit status offenses but permit these young people to be placed out of home in a nonsecure facility after disposition.
>80%
States that authorize parents to be sanctioned in court if their child commits a status offense and/or disobeys a related court order, including fines, fees, court-ordered participation in programs and services, and even possible detainment.
By the Numbers: How States Handle Minimum Age of Juvenile Court Jurisdiction
There has been a growing recognition that young adults (18–25) in contact with the justice system require distinct approaches. Yet states have given far less attention to the developmental differences between children/pre-teens and older adolescents and to proactively determining and funding those systems, services, and supports best suited to prevent these children and pre-teens from future involvement in the justice system.
To address this gap, it’s important for states to examine their policies around the minimum age at which a child is subject to juvenile court jurisdiction if they break the law. This is especially true because research consistently shows that youth in contact with the justice system—particularly lower-risk youth— are more likely to recidivate and less likely to complete high school than their similar peers who are diverted from any form of system contact.3
This document details key findings from a 50-state scan4 conducted in 2023 by The Council of State Governments Justice Center on state policies regarding the minimum age at which a child is subject to court jurisdiction if they break the law.
Minimum Age of Juvenile Court Jurisdiction
~50%
States that don’t have a minimum age of juvenile court jurisdiction. In these states, children as young as 7 and 8 years old can be arrested and referred to court for any delinquent or status offense. Delinquent offenses are acts committed by minors that would be considered crimes if committed by adults. Status offenses are behaviors such as truancy, running away, and curfew violations, which are only crimes because they are committed by minors.
~70%
States that have a minimum age of court jurisdiction that is 10 or younger. The remaining states have a minimum age of 11 or 12, with two states having a minimum of 13.
~50%
States with a minimum age that is subject to offense exceptions, most often for homicide, violent offenses, and/or serious felonies.
<10
States that have both a minimum age of court jurisdiction and a higher minimum age for secure detention and/or placement.
<10
States that don’t have a minimum age of court jurisdiction but do have a minimum age of competency in which children are presumed unable to understand the charges against them.
More generally, only a handful of all states have specific competency laws and required evaluation processes to determine whether children referred to court understand the crime they have committed and the legal process. Indeed, research and developmental science show that children and pre-teens (12 and under) are generally not competent to stand trial.5
<15
States that don’t have a minimum age of court jurisdiction but do have a minimum age for placing youth in a secure facility.
0
States that don’t have a minimum age of court jurisdiction but do have a minimum age for placing youth in a nonsecure facility, such as in a group home or private residential facility.
1. Anthony Petrosino, Carolyn Turpin-Petrosino, and Sarah Guckenburg, “Formal System Processing of Juveniles: Effects on Delinquency,” Campbell Systematic Reviews 6, no. 1 (2010) 1–88, https://doi.org/10.4073/csr.2010.1.
2. The findings detailed here reflect state policy as authorized in statute and court rules regardless of how often such authority is used in practice (e.g., whether youth can be legally detained for a status offense). We also use approximations rather than exact numbers and don’t identify specific states for the following reasons: some states’ laws can be interpreted in multiple ways; states’ laws are continuously in flux; and more generally, some states have confusing, even conflicting laws and court rules related to these populations leading to different interpretations even among state leaders and practitioners.
3. Anthony Petrosino, Carolyn Turpin-Petrosino, and Sarah Guckenburg, “Formal System Processing of Juveniles: Effects on Delinquency,” Campbell Systematic Reviews 6, no. 1 (2010) 1–88, https://doi.org/10.4073/csr.2010.1.
4. The findings detailed here reflect state policy as authorized in statute and court rules regardless of how often such authority is used in practice (e.g., whether youth can be legally detained for a status offense). We also use approximations rather than exact numbers and don’t identify specific states for the following reasons: some states’ laws can be interpreted in multiple ways; states’ laws are continuously in flux; and more generally, some states have confusing, even conflicting laws and court rules related to these populations leading to different interpretations even among state leaders and practitioners.
5. Richard J. Bonnie et al., eds., Reforming Juvenile Justice: A Developmental Approach (Washington DC: National Academies Press, 2013).
This report was funded by the Prudential Foundation. Findings/insights are those of the CSG Justice Center only and are not attributed to the Prudential Foundation.