National Criminal Justice Reference Service

nCJrs This microfiche was produced from documents received for inclusion in the NCJRS data base. Since NCJRS cannot exercise control over the physical condition of the documents submitted, the individual frame quality will vary. The resolution chart on this frame may be used to, evaluate the document quality.

1.0

1.1

:~ 111112.8 111112.5

W 111113

.2 .2

W I.:: ~1P·6 I:: :i I~ .0 &.;;. l4 .......

111111.8

111111.25 111111.4 111111.6

MICROCOPY RESOLUTION TEST CHART NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS-J963-A

. ~ • • 0" o· _ :\

." •••••••• 0 ~ .. )~

Microfil~i1g proc~dure~ '~sed to c~eate thi~ fiche ~ompIY witfi~ ,the standards set forth in 41CFR 1,01-11.504.

Points of view or opinions stated in this document are those of the author(s) and do not represent the official position or policies of the U. S. Department of Justice.

! •

National Institute of,Jus~ice ~- .. J_ .. United States Department of Justic~ Washington, D. C. 2053'1

.

DATE FI LMED ~

10/08/81 t

I !

I I I

I

I

I I

I .. ~:::;;-~=., .... ",:::::.;.".::::.;..-::::.~;;::>"~-.-~"--~.,>-.""",(~:..~"aop!,,,....,," .. ,-.,~-~ "'~--"'''''''''''''I'.+> .... ,..,..~-" ",,,,,", .. ,."."...,-..",,,,. ,.::::::?:...~..;::..,.,...,,..,,."',,...~, __ ....--.....,.~,,."" .. I';'.·-~-~-~ •• ~-.----~. ~

".-

If you have issues viewing or accessing this file contact us at NCJRS.gov.

(.

r rl and does not include the individual County Summary She:ts I c.~~-t" ," This is an Executive Summary text. The individual County Summary Sheet~are_avall-as referred to en page 2 of the I f tion Section, \}-.C. Department of Youth . able upon request from the Management norma Services.

X SOUTH CAROLINA COURT REPORTS

OF

JUVENILES PROCESSED

BY COUNTY

U.S. Department of Justi.ce National Institute of Justice

78124

. uced exactly as received from the This document has bee~ repr?d 't Points of view or opinions stat7d person or organization onglnatlng ~. authors and do not nec~ssanly in this document are tho.s.e of th r' s of the National Institute of represent the official position or po ICle Justice.

. . hted material has been Permission to reproduce this copyng

granted by • ~nt South Ca :r::01-J..-na---Dep

of YOllth-S.e-:t:¥-1-Ges:--.--­to the National Criminal Justice Reference Service (NCJRS).

. e NCJRS system requires permis-Further reproduction outSide of th sion of the copyright owner.

Compiled by the Division of Planning, Research & Gra~ts S.C. Dept. of Youth Serv~ces

October, 1976

1

L , :j' • ,

. I I !

1) ~., FOREWORD

The Juvenile Justice ,System in South Carolina has long been

hampered by the paucity of reliable data on which to base positive

programming to serve the needs of those youth processed through the

various parts of the system. For the most part, this can be directly

attributed to the fact that the segments of the "system," consisting

of law enforcement, jail detention, courts and juvenile facilities,

operate in a non-cohesive manner, each functioning autonomously

within its own jurisdiction. Therefore, not only has data been di£-

ficult to retrieve, but analyzation of the total system impossible

to attain.

Currently, however, advances have been made to increase this

working base of information. Through recent innovations in data

processing of the Uniform Crime Report, data has now been made

readily available quarterly with regard to juveniles arrests from

all reporting agencies in South Carolina in terms of the age, race,

sex and offense distributions of the youths processed. The Depart-

ment of Youth Services, through its data processing system, has

endeavored to maintain up-to-date records of all youth processed

through their facilities. In addition, this agency's Research

section has been compiling detailed state-wide reports on juvenile

detention in cooperation with all facilities who hold juveniles in

jail. All of the~e processes have served to greatly broaden base

line data related to "juveniles in trouble," pursuant not only to

evaluating the present juvenile justice system and the correlation

between its various components, but as a vi tal S~~-ifl'~0rmulating I

., '"

f' NCJRS 4 I ~

appropriate planning.

jl MAY 7 1981 J --.... ---.... --~-.-.--~-~--r-~-. __ ...... ____ .____ .. "" .. ----r-~_~-=_ --,.l;-~-~ __ .__._.,.._-_ .. ~--.~_.~ __ -.,: __ ~ _ -~.- ... " ~ ....... , ,.,.. ~ ... ,,~-""" ... ~~,- ,~" ,~"~~-.,, ......... ~p~_ .. _n' ....... """'_~""'W"''''_''''''''''''''''''_'''''''''_''''''''''''''''_''"'''I,...._. ____ .~- .... ~-- ..,..,....,~ :..-..-..--.... ,.., ..... _-...-..,.f,., " ..... -.., ..... --"'7~ ........ ~" .,..,~,..._ _._ ~,.~_"".~ ___ ~ "' ~ """'"'. ''' __ ~

j ,

~ -- --- ~-- - - - ~----~ ---------------

I: This report on juveniles processed through the courts of the

various counties in South Carolina reflects a further effort to-

ward covering another large gap of information in the state juvenile

justice system and represents the most current information avail-

able to the Research section of the S. C. Department of Youth

Services. It is, for the most part, a culmination of the uniform

court reporting system initiated in Fiscal Year 1976 with the co-

operation of most of the courts who process juveniles. Whereas

previously, court data was garnered haphazardly and reports were

based on random information, currently, monthly reports are submit-

ted on DYS reporting forms to the Research section. The table of

contents of this report cites the source of the data for each county

and it will be noted that while several courts who did not parti-

cipate contributed their own reports, only four counties did not

make any information available. This DYS reporting system has

been instituted again for the present fiscal year and has expanded

to successfully include almost every court. All cooperating courts

have been provided a copy of their individual reports, as well.

While it must be recognized that the system is recent and these

monthly reports were completed by the courts .themselves and involve

various discrepancies inherent in individual reporting methodologies,

nevertheless, it represents the first total attempt at state-wide

juvenile court reporting and provides at least a reasonable estimate

of the current situation. The reporting system has been more re-

fined for this fiscal year and the reports correspondingly should

reflect increased validity.

I -2-

[I I] J

" ,

, .

,. " .

c

No extensive analyzation has been provided in these reports,

but rather a summary and highlights of the data examined in the

various tables.

General information sheets on each court have also been in­

cluded after the individual court report. -

A state-wide summary is also included at the end of the report

for a brief general interpretation of the total data.

The project has been a mammoth manual effort on the part of

all the research staff, with many long hours involved in monitoring,

calculating and compiling the data, but is fully warranted by the

high value of this information particularly in view of the forth­

coming entry of the Department of Youth Services into the court

system via intake and probation responsibilities.

Special acknowledgement should be made to Mr. Roan Garcia-

Quintana who coordinated the proJ'ect b t th ' , e ween e var~ous courts

and the Department of Youth Services with persistence and patience.

Barbara LaBelle

-3-,

----_._- - -- ~-.- ~-- ----

Page

1

4 14 30 42 53 63 73 86 98 99

110 113 118 128 138 140 151 155 166 176 187 200 210 216 225 235 246 259 260 271 283 293 304 309 320 331 336 347 358 370 380 390 401 411 423 424 437

443

county

FOREWORD

Abbeville. Aiken Allendale Anderson Bamberg Barnwell Beaufort Berkeley Calhoun Charleston Cherokee Chester Chesterfield Clarendon Colle·ton Darlington Dillon Dorchester Edgefield Fairfield Florence Georgetown Greenville

Greenwood Hampton Horry Jasper Kershaw Lancaster Laurens Lee Lexington McCormick Marion Harlb.oro Newberry Oconee Orangeburg Pickens Richland Saluda Spartanburg Sumter Union \\Iilliamsburg York

SUHI>1ARY

TABLE OF CONTEHTS

Source

DYS Monthly Reporting Form DYS Monthly Reporting Form DYS Monthly Reporting Form DYS Monthly Reporting Form DYS Monthly Reporting Form DYS Monthly Reporting Form DYS Monthly Reporting Form DYS Monthly Reporting Form

No Reports Available DYS Monthly Reporting Form

Cherokee Court Report Chester Court Report

DYS Monthly Reporting Form DYS Monthly Reporting Form

No Reports Available DYS ~onthly Reporting Form DYS Monthly Reporting Form DYSMonthly Reporting Form DYS Monthly Reporting Form DYS Monthly Reporting Form DYS Monthly Reporting Form

,DYS Monthly Reporting Form Greenville Court Report and DYS Monthly Reporting Form DYS Monthly Reporting Form DYS Monthly Reporting Form DYS Monthly Reporting Form

No Reports Available DYS Monthly Reporting Form DYS Monthly Reporting Form DYS Monthly Reporting Form" DYS Monthly Reporting Form'

Lexington Court Report DYS Honthly Reporting Form DYS Nonthly Reporting Form DYS.Monthly Reporting Form DYS Monthly Reporting Form DYS Monthly Reporting Form DYS Monthly Reporting Form DYS }~onthly Reporting Form

Richland Court Report DYS Monthly Reporting Form DYS Monthly Reporting Form DYS Monthly Reporting Form

No Reports Available DYS Monthly Reporting Form Court Administration Form

------

Time Period

FY 1975-1976 FY 1975-1976 FY 1975-1976 Jan-June 1976 July-Dec 1975 July-Dec 1975 FY 1975-1976 FY 1975-1976

July-Dec 1975 Sept 74-Aug 1975 Calendar Yr 1975

FY 1975-1976 Jan-June 1976

FY 1975-1976 FY 1975-1976 FY 1975-1976 FY 1975-1976 FY 1975-1976 FY 1975-1976 FY 1975-1976 July-Dec 197? Jan-June 1976 FY 1975-1976 FY 1975-1976 FY 1975-1976

FY 1975-1976 July-Dec 1975 FY 1975-1976 FY 1975-1976

Calendar Yr 1975 FY 1975-1976 FY 1975-1976 FY 1975-1976 FY·1975-1976 FY 1975-1976 FY 1975-1976

July 75-April 1976 Calendar Yr 1975

FY 1975-1976 Jan-June 1976 FY 1975-1976

FY 1975-1976 Nov 75-June 1976

SUMMARY

A summary of the individual county court re?orts which would

reflect a total state perspective obviously. must be approached with

some note of caution. As mentioned in the foreword, there are in-

consistencies apparent in th,e reporting methodology of each court

under the new uniform court-reporting system to the Department of

Youth Services. For instance, some courts accounted for neglect

and abuse cases while others did not. By the same token, some courts

processed juvenile traffic cases and others did not. However, it was

felt that the most accurate measures of numbers of juveniles pro-

cessed through all the courts could be represented by the courts'

reporting data on "referrals to the court,1I most generally utilized

by the courts as lIindividual persons. II Another difficulty in valid

I state analyzation arises from the fact that less than' a total year's

data was reported from some courts even with constant monitoring.

I I:

Therefore, the most reasonable estimate of a total year's figures

was extrapolated from the available data. In addition, the court r I reports that were not based on the DYS uniform system are recorded

for somewhat different time periods. Lastly, four courts did not

submit any reports. Nevertheless, despite these apparent inconsis-

tencies, the fact that there is available similar categorical infor-

mation for a total year's processing from 33 counties and partial

data from 9 counties, constitutes a base at least of reasonable

! interpretation upon which this summary is formulated. I'

Of the thirty-three (33) counties for whom total year reports

are available, twenty-nine (29) were utilizing the DYS uniform . ,

i· -443-

;. .

I

(

-- -~--------- ~----------------------------------------------

-2-

monthly court reporting form and the data reflects FY 1975-1976.

Four courts, Cherokee, Chester, Lexington and Richland, submitted

their own yearly reports basically for calendar year 1975. These

latter counties are now participating in the uniform reporting sys-

tern for FY 1976-77. Nine counties submitted reports for a portion

of the year, in most cases 6 months, although Pickens reports were

perpetuated for 10 months and York for 8 months. Even with persis­

tent monitoring of the courts for the data, it was to be expected

that with many pressing time and staff situations, the form comple-

tion would sometimes be neglected, particularly since participation

was voluntary. The extrapolation of this partial data to represent

a total year's figures is well within the limits of probability

since the analyzation of full year's reports reveals that in the

majority of cases, six-months' figures represent approximately 48%

of total numbers.

Within this framework, therefore, it can be estimated as a rea-

sonable approximation that 17,000 juveniles were referred to the courts

of South Carolina over the last year (excl~9ing,4unreporting counties).

The heaviest concentrations appears to be in Charleston, Greenville,

Spartanburg, Richland, Lexington and Anderson, respectively, since

these are major population areas. However, it will be noted that

this does not correspond to those areas referring to court the

largest segments of their juvenile population--Clarendon, Chester,

Kershaw, and Beaufort. The percentage of juvenile population re-

ferred to court for the state from these counties averages about

3.43%. (See Table I)

-444-

,_, "_,~~._.~_.' -'-"7'''-'''_-~~O'=''7~"',==,"::"="=,,,::~:=,,,,_=~r==: l

~'.., f

j I t

j

J

I

:-::;

.f ~

-3-

As mentioned previously, an examination of the frequency of

referr, als by month reveals, that generally f more re errals are perpe-

tuated during the first six months of the year for most counties,

al though the two six-month perfods differ cumulatively very little.

February and March reflect .the h . 1 eav~est oads wi th October accounting

also for a sizeable number.-

The data on "Source of Referral" for the state indicates that

with few exceptions, Law E f n orcement agencies were by far the most

frequent referring agency to th e court, averaging for all counties

about 57% of all referrals. In four counties--Allendale , Barnwell,

Lancaster, and Williamsburg--parents and family were the most fre-

quent source, in Oconee and Pickens , the school accounted for the

largest number and in Richland, individual.Jeferrals. (See Table II)

The distribution of status and non-status offenses' for the state

as a whole can only be estimated roughly due to,mere partial year

reports from some courts. However, by extrapolation methodology

again, an approximation of 29% status offenses for the state can be

inferred from the data available. Th" f" ~s ~gure is based on approxi-

mately 11,300 offenses recorded of which 3,222 were status offenses.

The most frequent status offense by indiv;dual ' ~ county s percentage

was truancy, followed by ungovernable and runaway. (See Table III)

In total numbers for the entire state, this same pattern was indicated,

by noting actual recorded figures for these offenses for 40 counties,

including some partial year's totals. (See Table IV)

Non-status offenses generally accounted for an average 71% of

offenses on an individual county base. h T e most frequent offenses

were Breaking & Entering and Larceny. (See Table III)

-445-

. i " I

, i

(

-4-

Thirty-eight (38) counties provided data on age, race and sex

distributions. Of this base of 10,008 youth reported, 6047 or 60%

were white and 3961 or 40%, black. This corresponds closely to most

individual county percentages'as well. In terms of sex, 7566 or

about 75% were male and 24.~2 or 25% female. This percentage varied

from 60% to 90% in individual counties. With respect to age, ages

15 and 16 accounted for 56% of all those recorded with age 16 re-

presenting 31% of that figure. (See Table V)

The statewide court data also provides information on "Action

Taken at Intake." In the vast majority of cases, petitions were

filed for adjudication. Data is also provided-here in the tables

en the age, race and sex of those adjudicated, and it is apparent

that the distributions closely conform to the similar tables for

referrals.

An examination of dispositions of adjudications reveals that

probation was the leading disposition of those 8840 recorded, ac­

counting for almost 33% of all dispositions state-wide. These per­

centages varied extremely from county to county on an individual

basis. Commitments to R&E represented over 12% of those dispositions

recorded and 484 or 5.5% were committed to DYS Training Schools.

These figures also varied county-wide. Referrals to social agencies

constituted almost 10% of the dispositions with a varied span of

agencies. Other frequent dispositions included continued and dis-

missed. (See Table VI)

Only ten (10) counties provided recidivist data considered to

be valid. This 25% sample suggests that the recidivism rate appears

-446-

t::::~:·.7.";.:--:::;;;;..~='::I~p;:'r.-·<~·'

~f J

I i

-5-

to approximate 28%. More emphasis has been exerted this fiscal year

toward IBfining and collecting this categorical data for more valid

conclusions. (See Table VII)

The foregoing analyzation,has attempt~d to provide a descrip­

tion of the state-wide characteristics of juveniles processed through

the courts. It constitutes a starting point at which to formulate

some evaluation and appropriate planning fundamental not only to

new programming for the courts eminent in the n~ar future, but to

serve the entire juvenile justice system.

Witti-tlie expectation of a ~ore discriminative data base in this

fiscal year, hopefully, increasingly precise interpretations will be

effected.

-447·-

l

._- -~- -- ------ --- ---- --------

i , .t> '-.~~.G..:o~""'--;':-:-.r.,_ •. "",,~,_. __ ... ~ <0:;' ~""",: ;--;::: :'::...,. __ ._ • • ! [-1 .'<" .~ - ~~- !

!.~ . 1

I f TABLE II TABLE I ,I ~~

. i)i Most Freguent (: I '~..I Source of Referral One-Year Referrals

I By Percenta9:e By County

By Countz % of J

REFERRAL County No. Referrals Juv. Pop. :1 Count Law Enforcement SOURCE

Parents School

I Individual • A.bbeville 97 2.56 Abbeville 97% Aiken 597 2.69 Aiken 68% Allendale 33 1.7 " Allendale

Anderson 928 (464--6 mo. ) 4.36 Anderson 40% 47-% Bamberg 46 (23-·-6 mo. ) 1.4 Bamberg 43% Barnwell 42 (21--6 mo. ) 1.2 Barnwell 43%

Beaufort 588 6.0 Beaufort 66%

'I 62% Berkeley 308 2.05 ,.

Berkeley ,. 61% Charleston 2214 (ll07--6mo. ) 4.04 Charleston 54% Cherokee 169 2.37 r Cherokee 57% Chester 451 7.75 :! Chester . 52% Chesterfield 119 1.69 ~

Chesterfield 606 (303--6 mo. ) 10.3 \ Clarendon 79% Clarendon

81% Darlington 174 1.57 Darlington 52% Dillon 5 .08 I Dillon 100% Dorchester 125 1.7 -if Dorchester 37% Edgefield 77 2.31 Edgefield 70% Fairfield 90 2.12

1 Fairfield 60% Florence 490 2.67 Florence 32%

( Georgetown 85 1.15 8» Georgetown 40%' 3.83 ~..-Greenville 1737 Greenville 85% Greenwood 368 3.92 Greenwood 52% Hampton 18 .56 I Hampton 89% Horry 317 2.26 I~. Horry 64% 7.13 I Kershaw 493 Kershaw 57% Lancaster 506 (253--6 mo. ) 5.8 Lancaster Laurens 358 3.95 Laurens 33%

69 .28 Lee 47% Lee 62% Lexington 990 5.35 Lexington 58% McCormick 38 2.16 McCormick 84% Marion 36 .6 Marion 89% Marlboro 4 .07 I Marlboro 50% 90 1.78 I:

Newberry Newberry ,. 64% r

Oconee 299 3.88 Oconee Orangeburg 336 2.28 Orangeburg 63% 42% Pickens ISO (l26--~0 mo. ) 1.47 Pickens 45% Richland 1222 3.11 Richland 46% Saluda 80 2.92 Saluda 54% 57% Spartanburg 1640 (820--6 mo. ) 5.06 Spartanburg 46% Sumter 441 2.48 Sumter 68% Williamsburg 71 .92 Williamsburg York 538 ( 358--8 mo. ) 3.27 York 39%

47% TOTAL STATE 17,045 3.43%

(~ {Tt, ~~. . ,

~~

-448- -449-

i

(

(~

---------- --- - ----- -------------- - --- --------------------

county

Abbeville Aiken Allendale Anderson Bamberg Barnwell Beaufort Berkeley Charleston Cherokee Chester Chesterfield Clarendon Darlington Dillon Dorchester Edgefield Fairfield Florence Georgetown Greenville Greenwood Hampton Horry Kershaw

*Lancaster Laurens Lee Lexington McCormick Marion Marlboro Newberry Oconee Orangeburg Pickens Richland Saluda Spartanburg' Sumter Williamsburg York

TABLE III

Comparison of Status & Non-Status By County

Criminal Offenses % Most Freguent %

95% 74% 52% 64% 57% 38% 74% 71% 65%

52% 79% 81% 67% 80% 80% 75% 76% 71% 61% 94% 74% 89% 81% 63% 44% 58% 78% 58% 88% 89% 50% 87% 41% 75% 49% 90% 81% 73% 67% 36%

Traffic & DUI B. & E

Dr.ugs B & E

Vandalism B & E

Traffic & DUI B & E

5% 26% 48% 36% 43% 62% 26% 29%

Larceny 35% Not Available by Offense

B & E 48% B&E and Larceny Assault

B & E EVEN (only 4) Larceny Larceny Larceny Shoplifting Larceny Larceny Shoplifting Larceny Larceny Traffic & DUI

B & E B & E B & E

Larceny B & E Larceny EVEN (only 2) Larceny Traffic & DUI

B & E B & E

Housebrkg/Larceny Disorderly Conduct Traffic & DUI

21% 19% 33% 20% 20% 25% 24% 29% 39%

6% 26% 11% 19% 37% 25% 42% 22% 42% 12% 11% 50% 13% 59%

'25% 51% 10% 19% 27%

Larceny 33% B&E and Larceny 64%

Not Available by Offense

*Abuse & Neglect--30%

-450-

Status Offenses Most Frequent

Ungovernable Ungovernable Ungovernable Truancy Ungovernable Ungovernable Runaway Runaway Ungovernable

Truancy Ungovernable Runaway Truancy Runaway Runaway Truancy Ungovernable Truancy Ungovernable TJ::uancy Truancy Truancy Runaway Ungovernable Truancy Truancy Truancy Truancy Truancy Ungovernable EVEN (only 2) Ungovernable Truancy Truancy Truancy Ungovernable Ungovernable Truancy Truancy Ungovernable

fl I J

.1/ r I f I I, I j

I i v .' i. i I

I I

r i

I I 1

I \ I

I I

j

I ~ Ii I t \. ,

I tl II

Count~

Abbeville Aiken Allendale Anderson (6mo) Bamberg (6mo) Barnwell ( 6mo) Beaufort Berkeley Charleston (6mo) Cherokee Chester Chesterfield Clarendon (6mo) Darlington Dillon Dorchester Edgefield Fairfield Florence Georgetown Greenville Greenwood Hampton Horry Kershaw Lancaster (6mo) Laurens Lee Lexington MCCormick Marion Marlboro Newberry Oconee Orangeburg Pickens (lOmo) Richland Saluda Spartanburg (6mo) Sumter Williamsburg York

TOTAL

TABLE IV

Status Offense Distribution By Actual Numbers Recorded

By County

Ungovernable Runaway

3 2 80 62 12 2 48 38

8 0 13 0 42 85 31 47

194 54 UNAVAILABLE 21 19 18 4

8 43 25 6 o 1

10 15 9 0

14 3 23 11 23 2

8 23 26 8

1 0 22 36 88 28

9 20 7 28 6 0

61 63 2 0 4 0 o 1 5 3

45 37 38 15

5 6 58 0

9 1 60 66 61 11 24 7 UNAVAILABLE

1121 747

-451-

Truancy

o 14

2 68

2 o

19 11 54

176 1 8

31 o 1

12 5

117 9

73 60

1 4

67 33

116 10

107 4 o 1 4

92 39 57

1 6

112 72 15

1404

Total

5 156

16 154

10 13

146 89

302

216 23 59 62

1 26 21 22

151 34

104 94

2 62

183 62

151 16

231 6 4 2

12 174

92 68 59 16

238 144

46

3272

I; I

I' i. I

I j I; '"r " If ',f

i 'j

;J d

1

11 :1

11 b !I II ~ I

c

(

county

Abbeville Aiken Allendale Anderson ( 6mo) Bamberg (6mo ) Barnwell (6mo) Beaufort Berkeley Charleston (6mo~ Cherokee Chester Chesterfield C1 arendon ( 6mo) Darlington Dillon Dorchester Edgefield Fairfield Florence Georgetown Greenville (6mo) Greenwood Hampton Horry Kershaw Lancaster (6mo) Laurens Lee Lexington McCormick Marion Marlboro Newberry Oconee Orangeburg Pickens (10mo) Richland Saluda Spartanburg (6mo) Sumter Williamsburg York

TOTAL

f /

TABLE V

Age, Race & Sex Distribution By County

RACE Whi t-e--B1ack Total

61 37 98 343 154 497

25 . 8 33 315 1Q8 423

9 14 23 10 11 21

335 237 572 259 42 301 532 425 957

UNAVAILABLE UNAVAILABLE

76 43 119 79 221 300

101 73 174 145

109 16 125 21 56 77 37 53 90

313 178 491 47 37 84

459 295 754 222 144 366

8 10 18 219 99 318 376 127 503 234 112 346 251 113 364

24 41 65 UNAVAILABLE

4 33 37 16 20 36 134

41 49 90 254 45 299

99 233 332 108 19 127 239 332 571

43 28 71 541 265 806 219 222 441

16 54 70 UNAVAILABLE

6047 .·3961 10,008

-452-

SEX Ma1e--Fema1e

73 388

23 318

17 15

370 229 779

96 283 137

4 107

66 66

366 59

610 293

15 250 346 210 248

54

34 30

2 69

206 260

87 501

59 530 320

46

7566

25 109

10 105

6 6

202 72

178

23 17 37

1 18 11 24

125 25

144 73

3 68

157 136 116

11

3 6 2

21 93 72 40 70 12

276 121

24

2442

15

21 152

10 105

1 6

142 71

254

16 63 35

2 46 27 20

120 25

186 95

7 78

150 48 93 16

10 6 1

17 78 80 27

167 19

179 108

21

2502

AGE 16

50 160

13 119

4 6

208 92

362

45 118

29 o

33 25 26

131 15

231 146

1 96

176 52 92 14

12 21 o

23 91 80 58

163 31

221 148

26

3118

.~ f

! I

1

"

fl ! t

I f I t f t 1 I

I ! j

I ~ . I

I

l, i

~

\ ~ r; -

()

County

Abbeville Aiken Allendale Anderson (6mo) Bamberg (6mo) Barnwell (6mo) Beaufort Berkeley Charleston Cherokee Chester Chesterfield Clarendon (6mo) Darlington Dillon Dorchester Edgefield Fairfield Florence Georgetown Greenville (6mo) Greenwood Hampton Harry Kershaw Lancaster (6mo) Laurens Lee Lexington McCormick Marion Marlboro Newberry Oconee Orangeburg Pickens (10) Richland Saluda Spartanburg {6mo) Sumter Williamsburg York (8mo)

TOTAL

TABLE VI

Frequent Dispositions of Adjudications By County

Total Recorded Probation

Disposition

96 229

32 415 23 18

272 215

1101 169 408 III 21

176

ll4 75 90

522 86

586 322

9 351 294 125 217

38

37 53

4 82

286 91 84

643 71

680 329

39 333

8840

88 59

8 58 12

3 79 69

277 73 34 74 10 33 I

UNAVAILfIl3L~ 1 56 46 55

294 37

124 111

5 99

127 19

108 19

UNAVAILABLE 20 35

1 21

102 18 35

226 44 58

151 3

190

2881

-453-

R&E Commitment

School Commitment

4 0 56 10

6 3 20 12

3 4 2 0

24 6 8 8

209 82 16 0 35 14 17 4

7 2 47 19

18 12 7 0

10 2 50 18 35 2 47 23 29 34

2 2 43 13 33 22 10 4 24 19 12 0

11 2 5 6 1 0

13 4 30 4 28 25 26 13 74 34 5 0

39 62 52 17 27 2

------(not defined)----

1085 484

Social Agency

1 II 3

96 o o

20 18 77 54 o 2 o 2

8 o o

67 6

100 21 o

41 6

43 39

2

o 1 2

10 22

9 1

94 o

93 o 3 o

852

TABLE VII

Recidivism as Recorded , By Ten Counties

County Total Referred No. Recidivists

Aiken 497 177

Beaufort 572 168

Berkeley 301 30

Darlington 174 157

Florence 491 85

Horry 318 77

Lancaster 346 60

Orangeburg 332 57

Sumter 441 153

( Williamsburg 70 24

TOTAL 3542 988

c -454-

i I

Percentage

35%

29%

10%

90%

17%

24%

17%

17%

35%

34%

28%

L ",

, ~,: ",""'~.<'-:2;" , ~:; ,,~,:, ~,~~ '''''''''''j'''''''-''1>~~~''''''''-l\~'''; '. :'''-~,"'"'-":r''''!''' '1j~'''''','~'''q" ". ;" .. ,",:" ""~~"",<,~, • .,...,1 .>,.".,.,.",,-'y""'"' "~~'_·',..I '~''''''-.>.'''' .,., .... ," ,>,.,.",."._,»,~. ,'~>'''" ,.~" '.,"'T1""'~(:\o\ _,p r" "

~~-"--,-,,--.....--,---~' -'~'~~~~~b-":~~:~.

~.'

;1

I

I ·1

I 1

I' f i

,~ . .;;