Illinois Juvenile Justice System Data Trends Pre- and Post-COVID-19

Introduction

Since the mid-1990s, the number of youths in each stage of the U.S. juvenile justice system has decreased. Juvenile arrests, which peaked in 1996, declined 74% by 2019.^[1] In addition, a 75% reduction in juvenile cases waived (or transferred) to adult criminal court from 1994 to 2019.^[2] In 2020, the number of youths in secure confinement across the U.S. fell to an all-time low. Several factors account for these declines. One is that in recent years, legislation has been introduced and passed in numerous states to reduce the number of youths entering the system and the number placed in secure confinement facilities.^[3] Even pre-dating the COVID-19 pandemic, a few states began working to reduce the number of youths in secure confinement through legislative changes, such as closing private and state youth prisons.^[4] The coming of COVID-19 further affected the number of youths entering and being released from the juvenile justice system.^[5] Compared to pre-pandemic days, more youths during COVID-19 were released from secure juvenile justice facilities, youths’ arrests were less frequent, and more youths were offered alternative diversion programs.^[6]

This article explores the Illinois juvenile justice system’s youth statistics. Using Microsoft Excel, we examined arrest, detention, probation and court services, and corrections data for change in percentages over a five-year time period. A snapshot of juvenile trends from 2018 to 2022 is provided.

We attempted to answer the following research questions using Illinois juvenile justice data from 2018 to 2022:

• What are the juvenile justice trends, including arrests, detentions, youths continued under supervision, probation, informal probation, transfers to adult court, and corrections?
• What are the juvenile justice trends by demographics and the region of the state?

Background: National Juvenile Justice Trends

To help provide context for the juvenile justice data in Illinois, we also analyzed national data. All national juvenile justice data relate to the U.S. and are derived from various sources such as the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Juvenile Justice Information Exchange, and the Annie E. Casey Foundation. These sources examined different time periods compared to those analyzed for Illinois data.

Arrests

As of 2019, juvenile arrests for violent crime reached the lowest point since 1980 and decreased by 69% since the peak in 1994. In the past 10 years, male and female arrests have declined, but male arrests have had a higher relative decline. Due to the higher decline in male arrests, the proportion of female arrests has increased since 1980. In 2019, females accounted for 31% of all juvenile arrests, while in 1980, they accounted for 18%.^[7] Racial and ethnic disparities in juvenile arrests remain. Black youths are still disproportionately arrested compared to youths of other races.^[8] In 2019, Black youths were 2.4 times more likely to be arrested than Whites.^[9]

Secure Confinement

Since 2000, the number of youths admitted to secure confinement (e.g., detention or corrections) has decreased by 77%.^[10] In adjudicated cases, those involving Latinx^[11] or Black youths were more likely to result in out-of-home placement. Rates at which youths were placed in alternatives to secure confinement, however, vary by race and ethnicity. For example, placement rates in secure facilities have decreased for Latinx and White youths but have remained steady for Black youths. Disparities in confinement are due, in part, to higher arrest rates for youths of color combined with lower subsequent diversion rates and higher formal processing rates for them.^[12] Secure confinement is costly, about $588 per day or an average of $214,620 per year per youth, and it can have long-lasting effects on youths’ physical and mental health.^[13] Due to these adverse effects, many states have reduced the use of secure confinement facilities and have diverted funds to community-based programs.^[14]

Juvenile Probation and Court Services

Trends relevant to court services include occurrences of cases, sentencing, probation, and diversions for youths. U.S. juvenile court cases decreased by 55% between 2005 and 2018. Racial disparities varied based on offense type, but, unlike arrests, declines by gender were relatively the same for males and females.^[15] From 2005 to 2017, juvenile probation was the most common sentence, but the number of probation cases during that period declined by 50%. In 2017, males and White youths were the largest proportion on probation.^[16] In recent years, many states have been enacting various legislation to keep youths out of the formal system. Maryland recently passed a bill that limits circumstances under which youths who are younger than 13 can enter the system. In Idaho, attorneys can refer youths directly to a probation officer or diversion program.^[17] In 2020, Illinois governor JB Pritzker announced a plan to transform the state’s juvenile justice system. The plan aims to transfer youths to smaller regional centers and increase funding for wrap-around services, intervention programs, and victim services.^[18]

Juvenile Cases Transferred to Adult Court

Certain juvenile court cases can be waived to adult court based on offense severity, age, offending history, judicial discretion, or state waiver laws. The number of cases waived to adult criminal court has declined since 1994. Between 2005 and 2018, waived cases involving White youths decreased by 61%. For Latinx youths, it dropped 16%, and for Black youths, it declined 15%. As the decline rates show, Black male youths are still the most likely to be waived to adult criminal court, while White female youths are the least likely to be waived.^[19]

COVID-19 Impact on Juvenile Arrests

Data from the early days of the pandemic show that the COVID-19 pandemic had significant effects on the U.S. juvenile justice system. From March 2020 to 2021, the number of youths in detention decreased dramatically, primarily to reduce the spread of COVID-19.^[20] This was done through early release, alternatives to confinement, and fewer arrests and technical violations.^[21] However, Black and Latinx youths took longer to be released than White youths. At the beginning of 2021, the overrepresentation of minority youths in detention was worse than at the beginning of 2020.^[22] Misrepresentations of juvenile crime also occurred during the pandemic. News outlets and politicians raised concerns over a spike in juvenile violent crime during the pandemic.^[23] However, data reveal that crime among youths did not spike, and, in most cases, it continued to decrease.^[24]

Methods

Data Sources

The data for this article were acquired from multiple sources. We analyzed all data using Microsoft Excel software. We analyzed data for all calendar years (CYs) from 2018 to 2022 except secure confinement, which represents state fiscal years (SFYs) from 2018 to 2022. In Illinois, each fiscal year spans from July 1 to June 30 of the following year.

Juvenile Arrests – Criminal History Records Information

We acquired data from the Illinois State Police (ISP) Criminal History Records Information (CHRI) data system for juvenile and adult arrest information. ICJIA obtains CHRI data from ISP through an inter-agency agreement.

All data on youths in our analyses are considered estimates of youth crime in Illinois due to the following quality issues. It is mandated by the Criminal Identification Act (20 ILCS 2630/5) that an arrest fingerprint card be submitted for all minors over ten years old arrested for a would-be felony offense or driving under the influence offense. Submitting the card for a minor arrested for a class A or B misdemeanor is optional. Additionally, it is the policy of the Illinois State Police and ICJIA to redact data totals under ten to prevent reidentification and protect individuals’ privacy.

The data we could collect from the CHRI system conforms with legal definitions and stipulations about who juveniles are and how they can be treated in the justice system. These definitions and stipulations include the following protocols. Except for a limited number of serious offenses subject to transfer to adult court, juveniles are under juvenile court’s jurisdiction until the age of 18. In Illinois, an arrest occurs when police take a youth believed to have perpetrated a delinquent act into custody.^[25] At this point, a juvenile officer can release the youth without any further charges, proceed with a station adjustment, or direct the matter to probation for intake or the state’s attorney’s office for prosecution. A station adjustment is handling an alleged youth offender by a juvenile police officer without referring the youth to court.

Protocols about expungement also affect the data we collected from the CHRI system. Illinois automatically expunges records for juvenile arrests under certain conditions involving the number of arrests reported. The following conditions must be met and occur before a youth’s 18th birthday to qualify for automatic expungement:

• A minimum of one year since the date of arrest or a documented law enforcement interaction.
• No petitions for delinquency or criminal charges filed with the clerk of the circuit court related to an arrest or a documented law enforcement interaction.
• A minimum of 6 months without additional arrests or filings from the original arrest date.
• When a law enforcement agency cannot verify that arrest conditions have been satisfied if the arrest is committed by an adult, it would result in a Class 2 felony or higher.
• When a petition alleging delinquency or a finding of not delinquent; successful completion of a supervision order; or successful termination of adjudication for a Class B misdemeanor, Class C misdemeanor, or a petty or business crime, if committed by an adult.
• When delinquency adjudication (based on qualifying offense), after 2 years since the youths’ case was closed, if no current delinquency or criminal proceedings are pending against the individual and the individual has not had any subsequent delinquency adjudications or criminal convictions.^[26]

All eligible juvenile arrests occurring between January 1, 2000, and January 1, 2013, were to be expunged by January 1, 2023. For eligible juvenile arrests between January 1, 2013, and January 1, 2018, Illinois courts automatically expunged these incidents as of January 1, 2020, per statute.^[27] Any juvenile law enforcement arrest occurring before January 1, 2000, can be expunged by petitioning the court. Due to these expungements, the data we examined reflect all non-expunged arrests on the date the data were pulled.^[28]

Juvenile Probation – Administrative Office of the Illinois Courts

We retrieved data on juvenile probation, juveniles on supervision, juveniles continued under supervision, and informal probation from the Administrative Office of the Illinois Courts (AOIC) website.^[29] The AOIC Probation Division collects monthly aggregate data from Illinois probation departments. Probation involves a probation officer supervising and monitoring a juvenile for a set period determined by a court. Juvenile supervision is a less restrictive alternative to probation that can be ordered when a judge finds the defendant guilty but does not convict them. Continued under supervision can range from three to 24 months, allowing a case to continue as long as certain conditions are met. This is not a conviction and does not appear on a youth’s record if conditions are met and dismissed satisfactorily. Youths on informal probation must comply with the terms of probation, but there is no review or supervision of the case.

Juvenile Detention and Juvenile Transfers to Adult Court - JMIS

We also collected and analyzed data on admission to a detention facility. There are 16 juvenile temporary detention facilities in Illinois. Counties are required to report data on all youths’ admissions to a detention facility. These data are reported to a statewide Juvenile Monitoring Information System (JMIS) maintained by the Center for Prevention Research and Development (CPRD) at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign. CPRD is also a repository for data on juvenile transfers to adult court. We submitted a request for the data to CPRD.

Juvenile Secure Confinement – Illinois Department of Juvenile Justice

The Illinois Department of Juvenile Justice (IDJJ) operates five secure Illinois Youth Centers (IYCs) in Chicago, St. Charles, Harrisburg, Pere Marquette, and Warrenville. Data were obtained from the IDJJ through a data request.

Data Organization

We organized the data at the county level regionally. Below, we list the counties that comprise the Northern, Central, and Southern regions of Illinois.

For the Northern region, we analyze data from Cook County separately. The Northern minus Cook region consists of the following counties: Boone, Carroll, De Kalb, Du Page, Grundy, Jo Daviess, Kane, Kendall, La Salle, Lake, Lee, McHenry, Ogle, Stephenson, Whiteside, Will, and Winnebago.

The Central region consists of the following counties: Adams, Brown, Bureau, Cass, Champaign, Christian, Coles, De Witt, Douglas, Edgar, Ford, Fulton, Greene, Hancock, Henderson, Henry, Iroquois, Kankakee, Knox, Livingston, Logan, Macon, Macoupin, Marshall, Mason, McDonough, McLean, Menard, Mercer, Montgomery, Morgan, Moultrie, Peoria, Piatt, Pike, Putnam, Rock Island, Sangamon, Schuyler, Scott, Shelby, Stark, Tazewell, Vermilion, Warren, and Woodford.

The Southern region consists of the following counties: Alexander, Bond, Calhoun, Clark, Clay, Clinton, Crawford, Cumberland, Edwards, Effingham, Fayette, Franklin, Gallatin, Hamilton, Hardin, Jackson, Jasper, Jefferson, Jersey, Johnson, Lawrence, Madison, Marion, Massac, Monroe, Perry, Pope, Pulaski, Randolph, Richland, Saline, St. Clair, Union, Wabash, Washington, Wayne, White, and Williamson.

Below, we also list how the juvenile temporary detention facilities and IYICs are organized regionally.

There is one juvenile temporary detention center in Cook County. The Northern minus Cook region contains five juvenile temporary detention centers located in Kane, Lake, LaSalle, Will, and Winnebago counties. The central region contains seven juvenile temporary detention centers located in Adams, Champaign, Knox, McLean, Peoria, Sangamon, and Vermilion counties. The southern region has three temporary juvenile detention centers located in Franklin, Madison, and St. Clair counties.

Lastly, one of IDJJ’s IYICs is in Cook County, two are in the Northern minus cook region, and two are in the Southern region. There are no IYICs in the Central region of Illinois.

Illinois Juvenile Justice Data Trends

Juvenile Arrest Data

Figure 1 shows that juvenile arrests across Illinois increased slightly (6%) between 2018 and 2022. This increase occurred after a 33% decrease in arrests from 2018 to 2021. From 2021 to 2022, there was a 58% increase in juvenile arrests.

Figure 1

Juvenile Arrest Trends, CY 2018-2022

Note. The data source was the Illinois State Police Computerized Criminal History Database. Specific modifications have been made to arrest data. For more details, click here: https://icjia.illinois.gov/arrestexplorer/docs/#data-privacy-and-precision

All regions of Illinois had an increase in juvenile arrests from 2021 to 2022 (Figure 2). Cook County had the largest increase in juvenile arrests compared to other regions in the state. Cook County likely drove the overall arrest trends presented in Figure 1. Cook County had a 20% increase from 2018 to 2022 and a 74% increase from 2021 to 2022. The Northern region (excluding Cook County) had an increase in juvenile arrests of 7% from 2018 to 2022 and a 65% increase from 2021 to 2022. The Southern region had a 14% decrease in arrests from 2018 to 2022 but more than a 60% increase from 2021 to 2022. Arrests in the Central region decreased by 11% from 2018 to 2022 but had a 24% increase from 2021 to 2022.

Figure 2

Juvenile Arrests by Region, CY 2018-2022

Note. The data source was the Illinois State Police Computerized Criminal History Database. The northern region excluded Cook County. One arrest had an unknown region in 2020. Specific modifications have been made to arrest data. For more details, click here: https://icjia.illinois.gov/arrestexplorer/docs/#data-privacy-and-precision

Juvenile arrests of White and Other youths decreased slightly between 2018 and 2022, but arrests for Black and Latinx youths rose slightly (Figure 3). Arrests for all youths declined from 2019 to 2021. There was then a dramatic increase between 2021 and 2022. Between 2021 and 2022, Latinx youths’ arrests increased more than any other group at 64%, followed by Black youths’ arrests rising 62%.

Figure 3

Juvenile Arrests by Race and Ethnicity, CY 2018-2022

Note. The data source was the Illinois State Police Computerized Criminal History Database. Specific modifications have been made to arrest data. For more details, click here: https://icjia.illinois.gov/arrestexplorer/docs/#data-privacy-and-precision

The number of arrests of female youths increased by 18% between 2018 and 2022, while the number of arrests of males increased by 3% (Figure 4). Between 2021 and 2022, the number of female youths arrested increased 66%, and male youth arrests increased 56%.

Figure 4

Juvenile Arrests by Gender, CY 2018-2022

Note. The data source was the Illinois State Police Computerized Criminal History Database. Arrests by unknown gender were less than 10 and, therefore, were suppressed and not shown in the figure. Specific modifications have been made to arrest data. For more details, click here: https://icjia.illinois.gov/arrestexplorer/docs/#data-privacy-and-precision

As shown in Figure 5, property crimes comprised the largest proportion of offenses for which youths were arrested, followed by violent offenses. Sex and status offenses were the least common offense categories.

Figure 5

Juvenile Arrest by Offense Category, CY 2018-2022

Note. The data source was the Illinois State Police Computerized Criminal History Database. Other includes offenses not falling into the listed categories.

In comparing types of arrests, the percentage of juveniles arrested for felonies was higher than the percentage arrested for Class B or higher misdemeanor offenses (Figure 6).

Figure 6

Juvenile Arrests by Offense Class, CY 2018-2022

Note. The data source was the Illinois State Police Computerized Criminal History Database. Criminal History Records Information only contains class B or higher misdemeanors.

Disparate patterns typify felony arrests according to race and ethnicity. There was a 10% decrease in felony arrests for Black youths between 2018 and 2022 and a 39% increase between 2021 and 2022 (Figure 7). Between 2018 and 2022, there was a 13% decrease in arrests of Latinx youths, while there was a 14% decrease in arrests of White youths and a 34% decrease in Other youth arrests. Between 2021 and 2022, there was a 54% increase in arrests of White youths and a 74% increase in Latinx youth arrests. Other youth arrests decreased by 6% between 2021 and 2022.

Figure 7

Juvenile Felony Arrests by Race/Ethnicity, CY 2018-2022

Note. The data source was the Illinois State Police Computerized Criminal History Database. Specific modifications have been made to arrest data. For more details, click here: https://icjia.illinois.gov/arrestexplorer/docs/#data-privacy-and-precision

Juvenile Detention Data

The number of juvenile admissions to detention decreased by 36% between 2018 and 2022 (Figure 8). It declined 48% from 2018 to 2021 but increased 24% from 2021 to 2022.

Figure 8

Juvenile Detention Admission Data, CY 2018-2022

Note. The data source was the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, Center for Prevention Research and Development.

Cook County and the Central region consistently had the highest number of youths in detention (Figure 9). Between 2018 and 2022, the Southern region experienced the highest decrease of 50%. The Northern (excluding Cook County) had a 45% decrease, the Central region had a decline of 33%, and Cook County had a 24% decrease. Southern Illinois was the only region with a continued reduction across all years.

Figure 9

Juvenile Detention by Region, CY 2018-2022

Note. The data source was the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, Center for Prevention Research and Development. The Northern region excludes Cook County.

Black youths accounted for more than 50% of youths in detention for all years between 2018 and 2022 (Figure 10). The number of youths in detention who were White or “Other race or ethnicity” decreased by more than 50%; the number of Latinx youths decreased by 32%; and the number of Black youths decreased by 28%.

Figure 10

Juvenile Detention by Race/Ethnicity, CY 2018-2022

Note. The data source was the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, Center for Prevention Research and Development.

Juvenile Court Data

Informal probation can be viewed as a form of diversion, as a youth is referred to instead of a formal court proceeding. The number of youths on informal probation decreased by 30% from 2018 to 2022 (Figure 11). However, between 2021 and 2022, the numbers started rising again, specifically by 58%.

Figure 11

Juvenile Informal Probation, CY 2018-2022

Note. The data source was the Administrative Office of Illinois Courts.

Cook County had the highest number of youths on informal probation for all years except 2021 (Figure 12). The number of youths on informal probation decreased for all regions between 2018 and 2021. From 2021 to 2022, the trend shifted. All regions increased during that period, with Cook County more than doubling the number of youths on informal probation.

Figure 12

Juvenile Informal Probation by Region, CY 2018-2022

Note. The data source was the Administrative Office of Illinois Courts. The Northern region excludes Cook County.

All groups had a decrease in the number of youths on informal probation (Figure 13). Between 2018 and 2022, White youths had the most significant reduction of 34%, followed by Black youths at 28% and Latinx and youths of other races at 27%. As the uptick in overall cases of informal probation occurred in 2021 and 2022, Latinx and Black youths had the most significant increase at 87% and 79%, respectively.

Figure 13

Juvenile Informal Probation by Race/Ethnicity, CY 2018-2022

Note. The data source was the Administrative Office of Illinois Courts.

The number of youths who continued under supervision decreased by 47% between 2018 and 2022 (Figure 14). Continued under supervision is a juvenile case in which a youth is under court order and probation supervision without a formal finding of delinquency.

Figure 14

Juvenile Continued Under Supervision, CY 2018–2022

Note. The data source was the Administrative Office of Illinois Courts.

The Northern region (excluding Cook County) consistently had the highest number of youths continued under supervision (Figure 15). Yet for all regions, including the Northern region, the number of youths in this category decreased from 2018 to 2022. The Southern region decreased the most at 52% from 2018 to 2022. Cook County reported no youths continued under supervision in 2022.

Figure 15

Juvenile Continued Under Supervision by Region, CY 2018–2022

Note. The data source was the Administrative Office of Illinois Courts. The Northern region excluded Cook County.

The number of youths on probation decreased by 58% between 2018 and 2019 (Figure 16). Probation cases involve a formal finding of delinquency and specific conditions set by the court that the youth must meet.

Figure 16

Juveniles on Probation, CY 2018–2022

Note. The data source was the Administrative Office of Illinois Courts.

The Central region had the highest number of youths on probation from 2018 to 2022 (Figure 17). All regions decreased from 2018 to 2022, with Cook County having the most significant decrease of 66%. The Northern region (excluding Cook County) had a 61% decrease, the Central region had a 56% decrease, and the Southern region had a 39% decrease.

Figure 17

Juveniles on Probation by Region, CY 2018–2022

Note. The data source was the Administrative Office of Illinois Courts. Probation requires a formal finding of delinquency and specific conditions set by the court that the youth must meet. The northern region excludes Cook County.

Overall, the number of juveniles under supervision increased by 4% between 2018 and 2022 (Figure 18). Between 2018 and 2021, there was a 36% decrease. Even though there was a decrease between those years, between 2021 and 2022, there was a 62% increase in the number of juveniles placed on supervision. Juvenile supervision is a less restrictive alternative to probation that can be ordered when a judge finds the defendant guilty but does not convict them. Supervision does not require a formal finding of delinquency.

Figure 18

Juveniles on Supervision, CY 2018-2022

Note. The data source was the Administrative Office of Illinois Courts.

Cook County accounted for the most youths on supervision from 2018 to 2022 (Figure 19), even though the overall number decreased by 13%. Another region that decreased in youths on supervision from 2018 to 2022 was the Southern region, with a 6% decline. By contrast, during the same years, the Northern region (excluding Cook County) and the Central region had increases of 79% and 32%, respectively.

Figure 19

Juveniles on Supervision by Region, CY 2018–2022

Note. The data source was the Administrative Office of Illinois Courts. Supervision does not require a formal finding of delinquency. The northern region excludes Cook County.

Juvenile Transfer to Adult Court

The number of youths transferred to adult court more than doubled between 2018 and 2022 (Figure 20). The most significant increase was from 2018 to 2019, with the number more than doubling, and followed by a 31% increase from 2019 to 2022.

Figure 20

Juvenile Transfers to Adult Court, CY 2018-2022

Note. The data source was the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, Center for Prevention Research and Development. No data were provided for Cook County for 2018 and 2022.

From 2018 to 2022, all regions except Cook County saw an increase in the number of youths transferred to adult court. Cook County saw a 30% decrease between 2019 and 2021 (Figure 21). The Southern region saw an over 8-fold increase in juvenile transfers, while the Central region more than doubled.

Figure 21

Juvenile Transfers to Adult Court by Region, CY 2018-2022

Note. The data source was the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, Center for Prevention Research and Development. The Northern region excludes Cook County. No data were provided for Cook County for 2018 and 2022.

Between 2018 and 2022, the number of White youths transferred to adult court more than doubled. During this same time, the number of Black youths nearly tripled and consistently accounted for most transferred youths (Figure 22). In 2022, Black youths accounted for 68% of those transferred to adult court.

Figure 22

Juvenile Transfer to Adult Court by Race/Ethnicity, CY 2018-2022

Note. The data source was the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, Center for Prevention Research and Development. No data were provided for Cook County for 2018 and 2022.

Juvenile Corrections Data

Admissions to secure confinement decreased by 53% between SFY 2018 and SFY 2022 (Figure 23). There was a slight increase of 2% between 2018 and 2019 and a 55% decrease between 2019 and 2022.

Figure 23

Juvenile Secure Confinement Admissions, SFY 2018-2022

Note. The data source was the Illinois Department of Juvenile Justice.

From SFY 2018 to SFY 2022, the Central region consistently had the highest number of juvenile admissions to secure confinement (Figure 24). All regions had fewer youths admitted to secure confinement in 2022 than in 2018. Cook County had the most significant decrease, at 74%. The Northern region (excluding Cook County) had a 55% decrease, the Central region had a 44% decrease, and the Southern region had a 15% decrease.

Figure 24

Juvenile Secure Confinement Admissions by Region, SFY 2018-2022

Note. The data source was the Illinois Department of Juvenile Justice. The Northern region excludes Cook County.

Although admissions for Black youths decreased by 47% from SFY18 to SFY22, Black youths represented between 63% and 70% of all juvenile admissions to secure confinement (Figure 25). During the time examined, admissions to secure confinement decreased by 63% for White youths and 67% for Latinx youths. There was a decrease of 50% for youths of other races.

Figure 25

Juvenile Secure Confinement by Race/Ethnicity, SFY 2018-2022

Note. The data source was the Illinois Department of Juvenile Justice.

Conclusion

The number of youths involved with the Illinois juvenile justice system decreased between 2018 and 2022, except for juvenile arrests and transfers to adult court. Despite a 29% decrease in juvenile arrests between 2018 and 2021, the number of juvenile arrests sharply increased by 58% between 2021 and 2022, which resulted in the 2022 arrest count being higher than the 2018 count. Cook County arrests were likely the driver of this increase. Arrests there rose by 82% between 2021 and 2022. In addition, data aggregated across the regions show that Black youths represented the majority of all juveniles arrested from 2018 to 2022. Therefore, Illinois juvenile arrests exceeded pre-pandemic numbers, with more significant increases in Cook County than in other regions and with more significant increases for Black youths than for youths of different races. Across the country, it has been noted that some jurisdictions, such as Cook County, experienced increased youth involvement in the juvenile justice system in recent years. In contrast, other jurisdictions retained the reductions occurring in 2020.^[30] In the United States, disparities among youths of color in juvenile justice since the pandemic have persisted, and nearly one in three youths arrested was a Black youth.^[31] The increases in juvenile justice system involvement for youths of color and youths in urban areas need to be examined further and addressed.^[32]