youth in adult courts – an overview of the issue

URBAN INSTITUTEJustice Policy Center

The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to The Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders.

Youth in Adult Courts – An Overview of the Issue

Jeffrey Butts, Ph.D.Program on Youth JusticeURBAN INSTITUTE

Coalition for Juvenile JusticeFall Training ConferenceMiami Beach, FloridaNovember 7, 2002

Also includes: Interactive Research GuideInteractive Research Guide

The views expressed are those of the author and should not be attributed to The Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders.


Youth in Adult Courts

Summary• Despite two decades of research, we have not found a crime-reduction effect from criminal court transfer

• Criminal court transfer is an inexact science

• Only the most violent, chronic juvenile offenders get more severe & more certain punishment in adult court

• The majority of youth moved to adult court get less punishment and fewer rehabilitative services

• The deterrent value of transfer is not clear (at best)




1. How are youth transferred?

2. Why do we transfer them?

3. What effect does it have?

4. So what?

4 Topics:



How Are Youth Transferred?

Different terms used in state law Waiver

Transfer

Direct file

Remand

Bind over

Certification

Exclusion




Various mechanisms used by states

Blended sentencing (transfer, in effect)

Judicial waiver

Presumptive/mandatory waiver Prosecutor direct file or concurrent jurisdiction Legislative exclusion (automatic waiver)

Juvenile judge decides

Juvenile judge “decides” within legislative limits

Prosecutor decides within legislative limits

Legislature makes some cases automatic adults

Juvenile & adult courts can combine juvenile & adult sanctions




If the question is, how do offenders under age 18 get to adult court?

There is one other mechanism…

Excluding all 16- and 17-year-olds from juvenile court




Age18

Juvenile Court

CriminalCourt

Age16

Any case movement is a transfer

All 16 & 17-year-olds come under criminal court jurisdiction

No “Transfer” is necessary• CT, NC, NY (adult at 16)

• GA, IL, LA, MA, MI, MO, NH, SC, TX, WI (adult at age 17)

When the upper age of jurisdiction is lowered…



How Many Youth Are Transferred?

The decision whether to consider these 16- and 17-year-olds as “transfers” has a profound effect on the size of the transferred population



How Many Youth Are Transferred?Nobody really knows exactly… but we have various estimates

All forms of judicial waiver

Prosecutorial discretion

All forms of legislative exclusion

8,000

4 to 10,000? ( 2,700 in Florida )

50,000 to 200,000?

NCJJ / OJJDP data







4. So what?

4 Topics:



Why Are Youth Transferred?

Reduce crime

Hold youth “accountable”

Increase public safety

Most people would say:



Why Are Youth Transferred?

Incapacitation

Specific deterrence

General deterrence

These are testable hypotheses

Does transfer increase…?



Implied Hypotheses

More incapacitation

Transferring young offenders to adult court means they will be incarcerated, and this reduces crime, by that person, at least for the time of imprisonment



Implied Hypotheses

More specific deterrence

Being transferred once makes an offender less likely to recidivate because he/she will not want to be transferred again



Implied Hypotheses

More general deterrence

Youth in general are less likely to commit crimes, because they see others being transferred and want to avoid it themselves



Questions Asked by Research

- Are youth in general less likely to offend when/where transfer is used more?

Does transfer increase general deterrence?

- Are transferred youth less likely than non-transferred youth to re-offend?

Does transfer increase specific deterrence?

- Are transferred youth more likely to be incarcerated and for longer terms?

Does transfer increase incapacitation?







4. So what?

4 Topics:



Specific Findings

Incapacitation

The chance of incarceration varies widely among transferred youth -- 20% to 80%

Serious and violent offenders are more likely to be incarcerated if transferred, but other youth are not (e.g., Fagan, studied cases in NY vs. NJ)

Mixed findings

Some positive findings

?



Specific Findings

Fagan: Who gets locked up more, longer?

Robbery Cases(ages 16 & 17)

Burglary Cases(ages 16 & 17)

New Jersey Juvenile Courts

New York Criminal Courts



Specific Findings

Specific Deterrence Youth convicted in criminal court are not less likely

to recidivate in general

If there is a deterrent effect, studies have not identified it yet, and the conditions necessary to achieve it are not known

Some studies suggest transfer increases rather than reduces post-release recidivism (e.g., Bishop, Frazier et al., transfers in Florida)

All negative findings…



Specific Findings

Lanza-Kaduce et al. : Who is re-arrested more, faster?

Florida youth in juvenile justice system

Florida youth sentenced in adult court

Case Matching Process

Recidivism?

475 Matched PairsSame age, sex, race, offense, # priors, most serious prior

49%

35%

Adult

Juvenile



Specific Findings

Lanza-Kaduce et al. : Who is re-arrested more, faster?

Florida youth in juvenile justice system

Florida youth sentenced in adult court

CaseMatching Process

Recidivism?

315 “Best-Matched” PairsSame as before, but also matched on weapon use, victim injury, property loss/damage, gang involvement, prior escape attempts, drug problems, etc.

49%

35%

Adult

Juvenile 37%



Specific Findings

General Deterrence There is no association between the use of

transfer and rates of juvenile crime

Juvenile crime does not vary systematically between states according to the availability and use of transfer

Before-and-after studies find that more transfer does not produce lower juvenile crime levels (e.g., Simon Singer, New York)

All negative findings…



Specific Findings

Singer: Do new transfer laws reduce crime?

Research Question

Did youth crime and violence go down as transfer expanded during the 1970s and 1980s?

• Some crime indicators went down in upstate New York, but up in NYC

• Other indicators went down in NYC, but the same trends were seen in other large cities outside of New York

Answer: No

1978 1980 1985 1990

New York Transfer Provisions Expand



Overall Assessment

Transfer is a failure based upon the three tests mentioned above:

- Incapacitation- Specific deterrence- General deterrence

Some increase in incapacitation, but only for the most serious and violent offenders

No clear deterrent effect



Why Does Transfer Fail? The justice system is a “system,” nobody

can guarantee a particular sentencing outcome (e.g., Snyder et al. study of expanded transfer in PA)

Other than the use and length of confinement, criminal & juvenile courts are not that different anymore. Why would we expect offenders to react so differently?

Like capital punishment, extreme sentences in the juvenile system are relatively rare and affect few people

Why no general deterrence?

Why no specific deterrence?

Why limited incapacitation?



So Why Do We Do It?

Another purpose of punishment:

Retribution

Powerful symbol of social condemnation

Widely embraced, even if no empirical connection to actual crime reduction







4. So what?

4 Topics:



So What?

Issues for Policymakers:

• Is simple retribution a legitimate goal in dealing with young offenders? Does the public agree?

• If transfer cannot guarantee incarceration, do community-based sentences in the adult system compare favorably with those in the juvenile system?

• Could the growing use of transfer undermine what is left of the juvenile justice system?



So What?

How could transfer undermine juvenile justice?

• Criminal court trial now seems like the only legitimate response to serious youth crime

• The more we remove serious cases from juvenile court, the more it looks like “kiddie court”

• Can a court for non-serious, non-violent, very young offenders be politically and fiscally viable for long?

• If not, what system will we have for young offenders?



Jeffrey A. ButtsDirector, Program on Youth

JusticeURBAN INSTITUTE

http://youth.urban.org

http://jbutts.com

to learn more about research on transfer

CLICK Here CLICK Here



Transfer References

Interactive Guide to the Research Literature

Many studies about the impact of criminal court transfer have been published during the past two decades.

Brief summaries and internet links are provided for some of the most influential and prominent of these studies.

To begin, click on any portion of the reference list.

Note:

Web Links require a connection to the internet and a working browser.Some links may lead to PDF files requiring the Adobe Acrobat Reader.

A - FA - F

G - MG - M

N - RN - R

S - ZS - Z

Return to Return to PresentationPresentation

Guide to Guide to ResearchResearch

Other LinksOther Links

Reference List



Transfer ReferencesAbeyratne, Senarath and Benita Sizemore (1999). Juveniles Waived to Criminal Courts in Ohio 1995-1997: Adjudication and Disposition. Columbus, OH: Ohio Department of Youth Services.

Bishop, Donna M., Charles E. Frazier, Lonn Lanza-Kaduce and Lawrence Winner (1996). The transfer of juveniles to criminal court: Does it make a difference? Crime & Delinquency 42:171-191.

Bortner, M. A. (1986). Traditional rhetoric, organization realities: Remand of juveniles to adult court. Crime & Delinquency 32:53-73.

Brown, Jodi M., and Patrick A. Langan (1998). State Court Sentencing of Convicted Felons, 1994 (Section VI). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Fagan, Jeffrey (1995). Separating the men from the boys: The comparative advantage of juvenile versus criminal court sanctions on recidivism among adolescent felony offenders, in Sourcebook on Serious, Violent, and Chronic Juvenile Offenders, eds. J. Howell et al., Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

and

Fagan, Jeffrey (1996). The comparative advantage of juvenile versus criminal court sanctions on recidivism among adolescent felony offenders. Law & Policy 18:77-113.

SummarySummary

SummarySummary

A - FA - F

G - MG - M

N - RN - R

S - ZS - Z


Reference ListReference List


SummarySummary

SummarySummary

SummarySummary

Web LinkWeb Link




Transfer ReferencesGreenwood, Peter W., Albert J. Lipson, Allan Abrahamse & Franklin Zimring (1983). Youth Crime and Juvenile Justice in California: A Report to the Legislature (R-3016-CSA). Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation.

Hamparian, Donna M., L. Estep, S. Muntean, R. Prestino, R. Swisher, P. Wallace and J.L. White (1982). Youth in Adult Courts: Between Two Worlds. Washington DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

Jensen, Eric L. and Linda K. Metsger (1994). A test of the deterrent effect of legislative waiver on violent juvenile crime. Crime and Delinquency 40:96-104.

Lanza-Kaduce, Lonn, Charles E. Frazier, Jodi Lane, Donna M. Bishop (2002). Juvenile Transfer to Criminal Court Study: Final Report. Tallahassee, FL: Florida Department of Juvenile Justice.

Levitt, Steven D. (1998). Juvenile crime and punishment. Journal of Political Economy 106(6):1156-1185.

McNulty, Elizabeth W. (1996). The transfer of juvenile offenders to adult court: Panacea or problem? Law & Policy 18:61-75.

SummarySummary

A - FA - F

G - MG - M

N - RN - R

S - ZS - Z




SummarySummary

SummarySummaryWeb LinkWeb Link

SummarySummary

SummarySummary

SummarySummary


Web LinkWeb Link



Transfer ReferencesPodkopacz, Marcy R. and Barry C. Feld (1996). End of the line: An empirical study of judicial waiver. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 86(2):449-492.

Podkopacz, Marcy R. and Barry C. Feld (2001). The back-door to prison: Waiver reform, “blended sentencing,” and the law of unintended consequences. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 91(4):997-1072.

Poulos, Tammy Meredith, and Stan Orchowsky (1994). Serious juvenile offenders: Predicting the probability of transfer of criminal court. Crime & Delinquency 40:3-17.

Risler, Edwin A., Tim Sweatman and Larry Nackerud (1998). Evaluating the Georgia legislative waiver's effectiveness in deterring juvenile crime. Research in Social Work Practice 8:657-667.

Rudman, Cary, Eliot Hartstone, Jeffrey Fagan and Melinda Moore (1986). Violent youth in adult court: Process and punishment. Crime and Delinquency 32:75-96.

A - FA - F

G - MG - M

N - RN - R

S - ZS - Z




SummarySummary

SummarySummary

SummarySummary

SummarySummary

SummarySummary




Transfer ReferencesSinger, Simon (1996). Recriminalizing Delinquency: Violent Juvenile Crime and Juvenile Justice Reform. Cambridge, England:Cambridge University Press.

and

Singer, Simon I. and David McDowall (1988). Criminalizing delinquency: The deterrent effects of the New York juvenile offender law. Law & Society Review 22:521-535.

Snyder, Howard, Melissa Sickmund, and Eileen Poe-Yamagata (2000). Juvenile Transfers to Criminal Court in the 1990's: Lessons Learned from Four Studies. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

Winner, Lawrence, Lonn Lanza-Kaduce, Donna M. Bishop and Charles E. Frazier (1997). The transfer of juveniles to criminal court: Reexamining recidivism over the long term. Crime and Delinquency 43:548-563.

SummarySummary

Web LinkWeb Link

A - FA - F

G - MG - M

N - RN - R

S - ZS - Z




SummarySummary

SummarySummary




Transfer ReferencesAbeyratne and Sizemore (1999)

Data indicate that from 1995 to 1997, 1,547 filings of bindover occurred in Ohio. The total number of cases included in the sample for this study, after eliminating multiple filings, was 1,330. Comparatively, the juveniles transferred to criminal court were a tiny fraction of the total juvenile court adjudications of each year. In addition to the number of juveniles transferred to criminal courts between 1995 and 1997, this report provides demographic profiles of waived juveniles and the waived juveniles convicted in criminal court. Data are also provided on the adjudicated offense, the adjudicated felony level, and the adjudicated offense type. The offense history of waived juveniles is also included, along with county of adjudication, disposition, convicted offense, convicted felony level, and convicted offense type. Sentences received are cited, and data are presented on plea bargains or indictments for additional/different offenses and felony levels. The youths waived to criminal court in Ohio were predominantly minorities and male. Three-fourths of adjudicated offenses belonged to Part One Crimes under Uniform Crime Reporting classification; more than one-half of the youths waived committed violent crimes. Ninety-five percent of the waived youths were convicted in the criminal court. Most (89.6 percent) were sentenced to imprisonment.

A - FA - F

G - MG - M

N - RN - R

S - ZS - Z




NCJRS AbstractNCJRS Abstract




Transfer ReferencesBishop et al. (1996); Winner et al. (1997)

Tracked recidivism for up to 7 years among nearly 3,000 Florida youth who were either retained in juvenile court or transferred to criminal court (largely by prosecutors).

Samples were matched on on seven criteria: most serious offense; number of counts in current case; number of prior referrals to juvenile court; most serious prior offense; age; gender; and, race.

Results suggested that transfer was "more likely to aggravate recidivism than to stem it" (Winner et al., 1997: 558-559).

Transferred and retained youth had similar patterns of re-offending, although some property offenders convicted in criminal court had a lower rate of re-arrest than their counterparts retained in juvenile court.

Transferred youth generally re-offended more quickly than did youth retained in the juvenile justice system, but the prevalence of recidivism for retained youth eventually caught up to the level of transferred youth.

Among the youth that recidivated, transferred youth tended to re-offend more often and more quickly.

A - FA - F

G - MG - M

N - RN - R

S - ZS - Z







Transfer ReferencesBrown and Langan (1998)

Excerpts from the report:

In 1994 an estimated 872,000 adults were convicted of a felony in State courts. Of them, approximately 21,000 were persons under age 18.

A larger percentage of those under 18 (40%) than of those 18 or over (19%) had a violent crime as their conviction offense.

• Among defendants convicted of aggravated assaults, 72% of those under age 18 received a prison sentence, compared to 49% of those 18 or older.

• Among defendants sentenced to prison, those under age 18 had about the same length of sentence as older defendants for property and drug crimes. However, for weapons and violent offenses, defendants under age 18 received longer sentences on average than those age 18 or older.

• For robbery, defendants under age 18 received an average prison sentence of about 10 years--15 months longer than the average sentence of older defendants.

A - FA - F

G - MG - M

N - RN - R

S - ZS - Z







Transfer ReferencesBortner (1986)

• 1980 and 1981 data on 214 youth transferred to criminal court in an unnamed Western State

• 96% of transferred youth were convicted or plead guilty

• 63% received probation as the primary sanction

• 32% resulted in some jail or prison time

Published Abstract: “There is little evidence to suggest that those juveniles remanded are singularly dangerous or intractable, nor is there evidence to suggest that their remand enhances public safety. In contrast to traditional rhetoric, the present analysis suggests that organizational and political factors account for the high rate of remand. In evidencing a willingness to relinquish jurisdiction over a small percentage of its clientele, and by portraying these juveniles as the most intractable and the greatest threat to public safety, the juvenile system not only creates an effective symbolic gesture regarding protection of the public but it also advances its territorial interests in maintaining jurisdiction over the vast majority of juveniles and deflecting more encompassing criticisms of the entire system.”

A - FA - F

G - MG - M

N - RN - R

S - ZS - Z







Transfer ReferencesFagan (1995 & 1996)

Collected data on 2 groups of offenders: 1) youth retained in northern New Jersey's juvenile court system, and 2) similar youth excluded from southeastern New York's juvenile courts due to upper age of juvenile court jurisdiction (age 15 in NY; age 17 in NJ) and some legislative exclusions. All offenders were age 15 or 16 and charged with burglary or robbery. Samples selected at random from 2 NJ counties and 2 NY counties, then matched on legal and social measures.

Robbery offenders in criminal court were found guilty more often (57%) than their counterparts in juvenile court (46%). Of youth found guilty of robbery, those in criminal court were more likely to be incarcerated (46% vs. 18%). Youth charged with burglary in criminal court were no more likely to be convicted or incarcerated than the matched sample of youth charged in juvenile court.

Youth charged with robbery who were convicted (or plead guilty) in adult court re-offended more quickly and more frequently than comparable youth adjudicated in juvenile court. Successful periods of time until re-arrest were 50 percent longer for robbery offenders sentenced in juvenile court than for robbery offenders sentenced in criminal court -- 4 of 5 burglars from both courts were re-arrested during the follow-up period. No significant differences were found in time to re-arrest for convicted or adjudicated burglars.

A - FA - F

G - MG - M

N - RN - R

S - ZS - Z







Transfer ReferencesGreenwood, Lipson, Abrahamse & Zimring (1983)

Compared juvenile and adult court outcomes in three large California jurisdictions for a sample of cases involving juveniles and young adults (ages 16-21) charged with armed robbery or residential burglary. Adult court sentences were more severe on average, but the difference was partly due to the juvenile court's differentiated handling of cases. Aggravating factors (prior offenses or prior violent offenses) received more severe responses in juvenile court. Aggravating factors had less effect on the severity of criminal court sentences, which were more likely to be based strictly on the charges involved.

Among Los Angeles armed robbery cases, for example, juvenile court offenders with two or more aggravating factors were nearly 3 times as likely to be sentenced to incarceration as those with no aggravating factors. The difference was much smaller in the criminal court.

A - FA - F

G - MG - M

N - RN - R

S - ZS - Z




38%43%One23%41%None

JuvenilesYoung AdultsNumber of Aggravating Factors

Percent of youthful offenders sentenced to terms of incarceration

63%53%Two or More




Transfer ReferencesHamparian et al. (1982)

• 1978 data from a multi-state study and literature review

• Estimated 12,600 juvenile cases per year sent to criminal court

• More than two-thirds were judicial waivers; only 10% automatically excluded by state law

• 91% percent of juveniles tried in criminal court were convicted

• More than half the criminal convictions resulted in probation, fines, or other non-incarcerative sanctions

• 46% of judicial transfers and 39% of prosecutor direct files ended in sentences that involved any term of incarceration

A - FA - F

G - MG - M

N - RN - R

S - ZS - Z







Transfer ReferencesJensen & Metsger (1994)

Compared changes in juvenile violence in Idaho, which had recently expanded its transfer laws, to crime in Montana and Wyoming, which had not changed their transfer laws.

Evaluated the deterrent effect of an expanded transfer statute passed by Idaho in 1981. The law required criminal-court transfer for juveniles charged with violent offenses (e.g., murder, attempted murder, robbery, forcible rape). The study tracked arrest rates five years before and five years after the enactment of the new law, but found no evidence of a deterrent effect. The rates of violent crime in Montana and Wyoming were similar to those of Idaho.

The analysis failed to find a significant difference in rates of youth violence following the implementation of expanded transfer provisions.

A - FA - F

G - MG - M

N - RN - R

S - ZS - Z







Transfer ReferencesLanza-Kaduce et al. (2002)

Study measured felony recidivism among young offenders in Florida who were either retained in juvenile court and sanctioned in the juvenile justice system or transferred to adult court and received criminal sentences. Like their previous studies using Florida data, the researchers created equivalent samples of offenders, matching 475 pairs of offenders on gender, age, race, offense, number of charges, previous referrals, and most serious prior referral offense.

Unlike their previous work, they used more detailed data to create 315 “best-matched” pairs using a wide range of factors obtained through direct reviews of agency case files, including case complexity, weapon use, victim loss/injury, role of co-defendants, previous escape charges and defendant failures to appear, and other variables such as school functioning, grade levels, and drug and alcohol use and addiction. Each pair was tracked for equivalent time periods to detect subsequent felonies after the defendant had reached age 18.

475 Matched Pairs

315 “Best-Matched”

Pairs

Adult System 49% 49%

Juvenile System 35% 37%

A - FA - F

G - MG - M

N - RN - R

S - ZS - Z




Percentage of felony recidivism among matched pairs of of offenders




Transfer ReferencesLevitt (1998)

Analyzed the differences between states in how severely they punish criminal offending (judged by the use of incarceration) and the extent to which arrest rates change after youth reach the age of criminal responsibility.

Found that in states where juveniles are punished similarly to adults, arrest rates do not drop markedly at the age of legal adulthood. Where states punish adults more than juveniles, however, violent crime arrests drop 25 percent in the first year after individuals are treated as adults in the courts. This was interpreted as possible support for a general deterrent effect from expanded use of criminal court transfer.

The study examined only aggregate arrest rates, however, and did not track the link between severity of punishment and criminal behavior by individual youth. In addition, the data used for the study were from 1978 to 1993, just before the sudden drop in violent crime among both adults and juveniles. The findings do not address whether the empirical relationship reported by Levitt survived the turnaround in crime rates during the mid- to late-1990s.

A - FA - F

G - MG - M

N - RN - R

S - ZS - Z







Transfer ReferencesMcNulty (1996)

• 92% of a sample of transferred cases were convicted

• 43% of those transferred cases received a sentence involving incarceration

• 49% of transferred cases resulted in probation as the most serious sanction

A - FA - F

G - MG - M

N - RN - R

S - ZS - Z







Transfer ReferencesPodkopacz and Feld (1996)

Followed transferred and non-transferred youthful offenders in Hennepin County, Minnesota. Transferred youth were more likely to re-offend (58 percent versus 42 percent over 24 months at large).

Youth convicted in criminal court were more likely to be sentenced to confinement (85%) than were youth handled in juvenile court (63%), even after controlling for the seriousness of offenses.

Youth convicted of offenses carrying presumptive terms of incarceration (e.g., violent offenses), received much longer sentences from the criminal court (roughly 4 years) than from juvenile court (approximately 9 months). The relationship reversed, however, for youth convicted of non-presumptive offenses (usually property). Youth adjudicated for these offenses in juvenile court were sentenced to longer periods of incarceration (about 6 months) than were youth convicted in criminal court (about 4.5 months).

A - FA - F

G - MG - M

N - RN - R

S - ZS - Z







Transfer ReferencesPodkopacz and Feld (2001)

Reviewed case processing and trial outcomes for young offenders in Hennepin County, Minnesota before and after the enactment of Minnesota’s “blended sentencing” statute in 1995. The new law had several impacts on the handling of young offenders:

• The number of youth eligible for adult sanctions increased dramatically.

• The number of youth actually certified for adult court trial, however, was relatively unchanged compared to the volume of certifications before 1995.

• The biggest increase was in the number of youth deemed inappropriate for adult-court certification directly, but appropriate for Extended Jurisdiction Juvenile status (or, EJJ).

• The EJJ provision allowed courts to handle youth in juvenile court (with adult-like procedural guarantees) and then impose a lengthy adult sentence, which would be stayed pending a determination of the youth’s “amenability” to sanctioning in the juvenile system. Revocation of EJJ status for these youth, according to the authors, placed youth at risk of entering the adult system through the “back door.”

The change in the law made the juvenile sanctioning process more complex and more contentious, and the youth who were at risk of adult sanctioning for the first time were disproportionately minority and female.

A - FA - F

G - MG - M

N - RN - R

S - ZS - Z







Transfer ReferencesPoulos and Orchowsky (1994)

Under the Virginia law, a child of 15 or older who is charged with a felony can be transferred to criminal court. This study sought to identify the legal and extralegal factors that make it more likely that a juvenile offender will be transferred to criminal court. This was accomplished by comparing a sample of 364 serious juvenile offenders who were transferred and convicted in criminal court with 363 offenders who were eligible for transfer but were instead incarcerated within the juvenile justice system in a juvenile learning center. Commitment to a learning center is the most severe sanction available to Virginia's juvenile courts, short of transfer. Variables examined were put into five categories: demographic, current offense, victim-related, drug/alcohol abuse treatment and prior criminal or delinquency record. Thirteen of the factors considered were found to be statistically significant in predicting the outcome of a transfer determination. Among these are the current offense, prior record and commitment history and the age of the offender.

A - FA - F

G - MG - M

N - RN - R

S - ZS - Z




NCJRS AbstractNCJRS Abstract




Transfer ReferencesRisler, Sweatman, and Nackerud (1998)

Researchers in Georgia failed to detect a significant difference in the rate of juvenile offending following enactment of expanded transfer provisions.

The findings suggested that the broader use of criminal court transfer did not have a general deterrent effect on youth.

Published Abstract: "In an effort to curb the reported increases in violent juvenile crime, the growing trend of state legislatures is the removal of crimes specified as serious from the jurisdiction of the juvenile court. Having been legislatively waived, these offenses are placed within the jurisdiction of the superior court, and the offender, regardless of age, is tried as an adult. This investigation reports on the deterrent effect of the Georgia legislative waiver passed in 1994. A quasi-experimental cohort design is ued in a comparison of the mean arrest rates for juveniles arrested for the specified crimes before and after the law's enactment. The analysis of the data suggests that there were no significant reductions in the mean arrest rates for the offenses specified by the law. Findings are consistent with studies that evaluated the legislative waiver in other states and suggest that the law does not reduce serious juvenile crime."

A - FA - F

G - MG - M

N - RN - R

S - ZS - Z







Transfer ReferencesRudman et al. (1986)

Tracked juvenile and criminal court outcomes for 177 violent youth considered for transfer in four jurisdictions. • 40% retained in juvenile court• 60% transferred to criminal court

Those receiving incarceration longer than 2 years:• 43% in juvenile court• 88% in criminal court

Differences in sentencing may have been due to prosecutor/judge selection of more serious cases for transfer.

A - FA - F

G - MG - M

N - RN - R

S - ZS - Z







Transfer ReferencesSinger (1996)

Examined the impact of New York State law that automatically transferred any juvenile from over age 12 who committed one of several violent offenses, including murder, robbery, and serious assault. The new law required juveniles to serve relatively long sentences in secure facilities. Juveniles convicted of 2nd Degree Murder were mandated to a sentence of not less than 5 years. Offenders age 14 and older convicted of other violent offenses were required to serve similarly long sentences.

Evaluated the general deterrent effect of the law using interrupted time series and regression models to compare monthly arrest rates for youth affected by the law with two groups of youth not affected: Philadelphia juveniles and New York youth ages 16 to 18 and thus not eligible for juvenile court.

The new law had no consistent or significant effects on juvenile violence. In most instances where arrest rates appeared to fall after enactment of the policy, the effect was not consistent across the State. Rates may have dropped for some offenses in upstate New York but not in New York City (or vice versa), raising doubts about the influence of the statewide policy. Where arrest rates did drop in New York City, there were usually comparable declines in Philadelphia where transfer laws had not changed substantially.

Results indicate that "a switch in legal setting and an increase in the severity of punishment does not necessarily lead to a reduction in violent juvenile crime" (Singer, 1996:164).

A - FA - F

G - MG - M

N - RN - R

S - ZS - Z







Transfer ReferencesSnyder, Sickmund, and Poe-Yamagata (2000)

Prior to 1996, Pennsylvania relied largely on judicial waiver to send serious juvenile offenders to adult court. That year, a new law automatically transferred many juveniles who were routinely waived by judges but also targeted youth that would have been unlikely candidates for waiver (i.e., very young offenders, females, and those with limited arrest records). Researchers tracked court outcomes for 473 juveniles who met the new criteria for automatic exclusion. Each case was followed through several stages of prosecution and trial. In half of the cases targeted for exclusion, criminal courts either declined to prosecute (19%) or sent the youth back to juvenile court (31%).

Even when cases were approved for criminal prosecution, more than half ended in dismissal, probation, or other sentences not involving incarceration. The youth who were least likely to be convicted and incarcerated by the criminal court were similar to youth least likely to have been waived in the pre-1996 system (i.e., younger, no use of weapons, few prior offenses).

The new law swept many younger and less serious offenders into adult court and the system adapted by dismissing more cases prior to trial, returning more youth to juvenile court, and imposing more community-based sentences. Youth ending up in jail or prison were basically the same type of youth waived before 1996. Juvenile judges waived fewer cases before the new law, but most (77%) of those waived were incarcerated. Of those automatically excluded by the new law, just 19% were incarcerated following criminal court conviction.

A - FA - F

G - MG - M

N - RN - R

S - ZS - Z







Transfer ReferencesLinks to Other Resources About Criminal Court Transfer

• PBS Frontline PBS Frontline

Essays from the Institute of Law, Psychiatry, & Public Policy

• Coalition for Juvenile Justice (CJJ) Position Statement on TransferCoalition for Juvenile Justice (CJJ) Position Statement on Transfer

A - FA - F

G - MG - M

N - RN - R

S - ZS - Z




• DeterrenceDeterrence

• RecidivismRecidivism• SentencingSentencing

• Legal ConsequencesLegal Consequences


• Building Blocks for YouthBuilding Blocks for Youth

• Joint Center for Poverty ResearchJoint Center for Poverty Research

Books from the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation Series

• Youth on TrialYouth on Trial

• The Changing Borders of Juvenile JusticeThe Changing Borders of Juvenile Justice

• Urban InstituteUrban Institute

youth in adult courts – an overview of the issue

Documents