Jeffrey Butts, Ph.D.
Program on Youth Justice
URBAN INSTITUTE
Coalition for Juvenile Justice
Fall Training Conference
Miami Beach, Florida
November 7, 2002
Also includes: Interactive Research Guide
The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to The Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders.
URBAN INSTITUTE
Justice Policy Center

Youth in Adult Courts
• 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)
The views expressed are those of the author and should not be attributed to The Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders.
URBAN INSTITUTE
Justice Policy Center

Youth in Adult Courts
The views expressed are those of the author and should not be attributed to The Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders.
URBAN INSTITUTE
Justice Policy Center

How Are Youth Transferred?







The views expressed are those of the author and should not be attributed to The Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders.
URBAN INSTITUTE
Justice Policy Center

How Are Youth Transferred?
 Judicial waiver Juvenile judge decides
 Presumptive/mandatory waiver
 Prosecutor direct file or concurrent jurisdiction
 Legislative exclusion
(automatic waiver)
 Blended sentencing
(transfer, in effect)
The views expressed are those of the author and should not be attributed to The Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders.
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
URBAN INSTITUTE
Justice Policy Center

How Are Youth Transferred?
The views expressed are those of the author and should not be attributed to The Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders.
URBAN INSTITUTE
Justice Policy Center

How Are Youth Transferred?
Age
18
Age
16
Criminal
Court
Juvenile
Court
The views expressed are those of the author and should not be attributed to The Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders.
• CT, NC, NY (adult at 16)
• GA, IL, LA, MA, MI,
MO, NH, SC, TX, WI
(adult at age 17)
URBAN INSTITUTE
Justice Policy Center

How Many Youth Are Transferred?
The views expressed are those of the author and should not be attributed to The Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders.
URBAN INSTITUTE
Justice Policy Center

How Many Youth Are Transferred?
All forms of judicial waiver
8,000 NCJJ / OJJDP data
Prosecutorial discretion
All forms of legislative exclusion
4 to 10,000?
( 2,700 in Florida )
The views expressed are those of the author and should not be attributed to The Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders.
URBAN INSTITUTE
Justice Policy Center

Youth in Adult Courts
The views expressed are those of the author and should not be attributed to The Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders.
URBAN INSTITUTE
Justice Policy Center

Why Are Youth Transferred?



The views expressed are those of the author and should not be attributed to The Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders.
URBAN INSTITUTE
Justice Policy Center

Why Are Youth Transferred?



The views expressed are those of the author and should not be attributed to The Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders.
URBAN INSTITUTE
Justice Policy Center

Implied Hypotheses
The views expressed are those of the author and should not be attributed to The Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders.
URBAN INSTITUTE
Justice Policy Center

Implied Hypotheses
The views expressed are those of the author and should not be attributed to The Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders.
URBAN INSTITUTE
Justice Policy Center

Implied Hypotheses
The views expressed are those of the author and should not be attributed to The Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders.
URBAN INSTITUTE
Justice Policy Center

Questions Asked by Research
Does transfer increase incapacitation?
- Are transferred youth more likely to be incarcerated and for longer terms?
Does transfer increase specific deterrence?
Does transfer increase general deterrence?
- Are transferred youth less likely than non-transferred youth to re-offend?
- Are youth in general less likely to offend when/where transfer is used more?
The views expressed are those of the author and should not be attributed to The Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders.
URBAN INSTITUTE
Justice Policy Center

Youth in Adult Courts
The views expressed are those of the author and should not be attributed to The Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders.
URBAN INSTITUTE
Justice Policy Center

Specific Findings
?
The chance of incarceration varies widely
Serious and violent offenders are more likely to be
(e.g., Fagan, studied cases in NY vs. NJ)
The views expressed are those of the author and should not be attributed to The Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders.
URBAN INSTITUTE
Justice Policy Center

Specific Findings
New Jersey
Juvenile Courts
New York
Criminal Courts
(ages 16 & 17)
(ages 16 & 17)
The views expressed are those of the author and should not be attributed to The Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders.
URBAN INSTITUTE
Justice Policy Center

Specific Findings
Youth convicted in criminal court are not less likely to recidivate in general 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)
The views expressed are those of the author and should not be attributed to The Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders.
URBAN INSTITUTE
Justice Policy Center

Specific Findings
: Who is re-arrested more, faster?
Florida youth in juvenile justice system
Adult
Recidivism?
49%
Case
Matching
Process
Juvenile 35%
Florida youth sentenced in adult court
475 Matched Pairs
Same age, sex, race, offense,
# priors, most serious prior
The views expressed are those of the author and should not be attributed to The Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders.
URBAN INSTITUTE
Justice Policy Center

Specific Findings
: Who is re-arrested more, faster?
Florida youth in juvenile justice system
Recidivism?
Adult 49%
Case
Matching
Process
Juvenile 35% 37%
Florida youth sentenced in adult court
The views expressed are those of the author and should not be attributed to The Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders.
315 “Best-Matched” Pairs
Same as before, but also matched on weapon use, victim injury, property loss/damage, gang involvement, prior escape attempts, drug problems, etc.
URBAN INSTITUTE
Justice Policy Center

Specific Findings
There is no association between the use of transfer and rates of juvenile crime 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)
The views expressed are those of the author and should not be attributed to The Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders.
URBAN INSTITUTE
Justice Policy Center

Specific Findings
New York Transfer Provisions Expand
1978 1980 1985 1990
Research Question
Did youth crime and violence go down as transfer expanded during the 1970s and 1980s?
Answer: No
• 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
The views expressed are those of the author and should not be attributed to The Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders.
URBAN INSTITUTE
Justice Policy Center

Overall Assessment
- Incapacitation
- Specific deterrence
- General deterrence
The views expressed are those of the author and should not be attributed to The Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders.
URBAN INSTITUTE
Justice Policy Center

Why Does Transfer Fail?
Why limited incapacitation?
 The justice system is a “system,” nobody can guarantee a particular sentencing outcome (e.g., Snyder et al. study of expanded transfer in PA)
Why no specific deterrence?
 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?
Why no general deterrence?
 Like capital punishment, extreme sentences in the juvenile system are relatively rare and affect few people
The views expressed are those of the author and should not be attributed to The Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders.
URBAN INSTITUTE
Justice Policy Center

So Why Do We Do It?
 Powerful symbol of social condemnation
 Widely embraced, even if no empirical connection to actual crime reduction
The views expressed are those of the author and should not be attributed to The Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders.
URBAN INSTITUTE
Justice Policy Center

Youth in Adult Courts
The views expressed are those of the author and should not be attributed to The Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders.
URBAN INSTITUTE
Justice Policy Center

So What?
The views expressed are those of the author and should not be attributed to The Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders.
URBAN INSTITUTE
Justice Policy Center

So What?
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?
The views expressed are those of the author and should not be attributed to The Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders.
URBAN INSTITUTE
Justice Policy Center

http://
http://
The views expressed are those of the author and should not be attributed to The Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders.
CLICK Here to learn more about research on transfer
URBAN INSTITUTE
Justice Policy Center

Transfer References
Reference List
A - F
G - M
N - R
S - Z
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.
Return to
Presentation
Guide to
Research
Other Links
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.
The views expressed are those of the author and should not be attributed to The Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders.
URBAN INSTITUTE
Justice Policy Center

Transfer References
Reference List
A - F
Summary
Abeyratne, Senarath and Benita Sizemore (1999). Juveniles Waived to
Criminal Courts in Ohio 1995-1997: Adjudication and Disposition . Columbus,
OH: Ohio Department of Youth Services.
G - M
N - R
Summary
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.
S - Z
Summary
Bortner, M. A. (1986). Traditional rhetoric, organization realities: Remand of juveniles to adult court. Crime & Delinquency 32 :53-73.
Return to
Presentation
Summary
Web Link
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.
Guide to
Research
Other Links
Summary
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.
The views expressed are those of the author and should not be attributed to The Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders.
URBAN INSTITUTE
Justice Policy Center

Return to
Presentation
Guide to
Research
Other Links
Transfer References
Reference List
A - F
G - M
N - R
S - Z
Summary
Greenwood, 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.
Summary
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.
Summary
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.
Summary
Web Link
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.
Summary
Web Link
Levitt, Steven D. (1998). Juvenile crime and punishment. Journal of Political
Economy 10 6(6):1156-1185.
Summary
McNulty, Elizabeth W. (1996). The transfer of juvenile offenders to adult court:
Panacea or problem? Law & Policy 18 :61-75.
The views expressed are those of the author and should not be attributed to The Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders.
URBAN INSTITUTE
Justice Policy Center

Return to
Presentation
Guide to
Research
Other Links
Transfer References
Reference List
A - F
G - M
N - R
S - Z
Summary
Podkopacz, 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.
Summary
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.
Summary
Poulos, Tammy Meredith, and Stan Orchowsky (1994). Serious juvenile offenders: Predicting the probability of transfer of criminal court. Crime &
Delinquency 40 :3-17.
Summary
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.
Summary
Rudman, Cary, Eliot Hartstone, Jeffrey Fagan and Melinda Moore (1986).
Violent youth in adult court: Process and punishment. Crime and Delinquency
32 :75-96.
The views expressed are those of the author and should not be attributed to The Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders.
URBAN INSTITUTE
Justice Policy Center

Return to
Presentation
Guide to
Research
Transfer References
Reference List
A - F
G - M
N - R
S - Z
Summary
Singer, 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.
Summary
Web Link
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.
Summary
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.
Other Links
The views expressed are those of the author and should not be attributed to The Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders.
URBAN INSTITUTE
Justice Policy Center

Return to
Presentation
Guide to
Research
Other Links
Transfer References
Reference List
A - F
G - M
N - R
S - Z
Abeyratne and Sizemore (1999)
NCJRS Abstract
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.
The views expressed are those of the author and should not be attributed to The Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders.
URBAN INSTITUTE
Justice Policy Center

Return to
Presentation
Guide to
Research
Other Links
Transfer References
Reference List
A - F
G - M
N - R
S - Z
Bishop 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 rearrest 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.
The views expressed are those of the author and should not be attributed to The Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders.
URBAN INSTITUTE
Justice Policy Center

Return to
Presentation
Guide to
Research
Other Links
Transfer References
Reference List
A - F
G - M
N - R
S - Z
Brown 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.
The views expressed are those of the author and should not be attributed to The Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders.
URBAN INSTITUTE
Justice Policy Center

Return to
Presentation
Guide to
Research
Other Links
Transfer References
Reference List
A - F
G - M
N - R
S - Z
Bortner (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.”
The views expressed are those of the author and should not be attributed to The Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders.
URBAN INSTITUTE
Justice Policy Center

Return to
Presentation
Guide to
Research
Other Links
Transfer References
Reference List
A - F
G - M
N - R
S - Z
Fagan (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.
The views expressed are those of the author and should not be attributed to The Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders.
URBAN INSTITUTE
Justice Policy Center

Return to
Presentation
Guide to
Research
Transfer References
Reference List
A - F
G - M
N - R
S - Z
Greenwood, 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.
Other Links
Percent of youthful offenders sentenced to terms of incarceration
Number of
Aggravating Factors
None
One
Two or More
Young Adults
41%
43%
53%
Juveniles
23%
38%
63%
The views expressed are those of the author and should not be attributed to The Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders.
URBAN INSTITUTE
Justice Policy Center

Return to
Presentation
Guide to
Research
Transfer References
Reference List
A - F
G - M
N - R
S - Z
Hamparian 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
Other Links
The views expressed are those of the author and should not be attributed to The Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders.
URBAN INSTITUTE
Justice Policy Center

Return to
Presentation
Guide to
Research
Transfer References
Reference List
A - F
G - M
N - R
S - Z
Jensen & 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.
Other Links
The views expressed are those of the author and should not be attributed to The Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders.
URBAN INSTITUTE
Justice Policy Center

Return to
Presentation
Guide to
Research
Transfer References
Reference List
A - F
G - M
N - R
S - Z
Lanza-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 “bestmatched” 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.
Other Links
Percentage of felony recidivism among matched pairs of of offenders
475
Matched Pairs
315
“Best-Matched” Pairs
Adult System
Juvenile System
49%
35%
49%
37%
The views expressed are those of the author and should not be attributed to The Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders.
URBAN INSTITUTE
Justice Policy Center

Return to
Presentation
Guide to
Research
Transfer References
Reference List
A - F
G - M
N - R
S - Z
Levitt (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.
Other Links
The views expressed are those of the author and should not be attributed to The Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders.
URBAN INSTITUTE
Justice Policy Center

Transfer References
Reference List
A - F
G - M
N - R
S - Z
McNulty (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
Return to
Presentation
Guide to
Research
Other Links
The views expressed are those of the author and should not be attributed to The Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders.
URBAN INSTITUTE
Justice Policy Center

Return to
Presentation
Guide to
Research
Transfer References
Reference List
A - F
G - M
N - R
S - Z
Podkopacz 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).
Other Links
The views expressed are those of the author and should not be attributed to The Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders.
URBAN INSTITUTE
Justice Policy Center

Return to
Presentation
Guide to
Research
Other Links
Transfer References
Reference List
A - F
G - M
N - R
S - Z
Podkopacz 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.
The views expressed are those of the author and should not be attributed to The Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders.
URBAN INSTITUTE
Justice Policy Center

Return to
Presentation
Guide to
Research
Transfer References
Reference List
A - F
G - M
N - R
S - Z
Poulos and Orchowsky (1994)
NCJRS Abstract
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.
Other Links
The views expressed are those of the author and should not be attributed to The Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders.
URBAN INSTITUTE
Justice Policy Center

Return to
Presentation
Guide to
Research
Other Links
Transfer References
Reference List
A - F
G - M
N - R
S - Z
Risler, 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."
The views expressed are those of the author and should not be attributed to The Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders.
URBAN INSTITUTE
Justice Policy Center

Transfer References
Reference List
A - F
G - M
N - R
S - Z
Rudman 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.
Return to
Presentation
Guide to
Research
Other Links
The views expressed are those of the author and should not be attributed to The Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders.
URBAN INSTITUTE
Justice Policy Center

Transfer References
Reference List
A - F
G - M
N - R
S - Z
Return to
Presentation
Guide to
Research
Other Links
Singer (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).
The views expressed are those of the author and should not be attributed to The Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders.
URBAN INSTITUTE
Justice Policy Center

Transfer References
Reference List
A - F
G - M
N - R
S - Z
Return to
Presentation
Guide to
Research
Other Links
Snyder, 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.
The views expressed are those of the author and should not be attributed to The Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders.
URBAN INSTITUTE
Justice Policy Center

Transfer References
Reference List
A - F
G - M
N - R
S - Z
Links to Other Resources About Criminal Court Transfer
• PBS Frontline
• Coalition for Juvenile Justice (CJJ) Position Statement on Transfer
• Urban Institute
• Building Blocks for Youth
• Joint Center for Poverty Research
Return to
Presentation
Guide to
Research
Other Links
Essays from the Institute of Law, Psychiatry, & Public Policy
• Sentencing • Recidivism
• Deterrence • Legal Consequences
Books from the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation Series
• The Changing Borders of Juvenile Justice
• Youth on Trial
The views expressed are those of the author and should not be attributed to The Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders.
URBAN INSTITUTE
Justice Policy Center