Research Listing
and Summaries of
Key Studies:
Trying, Sentencing & Incarcerating Youth
in the Adult Criminal Justice System
March, 2007
Prepared by the Campaign for Youth Justice
www.campaignforyouthjustice.org
Index
Comprehensive Studies .................................................................................................... 3
Key Topics ......................................................................................................................... 6
Adolescent Brain Development ........................................................................................ 6
Adult Jails and Prisons: Conditions of Confinement ................................................... 7
Alternatives to the Adult Criminal Justice System ........................................................ 8
Blended Sentencing ......................................................................................................... 11
Competency to Stand Trial ............................................................................................ 11
Consequences of an Adult Conviction........................................................................... 13
Costs ................................................................................................................................. 13
Gender Disparities .......................................................................................................... 14
Human Rights and International Human Rights ........................................................ 14
Juvenile Population Data ............................................................................................... 14
Juvenile Life Without Parole ......................................................................................... 15
Polling on Trying Youth As Adults ............................................................................... 15
Racial Disparities ............................................................................................................ 15
Rape and Sexual Assault ................................................................................................ 17
Recidivism: Juvenile Justice System vs. Adult Criminal Justice System .................. 17
State Studies: Comparisons and Individual State Studies on the Impact of Trying
Youth as Adults ............................................................................................................... 19
State Legislation .............................................................................................................. 25
Suicide .............................................................................................................................. 25
Transfer and Waivers to Adult Court: Data and Analysis ........................................ 26
What Doesn’t Work in the Juvenile Justice System .................................................... 30
2
Comprehensive Studies
Benekos, P. & Merlo, A. (1998). Juvenile Justice at the Crossroads: Waiver Policy and the Centennial of the Juvenile
Court. Paper presented at the American Society of Criminology Annual Meeting in Washington, D.C., on November
11, 1998. Available at the US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Criminal Justice Reference
Service.
Summary: In this paper, the authors argue that by focusing on the prevention of delinquency (primary and
secondary), the policy debate can move beyond treatment versus punishment and continue to emphasize and
develop strategies and programs that are effective in stopping and reducing the incidence of crime by youth.
As a model for dealing with youth, this report focuses on a balanced approach of accountability, public
safety, and competency development.
Campaign for Youth Justice (2007). The Consequences Aren’t Minor: The Impact of Trying Youth As Adults and
Strategies for Reform. Washington, DC: Author. Available online at: www.campaign4youthjustice.org (available as of
March 2, 2007).
Summary: The report provides a snapshot of youth in the adult criminal justice system in eight states (CA,
CT, DC, FL, IL, NC, VA, and WI). Each state chapter includes state-specific recommendations on how the
laws and policies in those states could be updated and the overall report includes national recommendations
including amending the Juvenile Justice & Delinquency Prevention Act (JJDPA) in 2007 by imposing a
federal ban on placement of young people in adult jails and prisons.
Coalition for Juvenile Justice. (2005). Childhood on Trail: The Failure of Trying & Sentencing Youth in Adult Criminal
Court. Washington, DC: Author. Available from the Coalition for Juvenile Justice at www.juvjustice.org (available as
of March 2, 2007).
Summary: This report identifies the public safety and rehabilitative failures of our nation's widespread "adult
time for adult crime" policies, and reaffirms the effectiveness of retaining the vast majority of youth in the
juvenile court system. The report provides a primer on the various means by which an estimated quarter
million juvenile offenders are sent into the adult criminal court each year, nationwide, including judicial
waiver, direct file and statutory exclusion. It also profiles efforts for reform in more than a dozen states,
including legislative reform and awareness campaigns. The report also evaluates various responses to statelevel transfer policies, such as reverse waiver, blended sentencing and juvenile services in adult prisons.
Griffin, P., Torbet, P., & Szymanski, L. (1998). Trying Juveniles as Adults in Criminal Court: An Analysis of State
Transfer Provisions. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile
Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Available from (OJJDP's) Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse at 800-638-8736. Also
available online at: http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/172836.pdf (available as of February 16, 2007).
Summary: From 1992 through 1995, 40 States and the District of Columbia passed laws making it easier for
juveniles to be tried as adults. To better understand the growing trend and the potential impact on youth
crime, this paper examines the nature of offenses that trigger such transfers and various mechanisms used to
affect them. The paper discusses direct file provisions, which typically authorize the prosecutor to determine
jurisdiction based on age/offense categories, and statutory exclusions, which remove certain offenses or
age/offense categories from the jurisdiction of the juvenile court. In addition, the report covers "once an
adult/always an adult" provisions; transfer for nonviolent offenses; requirements for additional pre-transfer
findings; evidentiary standards for waivers and transfers; transfer treatment based on an individual's record;
devices to limit prosecutorial discretion; and minimum age provisions.
Hartney, C. (2006). Youth Under Age 18 in the Adult Criminal Justice System. The National Council on Crime and
Delinquency. Available online at: http://www.nccd-crc.org/nccd/pubs/2006may_factsheet_youthadult.pdf (available as
of February 16, 2007).
Summary: This fact sheet includes the latest data and research on processing youth in the adult system.
Kupchik, A., Fagen, J., & Liberman, A. (2002). Punishment, proportionality, and jurisdictional transfer of adolescent
offenders: a test of the leniency gap hypothesis. Columbia Law School, Pub. Law Research Paper No. 02-45. Available
online at: http://ssrn.com/Summary=334061 (available as of February 16, 2007).
3
Summary: This article reports on an investigation of the “leniency gap,” a perceived difference in the severity
of punishment handed down by juvenile and adult courts to adolescent offenders. The authors compared
sentence lengths of adolescents charged with felonies in juvenile and criminal courts and found that youth
prosecuted in criminal court were more likely to be detained and incarcerated and received longer sentences.
Rose, J.T. (2003). Innocence lost: the detrimental effect of automatic waiver statutes on juvenile justice. Brandeis Law
Journal, 41, 977-995.
Summary: This law review article concerns the use of automatic waiver statutes, which transfer youth to
adult court without a transfer hearing. The author provides an overview of automatic waiver statutes and
explains that automatic waivers run counter to the rehabilitative purpose of the juvenile justice system and the
needs of youth. The author also argues that the statutes are an unconstitutional violation of due process and
equal protection.
Rubin, H.T. Return Them to Juvenile Court. (2006). Washington, DC: Campaign for Youth Justice. Available online at:
http://www.campaign4youthjustice.org/nov06/AdultificationPolicyBriefVol1.pdf (available as of March 2, 2007).
Summary: This policy brief encourages state legislators, along with executive and judicial branch officials,
other juvenile justice officials, and concerned citizens to embrace the benefits that juvenile courts have long
provided in separating youth from adult criminalization, and to discard or modify policy directives and redirectives, made historically or in recent years, that enable youth to be handled in criminal courts and serve
sentences in adult incarcerate facilities. It is centered on the definition of juvenile status and the
determination of the most appropriate legal forum that enhances the twin considerations of public safety and
the constructive futures of young people who violate laws which, for adults, constitute a crime.
Sickmund, M. (1997). How Juveniles Get to Criminal Court. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of
Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Copies available from (OJJDP's) Juvenile
Justice Clearinghouse at 800-638-8736. Also available online at: http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/juvcr.pdf (available as
of February 16, 2007).
Summary: This document shows how juvenile cases can be transferred to criminal court by means of judicial
waiver, prosecutorial discretion, or statutory exclusion from juvenile court jurisdiction. In any State, one,
two, or all three transfer mechanisms may be in place. As of the end of 1992, juvenile court judges in all but
two States may waive jurisdiction over a case and transfer it to criminal court. Such action is usually in
response to a request by the prosecutor. An estimated 11,700 juvenile delinquency cases were transferred to
criminal court by judicial waiver in 1992 and accounted for fewer than 2 percent of the cases formally
processed in juvenile courts that year. Prosecutorial discretion is typically limited by age and offense criteria,
but national data are unavailable regarding the number of juvenile cases tried under the concurrent
jurisdiction provisions that allow for this form of transfer. Finally, in 1991 an estimated 176,000 cases
involving youth under age 18 were tried in criminal court in 1991 because they were considered adults under
the laws of 11 States. Many States also exclude certain serious offenses from juvenile court jurisdiction;
some also exclude juveniles who have been previously waived or convicted in criminal court.
Snyder, H. & Sickmund, M. (1999). Juvenile Justice: A Century of Change. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Available from (OJJDP's)
Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse at 800-638-8736 or online at: http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/178995.pdf
(available as of February 16, 2007).
Summary: This bulletin examines where the juvenile justice system is headed and the recent trend of
transferring certain juvenile cases to adult criminal court. The juvenile justice system provides youthful
offenders and their victims with a comprehensive yet balanced approach to justice. Probation, treatment, and
restitution are widely used. At its best the juvenile court balances rehabilitation and treatment with
appropriate sanctions - including incarceration, when necessary. For most juveniles who enter the system,
this approach works: 54 percent of males and 73 percent of females never return to juvenile court on a new
referral. There are, however, areas in the juvenile justice system that need improvement. For example, the
system needs to prepare to handle more female offenders and offenders under the age of 13, two groups
whose numbers are increasing. The bulletin also provides a brief history of the U.S. juvenile justice system,
from its roots in 16th-century European educational reform movements, to the present, citing relevant cases.
4
Woolard, J. (2005). Juveniles within adult correctional settings: legal pathways and developmental considerations.
International Journal of Forensic Mental Health. 4(1), 18.
Summary: This article highlights the latest figures on youth in adult corrections and summarizes current
research on the impact of placing youth in the adult criminal justice system and in adult correctional facilities.
Zimring, F. & Fagan, J, eds. (2000). The Changing Borders of Juvenile Justice: Transfer of Adolescents to the Criminal
Court, (NCJ Publication No. 192961) 407-424.
Summary: The authors first trace the history of unprincipled debate about transfer policy, followed by a
discussion of the inevitability of difficult choices regarding the welfare of juveniles who are the subjects of
contemporary transfer decision making. The complex outcomes produced by mixed systems of transfer
decision making are also addressed, along with the danger of redundant reforms in transfer policy. A
discussion of the inherent problem of overly broad categories of exclusion from juvenile court in favor of
adult court is included, together with an argument for the necessity of regulatory perspective on transfer
systems. One section of the chapter notes the limits of data on human development as a source for
determining transfer policy. The chapter concludes with an argument for the necessity of appropriate legal
standards in criminal courts for fairness in transfer policy. This section of the chapter advises that criminal
courts must consider age and maturity as a factor in dispositions if such dispositions are to be fair and just.
Thus, in many respects, the criminal courts must engage in the same dynamics of deliberation regarding
young offenders as do the juvenile courts.
5
Key Topics
1. Adolescent Brain Development
Bennett, C.M. and Baird, A.A. (2006). Anatomical changes in the emerging adult brain: a voxel-based morphometry
study. Human Brain Mapping, 9, 766-77.
Summary: This article shows that significant age-related changes in brain structure continue after the age of
18 and may represent dynamic changes related to new environmental challenges. Findings from the regions
of change are discussed in the context of specific environmental demands during a period of normative
maturation.
Coalition for Juvenile Justice. (2007). What Are the Implications of Adolescent Brain Development for Juvenile
Justice? Available for purchase from the Coalition for Juvenile Justice at www.juvjustice.org.
Summary: This brief delves into the ways that brain development research could improve how our society at
large, including juvenile justice professionals, practitioners and advocates, views adolescence and seeks to
teach, manage and rehabilitate youth. Drawing upon scientific, historical and psychological perspectives, the
second brief incorporates positive youth development principles and the expertise of individuals from a range
of professional disciplines. The brief concludes with recommendations for a new framework, suggesting
concrete roles and steps for State Advisory Groups, the juvenile court system and individuals.
Conneticut Juvenile Justice Alliance. (2006) Youth and Adults Brains are Different. Available online at www.ctjja.org.
Summary: This fact sheet highlights research findings that show that the adolescent brain isn’t fully
developed and that the area of the brain that regulates reasoning and judgment is actually the last to finish
forming, explaining why adults and adolescents think and behave differently when tested.
Fassler, D. Testimony before the House Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee. New Hampshire State
Legislature. Concord, New Hampshire. March 24, 2004 . http://www.thejusticeproject.org/national/juveniles/resourcekit/latest-science/22020.pdf (available as of February 16, 2007)
Testimony: This testimony highlights current research that adolescents use their brains differently than adults
when reasoning or solving problems and that from a scientific standpoint, adolescents are biologically and
developmentally different than adults.
Giedd, J.N., Blumenthal, J. et al. (1999). Brain Development during Childhood and Adolescence: A longitudinal MRI
study. Nature Neuroscience, 2, 861-863. Available online at:
http://www.nature.com/neuro/journal/v2/n10/pdf/nn1099_861.pdf (available as of February 16, 2007).
Summary: In this study, authors confirmed linear increases in white matter, but demonstrated nonlinear
changes in cortical gray matter, with a preadolescent increase followed by a postadolescent decrease. These
changes in cortical gray matter were regionally specific, with developmental curves for the frontal and
parietal lobe peaking at about age 12 and for the temporal lobe at about age 16, whereas cortical gray matter
continued to increase in the occipital lobe through age 20.
Gruber, S.A. and Yurgelum-Todd, D.A. (2006). Neurobiology and the law: a role in juvenile justice. Ohio State
Journal of Criminal Law, 3, 321-340.
Summary: This article shows basics of brain development from childhood through adolescence, the
functioning of the prefrontal cortex in adolescence and the impact on adolescent decision-making processes.
The authors also provide three steps defense attorneys can take to help determine an adolescent client’s
functioning and level of development.
Huffine, C. (2006). Bad conduct, defiance, and mental health. Focal Point, 20 (2), 13-16. Available online at:
http://www.rtc.pdx.edu/PDF/fpS0605.pdf (available as of February 16, 2007).
Summary: This article explains that many youth in the juvenile justice system are misdiagnosed. In
particular, it challenges the usefulness of conduct disorder (CD) and oppositional defiant disorder (ODD) as
diagnoses. The article explains that youth labeled with CD or ODD often have co-occurring mental health
6
conditions, such as bipolar disorder or post-traumatic stress disorder. The author urges the importance of
individual evaluations so that youth can receive treatment that addresses the causes of their behaviors.
Oberstar, J.V., Andersen, E.M., & Jensen, J.B. (2006). Cognitive and moral development, brain development, and
mental illness: important considerations for the juvenile justice system. William Mitchell Law Review, 32, 1051-1061.
Summary: This article discusses the forensic implications of the recent research about normal brain
development in the context of mental illness. The authors explain that recent research is consistent with
earlier, influential theories of cognitive and moral development and that all of these research findings support
treating children in the juvenile justice system differently from adults.
Sowell, E.R., Thompson, P.M. et al. (1999). Invivo evidence for post-adolescent brain maturation in frontal and striatal
region. Nature Neuroscience, 2, 859-861. Available online at:
http://www.nature.com/neuro/journal/v2/n10/pdf/nn1099_859.pdf (available as of February 16, 2007).
Summary: This article discusses the spatial and temporal patterns of brain development between childhood
and young adulthood throughout the entire brain in vivo, providing new insight for interpreting human
behavior through the adolescent years.
2. Adult Jails and Prisons: Conditions of Confinement
American Bar Association. (2001). Youth in the Criminal Justice System: Guidelines for Policymakers and
Practitioners. Washington, DC: Author. To order please call the ABA Service Center (800/285-2221) and refer to
Product Code 5090082.
Summary: This book provides general principles on the placement and conditions of which youth should
remain and be rehabilitated in an approved criminal justice system.
Austin, J., Johnson, K.D., & Gregoriou, M. (2000). Juveniles in Adult Prisons and Jails: A National Assessment
(NCJRS Publication No. NCJ 182503). Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Assistance.
http://www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles1/bja/182503.pdf (available as of February 16, 2007).
Summary: This report examines the extent of youth confinement in adult facilities; the types of facilities
used to house youthful offenders; what happens to youth in the adult system; whether children in adult
facilities are educated, treated for substance abuse and taught skills that will help them find a job after their
incarceration; whether prisons and jails protect young offenders from physical, sexual and psychological
abuse; and alternative strategies for housing young offenders sentenced to long terms in adult facilities. The
report discusses legal issues relating to conditions of confinement for youth in adult facilities, characteristics
of youths housed in adult jails and prisons, management issues and alternative strategies and technical
assistance.
Forst, M., Fagan, J., & Vivona, T. (1989). Youth in prisons and training schools: perceptions and consequences of the
treatment-custody dichotomy. Juvenile and Family Court Journal, 40(1), 1-14. Available at: US Department of Justice,
Office of Justice Programs, National Criminal Justice Reference Service.
Summary: This article discusses the fact that many states have recently revised their transfer statutes, and the
number of juveniles prosecuted as adults increases each year, but that little research has been conducted to
assess the correctional experiences of delinquent youth convicted in criminal court and sentences to adult
prison. Evaluations of such experiences are important to policymakers and juvenile justice officials who are
considering juvenile transfers as a strategy for securing longer and harsher confinement for offenders. Based
on interviews with 59 chronic juvenile offenders placed in State training schools, and 81 comparable youths
sentenced to adult correctional facilities, this article presents a comparison of offenders' perceptions of their
correctional experiences. Youth incarcerated in training schools give more positive evaluations of treatment
and training programs, general services, and institutional personnel than do those youth in prison. Youth
housed in institutions which emphasize security over treatment -i.e., prisons -- are more often victimized
during their confinement than youths in the treatment-oriented training schools. Once placed in prison, youth
are more likely to be victims of prison violence and crime from both inmates and staff.
7
Goemann, M. (2007). Children Being Tried as Adults: Pre-trial Detention Laws in the U.S.. Washington, DC:
Campaign for Youth Justice.
Summary: This policy brief cites pre-trial detention laws in all 50 states, including a state-by-state chart.
Mylniec, W. (2001). Hidden evil of children living in jail. Children’s Legal Rights Journal, 21( 1), 2-11. Available at
US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Criminal Justice Reference Service.
Summary: Prior to 1899, children who committed crimes were prosecuted in adult courts. During 1899, the
treatments provided by the juvenile court was guidance and care to steer the youth away from a life of crime
and immorality. Juvenile court was never a perfect instrument of social control so legislatures and courts
reformed it over the years. In the last decade, the public’s perception of crime and the increasing number of
crimes committed by children have changed policy. Because of new policies, the number of children under
age 18 sentenced to adult prisons more than doubled between 1985 and 1997. Adolescence is a time for
experimentation, risk taking, and failures of judgment. Left to the juvenile court, most children who cause
trouble live through the period and grow to lead productive lives. However, youths treated as adults have a
greatly reduced probability of surviving adolescence with their live chances intact. Over 70 percent of
children waived into adult court were first time offenders. Most of the children charged as adults had not
been accused of heinous crimes, but of nonviolent offenses such as property offenses, drug offenses, and
public disorder. Children who kill accounted for only a small percentage of those who were prosecuted as
adults. Children who are in prison fear violence and sexual assault. Suicide is a serious problem. Recidivism
rates are higher than for children placed in juvenile facilities. The needs of children who commit crime are at
least similar to those of regular school-aged kids who never get arrested. They need to acquire competencies
and experience achievement. They need structure and limits to develop autonomy, discipline, and security.
There is some evidence that the sense of retribution is tempering as child development specialists gather
evidence to show that this debate is more medical than political.
3. Alternatives to the Adult Criminal Justice System
a) Strategies and Programs for Serious, Chronic and Violent Offenders
Howell, J. (1998). New approach to juvenile crime: the promise of graduated sanctions in a juvenile justice system.
Corrections Compendium, 23(9), 1-25. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs,
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Available from (OJJDP's) Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse at
800-638-8736.
Summary: The following myths about juvenile violence have been perpetuated: (1) juveniles account for
most violence in the United States; (2) juveniles are responsible for most of the increase in violence in the
United States over the past decade; (3) there is a new generation of juvenile "super-predators" that will
significantly grow during the next decade; (4) the juvenile justice system is a failure because it was not
designed to handle serious offenders; and (5) punishing juveniles in adult prisoners is a solution to juvenile
crime. When responding to juvenile crime, juvenile justice system officials often experience great difficulty
in distinguishing serious, violent, and chronic juvenile offenders from others because their judgments are
usually made based on offense history information only. The pathways model can help juvenile justice
system officials understand the logic of risk assessments that include indicators of the development of
serious, violent, and chronic careers. In addition, early intervention is important to halt the progression of
delinquent careers. The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention's Comprehensive Strategy for
Serious, Violent, and Chronic Juvenile Offenders incorporates three principal components: (1) preventing
youth from becoming delinquent by empowering communities to conduct prevention activities based on risk
and protection; (2) intervening early in the careers of potential serious and violent offenders and offering
programs for problem families in high-risk communities; and (3) improving the juvenile justice system
response through a system of graduated sanctions and continuum of treatment alternatives that include
intermediate interventions, intermediate sanctions, community-based correctional programs, secure
corrections, and aftercare. Examples of effective juvenile crime control programs are provided. 44 references.
Howell, J., Krisberg B., Hawkins J.D., & Wilson J.J., (editors). (1995). Serious, Violent, & Chronic Juvenile Offenders:
A Sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
8
Summary: "This sourcebook provides outstandingly important, up-to-date, and comprehensive reviews of
knowledge about the prevention and treatment of serious, violent, and chronic juvenile offenders. It is an
essential reference work for scholars, practitioners, and policymakers who are interested in this topic." -David P. Farrington, Professor of Psychological Criminology, University of Cambridge "At a time when the
basic unit of policy about youth crime is often the sound bite, this volume shows the value of information and
sustained analysis in creating a balanced program for dealing with the serious juvenile offender. The book is
of value both as a specific set of youth crime proposals and as a model of the policy planning process in a
difficult area." --Franklin E. Zimring, William Simon Professor of Law and Director, Earl Warren Legal
Institute, University of California at Berkeley This indispensable sourcebook sculpts an alternative response
to juvenile crime. The rise of violent crimes committed by youths and the lack of effective responses to
treating juvenile offenders have underscored the dire need for a different approach. Some of the most
respected experts in juvenile justice answer that need in this authoritative volume, presenting a balanced,
humane, and effective strategy for change. The result is a comprehensive approach to preventing, treating,
and controlling serious juvenile criminal behavior. Thorough analysis of strategy implementation
complements discussion of core issues such as controlling delinquency, developing early and intensive
intervention programs, risk assessment, and classification tools. The inclusion of special chapters on recent
gang research and juveniles in the criminal court system make this volume the essential up-to-date resource
for juvenile justice specialists. A Sourcebook: Serious, Violent, and Chronic Juvenile Offenders gathers
together information integral to the work of policymakers, lawmakers, law enforcement personnel, and social
workers as well as criminal justice researchers, sociologists, and advanced students in these fields.
Holwell, J. (2003). Diffusing research into practice using the comprehensive strategy for serious, violent, and chronic
juvenile offenders. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 1( 3), 219-245. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice,
Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Available from (OJJDP's) Juvenile
Justice Clearinghouse at 800-638-8736.
Summary: During the early 1990’s the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP)
developed the comprehensive strategy (CS) for serious, violent, and chronic juvenile offenders. It was
developed through a comprehensive review of research on juvenile offenders and best practices and effective
programs in the fields of treatment, punishment, and prevention. The basic goal of the CS is to realize the
effective diffusion of research into practice. The author begins by describing the basic principles and
framework of the CS approach, including a discussion of the two main components of the program: the
prevention component and the intervention component. The prevention component attempts to reach youth
before they fall into delinquent patterns and includes programs designed to prevent substance abuse, teenage
pregnancy, and truancy. The intervention component focuses the delivery of appropriate sanctions based on
offender activities and assessed risk level. A review of the research literature on juvenile delinquency
supports the development of juvenile justice and human services programs. While complete implementation
of the CS framework is in its infancy, considerable gains have been made in organizing research into a usable
framework for conversion into research-based juvenile programming. The author points to areas where
further research is needed, including research on protective factors against delinquency, which has only just
begun to be explored. Notes, references.
Kempf-Leonard, K., Tracy, P., & Howell, J. (2001). Serious, violent, and chronic juvenile offenders: the relationship of
delinquency career types to adult criminality. Justice Quarterly, 18, 449-478. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Available from (OJJDP's)
Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse at 800-638-8736.
Summary: The participants included 13,160 males and 14,000 females who lived in Philadelphia from ages
10- to 18-years-old. Official records provided information on the offense careers from early onset as juveniles
through age 26. The research controlled for differences based on race, gender, and neighborhood social
status. Results revealed that belonging to certain delinquency subgroups or following certain pathways
increased the likelihood of being arrested in adulthood. Adult offending was reported for 48 percent of the
serious delinquents, 52.8 percent of the violent delinquents, 58.5 percent of the chronic delinquents, 62.5
percent of the delinquents with both serious and chronic offending, and 63.1 percent of the violent and
chronic delinquents. The effect of career type was as strong for females as for males. The general findings
were consistent across demographic criteria, although prevalence differed. Findings indicated the importance
to developmental criminology of linking juvenile delinquency career types to adult criminality for
policymaking and theory development. Tables, figure, and 69 references (Author Summary modified).
9
b) Effective Juvenile Justice Programs
Ahranjani, M., Ferguson, A., & Raskin, J. (2005). Youth Justice in America. Washington D.C.: CQ Press.
Summary: Explores important issues related to juvenile justice and presents key cases, accompanied by
expert commentary, involving the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments. Examines the constitutional
rights and responsibilities of youths in America. Includes glossary, suggestions for further reading, and class
exercises.
Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence. Blueprints for Violence Prevention. For more information, go to
http://www.colorado.edu/cspv/blueprints/index.html (available as of March 2, 2007).
Summary: These profiles showcase model and promising approaches to violence prevention, including
programs that serve youth who are or are at risk of court-involvement.
The Annie E. Casey Foundation Juvenile Detention Alternative Initiative. Pathways to Juvenile Detention Reform.
Available online at: www.aecf.org/initiatives/jdai/ (available as of March 2, 2007).
Summary: This series of 13 publications provides practical information for understanding and implementing
juvenile detention reform, based on the innovative policies and practices developed by jurisdictions
participating in the Casey Foundation's Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative. Each guide offers detailed
descriptions of specific detention reform strategies, along with lessons learned and technical assistance
resources.
Howell, J. (2001). Juvenile justice programs and strategies (from Loeber, R. and Farrington, D.P., eds. (2001). Child
delinquents: development, intervention, and service needs (NCJ Publication No. 207774). 305-321.). Washington, DC:
U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
Available from (OJJDP's) Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse at 800-638-8736 or online at:
http://www.ncjrs.gov/html/ojjdp/Summary_2000_8/contents.html (available as of February 16, 2007).
Summary: Although recent changes in juvenile court processing have been designed to improve outcomes for
juveniles, i.e., limitations on the use of incarceration and the development of programs that divert juveniles
from formal court processing and residential custody, many status offenders and child delinquents, along with
non offenders, may not have access to the service delivery system or be given appropriate treatment. In
reviewing promising programs for child delinquents, the author notes that the juvenile justice system has no
special facilities for them, and there are few programs designed specifically for child delinquents; however,
new models are being developed. None of these programs has yet been conclusively demonstrated to be an
effective intervention for this population. The promising programs described are the Michigan Early Offender
Program, Minnesota Delinquents Under 10 Program, the Minnesota All Children Excel Program, the
Sacramento County Community Intervention Program, and the Toronto Under 12 Outreach Project. The
chapter concludes with a description of a comprehensive model for services to child delinquents that
integrates prevention, early intervention, graduated sanctions, and aftercare.
Krisberg, B., Austin, J. (1998). What works with juvenile offenders: the Massachusetts experiment (from Macallair, D.,
Schiraldi, V., eds. Reforming juvenile justice reasons and strategies for the 21st Century, (1998), 173-196,). Iowa:
Kendall/ Hunt Publishing Co., Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Available from (OJJDP's) Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse at 800-6388736.
Summary: Massachusetts removed nearly 1,000 juveniles from State training schools, closed the schools, and
placed the youths in a diverse array of community programs. State and Federal agencies had severely
castigated the State training schools for abusive and inadequate treatment programs. Legislative hearings
revealed major breakdowns in management and operations. The initial response was agency reorganization;
Jerome Miller was hired as commissioner to do the job. Four subsequent commissioners of the Massachusetts
Department of Youth Services succeeded in consolidating the dramatic Massachusetts reforms. Several
important refinements have occurred in the original reforms. However, the vast majority of Massachusetts
juvenile justice professionals and children's advocates remain committed to the goals and philosophy set forth
by Jerome Miller. The Massachusetts system is no longer an experiment due to its 20 years of successful
experience with community-based juvenile corrections. The hallmark of Massachusetts programs is their
small size; Massachusetts also uses secure confinement in a unique and cost-effective manner compared to
10
other corrections systems. The success of the Massachusetts experience has influenced juvenile justice
reforms in Utah, Missouri, Maryland, and other States. Figures, tables, and reference notes.
MacArthur Foundation Research Network on Adolescent Development and Juvenile Justice. (2006, September).
Network Issue Briefs. Available online at: http://www.adjj.org/content/page.php?cat_id=2&content_id=28 (available as
of March 2, 2007).
Summary: This series of five issue briefs are available to download on these topics: Adolescent Legal
Competence in Court; Creating Turning Points for Serious Adolescent Offenders: Research in Pathways to
Desistance; Less Guilty by Reason of Adolescence; Assessing Juvenile Psychopathy: Developmental and
Legal Implications; and The Changing Borders of Juvenile Justice: Transfer of Adolescents to the Adult
Criminal Court.
Mendel, R. A. (1999). Less hype, more help: Reducing juvenile crime, what works—and what doesn’t. Washington,
DC: American Youth Policy Forum.
Summary: This report highlights model and promising juvenile justice programs.
Mendel, R. A. (2001). Less cost, more safety: guiding lights for reform in juvenile jjustice. Washington, DC: American
Youth Policy Forum.
Summary: This report highlights model and promising juvenile justice programs.
Mendel, D. (2006). Small is Beautiful: The Missouri Division of Youth Services. Baltimore, MD: Annie E Casey
Foundation.
Summary: This report highlights the youth corrections approach in Missouri which has the lowest recidivism
rate in the country.
Rubin, T. (2003). Juvenile justice: policies, practices, and programs. Kingston, NJ: Civic Research Institute, Inc.
Summary: This is a “how to” guide that includes information on how to streamline and coordinate juvenile
and family court processing to improve handling of delinquent, dependent and abused children; strategies for
getting system “players” — judges, probation officers, prosecutors and defense attorneys, social workers and
program providers — to work together better; when and how to apply principles of Balanced and Restorative
Justice to benefit troubled juveniles and the community; innovative diversion programs that keep kids out of
trouble; effective restitution programs; how successful community intervention programs function — and
how to avoid common programming pitfalls that get in the way of success; how to get your fair share of
scarce resources.
4. Blended Sentencing
Redding, R. & Howell, J. (2000). Blended sentencing in American juvenile courts (from Jeffrey Fagan and Franklin E.
Zimring, eds. (2000). The Changing Borders of Juvenile Justice: Transfer of Adolescents to the Criminal Court (NCJ
Publication No. 192949). 145-180.) Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Available from (OJJDP's) Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse at 800-6388736.
Summary: This chapter discusses "Blended sentencing" laws that allow juvenile courts to impose adult
sentences or extend their sentencing jurisdiction into early adulthood.
5. Competency to Stand Trial
Beyer, M. (2001). What’s behind behavior matters: the effects of disabilities, trauma and immaturity on juvenile intent
and ability to assist counsel. Guild Practitioner, 58(2), 112-127.
Summary: This article explains how a variety of disabilities, trauma and developmental delays can limit the
ability of juveniles to plan or stop an action. Likewise, the capacity of juveniles to work with their lawyers
and understand the court process is similarly affected by immaturity and by the way juveniles process
information. Thorough assessments of the unique interplay between disabilities, trauma and immaturity are
needed to determine juveniles’ intent or competency.
11
Farber, H.B. (2006). Constitutionality, competence, and conflicts: what is wrong with the state of the law when it
comes to juveniles and Miranda. New England Journal on Criminal and Civil Confinement, 32, 29-42.
Summary: This article argues for a privilege for parent-child communications since children often rely on
parents to serve as legal advisors during custodial interrogations to determine whether to waive their Miranda
rights. Given the serious possible consequences of a juvenile adjudication, children deserve due process
protections. The rights of children under criminal investigation can only be protected adequately if
communications with their parents are guaranteed to be confidential.
Grisso, T. et al. (2003). Juveniles' Competence to Stand Trial: A Comparison of Adolescents' and Adults' Capacities as
Trial Defendants. John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation's Research Network on Adolescent Development
and Juvenile Justice. Available online at: www.youthrights.org/juvcomp.pdf (available as of February 16, 2007).
Summary: Abilities associated with adjudicative competence were assessed among 927 adolescents in
juvenile detention facilities and community settings. Adolescents' abilities were compared to those of 466
young adults in jails and in the community. Participants at 4 locations across the United States completed a
standardized measure of abilities relevant for competence to stand trial (the MacArthur Competence
Assessment Tool--Criminal Adjudication) as well as a new procedure for assessing psychosocial influences
on legal decisions often required of defendants (MacArthur Judgment Evaluation). Youths aged 15 and
younger performed more poorly than young adults, with a greater proportion manifesting a level of
impairment consistent with that of persons found incompetent to stand trial. Adolescents also tended more
often than young adults to make choices (e.g., about plea agreements) that reflected compliance with
authority, as well as influences of psychosocial immaturity. Implications of these results for policy and
practice are discussed, with an emphasis on the development of legal standards that recognize immaturity as a
potential predicate of incompetence to stand trial.
Grisso, T., Vincent, G. (2005). Adolescents’ competence to stand trial: justice for disable and immature youths. Center
for Mental Health Services Research University of Massachusetts Medical School Issue Brief, 2(5), 1-2. Available
online at: http://www.umassmed.edu/uploadedfiles/Brief15AdolescentComp.pdf (available as of February 16, 2007).
Summary: A brief Summary of research efforts to assess and improve the practice of competency evaluations
in the juvenile court system, including three major recommendations for policy reform. The references
include several volumes that may be useful for further reading.
Grisso, T., Schwartz, R., eds. (2000). Youth on Trial: A Developmental Perspective on Juvenile Justice (The John D.
and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation Series on Mental Health and Development). Executive Summary available
online at: http://www.mac-adoldev-juvjustice.org/Youth%20on%20Trial%20Exe%20Summ.pdf (available as of
February 16, 2007).
Summary: The two chapters of Part I offer a foundation for a developmental perspective on juvenile justice.
The seven chapters of Part II address the presumption that youths are capable of participating meaningfully in
their trials in adult criminal courts based on the fact that they are charged with serious offenses. Theory and
research from psychology, psychiatry, and law are applied to questions of youths' capacities to understand
and decide important matters as defendants in their trials. Chapters also review the challenges that youths'
immaturity present for their attorneys, as well as clinical and forensic issues in assessing youths' competence
to stand trial. The six chapters of Part III focus on issues associated with the culpability and diminished
capacity of juveniles when determining appropriate dispositions. These matters are relevant when
policymakers are determining whether juveniles should be sentenced the same as adults for the same
offenses. The chapters address this issue by drawing on pertinent legal precedent and theory, as well as
empirical knowledge of the psychological and social capacities of youth relative to those of adults.
Underlying all the chapters is the assumption that an effective legal response to youthful offenders must take
into account the developmental realities of adolescence. For individual chapters, see NCJ-184853-68.
Chapter references, notes, tables, and figures
12
6. Consequences of an Adult Conviction
Allard, P., & Young, M. 2002. Prosecuting Juveniles in Adult Court: Perspectives for Policymakers and Practitioners.
The Sentencing Project. Available online at: http://www.sentencingproject.org/pdfs/2079.pdf (available as of February
16, 2007).
Summary: Fear of juvenile crime in the United States has reversed the long-accepted practice of treating
young offenders in special juvenile courts. Thousands of children annually are now being transferred
"automatically," without judicial review, from juvenile court jurisdiction to adult criminal court and into adult
corrections. These transfers place children into a court setting in which they are at a disadvantage at every
stage of the process. Children who are incarcerated in adult facilities are at great risk. Those who are
convicted but not imprisoned may still suffer long lasting negative consequences. The imposition of adult
punishments, far from deterring crime, actually seems to produce an increase in criminal activity in
comparison to the results obtained for children retained in the juvenile system. Reliance upon the criminal
courts and punishment ignores evidence that more effective responses to the problems of crime and violence
exist outside the criminal justice system in therapeutic programs. Because there is considerable racial
disparity in the assignment of children to adult prosecution, the harshness, ineffectiveness, and punishing
aspects of transfer from juvenile to adult court is doubly visited on children of color.
Legal Action Center. (2004). After Prison: Roadblocks to Reentry. Available online at: http://www.lac.org/lac/
(available as of February 16, 2007).
Summary: The first-ever comprehensive study of the legal barriers in all 50 states that people with criminal
records must overcome in order to lead productive, law-abiding lives and successfully rejoin society. The
report documents state laws and policies that prevent qualified individuals with arrest and conviction records
from obtaining employment, housing, food stamps & public assistance, and drivers' licenses, and from voting
and becoming adoptive and foster parents; grades states on whether their laws and policies help or hinder the
ability of people with criminal records to reenter society successfully; and provides policy recommendations.
7. Costs
Butts, J.A., Roman, J. (2005). The economics of juvenile jurisdiction. A white paper from the research roundtable on
estimating the costs and benefits of the separate juvenile justice system. Available online at:
http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/411208_Juvenile_Jurisdiction.pdf (available as of March 2, 2007).
Abstract: Commissioned by the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation Research Network on
Adolescent Development and Juvenile Justice, this paper proposes methods for an economic analysis of the
nation's separate system of juvenile laws and juvenile courts. Arguments about the value of juvenile justice
versus criminal justice traditionally focus on legal principles, adolescent development, and the relative effects
of prevention and punishment. This paper suggests adding a cost-benefit approach to the debate. Do the
benefits of maintaining a separate legal system for young offenders outweigh the costs? What are those costs
and benefits, and can they be measured?
Greenwood, Peter, et al. (1998). Diverting Children from a Life of Crime, Measuring Costs and Benefits, RAND
Corporation. Available online at: http://www.rand.org/publications/MR/MR699/index.html#contents (available as of
February 16, 2007).
Summary: One of the early intervention programs assessed consists of home visits by child-care
professionals beginning before birth and extending through the first 2 years of childhood, followed by 4 years
of day care. The second program consists of training for parents and therapy for families with very young
school-age children who have shown aggressive behavior or otherwise begun to "act out" in school. Another
intervention program involves using 4 years of cash and other incentives to induce disadvantaged high school
students to graduate. The fourth program consists of monitoring and supervising high-school-age youth who
have already exhibited delinquent behavior. The effectiveness of the programs was assessed by examining
reductions in arrest or rearrest rates. The costs assessed were based only on the costs of program operations
and not on the savings realized by not having to eventually imprison those youths diverted from criminal
careers. Of the four programs, graduation incentives for high- risk youth, appears to hold the most promise.
The preliminary analysis suggests that the cost of preventing serious crimes with this program is
approximately $4,000 per crime. The parent- training intervention could be relatively cost-effective over the
long term at a cost of approximately $6,500 per serious felony prevented. The early home-visit and day-care
13
intervention works with high-risk youth and their families during the first 5 years of childhood. This
intervention requires large expenditure to affect large numbers of youths Based on current best estimates of
program costs and benefits, investments in some interventions for high-risk youth may be several times more
cost-effective in reducing serious crime than long mandatory sentences for repeat offenders. 8 figures and 23
tables
Roman, J. (2006). The economic impact of raising the age of juvenile jurisdiction in Connecticut: remarks before the
Judiciary and Appropriations Committee, Connecticut General Assembly, February 21, 2006 (Testimony). Available
online at: http://www.urban.org/publications/900959.html (available as of February 16, 2007).
Summary: This document contains testimony delivered to the Connecticut Judiciary and Appropriations
Committees, on the economic impact of raising the age of juvenile jurisdiction from 16 to 18. The study finds
that moving 16- and 17-year-old youth out of the adult system into the juvenile system, while maintaining all
other services for youth as they are today, will return about $3 in benefit for every $1 in cost, assuming no
new juvenile detention construction is required. If new construction is required, the transition of juveniles
would result in slightly less than a $1 in benefit for every $1 in cost in the year the construction occurs, and
$3 in benefit for every $1 in cost in subsequent years.
8. Gender Disparities
American Bar Association. (2001). Justice by Gender: The Lack of Appropriate Prevention, Diversion and Treatment
Alternatives for Girls in the Justice System. Available online at:
http://www.abanet.org/crimjust/juvjus/justicebygenderweb.pdf (available as of February 16, 2007).
Summary: It is important for juvenile justice professionals and policymakers to understand that the nature
and causes of girls' delinquency is often different from that of boys. Research demonstrates that girls in the
delinquency system have histories of physical, emotional, and sexual abuse, have family problems, suffer
from physical and mental disorders, have experienced academic failure and succumb more easily to the
pressures of domination by older males. Concerted efforts must be made to develop a continuum of policies,
programs and practices for girls, and to identify and address needed changes in the processing, treatment, and
overall care of girls in the justice system.
Fagan, A. (2001). Gender cycle of violence: comparing the effects of child abuse and neglect on criminal offending for
males and females. Violence and Victims. 16, 457-474. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice
Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Available from (OJJDP's) Juvenile Justice
Clearinghouse at 800-638-8736.
9. Human Rights and International Human Rights
National Juvenile Defender Center. (2006). International Human Rights: Law and Resources for Juvenile Defenders
and Advocates. Available online at: www.njdc.info.
Summary: This resource highlights important international human rights treaties that can be utilized in
juvenile defense and advocacy work.
10. Juvenile Population Data
Beck, A. J., & Harrison, P. M. (2006, May). Prison and Jail Inmates at Midyear 2005. Washington DC: U.S.
Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.
Summary: This report provides an update on prison and jail inmates and includes a special section on youth
in adult corrections.
Snyder, H. & Sickmund, M. (2006). Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Available
14
from (OJJDP's) Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse at 800-638-8736 or online at:
http://ojjdp.ncjrs.gov/ojstatbb/nr2006/downloads/NR2006.pdf (available as of February 23, 2007).
Summary: Presents comprehensive information on juvenile crime, violence, and victimization and on the
juvenile justice system. This OJJDP National Report brings together the latest available statistics from a
variety of sources and includes numerous tables, graphs, and maps, accompanied by analyses in clear, nontechnical language.
11. Juvenile Life Without Parole
Florio, G., Lindsay, S., & Langbein, S. (2005, September 15-20). Special report: locked up forever. Rocky Mountain
News. Available online at:
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_4083343,00.html (available as of February
23, 2007).
Summary: A four-part newspaper series regarding life sentences for juvenile offenders and the debate over
whether some of the inmates sentenced as teens deserve a chance at freedom. Includes an interview with a
man convicted of murdering his parents when he was 15 after a childhood of abuse. Discusses arguments that
advocates make, relying on brain research used in Roper v. Simmons, to support reconsidering life sentences.
Examines Texas’s juvenile justice system, which is described as a model.
Humans Rights Watch. (2005). The Rest of their Lives: Life Without Parole for Child Offenders in the United States.
Available online at: http://hrw.org/reports/2005/us1005/ (available as of February 23, 2007).
Summary: The United States is one of the few countries where a crime committed by a juvenile regularly
results in a life sentence without any possibility of parole. This 167-page report documents state and national
trends in this type of sentencing and analyzes the race, history and crimes of the young offenders and is a
joint project with Amnesty International.
Liptak, A. (2005, October 2-3, 5). New York Times series on life without parole.
Summary: A series describing results of a New York Times survey on life without parole sentences around
the country. The October 3 articles look specifically at prisoners sentenced to life without parole for crimes
they committed as juveniles. Individual cases are highlighted.
12. Polling on Trying Youth As Adults
Krisberg, B., Marchionna, S. (2007). Attitudes of US voters towards youth crime and the justice system. Views from
the National Council on Crime and Delinquency. Oakland, CA: National Council on Crime and Delinquency. Available
online at: http://www.nccd-crc.org/nccd/pubs/zogby_feb07.pdf (available as of March 2, 2007).
Summary: An overwhelming majority of those polled agree that youth crime is a major problem in our
communities and that rehabilitation and treatment for incarcerated youth can help prevent future crimes.
Furthermore, about 70% of those polled agree that placing youth in adult correctional facilities makes them
more likely to commit future crimes.
13. Racial Disparities
Jusckiewicz, J. (2000). Youth crime/adult time: is justice served? Washington, DC: Prepared by Pretrial Services
Resource Center for the Building Blocks for Youth Initiative. Available online at
http://www.buildingblocksforyouth.org/ycat/index.html (available as of February 23, 2007).
Summary: This study looking at the prosecution of youth of color in criminal court found that youth of color,
particularly African American youth, were over-represented and received disparate treatment at several
points in the process. In the 18 jurisdictions in the study, 82% of the cases that were filed in adult courts
involved a youth of color. Among the other key findings of the report:

Overall, 82 percent of the youth charged in adult court were youth of color.
15




Drug cases were filed against African-American youth at five times the rate of White youth (17
percent vs. three percent).
Nearly two-thirds of the youth who were detained before trial were held in adult jails.
White youth were twice as likely as African-American youth to be represented by private counsel.
Youth represented by private counsel were less likely to be convicted and more likely to be
transferred back to juvenile court.
African-American (43 percent) and Latino (37 percent) youth were more likely than white youth
(26 percent) to receive a sentence of incarceration (as opposed to a split sentence or probation.)
Males, M., Macallair, D. (2000). The color of justice: an analysis of juvenile adult court transfers in California.
Washington, DC: Prepared by Justice Policy Institute for the Building Blocks for Youth Initiative. Available online at:
http://www.buildingblocksforyouth.org/colorofjustice/ (available as of February 23, 2007).
Summary: This study found that youth of color juvenile offenders in California are much more likely to be
transferred to adult courts and sentenced to prison than are whites who commit similar crimes. Compared
with white youths, minorities in California were 2.8 times more likely to be arrested for violent crimes, 6.2
times more likely to be tried in adult court and 7 times more likely to be sentenced to prison once they get
there.
National Council on Crime and Delinquency. (2007). And justice for some. Oakland, CA: Author.
Summary: This report details the accumulated disadvantage for youth of color as they move through the
juvenile justice system and, too often, into the adult criminal justice system. This is an update of the 2000
study.
Olson, J.K. (2005). Waiver of juveniles to criminal court: judicial discretion and racial disparity. Justice Policy
Journal, 1(2), 1-20. Available at US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Criminal Justice
Reference Service. Available online at: http://www.cjcj.org/pdf/waiver_of.PDF (available as of February 23, 2007).
Summary: The paper first presents a brief history of juvenile justice, noting that the premise underlying the
creation of the juvenile justice system in America was that of helping children who were delinquent through
the delivery of treatment services to juveniles and their families. This is followed by a review of the waiver
process and its impact on the goals and objectives of juvenile justice. A section of the paper then discusses
judicial and prosecutorial discretion in the waiver process, with attention to various types of waivers. The
next section addresses racial disparity in juvenile justice processing. It concludes that although racial
disparity is evident in the process of waiving juveniles to adult court, it also exists at other decision points in
the juvenile justice system as well. Other consequences of waiver are also discussed, notably the recidivism
rate for juveniles processed in an adult court. One study compared waived youths with a matched control
group of juveniles retained in the juvenile justice system. The recidivism rates were greater for waived
juveniles by every measure of recidivism used. Thus, the waiver process is pervaded by racial disparity and
virtually unlimited levels of discretion with few precise standards for waiver decision-making. Future
research should focus on the effectiveness and consequences of transferring juveniles to adult court and also
examine the criteria used to determine whether or not a youth is amenable to treatment and poses an
extraordinary danger to the community.
Poe-Yamagata, E., Jones, M. (2000). And justice for some. Washington, DC: Prepared by The National Council on
Crime and Delinquency for the Building Blocks for Youth Initiative. Available online at:
http://www.buildingblocksforyouth.org/justiceforsome/jfs.html (available as of February 23, 2007).
Summary: This national study showed that youths of color are more likely than white youths who commit
comparable crimes to be referred to juvenile court, be detained, face trial as adults, and be jailed with adults.
Among the key findings, the report shows that youth of color are overrepresented and receive disparate
treatment at every stage of the juvenile justice system.
Villarruel, F. (2006). Youths transferred to adult court: racial disparities. Washington, DC: Campaign for Youth
Justice.
Summary: As increasingly more youth enter the criminal justice system, the question of racial disparities has
begun to surface in a new debate on how race is a factor in the disproportionate number of youth of color
transferred into adult courts. The policy brief gives an overview of transfer laws and issues, providing
informative estimates of the number of youth being processed into adult courts; presents evidence-based
16
research through an extensive literature review that shows the negative outcomes for youths in adult court,
particularly youth of color; and offers recommendations for policy and future research on the racial
disparities that affect youth placed in adult courts.
14. Rape and Sexual Assault
Beck, A.J., Harrison, P.M. (2006). Sexual violence reported by correctional authorities. (2005). Washington, DC:
Bureau of Justice Statistics. Available online at: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/Summary/svrca05.htm (available as of
February 23, 2007).
Summary: On September 4, 2003, the president signed into law the Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003
(P.L. 108-79). The legislation requires the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) to develop new national data
collections on the incidence and prevalence of sexual violence within correctional facilities. This report
fulfills the requirement under Sec. 4 (c)(1) of the act for submission of an annual report on the activities of
BJS with respect to prison rape.
15. Recidivism: Juvenile Justice System vs. Adult Criminal Justice System
Fagan, J. (1996). The comparative advantage of juvenile vs. criminal court sanctions on recidivism among adolescent
felony offenders. Law and Policy, 18, (1-2). Online requests for the article can be made at:
http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/cservices/single.asp?site=1 (available as of February 23, 2007).
Summary: This study, comparing New York and New Jersey juvenile offenders, shows that the rearrest rate
for children sentenced in juvenile court was 29% lower than the rearrest rate for juveniles sentenced in the
adult criminal court.
Fagan, J., Kupchik, J., & Liberman, A. (2003). Be careful what you wish for: the comparative impacts of juvenile
versus criminal court sanctions on recidivism among adolescent felony offenders. Columbia Law School, Pub. Law
Research Paper No. 03-61. Available at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?Summary_id=491202 (available as of
February 23, 2007).
Summary: Three decades of legislative activism have resulted in a broad expansion of states' authority to
transfer adolescent offenders from juvenile to criminal (adult) courts. At the same time that legislatures have
broadened the range of statutes and lowered the age thresholds for eligibility for transfer, states also have
reallocated discretion away from judges and instituted simplified procedures that permit prosecutors to elect
whether adolescents are prosecuted and sentenced in juvenile or criminal court. These developments reflect
popular and political concerns that relatively lenient or attenuated punishment in juvenile court violates
proportionality principles for serious crimes committed by adolescents, and is ineffective at deterring or
controlling future crimes. This legislative activism has reshaped the boundaries of the juvenile court, and
animated calls for its elimination. Yet these developments have taken place in a near vacuum of empirical
analysis of the efficacy of these measures to increase punishment or reduce crime. Jurisprudential analyses of
the fit between the traditional doctrines of immaturity and reduced culpability of juveniles also has lagged far
behind the pace of legislative change. The redrawing of the boundaries of the juvenile court also has not
reflected new knowledge on adolescent development, the legal socialization of adolescents, and their
responsiveness to criminal sanctions. The new boundaries of the juvenile court also threaten to reify and
intensify social and racial dimensions of criminal punishment. To address these questions, the authors
conducted a natural experiment to assess whether prosecuting and sentencing adolescent felony offenders in
the criminal court leads to harsher punishment, and whether that harsher punishment translates into improved
public safety. The studies show that serious adolescent offenders prosecuted in the criminal court are likely to
be rearrested more quickly and more often for violent, property and weapons offenses, and they are more
often and more quickly returned to incarceration. Adolescents prosecuted and punished in the juvenile court
are more likely to be rearrested for drug offenses. These results suggest that law and policy facilitating
"wholesale waiver" or categorical exclusion of certain groups of adolescents based solely on offense and age,
are ineffective at both specific deterrence of serious crime, despite political rhetoric insisting the opposite.
Such laws may increase the risk of serious crimes by adolescents and young adults, by heavily mortgaging
their possibilities to deflect their criminal behavioral trajectory and enter a path of pro social human
development. Returning to a discretionary, judge-centered transfer policy, rather than "wholesale waiver" or
surgical exclusion of entire categories of adolescent offenders, would limit the number of youth subjected to
17
criminal court prosecution and harsh punishment conditions in adult corrections. A policy of discretionary
transfer of only the most serious offenders, whose eligibility for transfer would be transparently assessed with
full access to evidence and expertise, would ensure proportional punishment for the few adolescents whose
severe crimes demand greater punishment than is available in the juvenile court, and whose punishment as
juveniles might corrode the legitimacy of the juvenile court.
Frazier, C., Bishop, D., & Lanza-Kaduce, L. (1999). Get-tough juvenile justice reforms: the Florida experience. .Annals
of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 564, 167-184. Available from Lexis-Nexis.
Summary: Get-tough reforms aimed at juvenile offenders have become commonplace in the United States. In
the last decade, almost every state has modified laws relating to juvenile crime in some way, and the direction
of the reforms has been very clear. States are getting tougher on juvenile offenders either by shifting away
from traditional rehabilitation models to punishment-oriented juvenile justice or by legislating new or
expanded legal means by which greater numbers of juvenile offenders may be moved to criminal court for
adult processing and punishment. The present study focuses on a major set of juvenile justice reforms in
Florida and the impact on actual practice. Florida is unique in a historical sense because it has transferred
large numbers of juveniles to criminal court for two decades, and, currently, because it has more juveniles in
its prisons than any other state. Despite incremental get-tough reforms, the new transfer provisions have had a
negligible impact. The effects of Florida’s get-tough laws and practices should be instructive for those other
states that have begun such reforms more recently.
Frazier, C., Bishop, D., Lanza-Kaduce, L., & Marvasti, A. (1999). Juveniles in criminal court: past and current research
from Florida. Quinnipiac Law Review, 18, 573-596.
Summary: The last two decades have been a particularly tumultuous period in American juvenile justice
policy. Both the reach and rationale of the juvenile has been challenged as never before. During the threeyear period between 1992 and 1995, forty-one states enacted provisions making it easier for juveniles to be
tried as adults. This paper focuses on the practice of prosecutorial transfer, specifically in the state of Florida
where this practice has been a pivotal reform vehicle for more than twenty years. This article examines the
impact of recent changes to transfer law on case processing, the transfer policy guidelines generated by
prosecutors and their opinion regarding transfer law changes, the experience and perception juvenile
offenders have regarding juvenile and criminal justice, and local court records and case files for the purpose
of comparing transfers and juvenile justice system matched cases.
Winner, L., Lanza-Kaduce, L., Bishop, D., & Frazier, C. (1997). The transfer of juveniles to criminal court:
Reexamining recidivism over the long term. Crime and Delinquency Vol. 43 No. 4 at 548-563. Available from National
Council on Crime and Delinquency at 415-896-6223.
Summary: Re-arrest information on the pairs from their release from sanctions through November 1994 was
used to determine the probabilities of rearrest and the times to rearrest of transfers and non-transfers,
adjusting for time at risk. All youth cases that were transferred to the criminal court in 1987 (n=3,142) were
identified. Individual case histories were constructed from information obtained on prior referrals. For the
long-term analyses, matches for 2,700 of the transferred cases were obtained from cases disposed of in the
juvenile justice system. The matching of the non-transfer cases with transfer cases was done on each of the
following variables: the most serious offense for which the transfer was made, the number of counts in the
bill of information, the number of prior referrals to the juvenile system, the most serious prior offense, age,
gender, and race. Findings show that transfer diminished the rearrest chances for property felons, an
advantage that was offset by an enhanced probability of rearrest among transfers for other offense categories.
Survival analysis shows that transfers were rearrested more quickly and more times on average than nontransfers. These findings suggest that the transfer of children to adult jurisdiction may not be a panacea for
reducing crime. 4 tables, 5 notes, and 22 references
18
16. State Studies: Comparisons and Individual State Studies on the Impact of
Trying Youth as Adults
Arizona
Children’s Action Alliance. (2003). Policy brief: prosecuting juveniles in the adult criminal justice system key issues
and recommendations for Arizona. Available online at:
http://www.azchildren.org/MyFiles/PDF/_Juvenile_Justice_.pdf (available as of February 23, 2007).
California
Kumli, K. (2002). California's juvenile transfer process: from antiquated to complicated. Corrections Today. 64(6), 98
– 100. Available at US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Criminal Justice Reference Service.
Summary: In response to a violent and heinous crime committed in 1992 by a juvenile days shy of his 16th
birthday, youth under age 14 in California can now be prosecuted as adults. In addition, the wave of “tough
on crime” measures moved toward the procedure and policy applicable to adult criminal matters. In 2000,
California passed the Gang Violence and Juvenile Crime Prevention Act (Proposition 21). This law is most
profound in the manner in which juveniles are certified to adult court. A minor’s eligibility for juvenile court
has evolved from the singular process of a court-determined transfer to a complicated assortment of
procedures, applicable under specific circumstances. This article briefly discusses three procedures by which
a minor can be transferred to adult court: (1) statutory waiver, (2) prosecutorial waiver, and (3) judicial
waiver. The statutory waiver is the requirement that certain juvenile crimes must be transferred to adult court.
This waiver allows for an enormous amount of discretion for the prosecuting attorney because the required
circumstances and allegations must be included in the charges filed. The most controversial method of
transferring juvenile cases to adult court is prosecutorial waiver. Prosecuting attorneys have discretion
(previously held exclusively by judges) to file certain cases directly with the adult system. As once the sole
method of transferring juvenile cases and still a large part of the statutory scheme, the judicial waiver begins
with a motion brought by the prosecuting attorney to rule on the minor’s fitness for juvenile court which
places the burden of proof on the prosecutor and minor to prove the minor is or is not amenable to treatment
within the juvenile justice system.
Males, M., Macallair, D. (2000). The color of justice: an analysis of juvenile adult court transfers in California.
Washington, DC: Prepared by Justice Policy Institute for the Building Blocks for Youth Initiative. Available online at
http://www.buildingblocksforyouth.org/colorofjustice/ (available as of February 23, 2007).
Summary: This study found that youth of color juvenile offenders in California are much more likely to be
transferred to adult courts and sentenced to prison than are whites who commit similar crimes. Compared
with white youths, minorities in California were 2.8 times more likely to be arrested for violent crimes, 6.2
times more likely to be tried in adult court and 7 times more likely to be sentenced to prison once they get
there.
Colorado
Amnesty International, USA (Colorado). The arrest and pre-trail detention of Raoul W. Available online at:
http://www.amnestyusa.org/...42F774DBD0B6014802569A5005465FA (available as of February 16, 2007).
Summary: Ten-year-old Raoul W.(1) was arrested from his home in Evergreen, near Denver, on 30 August
1999. The police came to the family's house at around 10pm at night in order to carry out the arrest.(2) Raoul
was in bed at the time the police came to the house. He was taken away in handcuffs.The basis of the arrest
was an allegation made by a neighbour, on or around 25 May 1999, that she had seen Raoul engaged in
''predatory'' sexual behaviour against his five-year-old sister, namely by improperly touching her when the
two were playing in the garden. The local authorities have stated that they carried out their own investigations
into the allegation before authorizing the arrest.Raoul, who is now 11, was charged with ''aggravated incest'',
and held for the next seven weeks in the Mount View Youth Services Center, a juvenile detention centre in
Denver for 10 to 17-year-olds. He has been taken to court several times, in handcuffs, and on at least one
occasion he has been made to wear leg shackles. Raoul is variously described as ''slight'' and ''small for his
age''.
Florio, G., Lindsay, S., & Langbein, S. (2005, September 15-20). Special report: locked up forever. Rocky Mountain
News. Available online at:
19
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_4083343,00.html (available as of February
23, 2007).
Summary: A four-part newspaper series regarding life sentences for juvenile offenders and the debate over
whether some of the inmates sentenced as teens deserve a chance at freedom. Includes an interview with a
man convicted of murdering his parents when he was 15 after a childhood of abuse. Discusses arguments that
dvocates make, relying on brain research used in Roper v. Simmons, to support reconsidering life sentences.
Examines Texas’s juvenile justice system, which is described as a model.
Connecticut
Connecticut Juvenile Jurisdiction Planning and Implementation Committee. (2007) Final report. Hartford, CT:
Author. Available online at: http://www.cga.ct.gov/hdo/jjpic/
Summary: Pursuant to Public Act 06-187, section 16, the Juvenile Jurisdiction Planning and Implementation
Committee was established to plan for the implementation of any changes in the juvenile justice system that
would be required in order to extend jurisdiction in delinquency matters and proceedings to include sixteenyear-old and seventeen-year-old children within the Superior Court for Juvenile Matters. On February 12,
2007, the committee issued this report, including a recommendation to raise the age of juvenile court
jurisdiction to 18 effective on July 1, 2009.
Brandau, T.J. Position paper: transfer of juvenile offenders to adult court in Delaware. Available online at:
http://www.campaign4youthjustice.org/files/DE/DEPositionPaperonJuvenilesinAdultCourt.pdf (available as of
February 23, 2007).
District of Columbia
Young, M. (2004). Testimony: consequences of transfer of children into adult criminal court. Before the Committee
on the Judiciary, District of Columbia Council. Available online at:
http://www.campaign4youthjustice.org/files/TestimonyofMalcomYoungbeforeDCCouncil.pdf (available as of
February 23, 2007).
Florida
Bishop, D., Frazier, C., Lanza-Kaduce, L., and White, H. 1999. Fact Sheet #113: A study of juvenile transfers to
criminal court in Florida. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile
Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Available from (OJJDP's) Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse at 800-638-8736 or
online at: http://www.ojjdp.ncjrs.org/publications/PubSummary.asp?pubi=223475 (available as of February 23, 2007).
Summary: Provides a brief overview of the four research components of Florida's study on juvenile transfers
to criminal court. This study, funded by OJJDP since 1995, is assessing the impact of transfer laws and
practices, including the effectiveness of using transfer as a crime control strategy. Florida leads the Nation in
juvenile transfers to criminal court. The number of transfers has come to rival the number of residential
placement dispositions for juvenile offenders in Florida. Therefore, the State is an ideal policy laboratory in
which to study questions about transfer. Results from the first phase of the project will be available later in
1999.
Frazier, C., Bishop, D., & Lanza-Kaduce, L. (1999). Get-tough juvenile justice reforms: the Florida experience. .Annals
of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 564, 167-184. Available from Lexis-Nexis.
Summary: Get-tough reforms aimed at juvenile offenders have become commonplace in the United States. In
the last decade, almost every state has modified laws relating to juvenile crime in some way, and the direction
of the reforms has been very clear. States are getting tougher on juvenile offenders either by shifting away
from traditional rehabilitation models to punishment-oriented juvenile justice or by legislating new or
expanded legal means by which greater numbers of juvenile offenders may be moved to criminal court for
adult processing and punishment. The present study focuses on a major set of juvenile justice reforms in
Florida and the impact on actual practice. Florida is unique in a historical sense because it has transferred
large numbers of juveniles to criminal court for two decades, and, currently, because it has more juveniles in
its prisons than any other state. Despite incremental get-tough reforms, the new transfer provisions have had a
20
negligible impact. The effects of Florida’s get-tough laws and practices should be instructive for those other
states that have begun such reforms more recently.
Frazier, C., Bishop, D., Lanza-Kaduce, L., & Marvasti, A. (1999). Juveniles in criminal court: past and current research
from Florida. Quinnipiac Law Review, 18, 573-596.
Summary: The last two decades have been a particularly tumultuous period in American juvenile justice
policy. Both the reach and rationale of the juvenile has been challenged as never before. During the threeyear period between 1992 and 1995, forty-one states enacted provisions making it easier for juveniles to be
tried as adults. This paper focuses on the practice of prosecutorial transfer, specifically in the state of Florida
where this practice has been a pivotal reform vehicle for more than twenty years. This article examines the
impact of recent changes to transfer law on case processing, the transfer policy guidelines generated by
prosecutors and their opinion regarding transfer law changes, the experience and perception juvenile
offenders have regarding juvenile and criminal justice, and local court records and case files for the purpose
of comparing transfers and juvenile justice system matched cases.
Lanza-Kaduce, L., Frazier, C., & Bishop, D. (1999). Juvenile transfers in Florida: the worst of the worst? University of
Florida Journal of Law and Public Policy. 10( 2), 277-312.
Summary: The article examines what is needed to assess the issues of fairness and effectiveness in the
juvenile transfer system, which are central to the rationales underpinning transfer policies. The adequacy of
the data that are most often used to learn about transfer is examined and then the findings from an in-depth
study of local records are reported. This field research illustrates how complex information gathering is on
matters relevant to transfer. The more detailed processing information gained from the study of local records
is then used to profile transfer cases and to assess the comparability between criminal court transfers and their
juvenile matches, who were selected on the basis of statewide automated data. The implications of the results
for studying the fairness and effectiveness of transfer are then discussed.
Puritz, P., Crawford, C. (2006). Florida: An Assessment of Access to Counsel and Quality of Representation in
Delinquency Proceedings. National Juvenile Defender Center. Available online at:
http://www.njdc.info/pdf/Florida%20Assessment.pdf (available as of February 23, 2007).
Summary: An assessment of Florida’s indigent juvenile defense system, based on extensive interviews and
courtroom observations. Youth were routinely observed waiving their right counsel, without adequate
safeguards to ensure that their waiver was knowing and intelligent. Appointment of counsel regularly
happens too late for defenders to provide meaningful representation at initial court appearances. Defender
offices are limited in their ability to zealously advocate for their clients, in part, because of staggering
caseloads and inadequate resources. Related to this, the assessment found that only a small fraction of
Florida’s delinquency cases ever go to trial. Moreover, the culture in the state of treating delinquency court as
a training ground for defenders and judges contributes to the lack of quality representation that youth receive.
Schiraldi, V. Speech: transfer of youth to the adult court. Available online at:
http://www.campaign4youthjustice.org/files/FL/SpeechbyVincentSchiraldi.pdf (available as of February 23, 2007).
The Campaign for Youth Justice. Fact sheet: Florida’s experience with trying juveniles as adults. Available online at:
http://www.campaign4youthjustice.org/files/FL/FLFactSheetTransfertoAdultCourt.pdf (available as of February 23,
2007).
Georgia
Georgia Youth Task Force. Fact sheet SB440 and the need to reform Georgia's practice of sending youth to the adult
criminal justice system. Available online at:
http://www.campaign4youthjustice.org/files/GA/GAFactSheetonSB440.pdf (available as of February 23, 2007).
Testimony of Marc Schindler, Youth Law Center, on SB 440. (2003). Georgia State Senate Legislative Hearing.
Available online at: http://www.campaign4youthjustice.org/files/GA/GATestimonybyMarcSchindleronSB440.pdf
(available as of February 23, 2007).
Illinois
21
Clarke, E. Testimony in support of raising age of juvenile court jurisdiction to 18. Juvenile Justice Initiative. Available
online at: http://ww.campaign4youthjustice.org/files/IL/IJJITestimonyforWiscLegistoraiseageto18.pdf (available as of
February 23, 2007).
Juvenile Justice Initiative. Senate Bill 458 arguments: Changes the age of juvenile jurisdiction by one year. Available
online at: http://www.campaign4youthjustice.org/files/IL/ILFactSheetonRaisingAgeofAdulthood.pdf (available as of
February 23, 2007).
Juvenile Justice Initiative. (2005). Testimony on raising age of adulthood: SB458 Cook County Legislation and
Intergovernmental Hearing. Available online at:
http://www.campaign4youthjustice.org/files/IL/ILTestimonyonRaisingAgeofAdulthood.pdf (available as of February
23, 2007).
Indiana
Kehoe, E.G., Tandy, K.B. (2006). Indiana: an assessment of access to counsel and quality of representation in
delinquency proceedings. Available online at: http://www.childrenslawky.org/publications/Indiana%20Assessment.pdf
(available as of February 23, 2007).
Summary: An assessment of Indiana’s indigent juvenile defense system, based on extensive interviews and
courtroom observation. Practitioners interviewed for the report routinely estimated that about half of youth
waived their right to counsel, with some counties reaching estimated waiver rates of 80%. The assessment
also found that current laws and practices frequently delay appointment of counsel for youth accused of
breaking the law, leaving youth without the guidance of counsel even at critical stages such as the detention
hearing. Quality of representation often fell far short of what juveniles deserve, as a consequence of public
defenders lacking the training or resources to provide effective services. These problems with legal
representation are exacerbated by the fact that Indiana’s juvenile justice system is overloaded with youth who
enter the delinquency courts unnecessarily, due to inflexible school disciplinary policies or poor mental
health services.
Maryland
Bochenek, M. Testimony on Maryland transfer law. Before the Maryland House Judiciary Committee. Available online
at: http://www.campaign4youthjustice.org/files/MD/MDTestimonyonMarylandtransferlaw03062003.pdf (available as
of February 23, 2007).
Bochenek, M. No Minor Matter: Children in Maryland’s Jails. (1999). New York, NY: Human Rights Watch.
Available online at: http://www.hrw.org/reports/1999/maryland/Maryland-01.htm#P245_12081
Summary: This report illustrates how Maryland's jails are inappropriate places for youth, even for those who
are accused of committing very serious crimes. This conclusion is particularly compelling with regard to the
Baltimore City Detention Center, where children endure dimly lit, dreary cells infested with vermin and face
daily risks to their personal safety. Whether or not they are detained in conditions as squalid as those in the
Baltimore, youth held in Maryland's adult detention centers receive insufficient opportunities for education
and recreation and face protracted periods of idleness. They may not be afforded age-appropriate medical and
mental health services, and it appeared that all jails failed to provide youth with enough food to meet their
developmental needs.
Minnesota
Torbet, P., Griffin, P., Hunter, H., & MacKenzie, L.R. (2000). Juveniles facing criminal sanctions: three states that
changed the rules. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice
and Delinquency Prevention. Available from (OJJDP's) Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse at 800-638-8736. Also available
online at:
http://www.ojjdp.ncjrs.org/publications/PubSummary.asp?pubi=181203 (available as of February 23, 2007).
Summary: Examines recent State laws that target serious adolescent crime by expanding eligibility for
criminal court processing and sanctioning and reducing confidentiality protections for a subset of adolescent
offenders. In particular, the Report examines the actual implementation of distinctive approaches to youth
22
justice reform in three States—Wisconsin, New Mexico, and Minnesota. Wisconsin categorically excluded
17-year-olds from juvenile court jurisdiction, and New Mexico and Minnesota expanded juvenile court
judges' sentencing authority. The case studies provide rich descriptive information on the background of the
reforms and the legislative, programming, and policy impact that the changes have had on the child and
criminal justice systems at the State and local levels. The Report summarizes the lessons learned from these
case studies and from the authors' analysis of State legislative activity.
Montana
American Civil Liberties Union (2005). ACLU hails Montana's public defense bill as leading national trend.
Available online at: http://www.aclu.org/crimjustice/indigent/10248prs20050608.html (available as of February 23,
2007).
Summary: The American Civil Liberties Union filed a class action lawsuit that helped goad the Montana
legislature into establishing a statewide indigent defense delivery system. The ACLU sees Montana as being
at the forefront of a national trend toward improving public defense, but cautions that Montana's promising
reforms will not be effective unless they are adequately funded.
New Jersey
Fagan, J. (1996). The comparative advantage of juvenile vs. criminal court sanctions on recidivism among adolescent
felony offenders. Law and Policy, 18, (1-2). Online requests for the article can be made at:
http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/cservices/single.asp?site=1 (available as of February 23, 2007).
Summary: This study, comparing New York and New Jersey juvenile offenders, shows that the rearrest rate
for children sentenced in juvenile court was 29% lower than the rearrest rate for juveniles sentenced in the
adult criminal court.
New Mexico
Torbet, P., Griffin, P., Hunter, H., & MacKenzie, L.R. (2000). Juveniles facing criminal sanctions: three states that
changed the rules. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice
and Delinquency Prevention. Available from (OJJDP's) Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse at 800-638-8736. Also available
online at: http://www.ojjdp.ncjrs.org/publications/PubSummary.asp?pubi=181203 (available as of February 23, 2007).
Summary: Examines recent State laws that target serious adolescent crime by expanding eligibility for
criminal court processing and sanctioning and reducing confidentiality protections for a subset of adolescent
offenders. In particular, the Report examines the actual implementation of distinctive approaches to youth
justice reform in three States—Wisconsin, New Mexico, and Minnesota. Wisconsin categorically excluded
17-year-olds from juvenile court jurisdiction, and New Mexico and Minnesota expanded juvenile court
judges' sentencing authority. The case studies provide rich descriptive information on the background of the
reforms and the legislative, programming, and policy impact that the changes have had on the child and
criminal justice systems at the State and local levels. The Report summarizes the lessons learned from these
case studies and from the authors' analysis of State legislative activity.
New York
Fagan, J. (1996). The comparative advantage of juvenile vs. criminal court sanctions on recidivism among adolescent
felony offenders. Law and Policy, 18, (1-2). Online requests for the article can be made at:
http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/cservices/single.asp?site=1 (available as of February 23, 2007).
Summary: This study, comparing New York and New Jersey juvenile offenders, shows that the rearrest rate
for children sentenced in juvenile court was 29% lower than the rearrest rate for juveniles sentenced in the
adult criminal court.
Singer, S., Fagan, J., & Liberman, A. (2000). Reproduction of juvenile justice in criminal court: a case study of New
York's juvenile offender law. In J. Fagan & F.E. Zimring (Eds.), The Changing Borders of Juvenile Justice: Transfer of
Adolescents to the Criminal Court (353-375). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs,
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Available from (OJJDP's) Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse at
800-638-8736.
23
Summary: In March 1978, Willie Bosket, a 15-year-old juvenile with a lengthy arrest record, robbed and
killed a subway passenger. Eight days later he did the same thing to another subway passenger. Because he
was only 15 years old, he could not be charged in New York's criminal court. He was technically a delinquent
who could be confined at most for a period of 5 years. As a consequence, Bosket triggered a major crisis in
New York's system of juvenile justice. New York's 1978 Juvenile Offender Law was enacted in response to
Bosket's crimes to ensure that juveniles who committed violent crimes would be automatically transferred to
the jurisdiction of criminal courts to ensure appropriate incapacitation in a secure facility. It appeared to New
York legislators that Bosket and other violent juveniles were beyond the control of a complex, confused
system of juvenile justice. This chapter shows that despite the stated intent of New York's Juvenile Offender
law, it did not eliminate the need for a distinctive court system very much like the juvenile court in rationale
and procedure. Rather, it reproduced juvenile justice within systems of criminal justice. The first section of
this chapter traces the development of the 1978 Juvenile Offender Law in prior legislation, judicial opinions
and jurisprudential rationales, and criticisms of the New York juvenile court processes. The second section of
the chapter examines the operation of the Juvenile Offender Law following its implementation in 1978. The
final section discusses the lessons to be learned from New York's attempt to control violent juvenile crime
through no judicial offense-based exclusion legislation. One recommendation is to restrict eligibility for
automatic waiver to a narrow list of violent offenses. 3 tables, 19 references, and 9 notes.
North Carolina
North Carolina Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission, Youthful Offender Subcommittee. (2006). Final report.
Raleigh, NC: Author.
Summary: The North Carolina Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission, in response to the mandate
contained in Session Law 2006-248, Sections 34.1 and 34.2, issued a report on December 6, 2007 include a
set of recommendations to be considered by the General Assembly. Recommendations include increasing the
age of juvenile jurisdiction to persons who, at the time they commit a crime or infraction, are under the age of
18. Traffic offenses committed by persons 16 and older will remain within the jurisdiction of the adult
criminal courts.
Texas
Hubner, J. (2005). Last Chance in Texas: The redemption of criminal youth. New York, NY: Random House.
Summary: While reporting on the juvenile court system, journalist John Hubner kept hearing about a facility
in Texas that ran the most aggressive–and one of the most successful–treatment programs for violent young
offenders in America. How was it possible, he wondered, that a state like Texas, famed for its hardcore
attitude toward crime and punishment, could be leading the way in the rehabilitation of violent and troubled
youth? Now Hubner shares the surprising answers he found over months of unprecedented access to the
Giddings State School, home to “the worst of the worst”: four hundred teenage lawbreakers convicted of
crimes ranging from aggravated assault to murder. Hubner follows two of these youths–a boy and a girl–
through harrowing group therapy sessions in which they, along with their fellow inmates, recount their
crimes and the abuse they suffered as children. The key moment comes when the young offenders reenact
these soul-shattering moments with other group members in cathartic outpourings of suffering and anger that
lead, incredibly, to genuine remorse and the beginnings of true empathy . . . the first steps on the long road to
redemption.
Virginia
Statement of Robert E. Shepherd, Jr. Hearing on H.R. 1279 for the Committee on the Judicary, Subcommittee on
Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security. Available online at:
http://www.campaign4youthjustice.org/files/va/RobertShepherdtestimony.pdf (available as of February 23, 2007).
Wisconsin
Eleson, C. (2005). Testimony: Support for Assembly Bill 82. Wisconsin Council on Children & Families. Available
online at: http://www.campaign4youthjustice.org/files/wi/WCCFTestimony090705.pdf (available as of February 23,
2007).
24
Torbet, P., Griffin, P., Hunter, H., & MacKenzie, L.R. (2000). Juveniles facing criminal sanctions: three states that
changed the rules. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice
and Delinquency Prevention. Available from (OJJDP's) Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse at 800-638-8736. Also available
online at: http://www.ojjdp.ncjrs.org/publications/PubSummary.asp?pubi=181203 (available as of February 23, 2007).
Summary: Examines recent State laws that target serious adolescent crime by expanding eligibility for
criminal court processing and sanctioning and reducing confidentiality protections for a subset of adolescent
offenders. In particular, the Report examines the actual implementation of distinctive approaches to youth
justice reform in three States—Wisconsin, New Mexico, and Minnesota. Wisconsin categorically excluded
17-year-olds from juvenile court jurisdiction, and New Mexico and Minnesota expanded juvenile court
judges' sentencing authority. The case studies provide rich descriptive information on the background of the
reforms and the legislative, programming, and policy impact that the changes have had on the child and
criminal justice systems at the State and local levels. The Report summarizes the lessons learned from these
case studies and from the authors' analysis of State legislative activity.
Wisconsin Council on Children & Families. (2006). Rethinking the juvenile in juvenile justice. Implications of
adolescent brain development on the juvenile justice system. Available online at:
http://www.campaign4youthjustice.org/MAR06/facts/wisconsin/rethinkingjuvjjsrpt.pdf (available as of February 23,
2007). Executive Summary available online at:
http://www.campaign4youthjustice.org/MAR06/facts/wisconsin/rethinkingjuvjjsexecsumm.pdf (available as of
February 23, 2007).
Summary: This report suggests that applying what we know about adolescents to their treatment will provide
more effective and more cost-effective solutions to criminal justice. Policy recommendations are made to
address community safety while also taking into account the developmentally appropriate treatment of
adolescents in legal trouble and links for the first time research about adolescent brain development with our
treatment of minors in the criminal and juvenile justice systems.
Wisconsin Statute on Right to Counsel, Wis. Stat. Section 938.23 (2006). Available on Westlaw and LexisNexis.
Summary: A statute in Wisconsin that prohibits waiver of counsel for juveniles under 15. For juveniles 15
years or older who have waived their right to counsel, the statute prohibits the courts from placing them in a
juvenile correctional facility or secured residential care center, transferring supervision of the juvenile to the
department for participation in the serious juvenile offender program, or transferring jurisdiction to adult
court.
17. State Legislation
Center for Policy Alternatives (2007). Progressive agenda for the States 2007. Washington, DC: Author. Available
online at: http://www.stateaction.org/publications/agenda/2007/2007agenda.pdf.
Summary: This report profiles model state legislation, including juvenile transfer reform.
National Juvenile Defender Center (2006). 2006 State juvenile justice legislation. Washington, DC: Author. Available
online at: http://www.njdc.info/pdf/2006%20State%20JJ%20Legislation.pdf
Summary: This compendium profiles state legislation introduced or approved in all 50 states on key topics,
including transfer and waiver of youth to the adult court and sentencing policy.
18. Suicide
Cohn, A.W. (2005). Suicides within the juvenile justice system: the need for administrative oversight. Juvenile Justice
Update, 11(5). Order form available online at: http://www.civicresearchinstitute.com/ch2.html (available as of
February 23, 2007).
Summary: Providing related statistics, this article demonstrates that suicide is a serious problem among the
juvenile justice population. The author suggests correctional staff, juvenile court judges, court administrators,
25
and chief probation officers take responsibility for helping to limit the number of suicides and suicide
attempts. In addition, eight steps for suicide prevention are laid out.
Flaherty, M. (1980). An assessment of the national incidence of juvenile suicide in adult jails, lockups, and juvenile
detention centers. In R.A. Weisheit & R.G. Culbertson (Eds.), Juvenile Delinquency - A Justice Perspective (125-134).
Prospect Heights, Illinois: Waveland Press, Inc. Available from (OJJDP's) Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse at 800-6388736.
Summary: Questionnaires sent to jails, lockups, and juvenile detention centers in the Criminal Justice
Agency List documented 383,328 children in secure detention facilities; 170,714 juveniles in adult jails; and
11,592 in adult lockups. Taking into account the response rate of 97.6 percent, the study estimated that
479,908 persons under age 18 were in all 3 types of facilities during 1978. The rate of suicide among
juveniles in adult jails during this period was 12.3 per 100,000, which is 4.6 times larger than the suicide rate
of 2.7 per 100,000 among youth in the general population during 1977. The rate of suicide of juveniles in
adult lockups was 8.6 per 100,000. Unexpectedly, the suicide rate in juvenile detention facilities was only 1.6
per 100,000. The policy of incarcerating children in adult facilities may be contributing to a relatively high
rate of suicide among those children.
Snyder, H. (2005). Is suicide more common inside or outside of juvenile facilities? Corrections Today. 67(1), 84-88.
Summary: Prior research has found higher rates of mental health problems for offenders in the juvenile
justice system, than among juveniles in the general population. To answer the question, “are suicides more
common inside juvenile facilities,” this article presents the results of data gathered by the National Center for
Health Statistics (NCHS) for 1990 through 2001. The data summarize information from death certificates and
includes cause-of-death information reported by attending physicians, medical examiners, and coroners. The
data provide counts of suicides for each age, sex, and race/ethnicity group in the United States for 1990
through 2001. These counts are combined with resident population estimates. The data reveal that the number
of suicides of youths in juvenile custody is no greater than for a group of demographically similar youths in
the general United States population. With juvenile offenders having more risk factors for suicide than those
youths in the general population, an offender’s risk of suicide death is reduced while in custody. Therefore, it
is fair to assume that custody appears to reduce the likelihood of suicide for juvenile offenders while in
custody.
19. Transfer and Waivers to Adult Court: Data and Analysis
Barnes, C. & Franz, R. (1989). Questionably adult: determinants and effects of the juvenile waiver decision. Justice
Quarterly, 6(1), 117-135. Available at: US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Criminal
Justice Reference Service.
Summary: Demographic, legal, and organizational determinants of the waiver decision were treated as
independent variables in a discriminant analysis of that decision. Analysis of covariance then was used to
assess the effect of court of abjudication on severity of sentencing; the demographic, legal, and organizational
variables were used as controls. Variables distinguishing fit from unfit youth were the seriousness of the
offense, the number and nature of prior offenses, and prior treatment. Personal and aggravated personal
offenders received more severe sentences in adult court than their counterparts in juvenile court, but property
offenders were treated more leniently. Seriousness of offense played a significant role in adult court
sentencing, but was overshadowed in juvenile court by the number and nature of prior offenses and by prior
treatment.
Bishop, D., Frazier, C., Lanza-Kaduce, L., and White, H. 1999. Fact Sheet #113: A Study of Juvenile Transfers to
Criminal Court in Florida. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile
Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Available from (OJJDP's) Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse at 800-638-8736 or
online at: http://www.ojjdp.ncjrs.org/publications/PubSummary.asp?pubi=223475 (available as of February 23, 2007).
Summary: Provides a brief overview of the four research components of Florida's study on juvenile transfers
to criminal court. This study, funded by OJJDP since 1995, is assessing the impact of transfer laws and
practices, including the effectiveness of using transfer as a crime control strategy. Florida leads the Nation in
juvenile transfers to criminal court. The number of transfers has come to rival the number of residential
placement dispositions for juvenile offenders in Florida. Therefore, the State is an ideal policy laboratory in
26
which to study questions about transfer. Results from the first phase of the project will be available later in
1999.
Bishop, D., Frazier, C., & Henretta, J. (1989). Prosecutorial waiver: case study of a questionable reform. Crime and
Delinquency. 35(2), 179-201.
Summary: Consistent with a trend toward more punitive responses to delinquency, many states have enacted
laws that facilitate the transfer of young offenders to criminal court by bypassing the traditional waiver
hearing. The most highly controversial of these streamlined transfer methods is prosecutorial waiver, which
allows prosecutors to choose whether to initiate proceedings in juvenile or criminal courts. This article
examines the practice of prosecutorial waiver in Florida, a state that grants prosecutors extremely wide
latitude with respect to the transfer of 16-and 17-year olds. Our analyses focus on interviews conducted with
prosecutors in each of the state’s judicial circuits, as well as individual-level case data on transfers in two
urban counties. Few of the juveniles transferred via prosecutorial waiver are the kinds of dangerous, repeat
offenders for whom waiver is arguably justified. This is in large part due to the lack of statutory guidelines to
govern the selection of cases, the ease with which waivers is accomplished, and the lack of support among
prosecutors for traditional principles of juvenile justice.
Bishop, D. & Frazier, C. (1991). Transfer of juveniles to criminal court: a case study and analysis of prosecutorial
waiver. Notre Dame Journal of Law, Ethics, and Public Policy, 5(2), 281- 302. Available at: US Department of Justice,
Office of Justice Programs, National Criminal Justice Reference Service.
Summary: Prosecutorial waiver is one of three forms of juvenile court waiver available under lorida law. It
gives prosecutors almost unlimited discretion with respect to the transfer of youths ages 16 and 17 to criminal
court. Telephone interviews with prosecutors in each of the State's 20 judicial circuits revealed that although
few eligible youth are transferred, those transferred via prosecutorial waiver are seldom the serious and
chronic offenders for whom prosecution and punishment in criminal court may be justified. In addition,
analysis of transfers in two counties showed wide variations in its use. Results indicated that the lack of
objective, substantive guidelines make it almost inevitable that unpredictable and unjustifiable outcomes will
occur. A more appropriate approach would be to rely on legislative exclusion and judicial waiver, the other
two forms of juvenile court waiver allowed under Florida law.
Bishop, D., Frazier, C., Lanza-Kaduce, L., & White, H. (1996). The transfer of juveniles to criminal court: does it make
a difference? Crime & Delinquency, 42(2), 171-191. Available from National Council on Crime and Delinquency at
415-896-6223.
Summary: This study found that transfer to criminal court increased the likelihood of recidivism. Recidivism
of youths who were transferred to criminal court in Florida in 1987 was compared with that of those retained
in the juvenile system. The results indicated that transferred youths quickly reoffended at a higher rate than
matched nontransferred youths. The seriousness of reoffending was also greater for the transfer group than
for the nontransfer group, with transfers more likely to commit a subsequent felony offense. The findings
suggest that transfer made little difference in deterring youths from reoffending. Adult processing of youths
in criminal court actually increases recidivism than have any incapacitative effects on crime control and
community protection.
Bush, J., Bankhead, W.G. (2002). A DJJ success story: trends in the transfer of juveniles to adult criminal court.
Florida Department of Juvenile Justice.
Summary: Current research shows that youth that receive sanctions and rehabilitation in Florida’s juvenile
justice system have a lower rate of recidivism than their counterparts that are transferred to adult criminal
court. Transferred youth were more likely to recidivate than youth retained in the juvenile system and
recidivated at a faster rate, with more serous offenses, and with a greater number of offenses. The researchers
were asked to take a closer look at offender and offense characteristics that would enable them to match
youth retained in the juvenile system to those that had been transferred to adult criminal court more
accurately. Using more specific criteria, the researchers refined that sample to 315 “best-matched” pairs. The
results showed that 49 percent of the youth transferred recidivated, compared with 37 percent of those that
remained in the juvenile justice system. The researchers also examined the 98 pairs in which both youth reoffended. The transferred youth committed a more serious felony or violent crime, while in 24 percent of the
pairs the youth retained in the juvenile system committed a more serious crime. The findings of this study,
the increase in deep-end capacity and specialized treatment, the continuing improvement of success rates, and
the dramatic decline in the number of juveniles transferred to the adult system are evidence that Florida’s
27
juvenile justice system is gaining credibility among prosecutors and judges as an appropriate place to
rehabilitate serious juvenile offenders.
Frazier, C., Bishop, D., Lanza-Kaduce, L., & Marvasti, A. (1999). Juveniles in criminal court: past and current research
from Florida. Quinnipiac Law Review, 18, 573-596.
Summary: The last two decades have been a particularly tumultuous period in American juvenile justice
policy. Both the reach and rationale of the juvenile has been challenged as never before. During the threeyear period between 1992 and 1995, forty-one states enacted provisions making it easier for juveniles to be
tried as adults. This paper focuses on the practice of prosecutorial transfer, specifically in the state of Florida
where this practice has been a pivotal reform vehicle for more than twenty years. This article examines the
impact of recent changes to transfer law on case processing, the transfer policy guidelines generated by
prosecutors and their opinion regarding transfer law changes, the experience and perception juvenile
offenders have regarding juvenile and criminal justice, and local court records and case files for the purpose
of comparing transfers and juvenile justice system matched cases.
Griffin, P., Torbet, P., & Szymanski, L. (1998). Trying juveniles as adults in criminal court: an analysis of state
transfer provisions. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile
Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Available from (OJJDP's) Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse at 800-638-8736.
Available online at: http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/172836.pdf (available as of February 23, 2007).
Summary: From 1992 through 1995, 40 States and the District of Columbia passed laws making it easier for
juveniles to be tried as adults. To better understand the growing trend and the potential impact on youth
crime, this paper examines the nature of offenses that trigger such transfers and various mechanisms used to
effect them. The paper discusses direct file provisions, which typically authorize the prosecutor to determine
jurisdiction based on age/offense categories, and statutory exclusions, which remove certain offenses or
age/offense categories from the jurisdiction of the juvenile court. In addition, the report covers "once an
adult/always an adult" provisions; transfer for nonviolent offenses; requirements for additional pretransfer
findings; evidentiary standards for waivers and transfers; transfer treatment based on an individual's record;
devices to limit prosecutorial discretion; and minimum age provisions. Notes, tables, appendix
Jensen, E. & Metsger, L. (1994). Test of the deterrent effect of legislative waiver on violent juvenile crime. Crime and
Delinquency, 40( 1), 96-104. Available at US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Criminal
Justice Reference Service.
Summary: Most States have a procedure for transferring juvenile offenders to adult criminal court. The
procedure known as judicial waiver requires the juvenile court judge to make a transfer determination
following a waiver hearing. Growing disillusionment with the juvenile justice system has led some States to
enact legislative waiver statutes which remove judicial discretion and provide for mandatory transfer of
certain juveniles accused of statutorily specified crimes to criminal court. These statutes are based in part on
the need for retribution and deterrence of serious juvenile offenders. This study evaluated the success of
Idaho's 1981 revised legislative waiver statute in deterring violent juvenile crime. Crime data was analyzed
using a time series design. The years in the time series included the five years prior to enactment of the
legislative waiver statute and the five years subsequent to enactment. Montana and Wyoming were used as
comparison States. Researchers concluded that Idaho's statute has had no deterrent effect on juvenile violent
crime. Possible explanations for this finding are discussed.
Kumli, K. (2002). California's juvenile transfer process: from antiquated to complicated. Corrections Today. 64(6), 98
– 100. Available at US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Criminal Justice Reference Service.
Summary: In response to a violent and heinous crime committed in 1992 by a juvenile days shy of his 16th
birthday, youth under age 14 in California can now be prosecuted as adults. In addition, the wave of “tough
on crime” measures moved toward the procedure and policy applicable to adult criminal matters. In 2000,
California passed the Gang Violence and Juvenile Crime Prevention Act (Proposition 21). This law is most
profound in the manner in which juveniles are certified to adult court. A minor’s eligibility for juvenile court
has evolved from the singular process of a court-determined transfer to a complicated assortment of
procedures, applicable under specific circumstances. This article briefly discusses three procedures by which
a minor can be transferred to adult court: (1) statutory waiver, (2) prosecutorial waiver, and (3) judicial
waiver. The statutory waiver is the requirement that certain juvenile crimes must be transferred to adult court.
This waiver allows for an enormous amount of discretion for the prosecuting attorney because the required
28
circumstances and allegations must be included in the charges filed. The most controversial method of
transferring juvenile cases to adult court is prosecutorial waiver. Prosecuting attorneys have discretion
(previously held exclusively by judges) to file certain cases directly with the adult system. As once the sole
method of transferring juvenile cases and still a large part of the statutory scheme, the judicial waiver begins
with a motion brought by the prosecuting attorney to rule on the minor’s fitness for juvenile court which
places the burden of proof on the prosecutor and minor to prove the minor is or is not amenable to treatment
within the juvenile justice system.
Parent, D., Dunworth, T., McDonald, D., & Rhodes, W. (1997). Key legislative issues in criminal justice: transferring
serious juvenile offenders to adult courts. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs,
National Institute of Justice. Available online at: http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/trans.pdf (available as of February 23,
2007).
Summary: Recent changes in some State laws have resulted in increasing numbers of youths being sentenced
as adults and incarcerated in adult facilities. The number of juvenile court cases increased from 7,000 in 1988
to 11,000 in 1992. These changes are affecting both juvenile detention facilities, where many youthful
offenders await transfer to adult prisons, and the adult prisons, where administrators must develop ways to
include this different population. Juvenile detention facilities are experiencing a backlog of juveniles awaiting
transfers to adult prisons, causing some problems in managing this temporary population. Some await
transfers for 6 months or longer. Thirty-six States disperse young inmates in housing with adult inmates, nine
house them only with inmates ages 18-21, and six either transfer them to their State juvenile training schools
until they reach the age of majority or house them in segregated units in adult prisons. Issues involved in
placing juveniles in adult facilities include their risk of being raped or assaulted by older inmates; their
increased risk for suicide if placed in isolation for protection; and their different needs regarding diet,
exercise, and discipline. Some States such as Georgia and Colorado are building special units and providing
special staff and programming for these youths. Tables and 18 reference notes
Singer, S., Fagan, J., & Liberman, A. (2000). Reproduction of juvenile justice in criminal court: a case study of New
York's juvenile offender law. In J. Fagan & F.E. Zimring (Eds.), The changing borders of juvenile justice: transfer of
adolescents to the criminal court (353-375). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs,
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Available from (OJJDP's) Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse at
800-638-8736.
Summary: In March 1978, Willie Bosket, a 15-year-old juvenile with a lengthy arrest record, robbed and
killed a subway passenger. Eight days later he did the same thing to another subway passenger. Because he
was only 15 years old, he could not be charged in New York's criminal court. He was technically a delinquent
who could be confined at most for a period of 5 years. As a consequence, Bosket triggered a major crisis in
New York's system of juvenile justice. New York's 1978 Juvenile Offender Law was enacted in response to
Bosket's crimes to ensure that juveniles who committed violent crimes would be automatically transferred to
the jurisdiction of criminal courts to ensure appropriate incapacitation in a secure facility. It appeared to New
York legislators that Bosket and other violent juveniles were beyond the control of a complex, confused
system of juvenile justice. This chapter shows that despite the stated intent of New York's Juvenile Offender
law, it did not eliminate the need for a distinctive court system very much like the juvenile court in rationale
and procedure. Rather, it reproduced juvenile justice within systems of criminal justice. The first section of
this chapter traces the development of the 1978 Juvenile Offender Law in prior legislation, judicial opinions
and jurisprudential rationales, and criticisms of the New York juvenile court processes. The second section of
the chapter examines the operation of the Juvenile Offender Law following its implementation in 1978. The
final section discusses the lessons to be learned from New York's attempt to control violent juvenile crime
through no judicial offense-based exclusion legislation. One recommendation is to restrict eligibility for
automatic waiver to a narrow list of violent offenses. 3 tables, 19 references, and 9 notes.
Wizner, S. (1984). Discretionary waiver of juvenile court jurisdiction: an invitation to procedural arbitrariness.
Criminal Justice Ethics, 3(2), 41-50. Available at US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National
Criminal Justice Reference Service.
Summary: Criticisms of waiver use within the juvenile court system focus on its unbridled discretion,
rehabilitative ineffectiveness, punitive realities, and potential for procedural arbitrariness. At present, the four
major mechanisms for transfers are judicial waiver, concurrent jurisdiction, legislative exclusion, and
lowered age of jurisdiction. However, because of the vagueness and multiplicity of waiver criteria and the
excessively discretionary nature of transfer decisions, current practices facilitate procedural arbitrariness and
undermine the adversary nature of decision-making upon which the legal system is based. Further, although
protection of the public safety and the need for a means for dealing with the serious and violent offender are
the chief rationales put forth for transfers to adult courts, an examination of data shows that most youth
29
transfers involve adolescents charged with property, public order, and miscellaneous minor offenses.
Additionally, most of these offenders receive no prison sentences at all, and only a very few receive longer
sentences than they would have received in the juvenile court. Because the current waiver system is irrational
and chaotic, there is a need for an adversary process in waiver decision-making. This should contain four
elements: a statutory definition of juveniles eligible for transfer; a statutory list of factual criteria including
probable cause that the offense was committed, aggravating circumstances, and prior record; prior
rehabilitative efforts; and outcomes. Additional difficulties in the present system could be ameliorated by the
implementation of a unified, overlapping, three-tiered court system consisting of juvenile, youthful offender,
and adult divisions. Such a system would better reflect the gradual transition from juvenile to adult status and
would reduce the impact of discretionary decisions by providing a broader range of courts and penalties.
20. What Doesn’t Work in the Juvenile Justice System
a) Boot Camps
Austin, J., Camp-Blair, D., Camp, A., Castellano, T., Adams-Fuller, T., Jones, M., Kerr, S., Lewis, R., & Plant, S.
(2000). Multi-site evaluation of boot camp programs, final report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office
of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Available from (OJJDP's) Juvenile Justice
Clearinghouse at 800-638-8736 or online at: http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/192011.pdf (available as of
February 23, 2007).
Summary: The evaluations show that boot camp programs are not having the impact on offenders or
corrections in accordance with expectations. Although many of the programs have been well-administered
and popular with public officials, they have not demonstrated a significant impact on recidivism, prison or
jail crowding, or costs, which have been the three core goals of boot camps. The lack of impact on recidivism
is probably due to the fact that many boot camp participants are low-risk as a result of the selection criteria
used by correctional agencies and the courts in establishing eligibility for boot-camp admission. Another
factor that diminishes the recidivism effect is the lack of treatment "dosage." Although many boot camp
participants improve their educational levels and "pro-social values," these levels of improvement are not
sufficient to overcome the more powerful social and economic forces that facilitated their involvement in
criminal activities. It does not appear that the promise of "aftercare services" has added much to the lack of
treatment effects. Regarding averted cost savings, these programs are too small to capture a sufficient
"market share" of the prison or jail population to have an impact on population growth and the associated
operating and construction costs. Furthermore, boot camps tend to be more staff and program service
intensive than traditional correctional facilities. This report concludes that the future of boot camps is not
promising; however, it is unlikely that they will disappear completely, as long as they offer a setting where
low-risk offenders can be exposed to a more intense level of services in a safe correctional environment,
while not being overly expensive to operate, regardless of their limited therapeutic and cost benefits. 24
tables and 84 references.
Miller, M.C., Caputo, M., & Fineout, G. (2006, February 15). Juvenile justice- boot camp closure sought. Miami
Herald. Available online at: http://www.nospank.net/n-p94r.htm (available as of February 23, 2007).
Summary: Governor Jeb Bush and the Troubled Youth Corrections agency were called to shut down the
Panama city boot camp where a 14 year old boy died recently only hours after an altercation with guards.
Florida’s conference of black state legislators also called for the appointment of a special statewide
prosecutor to look into the state’s embattled juvenile justice system and petitioned the Florida Human
Relations Commission to conduct a civil rights investigation.
b) Scared Straight Programs
Schembri, A.J. (2006). Scared straight programs: jail and detention tours. Florida Department of Juvenile Justice.
Available online at: http://www.djj.state.fl.us/Research/Scared_Straight_Booklet_Version.pdf (available as of February
23, 2007).
Summary: In 1981, while serving as an Inspector General in the New York City Department of Correction,
the author visited the nationally recognized Scared Straight Program at Rahway State Prison in New Jersey.
Note from the author: “We were interested in replicating the program in the New York City Department of
30
Correction. We had, I was told, a similar program in which children visited our department and received
“tours” of the facilities. Our program was never evaluated and its outcome was never measured. The night I
visited Rahway and observed the Scared Straight Program, I had doubts about its potential and utility. The
tears and the emotional roller coaster that the children experienced were driven by the inflated egos and the
lack of empathy on the part of the inmates who were apparently using their new-found authority and power
over their charges. I left Rahway with a deep sense of man’s inhumanity to man, and serious doubts about the
use of these techniques with youth.”
31