Transfer to Adult Court/Trying Kids as Adults
Key Studies: Trying Youth As Adults
Impact of Transfer to Criminal Court on Youth:
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/about/99juvjust/990812b.html.
Summary: This fact sheet provides a brief overview of the four research components of the Florida transfer study 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.
Bishop, D., Frazier, C., Lanza-Kaduce, L., and White, H. 1996. The transfer of juveniles to criminal court: Does it make a difference? Crime & Delinquency 42:171-191. Available from National Council on Crime and Delinquency at 415-896-6223. Website address: http://www.nccd-crc.org.
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 and it appears to have little if any incapacitative effects on crime control and community protection.
Fagan, J. 1995. Separating the men from the boys: The comparative advantage of juvenile versus criminal court sanctions on recidivism among adolescent felony offenders." In A Sourcebook: Serious, Violent, and Chronic Juvenile Offenders, edited by J. Howell, B. Krisberg, J.D. Hawkins, and J. Wilson. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Available from National Criminal Justice Reference Service at 800-851-3420. Website address: http://www.ncjrs.org.
Summary: This research showed that criminalization of adolescent crimes failed to provide more effective punishment and lower recidivism rates. The deterrent effects of juvenile versus adult court sanctions on recidivism and reincarceration were compared for 15- and 16-year-old adolescents charged with robbery and burglary in juvenile court in New Jersey with identical offenders in matched communities in New York State whose cases were adjudicated in criminal court. The results indicated that recidivism rates were higher for adolescents in criminal court, their rearrests occurred more quickly, and their return to jail was more likely. Sentence lengths were comparable for both the juvenile and criminal court offender groups. The expected outcomes of greater accountability and lengthier sentences were not gained from criminal court punishment. Nor was community protection increased with the likelihood of recidivism with the severity of criminal court sanctions. The policy implications from this study suggest continued special jurisprudence for adolescent crimes and a separate jurisdiction for juvenile offenders.
Grisso, 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.
Summary: This study shows that a significant portion of children 15 or
younger are not competent to stand trial in a criminal proceeding. The
findings reveal that approximately a third of children aged 11 to 13
and approximately a fifth of those aged 14 to 15 to be impaired in
abilities consistent with that of mentally ill adults who have been
found incompetent to stand trial. Also, youth of below-average
intelligence are more likely than youth of average intelligence to be
impaired in capacities relevant for competence to stand trial. Older
adolescents did not perform significantly different from young adults.
Mason, C. and Chang, S. Re-arrest Rates Among Youth Sentenced in Adult Court: An Evaluation of the Juvenile Sentencing Advocacy Project. 2001. Juvenile Sentencing Advocacy Project, Miami-Dade County Public Defender's Office. Available online: http://www.pdmiami.com/JSAP 2001 Impact Evaluation.pdf
Summary: This study shows that youth tried as adults who are given adult sentences are twice as likely to re-offend as youth who are sentenced to juvenile justice programs. The findings reveal that over a one-year period, almost 90% of the youth sentenced to adult probation or boot camp re-offended or violated the terms of their sentences. In contrast, 40% of youth who received juvenile justice sanctions (mostly year-long juvenile residential programs or probation) re-offended or violated their sentences. When compared with youth given adult sanctions, the youth given juvenile justice sanctions had lower re-offense rates, even when they had similar delinquency histories and charges.
Redding, R. 1999. Examining legal issues: Juvenile offenders in criminal court and adult prison. Corrections Today. Available from American Correctional Association at 800-222-5646. Website address: http://www.corrections.com/aca/cortoday/indedx.html.
Summary: This paper reports of key research findings that criminal prosecution and/or imprisonment does not deter juvenile crime; that criminal court adjudication takes longer; that criminal court adjudication generally produces higher recidivism rates for most offenders. In addition, recommendations for needed research, legislative and policy reform are discussed.
Winner, L., Lanza-Kaduce, L., Bishop, D., and Frazier, C. 1997. The transfer of juveniles to criminal court: Reexamining recidivism over the long term. Crime and Delinquency 43(4): 548-563. Available from National Council on Crime and Delinquency at 415-896-6223.
Summary: This Florida study in 1987 on matched pairs of juveniles found that transferred youths reoffended more quickly than did their nontransferred counterparts. However, the impact of transfer on cases involving property felonies reduced recidivism. Transfer diminished the rearrest chances for property felons in comparison to rearrest among transfers for other offense categories. Although property felons who were transferred may have been less likely to reoffend, when they did reoffend they reoffended more often and more quickly. Once the effect of offense type was controlled, the analysis confirmed that over the long run transfer led to more recidivism.
Racial Disparity in Transfer Practices:
Juszkiewitcz, 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.
Summary: This study looking at the prosecution of minority youth in criminal court found that minority youth, 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 minority.
Males, M., and 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.
Summary: This study found that minority 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.
Poe-Yamagata, E., and 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.
Summary: This national study showed that minority youths 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.
State Transfer Provisions:
Parent, D., Dunworth, T., McDonald, D., and 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.
Summary: This research report describes transfer practices and their results, with a particular focus on placing juveniles in adult facilities.
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.
Available from (OJJDP's) Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse at 800-638-8736. Also available online at http://www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles1/juvcr.pdf.
Summary: This brief report provides information on the diverse mechanisms (e.g. judicial waiver, prosecutorial discretion, or statutory exclusion) by which juveniles arrive in criminal court.
Snyder, H., Sickmund, M., and Poe-Yamagata, E. 2000. Juvenile Transfers to Criminal Court in the 1990's: Lessons Learned from Four States. 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.org/pdffiles1/ojjdp/181301.pdf.
Summary: This report presents the findings of four studies of juvenile transfers to adult criminal court conducted by the National Center for Juvenile Justice. The studies, conducted in Pennsylvania, South Carolina, and Utah, addressed three basic research issues: the criteria used in transfer decisions, changes in transfer decisionmaking criteria during the 1980's and 1990's over and above changes in legislation, and the impact of new legislation that excludes additional offenders from juvenile court jurisdiction. The key findings were: 1) common criteria were used in waiver decisions in South Carolina and Utah, particularly on a juvenile's court history and the seriousness of his or her offense; 2) the increased in judicial waiver in Pennsylvania between 1986 and 1994 were related to change in waiver criteria that were more severe and punitive; 3) Pennsylvania's 1996 exclusion law did not have a significant impact on the number of youth sentenced to adult correctional facility.
Griffin, P., Torbet, P., and 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.org/pdffiles/172836.pdf.
Summary: This report examines state transfer laws and various mechanisms used to transfer juvenile offenders to adult criminal courts. Other topics include "once an adult/always an adult" provisions, transfer for nonviolent offenses, transfer treatment based on prior record, devices to limit prosecutorial discretion, and minimum age provisions.
Torbet, P., Griffin, P., Hunter, H., and Ryan MacKenzie, L. 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://ojjdp.ncjrs.org/pubs/court.html#181203.
Summary: This report examines recent state laws that target serious juvenile crime by expanding eligibility for criminal court processing and sanctioning and reducing confidentiality protections for a subset of juvenile offenders. In particular, the report examines the actual implementation of distinctive approaches to juvenile 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 report summarizes the lessons learned from these case studies on reforms and the legislative, programming, and policy impact that the changes have had on the juvenile and criminal justice systems at the State and local levels.
Statistics:
Butts, J. 1997. Fact Sheet #52: Delinquency Cases Waived to Criminal Court, 1985-1994. 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.org/txtfiles/fs-9752.txt.
Summary: This fact sheet presents data from the National Juvenile Court Data Archive on cases waived by juvenile court judges from 1985 through 1994. The profile of waived cases changed considerably in that time. As recently as 1991, property offenses outnumbered person offenses among waived cases, but in 1994, the largest group of judicially waived cases involved a person offense as the most serious charge. Since 1991, drug offense cases were more likely to be transferred than were person offense cases. Changes in the use of transfer for drug cases were greater in cases involving black youth.
Stahl, A. 1999. OJJDP Fact Sheet #99: Delinquency Cases Waived to Criminal Court, 1987-1996. 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.org/txtfiles/95919.txt.
Summary: This fact sheet presents data from the National Juvenile Court Data Archive on cases transferred from juvenile court to criminal court via judicial waiver between 1987 and 1996.
The profile of cases waived to criminal court changed considerably between 1987 and 1996. Prior to 1992, more property offense cases than person offense cases were waived. In 1996, although waived person offense cases (43%) still outnumbered property offense cases (37%), the gap had closed somewhat. From 1989 through 1992, the type of cases most likely to be waived were drug offense cases, while in 1996 the types of cases most likely to be waived were person offense cases
Home /
Juvenile Justice Issues /
State-by-State Info /
Research
Newsroom /
About Us /
BBY Partners /
Contact us
Building Blocks for Youth
For a fair and effective youth justice system
...a comprehensive effort to protect minority youth in the justice system
and to promote rational and effective juvenile justice policies...
