Violence Prevention: Policies Facilitating the Transfer of Juveniles to Adult Justice Systems

Summary of CPSTF Finding

The Community Preventive Services Task Force (CPSTF) recommends against policies facilitating the transfer of juveniles from juvenile to adult criminal justice systems for the purpose of reducing violence, based on strong evidence that these laws and policies are associated with increased subsequent violent behavior among transferred youth. There is insufficient evidence to determine whether juveniles in the general population are deterred from violent crime by strengthened juvenile transfer policies.

Intervention

Transfer refers to placing juveniles under the jurisdiction of the adult criminal justice system, rather than the juvenile justice system, following arrest. Transfer is also referred to as waiver, denoting the waiver of authority by the juvenile court that allows for transfer of a juvenile defendant to an adult criminal court. Policies regarding the placement of juveniles in the juvenile or in the adult justice systems are largely determined by each state. Several legal mechanisms are used for the transfer of youth under the age of 18 years from the juvenile court system to the adult criminal system. Transfer can be at the discretion of the judge, or be mandated by law, for example for specified serious crimes.

This review assessed policies that mandate or facilitate such transfers under some circumstances.

CPSTF Finding and Rationale Statement

Read the CPSTF finding.

About The Systematic Review

The CPSTF finding is based on evidence from a systematic review of 9 studies (search period through February 2003). The review was conducted on behalf of the CPST by a team of specialists in systematic review methods, and in research, practice, and policy related to violence prevention.

Summary of Results

Specific Deterrence Effects

Specific deterrence refers to the assumption that youth will refrain from committing additional crimes as a result of their own experience in the adult justice system. Six studies assessed specific deterrent effects of juvenile transfer policies.

  • Transferred youth were more likely to be re-arrested for a violent or other crime than youth retained in the juvenile justice system. Among studies reviewed, the median effect was an increase of 33.7% in violent rearrests for transferred juveniles, compared with retained juveniles.
  • Other violent outcomes that may result from the transfer of youth to the adult system include:
    • An increase in pretrial violence
    • Victimization of juveniles in adult facilities
    • Elevated suicide rates for juveniles incarcerated in adult facilities

General Deterrence Effects

General deterrence refers to the assumption that youth in the general population will refrain from committing crimes because of the perceived severity of the adult justice system.

  • Evidence on general deterrence was insufficient to determine the effectiveness of youth transfer policies for reducing violence among all youth because of a small number of studies and inconsistent findings.
  • However, following completion of the present review, an article was published on the general deterrent effects of strengthened transfer laws (Steiner et al. 2006). Although we do not formally include it in our review because it was outside of our publication date cutoffs, it is one of the stronger studies to date regarding the general deterrence effect of strengthened transfer. The study concluded that transfer laws do not promote the general deterrence of violent crime.

Summary of Economic Evidence

An economic review of this intervention was not conducted because CPSTF recommends against use of the intervention.

Applicability

Applicability of this intervention across different settings and populations was not assessed because CPSTF recommends against use of the intervention.

Evidence Gaps

CPSTF identified several areas that have limited information. Additional research and evaluation could help answer the following questions and fill remaining gaps in the evidence base. (What are evidence gaps?)

We found insufficient evidence regarding general deterrence. Other than one study (Levitt 1998), which examined the associations of age of adult court jurisdiction and rates of arrest rather than the effects of transfer per se, the studies reviewed here assessed limited geographic areas and, in general, used simple methodologies. Data may be available to apply time series methods to a broader array of regions and to adjust for confounding variables with ecological designs.

It is not clear whether the effect of increased violence among juveniles who experience the adult versus the juvenile justice system is attributable to the overall judicial process, to the differences in sanctions experienced, or to some other component of the process. Among the studies reviewed, analyses by Fagan and Podkopacz indicate that the effects of transfer are not exclusively attributable to incarceration, but also involve the overall justice system which may result in acquittal or parole. This issue merits further exploration.

The effectiveness of transfer policies on violence across levels of severity (e.g., murder versus assault), should also be examined. While several studies reviewed indicate different effects for differing initial offenses, other studies do not stratify effects by initial offense.

Systematic comparison of state transfer laws should be undertaken to determine the extent to which the specific provisions of state laws included in the review are representative of all state transfer provisions. Differences in the application and enforcement of provisions should also be assessed.

Costs of transferring youth to the adult criminal system versus retaining them in the juvenile system have been little explored. In some sense, evaluating costs of interventions (e.g., transfer) that cause net harm seems unnecessary; because any spending on harmful interventions appears wasteful, the more spending, the more waste. On the other hand, however, documenting the variability and relative costs of the two judicial and correctional systems, the distribution of responsibility for these costs across different levels of government and society, and the net balance of program costs, the costs of subsequent crime, and the costs of opportunities lost to the juveniles themselves might allow a constructive economic discussion of the consequences of change.

Study Characteristics

  • Specific deterrence studies had follow-up times for evaluating risk for re-offending ranged from 18 months to 6 years.
  • General deterrence studies included study samples from Washington, Idaho, Wyoming, and Montana.

Study Characteristics

Analytic Framework

Effectiveness Review

No content is available for this section.

Included Studies

The number of studies and publications do not always correspond (e.g., a publication may include several studies or one study may be explained in several publications).

Effectiveness Review

Barnoski R. Changes in Washington State’s jurisdiction of juvenile offenders: examining the impact. Olympia: Washington State Institute for Public Policy, 2003 (03-01-1203).

Fagan J. The comparative impacts of juvenile and criminal court sanctions on adolescent felony offenders. Law Policy 1996;18:77 119.

Lanza-Kaduce L, Frazier CE, Lane J, Bishop DM. Juvenile transfer to criminal court study: final report. Tallahassee: Florida Department of Juvenile Justice, 2002 (1-8-2002, 02-02).

Myers DL. Excluding violent youths from juvenile court: the effectiveness of legislative waiver. New York: LFB Scholarly Publishing, 2001.

Podkopacz MR, Feld BC. Judicial waiver policy and practice: persistence, seriousness and race. Law Inequal 1995;14:74 178.

Podkopacz MR, Feld BC. The end of the line: an empirical study of judicial waiver. J Crim Law Criminol 1996;86:449 92.

Winner L, Lanza-Kaduce L, Bishop DM, Frazier CE. The transfer of juveniles to criminal court: reexamining recidivism over the long term. Crime Delinq 1997;43:548 63.

Search Strategies

Electronic searches for published research were conducted in databases from the National Criminal Justice Reference Service, Education Resources Information Center, PsycINFO, Wilson Social Sciences Abstracts, Social SciSearch, National Technical Information Service, Medline, and Lexis/Nexis. Search terms used included “juvenile transfer” and its synonyms, as well as “efficacy” and “recidivism.” Additionally, references listed in retrieved articles were evaluated and, where relevant, obtained and abstracted. Consultations with experts were held to find additional published reports of studies. Finally, the review team conducted internet searches to seek additional studies not found through these traditional search methods. Journal articles, governmental reports, books, and book chapters were eligible for inclusion.

Articles published before February 2003 were candidates for inclusion if they evaluated the specified policy or law, assessed a transfer-related violent outcome (i.e., arrest, conviction, or re-arrest), were conducted in a high-income country*, reported on a primary study rather than, for example, a guideline or review, and compared a group of people exposed to the intervention (i.e., law or policy) with a comparison group not exposed or less exposed to the intervention. Studies that provided relevant data for review were examined, even if the authors’ research goals differed from those of the review. While searching for evidence, the team also sought information about effects of transfer on outcomes not related to violence, such as reductions in property crime and overrepresentation of minorities among transferred juveniles.

* High-income countries as designated by the World Bank are Andorra, Antigua and Barbuda, Aruba, Australia, Austria, The Bahamas, Bahrain, Barbados, Belgium, Bermuda, Brunei, Canada, Cayman Islands, Channel Islands, Cyprus, Denmark, Faeroe Islands, Finland, France, French Polynesia, Germany, Greece, Greenland, Guam, Hong Kong (China), Iceland, Ireland, Isle of Man, Israel, Italy, Japan, Republic of Korea, Kuwait, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Macao (China), Malta, Monaco, Netherlands, Netherlands Antilles, New Caledonia, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Puerto Rico, Qatar, San Marino, Singapore, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Taiwan (China), United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United States, and Virgin Islands (U.S.).

Review References

Steiner B, Hemmens C, Bell V. Legislative waiver reconsidered: General deterrent effects of statutory exclusion laws enacted post-1979. Justice Quarterly 2006;23(1):34-59.

Considerations for Implementation

The CPSTF recommends against use of the intervention.

Crosswalks

Healthy People 2020

Healthy People 2020 icon Healthy People 2020 includes the following objectives related to this CPSTF recommendation.