United States General Accounting Office

GAO Report to Congressional Requesters

August 1995 JUVENILE JUSTICE

Juveniles Processed in

Criminal Court and

Case Dispositions

GAO/GGD-95-170

GAO United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

General Government Division

B-259800 

August 15, 1995

The Honorable Orrin G. Hatch

Chairman

The Honorable Joseph R. Biden, Jr.

Ranking Minority Member

Committee on the Judiciary

United States Senate

The Honorable William F. Goodling

Chairman

The Honorable William L. Clay

Ranking Minority Member

Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunity

House of Representatives

The 1992 reauthorization (P.L. 102-586) of the Juvenile Justice and

Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974 (P.L. 93-415) mandated that we study

issues related to juveniles sent to criminal court versus juvenile court. We

agreed with your Committees to obtain data on (1) the frequency with

which juveniles have been sent to criminal court, (2) the juvenile

conviction rates and sentences in criminal court, (3) the dispositions of

juvenile cases in juvenile court, and (4) the conditions of confinement for

juveniles incarcerated in adult correctional facilities. In addition, we

agreed to provide a summary of state laws that specify the circumstances

under which juveniles can be sent to criminal court.

According to the Justice Department’s Office of Juvenile Justice and

Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP), juveniles are committing increasing

numbers of serious crimes such as murder and aggravated assaults. The

number of juvenile court cases involving these offenses increased by

68 percent from 1988 to 1992. Each state has at least one of three

methods—judicial waiver, prosecutor direct filing, statutory exclusion

(state laws requiring the transfer of juveniles for certain

crimes)—available for transferring juveniles to criminal court. In recent

years, many states have changed their laws to expand the criteria under

which juveniles may be sent to criminal court.

Due to the increasing numbers of juveniles sent to criminal court and

legislative changes, juvenile justice advocates, experts, and officials have

raised concerns about the number of juveniles being tried in criminal

court.

Page 1 GAO/GGD-95-170 Juvenile Case Dispositions
B-259800 

Results in Brief Data limitations precluded us from determining the number of juveniles

sent to criminal court nationwide. However, we were able to obtain some

nationwide data on the number of judicial waivers. In addition, we

obtained some state data on the number of prosecutor direct filing cases.

Data on the number of statutory exclusion cases were not available.

Our analysis of nationwide estimates from the National Center for Juvenile

Justice (NCJJ)1

 showed that juvenile court judges transferred to criminal

court less than 2 percent of juvenile delinquency cases that were filed in

juvenile court from 1988 through 1992. Over that period, cases transferred

by judges increased from 1.2 to 1.6 percent of formal delinquency cases.2

Additionally, the state data we obtained from five states and the District of

Columbia and the county data we obtained for a few counties in five other

states showed that the number of juvenile cases filed directly in criminal

court in the states that permitted prosecutor direct filing ranged from less

than 1 percent to 13 percent. For example, based on data obtained,

prosecutor direct filing cases represented about 13 percent of juvenile

cases in Arkansas and less than 1 percent in Utah.

Because data were not available on the number of cases excluded by

statute from juvenile court, we reviewed state statutes to identify the

possible impact of the statutes on the juveniles. Our review of state laws

that exclude certain juveniles from juvenile court jurisdiction showed that

the laws primarily focused on serious violent offenses and/or juveniles

with prior court records.

Since 1978, 44 states and the District of Columbia have passed new laws

that affect which juveniles may be sent to criminal court and the process

for their transfer to criminal court. While some of the new state laws are

expected to have an impact on the frequency with which juveniles are sent

to criminal court, the extent of the impact may vary.

In 24 states and the District of Columbia, the new laws have generally

increased the population of juveniles potentially subject to being sent to

criminal court. This was done by either decreasing the age or increasing

the types of offenses for which juveniles may be sent to criminal court. For

example, in California the population of juveniles that juvenile court

judges can waive to criminal court changed from age 16 for any offense to

age 14 for specified offenses and age 16 for other offenses. Also, in New

1

NCJJ, located in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, is the research division of the National Council of Juvenile

and Family Court Judges.

2

See page 7 for a discussion of formal and informal delinquency cases.

Page 2 GAO/GGD-95-170 Juvenile Case Dispositions
B-259800 

Jersey, offenses such as first degree robbery and some weapons offenses

have been added to the list of offenses that may be judicially waived.

Three states passed laws that tended to decrease the population of

juveniles potentially subject to being sent to criminal court. The other 17

states that passed new laws did not increase the population of juveniles

potentially subject to being sent to criminal court. In these states, the new

laws changed the method in which certain juveniles may be sent to

criminal court. For example, in Minnesota in 1978, a child age 14 or older

charged with any offense could be judicially waived to criminal court.

Currently, however, a child age 16 or older charged with first degree

murder is statutorily excluded from juvenile court rather than eligible for

judicial waiver. Appendix IV summarizes the laws of each state and the

District of Columbia.

According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics’ 1989 and 1990 Offender

Based Transaction Statistics (OBTS) data from seven states,3

 conviction

rates of juveniles prosecuted in criminal court for serious violent, serious

property, and drug offenses varied within and among states. However,

juveniles in six of those states tended to be convicted. Of those juveniles

convicted, property offenses made up the largest proportion of juvenile

convictions in five of the seven states. Further, in four of seven states

incarceration rates ranged from 62 to 100 percent for all three offenses. Of

those 703 juveniles incarcerated in the seven states, serious violent

offenders and serious property offenders accounted for the same

proportion of juveniles incarcerated, 39 percent. In contrast, some

juveniles convicted of serious violent offenses received probation in five

of the seven states. The percentages varied from 3 percent in California to

50 percent in Vermont.

We were requested to provide data on the disposition of juveniles in

juvenile court. According to OJJDP data, many juveniles were placed on

probation in juvenile court. In 1992, juveniles were placed on probation in

about 43 percent of approximately 744,000 formal delinquency cases. Of

the remaining 57 percent of juvenile cases, 27 percent were dismissed,

17 percent of the juveniles were placed in a residential treatment program,

and 12 percent of them received some other disposition such as

restitution, fines, or community service. About 1 percent were transferred

to criminal court.

3

Appendix I contains an explanation for our selection of the seven states.

Page 3 GAO/GGD-95-170 Juvenile Case Dispositions
B-259800 

In the four states we visited, juveniles sentenced to adult prisons generally

were to be subject to the same policies and procedures as adults; however,

in three of the four states we visited, younger inmates (typically those

under age 26) were housed in separate prisons. At all the facilities,

juveniles generally were to be provided with the same health services;

afforded the same educational, vocational, and work opportunities; and

provided access to the same recreational facilities as older inmates.

Background A juvenile is an individual at or below the maximum age of juvenile court

jurisdiction. Established by state statute, the maximum age of juvenile

court jurisdiction is the oldest age at which an individual can be processed

in juvenile court.4

 Individuals who are above the maximum age of juvenile

court jurisdiction are considered adults and therefore are under criminal

court jurisdiction. In 39 states and the District of Columbia the maximum

age is 17. In 11 states,5

 the maximum age is either 15 or 16. Except for

Wyoming (where the maximum age dropped from age 18 to 17), the

maximum age had not changed in any state, when comparing the state

laws in 1978 with the laws in 1994.

Although the organization of state juvenile justice systems varies, two

options are generally provided for processing juvenile delinquency

cases—formal and informal. An authorized court official (e.g., juvenile

prosecutor or juvenile probation officer) decides whether to process the

case formally through the court system or informally by diverting the case

from the juvenile court.

For handling formal cases, a petition must be drafted and filed to provide

notice of the offenses that will be pursued and to request the court to

adjudicate—judicially determine (judge) whether or not the youth is a

delinquent offender.6

 For informal cases there is no formal court petition

or legal instrument requesting the court to adjudicate the youth as a

delinquent. Whether the case is handled formally or informally, juveniles

4

Most states have given the juvenile court authority over juveniles who are above the maximum age of

juvenile court jurisdiction. This is called the extended age of juvenile court jurisdiction. It is the age at

which the juvenile court can retain jurisdiction of a juvenile adjudicated as a delinquent. For example,

in Michigan where the maximum age of juvenile court jurisdiction is age 16, a juvenile who is

adjudicated in juvenile court as a delinquent and has a disposition that extends beyond the upper age

of juvenile court jurisdiction would still be under the jurisdiction of the juvenile court until age 21.

5

In Connecticut, New York, and North Carolina the maximum age of juvenile court jurisdiction is 15. In

Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, South Carolina, and Texas the

maximum age of juvenile court jurisdiction is 16.

6

In the remainder of this report, cases where the intake decision is to proceed formally will be referred

to as formal cases.

Page 4 GAO/GGD-95-170 Juvenile Case Dispositions
B-259800 

receive dispositions. Disposition options may include dismissal of the

case, probation, fines or restitution, community service, and placement.

A juvenile who is at or below the maximum age of juvenile court

jurisdiction may be sent to criminal court by one of the following three

methods:

• judicial waiver, which allows juvenile court judges to transfer juveniles to

criminal court. Generally, prosecutors initiate judicial waiver by filing a

waiver petition asking the judge to consider the case for waiver;

• prosecutor direct filing, which allows prosecutors to decide whether to file

certain cases in juvenile or criminal court;

• application of statutory exclusion laws, which specify crimes or juveniles

with certain prior records that are excluded from juvenile court

jurisdiction.

For each method, the prosecutor plays an important role in determining

whether a juvenile will be sent to criminal court. For example, the offense

with which the prosecutor charges the accused can determine whether the

juvenile falls under a state’s criteria for criminal court prosecution.

Juveniles prosecuted in state criminal court are subject to the same state

court procedures and sentencing guidelines as other defendants in

criminal court.

Scope and

Methodology

To determine the frequency with which juveniles were sent to criminal

court, we developed estimates of the number of juvenile cases transferred

to criminal court by juvenile court judges (judicial waiver) using the NCJJ

national data—National Juvenile Court Data Archive (NJCDA)—for calendar

years 1988 through 1992. As part of our analysis of judicial waivers, we

developed estimates of the age, sex, race, and offense profiles of juveniles

transferred to criminal court by judges in Arizona, California, Florida,

Missouri, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, and Utah.

Data limitations precluded us from developing estimates of the total

number of juvenile cases filed directly in criminal court by prosecutors

(prosecutor direct filing) and those juveniles excluded from juvenile court

because of the offense committed and/or prior court records (statutory

exclusion) in those states permitting these methods. We did, however,

contact state court officials in the District of Columbia and 10 states that

we identified as having direct filing laws and analyzed data they provided.

Page 5 GAO/GGD-95-170 Juvenile Case Dispositions
B-259800 

We analyzed the statutory exclusion laws in the District of Columbia and

37 states that we identified as having these laws to determine the types of

offenses and/or prior court records that exclude juveniles from juvenile

court.7

To analyze the sentences of juveniles tried in criminal court,8 we used

criminal court data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics.9

 We identified

offenses, conviction rates, and incarceration rates in California,

Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, New York, Pennsylvania, and Vermont.

To gather prosecutors opinions on data related to the processing of

juveniles in criminal courts, we sent a survey to a nationally representative

sample of district prosecutor offices that dealt with juveniles in juvenile

court.

To determine the conditions of confinement for juveniles in correctional

facilities, we visited seven prisons in Florida, Michigan, North Carolina,

and Ohio.

To provide a summary of state laws governing which juveniles may be sent

to criminal court, we reviewed the statutes for all 50 states and the District

of Columbia.

Appendix I presents more details about our objectives, scope, and

methodology, including a discussion of how we selected the states and

prisons we visited. Our results apply to states and prisons for which we

collected data and cannot be projected to other locations. We did not

verify data provided by the states. We did our work from May 1993

through April 1995 in accordance with generally accepted government

auditing standards. Since no federal agency has responsibility for the

issues addressed in this report, we did not obtain comments on a draft of

this report. However, we did discuss our results with NCJJ and OJJDP

officials and, where appropriate, incorporated their comments.

7

An analysis of state laws under which juveniles may be sent to criminal court focused on the laws in

effect during calendar year 1978 (Youth in Adult Courts: Between Two Worlds, Hamparian, 1982). We

used this study as the baseline for our analysis of the changes that were made in the state laws

regarding the basis on which juveniles may be sent to criminal court. Our analysis focused on the laws

passed through 1994, some of which were not in effect until 1995.

8

We classified cases as juveniles on the basis of the defendants’ age at the time of arrest because data

were not available for the defendants’ age at the time of offense.

9

The Bureau’s dataset did not contain all dispositions occurring in a given year, only those reported to

the state and for which the state had a previous arrest reported.

Page 6 GAO/GGD-95-170 Juvenile Case Dispositions
B-259800 

Limited Data

Available Indicated

Relatively Few

Juveniles Sent to

Criminal Court

Limited nationwide and state data existed on the total number of juvenile

cases sent to criminal court. However, we obtained information on the

number of juvenile cases sent to criminal court by judicial waiver and

some information on the number sent by prosecutor direct filing. Since

data on statutory exclusions were not available, we analyzed state statutes

to identify the possible impact of the statutes on juveniles.

According to our analysis of NCJJ data, the rate at which juvenile court

judges sent formal delinquency cases to criminal court has remained less

than 2 percent from 1988 to 1992. Additionally, data available from 5

states, the District of Columbia, and a few counties in 5 other states on the

number of prosecutor direct filing cases filed in criminal court annually

showed that it ranged from 4 cases in one state to about 7,200 cases in

another state. Our analysis of statutory exclusion laws indicated that the

laws generally established specific criteria that focused on juveniles

(1) charged with serious violent offenses and/or (2) with previous court

records. In addition, our analysis showed that legislation passed in the last

16 years included two primary types of changes: (1) in 24 states and the

District of Columbia legislative changes tended to increase the population

of juveniles who may be sent to criminal court and (2) in 17 other states,

recent legislation changed the method in which certain juveniles may be

sent to criminal court (e.g., from the judicial waiver to the prosecutor

direct filing).

The results of our national survey of state prosecutors suggested that in

most prosecutorial offices, judicial waivers accounted for a higher

percentage of juveniles arriving in criminal court than direct filings or

statutory exclusions.

Transfer and Sentencing of

Juveniles

We identified (1) judicial waiver laws in 47 states and the District of

Columbia, (2) prosecutor direct filing laws in 10 states and the District of

Columbia, and (3) one or more statutory exclusion laws in 37 states and

the District of Columbia.

We also identified 21 states with provisions that allow criminal court

judges to transfer cases from criminal court to juvenile court under

circumstances specified in the law (reverse waiver). For example, in

Arkansas, when a prosecutor directly files a case in criminal court, the

criminal court judge may remand the case to juvenile court. In addition,

we identified 19 states that allow juveniles prosecuted and convicted in

criminal court to receive dispositions as a juvenile under specified

Page 7 GAO/GGD-95-170 Juvenile Case Dispositions
B-259800 

circumstances. For example, in California a juvenile convicted in criminal

court may receive a disposition as a juvenile if the California Youth

Authority determines that the juvenile is amenable to treatment.

See table 1 for a summary of the state statutes and appendix IV for a

detailed summary of statutes in all 50 states and the District of Columbia

that govern which juveniles may be sent to criminal court.

Table 1: Summary of Juvenile Transfer and Sentencing Provisions

State Judicial waiver

Prosecutor direct

filing

Statutory exclusion

laws Reverse waiver

Juveniles

convicted in

criminal court

could receive a

disposition as a

juvenile

Alabama x x

Alaska x x x

Arizona x

Arkansas x x x

California x x

Colorado x x x

Connecticut x x

Delaware x x x

District of

Columbia

x x x

Florida x x x x

Georgia x x x x x

Hawaii x x x

Idaho x x

Illinois x x x

Indiana x x

Iowa x x x

Kansas x x

Kentucky x x x x

Louisiana x x x

Maine x x

Maryland x x x

Massachusetts x x

Michigan x x x

Minnesota x x

Mississippi x x x

(continued)

Page 8 GAO/GGD-95-170 Juvenile Case Dispositions
B-259800 

State Judicial waiver

Prosecutor direct

filing

Statutory exclusion

laws Reverse waiver

Juveniles

convicted in

criminal court

could receive a

disposition as a

juvenile

Missouri x x

Montana x x

Nebraska x x

Nevada x x x

New Hampshire x x x

New Jersey x

New Mexico a x

New York x x x

North Carolina x x

North Dakota x

Ohio x x

Oklahoma x x x

Oregon x x x

Pennsylvania x x x x

Rhode Island x x

South Carolina x x x

South Dakota x x

Tennessee x x x

Texas x x

Utah x x x x x

Vermont x x x x x

Virginia x x x x

Washington x x

West Virginia x x x

Wisconsin x x x

Wyoming x x x

Legend: x indicates the transfer and sentencing provisions allowed by each state.

aNew Mexico does not have a judicial waiver process. However, certain juveniles, who are called

“youthful offenders,” can be subject to adult or juvenile sanctions in juvenile court.

Source: GAO review of state statutes.

Page 9 GAO/GGD-95-170 Juvenile Case Dispositions
B-259800 

Judicial Waiver Rate Has

Increased From 1988

Through 1992

The percent of formal delinquency cases judicially waived to criminal

court (judicial waiver rate) increased by 33 percent from 1.2 percent in

1988 to 1.6 percent in 1992, which represented a growth from about 7,000

to almost 12,000 cases a year, as shown in table 2. This increase occurred

while the total number of formal delinquency cases increased by about

31 percent; the number of waived cases increased about 68 percent.

Table 2: Number of Formal

Delinquency Cases Nationwide and the

Number and Percentage of Cases

Judicially Waived to Criminal Court Year

Number of

formal

delinquency

cases

Number of formal

delinquency cases

judicially waived to

criminal court

Judicial

waiver ratea

1988 569,596 7,005 1.2%

1989 608,593 8,350 1.4

1990 654,742 8,708 1.3

1991 689,328 10,933 1.6

1992 743,673 11,748 1.6

Note: The broad offense categories used in our analysis included person, property, drugs, and

public order as defined by OJJDP. The person category includes criminal homicide, forcible

rape, robbery, aggravated assault, simple assault, and other person offenses—such as

kidnapping and harassment. The property category includes burglary, larceny, motor vehicle

theft, arson, vandalism, stolen property offenses, trespassing, and other property offenses—such

as fraud, counterfeiting, and embezzlement. The drug category includes unlawful sale, purchase,

distribution, manufacture, cultivation, transport, possession or use of a controlled or prohibited

substance or drug. The public order category includes weapons offenses, nonviolent sex

offenses, and liquor law violations.

aThe waiver rate is the ratio of the number of waived cases to the number of formal delinquency

cases. The percentage of all delinquency cases which were handled formally varied across

states.

Source: Developed by GAO from NJCDA data.

Data showed that judicial waiver rates varied by offense type, as shown in

table 3. The judicial waiver rate for person offenses in 1992 was

2.4 percent in contrast to the waiver rate for property offenses, which was

1.3 percent. Therefore, judges were more likely to waive cases to criminal

court involving juveniles charged with person offenses than juveniles

charged with property offenses in 1992. While the waiver rates for all the

offenses increased from 1988 through 1992, the waiver rates for drug

offenses increased the most; however, the rate decreased between 1991

and 1992.10

10We used juvenile court data collected annually by NCJJ to determine the number of juvenile cases

processed in criminal court due to judicial waiver. Each year, NCJJ collects juvenile court processing

data from various states and jurisdictions and assigns weights to the data, which permits projecting

the data to produce national estimates of cases disposed by all state juvenile justice systems.

Page 10 GAO/GGD-95-170 Juvenile Case Dispositions
B-259800 

Table 3: Judicial Waiver Rate by

Offense Offense 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992

Person 1.9% 2.0% 2.1% 2.4% 2.4%

Property 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.2 1.3

Drugs 1.5 2.8 2.7 4.4 3.1

Public order 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8

Source: Developed by GAO using NJCDA data.

While the chances of juvenile cases being waived to criminal court were

highest for juveniles charged with person and drug offenses, property

offenders made up the largest proportion of waived cases, as shown in

table 4. This was due to the prevalence of property offenses versus person

or drug offenses. For example, NCJJ data showed that in 1992, referrals to

juvenile court were about 401,000 or 54 percent for property offenses,

about 165,000 or 22 percent for person offenses, and 46,000 or 6 percent

for drug offenses.

Table 4: Percent of Judicially Waived

Cases by Offense Type, From 1988

Through 1992

Offense 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992

Person 29% 28% 32% 32% 34%

Property 53 49 46 44 45

Drugs 11 16 15 17 12

Public order 8 7 8 7 9

Note: Figures may not add to 100 percent due to rounding.

Source: Developed by GAO from NCJJ data.

Also shown in table 4, the offense profile of judicially waived cases

changed from 1988 to 1992. For example, person offenses increased from

29 percent of the cases waived in 1988 to 34 percent in 1992. In addition,

property offense cases decreased from 53 percent of the cases waived in

1988 to 45 percent in 1992.

Similar to the offense profile, the demographic profile of juvenile cases

waived to criminal court had changed slightly from 1988 to 1992 (see table

5). For example, the percentage of waived cases for juveniles age 16 or

older decreased from 93 percent in 1988 to 88 percent in 1992. Also, the

racial makeup of juveniles whose cases were waived changed since 1988

when about 54 percent were white, 43 percent were black, and 2 percent

were of other races. In 1992, about 47 percent of juveniles whose cases

Page 11 GAO/GGD-95-170 Juvenile Case Dispositions
B-259800 

were waived were white, 50 percent were black, and 3 percent were of

other races.

Table 5: Percent of Waived Juvenile

Cases, by Sex, Age, and Race, 1988

Through 1992

Sex Age Race

Year Male Female 16 or older White Black Other

1988 96% 4% 93% 54% 43% 2%

1989 95 5 89 49 49 2

1990 96 4 90 45 52 3

1991 96 4 91 47 52 2

1992 96 4 88 47 50 3

Note: Percentages may not add up to 100 percent due to rounding. Source: Developed by GAO

from NCJJ’s data archive.

Analysis of Waiver Rates To provide perspective on patterns of waiver rates across the six states,

we examined data on the number of juveniles charged with violent,

property, and drug offenses. We used these three offenses because the

number of cases for each offense allowed comparisons. Our analysis

focused on the potential effects on waiver rates for five variables—age

(for six states), sex (for six states), race (for six states), nature of locality

(metropolitan or nonmetropolitan, for four states), and number of prior

referrals (for five states).11 We examined each of the variables separately

because we could not control for variables for which data were not

available and because of the small number of cases waived in each offense

type within the state. (Tables II.3, II.6, II.9, II.12, II.15, and II.18 contain the

data used in our analysis.)

Variables Age - In the six states we examined, juveniles 16 years or older were more

likely to have their cases waived for all three offense types.

Gender - Males were more likely than females to have their cases waived

within each offense type in the six states we analyzed. The extent of the

difference again varied by state.

Race - Blacks were more likely than whites to have their cases waived for

all three offenses in four of the six states we examined.

11The states differed because of the availability of data. Utah did not have a sufficient number of cases

to be included in this analysis. For the other six NCJJ states, all were included for age, sex, and race;

Florida, Missouri, Pennsylvania, and South Carolina had data for metropolitan/nonmetropolitan

locality; and Arizona, Florida, Missouri, Pennsylvania, and South Carolina had information on prior

referrals.

Page 12 GAO/GGD-95-170 Juvenile Case Dispositions
B-259800 

Locality - In the four NCJJ states with data on type of court location, some

small differences existed but were not consistent across offense types

within the same state.

Prior Referrals - In the five states we examined, waiver rates generally

increased with the number of prior referrals for all five states and most

offense types.

Appendix II contains data on the percent of cases waived, the

demographic characteristics for juveniles in the seven states, and a

detailed discussion of our analysis of waiver rates.

Judicial Waiver Criteria Whether a juvenile case is eligible for judicial waiver depends on the state.

Forty-seven states and the District of Columbia have judicial waiver laws,

and each state establishes different criteria for which cases may be

waived. The criteria often include specific age and offense restrictions as

well as factors that the judge must consider related to the juvenile’s case.

For example, juvenile judges in Florida can waive a case to criminal court

involving a juvenile age 14 or older for any offense if there is a finding that

the juvenile should be transferred after considering certain factors;

whereas judges in Maryland can waive a case involving a juvenile age 15 or

older for any offense and a juvenile of any age charged with a crime

punishable by death or life imprisonment if there is a finding that the

juvenile is unfit for juvenile rehabilitative measures. In addition, the U.S.

Supreme Court in an appendix to Kent v. United States, 383 U.S. 541

(1966),12 outlined certain factors that the juvenile court judge would

consider when making waiver decisions under the specific statute. The

factors from the 1966 court case included

• seriousness of the alleged offense to the community and whether the

protection of the community requires waiver;

• whether the offense was committed in an aggressive, violent,

premeditated, or willful manner;

• whether the offense was committed against persons or against property,

with greater weight being given to offenses against persons, especially if

personal injury resulted;

• prosecutive merit of the complaint;

• whether the juveniles’ associates in the offenses were adults;

12The U.S. Supreme Court in Kent also set forth a number of procedural safeguards to protect the

interests of the child—the right to a hearing that meets the essentials of due process and fair

treatment, representation by counsel, access by the juvenile’s attorney to the juvenile’s social record,

and a statement of reasons in support of the waiver order if the juvenile case is waived.

Page 13 GAO/GGD-95-170 Juvenile Case Dispositions
B-259800 

• sophistication and maturity of the juvenile;

• juveniles’ record and previous history;

• protection of the public; and

• likelihood of reasonable rehabilitation of the juvenile by the use of

procedures, services, and facilities that are available to the juvenile court.

Many states have incorporated these factors into their juvenile codes

either verbatim or with minor modifications. In interviews with judges in

seven states and in our nationwide survey of prosecutors, we asked which

factors from a list (based on factors previously listed) they were most

likely to consider when making waiver decisions. The factors chosen most

often by judges and prosecutors were the seriousness of the offense, the

juveniles’ previous record and history, and whether the juvenile was

amenable to rehabilitation.

While we were unable to get an estimate of the total number of waiver

petitions filed by prosecutors, information collected in our survey of

prosecutors suggested that more than half of the requests for judicial

waivers filed in calendar year 1993 were granted.13 We are not certain of

the reliability of these figures because their responses may have been on

the basis of impressions rather than data. See appendix II for additional

data on judicial waivers in the seven states.

Limited Data Indicated the

Use of Prosecutor Direct

Filing Varies

State data and data for only some counties were available in the District of

Columbia and 10 states that allow prosecutor direct filing. Table 6 shows

the available data that we obtained on prosecutor direct filings, including

statewide data from five states and the District of Columbia. Data on

direct filing in the other five states were available only from certain

counties.

13See appendix I for survey responses and confidence intervals.

Page 14 GAO/GGD-95-170 Juvenile Case Dispositions
B-259800 

Table 6: Frequency of Prosecutor Direct Filing

Jurisdiction Principal city

Time

period

Number of cases

directly filed in

criminal court

Total number of

cases handled in

juvenile court

Arkansas N/A 1993 1,327 10,044

Colorado N/A 1993 152a 11,980

District of

Columbiab N/A 1993 15 3,029

Florida N/A 1991 7,232 75,976

Georgiac

Chatham

County Savannah 1993 15 3,800d

De Kalb

County Suburb of Atlanta 1993 16 10,234

Louisiana

Caddo

Parish Shreveport 1993 8 415

Orleans

Parish New Orleans 1993 63 1,444

Jefferson

Parishe

Suburb of New

Orleans 1993 7 2,000d

Michigan

Wayne

County Detroit 1993 82 8,402

Nebraska

Douglas

County Omaha 1993 10d 1,800d

Utah N/A 1993 4 12,122

Vermont N/A 1993 103 1,369

Wyoming

Laramie

County Cheyenne 1993 6d 198

aData represent September 1993 through July 1994 time period.

bThe District of Columbia provided data on only the number of juveniles convicted in criminal

court.

cCounty data represent cases filed in criminal court by judicial waiver, prosecutor direct filing,

and statutory exclusion.

dThis is an annual estimate.

eData represent prosecutor direct filing and statutory exclusion.

Source: Developed by GAO using data provided by state and local court officials in jurisdiction

listed.

Page 15 GAO/GGD-95-170 Juvenile Case Dispositions
B-259800 

While the data provided by state and local court officials were inconsistent

and incomplete, (e.g., lack of statewide data and time periods were

different) they indicated that the frequency of using direct filing varied

throughout the states that have direct filing laws. Data provided by

juvenile court officials on the number of delinquency cases filed in these

jurisdictions compared with data provided by criminal court officials on

the number of cases directly filed by prosecutors showed that direct filing

cases represented a larger percentage of juvenile cases in some states than

in others. For example, in Florida and Arkansas prosecutor direct filing

cases represented about 10 percent of juveniles cases, and in Colorado

and Wayne County, Michigan they represented about 1 percent.

Direct filing laws in 10 states and the District of Columbia generally

focused on felony offenses for juveniles over an age specified in each

state’s laws. However, juveniles age 16 in Nebraska and Vermont and age

17 in Wyoming can be direct filed in criminal court for any offense. In

jurisdictions with direct filing laws, prosecutors had discretion to decide

whether to file the case in juvenile or criminal court. The extent to which

prosecutors exercise their discretion was exemplified by data provided by

criminal court officials in Arkansas and Wayne County, Michigan. These

data showed that many of the cases eligible for direct filing remained in

juvenile court. For example, in Arkansas 2,756 cases were eligible to be

filed in criminal court in 1992. However, during that period, prosecutors

directly filed about 45 percent of the cases in criminal court. In addition, in

Wayne County 146 juvenile cases were eligible to be filed in criminal court

in 1992. However, during that period less than half the cases, 61 (or

42 percent), were filed in criminal court.

Frequency of Juvenile

Cases Statutorily Excluded

From Juvenile Court

Unknown

Data were not available on the number of cases excluded by law from

juvenile court jurisdiction.14 Without state data, we were unable to

determine the frequency of statutory exclusion cases sent to criminal

court. We were, however, able to analyze the laws to determine the

conditions under which juveniles were excluded from juvenile court (see

table 7 for our analysis). According to our analysis, statutory exclusion

laws focused primarily on juveniles charged with serious violent offenses

and/or juveniles with previous juvenile or criminal court records. In

14Using 1990 data, NCJJ estimates that in 11 states where the maximum age of juvenile court

jurisdiction is age 15 or 16, approximately 176,000 cases involving persons age 16 and 17 are

automatically charged in criminal court each year because they are defined as adults by the state.

However, there is no estimate on the number of juveniles at or below the maximum age of juvenile

court jurisdiction that are charged in criminal court due to their offense and/or prior record.

Page 16 GAO/GGD-95-170 Juvenile Case Dispositions
B-259800 

addition, 15 states also excluded one or more other serious offense (e.g., a

child age 16 or older carrying a handgun without a license in Indiana).

In 17 of the 37 states with statutory exclusion laws, the laws excluded

juveniles charged with serious violent offenses and juveniles with prior

court records (repeat offenders) from juvenile court. For example, in

Pennsylvania, any juvenile charged with murder is excluded from juvenile

court as well as any juvenile who has been previously found guilty in a

criminal proceeding. In 13 of the 37 states, the focus of the statutory

exclusion laws are to exclude juveniles charged with serious violent

offenses from juvenile court. For example, in New York, any juvenile age

13 or older charged with murder in the second degree is to be prosecuted

in criminal court. In addition, New York excludes juveniles age 14 or older

from juvenile court for a list of serious violent crimes that include assault,

rape, and manslaughter, each in the first degree. New York does not have

any exclusion provisions on the basis of the juvenile’s prior record. In 7 of

the 37 states and in the District of Columbia, the focus of the statutory

exclusion laws is to exclude juveniles with prior criminal court records

from juvenile court jurisdiction. These laws apply to all juveniles with

specified prior records (i.e., adult court convictions) regardless of their

offenses. For example, in Virginia, any juvenile previously convicted as an

adult is excluded from juvenile court jurisdiction regardless of the

offense.15

While statutory exclusion laws in most states focus on serious violent

offenses and prior records, in 15 states one or more other serious offenses

such as burglary, weapons, and drug offenses are excluded. For example,

in Maryland using, wearing, carrying, or transporting a firearm during a

drug trafficking offense would exclude a juvenile age 16 or older from

juvenile court jurisdiction.

15For those juveniles who were previously convicted and served their sentences in facilities, the

likelihood would be small that they would still be under the maximum age of jurisdiction if they were

subsequently charged with another crime.

Page 17 GAO/GGD-95-170 Juvenile Case Dispositions
B-259800 

Table 7: Conditions Under Which

Juvenile Cases Were Excluded From

Juvenile Court

State

Laws focus on exclusion

for serious violent

offenses

Laws focus on exclusion

due to prior record

Alabama x x

Alaska x

Connecticut x x

Delaware x

District of

Columbia

x

Florida x x

Georgia x x

Hawaii x x

Idaho x x

Illinois x x

Indiana x x

Iowa x

Kansas x

Kentucky x

Louisiana x

Maine x

Maryland x

Minnesota x x

Mississippi x x

Missouri x

Montana x

Nevada x x

New Hampshire x

New Mexico x

New York x

North Carolina x

Ohio x x

Oklahoma x x

Oregon x

Pennsylvania x x

Rhode Island x x

South Carolina x

Tennessee x

Utah x x

Vermont x

Virginia x

(continued)

Page 18 GAO/GGD-95-170 Juvenile Case Dispositions
B-259800 

State

Laws focus on exclusion

for serious violent

offenses

Laws focus on exclusion

due to prior record

Washington x x

Wisconsin x

Note: While statutory exclusion laws generally focus on juveniles with serious violent offenses

and/or prior court records, 15 states also exclude juveniles with one or more serious offenses

from juvenile court jurisdiction. These states are Alabama, Alaska, Connecticut, Georgia, Hawaii,

Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Maryland, Mississippi, New York, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and

Vermont.

Legend: x indicates the conditions for which each state excluded juveniles from juvenile court.

Source: GAO review of state statutes.

Changes in State Laws May

Affect the Number of

Juveniles Sent to Criminal

Court and the Method for

Sending Certain Juveniles

Since 1978, 44 states and the District of Columbia have passed laws that

have an effect on which juveniles may be sent to criminal court. These

laws could affect the number of juveniles sent to criminal court; however,

the impact may vary. In 24 of these states and the District of Columbia, the

laws have tended to increase the population of juveniles potentially

subject to being sent to criminal court. In three states, the population of

juveniles subject to being sent to criminal court decreased. In 17 states,

the laws changed the method in which certain juveniles are sent to

criminal court.

In 24 states16 and the District of Columbia the laws that identify juveniles

who may be sent to criminal court increased the population of juveniles

potentially subject to being sent to criminal court. For example, in 1978,

California law allowed juvenile court judges to waive the case of any

juvenile age 16 or older. Since then, a law was passed that allows juvenile

court judges to also waive cases involving juveniles 14 or older for a list of

specific offenses. This change increased the number of juveniles that are

subject to being sent to criminal court. Also, in 1978, North Dakota law

allowed judges to waive the case of a juvenile age 16 years or older

charged with a “crime or public offense.” Since then, a new law was

passed that allows juvenile court judges to also waive cases involving

juveniles 14 years or older charged with committing an act that involves

the infliction or threat of serious bodily harm. New Mexico, South Dakota,

and Wyoming changed their laws, which had the effect of decreasing the

16The states that have passed laws that increased the population of juveniles who may be sent to

criminal court are Alabama, Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Idaho,

Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, New Jersey, North Carolina, North

Dakota, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia, and Wisconsin.

Page 19 GAO/GGD-95-170 Juvenile Case Dispositions
B-259800 

population of juveniles potentially subject to being sent to criminal court.

For example, in 1978, Wyoming law allowed judges to waive the case of a

child of any age for any offense to criminal court. Currently, only cases

involving children age 13 or older can be waived to criminal court.

In the remaining 17 states,17 the new laws changed the method in which

certain juvenile cases may be sent to criminal court but did not increase

the size of the potential population of juveniles that may be sent to

criminal court. In general, these laws have changed the process for

sending juveniles to criminal court. For example, in 1988, Michigan passed

a law that gives prosecutors the discretion to directly file cases in criminal

court involving juveniles who are age 15 or older and are charged with a

list of specific crimes. Prior to this law, these cases would be filed initially

in juvenile court, and the prosecutors would have to request a waiver

hearing for those cases they believed should be sent to criminal court.

During the waiver hearing, the juvenile court judge would decide whether

to waive the case to criminal court.

Maryland also changed the process by excluding from juvenile court

juveniles age 16 or older charged with certain specified violent crimes and

other serious crimes. Previously, the juvenile court judge decided whether

these cases should be sent to criminal court; however, state law now

establishes the criteria by which certain juvenile cases are sent to criminal

court.

Prosecutor Survey

Indicated Judicial Waiver

Used Most

We surveyed a sample of prosecutors’ offices to obtain information on the

estimated percent of all indictments filed against juveniles in criminal

court that were the result of judicial waiver, direct filings, and statutory

exclusions. The survey results suggested that in most prosecutorial

offices, judicial waivers accounted for a higher percentage of juveniles

arriving in criminal court than direct filings or statutory exclusions.18

Further, we estimated that in about 60 percent of the offices only judicial

waivers were used. However, the results are difficult to interpret because

of missing data and potentially inconsistent completion by the

respondents.

17The states that have passed laws that changed the method in which certain juveniles may be sent to

criminal court are Alaska, Colorado, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota,

Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Utah, and Washington.

18See appendix I for survey responses and confidence intervals.

Page 20 GAO/GGD-95-170 Juvenile Case Dispositions
B-259800 

Juveniles Prosecuted

in Criminal Court for

Certain Offenses

Tended to Be

Convicted and

Incarcerated

Our analysis of 1989 and 1990 criminal court data for seven states

indicated that most juveniles prosecuted in criminal court in each state

were convicted. Further, most juveniles were convicted of property

offenses. When juveniles were sentenced in criminal court for serious

offenses, most were incarcerated.

Most Juveniles Prosecuted

for Serious Offenses in

Criminal Court Were

Convicted in Six of Seven

States

Our analysis of conviction rates in seven states—California, Minnesota,

Missouri, Nebraska, New York, Pennsylvania, and Vermont—showed that

states conviction rates for juveniles prosecuted in criminal court, during

1989 and 1990 combined, varied for serious violent, serious property, and

drug offenses.19 For example, as shown in table 8, the conviction rate for

serious violent offenses in Missouri was 50 percent. Conviction rates for

serious property offenses in Pennsylvania and Vermont were 63 percent

and 97 percent, respectively.

Table 8: Conviction Rates and the Number of Juveniles Prosecuted in Criminal Court in Seven States for Selected Offenses

in 1989 and 1990

Serious violent offenses Serious property offenses Drug offenses

State

Number

prosecuted

Percent

convicted

Number

prosecuted

Percent

convicted

Number

prosecuted

Percent

convicted

California 126 87% 71 78% 141 75%

Minnesota 51 100 99 97 2 100

Missouri 24 50 24 67 13 54

Nebraska 78 77 124 81 59 81

New York 75 32 76 26 85 27

Pennsylvania 118 83 414 63 18 83

Vermont 25 96 177 97 9 100

Note: This table includes the most prevalent offense types for which juveniles are prosecuted, on

the basis of criminal court data.

Source: Developed by GAO from OBTS data.

To provide some perspective on how juveniles were treated as compared

with others prosecuted in criminal court, we compared juvenile conviction

19Using OBTS data, we categorized offense types into serious violent, serious property, and drugs.

Serious violent offenses include murder, nonnegligent manslaughter, rape, robbery, aggravated assault,

and other violent offenses (e.g., sexual assault and kidnapping). Serious property offenses include

burglary, fraud, forgery, embezzlement, larceny, motor vehicle theft, and arson. Drug offenses include

drug possession and trafficking.

Page 21 GAO/GGD-95-170 Juvenile Case Dispositions
B-259800 

rates with the conviction rates of “other youth”20 age 16 or 17 and young

adults ages 18 to 24 (see tables III.1 and III.2 in app. III for conviction rates

for other youth and young adults). The data for other youth and young

adults includes a broader range of crimes within crime types (than

juveniles’ crimes) because all youth and young adults crimes are

prosecuted in criminal court. Some juvenile crimes are tried in criminal

court because of the severity of juveniles’ offenses or prior records. Our

analysis of the two states, Missouri and New York, which included the

other youth population,21 showed that in Missouri, juvenile conviction

rates were higher than the rates of other youth (persons of age 17). For

example, the conviction rate for juveniles prosecuted for serious property

offenses in Missouri was 67 percent compared with 38 percent for other

youth. In New York, conviction rates were lower for juveniles than they

were for other youth (persons age 16 and 17). For example, the conviction

rate for juveniles prosecuted in New York for serious property offenses

was 26 percent compared with 64 percent for other youth.

A comparison of conviction rates in the states we analyzed for juveniles

and young adults (persons age 18 through 24) showed that generally,

juveniles were, for some offenses, as likely as young adults to be convicted

in criminal court. Finally, juvenile conviction rates for serious violent,

serious property, and drug offenses were generally similar to the rates for

young adults in the states we analyzed, except for New York. For example,

the conviction rate for serious property offenses in Minnesota was

97 percent for juveniles compared with 89 percent for young adults. Also,

the conviction rate for drug offenses in Pennsylvania was 83 percent for

juveniles compared with 81 percent for young adults.

Our analysis of juvenile conviction offenses showed, in five22 of seven

states, that property offenses made up the largest proportion of juvenile

convictions in criminal court, representing between 36 and 66 percent of

convictions, as shown in table 9. In California and New York, violent

offenses accounted for the largest proportion of juvenile convictions.

20“Other youth” are individuals beyond the maximum age of juvenile court jurisdiction in their state

and are below the age 18.

21Unlike the other five states where the maximum age of juvenile court jurisdiction is 17, in Missouri,

the maximum age is 16, and in New York it is 15. Therefore, in Missouri other youth are individuals of

age 17, and in New York, other youth are individuals of age 16 and 17. In both states, these other

youths are legally considered as adults and are under the original jurisdiction of the criminal court.

22The five states where property offenses made up the largest proportion of juvenile convictions in

criminal court were Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, Pennsylvania, and Vermont.

Page 22 GAO/GGD-95-170 Juvenile Case Dispositions
B-259800 

Table 9: Percent of Juveniles

Convicted in Criminal Court by

Offense for 1989 and 1990

State

Number of

juveniles

convicted

Percent

convicted

of serious

violent

offenses

Percent

convicted

of serious

property

offenses

Percent

convicted

of drug

offenses

California 280 39% 20% 38%

Minnesota 165 31 58 1

Missouri 44 27 36 16

Nebraska 277 23 38 18

New York 78 31 26 29

Pennsylvania 409 24 64 4

Vermont 260 9 66 3

Note: Percents may not equal 100 percent due to rounding and the exclusion of such offense

types as weapons, indeterminate property, public order, and traffic.

Source: Developed by GAO using OBTS data.

Similar to juveniles, the largest percentage of other youth and young

adults convicted in criminal court were property offenders. (See tables

III.3 and III.4 in app. III for conviction offenses of other youth and young

adults.) In California and New York, the largest proportion of young adults

convicted were drug offenders. For example, 37 percent of young adults in

California and 33 percent in New York were convicted of drug offenses.

Most Juveniles Sentenced

in Criminal Court for

Serious Offenses Were

Incarcerated

In four23 of seven states we analyzed, over half of the juveniles sentenced

in criminal court for serious violent, serious property, or drug offenses

were incarcerated in each state. Incarceration rates24 for these offenses

varied among states, as shown in table 10. In Vermont, incarceration rates

for these offenses were 33 percent or less. In addition, in Missouri the

incarceration rate for drug offenders was 43 percent. Also, in Pennsylvania

the incarceration rate for serious property offenders was 10 percent.

Among the 7 states, a total of 703 juveniles was sentenced to incarceration

in the 3 offense types during 1989 and 1990.

23These states are California, Minnesota, Nebraska, and New York.

24Incarceration rates equals the percentages of those juveniles convicted who were sentenced to jail or

prison as compared with all juveniles convicted who received any sentence, including probation or jail.

Page 23 GAO/GGD-95-170 Juvenile Case Dispositions
B-259800 

Table 10: Percent of Juveniles Incarcerated and the Total Number of Juveniles Sentenced for Serious Violent, Serious

Property, and Drug Offenses in 1989 and 1990

Serious violent offenses Serious property offenses Drug offenses

State

Number

sentenced

Percent

incarcerated

Number

sentenced

Percent

incarcerated

Number

sentenced

Percent

incarcerated

California 98 90% 57 95% 101 93%

Minnesota 45 98 84 92 2 100

Missouri 10 80 16 63 7 43

Nebraska 46 93 103 66 47 66

New York 18 67 10 70 13 62

Pennsylvania 81 89 257 10 15 100

Vermont 14 29 149 23 9 33

Source: Developed by GAO from OBTS data.

To determine whether juveniles were incarcerated at rates similar to

others in criminal court, we compared juvenile sentences with those of

other youth and young adults. (See tables III.5 and III.6 in app. III for

incarceration rates for other youth and young adults.) In the two states

with an “other youth population,” Missouri and New York, juvenile

incarceration rates for serious violent and serious property offenses were

higher than incarceration rates for these offenses for other youth. For

example, in Missouri, 80 percent of juveniles sentenced were incarcerated

for serious violent offenses compared with 60 percent of other youth. The

juvenile incarceration rates for drug offenses were lower than the rates for

other youth in Missouri and about equal to the rates for other youth in

New York.

Finally, we found no consistent pattern when comparing juvenile and

young adult incarceration rates (see table III.6 in app. III). For some

offenses juvenile incarceration rates were higher than young adult

incarceration rates, while for other offenses juvenile rates were lower. For

example, in New York, the incarceration rate for drug offenses was lower

for juveniles, 62 percent, compared with 80 percent for young adults. In

contrast, in Nebraska, the incarceration rates for serious violent offenses

were higher for juveniles, 93 percent, compared with 78 percent for young

adults.

In the seven states, the proportion of juveniles incarcerated for serious

property offenses was the same as the proportion incarcerated for serious

violent offenses but varied among the states. Drug offenders made up a

Page 24 GAO/GGD-95-170 Juvenile Case Dispositions
B-259800 

smaller proportion of the total number of juveniles incarcerated (see table

11). In contrast, drug offenders made up the largest proportion of other

youth and young adults incarcerated. (See tables III.7 and III.8 in app. III

for the total number of other youth and young adults incarcerated.)

Table 11: Total Number of Juveniles

Incarcerated for Serious Violent

Offenses, Serious Property Offenses,

and Drug Offenses in 1989 and 1990

State

Number of

juveniles

incarcerated

for serious

violent

offenses

Number of

juveniles

incarcerated

for serious

property

offenses

Number of

juveniles

incarcerated

for drug

offenses

California 88 54 94

Minnesota 44 77 2

Missouri 8 10 3

Nebraska 43 68 31

New York 12 7 8

Pennsylvania 72 26 15

Vermont 4 34 3

Total 271 276 156

Source: Developed by GAO using OBTS data.

Probation and Sentences

Other Than Incarceration

Received by Juveniles

Tried in Criminal Court for

Serious Violent, Serious

Property, and Drug

Offenses

While most juveniles sentenced in criminal court were incarcerated, some

juveniles also received probation and other sentences in the seven states

we analyzed. In fact, in five of the states, some juveniles convicted of

serious violent offenses received probation sentences. As shown in table

12, the percentages varied from 3 percent in California to 50 percent in

Vermont.

Page 25 GAO/GGD-95-170 Juvenile Case Dispositions
B-259800 

Table 12: Percent of Juveniles Convicted in Criminal Court Receiving Sentences of Probation or Sentences Other Than

Incarceration in Seven States for Selected Offenses in 1989 and 1990

Serious violent Serious property Drugs

State Probation

Other

sentences Probation

Other

sentences Probation

Other

sentences

California 3% 7% 5% 0% 6% 0%

Minnesota 0 2 8 0 0 0

Missouri 20 0 38 0 43 14

Nebraska 4 0 23 8 15 0

New York 33 0 20 10 31 8

Pennsylvania 6 1 2 3 0 0

Vermont 50 21 25 46 11 22

Note: Other sentences included (1) no court disposition or (2) disposition or sentencing was

deferred or suspended. Percentages do not add to 100 percent because incarceration rates were

not included.

Source: Developed by GAO using OBTS data.

Additionally, juveniles convicted of serious property or drug offenses in

four states received probation at higher rates than juveniles convicted of

serious violent offenses. Overall, while juveniles convicted of serious

violent, serious property, and drug offenses generally did not receive fines

as their sentences, in two states, a significant percentage of these juveniles

were sentenced to pay fines. In Pennsylvania, 84 percent of juveniles

convicted of serious property offenses were fined, and in Vermont,

33 percent of juveniles convicted of drug offenses were fined.

According to the literature, criminal court judges consider the severity of

the offenses and the prior offense history of the juvenile in making their

sentencing decisions. However, data limitations precluded us from

considering the prior offense history in our analysis.

Probation Was the

Most Common

Disposition by

Juvenile Court

Our analysis of NCJJ data showed that probation was the most widely

used disposition in the juvenile court. In 1992, in about 43 percent of

approximately 744,000 formal delinquency cases,25 juveniles were placed

on probation. In addition, probation was the most common disposition for

all offense types. A probation disposition involves the court monitoring the

juvenile’s behavior, helping the juvenile find a job, arranging in-home or

out-of-home care, or promoting wholesome leisure time activities. Of the

25Of the nearly 1.5 million delinquency cases filed in 1992, about half (743,673) were handled through a

formal process.

Page 26 GAO/GGD-95-170 Juvenile Case Dispositions
B-259800 

57 percent of juveniles not placed on probation in 1992, about 27 percent

of their cases were dismissed, 12 percent received some other disposition,

and 17 percent received placement (e.g., were placed in a residential

treatment program), as shown in table 13. Finally, the distribution of

formal dispositions was similar during the 5-year period, 1988 through

1992.

Table 13: Disposition of Formal

Delinquency Cases, by Percentage,

1988 Through 1992

Disposition 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992

Transfer 1.2% 1.4% 1.3% 1.6% 1.6%

Placement 18.4 19.5 19.2 17.3 17.0

Probation 43.9 44.4 43.5 43.6 42.5

Dismissed 26.6 24.0 25.8 26.5 27.1

Othera 9.9 10.6 10.2 11.0 11.8

aDisposition of other may include fines, restitution, community service, and referrals outside the

court for services with minimal or no further court involvement anticipated.

Source: Developed by GAO from NCJJ data.

As shown in table 14, in 1992, formal cases received various dispositions at

similar rates for each offense type. For example, regardless of the offense,

about 40 percent of juveniles were placed on probation.

Table 14: Dispositions of Formal

Cases, by Percentage and Offense

Type in 1992 Disposition Person Property Drugs

Public

order

Transfer 2.4% 1.3% 3.1% 0.8%

Placement 17.6 15.0 19.3 21.8

Probation 39.2 46.1 39.2 37.2

Dismissed 31.2 24.8 29.8 27.9

Othera 9.6 12.9 8.6 12.4

Note: Percentages may not add to 100 percent due to rounding.

aA disposition of “other” may include fines, restitution, community service, and referrals outside

the court for services with minimal or no further court involvement anticipated.

Source: Developed by GAO from NCJJ data.

While probation was the most common disposition for formal cases,

47 percent of informal juvenile cases were dismissed in 1992,26 as shown in

table 15. Of the remaining 53 percent of the cases, about 30 percent of the

26Possible reasons for dismissal included lack of evidence, offense was petty or seen as low risk, or the

juvenile and his or her family had reimbursed the victim for damages.

Page 27 GAO/GGD-95-170 Juvenile Case Dispositions
B-259800 

juveniles were placed on probation, 23 percent received some other

disposition, and 0.4 percent were placed in a residential treatment

program. Finally, as with formal cases, the distribution of informal

dispositions was similar during the 5-year period, 1988 through 1992, as

shown in table 15. Of the approximately 730,000 informal delinquency

cases disposed of in 1992, about 47 percent were dismissed.

Table 15: Percent of Informal Cases by

Type of Disposition for 1988 Through

1992

Disposition 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992

Placement 0.3% 0.4% 0.4% 0.3% 0.4%

Probation 30.5 26.2 28.3 28.2 29.9

Dismissed 48.6 54.1 51.3 48.2 47.1

Othera 20.6 19.2 20.1 23.2 22.7

aA disposition of “other” may include fines, restitution, community service, and referrals outside

the court for services with minimal or no further court involvement anticipated.

Source: Developed by GAO from NCJJ data.

For each offense type the distribution of informal dispositions was similar.

For example, regardless of the offense, in about 30 percent of informal

cases, juveniles were placed on probation in 1992.

The Few Juveniles in

Adult Prisons We

Visited Were Subject

to the Same Policies

and Procedures as

Adults

A 1991 survey27 of inmates in state correctional facilities reported that less

than 1 percent of state inmates were age 17 or younger. Few juveniles

were incarcerated in the seven adult facilities we visited. Further, those

juveniles were generally to be treated the same as the adult prisoners.

Juveniles in Adult Prisons We could not find national estimates for the number of inmates at or

below the maximum age of juvenile court jurisdiction in each state.

However, results of the 1991 Survey of Inmates in State Correctional

Facilities indicated that less than 1 percent of the 712,000 state prison

inmates were age 17 or younger.28 In addition, during visits to seven

27This survey was conducted by the U.S. Bureau of the Census for the U.S. Department of Justice,

Bureau of Justice Statistics.

28This figure may include juveniles age 16 and 17 who are above the maximum age of juvenile court

jurisdiction of their state.

Page 28 GAO/GGD-95-170 Juvenile Case Dispositions
B-259800 

prisons in four states, we found that juveniles represented a small number

of the inmate population, at the time of our visit. For example, as shown in

table 16, 31 of the 857 inmates at the Western Youth Institution were age

17 or younger. While these data indicate that few juveniles were in the

adult prison system at one time, it does not include the number of inmates

who committed their offenses as juveniles and were sentenced to

incarceration but are now beyond the maximum age of juvenile court

jurisdiction, as defined by the state.

Table 16: Data on Seven Facilities Visited

State

Maximum age of

juvenile court

jurisdiction

Correctional

facility

Age of

inmates

Facility

population

Number of

individuals at or

below the

maximum age of

juvenile court

jurisdiction

Percent of

juvenile

inmates

Florida 17 Brevard

Correctional

Institution

under 25 966 143 15%

Florida

Correctional

Institution

all ages 750 6 a

Lancaster

Correctional

Institution

under 25 635 90 14

Michigan 16 Handlon

Michigan

Training Unit

under 26 1,315 11 a

Michigan

Reformatory

under 26 1,183 3 a

North Carolina 15 Western Youth

Institution

under 19 857 31 4

Ohio 17 Southeastern

Correctional

Institution

all ages 1,945 10 a

aPercent is less than 1.

Source: Developed by GAO from information provided by facility officials at the time of our visit.

Juveniles Are to Be

Treated Same as Adults

According to prison officials at all of the locations we visited, juveniles

convicted in criminal court and sentenced to prison are considered adults.

Generally, they are subject to the same polices and procedures as other

inmates regarding housing, health care services, education, vocation and

Page 29 GAO/GGD-95-170 Juvenile Case Dispositions
B-259800 

work programs, and recreational activities. In addition, they are to be

afforded the same mail, visitation, and telephone privileges. However,

some prison officials pointed out that juveniles and youthful offenders

received different treatment at some facilities (e.g., they were provided

with a menu designed for their nutritional needs and they received more

educational opportunities). See appendix V for a summary of the

confinement conditions for juveniles in seven adult correctional facilities.

We are sending copies of this report to the Attorney General; the

Administrator, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention; the

Director, Office of Management and Budget; and other interested parties.

Copies will also be made available to others upon request.

Major contributors to this report are listed in appendix VI. If you have any

questions about this report, please contact me on (202) 512-8777.

Laurie E. Ekstrand

Associate Director, Administration

 of Justice Issues

Page 30 GAO/GGD-95-170 Juvenile Case Dispositions
Page 31 GAO/GGD-95-170 Juvenile Case Dispositions
Contents

Letter 1

Appendix I 

Objectives, Scope,

and Methodology

38

Review of Relevant Literature 39

National Data on the Frequency of Judicial Waiver 40

Analyses of the Frequency of Judicial Waiver in Selected States 40

State and Local Data Available on the Frequency of Prosecutor

Direct Filing Cases

41

Analysis of Statutory Exclusion Statutes in 37 States and the

District of Columbia

41

National Data on the Number of Juvenile Cases Sent to Criminal

Court for All Methods

42

State Specific Analysis of Sentences of Juveniles Prosecuted in

Criminal Court

42

Prosecutor Survey 42

National Data on the Dispositions of Juvenile Court Cases 44

Site Visits to Review Conditions of Confinement for Juveniles in

Adult Prisons

44

Judges Survey Addressing Judicial Waiver Issues 44

Prosecutor Survey and Their Responses 45

Appendix II 

Judicial Waiver Data

and Analysis for

Seven States

48

Arizona 48

California 49

Florida 51

Missouri 52

Pennsylvania 54

South Carolina 55

Utah 57

Details of Analysis of Waiver Rates 58

Appendix III 

Conviction Rates for

Other Youth and

Young Adults

61

Page 32 GAO/GGD-95-170 Juvenile Case Dispositions
Contents

Appendix IV 

Summary of Transfer

Laws

64

Appendix V 

Summary of

Confinement

Conditions for

Juveniles in Adult

Correctional Facilities

90

Housing 90

Health Services 90

Education, Vocation, and Work Programs 90

Recreational Activities 91

Daily Schedule 92

Appendix VI 

Major Contributors to

This Report

93

Tables Table 1: Summary of Juvenile Transfer and Sentencing Provisions 8

Table 2: Number of Formal Delinquency Cases Nationwide and

the Number and Percentage of Cases Judicially Waived to

Criminal Court

10

Table 3: Judicial Waiver Rate by Offense 11

Table 4: Percent of Judicially Waived Cases by Offense Type,

from 1988 Through 1992

11

Table 5: Percent of Waived Juvenile Cases, by Sex, Age, and Race,

1988 Through 1992

12

Table 6: Frequency of Prosecutor Direct Filing 15

Table 7: Conditions Under Which Juvenile Cases Were Excluded

From Juvenile Court

18

Table 8: Conviction Rates and the Number of Juveniles

Prosecuted in Criminal Court in Seven States for Selected

Offenses in 1989 and 1990

21

Table 9: Percent of Juveniles Convicted in Criminal Court by

Offense for 1989 and 1990

23

Table 10: Percent of Juveniles Incarcerated and the Total Number

of Juveniles Sentenced for Serious Violent, Serious Property, and

Drug Offenses in 1989 and 1990

24

Page 33 GAO/GGD-95-170 Juvenile Case Dispositions
Contents

Table 11: Total Number of Juveniles Incarcerated for Serious

Violent Offenses, Serious Property Offenses, and Drug Offenses

in 1989 and 1990

25

Table 12: Percent of Juveniles Convicted in Criminal Court

Receiving Sentences of Probation or Sentences Other Than

Incarceration in Seven States for Selected Offenses in 1989 and

1990

26

Table 13: Disposition of Formal Delinquency Cases, by

Percentage, 1988 Through 1992

27

Table 14: Dispositions of Formal Cases, by Percentage and

Offense Type in 1992

27

Table 15: Percent of Informal Cases by Type of Disposition for

1988 Through 1992

28

Table 16: Data on Seven Facilities Visited 29

Table II.1: Rate and Percent of Juvenile Cases Waived by Offense

Type in Arizona, 1990 and 1991

48

Table II.2: Percent of Juvenile Cases Waived by Sex, Age, and

Race in Arizona, 1990 and 1991

48

Table II.3: Selected Juvenile Waiver Rates in Arizona, 1990 and

1991

49

Table II.4: Rate and Percent of Juvenile Cases Waived by Offense

Type in California, 1990 and 1991

50

Table II.5: Percent of Juvenile Cases Waived by Sex, Age, and

Race in California, 1990 and 1991

50

Table II.6: Selected Juvenile Waiver Rates in California, 1990 and

1991

50

Table II.7: Rate and Percent of Juvenile Cases Waived by Offense

Type in Florida, 1990 and 1991

51

Table II.8: Percent of Juvenile Cases Waived by Sex, Age, and

Race in Florida, 1990 and 1991

51

Table II.9: Selected Juvenile Waiver Rates in Florida, 1990 and

1991

52

Table II.10: Rate and Percent of Juvenile Cases Waived by

Offense Type in Missouri, 1990 and 1991

53

Table II.11: Percent of Juvenile Cases Waived by Sex, Age, and

Race in Missouri, 1990 and 1991

53

Table II.12: Selected Juvenile Waiver Rates in Missouri, 1990 and

1991

53

Table II.13: Rate and Percent of Juvenile Cases Waived by

Offense Type in Pennsylvania, 1990 and 1991

54

Page 34 GAO/GGD-95-170 Juvenile Case Dispositions
Contents

Table II.14: Percent of Juvenile Cases Waived by Sex, Age, and

Race in Pennsylvania, 1990 and 1991

54

Table II.15: Selected Juvenile Waiver Rates in Pennsylvania, 1990

and 1991

55

Table II.16: Rate and Percent of Juvenile Cases Waived by

Offense Type in South Carolina, 1990 and 1991

56

Table II.17: Percent of Juvenile Cases Waived by Sex, Age, and

Race in South Carolina, 1990 and 1991

56

Table II.18: Selected Juvenile Waiver Rates in South Carolina,

1990 and 1991

57

Table II.19: Rate and Percent of Juvenile Cases Waived by

Offense Type in Utah, 1990 and 1991

58

Table II.20: Percent of Juvenile Cases Waived by Sex, Age, and

Race in Utah, 1990 and 1991

58

Table III.1: Conviction Rates and the Number of Other Youth

Prosecuted in Criminal Court in Two States for Selected

Offenses, 1989 and 1990

61

Table III.2: Conviction Rates and the Number of Young Adults

(Ages 18-24) Prosecuted in Criminal Court in Seven States for

Selected Offenses, 1989 and 1990

61

Table III.3: Percent of Other Youth Convicted in Criminal Court

by Offense, 1989 and 1990

61

Table III.4: Percent of Young Adults (Ages 18-24) Convicted in

Criminal Court by Offense, 1989 and 1990

62

Table III.5: Percent of Other Youth Incarcerated and the Total

Number of Other Youth Sentenced for Serious Violent, Serious

Property, and Drug Offenses, 1989 and 1990

62

Table III.6: Percent of Young Adults (Ages 18-24) Incarcerated

and the Total Number of Young Adults Sentenced for Serious

Violent, Serious Property, and Drug Offenses, 1989 and 1990

62

Table III.7: Total Number of Other Youth Incarcerated for Serious

Violent Offenses, Serious Property Offenses, and Drug Offenses,

1989 and 1990

63

Table III.8: Total Number of Young Adults (Ages

18-24) Incarcerated for Serious Violent Offenses, Serious

Property Offenses, and Drug Offenses, 1989 and 1990

63

Page 35 GAO/GGD-95-170 Juvenile Case Dispositions
Contents

Abbreviations

BJS Bureau of Justice Statistics

CY calendar year

CYA California Youth Authority

GED Graduate Equivalency Diploma

HIV Human Immunodeficiency Virus

OBTS Offender Based Transaction Statistics

NCJJ National Center for Juvenile Justice

NJRP National Judicial Reporting Program

NJCDA National Juvenile Court Data Archive

OJJDP Department of Justice’s Office of Juvenile Justice and

Delinquency Prevention

Page 36 GAO/GGD-95-170 Juvenile Case Dispositions
Page 37 GAO/GGD-95-170 Juvenile Case Dispositions
Appendix I 

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

The 1992 reauthorization (P.L. 102-586) of the Juvenile Justice and

Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974 (P.L. 93-415) mandated that we study

the processing of juveniles in criminal court. Specifically, we agreed with

your Committees to

• provide the frequency to which juveniles have been sent to criminal court

by judicial waiver, prosecutor direct filing, and statutory exclusion;

• analyze juvenile conviction rates and sentences of juveniles prosecuted in

criminal court using the most current data;

• analyze the dispositions of juveniles in juvenile court; and

• analyze the conditions of confinement in adult correctional facilities for

juveniles convicted in criminal court.

We also agreed to summarize state laws governing the circumstances

under which juveniles can be sent to criminal court. Further, we noted the

number of states that allowed criminal court judges to transfer juvenile

cases back to criminal court and the number of states that allowed

criminal court judges to impose juvenile court sanctions.

To address all objectives, we reviewed relevant literature. To determine

the frequency to which juveniles are processed in criminal court, we

obtained national, state, and local court data. Because data were not

available on the frequency of statutory exclusion, we analyzed the

statutory exclusion laws of 37 states and the District of Columbia to

determine the types of cases being excluded from juvenile court. To

determine sentences of juveniles convicted in criminal court, we analyzed

conviction rates, conviction offenses, and incarceration rates and

sentences for juveniles prosecuted in criminal court. To determine the

dispositions of juveniles in juvenile court, we analyzed the offenses and

dispositions of juveniles in juvenile court. To analyze conditions of

confinement for juveniles in adult correctional facilities, we conducted

site visits at seven adult prisons in four states. We classified cases as

juveniles on the basis of the defendants’ age at the time of arrest because

data were not available for the defendants’ age at the time of the offense.

As a result, we underestimated the number of juveniles in criminal court.

To provide a summary of the state laws, we reviewed the statutes for 50

states and the District of Columbia. Finally, we obtained additional

perspectives on juvenile justice issues by mailing a survey to a national

sample of prosecutors’ offices and interviewing 15 juvenile court judges in

7 states.

Page 38 GAO/GGD-95-170 Juvenile Case Dispositions
Appendix I 

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

The act required us to compare the sentences of juveniles tried in criminal

court with those processed in juvenile court for similar offenses. On the

basis of discussions with juvenile justice officials, this type of comparison

should recognize the selection process by which juveniles are sent to

criminal court or remain in juvenile court. The officials said that juveniles

sent to criminal court are a select subset of all juveniles. The fact that they

are selected for criminal court indicates they are different from juveniles

processed in juvenile court. When sending juveniles to criminal court,

decisionmakers (e.g., judges) generally consider that these juveniles have

(1) relatively more serious criminal behaviors, (2) more extensive criminal

histories, (3) less amenability to treatment, or (4) a greater likelihood of

being a threat to the community than juveniles who are processed in

juvenile court. Also, juveniles processed in criminal court are subject to a

different sentencing process than those in juvenile court. Both factors

mean that comparisons between the two groups of juveniles would be of

nonequivalent groups. As a result, differences or similarities in their

sentences would be difficult to interpret. However, subject to these

caveats, we provided data on the sentencing outcomes for juveniles

processed in these two courts. We could not determine the extent to

which sentencing outcomes were due to differences in individual

characteristics of juveniles in the respective courts or sentencing

processes of the courts.

Review of Relevant

Literature

To develop an understanding of the issues associated with processing

juveniles in criminal court, we reviewed relevant literature identified in

bibliographies provided by the National Center for Juvenile Justice (NCJJ)

and the Department of Justice’s Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency

Prevention (OJJDP). From our review of the literature, we determined the

three principal methods for sending juveniles to criminal court and

identified the states’ policies on housing juveniles in adult prisons.

Page 39 GAO/GGD-95-170 Juvenile Case Dispositions
Appendix I 

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

National Data on the

Frequency of Judicial

Waiver

We used juvenile court data collected annually by NCJJ to determine the

number of juvenile cases processed in criminal court due to judicial

waiver. Each year, NCJJ collects juvenile court processing data and assigns

weights to the data, which permits projecting the data to produce national

estimates of cases disposed by all state juvenile justice systems.1 OJJDP

publishes the weighted data in its annual Juvenile Court Statistics.

Using the National Juvenile Court Data Archive (NJCDA), we developed

statistics for a 5-year period from calendar year 1988 to 1992. Specifically,

we developed national estimates of the number of juvenile cases waived to

criminal court by juvenile court judges (judicial waiver). In addition, we

developed statistics on the offense profiles and demographics of juveniles,

whose cases were waived to criminal court.

Analyses of the

Frequency of Judicial

Waiver in Selected

States

NCJJ’s NJCDA national data files did not contain sufficient information for

analyzing judicial waivers directly. However, some of the Center’s

state-specific files2

 have a wider range of data elements (including prior

offense histories) that facilitate such analyses. For example, in addition to

data showing the types of offenses and whether cases were waived, some

variables that we analyzed were the number of previous referrals and/or

adjudications and the metropolitan status of the court. Thus, in order to

conduct more detailed analyses of judicial waiver, we judgmentally

selected the following 7 states from a total of 25 states that provided court

1

In 1991, for example, the following 23 states provided juvenile court case-level data to NCJJ: Alabama,

Arizona (Maricopa county only), Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Florida, Maryland, Minnesota,

Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania,

South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, West Virginia, and Wisconsin. In 1990 and 1991, California

reported data from several of its larger counties, representing 40 percent of the state’s population that

is age 17 or younger. In addition, some jurisdictions in seven other states reported court case-level

data that were used in generating the national estimates. In all, data from 1,504 jurisdictions covering

57 percent of the nation’s youth at risk were used to produce the 1991 national estimates. NCJJ’s

estimates of the number and characteristics of delinquency cases and cases that were waived by

juvenile courts were on the bases of the assumption that the characteristics of cases in counties that

did not report juvenile court statistics were similar to those counties of similar size that did report

statistics to NCJJ. The details of the estimation procedures can be found in Juvenile Court Statistics.

The national estimates were not generated by a probability sample. NCJJ has conducted, however,

tests of the validity of the national estimates by comparing them with counts of referrals (as reported

by the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Uniform Crime Reports) made by law enforcement agencies

to juvenile courts.

2

We used data that were housed in and made available by the NJCDA, which is maintained by NCJJ

and supported by a grant from OJJDP. These data were originally collected by the Maricopa County,

AZ, Juvenile Court Center; the Alameda County, CA, Probation Department; the Los Angeles County,

CA, Probation Department; the San Francisco County, CA, Juvenile Probation Department; the San

Joaquin County, CA, Probation Department; the County of Ventura, CA, Corrections Services Agency;

the Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services; the Missouri State Division of Children

and Youth Services; the Pennsylvania Center for Juvenile Justice Training and Research; the South

Carolina Department of Juvenile Justice; and the Utah Juvenile Court. Neither the original data

collectors nor NCJJ bear any responsibility for our analyses or interpretations of the data.

Page 40 GAO/GGD-95-170 Juvenile Case Dispositions
Appendix I 

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

data to NCJJ: Arizona, California, Florida, Missouri, Pennsylvania, South

Carolina, and Utah. In addition to geographical coverage, other factors we

considered in selecting these seven states were that (1) collectively, these

states’ juvenile justice systems reflected a diverse range of processes for

handling youthful offenders and (2) the states’ data files contained a

sufficient number of variables relevant to our analyses of judicial waiver.

For each of the seven states selected, we obtained a copy of NCJJ’s

computerized data files for calendar years 1990 and 1991, the most recent

years for which consistent data were available.3

 Then, using the 1990 and

1991 data files, we completed analyses that compared the waiver rates in

different states; the waiver rates for defendants of different genders, races,

and ages; and the waiver rates of cases processed in juvenile courts with

different metropolitan status.

State and Local Data

Available on the

Frequency of

Prosecutor Direct

Filing Cases

To obtain data on the frequency of juvenile cases directly filed in criminal

court at the discretion of prosecutors, we contacted State Court

Administrator Offices in the 10 states with direct filing laws. Statewide

data on prosecutor direct filing cases were available in 5 of the 10 states

that have direct filing laws. To obtain data for the other states, we

contacted some of the largest counties/parishes in those states to get some

measure of the frequency of prosecutor direct filing. We also contacted

court officials in the District of Columbia to determine the frequency of

direct filing in the District.

Analysis of Statutory

Exclusion Statutes in

37 States and the

District of Columbia

To gain some perspective on the type of juvenile cases processed in

criminal court due to state statutes that exclude them from juvenile court,

we analyzed the statutes in 37 states and the District of Columbia. We

categorized the states according to whether their statutory exclusion laws

focused on (1) juveniles charged with serious violent offenses or other

serious offenses or (2) juveniles with prior court records.

3

For trend purposes, additional data files (i.e., for years before 1990) would have been desirable;

however, the 1990-1991 data files were the only years that had a sufficient range of variables common

to all seven states to facilitate our planned analyses.

Page 41 GAO/GGD-95-170 Juvenile Case Dispositions
Appendix I 

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

National Data on the

Number of Juvenile

Cases Sent to

Criminal Court for All

Methods

In an attempt to collect data on the number of juveniles sent to criminal

court by all possible methods, we developed a survey to be completed by

juvenile justice specialists in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. We

received responses from 19 states and the District of Columbia. Nine of

the responses indicated that the data we requested were not available. Due

to the low response rate and unavailability of data, we were only able to

use this survey as an indicator of the relative frequency in which juveniles

are sent to criminal court by the three methods. In following up with

nonrespondents by telephone calls, they said that the data we requested

were not available.

State Specific

Analysis of Sentences

of Juveniles

Prosecuted in

Criminal Court

To identify the types of sentences juveniles receive when processed in

criminal court, we used the Bureau of Justice Statistics’s (BJS) Offender

Based Transaction Statistics (OBTS) data sets.4 OBTS focuses on arrested,

alleged offenders and contains information on offender characteristics,

patterns of arrest, prior criminal activities, prosecution activities, court

action, and sentences. At the time of our review, OBTS contained data for

the years 1975 through 1990 for approximately 15 states. We analyzed data

from California, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, New York, Pennsylvania,

and Vermont for 1989 and 1990 combined. We chose these states because

they represented different maximum ages of juvenile court jurisdictions,

different laws governing which juveniles may be sent to criminal court,

and different geographic regions. We used these data to analyze conviction

rates, offenses, and incarceration rates of juveniles prosecuted in criminal

court. In addition, we compared these rates with those of “other youth”

and young adults (persons age 18 through 24) to gain a perspective on how

juveniles are treated relative to others prosecuted in criminal court.

Prosecutor Survey To gather prosecutors opinions on data related to the processsing of

juveniles in criminal court, we obtained 226 completed questionnaires

from a nationally representative, probability sample of district prosecutor

offices that deal with juveniles in juvenile courts. Our final sample was

identified by first contacting a stratified probability sample of county

prosecutors in 290 of the 3,110 counties in the United States. To gather

information about both large and small counties, the sample was stratified

on the basis of the number of felony convictions in 1985. The 1985 felony

4

We attempted to use the BJS National Judicial Reporting Program (NJRP) data set. NJRP is a data set

that contains information on the sentences of convicted felons received in state courts in 1988 and

1990. The data set contains a probability sample of convicted felons sentenced in state courts. Because

of missing data that identified the age of the convicted felons, we could not identify juveniles and

therefore could not use this data to analyze juvenile sentences in criminal court.

Page 42 GAO/GGD-95-170 Juvenile Case Dispositions
Appendix I 

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

convictions were used first to draw this sample of 290 counties in 1986 for

the National Judicial Reporting Program.

We developed and pretested the questionnaire items with advice from

experts at NCJJ and BJS as well as selected prosecutor offices. The survey

was mailed in March 1994. Two sets of follow-up telephone calls and two

additional mailings were conducted between May and July.

We contacted all 290 selected counties to determine whether they had

juvenile prosecutors and, if so, the counties over which they had

jurisdiction. We determined that 270 of the 290 counties were eligible

members of our study population of prosecutor offices that dealt with

juvenile offenders in juvenile court. After weighing on the basis of the

probabilities of selection, we estimated that the study population

consisted of approximately 2,118 such juvenile prosecutors in the United

States. The number of juvenile prosecutors (2,118) is less than the number

of counties (3,110) partly because some counties are consolidated under a

single juvenile prosecutor and partly because some jurisdictions do not

have prosecutors that appear in juvenile court. Of the 270 sampled

prosecutors from the study population, 226 responded, for a response rate

of 84 percent.

All figures presented in this report were estimated from the returned

questionnaires to the population of the estimated 2,118 juvenile prosecutor

offices. All sample surveys are subject to sampling error, which refers to

the extent to which the results may differ from what would have been

obtained if the entire population had been surveyed. The size of sampling

errors in any survey depends largely on the number of respondents and

the amount of variability in the data from the returned surveys. In this

report, all estimates are made at the 95-percent confidence level with a

sampling error of less than 10 percent. This means that, if we had drawn

repeated samples from the entire study population of prosecutor offices,

19 out of 20 samples would have produced estimates within 10 percent of

the true proportion in the total population.

In addition to the reported sampling errors, any survey may be subject to

nonsampling errors as well. For example, differences in how a particular

question is interpreted, in the sources of information that are available to

respondents, or in the types of people who do not respond, can introduce

unwanted variability into survey results.

Page 43 GAO/GGD-95-170 Juvenile Case Dispositions
Appendix I 

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

We included steps in the data collection and data analysis stages to

minimize such nonsampling errors. We selected the sample from a

complete list of all counties, and we pretested our questionnaire with

experts and members of the target population. Our extensive follow-up

efforts were designed to maximize the response rate, and we achieved a

final response rate of 84 percent. All data were keyed twice and verified

during data entry, and all computer analyses were reviewed by a second

independent analyst.

National Data on the

Dispositions of

Juvenile Court Cases

To develop national statistics on the types of dispositions used in juvenile

court, we used the NCJJ’s NJCDA data files. We developed national estimates

to compare (1) the number of juvenile cases processed informally versus

formally, (2) the dispositions of cases handled formally versus informally,

and (3) the types of dispositions for various crime types.

Site Visits to Review

Conditions of

Confinement for

Juveniles in Adult

Prisons

To obtain descriptive information on the conditions of confinement for

juveniles in adult prisons, we visited seven prisons in Florida, Michigan,

North Carolina, and Ohio. In judgmentally selecting states to visit, we

considered (1) the state’s maximum age of juvenile court jurisdiction in

each state, (2) whether juveniles were housed with younger inmates (e.g.,

inmates under 25) or inmates of all ages, and (3) the number of inmates

under the age of 18.

In each state, we visited the prisons that housed the majority of inmates

under age 18. We visited a total of seven prisons—six that housed males

and one that housed females. During our visits, we interviewed prison

officials, using a structured interview format. While we did not verify the

information provided, we toured the facilities to observe the housing units,

health services facilities, education and vocation classrooms, and

recreation facilities.

Judges Survey

Addressing Judicial

Waiver Issues

We conducted structured interviews with 15 juvenile court judges in 7

states to obtain information on methods for sending juveniles to criminal

court. Judges were chosen randomly and interviewed on the basis of their

availability. We attempted to contact two or three judges in the juvenile

court jurisdictions that we visited during our site visits.

Page 44 GAO/GGD-95-170 Juvenile Case Dispositions
Appendix I 

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Prosecutor Survey

and Their Responses

The three questions we asked prosecutors and their responses to them are

as follows:

Page 45 GAO/GGD-95-170 Juvenile Case Dispositions
Appendix I 

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

1. (a) In your jurisdiction in calendar year (CY) 1993, how many

requests for judicial waiver to criminal (adult) court were

filed? (Enter numbers. If none, enter zero. Estimates are

acceptable.)

N = 212

Mean = 8

Median = 1 request filed for judicial waiver to criminal

(adult) court in CY 1993.

(b) Of these requests, how many were granted?

N = 162

Mean = 9

Median = 2 requests granted for judicial waiver to

criminal (adult) court in CY 1993.

2. (a) Of all the criminal indictments filed in criminal (adult)

court in your jurisdiction in CY 1993, approximately what percent

were filed against juveniles in criminal (adult) court? (Enter

percent. If none, enter zero. Estimates are acceptable.)

N = 189

Mean = 2

Median = 0 percent of indictments filed against

juveniles in criminal (adult) court.

(b) In your jurisdiction in CY 1993, of all indictments filed

against juveniles in criminal (adult) court, approximately what

percent were the result of the following processes? (Enter

percents. If none, enter zero. Total should add to 100%. If an

item listed below cannot occur in your state, enter N/A.)

Judicial waivers

N = 166

Mean = 70%

Median = 100%

Direct filings

N = 166

Mean = 20%

Median = 0%

Page 46 GAO/GGD-95-170 Juvenile Case Dispositions
Appendix I 

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Statutory exclusions

N = 166

Mean = 3%

Median = 0%

Other - Please specify: _____________

N = 166

Mean = 7%

Median = 0%

Total = 100%

3. When considering whether to send or recommend sending a

juvenile to criminal (adult) court rather than to juvenile court,

what are the three most important factors that you are likely to

consider? (Check three factors you consider most important.)

N = 226

Note: Percentages represent the proportion of the 226

respondents indicating that a particular item is one of the

three most important factors.

a. Family background of the offender --

b. The offender’s age 21%

c. The offender’s age in relation to the upper age 17%

of juvenile court jurisdiction

d. The offender’s age in relation to the extended age 3%

of juvenile court jurisdiction

e. Sophistication and maturity of the offender 7%

f. Seriousness of the alleged offense (e.g., involved 85%

drugs, guns, destruction of property)

g. Whether the offense was against other persons 17%

(e.g., involved victim injury)

h. Whether adult offenders were involved in the 1%

offense

i. Whether the offender is a repeat offender 57%

j. The availability of more serious punishments 5%

in criminal (adult) court

k. The availability of a youthful offender facility 1%

l. The need to protect the community 19%

m. Whether the offender has been determined to be 44%

unamenable to rehabilitation

n. Prosecutive merits of complaint 5%

o. Other factor? - Please specify: 3%

Page 47 GAO/GGD-95-170 Juvenile Case Dispositions
Appendix II 

Judicial Waiver Data and Analysis for Seven

States

Arizona Data - 1990 and 1991 combined.

Number of formal delinquency cases - 17,320.

Number of formal delinquency cases judicially waived

to criminal court - 397.

Percent of formal delinquency cases judicially waived

to criminal court - 2.3.

Table II.1: Rate and Percent of Juvenile

Cases Waived by Offense Type in

Arizona, 1990 and 1991 Offense type at disposition Waiver rate

Percent of

waived cases

Violent 7.0% 46.4%

Property 1.6 42.3

Drugs 3.8 5.8

Weapons 1.1 0.8

Public order or other 0.6 4.8

Source: NCJJ.

Table II.2: Percent of Juvenile Cases

Waived by Sex, Age, and Race in

Arizona, 1990 and 1991

Sex Age at referral Race

Male Female 16 or older White Black Other

99.0% 1.0% 91.9% 35.5% 23.7% 40.8%

Note: Percentages may not equal 100 due to rounding.

Source: NCJJ.

Page 48 GAO/GGD-95-170 Juvenile Case Dispositions
Appendix II 

Judicial Waiver Data and Analysis for Seven

States

Table II.3: Selected Juvenile Waiver Rates in Arizona, 1990 and 1991

Waiver rates at disposition

Factors Violent Property Drugs Weapons

Public order

or other

Age

16 or older 13.4% 3.9% 5.6% 2.0% 1.2%

Under 16 years 1.5 0.1 0.8 0.0 0.0

Location

Metropolitan 7.0 1.6 3.8 1.1 0.6

Prior referrals

None 1.9 0.2 0.5 0.0 0.8

1 or 2 5.4 0.7 2.5 0.0 0.2

3 or more 14.5 4.4 10.3 3.7 0.8

Gender

Male 8.3 1.8 4.4 1.1 0.7

Female 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0

Race

Black 9.1 2.6 10.9 1.5 0.9

White 5.1 1.3 0.8 1.1 0.5

Other 8.1 1.8 3.6 0.9 0.5

Source: NCJJ.

California Data - 1990 and 1991 combined (data from 5 counties).

Number of formal delinquency cases - 64,275.

Number of formal delinquency cases judicially waived

to criminal court - 310.

Percent of formal delinquency cases judicially waived

to criminal court - 0.5.

Page 49 GAO/GGD-95-170 Juvenile Case Dispositions
Appendix II 

Judicial Waiver Data and Analysis for Seven

States

Table II.4: Rate and Percent of Juvenile

Cases Waived by Offense Type in

California, 1990 and 1991 Offense type at referral Waiver rate

Percent of

waived cases

Violent 1.5% 85.1%

Property 0.1 6.4

Drugs 0.2 4.5

Weapons 0.1 1.3

Public order or other 0.1 1.3

Indeterminate 0.4 1.3

Source: NCJJ.

Table II.5: Percent of Juvenile Cases

Waived by Sex, Age, and Race in

California, 1990 and 1991 Sex

Age at

disposition Race

Male Female 16 or older White Black Other

98.4% 1.6% 98.4% 5.5% 34.3% 60.2%

Source: NCJJ.

Table II.6: Selected Juvenile Waiver Rates in California, 1990 and 1991

Waiver rates at disposition

Factors Violent Property Drugs Weapons

Public order

or other

Age

16 or older 2.4% 0.1% 0.2% 0.2% 0.1%

Under 16 years a 0.0 0.1 0.0 a

Location

Metropolitan 1.5 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1

Gender

Male 1.7 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1

Female 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0

Race

Black 1.3 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1

White 0.5 0.1 0.4 0.0 0.1

Other 1.9 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0

aLess than 0.1 percent.

Source: NCJJ.

Page 50 GAO/GGD-95-170 Juvenile Case Dispositions
Appendix II 

Judicial Waiver Data and Analysis for Seven

States

Florida Data - 1990 and 1991 combined.

Number of formal delinquency cases - 148,976.

Number of formal delinquency cases judicially waived

to criminal court - 1,389.

Percent of formal delinquency cases judicially waived

to criminal court - 0.9.

Table II.7: Rate and Percent of Juvenile

Cases Waived by Offense Type in

Florida, 1990 and 1991 Offense type at disposition Waiver rate

Percent of

waived cases

Violent 1.8% 35.7%

Property 0.8 39.2

Drugs 2.4 13.7

Weapons 0.7 1.1

Public order or other 0.5 5.4

Source: NCJJ.

Table II.8: Percent of Juvenile Cases

Waived by Sex, Age, and Race in

Florida, 1990 and 1991

Sex Age at referral Race

Male Female 16 or older White Black Other

95.5% 4.5% 76.2% 39.4% 60.1% 0.4%

Note: Percentages may not equal 100 due to rounding.

Source: NCJJ.

Page 51 GAO/GGD-95-170 Juvenile Case Dispositions
Appendix II 

Judicial Waiver Data and Analysis for Seven

States

Table II.9: Selected Juvenile Waiver Rates in Florida, 1990 and 1991

Waiver rates at disposition

Factors Violent Property Drugs Weapons

Public order

or other

Age

16 or older 2.6% 1.4% 3.0% 1.1% 0.7%

Under 16 years 1.1 0.3 1.2 0.3 0.2

Location

Metropolitan 1.8 0.8 .5 0.8 0.5

Nonmetropolitan 1.1 0.6 1.4 0.0 0.9

Prior referrals

None 0.9 0.2 1.1 0.3 0.5

1 or 2 1.2 0.4 1.7 0.9 0.2

3 or more 2.9 1.5 3.8 1.1 0.6

Gender

Male 2.0 0.9 2.5 0.8 0.5

Female 0.6 0.2 1.8 0.0 0.2

Race

Black 2.3 0.7 3.0 0.9 0.5

White 1.0 0.8 1.2 0.5 0.5

Other 0.0 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.0

Source: NCJJ.

Missouri Data - 1990 and 1991 (combined).

Number of formal delinquency cases - 15,787.

Number of formal delinquency cases judicially waived

to criminal court - 464.

Percent of formal delinquency cases judicially waived

to criminal court - 2.9.

Page 52 GAO/GGD-95-170 Juvenile Case Dispositions
Appendix II 

Judicial Waiver Data and Analysis for Seven

States

Table II.10: Rate and Percent of

Juvenile Cases Waived by Offense

Type in Missouri, 1990 and 1991 Offense type at disposition Waiver rate

Percent of

waived cases

Violent 5.3% 41.6%

Property 1.7 26.9

Drugs 6.6 12.5

Weapons 2.4 19.0

Source: NCJJ.

Table II.11: Percent of Juvenile Cases

Waived by Sex, Age, and Race in

Missouri, 1990 and 1991

Sex Age at referral Race

Male Female 16 or older White Black Other

98.7% 1.3% 77.0% 29.5% 70.5% 0%

Source: NCJJ.

Table II.12: Selected Juvenile Waiver

Rates in Missouri, 1990 and 1991 Waiver rates at disposition

Factors Violent Property Drugs Weapons

Age

16 or older 11.7% 4.4% 11.1% 5.6%

Under 16 years 2.3 0.4 2.6 0.7

Location

Metropolitan 5.5 1.4 6.8 2.5

Nonmetropolitan 3.7 2.4 4.0 1.6

Prior referrals

None 2.3 0.8 0.0 0.8

1 or 2 2.6 0.5 3.1 0.3

3 or more 9.4 3.2 12.0 4.2

Gender

Male 6.0 1.8 7.0 2.7

Female 0.4 0.3 0.0 0.4

Race

Black 7.4 1.8 7.5 3.2

White 2.4 1.6 3.3 1.3

Other 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Source: NCJJ.

Page 53 GAO/GGD-95-170 Juvenile Case Dispositions
Appendix II 

Judicial Waiver Data and Analysis for Seven

States

Pennsylvania Data - 1990 and 1991 (combined).

Number of formal delinquency cases - 41,920.

Number of formal delinquency cases judicially waived

to criminal court - 857.

Percent of formal delinquency cases judicially waived

to criminal court - 2.0.

Table II.13: Rate and Percent of

Juvenile Cases Waived by Offense

Type in Pennsylvania, 1990 and 1991 Offense type at referral Waiver rate

Percent of

waived cases

Violent 2.4% 40.5%

Property 1.6 37.6

Drugs 3.8 19.3

Weapons 0.5 0.5

Public order or other 1.0 1.6

Indeterminate 0.7 0.7

Source: NCJJ.

Table II.14: Percent of Juvenile Cases

Waived by Sex, Age, and Race in

Pennsylvania, 1990 and 1991

Sex Age at referral Race

Male Female 16 or older White Black Other

98.2% 1.8% 96.3% 31.8% 55.6% 12.5%

Note: Percentages may not equal 100 due to rounding.

Source: NCJJ.

Page 54 GAO/GGD-95-170 Juvenile Case Dispositions
Appendix II 

Judicial Waiver Data and Analysis for Seven

States

Table II.15: Selected Juvenile Waiver Rates in Pennsylvania, 1990 and 1991

Waiver rates at disposition

Factors Violent Property Drugs Weapons

Public order

or other

Age

16 or older 4.8% 3.2% 5.3% 0.7% 1.8%

Under 16 years 0.2 0.1 0.5 0.3 0.0

Location

Metropolitan 2.4 1.5 3.8 0.4 1.1

Nonmetropolitan 2.0 2.8 6.0 4.2 0.6

Prior referrals

None 0.8 0.5 3.0 0.0 1.1

1 or 2 2.5 2.1 4.4 0.0 0.8

3 or more 5.8 5.7 4.9 0.0 3.2

Gender

Male 2.8 1.8 3.9 0.6 1.2

Female 0.2 0.2 2.4 0.0 0.0

Race

Black 3.0 1.6 3.9 0.8 0.9

White 1.4 1.6 1.6 0.0 1.0

Other 2.6 2.1 5.3 0.0 2.4

Source: NCJJ.

South Carolina Data - 1990 and 1991 (combined).

Number of formal delinquency cases - 11,146.

Number of formal delinquency cases judicially waived

to criminal court - 91.

Percent of formal delinquency cases judicially waived

to criminal court - 0.8.

Page 55 GAO/GGD-95-170 Juvenile Case Dispositions
Appendix II 

Judicial Waiver Data and Analysis for Seven

States

Table II.16: Rate and Percent of

Juvenile Cases Waived by Offense

Type in South Carolina, 1990 and 1991 Offense type at disposition Waiver rate

Percent of

waived cases

Violent 3.6% 64.8%

Property 0.3 17.6

Drugs 3.1 13.2

Weapons 0.6 2.2

Public order or

other 0.1 2.2

Source: NCJJ.

Table II.17: Percent of Juvenile Cases

Waived by Sex, Age, and Race in

South Carolina, 1990 and 1991

Sex Age at referral Race

Male Female 16 or older White Black Other

97.8% 2.2% 83.5% 14.3% 85.7% 0%

Source: NCJJ.

Page 56 GAO/GGD-95-170 Juvenile Case Dispositions
Appendix II 

Judicial Waiver Data and Analysis for Seven

States

Table II.18: Selected Juvenile Waiver Rates in South Carolina, 1990 and 1991

Waiver rates at disposition

Factors Violent Property Drugs Weapons

Public order

or other

Age

16 or older 9.8% 1.0% 5.2% 0.9% 0.2%

Under 16 years 0.9 0.1 1.0 0.5 0.0

Location

Metropolitan 4.5 0.4 2.7 0.5 0.1

Nonmetropolitan 2.4 0.3 3.9 0.8 0.0

Prior referrals

None 1.6 0.1 2.3 0.0 0.0

1 or 2 5.9 0.5 3.5 1.6 0.1

3 or more 5.7 0.6 4.7 0.0 0.0

Gender

Male 4.0 0.4 3.2 0.7 0.1

Female 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Race

Black 4.4 0.4 3.8 0.8 0.1

White 1.6 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.1

Other 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Source: NCJJ.

Utah Data - 1990 and 1991 (combined).

Number of formal delinquency cases - 54,990.

Number of formal delinquency cases judicially waived

to criminal court - 19.

Percent of formal delinquency cases judicially waived

to criminal court - Less than 0.1 percent.

Page 57 GAO/GGD-95-170 Juvenile Case Dispositions
Appendix II 

Judicial Waiver Data and Analysis for Seven

States

Table II.19: Rate and Percent of

Juvenile Cases Waived by Offense

Type in Utah, 1990 and 1991 Offense type at disposition

Waiver

ratea

Percent of

waived cases

Violent 21.0%

Property 79.0%

aOffense specific waiver rates were not computed due to the small universe of waived cases.

Source: NCJJ.

Table II.20: Percent of Juvenile Cases

Waived by Sex, Age, and Race in Utah,

1990 and 1991

Sex Age at referral Race

Male Female 16 or older White Black Other

100% 0.0% 89.6% 52.6% 10.5% 36.8%

Note: Percentages may not equal 100 due to rounding.

Source: NCJJ.

Details of Analysis of

Waiver Rates

We did the following analysis using the data from tables II.3, II.6, II.9, II.12,

II.15, and II.18. However, our analysis was limited to the variables for

which data were available in the six states.1

Age - In the six states we examined, juveniles age 16 or older were more

likely to have their cases waived than juveniles under age 16 years for all

three offense types. However, the likelihood that older juveniles would

have their cases waived than younger juveniles was much larger in some

states than in others. For example, in Arizona older juveniles charged with

property offenses were 39 times more likely to have their cases waived

than were younger juveniles charged with such offenses; while in Florida,

older juveniles charged with property offenses were only 5 times more

likely to have their cases waived than younger juveniles. While waiver

rates were somewhat higher in four of the six states for violent offenses

than for property or drug offenses, the rates varied among the states

within each age category. For example, older juveniles charged with

property offenses were 44 times more likely to have their cases waived in

Missouri than in California, while younger juveniles charged with violent

offenses were 58 times more likely to have their cases waived in Missouri

than in California.

Gender - Males were more likely than females to have their cases waived

within each offense type in the six states we analyzed. The extent of the

1

Data were not available for Utah.

Page 58 GAO/GGD-95-170 Juvenile Case Dispositions
Appendix II 

Judicial Waiver Data and Analysis for Seven

States

likelihood again varied by state. For example, in Arizona males charged

with violent offenses were 42 times more likely to have their cases waived

than females in Arizona, while such males were 17 times more likely to

have their cases waived than females in California. In some states, the

likelihood was more apparent for those charged with violent offenses than

for those charged with either property or drug offenses. For males,

juveniles charged with violent offenses had higher waiver rates than for

males charged with drugs or property offenses in three of the six states. In

the remaining three states, males charged with drug offenses had higher

waiver rates. Waiver rates for each offense type also differed across states

for males. For example, males charged with property offenses in Arizona

or Missouri were 18 times more likely to have their cases waived than

males in California.

Race - In four states, blacks were more likely than whites to have their

cases waived for violent, property, and drug offenses. For violent offenses,

the differential rates are fairly consistent across states, with black

juveniles having waiver rates from 1.8 times to 3.1 times higher than

whites. The differences varied more widely for drug offenses. In

California, black juveniles were half as likely as white juveniles to have

their cases waived, while in Pennsylvania black juveniles were more than

twice as likely to have their cases waived than whites. There were some

large differences, however; for example, for juveniles charged with drug

offenses, Arizona’s waiver rates for whites were twice those of California;

while for blacks, Arizona’s rates were 55 times those of California.

Locality - In the four NCJJ states with data on metropolitan and

nonmetropolitan courts, some small differences did exist but were not

consistent across offense types within the same state. For example, in

Missouri, waiver rates in metropolitan areas were higher for violent and

drug offenses but lower for property offenses than in nonmetropolitan

areas. The waiver rate was highest for drug offenses in all four states in

nonmetropolitan areas and in three of the four states in metropolitan

areas. In nonmetropolitan areas in Pennsylvania, juveniles charged with

violent offenses were less likely to have their cases waived than those

charged with drugs or property offenses. The likelihood of cases being

waived in each type of locality varied somewhat for the offense types

among the four states, particularly for property offenses. For example,

juveniles charged with property offenses in metropolitan areas in

Pennsylvania were almost 4 times more likely to have their cases waived

than were juveniles in South Carolina, while those charged with property

Page 59 GAO/GGD-95-170 Juvenile Case Dispositions
Appendix II 

Judicial Waiver Data and Analysis for Seven

States

offenses in nonmetropolitan areas of Pennsylvania were 9 times more

likely to have their cases waived than those in South Carolina.

Prior Referrals - In the five states with data, waiver rates generally

increased with the number of prior referrals for all five states and most

offense types. We categorized referrals into three groups: (1) none, (2) one

or two, and (3) three or more. The larger increases usually occurred

between the second and third categories. For example, in Arizona,

juveniles charged with violent offenses and who had one or two prior

referrals were 3 times more likely to have their cases waived than those

with no referrals, while juveniles charged with violent offenses with three

or more referrals were 8 times more likely to be referred than those with

no referrals. The states differed in the rates at which they waived cases for

these offense types in each prior referral group. The differences were

strongest for juveniles charged with property offenses. For example,

considering only those with three or more prior referrals, the greatest

difference for juveniles charged with violent offenses was found between

Arizona and Florida, where Arizona’s waiver rate for these juveniles was 5

times greater than Florida’s. However, for juveniles charged with property

offenses, the greatest difference was found between Pennsylvania and

South Carolina, where Pennsylvania’s waiver rate was almost 10 times

greater than in South Carolina.

Page 60 GAO/GGD-95-170 Juvenile Case Dispositions
Appendix III 

Conviction Rates for Other Youth and Young

Adults

Table III.1: Conviction Rates and the Number of Other Youth Prosecuted in Criminal Court in Two States for Selected

Offenses, 1989 and 1990

Serious violent Serious property Drugs

State

Number

prosecuted

Percent

convicted

Number

prosecuted

Percent

convicted

Number

prosecuted

Percent

convicted

Missouri 223 43% 1,015 38% 261 36%

New York 12,047 50 11,674 64 7,049 74

Note: This table includes the most prevalent offense types for which juveniles were prosecuted.

Source: Developed by GAO using OBTS data.

Table III.2: Conviction Rates and the Number of Young Adults (Ages 18-24) Prosecuted in Criminal Court in Seven States

for Selected Offenses, 1989 and 1990

Serious violent Serious property Drugs

State

Number

prosecuted

Percent

convicted

Number

prosecuted

Percent

convicted

Number

prosecuted

Percent

convicted

California 12,629 82% 18,434 89% 23,662 81%

Minnesota 1,825 90 5,417 89 1,517 77

Missouri 1,222 53 4,359 48 1,794 48

Nebraska 925 79 2,113 82 892 79

New York 38,592 52 34,781 67 36,345 72

Pennsylvania 9,431 74 15,203 74 2,491 81

Vermont 212 91 812 98 135 90

Note: This table includes the most prevalent offense types for which juveniles were prosecuted.

Source: Developed by GAO using OBTS data.

Table III.3: Percent of Other Youth

Convicted in Criminal Court by

Offense, 1989 and 1990

State

Total

number of

other

youth

convicted

Percent

convicted

of serious

violent

offenses

Percent

convicted

of serious

property

offenses

Percent

convicted

of drug

offenses

Missouri 705 14% 54% 13%

New York 21,665 28 34 24

Note: Percents may not equal 100 percent due to rounding and the exclusion of such offense

types as weapons, indeterminate property, public order, and traffic offenses.

Source: Developed by GAO using OBTS data.

Page 61 GAO/GGD-95-170 Juvenile Case Dispositions
Appendix III 

Conviction Rates for Other Youth and Young

Adults

Table III.4: Percent of Young Adults

(Ages 18-24) Convicted in Criminal

Court by Offense, 1989 and 1990

State

Total

number of

young

adults

convicted

Percent

convicted

of serious

violent

offenses

Percent

convicted

of serious

property

offenses

Percent

convicted

of drug

offenses

California 51,570 20% 32% 37%

Minnesota 8,427 19 57 14

Missouri 4,259 15 49 20

Nebraska 3,972 18 44 18

New York 78,978 25 29 33

Pennsylvania 30,565 23 37 7

Vermont 1,510 13 53 8

Note: Percents may not equal 100 percent due to rounding and the exclusion of such offense

types as weapons, indeterminate property, and public order.

Source: Developed by GAO using OBTS data.

Table III.5: Percent of Other Youth Incarcerated and the Total Number of Other Youth Sentenced for Serious Violent,

Serious Property, and Drug Offenses, 1989 and 1990

Serious violent offenses Serious property offenses Drug offenses

State

Number

sentenced

Percent

incarcerated

Number

sentenced

Percent

incarcerated

Number

sentenced

Percent

incarcerated

Missouri 85 60% 355 49% 96 66%

New York 4,144 54 4,533 41 4,513 63

Source: Developed by GAO from OBTS data.

Table III.6: Percent of Young Adults (Ages 18-24) Incarcerated and the Total Number of Young Adults Sentenced for

Serious Violent, Serious Property, and Drug Offenses, 1989 and 1990

Serious violent offenses Serious property offenses Drug offenses

State

Number

sentenced

Percent

incarcerated

Number

sentenced

Percent

incarcerated

Number

sentenced

Percent

incarcerated

California 6,747 93% 15,132 86% 18,438 90%

Minnesota 1,327 91 4,217 82 1,002 84

Missouri 566 67 2,007 53 868 57

Nebraska 560 78 1,587 61 668 62

New York 13,367 72 15,354 63 22,918 80

Pennsylvania 5,646 59 7,636 55 2,181 74

Vermont 136 67 719 53 121 47

Source: Developed by GAO from OBTS data.

Page 62 GAO/GGD-95-170 Juvenile Case Dispositions
Appendix III 

Conviction Rates for Other Youth and Young

Adults

Table III.7: Total Number of Other

Youth Incarcerated for Serious Violent

Offenses, Serious Property Offenses,

and Drug Offenses, 1989 and 1990

State

Total number

of other youth

incarcerated

for serious

violent

offenses

Total number

of other youth

incarcerated

for serious

property

offenses

Total number

of other youth

incarcerated

for drug

offenses

Missouri 51 173 63

New York 2,215 1,850 2,817

Total 2,266 2,023 2,880

Source: Developed by GAO using OBTS data.

Table III.8: Total Number of Young

Adults (Ages 18-24) Incarcerated for

Serious Violent Offenses, Serious

Property Offenses, and Drug Offenses,

1989 and 1990

State

Total number

of young

adults

incarcerated

for serious

violent

offenses

Total number

of young

adults

incarcerated

for serious

property

offenses

Total number

of young

adults

incarcerated

for drug

offenses

California 6,239 13,078 16,546

Minnesota 1,212 3,462 841

Missouri 379 1,072 497

Nebraska 439 968 413

New York 9,577 9,670 18,442

Pennsylvania 3,321 4,193 1,616

Vermont 91 380 57

Total 21,258 32,823 38,412

Source: Developed by GAO using OBTS data.

Page 63 GAO/GGD-95-170 Juvenile Case Dispositions
Appendix IV 

Summary of Transfer Laws

State Statute

Maximum age of

original juvenile

court jurisdiction Conditions under which a juvenile is or may be tried in criminal court

Alabama Section 12-15-34,

1994 Al. Pub. Act

481

17 Statutory Exclusions

—any child who has been convicted as an adult.

—child 16 or older charged with a capital offense; a class A felony; drug

trafficking; or a felony that has as an element, the use of a deadly

weapon, the causing of death or serious bodily injury, or the use of a

dangerous instrument against any law enforcement officer, corrections

officer, parole or probation officer, prosecutor, judge, court officer, grand

juror, juror, witness, or a teacher, principal or employee of a public

school.

Judicial Waiver

—any child 14 or older.

Alaska Sections

47.10.010,47.10.060

17 Statutory Exclusions

—child 16 or older charged with an unclassified or class A felony against

a person, or first degree arson.

Judicial Waiver

—any child (there is a rebuttable presumption for waiver if child is

charged with an unclassified or class A felony against a person).

Sentencing

—child tried as an adult under statutory exclusion but convicted of a

lesser-included offense may have his or her case disposed of as though

he or she had been adjudicated as a juvenile if the court finds that he or

she is amenable to treatment.

Arizona R. Juv. P. 12, 14 17 Judicial Waiver

—any child (there is a rebuttable presumption for waiver if the child is 16

or older and charged with first or second degree murder; aggravated

assault involving a deadly weapon and causing serious physical injury;

sexual assault involving the use of a dangerous instrument or involving

the intentional infliction of physical injury; or an offense constituting a

class 1, 2, 3, or 4 felony where the child has been adjudicated as a

delinquent on four prior, separate occasions, at least one of which was

for a serious offense).

(continued)

Page 64 GAO/GGD-95-170 Juvenile Case Dispositions
Appendix IV 

Summary of Transfer Laws

State Statute

Maximum age of

original juvenile

court jurisdiction Conditions under which a juvenile is or may be tried in criminal court

Arkansas Section 9-27-318 17 Prosecutorial Discretion

—child 16 or older charged with a felony.

—child 14 or older charged with capital, first, or second degree murder;

kidnapping; aggravated robbery; rape; first or second degree battery;

possession of a handgun on school property; aggravated assault;

terroristic act; unlawful discharge of a firearm from a vehicle; any felony

committed while armed with a firearm; soliciting a minor to join a criminal

street gang; criminal use of prohibited weapons; felony possession of a

firearm; or felony attempt, solicitation, or conspiracy to commit capital,

first, or second degree murder, kidnapping, aggravated robbery, rape,

or first degree battery. 

Judicial Waiver

—above conditions when prosecutor did not charge child as adult.

Reverse Waiver

—when prosecutor files in criminal (circuit) court, the court may remand

to juvenile court.

California W & I sections 707,

707.2

17 Judicial Waiver

—any child 16 or older (there is a presumption for waiver if offense

charged is arson, lewd act, attempted murder, certain types of assault,

any felony with certain weapons [12020a], offense against an aged or

handicapped person, felony or drug offense with use of firearm,

influencing testimony, preventing or dissuading victim or witness from

testifying, or any offense for which a 14 year old may have his or her

case waived).

—child 14 or older charged with murder; robbery in which the juvenile

used a firearm; rape, sodomy, or oral copulation by force, etc.;

penetration by a foreign object; kidnapping; discharging a firearm from a

vehicle or into an occupied or inhabited building; manufacturing or

selling certain controlled substances; escape from juvenile custody

where bodily harm is inflicted on employee; torture; aggravated

mayhem; assault with a firearm; attempted murder; rape with a firearm;

burglary with a firearm; exploding a destructive device with intent to

commit murder; carjacking with a firearm (there is a presumption for

waiver if offense charged is first or second degree murder).

Sentencing

—child may be sentenced by criminal court as an adult or committed to

California Youth Authority (CYA) (child under 16 must first go to CYA for

amenability determination, but court can still sentence as an adult

notwithstanding CYA’s amenability determination).

(continued)

Page 65 GAO/GGD-95-170 Juvenile Case Dispositions
Appendix IV 

Summary of Transfer Laws

State Statute

Maximum age of

original juvenile

court jurisdiction Conditions under which a juvenile is or may be tried in criminal court

Colorado Sections 19-2-805,

806

17 Prosecutorial Discretion (the criminal court judge can no longer send

cases directly filed back to juvenile court)

—child 14 or older charged with a class 1 or 2 felony; a crime of

violence; a felony weapons offense (except possession of a handgun);

or the use, possession, or threatened use of a deadly weapon during a

felony against a person.

—child 16 or older charged with a class 3 felony (except a certain

classification of statutory rape) and who has been adjudicated within the

past 2 years for a felony.

—child 14 or older charged with a felony and who has been convicted

as an adult in a prior case.

—child 14 or older charged with a felony and determined to be a

habitual juvenile offender (juvenile who has two prior adjudications for

acts that constitute felonies).

Judicial Waiver

—child 14 or older charged with a felony (the prosecutor must then file

an informationa within 5 days or the waiver is invalid, and the case is

remanded to the juvenile court permanently).

Sentencing

—when a child has been tried as an adult by prosecutorial direct filing,

the judge may sentence the child as an adult; as a youthful offender

(with some restrictions); or as a juvenile in very limited circumstances.

—if the child’s case was judicially waived, the child may receive a

sentence as a juvenile (or the criminal court may remand the case to

juvenile court for disposition), unless the child was convicted of a class 1

felony or a crime of violence; has been previously adjudicated as a

mandatory sentence offender, a violent juvenile offender, or an

aggravated juvenile offender; or has been convicted as an adult or

youthful offender.

(continued)

Page 66 GAO/GGD-95-170 Juvenile Case Dispositions
Appendix IV 

Summary of Transfer Laws

State Statute

Maximum age of

original juvenile

court jurisdiction Conditions under which a juvenile is or may be tried in criminal court

Connecticut Sections 46b-126,

46b-127

15 Statutory Exclusions (mandatory transfer provisions)

—child 14 or older charged with murder.

—child 14 or older charged with a class A felony (other than those listed

below), who has a previous adjudication, at any age, for a class A felony.

—child 14 or older charged with a class B felony (other than those listed

below) who has been adjudicated as a delinquent twice before on class

A or B felonies.

—child 14 or older charged with any of the following crimes committed

with a firearm: first or second degree manslaughter; first or second

degree assault; third degree sexual assault; first or second degree

kidnapping; second or third degree burglary; second degree robbery

while displaying or threatening to use a deadly weapon; first degree

sexual assault with a deadly weapon; first degree burglary; or first

degree robbery.

—child 14 or older charged with any felony classified as a serious

juvenile offense under 46b-120 while carrying a revolver or pistol without

a permit.

Judicial Waiver (where mandatory transfer provisions—section

46b-127—do not apply)

—child 14 or older charged with a class A felony.

—child 14 or older charged with a class B or C felony who previously

has been adjudicated as a “serious juvenile offender” (found to have

committed one or more offenses listed in section 46b-120).

Delaware 10 sections 921,

1010, 1011

17 Statutory Exclusions

—any child charged with murder in the first or second degree, unlawful

sexual intercourse in the first degree, or kidnapping in the first degree.

Judicial Waiver

—any child 16 or older.

—any child 14 or older charged with a felony.

Reverse Waiver

—Attorney General may transfer any case from criminal court to juvenile

court (whether child was transferred by juvenile court or criminal court

had original jurisdiction).

—where criminal court has original jurisdiction over child (i.e., statutorily

excluded offenses) criminal court may transfer to juvenile court.

(continued)

Page 67 GAO/GGD-95-170 Juvenile Case Dispositions
Appendix IV 

Summary of Transfer Laws

State Statute

Maximum age of

original juvenile

court jurisdiction Conditions under which a juvenile is or may be tried in criminal court

District of

Columbia

Sections 16-2301,

16-2307

17 Statutory Exclusions

—any child previously convicted as an adult.

—any child awaiting trial in criminal court when an indictment or an

information is filed against him for a subsequent offense.

Prosecutorial Discretion

—child 16 or older charged with murder, forcible rape, first degree

burglary, armed robbery, or assault with intent to commit any of those

crimes.

Judicial Waiver

—child 15 or older charged with a felony. (There is a rebuttable

presumption for waiver if child is 15 or older and charged with murder,

forcible rape, first degree burglary, robbery while armed, or assault with

intent to commit any of the above; any crime with a firearm; or any violent

felony if the child has three or more prior delinquency adjudications.)

—child 16 or older under commitment as a delinquent child.

—any child charged with illegal possession or control of a firearm within

500 feet of public school property, or school-sponsored event.

(continued)

Page 68 GAO/GGD-95-170 Juvenile Case Dispositions
Appendix IV 

Summary of Transfer Laws

State Statute

Maximum age of

original juvenile

court jurisdiction Conditions under which a juvenile is or may be tried in criminal court

Florida Sections 39.022,

39.047, 39.052,

39.0587

17 Statutory Exclusions

—any child who has been convicted and sentenced as an adult.

—child 16 or older charged with a violent crime against a person and

who previously has been adjudicated for murder, sexual battery,

carjacking, armed or strong-armed robbery, home-invasion robbery,

aggravated battery, or aggravated assault (prosecutor must file

information).

—any child who has previously been adjudicated on three separate

occasions for felonies that resulted in residential placements.

Prosecutorial Discretion

—child 14 or older charged with arson; sexual battery; robbery;

kidnapping; aggravated child abuse; aggravated assault; aggravated

stalking; murder; manslaughter; unlawful throwing, placing, or

discharging a destructive device or bomb; armed burglary; aggravated

battery; lewd or lascivious assault or act in the presence of a child; or

use or possession of a weapon during a felony.

—any child 16 or older charged with a felony, or charged with a

misdemeanor where he or she has two prior delinquency adjudications

of which at least one was a felony.

—any child charged with a crime that is punishable by death or by life

imprisonment.

Judicial Waiver

—child 14 or older. (In the case of a child 14 or older charged with a

fourth felony where one of prior three felonies involved using firearm or

violence against a person: the prosecutor must request a waiver or

explain in writing why he or she is not requesting a waiver; then the court

must waive or explain in writing why it is not granting a waiver.)

Sentencing

—criminal court may sentence child as an adult, select from juvenile

dispositions, or invoke Florida Youthful Offender statute (except that a

child found to have committed an offense punishable by death or life

imprisonment must be sentenced as an adult).

(continued)

Page 69 GAO/GGD-95-170 Juvenile Case Dispositions
Appendix IV 

Summary of Transfer Laws

State Statute

Maximum age of

original juvenile

court jurisdiction Conditions under which a juvenile is or may be tried in criminal court

Georgia Sections 15-11-5,

15-11-39, 

15-11-39.1

16 Statutory Exclusions

—child 13 or older charged with murder, voluntary manslaughter, rape,

aggravated sodomy, aggravated child molestation, aggravated sexual

battery, or armed robbery committed with a firearm (superior court has

exclusive original jurisdiction, but after an investigation, the prosecutor

may refuse to indict or the judge may send child to juvenile court “for

extraordinary cause”).

—child 14 or older who is confined to a youth development center and is

charged with aggravated assault or aggravated battery (mandatory

transfer).

—child 15 or older charged with burglary after having been adjudicated

as a delinquent on burglary charges at least three times previously

(mandatory transfer).

Prosecutorial Discretion (concurrent jurisdiction)

—child charged with a crime punishable by death or by life

imprisonment (other than those offenses that are in the exclusive

jurisdiction of the Superior Court).

Judicial Waiver

—child 15 or older.

—child 13 or older charged with a felony punishable by life

imprisonment or death (other than those offenses that are in the

exclusive jurisdiction of the Superior Court).

Reverse Waiver

—child charged with statutorily excluded offense may be transferred to

juvenile court “for extraordinary cause” unless the offense is punishable

by death or life imprisonment.

Sentencing

—child charged with statutorily excluded offense but convicted of a

lesser-included offense may be transferred to juvenile court for

sentencing.

(continued)

Page 70 GAO/GGD-95-170 Juvenile Case Dispositions
Appendix IV 

Summary of Transfer Laws

State Statute

Maximum age of

original juvenile

court jurisdiction Conditions under which a juvenile is or may be tried in criminal court

Hawaii Section 571-22 17 Statutory Exclusions

—child who has been transferred to adult court.

—child 16 or older who is charged with murder or attempted murder in

the first or second degree, or a class A felony (felony punishable by 20

years imprisonment, includes sexual assault, robbery, kidnapping, some

drug offenses) and who has been adjudicated for two other felonies in

the prior 2 years or previously has been adjudicated as a delinquent for

murder or attempted murder in the first or second degree or for another

violent class A felony.

Judicial Waiver

—child 16 or older charged with a felony.

Sentencing

—any child under 22 may be sentenced as a young adult (they receive

shorter sentences).

Idaho Sections 16-1806,

16-1806A

17 Statutory Exclusions

—child 14 or older charged with murder or attempted murder, robbery,

forcible rape, forcible sexual penetration with a foreign object, infamous

crimes against nature committed by force or violence, mayhem, assault

and battery with the intent to commit a previously listed crime, or drug

offenses within 1,000 feet of a school or school activity.

—any child who has been convicted as an adult.

Judicial Waiver

—child 14 or older.

(continued)

Page 71 GAO/GGD-95-170 Juvenile Case Dispositions
Appendix IV 

Summary of Transfer Laws

State Statute

Maximum age of

original juvenile

court jurisdiction Conditions under which a juvenile is or may be tried in criminal court

Illinois 705 ILCS 405/5-4 16 Statutory Exclusions

—child 15 or older charged with first degree murder; aggravated

criminal sexual assault; armed robbery with a firearm; a drug offense on

or within 1,000 feet of school or public housing grounds, or on a school

conveyance; or unlawful use of a weapon on school grounds.

—any child charged with escape or bail jumping while the child is being

tried in criminal court.

—child 15 or older charged with a felony and who has previously been

adjudicated as a delinquent for a felony, provided that either the current

or prior act was a forcible felony, and the current act stemmed from

gang activity (mandatory transfer).

Judicial Waiver

—child 13 or older. (There is a rebuttable presumption for waiver for

child 15 or older charged with a class X felony other than armed

violence, aggravated discharge of a firearm, or certain “armed violence

with a firearm” offenses).

Sentencing

—If child being tried in criminal court for a statutorily excluded offense is

found guilty of a lesser offense, the court may sentence the child as a

juvenile or adult.

Indiana Sections 31-6-2-1,

31-6-2-4

17 Statutory Exclusions

—child 16 or older charged with murder; kidnapping; rape; or robbery,

while armed with a deadly weapon or which results in bodily injury or

serious bodily injury; carjacking; criminal gang activity; criminal gang

intimidation; carrying handgun without a license; being a child in

possession of a handgun or transferring a handgun to another child; or

dealing in a sawed-off shotgun.

—any child 16 or older whose case is waived to adult court (by judicial

waiver or prosecutorial discretion) in the year preceding the current

offense and who is convicted of the previous offense or a lesser included

one.

—child who has been convicted as an adult and is currently charged

with a felony (mandatory transfer).

Judicial Waiver

—child 10 or older charged with murder.

—child 14 or older charged with a heinous or aggravated act, or a

pattern of criminal acts.

—child 16 or older charged with certain felony drug charges, a class A

or B felony that is not a statutory exclusion, involuntary manslaughter as

a class C felony, or reckless homicide as a class C felony.

(continued)

Page 72 GAO/GGD-95-170 Juvenile Case Dispositions
Appendix IV 

Summary of Transfer Laws

State Statute

Maximum age of

original juvenile

court jurisdiction Conditions under which a juvenile is or may be tried in criminal court

Iowa Sections 232.8,

232.45, 232.45A

17 Statutory Exclusions

—child 16 or older charged with a felony and who has been convicted

as an adult for a felony.

Judicial Waiver

—child 14 or older.

Sentencing

—a child convicted as an adult on a nonmarijuana related drug offense

is not subject to normal minimum sentencing laws, but the child would

have to serve at least 30 days.

Kansas Sections 21-3611,

38-1602,

38-1636

17 Statutory Exclusions

—child 16 or older charged with a felony who has been previously

adjudicated as a delinquent for a felony.

—any child previously convicted as an adult, if he or she had come to

criminal court through statutory exclusion provision, as explained above.

—child 16 or older who has been adjudicated as a delinquent and

confined to a juvenile facility and who is charged with committing a

felony while confined in the facility or while running away or escaping

from the facility; or charged with a second or subsequent escape.

Judicial Waiver

—child 16 or older.

—child 14 or older who is charged with a level 1, 2, or 3 nondrug felony

or a level 1 or 2 drug felony (classifications as of 7/1/93) or a class A or B

felony (pre- 7/1/93 classifications) (if the child is convicted of a

lesser-included offense then he or she is treated as a juvenile).

(continued)

Page 73 GAO/GGD-95-170 Juvenile Case Dispositions
Appendix IV 

Summary of Transfer Laws

State Statute

Maximum age of

original juvenile

court jurisdiction Conditions under which a juvenile is or may be tried in criminal court

Kentucky Sections 635.020,

640.010

17 Statutory Exclusions

—child 14 or older charged with a felony in which a firearm was used.

Judicial Waiver

—child 14 or older charged with a capital offense or a class A

(punishable by 20 years to life) or B (punishable by 10-20 years) felony.

—child 16 or older charged with a class C or D felony (punishable by

5-10 and 1-5 years, respectively) and who has twice before been

adjudicated on felony charges.

—any child charged with a felony and who has previously been

convicted as an adult.

Reverse Waiver

—any child transferred to adult court and indicted for an offense other

than those listed above will be transferred back to juvenile court.

Sentencing

—any child sentenced before becoming 18 and not released before

becoming 18 must be returned to the sentencing court for a

redetermination of sentence, which may result in probation or conditional

discharge, 6 more months of treatment program, or incarceration in adult

prison.

Louisiana Ch.C. Art. 305, Art.

857

16 Statutory Exclusions

—child 15 or older charged with first or second degree murder,

aggravated rape, or aggravated kidnapping.

Prosecutorial Discretion

—child 15 or older charged with attempted first or second degree

murder; manslaughter; armed robbery; forcible rape; simple rape;

second degree kidnapping; a second or subsequent aggravated

battery, aggravated burglary, burglary of an inhabited dwelling, or felony

grade violation of statute involving the manufacture, distribution, or

possession with intent to distribute controlled dangerous substances.

Judicial Waiver

—child 14 or older charged with first or second degree murder,

aggravated kidnapping, aggravated rape, aggravated battery

committed by discharging a firearm, armed robbery with a firearm, or

aggravated oral sexual battery (a 14 year old whose case is waived to

criminal court and who is convicted cannot be confined beyond his or

her 31st birthday.)

(continued)

Page 74 GAO/GGD-95-170 Juvenile Case Dispositions
Appendix IV 

Summary of Transfer Laws

State Statute

Maximum age of

original juvenile

court jurisdiction Conditions under which a juvenile is or may be tried in criminal court

Maine 15 section 3101 17 Statutory Exclusions

—child convicted as an adult.

Judicial Waiver

—child charged with murder or a class A, B, or C crime.

Maryland Cts.

sections 3-804,

3-817

17 Statutory Exclusions

—child 14 or older charged with a crime punishable by death or by life

imprisonment.

—child 16 or older charged with abduction; kidnapping; second degree

murder; manslaughter (except involuntary); mayhem or maiming;

robbery with a dangerous or deadly weapon; a second or third degree

sexual offense; certain firearms offenses; using, wearing, carrying, or

transporting a firearm during a drug trafficking offense; carjacking or

armed carjacking; assault with intent to murder, rape, rob, or commit a

first or second degree sexual offense.

Judicial Waiver

—child 15 or older.

—any child charged with a crime punishable by death or by life

imprisonment.

Reverse Waiver

—criminal court may transfer juveniles charged with statutorily excluded

offenses to juvenile court (the court cannot transfer child back to juvenile

court if the child has been previously reverse waived to juvenile court

and was adjudicated as a delinquent, the child has been convicted in

another unrelated case of a statutorily excluded offense, or the child is

16 or older and charged with 1st degree murder).

—when criminal court does a reverse waiver of an excluded juvenile,

juvenile court cannot judicially waive the case back to criminal court.

Massachusetts 119 section 61 16 Judicial Waiver

—child 14 or older when the crime could result in imprisonment in the

state prison and (1) the child has been previously committed to the

department of youth services or (2) when the act involves the infliction or

threat of serious bodily harm (prosecutor may appeal judge’s decision

denying waiver); court must hold transfer hearing if child charged with

murder in the first or second degree, manslaughter, assault with intent to

rob while armed, rape, rape of child under 16, kidnapping, or burglary

(being armed or making an assault).

Sentencing

—child tried as an adult for any offense except murder and found guilty

before turning 18 may be adjudicated as a delinquent and given a

juvenile disposition.

(continued)

Page 75 GAO/GGD-95-170 Juvenile Case Dispositions
Appendix IV 

Summary of Transfer Laws

State Statute

Maximum age of

original juvenile

court jurisdiction Conditions under which a juvenile is or may be tried in criminal court

Michigan Sections 600.606,

712A.4, 712A.2,

769.1

16 Prosecutorial Discretion

—child 15 or older charged with murder in the first or second degree;

attempted murder; assault with the intent to murder; assault with intent to

rob while armed; criminal sexual conduct in the first degree; armed

robbery; carjacking; manufacture, distribution, or possession of

controlled substances (650 grams or more of narcotics or cocaine).

Judicial Waiver

—child 15 or older charged with a felony.

Sentencing

—child tried as an adult by prosecutorial discretion may be sentenced

as an adult or given a juvenile disposition.

Minnesota Sections 260.015,

260.125

17 Statutory Exclusions

—any child charged with a felony and who has been previously certified

for trial as an adult and convicted of the offense for which he or she was

certified or of a lesser-included felony offense.

—child 16 or older charged with first degree murder (but not attempted

first degree murder).

Judicial Waiver

—child 14 or older charged with a felony (there is a rebuttable

presumption for waiver if the child is 16 or older and charged with felony

involving the use of a firearm or an offense that would result in a prison

sentence under the sentencing guidelines).

—if the presumption applies and the court retains jurisdiction, it must

designate the proceeding an extended jurisdiction juvenile prosecution

(if the presumption does not apply the court may still designate as an

extended jurisdiction prosecution).

(continued)

Page 76 GAO/GGD-95-170 Juvenile Case Dispositions
Appendix IV 

Summary of Transfer Laws

State Statute

Maximum age of

original juvenile

court jurisdiction Conditions under which a juvenile is or may be tried in criminal court

Mississippi Sections 43-21-105,

43-21-151,

43-21-157,

43-23-29,

43-23-31

17 Statutory Exclusions

—child 13 or older charged with a crime punishable by life imprisonment

or the death penalty or charged with felony use of a deadly weapon.

—child convicted as an adult.

—child 17 charged with a felony.

Judicial Waiver (youth court, which was created as a division of family or

county court in all jurisdictions)

—child 13 or older.

Judicial Waiver (family court) (Harrison county is the only 

jurisdiction with a family court)

—child 13 or older charged with a felony.

—child 13 or older charged with a misdemeanor and who was first

brought before municipal or justice of the peace court (family court

retains jurisdiction to set aside the sentence).

Reverse Waiver

—in case of statutory exclusions, the circuit court may transfer to youth

court unless the child was previously convicted as an adult.

—in case of judicial waiver, circuit court may upon motion of the child,

review the transfer proceedings and remand the case to youth court if

there is no substantial evidence supporting the transfer.

—the Family Court Act makes no provision for reverse waiver.

Missouri Section 211.071 16 Statutory Exclusions

—child previously convicted as an adult.

Judicial Waiver

—child 14 or older charged with a felony.

Montana Section 41-5-206 17 Statutory Exclusions

—child 16 or older charged with deliberate or mitigated deliberate

homicide or the attempt to commit either (mandatory transfer).

Judicial Waiver

—child 12 or older charged with sexual intercourse without consent,

mitigated deliberate homicide, deliberate homicide, or attempted

deliberate or mitigated deliberate homicide.

—child 16 or older charged with negligent homicide, arson, aggravated

or felony assault, robbery, burglary or aggravated burglary, aggravated

kidnapping, possession of explosives, criminal sale of dangerous drugs,

or attempting to commit any of those acts.

(continued)

Page 77 GAO/GGD-95-170 Juvenile Case Dispositions
Appendix IV 

Summary of Transfer Laws

State Statute

Maximum age of

original juvenile

court jurisdiction Conditions under which a juvenile is or may be tried in criminal court

Nebraska Sections 43-247, 

43-261

17 Prosecutorial Discretion

—child 16 or older charged with misdemeanor.

—any child charged with a felony.

Reverse Waiver

—any child charged in criminal court may move the court to waive

jurisdiction to juvenile court.

Nevada Sections 62.040,

62.060, 62.080

17 Statutory Exclusions

—child charged with murder or attempted murder.

—child who has been convicted as an adult.

Judicial Waiver

—child 16 or older charged with a felony.

Extended Jurisdiction

—a person 18-20 who is charged with a gross misdemeanor or felony

other than murder or attempted murder may request that the district

court waive jurisdiction, so that the person can be tried as a juvenile.

Reverse Waiver

—child who is statutorily excluded because he or she has previously

been convicted as an adult may request waiver to juvenile court.

New Hampshire Sections 169-B:24,

169-B:27, 628:1

17 Statutory Exclusions

—any child who has been convicted as an adult.

Judicial Waiver

—child 15 or older charged with a felony.

—child 13 or older charged with first or second degree murder,

manslaughter, kidnapping, or aggravated sexual assault.

Reverse Waiver

—in the case of a child charged with a felony and who is not within the

jurisdiction of the state, the juvenile court may, upon motion of the

prosecutor, authorize use of regular criminal proceedings against the

child; the criminal court then determines whether to retain jurisdiction or

remand the case to juvenile court.

(continued)

Page 78 GAO/GGD-95-170 Juvenile Case Dispositions
Appendix IV 

Summary of Transfer Laws

State Statute

Maximum age of

original juvenile

court jurisdiction Conditions under which a juvenile is or may be tried in criminal court

New Jersey Section 2A:4A-26 17 Judicial Waiver

—child 14 or older charged with criminal homicide (other than death by

auto) or strict-liability for drug-induced death; first degree robbery;

aggravated sexual assault; sexual assault; second degree aggravated

assault, kidnapping, aggravated arson or conspiracy to commit any of

these crimes; any other crime committed after the juvenile was

adjudicated as a delinquent or convicted for one of the above crimes or

after the child had been sentenced as an adult to confinement; any other

violent offense against a person; the unlawful possession of a firearm,

destructive device, or other prohibited weapon, arson, or conspiracy to

commit any of these crimes; death by auto if the child was under the

influence of drugs or alcohol; various offenses related to being part of an

organized drug ring or conspiracy; auto theft; racketeering; or

distributing for pecuniary gain, any controlled substance within 1,000

feet of a public school.

New Mexico Sections 31-18-13 et

seq., 32A-1-8,

32A-2-3

17 Statutory Exclusions

—child 16 or older charged with first degree murder (called a “serious

youthful offender”).

Juvenile Court Disposition (subject to adult or juvenile sanctions in

juvenile court, called “youthful offenders”)

—child 15 or older found to have committed second degree murder;

assault with intent to commit a violent felony; kidnapping; aggravated

battery; shooting at a dwelling, occupied building, or at or from a car,

resulting in great bodily harm to another; dangerous use of explosives;

criminal sexual penetration; robbery; aggravated burglary or aggravated

arson; or any felony if he or she has been adjudicated on felonies twice

before in the prior 2 years.

—15 year old found to have committed first degree murder.

(continued)

Page 79 GAO/GGD-95-170 Juvenile Case Dispositions
Appendix IV 

Summary of Transfer Laws

State Statute

Maximum age of

original juvenile

court jurisdiction Conditions under which a juvenile is or may be tried in criminal court

New York Penal Law 30.00,

70.05

Criminal Procedure

Law 1.20(42),

180.75, 190.71,

210.43

15 Statutory Exclusions (all juveniles tried in criminal court are considered

“juvenile offenders”)

—child 13 or older charged with murder in the second degree.

—child 14 or older charged with kidnapping or attempted kidnapping in

the first degree; arson in the first or second degree; assault in the first

degree; manslaughter in the first degree; rape in the first degree;

sodomy in the first degree; aggravated sexual abuse; first degree

burglary; some second degree burglary; first degree robbery; some

second degree robbery; attempted second degree murder.

Reverse Waiverb

—the criminal court or superior court may send the child to juvenile court.

Sentencing

—all juveniles in criminal court are sentenced as juvenile offenders (an

adult-like sentence but with lower required minimum period of

imprisonment).

North Carolina Section 7A-608 15 Statutory Exclusions

—child 13 or older charged with a class A felony (an offense punishable

by death or life imprisonment) (mandatory transfer).

Judicial Waiver

—child 13 or older charged with a lesser felony.

North Dakota Section 27-20-34 17 Judicial Waiver

—child 14 or older charged with committing an act that involves the

infliction or threat of serious bodily harm.

—child 16 or older.

Ohio Sections 2151.011,

2151.26

17 Statutory Exclusions

—child charged with murder; aggravated murder; or a felony or

aggravated felony of the first or second degree, if the child has been

previously transferred to and convicted in criminal court.

—child charged with murder or aggravated murder and who previously

has been adjudicated as a delinquent for murder or aggravated murder

(mandatory transfer).

Judicial Waiver

—child 15 or older charged with a felony.

(continued)

Page 80 GAO/GGD-95-170 Juvenile Case Dispositions
Appendix IV 

Summary of Transfer Laws

State Statute

Maximum age of

original juvenile

court jurisdiction Conditions under which a juvenile is or may be tried in criminal court

Oklahoma 10 sections 1101,

1104.02, 1112

17 Statutory Exclusions

—child 16 or older charged with murder; kidnapping for the purposes of

extortion; robbery with a dangerous weapon; rape in the first degree;

rape by instrument; use of a firearm or other offensive weapon, while

committing a felony; arson in the first degree; burglary with explosives,

first or second degree burglary after three or more adjudications for first

or second degree burglary; shooting with intent to kill; discharging a

firearm, crossbow, or other weapon from a vehicle; intimidating a

witness; manufacturing, distributing, dispensing, or possessing with

intent to manufacture, distribute, or dispense controlled dangerous

substances; assault and battery with a deadly weapon; manslaughter in

the first degree; or sodomy.

—any child convicted as an adult of the offense originally charged.

Judicial Waiver

—any child charged with a felony.

Reverse Waiver

—criminal court may waive its jurisdiction over statutorily excluded

offenses (it may not waive jurisdiction over a child previously convicted

as an adult).

Oregon Sections 419C.340,

419C.349,

419C.352,

419C.361, 419C.364

17 Statutory Exclusions

—child 15 or older charged with murder, first or second degree

manslaughter, first or second degree assault, first or second degree

kidnapping, first or second degree rape, first or second degree sodomy,

unlawful sexual penetration, first degree sexual abuse, first or second

degree robbery.

Judicial Waiver

—child 15 or older charged with attempt to commit murder or attempt to

commit an aggravated form of murder.

—child 16 or older charged with a class A or B felony (except for those

offenses that are statutorily excluded), escape in the second degree,

assault in the third degree, coercion, arson in the second degree, or

robbery in the third degree.

Sentencing

—child found guilty of lesser “nonwaivable” offense must be returned to

juvenile court for disposition.

(continued)

Page 81 GAO/GGD-95-170 Juvenile Case Dispositions
Appendix IV 

Summary of Transfer Laws

State Statute

Maximum age of

original juvenile

court jurisdiction Conditions under which a juvenile is or may be tried in criminal court

Pennsylvania 42 PA. C.S.A.

sections 6302, 6322,

6355

17 Statutory Exclusions

—any child charged with murder.

—any child who has been found guilty in a criminal proceeding.

Judicial Waiver

—child 14 or older charged with a felony.

Reverse Waiver

—child charged with murder in criminal court may be transferred to

juvenile court.

Sentencing

—child charged with murder in criminal proceeding but convicted of

crime less than murder may be transferred to juvenile court for

sentencing.

—child transferred to criminal court under judicial waiver and convicted

of a misdemeanor may be transferred back to juvenile court for

sentencing.

Rhode Island Sections 14-1-3,

14-1-7, 14-1-7.1,

14-1-7.2, 

14-1-7.3,

14-1-7.4

17 Statutory Exclusions

—any child who has been convicted as an adult.

—child 17 or older charged with murder, first degree sexual assault, or

assault with intent to commit murder (mandatory transfer).

Judicial Waiver

—any child charged with a crime punishable by life imprisonment.

—child 16 or older charged with a felony.

Juvenile Court Disposition

—any child charged with a felony may be “certified” in juvenile court (a

child that is certified may be sentenced to the state training school or to

a term of years to be served at the training school until the child turns 21,

with the excess time being served in prison, unless the court finds before

then that the child has been rehabilitated).

—child 16 or older charged with a felony drug offense and has been

previously adjudicated as a delinquent for a felony drug offense after the

age of 16 must be waived or certified.

—child 16 or older charged with a felony and who has been found as a

delinquent for having committed two offenses after the age of 16 for

which an adult could be indicted must be certified.

(continued)

Page 82 GAO/GGD-95-170 Juvenile Case Dispositions
Appendix IV 

Summary of Transfer Laws

State Statute

Maximum age of

original juvenile

court jurisdiction Conditions under which a juvenile is or may be tried in criminal court

South Carolina Sections 20-7-390,

20-7-430

16 Statutory Exclusions

—child 16 charged with murder; a Class A, B, C, or D felony; a felony

that has a maximum term of imprisonment of 15 years or more; criminal

sexual conduct; or distribution of drugs within proximity of a school.

Judicial Waiver

—child younger than 16 charged with murder or criminal sexual conduct.

—child 14 or 15 charged with a Class A, B, C, or D felony; a felony that

provides for a maximum term of imprisonment of 15 years or more; or

distribution of drugs within proximity of a school.

—child 14 or older charged with assault and battery of a high and

aggravated nature; carrying weapons on school property; or unlawful

carrying of a pistol.

—child 16 charged with a Class E or F felony; or a Class A, B, or C

misdemeanor.

Reserve Waiver

—child statutorily excluded may be remanded to the family court for

disposition of the charge at the discretion of the prosecutor.

South Dakota Sections 26-11-4,

26-11-10

17 Judicial Waiver

—child age 10 or older charged with a felony. (There is a rebuttable

presumption for waiver for a child 16 or older charged with a class A, B,

1, or 2 felony.)

Sentencing

—When a child under 18 is found guilty of any crime except murder, the

circuit court may, instead of entering judgment, order that the child be

sent to the state training school.

Tennessee Sections 37-1-134,

37-1-159

17 Statutory Exclusions

—any child who has been convicted as an adult.

Judicial Waiver

—child 16 or older.

—any child charged with first or second degree murder, rape,

aggravated rape, aggravated robbery, especially-aggravated robbery,

kidnapping, aggravated kidnapping, or especially-aggravated

kidnapping.

Reverse Waiver

—when a nonlawyer judge presides over transfer hearing, the criminal

court upon motion of juvenile must hold a de novo transfer hearing and

either remand the case to juvenile court or accept jurisdiction.

(continued)

Page 83 GAO/GGD-95-170 Juvenile Case Dispositions
Appendix IV 

Summary of Transfer Laws

State Statute

Maximum age of

original juvenile

court jurisdiction Conditions under which a juvenile is or may be tried in criminal court

Texas Family Code

sections 51.03,

51.08, 54.02

16 Judicial Waiver

—child age 15 or older charged with a felony.

Reverse Waiver

—criminal court shall conduct examining trial if there is good cause to do

so and may remand to juvenile court (if there is no good cause for an

examining trial, the court refers the matter to a grand jury).

—the juvenile court may reclaim jurisdiction if a grand jury refuses to

indict the juvenile.

Utah Sections

78-3a-17(1),

78-3a-25

17 Statutory Exclusions

—child 16 or older charged with aggravated murder.

—any child who has been previously convicted as an adult.

Prosecutorial Discretion

—child 16 or older charged with murder, a capital crime, first degree

felony, criminal homicide or attempted criminal homicide involving the

use of a dangerous weapon; or any felony involving the use of a

dangerous weapon where the juvenile has a prior adjudication for a

felony offense involving a dangerous weapon.

Judicial Waiver (called certification)

—child 14 or older charged with a felony.

Reverse Waiver

—child whose case has been judicially waived may request hearing in

juvenile court to recall jurisdiction. (If juvenile court recalls jurisdiction,

juvenile is returned to juvenile court for further proceedings, which may

include certification to adult court.)

Sentencing

—a criminal court may sentence a child as an adult or as a juvenile in a

case that has been waived.

(continued)

Page 84 GAO/GGD-95-170 Juvenile Case Dispositions
Appendix IV 

Summary of Transfer Laws

State Statute

Maximum age of

original juvenile

court jurisdiction Conditions under which a juvenile is or may be tried in criminal court

Vermont 33 sections 5502, 

5505, 5506

17 (“child” is

defined as under

16 for

delinquency

purposes, but 16

and 17 year olds

may still be

treated as

juveniles)

Statutory Exclusions

—child 14 or older charged with arson, causing death; assault and

robbery with a dangerous weapon; assault and robbery, causing bodily

injury; aggravated assault; murder; manslaughter; kidnapping; maiming;

sexual assault; or aggravated sexual assault.

Prosecutorial Discretion

—child 16 or 17 charged with a nonexcluded crime.

Judicial Waiver

—any child age 10 to 13 charged with arson, causing death; assault and

robbery with a dangerous weapon; assault and robbery, causing bodily

injury; aggravated assault; murder; manslaughter; kidnapping; maiming;

sexual assault; or aggravated sexual assault.

Reverse Waiver

—criminal court may transfer juvenile back to juvenile court in cases of

statutory exclusions and prosecutorial discretion.

Sentencing

—child 15 or younger tried as an adult and found guilty of a lesser

offense (not one listed above) shall be transferred to juvenile court for

disposition (this will be considered an adjudication for delinquency not a

criminal conviction).

(continued)

Page 85 GAO/GGD-95-170 Juvenile Case Dispositions
Appendix IV 

Summary of Transfer Laws

State Statute

Maximum age of

original juvenile

court jurisdiction Conditions under which a juvenile is or may be tried in criminal court

Virginia Sections 16.1-269.1,

16.1-269.3,

16.1-269.4,

16.1-269.6, 16.1-271

17 Statutory Exclusions

—any child previously convicted as an adult.

Judicial Waiver

—child 14 or older charged with a felony (if the child is 14 or older and

charged with class 1 or 2 felony or 16 or older and charged with class 3

felony for murder, mob related felony, kidnapping or assault or any

unclassified felony that carries a maximum penalty of 40 years, the court

may transfer without finding that the juvenile is not a proper person to

remain in juvenile court). (When the case of a child 14 or older charged

with an offense punishable by death or 20 years or more imprisonment is

not waived, the prosecutor may appeal to circuit court. The circuit court

then holds a hearing to determine whether juvenile court substantially

complied with the judicial waiver statute and either remands the case to

juvenile court or accepts jurisdiction.)

Reverse Waiver

—child whose case has been judicially waived may appeal the waiver to

circuit court. The circuit court then holds a hearing as above and either

remands the case to juvenile court or accepts jurisdiction.

Sentencing

—child convicted as an adult for the first time may be sentenced as an

adult or may be subject to juvenile disposition.

Washington Sections 13.04.030,

13.40.020, 13.40.110

17 Statutory Exclusions

—child 16 or older charged with a serious violent offense or charged

with a violent offense if the child has a criminal history consisting of (i) 1

or more prior serious violent offenses; (ii) 2 or more prior violent offenses;

or (iii) 3 or more of any combination of any class A or B felony, vehicular

assault, or manslaughter in the second degree, provided that each

offense was committed after the child reached 13 and was prosecuted

separately; (criminal history includes all criminal complaints where the

allegations were found correct by a court or where criminal complaint

was diverted on agreement of respondent after advisement that the

complaint would be part of criminal history). 

—child who has been tried as an adult.

Judicial Waiver

—any child (a transfer hearing must be held where juvenile is 15 or older

charged with a class A felony or an attempt, solicitation, or conspiracy to

commit a class A felony; or 17 and charged with second degree assault,

first degree extortion, indecent liberties, second degree child

molestation, second degree kidnapping, or second degree robbery).

(continued)

Page 86 GAO/GGD-95-170 Juvenile Case Dispositions
Appendix IV 

Summary of Transfer Laws

State Statute

Maximum age of

original juvenile

court jurisdiction Conditions under which a juvenile is or may be tried in criminal court

West Virginia Sections 49-5-10,

49-5-13

17 Judicial Waiver

—any child charged with treason, murder, robbery using firearms or

other deadly weapons, kidnapping, first degree arson, or sexual assault

in the first degree; or a violent felony if the child has been previously

adjudicated as a delinquent for a violent felony, or any felony if the child

has been twice previously adjudicated as a delinquent for a felony.

—any child 16 or older charged with a violent felony or any felony if the

child has a previous adjudication for a felony.

Reverse Waiver

—any child whose case is waived has the right to directly appeal an

order of transfer to the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia.

Sentencing

—any child convicted as an adult may be sentenced as an adult or

given a juvenile disposition.

Wisconsin Sections 48.18,

48.183, 970.032

17 Statutory Exclusions

—any child charged with assault or battery against an employee, officer,

visitor, or inmate while confined in a secured correctional facility.

Judicial Waiver

—any child 16 or older (there is a presumption for waiver if the child has

previously been waived).

—any child 14 or older charged with attempted first degree murder, first

or second degree murder, manufacture or delivery of controlled

substances, manslaughter, homicide by reckless conduct, first degree

sexual assault, taking hostages, kidnapping, burglary while armed with a

dangerous weapon, burglary using an explosive to open a depository,

committing battery on a person who is lawfully in a burglarized enclosure

during a burglary, or committing a felony at the request of or for the

benefit of a criminal gang.

Reverse Waiver

—any child statutorily excluded may have his or her case waived back to

juvenile court.

(continued)

Page 87 GAO/GGD-95-170 Juvenile Case Dispositions
Appendix IV 

Summary of Transfer Laws

State Statute

Maximum age of

original juvenile

court jurisdiction Conditions under which a juvenile is or may be tried in criminal court

Wyoming Sections 14-6-203,

14-6-237

17 Prosecutorial Discretion

—child 14 or older charged with violent felony or with any felony if child

has been previously adjudicated as a delinquent under two separate

petitions for acts that would constitute felonies.

—child 17 or older.

Judicial Waiver

—child 13 or older.

Reverse Waiver

—criminal court may transfer to juvenile court any proceeding

commenced in criminal court over which juvenile court has concurrent

jurisdiction—juvenile court has concurrent jurisdiction by statute over all

minors (except those 12 or younger charged with an offense punishable

by more than 6 months incarceration over which it has exclusive

jurisdiction).

(Table notes on next page)

Page 88 GAO/GGD-95-170 Juvenile Case Dispositions
Appendix IV 

Summary of Transfer Laws

Note: This analysis focused on the state laws that were passed through 1994, some of which

became effective in 1995. Certain violations committed by juveniles are treated as if they were

done by adults in many states; namely, fish and game violations, traffic violations committed by

juveniles old enough to obtain drivers licenses, and contempt of court. In addition, some states

have provisions that allow the juvenile to request that his or her case be waived to criminal court

or that provide for waiver or prosecutorial discretion when the charges are violations of alcohol

and tobacco possession laws. These types of provisions are not included in the table.

When a case is waived to criminal court because of the nature of the charge, charges arising out

of the same incident or which are otherwise joinable are usually also transferred. When waiver is

in the juvenile court’s discretion, common prerequisites are that there must be a waiver hearing

where it is found that there is probable cause that the child committed the act and that it is in the

best interests of the child and community that there be waiver of jurisdiction.

The category of statutory exclusion in the table includes state statutory provisions that require that

the juvenile be transferred to criminal court from juvenile court (identified as “mandatory transfer”

provisions).

aAn information is a written accusation made by a public prosecutor. It is used in place of a grand

jury indictment to bring a person to trial.

bReverse waiver in New York—Juvenile Offenders (juveniles who commit statutorily excluded

offenses) originally appear before local criminal court. The criminal court may, at the request of

the prosecutor or the juvenile, remove the action to family court. However, if the juvenile is

charged with second degree murder, first degree rape, sodomy, or an armed felony, the criminal

court may not remove the case to family court, unless the criminal court finds one of the following

three factors: (1) mitigating circumstances, (2) that the juvenile’s participation in the offense was

minor, or (3) possible deficiencies in proof.

In addition, the grand jury may request removal to family court if it finds that the juvenile

committed a crime, the crime is one for which the grand jury may not indict a juvenile (i.e.,

offenses other than those listed in the statutory exclusions), the grand jury does not indict, and

there is legally sufficient evidence that the child committed a crime. The court must approve the

request unless it is improper or insufficient on its face.

After the juvenile is arraigned upon an indictment in Superior Court, the Superior Court may, upon

motion of any party or its own motion, order removal to family court. However, if the juvenile is

charged with one of the above enumerated offenses the Superior Court must obtain the

prosecutor’s consent and find one of the above listed factors in order to remove to family court.

Source: GAO review of state statutes.

Page 89 GAO/GGD-95-170 Juvenile Case Dispositions
Appendix V 

Summary of Confinement Conditions for

Juveniles in Adult Correctional Facilities

The following data regarding the conditions of confinement of juveniles in

seven adult correctional facilities that we visited was provided by facility

officials without our verification.

Housing In Ohio, juveniles were housed within the general prison population

irrespective of their age.1

 However, in Florida, Michigan, and North

Carolina, younger inmates (typically those under age 26) were usually

housed in prisons designated for that age group. At six of the prisons we

visited, age was not considered when making housing assignments within

the prison.2

 Housing units in the prisons we visited varied in layout from

single- or double-bunk cells to dormitory style structures. Housing units

typically had common-use bathroom facilities. In addition, most housing

units’ common-use areas typically were equipped with televisions.

Health Services At all seven prisons, health care was available on site. Generally, the

health staff was composed of a physician, nurses, and a dentist. Upon

entering the prison system, all inmates were to be subjected to a physical

examination. Inmates were to be allowed daily visits to the health unit.

When an inmate requested to see a nurse, generally the request was to be

granted within 24 hours. If an emergency occurred, the inmates’ care was

to be handled at the prison or at an off-site hospital. Additionally, the

facilities usually were to provide mental health counseling and offer some

form of drug rehabilitation. For example, in Florida, new inmates were to

be screened to determine if they needed substance abuse services.

Substance abuse services available in Florida prisons included treatment

ranging from a 40-hour educational program to a 6- to 12-month intensive

program.

Education, Vocation,

and Work Programs

Education, vocation, and work programs were available at all prisons we

visited. During classification, inmates were generally to be given an

opportunity to indicate their preferences for participation in these

programs. Factors to be considered by prison officials when assigning

inmates to these programs included inmates’ length of sentence,

educational level, and security classification.

1

According to a deputy warden at Southeastern Correctional Institution in Ohio, the prison formerly

accepted many of Ohio’s young offenders (age 21 and below). However, due to problems associated

with violence among young offenders, they will now be sent to other prisons, and older inmates are

being integrated into the Institution.

2

The Florida Correctional Institution is a women’s prison that housed inmates of all ages.

Page 90 GAO/GGD-95-170 Juvenile Case Dispositions
Appendix V 

Summary of Confinement Conditions for

Juveniles in Adult Correctional Facilities

In six of the seven prisons, generally all inmates were to participate in an

education, vocation, or work program.3

 Education programs available at

the prisons included classes dealing with the Graduate Equivalency

Diploma (GED) test and adult basic education. Class sizes generally ranged

from about 15 to 30 inmates. However, at the Handlon Michigan Training

Unit, an adult basic education program had much smaller class sizes,

which sometimes had a teacher to inmate ratio of 1 to 1 for inmates testing

below the eight grade reading and math level.

All of the prisons offered a variety of vocational programs. These

programs included auto mechanics, masonry, electronics, horticulture,

and drafting. The Florida Correctional Institution for women offered

vocational programs in data entry, sewing, and cosmetology. Some factors

considered when assigning inmates to vocational and education programs

included their custody classification and educational level. Also, because

some programs took as long as 16 months to complete, inmates with

sentences shorter than the length of the program were not eligible to

participate.

Inmates not participating in education or vocational programs were to be

required to work. Job assignments included cooks, dishwashers, or food

servers in the prison kitchen, lawn maintenance on the prison grounds, or

work at the prison store. In Ohio, Michigan, and North Carolina inmates

were paid a nominal salary to work or attend school. For example, in

Ohio, inmates could earn up to $20 per month. In addition, inmates at the

Florida Correctional Institution, Southeastern Correctional Institution, and

the Michigan Reformatory could participate in prison industry programs

that produced products, some of which were marketed outside of the

prisons. For example, at the Michigan Reformatory, the Michigan State

Industries employed about 90 inmates in an on site furniture factory.

Recreational

Activities

All prisons provided a variety of recreational activities and equipment.

During leisure time inmates generally had access to a library, television,

weight-lifting equipment, table tennis, and pool tables. One prison

provided cable programming on a large screen television, and another

prison provided a built-in swimming pool (which inmates paid for) and a

tennis court. Several of the prisons had intermural sports, including flag

football, basketball, and softball.

3

At the Michigan Reformatory, a maximum security prison, inmates were not required but had the

option to work or attend school.

Page 91 GAO/GGD-95-170 Juvenile Case Dispositions
Appendix V 

Summary of Confinement Conditions for

Juveniles in Adult Correctional Facilities

Daily Schedule Inmates at the prisons we visited had similar daily schedules. Generally,

they began the day between 6:00 a.m. and 8:00 a.m. Typically the inmates

were counted about four times daily. Following the morning count,

breakfast was served. After breakfast, inmates reported to their school or

work assignments for about 3 hours. Lunch was usually served around

12:00 p.m. After lunch, inmates returned to their school or work

assignments for another 3 hours. Dinner was served around 5:00 p.m. After

dinner, inmates had time to participate in various recreational and

religious programs or other activities from about 6:00 p.m. until about 9:00

p.m. Inmates were locked in their housing units with lights out at about

11:00 p.m.

Page 92 GAO/GGD-95-170 Juvenile Case Dispositions
Appendix VI 

Major Contributors to This Report

General Government

Division, Washington,

D.C.

James M. Blume, Assistant Director, Administration of

 Justice Issues

Barry Jay Seltser, Assistant Director

William J. Sabol, Senior Social Science Analyst

Barbara A. Stolz, Senior Social Science Analyst

Joanne M. Parker, Senior Social Science Analyst

Brenda I. Rabinowitz, Evaluator

Maria D. Strudwick, Evaluator

George H. Quinn, Jr., Computer Specialist

Pamela V. Williams, Communications Analyst

Office of General

Counsel, Washington,

D.C.

Jan B. Montgomery, Assistant General Counsel

Rachel A. Ramsey, Legal Intern

Matthew L. Robey, Legal Intern

Detroit Regional

Office

Henry L. Malone, Regional Management Representative

Kelly M. Haggard, Evaluator-in-Charge

Jacqueline M. Nell, Evaluator

Edward O. Price, Computer Programmer Analyst

(185006) Page 93 GAO/GGD-95-170 Juvenile Case Dispositions
Ordering Information

The first copy of each GAO report and testimony is free.

Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the

following address, accompanied by a check or money order

made out to the Superintendent of Documents, when

necessary. Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a

single address are discounted 25 percent.

Orders by mail:

U.S. General Accounting Office

P.O. Box 6015

Gaithersburg, MD 20884-6015

or visit:

Room 1100

700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW)

U.S. General Accounting Office

Washington, DC

Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-6000 

or by using fax number (301) 258-4066, or TDD (301) 413-0006.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and

testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any

list from the past 30 days, please call (301) 258-4097 using a

touchtone phone. A recorded menu will provide information on

how to obtain these lists.

For information on how to access GAO reports on the INTERNET,

send an e-mail message with "info" in the body to:

info@www.gao.gov

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548-0001

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Correction Requested

Bulk Mail

Postage & Fees Paid

GAO

Permit No. G100
GAO/GGD-95-170 Juvenile Case Dispositions