U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention
Research and Program Development Division

develops knowledge on national trends in juvenile

delinquency; supports a program for data collection

and information sharing that incorporates elements

of statistical and systems development; identifies

how delinquency develops and the best methods

for its prevention, intervention, and treatment; and

analyzes practices and trends in the juvenile justice

system.

Training and Technical Assistance Division provides juvenile justice training and technical assistance to Federal, State, and local governments; law

enforcement, judiciary, and corrections personnel;

and private agencies, educational institutions, and

community organizations.

Special Emphasis Division provides discretionary

funds to public and private agencies, organizations,

and individuals to replicate tested approaches to 

delinquency prevention, treatment, and control in

such pertinent areas as chronic juvenile offenders,

community-based sanctions, and the disproportionate representation of minorities in the juvenile

justice system.

State Relations and Assistance Division supports

collaborative efforts by States to carry out the

mandates of the JJDP Act by providing formula

grant funds to States; furnishing technical assistance to States, local governments, and private

agencies; and monitoring State compliance with

the JJDP Act.

Information Dissemination Unit produces and distributes information resources on juvenile justice research,

training, and programs and coordinates the Office’s program planning and competitive award activities. Information that meets the needs of juvenile justice professionals

and policymakers is provided through print and online

publications, videotapes, CD–ROM’s, electronic listservs,

and the Office’s Web site. As part of the program planning and award process, IDU develops priorities,

publishes solicitations and application kits for funding

opportunities, and facilitates the peer review process

for discretionary funding awards.

Concentration of Federal Efforts Program promotes

interagency cooperation and coordination among Federal agencies with responsibilities in the area of juvenile justice. The Program primarily carries out this

responsibility through the Coordinating Council on

Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, an independent body within the executive branch that was

established by Congress through the JJDP Act.

Child Protection Division administers programs related

to crimes against children and children’s exposure to

violence. The Division provides leadership and funding

to promote effective policies and procedures to address

the problems of missing and exploited children, children

who have been abused or neglected, and children

exposed to domestic or community violence. CPD program activities include conducting research; providing

information, training, and technical assistance on programs to prevent and respond to child victims, witnesses, and their families; developing and demonstrating

effective child protection initiatives; and supporting the

National Center for Missing and Exploited Children.

Office of Juvenile Justice

and Delinquency Prevention

The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) was established by the President and Congress through the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (JJDP) Act of 1974, Public Law 93–415, as

amended. Located within the Office of Justice Programs of the U.S. Department of Justice, OJJDP’s goal is to

provide national leadership in addressing the issues of juvenile delinquency and improving juvenile justice.

OJJDP sponsors a broad array of research, program, and training initiatives to improve the juvenile justice

system as a whole, as well as to benefit individual youth-serving agencies. These initiatives are carried out by

seven components within OJJDP, described below.

The mission of OJJDP is to provide national leadership, coordination, and resources to prevent and respond to juvenile

offending and child victimization. OJJDP accomplishes its mission by supporting States, local communities, and tribal

jurisdictions in their efforts to develop and implement effective, multidisciplinary prevention and intervention programs

and improve the capacity of the juvenile justice system to protect public safety, hold offenders accountable, and provide treatment and rehabilitative services tailored to the needs of individual juveniles and their families.
Juvenile Transfers to Criminal Court

in the 1990’s: Lessons Learned

From Four Studies

Summary

August 2000

Howard N. Snyder

Melissa Sickmund

Eileen Poe-Yamagata

National Center for Juvenile Justice

John J. Wilson, Acting Administrator

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention
The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention is a component of the Office of Justice

Programs, which also includes the Bureau of Justice Assistance, the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the

National Institute of Justice, and the Office for Victims of Crime.

This Summary is the product of the Juvenile Transfers to Criminal Court Research Studies project. It was

prepared by the National Center for Juvenile Justice, the research division of the National Council of Juvenile

and Family Court Judges, and was supported by grant number 95–JN–FX–0029 to the National Center for

Juvenile Justice from the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP), Office of Justice

Programs, U.S. Department of Justice.

Points of view or opinions expressed in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily

represent the official position or policies of OJJDP or the U.S. Department of Justice.

Copyright 2000, National Center for Juvenile Justice, 710 Fifth Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15219–3000,

412–227–6950.

Cover photograph © 2000 PhotoDisc, Inc.

Suggested citation: Snyder, H., Sickmund, M., and Poe-Yamagata, E. 2000. Juvenile Transfers to Criminal

Court in the 1990's: Lessons Learned From Four Studies. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice,

Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

810 Seventh Street NW.

Washington, DC 20531

Janet Reno

Attorney General

Daniel Marcus

Acting Associate Attorney General

Mary Lou Leary

Acting Assistant Attorney General

John J. Wilson

Acting Administrator

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention
iii

Foreword

In recent years, a growing number of States have modified their laws to facilitate

the transfer of certain categories of juveniles from the jurisdiction of juvenile

courts to the jurisdiction of adult criminal courts.

This Summary describes four studies of juvenile transfers to adult criminal

court conducted for the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

by the National Center for Juvenile Justice.

Two of the studies (South Carolina and Utah) reviewed all instances in which

a prosecutor requested a judicial waiver to transfer the jurisdiction of the case

to adult criminal court. Another study (Pennsylvania) compared the characteristics of juveniles waived in 1994 with their counterparts in 1986. The final

study (also Pennsylvania) explored the decisionmaking process for cases with

juvenile defendants originating in adult criminal court under new “statutory

exclusion” legislation.

The Summary addresses such relevant questions as the following:

■ What criteria were used in the transfer decision?

■ Did the nature of transfer and decisionmaking change during the 1980’s and

1990’s over and above changes in legislation?

■ What was the impact of new legislation that excludes additional offenders

from juvenile court jurisdiction?

The Summary features an overview of each of the four studies, and the key

findings are outlined across study lines. Background on transfer mechanisms,

past transfer research, and study methodology is also provided.

In sum, the information provided in these pages should enhance our understanding of the transfer of juvenile offenders to adult criminal court and its impact on recidivism and justice system decisionmaking.

John J. Wilson

Acting Administrator

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention
v

Acknowledgments

In addition to the authors, the following current and former National Center for

Juvenile Justice staff contributed to the work: Terrence A. Finnegan, Senior

Computer Programmer; Rowen S. Poole, Computer Programmer; Charles

Puzzanchera, Research Assistant; Anne Stahl, Research Associate; Nancy

Tierney, Executive Assistant; and Jeffrey Butts, Senior Research Associate.

The work would not have been possible without the cooperation and efforts of

the following individuals from the three sites studied: in Pennsylvania, James

Anderson, Clay Yeager, John Lemmon, Paul Ward, and Linda Bender of the

Juvenile Court Judges Commission and James Reiland of the Allegheny County

Juvenile Court; in South Carolina, Trudie Trotti of the Department of Juvenile

Justice; David Stagg, Diane Calloway, and Karen Goodale of the Department of

Probation, Parole and Pardon Services; Al Hoy of the Office of Information Resources, State Budget and Control Board; Lorraine Fowler of the Department of

Corrections; Roan Garcia-Quintana of the Joint Legislative Committee on Children; Harry Hopkins of the State Law Enforcement Division; and Jan Rivers

Solomon of SS Research; and in Utah, Michael Phillips and Augie Lehman of

the Administrative Office of the Courts.

In addition, the project benefited from the advice of Donna Bishop of the University of Central Florida and Joseph Moone, the Office of Juvenile Justice and

Delinquency Prevention Program Manager for the project. Production assistance

was provided by staff of the Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse: Jennifer Cassou

(cover design) and Nancy Walsh (editing and document quality control).
vii

Table of Contents

Foreword.........................................................................................................iii

Acknowledgments ........................................................................................ v

Executive Summary..................................................................................... xi

Transfer mechanisms ..................................................................................... xi

Prior research on transfer .............................................................................. xii

Four studies of juvenile transfers to criminal court in the 1990’s.................xii

Findings: What criteria are used in the transfer decision? ............................xii

Findings: Did the nature of transfer decisionmaking change during the

1980’s and 1990’s over and above changes in legislation? .......................xiii

Findings: What was the impact of new legislation that excludes additional

offenders from juvenile court jurisdiction?................................................ xiv

Background .................................................................................................... 1

Transfer mechanisms ...................................................................................... 1

Judicial waiver (the juvenile court judge) .............................................. 1

Statutory exclusion (the legislature) ....................................................... 1

Concurrent jurisdiction (the prosecutor) ................................................ 4

Prior research on transfer ................................................................................ 5

Site selection ................................................................................................... 7

Method overview ............................................................................................ 7

Research questions .......................................................................................... 8

What criteria are used in the transfer decision?...................................... 8

Did the transfer decisionmaking criteria change during the 1980’s

and 1990’s over and above changes in legislation? ............................. 8

What was the impact of new legislation that excludes additional

offenders from juvenile court jurisdiction? .......................................... 9

South Carolina Waiver, 1985–94 ........................................................... 9

Study overview................................................................................................ 9

South Carolina’s waiver provisions........................................................ 9

South Carolina data collection.............................................................. 10

South Carolina findings................................................................................. 11

Waiver requests .................................................................................... 11

Waiver decision criteria........................................................................ 12

Case dispositions .................................................................................. 16
viii

Utah Waiver, 1988–95 .............................................................................. 17

Study overview.............................................................................................. 17

Utah’s transfer provisions..................................................................... 17

Utah data collection .............................................................................. 17

Utah findings ................................................................................................. 18

Waiver requests .................................................................................... 18

Waiver decision criteria........................................................................ 21

Case dispositions .................................................................................. 24

Pennsylvania Waiver, 1986 Versus 1994........................................... 25

Study overview.............................................................................................. 25

Pennsylvania’s waiver provisions ........................................................ 25

Pennsylvania waiver data collection .................................................... 25

Pennsylvania waiver findings ....................................................................... 26

Pennsylvania Exclusions, 1996 ............................................................. 33

Study overview.............................................................................................. 33

Pennsylvania’s exclusion provisions .................................................... 33

Data collection on Pennsylvania’s exclusions...................................... 33

Pennsylvania exclusion findings ................................................................... 34

Conclusions .................................................................................................. 39

References ..................................................................................................... 41

Appendix A .................................................................................................... 45

Appendix B.................................................................................................... 49
ix

Tables and Figures

Tables

Table 1 Demographic Profile of Juveniles in Waiver Request Cases in

South Carolina, 1985–94 ........................................................... 11

Table 2 Court History of Juveniles in Waiver Request Cases in South

Carolina, 1985–94 ..................................................................... 12

Table 3 Most Serious Offense in Waiver Request Cases in South

Carolina, 1985–94 ..................................................................... 13

Table 4 Decisions in Waiver Request Cases in South Carolina, by

Offender Characteristics, 1985–94 ............................................ 13

Table 5 Decisions in Waiver Request Cases in South Carolina, by

Offender Court History, 1985–94 ............................................. 14

Table 6 Decisions in Waiver Request Cases in South Carolina, by

Offense, 1985–94 ...................................................................... 15

Table 7 Proportion of Waiver Request Cases Approved for Waiver in

South Carolina, by Offense and Legal History, 1985–94 ......... 16

Table 8 Disposition of Waiver Request Cases in South Carolina,

1985–94 ..................................................................................... 16

Table 9 Profile of Juveniles in Waiver Request Cases in Utah,

1988–95 ..................................................................................... 19

Table 10 Court History of Juveniles in Waiver Request Cases in Utah,

1988–95 ..................................................................................... 19

Table 11 Most Serious Offense of Waiver Request Cases in Utah,

1988–95 ..................................................................................... 20

Table 12 Incident Characteristics of Waiver Request Cases in Utah,

1988–95 ..................................................................................... 21

Table 13 Decisions in Waiver Request Cases in Utah, by Offender

Characteristics, 1988–95 ........................................................... 22

Table 14 Decisions in Waiver Request Cases in Utah, by Offense,

1988–95 ..................................................................................... 23

Table 15 Decisions in Waiver Request Cases in Utah, by Incident

Characteristics, 1988–95 ........................................................... 23
x

Table 16 Proportion of Waiver Request Cases Approved for Waiver in

Utah, by Offense and Legal History, 1988–95 .......................... 24

Table 17 Dispositions of Waiver Request Cases in Utah, 1988–95 ........... 24

Table 18 Juvenile Arrests: Trends in Pennsylvania, 1986–94 .................... 27

Table 19 Profile of Juveniles Waived in Pennsylvania, 1986 and 1994..... 28

Table 20 Court History of Juveniles Waived in Pennsylvania,

1986 and 1994 ........................................................................... 29

Table 21 Most Serious Offense of Juveniles Waived in Pennsylvania,

1986 and 1994 ........................................................................... 29

Table 22 Court Career Profile of Juveniles Waived in Pennsylvania,

1986 and 1994 ........................................................................... 31

Table 23 Criminal Court Disposition of Cases Waived in Pennsylvania,

1986 and 1994 ........................................................................... 31

Table 24 Attributes of Cases Excluded in Pennsylvania in 1996 and

Disposed in Juvenile or Criminal Court .................................... 37

Figure Of every 100 delinquency cases originally excluded from

juvenile court jurisdiction in 3 counties in Pennsylvania

in 1996, about one-fourth resulted in criminal court

conviction .................................................................................. 36
xi

Executive Summary

Transfer mechanisms

Juveniles may be prosecuted in criminal court under certain circumstances, and

State law determines the conditions under which youth charged with a criminal

law violation can be processed in the criminal, rather than the juvenile, justice

system. The legal mechanisms for “transferring” juveniles from the juvenile to

the criminal justice system differ from State to State and may mandate criminal

court processing for juveniles or leave it to the discretion of specific justice

system officials. These mechanisms vary in the degree of discretion involved in

the transfer decision and are categorized according to who makes the decision.

Under judicial waiver provisions, the juvenile court judge is the decisionmaker.

Judicial waiver provisions are generally limited by age and offense criteria and

typically include criteria relating to the juvenile’s potential for rehabilitation.

Some provisions make the waiver decision entirely discretionary. Other provisions establish a presumption in favor of waiver, reducing judicial discretion.

And some provisions make waiver mandatory under certain age and offense

conditions, completely removing judicial discretion.

Under statutory exclusion provisions, legislatures have decided that certain

young offenders are outside the jurisdiction of the juvenile justice system.

The broadest examples of this are States that have defined all 17-year-olds or

all 16- and 17-year-olds as “adults” by setting the upper age of juvenile court

jurisdiction at 15 or 16. Most statutory exclusion provisions target serious

offenses and older youth.

Concurrent jurisdiction provisions give prosecutors the discretion to file certain cases in juvenile or criminal court. Under such provisions, both courts

share original jurisdiction. Prosecutor discretion provisions are limited by age

and offense criteria.

Most States have historically relied primarily on judicial waiver provisions. In

recent years, however, a growing number of States have implemented statutory

exclusion and/or concurrent jurisdiction provisions. Most States now rely on a

combination of transfer provisions, the most common being judicial waiver together with statutory exclusion (18 States). For detailed information on judicial

waiver provisions, readers should refer to appendix A. Between 1992 and 1997,

all but six States expanded their statutory provisions for transferring juveniles to

criminal court, making it easier for more juveniles to be transferred. For example, States have added statutory exclusions, expanded the list of offenses eligible for transfer, and/or lowered the minimum ages at which a juvenile may be

transferred under one or more mechanisms.
xii

Prior research on transfer

Transfer research in the 1970’s and 1980’s found that, contrary to conventional

wisdom, transfers (1) were not necessarily violent offenders, (2) did not necessarily receive harsher sanctions in criminal court than they would have received

in juvenile court, (3) were not necessarily incarcerated, and (4) if incarcerated,

did not necessarily receive longer sentences than their juvenile court counterparts. Research in the 1990’s that compared the recidivism outcomes of transfers and of youth retained in the juvenile system found that transfers were more

likely to recidivate within 2 years. After a 6-year followup period, there was no

difference between the groups in the proportion of offenders who recidivated,

although the transferred youth who reoffended did so more quickly and more

often, on average, than delinquents handled in juvenile court who reoffended.

Even though such research attempted to study comparable groups (matching

transfers with delinquents on several demographic and case variables), it left

open the question whether observed differences existed because transfers were

“tougher” youth. The research presented in this Summary was designed to improve understanding of the differences between cases transferred to criminal

court and “similar” cases retained in juvenile court.

Four studies of juvenile transfers to criminal

court in the 1990’s

Researchers at the National Center for Juvenile Justice (NCJJ) designed a set of

four studies to identify the factors decisionmakers consider when transferring

cases from the juvenile to the criminal justice system. Researchers selected

study sites with large samples of cases that met the State’s transfer criteria and

contained sufficient detail on the crime incident, the youth’s court history, and

case processing characteristics to model the decisionmaking process in the jurisdiction. Studies in South Carolina and Utah considered all cases in which the

prosecutor requested a judicial waiver. One of the two Pennsylvania studies

compared the characteristics of juveniles waived in 1994 with those waived in

1986 to assess whether the waiver criteria had changed during this period—a

period during which the State’s transfer legislation had not changed, but public

attitudes toward juvenile transfers were changing. The second Pennsylvania

study explored the decisionmaking process for cases involving young offenders

that began in criminal court rather than juvenile court under Pennsylvania’s

1996 statutory exclusion legislation.

Findings: What criteria are used in the

transfer decision?

Judges concurred with most waiver requests made by prosecutors (solicitors) in

South Carolina and Utah. Two factors distinguished cases that were waived
xiii

from those that were not: the extent of a juvenile’s court history and the seriousness of his or her offense. The data show that although common criteria were

used in waiver decisions in South Carolina and Utah, the decisionmaking process in each State retained a local flavor. In both South Carolina and Utah, the

juvenile court was less likely to approve a waiver request in cases involving juveniles who did not have an extensive history with the court. However, the

courts in these States approved waiver requests in the vast majority of cases involving juveniles who had no formal juvenile court record prior to the waiver

incident. Thus, court history was not the only factor considered in deciding

whether to approve a waiver request.

In South Carolina, offense seriousness was also a key determinant in the waiver

decision. Regardless of a youth’s court history, cases involving serious person

offenses were more likely to be approved for waiver than other types of cases.

Although the seriousness of the offense category alone was not as key in Utah

as it was in South Carolina, the juvenile court in Utah was also quite consistent

in its waiver decisionmaking. Characteristics of the crime incident were important in decisions to waive in Utah. Waiver was most likely to be granted in

cases involving serious person offenders who used weapons and seriously injured someone, regardless of the offenders’ court history. Even first-time offenders in Utah were waived if they seriously injured their victim. For other

types of cases, the court looked to a youth’s court history to decide whether to

waive the matter to criminal court. In these cases, youth with long histories

were more likely to be waived than those with shorter histories.

Findings: Did the nature of transfer decisionmaking change during the 1980’s and 1990’s

over and above changes in legislation?

A youth referred to juvenile court in Pennsylvania for a delinquency offense in

1994 was far more likely to be judicially waived to criminal court than a youth

referred in 1986. The large increase in the likelihood of waiver does not appear

to be related to a change in transfer legislation, the growth of the juvenile population, or a change in the overall number of juvenile arrests. Between 1986

and 1994, the 84-percent growth in judicial waivers was greater even than the

32-percent increase in juvenile arrests for violent crimes.

The increase in waiver from 1986 to 1994 appears to have been related to a

change in the waiver criteria. Although the number of juveniles waived to the

criminal system in Pennsylvania for committing violent offenses was much

larger in 1994 than in 1986, the proportion of youth committing violent offenses

among the total waived was similar in 1986 and 1994. The growth of waiver in

Pennsylvania was greatly affected by the waiver of a much larger number of juveniles charged with drug offenses—in fact, about 40 percent of the overall increase in the number of waivers between 1986 and 1994 can be attributed to
xiv

these youth. However, additional factors also contributed to the increase in

waivers.

Another important difference between the 1986 and the 1994 waiver groups was

that juveniles waived in 1994 had less serious court histories than juveniles

waived in 1986. Although the court histories of juveniles in each group were

similar (in terms of the number of prior adjudications and prior residential

placements), the 1994 waiver group included a smaller proportion of juveniles

who had been classified as serious person offenders prior to the transfer incident. Thus, both the 1986 and the 1994 groups had progressed through the

court’s range of sanctioning levels before being waived to criminal court. The

1994 group, however, stepped through the sanctioning alternatives with less serious offense histories.

Therefore, the increased use of judicial waiver in Pennsylvania between 1986 and

1994 appears to have been related to several factors, including the following:

■ The juvenile justice system’s response to an increase in juvenile violence.

■ The court’s severe response to its increasing caseload of juvenile drug

offenders.

■ The system’s assessment that a greater proportion of adjudicated delinquents

was no longer amenable to treatment within the juvenile justice system.

Findings: What was the impact of new

legislation that excludes additional offenders

from juvenile court jurisdiction?

In many ways, implementation of Pennsylvania’s 1996 exclusion law mimicked

the State’s judicial waiver process in previous years. Under the statute, when a

case is not dismissed at the preliminary hearing, the criminal court judge’s decision to keep the case in criminal court or to decertify it to juvenile court must be

based on the same factors that a juvenile court judge uses to decide whether a

youth should be waived to criminal court: the youth’s age, prior referrals to juvenile court, and amenability to treatment.

The juvenile courts in the three Pennsylvania study counties judicially waived

277 youth in 1995. In the transition year of 1996, when the State’s exclusion

law took effect, the number of waivers dropped to 157—a decrease of 120

youth. Of the 473 youth excluded from juvenile court jurisdiction in these counties in 1996, a total of 109 were convicted in criminal court. Assuming that

cases still open in criminal court at the end of the study period resulted in the

same proportion of convictions and dismissals, approximately 135 of the 473

excluded youth eventually would have been convicted in criminal court. The

drop in the number of waived youth between 1995 and 1996—120—is close to

the number of excluded youth convicted in criminal court when all cases are
xv

closed—135. These numbers suggest that the ultimate impact of Pennsylvania’s

1996 exclusion legislation was to retain in criminal court those cases that the

juvenile court would have judicially waived had it been given the opportunity.

Consequently, regardless of the transfer path in Pennsylvania—judicial waiver

or legislative exclusion—about the same number of youth were sentenced to an

adult correctional facility.

Therefore, considering only case outcomes, the impact of Pennsylvania’s new

exclusion statute was negligible. The statute, however, increased the processing

time for cases eventually handled within the juvenile justice system and placed

an additional burden on local jails and the criminal courts.
1

Background

Transfer mechanisms

All States have established legal mechanisms whereby some juveniles may be

prosecuted within the criminal justice system. These mechanisms, while having

different labels across the States, fall into three general categories, according to

who makes the transfer decision.1

 The three mechanisms are judicial waiver,

statutory exclusion, and concurrent jurisdiction; the decisionmakers are, respectively, the juvenile court judge, the legislature, and the prosecutor.

Judicial waiver (the juvenile court judge)

In judicial waivers, a hearing is held in juvenile court, typically in response to the

prosecutor’s request that the juvenile court judge “waive” the juvenile court’s jurisdiction over the matter and transfer the juvenile to criminal court for trial in the

“adult” system. Most State statutes limit judicial waiver by age and offense criteria

and by “lack of amenability to treatment” criteria (Snyder and Sickmund, 1999;

Griffin, Torbet, and Szymanski, 1998). States often limit waiver to older youth or

to youth who have committed certain serious offenses. Amenability determinations

are typically based on a juvenile’s offense history and previous dispositional outcomes but may also include psychological assessments. Under many State statutes,

a court making an amenability determination must also consider the availability of

dispositional alternatives for treating the juvenile, the time available for sanctions

(for older juveniles), public safety, and the best interests of the child.

Judicial waiver provisions vary in the degree of flexibility they allow the court

in decisionmaking. Some provisions make the waiver decision entirely discretionary. Others establish a presumption in favor of waiver or specify circumstances under which waiver is mandatory.

Regardless of the degree of flexibility accorded to the court, the waiver process

must adhere to certain constitutional principles of fairness. The U.S. Supreme Court,

in Kent v. United States (1966), held that juvenile courts must provide “the essentials of due process” when transferring juveniles to criminal court. (See pages 2–3

for additional information on the Kent decision.) In 1996, approximately 10,000

cases—or 1.6 percent of all formally processed delinquency cases disposed in juvenile

courts that year—were judicially waived to criminal court (Stahl et al., 1999).

Statutory exclusion (the legislature)

In a growing number of States, legislatures have statutorily excluded certain

young offenders from juvenile court jurisdiction based on age and/or offense

1

 The term “transfer” refers to three general mechanisms. However, only one mechanism (judicial waiver)

actually involves the transfer of a juvenile from the juvenile court to the criminal court. Cases that follow the

other two paths may never pass through the juvenile court system.

 ll States have

established legal

mechanisms whereby

some juveniles may

be prosecuted within

the criminal justice

system.

A
2

Kent v. United States, 383 U.S. 541 (1966)

Procedural Background

In 1961, while on probation from an earlier case, 16-year-old Morris A.

Kent, Jr., was arrested and charged with housebreaking, rape, and robbery.

Kent confessed to the offenses and offered information on several similar

incidents. Anticipating that the District of Columbia Juvenile Court would

consider waiving its jurisdiction over Kent and remitting him for trial to

the criminal system, Kent’s attorney filed motions requesting a hearing on

the issue of jurisdiction and seeking access to the juvenile court’s social

services file on Kent. The juvenile court judge did not rule on this motion.

Instead, he entered an order stating that the juvenile court was waiving jurisdiction over Kent after making a “full investigation.” The judge did not

describe the investigation or the grounds for the waiver.

When Kent was indicted in criminal court, Kent’s lawyer moved to dismiss the criminal indictment, arguing that the juvenile court’s waiver had

been invalid. That motion was overruled, and Kent was subsequently tried

in criminal court and found guilty on six counts of housebreaking and robbery. He was sentenced to 30 to 90 years in prison.

On appeal, Kent’s attorney again challenged the validity of the waiver.

Appellate courts, however, rejected the appeal, refused to scrutinize the

juvenile court judge’s “investigation,” and accepted the waiver as valid.

In appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court, Kent’s attorney argued that the

judge had not made a complete investigation and that Kent had been denied his constitutional rights simply because he was a minor.

U.S. Supreme Court’s Decision

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled the juvenile court order waiving jurisdiction invalid, holding that Kent’s counsel should have had access to all

records involved in the waiver decision and that the judge should have

provided a written statement of the reasons for waiver. The Court also

held that waiver hearings do not need to conform to all the formal requirements of a criminal trial, but that they must measure up to “the essentials

of due process and fair treatment.” In particular, the Court held that juveniles facing waiver are entitled to:

■ Representation by counsel.

■ Access to social services records.

■ A written statement of the reasons for waiver.
3

Kent Waiver Criteria

In an appendix to its opinion, the Court in Kent detailed the following

“criteria and principles concerning waiver of jurisdiction”:

An offense falling within the statutory limitations . . . will be

waived if it has prosecutive merit and if it is heinous or of an aggravated character, or—even though less serious—if it represents a pattern of repeated offenses which indicate that the juvenile may be

beyond rehabilitation under Juvenile Court procedures, or if the

public needs the protection afforded by such action.

The determinative factors which will be considered by the Judge

in deciding whether the Juvenile Court’s jurisdiction over such

offenses will be waived are the following:

1. The seriousness of the alleged offense to the community and

whether the protection of the community requires waiver.

2. Whether the alleged offense was committed in an aggressive,

violent, premeditated or willful manner.

3. Whether the alleged offense was against persons or against

property, greater weight being given to offenses against persons especially if personal injury resulted.

4. The prosecutive merit of the complaint, i.e., whether there is

evidence upon which a Grand Jury may be expected to return

an indictment (to be determined by consultation with the

[prosecuting attorney]).

5. The desirability of trial and disposition of the entire offense in

one court when the juvenile’s associates in the alleged offense

are adults who will be charged with a crime in [criminal court].

6. The sophistication and maturity of the juvenile as determined

by consideration of his home, environmental situation, emotional attitude, and pattern of living.

7. The record and previous history of the juvenile, including previous contacts with [social service agencies], other law enforcement agencies, juvenile courts and other jurisdictions,

prior periods of probation to [the court], or prior commitments

to juvenile institutions.

8. The prospects for adequate protection of the public and the likelihood of reasonable rehabilitation of the juvenile (if he is found

to have committed the alleged offense) by the use of procedures,

services and facilities currently available to the Juvenile Court.
4

criteria. Perhaps the broadest such exclusion occurs in States that have defined

the upper age of juvenile court jurisdiction as 15 or 16 and thus excluded large

numbers of youth under age 18 from the juvenile justice system. NCJJ has estimated that (assuming such age-excluded youth are referred to criminal court at

rates similar to those at which their juvenile counterparts are referred to juvenile

court) as many as 218,000 cases involving youth under age 18 were tried in

criminal court in 1996 as a result of State laws that defined them as adults

solely on the basis of age (Snyder and Sickmund, 1999; Griffin, Torbet, and

Szymanski, 1998). Whether juvenile and criminal court referral rates are in fact

similar is not known. If they are not, or if the most minor incidents referred to

juvenile court are never prosecuted in criminal court, the estimated number of

age-excluded youth would be lower.

Many States also exclude certain individuals charged with serious offenses from

juvenile court jurisdiction. Such exclusions are typically limited to older youth.

The offenses most often targeted for exclusion are capital and other murders

and violent offenses; however, an increasing number of States are excluding

additional felony offenses. No national data exist on the number or characteristics of cases excluded by statute from juvenile court jurisdiction.

Concurrent jurisdiction (the prosecutor)

Under this transfer option, State statutes give prosecutors the discretion to file

certain cases in either juvenile or criminal court because original jurisdiction is

shared by both courts. State concurrent jurisdiction provisions, like other transfer provisions, typically are limited by age and offense criteria (Snyder and

Sickmund, 1999; Griffin, Torbet, and Szymanski, 1998).

Prosecutorial transfer, unlike judicial waiver, is not subject to judicial review

and is not required to meet the due process requirements established in Kent.

According to some State appellate courts, prosecutorial transfer is an “executive

function” equivalent to routine charging decisions. Some States, however, have

developed guidelines for prosecutors to follow in “direct filing” cases. No national data exist on the number or characteristics of the cases that prosecutors

exclude or have the discretion to exclude from juvenile court jurisdiction.

State legislation delineates the conditions under which individuals charged with a

violation of the law (and whose age places them under the original jurisdiction of

the juvenile court) may or must be processed in the adult criminal system. Historically, the majority of States have relied on judicial waiver as the mechanism for

transferring juveniles to criminal court (Feld, 1987; Snyder and Hutzler, 1981).

For many years, all States except Nebraska, New York, and, more recently, New

Mexico have had statutory provisions that allow juvenile court judges to waive

the juvenile court’s jurisdiction over certain cases and transfer them to criminal

court for prosecution (Snyder and Sickmund, 1999; Griffin, Torbet, and Szymanski,

1998). Statutory exclusion and concurrent jurisdiction provisions have been relatively less common, but the number of States in which these options exist is

growing. Between the 1992 and 1997 legislative sessions, 45 States expanded

tate concurrent

jurisdiction provisions,

like other transfer

provisions, typically

are limited by age and

offense criteria.

S
5

their statutory provisions governing the transfer of juveniles to criminal court.

Generally, States have done so by adding statutory exclusion provisions, lowering

minimum ages, adding eligible offenses, or making judicial waiver presumptive.

As of the end of 1997, legislatures in 28 States had statutorily excluded from juvenile court jurisdiction cases involving certain offenses and certain age youth, and, in

15 States, prosecutors had the discretion to file certain cases in criminal court.

Nearly all States rely on a combination of transfer provisions to move juveniles

to the criminal system. As of the end of 1997, the most common combination

(18 States) was judicial waiver together with statutory exclusion (Snyder and

Sickmund, 1999; Griffin, Torbet, and Szymanski, 1998). Relying on judicial

waiver alone was the second most common transfer arrangement (16 States).

Tables summarizing the 1997 transfer criteria in each State and demonstrating

statutory variations across States appear in appendix A.

Prior research on transfer

Research on transfers in the 1970’s through the middle 1980’s documented court

practice regarding the transfer of juveniles to criminal court. Studies found that

although transfer to criminal court was intended for the most serious juvenile

offenders, many transferred juveniles were not violent offenders, but repeat

property offenders (Howell, 1996; Feld, 1987; Snyder and Sickmund, 1995;

Nimick, Szymanski, and Snyder, 1986). In addition, studies found that transferred

youth often were handled more leniently in criminal court than they would have

been in juvenile court—arguably because they were appearing in criminal court

for the first time at a relatively young age and with a relatively short offending

history. For example, a 1978 national survey by Hamparian and colleagues (1982)

found that the majority of juvenile transfers convicted in criminal court received

sentences of probation, fines, or other alternatives to incarceration. Forty-six percent of cases judicially waived and 39 percent of those filed directly in criminal

court by prosecutors resulted in incarceration. Research by Bortner (1986) found

that 6 out of 10 judicially waived offenders received probation as their primary

disposition, compared with 3 out of 10 who received sentences of incarceration.

Other studies, by contrast, have found that criminal courts were more likely

than juvenile courts to incarcerate offenders. Fagan (1991), for example, compared juvenile and criminal court handling in 1981 and 1982 of 15- and 16-

year-old felony offenders in similar counties in New York (where they are excluded from juvenile court) and New Jersey (where they are not). The study

found that criminal court sanctions in New York were twice as likely to include

incarceration as juvenile court sanctions in New Jersey. In a followup study of

more recent cases (1986–87), however, Fagan (1995) found the reverse (at least

for robbery cases).

Researchers have also explored sentence lengths for those incarcerated. Rudman

and colleagues (1986), for instance, studied case outcomes of violent youth

considered for transfer in urban jurisdictions by comparing outcomes for

early all States rely

on a combination of

transfer provisions to

move juveniles to the

criminal system.

N
6

those transferred with outcomes for those whose transfer was denied. The study

found that criminal court sentences were longer than juvenile court sentences.

Fagan’s (1991) research on sentences imposed by juvenile and criminal courts

in felony burglary or robbery cases, on the other hand, found no differences in

sentence lengths.

Recidivism rates of juveniles transferred to criminal court and juveniles retained

in juvenile court have also been compared to assess the ultimate impact of transfer. For example, Fagan’s 1991 analysis of felony burglary and robbery cases

found that the likelihood of rearrest and reincarceration, as described earlier, did

not differ among youth charged with burglary. Among juveniles charged with

robbery, however, those handled in juvenile court in New Jersey were significantly less likely to be rearrested and reincarcerated than those handled in

criminal court in New York. Of those who recidivated, the length of time before

rearrest was significantly longer for those who remained in juvenile court.

Research by Bishop and Frazier and their associates compared case outcomes

for nearly 3,000 juveniles transferred to criminal court in Florida with outcomes

for a comparison group of juveniles retained in juvenile court. The groups were

matched along several dimensions, including offense, age, race, sex, and prior

offenses. The 1-year followup study (Bishop et al., 1996) found that transferred

youth had a higher rate of rearrest, were rearrested for more serious offenses, and

were rearrested within a shorter time than youth retained in juvenile court. After

nearly 6 years, the juveniles who had not been transferred had caught up with the

transferred youth in terms of the proportion who had been rearrested (Winner et

al., 1997). However, transferred youth who were rearrested were rearrested more

quickly and more times, on average, than the comparison group of delinquents

handled in juvenile court. Only transferred youth charged with felony property

crimes (many of whom had substance abuse problems) were found less likely to

be rearrested than their juvenile court counterparts—although, if arrested, transferred youth were rearrested more quickly and more often than their juvenile

court counterparts.

The difficulty with much of the research concerning the effect of transfer is that

observed differences in case handling and outcomes may result from differences

in the seriousness of the cases ultimately handled in juvenile and criminal

courts. The underlying assumption is that transfer is reserved for the most serious cases. Because the very rationale for transfer is to allow courts to impose

potentially harsher penalties on the most serious juvenile offenders, one would

expect cases handled in criminal court to be more serious than those remaining

in juvenile court. However, with numerous studies finding large proportions of

relatively less serious cases (e.g., property cases) among transferred cases, it remains uncertain what case characteristics trigger a decision to transfer. If, in

fact, transferred cases are more serious than cases remaining in juvenile court,

one would expect the sanctions imposed in criminal court to be harsher than

those imposed in apparently similar cases in juvenile court. Furthermore, one

might also expect transferred offenders to be more likely to reoffend.

t remains uncertain

what case characteristics

trigger a decision to

transfer.

I
7

Researchers have yet to examine recidivism in a study fully controlling for case

and offender seriousness. Even research that has attempted to study comparable

groups (matched samples, for example) of transfers and delinquents retained in

juvenile court has not been able to control for many of the factors that might

make the transfers a more serious group. Thus, it remains unclear whether the

reason harsher sanctions are more likely and reoffending is higher among transfers is because these juveniles are more serious offenders. The studies presented

in this Summary add to the research literature and improve the understanding of

the differences between cases transferred to criminal court and “similar” cases

retained in juvenile court.

Site selection

The project included four research studies in three States: Pennsylvania, South

Carolina, and Utah. These sites were chosen because they have historically relied on judicial waiver as their primary transfer mechanism. In addition, in 1996,

Pennsylvania enacted an exclusion provision targeting older, violent juveniles

that provided an opportunity to study transfer decisionmaking in the criminal

justice system.

Method overview

As those who have attempted to conduct research on transfers are well aware,

the data collection process in transfer studies presents many unique and, at

times, insurmountable hurdles. The difficulty in these efforts rests on the fact

that transfer cases touch so many distinct components of the justice system. To

track transferred cases through the justice system completely, researchers must

extract information from the records of law enforcement, juvenile courts, juvenile detention centers, probation agencies, criminal courts, adult jails, and State

police repositories. For the four research studies described in this Summary, the

project developed a form to facilitate consistent definitions and data collection

across jurisdictions (see appendix B). However, available data were often incomplete or incompatible across systems. More specifically, case records at

times did not contain key data about the circumstances of the criminal incident

(e.g., weapon presence or use, gang involvement, level of victim injury, relative

criminal responsibility of offender, relationship of victim and offender). This

type of information is found in the narrative of police and probation reports, the

contents of which are not standardized, varying from author to author and, even

more, from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. It is also not uncommon to find juvenile

court records of cases transferred to criminal court for which there is no corresponding criminal court record or to find transferred cases that were never completed in criminal court because the offenders were parties in other cases that

resulted in criminal court sanctions. These transferred cases, in other words,

were essentially ignored.

he project included

four research studies

in three States:

Pennsylvania, South

Carolina, and Utah.

T
8

In each of the three States, the basic data collection strategy consisted of extracting information from automated juvenile court records and then supplementing those data with information gleaned from automated records from the

criminal court, prosecutor’s office, or law enforcement. If automated records

did not contain the desired information, researchers culled through paper files.

Research questions

The studies in this project asked three basic research questions:

■ What criteria are used in the transfer decision?

■ Did the transfer decisionmaking criteria change during the 1980’s and

1990’s over and above changes in legislation?

■ What was the impact of new legislation that excludes additional offenders

from juvenile court jurisdiction?

Although no single jurisdiction generated data that addressed all three

questions, each question was addressed by data from one or more sites. Each

question is described below.

What criteria are used in the transfer decision?

Although there is a general sense that transfer should be reserved for the most

serious juvenile cases, numerous studies have shown that a significant proportion of transfers seem to fall outside that category, calling into question the

decisionmaking of the juvenile court judges and/or prosecutors who control

transfer decisions. Other than the general seriousness of an offense, what characteristics make a case more likely to result in transfer? For example, does the

likelihood of transfer vary with the seriousness of a victim’s injury, the use of

weapons (especially firearms), the presence of gang motivation in the underlying incident, or a juvenile’s history of substance abuse or prior offending? Are

there interactions between these characteristics? Data from South Carolina and

Utah on cases in which a waiver request was made were used to address these

questions. South Carolina provided data on more cases than Utah, but the Utah

data included more detail on each waiver incident.

Did the transfer decisionmaking criteria change during the

1980’s and 1990’s over and above changes in legislation?

In the past several years, many States have passed legislation that makes it

easier to transfer juveniles to criminal court. Has there been any change, however, in the nature of transferred cases and/or decision criteria in jurisdictions

where transfer provisions did not change? In other words, did the transfer process change even where there was no change in State statutes?

Data used to answer this question were drawn primarily from Pennsylvania.

Researchers compared waivers in Pennsylvania during 1986 with waivers in

ther than the

general seriousness

of an offense, what

characteristics make

a case more likely to

result in transfer?

O
9

the State during 1994 (a period during which there were no changes in transfer

legislation). The 1986 data were originally collected for a study published by

the Pennsylvania Juvenile Court Judges Commission that described the more

than 200 cases judicially waived to criminal court in Pennsylvania in 1986

(Lemmon, Sontheimer, and Saylor, 1991). Comparable 1994 data were collected as part of the current project. In addition, even though South Carolina

and Utah waived far fewer cases each year, data from these States were analyzed to test for historical changes in transfer criteria.

What was the impact of new legislation that excludes

additional offenders from juvenile court jurisdiction?

Of those States that have passed laws that make it easier to try juveniles in

criminal court, the most common change was the enactment or expansion of

statutory exclusion provisions. Legislatures responded to public outcry regarding “failures” of the juvenile justice system and proposed exclusion as at least a

partial solution. The phrase “Do the adult crime, do the adult time” became a

cliche. The efficacy of exclusion provisions, however, was not well established.

Were more or different juveniles tried in the criminal system in jurisdictions

that had enacted new statutory exclusion provisions? Did excluded juveniles

receive harsher sanctions under new exclusion provisions than they would have

received under prior judicial waiver provisions? Data on cases excluded in

Pennsylvania during 1996—under the State’s new exclusion provisions—were

used to address this question.

South Carolina Waiver, 1985–94

Study overview

South Carolina’s waiver provisions

Prior to January 1995, South Carolina law permitted only one form of juvenile

transfer: judicial waiver. In South Carolina, the upper age of original juvenile

court jurisdiction is 16, and persons 17 or older are considered adults for purposes of criminal prosecution. This study focuses on the years 1985 through

1994, during which time South Carolina’s waiver provisions remained the

same. These provisions permitted judicial waiver if:

■ A youth was charged with murder or criminal sexual conduct.

■ A youth age 16 or older was charged with a delinquency offense.

■ A youth age 15 was charged with drug trafficking or carrying certain weapons on school property.

■ A youth age 14 or 15 with two prior unrelated adjudications for enumerated person or property offenses was charged with a third or subsequent such offense.

he efficacy of

exclusion provisions,

however, was not well

established.

T
10

Waiver legislation directed courts to waive such juveniles to criminal court if it

was in the best interests of the child or the public to do so.

South Carolina data collection

South Carolina’s Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ), formerly known as the

Department of Youth Services, is an umbrella agency responsible for nearly all

juvenile justice services in the State, including intake, diversion, detention, probation, corrections, and aftercare. The only juvenile justice functions not under

DJJ’s direct control are the functions of the prosecutor and the judge.

DJJ, which served as the lead agency in coordinating data collection for the

South Carolina study, is the repository of all data relating to juvenile offender

characteristics and family court processing of cases in South Carolina. DJJ has

an online statewide offender tracking system that records all contacts with the

family court for delinquency and status offenses. Accurate data on the prevalence of transfer as a family court disposition were available through this system from the early 1980’s onward, supporting the longitudinal study of transfer

actions in relation to offender characteristics.

Because a variety of different agencies are involved in processing and supervising adult criminal cases, final dispositional data on transfers were far more difficult to obtain than particulars of transfer decisions in family court. DJJ had

access to data files from the Department of Probation, Parole and Pardon Services (PPP) and the South Carolina Department of Corrections (SCDC), which

allowed the extraction of criminal court dispositional information for transferred

juveniles who were convicted and sentenced to either probation or incarceration. The agencies have a long and positive history of sharing data in areas of

mutual interest or concern. DJJ’s experience with earlier longitudinal research

on a 1967 male birth cohort (Rivers and Trotti, 1989) helped to delineate a significant portion of this process.

Using names, birth dates, and other personal identifiers, DJJ personnel matched

the records stored in the DJJ automated information system on cases considered

for waiver with the records in the automated records of South Carolina’s adult

probation and corrections departments. In addition, DJJ staff used facilities of

the State’s National Crime Information Center (NCIC) to obtain information on

adult arrests and the initial processing of criminal court cases.

From this information, the project team developed data files containing the complete juvenile court histories of all youth for whom a waiver was requested in

South Carolina during the 10 years from 1985 through 1994 and showing the specific disposition of the waiver action at the adult criminal court level. Data elements included the offender’s date of birth, sex, and race; his or her history of

drug use; offenses charged, waived, or adjudicated; and dates of case disposition

and processing (see appendix B). Thus, the South Carolina study was designed

to model the decisionmaking process in the State’s family court between 1985

and 1994, a period when statutory provisions for waiver in the State were stable.

he South Carolina

study was designed

to model the

decisionmaking process

in the State’s family

court between 1985

and 1994.

T
11

South Carolina findings

Waiver requests

In the 10-year period from 1985 through 1994, South Carolina family courts

considered 595 requests for waiver to criminal court, involving 557 juveniles.

The vast majority of waiver requests involved males (95 percent), most involved blacks (80 percent), and most involved juveniles age 16 or older at the

time the case was referred to family court (table 1). As noted above, 17-yearolds are generally considered adults in South Carolina; however, in South Carolina, the family court’s jurisdiction over delinquents for dispositional purposes

can extend until a youth’s 21st birthday. Therefore, youth age 17 or older were

candidates for judicial waiver when they were under the continuing jurisdiction

of the juvenile court for a previous offense committed before the youth was 17.

Table 1: Demographic Profile of Juveniles in Waiver Request Cases

in South Carolina, 1985–94

Juvenile Characteristics Percent of Waiver Request Cases

Total waiver request cases 595

100%

Sex

Male 95%

Female 5

Race

White, non-Hispanic 20%

Black 80

Other 1

Age at referral

14 or younger 7%

15 14

16 65

17 or older 15

Note: Detail may not total 100 percent because of rounding.

For 7 percent of the waiver request cases, the juvenile had been the subject of

a previous waiver request.2

 Although most waiver requests involved juveniles

with at least one formally handled referral prior to the waiver request case, at

least one previous adjudication, and at least one prior court-ordered probation

placement, less than half of the juveniles had a prior court-ordered residential

placement (table 2, page 12). Most waiver request cases involved a serious person or serious property offense (table 3, page 13). Aggravated assault was the

most common charge, followed by robbery.

2

 Unlike many States, South Carolina does not have a “once an adult, always an adult” provision. Juveniles are

referred to family court for offenses until they turn 17—even if they have been previously convicted of an

offense in criminal court.

outh age 17 or

older were candidates

for judicial waiver when

they were under the

continuing jurisdiction

of the juvenile court

for a previous offense.

Y
12

Table 2: Court History of Juveniles in Waiver Request Cases in

South Carolina, 1985–94

Juvenile Characteristics Percent of Waiver Request Cases

Total waiver request cases 595

100%

Number of prior referrals

None 15%

One 13

Two to four 39

Five or more 32

Number of prior formal referrals

None 26%

One 18

Two to four 43

Five or more 12

Number of prior adjudications

None 30%

One 24

Two 20

Three or more 26

Number of prior court-ordered

probation placements

None 41%

One 32

Two or more 26

Number of prior court-ordered

residential placements

None 63%

One 21

Two or more 15

Prior waiver requests 7%

Note: Detail may not total 100 percent because of rounding.

Waiver decision criteria

Overall, from 1985 through 1994, the juvenile court in South Carolina approved

80 percent of waiver requests (474 of 595). Analysis of offender and case characteristics reveals factors key to the judicial decision to waive (table 4). The juvenile court was significantly more likely to approve waiver requests made in

cases involving males than in cases involving females.3

 Waiver approval was

somewhat less likely for white juveniles than for black juveniles, although the

difference was not statistically significant. The court was significantly less likely

to waive cases involving youth age 15 or younger than cases involving older

youth. The study found no difference in the likelihood of waiver between youth

who never used drugs and youth who had a history of casual or habitual drug use.

3

 The use of the term “significant” throughout the remainder of this Summary refers to statistical significance

(p values <0 .05). Differences that did not reach statistical significance are not described as significant.

nalysis of offender

and case characteristics

reveals factors key in

the judicial decision

to waive.

A
13

Table 3: Most Serious Offense in Waiver Request Cases in South

Carolina, 1985–94

Most Serious Offense Waiver Requests Offense Profile*

Total waiver request cases 595 100%

Serious person offenses 331 57%

Murder 86 15

Violent sex offenses 34 6

Robbery 93 16

Aggravated assault 105 18

Kidnaping 13 2

Serious property offenses 101 17%

Burglary 84 14

Motor vehicle theft 14 2

Arson 3 <1

Other offenses 151 26%

Other person offenses 17 3

Other property offenses 41 7

Drug offenses 66 11

Public order offenses 27 5

Offense unknown 12 –

*As a percent of waiver request cases with known offense.

–Not applicable.

Table 4: Decisions in Waiver Request Cases in South Carolina,

by Offender Characteristics, 1985–94

Percent of Waiver Request Cases

Approved for Not Approved

Juvenile Characteristics Waiver for Waiver

Total waiver request cases (595) 474 121

80% 20%

Sex

Male 81% 19%

Female 50 50

Race

White 74% 26%

Black 81 19

Age

15 or younger 63% 27%

16 82 18

17 or older 86 14

Drug use history

None 80% 20%

Casual use 80 20

Habitual use 79 21
14

In general, the juvenile court was significantly more likely to waive juveniles who

had extensive court histories (table 5). Juveniles with five or more prior referrals

to court had a significantly greater probability of waiver than juveniles with four

or fewer prior referrals. In addition, juveniles with four or fewer prior referrals to

juvenile court had a significantly greater likelihood of waiver than youth with no

court history. The study found a similar pattern for previous formally handled referrals. The juvenile court was significantly more likely to waive juveniles who

had two or more previous formal cases than juveniles who had only one previous

formal case or none. Juveniles with prior adjudications were significantly more

likely to be waived than juveniles who had never been adjudicated. Similarly,

those with prior court-ordered probation placements were significantly more

likely than those without prior probation placements to be waived. The same pattern was true for prior court-ordered residential placements.

Table 5: Decisions in Waiver Request Cases in South Carolina,

by Offender Court History, 1985–94

Percent of Waiver Request Cases

Approved for Not Approved

Juvenile Court History Waiver for Waiver

Total waiver request cases (595) 474 121

80% 20%

Number of prior referrals

None 66% 34%

One to four 79 21

Five or more 87 13

Number of prior formal referrals

None 71% 29%

One 74 26

Two or more 86 14

Number of prior adjudications

None 72% 28%

One to four 83 17

Five or more 83 17

Number of prior court-ordered

probation placements

None 75% 25%

One 81 19

Two or more 85 15

Number of prior court-ordered

residential placements

None 75% 25%

One to two 81 19

Three or more 85 15

n general, the

juvenile court was

significantly more

likely to waive juveniles

who had extensive court

histories.

I
15

Although the court was significantly more likely to waive juveniles with extensive court histories, substantial proportions of juveniles in each of the “no

priors” categories were waived. For example, among waiver request cases

involving juveniles who had never before been referred to juvenile court, 66

percent were approved for waiver, indicating that the court was considering

factors other than court history when deciding whether to waive these juveniles

to criminal court.

The study found a relationship between the seriousness of the offense charged in

the waiver incident and the probability that a juvenile would be approved for

waiver once a waiver request was made. The South Carolina court was significantly more likely to waive juveniles who had been charged with serious person

or serious property offenses than those charged with other offenses (table 6).

Among the less serious offense categories, drug cases were somewhat more likely

to be waived than less serious person, less serious property, or public order cases.

Table 6: Decisions in Waiver Request Cases in South Carolina,

by Offense, 1985–94

Percent of Waiver Request Cases

Approved for Not Approved

Most Serious Offense Waiver for Waiver

Serious person 85% 15%

Serious property 84 16

Less serious person 65 35

Less serious property 70 30

Drugs 76 24

Public order 39 61

Analyses documented the joint effect of case/offender characteristics on the

waiver decision. More specifically, a juvenile’s offense history interacted with

the seriousness of the offense charged in the waiver incident (table 7, page 16).

Cases involving juveniles with one or more prior offenses who were charged

with a serious person or property offense were significantly more likely to be

approved for waiver than juveniles in other waiver request cases—87 percent

of such cases were approved for waiver. Juveniles with no prior adjudications in

juvenile court were significantly more likely to be approved for transfer if they

had been charged with a serious person offense—82 percent of such cases were

approved for waiver. Juveniles charged with less serious offenses were significantly more likely to be waived if they had two or more prior adjudications—

79 percent of such cases were approved for waiver, compared with 57 percent

of cases with fewer than two prior adjudications.

 juvenile’s offense

history interacted with

the seriousness of the

offense charged in the

waiver incident.

A
16

Table 7: Proportion of Waiver Request Cases Approved for

Waiver in South Carolina, by Offense and Legal History,

1985–94

 Percent of Waiver Request Cases

Approved for Waiver, by

Number of Prior Adjudications

Most Serious Offense None One Two or More

Serious person 82% 81% 91%

Serious property 46* 93* 89

Other less serious 54 57 79

*Based on fewer than 20 cases.

Case dispositions

The South Carolina study compared dispositions of cases approved for waiver

with dispositions of cases retained in juvenile court (table 8). Waived cases

were more likely to result in a confinement disposition than cases retained in

juvenile court (66 percent, compared with 35 percent). In addition, 50 percent

of the cases retained in juvenile court were ordered to probation. Probation,

however, was used infrequently in cases disposed in criminal court (8 percent).

Compared with cases retained in juvenile court, a greater proportion of cases

waived to criminal court were dismissed (25 percent, compared with 16 percent). This dispositional pattern is consistent with the study’s findings that

transferred cases involve offenses that are more serious and offenders who are

less amenable to traditional juvenile court sanctions.

Table 8: Disposition of Waiver Request Cases in South Carolina,

1985–94

 Percent of Cases

Most Severe Retained in Waived to

Disposition Ordered Juvenile Court Criminal Court

Total 121 474

100% 100%

Confinement 35 66

Probation 50 8

Dismissed 16 25

Note: Detail may not total 100 percent because of rounding.

he South Carolina

study compared

dispositions of cases

approved for waiver

with dispositions of

cases retained in

juvenile court.

T
17

Utah Waiver, 1988–95

Study overview

Utah’s transfer provisions

Between 1988 and 1995, transfer laws in Utah varied from (1) waiver and

concurrent jurisdiction to (2) waiver and concurrent jurisdiction plus a limited

statutory exclusion to (3) an arrangement that included only the waiver and

limited statutory exclusion provisions. Prior to 1981, Utah relied on a broad

judicial waiver provision that allowed waiver for any youth age 14 or older

who had been charged with a felony. Under that provision, the State had an

average of nine waivers per year between 1967 and 1980. In 1981, the legislature enacted a concurrent jurisdiction provision that allowed prosecutors to

file directly in criminal court any case involving a youth age 16 or 17 charged

with a first-degree or capital felony.

Following two homicides committed by juveniles in the summer of 1993, a special session of the Utah legislature was called to address juvenile crime. In the fall

of 1993, transfer provisions were modified to exclude youth from juvenile court if

they were 16 years of age or older and had been charged with aggravated murder.

Using the concurrent jurisdiction provision, prosecutors filed murder charges in

criminal court against a youth named Mohi in September 1993. The Mohi murder case ultimately resulted in a constitutional challenge to Utah’s concurrent

jurisdiction provision. In 1995, the State Supreme Court found the provision

unconstitutional, and it was later repealed. Throughout these changes in law,

however, Utah relied primarily on its judicial waiver provision to transfer youth

to criminal court.

Utah data collection

This study focused on cases that began in juvenile court in which the prosecutor

requested a judicial waiver. More specifically, the study considered cases in

which the judicial waiver decision was made between 1988 and 1995. Information on these cases was captured in the juvenile court statewide automated case

tracking system maintained by the Administrative Office of the Courts. This

system contains information on all cases in a youth’s career and the disposition

of each case. In addition, the State’s youth corrections agency shares the juvenile court’s information system. The system therefore contains all information

on a youth’s prior placements. Court administrators use these data extensively

to investigate a wide range of issues, including juvenile waivers.

The Administrative Office of the Courts also maintains an automated case

tracking system for the criminal court. Because the juvenile and criminal court

systems are housed in the same facility, extracting information on the criminal

court’s response to transferred cases is not an administrative or a technical problem. The Department of (Adult) Corrections has always been very cooperative

he Utah study

focused on cases that

began in juvenile court

in which the prosecutor

requested a judicial

waiver.

T
18

when the Administrative Office of the Courts requested data on transferred

youth for research studies.

Using these data sources, the Administrative Office of the Courts documented

the case processing characteristics of waiver request cases between 1988 and

1995. Data were captured on waived cases and cases retained by the juvenile

court. Data were extracted on cases considered for waiver and on juveniles’

court histories. Data elements included an offender’s birth date, sex, and race;

offenses petitioned, waived, or adjudicated; disposition of criminal court cases;

and sentencing information.

To obtain information on incident characteristics not included in the automated

files (e.g., victim characteristics; the presence or use of a weapon; and an

offender’s gang involvement, relative responsibility in an incident, or relationship to the victim), data were extracted from paper files housed at juvenile

courts around the State. Juvenile court clerks were given the names of the juveniles and asked to locate files (which were often in offsite storage). Project researchers then went from court site to court site around the State to read the files

and code the information onto data collection forms.

Criminal court information on waived cases was also collected, along with information on any criminal court cases that took place after the waiver decision. These data

were manually extracted from multiple automated criminal court databases and

from microfiche record storage. Some desired criminal court information (e.g., predisposition custody dates, bail amounts) was not available in criminal court files.

Although Utah did not waive a large number of cases in the period studied, the

data collected on waiver incidents and court history support a study of the numerous factors associated with the waiver decision.

Utah findings

Waiver requests

During the 8 years from 1988 through 1995, Utah juvenile courts considered

requests to waive 225 youth to criminal court. These juveniles were predominantly male (96 percent), most were non-Hispanic whites (57 percent), and

nearly 70 percent were age 17 or older at the time the case was referred to

court (table 9).4

Like the juveniles for whom waiver was requested in South Carolina, many juveniles in Utah’s waiver request cases had accrued long offense histories with

the juvenile court. Most of the waiver requests involved youth with at least one

formally handled referral prior to the waiver request case, and most had at least

one prior adjudication. However, as shown in table 10, less than half had any

prior court-ordered probation placements or had ever been ordered to residential

4

 Cases that were initiated in criminal court were not included in the study.

any juveniles in

Utah’s waiver request

cases had accrued long

offense histories with

the juvenile court.

M
19

Table 9: Profile of Juveniles in Waiver Request Cases in Utah, 1988–95

Juvenile Characteristics Percent of Waiver Request Cases

Total waiver request cases 225

100%

Sex

Male 96%

Female 4

Race

White (non-Hispanic) 57%

Black 5

Hispanic 27

Native American 4

Asian 4

Unknown 2

Age at referral

15 or younger 13%

16 18

17 53

18 or older 16

Note: Detail may not total 100 percent because of rounding.

Table 10: Court History of Juveniles in Waiver Request Cases in

Utah, 1988–95

Juvenile Court History Percent of Waiver Request Cases

Total waiver request cases 225

100%

Prior formal referrals

None 15%

One 12

Two to four 31

Five or more 43

Prior adjudications

None 17%

One 14

Two 12

Three to four 21

Five or more 36

Prior court-ordered probation placements

None 64%

One 21

Two or more 14

Prior court-ordered residential placements

None 61%

One 15

Two or more 24

Prior waiver requests 0%

Note: Detail may not total 100 percent because of rounding.
20

placement, and none of the waiver request cases involved juveniles who had

been the subject of previous waiver requests.

The offense profile of waiver request cases in Utah shows that the majority of

juveniles had been charged with serious person or serious property offenses

(table 11). However, nearly 4 out of 10 had been charged with less serious offenses. Aggravated assault was the most common charge, followed by burglary.

Analyses of other characteristics of the incident leading to the waiver request

provide an understanding of these cases and the waiver decision process (table

12). Although 66 percent of the juveniles had at least one accomplice when they

committed the offense leading to the waiver request, nearly all (98 percent)

were the primary offender in the incident. For 20 percent of the waiver request

incidents, there was at least some indication that the crime was gang motivated.

Of the waiver request incidents involving crimes against persons, 44 percent

involved one victim and 26 percent involved two victims. Twenty-two percent

of the person offenses involved three or more victims.

In 42 percent of the waiver request incidents during the study period, the juvenile

involved did not have a weapon. Juveniles in 32 percent of incidents had a firearm,

and in 26 percent of incidents, juveniles had a weapon other than a firearm.

Seventy-three percent of the juveniles who had a weapon used it during the incident;

the remainder merely carried or brandished it. In 20 percent of waiver request incidents, one or more victims suffered a major injury requiring medical treatment.

Table 11: Most Serious Offense of Waiver Request Cases in Utah,

1988–95

Number of Offense

Most Serious Offense Waiver Requests Profile*

Total waiver request cases 225 100%

Serious person offenses 89 42%

Murder 22 10

Violent sex offenses 4 2

Robbery 19 9

Aggravated assault 39 18

Kidnaping 5 2

Serious property offenses 43 20%

Burglary 30 14

Motor vehicle theft 12 6

Arson 1 <1

Other offenses 82 38%

Other person offenses 20 9

Other property offenses 40 19

Drug offenses 10 5

Public order offenses 12 6

Offense unknown 11 –

*As a percent of waiver request cases with known offense.

–Not applicable.

he offense profile

of waiver request cases

in Utah shows that the

majority of juveniles had

been charged with

serious person or serious

property offenses.

T
21

Table 12: Incident Characteristics of Waiver Request Cases in Utah,

1988–95

Incident Characteristics Percent of Waiver Request Cases

Total waiver request cases 225

100%

Number of offenders

Lone offender 34%

Multiple offenders 66

Primary offender if multiple 98%

Gang motivated 20%

Number of victims in person offense

One 44%

Two 26

Three or more 22

Unknown 8

Weapon present?

No weapon 42%

Nonfirearm 26

Firearm 32

Weapon used?

Yes 73%

No 27

Major injury to victim?

Yes 20%

No 80

Waiver decision criteria

Overall, the juvenile court in Utah approved 76 percent of waiver requests (171

of 225) from 1988 through 1995. The juvenile court was significantly less likely

to approve waiver requests in cases involving white juveniles than in cases involving nonwhite youth (table 13, page 22). The court was as likely to waive

cases involving offenders younger than 16 as those involving older offenders.

This finding is contrary to expectations, given that amenability criteria tend to

result in a greater likelihood of waiver for older youth (who have more time to

accrue offenses and be judged no longer amenable to juvenile court intervention). With respect to amenability issues, the study also found that juveniles

with five or more prior formally handled cases were somewhat more likely to

be waived than juveniles with one, two, three, or four prior cases (although the

difference was not statistically significant). However, the juvenile court was as

likely to waive juveniles with no prior formally handled cases as those with five

or more prior formal cases.

Similarly, the court was as likely to waive juveniles with no previous adjudications as those with five or more prior adjudications. Waiver, however, was less

likely for juveniles with one to four prior adjudications.

verall, the juvenile

court in Utah approved

76 percent of waiver

requests from 1988

through 1995.

O
22

Table 13: Decisions in Waiver Request Cases in Utah, by Offender

Characteristics, 1988–95

Percent of Waiver Request Cases

Approved for Not Approved

Juvenile Characteristics Waiver for Waiver

Total waiver request cases (225) 171 54

76% 24%

Race

White (non-Hispanic) 70% 30%

Nonwhite 84 16

Age

Younger than 16 76% 24%

16 or older 76 24

Prior formal referrals

None 85% 15%

One to four 69 31

Five or more 80 20

Prior adjudications

None 82% 18%

One to four 70 30

Five or more 81 19

Prior court-ordered

residential placements

None 82% 18%

One to two 67 33

Three or more 78 22

A similar pattern was found when placement data were analyzed. Waiver was as

likely for juveniles with no prior court-ordered residential placements as it was

for those with three or more previous placements. Waiver was less likely for

juveniles with one or two previous placements. These patterns indicate that factors other than juvenile court history affected the waiver decision.

The study also revealed a relationship between offense seriousness and the decision to approve a waiver request (table 14). The court was significantly more

likely to approve waiver requests for juveniles charged with serious person offenses than for juveniles charged with other offenses. Among the less serious

offense categories, drug and public order cases were somewhat more likely to

be waived than less serious person or property cases.

Characteristics of the incident resulting in the waiver request were also related

to waiver decisions (table 15). Waiver was slightly more likely for juveniles

who had a weapon at the time of their incident than for those who did not have a

weapon. Waiver was significantly more likely if the crime victim suffered major injury. Although incidents involving multiple offenders were slightly more

likely to lead to waiver, gang-motivated incidents were not more likely to result

in waiver.

he study revealed

a relationship between

offense seriousness and

the decision to approve

a waiver request.

T
23

Table 14: Decisions in Waiver Request Cases in Utah, by Offense,

1988–95

Percent of Waiver Request Cases

Approved for Not Approved

Most Serious Offense Waiver for Waiver

Total waiver request cases (225) 171 54

76% 24%

Serious person 84% 16%

Serious property 71 29

Other person or property 73 27

Drugs 60 40

Public order 58 42

Table 15: Decisions in Waiver Request Cases in Utah, by Incident

Characteristics, 1988–95

Percent of Waiver Request Cases

Approved for Not Approved

Incident Characteristics Waiver for Waiver

Total waiver request cases (225) 171 54

76% 24%

Weapon present?

Yes 81% 19%

No 71 29

Major injury to victim?

Yes 91% 9%

No 72 28

Number of offenders

Multiple offenders 80% 20%

Lone offender 73 27

Gang motivated?

Yes 75% 25%

No 80 20

Further analyses provide an explanation for the high proportion of first-time offenders approved for waiver (85 percent). Cases stemming from incidents that

involved use of a weapon and serious injury to one or more victims were significantly more likely to result in waiver (87 percent) than cases stemming from

other types of incidents, regardless of offender characteristics (70 percent).

First-time offenders accounted for 17 percent of incidents involving weapon use

and victim injury. Such incidents, however, accounted for 42 percent of cases

involving first-time offenders. For cases not involving these types of incidents,

the juvenile court was significantly more likely to waive juveniles with long
24

court histories (i.e., those who had five or more prior formal cases) than those

with shorter court histories. Waiver requests were approved for 87 percent of

cases involving youth who used a weapon and seriously injured one or more

victims, for 81 percent of other cases involving youth who had five or more

prior formal cases, and for 62 percent of other cases involving youth who had

four or fewer prior formal cases (table 16).

Table 16: Proportion of Waiver Request Cases Approved for Waiver

in Utah, by Offense and Legal History, 1988–95

 Percent of Waiver Request

Cases Approved for Waiver, by

Number of Prior Formal Cases

Most Serious Offense One to Four Five or More

Weapon + victim injury 92% 79%

No weapon or no injury 62 81

Case dispositions

The outcomes of cases waived to criminal court in Utah during the study period

were compared with outcomes of cases retained in juvenile court (table 17).

This comparison revealed that the most common disposition for both groups

was confinement; however, a significantly greater proportion of waived cases

than nonwaived cases resulted in incarceration. Correspondingly, probation was

used as a disposition less often in transferred cases. Few cases in either group

were dismissed or otherwise released. As in South Carolina, this dispositional

pattern is consistent with the fact that more serious cases and youth less amenable to juvenile court sanctions are being transferred to criminal court.

Table 17: Dispositions of Waiver Request Cases in Utah, 1988–95

 Percent of Cases

Most Severe Retained in Waived to

Disposition Ordered Juvenile Court Criminal Court

Total 54 171

100% 100%

Confinement 68 76

Prison – 58

Jail – 18

Probation 28 20

Dismissed 4 4

–Not applicable.

he outcomes of

cases waived to criminal

court in Utah during

the study period were

compared with

outcomes of cases

retained in juvenile

court.

T
25

Pennsylvania Waiver, 1986 Versus 1994

Study overview

Pennsylvania’s waiver provisions

Between 1986 and 1994, there were no changes in Pennsylvania’s transfer provisions. Pennsylvania law during that time provided that, except for murder

cases, all cases alleging a criminal law violation by an offender prior to his or

her 18th birthday were to begin in juvenile court. In some of these cases, the

juvenile court judge had the discretion to transfer (or judicially waive) the matter to criminal court. Between 1986 and 1994, judicial waiver was possible in

Pennsylvania if all of the following conditions were met:

■ The youth was at least 14 years of age at the time of the incident.

■ The alleged act was a felony.

■ A prima facie case that the youth committed the act had been established.

■ Reasonable grounds existed to believe that the youth was not amenable to

treatment in the juvenile justice system.

In determining amenability, Pennsylvania legislation indicated that the court

should consider a broad range of factors, including a youth’s age, mental capacity, and maturity; the degree of criminal sophistication exhibited by the youth; the

nature and extent of any history of delinquency (including the success or failure

of any previous attempts by the juvenile court to rehabilitate the youth); the possibility of rehabilitating the youth before the juvenile court’s jurisdiction expired;

information in probation or institutional reports; the nature and circumstances of

the acts for which transfer was being sought; the mental illness/retardation of the

child; and the interests of the community.

Pennsylvania waiver data collection

Pennsylvania’s Juvenile Court Judges Commission published a study in 1991

describing the attributes of all 246 cases and 222 youth judicially waived to

criminal court in the State during 1986 (Lemmon, Sontheimer, and Saylor,

1991). This study documented the demographic characteristics of the waived

youth, their juvenile court histories, the charges waived to criminal court, and

the resulting convictions and dispositions. The authors of the 1991 study made

available for the project described in this Summary a copy of the automated

data file that supported the original 1986 Pennsylvania transfer study and the

original data collection forms on which this data file was based. A review of the

data collection form found that several data elements on the form had not been

entered into the automated data file. The 1986 data file was expanded to include

these variables. The resulting data file captured a range of case characteristics

on each youth waived to criminal court in Pennsylvania in 1986, including the

birth date, sex, and race of the offender; the original and amended charges in all

n determining

amenability,

Pennsylvania

legislation indicated

that the court should

consider a broad range

of factors.

I
26

cases eventually waived; court processing dates; and the criminal court disposition of each case. The data file also contained a summary of all previous formally processed juvenile court cases involving these youth. The summary included the case’s referral and disposition dates, the offenses charged, and the

juvenile court’s response to these charges.

Using the multijurisdiction data collection form developed for this project as a

base, the project team collected data on all youth who were judicially waived in

Pennsylvania in 1994. Cases waived to criminal court in 1994 were identified in

the automated court history files maintained by the Juvenile Court Judges Commission, and from this data file, researchers prepared a list of waived youth and

the county in which the transfer occurred. For counties with fewer than 10

waiver incidents in 1994, forms were sent with detailed instructions to juvenile

probation offices or the county district attorney’s office. Research staff were

available by phone to answer any questions regarding information to be collected. When necessary, followup contacts were made to verify or complete information. Onsite data collection and coding were completed by research staff

in counties that had 10 or more transfers in 1994.5

 Research staff met with court

personnel to develop an understanding of local recordkeeping and processing

procedures and to obtain access to records and automated files. Data collectors

obtained information on the initial processing of the waiver incident and any

prior court incidents from official juvenile court records. When available, information on extralegal variables (e.g., educational level, family status) was obtained from family files maintained by the juvenile court. Information on the

criminal court processing and criminal court outcomes was obtained from public records maintained by county clerks of court. Criminal court records were

identified by using names, social security numbers, and offense/arrest dates.

When a youth was involved in more than one transfer case, the case in which

the youth received the most severe disposition was selected for study, to make

the data consistent with the 1986 work.

Pennsylvania waiver findings

Between 1986 and 1994, there was no change in the size of Pennsylvania’s

juvenile population or in the overall number of juvenile arrests in the State

(table 18). During this period, the number of juvenile arrests for property

crimes changed little. The number of juvenile violent crime arrests increased

moderately—with arrests for Violent Crime Index offenses up 32 percent.

This increase resulted almost completely from a near doubling in juvenile arrests for aggravated assault. The number of juvenile arrests for robbery, the

other major component of the Violent Crime Index, was the same in 1986 and

5

 These counties included Allegheny, Bucks, Dauphin, Delaware, Erie, Lackawanna, Lancaster, Luzerne,

Northampton, and Philadelphia. Staff from NCJJ completed data collection in Allegheny County, and researchers from the Juvenile Court Judges Commission’s Center for Juvenile Justice Research and Training

completed data collection in the remaining nine counties.

etween 1986 and

1994, there was no

change in the size of

Pennsylvania’s juvenile

population or in the

overall number of

juvenile arrests in the

State.

B
27

1994, and arrests for forcible rape increased only 7 percent. In addition, there

was a large increase in juvenile arrests for drug offenses (152 percent). Therefore, while the overall number of juvenile arrests in Pennsylvania changed

little between 1986 and 1994, the number of juvenile arrests for aggravated

assault and drug offenses increased substantially. These juvenile arrest trends

led to similar changes in the juvenile court caseload. For example, although

the number of delinquency cases processed in Pennsylvania juvenile courts

rose slightly (12 percent) between 1986 and 1994, there was a large increase

in cases involving drug offenses. In 1986, the juvenile court handled just over

700 drug cases, and by 1994, the drug caseload had increased to well over

2,000—an increase of more than 200 percent.

Table 18: Juvenile Arrests: Trends in Pennsylvania, 1986–94

 Estimated Arrests of Persons

Under Age 18 Percent change

1986 1994 1986–94

Total 116,870 113,920 –3%

Violent Crime Index 5,260 6,960 32%

Murder 50 100 107

Forcible rape 320 350 7

Robbery 2,860 2,840 0

Aggravated assault 2,030 3,670 80

Property Crime Index 26,070 25,150 –4%

Drug Offenses 2,080 5,230 152%

During this period, juvenile placements in residential facilities fell by 4 percent

and waivers to criminal court increased 84 percent. The public’s attitude toward

juvenile offenders (especially violent juvenile offenders) also changed noticeably, as did media coverage of juvenile violent crime. Juvenile violence became

a popular media topic, and the public became increasingly distressed by reports

and images of juveniles who were “out of control” and seemed to be getting

away with violent behavior. As a result of the changing public attitudes, juvenile justice reform was a major issue in Pennsylvania’s 1994 gubernatorial race

and subsequently resulted in a special session of the legislature to focus on juvenile justice issues.6

 These changes in Pennsylvania from 1986 to 1994 provided

an opportunity for researchers to study the impact of changing juvenile crime

patterns and changing public attitudes on juvenile transfers to criminal court.

In 1986, Pennsylvania’s juvenile courts waived 222 youth to criminal court.

By 1994, the number of waived juveniles had nearly doubled, from 222 to

408. In 1986, the juvenile court waived 1 out of 128 delinquency cases

6

 The special session resulted in substantial changes to the juvenile justice system in Pennsylvania, including

passage of an expanded statutory exclusion provision, which is the focus of the next section of this Summary.

he public’s attitude

toward juvenile

offenders (especially

violent juvenile

offenders) changed

noticeably.

T
28

processed to criminal court; by 1994, juvenile court judges were waiving

1 out of 78 delinquency cases.

In some respects, juveniles waived to criminal court in Pennsylvania in 1986

were similar to those waived in 1994 (tables 19 and 20). In both years, the juveniles waived were mostly male. The two waiver groups also had similar proportions of juveniles with no prior adjudications in their juvenile court histories and

similar proportions of youth with three or more prior adjudications. In both

1986 and 1994, slightly more than 40 percent of juveniles waived had never

been previously placed in a residential facility. Slightly less than half of the juveniles waived in each year were waived for a serious person offense (table 21).

The nature of these violent cases, however, changed. Consistent with arrest

trends, a smaller proportion of juveniles waived in 1994 had been charged with

robbery and a larger proportion had been charged with aggravated assault.

Table 19: Profile of Juveniles Waived in Pennsylvania,

1986 and 1994

 Percent of Waivers

Juvenile Characteristics 1986 1994

From Philadelphia County 44% 36%

Sex

Male 96% 99%

Female 4 1

Race/ethnicity

White (non-Hispanic) 38% 28%

Black (non-Hispanic) 50 60

Hispanic 12 10

Age at waiver

15 or younger 3% 4%

16 10 20

17 45 58

18 35 15

19 or older 6 2

Note: Detail may not total 100 percent because of rounding.

In other respects, the youth waived in 1994 were quite different from those

waived in 1986. The 1994 cohort contained a smaller proportion of white youth

(38 percent in 1986 and 28 percent in 1994), a much smaller proportion of

youth charged with burglary, and a much larger proportion of youth charged

with aggravated assault or a drug violation (again, paralleling arrest trends from

1986 to 1994). A larger proportion of the 1994 cohort was under age 18 at the

time of the transfer.

n some respects,

juveniles waived to

criminal court in

Pennsylvania in 1986

were similar to those

waived in 1994.

I
29

Table 20: Court History of Juveniles Waived in Pennsylvania,

1986 and 1994

 Percent of Waivers

Juvenile Court History 1986 1994

Prior adjudications

None 14% 16%

One 15 15

Two 17 15

Three to five 39 37

Six or more 15 17

Prior probations

None 35% 49%

One 33 27

Two or more 32 24

Prior residential placements

None 45% 41%

One 18 24

Two 16 20

Three or more 21 15

Table 21: Most Serious Offense of Juveniles Waived in Pennsylvania,

1986 and 1994

 Percent of Waivers

Most Serious Offense Waived 1986 1994

Serious person offenses 46% 49%

Murder 3 0

Violent sex offense 6 2

Robbery 26 16

Aggravated assault 12 31

Burglary 31% 9%

Theft 14% 16%

Drugs 6% 22%

Other 3% 4%

The youth in the 1994 waiver cohort were, on average, approximately the same

age at their first delinquency adjudication as youth in the 1986 group (14.9

years and 14.6 years, respectively). However, a larger proportion of the 1986

cohort had their first adjudication before age 14 (35 percent of the 1986 cohort,

compared with 27 percent of the 1994 cohort). The average age of waived youth

at the time of their first court-ordered probation and residential placement was

also approximately the same for the two groups (nearly 15 years at first formal probation and just over 15 years at first formal residential placement).
30

The juveniles waived in 1994 differed from those waived in 1986 in terms of the

seriousness of their juvenile court histories or “careers.” To conduct this comparison, the researchers classified each waived juvenile’s career as one of five types:

■ First-time offenders: Youth with no prior adjudications.

■ Nonserious offenders: Youth with no prior adjudications for a serious

person or serious property offense or a drug offense.

■ Serious property offenders: Youth with at least one adjudication for a serious property offense and no adjudications for a serious person offense.

■ Serious person offenders: Youth with at least one adjudication for a serious person offense and no adjudications for a serious property offense.

■ Serious person and property offenders: Youth with at least one adjudication for a serious person offense and at least one adjudication for a serious

property offense.

An analysis of each group’s career profile shows that members of the 1986 group

had been judged, on average, to be more serious offenders before their referral to

court in the waiver incident (table 22). Among those waived in 1986, 22 percent had

a prior court career that placed them in the serious person and property offender category, compared with 6 percent of those waived in 1994. Forty-five percent of juveniles waived in 1986 had a prior adjudication for a serious person offense (i.e., were

serious person offenders or serious person and property offenders), compared with

only 36 percent of those waived in 1994. Overall, 66 percent of the 1986 group had

been adjudicated for a serious person or serious property offense before the referral

for which they were waived, compared with only 51 percent of the 1994 group. In

addition, although the proportion of offenders with no prior adjudications in juvenile

court was similar for the two groups, the percentage of youth who were nonserious

offenders prior to the waiver referral was larger in the 1994 group than in the 1986

group (33 percent versus 20 percent, respectively). Further, while the juveniles

waived in 1986 and 1994 were similar in terms of the number of prior adjudications

and in terms of the proportion that had been placed in a residential facility for a prior

adjudication, a smaller proportion of the 1994 group had a prior court-ordered probation (51 percent, as opposed to 65 percent of the 1986 group). These findings imply that, compared with the court handling of juveniles waived in 1986, the juvenile

court had been more likely to place those juveniles waived in 1994 in a facility

without first trying probation as a dispositional alternative. Then, when the youth

recidivated after a placement disposition, the youth was waived.

The study revealed certain differences in the criminal dispositions of juveniles

waived in 1986 and those waived in 1994 (table 23). In both groups, almost 10

percent of cases were dismissed in criminal court. The criminal courts ordered

nearly 80 percent of youth in both groups to serve time in an adult correctional

facility. However, more of the juveniles waived in 1994 served their sentence in a

State prison (43 percent, compared with 27 percent of the 1986 group). Most of

the incarcerated youth among those waived in 1986 served their sentences in

county jails.

he study revealed

certain differences in

the criminal dispositions

of juveniles waived in

1986 and those waived

in 1994.

T
31

Table 22: Court Career Profile of Juveniles Waived in Pennsylvania,

1986 and 1994

Career Type 1986 1994

Serious offenders 66% 51%

Person offenses 45 36

Person and property offenses 22 6

Property offenses 20 15

Nonserious offenders (no serious offenses) 20% 33%

First-time offenders 14% 16%

Table 23: Criminal Court Disposition of Cases Waived in

Pennsylvania, 1986 and 1994

Dispositions 1986 1994

Total 222 408

100% 100%

State prison 27 43

County jail 52 35

Probation 9 12

Other sanction 5 1

Dismissed 8 9

Average sentence 1.64 years 2.09 years

State prison 3.32 3.07

County jail 0.79 0.89

Probation 3.77 1.81

By their nature, prison sentences are longer than jail sentences. Thus, the average

minimum sentence ordered for incarcerated youth in the 1994 group was about 25

percent longer than the average sentence ordered in cases waived in 1986.7

 The

average institutional sentence (i.e., the combined average of prison and jail sentences) was longer for the 1994 group because a greater proportion of those institutionalized from that group served their time in prison. However, the average

prison sentence for the 1986 group was actually about the same as that for the

1994 group (approximately 3 years and 4 months for the 1986 waivers, compared

with 3 years and 1 month for the 1994 waivers). For those sent to county jail, the

average sentence for the 1994 waivers was approximately 1 month longer than

that for the 1986 waivers (10.7 months versus 9.5 months). A small proportion of

both groups were not institutionalized but placed on adult probation. For these

youth, the minimum length of probation ordered by judges for the 1986 group

was almost 2 years longer than that ordered for the 1994 group (3 years and 9

months for the 1986 waivers and 1 year and 10 months for the 1994 waivers).

7

 One youth in the 1994 cohort received a life sentence. His sentence was not included in the analysis of sentence lengths.

 small proportion

of both groups was not

institutionalized but

placed on adult

probation.

A
32

In both South Carolina and Utah, the use of waiver changed

substantially over time

South Carolina: Over a 10-year period from

1985 to 1994, the volume of waiver requests

changed substantially—even though judicial

waiver provisions did not change. The number of

requests by prosecutors (solicitors) was relatively

static from 1984 through 1990. Waiver requests

tripled between 1990 and 1992 and then dropped

off, so that by 1994, waiver requests had nearly

returned to the pre-1990 level. Changes in waiver

requests were more extreme than changes in the

number of arrests of juveniles under age 17 in the

State. Between 1990 and 1992, South Carolina

experienced a 19-percent increase in the number

of arrests of juveniles under age 17. Juvenile arrests for Property Crime Index offenses rose 17

percent, and juvenile drug arrests rose 28 percent.

In comparison, juvenile arrests for Violent

Crime Index offenses increased more substantially (91 percent) during that time. From 1992

to 1994, juvenile arrests increased 17 percent

(property arrests rose 14 percent, drug arrests

rose 124 percent, and violent crime arrests rose

30 percent). These increases in juvenile arrests

run counter to the 60-percent drop in waiver

requests during the same time period.

The proportion of waiver request cases that

were approved also increased. Between 1985

and 1989, the percentage of cases approved for

waiver ranged from 68 to 76 percent and averaged 72 percent. Between 1990 and 1994, the

proportion of cases approved for waiver ranged

from 76 to 96 percent and averaged 84 percent.

Utah: Overall, the juvenile court approved 76

percent of waiver request cases between 1988

and 1995. However, the use of waiver in Utah

changed noticeably between 1993 and 1994.

There were more waiver request cases and more

cases approved for waiver in 1994 and 1995 than

in the preceding 6 years combined.

Trends in Use of Waiver in South Carolina and Utah

Waiver Request Cases

Number Percent

Decision Number Approved Approved

South Carolina,

1985–94

Total 595 474 80%

1985 36 26 72

1986 31 21 68

1987 34 24 71

1988 46 35 76

1989 48 36 75

1990 44 35 80

1991 99 84 85

1992 126 100 79

1993 81 65 80

1994 50 48 96

Utah, 1988–95

Total 225 171 76%

1988 11 6 55

1989 7 6 86

1990 11 11 100

1991 19 11 58

1992 19 15 79

1993 18 13 72

1994 77 66 86

1995 63 43 68

Year of

Waiver
33

Pennsylvania Exclusions, 1996

Study overview

Pennsylvania’s exclusion provisions

Prior to 1996, the only juveniles under age 18 who were excluded from the juvenile court’s jurisdiction in Pennsylvania were those charged with murder.

Other juveniles could reach the criminal justice system only by judicial waiver.

The State’s transfer mechanisms were expanded in March 1996. The new legislation (Act 33) amended Pennsylvania law by excluding from the juvenile

court’s jurisdiction youth who met all of the following conditions:

■ Youth who were 15 years of age or older at the time of their alleged conduct.

■ Youth who were charged with any of a list of violent crimes (i.e., rape; involuntary deviate sexual intercourse; aggravated assault; robbery; robbery

of a motor vehicle; aggravated indecent assault; kidnaping; voluntary manslaughter; or an attempt, conspiracy, or solicitation to commit murder or any

of the crimes listed).

■ Youth who allegedly committed the offense with a deadly weapon or were

adjudicated previously for one of the excluded offenses.

Although the details of implementing this new legislation were left to individual

counties, the general processing of these excluded cases was as follows. At arrest, law enforcement officers (with the assistance of juvenile probation, when

necessary) were to determine if, in their judgment, the youth met the exclusion

criteria. If so, the youth would be arraigned and the bail set. When the parties

were ready, the youth would be brought before a magistrate for a preliminary

hearing, and the facts of the case would be presented. If a prima facie case

could not be established, the case would be dismissed. At the preliminary hearing, if it was determined that the incident did not meet the exclusion criteria but

that the youth could be charged with a delinquent act, the case would be refiled

in juvenile court. If a prima facie case was made and circumstances met the exclusion criteria, a trial date was set in criminal court. At the youth’s request, the

first hearing in criminal court could be a decertification hearing, at which the

youth would petition to have the case transferred to juvenile court. The decertification guidelines in the exclusion legislation paralleled those guidelines that

legislators had noted should be considered by juvenile court judges when making waiver decisions. If the case was decertified, the matter was handled in juvenile court. If the decertification request was denied, the case was tried in

criminal court.

Data collection on Pennsylvania’s exclusions

In three Pennsylvania counties, the study tracked all cases that were excluded

from juvenile court jurisdiction as a result of the expanded exclusion criteria in

rior to 1996, the

only juveniles under

age 18 who were

excluded from the

juvenile court’s

jurisdiction in

Pennsylvania were

those charged with

murder.

P
34

Act 33, which took effect on March 18, 1996. The three counties (Allegheny,

Dauphin, and Philadelphia) contain the cities of Pittsburgh, Harrisburg, and

Philadelphia, respectively. In 1995, these counties processed 40 percent of all

delinquency cases handled in juvenile courts in the State and 51 percent of

all cases that were judicially waived to criminal court statewide.

At the time of the study, there was no systematic method for tracking cases excluded from juvenile court jurisdiction in Pennsylvania. With the cooperation of

local court and probation personnel, the study team received the names and case

numbers of all youth who had a preliminary hearing between March 18, 1996,

and December 31, 1996, and were believed to meet Act 33’s exclusion criteria.8

With this information, the study team reviewed the records of local magistrates,

juvenile courts, court clerks, and criminal courts to collect the information required on the data collection form. The study team returned to these agencies

several times to update information on open cases. The team’s last attempt to

collect data on the cases took place in January 1998. At that time, 12 percent of

the 473 cases initially excluded from juvenile jurisdiction in 1996 remained

open, with no final disposition in either criminal or juvenile court.

Pennsylvania exclusion findings

Of the 473 cases reviewed by the study team, 46 percent involved a charge of

robbery; 48 percent, aggravated assault; 1 percent, a violent sex offense; and

4 percent, other offenses. Consistent with the Act 33 criteria, a weapon was

noted in the record of 96 percent of the cases. In 67 percent of these, the

weapon was a firearm. Another 20 percent involved knives, and 8 percent involved clubs or blunt objects. In 61 percent of weapon cases, the weapon was

used, as opposed to being brandished or simply present. Few of these crimes

were labeled as gang motivated (less than 3 percent).

In addition to examining the types of offenses and the presence of weapons in excluded cases, the study team compared the demographic and legal backgrounds of

the 473 youth with those of 210 youth who were judicially waived to criminal

court in 1994 in the same three counties for the same set of offenses. The comparison revealed that similar proportions of excluded and waived youth were

black (81 percent for exclusions and 83 percent for waivers). However, 13 percent

of youth excluded in 1996 were female, compared with 1 percent of the juveniles

waived for similar charges in 1994. Overall, the excluded youth were younger

than those waived: 20 percent of the excluded youth were under age 16 at the time

of their preliminary hearing, whereas 5 percent of waived juveniles were under

age 16 on the date their waiver petition was filed in juvenile court. Correspondingly, 50 percent of the excluded youth were age 17 or older at the time of their

8

 Staff from NCJJ were responsible for data collection in Allegheny County, and researchers from the Juvenile

Court Judges Commission’s Center for Juvenile Justice Research and Training collected data in Dauphin and

Philadelphia counties.

verall, the excluded

youth were younger

than those waived: 20

percent of the excluded

youth were under age

16 at the time of their

preliminary hearing,

whereas 5 percent of

waived juveniles were

under age 16 on the date

their waiver petition was

filed in juvenile court.

O
35

preliminary hearing, compared with 75 percent of waived juveniles who were

17 or older when their waiver petition was filed.

The youth excluded from juvenile court in 1996 had less extensive legal (i.e.,

juvenile court) histories than the comparison sample of juveniles waived in

1994. More than one-third (37 percent) of the excluded youth had never been

formally processed in juvenile court, and more than one-half (53 percent) had

never been adjudicated in juvenile court. By contrast, just 7 percent of the

comparison sample of juveniles waived to criminal court in 1994 had never

been adjudicated in juvenile court. A study of the offense history of the two

groups showed that 25 percent of the youth excluded in 1996 had at least one

prior adjudication for a serious person offense, compared with 46 percent of

juveniles in the comparison sample of 1994 waivers.

This study also showed that youth excluded in 1996 had received less treatment

in the juvenile justice system than the juveniles in the 1994 comparison sample.

Compared with the 1994 waivers, youth excluded in 1996 were less likely to have

been placed on probation by a juvenile court (36 percent versus 52 percent) and

less likely to have been placed in a residential facility by a juvenile court (28 percent versus 68 percent). Overall, the youth excluded in 1996 were younger and

had less serious juvenile court histories than the sample of youth waived in 1994.

For half of the excluded cases, the time elapsing between a juvenile’s arrest and his

or her preliminary hearing was 12 days or less; by 48 days, 75 percent of excluded

cases had had their preliminary hearing. At the preliminary hearing, 19 percent of

excluded cases were dismissed and 1 percent were refiled in juvenile court (see figure, page 36). The other 80 percent of excluded cases moved deeper into the criminal justice system. At this point, each youth had the right to petition the court for a

decertification hearing, essentially asking the criminal court to waive its jurisdiction

over the matter and send the case to juvenile court. Available court records

did not indicate the precise number of youth who requested decertification

hearings. Records, however, did show that more than one-third (38 percent) of the

excluded youth held for criminal court sanctioning after the preliminary hearing

were decertified and their cases petitioned for adjudication in a juvenile court. The

remaining approximately two-thirds (62 percent) of cases held for criminal court

sanctioning were scheduled for trial in a criminal court.

Bail Amounts

Shortly after arrest, the excluded youth had an arraignment hearing, at

which time charges were presented and bail was set. The average bail

was $17,770, and the median was $10,000. Bail amounts ranged up to

$250,000. Bail amounts set in cases that were eventually tried in criminal

court were significantly higher than those set in cases that were decertified

and sent to juvenile court, with averages of $22,800 and $12,900 and medians of $10,000 and $5,000, respectively, for the two types of cases.

verall, the youth

excluded in 1996 were

younger and had less

serious juvenile court

histories than the

sample of youth

waived in 1994.

O
36

Figure: Of every 100 delinquency cases originally excluded from juvenile court jurisdiction in

3 counties in Pennsylvania in 1996, about one-fourth resulted in criminal court conviction

Note: Detail may not add to totals because of rounding. Data based on 473 excluded cases.

19 dismissed

Of every 100 cases 80 proceeded with prosecution

50 processed in criminal court

30 decertified to juvenile court

1 refiled in juvenile court

12 State prison

7 County jail

3 Probation

<1 Other sanctions

17 Dismissed

10 Open

<1 Waived

11 Placed

9 Probation

<1 Other sanctions

8 Dismissed

3 Open

Criminal court

Juvenile court

The excluded youth who remained in the criminal justice system differed from

those who were decertified and eventually handled in the juvenile justice system

(table 24). White youth, for example, constituted a greater proportion of decertified cases than cases remaining in criminal court. In fact, white youth were significantly more likely to be decertified than other youth. Decertified youth were

also younger, on average, than youth processed in criminal court. Although nearly

all excluded cases involved incidents in which a weapon was present, use of the

weapon was not predictive of how the case would be processed. The presence of a

firearm (as opposed to a knife, club, or personal weapon), however, significantly

increased the likelihood that the case would remain in criminal court.

Along with incident characteristics, a youth’s legal history affected the processing of his or her case. The criminal court, for instance, was significantly more

likely to decertify youth with no prior juvenile court referrals and no prior referrals for a serious offense. The criminal court also tended to decertify youth with

no prior adjudications in juvenile court; however, the difference did not reach

statistical significance. On the other hand, the criminal court was significantly

more likely to retain for criminal trial those youth who had previously been

placed either on formal probation or in a residential facility by a juvenile court.
37

Table 24: Attributes of Cases Excluded in Pennsylvania in 1996 and

Disposed in Juvenile or Criminal Court

Court Imposing Disposition

Criminal Juvenile

Number of cases 236 149

Youth under age 17 46% 58%

White youth 10% 21%

With robbery charges 51% 43%

With firearm present 77% 51%

With weapon used 58% 55%

Youth with prior—

Formal juvenile court referral 67% 56%

For a serious offense 50 38

Adjudication 50 40

For a serious offense 33 26

Probation in juvenile court 38 28

Placement in juvenile facility 31 21

Juvenile courts disposed of 149 of the initially excluded cases and dismissed 26

percent of them. By the end of the data collection period (22 months after initiation of the first excluded case and 13 months after initiation of the last excluded

case), 12 (8 percent) of the initially excluded cases that were handled in juvenile

court remained open. Of the cases adjudicated delinquent in juvenile court, the

court ordered 55 percent of youth placed in a residential facility and 43 percent

placed on probation.

The length of time that elapsed between the date of a juvenile’s preliminary

hearing and the date of juvenile court disposition varied with the disposition of

the case. Eliminating cases that remained open at the end of the study period,

the juvenile court took an average of 172 days to dispose cases that were eventually dismissed. The one case that was judicially waived back to criminal court

was refiled in criminal court 38 days after the date of the preliminary hearing.

The juvenile court took an average of 145 days from the date of the preliminary

hearing to complete cases in which a youth was ordered to a residential facility

and an average of 116 days to complete cases in which a youth was ordered to

probation. The juvenile court ordered youth to a residential facility in 39 percent

of completed cases and placed youth on probation in 31 percent of completed

cases. In all, the juvenile court disposed of initially excluded cases in an average

of 143 days from the date of the preliminary hearing.

Of the cases initially excluded from juvenile court jurisdiction in 1996, 50 percent (236 cases) were tried in criminal court. Of these, 46 (19 percent) were still

open at the end of the study period. The criminal court disposed the remaining

190 cases (40 percent of all initially excluded cases) by the end of the study.

he length of time

that elapsed between

the date of a juvenile’s

preliminary hearing

and the date of juvenile

court disposition varied

with the disposition of

the case.

T
38

Of the cases completed in criminal court, 43 percent were dismissed. The time

elapsing between the preliminary hearing and disposition for these cases was,

on average, 89 days. The criminal court sentenced youth to an adult correctional

facility in 48 percent of completed cases. The average minimum sentence length

ordered for those incarcerated was 3 years and 7 months. (The average county

jail sentence was 1 year, and the average minimum commitment to a State

prison was 5 years and 3 months.) When the criminal court sentenced youth to

an adult correctional facility, it reached its disposition in an average of 252 days

after the preliminary hearing—taking on average 247 days for a commitment to

State prison and 260 days for a commitment to county jail. Eight percent of

completed criminal court cases ended in an order of probation; these cases were

completed in an average of 251 days. The average minimum length of probation

was 6 years and 4 months. Probation was also ordered in cases in which youth

were sentenced to an adult correctional facility. In incarceration cases, the average minimum length of probation was 5 years and 9 months.

Exclusion laws are often promoted as a way to take a greater number of serious

delinquents off the streets for a longer period of time. Results of the study, however, indicate that exclusion laws do not always do so. By the end of the study

period, 19 percent of all cases excluded in 1996 were completed and had resulted in sentences to an adult prison or jail. The juvenile court had placed 36

percent of the decertified excluded cases in a residential facility, compared with

39 percent of the excluded cases that remained on the criminal court’s caseload.

The juvenile court sentences were indeterminate. However, assuming that the

juvenile court held serious offenders in a juvenile facility for at least 12 months,

no more than 13 percent of all excluded youth (61 youth) received longer sentences in the criminal justice system than they would have received in the juvenile justice system. In addition, the juvenile court placement would have begun

31

/2 months earlier than the criminal court incarceration.

Juvenile courts in the three Pennsylvania counties judicially waived 277 youth

in 1995. In 1996, when the State’s exclusion law took effect, waivers dropped

to 157. Of the 473 cases excluded in 1996, a total of 109 resulted in conviction

in criminal court. Assuming that the criminal court cases that remained open at

the end of the study period resulted in the same proportion of convictions and

dismissals, approximately 135 of the 473 excluded youth were eventually convicted in criminal court. Therefore, the drop in the number of waived youth

between 1995 and 1996 (n =120) was nearly equal to the estimated number

of excluded youth convicted in criminal court by the time all cases were closed

(n =135). These numbers suggest that the ultimate impact of Pennsylvania’s exclusion legislation in 1996 was to retain in criminal court those cases that the

juvenile court would have judicially waived had it been given the opportunity.

Thus, regardless of the transfer path in Pennsylvania—judicial waiver or legislative exclusion—approximately the same number of youth were sentenced

to an adult correctional facility.

xclusion laws are

often promoted as a

way to take a greater

number of serious

delinquents off the

streets for a longer

period of time.

E
39

Conclusions

Findings from the project’s four transfer studies can be summarized as follows:

■ Juvenile court judges largely concur with prosecutors as to which juveniles should be transferred to criminal court. These studies show that

the juvenile court supports the prosecutor’s request for transfer in approximately four out of five cases—indicating that these two key decisionmakers

generally agree about who should be waived and who should not. Anecdotal

evidence from the Utah study, in fact, indicates that in many cases in which

a waiver petition was denied, the denial was based on a prosecutor’s recommendation to withdraw the petition (following a plea bargaining agreement).

It may be that the high proportion of judicial approval of waiver requests

indicates that prosecutors are able to gauge which cases juvenile court

judges will agree to waive and request waivers in only those cases. However, the study of exclusions in Pennsylvania implies that criminal court

judges agree with juvenile court judges as to which youth should receive

criminal court sanctions.

■ Transfer decision criteria are consistent with common interpretations

of law. For the most part, the studies indicated that transfer is reserved for

the most serious cases and the most serious juvenile offenders. Youth are

most likely to be transferred to criminal court if they have injured someone

with a weapon (regardless of their background or court history) or if they

have a long juvenile court record. The studies, however, revealed some

jurisdictional variations in the relative emphasis given to certain criteria.

In Utah, for example, juveniles who did not use a weapon or injure their

victim were more likely to be approved for waiver if they had five or more

prior formal referrals. In South Carolina, the likelihood of waiver was

higher for juveniles with just two prior formal referrals. These differing

thresholds may stem from other differences in the juvenile justice systems

in the two States. Utah, for example, has a relatively high juvenile arrest

rate but arrests a disproportionate number of juveniles for less serious offenses. Utah’s 1997 larceny arrest rate for juveniles was double the national

rate, but its arrest rates for burglary and violent crime were approximately

30 percent lower than the national rates. In comparison, South Carolina’s

1997 juvenile arrest rate for larceny theft was somewhat below the national

average, and its arrest rates for burglary and violent crimes were somewhat

higher than the national rates. Such variations reflect differences in community attitudes toward involving the formal juvenile justice system with the

law-violating behavior of youth. By casting a wider net and drawing more

juveniles with less serious offenses into its juvenile justice system, Utah

may prevent juveniles from accumulating serious records until they have

five or more referrals. Youth in Utah more easily compile longer juvenile

court records. Consequently, a Utah judge’s evaluation of the seriousness

of the youth’s court history may employ a different metric than that of a

judge in South Carolina.

or the most part,

the studies indicated

that transfer is reserved

for the most serious

cases and the most

serious juvenile

offenders.

F
40

■ Waiver decisions adjust to changing practice. The studies reveal that

judges continued to waive those juveniles who failed in custody, even when

custody occurred at an early stage in a youth’s court career. It appears at

first that between the mid-1980’s and mid-1990’s, waiver in Pennsylvania

was modified by the public’s concerns about a “new breed” of juvenile offender. In response to these concerns, more and more youth with shorter juvenile court careers were waived. Unlike the earlier waiver group, a smaller

proportion of the more recent waiver group in Pennsylvania had previously

been placed on probation (51 percent of 1994 group versus 65 percent of

1986 group). However, approximately the same proportion (about 60 percent) of the youth waived in 1994 (who had shorter court careers) had been

placed in custody at least once prior to the waiver incident. Thus, rather than

changing the waiver decision criteria, the juvenile court seems to have

changed its broader handling of cases, becoming more likely to place juveniles in a facility without first trying probation. Recidivism after residential

placement continued to be a key factor in the waiver decision.

■ The system adapts to large changes in structure. The structure of transfer

decisions has changed in response to the public’s concern over the increase

in juvenile violence. Data in these studies confirm that the decisionmaking

process will adapt to changing legal conditions and social pressure. For example, the study of the implementation of Pennsylvania’s exclusion law

found that even though the justice system adopted the State’s new set of

rules and followed new paths, case processing resulted in the same outcomes that would have occurred if the rules had not changed. There had

been an expectation that the changed statutory exclusion provision would

result in many, many more juveniles being tried in criminal court and in

many of these youth ending up incarcerated in adult correctional facilities.

However, Pennsylvania’s exclusion legislation has had little overall impact

on either the number of juveniles handled in criminal court or the proportion

incarcerated in adult correctional facilities.

There was also an underlying assumption that transfer decisionmaking by

juvenile court judges in Pennsylvania tended to favor juveniles and that

decisionmaking by criminal court judges under the new provisions would

be different. However, this study found that, in Pennsylvania, the decisionmaking process followed by criminal court judges regarding decertification

was much the same as that followed by juvenile court judges regarding

waiver.

■ Comparisons between waived and nonwaived juveniles must be made

carefully. Researchers, policymakers, and others who make use of research

results must keep in mind that groups of waived and nonwaived juveniles

differ in many respects. Simple comparisons are likely to be misleading

and, thus, are inappropriate. Careful matching of waived and nonwaived

juveniles on multiple characteristics, although often difficult, is virtually a

prerequisite to any such comparisons. The studies presented in this Summary

ecidivism after

residential placement

continued to be a

key factor in the

waiver decision.

R
41

find that certain characteristics of the waiver incident (e.g., weapon use, victim injury, age of the offender, and nature of the court history) are important

variables in transfer decisionmaking. Researchers should include such characteristics as matching variables when attempting to compare juvenile and

criminal court processing of juvenile offenders and their case outcomes.

References

Bishop, D., Frazier, C., Lanza-Kaduce, L., and White, H. 1996. The transfer of

juveniles to criminal court: Does it make a difference? Crime and Delinquency

42:171–191.

Bortner, M. 1986. Traditional rhetoric, organizational realities: Remand of juveniles to adult court. Crime and Delinquency 32(1):53–73.

Fagan, J. 1991. The Comparative Impacts of Juvenile and Criminal Court Sanctions on Adolescent Offenders. Report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of

Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice.

Fagan, J. 1995. Separating the men from the boys: The comparative advantage

of juvenile versus criminal court sanctions on recidivism among adolescent

felony offenders. In A Sourcebook: Serious, Violent, and Chronic Juvenile Offenders, edited by J. Howell, B. Krisberg, J.D. Hawkins, and J. Wilson. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Feld, B. 1987. The juvenile court meets the principle of the offense: Legislative

changes in juvenile waiver statutes. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology

78(3):471–533.

Gillespie, L., and Norman, M. 1984. Does decertification mean prison?: Some

preliminary findings from Utah. Juvenile and Family Court Journal 35:23–34.

Griffin, P., Torbet, P., and Szymanski, L. 1998. Trying Juveniles as Adults in

Criminal Court: An Analysis of State Transfer Provisions. Report. Washington,

DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile

Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

Hamparian, D., Estep, L., Muntean, S., Priestino, R., Swisher, R., Wallace, P., and

White, J. 1982. Major Issues in Juvenile Justice Information and Training Youth

in Adult Courts—Between Two Worlds. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of

Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency

Prevention.

Howell, J. 1996. Juvenile transfers to the criminal justice system: State of the

art. Law & Policy 18(1 and 2):17–60.

Kent v. United States, 383 U.S. 541, 86 S. Ct. 1045 (1966).
42

Kuhn, J. 1989. A Digest of Cases of the United States Supreme Court as to

Juvenile and Family Law, 1962–July 1988. Reno, NV: National Council of

Juvenile and Family Court Judges.

Lemmon, J., Sontheimer, H., and Saylor, K. 1991. A Study of Pennsylvania Juveniles Transferred to Criminal Court. Harrisburg, PA: The Pennsylvania Juvenile Court Judges Commission.

Nimick, E., Szymanski, L., and Snyder, H. 1986. Juvenile Court Waiver: A

Study of Juvenile Court Cases Transferred to Criminal Court. Pittsburgh, PA:

National Center for Juvenile Justice.

Norman, M., and Gillespie, L. 1986. Changing horses: Utah’s shift in adjudicating serious juvenile offenders. Journal of Contemporary Law 12(1):85–98.

Pennsylvania Act 33: 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. Sec. 6301 et seq. (effective March 18,

1996). Pennsylvania transfer provisions: judicial waiver, 42 Pa. Cons. Stat.

Ann. Sec. 6355; statutory exclusion, 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. Sec. 6302; decertification (reverse waiver), 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. Sec. 6322.

Phillips, M., and Norman, M. 1994. What a Difference a Decade Makes: A Second Look at Transferred Juveniles in Utah. Ogden, UT: Weber State University.

Rivers, J., and Trotti, T. 1989. South Carolina Delinquent Males: A Follow-up

Into Adult Corrections. Columbia, SC: South Carolina Department of Youth

Services.

Rivers, J., and Trotti, T. 1995. South Carolina delinquent males: An 11-year

follow-up into adult probation and adult prison. Unpublished report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of

Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

Rudman, C., Hartstone, E., Fagan, J., and Moore, M. 1986. Violent youth in

adult court: Process and punishment. Crime and Delinquency 32(1):75–96.

Snyder, H., and Hutzler, J. 1981. The Serious Juvenile Offender: The Scope of

the Problem and the Response of Juvenile Courts. Pittsburgh, PA: National

Center for Juvenile Justice.

Snyder, H., and Sickmund, M. 1999. Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 1999 National Report. Report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of

Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

Snyder, H., and Sickmund, M. 1995. Juvenile Offenders and Victims: A National Report. Report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of

Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

South Carolina transfer provisions: judicial waiver, S.C. Code Ann. Sec.

20–7–07605.
43

Stahl, A., Sickmund, M., Finnegan, T., Snyder, H., Poole, R., and Tierney, N.

1999. Juvenile Court Statistics 1996. Report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department

of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency

Prevention.

Torbet, P., and Szymanski, L. 1998. State Legislative Responses to Violent Juvenile Crime: 1996–97 Update. Bulletin. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of

Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency

Prevention.

Utah transfer provisions: judicial waiver, Utah Code Ann. Sections 78–3a–602

and 603; statutory exclusion, Utah Code Ann. Sec. 78–3a–601; concurrent jurisdiction, Utah Code Ann. Sec. 78–3a–25 (repealed, 1995).

Winner, L., Lanza-Kaduce, L., Bishop, D., and Frazier, C. 1997. The transfer of

juveniles to criminal court: Reexamining recidivism over the long term. Crime

and Delinquency 43:548–563.

Share With Your Colleagues

Unless otherwise noted, OJJDP publications are not copyright protected. We encourage you to reproduce this document, share it with your colleagues, and reprint it in

your newsletter or journal. However, if you reprint, please cite OJJDP and the authors

of this Bulletin. We are also interested in your feedback, such as how you received a

copy, how you intend to use the information, and how OJJDP materials meet your

individual or agency needs. Please direct your comments and questions to:

Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse

Publication Reprint/Feedback

P.O. Box 6000

Rockville, MD 20849–6000

800–638–8736

301–519–5600 (fax)

E-Mail: askncjrs@ncjrs.org
45

Most States have a combination of transfer provisions

Once an

Adult/ Judicial Waiver Concurrent Statutory Reverse Always

State Discretionary Presumptive Mandatory Jurisdiction Exclusion Waiver an Adult

Total Number

of States 46 15 14 15 28 23 31

Alabama ■ ■ ■

Alaska ■■ ■

Arizona ■ ■ ■ ■ ■■

Arkansas ■ ■■

California ■ ■ ■

Colorado ■■ ■ ■

Connecticut ■ ■

Delaware ■ ■ ■ ■■

District of Columbia ■■ ■ ■

Florida ■ ■■ ■

Georgia ■ ■ ■ ■■

Hawaii ■ ■

Idaho ■ ■ ■

Illinois ■ ■■ ■

Indiana ■ ■ ■■

Iowa ■ ■ ■■

Kansas ■ ■ ■

Kentucky ■■ ■

Louisiana ■ ■■■

Maine ■ ■

Maryland ■ ■ ■

Massachusetts ■ ■

Michigan ■ ■■

Minnesota ■■ ■ ■

Mississippi ■ ■ ■■

Missouri ■ ■

Montana ■ ■■

Nebraska ■ ■

Nevada ■ ■ ■ ■■

New Hampshire ■ ■ ■

New Jersey ■ ■

New Mexico ■

New York ■ ■

North Carolina ■ ■

North Dakota ■ ■■ ■

Ohio ■■ ■

Oklahoma ■ ■ ■ ■■

Oregon ■ ■ ■■

Pennsylvania ■ ■ ■ ■■

Rhode Island ■ ■■ ■

South Carolina ■ ■ ■■

South Dakota ■ ■ ■■

Tennessee ■ ■ ■

Texas ■ ■

Utah ■■ ■ ■

Vermont ■ ■ ■■

Virginia ■ ■ ■ ■■

Washington ■ ■ ■

West Virginia ■ ■

Wisconsin ■ ■ ■■

Wyoming ■ ■■

Note: In States with a combination of transfer mechanisms, the exclusion, mandatory waiver, or concurrent jurisdiction provisions generally target the oldest juveniles

and/or those charged with the most serious offenses, while those charged with relatively less serious offenses and/or younger juveniles may be eligible for discretionary

waiver.

Source: Adapted from Snyder, H., and Sickmund, M. 1999. Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 1999 National Report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of

Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

Appendix A
46

In most States, juvenile court judges can waive juvenile court jurisdiction over certain cases and

transfer them to criminal court

Minimum

Judicial Waiver Offense and Minimum Age Criteria, 1997

Age for Any Certain Certain Certain Certain

Judicial Criminal Certain Capital Person Property Drug Weapon

States Waiver Offense Felonies Crimes Murder Offenses Offenses Offenses Offenses

Alabama 14 14

Alaska NS* NS NS

Arizona NS NS

Arkansas 14 14 14 14 14 14

California 14 16 16 14 14 14 14

Colorado 12 12 12 12

Connecticut 14 14 14 14

Delaware NS NS 15a NS NS 16b 16b

District of Columbia NS 15 15 15 15 15 NS

Florida 14 14

Georgia 13 15 13 14c 14c 15b

Hawaii NS 14 NS NS

Idaho NS 14 NS NS NS NS NS

Illinois 13 13 15

Indiana NS 14 NSb 10 16

Iowa 14 14 15

Kansas 10 10 14 14 14

Kentucky 14 14 14

Louisiana 14 14 14

Maine NS NS NS

Maryland NS 15 NS

Michigan 14 14

Minnesota 14 14

Mississippi 13 13

Missouri 12 12

Montana NS NS

Nevada 14 14 14 14

New Hampshire 13 15 13 13 15

New Jersey 14 14b 14 14 14 14 14

North Carolina 13 13 13

North Dakota 14 16 14b 14 14 14

Ohio 14 14 14 14 16

Oklahoma NS NS

Oregon NS 15 NS NS 15

Pennsylvania 14 14 15 15

Rhode Island NS 16 NS 17 17

South Carolina NS 16 14 NS NS 14 14

South Dakota NS NS

Tennessee NS 16 NS NS

Texas 14 14 14 14

Utah 14 14 16 16 16

Vermont 10 10 10 10

Virginia 14 14 14 14

Washington NS NS

West Virginia NS NS NS NS NS NS

Wisconsin 14 15 14 14 14 14 14

Wyoming 13 13

Examples: Alabama allows waiver for any delinquency (criminal) offense involving a juvenile age 14 or older. Arizona allows waiver for any juvenile charged with a felony. New

Jersey allows waiver for juveniles age 14 or older who are charged with murder or certain person, property, drug, or weapon offenses. In New Jersey, juveniles age 14 or older who

have prior adjudications or convictions for certain offenses can be waived regardless of the current offense.

Note: Ages in minimum age column may not apply to all offense restrictions but represent the youngest possible age at which a juvenile may be judicially waived to criminal court.

*“NS” indicates that in at least one of the offense restrictions indicated, no minimum age is specified.

a Only if committed while escaping from specified juvenile facilities.

b Requires prior adjudication(s) or conviction(s), which may be required to have been for the same or a more serious offense type. c Only if committed while in custody.

Source: Adapted from Snyder, H., and Sickmund, M. 1999. Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 1999 National Report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice

Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
47

In States with statutory exclusion provisions, certain cases involving juveniles originate in criminal

court rather than juvenile court

Minimum

Statutory Exclusion Offense and Minimum Age Criteria, 1997

Age for Any Certain Offenses

Statutory Criminal Certain Capital Person Property Drug Weapon

States Exclusion Offense Felonies Crimes Murder Offenses Offenses Offenses Offenses

Alabama 16 16 16 16

Alaska 16 16 16

Arizona 15 15a 15 15

Delaware 15 15

Florida NS* NSa NS

Georgia 13 13 13

Idaho 14 14 14 14 14

Illinois 13 15b 13 15 15 15

Indiana 16 16 16 16 16 16

Iowa 16 16 16 16

Louisiana 15 15 15

Maryland 14 14 16 16 16

Massachusetts 14 14

Minnesota 16 16

Mississippi 13 13 13

Montana 17 17 17 17 17 17

Nevada NS NSa NS 16a

New Mexico 15 15c

New York 13 13 14 14

Oklahoma 13 13

Oregon 15 15 15

Pennsylvania NS NS 15

South Carolina 16 16

South Dakota 16 16

Utah 16 16d 16

Vermont 14 14 14 14

Washington 16 16 16 16

Wisconsin NS 10 NSe

Examples: In Delaware, juveniles age 15 or older charged with certain felonies must be tried in criminal court. In Arizona, juveniles age 15 or older must be tried in criminal court if

they are charged with murder or certain person offenses or if they have prior felony adjudications and are charged with a felony.

Note: Ages in minimum age column may not apply to all offense restrictions but represent the youngest possible age at which a juvenile’s case may be excluded from juvenile court.

*“NS” indicates that in at least one of the offense restrictions indicated, no minimum age is specified.

a Requires prior adjudication(s) or conviction(s), which may be required to have been for the same or a more serious offense type. b Only escape or bail violation while subject to prosecution in criminal court.

c Requires grand jury indictment.

d Requires prior commitment in a secure facility.

e Only if charged while confined or on probation or parole.

Source: Adapted from Snyder, H., and Sickmund, M. 1999. Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 1999 National Report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice

Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
48

In States with concurrent jurisdiction, the prosecutor has discretion to file certain cases, generally

involving juveniles charged with serious offenses, in either criminal court or juvenile court

Minimum

Concurrent Jurisdiction Offense and Minimum Age Criteria, 1997

Age for Any Certain Offenses

Concurrent Criminal Certain Capital Person Property Drug Weapon

States Jurisdiction Offense Felonies Crimes Murder Offenses Offenses Offenses Offenses

Arizona 14 14

Arkansas 14 14 14 14 14 14

Colorado 14 14 14 14 14 14

District of Columbia 16 16 16 16

Florida NS* 16a 16 NSb 14 14 14 14

Georgia NS NS

Louisiana 15 15 15 15 15

Massachusetts 14 14 14 14

Michigan 14 14 14 14 14 14

Montana 12 12 12 16 16 16

Nebraska NS 16c NS

Oklahoma 15 15 15 15 16 16

Vermont 16 16

Virginia 14 14 14

Wyoming 14 17 14

Examples: In Arizona, prosecutors have discretion to file directly in criminal court those cases involving juveniles age 14 or older charged with certain felonies (defined in State statutes). In Florida, prosecutors may “direct file” cases involving juveniles age 16 or older charged with a misdemeanor (if they have a prior adjudication) or a felony offense and those age

14 or older charged with murder or certain person, property, or weapon offenses; no minimum age is specified for cases in which a grand jury indicts a juvenile for a capital offense.

Note: Ages in minimum age column may not apply to all offense restrictions but represent the youngest possible age at which a juvenile’s case may be filed directly in criminal court.

*“NS” indicates that in at least one of the offense restrictions indicated, no minimum age is specified.

a Applies to misdemeanors and requires prior adjudication(s), which may be required to have been for the same or a more serious offense type. b Requires grand jury indictment.

c Applies to misdemeanors.

Source: Adapted from Snyder, H., and Sickmund, M. 1999. Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 1999 National Report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice

Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
49

Appendix B
50
51
52
Publications From OJJDP

OJJDP produces a variety of publications—Fact

Sheets, Bulletins, Summaries, Reports, and the

Juvenile Justice journal—along with videotapes, including broadcasts from the juvenile

justice telecommunications initiative. Through

OJJDP’s Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse (JJC),

these publications and other resources are as

close as your phone, fax, computer, or mailbox.

Phone:

800–638–8736

(Monday–Friday, 8:30 a.m.–7 p.m. ET)

Fax:

410–792–4358 (to order publications)

301–519–5600 (to ask questions)

Online:

OJJDP Home Page:

www.ojjdp.ncjrs.org

To Order Materials:

www.ncjrs.org/puborder

E-Mail:

askncjrs@ncjrs.org (to ask questions 

about materials)

Mail:

Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse/NCJRS

P.O. Box 6000, Rockville, MD 20849–6000

Fact Sheets and Bulletins are also available

through fax-on-demand.

Fax-on-Demand:

800–638–8736, select option 1, select option 2,

and listen for instructions.

To ensure timely notice of new publications,

subscribe to JUVJUST, OJJDP’s electronic

mailing list.

JUVJUST Mailing List:

E-mail to listproc@ncjrs.org

Leave the subject line blank

Type subscribe juvjust your name

In addition, JJC, through the National Criminal

Justice Reference Service (NCJRS), is the repository for tens of thousands of criminal and

juvenile justice publications and resources 

from around the world. They are abstracted 

and placed in a database, which is searchable

online (www.ncjrs.org/database.htm). You are

also welcome to submit materials to JJC for 

inclusion in the database.

The following list highlights popular and recently published OJJDP documents and videotapes, grouped by topical areas.

The OJJDP Publications List (BC000115) offers

a complete list of OJJDP publications and is

also available online.

In addition, the OJJDP Fact Sheet Flier

(LT000333) offers a complete list of OJJDP

Fact Sheets and is available online.

OJJDP also sponsors a teleconference initiative, and a flier (LT116) offers a complete list of

videos available from these broadcasts.

Corrections and Detention

Beyond the Walls: Improving Conditions of

Confinement for Youth in Custody. 1998, 

NCJ 164727 (116 pp.).

Disproportionate Minority Confinement: 1997

Update. 1998, NCJ 170606 (12 pp.).

Disproportionate Minority Confinement:

Lessons Learned From Five States. 1998, 

NCJ 173420 (12 pp.).

Juvenile Arrests 1997. 1999, NCJ 173938 

(12 pp.).

Reintegration, Supervised Release, and Intensive Aftercare. 1999, NCJ 175715 (24 pp.).

Courts

Guide for Implementing the Balanced and Restorative Justice Model. 1998. NCJ 167887

(112 pp.).

Innovative Approaches to Juvenile Indigent

Defense. 1998, NCJ 171151 (8 pp.).

Juvenile Court Statistics 1996. 1999, 

NCJ 168963 (113 pp.).

Offenders in Juvenile Court, 1996. 1999, 

NCJ 175719 (12 pp.).

RESTTA National Directory of Restitution 

and Community Service Programs. 1998, 

NCJ 166365 (500 pp.), $33.50.

Trying Juveniles as Adults in Criminal Court:

An Analysis of State Transfer Provisions. 1998,

NCJ 172836 (112 pp.).

Youth Courts: A National Movement Teleconference (Video). 1998, NCJ 171149 (120 min.), $17.

Delinquency Prevention

1998 Report to Congress: Juvenile Mentoring

Program (JUMP). 1999, NCJ 173424 (65 pp.).

1998 Report to Congress: Title V Incentive

Grants for Local Delinquency Prevention Programs. 1999, NCJ 176342 (58 pp.).

Combating Violence and Delinquency: The

National Juvenile Justice Action Plan (Report).

1996, NCJ 157106 (200 pp.).

Combating Violence and Delinquency: The 

National Juvenile Justice Action Plan

(Summary). 1996, NCJ 157105 (36 pp.).

Effective Family Strengthening Interventions.

1998, NCJ 171121 (16 pp.).

Juvenile Accountability Incentive Block Grants

Strategic Planning Guide. 1999, NCJ 172846

(62 pp.).

Parents Anonymous: Strengthening America’s

Families. 1999, NCJ 171120 (12 pp.).

Prenatal and Early Childhood Nurse Home

Visitation. 1998, NCJ 172875 (8 pp.).

Treatment Foster Care. 1999, NCJ 173421 

(12 pp.).

Gangs

1996 National Youth Gang Survey. 1999, 

NCJ 173964 (96 pp.).

Gang Members on the Move. 1998, 

NCJ 171153 (12 pp.).

Youth Gangs: An Overview. 1998, NCJ 167249

(20 pp.).

The Youth Gangs, Drugs, and Violence Connection. 1999, NCJ 171152 (12 pp.).

Youth Gangs in America Teleconference 

(Video). 1997, NCJ 164937 (120 min.), $17.

General Juvenile Justice

Comprehensive Juvenile Justice in State 

Legislatures Teleconference (Video). 1998, 

NCJ 169593 (120 min.), $17.

Guidelines for the Screening of Persons Working With Children, the Elderly, and Individuals

With Disabilities in Need of Support. 1998, 

NCJ 167248 (52 pp.).

Juvenile Justice, Volume VII, Number 1. 2000,

NCJ 178256 (40 pp.).

A Juvenile Justice System for the 21st Century.

1998, NCJ 169726 (8 pp.).

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 1999 National

Report. 1999, NCJ 178257 (232 pp.).

OJJDP Research: Making a Difference for 

Juveniles. 1999, NCJ 177602 (52 pp.).

Promising Strategies To Reduce Gun Violence.

1999, NCJ 173950 (253 pp.).

Sharing Information: A Guide to the Family

Educational Rights and Privacy Act and 

Participation in Juvenile Justice Programs.

1997, NCJ 163705 (52 pp.).

Missing and Exploited Children

Portable Guides to Investigating Child Abuse

(13-title series).

Protecting Children Online Teleconference

(Video). 1998, NCJ 170023 (120 min.), $17.

When Your Child Is Missing: A Family Survival

Guide. 1998, NCJ 170022 (96 pp.).

Substance Abuse

The Coach’s Playbook Against Drugs. 1998, 

NCJ 173393 (20 pp.).

Drug Identification and Testing in the Juvenile

Justice System. 1998, NCJ 167889 (92 pp.).

Preparing for the Drug Free Years. 1999, 

NCJ 173408 (12 pp.).

Violence and Victimization

Combating Fear and Restoring Safety in

Schools. 1998, NCJ 167888 (16 pp.).

Guide for Implementing the Comprehensive

Strategy for Serious, Violent, and Chronic 

Juvenile Offenders. 1995, NCJ 153681 

(255 pp.).

Report to Congress on Juvenile Violence 

Research. 1999, NCJ 176976 (44 pp.)

Serious and Violent Juvenile Offenders. 1998,

NCJ 170027 (8 pp.).

Serious and Violent Juvenile Offenders: Risk

Factors and Successful Interventions Teleconference (Video). 1998, NCJ 171286 (120 min.), $17.

State Legislative Responses to Violent Juvenile

Crime: 1996–97 Update. 1998, NCJ 172835 

(16 pp.).

White House Conference on School Safety:

Causes and Prevention of Youth Violence

Teleconference (Video). 1998, NCJ 173399 

(240 min.), $17.

Youth in Action

Community Cleanup. 1999, NCJ 171690 (6 pp.).

Cross-Age Teaching. 1999, NCJ 171688 (8 pp.).

Make a Friend—Be a Peer Mentor. 1999, 

NCJ 171691 (8 pp.).

Plan A Special Event! 1999, NCJ 171689 

(8 pp.).

Planning a Successful Crime Prevention 

Project. 1998, NCJ 170024 (28 pp.).

Stand Up and Start a School Crime Watch!

1998, NCJ 171123 (8 pp.)

Two Generations—Partners in Prevention.

1999, NCJ 171687 (8 pp.).

Wipe Out Vandalism and Graffiti. 1998, 

NCJ 171122 (8 pp.).

Youth Preventing Drug Abuse. 1998, 

NCJ 171124 (8 pp.).

Revised 6/21/2000
NCJ 181301

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

Washington, DC 20531

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

PRESORTED STANDARD

POSTAGE & FEES PAID

DOJ/OJJDP

PERMIT NO. G–91