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.

Missing and Exploited Children’s Program seeks to

promote effective policies and procedures for addressing the problem of missing and exploited children.

Established by the Missing Children’s Assistance Act

of 1984, the program provides funds for a variety of

activities to support and coordinate a network of resources such as the National Center for Missing and

Exploited Children; training and technical assistance

to a network of 47 State clearinghouses, nonprofit

organizations, law enforcement personnel, and attorneys; and research and demonstration programs.

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 juvenile victimization

and respond appropriately to juvenile delinquency. This is accomplished through developing and implementing prevention programs and a juvenile justice system that protects the public safety, holds juvenile offenders accountable,

and provides treatment and rehabilitative services based on the needs of each individual juvenile.
i

Juveniles Facing Criminal Sanctions:

Three States That Changed the Rules

Report

John J. Wilson, Acting Administrator

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

April 2000

Patricia Torbet

Patrick Griffin

Hunter Hurst, Jr.

Lynn Ryan MacKenzie, Ph.D.

National Center for Juvenile Justice
ii

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.

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

This Report 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 cooperative agreement number 95–JN–FX–K003

with 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 copyright © 2000 PhotoDisc, Inc.

Suggested citation: Torbet, Patricia, et al. 2000. Juveniles Facing Criminal Sanctions: Three States That

Changed the Rules. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
iii

Foreword

Despite a steady downturn in juvenile violent crime over the past several years, the 1990’s witnessed a growing

number of juveniles being waived or transferred to criminal court.

This Report examines the use made of adult criminal sanctions by three States: Minnesota, New Mexico, and

Wisconsin. While each of these States has turned to the criminal justice system to buttress its juvenile justice

system, each has done so in a different way with distinctive implications.

Minnesota’s use of a new “extended juvenile jurisdiction” category of juvenile offender provides juvenile court

judges with an alternative sentencing option that reinforces strong juvenile sanctions with the potential of even

more serious adult correctional sanctions.

New Mexico’s blended sentencing reform allows juvenile court judges to impose adult correctional sanctions

(which result in criminal convictions) on a broad new category of “youthful offenders,” while transferring a

narrower category of “serious youthful offenders” to the jurisdiction of adult criminal courts.

Wisconsin’s reform was to transfer all 17-year-old juveniles from the original jurisdiction of the juvenile court

to the jurisdiction of the criminal court.

The Report provides case studies of each State’s approach to reform. The particular reform is detailed, its significance is noted, and its goals are elucidated. The impact of the reform on the juvenile justice and criminal

justice systems is also described.

Every State’s juvenile justice system is influenced in some way by its adult criminal justice system. The examples provided by this Report and by analogous studies will serve to educate policymakers seeking to clarify

the roles of, and the relationships between, the two systems in their State.

John J. Wilson

Acting Administrator

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention
v

Acknowledgments

This Report has benefited from the assistance of many individuals in addition to the authors. Contributors

from the National Center for Juvenile Justice include Anne Stahl and Douglas Thomas, who participated

in site visits to Wisconsin and Minnesota, respectively. Other contributors include Dr. Larry Mays, Department of Criminal Justice, New Mexico State University, and Ms. Teri Turner, consultant, who conducted

site visits in New Mexico; and the many State and local practitioners, judges, and legislators we interviewed

in the three sites.

Within the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP), Michael Goodnow served as

the project manager. Production assistance was provided by the staff of the Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse:

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

Table of Contents

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

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

Table and Figures .............................................................................................................................................. x

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

Background and Context of the Reforms .................................................................................................. xi

Wisconsin: The Categorical Exclusion Approach .................................................................................. xi

New Mexico and Minnesota: The Sentencing Reform Approach ........................................................ xii

Wisconsin’s Case Study ............................................................................................................................... xii

Impact on the Juvenile Justice System’s Workload .............................................................................. xii

Impact on the Criminal Justice System’s Workload ............................................................................ xiii

Impact on Policy and Programming in Jails and Prisons .................................................................... xiii

New Mexico’s Case Study ........................................................................................................................... xiv

Implementation Issues ............................................................................................................................ xiv

Impact on Case Processing .................................................................................................................... xiv

Impact on Sentencing .............................................................................................................................. xv

Impact on Correctional Resources ......................................................................................................... xv

Minnesota’s Case Study ............................................................................................................................... xv

Implementation Issues ............................................................................................................................ xvi

Impact on Case Processing .................................................................................................................... xvi

Impact on Sentencing ............................................................................................................................. xvi

Impact on Correctional Resources ........................................................................................................ xvi

Lessons Learned ......................................................................................................................................... xvii

Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................ 1

Impetus for Change ........................................................................................................................................ 1

An Alternative Model: The Adult Criminal Justice System ..................................................................... 1

Three States ..................................................................................................................................................... 2
viii

Introduction to the Case Studies ............................................................................................................... 3

Wisconsin: The Categorical Exclusion Approach ....................................................................................... 3

New Mexico and Minnesota: The Sentencing Reform Approach ............................................................. 4

Method ............................................................................................................................................................. 4

Wisconsin’s Case Study .................................................................................................................................. 7

The Reform: Removing All 17-Year-Olds From the Original Jurisdiction of the Juvenile Court ...... 7

Significance of the Reform ............................................................................................................................ 7

Primary Goals of the Reform ........................................................................................................................ 7

Impact of the Changes ................................................................................................................................... 9

Impact on the Juvenile Justice System’s Workload .............................................................................. 10

Impact on the Criminal Justice System’s Workload ............................................................................. 11

Impact on Policy and Programming in Jails and Prisons ..................................................................... 12

Implications for Prosecutors ................................................................................................................... 14

Implications for Probation Agents and Public Defenders in the Criminal Justice System ................. 15

Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................................... 16

New Mexico’s Case Study ............................................................................................................................ 17

The Reform: Eliminating Judicial Waiver and Giving Juvenile Court Judges the Option of

Imposing Juvenile or Criminal Sanctions on Certain Offenders ........................................................... 17

Significance of the Reform .......................................................................................................................... 17

Primary Goals of the Reform ...................................................................................................................... 17

Impact of the Changes ................................................................................................................................. 19

Implementation Issues ............................................................................................................................. 19

Impact on Case Processing ..................................................................................................................... 20

Impact on Sentencing .............................................................................................................................. 22

Impact on Correctional Resources ......................................................................................................... 24

Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................................... 26

Minnesota’s Case Study ................................................................................................................................ 27

The Reform: Giving Juvenile Court Judges the Option of Imposing Both a Juvenile and a Criminal

Sanction for Designated Juvenile Offenders ............................................................................................ 27

Significance of the Reform .......................................................................................................................... 27

Primary Goals of the Reform ...................................................................................................................... 27

Impact of the Changes ................................................................................................................................. 28

Policy Development and Planning ......................................................................................................... 28

Funding Issues ......................................................................................................................................... 29

Impact on Case Processing ..................................................................................................................... 29

Impact on Sentencing .............................................................................................................................. 36

Impact on Correctional Resources ......................................................................................................... 38

Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................................... 39
ix

Lessons Learned ............................................................................................................................................. 41

Unanswered Questions ................................................................................................................................ 41

Deterrent Effects ..................................................................................................................................... 41

Juveniles’ Misperceptions Regarding Criminal Court Adjudication ................................................... 42

Consequences of Introducing Juveniles Into the Adult Criminal Corrections System ....................... 42

Lessons Learned ........................................................................................................................................... 42

A Disconnect Exists Between the Legislative Intent and the Actual Implementation of New Laws . 42

Blended Sentencing Laws Encourage Plea Bargaining ........................................................................ 43

Blended Sentencing Provisions Expand Judicial and Prosecutorial Discretion ................................. 43

Local Application of New Sentencing Laws Varies Widely .................................................................. 44

New Sentencing Laws Have a Disproportionate Impact on Minorities .............................................. 44

Expanded Sentencing Laws Require New Resources/Interventions ................................................... 44

Categorical Age Exclusions Have Unanticipated Consequences ......................................................... 45

Treating Juvenile Offenders as Criminals Creates Problems for Adult Corrections .......................... 45

More Data Collection and Systematic Followup Are Needed To Judge the Impact of Reforms ...... 45

References ......................................................................................................................................................... 47
x

Table Age of Criminal Responsibility, 1998 ............................................................................................ 9

Figures

Figure 1 Blended Sentencing Models, 1997 ................................................................................................ 5

Figure 2 Admissions to Juvenile Correctional Institutions in Wisconsin, by Age

at Admission, 1995–97 ................................................................................................................. 11

Figure 3 Average Daily Population in Wisconsin’s Juvenile Correctional Institutions,

by Month: July 1994 to October 1998........................................................................................ 12

Figure 4 Admissions to Prison in Wisconsin, by Age at Admission, 1995–97 ......................................... 12

Figure 5 Processing of 192 Youthful Offender Cases Indicted Between January 12, 1995,

and November 5, 1998, in the Second Judicial District (Albuquerque, New Mexico) ........... 24

Figure 6A Minnesota Direct EJJ Designation ............................................................................................ 30

Figure 6B Minnesota Indirect EJJ Designation (via Failed Certification) ............................................... 31

Figure 7 Minnesota Juvenile Felony Rates and EJJ Designation Rates, by Judicial District ............. 33

Figure 8 Minnesota Juvenile Arrest Rates: Person and Property Offenses ............................................ 33

Figure 9 Offense Categories for Disposed EJJ Cases, by Minnesota Judicial District ........................ 34

Figure 10 Placement Location of EJJ Offenders, by Minnesota County ................................................. 35

Table and Figures
xi

The decade of the 1990’s saw unprecedented change in the history of America’s juvenile justice system as State after

State cracked down on serious, violent juvenile crime. New laws generally involve expanded eligibility for criminal

court processing and sanctioning and reduced confidentiality protections for a subset of juvenile offenders. From

1992 through 1997, all but three States changed their laws in one or more of these areas.

Previous publications have documented the overall direction and magnitude of these nationwide changes (see

Torbet et al., 1996; Torbet and Szymanski, 1998) and delineated age and offense distinctions among State

transfer provisions (see Griffin, Torbet, and Szymanski, 1998). This Report examines the actual implementation of distinctive approaches to juvenile justice reform in three States and summarizes the lessons learned

from these case studies and from the authors’ analysis of State legislative activity. The case studies contribute

to the body of knowledge on transfer and sentencing by providing rich descriptive information on the background of the reforms and the impact of legislative, programming, and policy changes on the juvenile and

criminal justice systems at the State and local levels.

The three States whose reforms are examined were chosen for study both because they embarked on significant

but discrete experiments and because their approaches are in some sense representative of broader national

trends. Wisconsin categorically excluded all 17-year-olds from juvenile court jurisdiction, and New Mexico and

Minnesota expanded juvenile court judges’ sentencing authority. The case studies, conducted in the fall of 1998,

involved site visits, focus group meetings, and individual and group interviews with officials of both juvenile and

criminal justice systems in local urban and rural jurisdictions and at the State level. Whenever possible, the authors analyzed pertinent case processing statistics bearing on the States’ reform efforts. The first two chapters

provide background information on the reforms in general, putting them in context with trends in other States.

The next three chapters present the individual case studies, and the final chapter offers lessons learned.

Background and Context of the Reforms

Wisconsin: The Categorical Exclusion Approach

Wisconsin has taken the route of wholesale age exclusion, i.e., of “defining adulthood down,” for purposes of

routine criminal prosecution and sentencing, from age 18 to 17. Wisconsin joined New Hampshire, which effected a

similar change in 1996, in being the only States in at least 20 years to pass laws excluding an entire age group

from juvenile court jurisdiction. They join 11 other States that have long excluded 17-year-olds from the original

jurisdiction of juvenile court—among them 3 that also exclude 16-year-olds. Most States, most of the time, have

defined the age of adult criminal responsibility as beginning at age 18. In fact, the proportion of States that do so

has expanded in recent decades, from about two-thirds in the 1950’s to about three-quarters today.

Although Wisconsin’s provision lowering the upper age of juvenile court jurisdiction is the broadest form of statutory exclusion, it is only one type of the more common exclusion laws that specify certain offenses for automatic or

mandatory transfer. As of the end of the 1997 legislative session, no fewer than 36 States specified some offense

category for which criminal court handling of accused juveniles was mandatory via either statutory exclusion or

Executive Summary
xii

mandatory waiver provisions. When the effects of these statutory exclusion and mandatory waiver provisions are

considered together with those brought about by lowering the age of adult criminal responsibility, it becomes clear

that State legislators are “transferring” far more young people to criminal court than either judges or prosecutors.

Wisconsin’s reform afforded a unique opportunity to gauge the consequences of instantaneously shifting a huge

and diverse group of juveniles into the criminal system.

New Mexico and Minnesota: The Sentencing Reform Approach

While most of the recent juvenile justice reform efforts have focused on the various mechanisms by which juveniles may be tried in criminal courts (via waiver, prosecutorial direct file, and statutory exclusion), some have

focused on the sanctioning of juveniles adjudicated or convicted of a serious or violent offense. New laws mandating offense-based sanctioning via mandatory minimums and sentencing matrices are dictated by what the offender has done and emphasize punishment and incapacitation over rehabilitation. But a significant number of

other States have provided judges with more rather than less flexibility in fashioning sanctions that are both

tough and tailored to individual circumstances. These “blended sentencing” schemes allow judges faced with the

task of sanctioning serious juvenile offenders to choose between juvenile and criminal sanctions—or to impose

both at the same time—rather than restricting them solely to one system or the other.

New Mexico and Minnesota each enacted a form of blended sentencing during the 1990’s. At the end of the

1997 legislative session, New Mexico was the only State that allowed its juvenile courts to hand out an immediately effective juvenile or adult sanction to a broad new category of “youthful offenders” previously eligible

for waiver to criminal court. In youthful offender cases in which the juvenile justice court imposes an adult

criminal sanction, the determination of guilt at trial becomes a conviction for purposes of the New Mexico

Criminal Code. Minnesota’s “extended jurisdiction juvenile” (EJJ) law featured a “one-last-chance” option

that gave juvenile courts an option to sentence serious or repeat young offenders to a juvenile sanction with the

threat of a more serious criminal sanction.

Wisconsin’s Case Study

In a broad stroke, the Wisconsin legislature reduced the number of youth in the State eligible for juvenile court

jurisdiction by 12 percent and redefined the boundaries of adulthood. Effective January 1, 1996:

. . . for purposes of investigating or prosecuting a person who is alleged to have violated any state or federal criminal law or any civil law or municipal ordinance, “adult” means a person who has attained 17

years of age. Wis. Stat. Ann., sec. 938.02(1).

Lowering the age of criminal court jurisdiction in Wisconsin was, in large measure, a response to several

highly visible crimes committed by juveniles and to dramatic increases in the juvenile crime rate. The three

goals offered by policymakers for the change were to promote individual accountability for more mature delinquents, achieve age consistency with two neighboring States, and focus juvenile justice resources on younger

offenders. The third goal was made possible by a provision that lowered the juvenile court’s minimum age of

original jurisdiction for delinquency from 12 to 10 years.

Impact on the Juvenile Justice System’s Workload

◆ The workloads of juvenile courts, secure detention facilities, and juvenile correctional institutions all decreased significantly after Wisconsin’s reform—even with the addition of 10- and 11-year-olds to the juvenile court’s jurisdiction. Prior to the reforms, 17-year-olds accounted for one-fifth of the referrals to juvenile

court and one-quarter of the secure detention and juvenile corrections admissions. Respondents speculated
xiii

that removing 17-year-olds from the juvenile court’s jurisdiction—together with decreases in juvenile arrests

for index offenses and overall referrals to juvenile court—had influenced the workload reductions.

◆ Institutional populations temporarily declined but quickly returned to prereform levels due in part to

longer periods of commitment made possible by a provision that increased the extended age of juvenile

court jurisdiction to age 25 for certain offenders.

◆ Additional resources for younger juveniles did not materialize. The temporary reduction in the population at

juvenile institutions resulted in an increase in per diem charges to counties. As a result, few resources were

freed up to enhance prevention and early intervention services.

Impact on the Criminal Justice System’s Workload

◆ The number of 17-year-olds admitted to jails and prisons in Wisconsin increased dramatically the first year

after the change. Jail admissions of 17-year-olds increased by more than 40 percent between 1996 and 1997;

prison admissions increased by 70 percent over a 3-year period (1995–97).

Impact on Policy and Programming in Jails and Prisons

◆ Many respondents indicated that the reform had merely widened the net for 17-year-olds who commit less

serious offenses to receive a criminal sanction. They maintained that prior to the change, 17-year-olds who

committed serious or violent offenses were likely to go to criminal court via judicial waiver. As a result,

the criminal justice system was strapped to meet the needs of a younger population with existing resources

(e.g., effective diversion programs or “deferred prosecution” for 17-year-olds whose offenses were minor).

◆ At least initially, the reform reduced the age threshold for judicial waiver. Respondents suggested that prior

to the change, simply being 17 years old increased the odds of a waiver filing. Despite a conscious policy to

resist lowering the waiver threshold, waiver petitions involving 16-year-olds increased 90 percent in Milwaukee County during the first year after the change.

◆ The “in-between” status of 17-year-olds created problems for the adult criminal corrections system. Except for

purposes of criminal responsibility, 17-year-olds continue to be minors under Wisconsin law and are subject

to mandatory education laws and laws requiring parental consent for medical treatment. In three of the four

study sites, jailers and local school districts have collaborated to meet requirements for providing classroom

opportunities to a population of inmates who had been denied the service prior to the reforms because small

numbers made compliance expensive. Respondents reported that the culture of the jails has been positively

affected by these opportunities.

◆ Adult probation agents and public defenders reported challenges in working with 17-year-olds that arise

because of the offenders’ immaturity and dependence on their families.

Three years after the reform took effect, practitioners in both the criminal and the juvenile justice systems generally acknowledged that two of the three goals offered by policymakers had been met. First and foremost, respondents agreed that the adult criminal corrections system held 17-year-olds accountable, particularly those who

violate the terms of their probation, by restricting their freedom. However, many suggested that this came at the

cost of widening the net for 17-year-olds who commit less serious offenses and that the criminal justice system is

ill equipped to hold these youth accountable, protect public safety, and provide opportunities to develop competencies for responsible living—the balancing act the legislature intends for the juvenile justice system in Wisconsin. Second, although the reform brought Wisconsin into line with the age of adult criminal responsibility in the

neighboring States of Illinois and Michigan, there was widespread skepticism as to the value of this aspect of the

reform in deterring juvenile crime. As to the third goal, respondents suggested that unintended consequences of
xiv

the reform and the addition of 10- and 11-year-olds to the workload of the juvenile justice system had frustrated the shifting of resources to a younger population.

New Mexico’s Case Study

New Mexico’s 1993 reforms preserved the original intent of its Children’s Code for the majority of delinquents

while targeting older juveniles who commit serious crimes for certain or potential adult criminal corrections

responses. The State accomplished these reforms by repealing its judicial waiver law in favor of a law giving

juvenile court judges the option of imposing juvenile or criminal sanctions on a certain class of offenders (provided the prosecutor files a notice of intent to seek criminal sanctions) and by excluding 15- to 17-year-olds

charged with first-degree murder from the juvenile court’s jurisdiction. New Mexico is the only State to empower its juvenile court judges to choose among the widest possible range of sanctions (all immediately effective), from juvenile probation to prison sentences, for a new category of “youthful offenders”: 14- to

17-year-olds charged with certain felonies.

Implementation Issues

The State conducted very little initial planning on how to implement reforms. Most judges and other justice professionals believed that the legislature had intended a punitive response for juveniles who commit the most serious

offenses. They viewed the juvenile corrections system as unprepared or inappropriate for these youthful offenders

and therefore considered criminal sanctions the best response. Although the legislature authorized—and the State’s

Juvenile Justice Advisory Committee recommended—that the Department of Corrections (DOC) implement

specialized programming for juveniles in prisons and segregate them from adult offenders, DOC chose to do neither because of the small number of juveniles expected to be sentenced under the new law. As a result, no new programming was deemed necessary in criminal or juvenile corrections, no new funding was appropriated, and no

training regarding the new law was conducted.

Impact on Case Processing

◆ The new law created confusion at the local level regarding who qualified for the new offender classifications and where juveniles should be detained prior to trial. Amended court rules clarified that youth in both

the serious youthful offender classification and the youthful offender classification be detained in a juvenile

facility until sentencing, although there are circumstances under which a judge may order a serious juvenile

offender to an adult jail.

◆ Prosecutors have expanded authority under the new law. Prosecutors make the initial decision to seek a

criminal sanction in youthful offender cases. If the case meets age and offense criteria, the prosecutor

may seek a criminal sanction by filing a notice of intent within 10 days of filing the delinquency petition.

◆ Significant variations in practice were found among the rural and urban districts studied. In the rural district,

the prosecutor had sought criminal sanctions against all juveniles who met youthful offender criteria. The prosecutor in one urban district estimated that he had sought criminal sanctions in 70 to 80 cases per year and rejected that option in two to three times as many eligible cases. While considerable prosecutorial discretion exists

under the new law, most respondents indicated that the statute provides a reasonable check on that discretion.

◆ No statewide data exist on the number of cases that are eligible for youthful offender designation or on the proportion of cases for which the prosecutor seeks a criminal sanction over a juvenile sanction.

◆ Plea bargaining is common. The new blended sentencing law has resulted in prosecutors using the threat of

a criminal sanction in negotiations to obtain pleas that guarantee juvenile sanctions.
xv

Impact on Sentencing

◆ Under the new statute, Children’s Court judges—who have general trial jurisdiction and may preside over

criminal trials—can impose either a juvenile sanction or a criminal sanction in youthful offender cases.

However, the criminal sanction can be imposed only in those cases in which the prosecutor has filed a notice

of intent to seek the criminal sanction. Some judges felt hamstrung by that constraint, particularly those

holding negative opinions of the juvenile corrections system.

◆ An effect of eliminating the judicial waiver provision was to move the amenability decision from the pretrial

stage to the sentencing stage. In fact, under the new blended sentencing law, the sentencing phase looks

very much like the old waiver process since the judge must consider essentially the same factors delineated

in Kent v. United States for waiver determinations. The exception is that because guilt has already been established, the juvenile is permitted to talk about the crime during the psychological evaluation, thus giving the

judge access to all relevant information.

◆ Overall, in the districts studied, a very small proportion of youthful offenders actually received a criminal

sanction, and of those who did, only a few received a “straight prison term” (i.e., one for which none of the

sentence was suspended). Youthful offenders and serious youthful offenders sentenced to prison were predominantly Hispanic males.

Impact on Correctional Resources

◆ Some judges reported that their lack of confidence in New Mexico’s juvenile corrections system’s ability to

either protect the public or rehabilitate offenders influenced their sentencing decisions.

◆ The new blended sentencing law put added burdens on adult probation departments. Increased workloads

and an unfamiliar client—one who may not be old enough to drive, find suitable employment, sign a lease,

or make decisions independent of his or her family—had caused one urban department to assign certain

officers to a strictly juvenile caseload. Adult probation officers reported that juveniles, unaccustomed to

strict reporting requirements, often violated the terms of their probation or parole and quickly found themselves sent to prison to serve their full terms.

Five years after the law was passed, prosecutors and judges reported no sense of nostalgia for the State’s previous

judicial waiver law but rather satisfaction with the discretion they have been given to make individualized case

decisions. One drawback of New Mexico’s reforms results from the State’s lack of a clear vision or strategy for

correctional programming for youthful offenders. Another limitation relates to the lack of purposeful data collection for examining designation and sentencing decisions and outcomes.

Minnesota’s Case Study

Minnesota’s 1994 reforms created an expanded sentencing option that allows the juvenile court to impose

both an extended juvenile disposition and a stayed criminal sanction on a new legal category of juveniles

referred to as extended jurisdiction juvenile (EJJ). The legislative intent was to give juveniles who have

committed serious or repeat offenses one last chance at success in the juvenile system—with the threat of

criminal sanctions “hanging over their heads” if they reoffend. The EJJ legislation represented a compromise between those who wanted a more punitive response to juvenile crime and those who wanted to salvage and bolster the juvenile justice response.
xvi

Implementation Issues

◆ There was a lag in the development of State policy related to the EJJ legislation and a lack of effective community planning to guide local implementation. Development of local practice took place in isolation, and

there was some confusion in the field as to the intent of EJJ legislation.

◆ A 1-year lag between enactment of the reforms and allocation of new funding—in the form of a subsidy

to counties to deliver or purchase services for EJJ’s—created a gap in the development of new programs

and services.

Impact on Case Processing

◆ The legislation created four rather complex scenarios under which a case could receive an EJJ designation,

two of which require a public safety consideration based on the seriousness of the alleged offense and the

juvenile’s prior court record. Districts vary significantly in what they consider a serious offense. Each district, through the policies of its prosecutors and judges, has set its own community standards.

◆ The profile of youth receiving EJJ designation appears much different from what the legislature intended

(e.g., serious first-time offenders as opposed to serious chronic offenders). The profile also reveals that African Americans made up a disproportionate share of offenders who received EJJ designations.

◆ Because prosecutors have taken a more aggressive approach with EJJ cases and because the suspended

criminal sanction places EJJ youth in greater jeopardy, public defenders have mounted more vigorous defenses of EJJ cases. However, plea bargaining is common—especially in cases involving first-time serious

offenders in which the motion for adult certification is bargained down to EJJ.

Impact on Sentencing

◆ Rural/urban differences exist in the disposition of EJJ cases. Judges in nonmetropolitan counties sent 28

percent of EJJ offenders to DOC facilities, whereas judges in an urban county sent just 2 percent of EJJ

offenders to prison.

◆ The availability of local placement options and the cost of out-of-community placements were factors in the

disposition of EJJ cases in both urban and rural courts.

◆ Judges are disinclined to impose sanctions on juveniles that are harsher than the sanctions juveniles would

have received if they had been tried in the adult criminal system. (Minnesota has the lowest adult incarceration rate in the United States.) Some judges are also unwilling to invoke the suspended criminal sanction for

youth who do not follow the terms of their juvenile sentences.

Impact on Correctional Resources

◆ Respondents identified access to clinical assessments and an expanded range of age-appropriate services for

EJJ offenders as critical needs. The subsidy allocation formula (monies for each EJJ juvenile in a county) has

allowed urban counties, with their critical mass of EJJ-designated juveniles, to develop specialized services

and supervision resources but has not supported coherent program planning or development in rural areas.

◆ Both juvenile and adult criminal corrections facilities faced licensure and security issues regarding EJJ

youth.

Three and a half years after EJJ implementation, those involved with the new legislation in Minnesota generally believed that it had been a success. The transition period has had its difficulties, but the legislation has
xvii

provided resources and also a legal tool that was not otherwise available—particularly the threat of the

criminal sanction. Respondents expressed pride that the EJJ legislation was more than just a shift toward

getting tough: it also focused on strengthening the community, linking young people with jobs and mentors,

and forming partnerships with the private sector. EJJ gets the attention of many youth, because they do not

want a felony record—but for some, it has little effect.

Lessons Learned

Although the case studies left many questions unanswered, several broad lessons could be of use to

policymakers considering similar reforms:

A disconnect exists between the legislative intent and the actual implementation of new laws. An overall

lack of deliberate, statewide planning, inadequate lead times, and insufficient efforts to educate practitioners

about the changes have characterized implementation of reforms. Moreover, legislative prescriptions that

sought to promote accountability frequently anticipated resources and capacity that did not exist at the time of

implementation. Finally, the mandate for change clearly exceeded the capacity of the system to manage, monitor, and evaluate change. Preparation and consideration of fiscal and correctional impact assessments would

provide objective data to assess proposed legislation and would pinpoint the potential target population,

specify policy and program changes, and anticipate shifts in workload and likely resource gaps.

Blended sentencing laws encourage plea bargaining. Prosecutors in Minnesota and New Mexico routinely

use the threat of a criminal sanction as leverage in plea bargaining negotiations. However, it is not clear

whether the effect was intended, whether the practice has become more common, or what effect such bargaining has on a juvenile’s sense of responsibility for the damage caused.

Blended sentencing provisions expand judicial and prosecutorial discretion. The case studies in New

Mexico and Minnesota demonstrate that blended sentencing laws, whether they replace or supplement existing transfer laws, leave juvenile court judges with considerable authority to fashion individualized, offenderbased dispositions that allow them to consider not only offense seriousness and community safety but the court

history and background of the juvenile before them. Likewise, prosecutors have been given broad discretion to

decide when to seek special offender designations or criminal sentencing options. However, unlike a judge’s

decision, a prosecutor’s decision is not generally subject to systematic reporting requirements. Mandatory reporting requirements similar to those long applied to juvenile courts would rectify the situation.

Local application of new sentencing laws varies widely. The case studies documented significant differences

in the way local jurisdictions apply blended sentencing laws. Some counties appear to apply them sparingly,

while others apply them to all eligible cases. To ensure fair and appropriate decisionmaking, policymakers

should consider setting meaningful guidelines for the exercise of both prosecutorial and judicial authority in

making designation, sentencing, and review decisions under the reforms. Likewise, expanded sentencing authority requires that judges have an accurate understanding of the sanctions and services available in both the

juvenile and adult criminal corrections systems.

New sentencing laws have a disproportionate impact on minorities. Minority juveniles are overrepresented

in the offender categories targeted by new transfer and sentencing laws. The case studies confirm that African

American and Hispanic youth make up a disproportionate share of offenders who receive extended jurisdiction

designations or are subject to motions for criminal sanctions.

Expanded sentencing laws require new resources/interventions. Case study participants called for an expanded range of community-based services and State programs for targeted juveniles. Serious, violent, and/or

chronic juvenile offenders represent a small proportion of all delinquents but impose significant costs and
xviii

present real threats to their communities. States must be strategic in articulating visions and plans for their

juvenile justice systems that consider public safety a significant element and that incorporate best practices and

the appropriate continuum of sanctions and services to divert these offenders from their criminal careers.

Wholesale age exclusions have unanticipated consequences. Despite conscious efforts to the contrary,

waivers of 16-year-olds in Wisconsin increased 90 percent in Milwaukee County in the first year after the

age of criminal responsibility was lowered to 17. The impact of lowering the age of criminal responsibility to

a certain age for all juveniles has widened the net for 17-year-olds charged with less serious, nonviolent offenses to receive a criminal sanction, thereby necessitating an increase in prosecutorial resources for diversion of such cases.

The “in-between” status of juveniles creates problems for adult criminal corrections agencies. Except for

purposes of adult criminal responsibility, 17-year-olds remain minors under Wisconsin law. Likewise, all youth

under 18 tried or sentenced in other States as if they were adults are still minors in all other respects. Most of

the policy issues and programming challenges identified in the case studies resulted from the “in-between”

legal status of minors in adult criminal corrections facilities.

More data collection and systematic followup are needed to judge the impact of reforms. The case studies

shed light on the implementation of a significant group of State-level juvenile justice reforms. However, the real

impact of those reforms and others that expose juvenile offenders to criminal sanctions is still largely unknown.

State and local officials must make a commitment to assessing the effects of new laws so they can determine the

deterrent effects of the laws, the impact of the laws on public safety and victim reparation, and the consequences

of introducing juveniles into the adult criminal corrections system.
1

The 1990’s will undoubtedly be remembered as one

of the more turbulent decades in the history of the

American juvenile justice system. Significant and

ongoing legislative activity in nearly every State—

prompted by public fear and anger over escalating

youth violence and doubts about the proportionality

and toughness of the system’s response—has by now

all but transformed the juvenile justice landscape (see

Torbet et al., 1996; Torbet and Szymanski, 1998).

Most notably, the jurisdiction of the juvenile courts

over serious crimes, older juveniles, and repeat offenders has been cut back in State after State. The pool of

cases eligible for criminal court handling has been

vastly expanded, and critical decisionmaking power in

this area has been shifted away from judges and toward prosecutors. A variety of new restrictions have

been imposed on the juvenile courts’ discretionary

powers, often dictating outcomes based on offense

seriousness and other objective factors. Confidentiality

protections once considered to be vital to the working

of the juvenile justice system have been eroded, and

procedures representing contrary ideals—open hearings, the free exchange of information—erected in

their place. The traditional rehabilitative goals of juvenile sanctioning have been deemphasized in favor of

straightforward, adult-style punishment and long-term

incapacitation, with fewer allowances for the individual circumstances and special needs of juveniles.

Impetus for Change

Often, the legislative reform process has begun with

a single, galvanizing juvenile crime—a senseless

murder, some casual viciousness, some schoolyard

outrage that is at once simple, stark, and utterly

incomprehensible to the public. Very young people

are committing more serious and violent offenses

than in the past, but the crimes precipitating recent

reforms have often been spectacularly atypical.

Nevertheless, in State after State, these crimes

seemed to point the way to a frightening new kind

of youth crime—perhaps a new kind of youth—for

which the old controls were inadequate and the old

assumptions invalid. Public anxiety soon gave way

to indignation, as media coverage focused unprecedented attention on those aspects of the traditional

juvenile court and corrections system that appeared—

especially to those unfamiliar with them—to coddle

offenders, slight victims, ignore accountability, and

endanger the public. Faced with what they believed

was a wholly new kind of juvenile crime, many

States began to view the principles at the heart of

the old system—the treatment orientation, the concern for offender privacy—as not merely outmoded

but dangerous.

An Alternative Model: The Adult

Criminal Justice System

The adult criminal justice system presented State

policymakers with a ready alternative. Although not

perfect, its faults at least differed from those of its

juvenile counterpart. In particular, after decades of

aggressive prison construction, mandatory minimum

sentencing legislation, and the like, the criminal justice

system’s “toughness” was not open to question. It was,

above all, this quality—of deterrent, retributive, incapacitating toughness—that the public seemed to be

calling for. Accordingly, the policy solution in many

States has been to reshape the existing juvenile justice

system to conform more closely to the criminal justice

system, to blend or hybridize the two to accommodate

some “in-between” category of offender, or literally to

substitute the criminal system in situations in which

the juvenile system is believed to be inadequate.

Introduction
2

Three States

Although the three States examined more closely in

the body of this Report—Minnesota, New Mexico,

and Wisconsin—have taken distinctive approaches

to juvenile justice reform and were chosen as case

study subjects in part for that reason, all three

turned to the criminal system in an attempt to

strengthen the juvenile system in one of the ways

described above. In New Mexico, blended sentencing reform has permitted juvenile court judges to

impose criminal sanctions on a broad new category

of “youthful offenders,” while mandating adult

criminal court handling of a narrower category of

“serious youthful offenders.” In Minnesota, the new

“extended juvenile jurisdiction” category for juvenile

offenders has given juvenile court judges an alternative sentencing option that reinforces a longer juvenile court sanction with the threat of a more serious

criminal sentence. Wisconsin, on the other hand, has

simply redrawn the jurisdictional border between

the juvenile and criminal justice systems, shifting its

whole population of 17-year-olds from the original

jurisdiction of the former to that of the latter.

Although it may be easy to sketch out the overall

intent of these and other recent State-level juvenile

justice reforms and to catalog the various approaches

taken, the actual results of these reforms are not

nearly so easy to assess. In effect, the States have

embarked on a number of distinct experiments.

Some have targeted very narrow categories of juvenile offenders for experimental handling, while

others have swept up huge, broadly defined polymorphous groups. Some have entrusted critical discretionary decisions to the courts, where they must

be made on the record and are subject to review

and, at least theoretically, capable of being tabulated

and analyzed retrospectively by researchers. Others,

however, have lodged the same authority with prosecutors, whose methods, approaches, and reasoning

are essentially unknowable after the fact and whose

actual performance may never be subject to objective measurement. In some States that single out

juvenile offenders for placement on an experimental

track, it is possible to follow them through the system, profile them as a group, and learn something of

what becomes of them. However, where their counterparts, similarly situated, are simply allowed to

disappear into the juvenile mainstream, researchers

may never be able to compare one group with the

other. In fact, many of the recent State-level experiments in juvenile justice reform were instituted with

little thought as to how, when, or whether to measure results systematically. Even if the information

necessary to judge success or failure were theoretically available, in many States there is no one whose

job it is to collect it.

The three case studies contained in this Report represent a first step toward correcting this situation.

They focus less on the theory than on the practice of

moving juvenile offenders into criminal court or

middle-tier/adult sanctioning systems and shed light

on implementation issues that are likely to be encountered wherever these approaches are taken.

Although only three States are examined in depth,

each one was chosen for study because its reforms

have significance that extends well beyond its borders. Detailed examination of their experiences will

serve to educate policymakers considering similar

changes in other States, open up new lines of inquiry, and provide a solid basis for further study.
3

The three States whose reforms are examined in the

body of this Report were chosen for study both because they have taken distinctive, experimental approaches to juvenile justice system reform and

because those approaches are in some sense representative of broader national trends.

Wisconsin: The Categorical

Exclusion Approach

In general, statutory exclusion provisions are categorical in that the legislature automatically excludes, either by age or by offense, a certain

category of juvenile offenders from juvenile court

jurisdiction. Wisconsin has taken the route of

wholesale age exclusion, of “defining adulthood

down,” for purposes of routine criminal prosecution

and sentencing, from age 18 to age 17. Of course,

this in itself is unusual. Most States, most of the

time, have defined the age of adult criminal responsibility as beginning at age 18. In fact, the proportion of States that do so has expanded in recent

decades, from about two-thirds in the 1950’s to

about three-quarters today. Nevertheless, several

longstanding exceptions to the general rule remain.

Three States (Connecticut, New York, and North

Carolina) have put the age of adult criminal responsibility at 16 at least since the early 1950’s.

Eight others (Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, South Carolina, and

Texas) have long put the age of adult criminal responsibility at 17. During the 1990’s, two States

(Wisconsin and New Hampshire) joined the latter

group in treating 17-year-olds as adults. In all,

13 States now treat 16- or 17-year-olds as adults

for purposes of criminal court processing.

It should be noted that very large numbers of these

“underage adults” are routinely processed in the

criminal courts of these States. The National Center

for Juvenile Justice estimated that in 1996 as many

as 218,000 offenders younger than age 18 could

have faced trial in criminal courts because State

legislatures had set the age of adult criminal responsibility at 16 or 17. In comparison, juvenile court

judges waived just 10,000 cases to criminal courts in

1996 (Snyder and Sickmund, 1999).

In addition to age exclusions, there is another group of

increasingly common categorical exclusions from juvenile court jurisdiction. As of the end of the 1997 legislative session, no fewer than 36 States specified some

offense category for which criminal court handling of

accused juveniles—or at least a subset meeting minimum age and/or prior record requirements—was mandatory (Griffin, Torbet, and Szymanski, 1998). These

offense-based exclusions, though somewhat more targeted, are similar to those based solely on age in that

they are both “wholesale” and “automatic.” That is, as a

matter of policy, they decide in advance the criminal

court handling of large groups of juvenile offenders;

preclude consideration of their individual motives,

needs, and circumstances; and rule out, insofar as this

is possible through legislation, the exercise of case-bycase discretion. When the effects of these sweeping

statutory exclusions and mandatory waiver requirements are considered together with those brought

about by lowering the age of adult criminal responsibility, it becomes clear that State legislators are “transferring” far more young people to criminal court than

either judges or prosecutors.

Wisconsin presented researchers with a chance to observe the effects of one type of wholesale jurisdictional

transfer. More important, it afforded a unique opportunity to gauge the consequences of instantaneously

shifting a huge and diverse group of juveniles—indeed,

one of the most broadly defined and heterogeneous

categories possible—into the criminal justice system.

Introduction to the Case Studies
4

New Mexico and Minnesota: The

Sentencing Reform Approach

While most of the juvenile justice reform experiments of recent years have involved the various

mechanisms by which juveniles may be tried in

criminal courts (waiver, prosecutorial direct file,

legislative exclusion), some have focused instead on

what comes afterwards—that is, on the sanctioning of

juvenile offenders. One clearly discernible trend is

toward offense-based sanctioning: mandatory minimums and sentencing matrices that are dictated by

what the offender has done and that emphasize punishment and incapacitation over rehabilitation and

treatment. A significant number of other States,

however, have sought to provide judges with more

rather than less flexibility in fashioning sanctions for

juveniles in serious cases—sanctions that are both

tough and tailored to individual circumstances.

New Mexico and Minnesota are among that number. Each enacted a form of blended sentencing

during the 1990’s. Blended sentencing allows

judges faced with the task of sanctioning serious

juvenile offenders to choose between juvenile and

adult correctional sanctions—or sometimes to impose both at the same time—rather than restricting

them solely to one system or the other. Some models supplement existing transfer provisions; others

substitute for them in all but murder cases. In some

models, the juvenile court can impose an adult sentence that is as binding as that provided by criminal courts, and in others, the adult sentence is

suspended pending successful completion of a juvenile sentence (Zimring, 1998). Of the 20 States

with such laws at the end of the 1997 legislative

session, 9 give blended sentencing authority to

juvenile court judges in cases in which some defined

category of juvenile offender has been adjudicated

delinquent. In nine States, blended sentencing authority is exercised by criminal court judges, following a juvenile’s conviction. Two States, Colorado

and Michigan, give blended sentencing options to

both juvenile and criminal court judges. (See figure

1, “Blended Sentencing Models, 1997.”)

In whichever forum blended sentencing authority is

exercised, it may be exclusive or inclusive, and under some circumstances, it may be contiguous:

◆ An exclusive blended sentencing model allows a

judge to impose either a juvenile or an adult sanction and makes that sanction effective immediately.

◆ Under an inclusive blended sentencing model, on

the other hand, a judge may impose both a juvenile

and an adult sanction—with the latter usually

remaining suspended and becoming effective only

in the event of a subsequent violation.

◆ Finally, some States have enacted contiguous

blended sentencing laws, under which a juvenile

court may impose a sanction that begins in the

juvenile system but lasts beyond the maximum

age of extended juvenile court jurisdiction—at

which time the offender must be moved into the

adult correctional system to serve the remainder

of the sentence.

At the end of the 1997 legislative session, New

Mexico was the only State in the Nation that gave

exclusive blended sentencing authority to its juvenile courts—allowing them to hand out immediately

effective adult sentences to a broad category of juveniles previously eligible for waiver to criminal court.

Minnesota’s version of blended sentencing reform,

on the other hand, was inclusive. Specifically, it featured a “one-last-chance” alternative sentencing

option targeted specifically at serious and repeat

young offenders, but it likewise entrusted sanctioning authority in such cases to its juvenile courts.

Each of these experiments is worthy of careful

analysis, because each represents an attempt to

strengthen the juvenile court’s sanctioning authority

while preserving its capacity to provide an individualized judicial response to each offender.

Method

To date, much of the statistical research on treating

juveniles as criminal offenders has focused on the

incidence of waiver, the transfer decision, case processing characteristics, and sentencing, usually at a

macro (national) level. Legal research has provided

comparisons of State transfer laws and the age and

offense criteria applied in different provisions. The

case studies presented in this Report contribute to the

body of knowledge on this issue by providing rich

descriptive information on the impact of legislative,
5

Figure 1. Blended Sentencing Models, 1997*

or

Juvenile

Court Juvenile Adult

Juvenile

Adult

Juvenile

Court

Juvenile

Juvenile

Court

Adult

Adult

Juvenile

Criminal

Court

Adult

Juvenile

Criminal

Court

Court Type of Sanction Description Examples

Juvenile—Exclusive Blend: The juvenile court New Mexico

imposes either juvenile (delinquency) or

adult (criminal) sanctions.

Juvenile—Inclusive Blend: The juvenile court Connecticut

imposes both juvenile and adult sanctions, Kansas

typically suspending the adult sanction. Michigan

Minnesota

Montana

Juvenile—Contiguous: The juvenile court imposes Colorado

a juvenile sanction that would be in force beyond Massachusetts

the age of its extended jurisdiction. At that Rhode Island

point, the juvenile court determines whether the South Carolina

remainder of that sanction should be served in Texas

an adult criminal corrections system.

Criminal—Exclusive Blend: The criminal court California

imposes either juvenile or criminal sanctions. Colorado

Florida

Idaho

Michigan

Oklahoma

Virginia

West Virginia

Criminal—Inclusive Blend: The criminal court Arkansas

imposes both juvenile and criminal sanctions, Florida

typically suspending the criminal sanction. Iowa

Missouri

Virginia

* Each of the models presented applies to a subset of alleged juvenile offenders specified by State statute.

or

and

and
6

programming, and policy changes on the juvenile and

criminal justice systems at the State and local levels.

Even though the experiences described in each case

study are in some ways unique to the site that was

studied, there are several common issues. Policymakers facing similar changes can benefit from the

experiences of others.

In all three States, the investigations forming the

basis for the case studies were conducted primarily

in the fall of 1998 and involved site visits, focus

group meetings, and individual and group interviews. Interviews were conducted in urban and rural judicial districts, with officials and representatives

of both the juvenile and criminal justice systems, at

State and local levels. At the State level, legislators,

reform advocates, directors of juvenile and adult

corrections agencies, juvenile justice specialists, and

members of criminal and juvenile justice coordinating councils were interviewed. At the local level,

judges, district attorneys, public defenders, jail wardens and juvenile detention administrators, juvenile

and adult probation directors, law enforcement officers, and victim advocates were interviewed. Study

questions focused on three subjects:

◆ The background of the State’s legislative reforms.

◆ Policy and programmatic changes that occurred

as a result of the reforms.

◆ The impact of these changes on the juvenile and

criminal justice systems.

In New Mexico, observers visited the two largest

urban judicial districts and a rural district, in addition to conferring with State officials in Santa Fe,

interviewing a total of about 60 justice practitioners

in the process. In Minnesota, researchers conducted

focus group interviews in the largest urban judicial

district, a suburban/rural district, and a remote rural

district and interviewed State officials in St. Paul,

involving a total of about 70 practitioners. The Wisconsin site work involved visits to the State’s largest

urban jurisdiction, two medium-size urban districts,

and a rural district and interviews with State officials in Madison, for a total of more than 60 individuals. In addition to the views and impressions of

interview subjects, investigators in all three States

analyzed pertinent case processing statistics bearing

on the States’ reform efforts wherever possible.
7

The Reform: Removing All

17-Year-Olds From the Original

Jurisdiction of the Juvenile Court

Effective January 1, 1996, the Wisconsin legislature

made an important alteration in the traditional legal

boundary that defines adulthood:

“Adult” means a person who is 18 years of age

or older, except that for purposes of investigating or prosecuting a person who is alleged to

have violated any state or federal criminal law

or any civil law or municipal ordinance, “adult”

means a person who has attained 17 years of

age. Wis. Stat. Ann., sec. 938.02(1).

A similar change became effective in New Hampshire in 1996. N.H. Stat. Ann., sec.169–B:2. As a

result, the two States became the first in at least 20

years to exclude an entire age group from juvenile

court jurisdiction. They join 11 other States that

have long excluded 17-year-olds from the original

jurisdiction of juvenile court—among them 3 that

also exclude 16-year-olds (see table, page 9).

At the same time that the Wisconsin legislature

passed the categorical exclusion, it lowered the juvenile court’s minimum age of original jurisdiction for

delinquency from 12 to 10 years. Fourteen other

States have also established a minimum age for delinquency jurisdiction, with specified minimums ranging

from age 6 to age 10. Thirty-five States and the District of Columbia, however, specify no minimum age

for juvenile court jurisdiction in delinquency matters

(Griffin, Torbet, and Szymanski, 1998).

Significance of the Reform

Shifting an entire age group out of the juvenile

court’s jurisdiction is the broadest form of statutory

exclusion. This type of reform allows a State to send

more youth younger than age 18 into the criminal

justice system than any other transfer mechanism. In

a single broad stroke, Wisconsin reduced the number of children in the State eligible for juvenile court

jurisdiction by 12 percent, according to 1996 Census

estimates. Moreover, in the year that the exclusion

took effect, 17-year-olds represented almost 25 percent of the juvenile arrests for violent crime index

offenses (murder, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault) and about 15 percent of juvenile arrests

for property crime index offenses (burglary, larcenytheft, motor vehicle theft, and arson) (Wisconsin

Office of Justice Assistance, 1998). (See sidebar:

“Wisconsin Juvenile Justice Reform,” page 8.)

Primary Goals of the Reform

According to the Study Committee’s report, the purpose of Wisconsin’s proposed shift in jurisdictional

boundaries was threefold:

◆ To promote individual accountability. The Study

Committee’s report reflects a general sense that the

juvenile justice system in Wisconsin had become a

“revolving door” spun by the pressures of a juvenile crime wave. Accordingly, the report suggests

that the criminal justice system hold the “more

mature” 17-year-old to a greater degree of accountability by threatening the “full range of adult dispositions” for criminal law violations. Several other

changes recommended in the report and eventually

passed by the legislature also emphasized accountability. The most far reaching of these changes was

the rewrite of the Juvenile Code’s purpose to

1

 Hunter Hurst, Jr., and Anne Stahl conducted site visits and

interviews at the county level in Dane County, Milwaukee

County, Racine County, and Sawyer County and at the State

level in Madison.

Wisconsin’s Case Study1
8

reflect a “balanced approach” to juvenile justice

intended to emphasize the goals of offender accountability and community protection. According to respondents interviewed in Wisconsin, the

criminal justice system was considered better

situated to enforce accountability because of its

greater capacity for secure confinement in prisons

and, particularly, in county jails. Compared with

their counterparts in the juvenile justice system,

adult probation and parole were also considered to

be in a better position to sanction program violations by imposing time in jail or prison.

◆ To achieve consistency with neighboring States.

As the Study Committee noted in its January 1995

report, Juvenile Justice: A Wisconsin Blueprint for

Change (Blueprint), several of Wisconsin’s neighboring States (including Illinois and Michigan)

had already set the age for criminal responsibility

lower than 18. Interviews revealed concerns about

the inconsistent ages of criminal responsibility in

Wisconsin and its neighboring States. In particular,

because of Chicago’s proximity to the metropolitan

centers of southern Wisconsin, respondents were

concerned that the different ages of criminal responsibility in Illinois and Wisconsin might encourage sophisticated criminals from Chicago to

use older juveniles to expand illicit drug markets in

the urban centers of southern Wisconsin. A key

policymaker on the Study Committee, for example,

believed that lowering the age of criminal responsibility in Wisconsin could help prevent Wisconsin

Wisconsin Juvenile Justice Reform

In response to concerns raised by a number of highly visible violent crimes committed by very young children in Wisconsin and by steep increases in overall rates of juvenile crime in the State (juvenile arrests for

violent crime index offenses in the State doubled between 1988 and 1993), Wisconsin’s Governor and the

State legislature, in the spring of 1994, created a blue-ribbon study committee to assess the effectiveness

of the Children’s Code and propose recommendations for reform. Removing 17-year-olds from the juvenile

court’s jurisdiction was among the fundamental changes recommended by the committee (the Wisconsin

Juvenile Justice Study Committee) in its January 1995 report, and eventually enacted into law.

As a result, Wisconsin’s juvenile justice system was transformed by the 1996 Juvenile Justice Reform Act and

selected provisions of the 1995–1997 Biennial Budget Act. In addition to lowering the age of criminal responsibility, key provisions of the reform package included:

◆ Moving the authority for juvenile corrections from Health and Human Services to the Department of

Corrections.

◆ Modifying an extended jurisdiction classification in juvenile corrections.

◆ Creating a separate juvenile justice code to deal exclusively with delinquency.

◆ Redefining the Code’s goal to emphasize the “balanced approach.”

◆ Eliminating the right to jury trials.

◆ Improving victims’ access to proceedings and information.

◆ Changing the lower limit of delinquency jurisdiction from age 12 to age 10.

◆ Relaxing confidentiality restrictions governing juvenile records.

◆ Reducing the age limit for various offense-specific exclusions.

◆ Providing for new juvenile dispositions, including secure detention not to exceed 30 days.
9

communities from becoming “crime magnets” for

offenders from neighboring States.

◆ To redirect juvenile justice resources. The Blueprint report also suggested that removing 17-yearolds from the juvenile justice system without

reducing State allocations to counties for juvenile

justice services would mean that available resources would be directed to a smaller population.

Lowering the minimum age of original juvenile

court jurisdiction, policymakers believed, would

intensify the reallocation of resources, because the

limited amount of juvenile justice resources available would be directed toward early intervention

with a younger population, one that is more likely

to respond to services and sanctions.

Impact of the Changes

Interviews and descriptive statistics indicate that

lowering the age of criminal responsibility in Wisconsin has had the immediate impact of reducing the

juvenile justice system’s workload and shifting resources to a younger population. At the same time,

the criminal justice system has been called on to

accommodate more minors—in county jails, on adult

probation, and, to a lesser extent, in State prisons.

As discussed below, the influx of minors into jails

Table. Age of Criminal Responsibility, 1998

Source: Griffin, P., Torbet, P.M., 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.

Note: The table can be converted to define the upper age of original juvenile court jurisdiction by subtracting 1 year from the age heading.

For example, the upper age is 15 in Connecticut, New York, and North Carolina.

Under Age 18 (13 States) Age 18

(37 States and the District of Columbia) Age 16 (3 States) Age 17 (10 States)

Connecticut Georgia

New York Illinois

North Carolina Louisiana

Massachusetts

Michigan

Missouri

New Hampshire (1996)

South Carolina

Texas

Wisconsin (1996)

Alabama Montana

Alaska Nebraska

Arizona Nevada

Arkansas New Jersey

California New Mexico

Colorado North Dakota

Delaware Ohio

District of Columbia Oklahoma

Florida Oregon

Hawaii Pennsylvania

Idaho Rhode Island

Indiana South Dakota

Iowa Tennessee

Kansas Utah

Kentucky Vermont

Maine Virginia

Maryland Washington

Minnesota West Virginia

Mississippi Wyoming
10

has caused the most significant policy and programming consequences during the first 3 years of

Wisconsin’s reform.

Impact on the Juvenile Justice System’s

Workload

Juvenile Court Cases and Delinquency

Services Workload

At the time this exploratory study of Wisconsin’s

reform was conducted, statewide juvenile court referral and/or disposition information with age detail

was not available. However, a transition planning

committee surveyed delinquency services staff

across the State in 1996. (Of the State’s 72 counties,

65 completed the survey.) Survey findings showed

that in the year before the change (1995), almost 20

percent of delinquent youth referred to juvenile intake were 17-year-olds (Wisconsin Office of Justice

Assistance, 1998). National estimates suggest that

17-year-olds make up approximately 15 percent of

the delinquency cases handled by juvenile courts

(National Center for Juvenile Justice, 1999). As

discussed below, the juvenile court’s workload decreased significantly after Wisconsin’s reform.

Across the four study sites, juvenile court workload

was reduced after the change—even after 10- and 11-

year-olds were added to delinquency jurisdiction. The

impact was felt both in the State’s largest urban jurisdiction, where the volume of referrals dropped by 25

percent between 1995 and 1997 (see sidebar: “Juvenile Court Referrals in Milwaukee County”), and in

rural Sawyer County, where delinquency petitions

decreased 40 percent during the same period. Delinquency services staff in the four sites generally believed that younger delinquents had filled the space in

their workloads left by 17-year-olds excluded from the

juvenile court’s jurisdiction. Unfortunately, no descriptive caseload statistics spanning the change from 1995

to 1997 were available to support this perception.

Secure Detention for Juveniles

Before being excluded from the juvenile court’s

jurisdiction in 1996, 17-year-olds accounted for

approximately 25 percent of secure detention admissions in Wisconsin. Although the absence of statewide

data prevented calculation of the proportion of admissions this population accounted for in the years after

the legislative change, detention professionals in the

three urban study sites reported a reduction in workload after losing the 17-year-olds. Data provided by

Milwaukee County showed that in 1995, 17-year-olds

made up 25 percent of the admissions to secure detention in Milwaukee County; 2 years later, they represented less than 10 percent. (In 1997, this group

consisted of juveniles who were younger than 17 at

the time of their offense and therefore were not covered by the legislative change.) In addition, total detention admissions in Milwaukee dropped by more

than one-third between 1995 and 1997. Interviews in

Milwaukee suggested that removing 17-year-olds

from the juvenile court’s original jurisdiction—

together with decreases in juvenile arrests for index

offenses and overall referrals to juvenile court—had

influenced the reduction.

Division of Juvenile Corrections

In the years leading up to the reforms, Wisconsin

experienced growth in the number of youth placed in

the State’s juvenile correctional institutions (JCI’s).

Admissions, for example, nearly doubled between

1988 and 1995. The removal of 17-year-olds from

Juvenile Court Referrals in Milwaukee

County

Between 1995 and 1997, the volume of referrals to

Milwaukee’s Children’s Court Center dropped by

25 percent, from more than 8,000 referrals in 1995

to about 6,000 in 1997. This drop occurred while

total juvenile arrests declined by approximately

9 percent, and the index arrest rate for juveniles

dropped by about 10 percent. In 1997, 17-yearolds represented approximately 20 percent of total

juvenile arrests in Milwaukee County and about

15 percent of total juvenile arrests for index crimes.

In 1995, approximately 20 percent of the total

referrals to the juvenile division prosecutor in

Milwaukee County involved youth who were 17

at the time of their offense. Just 1 year later, after

17-year-olds had been removed from the juvenile court’s jurisdiction, the volume of referrals to

the prosecutor had dropped by 18 percent.
11

the juvenile court’s original jurisdiction in 1996 directly affected admissions to JCI’s by the Department of Correction’s (DOC’s) Division of Juvenile

Corrections. Between 1995 and 1997, admissions of

17-year-olds dropped by almost 50 percent (from

about 25 percent of total admissions in 1995 to less

than 15 percent in 1997). (See figure 2.)

With regard to the Study Committee’s goal of providing more resources to younger juveniles, removing 17-year-olds led to a drop in overall admissions

to JCI’s (by about 15 percent between 1995 and

1997), but the population decrease required DOC to

increase the daily rates that counties pay for institutional placements and community-based services for

delinquents. The fixed costs of operating the institutions and providing community programs, in other

words, had to be spread over a smaller number of

days of care. Interviews, however, suggested that the

situation might have been temporary. The overall

average daily population in the State’s JCI’s, in fact,

has returned to prereform levels, as have per diem

costs, and levels are expected to remain there for the

foreseeable future. (See figure 3, page 12.)

Although corrections officials in Wisconsin attributed the original decrease in the JCI population in

part to the removal of 17-year-olds, they observed

that other changes to State laws—including a provision authorizing a 30-day disposition in secure

detention and licensed private residential care

institutions—may also have contributed to the temporary reduction in juvenile corrections placements.

On the other hand, they believed that the return to

prereform population levels had resulted from—

among other factors—longer periods of commitment

made possible by a provision that increased the extended age of juvenile court jurisdiction to age 25.

Impact on the Criminal Justice System’s

Workload

Jails

County jails were among the first institutions in

Wisconsin’s criminal justice system to feel the impact

of the lower age of criminal responsibility. The number of jail admissions in Wisconsin almost doubled

between 1988 and 1997. In 1996, overall jail admissions increased by 5 percent, and between 1996 and

1997, they jumped almost 10 percent. Respondents

believed that the additional 17-year-olds in the criminal system contributed to the increase. The Wisconsin

Office of Justice Assistance estimated that 5,750 17-

year-olds were admitted to county jails in 1996 and

8,125 (or 3 percent of total jail admissions) were admitted in 1997, a 41-percent increase. The proportion

of minors in the Milwaukee County Jail grew from

less than 1 percent of the average daily population

before the change to almost 5 percent of the average

daily population in 1997. (See sidebar: “Minors in the

Milwaukee County Jail,” page 13.)

Prisons

In recent years, the number of inmates in the Nation’s

adult prisons who are younger than age 18 has expanded rapidly. A survey of State corrections departments suggests that the under-18 prison population

nationwide grew 22 percent between 1991 and 1995

Figure 2. Admissions to Juvenile

Correctional Institutions

in Wisconsin, by Age at

Admission, 1995–97

Upper age changes to 16

Ages 14–16

Total (Ages 10–19)

Age 17

1995 1996 1997

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

Number of Admissions

Year

◆ Juveniles ages 10–13 accounted for fewer than

100 admissions in any year and, despite the

lowering of the minimum age of juvenile court

jurisdiction to age 10, actually decreased about

10% from 1995 to 1997.

◆ Juveniles ages 18–19 accounted for fewer than

50 admissions in any year.

Source: Wisconsin Office of Justice Assistance. 1998. Wisconsin Adult Jail

Populations–1997. Madison, WI: Wisconsin Office of Justice Assistance.
12

and an additional 36 percent between 1995 and 1997

(Levinson and Green, 1999). Wisconsin prison admissions reflect this trend:

◆ Between 1995 and 1997, Wisconsin prison admissions

of 17-year-olds (many of whom would have been

placed in JCI’s before the reform) grew 70 percent.

◆ Admissions of waived youth ages 14 to 16 increased by approximately 10 percent, as did

admissions of 18- and 19-year-olds.

◆ Overall admissions of youth under age 20 increased by about 20 percent.

◆ Admissions of age groups 20 and over increased

about 5 percent.

(See figure 4 for additional information.)

Impact on Policy and Programming in

Jails and Prisons

Except for purposes of criminal responsibility, 17-

year-olds continue to be minors under Wisconsin

law. They are unable to vote, make wills, sue, enter

Figure 4. Admissions to Prison in

Wisconsin, by Age at

Admission, 1995–97

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

Ages 18–19

Total (Ages 14–19)

Age 17

1995 1996 1997

Ages 14–16

Year

Number of Admissions

Upper age changes to 16

Source: Wisconsin Office of Justice Assistance. 1998. Wisconsin Adult Jail

Populations–1997. Madison, WI: Wisconsin Office of Justice Assistance.

Figure 3. Average Daily Population in Wisconsin’s Juvenile Correctional Institutions,

by Month: July 1994 to October 1998

Source: Wisconsin Department of Corrections. November 1998. The Impact of Wisconsin’s Juvenile Justice Code on Costs and Funding of the Juvenile Correctional Services: Evaluation and Recommendations. Madison, WI: Wisconsin Department of Corrections. Average Daily Population

Month/Year

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

1100

7/94 10/94 1/95 4/95 7/95 10/95 1/96 4/96 7/96 10/96 1/97 4/97 7/97 10/97 1/98 4/98 7/98 10/98

Upper age changes to 16

into contracts or apply for credit in their own names,

obtain medical treatment without parental consent,

or be completely independent of their parents. Interviews revealed that the most immediate policy and
13

programming implications of the State’s reforms

centered on anomalies caused by the “in-between”

status of 17-year-olds. These implications primarily

affected the adult corrections system, which has

assumed responsibility for a higher number of minors in its facilities and in its day-to-day work. Of

the respondents from the adult corrections system,

jailers were most likely to present specific examples

of policy issues and programming challenges that

have emerged as a direct result of lowering the age

of criminal responsibility. These and other challenges are discussed in the next sections.

Education Programs

Although now burdened with adult criminal responsibility, 17-year-olds in Wisconsin remain subject to

laws that mandate the education of minors. Prior to

the reform, minors transferred to criminal court by

judicial waiver were held in jails and remained technically subject to the State’s education laws. However, because the population of jailed juveniles was

so small and scattered at that time, compliance—

which would have involved dedicating teachers to

the jails at the local school district’s expense—was

often unfeasible.

Removing 17-year-olds from delinquency jurisdiction has significantly increased the daily population

of minors held in jails. In three of the four study

sites, this change has led to collaborative action on

the part of jailers and local school districts to meet

requirements for compulsory education. The three

urban study sites featured classroom opportunities

in the jails for a population of inmates who had been

denied the service prior to the reforms (including

inmates up to age 21 eligible for special education

because of a disability).

Interviews with jailers and educators indicate that

the culture of jails has been positively affected by

these new learning opportunities. Stories of older

inmates supporting and encouraging the classroom

activities of younger inmates were among the

brightest examples of such positive effects. One

jailer noted with a smile that a younger population

had helped him extend community jailing initiatives by increasing public support for additional

services to inmates. In an overcrowded facility, he

said, inmate services and programming not only

benefited inmates, they were essential to safety and

security. He, therefore, continued to welcome the

arrival of 17-year-olds—even though his jail was

operating at 200 inmates over capacity.

Teachers, on the other hand, expressed concerns

about the curriculum requirements for jail school programs. The Department of Public Institutions, which

sets policy in this area, requires that a standard high

school curriculum be taught to jail inmates. According

to teachers, however, the educational ability of the

average jail inmate is well below that of the average

high school student. In addition, because many inmates have earned few high school credits, graduation

is not a realistic goal. The problem of what to teach

inmates is compounded by the unpredictable duration

of each inmate’s stay in jail.

In addition to being entitled to education while in

jail, minors are eligible for educational release.

Three of the four jails studied offered educational

release opportunities, subject to the same requirements governing adult jail inmates’ participation in

work release programs. A local law enforcement

official described the educational release program as

a positive adult criminal corrections system response

to the special needs of the minors now under its

Minors in the Milwaukee County Jail

Statistics maintained by the Office of the Sheriff

in Milwaukee County provide insight into how

the change in the age of criminal responsibility

has affected the jail population in the State’s

largest urban jurisdiction. A “snapshot” or 1-day

count from the jail’s daily census on December

20, 1995, just before the change took effect,

shows 12 17-year-olds and 5 youth under age 17

in the jail population. On November 11, 1997, a

little less than 2 years later, the daily census

shows 55 17-year-olds and 2 youth under the

age of 17 in the jail’s population.

The jail averaged approximately 43 17-year-old

inmates during 1996, the first year of the change.

In 1997, the average rose to nearly 60. For most

of 1998, the jail averaged approximately 55 17-

year-old inmates.
14

supervision. Through the educational release program,

opportunity is linked with tough, accountabilitypromoting sanctions (e.g., confinement) in the event

that the opportunity is abused.

Emergency Medical Treatment Protocols

As minors, 17-year-olds require parental consent for

medical treatment. Immediately after the passage of

the reform legislation, adult jail and corrections officials were not sure how to proceed when minors

under their supervision experienced medical emergencies. Trailer legislation passed in the same session

(1995 Wis. Act 352), however, defined responsibility

and provided guidance on this issue to the local systems. Essentially, the legislation allows jailers to

provide appropriate medical care without obtaining

the consent of a prisoner’s parent, guardian, or legal

custodian. In interviews, jailers and corrections officials nonetheless expressed concern about their responsibility under the law, explaining that, at the

time of a juvenile’s admission, they typically try to

gain parental consent for any medical treatment that

may later become necessary for him or her.

Interactions With Older Inmates

None of the jailers interviewed described a chronic

problem with adult inmates victimizing juveniles. In

fact, they typically indicated, older inmates avoided

minors and lodged frequent complaints about younger

inmates’ noise and “horseplay.” One jailer and several

teachers interviewed even suggested that aggressive and provocative minors posed a threat to adult

inmates—particularly considering the additional

penalties that adults may face for committing a

crime against a minor.

To protect adults as much as minors, some practitioners suggested classifying inmates according to

age. Inmate classification systems for jails are required by law and endorsed by statewide professional corrections organizations. Although minors

now may be classified as “special needs” (based on

other criteria such as physical immaturity), none of

the classification systems in the four study sites

uses age as a classification factor.

Implications for Prosecutors

Waiver Petitions

Several interview respondents expressed concern

that lowering the age of criminal responsibility

would change the threshold for waiver decisions.

Prosecutors and judges interviewed explained that,

prior to the change, simply being 17 years old

greatly increased the odds of a waiver filing. Respondents therefore worried that removing the

whole population of 17-year-olds would cause the

age threshold to slip down—meaning that the same

number of waivers would be requested and granted

and that merely being 16 could increase one’s odds

of being waived to criminal court.

These worries may be justified, at least in part, even

though juvenile probation officials, prosecutors, and

judges developed a conscious policy to resist lowering the waiver threshold. In Milwaukee County,

waiver petitions involving 16-year-olds increased by

90 percent in the first year after the change (going

from 76 petitions in 1995 to 144 in 1996). In 1997,

an additional 111 waiver petitions involving 16-yearolds were filed in Milwaukee, bringing the rate of

increase between 1995 and 1997 to 46 percent. Notwithstanding this increase, overall waiver filings in

Milwaukee County decreased 67 percent during the

same period (from 471 filings in 1995 to 156 in

1997). The filings for 16-year-olds, therefore, did

not replace the former volume of waiver petitions

involving 17-year-olds.

Deferred Prosecution for First-Time

17-Year-Old Offenders

Several respondents suggested that the primary

effect of Wisconsin’s reform has been to withdraw

diversion opportunities from 17-year-olds who commit less serious or first-time offenses. Prior to the

change, respondents explained, most 17-year-olds

who were serious, violent, and chronic offenders

were transferred to criminal court by judicial waiver

and those who remained in the juvenile system could

generally be handled informally with services. Now

that the latter group has been swept into the criminal justice system, respondents explained, the same

resources may not be available and those that are

may not be effective for minors.
15

To some extent, these concerns seem to be well

founded. The availability of deferred prosecution services for these offenders across the four sites was not

uniform. For example, one of the urban jurisdictions

lacked staff to operate a diversion program. Interviews with staff members of a deferred prosecution

program in another of the urban study sites suggested

that they had significant problems handling the additional workload of 17-year-olds. Because of their age,

17-year-olds may be prime candidates for diversion.

Assessing these juveniles’ needs and tailoring diversion services to meet them, however, are difficult and

unfamiliar tasks for those unaccustomed to working

with young people. Program staff indicated that many

of the youth are illiterate and have trouble talking

about their lives. Moreover, the youth’s legal status as

minors limits their employment opportunities and may

sometimes block their access to services that require

parental consent or cooperation.

Implications for Probation Agents and

Public Defenders in the Criminal Justice

System

Interviews with probation agents and public defenders in the criminal justice system focused on

the many problems and pressures associated with

carrying caseloads that contain a larger number of

17-year-old offenders. Many of these offenders,

practitioners explained, are less mature, less employable, and more dependent on their families

than their adult counterparts.

Family Issues

One of the biggest adjustments for probation agents

and defenders was dealing with the influence—both

positive and negative—of their clients’ parents and

siblings. Often, they explained, older offenders have

exhausted their families’ capacity to offer positive

support or have grown beyond the reach of any negative family influences. In general, however, neither is

true of 17-year-olds. Defenders noted that the involvement and support of parents during the court

process make a big difference in helping some minor

clients keep their hopes alive. Defenders and probation agents, however, also reported that parents and

family members of their minor clients were much

more likely to contact them regularly for information

and support than the family members of older clients.

Responding to these requests, in turn, requires more

contact, more client advocacy, and more work for

defenders and probation officers. In fact, these and

similar pressures associated with serving a large number of minors have led one regional probation office

to designate two specialized agents to handle

caseloads of “youthful” offenders (under age 20).

When parents or guardians are missing from or

uninvolved in the lives of minor clients, probation

agents and defenders encounter a different set of obstacles. For example, if parental consent is necessary

to access confidential information or to qualify for

programs (such as exemption from compulsory

school attendance for early enrollment in high school

equivalency diploma (HSED) or general educational

development (GED) programs), the absence or recalcitrance of a youthful offender’s parents may effectively deny him or her important opportunities.

Public defenders also observed the disadvantages

that minors face when trying to make bail without

the support and assistance of parents or other family

members. In addition, minors whose legal caretakers

will not accept them in a household or sign work

permits and other important documents on their

behalf often have problems demonstrating means of

support or otherwise functioning independently in

the adult world. They must be employed to secure

housing, but child labor laws limit the number of

hours they can work and the types of jobs they can

hold. (A 17-year-old, for example, is ineligible for

jobs that require operation of a motor vehicle.) Even

with gainful employment, a minor cannot enter into

binding contracts—and therefore cannot lease an

apartment—without a parent’s cosignature.

Decisionmaking Competency

Probation agents and public defenders also suggested

that 17-year-olds often fail to understand the significance of being tried in criminal court—most notably,

the lifelong repercussions of a criminal record. Several respondents reported that, given a choice, minors

would prefer a felony criminal conviction with a sentence of adult probation to a delinquency adjudication

ordering placement in a residential facility. Such a

choice, respondents explained, may result from 17-

year-olds’ inability to comprehend the impact that a
16

felony record will have on their future liberties (including their ability to work for government, own a

weapon, or become licensed as a professional). They

may not foresee or understand the consequences of

having to disclose a criminal record on future employment or school applications. As one defender explained, bail eligibility and the promise of adult

probation make the criminal justice system more attractive to 17-year-olds than the juvenile system—

because these aspects may allow them to “return to

the party,” which is all they are focused on.

In addition to not understanding the implications of

a felony record, many minors fail to appreciate crucial differences between juvenile and adult probation supervision. Respondents reported, in

particular, that minors do not understand probation

agents’ power to revoke probation and place them in

jail without a court hearing.

Conclusion

Whether or not they supported Wisconsin’s reform,

most criminal and juvenile justice system practitioners

in the State agreed that it holds 17-year-olds more

accountable for their behavior in the criminal justice

system. Practitioners also view the capacity, in local

and State adult corrections systems, to incarcerate

youthful offenders for probation and parole violations

as a way to hold offenders more accountable.

Although the change undeniably achieved the goal

of consistency with neighboring States, practitioners

did not generally value this aspect of the reform.

Only a few practitioners suggested that having the

same age of criminal responsibility in Wisconsin,

Michigan, and Illinois had helped protect Wisconsin

communities from youth gangs headquartered in

neighboring States.

As to the goal of redirecting resources, most juvenile

justice practitioners did not report a decrease in their

workloads or an increase in the availability of resources for prevention services—even though delinquency petitions were down in the study sites since

the change. Although 10- and 11-year-olds do not

account for a high percentage of delinquency referrals, their addition to the juvenile court’s jurisdiction

was commonly regarded as offsetting the workload

reduction resulting from the removal of 17-year-olds.

Three years after the reform’s effective date, practitioners in both the criminal and juvenile justice systems

have an overall negative response to the removal of

17-year-olds from the juvenile court’s original jurisdiction. In the critical absence of data that analyze the

criminal court’s handling of 17-year-olds, critics suggested that the wholesale exclusion had merely “widened the net” for 17-year-olds who commit less

serious offenses, thereby requiring more resources for

diversion. In other words, prior to the change, 17-

year-olds who committed serious and violent offenses

were likely to go to criminal court via judicial waiver.

The change, critics maintain, simply sends the less

serious offenders (i.e., juveniles whose offenses were

minor, not serious or violent) into the criminal justice

and adult corrections systems.

Critics also noted major fiscal implications of the

change for local and State corrections. A cost analysis

for the transfer of workload, however, was never

conducted. As a result, unanticipated consequences

(such as the temporary reduction in the population at

juvenile institutions and the resulting increase in per

diem rates charged to counties) have somewhat frustrated goals for redirecting limited juvenile justice

resources to a younger population. Critics also observed that the desire by adult correctional officials to

“do something with these kids” caused extensive replication of juvenile justice-type program features,

particularly in jails. In general, both juvenile justice

and adult correctional practitioners have experienced

considerable anxiety and frustration trying to meet

the special needs of minors.

Supporters of the reform asserted that the change,

by achieving the goal of increased accountability

for older, maturer minors, has had a deterrent effect on crime and pointed to reductions in the volume of juvenile arrests for serious offenses as

evidence of deterrence. Although the State did not

widely publicize the change, supporters suggested

that news of the change spread quickly in childserving institutions such as public schools. The

change also received press coverage that was easy

to understand: 17-year-olds are to be treated as

adults when they commit any crime.
17

The Reform: Eliminating Judicial

Waiver and Giving Juvenile Court

Judges the Option of Imposing

Juvenile or Criminal Sanctions on

Certain Offenders

Effective July 1, 1993, the New Mexico legislature

revised its Children’s Code (New Mexico Statutes

Annotated (NMSA), chapter 32A). With respect to

serious, violent crime by juveniles, three significant

changes occurred: (1) elimination of the judicial

waiver provision, (2) passage of a blended sentencing provision that allows juvenile court judges to

impose either a juvenile or a criminal justice sanction for a new category of “youthful offender,” and

(3) elimination of juvenile court jurisdiction over a

new category of “serious youthful offender” in favor

of those cases being filed directly in criminal court.

Significance of the Reform

The most common State legislative response to serious juvenile crime in the 1990’s was to streamline

the machinery for trying juveniles in criminal court

(through such mechanisms as judicial waiver,

prosecutorial direct file, and legislative exclusion),

without attending directly to the sanctions that may

be imposed in cases transferred to criminal court.

By essentially equipping its juvenile courts with expanded sanctioning powers in a broad range of serious cases, New Mexico has taken a different tack.

Although New Mexico is not the only State that has

established a blended sentencing scheme for serious

juvenile offenders, it was, as of the end of the 1997

legislative session, the only State that had empowered its juvenile court judges to choose among the

widest possible range of sanctioning options (all

immediately effective)—from juvenile probation up

to prison sentences—for a certain class of juvenile

offenders. As such, New Mexico’s reform is a notable attempt to maximize the juvenile court’s ability

to individualize its judicial response to each offender.

Primary Goals of the Reform

Overall, reforms in New Mexico represented an effort

“to treat most kids as kids,” make the option of adult

correctional sanctions available for older juveniles

who committed more serious crimes, and select out

the most serious offenders for criminal court processing. (For more information on the context of these

and other reforms in New Mexico, see sidebar:

“Background of the New Mexico Reform,” page 18.)

The purpose of New Mexico’s changes targeting

serious, violent juvenile crime was threefold:

◆ To eliminate the cumbersome judicial waiver

provision. The Children’s Code reform task force

concluded that the traditional judicial waiver hearing had become a cumbersome process that essentially subjected offenders to “a trial before the trial.”

Waiver hearings to determine amenability to treatment in the juvenile justice system were held at the

beginning of the process, while guilt was still contested. Under the new procedure—which allows

prosecutors in cases involving juveniles designated

as “youthful offenders” to seek a criminal conviction and sanctions at sentencing—the amenability

New Mexico’s Case Study2

2

 Dr. Larry Mays and Ms. Teri Turner contributed background

information to this chapter after conducting site visits in the Third

Judicial District (Dona Ana County) and the Fifth Judicial

District (Chaves, Eddy, and Lea Counties), respectively. Ms.

Torbet conducted site visits in the Second Judicial District (Albuquerque) and at the State level in Santa Fe. Cynthia Leyba,

Children, Youth and Families Department, and Linda Crawford

Freeman, Administrative Office of Courts, compiled data sets.
18

Background of the New Mexico Reform

The New Mexico Children’s Code, first enacted in 1972, designated four categories of children over whom

the Children’s Court would have jurisdiction: neglected children, abused children, status offenders, and delinquents. All delinquent offenders (ages 10 through 17) were handled in the same manner, and all offenders

were subject to a 2-year limit on training school commitments. The code allowed transfer to criminal court

(via judicial waiver) for 16- and 17-year-olds accused of a felony and 15- to 17-year-olds accused of murder.

No other transfer mechanisms were available. The judicial waiver process was used sparingly, typically with

the most serious offenders. (See, for example, Mays and Gregware, 1996; Houghtalin and Mays, 1993).

During the 1990’s, issues regarding what to do with juveniles who had committed serious, violent crimes were

debated vigorously by media representatives, legislators, and members of the public in New Mexico. Even

practitioners in the juvenile justice system recognized that the delinquency provisions of the code failed to

provide an adequate response to the problem. (See Utton, 1994, for an indepth explanation of New

Mexico’s code revision process summarized here.) Several groups had planned to introduce legislation in the

1992 legislative session targeting violent juvenile offenders.

To avoid a potential free-for-all of contending views, the New Mexico Council on Crime and Delinquency

(NMCCD) spearheaded an effort to undertake a comprehensive revision of the code and received funding

from the State’s Juvenile Justice Advisory Committee for the study. NMCCD is a longstanding private nonprofit

organization with a mission to improve the criminal and juvenile justice systems through citizen advocacy.

Because practitioners generally regarded the Council as holding liberal views, NMCCD took care to ensure

that the study considered a wide range of perspectives. The Council’s board, in fact, removed itself from direct participation in the study by creating a task force structure and appointing a chairman responsible for

selecting members representing diverse views and backgrounds.

The task force used several tactics to elicit broad-based input from practitioners in the field, citizens, legislators, and other policymakers. The task force began by sending a questionnaire to more than 3,000 agencies,

organizations, and individuals with experience in applying the Children’s Code. The questionnaire asked respondents to comment on problems with the existing code and suggest ways of resolving the problems.

Next, the task force held a series of meetings in which it heard from national experts, considered some of the

controversial areas the task force would clearly have to address, and established a subcommittee structure.

Each subcommittee was cochaired by two or more task force members, and invitations to serve on the subcommittee were issued to anyone who wanted to participate. More than 300 people volunteered and

served on subcommittees that met, sometimes weekly, for approximately 1 year. Finally, the task force received further information from citizens at town meetings held in seven locations throughout the State during

the spring of 1992.

A team of law students provided invaluable assistance to the task force. They were assigned to specific subcommittees and attended meetings, recorded discussions and decisions, and raised and answered legal

questions. They also conducted a survey of other States’ codes. Following task force and committee recommendations, the students drafted legislation and commentaries.

Subcommittee reports were presented to the full task force and became the basis for the task force’s final

recommendations incorporated in draft legislative proposals. As those proposals were formulated, members

appeared before interim legislative committees and other groups to explain the draft legislation. An interim

committee endorsed the code revision proposals, and the Speaker of the House sponsored the resulting bill.

Because the bill as a whole (particularly its minimum age provisions for serious and youthful offenders) was in

some respects controversial, its unanimous endorsement by the task force was crucial to its eventual passage.
19

decision is moved from the pretrial stage to the

sentencing stage, after guilt has been established.

◆ To create sentencing options for a new class of

“youthful offenders.” The Children’s Court has

exclusive jurisdiction over a new category of

youthful offenders—essentially the group of offenders previously eligible for waiver. Under the

new provision, youthful offenders were initially

defined as 15- to 17-year-olds charged with one of

the following offenses:

❖ Second-degree murder, assault with intent to

commit felony, kidnaping, aggravated battery,

shooting at an occupied building, dangerous

use of explosives, criminal sexual penetration,

robbery, aggravated burglary, or aggravated

arson.

❖ First-degree murder (15-year-olds only).

❖ Any felony and three prior separate felony

adjudications during a 2-year period.

Subsequent changes to the law added crimes to

the definition of youthful offender—including

aggravated battery on a peace officer (added in

1995) or a child (added in 1996) that resulted in

great bodily harm or death. In 1996, the age limit

for eligibility as a youthful offender was lowered

from 15 to 14 years of age for all offenses.

Under the provision, a Children’s Court judge may

enter an adjudication of delinquency and sentence

a youthful offender found to have committed one

of the enumerated offenses to an appropriate juvenile sanction. Alternatively, where the prosecutor

has filed a notice of intent to seek a criminal

sanction before trial and, after adjudication, the

Children’s Court judge has made a series of statutory amenability findings required to invoke a

criminal sentence (and conviction), the juvenile

can receive an adult criminal corrections sanction.

◆ To eliminate juvenile court jurisdiction over

juveniles who commit first-degree murder. Under the reform, 15- to 17-year-olds (initially 16-

and 17-year-olds) charged with first-degree murder are excluded from juvenile court jurisdiction.

These “serious youthful offenders” are sentenced

according to the State’s Criminal Sentencing Act

and may receive sentences up to, but not exceeding, the mandatory term for an adult (i.e., life in

prison but not death). If the alleged serious

youthful offender is convicted of a lesser offense

than first-degree murder, the court may impose

either a juvenile or a criminal sanction.

Impact of the Changes

This section describes the impact of New Mexico’s

blended sentencing law on various components of

the juvenile and criminal justice systems. State and

local implementation issues are described first, followed by assessments of the impact on case processing, sentencing, and correctional resources.

Implementation Issues

The State conducted very little initial planning on

how to implement reforms that affected the new category of “youthful offenders.” Thirteen months after

the law went into effect, however, the Children,

Youth and Families (CYF) Department funded a

study that, among other things, attempted to identify

the views of judges and other justice professionals on

the best system response to youthful offenders. Although their understanding of the reforms’ intent

varied, most study respondents believed that the legislature had wanted to target the “worst of the worst”

juvenile offenders for a punishment response, thereby

removing those no longer amenable to juvenile justice

programs while otherwise preserving the intent of the

Children’s Code (Schwartz et al., 1995). Because

most respondents viewed the juvenile corrections

system as unprepared or inappropriate for many

youthful offenders, they considered the availability of

criminal sanctions an appropriate response. In keeping with this view, respondents believed that scarce

resources should not be expended on new juvenile

justice system programming for youthful offenders,

although respondents did believe that intensive aftercare services should be required for this population.

Funds should also be used for delinquency prevention and the development of other local services for

youthful offenders. (See sidebar: “Profiles of Youthful

Offenders and Serious Youthful Offenders,” page 20.)

No New Programming

The New Mexico legislature authorized the Department of Corrections (DOC) to implement specialized
20

programming for youthful and serious youthful offenders in prisons. In addition, the State’s Juvenile

Justice Advisory Committee recommended that

DOC implement specialized programs and be required to segregate youthful offenders from adult

offenders in prison. DOC, however, chose to do

neither because of the small number of juveniles

expected to be sentenced under the new law. CYF

likewise decided not to treat juveniles who had received a delinquency adjudication and sentence under the youthful offender law any differently from

members of the general delinquent population in

their institutions.

Because of the punitive intent of the legislation, no

new or special programming for the newly created

categories of youthful/serious youthful offenders

was deemed necessary at the State or local levels in

adult or juvenile corrections; no separate facility was

initially planned in either system; no new funding

was appropriated; and no training regarding the

new law was conducted. The only changes in local

procedure were the new filing requirement for prosecutors who wished to seek criminal sanctions and,

in one site, the assignment of a social worker to help

the public defender locate treatment options in the

juvenile system for youthful offenders.

Impact on Case Processing

Pretrial Detention/Status

When the law went into effect, confusion existed at

the local level regarding who qualified for the new

classifications of youthful offender and serious youthful offender and what rules governed the categories,

particularly what a juvenile’s status would be during

case processing. Court rules amended in 1995 clarified

that (1) a youthful offender must be held in a juvenile

detention facility until sentencing and (2) a serious

youthful offender may not be detained in a jail unless

the court finds that such detention is appropriate

(Rule 10–207). Because they are under criminal

court jurisdiction, serious youthful offenders whose

Profiles of Youthful Offenders and Serious Youthful Offenders

The following profile of 42 youthful offenders and serious youthful offenders incarcerated in New Mexico’s

prisons in July 1996—who represented almost the total population of juveniles statewide who had received

a prison sentence—provides an interesting snapshot. (At the time of data collection, the serious youthful

offenders were 16- and 17-year-olds charged with first-degree murder who were excluded from juvenile

court jurisdiction; the youthful offenders were 15-, 16-, or 17-year-olds charged with designated serious offenses and subject to juvenile or criminal sanctions.)

◆ The 34 youthful offenders and 8 serious youthful offenders were predominantly 16- or 17-year-old Hispanic males who were not in school at the time of their arrest. (The only female in the group was a serious

youthful offender.) The typical presenting offense for the youthful offenders was a robbery or aggravated

assault that involved a firearm, other accomplices, and one victim, usually of the same ethnicity and gender

as the offender.

◆ Individuals in both groups had diverse prior records. Their records typically included some violent, some

property, and some public order offenses. However, it was the youthful offenders—not the serious youthful offenders—who had more violent and extensive juvenile criminal careers.

◆ The average sentence for youthful offenders was 6 years. For serious youthful offenders, it was 36 years.

◆ Youthful offenders committed significantly more infractions in prison than serious youthful offenders. Infractions arose mostly as a result of disciplinary problems rather than violent behavior problems.

Source: Hanke, P.J. September 13, 1996. Working Paper No. 20: Profile of Youthful Offenders and Serious Youthful

Offenders in New Mexico’s Prisons. Albuquerque, NM: Institute for Social Research, University of New Mexico.
21

behavior in a juvenile detention facility is found to

be disruptive or unmanageable may be transferred

to jail on the orders of a judge.

Detention administrators reported longer stays in

detention for youthful offenders than for delinquents. It is unclear whether such delays are caused

by youthful offenders’ more frequent requests for

jury trials or by activities associated with the sentencing of youthful offenders (e.g., psychological

evaluations, predisposition reports, amenability

hearings). Because of longer periods of time spent in

detention (both before and after trial), administrators regard the lack of programming for juveniles in

detention as a growing concern.

Intake and Petitioning

Juvenile probation officers and district attorneys

expressed concerns about the intake and petitioning

process for youthful offenders. By statute, the probation department is responsible for conducting a

preliminary inquiry (PI) into all delinquency referrals to determine the best interests of the child and

the public. Statements made to a probation officer

during a PI are shielded by confidentiality requirements at intake, and the results of the inquiry are

not admissible until the amenability-to-treatment

hearing—which now occurs after the trial, when

only the question of appropriate sanctions remains.

When PI’s were conducted to inform juvenile court

judges’ waiver decisions, they were as broad as possible. In the new youthful offender cases, however,

the PI serves the more limited purpose of helping

prosecutors determine whether or not to seek criminal sanctions. Respondents indicated that some form

of pre-petition PI is clearly necessary, both because

district attorneys rely on probation’s recommendations in this area and because probation’s help is

needed in identifying chronic offenders (i.e., those

who qualify as youthful offenders under the threeprior-adjudications criterion). Most respondents,

however, reported that conducting full-scale PI’s at

the front end has slowed the process unnecessarily.

Decision To Seek Criminal Sanctions

The district attorney makes the initial decision to

seek a criminal sanction in cases involving youthful

offenders. If a delinquency referral meets age, offense, and/or prior record criteria specified in the

youthful offender law, the prosecutor may seek a

criminal sanction, in which case he or she must file a

notice of intent within 10 days of filing the delinquency petition. Some respondents pointed out that,

without statewide reporting, it is difficult to determine whether an accused juvenile qualifies as a

chronic offender (i.e., one who has three prior

felony adjudications within 2 years).

Prosecutors deciding whether to seek criminal sanctions against a youthful offender will typically consider the juvenile’s age, court record, prior offenses,

and previous treatment opportunities and the seriousness of the offense, its impact on the victim, and the

recommendation of the probation officer. Although

considerable prosecutorial discretion exists at this

point in the process, most respondents indicated that

the blended sentencing statute provides a reasonable

check on that discretion. Nevertheless, significant

variations in approach were found in the districts

visited. In the one rural district studied, for example,

the prosecutor seeks criminal sanctions against all

juveniles who meet youthful offender criteria. (To

date, however, the office has not received many qualifying referrals.) Another district attorney’s office has

a specific policy of not seeking criminal sanctions in

aggravated burglary cases unless the offender brandished a weapon or physically harmed a victim.

Statewide data were not available on the number of

youthful offender cases in which prosecutors had

sought criminal sanctions, but estimates put the

number at 100 to 150 cases per year. In addition, no

statewide data exist on the number of youthful offender cases handled as delinquency cases (i.e.,

those in which no criminal sanction was sought).

The prosecutor in one urban district estimated that

he had sought criminal sanctions in 70 to 80 cases

per year and rejected that option in two to three

times as many eligible youthful offender cases.

Additional Rights for Youthful Offenders

Because blended sentencing options expose juveniles

to the risk of criminal sanctions, the trial of a youthful

offender features essentially the same constitutional

protections guaranteed in criminal trials. (In New

Mexico, Children’s Courts are courts of general trial
22

jurisdiction, and their judges may preside over criminal

trials.) After a prosecutor files a notice of intent to

seek a criminal sanction, in fact, the juvenile petition

is closed and the rules of criminal procedure apply.

The youthful offender (like all juveniles who appear

in court) is represented by an attorney. A preliminary

hearing (before the court or a grand jury) takes place

within 10 days of the notice, and any youthful offender being detained before trial is eligible for bail.

Youthful offenders also have a right to a trial by a

jury of 12 persons. (A 6-person jury decides ordinary

juvenile delinquency matters.)

Plea Bargaining

Most respondents reported that the reform has resulted in prosecutors using the threat of an adult

criminal sanction as a “negotiating chip” to obtain

pleas that guarantee juvenile sanctions. As a result,

respondents reported, most youthful offender cases

do not go to trial. Plea bargaining policy is often

caseload driven: If a district attorney’s office does not

have the resources to try a case, it has a greater incentive to plea bargain. In all instances of plea agreements, a judge discusses the plea being offered with

the juvenile to ensure that he or she has agreed to its

terms voluntarily and understands the outcome.

Case Delays

For a variety of reasons, cases in which the youthful

offender law is invoked are likely to take far longer

than ordinary delinquency adjudications. Reasons for

the delay include additional time spent on discovery,

the frequent filing of defense motions contesting competency to stand trial, and defendants’ additional procedural rights under the new law, including the right

to a full-dress (12-person) jury trial. In addition, prosecutors may request deadline extensions as part of

strategies being used in plea negotiations.

Criminal processing time standards also differ from

juvenile justice system standards. Criminal trials

must commence within 6 months of arraignment;

delinquency adjudicatory hearings must occur

within 4 months of petition. Court data from the

New Mexico Second Judicial District (Albuquerque) revealed that 65 percent of youthful offender

cases in which a criminal sanction was sought received a sentence within 9 months of indictment.

Impact on Sentencing

The purpose of blended sentencing is to give judges

options for fashioning dispositions that are more offender based, that is, dispositions that take into account not just the current offense but the offender’s

background, characteristics, and prospects for rehabilitation. Blended sentencing models in which the

juvenile court retains jurisdiction are intended to increase the likelihood that significant consequences

will follow from juvenile wrongdoing and encourage

offenders to access the opportunities available to them

in the juvenile justice system. (For more information

on blended sentencing, see Zimring, 1998; and

Redding and Howell, in press.)

As discussed above, one effect of New Mexico’s elimination of its judicial waiver provision was to move the

amenability decision from the pretrial stage to the

sentencing stage. Under blended sentencing, in fact,

the sentencing phase looks very much like the old

judicial waiver process (see NMSA sec. 32–2–20).

The judge typically orders a psychological evaluation

prior to the amenability hearing. (Because guilt has

already been established, the juvenile is permitted to

talk about the crime with a psychologist—something

that never would have occurred when the amenability

hearing occurred before fact-finding and that gives

the judge access to all relevant information on the

offense and the offender.) The evaluation and subsequent hearing focus on several factors, including the

youthful offender’s history of previous treatments, his

or her prospects for future rehabilitation within available juvenile facilities, and any developmental disabilities or mental disorders that might disqualify him

or her from commitment to a juvenile facility.

The judge is required to consider a number of other

determinative factors when assessing amenability. These

factors, which are specified by statute, are roughly the

same as those that the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision

in Kent v. United States, 383 U.S. 541, 566–67 (1966)

requires courts to consider when making judicial

waiver determinations. They include the following:

◆ The seriousness of the offense.

◆ Whether the offense was committed in an aggressive, violent, premeditated, or willful manner.

◆ Whether a firearm was used.
23

◆ Whether the offense was committed against

persons or property, with greater weight given

to person offenses, especially if injury resulted.

◆ The juvenile’s sophistication and maturity (as

reflected by his or her home environment, emotional attitude, and pattern of living).

◆ The juvenile’s record and previous history.

◆ The prospects for adequate protection of the public

and the likelihood of reasonable rehabilitation by

using procedures, services, and facilities currently

available.

◆ Any other relevant factor, provided that it is

stated on the record.

As noted above, New Mexico’s blended sentencing

statute allows Children’s Court judges to impose juvenile or criminal sanctions—provided that the prosecutor has filed a notice of intent to seek the criminal

sanction. If the judge at the amenability hearing decides that juvenile sanctions should be applied, the

juvenile probation department prepares a predisposition report. If criminal sanctions are to be applied, the

adult probation department completes the report. If

the judge is undecided, an additional evaluation may

be requested to focus on the juvenile’s treatment

needs and level of “dangerousness” (i.e., whether the

juvenile can be treated safely on probation and, if not,

what level of security he or she requires).

Youthful Offender Outcomes

Case processing and sentencing data compiled on

youthful offender cases in which the district attorney’s

office in the Second Judicial District (Albuquerque)

sought criminal sanctions provide a glimpse of how

one locality is applying New Mexico’s blended sentencing law. Between January 1995 and November

1998, 211 youthful offender cases (primarily Hispanic

males) were indicted by the grand jury. Of these, 26

cases were still pending at the end of 1998 and 19 had

missing information.

In the 166 completed cases, 139 were convicted and

27 were otherwise dismissed.

◆ Of the 139 convicted, 104 entered a guilty plea or

were convicted of a youthful offense, 34 were

convicted of or admitted to a lesser offense and

received a juvenile sentence, and 1 received

another type of formal outcome.

◆ Of the 104 convicted of a youthful offense, about

half (53) received a criminal sanction and 51 received a juvenile sanction.

◆ Of the 53 who received a criminal sanction, only

5 received a “straight prison sentence” (i.e., one

for which none of the sentence was suspended).

Twenty-two received a prison sentence (all or

some of which was suspended), 24 were placed

on adult probation with or without a suspended

sentence, and 2 received jail and a suspended

sentence or parole.

◆ Of the 51 who received a juvenile sanction, 32

were placed on probation, 18 were committed to

CYF, and 1 received both a juvenile commitment

and probation (see figure 5, page 24).

Data from the other two study sites provide interesting comparisons with the Second Judicial District’s

sentencing decisions. In the other urban site (Las

Cruces), all but 1 of the 15 youthful offender cases

indicted during a 2-year period received a juvenile

sanction. (Ten received probation, three were committed to CYF, and one received both a juvenile commitment and probation.) The sole criminal-sanctioned

case received a suspended sentence with parole. In

the rural district, of the six offenders indicted during

a 1-year period, four received prison sentences and

two were placed on juvenile probation.

Although suspended sentences, parole time, and

time-served computations made it difficult to calculate the exact length of adult sentences received, an

offender’s chances of receiving a 9-year or longer

prison sentence were greater in the rural district

than in the other two districts.

What the data do not reflect is the number of cases

eligible for youthful offender designation for which

the district attorney did not seek an adult sanction.

These cases, handled as delinquency cases, are not

tracked. The district attorney handling juvenile cases

in the Second Judicial District estimates that two to

three times more youthful offender cases in that district are handled as juvenile cases than actually receive a notice of intent to seek an adult sanction.

Information on exactly how many cases are handled
24

in this manner would provide valuable insight into the

types of cases for which the district attorney seeks

adult sanctions, as compared with the number of potentially eligible cases being handled as regular delinquency cases, both within and across jurisdictions.

Impact on Correctional Resources

Respondents indicated that sentencing decisions

may be based as much on the availability of correctional resources as on the appropriateness of a

given sanction. Judges reported that even in cases

in which youthful offenders are amenable to juvenile sanctions, the current State-administered

juvenile corrections system often lacks the resources to hold offenders accountable or address

their needs. Public defenders noted that consideration of “the prospects for adequate protection

and rehabilitation in available facilities” (among

the amenability criteria listed above) often works

unfairly against their older clients, for whom

judges tend to impose criminal sanctions based on

the unavailability of treatment.

* Indicted refers to those youthful offender cases in which the district attorney sought criminal sanctions. An additional 19 cases had missing information.

5 Prison

22 Prison + Suspended

Sentence + Parole

2 Jail + Suspended

Sentence or Probation

24 Probation or Probation

+ Suspended Sentence

18 Commitment

1 Commitment +

Probation

32 Probation

192 Cases Indicted*

Figure 5. Processing of 192 Youthful Offender Cases Indicted Between January 12, 1995,

and November 5, 1998, in the Second Judicial District (Albuquerque, New Mexico)

26 Cases Pending 166 Completed Cases

27 Dismissals 139 Convictions

34 Convictions/

Admissions to

Lesser Offense

1 Other

51 Juvenile Sanctions 53 Criminal Sanctions

104 Convictions/

Admissions to

Youthful Offense

➤

➤

➤

➤

➤

➤

➤

➤
25

If a court decides on a juvenile sanction, it may

impose any of the full range of dispositional options available to delinquents. Unless a juvenile

is discharged from the system sooner, a juvenile

sanction may continue for 2 years or until the

juvenile reaches age 21 (whichever results in a

longer sanction). A juvenile sentence may be less,

but not more, severe than the criminal sentence

for the same offense.

Several Children’s Court judges reported being unfamiliar with criminal sanctions at the time the

blended sentencing law was enacted. Criminal sanctions include jail, prison, probation, parole, and suspended sentence. As stated above, a juvenile may

receive a sentence that is less, but not more, severe

than the mandatory criminal sentence, with 1- to 2-

year enhancements available for crimes that were

committed with firearms or that involved elderly or

handicapped victims. Counties operate local jails

and juvenile detention facilities, and DOC administers adult probation and parole services in district

offices throughout the State. Prisons are also administered by DOC and have a current population of

approximately 4,600 males and 500 females.

Lack of Confidence in the State’s Juvenile

Corrections System

Prior to the 1993 revision of the Children’s Code,

the Administrative Office of the Courts administered juvenile intake and probation services at the

district court level and the New Mexico Youth

Authority administered juvenile corrections. To

consolidate all services for children—including

child protection and juvenile justice services—

within a single agency, the recent reform initiative

abolished the Youth Authority and created the

Children, Youth and Families (CYF) Department.

Many respondents expressed dissatisfaction with the

new agency’s programming for delinquents and for

youthful offenders receiving juvenile dispositions.

The intent of combining social services and juvenile

justice in a single agency was to provide better and

more coordinated services. However, in the view of

many respondents, the organizational structure that

has evolved is unworkable. Practitioners pointed

to basic conflicts between the child protection and

juvenile justice philosophies, contending that the

former is firmly in administrative control. The prevailing sentiment is that the new agency’s juvenile

justice components (probation, parole, and institutions) receive little attention, occupy a low priority,

and are administered poorly.

CYF’s Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) administers the Boys and Girls Schools (neither of which

is secure), the Youth Development and Diagnostic

Center, and a recently opened 96-bed secure facility for older felony delinquents—for a total capacity of approximately 500 beds. A secure facility for

the southern counties (which will include 50–60

institutional beds and 50 regional detention beds)

is being planned. DJJ administers juvenile probation services in district offices throughout the

State, some of which reportedly have developed

special programs and services. DJJ does not provide aftercare services and prohibits out-of-State

placement of juvenile delinquents.

Some judges reported that their lack of confidence

in CYF is so significant that they have sentenced

youthful offenders to prison or adult probation in

the belief that the offenders would be more likely to

receive appropriate services through the criminal

justice system than through CYF. Judges are also

seeking approval to send juveniles out of State to

avoid what they perceive to be the negative consequences of in-State custody.

Added Burdens on Adult Probation

Adult probation departments may be experiencing

the greatest impact from the new blended sentencing

law. First of all, they must complete presentence

reports on all youthful offenders receiving criminal

sanctions and present those reports in court. Probation officers also find themselves working with a

new and unfamiliar class of probationers—who may

not be old enough to drive, sign a lease, find suitable

employment, or make decisions independent of their

families. It is standard practice for judges to suspend

up to half of any youthful offender sentence in the

criminal justice system and to require that the remainder of the sentence be spent on probation.

Judges also typically stipulate a parole period of 2

or more years for these offenders. Adult probation

officers report that youthful offenders, unaccustomed to the criminal justice system’s strict reporting
26

requirements, often violate the terms of their probation or parole. Such a violation is the mechanism

that usually revokes youthful offenders’ probation or

parole and sends them back to the DOC to serve

their full term. Because of these and other unfamiliar

new pressures on adult probation officers, at least

one district now handpicks probation officers to

specialize in youthful offender cases.

Conclusion

New Mexico’s 1993 reforms preserved the original

rehabilitative intent of the Children’s Code for the

majority of juvenile delinquents while targeting

older juvenile offenders who have committed serious

crimes to receive certain or potential adult criminal

corrections responses. The State accomplished these

reforms by repealing its judicial waiver law (joining

Connecticut and Massachusetts as the only States to

do so in the 1990’s), giving juvenile court judges the

option of imposing juvenile or criminal sanctions on

a certain class of offenders, and excluding 15-, 16-,

and 17-year-olds charged with first-degree murder

from the juvenile court’s jurisdiction. Despite initial

startup problems (resulting, in part, from insufficient planning and lack of new programming) and

certain unanticipated outcomes (including variable

use of the youthful offender designation across

counties), prosecutors and judges are generally

satisfied with the discretion they have been given to

make individualized case decisions that hold juvenile

offenders accountable for serious acts. Five years

after the law was passed, they reported no sense of

nostalgia for the State’s previous judicial waiver law.

The drawback of New Mexico’s reforms results

from the State’s lack of a clear vision or strategy for

correctional programming for youthful offenders (or

delinquents, for that matter). Most practitioners

interviewed believed that the juvenile corrections

system was unprepared or inappropriate for many of

these offenders. In two of the three districts studied,

however, most juveniles eligible for youthful offender designation are being handled as delinquents

or are receiving juvenile sanctions under plea negotiations or a judge’s order. For public defenders, the

lack of viable options hampers clients whose “prospects for adequate public safety and likelihood of

rehabilitation cannot be met in available juvenile

justice facilities” (one of the sentencing criteria that

judges must consider under blended sentencing).

Another limitation relates to the State’s lack of purposeful data collection for examining designation

and sentencing decisions and outcomes. New

Mexico’s blended sentencing statute would benefit

from a closer examination of how State-administered

juvenile justice services are being delivered.
27

The Reform: Giving Juvenile Court

Judges the Option of Imposing

Both a Juvenile and a Criminal

Sanction for Designated Juvenile

Offenders

In 1994, at a time when many other States were

decreasing their juvenile courts’ authority, the Minnesota Legislature expanded the authority of its

juvenile courts. The new law, Extended Jurisdiction Juvenile Prosecutions, M.S. 260B.130, created

the “extended jurisdiction juvenile” (EJJ) category

of serious or repeat juvenile offenders, authorized

juvenile court judges to impose both a juvenile disposition and a stayed sentence to the adult criminal

corrections system, and extended the juvenile

court’s jurisdiction to age 21.

Significance of the Reform

Juvenile codes have traditionally provided juvenile

court judges an array of disposition options to apply after a determination of delinquency, based on

their discretion regarding the best interests of the

juvenile. Trial and sentencing in the criminal justice

system, however, have been considered necessary

for certain juvenile offenders judged to be dangerous and irredeemable. In 1994, Minnesota created

a third sentencing option, an alternative that allows

the juvenile court to impose a sanction involving

the juvenile and criminal justice systems—with the

latter sanction becoming effective only if the juvenile fails to meet the conditions of the juvenile disposition. The new option serves as a last chance at

success in the juvenile system—an offer of help,

coupled with insistence on accountability (Minnesota Supreme Court, 1994).

Primary Goals of the Reform

By creating expanded or blended sentencing authority, Minnesota’s new law enabled juvenile courts to

address the treatment needs of young offenders

while simultaneously considering public safety. Authors of the EJJ legislation chose as their target

population serious and/or repeat offenders who

would benefit from “one last chance.” (See sidebar:

“Background of Minnesota’s Reform,” page 28.)

The purpose of the law was threefold:

◆ To provide a compromise. The EJJ legislation

represented a compromise between those who

wanted a more punitive response to juvenile crime

(for example, lowering the age of juvenile court

jurisdiction or providing for automatic transfer of

some juveniles to criminal court) and those who

wanted to maintain traditional juvenile justice principles (that is, to provide individualized dispositions with a focus on treatment and rehabilitation).

◆ To create sentencing options for a new category

of “extended jurisdiction juvenile.” As stated

above, Minnesota’s law created a category of EJJ

youth, who receive a blended juvenile/criminal

sentence and are held in the juvenile court’s extended jurisdiction until age 21. Depending on

their ages, the crimes with which they are charged,

and their past criminal histories, juveniles may

receive EJJ designation in any of four ways:

❖ Prosecutor designation: When a juvenile between ages 16 and 17 is charged with a “presumptive commit offense.”

3 Dr. Lynn Ryan MacKenzie and Douglas Thomas conducted

site visits, interviews, and focus groups for this chapter in the

Fourth, Seventh, and Ninth Judicial Districts of Minnesota and

at the State level in St. Paul.

Minnesota’s Case Study3
28

❖ EJJ motion: When a juvenile age 14 through

17 is charged with a felony and the prosecution

provides clear and convincing evidence that an

EJJ disposition would serve the public safety.4

❖ Failed certification motion (mandatory):

When a juvenile is charged with an offense for

which certification and transfer to criminal court

is presumed and the court declines to certify, the

case automatically becomes an EJJ prosecution.

❖ Failed certification motion (discretionary):

When a juvenile is charged with an offense for

which certification is not presumed and the court

declines to certify, the case may proceed either as

a regular delinquency case or, if the prosecution

proves by clear and convincing evidence that

the public safety would be served thereby, as

an EJJ case (Metzen and Rolfson, 1995).

See figure 6A, “Minnesota Direct EJJ Designation,” and figure 6B, “Minnesota Indirect EJJ

Designation (via Failed Certification),” pages 30

and 31, respectively.

◆ To provide a framework for enhancements to the

juvenile justice system. Crafters of the EJJ legislation recognized the need to expand resources and

programming for this population through a subsidy

to counties for delivering or purchasing services

for each EJJ-designated youth.

Impact of the Changes

Policy Development and Planning

Interviewees—particularly those in areas far removed from the capital region—reported some confusion about the overall intent of the legislation.

Some believed that the law’s intent was to move

more juveniles into the criminal justice system and

have acted accordingly. Others recognized an opportunity under the law to develop resources in the

juvenile justice system.

Confusion regarding the law’s intent may have resulted from a lack of training on the legislation. The

only State-level training regarding the EJJ legislation was provided to judges at the time the legislation

was passed. State-level professional associations were

slow to provide training and technical assistance to

their members. Interviewees reported that, without

training, people’s thinking did not change. As a result,

there appears to be a wide degree of disparity in how

Background of Minnesota’s Reform

In 1992, the Minnesota legislature convened the

Minnesota Supreme Court Advisory Task Force on

the Juvenile Justice System (the Task Force) to

frame a response to escalating crime by youth in

the State. Public pressure to “get tough” on juvenile crime was motivated in part by a series of

drive-by shootings and the gang-related shooting

of a police officer in Minneapolis. According to

one observer, “The confluence of Minnesota’s

changing racial composition, increasing poverty

and urban concentration of minority young

people, disproportionate minority involvement in

serious youth violence, and demographic projections of more poor and minority urban youths in

the decade to come, provided an additional

backdrop” to the push for reform (Feld, 1995).

Several previous working groups in Minnesota had

written reports that did not result in legislative

change. In this case, however, the Task Force was

determined not simply to write another report.

It wanted to create the framework for new

legislation—both by developing clear reform recommendations and by helping to build the political

consensus necessary to make the reforms a reality.

Although members of the Task Force attempted to

involve stakeholders throughout the juvenile justice

system in the reform process, respondents across

the State believed that it was mainly a concern

about urban crime that drove development of the

legislation. According to practitioners from rural

communities, which make up the bulk of the State,

the legislation failed to address the justice issues

they were facing such as the lack of access to

needed treatment programs and aftercare services.

4 Public safety is determined by consideration of the seriousness

of the offense, the culpability of the juvenile, the prior record of

delinquency, the juvenile’s willingness to participate in treatment, the adequacy of treatment services available in the juvenile justice system, and the dispositional options available to the

judge. In considering public safety, the court must give greater

weight to the seriousness of the alleged offense and the juvenile’s

prior record of delinquency than to other factors.
29

the legislation has been interpreted in different jurisdictions. Some believed that if a multidisciplinary

group had headed up implementation of the law, the

philosophy underlying the EJJ legislation could have

been transmitted into the system more directly.

Development of State and local policy and procedure

relating to the new law also lagged behind its immediate implementation. Because there was no statewide

training, policy and procedure have developed locally

within various organizations (for example, in police

departments, prosecutor’s offices, and detention centers). Respondents reported that the adversarial nature of the judicial system appears to have made it

difficult to undertake collaborative planning between

system players in some communities. Planning, programs, and responses were often developed in isolation, which has led to variation across the State with

regard to EJJ implementation (such as who qualifies,

how funds are used, what range of services are available, and what the standards of revocation are). Some

observers see this variation as a problem; others believe that policy and program development at the

local level is appropriate.

Despite the lack of coordinated statewide planning,

local policy and practice concerning the new legislation have evolved. For example, each local prosecutor’s office has developed protocols (formal or

informal) on how to handle serious juvenile cases;

police are reportedly investigating major offenses

with an eye to EJJ prosecution and, in metropolitan

areas, have developed separate divisions for handling juvenile suspects; and correctional facilities

and detention centers across the State have adapted

to handling a broader age range of youth.

Funding Issues

Crafters of the EJJ legislation recognized the need to

fund systemic resources to make the new legislation

work. However, because the legislation was passed in

a nonfunding year, a 1-year gap existed before allocations could be made for additional probation officers,

new pilot programs, and evaluations of current programs. Although the Community Corrections Act

made $20 million in capital funding available to develop local secure beds in the 10 judicial districts,

funding for direct services was not approved until

1 year after implementation of the EJJ law. At that

time, the legislature approved subsidy funding for

counties to support programming for EJJ offenders.

DOC administers this funding ($7,815 per EJJ offender, as discussed below).

Many interviewees identified the 1-year lag between

passage of the legislation and initiation of program

funding from the State as a problem, particularly because communities were not notified that funding was

coming. Practitioners suggested that the lag time could

have been better used if localities had anticipated the

funding. In fact, most practitioners did not find out

about the EJJ subsidy until it was actually available,

which further delayed program development.

Funding for services to be provided to EJJ-designated

youth is allocated on a per-case basis. The jurisdiction

develops a service plan for each EJJ youth and then

receives $7,815 with which to deliver and/or purchase

the services specified by that plan. At the end of the

first year, this amount was increased significantly,

reportedly because far fewer EJJ youth had been

designated than the State had expected. Although

designating youth as EJJ could be seen as a means of

drawing down State resources that would otherwise

not be available, focus group participants explained

that this “soft money” had associated costs—such as

the cost of psychological assessments and aftercare

supervision—that discourage local jurisdictions from

using EJJ designation to secure funds.

Impact on Case Processing

Unanticipated EJJ Designation Issues

Focus group discussions revealed significant variations in the way that the EJJ law is being used at the

local level across Minnesota. Most notably, the EJJ

designation—which relies partly on local community

standards in defining what constitutes a serious

offense—is reportedly used in urban jurisdictions only

when serious person offenses are involved. In some

rural areas, on the other hand, youth are being certified

EJJ for property crimes. Other communities are not

using the EJJ designation at all. (See sidebar: “Community Standards and EJJ Implementation,” page 32.)

In addition to these designation disparities, the profile of youth receiving EJJ designations appears

much different from what the legislature anticipated.

continued on page 36
30

Figure 6A. Minnesota Direct EJJ Designation

PROSECUTOR

DESIGNATES AS EJJ

Designates as EJJ

• Initial appearance

• Probable cause hearing

OR grand jury indictment

➤

➤

Criteria Age 14–17

Any felony

Files EJJ motion

• Initial appearance

• Probable cause hearing

• EJJ hearing➤ ➤

Prosecutor meets

burden of proof

for EJJ designation AND court

orders EJJ

designation

Prosecutor does

not meet burden of

proof for EJJ

designation OR

court does not

order EJJ

designation

Prosecutor Action

Pretrial Hearings

Judicial

Review

• Pretrial hearing

to determine

admissibility of

evidence

• Juvenile court

bench or jury

trial under EJJ

designation

Juvenile court

bench trial

• Juvenile

disposition AND

stayed criminal

sentence

• Jurisdiction

to age 21

• Juvenile

disposition

• Jurisdiction

to age 19

Disposition

Court

Processes • Juvenile pleads

guilty as charged

AND consents to

EJJ designation

• Pretrial hearing to

determine admissibility of evidence followed by

juvenile court

bench trial or jury

trial under EJJ

designation

• Juvenile pleads

guilty to a

nonpresumptive

commit offense

through plea

bargaining

• Charges reduced to

a nonpresumptive

commit offense

AND juvenile

court bench trial

• Juvenile

disposition AND

stayed criminal

sentence

• Jurisdiction

to age 21

• Juvenile

disposition

• Jurisdiction

to age 19

➤

➤

➤

➤

➤

➤

None

Age 16–17

Presumptive commit offense*

EJJ

MOTION

➤

OR

OR

➤

➤

➤

Note: Gray shading indicates EJJ designation.
31

Figure 6B. Minnesota Indirect EJJ Designation (via Failed Certification)

DISCRETIONARY

WAIVER

Files motion for criminal

court certification

For nonpresumptive commit

offense, prosecutor ➤ ➤

Criteria Age 16–17

Presumptive commit offense*

➤

Prosecutor Action

Pretrial Hearings

Judicial Review

• Automatic EJJ designation

• Pretrial hearing to determine

admissibility of evidence

• Juvenile court bench or jury

trial under EJJ designation

• Juvenile disposition AND

stayed criminal sentence

• Jurisdiction to age 21

Court

Processes • Discretionary EJJ

designation

• Prosecution meets

burden of proof,

AND court orders

EJJ designation

• Pretrial hearing to

determine admissibility of evidence

• Juvenile court bench

or jury trial under

EJJ designation

• Prosecution does

not meet burden

of proof for EJJ,

OR court does

not order EJJ

designation

• Juvenile court

bench trial

• Juvenile disposition

AND stayed

criminal sentence

• Jurisdiction to age 21

• Juvenile

disposition

• Jurisdiction to

age 19

➤

➤

➤

➤

➤

Not certified

Age 14–17

Any felony

PRESUMPTIVE

WAIVER

• Initial appearance

• Probable cause hearing OR

grand jury indictment

• Certification hearing

Burden of Proof**

Files motion for criminal

court certification

For presumptive commit

offense, defense ➤ ➤

* A presumptive commit offense is a crime for which there is a mandatory minimum sentence under the Adult Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines. In relation to

EJJ designation, presumptive commit offenses are: first-degree murder (14- and 15-year-olds only); second- and third-degree murder; assault in the first,

second, or third degree; burglary; kidnaping; false imprisonment; manslaughter in the first or second degree; aggravated robbery; simple robbery; first-degree or

aggravated first-degree witness tampering; criminal sexual conduct; escape from custody; arson in the first, second, or third degree; drive-by shooting; harassment and stalking; possession or other unlawful use of a firearm. Offenses excluded from juvenile jurisdiction (including EJJ designation) are: first-degree

murder, 16- and 17-year-olds only, and juveniles who have previously been convicted in criminal court and are charged with a new felony offense.

** Burden of proof requires clear and convincing evidence that proceeding as EJJ would serve public safety, with emphasis on the seriousness of the alleged

offense and the juvenile’s prior record of delinquency.

Not certified

Disposition

➤

➤

• Initial appearance

• Probable cause hearing OR

grand jury indictment

• Certification hearing

➤
32

Community Standards and EJJ Implementation

Implementation of Minnesota’s new EJJ legislation varies widely by jurisdiction. The development of local policy

and practice appears to be greatly influenced by local community standards, as the following data indicate.

Juvenile Felony Rates Vary Across the State, and Some Judicial Districts Use the

EJJ Designation More Than Others

The white bars in figure 7 show the rate of juvenile felony cases in relation to the total juvenile population for

each of Minnesota’s 10 judicial districts in 1996, and the white line indicates the State juvenile felony rate

average. As the graph reflects, the Ninth District had the highest rate (2.4 percent), followed by the Second,

Fourth, and Sixth Districts (each with 2 percent). The State average was 1.8 percent. The First, Third, Seventh,

and Tenth Districts shared the lowest rate (each with 1.5 percent).

The black bars in figure 7 represent the percentage of juvenile felony cases designated as EJJ for each of the

10 judicial districts in 1996, and the black line shows the State average. The Second (3.5 percent), Fourth

(3.4 percent), and Ninth (3.2 percent) Districts had percentages above the State average of 2.4 percent. The

Third District (with 1.4 percent) had the lowest rate of any judicial district in the State.

Even within judicial districts, a great deal of variation exists with respect to the rate at which juveniles are certified as EJJ. For instance, 10 of the 17 counties in the Ninth Judicial District have never certified a juvenile as EJJ,

while the Ninth District is third in the State for EJJ designations (Minnesota Department of Corrections, 1997).

Note: Although the “black” EJJ data and the “white” juvenile felony data share the same value axis in the graph,

they should not be compared with one another. The juvenile felony data are relative to the total juvenile population. The EJJ data, by contrast, are relative to the number of juvenile felony cases. The data are presented

together to allow the reader to compare the practices of a given Minnesota judicial district with those of other

judicial districts in the State. Figure 7 shows, for example, that the First Judicial District’s juvenile felony rate is

below the State average and that the rate at which it uses the EJJ designation is well below the State average.

The Fifth Judicial District, on the other hand, is slightly above average in its juvenile felony rate and below the

State average in its EJJ rate. The juvenile felony and EJJ rates of the Ninth Judicial District are well above average.

The Juvenile Crime Index for Judicial Districts Does Not Neatly Correlate With the

Juvenile Felony Rate and EJJ Designation Rate

The white bars in figure 8 detail the juvenile arrest rate for Property Crimes (per 100,000 population) for each

of the 10 judicial districts in 1996; the white line provides the State average. The black bars show the juvenile

arrest rate for Person Crimes (per 100,000 population) for each of the Districts, and the black line indicates

the State average.

Comparing these data with the juvenile felony rates and EJJ designation rates from the previous figure reveals that the Ninth Judicial District has juvenile felony and EJJ designation rates that are well above average, yet the district’s juvenile arrest rates for Person and Property Crime Index offenses are well below the

State averages. The Third Judicial District, by contrast, has the lowest juvenile felony and EJJ designation

rates in the State, but has near-average juvenile crime index rates. The Eighth Judicial District has near-average

juvenile felony and EJJ designation rates and above-average juvenile crime index rates for both Person and

Property offenses.
33

Figure 8. Minnesota Juvenile Arrest Rates: Person and Property Offenses

Note: Read the black bars in comparison with the black line and the white bars in comparison with the white line.

Source: Poole, R., and Snyder, H. 1998. Easy Access to FBI Arrest Statistics: 1994–1997. Data Presentation Package. Pittsburgh, PA: National Center

for Juvenile Justice (producer). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (distributor).

Property Offenses Person Offenses

State Average for Property Offenses State Average for Person Offenses

Judicial District

Arrests Per 100,000 Juvenile Population

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

4,500

5,000

5,500

6,000

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Note: Read the black bars in comparison with the black line and the white bars in comparison with the white line.

Source: Poole, R., and Snyder, H. 1998. Easy Access to FBI Arrest Statistics: 1994–1997. Data Presentation Package. Pittsburgh, PA: National Center

for Juvenile Justice (producer). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (distributor); Minnesota Department of Corrections. 1997. Extended Jurisdiction Juveniles in Minnesota: January 1, 1995–October 31,

1996. St. Paul, MN: Minnesota Department of Corrections.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Juvenile Felony Rate EJJ Designation Rate

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

State Average Juvenile Felony Rate State Average EJJ Designation Rate

Judicial District

Rate Per 100,000 Juvenile Population

Figure 7. Minnesota Juvenile Felony Rates and EJJ Designation Rates, by Judicial District
34

There Is Considerable Divergence in the Types of Crimes for Which Juveniles Are

Designated EJJ

Figure 9 shows considerable divergence among judicial districts in the types of crimes designated as EJJ. This

divergence is clear in the three districts with the highest EJJ designation rates. For example, 100 percent of the

cases in the Second District (Ramsey County/metropolitan St. Paul) and 78 percent of the cases in the Fourth

District (Hennepin County/metropolitan Minneapolis) were person offenses. However, in the Ninth District

(17 primarily rural counties in northwestern Minnesota), only 20 percent were person offenses. Statewide,

64 percent of EJJ cases were designated for crimes against a person, 28 percent for property crimes, 5 percent

for drug offenses, and 3 percent for “other” crimes (those that do not fit one of the three previous categories).

Community Standards and the Court

Taken together, these data confirm the view repeatedly expressed in the Minnesota focus groups: that districts vary significantly in what they consider a “serious offense” and that each court, through the policies of

its prosecutors and judges, sets its own community standards, within the context of the law. (See figure 10.)

Source: Minnesota Supreme Court. April 1998. Statistical Highlights: 1996 Minnesota State Courts. St. Paul, MN: Research and Information

Technology Office, State Court Administration.

Figure 9. Offense Categories for Disposed EJJ Cases, by Minnesota Judicial District

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Person Property Drug Other

Percentage of Disposed EJJ Cases

Judicial District

10

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1
35

Source: Minnesota Department of Corrections. 1997. Extended Jurisdiction Juveniles in Minnesota: January 1, 1995–October 31, 1996. St. Paul, MN:

Minnesota Department of Corrections.

Figure 10. Placement Location of EJJ Offenders, by Minnesota County

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

County

Hennepin

Ramsey

Other Metro

Non-Metro

Department of Corrections Out-of-State Facilities

Local Placement Options No Out-of-Home Placement

Percentage of Offenders Placed

The data regarding placement of EJJ offenders provide further evidence of variations in the administration of

the EJJ legislation. Nonmetropolitan counties (outside the Minneapolis/St. Paul region), for example, send 28

percent of EJJ offenders to Department of Corrections facilities, whereas Ramsey County/Second Judicial District sends 2 percent of EJJ offenders. Ramsey County sends 71 percent of EJJ offenders to out-of-State facilities, compared with 7 percent of nonmetropolitan EJJ offenders. Local placement options are used for the

highest percentage of youth in all areas of the State, with other metropolitan (“Other Metro”) counties (inside

the Minneapolis/St. Paul region) having the highest local placement rate (58 percent). Nonmetropolitan counties have the highest percentage of EJJ dispositions with no out-of-home placement (27 percent).

Focus group discussions revealed that the availability of local placement options and the cost of out-ofcommunity placements were clearly factors in the disposition of EJJ cases in both urban and rural courts.

The types of offenses committed by EJJ offenders also likely play a role in placement decisions, particularly

in relation to the potential risks that these youth pose to the community.

These findings confirming divergence in EJJ implementation by urban, suburban, and rural courts are not the

first to reveal this type of variation among significant juvenile justice practice. Previous research on “justice

by geography,” however, tended to find greater formality and more severe sentences in urban jurisdictions

than in rural and suburban ones (Feld, 1991). The less rigorous “snapshot” data above appear to suggest

the opposite, at least with respect to EJJ designation and sentencing in Minnesota to date. Additional research into local variations in juvenile justice practice is needed.
36

(See sidebar: “Profile of EJJ Offenders.”) Although

the authors of the EJJ legislation were targeting

serious and chronic young offenders, respondents

reported that serious first-time offenders often are

being certified as EJJ as a way to secure services

for youth otherwise ineligible for services because of

their age. Extension of the age of juvenile court jurisdiction to age 21 in these cases is also a means of

holding onto the offenders in the juvenile system

and making more time available to work with them.

Moreover, although statistics were not available to

confirm the impression, respondents also reported

that a significant part of the EJJ caseload in Minnesota includes out-of-State youth and those who have

recently moved to the State (e.g., “kids from Chicago arrested in Hennepin County; kids from Texas,

whose parents are looking for work in Polk County”).

This type of caseload causes significant problems in

the areas of treatment, family involvement, aftercare,

and integration back into the community. It also

raises concerns because Minnesota has focused its

resources over the past 20 years on early intervention

yet must bear the expense of dealing with juveniles

who have grown up in areas with potentially different

social policy priorities and issues.

Finally, focus group discussions indicated that there

may be substantial gender disparity in EJJ designation (in particular, that females “get more breaks”

than males). Participants theorized that the disparity

might result from the justice system’s traditional

inability to deal effectively with female offenders

and from the lack of available programming for serious female offenders. Participants also expressed

concern about the disproportionate number of minority youth said to be receiving the EJJ designation.

More Adversarial Atmosphere

Discussions with public defenders revealed a relatively aggressive attitude in defense of juveniles designated as EJJ, perhaps because these juveniles face

significantly stiffer penalties due to the nature of EJJ

sentencing. Public defenders expressed the opinion

that the punitive approach being taken by prosecutors in response to both the new law and public opinion has made the system more adversarial. Public

defenders also expressed concern regarding the

“greater jeopardy” that EJJ youth are placed in because the suspended adult sanction can be invoked

for relatively minor transgressions such as positive

drug tests and noncompliance with treatment.

On the other hand, respondents indicated that the

EJJ legislation has encouraged plea bargaining and

explained that it appears to be common practice in

serious cases for prosecutors to motion for certification and then “bargain down” to EJJ. In this way,

first-time serious offenders (who are unlikely to be

certified to criminal court) are ending up with the

EJJ designation.

Case Delays

Focus groups indicated that the case-processing

timelines established in the legislation are not being

followed. The consensus among participants was that

the timelines are too short to be realistic and that it is

common practice for defense lawyers to waive them.

As a result, the court process may not proceed in a

timely manner, and youth may be held in juvenile

detention for extended periods of time. Defense lawyers, however, do not necessarily see this delay as

negative, because youth often receive credit for “time

served” in juvenile detention facilities.

Impact on Sentencing

Need for Guidelines

Many respondents expressed a need for sentencing

guidelines for EJJ youth and for ways to ensure

that “sentences will stick.” In some cases, the

blended sentence is less severe than a straight delinquency sentence, although the youth has the

suspended criminal sanction “hanging over his or

her head.” Respondents also reported courts’ general hesitancy to send youth to prison for offenses

that would not result in prison time for adults.

Thus, the EJJ legislation is effectively limited by

criminal justice standards in Minnesota—a State

with the lowest adult incarceration rate in the

United States.5

5 Minnesota’s adult incarceration rate is 110 prisoners per

100,000 resident population, as compared to a national rate of

443 per 100,000 (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1999:79).
37

Profile of EJJ Offenders

◆ EJJ Designation. Use of the EJJ designation has varied widely across the State. A total of 220 EJJ cases

were disposed statewide in 1997. Hennepin County (the Fourth Judicial District) had the largest number of

EJJ cases (85), followed by the Ninth District (17 rural northwestern counties) (37) and Ramsey County

(the Second District) (29). The Eighth District (13 rural/suburban central counties) had the lowest number

of EJJ cases (2) (Minnesota Supreme Court, 1999). During the first 21 months of implementation, only 47

counties (55 percent) used the EJJ designation at all (Minnesota Department of Corrections, 1997).

◆ Court Process. Of the 220 EJJ cases disposed statewide in 1997, only 5 were decided by jury trial. The vast

majority of EJJ offenders either admitted guilt (73 percent) or had a bench trial (25 percent) (Minnesota

Supreme Court, 1999).

◆ Demographic Profile. During the first 4 years of EJJ’s implementation, the typical EJJ-designated youth was

a 16- or 17-year-old white male.

❖ Ninety-five percent were male.

❖ Eighty-three percent were 16- or 17-year-olds; only 2 percent were 14-year-olds.

❖ Forty-two percent were white, 35 percent African American, 8 percent Hispanic, 8 percent American

Indian, and 7 percent Asian (Minnesota Department of Corrections, 1997). This compares with a State

racial profile of 92 percent white (including Hispanic), 3 percent African American, 2 percent American

Indian, and 3 percent Asian (Minnesota Supreme Court, 1999).

◆ Offense Profile. The offense profile of the 220 EJJ cases disposed of in 1997 was as follows: person offenses

(59 percent), property offenses (28 percent), drug offenses (6 percent), and other offenses (7 percent). A

breakdown of the person offense category was as follows: assault (57 cases), criminal sexual conduct (24

cases), and homicide (13 cases). Felony burglary (47 cases) and robbery (36 cases) also represented major

offense categories (Minnesota Supreme Court, 1999).

◆ Prior Offense History. The EJJ legislation was intended to be “a last chance” for serious and/or chronic

offenders: 46 percent of EJJ-designated youth had no prior history of felony adjudications, 43 percent had

one to three prior felony adjudications, and only 11 percent had four or more prior felony convictions.

Those juveniles certified to criminal court had an even less chronic history—with 64 percent having no

prior felony adjudications, 31 percent having one to three prior felonies, and only 5 percent having four or

more prior felony convictions (Minnesota Supreme Court, 1999).

◆ Prior System Involvement. Hennepin County data provide a more detailed snapshot of juveniles motioned

for EJJ and criminal court certification. Eleven percent of these youth had been involved in child protection

services, 80 percent had prior delinquency petitions, 67 percent had prior delinquency adjudications, and

51 percent had a prior felony adjudication (Podkopacz, 1998).

◆ EJJ Sentence. Once convicted, 39 percent of EJJ offenders were placed locally, 25 percent were placed in

out-of-State facilities, 19 percent were committed to a State facility, and 17 percent received no out-ofhome placement (Minnesota Supreme Court, 1999).

◆ Juvenile Sentence Revocation. During the first 21 months of EJJ implementation, 14 percent (49 of 341) of

EJJ-designated youth had their juvenile dispositions revoked and adult sentences executed. Of these 49

juveniles, 37 percent (18) were incarcerated in adult prison (Minnesota Supreme Court, 1999). In Hennepin

County, 72 percent of these offenders had their dispositions as juveniles revoked for probation violations

(including placement breakdown) and 28 percent for new charges. Forty-three percent were revoked during aftercare and 57 percent prior to receiving community-based aftercare services (Bryan, 1998).
38

6 Balanced and Restorative Justice (BARJ), a core component of the OJJDP Comprehensive Strategy, is a combination

of the Balanced Approach and the Restorative Justice models.

It includes community protection, offender accountability,

offender competency development, and victim restoration.

Judicial and Prosecutorial Discretion in

Sentencing Decisions

Respondents also had serious concerns about the

judicial and prosecutorial discretion allowed in

sentencing decisions under the EJJ law. For instance, judges may decline to impose the stayed

adult sentence on EJJ youth who have failed to

meet the conditions of their juvenile disposition.

The lack of judicial and prosecutorial guidelines

for EJJ designation decisions and the unwillingness of judges to “drop the hammer” on youth

who have not followed the terms of their juvenile

sentence were identified as problems. Concern

was also raised regarding judicial discretion as to

what constitutes public safety, particularly the

differing standards in rural and urban communities. EJJ designation was reportedly used by

some judges as an alternative to certifying juveniles who previously would have entered the

criminal justice system.

Predisposition Assessment Services

A number of respondents identified a need for predisposition assessments under the law (to identify youth

who can be successfully rehabilitated, determine what

services they need, and predict their response to sentencing). No statewide data are available on the types

of assessments EJJ offenders completed during the

court process. The Fourth Judicial District (Hennepin

County), however, reported that in 65 percent of EJJ

and criminal court certification cases, the court ordered a probation assessment that included school,

family, and delinquency background checks and interviews and collateral interviews. The court ordered

a full psychological evaluation in 61 percent of the

EJJ and certification cases and followed the probation officer’s recommendation 73 percent of the time

and the psychologist’s recommendation 76 percent of

the time (Podkopacz, 1998).

Impact on Correctional Resources

In terms of the development and delivery of services

for EJJ youth, respondents indicated that the State

has not articulated a vision or policy on the appropriate continuum of services for this population. Instead,

jurisdictions have been left to answer this question

for themselves, resulting in wide divergence by

locale. In addition, treatment services must compete

with prevention/early intervention services for limited resources—the latter long having been the priority within the State. Every focus group identified

the need to expand the range of services available to

EJJ youth. (In Minnesota, juvenile probation is

organized at the county level with State or local

funding; DOC administers all juvenile and adult

correctional institutions; and detention facilities are

operated by the county or regionally where counties

have collaborated.)

According to respondents, the funding of services

on a per-juvenile basis has left rural areas, already

strapped for resources, without the critical mass

of EJJ-designated youth necessary to develop

and deliver specialized services. Some expressed

concern that, although the subsidy was much

needed, the method of allocation did not support

coherent program planning or development.

Moreover, respondents noted, the money comes at

the front end, and the cost for services is ongoing

during the course of a juvenile’s sentence. The

most significant need is often for aftercare and

followup services, and by then, available funding

is often exhausted.

By contrast, metropolitan Hennepin County has

been able to develop specialized services and supervision resources (such as intensive probation) for

EJJ-sentenced youth. This ability results from the

relatively large number of such youth moving

through Hennepin’s system annually.

Respondents also noted that the EJJ legislation is

being implemented concurrently with the Balanced

and Restorative Justice (BARJ) initiative.6

 Consequently, program development has focused primarily on community-based sanctions, restitution, case

management, and skill/competency development.

Intensive supervision and aftercare services have

also been identified as critical components of EJJ

and BARJ efforts.
39

Services for Special Needs Offenders

Services are needed for both younger EJJ youth

and older offenders. Younger youth, for example,

may need family interventions, secondary prevention, and community-based services to avoid out-oftown residential placement. Older offenders, on the

other hand, may need such services as intensive

supervision, rehabilitative services, and vocational

training. With respect to services, respondents identified pressures (1) not to impose sanctions on

younger youth and (2) to impose criminal sanctions

on older youth when necessary services are unavailable within the juvenile court system.

Specialty treatment services (for example, sex offender or drug and alcohol programs) are often

difficult or impossible to secure in rural areas, resulting in out-of-area residential placement and

increased costs for rural jurisdictions. Finding appropriate interventions for female offenders is also

difficult. Some private providers are reportedly

developing programs to address these issues, but

major gaps remain. Some respondents, for example, reported that girls may be serving their juvenile sentences in adult prison if it is the only

secure facility available.

Facilities Management

Residential facilities working with young adults

ages 18 to 21 face licensure as well as programming and security issues related to this population.

Managers of these facilities report grouping offenders so that there is no more than a 4-year age

difference between the oldest and the youngest

offender. EJJ youth are reported to be more easily

managed in facilities (apparently because of the

criminal sanctions “hanging over their heads”)

than juveniles certified and committed by the

criminal court. Interestingly, the State-run St.

Cloud prison has a long history of programming

for older juvenile offenders and has filled the gap

with services for 19- through 21-year-olds before

sending them to another prison. St. Cloud receives

all new commitments of youth statewide under the

age of 20, and EJJ youth have no special status

within the facility.

Under EJJ, Hennepin County youth are reportedly

being sent to the county jail (a work facility) because judges are increasingly reluctant to impose full

criminal sentences and send the youth to prison. The

“workhouse,” as it is called, is seen as a viable compromise by judges. Similar sentiments were expressed in judicial districts statewide.

Conclusion

Three-and-a-half years after the EJJ law was implemented, Minnesota practitioners have a generally

positive reaction to the legislation. The underlying

theme that emerged from most focus group discussions was that the legislation is a sound alternative

to the single waiver option available in Minnesota

prior to EJJ. Respondents also expressed pride

that the reform legislation has attempted to get the

attention of young people while at the same time

strengthening the community, linking youth with

jobs, and supporting competency development and

accountability. The legislation was designed to

provide a framework for changes to the juvenile

justice system and provide new tools and resources

to the field.

As might be expected, problems with the EJJ law

have also arisen. Although the transition period has

had its difficulties, local adaptations are being made

and, at the State level, considerations are under way

to modify and fine-tune the legislation. Key actors

throughout the system appear poised to participate

in the refinement process and committed to providing troubled Minnesota youth with every opportunity to turn their lives around.
41

States made significant changes in the 1990’s to target serious and violent juvenile crime. From 1992

through 1995, all but a handful of States changed

major portions of their juvenile codes to make more

juveniles eligible for criminal prosecution and/or

sanctions. The trend continued during the 1996 and

1997 legislative sessions, when all but 11 States

amended their jurisdictional, sentencing, or correctional programming laws to similar effect (Torbet et

al., 1996; Torbet and Szymanski, 1998). Although

documenting the overall direction and magnitude of

these nationwide changes is important, what may be

more useful at this stage is closer study of their actual implementation and State-by-State impact. This

final chapter explores some significant questions

that remain unanswered by the research presented

above and summarizes the lessons learned from the

three State case studies and from the authors’ comprehensive analysis of State legislative activity.

Unanswered Questions

Although the case studies answered a number of

questions, they raised even more—many of which

simply cannot be answered at this point. Such questions include the following:

◆ What impact will the recent reforms have on the

attitudes, behaviors, and long-term life prospects

of juvenile offenders?

◆ How will the changes affect recidivism and, ultimately, public safety?

◆ What developmental effects will long prison

stays, extended isolation from prosocial influences, possible exposure to physical and sexual

abuse, and assimilation into a violent criminal

subculture have on adolescents being incarcerated in adult facilities?

◆ What impact will exposure to the adult criminal

corrections system have on juvenile offenders’

chances of being reintegrated into the community

once released?

These questions revolve around three general considerations: the actual deterrent effects of the reforms,

juveniles’ misperceptions regarding the workings of

the criminal law, and the effects of introducing juveniles into the adult criminal corrections system.

Deterrent Effects

Many recent reforms are predicated in part on the

assumption that more punitive approaches to youth

crime will have a deterrent effect. The juveniles

targeted by these changes, however, may not even

be aware of the potential sanctions. Although some

States have taken steps to educate youth on the consequences of reforms,7

 not all States have been so active.

This may not matter when the changes involved are

simple. In the case of Wisconsin’s straightforward

redrawing of the upper age of juvenile jurisdiction, for

example, the legislature’s intended message may have

reached the streets quickly and been easily understood by young people. The actual deterrent effects of

more intricate and subtle juvenile justice reforms,

particularly in relation to first-time serious offenders

or complicated scenarios of blended sentencing, are

less clear. Even if a stringent reform is clear and easily

understood, whether or not it in fact deters juveniles

from committing crimes also remains unclear.

Lessons Learned

7 Arizona, which significantly expanded its transfer provisions

in 1996 (following voter approval of a State constitutional

amendment known as the “Stop Juvenile Crime Initiative”),

thereafter embarked on an aggressive multimedia public information campaign targeting teenagers and designed to spell out

the consequences of the reforms for juvenile lawbreakers.
42

Juveniles’ Misperceptions Regarding

Criminal Court Adjudication

The most straightforward message may lose something

when conveyed to a State’s juvenile delinquent population. The serious disadvantages of being subjected

to criminal sanctions are not always apparent to the

young. In Wisconsin, many 17-year-olds appear to be

welcoming their new criminal responsibility—judging,

rightly or wrongly, that being moved into the criminal

justice system, at least for the less serious categories of

crime, actually represents a kind of break. The change

does not by itself mean a greater likelihood of incarceration or a longer period of confinement. The opportunity to be released on bail appeals strongly to

shortsighted teens who, as one Wisconsin public defender explained, just want to “return to the party.” A

quick guilty plea and a sentence to adult probation may

likewise seem less onerous than a juvenile disposition

that requires regular reporting to a day-treatment program, community service work, or long-term counseling. This is particularly true for youth who do not fully

understand the lifelong consequences of a felony

conviction in criminal court and are not aware of how

swift and certain adult probation revocation can be in

terms of jailtime.

At the very least, the exposure of broad categories of

juveniles to serious adult sanctions raises troubling

questions regarding teenagers’ competency to make

plea decisions and the adequacy of consultation and

representation in such cases. These issues are presented even more starkly in States with chronic offender laws under which juveniles may find

themselves facing “third strikes” without ever having been represented by counsel.

Consequences of Introducing

Juveniles Into the Adult Criminal

Corrections System

The confinement of large numbers of juveniles in jails

and prisons has been one of the most significant and

potentially worrisome consequences of the recent

round of juvenile justice reforms. The change poses

logistical, programming, security, and other challenges that are only now being recognized. In some

cases, these may be relatively trivial, such as the difficulty encountered by Wisconsin jailers when faced

with a new crop of 17-year-old detainees, who technically could not receive medical treatment without

written consent from their parents. However, most of

these challenges are considerably more serious:

◆ How to channel educational and other vital,

State-mandated services to juveniles who may

be isolated in pockets throughout the adult

criminal corrections system, under the supervision of officials with no experience or expertise

in overseeing such services.

◆ How to accommodate accused minors during

lengthy periods of pretrial detention in facilities

designed neither for young people nor for long

stays.

◆ How to protect the safety of youth thrown into

daily contact with adult inmates.

Generally, the wider the net cast by a reform—that

is, the broader the age or offense categories targeted

for criminal sanctions—the more likely it is to result

in assault or exploitation of minor inmates by adult

prisoners. However, according to early reports from

New Mexico correctional officials responsible for

“the worst of the worst,” the opposite may occur as

well: A settled adult prison culture may be threatened by the introduction of an unpredictable, disruptive, and potentially dangerous juvenile element.

Lessons Learned

The authors’ observations of reform implementation

in the three States studied, comprehensive analysis

of State legislative activity, and conversations with

practitioners about recent changes yielded a number

of broad lessons that could be of use to policymakers

considering similar reforms.

A Disconnect Exists Between the

Legislative Intent and the Actual

Implementation of New Laws

What often characterized the implementation of the

reforms described in this Report were an overall

lack of deliberate, statewide planning; inadequate

lead times; and insufficient efforts to educate practitioners regarding the changes. Moreover, legislative
43

prescriptions that sought to promote accountability

by increasing punishment frequently anticipated

resources and capacity that did not exist at the time

of implementation. The mandate for change exceeded the capacity of the system to manage, monitor, and evaluate change.

Local responses to the new laws tended to be improvised and differed widely from place to place. The

short-term result in most local jurisdictions was often confusion—regarding the intent of the new laws,

the qualifications for the new serious-offender classifications, the procedures for processing these offenders, and the offenders’ status and treatment

during pretrial holding and other stages. Because

implementation of new reforms was not staggered,

local practitioners did not have enough time for

planning, programming, and cross-training. Lag

time between enactment of the new laws and the

availability of funding for programs hampered the

development of local intervention resources for the

target populations as well.

The American Correctional Association, in its

recently ratified “public correctional policy on

youthful offenders transferred to adult criminal

jurisdiction,” encourages the preparation and consideration of fiscal and correctional impact assessments before the enactment of new legislation

(American Correctional Association, 1999). Similar

advice has come from an American Bar Association

task force chaired by former Attorney General

Edwin Meese III, which recommended that Congress

require a cost analysis and a public policy analysis of

any Federal criminal law before its enactment (Task

Force on the Federalization of Criminal Law, 1998).

Applied to State legislative proposals on serious and

violent juvenile crime, such cost analyses or impact

assessments would provide objective data upon

which legislators could base decisions—comparing

costs, assessing needs, and examining the benefits

and risks to be expected. Public policy analysis conducted by a legislative review committee, considering the informed opinions of juvenile and criminal

correctional professionals, could also assess proposed crime legislation. At a minimum, such assessments would pinpoint the potential target

population, specify policy and program changes

necessitated by the proposed law, and anticipate

shifts in workload and likely resource gaps that

would result.

The same task force report also recommended that

once passed, new laws should include “sunset” or

“second look” provisions under which, after a stated

period of years, the impact of the particular statute

would be assessed.

Blended Sentencing Laws Encourage

Plea Bargaining

It is common practice in Minnesota for prosecutors

to file a motion for criminal certification and then

“bargain down” to extended jurisdiction in juvenile

court. As a result, first-time serious offenders in

Minnesota, most of whom are unlikely to be certified, are being designated as EJJ cases. Prosecutors engaged in plea bargaining negotiations in

New Mexico are also using the threat of a criminal

sanction as leverage to guarantee the imposition of

juvenile sanctions. Although the new sentencing

laws thus appear to encourage plea bargaining, it is

not clear whether the effect was intended or

whether the practice has, in fact, become more

common. Nor is it clear what effect such bargaining has on a juvenile’s sense of responsibility for

the damage caused by his or her crime.

Blended Sentencing Provisions Expand

Judicial and Prosecutorial Discretion

The authority to decide when juvenile offenders are

beyond the rehabilitative reach of the juvenile justice

system was once entrusted almost exclusively to

juvenile court judges. In the first half of the 1990’s,

however, that changed considerably, as more and

more States passed laws excluding serious offenses

from juvenile court jurisdiction or granting transfer

authority to prosecutors. These changes can be

traced, in part, to the prevailing sentiment that juvenile court judges were “soft” on crime and that shifting power away from them would increase the

likelihood that serious and violent offenders would

be held accountable for their actions. Nevertheless,

the case studies in Minnesota and New Mexico

demonstrate that blended sentencing laws, whether

they replace or supplement existing transfer laws,
44

leave juvenile court judges with considerable authority to fashion individualized, offender-based dispositions and to consider not only offense seriousness

and community safety but also the background and

court history of the individual juveniles before them.

New blended sentencing laws have also greatly expanded prosecutors’ authority by entrusting them

with broad discretion to decide when to seek special

offender designations or criminal sentencing options. These decisions are generally not subject to

formal guidelines or systematic reporting requirements. Unlike a judge’s waiver and sentencing decision, a prosecutor’s decision to try a juvenile in

criminal court or seek criminal sanctions is not usually required to be made on the basis of a written

record or in accordance with criteria that are specified beforehand and applicable to all cases. Mandatory, routine reporting requirements similar to those

that have long been applicable to juvenile courts

would also help ensure that prosecutorial handling

of transfer and sentencing decisions could be studied

after the fact.

Local Application of New Sentencing

Laws Varies Widely

The case studies documented significant differences

in the way local jurisdictions apply blended sentencing laws. Some counties appear to apply the new

rules sparingly, while others apply them across the

board. In New Mexico, for example, the district

attorney in one county seeks criminal sanctions in all

cases in which they are available. District attorneys

in another county seek criminal sanctions only for a

selected few. In Minnesota, data revealed considerable differences between urban and rural jurisdictions with regard to applying the extended

jurisdiction designation to property offenders. Consideration should be given to setting meaningful

guidelines for the exercise of both prosecutorial and

judicial discretion in making designation, sentencing, and review decisions under the reforms to ensure fair and appropriate decisionmaking. Likewise,

expanded sentencing authority requires that judges

have an accurate understanding of the sanctions and

services available in both the juvenile and adult correctional system.

New Sentencing Laws Have a

Disproportionate Impact on Minorities

Minorities are overrepresented in the offender categories being subjected to stricter transfer and sentencing provisions—for example, youth who have

extensive juvenile records and youth who commit

serious and violent offenses, particularly with weapons. The Minnesota and New Mexico case studies

confirm that African American and Hispanic youth

make up a disproportionate share of offenders who

receive extended jurisdiction designations or are

subject to motions for criminal sanctions.

Expanded Sentencing Laws Require New

Resources/Interventions

Virtually all local case study participants called for

an expanded range of community-based services

for targeted juveniles. In addition, new services

were considered particularly crucial for juveniles

being held in State juvenile facilities for longer

periods as a result of reforms extending the upper

age of the juvenile court’s jurisdiction over adjudicated delinquents.

Research has documented several principles of

effective intervention that should guide correctional programming (see Bilchik, 1998; Kurlychek,

Torbet, and Bozynski, 1999; Levrant et al., 1999).

States must be strategic in articulating visions and

plans for their juvenile justice systems that consider public safety, offender rehabilitation, and

victim reparation as significant elements and incorporate best practice principles and the appropriate

continuum of sanctions and services for the targeted subset of juvenile offenders. Serious, violent,

and chronic juvenile offenders represent a very

small proportion of all delinquents, but they impose

significant costs on the system and present real

threats to their communities. Research, however,

has documented considerable cost savings in the

long term when offenders are diverted from their

criminal careers.
45

Categorical Age Exclusions Have

Unanticipated Consequences

Despite Wisconsin officials’ conscious efforts to

resist lowering the transfer threshold after changing

the age of criminal responsibility to 17, waiver petitions involving 16-year-olds increased 90 percent in

Milwaukee County in the first year after the new

law took effect. Waivers were not being sought for

16-year-olds to the same extent as they had been for

17-year-olds, but merely being 16 clearly increased

an offender’s chances of being waived. Another unanticipated consequence of the new law was an increase in per diem charges to counties as a result of

a temporary reduction in the State training school

population. This, in turn, interfered with local efforts to spend existing juvenile justice resources on a

younger population.

Finally, Wisconsin’s removal of 17-year-olds from

the juvenile court’s original jurisdiction had a significant “net-widening” effect that may not have been

entirely foreseen. Because 17-year-olds charged with

serious and violent crimes were reportedly already

being transferred to criminal court (via judicial

waiver) before the law was changed, the impact of

the reform has been felt primarily by 17-year-olds

charged with less serious, nonviolent offenses. Lowering the age of criminal responsibility has thus required an increase in prosecutorial resources for

diversion of such cases.

Treating Juvenile Offenders as Criminals

Creates Problems for Adult Corrections

Except for purposes of criminal responsibility, 17-

year-olds remain minors under Wisconsin law. Juveniles sentenced in criminal court in other States

are likewise still minors in all other respects. The

most immediate implications of Wisconsin’s reforms

centered on anomalies arising from the “in-between”

status of these individuals. Most of the policy issues

and programming challenges described by respondents from the adult corrections system resulted

from the in-between legal status of minors in criminal justice system facilities.

More Data Collection and Systematic

Followup Are Needed To Judge the

Impact of Reforms

The case studies presented here are intended to

shed light on the implementation stage of a significant group of State-level juvenile justice reforms.

However, the real impact of those reforms and

others that expose juvenile offenders to adult

criminal sanctions is still largely unknown—and

will remain unknown until State and local officials

commit themselves to the task of collecting and

developing the data needed to assess their effects.

Detailed profiles of offenders affected by the latest

round of reforms (like those compiled on EJJ

offenders in Hennepin County, MN) would serve

two main purposes:

◆ They would allow policymakers to compare

the sorts of juvenile offenders targeted by the

reforms with those who have actually been hit

by the reforms.

◆ They would also provide information about

whether the harshest penalties have in fact been

reserved for “the worst of the worst” and whether

any biases have tainted transfer and sentencing

decisions.

Further study devoted to the uses of discretionary

authority to invoke criminal sanctions against

certain juveniles—particularly in prosecutors’

offices—would also be useful to determine the

reasons for such decisions and the extent to which

they correspond with the public’s expectations.

More reliable and complete information on what

happens to juveniles after they are placed in correctional settings with adults—in addition to what happens to them after they leave—is obviously essential

to any short-term consideration of the costs and

benefits of these initiatives and to any long-term

evaluation of their success.

The authors hope that the three case studies in this

Report—even though they do not address all of the

questions raised by the legislative reforms of the

1990’s—will stimulate future research and provide a

solid basis for purposeful legislation.
47

American Correctional Association. 1999. Public

correctional policy on youthful offenders transferred

to adult criminal jurisdiction. Corrections Today

61(2):82–84.

Bilchik, S. 1998. A Juvenile Justice System for the 21st

Century. Bulletin. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office

of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

Bryan, F. 1998. Extended Juvenile Jurisdiction, Chapter

XIX of the 33rd Annual Criminal Justice Institute. St.

Paul, MN: Minnesota Continuing Legal Education,

Minnesota State Bar Association.

Bureau of Justice Statistics. April 1999. Correctional

Populations in the United States, 1996. Washington,

DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice

Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Feld, B. 1991. Justice by geography: Urban, suburban, and rural variations in juvenile justice administration. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology

82(1):156–210.

Feld, B. 1995. Violent youth and public policy: A

case study of juvenile justice law reform. Minnesota

Law Review 79(5):965–1128.

Greenwood, P.W. 1996. Responding to juvenile

crime: Lessons learned. The Future of Children

6(3):75–85.

Griffin, P. 1999. Developing and Administering

Accountability-Based Sanctions for Juveniles. Bulletin.

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice,

Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile

Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

Griffin, P., Torbet, P.M., and Szymanski, L. 1998.

Trying Juveniles as Adults in Criminal Court: An Analysis

of State Transfer Provisions. Report. Washington, DC:

References

U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency

Prevention.

Hanke, P.J. September 13, 1996. Working Paper No.

20: Profile of Youthful Offenders and Serious Youthful

Offenders in New Mexico’s Prisons. Albuquerque, NM:

Institute for Social Research, University of New

Mexico.

Houghtalin, M., and Mays, L.G. 1993. Criminal

court dispositions of juveniles tried as adults in New

Mexico: An exploratory examination. International

Journal of Adolescence and Youth 4:111–128.

Huizinga, D., Loeber, R., and Thornberry, T. 1994.

Urban Delinquency and Substance Abuse: Initial Findings.

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice

and Delinquency Prevention.

Juvenile Justice Study Committee. 1995. Juvenile

Justice: A Wisconsin Blueprint for Change. Racine, WI:

Circuit Court Branch No. 5.

Kurlychek, M., Torbet, P.M., and Bozynski, M. 1999.

Focus on Accountability: Best Practices for Juvenile Court

and Probation. Bulletin. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

Levinson, R.B., and Greene, J.J., III. 1999. New

“boys” on the block. Corrections Today 61(1): 60–63.

Levrant, S., Cullen, F., Fulton, B., and Wozniak, J.

1999. Reconsidering restorative justice: The corruption of benevolence revisited? Crime and Delinquency

45(1):3–27.

Lipsey, M.W. 1992. Juvenile delinquency treatment:

A meta-analytic inquiry into the variability of effects. In Meta-Analysis for Explanation, edited by
48

T. Cook, H. Cooper, and D.S. Cordray. New York,

NY: Russell Sage Foundation.

Mays, L.G., and Gregware, P. 1996. The Children’s

Code reform movement in New Mexico: The politics

of expediency. Law and Policy 18(1, 2):179–193.

Metzen, L.M., and Rolfson, T.J. 1995. Summary

Guide to Minnesota Extended Jurisdiction Juvenile Procedure: Overview of Process and Procedure. St. Paul, MN:

Minnesota Continuing Legal Education, Minnesota

State Bar Association.

Minnesota Department of Corrections. 1997. Extended Jurisdiction Juveniles in Minnesota: January 1,

1995–October 31, 1996. St. Paul, MN: Minnesota Department of Corrections.

Minnesota Supreme Court. 1994. Final Report of the

Advisory Task Force on the Juvenile Justice System. St.

Paul, MN: Research and Planning Office, Minnesota Supreme Court.

Minnesota Supreme Court. April 1998. Statistical

Highlights: 1996 Minnesota State Courts. St. Paul, MN:

Research and Information Technology Office, State

Court Administration.

Minnesota Supreme Court. 1999. Juvenile Justice

Issued: Statistical Overview of EJJ and Adult Certification

Data. Presentation to the Minnesota Senate Crime

Prevention Committee, January 25, 1999. St. Paul,

MN: Research and Evaluation, State Court

Administrator’s Office, Minnesota Supreme Court.

National Center for Juvenile Justice. 1999. Easy

Access to Juvenile Court Statistics, 1987–1996. Pittsburgh, PA: National Center for Juvenile Justice.

Podkopacz, M. 1998. Blended Sentencing in Hennepin

County Juvenile Court: An Analysis of EJJ and Certification Motions Filed in 1995 and 1996. Presentation to the

Youth and Crime Conference, March 16, 1998.

Poole, R., and Snyder, H. 1998. Easy Access to FBI

Arrest Statistics: 1994–1997. Data Presentation Package. Pittsburgh, PA: National Center for Juvenile

Justice (producer). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office

of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

(distributor).

Redding, R.E., and Howell, J.C. In press. Blended

sentencing in American juvenile courts. In The

Changing Borders of Juvenile Justice: Waiver of Adolescents

to the Criminal Court, edited by J. Fagan and F.E.

Zimring. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Schwartz, I., VanVleet, R., Orlando, F., and

McMurphy, S. 1995. A Study of New Mexico’s Youthful

Offenders. Philadelphia, PA: Center for the Study of

Youth Policy.

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.

Task Force on the Federalization of Criminal Law. 1998.

The Federalization of Criminal Law. Washington, DC:

American Bar Association, Criminal Justice Section.

Torbet, P.M., Gable, R., Hurst, H., IV, Montgomery,

I., Szymanski, L., and Thomas, D. 1996. State Responses to Serious and Violent Juvenile Crime. Research

Report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile

Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

Torbet, P.M., and Szymanski, L. 1998. State Legislative Responses to Violent Juvenile Crime: 1996–1997 Update. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice,

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

Utton, M.W. 1994. From diversity to unanimity:

The case of the New Mexico Children’s Code.

Perspectives (Winter):6–8.

Wisconsin Department of Corrections. November

1998. The Impact of Wisconsin’s Juvenile Justice Code on

Costs and Funding of the Juvenile Correctional Services:

Evaluation and Recommendations. Madison, WI: Wisconsin Department of Corrections.

Wisconsin Office of Justice Assistance, Statistical

Analysis Center. 1998. Wisconsin Adult Jail Populations,

1997. Madison, WI: Wisconsin Office of Justice

Assistance.

Zimring, F.E. 1998. American Youth Violence. New

York, NY: Oxford University Press.
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:

301–519–5600

Online:

OJJDP Home Page:

www.ojjdp.ncjrs.org

E-Mail:

puborder@ncjrs.org (to order materials)

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 V, Number 1. 1998,

NCJ 170025 (32 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 3/28/00
PRESORTED STANDARD

POSTAGE & FEES PAID

DOJ/OJJDP

PERMIT NO. G–91

NCJ 181203

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