Youth transfer to the adult criminal justice system

There is strong evidence that transferring youth who commit serious offenses to the adult criminal justice system is not effective at reducing the likelihood that these youth will re-offend (Zane 2016, Trulson 2020, CG-Violence, OJJDP-Redding 2010). Experts suggest that transferring and incarcerating youth in the adult justice system has a negative impact on youth development, their family relationships, and mental health by failing to provide age-appropriate responses and treatment for youth and failing to meet their developmental needs (AECF 2017, APA-Larson 2016). In the long-term, youth who are transferred may have poorer employment outcomes and a slightly greater number of years of education than youth who are not transferred (Sharlein 2018). Youth who are incarcerated in the adult justice system appear to be at greater risk of physical and sexual abuse than youth in the juvenile justice system (OJJDP-Mulvey 2012).

Youth charged with a property crime or a serious first offense have higher rates of re-arrest when transferred to adult criminal court than non-transferred youth (OJJDP-Mulvey 2012). Youth who are transferred to adult court by judicial discretion may re-offend more than youth in juvenile court (Zane 2016). Male youth ages 14 to 16 who are charged with sex offenses and processed as adults are more likely to be convicted again with a new person-related offense (Rinehart 2016). Experts suggest that youth transfer may contribute to higher recidivism through stigmatization and labeling effects, lack of rehabilitation services available while incarcerated with adults, and criminal behaviors learned from such adults (OJJDP-Redding 2010). When comparing the juvenile justice system to the adult justice system, correctional officers in the juvenile justice system appear to be more oriented towards treatment over punishment, well-being versus control, and person-focused probation rather than offense-focused probation (Bolin 2016).

Prosecuting juveniles in adult court may increase waiting time before adjudication and increase the likelihood of receiving more severe sentences than prosecution in the juvenile justice system (OJJDP-Washburn 2015, Steiner 2006). When processed in adult court, male youth who are charged with serious offenses are seven times more likely to be incarcerated than their peers in juvenile court (Sharlein 2018). Sentencing outcomes among youth in adult court appear to vary by transfer mechanism (i.e., judicial, prosecutorial, and legislative waivers) (Zane 2017). In the adult criminal justice system, youth who are transferred are less likely to receive prison sentences than adults, especially for severe crimes such as murder and sex offenses (Lahmann 2022); however, once given the sentence, youth are more likely to receive longer sentence lengths than adults with similar offenses (Lahmann 2022, Jordan 2016, Lahmann 2018).

To prevent the effects of jurors’ preconceived stereotyping of youth that commit offenses influencing transfer decision, jurors should consider youth’s developmental vulnerabilities which may lead youth to a lack of understanding of their rights and to make a false confession (Katzman 2022). Additional evidence is needed to determine the effects of laws supporting prosecution of juveniles through the adult justice system on juvenile crime prevention, youth development, and adulthood outcomes (Sharlein 2018, Steiner 2006, Steiner 2006a, OJJDP-Mulvey 2012, OJJDP-Redding 2010).

There is some evidence that transferring youth from juvenile court to adult court has the potential to increase disparities in juvenile justice processing, disadvantaging racially and ethnically minoritized youth in transfer decisions and sentencing (Goldschmied 2023, Bryson 2020, Lehmann 2018a, Lehmann 2017, OJJDP-R/ED 2022).

Overall, youth of color are more likely to be arrested and overrepresented in the juvenile justice system than white youth (OJJDP-R/ED 2022, DeLone 2017). Black and Hispanic juveniles are overrepresented in the youth population that are transferred to adult court while white youth are underrepresented (Goldschmied 2023). Black male youth are most likely to be transferred to adult court by judicial waiver, followed by white males and Black females (Bryson 2020). Sentencing and transfer decisions for youth can also be systemically biased and inconsistent (OJJDP-R/ED 2022). White members of the workforce in the adult justice system (e.g., law enforcement officers, judges, prosecutors, probation officers) are more likely to prefer harsh sentencing for male youth who are charged with violent offenses than workers of other racial and ethnic backgrounds (Lehmann 2019). Among youth transferred to the adult criminal court in Florida, Black male youth are more likely to receive harsh sentencing than other youth and even some adults who are charged with felony offenses (Lehmann 2018a, Lehmann 2017).

The nation’s first juvenile court was established in Chicago in 1899 and nearly every state established juvenile courts by 1925. The early years of juvenile courts focused on rehabilitation and treatment for youth, not punishment (NCJJ-Puzzanchera 2022). However, the physical conditions and treatments in juvenile court facilities were unequal for white youth versus youth of color. Large facilities designated for Black youth were not maintained, inappropriately equipped, and provided poor services compared to facilities for white youth (NCTSN-Lacey 2013). Starting in the 1960s, the number of youth involved in the juvenile justice system grew and juvenile courts modified procedures to be more like adult criminal courts (NCJJ-Puzzanchera 2022). Youth transfer to adult court was based on vague assessments until the 1960s; transfer criteria were later established based on youth individual and legal factors, for example, the youth’s maturity, the severity of the offense, public safety, prior legal history, and response to the juvenile system (Lee 2016a). States passed stricter laws through the 1990s that focused on punishment and made it easier to move youth younger than 18 into the adult criminal justice system. In the 2000s, state juvenile justice reforms focused on adolescent development and emphasized community-based programs to keep youth out of the adult criminal justice system (NCJJ-Puzzanchera 2022).

Throughout the history of the juvenile justice system in the U.S., youth of color have been overrepresented and racially disparate practices and treatment for youth in the system have persisted. This can be attributed to the history of racial segregation and discrimination in the U.S., bias on the part of decision-makers, and the systemic and racist policies and practices in the juvenile justice system. Examples of systemic and racist policies and practices include discriminatory policing in communities of color, sentencing disparities, and differential treatment of youth of color at various decision points in juvenile justice processes, which often lack appropriate assessment tools and cultural competence (NCTSN-Lacey 2013). Black, Indigenous, and Hispanic youth have been arrested, detained, adjudicated, and incarcerated in the juvenile justice system at disproportionate rates compared to white youth (OJJDP-R/ED 2022). The Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act (JJDPA), which was reauthorized in 2018, provides federal standards for the care and custody of youth and families involved in the juvenile justice system and includes as one of its four core requirements, the assessment and elimination of racial and ethnic disparities in the juvenile justice system (CJJ-JJDPA, McCarter 2022).

• Which criteria does your state use to make transfer decisions in the juvenile justice system? What steps are taken to ensure that they are just and applied consistently?
• How can your state expand training for the juvenile justice workforce to help recognize their internal biases and make more equitable decisions in juvenile justice processes?
• Are the treatment and community-based services for youth in the juvenile justice and/or adult criminal justice system developmentally appropriate, trauma-informed, adequate for their needs, and equally distributed? Who are potential partners to help provide relevant services or resources to increase access?
• Does your state have statues that allow or mandate reverse-transfers? If yes, is the law applied to all eligible cases consistently? If not, how can you work with legislators and community partners to enact the law?

* Journal subscription may be required for access.

AECF 2017 - The Annie E. Casey Foundation (AECF). Every state agrees: 16-year-olds are better served in the youth justice system. 2017.

APA-Larson 2016* - Larson K, Grisso T. Chapter 21: Transfer and commitment of youth in the United States: Law, policy, and forensic practice. In Heilbrun K,DeMatteo D, Goldstein NES, eds. APA Handbook of Psychology and Juvenile Justice. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association; 2016:445-466.

Bolin 2016* - Bolin RM, Applegate BK. Adultification in juvenile corrections: Examining the orientations of juvenile and adult probation and parole officers. American Journal of Criminal Justice. 2016;41:321-339.

Bryson 2020* - Bryson SL, Peck JH. Understanding the subgroup complexities of transfer: The impact of juvenile race and gender on waiver decisions. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice. 2020;18(2): 135-155.

CFYJ-Arya 2011 - Arya N. State trends: Legislative changes from 2005 to 2010 removing youth from the adult criminal justice system, Washington, D.C.: Campaign for Youth Justice (CFYJ); 2011.

CFYJ-Bookout 2015 - Bookout N. 2015 State legislative sessions: An update on nationwide juvenile justice reforms to protect youth from the adult criminal justice system. Campaign for Youth Justice (CFYJ). August 2015.

CG-Violence - The Guide to Community Preventive Services (The Community Guide). Violence.

CJJ-JJDPA - Coalition for Juvenile Justice (CJJ). Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act (JJDPA).

DeLone 2017 - DeLone MA, DeLone GJ. Racial disparities in juvenile justice processing. In: Schreck CJ, Leiber MJ, Miller HV, Welch K, eds. The Encyclopedia of Juvenile Delinquency and Justice; 2017.

Goldschmied 2023* - Goldschmied N, Ramona A, Stilman E, et al. Transfer of minors to adult court in California: Investigating the legal/demographic factors that make the difference. Psychological Reports. 2023.

Jordan 2016* - Jordan KL, McNeal BA. Juvenile penalty or leniency: Sentencing of juveniles in the criminal justice system. Law and Human Behavior. 2016;40(4):387-400.

JSP 2021 - Juveniles Sentencing Project (JSP). Limiting transfer to adult court: Enhancing judicial oversight. October 2021.

Katzman 2022* - Katzman J, Fessinger MB, Bornstein BH, McWilliams K. Waiving goodbye to youth: Jurors perceive transferred juveniles differently from adults but render similar verdicts. Behavioral Sciences & the Law. 2022;40(6):835-858.

Lahmann 2018* - Lehmann PS, Chiricos T, Bales WD. Juveniles on trial: Mode of conviction and the adult court sentencing of transferred juveniles. Crime & Delinquency. 2018;64(5):563-586.

Lahmann 2022* - Lahmann PS. Juvenile transfer status and the sentencing of violent offenders: A test of the liberation hypothesis. Journal of Crime and Justice. 2022;45(4):430-449.

Lee 2016a* - Lee SJ, Kraus LJ. Transfer of juvenile cases to criminal court. Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Clinics of North America. 2016;25(1):41-47.

Lehmann 2017* - Lehmann PS, Chiricos T, Dales WD. Sentencing transferred juveniles in the adult criminal court: The direct and interactive effects of race and ethnicity. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice. 2017;15(2):172-190.

Lehmann 2018a* - Lehmann PS. Sentencing other people’s children: The intersection of race, gender, and juvenility in the adult criminal court. Journal of Crime and Justice. 2018;41(5):553-572.

Lehmann 2019* - Lehmann PS, Pickett JT, Ryon SB, Kosloski AE. Race, juvenile transfer, and sentencing preferences: Findings from a randomized experiment. Race and Justice. 2019;9(3):251-275.

McCarter 2022 - McCarter, S. A., & Durant, T. (2022). Disproportionate Minority Contact (DMC) to racial and ethnic disparities (RED) in juvenile justice: What does it mean and does it matter? Journal of Forensic Social Work, 6(1), 57-76.

NCJJ-Puzzanchera 2022 - Puzzanchera C, Hockenberry S, Sickmund M. Youth and the juvenile justice system: 2022 National report. Pittsburgh, PA: National Center for Juvenile Justice (NCJJ); 2022.

NCTSN-Lacey 2013 - Lacey C. Racial disparities and the juvenile justice system: A legacy of trauma. Los Angeles, CA & Durham, NC: National Center for Child Traumatic Stress (NCTSN); 2013.

NGA 2021 - National Governors Association (NGA). Age boundaries in juvenile justice systems.

OJJDP-Mulvey 2012 - Mulvey EP, Schubert CA. Transfer of juveniles to adult court: Effects of a broad policy in one court. Juvenile Justice Bulletin, Washington, D.C.: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP); December 2012.

OJJDP-R/ED 2022 - Development Services Group, Inc. (2022). Racial and ethnic disparity (R/ED) in juvenile justice processing. Washington, D.C.: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP).

OJJDP-Redding 2010 - Redding RE. Juvenile transfer laws: An effective deterrent to delinquency? Juvenile Justice Bulletin, Washington, D.C.: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP); June 2010.

OJJDP-Ryan 2023 - Ryan L, La Vigne N. Delinquency cases waived to criminal court, 2020. Juvenile justice statistics. The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP), The National Institute of Justice (NIJ). 2023.

OJJDP-Stat briefing 2022 - Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP). Statistical briefing book: Provisions for imposing adult sanctions on minors. 2022.

OJJDP-Washburn 2015 - Washburn JJ, Teplin LA, Voss LS, et al. Detained youth processed in juvenile and adult court: Psychiatric disorders and mental health needs. Juvenile Justice Bulletin, Washington, D.C.: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP); September 2015.

Rinehart 2016* - Rinehart JK, Armstrong KS, Shields RT, Letourneau EJ. The effects of transfer laws on youth with sexual or robbery offenses. Criminal Justice and Behavior. 2016;43(11):1619-1638.

Sharlein 2018* - Sharlein J. Beyond recidivism: Investigating comparative educational and employment outcomes for adolescents in the juvenile and criminal justice systems. Crime & Delinquency. 2018;64(1):26-52.

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

Steiner 2006a* - Steiner B, Wright E. Assessing the relative effects of state direct file waiver laws on violent juvenile crime: Deterrence or irrelevance? Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology. 2006;96(4):1451-77.

Trulson 2020* - Trulson CR, Craig JM, Caudill JW, DeLisi M. The impact of adult prison transfer on the recidivism outcomes of blended-sentenced juvenile delinquents. Crime & Delinquency. 2020;66(6-7):887-914.

Zane 2016* - Zane SN, Welsh BC, Mears DP. Juvenile transfer and the specific deterrence hypothesis. Criminology & Public Policy. 2016;15(3):901-925.

Zane 2017* - Zane SN. Do criminal court outcomes vary by juvenile transfer mechanism? A multi-jurisdictional, multilevel analysis. Justice Quarterly. 2017;34(3):542-569.