Violence Prevention: Policies Facilitating the Transfer of Juveniles to Adult Justice Systems
Findings and Recommendations
The Community Preventive Services Task Force (CPSTF) recommends against policies facilitating the transfer of juveniles from juvenile to adult criminal justice systems for the purpose of reducing violence, based on strong evidence that these laws and policies are associated with increased subsequent violent behavior among transferred youth. There is insufficient evidence to determine whether juveniles in the general population are deterred from violent crime by strengthened juvenile transfer policies.
The full CPSTF Finding and Rationale Statement and supporting documents for Violence Prevention: Policies Facilitating the Transfer of Juveniles to Adult Justice Systems are available in The Community Guide Collection on CDC Stacks.
Intervention
Transfer refers to placing juveniles under the jurisdiction of the adult criminal justice system, rather than the juvenile justice system, following arrest. Transfer is also referred to as waiver, denoting the waiver of authority by the juvenile court that allows for transfer of a juvenile defendant to an adult criminal court. Policies regarding placement are largely determined by each state. Several legal mechanisms are used for transfer of youth under age 18 from juvenile court to adult criminal system. Transfer can be at the discretion of the judge or be mandated by law for specified serious crimes.
This review assessed policies that mandate or facilitate such transfers under some circumstances.
About The Systematic Review
The CPSTF finding is based on evidence from a systematic review of 9 studies (search period through February 2003).
Study Characteristics
- Specific deterrence studies had follow-up times for evaluating risk for re-offending ranging from 18 months to 6 years
- General deterrence studies included study samples from Washington, Idaho, Wyoming, and Montana
Summary of Results
Specific Deterrence Effects
Specific deterrence refers to the assumption that youth will refrain from committing additional crimes as a result of their own experience in the adult justice system. Six studies assessed specific deterrent effects.
- Transferred youth were more likely to be re-arrested for a violent or other crime than youth retained in juvenile justice system
- Median effect was an increase of 33.7% in violent rearrests for transferred juveniles, compared with retained juveniles
- Other violent outcomes may result from transfer including increased pretrial violence, victimization of juveniles in adult facilities, and elevated suicide rates for juveniles incarcerated in adult facilities
General Deterrence Effects
General deterrence refers to the assumption that youth in the general population will refrain from committing crimes because of the perceived severity of the adult justice system.
- Evidence on general deterrence was insufficient to determine effectiveness for reducing violence among all youth because of small number of studies and inconsistent findings
- Following completion of the review, a study was published that concluded transfer laws do not promote the general deterrence of violent crime (Steiner et al. 2006). Although it was outside of publication date cutoffs to be included in the review, it is one of the stronger studies to date regarding the general deterrence effect of strengthened transfer.
Summary of Economic Evidence
An economic review was not conducted because CPSTF recommends against use of the intervention.
Applicability
Applicability was not assessed because CPSTF recommends against use of the intervention.
Evidence Gaps
- We found insufficient evidence regarding general deterrence. Other than one study (Levitt 1998), which examined the associations of age of adult court jurisdiction and rates of arrest rather than the effects of transfer per se, the studies reviewed here assessed limited geographic areas and, in general, used simple methodologies. Data may be available to apply time series methods to a broader array of regions and to adjust for confounding variables with ecological designs.
- It is not clear whether the effect of increased violence among juveniles who experience the adult versus the juvenile justice system is attributable to the overall judicial process, to the differences in sanctions experienced, or to some other component of the process. Among the studies reviewed, analyses by Fagan and Podkopacz indicate that the effects of transfer are not exclusively attributable to incarceration but also involve the overall justice system which may result in acquittal or parole. This issue merits further exploration.
- The effectiveness of transfer policies on violence across levels of severity (e.g., murder versus assault), should also be examined. While several studies reviewed indicate different effects for differing initial offenses, other studies do not stratify effects by initial offense.
- Systematic comparison of state transfer laws should be undertaken to determine the extent to which the specific provisions of state laws included in the review are representative of all state transfer provisions. Differences in the application and enforcement of provisions should also be assessed.
- Costs of transferring youth to the adult criminal system versus retaining them in the juvenile system have been little explored. In some sense, evaluating costs of interventions (e.g., transfer) that cause net harm seems unnecessary; because any spending on harmful interventions appears wasteful, the more spending, the more waste. On the other hand, however, documenting the variability and relative costs of the two judicial and correctional systems, the distribution of responsibility for these costs across different levels of government and society, and the net balance of program costs, the costs of subsequent crime, and the costs of opportunities lost to the juveniles themselves might allow a constructive economic discussion of the consequences of change.
Implementation Considerations and Resources
The CPSTF recommends against use of the intervention.
Crosswalks
Healthy People 2030 includes the following objectives related to this CPSTF recommendation.