No content is available for this section.
The number of studies and publications do not always correspond (e.g., a publication may include several studies or one study may be explained in several publications).
Barnoski R. Changes in Washington State’s jurisdiction of juvenile offenders: examining the impact. Olympia: Washington State Institute for Public Policy, 2003 (03-01-1203).
Fagan J. The comparative impacts of juvenile and criminal court sanctions on adolescent felony offenders. Law Policy 1996;18:77–119.
Lanza-Kaduce L, Frazier CE, Lane J, Bishop DM. Juvenile transfer to criminal court study: final report. Tallahassee: Florida Department of Juvenile Justice, 2002 (1-8-2002, 02-02).
Myers DL. Excluding violent youths from juvenile court: the effectiveness of legislative waiver. New York: LFB Scholarly Publishing, 2001.
Podkopacz MR, Feld BC. Judicial waiver policy and practice: persistence, seriousness and race. Law Inequal 1995;14:74 –178.
Podkopacz MR, Feld BC. The end of the line: an empirical study of judicial waiver. J Crim Law Criminol 1996;86:449 –92.
Winner L, Lanza-Kaduce L, Bishop DM, Frazier CE. The transfer of juveniles to criminal court: reexamining recidivism over the long term. Crime Delinq 1997;43:548–63.
Electronic searches for published research were conducted in databases from the National Criminal Justice Reference Service, Education Resources Information Center, PsycINFO, Wilson Social Sciences Abstracts, Social SciSearch, National Technical Information Service, Medline, and Lexis/Nexis. Search terms used included “juvenile transfer” and its synonyms, as well as “efficacy” and “recidivism.” Additionally, references listed in retrieved articles were evaluated and, where relevant, obtained and abstracted. Consultations with experts were held to find additional published reports of studies. Finally, the review team conducted internet searches to seek additional studies not found through these traditional search methods. Journal articles, governmental reports, books, and book chapters were eligible for inclusion.
Articles published before February 2003 were candidates for inclusion if they evaluated the specified policy or law, assessed a transfer-related violent outcome (i.e., arrest, conviction, or re-arrest), were conducted in a high-income country*, reported on a primary study rather than, for example, a guideline or review, and compared a group of people exposed to the intervention (i.e., law or policy) with a comparison group not exposed or less exposed to the intervention. Studies that provided relevant data for review were examined, even if the authors’ research goals differed from those of the review. While searching for evidence, the team also sought information about effects of transfer on outcomes not related to violence, such as reductions in property crime and overrepresentation of minorities among transferred juveniles.
* High-income countries as designated by the World Bank are Andorra, Antigua and Barbuda, Aruba, Australia, Austria, The Bahamas, Bahrain, Barbados, Belgium, Bermuda, Brunei, Canada, Cayman Islands, Channel Islands, Cyprus, Denmark, Faeroe Islands, Finland, France, French Polynesia, Germany, Greece, Greenland, Guam, Hong Kong (China), Iceland, Ireland, Isle of Man, Israel, Italy, Japan, Republic of Korea, Kuwait, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Macao (China), Malta, Monaco, Netherlands, Netherlands Antilles, New Caledonia, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Puerto Rico, Qatar, San Marino, Singapore, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Taiwan (China), United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United States, and Virgin Islands (U.S.).
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.