Research Listing
and Summaries of
Key Studies:
Trying, Sentencing & Incarcerating Youth
in the Adult Criminal Justice System
March, 2007
Prepared by the Campaign for Youth Justice
Index
Comprehensive Studies
Key Topics
Adolescent Brain Development
Adult Jails and Prisons: Conditions of Confinement
Alternatives to the Adult Criminal Justice System
Blended Sentencing
Competency to Stand Trial
Consequences of an Adult Conviction
Costs
Gender Disparities
Human Rights and International Human Rights
Juvenile Population Data
Juvenile Life Without Parole
Polling on Trying Youth As Adults
Racial Disparities
Rape and Sexual Assault
Recidivism: Juvenile Justice System vs. Adult Criminal Justice System
State Studies: Comparisons and Individual State Studies on the Impact of Trying Youth as Adults
State Legislation
Suicide
Transfer and Waivers to Adult Court: Data and Analysis
What Doesn’t Work in the Juvenile Justice System
Comprehensive Studies
Benekos, P. & Merlo, A. (1998). Juvenile Justice at the Crossroads: Waiver Policy and the Centennial of the Juvenile Court. Paper presented at the American Society of Criminology Annual Meeting in Washington, D.C., on November 11, 1998. Available at the US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Criminal Justice Reference Service.
Summary: In this paper, the authors argue that by focusing on the prevention of delinquency (primary and secondary), the policy debate can move beyond treatment versus punishment and continue to emphasize and develop strategies and programs that are effective in stopping and reducing the incidence of crime by youth. As a model for dealing with youth, this report focuses on a balanced approach of accountability, public safety, and competency development.
Campaign for Youth Justice (2007). The Consequences Aren’t Minor: The Impact of Trying Youth As Adults and Strategies for Reform. Washington, DC: Author. Available online at: (available as of March 2, 2007).
Summary: The report provides a snapshot of youth in the adult criminal justice system in eight states (CA, CT, DC, FL, IL, NC, VA,and WI). Each state chapter includes state-specific recommendations on how the laws and policies in those states could be updated and the overall report includes national recommendations including amending the Juvenile Justice & Delinquency Prevention Act (JJDPA) in 2007 by imposing a federal ban on placement of young people in adult jails and prisons.
Coalition for Juvenile Justice. (2005). Childhood on Trail: The Failure of Trying & Sentencing Youth in Adult Criminal Court. Washington, DC: Author. Available from the Coalition for Juvenile Justice at (available as of March 2, 2007).
Summary: This report identifies the public safety and rehabilitative failures of our nation's widespread "adult time for adult crime" policies, and reaffirms the effectiveness of retaining the vast majority of youth in the juvenile court system. The report provides a primer on the various means by which an estimated quarter million juvenile offenders are sent into the adult criminal court each year, nationwide, including judicial waiver, direct file and statutory exclusion. It also profiles efforts for reform in more than a dozen states, including legislative reform and awareness campaigns. The report also evaluates various responses to state-level transfer policies, such as reverse waiver, blended sentencing and juvenile services in adult prisons.
Griffin, P., Torbet, P., & Szymanski, L. (1998). Trying Juveniles as Adults in Criminal Court: An Analysis of State Transfer Provisions. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Available from (OJJDP's) Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse at 800-638-8736. Also available online at: (available as of February 16, 2007).
Summary: From 1992 through 1995, 40 States and the District of Columbia passed laws making it easier for juveniles to be tried as adults. To better understand the growing trend and the potential impact on youth crime, this paper examines the nature of offenses that trigger such transfers and various mechanisms used to affect them. The paper discusses direct file provisions, which typically authorize the prosecutor to determine jurisdiction based on age/offense categories, and statutory exclusions, which remove certain offenses or age/offense categories from the jurisdiction of the juvenile court. In addition, the report covers "once an adult/always an adult" provisions; transfer for nonviolent offenses; requirements for additional pre-transfer findings; evidentiary standards for waivers and transfers; transfer treatment based on an individual's record; devices to limit prosecutorial discretion; and minimum age provisions.
Hartney, C. (2006). Youth Under Age 18 in the Adult Criminal Justice System. The National Council on Crime and Delinquency. Available online at: (available as of February 16, 2007).
Summary: This fact sheet includes the latest data and research on processing youth in the adult system.
Kupchik, A., Fagen, J., & Liberman, A. (2002). Punishment, proportionality, and jurisdictional transfer of adolescent offenders: a test of the leniency gap hypothesis. Columbia Law School, Pub. Law Research Paper No. 02-45. Available online at: (available as of February 16, 2007).
Summary: This article reports on an investigation of the “leniency gap,” a perceived difference in the severity of punishment handed down by juvenile and adult courts to adolescent offenders. The authors compared sentence lengths of adolescents charged with felonies in juvenile and criminal courts and found that youth prosecuted in criminal court were more likely to be detained and incarcerated and received longer sentences.
Rose, J.T. (2003). Innocence lost: the detrimental effect of automatic waiver statutes on juvenile justice. Brandeis Law Journal, 41, 977-995.
Summary: This law review article concerns the use of automatic waiver statutes, which transfer youth to adult court without a transfer hearing. The author provides an overview of automatic waiver statutes and explains that automatic waivers run counter to the rehabilitative purpose of the juvenile justice system and the needs of youth. The author also argues that the statutes are an unconstitutional violation of due process and equal protection.
Rubin, H.T. Return Them to Juvenile Court. (2006). Washington, DC: Campaign for Youth Justice. Available online at: as of March 2, 2007).
Summary: This policy brief encourages state legislators, along with executive and judicial branch officials, other juvenile justice officials, and concerned citizens to embrace the benefits that juvenile courts have long provided in separating youth from adult criminalization, and to discard or modify policy directives and re-directives, made historically or in recent years, that enable youth to be handled in criminal courts and serve sentences in adult incarcerate facilities. It is centered on the definition of juvenile status and the determination of the most appropriate legal forum that enhances the twin considerations of public safety and the constructive futures of young people who violate laws which, for adults, constitute a crime.
Sickmund, M. (1997). How Juveniles Get to Criminal Court. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Copies available from (OJJDP's) Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse at 800-638-8736. Also available online at: (available as of February 16, 2007).
Summary: This document shows how juvenile cases can be transferred to criminal court by means of judicial waiver, prosecutorial discretion, or statutory exclusion from juvenile court jurisdiction. In any State, one, two, or all three transfer mechanisms may be in place. As of the end of 1992, juvenile court judges in all but two States may waive jurisdiction over a case and transfer it to criminal court. Such action is usually in response to a request by the prosecutor. An estimated 11,700 juvenile delinquency cases were transferred to criminal court by judicial waiver in 1992 and accounted for fewer than 2 percent of the cases formally processed in juvenile courts that year. Prosecutorial discretion is typically limited by age and offense criteria, but national data are unavailable regarding the number of juvenile cases tried under the concurrent jurisdiction provisions that allow for this form of transfer. Finally, in 1991 an estimated 176,000 cases involving youth under age 18 were tried in criminal court in 1991 because they were considered adults under the laws of 11 States. Many States also exclude certain serious offenses from juvenile court jurisdiction; some also exclude juveniles who have been previously waived or convicted in criminal court.
Snyder, H. & Sickmund, M. (1999). Juvenile Justice: A Century of Change. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Available from (OJJDP's) Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse at 800-638-8736 or online at: (available as of February 16, 2007).
Summary: This bulletin examines where the juvenile justice system is headed and the recent trend of transferring certain juvenile cases to adult criminal court. The juvenile justice system provides youthful offenders and their victims with a comprehensive yet balanced approach to justice. Probation, treatment, and restitution are widely used. At its best the juvenile court balances rehabilitation and treatment with appropriate sanctions - including incarceration, when necessary. For most juveniles who enter the system, this approach works: 54 percent of males and 73 percent of females never return to juvenile court on a new referral. There are, however, areas in the juvenile justice system that need improvement. For example, the system needs to prepare to handle more female offenders and offenders under the age of 13, two groups whose numbers are increasing. The bulletin also provides a brief history of the U.S. juvenile justice system, from its roots in 16th-century European educational reform movements, to the present, citing relevant cases.
Woolard, J. (2005). Juveniles within adult correctional settings: legal pathways and developmental considerations. International Journal of Forensic Mental Health.4(1), 18.
Summary: This article highlights the latest figures on youth in adult corrections and summarizes current research on the impact of placing youth in the adult criminal justice system and in adult correctional facilities.
Zimring, F. & Fagan, J, eds. (2000). The Changing Borders of Juvenile Justice: Transfer of Adolescents to the Criminal Court, (NCJ Publication No. 192961) 407-424.
Summary: The authors first trace the history of unprincipled debate about transfer policy, followed by a discussion of the inevitability of difficult choices regarding the welfare of juveniles who are the subjects of contemporary transfer decision making. The complex outcomes produced by mixed systems of transfer decision making are also addressed, along with the danger of redundant reforms in transfer policy. A discussion of the inherent problem of overly broad categories of exclusion from juvenile court in favor of adult court is included, together with an argument for the necessity of regulatory perspective on transfer systems. One section of the chapter notes the limits of data on human development as a source for determining transfer policy. The chapter concludes with an argument for the necessity of appropriate legal standards in criminal courts for fairness in transfer policy. This section of the chapter advises that criminal courts must consider age and maturity as a factor in dispositions if such dispositions are to be fair and just. Thus, in many respects, the criminal courts must engage in the same dynamics of deliberation regarding young offenders as do the juvenile courts.
Key Topics
1. Adolescent Brain Development
Bennett, C.M. and Baird, A.A. (2006). Anatomical changes in the emerging adult brain: a voxel-based morphometry study. Human Brain Mapping, 9, 766-77.
Summary: This article shows that significant age-related changes in brain structure continue after the age of 18 and may represent dynamic changes related to new environmental challenges. Findings from the regions of change are discussed in the context of specific environmental demands during a period of normative maturation.
Coalition for Juvenile Justice. (2007). What Are the Implications of Adolescent Brain Development for Juvenile Justice? Available for purchase from the Coalition for Juvenile Justice at
Summary: This brief delves into the ways that brain development research could improve how our society at large, including juvenile justice professionals, practitioners and advocates, views adolescence and seeks to teach, manage and rehabilitate youth. Drawing upon scientific, historical and psychological perspectives, the second brief incorporates positive youth development principles and the expertise of individuals from a range of professional disciplines. The brief concludes with recommendations for a new framework, suggesting concrete roles and steps for State Advisory Groups, the juvenile court system and individuals.
Conneticut Juvenile Justice Alliance. (2006) Youth and Adults Brains are Different. Available online at
Summary: This fact sheet highlights research findings that show that the adolescent brain isn’t fully developed and that the area of the brain that regulates reasoning and judgment is actually the last to finish forming, explaining why adults and adolescents think and behave differently when tested.
Fassler, D. Testimony before the House Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee. New Hampshire State Legislature. Concord, New Hampshire. March 24, 2004 . (available as of February 16, 2007)
Testimony: This testimony highlights current research that adolescents use their brains differently than adults when reasoning or solving problems and that from a scientific standpoint, adolescents are biologically and developmentally different than adults.
Giedd, J.N., Blumenthal, J. et al. (1999).Brain Development during Childhood and Adolescence: A longitudinal MRI study. Nature Neuroscience, 2, 861-863. Available online at:
(available as of February 16, 2007).
Summary: In this study, authors confirmed linear increases in white matter, but demonstrated nonlinear changes in cortical gray matter, with a preadolescent increase followed by a postadolescent decrease. These changes in cortical gray matter were regionally specific, with developmental curves for the frontal and parietal lobe peaking at about age 12 and for the temporal lobe at about age 16, whereas cortical gray matter continued to increase in the occipital lobe through age 20.
Gruber, S.A. and Yurgelum-Todd, D.A. (2006). Neurobiology and the law: a role in juvenile justice. Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law, 3, 321-340.
Summary: This article shows basics of brain development from childhood through adolescence, the functioning of the prefrontal cortex in adolescence and the impact on adolescent decision-making processes. The authors also provide three steps defense attorneys can take to help determine an adolescent client’s functioning and level of development.
Huffine, C. (2006). Bad conduct, defiance, and mental health. Focal Point, 20 (2), 13-16. Available online at: as of February 16, 2007).
Summary: This article explains that many youth in the juvenile justice system are misdiagnosed. In particular, it challenges the usefulness of conduct disorder (CD) and oppositional defiant disorder (ODD) as diagnoses. The article explains that youth labeled with CD or ODD often have co-occurring mental health conditions, such as bipolar disorder or post-traumatic stress disorder. The author urges the importance of individual evaluations so that youth can receive treatment that addresses the causes of their behaviors.
Oberstar, J.V., Andersen, E.M., & Jensen, J.B. (2006). Cognitive and moral development, brain development, and mental illness: important considerations for the juvenile justice system. William Mitchell Law Review, 32, 1051-1061.
Summary: This article discusses the forensic implications of the recent research about normal brain development in the context of mental illness. The authors explain that recent research is consistent with earlier, influential theories of cognitive and moral development and that all of these research findings support treating children in the juvenile justice system differently from adults.
Sowell, E.R., Thompson, P.M. et al. (1999).Invivo evidence for post-adolescent brain maturation in frontal and striatal region. Nature Neuroscience, 2, 859-861. Available online at: (available as of February 16, 2007).
Summary: This article discusses the spatial and temporal patterns of brain development between childhood and young adulthood throughout the entire brain in vivo, providing new insight for interpreting human behavior through the adolescent years.
2. Adult Jails and Prisons: Conditions of Confinement
American Bar Association. (2001). Youth in the Criminal Justice System: Guidelines for Policymakers and Practitioners. Washington, DC: Author. To order please call the ABA Service Center (800/285-2221) and refer to Product Code 5090082.
Summary: This book provides general principles on the placement and conditions of which youth should remain and be rehabilitated in an approved criminal justice system.
Austin, J., Johnson, K.D., & Gregoriou, M. (2000). Juveniles in Adult Prisons and Jails: A National Assessment (NCJRS Publication No. NCJ 182503).Washington,DC: Bureau of Justice Assistance. (available as of February 16, 2007).
Summary: This report examines the extent of youth confinement in adult facilities; the types of facilities used to house youthful offenders; what happens to youth in the adult system; whether children in adult facilities are educated, treated for substance abuse and taught skills that will help them find a job after their incarceration; whether prisons and jails protect young offenders from physical, sexual and psychological abuse; and alternative strategies for housing young offenders sentenced to long terms in adult facilities. The report discusses legal issues relating to conditions of confinement for youth in adult facilities, characteristics of youths housed in adult jails and prisons, management issues and alternative strategies and technical assistance.
Forst, M., Fagan, J., & Vivona, T. (1989).Youth in prisons and training schools: perceptions and consequences of the treatment-custody dichotomy. Juvenile and Family Court Journal, 40(1), 1-14. Available at: US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Criminal Justice Reference Service.
Summary: This article discusses the fact that many states have recently revised their transfer statutes, and the number of juveniles prosecuted as adults increases each year, but that little research has been conducted to assess the correctional experiences of delinquent youth convicted in criminal court and sentences to adult prison. Evaluations of such experiences are important to policymakers and juvenile justice officials who are considering juvenile transfers as a strategy for securing longer and harsher confinement for offenders. Based on interviews with 59 chronic juvenile offenders placed in State training schools, and 81 comparable youths sentenced to adult correctional facilities, this article presents a comparison of offenders' perceptions of their correctional experiences. Youth incarcerated in training schools give more positive evaluations of treatment and training programs, general services, and institutional personnel than do those youth in prison. Youth housed in institutions which emphasize security over treatment -i.e., prisons -- are more often victimized during their confinement than youths in the treatment-oriented training schools. Once placed in prison, youth are more likely to be victims of prison violence and crime from both inmates and staff.