Contents | Feedback
| Search | DRCNet Home Page | Join DRCNet
DRCNet Library | Schaffer Library | Government Publications |
GAO Publications
Juvenile Justice: Juveniles Processed In Criminal Court and Case
Dispositions
(Letter Report, 08/15/95, GAO/GGD-95-170).
Pursuant to a legislative requirement, GAO reviewed the frequency with
which juveniles have been sent to criminal court, focusing on: (1)
juvenile conviction rates and sentences in criminal court; (2)
dispositions of juvenile cases in juvenile court; and (3) conditions of
confinement for juveniles incarcerated in adult correctional facilities.
GAO found that: (1) less than 2 percent of the juvenile delinquency
cases filed in juvenile court from 1988 through 1992 were transferred to
criminal court; (2) in states that permitted prosecutor direct filing,
between 1 and 13 percent of the juvenile cases were referred directly to
criminal court; (3) state laws that excluded certain juveniles from
juvenile court jurisdiction mainly focused on violent offenses or
juveniles with previous court records; (4) new state laws have generally
increased the frequency in which juveniles are sent to criminal court by
either decreasing the age or increasing the types of offenses for which
juveniles may be sent to criminal court; (5) juveniles in six of the
seven states studied tended to be convicted when prosecuted in criminal
court, most often for property offenses; (6) between 3 to 50 percent of
the juveniles convicted of serious violent offenses received probation;
(7) in four of the seven states, juvenile incarceration rates for
violent, property, and drug offenses were between 62 and 100 percent;
(8) in the 744,000 formal delinquency cases filed in 1992, 43 percent of
the juveniles received probation, 27 percent of the cases were
dismissed, 17 percent of the juveniles were placed in residential
treatment, 12 percent received other disposition, and 1 percent were
transferred to criminal court; and (9) in three of the states studied,
the juveniles sentenced to adult prisons were housed in separate
prisons, but health, recreation, and educational services were
equivalent in all seven states' facilities.
--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------
REPORTNUM: GGD-95-170
TITLE: Juvenile Justice: Juveniles Processed In Criminal Court and
Case Dispositions
DATE: 08/15/95
SUBJECT: Juvenile status offenders
Courtroom proceedings
State law
Juvenile delinquency
Jurisdictional authority
Convictions
Criminal procedure
Crimes or offenses
Correctional facilities
**************************************************************************
* This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a GAO *
* report. Delineations within the text indicating chapter titles, *
* headings, and bullets are preserved. Major divisions and subdivisions *
* of the text, such as Chapters, Sections, and Appendixes, are *
* identified by double and single lines. The numbers on the right end *
* of these lines indicate the position of each of the subsections in the *
* document outline. These numbers do NOT correspond with the page *
* numbers of the printed product. *
* *
* No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although figure *
* captions are reproduced. Tables are included, but may not resemble *
* those in the printed version. *
* *
* A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO Document *
* Distribution Facility by calling (202) 512-6000, by faxing your *
* request to (301) 258-4066, or by writing to P.O. Box 6015, *
* Gaithersburg, MD 20884-6015. We are unable to accept electronic orders *
* for printed documents at this time. *
**************************************************************************
Cover
================================================================ COVER
Report to Congressional Requesters
August 1995
JUVENILE JUSTICE - JUVENILES
PROCESSED IN CRIMINAL COURT AND
CASE DISPOSITIONS
GAO/GGD-95-170
Juvenile Case Dispositions
Abbreviations
=============================================================== ABBREV
BJS - Bureau of Justice Statistics
CY - calendar year
CYA - California Youth Authority
GED - Graduate Equivalency Diploma
HIV - Human Immunodeficiency Virus
OBTS - Offender Based Transaction Statistics
NCJJ - National Center for Juvenile Justice
NJRP - National Judicial Reporting Program
NJCDA - National Juvenile Court Data Archive
OJJDP - Department of Justice's Office of Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention
Letter
=============================================================== LETTER
B-259800
August 15, 1995
The Honorable Orrin G. Hatch
Chairman
The Honorable Joseph R. Biden, Jr.
Ranking Minority Member
Committee on the Judiciary
United States Senate
The Honorable William F. Goodling
Chairman
The Honorable William L. Clay
Ranking Minority Member
Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunity
House of Representatives
The 1992 reauthorization (P.L. 102-586) of the Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974 (P.L. 93-415) mandated that we
study issues related to juveniles sent to criminal court versus
juvenile court. We agreed with your Committees to obtain data on (1)
the frequency with which juveniles have been sent to criminal court,
(2) the juvenile conviction rates and sentences in criminal court,
(3) the dispositions of juvenile cases in juvenile court, and (4) the
conditions of confinement for juveniles incarcerated in adult
correctional facilities. In addition, we agreed to provide a summary
of state laws that specify the circumstances under which juveniles
can be sent to criminal court.
According to the Justice Department's Office of Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP), juveniles are committing increasing
numbers of serious crimes such as murder and aggravated assaults.
The number of juvenile court cases involving these offenses increased
by 68 percent from 1988 to 1992. Each state has at least one of
three methods--judicial waiver, prosecutor direct filing, statutory
exclusion (state laws requiring the transfer of juveniles for certain
crimes)--available for transferring juveniles to criminal court. In
recent years, many states have changed their laws to expand the
criteria under which juveniles may be sent to criminal court.
Due to the increasing numbers of juveniles sent to criminal court and
legislative changes, juvenile justice advocates, experts, and
officials have raised concerns about the number of juveniles being
tried in criminal court.
RESULTS IN BRIEF
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :1
Data limitations precluded us from determining the number of
juveniles sent to criminal court nationwide. However, we were able
to obtain some nationwide data on the number of judicial waivers. In
addition, we obtained some state data on the number of prosecutor
direct filing cases. Data on the number of statutory exclusion cases
were not available.
Our analysis of nationwide estimates from the National Center for
Juvenile Justice (NCJJ)\1 showed that juvenile court judges
transferred to criminal court less than 2 percent of juvenile
delinquency cases that were filed in juvenile court from 1988 through
1992. Over that period, cases transferred by judges increased from
1.2 to 1.6 percent of formal delinquency cases.\2
Additionally, the state data we obtained from five states and the
District of Columbia and the county data we obtained for a few
counties in five other states showed that the number of juvenile
cases filed directly in criminal court in the states that permitted
prosecutor direct filing ranged from less than 1 percent to 13
percent. For example, based on data obtained, prosecutor direct
filing cases represented about 13 percent of juvenile cases in
Arkansas and less than 1 percent in Utah.
Because data were not available on the number of cases excluded by
statute from juvenile court, we reviewed state statutes to identify
the possible impact of the statutes on the juveniles. Our review of
state laws that exclude certain juveniles from juvenile court
jurisdiction showed that the laws primarily focused on serious
violent offenses and/or juveniles with prior court records.
Since 1978, 44 states and the District of Columbia have passed new
laws that affect which juveniles may be sent to criminal court and
the process for their transfer to criminal court. While some of the
new state laws are expected to have an impact on the frequency with
which juveniles are sent to criminal court, the extent of the impact
may vary.
In 24 states and the District of Columbia, the new laws have
generally increased the population of juveniles potentially subject
to being sent to criminal court. This was done by either decreasing
the age or increasing the types of offenses for which juveniles may
be sent to criminal court. For example, in California the population
of juveniles that juvenile court judges can waive to criminal court
changed from age 16 for any offense to age 14 for specified offenses
and age 16 for other offenses. Also, in New Jersey, offenses such as
first degree robbery and some weapons offenses have been added to the
list of offenses that may be judicially waived.
Three states passed laws that tended to decrease the population of
juveniles potentially subject to being sent to criminal court. The
other 17 states that passed new laws did not increase the population
of juveniles potentially subject to being sent to criminal court. In
these states, the new laws changed the method in which certain
juveniles may be sent to criminal court. For example, in Minnesota
in 1978, a child age 14 or older charged with any offense could be
judicially waived to criminal court. Currently, however, a child age
16 or older charged with first degree murder is statutorily excluded
from juvenile court rather than eligible for judicial waiver.
Appendix IV summarizes the laws of each state and the District of
Columbia.
According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics' 1989 and 1990 Offender
Based Transaction Statistics (OBTS) data from seven states,\3
conviction rates of juveniles prosecuted in criminal court for
serious violent, serious property, and drug offenses varied within
and among states. However, juveniles in six of those states tended
to be convicted. Of those juveniles convicted, property offenses
made up the largest proportion of juvenile convictions in five of the
seven states. Further, in four of seven states incarceration rates
ranged from 62 to 100 percent for all three offenses. Of those 703
juveniles incarcerated in the seven states, serious violent offenders
and serious property offenders accounted for the same proportion of
juveniles incarcerated, 39 percent. In contrast, some juveniles
convicted of serious violent offenses received probation in five of
the seven states. The percentages varied from 3 percent in
California to 50 percent in Vermont.
We were requested to provide data on the disposition of juveniles in
juvenile court. According to OJJDP data, many juveniles were placed
on probation in juvenile court. In 1992, juveniles were placed on
probation in about 43 percent of approximately 744,000 formal
delinquency cases. Of the remaining 57 percent of juvenile cases, 27
percent were dismissed, 17 percent of the juveniles were placed in a
residential treatment program, and 12 percent of them received some
other disposition such as restitution, fines, or community service.
About 1 percent were transferred to criminal court.
In the four states we visited, juveniles sentenced to adult prisons
generally were to be subject to the same policies and procedures as
adults; however, in three of the four states we visited, younger
inmates (typically those under age 26) were housed in separate
prisons. At all the facilities, juveniles generally were to be
provided with the same health services; afforded the same
educational, vocational, and work opportunities; and provided access
to the same recreational facilities as older inmates.
--------------------
\1 NCJJ, located in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, is the research
division of the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges.
\2 See page 7 for a discussion of formal and informal delinquency
cases.
\3 Appendix I contains an explanation for our selection of the seven
states.
BACKGROUND
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :2
A juvenile is an individual at or below the maximum age of juvenile
court jurisdiction. Established by state statute, the maximum age of
juvenile court jurisdiction is the oldest age at which an individual
can be processed in juvenile court.\4
Individuals who are above the maximum age of juvenile court
jurisdiction are considered adults and therefore are under criminal
court jurisdiction. In 39 states and the District of Columbia the
maximum age is 17. In 11 states,\5 the maximum age is either 15 or
16. Except for Wyoming (where the maximum age dropped from age 18 to
17), the maximum age had not changed in any state, when comparing the
state laws in 1978 with the laws in 1994.
Although the organization of state juvenile justice systems varies,
two options are generally provided for processing juvenile
delinquency cases--formal and informal. An authorized court official
(e.g., juvenile prosecutor or juvenile probation officer) decides
whether to process the case formally through the court system or
informally by diverting the case from the juvenile court.
For handling formal cases, a petition must be drafted and filed to
provide notice of the offenses that will be pursued and to request
the court to adjudicate--judicially determine (judge) whether or not
the youth is a delinquent offender.\6 For informal cases there is no
formal court petition or legal instrument requesting the court to
adjudicate the youth as a delinquent. Whether the case is handled
formally or informally, juveniles receive dispositions. Disposition
options may include dismissal of the case, probation, fines or
restitution, community service, and placement.
A juvenile who is at or below the maximum age of juvenile court
jurisdiction may be sent to criminal court by one of the following
three methods:
judicial waiver, which allows juvenile court judges to transfer
juveniles to criminal court. Generally, prosecutors initiate
judicial waiver by filing a waiver petition asking the judge to
consider the case for waiver;
prosecutor direct filing, which allows prosecutors to decide
whether to file certain cases in juvenile or criminal court;
application of statutory exclusion laws, which specify crimes or
juveniles with certain prior records that are excluded from
juvenile court jurisdiction.
For each method, the prosecutor plays an important role in
determining whether a juvenile will be sent to criminal court. For
example, the offense with which the prosecutor charges the accused
can determine whether the juvenile falls under a state's criteria for
criminal court prosecution.
Juveniles prosecuted in state criminal court are subject to the same
state court procedures and sentencing guidelines as other defendants
in criminal court.
--------------------
\4 Most states have given the juvenile court authority over juveniles
who are above the maximum age of juvenile court jurisdiction. This
is called the extended age of juvenile court jurisdiction. It is the
age at which the juvenile court can retain jurisdiction of a juvenile
adjudicated as a delinquent. For example, in Michigan where the
maximum age of juvenile court jurisdiction is age 16, a juvenile who
is adjudicated in juvenile court as a delinquent and has a
disposition that extends beyond the upper age of juvenile court
jurisdiction would still be under the jurisdiction of the juvenile
court until age 21.
\5 In Connecticut, New York, and North Carolina the maximum age of
juvenile court jurisdiction is 15. In Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana,
Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, South Carolina, and Texas the
maximum age of juvenile court jurisdiction is 16.
\6 In the remainder of this report, cases where the intake decision
is to proceed formally will be referred to as formal cases.
SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :3
To determine the frequency with which juveniles were sent to criminal
court, we developed estimates of the number of juvenile cases
transferred to criminal court by juvenile court judges (judicial
waiver) using the NCJJ national data--National Juvenile Court Data
Archive (NJCDA)--for calendar years 1988 through 1992. As part of
our analysis of judicial waivers, we developed estimates of the age,
sex, race, and offense profiles of juveniles transferred to criminal
court by judges in Arizona, California, Florida, Missouri,
Pennsylvania, South Carolina, and Utah.
Data limitations precluded us from developing estimates of the total
number of juvenile cases filed directly in criminal court by
prosecutors (prosecutor direct filing) and those juveniles excluded
from juvenile court because of the offense committed and/or prior
court records (statutory exclusion) in those states permitting these
methods. We did, however, contact state court officials in the
District of Columbia and 10 states that we identified as having
direct filing laws and analyzed data they provided. We analyzed the
statutory exclusion laws in the District of Columbia and 37 states
that we identified as having these laws to determine the types of
offenses and/or prior court records that exclude juveniles from
juvenile court.\7
To analyze the sentences of juveniles tried in criminal court,\8
we used criminal court data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics.\9
We identified offenses, conviction rates, and incarceration rates in
California, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, New York, Pennsylvania,
and Vermont.
To gather prosecutors opinions on data related to the processing of
juveniles in criminal courts, we sent a survey to a nationally
representative sample of district prosecutor offices that dealt with
juveniles in juvenile court.
To determine the conditions of confinement for juveniles in
correctional facilities, we visited seven prisons in Florida,
Michigan, North Carolina, and Ohio.
To provide a summary of state laws governing which juveniles may be
sent to criminal court, we reviewed the statutes for all 50 states
and the District of Columbia.
Appendix I presents more details about our objectives, scope, and
methodology, including a discussion of how we selected the states and
prisons we visited. Our results apply to states and prisons for
which we collected data and cannot be projected to other locations.
We did not verify data provided by the states. We did our work from
May 1993 through April 1995 in accordance with generally accepted
government auditing standards. Since no federal agency has
responsibility for the issues addressed in this report, we did not
obtain comments on a draft of this report. However, we did discuss
our results with NCJJ and OJJDP officials and, where appropriate,
incorporated their comments.
--------------------
\7 An analysis of state laws under which juveniles may be sent to
criminal court focused on the laws in effect during calendar year
1978 (Youth in Adult Courts: Between Two Worlds, Hamparian, 1982).
We used this study as the baseline for our analysis of the changes
that were made in the state laws regarding the basis on which
juveniles may be sent to criminal court. Our analysis focused on the
laws passed through 1994, some of which were not in effect until
1995.
\8 We classified cases as juveniles on the basis of the defendants'
age at the time of arrest because data were not available for the
defendants' age at the time of offense.
\9 The Bureau's dataset did not contain all dispositions occurring in
a given year, only those reported to the state and for which the
state had a previous arrest reported.
LIMITED DATA AVAILABLE
INDICATED RELATIVELY FEW
JUVENILES SENT TO CRIMINAL
COURT
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :4
Limited nationwide and state data existed on the total number of
juvenile cases sent to criminal court. However, we obtained
information on the number of juvenile cases sent to criminal court by
judicial waiver and some information on the number sent by prosecutor
direct filing. Since data on statutory exclusions were not
available, we analyzed state statutes to identify the possible impact
of the statutes on juveniles.
According to our analysis of NCJJ data, the rate at which juvenile
court judges sent formal delinquency cases to criminal court has
remained less than 2 percent from 1988 to 1992. Additionally, data
available from 5 states, the District of Columbia, and a few counties
in 5 other states on the number of prosecutor direct filing cases
filed in criminal court annually showed that it ranged from 4 cases
in one state to about 7,200 cases in another state. Our analysis of
statutory exclusion laws indicated that the laws generally
established specific criteria that focused on juveniles (1) charged
with serious violent offenses and/or (2) with previous court records.
In addition, our analysis showed that legislation passed in the last
16 years included two primary types of changes: (1) in 24 states and
the District of Columbia legislative changes tended to increase the
population of juveniles who may be sent to criminal court and (2) in
17 other states, recent legislation changed the method in which
certain juveniles may be sent to criminal court (e.g., from the
judicial waiver to the prosecutor direct filing).
The results of our national survey of state prosecutors suggested
that in most prosecutorial offices, judicial waivers accounted for a
higher percentage of juveniles arriving in criminal court than direct
filings or statutory exclusions.
TRANSFER AND SENTENCING OF
JUVENILES
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.1
We identified (1) judicial waiver laws in 47 states and the District
of Columbia, (2) prosecutor direct filing laws in 10 states and the
District of Columbia, and (3) one or more statutory exclusion laws in
37 states and the District of Columbia.
We also identified 21 states with provisions that allow criminal
court judges to transfer cases from criminal court to juvenile court
under circumstances specified in the law (reverse waiver). For
example, in Arkansas, when a prosecutor directly files a case in
criminal court, the criminal court judge may remand the case to
juvenile court. In addition, we identified 19 states that allow
juveniles prosecuted and convicted in criminal court to receive
dispositions as a juvenile under specified circumstances. For
example, in California a juvenile convicted in criminal court may
receive a disposition as a juvenile if the California Youth Authority
determines that the juvenile is amenable to treatment.
See table 1 for a summary of the state statutes and appendix IV for a
detailed summary of statutes in all 50 states and the District of
Columbia that govern which juveniles may be sent to criminal court.
Table 1
Summary of Juvenile Transfer and
Sentencing Provisions
Juveniles
convicted in
criminal court
Prosecutor Statutory could receive a
Judicial direct exclusion Reverse disposition as
State waiver filing laws waiver a juvenile
----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ---------------
Alabama x x
Alaska x x x
Arizona x
Arkansas x x x
California x x
Colorado x x x
Connecticut x x
Delaware x x x
District x x x
of
Columbia
Florida x x x x
Georgia x x x x x
Hawaii x x x
Idaho x x
Illinois x x x
Indiana x x
Iowa x x x
Kansas x x
Kentucky x x x x
Louisiana x x x
Maine x x
Maryland x x x
Massachuset x x
ts
Michigan x x x
Minnesota x x
Mississippi x x x
Missouri x x
Montana x x
Nebraska x x
Nevada x x x
New x x x
Hampshire
New Jersey x
New Mexico \a x
New York x x x
North x x
Carolina
North x
Dakota
Ohio x x
Oklahoma x x x
Oregon x x x
Pennsylvani x x x x
a
Rhode x x
Island
South x x x
Carolina
South x x
Dakota
Tennessee x x x
Texas x x
Utah x x x x x
Vermont x x x x x
Virginia x x x x
Washington x x
West x x x
Virginia
Wisconsin x x x
Wyoming x x x
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Legend: x indicates the transfer and sentencing provisions allowed
by each state.
\a New Mexico does not have a judicial waiver process. However,
certain juveniles, who are called "youthful offenders," can be
subject to adult or juvenile sanctions in juvenile court.
Source: GAO review of state statutes.
JUDICIAL WAIVER RATE HAS
INCREASED FROM 1988 THROUGH
1992
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.2
The percent of formal delinquency cases judicially waived to criminal
court (judicial waiver rate) increased by 33 percent from 1.2 percent
in 1988 to 1.6 percent in 1992, which represented a growth from about
7,000 to almost 12,000 cases a year, as shown in table 2. This
increase occurred while the total number of formal delinquency cases
increased by about 31 percent; the number of waived cases increased
about 68 percent.
Table 2
Number of Formal Delinquency Cases
Nationwide and the Number and Percentage
of Cases Judicially Waived to Criminal
Court
Number of
formal
delinquency
Number of cases
formal judicially Judicial
delinquenc waived to waiver
Year y cases criminal court rate\a
-------------------- ---------- -------------- ----------
1988 569,596 7,005 1.2%
1989 608,593 8,350 1.4
1990 654,742 8,708 1.3
1991 689,328 10,933 1.6
1992 743,673 11,748 1.6
------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The broad offense categories used in our analysis included
person, property, drugs, and public order as defined by OJJDP. The
person category includes criminal homicide, forcible rape, robbery,
aggravated assault, simple assault, and other person offenses--such
as kidnapping and harassment. The property category includes
burglary, larceny, motor vehicle theft, arson, vandalism, stolen
property offenses, trespassing, and other property offenses--such as
fraud, counterfeiting, and embezzlement. The drug category includes
unlawful sale, purchase, distribution, manufacture, cultivation,
transport, possession or use of a controlled or prohibited substance
or drug. The public order category includes weapons offenses,
nonviolent sex offenses, and liquor law violations.
\a The waiver rate is the ratio of the number of waived cases to the
number of formal delinquency cases. The percentage of all
delinquency cases which were handled formally varied across states.
Source: Developed by GAO from NJCDA data.
Data showed that judicial waiver rates varied by offense type, as
shown in table 3. The judicial waiver rate for person offenses in
1992 was 2.4 percent in contrast to the waiver rate for property
offenses, which was 1.3 percent. Therefore, judges were more likely
to waive cases to criminal court involving juveniles charged with
person offenses than juveniles charged with property offenses in
1992. While the waiver rates for all the offenses increased from
1988 through 1992, the waiver rates for drug offenses increased the
most; however, the rate decreased between 1991 and 1992.\10
Table 3
Judicial Waiver Rate by Offense
Offense 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992
-------------------- ------ ------ ------ ------ ------
Person 1.9% 2.0% 2.1% 2.4% 2.4%
Property 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.2 1.3
Drugs 1.5 2.8 2.7 4.4 3.1
Public order 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Developed by GAO using NJCDA data.
While the chances of juvenile cases being waived to criminal court
were highest for juveniles charged with person and drug offenses,
property offenders made up the largest proportion of waived cases, as
shown in table 4. This was due to the prevalence of property
offenses versus person or drug offenses. For example, NCJJ data
showed that in 1992, referrals to juvenile court were about 401,000
or 54 percent for property offenses, about 165,000 or 22 percent for
person offenses, and 46,000 or 6 percent for drug offenses.
Table 4
Percent of Judicially Waived Cases by
Offense Type, from 1988 Through 1992
Offense 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992
-------------------- ------ ------ ------ ------ ------
Person 29% 28% 32% 32% 34%
Property 53 49 46 44 45
Drugs 11 16 15 17 12
Public order 8 7 8 7 9
------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Figures may not add to 100 percent due to rounding.
Source: Developed by GAO from NCJJ data.
Also shown in table 4, the offense profile of judicially waived cases
changed from 1988 to 1992. For example, person offenses increased
from 29 percent of the cases waived in 1988 to 34 percent in 1992.
In addition, property offense cases decreased from 53 percent of the
cases waived in 1988 to 45 percent in 1992.
Similar to the offense profile, the demographic profile of juvenile
cases waived to criminal court had changed slightly from 1988 to 1992
(see table 5). For example, the percentage of waived cases for
juveniles age 16 or older decreased from 93 percent in 1988 to 88
percent in 1992. Also, the racial makeup of juveniles whose cases
were waived changed since 1988 when about 54 percent were white, 43
percent were black, and 2 percent were of other races. In 1992,
about 47 percent of juveniles whose cases were waived were white, 50
percent were black, and 3 percent were of other races.
Table 5
Percent of Waived Juvenile Cases, by
Sex, Age, and Race, 1988 Through 1992
16 or
Year Male Female older White Black Other
--------- ------ ------ --------- ------ ------ ------
1988 96% 4% 93% 54% 43% 2%
1989 95 5 89 49 49 2
1990 96 4 90 45 52 3
1991 96 4 91 47 52 2
1992 96 4 88 47 50 3
------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Percentages may not add up to 100 percent due to rounding.
Source: Developed by GAO from NCJJ's data archive.
--------------------
\10 We used juvenile court data collected annually by NCJJ to
determine the number of juvenile cases processed in criminal court
due to judicial waiver. Each year, NCJJ collects juvenile court
processing data from various states and jurisdictions and assigns
weights to the data, which permits projecting the data to produce
national estimates of cases disposed by all state juvenile justice
systems.
ANALYSIS OF WAIVER RATES
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.3
To provide perspective on patterns of waiver rates across the six
states, we examined data on the number of juveniles charged with
violent, property, and drug offenses. We used these three offenses
because the number of cases for each offense allowed comparisons.
Our analysis focused on the potential effects on waiver rates for
five variables--age (for six states), sex (for six states), race (for
six states), nature of locality (metropolitan or nonmetropolitan, for
four states), and number of prior referrals (for five states).\11 We
examined each of the variables separately because we could not
control for variables for which data were not available and because
of the small number of cases waived in each offense type within the
state. (Tables II.3, II.6, II.9, II.12, II.15, and II.18 contain the
data used in our analysis.)
--------------------
\11 The states differed because of the availability of data. Utah
did not have a sufficient number of cases to be included in this
analysis. For the other six NCJJ states, all were included for age,
sex, and race; Florida, Missouri, Pennsylvania, and South Carolina
had data for metropolitan/nonmetropolitan locality; and Arizona,
Florida, Missouri, Pennsylvania, and South Carolina had information
on prior referrals.
VARIABLES
-------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.3.1
Age - In the six states we examined, juveniles 16 years or older were
more likely to have their cases waived for all three offense types.
Gender - Males were more likely than females to have their cases
waived within each offense type in the six states we analyzed. The
extent of the difference again varied by state.
Race - Blacks were more likely than whites to have their cases waived
for all three offenses in four of the six states we examined.
Locality - In the four NCJJ states with data on type of court
location, some small differences existed but were not consistent
across offense types within the same state.
Prior Referrals - In the five states we examined, waiver rates
generally increased with the number of prior referrals for all five
states and most offense types.
Appendix II contains data on the percent of cases waived, the
demographic characteristics for juveniles in the seven states, and a
detailed discussion of our analysis of waiver rates.
JUDICIAL WAIVER CRITERIA
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.4
Whether a juvenile case is eligible for judicial waiver depends on
the state. Forty-seven states and the District of Columbia have
judicial waiver laws, and each state establishes different criteria
for which cases may be waived. The criteria often include specific
age and offense restrictions as well as factors that the judge must
consider related to the juvenile's case. For example, juvenile
judges in Florida can waive a case to criminal court involving a
juvenile age 14 or older for any offense if there is a finding that
the juvenile should be transferred after considering certain factors;
whereas judges in Maryland can waive a case involving a juvenile age
15 or older for any offense and a juvenile of any age charged with a
crime punishable by death or life imprisonment if there is a finding
that the juvenile is unfit for juvenile rehabilitative measures. In
addition, the U.S. Supreme Court in an appendix to Kent v. United
States, 383 U.S. 541 (1966),\12 outlined certain factors that the
juvenile court judge would consider when making waiver decisions
under the specific statute. The factors from the 1966 court case
included
seriousness of the alleged offense to the community and whether the
protection of the community requires waiver;
whether the offense was committed in an aggressive, violent,
premeditated, or willful manner;
whether the offense was committed against persons or against
property, with greater weight being given to offenses against
persons, especially if personal injury resulted;
prosecutive merit of the complaint;
whether the juveniles' associates in the offenses were adults;
sophistication and maturity of the juvenile;
juveniles' record and previous history;
protection of the public; and
likelihood of reasonable rehabilitation of the juvenile by the use
of procedures, services, and facilities that are available to
the juvenile court.
Many states have incorporated these factors into their juvenile codes
either verbatim or with minor modifications. In interviews with
judges in seven states and in our nationwide survey of prosecutors,
we asked which factors from a list (based on factors previously
listed) they were most likely to consider when making waiver
decisions. The factors chosen most often by judges and prosecutors
were the seriousness of the offense, the juveniles' previous record
and history, and whether the juvenile was amenable to rehabilitation.
While we were unable to get an estimate of the total number of waiver
petitions filed by prosecutors, information collected in our survey
of prosecutors suggested that more than half of the requests for
judicial waivers filed in calendar year 1993 were granted.\13 We are
not certain of the reliability of these figures because their
responses may have been on the basis of impressions rather than data.
See appendix II for additional data on judicial waivers in the seven
states.
--------------------
\12 The U.S. Supreme Court in Kent also set forth a number of
procedural safeguards to protect the interests of the child--the
right to a hearing that meets the essentials of due process and fair
treatment, representation by counsel, access by the juvenile's
attorney to the juvenile's social record, and a statement of reasons
in support of the waiver order if the juvenile case is waived.
\13 See appendix I for survey responses and confidence intervals.
LIMITED DATA INDICATED THE
USE OF PROSECUTOR DIRECT
FILING VARIES
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.5
State data and data for only some counties were available in the
District of Columbia and 10 states that allow prosecutor direct
filing. Table 6 shows the available data that we obtained on
prosecutor direct filings, including statewide data from five states
and the District of Columbia. Data on direct filing in the other
five states were available only from certain counties.
Table 6
Frequency of Prosecutor Direct Filing
Number of
cases Total number
directly of cases
filed in handled in
Principal Time criminal juvenile
Jurisdiction city period court court
------------------------------ ------------ ------ ------------ ------------
Arkansas N/A 1993 1,327 10,044
Colorado N/A 1993 152\a 11,980
District of N/A 1993 15 3,029
Columbia\b
Florida N/A 1991 7,232 75,976
Georgia\c
Chatham Savannah 1993 15 3,800\d
County
De Kalb Suburb of 1993 16 10,234
County Atlanta
Louisiana
Caddo Shreveport 1993 8 415
Parish
Orleans New Orleans 1993 63 1,444
Parish
Jefferson Suburb of 1993 7 2,000\d
Parish\e New Orleans
Michigan
Wayne Detroit 1993 82 8,402
County
Nebraska
Douglas Omaha 1993 10\d 1,800\d
County
Utah N/A 1993 4 12,122
Vermont N/A 1993 103 1,369
Wyoming
Laramie Cheyenne 1993 6\d 198
County
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Data represent September 1993 through July 1994 time period.
\b The District of Columbia provided data on only the number of
juveniles convicted in criminal court.
\c County data represent cases filed in criminal court by judicial
waiver, prosecutor direct filing, and statutory exclusion.
\d This is an annual estimate.
\e Data represent prosecutor direct filing and statutory exclusion.
Source: Developed by GAO using data provided by state and local
court officials in jurisdiction listed.
While the data provided by state and local court officials were
inconsistent and incomplete, (e.g., lack of statewide data and time
periods were different) they indicated that the frequency of using
direct filing varied throughout the states that have direct filing
laws. Data provided by juvenile court officials on the number of
delinquency cases filed in these jurisdictions compared with data
provided by criminal court officials on the number of cases directly
filed by prosecutors showed that direct filing cases represented a
larger percentage of juvenile cases in some states than in others.
For example, in Florida and Arkansas prosecutor direct filing cases
represented about 10 percent of juveniles cases, and in Colorado and
Wayne County, Michigan they represented about 1 percent.
Direct filing laws in 10 states and the District of Columbia
generally focused on felony offenses for juveniles over an age
specified in each state's laws. However, juveniles age 16 in
Nebraska and Vermont and age 17 in Wyoming can be direct filed in
criminal court for any offense. In jurisdictions with direct filing
laws, prosecutors had discretion to decide whether to file the case
in juvenile or criminal court. The extent to which prosecutors
exercise their discretion was exemplified by data provided by
criminal court officials in Arkansas and Wayne County, Michigan.
These data showed that many of the cases eligible for direct filing
remained in juvenile court. For example, in Arkansas 2,756 cases
were eligible to be filed in criminal court in 1992. However, during
that period, prosecutors directly filed about 45 percent of the cases
in criminal court. In addition, in Wayne County 146 juvenile cases
were eligible to be filed in criminal court in 1992. However, during
that period less than half the cases, 61 (or 42 percent), were filed
in criminal court.
FREQUENCY OF JUVENILE CASES
STATUTORILY EXCLUDED FROM
JUVENILE COURT UNKNOWN
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.6
Data were not available on the number of cases excluded by law from
juvenile court jurisdiction.\14 Without state data, we were unable to
determine the frequency of statutory exclusion cases sent to criminal
court. We were, however, able to analyze the laws to determine the
conditions under which juveniles were excluded from juvenile court
(see table 7 for our analysis). According to our analysis, statutory
exclusion laws focused primarily on juveniles charged with serious
violent offenses and/or juveniles with previous juvenile or criminal
court records. In addition, 15 states also excluded one or more
other serious offense (e.g., a child age 16 or older carrying a
handgun without a license in Indiana).
In 17 of the 37 states with statutory exclusion laws, the laws
excluded juveniles charged with serious violent offenses and
juveniles with prior court records (repeat offenders) from juvenile
court. For example, in Pennsylvania, any juvenile charged with
murder is excluded from juvenile court as well as any juvenile who
has been previously found guilty in a criminal proceeding. In 13 of
the 37 states, the focus of the statutory exclusion laws are to
exclude juveniles charged with serious violent offenses from juvenile
court. For example, in New York, any juvenile age 13 or older
charged with murder in the second degree is to be prosecuted in
criminal court. In addition, New York excludes juveniles age 14 or
older from juvenile court for a list of serious violent crimes that
include assault, rape, and manslaughter, each in the first degree.
New York does not have any exclusion provisions on the basis of the
juvenile's prior record. In 7 of the 37 states and in the District
of Columbia, the focus of the statutory exclusion laws is to exclude
juveniles with prior criminal court records from juvenile court
jurisdiction. These laws apply to all juveniles with specified prior
records (i.e., adult court convictions) regardless of their offenses.
For example, in Virginia, any juvenile previously convicted as an
adult is excluded from juvenile court jurisdiction regardless of the
offense.\15
While statutory exclusion laws in most states focus on serious
violent offenses and prior records, in 15 states one or more other
serious offenses such as burglary, weapons, and drug offenses are
excluded. For example, in Maryland using, wearing, carrying, or
transporting a firearm during a drug trafficking offense would
exclude a juvenile age 16 or older from juvenile court jurisdiction.
Table 7
Conditions Under Which Juvenile Cases
Were Excluded From Juvenile Court
Laws focus on
exclusion for Laws focus on
serious violent exclusion due to
State offenses prior record
------------------ ------------------ --------------------
Alabama x x
Alaska x
Connecticut x x
Delaware x
District of x
Columbia
Florida x x
Georgia x x
Hawaii x x
Idaho x x
Illinois x x
Indiana x x
Iowa x
Kansas x
Kentucky x
Louisiana x
Maine x
Maryland x
Minnesota x x
Mississippi x x
Missouri x
Montana x
Nevada x x
New Hampshire x
New Mexico x
New York x
North Carolina x
Ohio x x
Oklahoma x x
Oregon x
Pennsylvania x x
Rhode Island x x
South Carolina x
Tennessee x
Utah x x
Vermont x
Virginia x
Washington x x
Wisconsin x
------------------------------------------------------------
Note: While statutory exclusion laws generally focus on juveniles
with serious violent offenses and/or prior court records, 15 states
also exclude juveniles with one or more serious offenses from
juvenile court jurisdiction. These states are Alabama, Alaska,
Connecticut, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas,
Maryland, Mississippi, New York, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and
Vermont.
Legend: x indicates the conditions for which each state excluded
juveniles from juvenile court.
Source: GAO review of state statutes.
--------------------
\14 Using 1990 data, NCJJ estimates that in 11 states where the
maximum age of juvenile court jurisdiction is age 15 or 16,
approximately 176,000 cases involving persons age 16 and 17 are
automatically charged in criminal court each year because they are
defined as adults by the state. However, there is no estimate on the
number of juveniles at or below the maximum age of juvenile court
jurisdiction that are charged in criminal court due to their offense
and/or prior record.
\15 For those juveniles who were previously convicted and served
their sentences in facilities, the likelihood would be small that
they would still be under the maximum age of jurisdiction if they
were subsequently charged with another crime.
CHANGES IN STATE LAWS MAY
AFFECT THE NUMBER OF
JUVENILES SENT TO CRIMINAL
COURT AND THE METHOD FOR
SENDING CERTAIN JUVENILES
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.7
Since 1978, 44 states and the District of Columbia have passed laws
that have an effect on which juveniles may be sent to criminal court.
These laws could affect the number of juveniles sent to criminal
court; however, the impact may vary. In 24 of these states and the
District of Columbia, the laws have tended to increase the population
of juveniles potentially subject to being sent to criminal court. In
three states, the population of juveniles subject to being sent to
criminal court decreased. In 17 states, the laws changed the method
in which certain juveniles are sent to criminal court.
In 24 states\16 and the District of Columbia the laws that identify
juveniles who may be sent to criminal court increased the population
of juveniles potentially subject to being sent to criminal court.
For example, in 1978, California law allowed juvenile court judges to
waive the case of any juvenile age 16 or older. Since then, a law
was passed that allows juvenile court judges to also waive cases
involving juveniles 14 or older for a list of specific offenses.
This change increased the number of juveniles that are subject to
being sent to criminal court. Also, in 1978, North Dakota law
allowed judges to waive the case of a juvenile age 16 years or older
charged with a "crime or public offense." Since then, a new law was
passed that allows juvenile court judges to also waive cases
involving juveniles 14 years or older charged with committing an act
that involves the infliction or threat of serious bodily harm. New
Mexico, South Dakota, and Wyoming changed their laws, which had the
effect of decreasing the population of juveniles potentially subject
to being sent to criminal court. For example, in 1978, Wyoming law
allowed judges to waive the case of a child of any age for any
offense to criminal court. Currently, only cases involving children
age 13 or older can be waived to criminal court.
In the remaining 17 states,\17 the new laws changed the method in
which certain juvenile cases may be sent to criminal court but did
not increase the size of the potential population of juveniles that
may be sent to criminal court. In general, these laws have changed
the process for sending juveniles to criminal court. For example, in
1988, Michigan passed a law that gives prosecutors the discretion to
directly file cases in criminal court involving juveniles who are age
15 or older and are charged with a list of specific crimes. Prior to
this law, these cases would be filed initially in juvenile court, and
the prosecutors would have to request a waiver hearing for those
cases they believed should be sent to criminal court. During the
waiver hearing, the juvenile court judge would decide whether to
waive the case to criminal court.
Maryland also changed the process by excluding from juvenile court
juveniles age 16 or older charged with certain specified violent
crimes and other serious crimes. Previously, the juvenile court
judge decided whether these cases should be sent to criminal court;
however, state law now establishes the criteria by which certain
juvenile cases are sent to criminal court.
--------------------
\16 The states that have passed laws that increased the population of
juveniles who may be sent to criminal court are Alabama, Arkansas,
California, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana,
Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, New Jersey, North
Carolina, North Dakota, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina,
Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia, and Wisconsin.
\17 The states that have passed laws that changed the method in which
certain juveniles may be sent to criminal court are Alaska, Colorado,
Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota,
Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Utah,
and Washington.
PROSECUTOR SURVEY INDICATED
JUDICIAL WAIVER USED MOST
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.8
We surveyed a sample of prosecutors' offices to obtain information on
the estimated percent of all indictments filed against juveniles in
criminal court that were the result of judicial waiver, direct
filings, and statutory exclusions. The survey results suggested that
in most prosecutorial offices, judicial waivers accounted for a
higher percentage of juveniles arriving in criminal court than direct
filings or statutory exclusions.\18 Further, we estimated that in
about 60 percent of the offices only judicial waivers were used.
However, the results are difficult to interpret because of missing
data and potentially inconsistent completion by the respondents.
--------------------
\18 See appendix I for survey responses and confidence intervals.
JUVENILES PROSECUTED IN
CRIMINAL COURT FOR CERTAIN
OFFENSES TENDED TO BE CONVICTED
AND INCARCERATED
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :5
Our analysis of 1989 and 1990 criminal court data for seven states
indicated that most juveniles prosecuted in criminal court in each
state were convicted. Further, most juveniles were convicted of
property offenses. When juveniles were sentenced in criminal court
for serious offenses, most were incarcerated.
MOST JUVENILES PROSECUTED
FOR SERIOUS OFFENSES IN
CRIMINAL COURT WERE
CONVICTED IN SIX OF SEVEN
STATES
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :5.1
Our analysis of conviction rates in seven states--California,
Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, New York, Pennsylvania, and
Vermont--showed that states conviction rates for juveniles prosecuted
in criminal court, during 1989 and 1990 combined, varied for serious
violent, serious property, and drug offenses.\19 For example, as
shown in table 8, the conviction rate for serious violent offenses in
Missouri was 50 percent. Conviction rates for serious property
offenses in Pennsylvania and Vermont were 63 percent and 97 percent,
respectively.
Table 8
Conviction Rates and the Number of
Juveniles Prosecuted in Criminal Court
in Seven States for Selected Offenses in
1989 and 1990
St
at Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
e prosecuted convicted prosecuted convicted prosecuted convicted
-- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- -----------
Ca 126 87% 71 78% 141 75%
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
Mi 51 100 99 97 2 100
n
n
e
s
o
t
a
Mi 24 50 24 67 13 54
s
s
o
u
r
i
Ne 78 77 124 81 59 81
b
r
a
s
k
a
Ne 75 32 76 26 85 27
w
Y
o
r
k
Pe 118 83 414 63 18 83
n
n
s
y
l
v
a
n
i
a
Ve 25 96 177 97 9 100
r
m
o
n
t
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: This table includes the most prevalent offense types for which
juveniles are prosecuted, on the basis of criminal court data.
Source: Developed by GAO from OBTS data.
To provide some perspective on how juveniles were treated as compared
with others prosecuted in criminal court, we compared juvenile
conviction rates with the conviction rates of "other youth"\20 age 16
or 17 and young adults ages 18 to 24 (see tables III.1 and III.2 in
app. III for conviction rates for other youth and young adults).
The data for other youth and young adults includes a broader range of
crimes within crime types (than juveniles' crimes) because all youth
and young adults crimes are prosecuted in criminal court. Some
juvenile crimes are tried in criminal court because of the severity
of juveniles' offenses or prior records. Our analysis of the two
states, Missouri and New York, which included the other youth
population,\21 showed that in Missouri, juvenile conviction rates
were higher than the rates of other youth (persons of age 17). For
example, the conviction rate for juveniles prosecuted for serious
property offenses in Missouri was 67 percent compared with 38 percent
for other youth. In New York, conviction rates were lower for
juveniles than they were for other youth (persons age 16 and 17).
For example, the conviction rate for juveniles prosecuted in New York
for serious property offenses was 26 percent compared with 64 percent
for other youth.
A comparison of conviction rates in the states we analyzed for
juveniles and young adults (persons age 18 through 24) showed that
generally, juveniles were, for some offenses, as likely as young
adults to be convicted in criminal court. Finally, juvenile
conviction rates for serious violent, serious property, and drug
offenses were generally similar to the rates for young adults in the
states we analyzed, except for New York. For example, the conviction
rate for serious property offenses in Minnesota was 97 percent for
juveniles compared with 89 percent for young adults. Also, the
conviction rate for drug offenses in Pennsylvania was 83 percent for
juveniles compared with 81 percent for young adults.
Our analysis of juvenile conviction offenses showed, in five\22
of seven states, that property offenses made up the largest
proportion of juvenile convictions in criminal court, representing
between 36 and 66 percent of convictions, as shown in table 9. In
California and New York, violent offenses accounted for the largest
proportion of juvenile convictions.
Table 9
Percent of Juveniles Convicted in
Criminal Court by Offense for 1989 and
1990
Percent Percent
convicted convicted
of of Percent
Number of serious serious convicted
juveniles violent property of drug
State convicted offenses offenses offenses
------------ ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
California 280 39% 20% 38%
Minnesota 165 31 58 1
Missouri 44 27 36 16
Nebraska 277 23 38 18
New York 78 31 26 29
Pennsylvania 409 24 64 4
Vermont 260 9 66 3
------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Percents may not equal 100 percent due to rounding and the
exclusion of such offense types as weapons, indeterminate property,
public order, and traffic.
Source: Developed by GAO using OBTS data.
Similar to juveniles, the largest percentage of other youth and young
adults convicted in criminal court were property offenders. (See
tables III.3 and III.4 in app. III for conviction offenses of other
youth and young adults.) In California and New York, the largest
proportion of young adults convicted were drug offenders. For
example, 37 percent of young adults in California and 33 percent in
New York were convicted of drug offenses.
--------------------
\19 Using OBTS data, we categorized offense types into serious
violent, serious property, and drugs. Serious violent offenses
include murder, nonnegligent manslaughter, rape, robbery, aggravated
assault, and other violent offenses (e.g., sexual assault and
kidnapping). Serious property offenses include burglary, fraud,
forgery, embezzlement, larceny, motor vehicle theft, and arson. Drug
offenses include drug possession and trafficking.
\20 "Other youth" are individuals beyond the maximum age of juvenile
court jurisdiction in their state and are below the age 18.
\21 Unlike the other five states where the maximum age of juvenile
court jurisdiction is 17, in Missouri, the maximum age is 16, and in
New York it is 15. Therefore, in Missouri other youth are
individuals of age 17, and in New York, other youth are individuals
of age 16 and 17. In both states, these other youths are legally
considered as adults and are under the original jurisdiction of the
criminal court.
\22 The five states where property offenses made up the largest
proportion of juvenile convictions in criminal court were Minnesota,
Missouri, Nebraska, Pennsylvania, and Vermont.
MOST JUVENILES SENTENCED IN
CRIMINAL COURT FOR SERIOUS
OFFENSES WERE INCARCERATED
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :5.2
In four\23 of seven states we analyzed, over half of the juveniles
sentenced in criminal court for serious violent, serious property, or
drug offenses were incarcerated in each state. Incarceration
rates\24 for these offenses varied among states, as shown in table
10. In Vermont, incarceration rates for these offenses were 33
percent or less. In addition, in Missouri the incarceration rate for
drug offenders was 43 percent. Also, in Pennsylvania the
incarceration rate for serious property offenders was 10 percent.
Among the 7 states, a total of 703 juveniles was sentenced to
incarceration in the 3 offense types during 1989 and 1990.
Table 10
Percent of Juveniles Incarcerated and
the Total Number of Juveniles Sentenced
for Serious Violent, Serious Property,
and Drug Offenses in 1989 and 1990
Number Percent Percent Percent
senten incarcerat Number incarcerat Number incarcerat
State ced ed sentenced ed sentenced ed
------------ ------ ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
California 98 90% 57 95% 101 93%
Minnesota 45 98 84 92 2 100
Missouri 10 80 16 63 7 43
Nebraska 46 93 103 66 47 66
New York 18 67 10 70 13 62
Pennsylvania 81 89 257 10 15 100
Vermont 14 29 149 23 9 33
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Developed by GAO from OBTS data.
To determine whether juveniles were incarcerated at rates similar to
others in criminal court, we compared juvenile sentences with those
of other youth and young adults. (See tables III.5 and III.6 in app.
III for incarceration rates for other youth and young adults.) In the
two states with an "other youth population," Missouri and New York,
juvenile incarceration rates for serious violent and serious property
offenses were higher than incarceration rates for these offenses for
other youth. For example, in Missouri, 80 percent of juveniles
sentenced were incarcerated for serious violent offenses compared
with 60 percent of other youth. The juvenile incarceration rates for
drug offenses were lower than the rates for other youth in Missouri
and about equal to the rates for other youth in New York.
Finally, we found no consistent pattern when comparing juvenile and
young adult incarceration rates (see table III.6 in app. III). For
some offenses juvenile incarceration rates were higher than young
adult incarceration rates, while for other offenses juvenile rates
were lower. For example, in New York, the incarceration rate for
drug offenses was lower for juveniles, 62 percent, compared with 80
percent for young adults. In contrast, in Nebraska, the
incarceration rates for serious violent offenses were higher for
juveniles, 93 percent, compared with 78 percent for young adults.
In the seven states, the proportion of juveniles incarcerated for
serious property offenses was the same as the proportion incarcerated
for serious violent offenses but varied among the states. Drug
offenders made up a smaller proportion of the total number of
juveniles incarcerated (see table 11). In contrast, drug offenders
made up the largest proportion of other youth and young adults
incarcerated. (See tables III.7 and III.8 in app. III for the total
number of other youth and young adults incarcerated.)
Table 11
Total Number of Juveniles Incarcerated
for Serious Violent Offenses, Serious
Property Offenses, and Drug Offenses in
1989 and 1990
Number of Number of
juveniles juveniles Number of
incarcerat incarcerat juveniles
ed for ed for incarcerat
serious serious ed for
violent property drug
State offenses offenses offenses
------------------------ ---------- ---------- ----------
California 88 54 94
Minnesota 44 77 2
Missouri 8 10 3
Nebraska 43 68 31
New York 12 7 8
Pennsylvania 72 26 15
Vermont 4 34 3
============================================================
Total 271 276 156
------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Developed by GAO using OBTS data.
--------------------
\23 These states are California, Minnesota, Nebraska, and New York.
\24 Incarceration rates equals the percentages of those juveniles
convicted who were sentenced to jail or prison as compared with all
juveniles convicted who received any sentence, including probation or
jail.
PROBATION AND SENTENCES
OTHER THAN INCARCERATION
RECEIVED BY JUVENILES TRIED
IN CRIMINAL COURT FOR
SERIOUS VIOLENT, SERIOUS
PROPERTY, AND DRUG OFFENSES
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :5.3
While most juveniles sentenced in criminal court were incarcerated,
some juveniles also received probation and other sentences in the
seven states we analyzed. In fact, in five of the states, some
juveniles convicted of serious violent offenses received probation
sentences. As shown in table 12, the percentages varied from 3
percent in California to 50 percent in Vermont.
Table 12
Percent of Juveniles Convicted in
Criminal Court Receiving Sentences of
Probation or Sentences Other Than
Incarceration in Seven States for
Selected Offenses in 1989 and 1990
Other Probat Other Other
State Probation sentences ion sentences Probation sentences
------- ----------- ----------- ------ ----------- ----------- -----------
Califor 3% 7% 5% 0% 6% 0%
nia
Minneso 0 2 8 0 0 0
ta
Missour 20 0 38 0 43 14
i
Nebrask 4 0 23 8 15 0
a
New 33 0 20 10 31 8
York
Pennsyl 6 1 2 3 0 0
vania
Vermont 50 21 25 46 11 22
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Other sentences included (1) no court disposition or (2)
disposition or sentencing was deferred or suspended. Percentages do
not add to 100 percent because incarceration rates were not included.
Source: Developed by GAO using OBTS data.
Additionally, juveniles convicted of serious property or drug
offenses in four states received probation at higher rates than
juveniles convicted of serious violent offenses. Overall, while
juveniles convicted of serious violent, serious property, and drug
offenses generally did not receive fines as their sentences, in two
states, a significant percentage of these juveniles were sentenced to
pay fines. In Pennsylvania, 84 percent of juveniles convicted of
serious property offenses were fined, and in Vermont, 33 percent of
juveniles convicted of drug offenses were fined.
According to the literature, criminal court judges consider the
severity of the offenses and the prior offense history of the
juvenile in making their sentencing decisions. However, data
limitations precluded us from considering the prior offense history
in our analysis.
PROBATION WAS THE MOST COMMON
DISPOSITION BY JUVENILE COURT
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :6
Our analysis of NCJJ data showed that probation was the most widely
used disposition in the juvenile court. In 1992, in about 43 percent
of approximately 744,000 formal delinquency cases,\25
juveniles were placed on probation. In addition, probation was the
most common disposition for all offense types. A probation
disposition involves the court monitoring the juvenile's behavior,
helping the juvenile find a job, arranging in-home or out-of-home
care, or promoting wholesome leisure time activities. Of the 57
percent of juveniles not placed on probation in 1992, about 27
percent of their cases were dismissed, 12 percent received some other
disposition, and 17 percent received placement (e.g., were placed in
a residential treatment program), as shown in table 13. Finally, the
distribution of formal dispositions was similar during the 5-year
period, 1988 through 1992.
Table 13
Disposition of Formal Delinquency Cases,
by Percentage, 1988 Through 1992
Disposition 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992
-------------------- ------ ------ ------ ------ ------
Transfer 1.2% 1.4% 1.3% 1.6% 1.6%
Placement 18.4 19.5 19.2 17.3 17.0
Probation 43.9 44.4 43.5 43.6 42.5
Dismissed 26.6 24.0 25.8 26.5 27.1
Other\a 9.9 10.6 10.2 11.0 11.8
------------------------------------------------------------
\a Disposition of other may include fines, restitution, community
service, and referrals outside the court for services with minimal or
no further court involvement anticipated.
Source: Developed by GAO from NCJJ data.
As shown in table 14, in 1992, formal cases received various
dispositions at similar rates for each offense type. For example,
regardless of the offense, about 40 percent of juveniles were placed
on probation.
Table 14
Dispositions of Formal Cases, by
Percentage and Offense Type in 1992
Proper Public
Disposition Person ty Drugs order
---------------------------- ------ ------ ------ ------
Transfer 2.4% 1.3% 3.1% 0.8%
Placement 17.6 15.0 19.3 21.8
Probation 39.2 46.1 39.2 37.2
Dismissed 31.2 24.8 29.8 27.9
Other\a 9.6 12.9 8.6 12.4
------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Percentages may not add to 100 percent due to rounding.
\a A disposition of "other" may include fines, restitution, community
service, and referrals outside the court for services with minimal or
no further court involvement anticipated.
Source: Developed by GAO from NCJJ data.
While probation was the most common disposition for formal cases, 47
percent of informal juvenile cases were dismissed in 1992,\26
as shown in table 15. Of the remaining 53 percent of the cases,
about 30 percent of the juveniles were placed on probation, 23
percent received some other disposition, and 0.4 percent were placed
in a residential treatment program. Finally, as with formal cases,
the distribution of informal dispositions was similar during the
5-year period, 1988 through 1992, as shown in table 15. Of the
approximately 730,000 informal delinquency cases disposed of in 1992,
about 47 percent were dismissed.
Table 15
Percent of Informal Cases by Type of
Disposition for 1988 Through 1992
Disposition 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992
-------------------- ------ ------ ------ ------ ------
Placement 0.3% 0.4% 0.4% 0.3% 0.4%
Probation 30.5 26.2 28.3 28.2 29.9
Dismissed 48.6 54.1 51.3 48.2 47.1
Other\a 20.6 19.2 20.1 23.2 22.7
------------------------------------------------------------
\a A disposition of "other" may include fines, restitution, community
service, and referrals outside the court for services with minimal or
no further court involvement anticipated.
Source: Developed by GAO from NCJJ data.
For each offense type the distribution of informal dispositions was
similar. For example, regardless of the offense, in about 30 percent
of informal cases, juveniles were placed on probation in 1992.
--------------------
\25 Of the nearly 1.5 million delinquency cases filed in 1992, about
half (743,673) were handled through a formal process.
\26 Possible reasons for dismissal included lack of evidence, offense
was petty or seen as low risk, or the juvenile and his or her family
had reimbursed the victim for damages.
THE FEW JUVENILES IN ADULT
PRISONS WE VISITED WERE SUBJECT
TO THE SAME POLICIES AND
PROCEDURES AS ADULTS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :7
A 1991 survey\27 of inmates in state correctional facilities reported
that less than 1 percent of state inmates were age 17 or younger.
Few juveniles were incarcerated in the seven adult facilities we
visited. Further, those juveniles were generally to be treated the
same as the adult prisoners.
--------------------
\27 This survey was conducted by the U.S. Bureau of the Census for
the U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.
JUVENILES IN ADULT PRISONS
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :7.1
We could not find national estimates for the number of inmates at or
below the maximum age of juvenile court jurisdiction in each state.
However, results of the 1991 Survey of Inmates in State Correctional
Facilities indicated that less than 1 percent of the 712,000 state
prison inmates were age 17 or younger.\28 In addition, during visits
to seven prisons in four states, we found that juveniles represented
a small number of the inmate population, at the time of our visit.
For example, as shown in table 16, 31 of the 857 inmates at the
Western Youth Institution were age 17 or younger. While these data
indicate that few juveniles were in the adult prison system at one
time, it does not include the number of inmates who committed their
offenses as juveniles and were sentenced to incarceration but are now
beyond the maximum age of juvenile court jurisdiction, as defined by
the state.
Table 16
Data on Seven Facilities Visited
Number of
individuals
at or below
the maximum
Maximum age age of Percent
of juvenile Correction Facility juvenile of
court al Age of populati court juvenile
State jurisdiction facility inmates on jurisdiction inmates
----------- ------------ ---------- ------- -------- ------------ --------
Florida 17 Brevard under 966 143 15%
Correction 25
al
Institutio
n
Florida all 750 6 \a
Correction ages
al
Institutio
n
Lancaster under 635 90 14
Correction 25
al
Institutio
n
Michigan 16 Handlon under 1,315 11 \a
Michigan 26
Training
Unit
Michigan under 1,183 3 \a
Reformator 26
y
North 15 Western under 857 31 4
Carolina Youth 19
Institutio
n
Ohio 17 Southeaste all 1,945 10 \a
rn ages
Correction
al
Institutio
n
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Percent is less than 1.
Source: Developed by GAO from information provided by facility
officials at the time of our visit.
--------------------
\28 This figure may include juveniles age 16 and 17 who are above the
maximum age of juvenile court jurisdiction of their state.
JUVENILES ARE TO BE TREATED
SAME AS ADULTS
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :7.2
According to prison officials at all of the locations we visited,
juveniles convicted in criminal court and sentenced to prison are
considered adults. Generally, they are subject to the same polices
and procedures as other inmates regarding housing, health care
services, education, vocation and work programs, and recreational
activities. In addition, they are to be afforded the same mail,
visitation, and telephone privileges. However, some prison officials
pointed out that juveniles and youthful offenders received different
treatment at some facilities (e.g., they were provided with a menu
designed for their nutritional needs and they received more
educational opportunities). See appendix V for a summary of the
confinement conditions for juveniles in seven adult correctional
facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :7.3
We are sending copies of this report to the Attorney General; the
Administrator, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention;
the Director, Office of Management and Budget; and other interested
parties. Copies will also be made available to others upon request.
Major contributors to this report are listed in appendix VI. If you
have any questions about this report, please contact me on (202)
512-8777.
Laurie E. Ekstrand
Associate Director, Administration
of Justice Issues
OBJECTIVES, SCOPE, AND METHODOLOGY
=========================================================== Appendix I
The 1992 reauthorization (P.L. 102-586) of the Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974 (P.L. 93-415) mandated that we
study the processing of juveniles in criminal court. Specifically,
we agreed with your Committees to
provide the frequency to which juveniles have been sent to criminal
court by judicial waiver, prosecutor direct filing, and
statutory exclusion;
analyze juvenile conviction rates and sentences of juveniles
prosecuted in criminal court using the most current data;
analyze the dispositions of juveniles in juvenile court; and
analyze the conditions of confinement in adult correctional
facilities for juveniles convicted in criminal court.
We also agreed to summarize state laws governing the circumstances
under which juveniles can be sent to criminal court. Further, we
noted the number of states that allowed criminal court judges to
transfer juvenile cases back to criminal court and the number of
states that allowed criminal court judges to impose juvenile court
sanctions.
To address all objectives, we reviewed relevant literature. To
determine the frequency to which juveniles are processed in criminal
court, we obtained national, state, and local court data. Because
data were not available on the frequency of statutory exclusion, we
analyzed the statutory exclusion laws of 37 states and the District
of Columbia to determine the types of cases being excluded from
juvenile court. To determine sentences of juveniles convicted in
criminal court, we analyzed conviction rates, conviction offenses,
and incarceration rates and sentences for juveniles prosecuted in
criminal court. To determine the dispositions of juveniles in
juvenile court, we analyzed the offenses and dispositions of
juveniles in juvenile court. To analyze conditions of confinement
for juveniles in adult correctional facilities, we conducted site
visits at seven adult prisons in four states. We classified cases as
juveniles on the basis of the defendants' age at the time of arrest
because data were not available for the defendants' age at the time
of the offense. As a result, we underestimated the number of
juveniles in criminal court. To provide a summary of the state laws,
we reviewed the statutes for 50 states and the District of Columbia.
Finally, we obtained additional perspectives on juvenile justice
issues by mailing a survey to a national sample of prosecutors'
offices and interviewing 15 juvenile court judges in 7 states.
The act required us to compare the sentences of juveniles tried in
criminal court with those processed in juvenile court for similar
offenses. On the basis of discussions with juvenile justice
officials, this type of comparison should recognize the selection
process by which juveniles are sent to criminal court or remain in
juvenile court. The officials said that juveniles sent to criminal
court are a select subset of all juveniles. The fact that they are
selected for criminal court indicates they are different from
juveniles processed in juvenile court. When sending juveniles to
criminal court, decisionmakers (e.g., judges) generally consider that
these juveniles have (1) relatively more serious criminal behaviors,
(2) more extensive criminal histories, (3) less amenability to
treatment, or (4) a greater likelihood of being a threat to the
community than juveniles who are processed in juvenile court. Also,
juveniles processed in criminal court are subject to a different
sentencing process than those in juvenile court. Both factors mean
that comparisons between the two groups of juveniles would be of
nonequivalent groups. As a result, differences or similarities in
their sentences would be difficult to interpret. However, subject to
these caveats, we provided data on the sentencing outcomes for
juveniles processed in these two courts. We could not determine the
extent to which sentencing outcomes were due to differences in
individual characteristics of juveniles in the respective courts or
sentencing processes of the courts.
REVIEW OF RELEVANT LITERATURE
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:1
To develop an understanding of the issues associated with processing
juveniles in criminal court, we reviewed relevant literature
identified in bibliographies provided by the National Center for
Juvenile Justice (NCJJ) and the Department of Justice's Office of
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP). From our review
of the literature, we determined the three principal methods for
sending juveniles to criminal court and identified the states'
policies on housing juveniles in adult prisons.
NATIONAL DATA ON THE FREQUENCY
OF JUDICIAL WAIVER
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:2
We used juvenile court data collected annually by NCJJ to determine
the number of juvenile cases processed in criminal court due to
judicial waiver. Each year, NCJJ collects juvenile court processing
data and assigns weights to the data, which permits projecting the
data to produce national estimates of cases disposed by all state
juvenile justice systems.\1 OJJDP publishes the weighted data in its
annual Juvenile Court Statistics.
Using the National Juvenile Court Data Archive (NJCDA), we developed
statistics for a 5-year period from calendar year 1988 to 1992.
Specifically, we developed national estimates of the number of
juvenile cases waived to criminal court by juvenile court judges
(judicial waiver). In addition, we developed statistics on the
offense profiles and demographics of juveniles, whose cases were
waived to criminal court.
--------------------
\1 In 1991, for example, the following 23 states provided juvenile
court case-level data to NCJJ: Alabama, Arizona (Maricopa county
only), Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Florida, Maryland,
Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Jersey, New
York, North Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota,
Texas, Utah, West Virginia, and Wisconsin. In 1990 and 1991,
California reported data from several of its larger counties,
representing 40 percent of the state's population that is age 17 or
younger. In addition, some jurisdictions in seven other states
reported court case-level data that were used in generating the
national estimates. In all, data from 1,504 jurisdictions covering
57 percent of the nation's youth at risk were used to produce the
1991 national estimates. NCJJ's estimates of the number and
characteristics of delinquency cases and cases that were waived by
juvenile courts were on the bases of the assumption that the
characteristics of cases in counties that did not report juvenile
court statistics were similar to those counties of similar size that
did report statistics to NCJJ. The details of the estimation
procedures can be found in Juvenile Court Statistics. The national
estimates were not generated by a probability sample. NCJJ has
conducted, however, tests of the validity of the national estimates
by comparing them with counts of referrals (as reported by the
Federal Bureau of Investigation's Uniform Crime Reports) made by law
enforcement agencies to juvenile courts.
ANALYSES OF THE FREQUENCY OF
JUDICIAL WAIVER IN SELECTED
STATES
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:3
NCJJ's NJCDA national data files did not contain sufficient
information for analyzing judicial waivers directly. However, some
of the Center's state-specific files\2 have a wider range of data
elements (including prior offense histories) that facilitate such
analyses. For example, in addition to data showing the types of
offenses and whether cases were waived, some variables that we
analyzed were the number of previous referrals and/or adjudications
and the metropolitan status of the court. Thus, in order to conduct
more detailed analyses of judicial waiver, we judgmentally selected
the following 7 states from a total of 25 states that provided court
data to NCJJ: Arizona, California, Florida, Missouri, Pennsylvania,
South Carolina, and Utah. In addition to geographical coverage,
other factors we considered in selecting these seven states were that
(1) collectively, these states' juvenile justice systems reflected a
diverse range of processes for handling youthful offenders and (2)
the states' data files contained a sufficient number of variables
relevant to our analyses of judicial waiver.
For each of the seven states selected, we obtained a copy of NCJJ's
computerized data files for calendar years 1990 and 1991, the most
recent years for which consistent data were available.\3 Then, using
the 1990 and 1991 data files, we completed analyses that compared the
waiver rates in different states; the waiver rates for defendants of
different genders, races, and ages; and the waiver rates of cases
processed in juvenile courts with different metropolitan status.
--------------------
\2 We used data that were housed in and made available by the NJCDA,
which is maintained by NCJJ and supported by a grant from OJJDP.
These data were originally collected by the Maricopa County, AZ,
Juvenile Court Center; the Alameda County, CA, Probation Department;
the Los Angeles County, CA, Probation Department; the San Francisco
County, CA, Juvenile Probation Department; the San Joaquin County,
CA, Probation Department; the County of Ventura, CA, Corrections
Services Agency; the Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative
Services; the Missouri State Division of Children and Youth Services;
the Pennsylvania Center for Juvenile Justice Training and Research;
the South Carolina Department of Juvenile Justice; and the Utah
Juvenile Court. Neither the original data collectors nor NCJJ bear
any responsibility for our analyses or interpretations of the data.
\3 For trend purposes, additional data files (i.e., for years before
1990) would have been desirable; however, the 1990-1991 data files
were the only years that had a sufficient range of variables common
to all seven states to facilitate our planned analyses.
STATE AND LOCAL DATA AVAILABLE
ON THE FREQUENCY OF PROSECUTOR
DIRECT FILING CASES
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:4
To obtain data on the frequency of juvenile cases directly filed in
criminal court at the discretion of prosecutors, we contacted State
Court Administrator Offices in the 10 states with direct filing laws.
Statewide data on prosecutor direct filing cases were available in 5
of the 10 states that have direct filing laws. To obtain data for
the other states, we contacted some of the largest counties/parishes
in those states to get some measure of the frequency of prosecutor
direct filing. We also contacted court officials in the District of
Columbia to determine the frequency of direct filing in the District.
ANALYSIS OF STATUTORY EXCLUSION
STATUTES IN 37 STATES AND THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:5
To gain some perspective on the type of juvenile cases processed in
criminal court due to state statutes that exclude them from juvenile
court, we analyzed the statutes in 37 states and the District of
Columbia. We categorized the states according to whether their
statutory exclusion laws focused on (1) juveniles charged with
serious violent offenses or other serious offenses or (2) juveniles
with prior court records.
NATIONAL DATA ON THE NUMBER OF
JUVENILE CASES SENT TO CRIMINAL
COURT FOR ALL METHODS
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:6
In an attempt to collect data on the number of juveniles sent to
criminal court by all possible methods, we developed a survey to be
completed by juvenile justice specialists in all 50 states and the
District of Columbia. We received responses from 19 states and the
District of Columbia. Nine of the responses indicated that the data
we requested were not available. Due to the low response rate and
unavailability of data, we were only able to use this survey as an
indicator of the relative frequency in which juveniles are sent to
criminal court by the three methods. In following up with
nonrespondents by telephone calls, they said that the data we
requested were not available.
STATE SPECIFIC ANALYSIS OF
SENTENCES OF JUVENILES
PROSECUTED IN CRIMINAL COURT
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:7
To identify the types of sentences juveniles receive when processed
in criminal court, we used the Bureau of Justice Statistics's (BJS)
Offender Based Transaction Statistics (OBTS) data sets.\4 OBTS
focuses on arrested, alleged offenders and contains information on
offender characteristics, patterns of arrest, prior criminal
activities, prosecution activities, court action, and sentences. At
the time of our review, OBTS contained data for the years 1975
through 1990 for approximately 15 states. We analyzed data from
California, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, New York, Pennsylvania,
and Vermont for 1989 and 1990 combined. We chose these states
because they represented different maximum ages of juvenile court
jurisdictions, different laws governing which juveniles may be sent
to criminal court, and different geographic regions. We used these
data to analyze conviction rates, offenses, and incarceration rates
of juveniles prosecuted in criminal court. In addition, we compared
these rates with those of "other youth" and young adults (persons age
18 through 24) to gain a perspective on how juveniles are treated
relative to others prosecuted in criminal court.
--------------------
\4 We attempted to use the BJS National Judicial Reporting Program
(NJRP) data set. NJRP is a data set that contains information on the
sentences of convicted felons received in state courts in 1988 and
1990. The data set contains a probability sample of convicted felons
sentenced in state courts. Because of missing data that identified
the age of the convicted felons, we could not identify juveniles and
therefore could not use this data to analyze juvenile sentences in
criminal court.
PROSECUTOR SURVEY
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:8
To gather prosecutors opinions on data related to the processsing of
juveniles in criminal court, we obtained 226 completed questionnaires
from a nationally representative, probability sample of district
prosecutor offices that deal with juveniles in juvenile courts. Our
final sample was identified by first contacting a stratified
probability sample of county prosecutors in 290 of the 3,110 counties
in the United States. To gather information about both large and
small counties, the sample was stratified on the basis of the number
of felony convictions in 1985. The 1985 felony convictions were used
first to draw this sample of 290 counties in 1986 for the National
Judicial Reporting Program.
We developed and pretested the questionnaire items with advice from
experts at NCJJ and BJS as well as selected prosecutor offices. The
survey was mailed in March 1994. Two sets of follow-up telephone
calls and two additional mailings were conducted between May and
July.
We contacted all 290 selected counties to determine whether they had
juvenile prosecutors and, if so, the counties over which they had
jurisdiction. We determined that 270 of the 290 counties were
eligible members of our study population of prosecutor offices that
dealt with juvenile offenders in juvenile court. After weighing on
the basis of the probabilities of selection, we estimated that the
study population consisted of approximately 2,118 such juvenile
prosecutors in the United States. The number of juvenile prosecutors
(2,118) is less than the number of counties (3,110) partly because
some counties are consolidated under a single juvenile prosecutor and
partly because some jurisdictions do not have prosecutors that appear
in juvenile court. Of the 270 sampled prosecutors from the study
population, 226 responded, for a response rate of 84 percent.
All figures presented in this report were estimated from the returned
questionnaires to the population of the estimated 2,118 juvenile
prosecutor offices. All sample surveys are subject to sampling
error, which refers to the extent to which the results may differ
from what would have been obtained if the entire population had been
surveyed. The size of sampling errors in any survey depends largely
on the number of respondents and the amount of variability in the
data from the returned surveys. In this report, all estimates are
made at the 95-percent confidence level with a sampling error of less
than 10 percent. This means that, if we had drawn repeated samples
from the entire study population of prosecutor offices, 19 out of 20
samples would have produced estimates within 10 percent of the true
proportion in the total population.
In addition to the reported sampling errors, any survey may be
subject to nonsampling errors as well. For example, differences in
how a particular question is interpreted, in the sources of
information that are available to respondents, or in the types of
people who do not respond, can introduce unwanted variability into
survey results.
We included steps in the data collection and data analysis stages to
minimize such nonsampling errors. We selected the sample from a
complete list of all counties, and we pretested our questionnaire
with experts and members of the target population. Our extensive
follow-up efforts were designed to maximize the response rate, and we
achieved a final response rate of 84 percent. All data were keyed
twice and verified during data entry, and all computer analyses were
reviewed by a second independent analyst.
NATIONAL DATA ON THE
DISPOSITIONS OF JUVENILE COURT
CASES
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:9
To develop national statistics on the types of dispositions used in
juvenile court, we used the NCJJ's NJCDA data files. We developed
national estimates to compare (1) the number of juvenile cases
processed informally versus formally, (2) the dispositions of cases
handled formally versus informally, and (3) the types of dispositions
for various crime types.
SITE VISITS TO REVIEW
CONDITIONS OF CONFINEMENT FOR
JUVENILES IN ADULT PRISONS
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:10
To obtain descriptive information on the conditions of confinement
for juveniles in adult prisons, we visited seven prisons in Florida,
Michigan, North Carolina, and Ohio. In judgmentally selecting states
to visit, we considered (1) the state's maximum age of juvenile court
jurisdiction in each state, (2) whether juveniles were housed with
younger inmates (e.g., inmates under 25) or inmates of all ages, and
(3) the number of inmates under the age of 18.
In each state, we visited the prisons that housed the majority of
inmates under age 18. We visited a total of seven prisons--six that
housed males and one that housed females. During our visits, we
interviewed prison officials, using a structured interview format.
While we did not verify the information provided, we toured the
facilities to observe the housing units, health services facilities,
education and vocation classrooms, and recreation facilities.
JUDGES SURVEY ADDRESSING
JUDICIAL WAIVER ISSUES
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:11
We conducted structured interviews with 15 juvenile court judges in 7
states to obtain information on methods for sending juveniles to
criminal court. Judges were chosen randomly and interviewed on the
basis of their availability. We attempted to contact two or three
judges in the juvenile court jurisdictions that we visited during our
site visits.
PROSECUTOR SURVEY AND THEIR
RESPONSES
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:12
The three questions we asked prosecutors and their responses to them
are as follows:
(See figure in printed edition.)
(See figure in printed edition.)
JUDICIAL WAIVER DATA AND ANALYSIS
FOR SEVEN STATES
========================================================== Appendix II
ARIZONA
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:1
Data - 1990 and 1991 combined.
Number of formal delinquency cases - 17,320.
Number of formal delinquency cases judicially waived
to criminal court - 397.
Percent of formal delinquency cases judicially waived
to criminal court - 2.3.
Table II.1
Rate and Percent of Juvenile Cases
Waived by Offense Type in Arizona, 1990
and 1991
Percent of
Waiver waived
Offense type at disposition rate cases
--------------------------------------- ------ -----------
Violent 7.0% 46.4%
Property 1.6 42.3
Drugs 3.8 5.8
Weapons 1.1 0.8
Public order or other 0.6 4.8
------------------------------------------------------------
Source: NCJJ.
Table II.2
Percent of Juvenile Cases Waived by Sex,
Age, and Race in Arizona, 1990 and 1991
16 or
Male Female older White Black Other
------ -------- ---------- -------- -------- --------
99.0% 1.0% 91.9% 35.5% 23.7% 40.8%
----------------------------------------------------------
Note: Percentages may not equal 100 due to rounding.
Source: NCJJ.
Table II.3
Selected Juvenile Waiver Rates in
Arizona, 1990 and 1991
Public
order
Factors Violent Property Drugs Weapons or other
----------------------------- -------- -------- ------ -------- -----------
Age
16 or older 13.4% 3.9% 5.6% 2.0% 1.2%
Under 16 years 1.5 0.1 0.8 0.0 0.0
Location
Metropolitan 7.0 1.6 3.8 1.1 0.6
Prior referrals
None 1.9 0.2 0.5 0.0 0.8
1 or 2 5.4 0.7 2.5 0.0 0.2
3 or more 14.5 4.4 10.3 3.7 0.8
Gender
Male 8.3 1.8 4.4 1.1 0.7
Female 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0
Race
Black 9.1 2.6 10.9 1.5 0.9
White 5.1 1.3 0.8 1.1 0.5
Other 8.1 1.8 3.6 0.9 0.5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: NCJJ.
CALIFORNIA
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:2
Data - 1990 and 1991 combined (data from 5 counties).
Number of formal delinquency cases - 64,275.
Number of formal delinquency cases judicially waived
to criminal court - 310.
Percent of formal delinquency cases judicially waived
to criminal court - 0.5.
Table II.4
Rate and Percent of Juvenile Cases
Waived by Offense Type in California,
1990 and 1991
Percent of
Waiver waived
Offense type at referral rate cases
--------------------------------------- ------ -----------
Violent 1.5% 85.1%
Property 0.1 6.4
Drugs 0.2 4.5
Weapons 0.1 1.3
Public order or other 0.1 1.3
Indeterminate 0.4 1.3
------------------------------------------------------------
Source: NCJJ.
Table II.5
Percent of Juvenile Cases Waived by Sex,
Age, and Race in California, 1990 and
1991
16 or
Male Female older White Black Other
------ -------- ---------- -------- -------- --------
98.4% 1.6% 98.4% 5.5% 34.3% 60.2%
----------------------------------------------------------
Source: NCJJ.
Table II.6
Selected Juvenile Waiver Rates in
California, 1990 and 1991
Public
Violen Proper Weapon order
Factors t ty Drugs s or other
----------------------------------- ------ ------ ------ ------ -----------
Age
16 or older 2.4% 0.1% 0.2% 0.2% 0.1%
Under 16 years \a 0.0 0.1 0.0 \a
Location
Metropolitan 1.5 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1
Gender
Male 1.7 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1
Female 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0
Race
Black 1.3 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1
White 0.5 0.1 0.4 0.0 0.1
Other 1.9 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Less than 0.1 percent.
Source: NCJJ.
FLORIDA
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:3
Data - 1990 and 1991 combined.
Number of formal delinquency cases - 148,976.
Number of formal delinquency cases judicially waived
to criminal court - 1,389.
Percent of formal delinquency cases judicially waived
to criminal court - 0.9.
Table II.7
Rate and Percent of Juvenile Cases
Waived by Offense Type in Florida, 1990
and 1991
Percent of
Waiver waived
Offense type at disposition rate cases
--------------------------------------- ------ -----------
Violent 1.8% 35.7%
Property 0.8 39.2
Drugs 2.4 13.7
Weapons 0.7 1.1
Public order or other 0.5 5.4
------------------------------------------------------------
Source: NCJJ.
Table II.8
Percent of Juvenile Cases Waived by Sex,
Age, and Race in Florida, 1990 and 1991
16 or
Male Female older White Black Other
------ -------- ---------- -------- -------- --------
95.5% 4.5% 76.2% 39.4% 60.1% 0.4%
----------------------------------------------------------
Note: Percentages may not equal 100 due to rounding.
Source: NCJJ.
Table II.9
Selected Juvenile Waiver Rates in
Florida, 1990 and 1991
Public
Violen Proper Weapon order
Factors t ty Drugs s or other
----------------------------------- ------ ------ ------ ------ -----------
Age
16 or older 2.6% 1.4% 3.0% 1.1% 0.7%
Under 16 years 1.1 0.3 1.2 0.3 0.2
Location
Metropolitan 1.8 0.8 .5 0.8 0.5
Nonmetropolitan 1.1 0.6 1.4 0.0 0.9
Prior referrals
None 0.9 0.2 1.1 0.3 0.5
1 or 2 1.2 0.4 1.7 0.9 0.2
3 or more 2.9 1.5 3.8 1.1 0.6
Gender
Male 2.0 0.9 2.5 0.8 0.5
Female 0.6 0.2 1.8 0.0 0.2
Race
Black 2.3 0.7 3.0 0.9 0.5
White 1.0 0.8 1.2 0.5 0.5
Other 0.0 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: NCJJ.
MISSOURI
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:4
Data - 1990 and 1991 (combined).
Number of formal delinquency cases - 15,787.
Number of formal delinquency cases judicially waived
to criminal court - 464.
Percent of formal delinquency cases judicially waived
to criminal court - 2.9.
Table II.10
Rate and Percent of Juvenile Cases
Waived by Offense Type in Missouri, 1990
and 1991
Percent of
Waiver waived
Offense type at disposition rate cases
--------------------------------------- ------ -----------
Violent 5.3% 41.6%
Property 1.7 26.9
Drugs 6.6 12.5
Weapons 2.4 19.0
------------------------------------------------------------
Source: NCJJ.
Table II.11
Percent of Juvenile Cases Waived by Sex,
Age, and Race in Missouri, 1990 and 1991
16 or
Male Female older White Black Other
------ -------- ---------- -------- -------- --------
98.7% 1.3% 77.0% 29.5% 70.5% 0%
----------------------------------------------------------
Source: NCJJ.
Table II.12
Selected Juvenile Waiver Rates in
Missouri, 1990 and 1991
Violen Proper Weapon
Factors t ty Drugs s
---------------------------- ------ ------ ------ ------
Age
16 or older 11.7% 4.4% 11.1% 5.6%
Under 16 years 2.3 0.4 2.6 0.7
Location
Metropolitan 5.5 1.4 6.8 2.5
Nonmetropolitan 3.7 2.4 4.0 1.6
Prior referrals
None 2.3 0.8 0.0 0.8
1 or 2 2.6 0.5 3.1 0.3
3 or more 9.4 3.2 12.0 4.2
Gender
Male 6.0 1.8 7.0 2.7
Female 0.4 0.3 0.0 0.4
Race
Black 7.4 1.8 7.5 3.2
White 2.4 1.6 3.3 1.3
Other 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
------------------------------------------------------------
Source: NCJJ.
PENNSYLVANIA
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:5
Data - 1990 and 1991 (combined).
Number of formal delinquency cases - 41,920.
Number of formal delinquency cases judicially waived
to criminal court - 857.
Percent of formal delinquency cases judicially waived
to criminal court - 2.0.
Table II.13
Rate and Percent of Juvenile Cases
Waived by Offense Type in Pennsylvania,
1990 and 1991
Percent of
Waiver waived
Offense type at referral rate cases
--------------------------------------- ------ -----------
Violent 2.4% 40.5%
Property 1.6 37.6
Drugs 3.8 19.3
Weapons 0.5 0.5
Public order or other 1.0 1.6
Indeterminate 0.7 0.7
------------------------------------------------------------
Source: NCJJ.
Table II.14
Percent of Juvenile Cases Waived by Sex,
Age, and Race in Pennsylvania, 1990 and
1991
16 or
Male Female older White Black Other
------ -------- ---------- -------- -------- --------
98.2% 1.8% 96.3% 31.8% 55.6% 12.5%
----------------------------------------------------------
Note: Percentages may not equal 100 due to rounding.
Source: NCJJ.
Table II.15
Selected Juvenile Waiver Rates in
Pennsylvania, 1990 and 1991
Public
Violen Proper Weapon order
Factors t ty Drugs s or other
----------------------------------- ------ ------ ------ ------ -----------
Age
16 or older 4.8% 3.2% 5.3% 0.7% 1.8%
Under 16 years 0.2 0.1 0.5 0.3 0.0
Location
Metropolitan 2.4 1.5 3.8 0.4 1.1
Nonmetropolitan 2.0 2.8 6.0 4.2 0.6
Prior referrals
None 0.8 0.5 3.0 0.0 1.1
1 or 2 2.5 2.1 4.4 0.0 0.8
3 or more 5.8 5.7 4.9 0.0 3.2
Gender
Male 2.8 1.8 3.9 0.6 1.2
Female 0.2 0.2 2.4 0.0 0.0
Race
Black 3.0 1.6 3.9 0.8 0.9
White 1.4 1.6 1.6 0.0 1.0
Other 2.6 2.1 5.3 0.0 2.4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: NCJJ.
SOUTH CAROLINA
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:6
Data - 1990 and 1991 (combined).
Number of formal delinquency cases - 11,146.
Number of formal delinquency cases judicially waived
to criminal court - 91.
Percent of formal delinquency cases judicially waived
to criminal court - 0.8.
Table II.16
Rate and Percent of Juvenile Cases
Waived by Offense Type in South
Carolina, 1990 and 1991
Percent of
Waiver waived
Offense type at disposition rate cases
--------------------------------------- ------ -----------
Violent 3.6% 64.8%
Property 0.3 17.6
Drugs 3.1 13.2
Weapons 0.6 2.2
Public order or 0.1 2.2
other
------------------------------------------------------------
Source: NCJJ.
Table II.17
Percent of Juvenile Cases Waived by Sex,
Age, and Race in South Carolina, 1990
and 1991
16 or
Male Female older White Black Other
------ -------- ---------- -------- -------- --------
97.8% 2.2% 83.5% 14.3% 85.7% 0%
----------------------------------------------------------
Source: NCJJ.
Table II.18
Selected Juvenile Waiver Rates in South
Carolina, 1990 and 1991
Public
Violen Proper Weapon order
Factors t ty Drugs s or other
----------------------------------- ------ ------ ------ ------ -----------
Age
16 or older 9.8% 1.0% 5.2% 0.9% 0.2%
Under 16 years 0.9 0.1 1.0 0.5 0.0
Location
Metropolitan 4.5 0.4 2.7 0.5 0.1
Nonmetropolitan 2.4 0.3 3.9 0.8 0.0
Prior referrals
None 1.6 0.1 2.3 0.0 0.0
1 or 2 5.9 0.5 3.5 1.6 0.1
3 or more 5.7 0.6 4.7 0.0 0.0
Gender
Male 4.0 0.4 3.2 0.7 0.1
Female 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Race
Black 4.4 0.4 3.8 0.8 0.1
White 1.6 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.1
Other 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: NCJJ.
UTAH
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:7
Data - 1990 and 1991 (combined).
Number of formal delinquency cases - 54,990.
Number of formal delinquency cases judicially waived
to criminal court - 19.
Percent of formal delinquency cases judicially waived
to criminal court - Less than 0.1 percent.
Table II.19
Rate and Percent of Juvenile Cases
Waived by Offense Type in Utah, 1990 and
1991
Percent of
Waiver waived
Offense type at disposition rate\a cases
--------------------------------------- ------ -----------
Violent 21.0%
Property 79.0%
------------------------------------------------------------
\a Offense specific waiver rates were not computed due to the small
universe of waived cases.
Source: NCJJ.
Table II.20
Percent of Juvenile Cases Waived by Sex,
Age, and Race in Utah, 1990 and 1991
16 or
Male Female older White Black Other
------ -------- ---------- -------- -------- --------
100% 0.0% 89.6% 52.6% 10.5% 36.8%
----------------------------------------------------------
Note: Percentages may not equal 100 due to rounding.
Source: NCJJ.
DETAILS OF ANALYSIS OF WAIVER
RATES
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:8
We did the following analysis using the data from tables II.3, II.6,
II.9, II.12, II.15, and II.18. However, our analysis was limited to
the variables for which data were available in the six states.\1
Age - In the six states we examined, juveniles age 16 or older were
more likely to have their cases waived than juveniles under age 16
years for all three offense types. However, the likelihood that
older juveniles would have their cases waived than younger juveniles
was much larger in some states than in others. For example, in
Arizona older juveniles charged with property offenses were 39 times
more likely to have their cases waived than were younger juveniles
charged with such offenses; while in Florida, older juveniles charged
with property offenses were only 5 times more likely to have their
cases waived than younger juveniles. While waiver rates were
somewhat higher in four of the six states for violent offenses than
for property or drug offenses, the rates varied among the states
within each age category. For example, older juveniles charged with
property offenses were 44 times more likely to have their cases
waived in Missouri than in California, while younger juveniles
charged with violent offenses were 58 times more likely to have their
cases waived in Missouri than in California.
Gender - Males were more likely than females to have their cases
waived within each offense type in the six states we analyzed. The
extent of the likelihood again varied by state. For example, in
Arizona males charged with violent offenses were 42 times more likely
to have their cases waived than females in Arizona, while such males
were 17 times more likely to have their cases waived than females in
California. In some states, the likelihood was more apparent for
those charged with violent offenses than for those charged with
either property or drug offenses. For males, juveniles charged with
violent offenses had higher waiver rates than for males charged with
drugs or property offenses in three of the six states. In the
remaining three states, males charged with drug offenses had higher
waiver rates. Waiver rates for each offense type also differed
across states for males. For example, males charged with property
offenses in Arizona or Missouri were 18 times more likely to have
their cases waived than males in California.
Race - In four states, blacks were more likely than whites to have
their cases waived for violent, property, and drug offenses. For
violent offenses, the differential rates are fairly consistent across
states, with black juveniles having waiver rates from 1.8 times to
3.1 times higher than whites. The differences varied more widely for
drug offenses. In California, black juveniles were half as likely as
white juveniles to have their cases waived, while in Pennsylvania
black juveniles were more than twice as likely to have their cases
waived than whites. There were some large differences, however; for
example, for juveniles charged with drug offenses, Arizona's waiver
rates for whites were twice those of California; while for blacks,
Arizona's rates were 55 times those of California.
Locality - In the four NCJJ states with data on metropolitan and
nonmetropolitan courts, some small differences did exist but were not
consistent across offense types within the same state. For example,
in Missouri, waiver rates in metropolitan areas were higher for
violent and drug offenses but lower for property offenses than in
nonmetropolitan areas. The waiver rate was highest for drug offenses
in all four states in nonmetropolitan areas and in three of the four
states in metropolitan areas. In nonmetropolitan areas in
Pennsylvania, juveniles charged with violent offenses were less
likely to have their cases waived than those charged with drugs or
property offenses. The likelihood of cases being waived in each type
of locality varied somewhat for the offense types among the four
states, particularly for property offenses. For example, juveniles
charged with property offenses in metropolitan areas in Pennsylvania
were almost 4 times more likely to have their cases waived than were
juveniles in South Carolina, while those charged with property
offenses in nonmetropolitan areas of Pennsylvania were 9 times more
likely to have their cases waived than those in South Carolina.
Prior Referrals - In the five states with data, waiver rates
generally increased with the number of prior referrals for all five
states and most offense types. We categorized referrals into three
groups: (1) none, (2) one or two, and (3) three or more. The larger
increases usually occurred between the second and third categories.
For example, in Arizona, juveniles charged with violent offenses and
who had one or two prior referrals were 3 times more likely to have
their cases waived than those with no referrals, while juveniles
charged with violent offenses with three or more referrals were 8
times more likely to be referred than those with no referrals. The
states differed in the rates at which they waived cases for these
offense types in each prior referral group. The differences were
strongest for juveniles charged with property offenses. For example,
considering only those with three or more prior referrals, the
greatest difference for juveniles charged with violent offenses was
found between Arizona and Florida, where Arizona's waiver rate for
these juveniles was 5 times greater than Florida's. However, for
juveniles charged with property offenses, the greatest difference was
found between Pennsylvania and South Carolina, where Pennsylvania's
waiver rate was almost 10 times greater than in South Carolina.
--------------------
\1 Data were not available for Utah.
CONVICTION RATES FOR OTHER YOUTH
AND YOUNG ADULTS
========================================================= Appendix III
Table III.1
Conviction Rates and the Number of Other
Youth Prosecuted in Criminal Court in
Two States for Selected Offenses, 1989
and 1990
St
at Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
e prosecuted convicted prosecuted convicted prosecuted convicted
-- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- -----------
Mi 223 43% 1,015 38% 261 36%
s
s
o
u
r
i
Ne 12,047 50 11,674 64 7,049 74
w
Y
o
r
k
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: This table includes the most prevalent offense types for which
juveniles were prosecuted.
Source: Developed by GAO using OBTS data.
Table III.2
Conviction Rates and the Number of Young
Adults (Ages 18-24) Prosecuted in
Criminal Court in Seven States for
Selected Offenses, 1989 and 1990
St
at Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
e prosecuted convicted prosecuted convicted prosecuted convicted
-- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- -----------
Ca 12,629 82% 18,434 89% 23,662 81%
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
Mi 1,825 90 5,417 89 1,517 77
n
n
e
s
o
t
a
Mi 1,222 53 4,359 48 1,794 48
s
s
o
u
r
i
Ne 925 79 2,113 82 892 79
b
r
a
s
k
a
Ne 38,592 52 34,781 67 36,345 72
w
Y
o
r
k
Pe 9,431 74 15,203 74 2,491 81
n
n
s
y
l
v
a
n
i
a
Ve 212 91 812 98 135 90
r
m
o
n
t
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: This table includes the most prevalent offense types for which
juveniles were prosecuted.
Source: Developed by GAO using OBTS data.
Table III.3
Percent of Other Youth Convicted in
Criminal Court by Offense, 1989 and 1990
Percen Percen
t t
convic convic
Total ted of ted of Percen
number seriou seriou t
of s s convic
other violen proper ted of
youth t ty drug
convic offens offens offens
State ted es es es
---------------------------- ------ ------ ------ ------
Missouri 705 14% 54% 13%
New York 21,665 28 34 24
------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Percents may not equal 100 percent due to rounding and the
exclusion of such offense types as weapons, indeterminate property,
public order, and traffic offenses.
Source: Developed by GAO using OBTS data.
Table III.4
Percent of Young Adults (Ages 18-24)
Convicted in Criminal Court by Offense,
1989 and 1990
Percen Percen
t t
convic convic
Total ted of ted of Percen
number seriou seriou t
of s s convic
young violen proper ted of
adults t ty drug
convic offens offens offens
State ted es es es
---------------------------- ------ ------ ------ ------
California 51,570 20% 32% 37%
Minnesota 8,427 19 57 14
Missouri 4,259 15 49 20
Nebraska 3,972 18 44 18
New York 78,978 25 29 33
Pennsylvania 30,565 23 37 7
Vermont 1,510 13 53 8
------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Percents may not equal 100 percent due to rounding and the
exclusion of such offense types as weapons, indeterminate property,
and public order.
Source: Developed by GAO using OBTS data.
Table III.5
Percent of Other Youth Incarcerated and
the Total Number of Other Youth
Sentenced for Serious Violent, Serious
Property, and Drug Offenses, 1989 and
1990
Number Percent Percent Percent
senten incarcerat Number incarcerat Number incarcerat
State ced ed sentenced ed sentenced ed
------------ ------ ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
Missouri 85 60% 355 49% 96 66%
New York 4,144 54 4,533 41 4,513 63
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Developed by GAO from OBTS data.
Table III.6
Percent of Young Adults (Ages 18-24)
Incarcerated and the Total Number of
Young Adults Sentenced for Serious
Violent, Serious Property, and Drug
Offenses, 1989 and 1990
Number Percent Percent Percent
senten incarcerat Number incarcerat Number incarcerat
State ced ed sentenced ed sentenced ed
------------ ------ ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
California 6,747 93% 15,132 86% 18,438 90%
Minnesota 1,327 91 4,217 82 1,002 84
Missouri 566 67 2,007 53 868 57
Nebraska 560 78 1,587 61 668 62
New York 13,367 72 15,354 63 22,918 80
Pennsylvania 5,646 59 7,636 55 2,181 74
Vermont 136 67 719 53 121 47
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Developed by GAO from OBTS data.
Table III.7
Total Number of Other Youth Incarcerated
for Serious Violent Offenses, Serious
Property Offenses, and Drug Offenses,
1989 and 1990
Total Total
number of number of Total
other other number of
youth youth other
incarcerat incarcerat youth
ed for ed for incarcerat
serious serious ed for
violent property drug
State offenses offenses offenses
------------------------ ---------- ---------- ----------
Missouri 51 173 63
New York 2,215 1,850 2,817
============================================================
Total 2,266 2,023 2,880
------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Developed by GAO using OBTS data.
Table III.8
Total Number of Young Adults (Ages 18-
24) Incarcerated for Serious Violent
Offenses, Serious Property Offenses, and
Drug Offenses, 1989 and 1990
Total Total
number of number of Total
young young number of
adults adults young
incarcerat incarcerat adults
ed for ed for incarcerat
serious serious ed for
violent property drug
State offenses offenses offenses
------------------------ ---------- ---------- ----------
California 6,239 13,078 16,546
Minnesota 1,212 3,462 841
Missouri 379 1,072 497
Nebraska 439 968 413
New York 9,577 9,670 18,442
Pennsylvania 3,321 4,193 1,616
Vermont 91 380 57
============================================================
Total 21,258 32,823 38,412
------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Developed by GAO using OBTS data.
SUMMARY OF TRANSFER LAWS
========================================================== Appendix IV
Maximum age
of
original
St juvenile
at court Conditions under which a juvenile is or may be
e Statute jurisdiction tried in criminal court
-- ------------- ------------ ------------------------------------------------
Al Section 12- 17 Statutory Exclusions
ab 15-34,
am 1994 Al. Pub. --any child who has been convicted as an adult.
a Act 481 --child 16 or older charged with a capital
offense; a class A felony; drug trafficking; or
a felony that has as an element, the use of a
deadly weapon, the causing of death or serious
bodily injury, or the use of a dangerous
instrument against any law enforcement officer,
corrections officer, parole or probation
officer, prosecutor, judge, court officer, grand
juror, juror, witness, or a teacher, principal
or employee of a public school.
Judicial Waiver
--any child 14 or older.
Al Sections 17 Statutory Exclusions
as 47.10.010,47.
ka 10.060 --child 16 or older charged with an unclassified
or class A felony against a person, or first
degree arson.
Judicial Waiver
--any child (there is a rebuttable presumption
for waiver if child is charged with an
unclassified or class A felony against a
person).
Sentencing
--child tried as an adult under statutory
exclusion but convicted of a lesser-included
offense may have his or her case disposed of as
though he or she had been adjudicated as a
juvenile if the court finds that he or she is
amenable to treatment.
Ar R. Juv. P. 17 Judicial Waiver
iz 12, 14
on --any child (there is a rebuttable presumption
a for waiver if the child is 16 or older and
charged with first or second degree murder;
aggravated assault involving a deadly weapon and
causing serious physical injury; sexual assault
involving the use of a dangerous instrument or
involving the intentional infliction of physical
injury; or an offense constituting a class 1, 2,
3, or 4 felony where the child has been
adjudicated as a delinquent on four prior,
separate occasions, at least one of which was
for a serious offense).
Ar Section 9- 17 Prosecutorial Discretion
ka 27-318
ns --child 16 or older charged with a felony.
as --child 14 or older charged with capital, first,
or second degree murder; kidnapping; aggravated
robbery; rape; first or second degree battery;
possession of a handgun on school property;
aggravated assault; terroristic act; unlawful
discharge of a firearm from a vehicle; any
felony committed while armed with a firearm;
soliciting a minor to join a criminal street
gang; criminal use of prohibited weapons; felony
possession of a firearm; or felony attempt,
solicitation, or conspiracy to commit capital,
first, or second degree murder, kidnapping,
aggravated robbery, rape, or first degree
battery.
Judicial Waiver
--above conditions when prosecutor did not
charge child as adult.
Reverse Waiver
--when prosecutor files in criminal (circuit)
court, the court may remand to juvenile court.
Ca W & I 17 Judicial Waiver
li sections 707,
fo 707.2 --any child 16 or older (there is a presumption
rn for waiver if offense charged is arson, lewd
ia act, attempted murder, certain types of assault,
any felony with certain weapons [12020a],
offense against an aged or handicapped person,
felony or drug offense with use of firearm,
influencing testimony, preventing or dissuading
victim or witness from testifying, or any
offense for which a 14 year old may have his or
her case waived).
--child 14 or older charged with murder; robbery
in which the juvenile used a firearm; rape,
sodomy, or oral copulation by force, etc.;
penetration by a foreign object; kidnapping;
discharging a firearm from a vehicle or into an
occupied or inhabited building; manufacturing or
selling certain controlled substances; escape
from juvenile custody where bodily harm is
inflicted on employee; torture; aggravated
mayhem; assault with a firearm; attempted
murder; rape with a firearm; burglary with a
firearm; exploding a destructive device with
intent to commit murder; carjacking with a
firearm (there is a presumption for waiver if
offense charged is first or second degree
murder).
Sentencing
--child may be sentenced by criminal court as an
adult or committed to California Youth Authority
(CYA) (child under 16 must first go to CYA for
amenability determination, but court can still
sentence as an adult notwithstanding CYA's
amenability determination).
Co Sections 19- 17 Prosecutorial Discretion (the criminal court
lo 2-805, 806 judge can no longer send cases directly filed
ra back to juvenile court)
do
--child 14 or older charged with a class 1 or 2
felony; a crime of violence; a felony weapons
offense (except possession of a handgun); or the
use, possession, or threatened use of a deadly
weapon during a felony against a person.
--child 16 or older charged with a class 3
felony (except a certain classification of
statutory rape) and who has been adjudicated
within the past 2 years for a felony.
--child 14 or older charged with a felony and
who has been convicted as an adult in a prior
case.
--child 14 or older charged with a felony and
determined to be a habitual juvenile offender
(juvenile who has two prior adjudications for
acts that constitute felonies).
Judicial Waiver
--child 14 or older charged with a felony (the
prosecutor must then file an information\a
within 5 days or the waiver is invalid, and the
case is remanded to the juvenile court
permanently).
Sentencing
--when a child has been tried as an adult by
prosecutorial direct filing, the judge may
sentence the child as an adult; as a youthful
offender (with some restrictions); or as a
juvenile in very limited circumstances.
--if the child's case was judicially waived, the
child may receive a sentence as a juvenile (or
the criminal court may remand the case to
juvenile court for disposition), unless the
child was convicted of a class 1 felony or a
crime of violence; has been previously
adjudicated as a mandatory sentence offender, a
violent juvenile offender, or an aggravated
juvenile offender; or has been convicted as an
adult or youthful offender.
Co Sections 46b- 15 Statutory Exclusions (mandatory transfer
nn 126, provisions)
ec 46b-127
ti --child 14 or older charged with murder.
cu --child 14 or older charged with a class A
t felony (other than those listed below), who has
a previous adjudication, at any age, for a class
A felony.
--child 14 or older charged with a class B
felony (other than those listed below) who has
been adjudicated as a delinquent twice before on
class A or B felonies.
--child 14 or older charged with any of the
following crimes committed with a firearm: first
or second degree manslaughter; first or second
degree assault; third degree sexual assault;
first or second degree kidnapping; second or
third degree burglary; second degree robbery
while displaying or threatening to use a deadly
weapon; first degree sexual assault with a
deadly weapon; first degree burglary; or first
degree robbery.
--child 14 or older charged with any felony
classified as a serious juvenile offense under
46b-120 while carrying a revolver or pistol
without a permit.
Judicial Waiver (where mandatory transfer
provisions--section 46b-127--do not apply)
--child 14 or older charged with a class A
felony.
--child 14 or older charged with a class B or C
felony who previously has been adjudicated as a
"serious juvenile offender" (found to have
committed one or more offenses listed in section
46b-120).
De 10 sections 17 Statutory Exclusions
la 921, 1010,
wa 1011 --any child charged with murder in the first or
re second degree, unlawful sexual intercourse in
the first degree, or kidnapping in the first
degree.
Judicial Waiver
--any child 16 or older.
--any child 14 or older charged with a felony.
Reverse Waiver
--Attorney General may transfer any case from
criminal court to juvenile court (whether child
was transferred by juvenile court or criminal
court had original jurisdiction).
--where criminal court has original jurisdiction
over child (i.e., statutorily excluded offenses)
criminal court may transfer to juvenile court.
Di Sections 16- 17 Statutory Exclusions
st 2301,
ri 16-2307 --any child previously convicted as an adult.
ct --any child awaiting trial in criminal court
of when an indictment or an information is filed
Co against him for a subsequent offense.
lu
mb Prosecutorial Discretion
ia
--child 16 or older charged with murder,
forcible rape, first degree burglary, armed
robbery, or assault with intent to commit any of
those crimes.
Judicial Waiver
--child 15 or older charged with a felony.
(There is a rebuttable presumption for waiver if
child is 15 or older and charged with murder,
forcible rape, first degree burglary, robbery
while armed, or assault with intent to commit
any of the above; any crime with a firearm; or
any violent felony if the child has three or
more prior delinquency adjudications.)
--child 16 or older under commitment as a
delinquent child.
--any child charged with illegal possession or
control of a firearm within 500 feet of public
school property, or school-sponsored event.
Fl Sections 17 Statutory Exclusions
or 39.022,
id 39.047, --any child who has been convicted and sentenced
a 39.052, as an adult.
39.0587 --child 16 or older charged with a violent crime
against a person and who previously has been
adjudicated for murder, sexual battery,
carjacking, armed or strong-armed robbery, home-
invasion robbery, aggravated battery, or
aggravated assault (prosecutor must file
information).
--any child who has previously been adjudicated
on three separate occasions for felonies that
resulted in residential placements.
Prosecutorial Discretion
--child 14 or older charged with arson; sexual
battery; robbery; kidnapping; aggravated child
abuse; aggravated assault; aggravated stalking;
murder; manslaughter; unlawful throwing,
placing, or discharging a destructive device or
bomb; armed burglary; aggravated battery; lewd
or lascivious assault or act in the presence of
a child; or use or possession of a weapon during
a felony.
--any child 16 or older charged with a felony,
or charged with a misdemeanor where he or she
has two prior delinquency adjudications of which
at least one was a felony.
--any child charged with a crime that is
punishable by death or by life imprisonment.
Judicial Waiver
--child 14 or older. (In the case of a child 14
or older charged with a fourth felony where one
of prior three felonies involved using firearm
or violence against a person: the prosecutor
must request a waiver or explain in writing why
he or she is not requesting a waiver; then the
court must waive or explain in writing why it is
not granting a waiver.)
Sentencing
--criminal court may sentence child as an adult,
select from juvenile dispositions, or invoke
Florida Youthful Offender statute (except that a
child found to have committed an offense
punishable by death or life imprisonment must be
sentenced as an adult).
Ge Sections 15- 16 Statutory Exclusions
or 11-5,
gi 15-11-39, --child 13 or older charged with murder,
a 15-11-39.1 voluntary manslaughter, rape, aggravated sodomy,
aggravated child molestation, aggravated sexual
battery, or armed robbery committed with a
firearm (superior court has exclusive original
jurisdiction, but after an investigation, the
prosecutor may refuse to indict or the judge may
send child to juvenile court "for extraordinary
cause").
--child 14 or older who is confined to a youth
development center and is charged with
aggravated assault or aggravated battery
(mandatory transfer).
--child 15 or older charged with burglary after
having been adjudicated as a delinquent on
burglary charges at least three times previously
(mandatory transfer).
Prosecutorial Discretion (concurrent
jurisdiction)
--child charged with a crime punishable by death
or by life imprisonment (other than those
offenses that are in the exclusive jurisdiction
of the Superior Court).
Judicial Waiver
--child 15 or older.
--child 13 or older charged with a felony
punishable by life imprisonment or death (other
than those offenses that are in the exclusive
jurisdiction of the Superior Court).
Reverse Waiver
--child charged with statutorily excluded
offense may be transferred to juvenile court
"for extraordinary cause" unless the offense is
punishable by death or life imprisonment.
Sentencing
--child charged with statutorily excluded
offense but convicted of a lesser-included
offense may be transferred to juvenile court for
sentencing.
Ha Section 571- 17 Statutory Exclusions
wa 22
ii --child who has been transferred to adult
court.
--child 16 or older who is charged with murder
or attempted murder in the first or second
degree, or a class A felony (felony punishable
by 20 years imprisonment, includes sexual
assault, robbery, kidnapping, some drug
offenses) and who has been adjudicated for two
other felonies in the prior 2 years or
previously has been adjudicated as a delinquent
for murder or attempted murder in the first or
second degree or for another violent class A
felony.
Judicial Waiver
--child 16 or older charged with a felony.
Sentencing
--any child under 22 may be sentenced as a young
adult (they receive shorter sentences).
Id Sections 16- 17 Statutory Exclusions
ah 1806, 16-
o 1806A --child 14 or older charged with murder or
attempted murder, robbery, forcible rape,
forcible sexual penetration with a foreign
object, infamous crimes against nature committed
by force or violence, mayhem, assault and
battery with the intent to commit a previously
listed crime, or drug offenses within 1,000 feet
of a school or school activity.
--any child who has been convicted as an adult.
Judicial Waiver
--child 14 or older.
Il 705 ILCS 405/ 16 Statutory Exclusions
li 5-4
no --child 15 or older charged with first degree
is murder; aggravated criminal sexual assault;
armed robbery with a firearm; a drug offense on
or within 1,000 feet of school or public housing
grounds, or on a school conveyance; or unlawful
use of a weapon on school grounds.
--any child charged with escape or bail jumping
while the child is being tried in criminal
court.
--child 15 or older charged with a felony and
who has previously been adjudicated as a
delinquent for a felony, provided that either
the current or prior act was a forcible felony,
and the current act stemmed from gang activity
(mandatory transfer).
Judicial Waiver
--child 13 or older. (There is a rebuttable
presumption for waiver for child 15 or older
charged with a class X felony other than armed
violence, aggravated discharge of a firearm, or
certain "armed violence with a firearm"
offenses).
Sentencing
--If child being tried in criminal court for a
statutorily excluded offense is found guilty of
a lesser offense, the court may sentence the
child as a juvenile or adult.
In Sections 31- 17 Statutory Exclusions
di 6-2-1,
an 31-6-2-4 --child 16 or older charged with murder;
a kidnapping; rape; or robbery, while armed with a
deadly weapon or which results in bodily injury
or serious bodily injury; carjacking; criminal
gang activity; criminal gang intimidation;
carrying handgun without a license; being a
child in possession of a handgun or transferring
a handgun to another child; or dealing in a
sawed-off shotgun.
--any child 16 or older whose case is waived to
adult court (by judicial waiver or prosecutorial
discretion) in the year preceding the current
offense and who is convicted of the previous
offense or a lesser included one.
--child who has been convicted as an adult and
is currently charged with a felony (mandatory
transfer).
Judicial Waiver
--child 10 or older charged with murder.
--child 14 or older charged with a heinous or
aggravated act, or a pattern of criminal acts.
--child 16 or older charged with certain felony
drug charges, a class A or B felony that is not
a statutory exclusion, involuntary manslaughter
as a class C felony, or reckless homicide as a
class C felony.
Io Sections 17 Statutory Exclusions
wa 232.8,
232.45, --child 16 or older charged with a felony and
232.45A who has been convicted as an adult for a
felony.
Judicial Waiver
--child 14 or older.
Sentencing
--a child convicted as an adult on a
nonmarijuana related drug offense is not subject
to normal minimum sentencing laws, but the child
would have to serve at least 30 days.
Ka Sections 21- 17 Statutory Exclusions
ns 3611, 38-
as 1602, --child 16 or older charged with a felony who
38-1636 has been previously adjudicated as a delinquent
for a felony.
--any child previously convicted as an adult, if
he or she had come to criminal court through
statutory exclusion provision, as explained
above.
--child 16 or older who has been adjudicated as
a delinquent and confined to a juvenile facility
and who is charged with committing a felony
while confined in the facility or while running
away or escaping from the facility; or charged
with a second or subsequent escape.
Judicial Waiver
--child 16 or older.
--child 14 or older who is charged with a level
1, 2, or 3 nondrug felony or a level 1 or 2 drug
felony (classifications as of 7/1/93) or a class
A or B felony (pre-7/1/93 classifications) (if
the child is convicted of a lesser-included
offense then he or she is treated as a
juvenile).
Ke Sections 17 Statutory Exclusions
nt 635.020,
uc 640.010 --child 14 or older charged with a felony in
ky which a firearm was used.
Judicial Waiver
--child 14 or older charged with a capital
offense or a class A (punishable by 20 years to
life) or B (punishable by 10-20 years) felony.
--child 16 or older charged with a class C or D
felony (punishable by 5-10 and 1-5 years,
respectively) and who has twice before been
adjudicated on felony charges.
--any child charged with a felony and who has
previously been convicted as an adult.
Reverse Waiver
--any child transferred to adult court and
indicted for an offense other than those listed
above will be transferred back to juvenile
court.
Sentencing
--any child sentenced before becoming 18 and not
released before becoming 18 must be returned to
the sentencing court for a redetermination of
sentence, which may result in probation or
conditional discharge, 6 more months of
treatment program, or incarceration in adult
prison.
Lo Ch.C. Art. 16 Statutory Exclusions
ui 305, Art. 857
si --child 15 or older charged with first or second
an degree murder, aggravated rape, or aggravated
a kidnapping.
Prosecutorial Discretion
--child 15 or older charged with attempted first
or second degree murder; manslaughter; armed
robbery; forcible rape; simple rape; second
degree kidnapping; a second or subsequent
aggravated battery, aggravated burglary,
burglary of an inhabited dwelling, or felony
grade violation of statute involving the
manufacture, distribution, or possession with
intent to distribute controlled dangerous
substances.
Judicial Waiver
--child 14 or older charged with first or second
degree murder, aggravated kidnapping, aggravated
rape, aggravated battery committed by
discharging a firearm, armed robbery with a
firearm, or aggravated oral sexual battery (a 14
year old whose case is waived to criminal court
and who is convicted cannot be confined beyond
his or her 31st birthday.)
Ma 15 section 17 Statutory Exclusions
in 3101
e --child convicted as an adult.
Judicial Waiver
--child charged with murder or a class A, B, or
C crime.
Ma Cts. 17 Statutory Exclusions
ry sections 3-
la 804, --child 14 or older charged with a crime
nd 3-817 punishable by death or by life imprisonment.
--child 16 or older charged with abduction;
kidnapping; second degree murder; manslaughter
(except involuntary); mayhem or maiming; robbery
with a dangerous or deadly weapon; a second or
third degree sexual offense; certain firearms
offenses; using, wearing, carrying, or
transporting a firearm during a drug trafficking
offense; carjacking or armed carjacking; assault
with intent to murder, rape, rob, or commit a
first or second degree sexual offense.
Judicial Waiver
--child 15 or older.
--any child charged with a crime punishable by
death or by life imprisonment.
Reverse Waiver
--criminal court may transfer juveniles charged
with statutorily excluded offenses to juvenile
court (the court cannot transfer child back to
juvenile court if the child has been previously
reverse waived to juvenile court and was
adjudicated as a delinquent, the child has been
convicted in another unrelated case of a
statutorily excluded offense, or the child is 16
or older and charged with 1st degree murder).
--when criminal court does a reverse waiver of
an excluded juvenile, juvenile court cannot
judicially waive the case back to criminal
court.
Ma 119 section 16 Judicial Waiver
ss 61
ac --child 14 or older when the crime could result
hu in imprisonment in the state prison and (1) the
se child has been previously committed to the
tt department of youth services or (2) when the act
s involves the infliction or threat of serious
bodily harm (prosecutor may appeal judge's
decision denying waiver); court must hold
transfer hearing if child charged with murder in
the first or second degree, manslaughter,
assault with intent to rob while armed, rape,
rape of child under 16, kidnapping, or burglary
(being armed or making an assault).
Sentencing
--child tried as an adult for any offense except
murder and found guilty before turning 18 may be
adjudicated as a delinquent and given a juvenile
disposition.
Mi Sections 16 Prosecutorial Discretion
ch 600.606,
ig 712A.4, --child 15 or older charged with murder in the
an 712A.2, 769.1 first or second degree; attempted murder;
assault with the intent to murder; assault with
intent to rob while armed; criminal sexual
conduct in the first degree; armed robbery;
carjacking; manufacture, distribution, or
possession of controlled substances (650 grams
or more of narcotics or cocaine).
Judicial Waiver
--child 15 or older charged with a felony.
Sentencing
--child tried as an adult by prosecutorial
discretion may be sentenced as an adult or given
a juvenile disposition.
Mi Sections 17 Statutory Exclusions
nn 260.015,
es 260.125 --any child charged with a felony and who has
ot been previously certified for trial as an adult
a and convicted of the offense for which he or she
was certified or of a lesser-included felony
offense.
--child 16 or older charged with first degree
murder (but not attempted first degree murder).
Judicial Waiver
--child 14 or older charged with a felony (there
is a rebuttable presumption for waiver if the
child is 16 or older and charged with felony
involving the use of a firearm or an offense
that would result in a prison sentence under the
sentencing guidelines).
--if the presumption applies and the court
retains jurisdiction, it must designate the
proceeding an extended jurisdiction juvenile
prosecution (if the presumption does not apply
the court may still designate as an extended
jurisdiction prosecution).
Mi Sections 43- 17 Statutory Exclusions
ss 21-105, 43-
is 21-151, --child 13 or older charged with a crime
si 43-21-157, punishable by life imprisonment or the death
pp 43-23-29, penalty or charged with felony use of a deadly
i 43-23-31 weapon.
--child convicted as an adult.
--child 17 charged with a felony.
Judicial Waiver (youth court, which was created
as a division of family or county court in all
jurisdictions)
--child 13 or older.
Judicial Waiver (family court) (Harrison county
is the only
jurisdiction with a family court)
--child 13 or older charged with a felony.
--child 13 or older charged with a misdemeanor
and who was first brought before municipal or
justice of the peace court (family court retains
jurisdiction to set aside the sentence).
Reverse Waiver
--in case of statutory exclusions, the circuit
court may transfer to youth court unless the
child was previously convicted as an adult.
--in case of judicial waiver, circuit court may
upon motion of the child, review the transfer
proceedings and remand the case to youth court
if there is no substantial evidence supporting
the transfer.
--the Family Court Act makes no provision for
reverse waiver.
Mi Section 16 Statutory Exclusions
ss 211.071
ou --child previously convicted as an adult.
ri
Judicial Waiver
--child 14 or older charged with a felony.
Mo Section 41- 17 Statutory Exclusions
nt 5-206
an --child 16 or older charged with deliberate or
a mitigated deliberate homicide or the attempt to
commit either (mandatory transfer).
Judicial Waiver
--child 12 or older charged with sexual
intercourse without consent, mitigated
deliberate homicide, deliberate homicide, or
attempted deliberate or mitigated deliberate
homicide.
--child 16 or older charged with negligent
homicide, arson, aggravated or felony assault,
robbery, burglary or aggravated burglary,
aggravated kidnapping, possession of explosives,
criminal sale of dangerous drugs, or attempting
to commit any of those acts.
Ne Sections 43- 17 Prosecutorial Discretion
br 247,
as 43-261 --child 16 or older charged with misdemeanor.
ka --any child charged with a felony.
Reverse Waiver
--any child charged in criminal court may move
the court to waive jurisdiction to juvenile
court.
Ne Sections 17 Statutory Exclusions
va 62.040,
da 62.060, --child charged with murder or attempted
62.080 murder.
--child who has been convicted as an adult.
Judicial Waiver
--child 16 or older charged with a felony.
Extended Jurisdiction
--a person 18-20 who is charged with a gross
misdemeanor or felony other than murder or
attempted murder may request that the district
court waive jurisdiction, so that the person can
be tried as a juvenile.
Reverse Waiver
--child who is statutorily excluded because he
or she has previously been convicted as an adult
may request waiver to juvenile court.
Ne Sections 169- 17 Statutory Exclusions
w B:24, 169-
Ha B:27, 628:1 --any child who has been convicted as an adult.
mp
sh Judicial Waiver
ir
e --child 15 or older charged with a felony.
--child 13 or older charged with first or second
degree murder, manslaughter, kidnapping, or
aggravated sexual assault.
Reverse Waiver
--in the case of a child charged with a felony
and who is not within the jurisdiction of the
state, the juvenile court may, upon motion of
the prosecutor, authorize use of regular
criminal proceedings against the child; the
criminal court then determines whether to retain
jurisdiction or remand the case to juvenile
court.
Ne Section 17 Judicial Waiver
w 2A:4A-26
Je --child 14 or older charged with criminal
rs homicide (other than death by auto) or strict-
ey liability for drug-induced death; first degree
robbery; aggravated sexual assault; sexual
assault; second degree aggravated assault,
kidnapping, aggravated arson or conspiracy to
commit any of these crimes; any other crime
committed after the juvenile was adjudicated as
a delinquent or convicted for one of the above
crimes or after the child had been sentenced as
an adult to confinement; any other violent
offense against a person; the unlawful
possession of a firearm, destructive device, or
other prohibited weapon, arson, or conspiracy to
commit any of these crimes; death by auto if the
child was under the influence of drugs or
alcohol; various offenses related to being part
of an organized drug ring or conspiracy; auto
theft; racketeering; or distributing for
pecuniary gain, any controlled substance within
1,000 feet of a public school.
Ne Sections 31- 17 Statutory Exclusions
w 18-13 et
Me seq., 32A-1- --child 16 or older charged with first degree
xi 8, 32A-2-3 murder (called a "serious youthful offender").
co
Juvenile Court Disposition (subject to adult or
juvenile sanctions in juvenile court, called
"youthful offenders")
--child 15 or older found to have committed
second degree murder; assault with intent to
commit a violent felony; kidnapping; aggravated
battery; shooting at a dwelling, occupied
building, or at or from a car, resulting in
great bodily harm to another; dangerous use of
explosives; criminal sexual penetration;
robbery; aggravated burglary or aggravated
arson; or any felony if he or she has been
adjudicated on felonies twice before in the
prior 2 years.
--15 year old found to have committed first
degree murder.
Ne Penal Law 15 Statutory Exclusions (all juveniles tried in
w 30.00, 70.05 criminal court are considered "juvenile
Yo Criminal offenders")
rk Procedure Law
1.20(42), --child 13 or older charged with murder in the
180.75, second degree.
190.71, --child 14 or older charged with kidnapping or
210.43 attempted kidnapping in the first degree; arson
in the first or second degree; assault in the
first degree; manslaughter in the first degree;
rape in the first degree; sodomy in the first
degree; aggravated sexual abuse; first degree
burglary; some second degree burglary; first
degree robbery; some second degree robbery;
attempted second degree murder.
Reverse Waiver\b
--the criminal court or superior court may send
the child to juvenile court.
Sentencing
--all juveniles in criminal court are sentenced
as juvenile offenders (an adult-like sentence
but with lower required minimum period of
imprisonment).
No Section 7A- 15 Statutory Exclusions
rt 608
h --child 13 or older charged with a class A
Ca felony (an offense punishable by death or life
ro imprisonment) (mandatory transfer).
li
na Judicial Waiver
--child 13 or older charged with a lesser
felony.
No Section 27- 17 Judicial Waiver
rt 20-34
h --child 14 or older charged with committing an
Da act that involves the infliction or threat of
ko serious bodily harm.
ta --child 16 or older.
Oh Sections 17 Statutory Exclusions
io 2151.011,
2151.26 --child charged with murder; aggravated murder;
or a felony or aggravated felony of the first or
second degree, if the child has been previously
transferred to and convicted in criminal court.
--child charged with murder or aggravated murder
and who previously has been adjudicated as a
delinquent for murder or aggravated murder
(mandatory transfer).
Judicial Waiver
--child 15 or older charged with a felony.
Ok 10 sections 17 Statutory Exclusions
la 1101,
ho 1104.02, --child 16 or older charged with murder;
ma 1112 kidnapping for the purposes of extortion;
robbery with a dangerous weapon; rape in the
first degree; rape by instrument; use of a
firearm or other offensive weapon, while
committing a felony; arson in the first degree;
burglary with explosives, first or second degree
burglary after three or more adjudications for
first or second degree burglary; shooting with
intent to kill; discharging a firearm, crossbow,
or other weapon from a vehicle; intimidating a
witness; manufacturing, distributing,
dispensing, or possessing with intent to
manufacture, distribute, or dispense controlled
dangerous substances; assault and battery with a
deadly weapon; manslaughter in the first degree;
or sodomy.
--any child convicted as an adult of the offense
originally charged.
Judicial Waiver
--any child charged with a felony.
Reverse Waiver
--criminal court may waive its jurisdiction over
statutorily excluded offenses (it may not waive
jurisdiction over a child previously convicted
as an adult).
Or Sections 17 Statutory Exclusions
eg 419C.340,
on 419C.349, --child 15 or older charged with murder, first
419C.352, or second degree manslaughter, first or second
419C.361, degree assault, first or second degree
419C.364 kidnapping, first or second degree rape, first
or second degree sodomy, unlawful sexual
penetration, first degree sexual abuse, first or
second degree robbery.
Judicial Waiver
--child 15 or older charged with attempt to
commit murder or attempt to commit an aggravated
form of murder.
--child 16 or older charged with a class A or B
felony (except for those offenses that are
statutorily excluded), escape in the second
degree, assault in the third degree, coercion,
arson in the second degree, or robbery in the
third degree.
Sentencing
--child found guilty of lesser "nonwaivable"
offense must be returned to juvenile court for
disposition.
Pe 42 PA. C.S.A. 17 Statutory Exclusions
nn sections
sy 6302, 6322, --any child charged with murder.
lv 6355 --any child who has been found guilty in a
an criminal proceeding.
ia
Judicial Waiver
--child 14 or older charged with a felony.
Reverse Waiver
--child charged with murder in criminal court
may be transferred to juvenile court.
Sentencing
--child charged with murder in criminal
proceeding but convicted of crime less than
murder may be transferred to juvenile court for
sentencing.
--child transferred to criminal court under
judicial waiver and convicted of a misdemeanor
may be transferred back to juvenile court for
sentencing.
Rh Sections 14- 17 Statutory Exclusions
od 1-3, 14-1-7,
e 14-1-7.1, --any child who has been convicted as an adult.
Is 14-1-7.2, --child 17 or older charged with murder, first
la 14-1-7.3, degree sexual assault, or assault with intent to
nd 14-1-7.4 commit murder (mandatory transfer).
Judicial Waiver
--any child charged with a crime punishable by
life imprisonment.
--child 16 or older charged with a felony.
Juvenile Court Disposition
--any child charged with a felony may be
"certified" in juvenile court (a child that is
certified may be sentenced to the state training
school or to a term of years to be served at the
training school until the child turns 21, with
the excess time being served in prison, unless
the court finds before then that the child has
been rehabilitated).
--child 16 or older charged with a felony drug
offense and has been previously adjudicated as a
delinquent for a felony drug offense after the
age of 16 must be waived or certified.
--child 16 or older charged with a felony and
who has been found as a delinquent for having
committed two offenses after the age of 16 for
which an adult could be indicted must be
certified.
So Sections 20- 16 Statutory Exclusions
ut 7-390, 20-7-
h 430 --child 16 charged with murder; a Class A, B, C,
Ca or D felony; a felony that has a maximum term of
ro imprisonment of 15 years or more; criminal
li sexual conduct; or distribution of drugs within
na proximity of a school.
Judicial Waiver
--child younger than 16 charged with murder or
criminal sexual conduct.
--child 14 or 15 charged with a Class A, B, C,
or D felony; a felony that provides for a
maximum term of imprisonment of 15 years or
more; or distribution of drugs within proximity
of a school.
--child 14 or older charged with assault and
battery of a high and aggravated nature;
carrying weapons on school property; or unlawful
carrying of a pistol.
--child 16 charged with a Class E or F felony;
or a Class A, B, or C misdemeanor.
Reserve Waiver
--child statutorily excluded may be remanded to
the family court for disposition of the charge
at the discretion of the prosecutor.
So Sections 26- 17 Judicial Waiver
ut 11-4,
h 26-11-10 --child age 10 or older charged with a felony.
Da (There is a rebuttable presumption for waiver
ko for a child 16 or older charged with a class A,
ta B, 1, or 2 felony.)
Sentencing
--When a child under 18 is found guilty of any
crime except murder, the circuit court may,
instead of entering judgment, order that the
child be sent to the state training school.
Te Sections 37- 17 Statutory Exclusions
nn 1-134,
es 37-1-159 --any child who has been convicted as an adult.
se
e Judicial Waiver
--child 16 or older.
--any child charged with first or second degree
murder, rape, aggravated rape, aggravated
robbery, especially-aggravated robbery,
kidnapping, aggravated kidnapping, or
especially-aggravated kidnapping.
Reverse Waiver
--when a nonlawyer judge presides over transfer
hearing, the criminal court upon motion of
juvenile must hold a de novo transfer hearing
and either remand the case to juvenile court or
accept jurisdiction.
Te Family Code 16 Judicial Waiver
xa sections
s 51.03, 51.08, --child age 15 or older charged with a felony.
54.02
Reverse Waiver
--criminal court shall conduct examining trial
if there is good cause to do so and may remand
to juvenile court (if there is no good cause for
an examining trial, the court refers the matter
to a grand jury).
--the juvenile court may reclaim jurisdiction if
a grand jury refuses to indict the juvenile.
Ut Sections 78- 17 Statutory Exclusions
ah 3a-17(1), 78-
3a-25 --child 16 or older charged with aggravated
murder.
--any child who has been previously convicted as
an adult.
Prosecutorial Discretion
--child 16 or older charged with murder, a
capital crime, first degree felony, criminal
homicide or attempted criminal homicide
involving the use of a dangerous weapon; or any
felony involving the use of a dangerous weapon
where the juvenile has a prior adjudication for
a felony offense involving a dangerous weapon.
Judicial Waiver (called certification)
--child 14 or older charged with a felony.
Reverse Waiver
--child whose case has been judicially waived
may request hearing in juvenile court to recall
jurisdiction. (If juvenile court recalls
jurisdiction, juvenile is returned to juvenile
court for further proceedings, which may include
certification to adult court.)
Sentencing
--a criminal court may sentence a child as an
adult or as a juvenile in a case that has been
waived.
Ve 33 sections 17 ("child" Statutory Exclusions
rm 5502, is defined
on 5505, 5506 as under 16 --child 14 or older charged with arson, causing
t for death; assault and robbery with a dangerous
delinquency weapon; assault and robbery, causing bodily
purposes, injury; aggravated assault; murder;
but 16 and manslaughter; kidnapping; maiming; sexual
17 year olds assault; or aggravated sexual assault.
may still be
treated as Prosecutorial Discretion
juveniles)
--child 16 or 17 charged with a nonexcluded
crime.
Judicial Waiver
--any child age 10 to 13 charged with arson,
causing death; assault and robbery with a
dangerous weapon; assault and robbery, causing
bodily injury; aggravated assault; murder;
manslaughter; kidnapping; maiming; sexual
assault; or aggravated sexual assault.
Reverse Waiver
--criminal court may transfer juvenile back to
juvenile court in cases of statutory exclusions
and prosecutorial discretion.
Sentencing
--child 15 or younger tried as an adult and
found guilty of a lesser offense (not one listed
above) shall be transferred to juvenile court
for disposition (this will be considered an
adjudication for delinquency not a criminal
conviction).
Vi Sections 17 Statutory Exclusions
rg 16.1-269.1,
in 16.1-269.3, --any child previously convicted as an adult.
ia 16.1-269.4,
16.1-269.6, Judicial Waiver
16.1-271
--child 14 or older charged with a felony (if
the child is 14 or older and charged with class
1 or 2 felony or 16 or older and charged with
class 3 felony for murder, mob related felony,
kidnapping or assault or any unclassified felony
that carries a maximum penalty of 40 years, the
court may transfer without finding that the
juvenile is not a proper person to remain in
juvenile court). (When the case of a child 14 or
older charged with an offense punishable by
death or 20 years or more imprisonment is not
waived, the prosecutor may appeal to circuit
court. The circuit court then holds a hearing to
determine whether juvenile court substantially
complied with the judicial waiver statute and
either remands the case to juvenile court or
accepts jurisdiction.)
Reverse Waiver
--child whose case has been judicially waived
may appeal the waiver to circuit court. The
circuit court then holds a hearing as above and
either remands the case to juvenile court or
accepts jurisdiction.
Sentencing
--child convicted as an adult for the first time
may be sentenced as an adult or may be subject
to juvenile disposition.
Wa Sections 17 Statutory Exclusions
sh 13.04.030,
in 13.40.020, --child 16 or older charged with a serious
gt 13.40.110 violent offense or charged with a violent
on offense if the child has a criminal history
consisting of (i) 1 or more prior serious
violent offenses; (ii) 2 or more prior violent
offenses; or (iii) 3 or more of any combination
of any class A or B felony, vehicular assault,
or manslaughter in the second degree, provided
that each offense was committed after the child
reached 13 and was prosecuted separately;
(criminal history includes all criminal
complaints where the allegations were found
correct by a court or where criminal complaint
was diverted on agreement of respondent after
advisement that the complaint would be part of
criminal history).
--child who has been tried as an adult.
Judicial Waiver
--any child (a transfer hearing must be held
where juvenile is 15 or older charged with a
class A felony or an attempt, solicitation, or
conspiracy to commit a class A felony; or 17 and
charged with second degree assault, first degree
extortion, indecent liberties, second degree
child molestation, second degree kidnapping, or
second degree robbery).
We Sections 49- 17 Judicial Waiver
st 5-10, 49-5-
Vi 13 --any child charged with treason, murder,
rg robbery using firearms or other deadly weapons,
in kidnapping, first degree arson, or sexual
ia assault in the first degree; or a violent felony
if the child has been previously adjudicated as
a delinquent for a violent felony, or any felony
if the child has been twice previously
adjudicated as a delinquent for a felony.
--any child 16 or older charged with a violent
felony or any felony if the child has a previous
adjudication for a felony.
Reverse Waiver
--any child whose case is waived has the right
to directly appeal an order of transfer to the
Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia.
Sentencing
--any child convicted as an adult may be
sentenced as an adult or given a juvenile
disposition.
Wi Sections 17 Statutory Exclusions
sc 48.18,
on 48.183, --any child charged with assault or battery
si 970.032 against an employee, officer, visitor, or inmate
n while confined in a secured correctional
facility.
Judicial Waiver
--any child 16 or older (there is a presumption
for waiver if the child has previously been
waived).
--any child 14 or older charged with attempted
first degree murder, first or second degree
murder, manufacture or delivery of controlled
substances, manslaughter, homicide by reckless
conduct, first degree sexual assault, taking
hostages, kidnapping, burglary while armed with
a dangerous weapon, burglary using an explosive
to open a depository, committing battery on a
person who is lawfully in a burglarized
enclosure during a burglary, or committing a
felony at the request of or for the benefit of a
criminal gang.
Reverse Waiver
--any child statutorily excluded may have his or
her case waived back to juvenile court.
Wy Sections 14- 17 Prosecutorial Discretion
om 6-203,
in 14-6-237 --child 14 or older charged with violent felony
g or with any felony if child has been previously
adjudicated as a delinquent under two separate
petitions for acts that would constitute
felonies.
--child 17 or older.
Judicial Waiver
--child 13 or older.
Reverse Waiver
--criminal court may transfer to juvenile court
any proceeding commenced in criminal court over
which juvenile court has concurrent
jurisdiction--juvenile court has concurrent
jurisdiction by statute over all minors (except
those 12 or younger charged with an offense
punishable by more than 6 months incarceration
over which it has exclusive jurisdiction).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: This analysis focused on the state laws that were passed
through 1994, some of which became effective in 1995. Certain
violations committed by juveniles are treated as if they were done by
adults in many states; namely, fish and game violations, traffic
violations committed by juveniles old enough to obtain drivers
licenses, and contempt of court. In addition, some states have
provisions that allow the juvenile to request that his or her case be
waived to criminal court or that provide for waiver or prosecutorial
discretion when the charges are violations of alcohol and tobacco
possession laws. These types of provisions are not included in the
table.
When a case is waived to criminal court because of the nature of the
charge, charges arising out of the same incident or which are
otherwise joinable are usually also transferred. When waiver is in
the juvenile court's discretion, common prerequisites are that there
must be a waiver hearing where it is found that there is probable
cause that the child committed the act and that it is in the best
interests of the child and community that there be waiver of
jurisdiction.
The category of statutory exclusion in the table includes state
statutory provisions that require that the juvenile be transferred to
criminal court from juvenile court (identified as "mandatory
transfer" provisions).
\a An information is a written accusation made by a public
prosecutor. It is used in place of a grand jury indictment to bring
a person to trial.
\b Reverse waiver in New York--Juvenile Offenders (juveniles who
commit statutorily excluded offenses) originally appear before local
criminal court. The criminal court may, at the request of the
prosecutor or the juvenile, remove the action to family court.
However, if the juvenile is charged with second degree murder, first
degree rape, sodomy, or an armed felony, the criminal court may not
remove the case to family court, unless the criminal court finds one
of the following three factors: (1) mitigating circumstances, (2)
that the juvenile's participation in the offense was minor, or (3)
possible deficiencies in proof.
In addition, the grand jury may request removal to family court if it
finds that the juvenile committed a crime, the crime is one for which
the grand jury may not indict a juvenile (i.e., offenses other than
those listed in the statutory exclusions), the grand jury does not
indict, and there is legally sufficient evidence that the child
committed a crime. The court must approve the request unless it is
improper or insufficient on its face.
After the juvenile is arraigned upon an indictment in Superior Court,
the Superior Court may, upon motion of any party or its own motion,
order removal to family court. However, if the juvenile is charged
with one of the above enumerated offenses the Superior Court must
obtain the prosecutor's consent and find one of the above listed
factors in order to remove to family court.
Source: GAO review of state statutes.
SUMMARY OF CONFINEMENT CONDITIONS
FOR JUVENILES IN ADULT
CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES
=========================================================== Appendix V
The following data regarding the conditions of confinement of
juveniles in seven adult correctional facilities that we visited was
provided by facility officials without our verification.
HOUSING
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix V:1
In Ohio, juveniles were housed within the general prison population
irrespective of their age.\1 However, in Florida, Michigan, and North
Carolina, younger inmates (typically those under age 26) were usually
housed in prisons designated for that age group. At six of the
prisons we visited, age was not considered when making housing
assignments within the prison.\2
Housing units in the prisons we visited varied in layout from single-
or double-bunk cells to dormitory style structures. Housing units
typically had common-use bathroom facilities. In addition, most
housing units' common-use areas typically were equipped with
televisions.
--------------------
\1 According to a deputy warden at Southeastern Correctional
Institution in Ohio, the prison formerly accepted many of Ohio's
young offenders (age 21 and below). However, due to problems
associated with violence among young offenders, they will now be sent
to other prisons, and older inmates are being integrated into the
Institution.
\2 The Florida Correctional Institution is a women's prison that
housed inmates of all ages.
HEALTH SERVICES
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix V:2
At all seven prisons, health care was available on site. Generally,
the health staff was composed of a physician, nurses, and a dentist.
Upon entering the prison system, all inmates were to be subjected to
a physical examination. Inmates were to be allowed daily visits to
the health unit. When an inmate requested to see a nurse, generally
the request was to be granted within 24 hours. If an emergency
occurred, the inmates' care was to be handled at the prison or at an
off-site hospital. Additionally, the facilities usually were to
provide mental health counseling and offer some form of drug
rehabilitation. For example, in Florida, new inmates were to be
screened to determine if they needed substance abuse services.
Substance abuse services available in Florida prisons included
treatment ranging from a 40-hour educational program to a 6- to
12-month intensive program.
EDUCATION, VOCATION, AND WORK
PROGRAMS
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix V:3
Education, vocation, and work programs were available at all prisons
we visited. During classification, inmates were generally to be
given an opportunity to indicate their preferences for participation
in these programs. Factors to be considered by prison officials when
assigning inmates to these programs included inmates' length of
sentence, educational level, and security classification.
In six of the seven prisons, generally all inmates were to
participate in an education, vocation, or work program.\3
Education programs available at the prisons included classes dealing
with the Graduate Equivalency Diploma (GED) test and adult basic
education. Class sizes generally ranged from about 15 to 30 inmates.
However, at the Handlon Michigan Training Unit, an adult basic
education program had much smaller class sizes, which sometimes had a
teacher to inmate ratio of 1 to 1 for inmates testing below the eight
grade reading and math level.
All of the prisons offered a variety of vocational programs. These
programs included auto mechanics, masonry, electronics, horticulture,
and drafting. The Florida Correctional Institution for women offered
vocational programs in data entry, sewing, and cosmetology. Some
factors considered when assigning inmates to vocational and education
programs included their custody classification and educational level.
Also, because some programs took as long as 16 months to complete,
inmates with sentences shorter than the length of the program were
not eligible to participate.
Inmates not participating in education or vocational programs were to
be required to work. Job assignments included cooks, dishwashers, or
food servers in the prison kitchen, lawn maintenance on the prison
grounds, or work at the prison store. In Ohio, Michigan, and North
Carolina inmates were paid a nominal salary to work or attend school.
For example, in Ohio, inmates could earn up to $20 per month. In
addition, inmates at the Florida Correctional Institution,
Southeastern Correctional Institution, and the Michigan Reformatory
could participate in prison industry programs that produced products,
some of which were marketed outside of the prisons. For example, at
the Michigan Reformatory, the Michigan State Industries employed
about 90 inmates in an on site furniture factory.
--------------------
\3 At the Michigan Reformatory, a maximum security prison, inmates
were not required but had the option to work or attend school.
RECREATIONAL ACTIVITIES
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix V:4
All prisons provided a variety of recreational activities and
equipment. During leisure time inmates generally had access to a
library, television, weight-lifting equipment, table tennis, and pool
tables. One prison provided cable programming on a large screen
television, and another prison provided a built-in swimming pool
(which inmates paid for) and a tennis court. Several of the prisons
had intermural sports, including flag football, basketball, and
softball.
DAILY SCHEDULE
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix V:5
Inmates at the prisons we visited had similar daily schedules.
Generally, they began the day between 6:00 a.m. and 8:00 a.m.
Typically the inmates were counted about four times daily. Following
the morning count, breakfast was served. After breakfast, inmates
reported to their school or work assignments for about 3 hours.
Lunch was usually served around 12:00 p.m. After lunch, inmates
returned to their school or work assignments for another 3 hours.
Dinner was served around 5:00 p.m. After dinner, inmates had time to
participate in various recreational and religious programs or other
activities from about 6:00 p.m. until about 9:00 p.m. Inmates were
locked in their housing units with lights out at about 11:00 p.m.
MAJOR CONTRIBUTORS TO THIS REPORT
========================================================== Appendix VI
GENERAL GOVERNMENT DIVISION,
WASHINGTON, D.C.
James M. Blume, Assistant Director, Administration of
Justice Issues
Barry Jay Seltser, Assistant Director
William J. Sabol, Senior Social Science Analyst
Barbara A. Stolz, Senior Social Science Analyst
Joanne M. Parker, Senior Social Science Analyst
Brenda I. Rabinowitz, Evaluator
Maria D. Strudwick, Evaluator
George H. Quinn, Jr., Computer Specialist
Pamela V. Williams, Communications Analyst
OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL,
WASHINGTON, D.C.
Jan B. Montgomery, Assistant General Counsel
Rachel A. Ramsey, Legal Intern
Matthew L. Robey, Legal Intern
DETROIT REGIONAL OFFICE
Henry L. Malone, Regional Management Representative
Kelly M. Haggard, Evaluator-in-Charge
Jacqueline M. Nell, Evaluator
Edward O. Price, Computer Programmer Analyst
Cliff Schaffer's Home Page