Youth transfer to the adult criminal justice system
Youth transfer provisions allow youth who are arrested to be processed under the jurisdiction of the adult criminal justice system rather than the juvenile justice system. Such transfers may occur at the discretion of a juvenile court judge (i.e., judicial transfer/waiver) or prosecutor (i.e., prosecutorial transfer/waiver); be mandated by transfer qualifying criteria such as certain alleged offenses or age (i.e., statutory transfer); or occur via blended sentencing laws that combine a juvenile sentence with a suspended adult sentence. The legal mechanisms that support transfers vary by state1, 2. In 2020, U.S. juvenile courts transferred about 3,000 youth delinquency cases to adult criminal courts3.
Some states have enacted reforms that prohibit or limit youth transfer to adult court4. Other states have a reverse transfer statute that requires the adult court to conduct a reverse transfer hearing on certain youth cases or upon the youth’s request5, 6.
What does the research say about effectiveness?
There is strong evidence that transferring youth who commit serious offenses to the adult criminal justice system is not effective at reducing the likelihood that these youth will re-offend7, 8, 9, 10. Experts suggest that transferring and incarcerating youth in the adult justice system has a negative impact on youth development, their family relationships, and mental health by failing to provide age-appropriate responses and treatment for youth and failing to meet their developmental needs11, 12. In the long-term, youth who are transferred may have poorer employment outcomes and a slightly greater number of years of education than youth who are not transferred13. Youth who are incarcerated in the adult justice system appear to be at greater risk of physical and sexual abuse than youth in the juvenile justice system14.
Youth charged with a property crime or a serious first offense have higher rates of re-arrest when transferred to adult criminal court than non-transferred youth14. Youth who are transferred to adult court by judicial discretion may re-offend more than youth in juvenile court7. Male youth ages 14 to 16 who are charged with sex offenses and processed as adults are more likely to be convicted again with a new person-related offense15. Experts suggest that youth transfer may contribute to higher recidivism through stigmatization and labeling effects, lack of rehabilitation services available while incarcerated with adults, and criminal behaviors learned from such adults10. When comparing the juvenile justice system to the adult justice system, correctional officers in the juvenile justice system appear to be more oriented towards treatment over punishment, well-being versus control, and person-focused probation rather than offense-focused probation16.
Prosecuting juveniles in adult court may increase waiting time before adjudication and increase the likelihood of receiving more severe sentences than prosecution in the juvenile justice system17, 18. When processed in adult court, male youth who are charged with serious offenses are seven times more likely to be incarcerated than their peers in juvenile court13. Sentencing outcomes among youth in adult court appear to vary by transfer mechanism (i.e., judicial, prosecutorial, and legislative waivers)19. In the adult criminal justice system, youth who are transferred are less likely to receive prison sentences than adults, especially for severe crimes such as murder and sex offenses20; however, once given the sentence, youth are more likely to receive longer sentence lengths than adults with similar offenses20, 21, 22.
To prevent the effects of jurors’ preconceived stereotyping of youth that commit offenses influencing transfer decision, jurors should consider youth’s developmental vulnerabilities which may lead youth to a lack of understanding of their rights and to make a false confession23. Additional evidence is needed to determine the effects of laws supporting prosecution of juveniles through the adult justice system on juvenile crime prevention, youth development, and adulthood outcomes10, 13, 14, 18, 24.
How could this strategy advance health equity? This strategy is rated potential to increase disparities: supported by some evidence.
There is some evidence that transferring youth from juvenile court to adult court has the potential to increase disparities in juvenile justice processing, disadvantaging racially and ethnically minoritized youth in transfer decisions and sentencing25, 26, 27, 28, 29.
Overall, youth of color are more likely to be arrested and overrepresented in the juvenile justice system than white youth29, 30. Black and Hispanic juveniles are overrepresented in the youth population that are transferred to adult court while white youth are underrepresented25. Black male youth are most likely to be transferred to adult court by judicial waiver, followed by white males and Black females26. Sentencing and transfer decisions for youth can also be systemically biased and inconsistent29. White members of the workforce in the adult justice system (e.g., law enforcement officers, judges, prosecutors, probation officers) are more likely to prefer harsh sentencing for male youth who are charged with violent offenses than workers of other racial and ethnic backgrounds31. Among youth transferred to the adult criminal court in Florida, Black male youth are more likely to receive harsh sentencing than other youth and even some adults who are charged with felony offenses27, 28.
What is the relevant historical background?
The nation’s first juvenile court was established in Chicago in 1899 and nearly every state established juvenile courts by 1925. The early years of juvenile courts focused on rehabilitation and treatment for youth, not punishment32. However, the physical conditions and treatments in juvenile court facilities were unequal for white youth versus youth of color. Large facilities designated for Black youth were not maintained, inappropriately equipped, and provided poor services compared to facilities for white youth33. Starting in the 1960s, the number of youth involved in the juvenile justice system grew and juvenile courts modified procedures to be more like adult criminal courts32. Youth transfer to adult court was based on vague assessments until the 1960s; transfer criteria were later established based on youth individual and legal factors, for example, the youth’s maturity, the severity of the offense, public safety, prior legal history, and response to the juvenile system34. States passed stricter laws through the 1990s that focused on punishment and made it easier to move youth younger than 18 into the adult criminal justice system. In the 2000s, state juvenile justice reforms focused on adolescent development and emphasized community-based programs to keep youth out of the adult criminal justice system32.
Throughout the history of the juvenile justice system in the U.S., youth of color have been overrepresented and racially disparate practices and treatment for youth in the system have persisted. This can be attributed to the history of racial segregation and discrimination in the U.S., the false belief that youth of color are culturally inclined to delinquency, and the systemic and racial policies and practices in the juvenile justice system. Examples of systemic and racist policies and practices include discriminatory policing in communities of color and differential treatment of youth of color at various decision points in juvenile court processes, which lack appropriate assessment tools and cultural competence33. Black, Native, and Hispanic youth have been arrested and involved in the juvenile justice system at disproportionate rates compared to white youth29. The Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act (JJDPA), which was reauthorized in 2018, provides federal standards for the care and custody of youth and families involved in the juvenile justice system. One of its four requirements helps states to assess and eliminate racial and ethnic disparities in the juvenile justice system35.
Equity Considerations
- How does your state ensure that the criteria used to make transfer decisions in the juvenile justice system are just and applied consistently?
- How can your state expand training for the juvenile justice workforce to help recognize their internal bias and make non-biased decisions in juvenile justice processes?
- Are treatment and resources in the juvenile justice system available to all groups of youth in the system and are they appropriate to youth developmental needs?
- Does your state have statues that allow or mandate reverse-transfers? If yes, is the law applied to all eligible cases consistently? If not, how can you work with legislators and community partners to enact the law?
Footnotes
* Journal subscription may be required for access.
1 NGA 2021 - National Governors Association (NGA). Age boundaries in juvenile justice systems.
2 CFYJ-Arya 2011 - Arya N. State trends: Legislative changes from 2005 to 2010 removing youth from the adult criminal justice system, Washington, D.C.: Campaign for Youth Justice (CFYJ); 2011.
3 OJJDP-Ryan 2023 - Ryan L, La Vigne N. Delinquency cases waived to criminal court, 2020. Juvenile justice statistics. The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP), The National Institute of Justice (NIJ). 2023.
4 CFYJ-Bookout 2015 - Bookout N. 2015 State legislative sessions: An update on nationwide juvenile justice reforms to protect youth from the adult criminal justice system. Campaign for Youth Justice (CFYJ). August 2015.
5 OJJDP-Stat briefing 2022 - Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP). Statistical briefing book: Provisions for imposing adult sanctions on minors. 2022.
6 JSP 2021 - Juveniles Sentencing Project (JSP). Limiting transfer to adult court: Enhancing judicial oversight. October 2021.
7 Zane 2016 - Zane SN, Welsh BC, Mears DP. Juvenile transfer and the specific deterrence hypothesis. Criminology & Public Policy. 2016;15(3):901-925.
8 Trulson 2020 - Trulson CR, Craig JM, Caudill JW, DeLisi M. The impact of adult prison transfer on the recidivism outcomes of blended-sentenced juvenile delinquents. Crime & Delinquency. 2020;66(6-7):887-914.
9 CG-Violence - The Guide to Community Preventive Services (The Community Guide). Violence.
10 OJJDP-Redding 2010 - Redding RE. Juvenile transfer laws: An effective deterrent to delinquency? Juvenile Justice Bulletin, Washington, D.C.: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP); June 2010.
11 AECF 2017 - The Annie E. Casey Foundation (AECF). Every state agrees: 16-year-olds are better served in the youth justice system. 2017.
12 APA-Larson 2016 - Larson K, Grisso T. Chapter 21: Transfer and commitment of youth in the United States: Law, policy, and forensic practice. In Heilbrun K,DeMatteo D, Goldstein NES, eds. APA Handbook of Psychology and Juvenile Justice. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association; 2016:445-466.
13 Sharlein 2018 - Sharlein J. Beyond recidivism: Investigating comparative educational and employment outcomes for adolescents in the juvenile and criminal justice systems. Crime & Delinquency. 2018;64(1):26-52.
14 OJJDP-Mulvey 2012 - Mulvey EP, Schubert CA. Transfer of juveniles to adult court: Effects of a broad policy in one court. Juvenile Justice Bulletin, Washington, D.C.: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP); December 2012.
15 Rinehart 2016 - Rinehart JK, Armstrong KS, Shields RT, Letourneau EJ. The effects of transfer laws on youth with sexual or robbery offenses. Criminal Justice and Behavior. 2016;43(11):1619-1638.
16 Bolin 2016 - Bolin RM, Applegate BK. Adultification in juvenile corrections: Examining the orientations of juvenile and adult probation and parole officers. American Journal of Criminal Justice. 2016;41:321-339.
17 OJJDP-Washburn 2015 - Washburn JJ, Teplin LA, Voss LS, et al. Detained youth processed in juvenile and adult court: Psychiatric disorders and mental health needs. Juvenile Justice Bulletin, Washington, D.C.: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP); September 2015.
18 Steiner 2006 - Steiner B, Hemmens C, Bell V. Legislative waiver reconsidered: General deterrent effects of statutory exclusion laws enacted post-1979. Justice Quarterly. 2006;23(1):34-59.
19 Zane 2017 - Zane SN. Do criminal court outcomes vary by juvenile transfer mechanism? A multi-jurisdictional, multilevel analysis. Justice Quarterly. 2017;34(3):542-569.
20 Lahmann 2022 - Lahmann PS. Juvenile transfer status and the sentencing of violent offenders: A test of the liberation hypothesis. Journal of Crime and Justice. 2022;45(4):430-449.
21 Jordan 2016 - Jordan KL, McNeal BA. Juvenile penalty or leniency: Sentencing of juveniles in the criminal justice system. Law and Human Behavior. 2016;40(4):387-400.
22 Lahmann 2018 - Lehmann PS, Chiricos T, Bales WD. Juveniles on trial: Mode of conviction and the adult court sentencing of transferred juveniles. Crime & Delinquency. 2018;64(5):563-586.
23 Katzman 2022 - Katzman J, Fessinger MB, Bornstein BH, McWilliams K. Waiving goodbye to youth: Jurors perceive transferred juveniles differently from adults but render similar verdicts. Behavioral Sciences & the Law. 2022;40(6):835-858.
24 Steiner 2006a - Steiner B, Wright E. Assessing the relative effects of state direct file waiver laws on violent juvenile crime: Deterrence or irrelevance? Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology. 2006;96(4):1451-77.
25 Goldschmied 2023 - Goldschmied N, Ramona A, Stilman E, et al. Transfer of minors to adult court in California: Investigating the legal/demographic factors that make the difference. Psychological Reports. 2023.
26 Bryson 2020 - Bryson SL, Peck JH. Understanding the subgroup complexities of transfer: The impact of juvenile race and gender on waiver decisions. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice. 2020;18(2): 135-155.
27 Lehmann 2018a - Lehmann PS. Sentencing other people’s children: The intersection of race, gender, and juvenility in the adult criminal court. Journal of Crime and Justice. 2018;41(5):553-572.
28 Lehmann 2017 - Lehmann PS, Chiricos T, Dales WD. Sentencing transferred juveniles in the adult criminal court: The direct and interactive effects of race and ethnicity. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice. 2017;15(2):172-190.
29 OJJDP-R/ED 2022 - Development Services Group, Inc. Racial and ethnic disparity (R/ED) in juvenile justice processing. Washington, D.C.: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP); 2022.
30 DeLone 2017 - DeLone MA, DeLone GJ. Racial disparities in juvenile justice processing. In: Schreck CJ, Leiber MJ, Miller HV, Welch K, eds. The Encyclopedia of Juvenile Delinquency and Justice; 2017.
31 Lehmann 2019 - Lehmann PS, Pickett JT, Ryon SB, Kosloski AE. Race, juvenile transfer, and sentencing preferences: Findings from a randomized experiment. Race and Justice. 2019;9(3):251-275.
32 NCJJ-Puzzanchera 2022 - Puzzanchera C, Hockenberry S, Sickmund M. Youth and the juvenile justice system: 2022 National report. Pittsburgh, PA: National Center for Juvenile Justice (NCJJ); 2022.
33 NCTSN-Lacey 2013 - Lacey C. Racial disparities and the juvenile justice system: A legacy of trauma. Los Angeles, CA & Durham, NC: National Center for Child Traumatic Stress (NCTSN); 2013.
34 Lee 2016a - Lee SJ, Kraus LJ. Transfer of juvenile cases to criminal court. Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Clinics of North America. 2016;25(1):41-47.
35 CJJ-JJDPA - Coalition for Juvenile Justice (CJJ). Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act (JJDPA).
Related What Works for Health Strategies
To see citations and implementation resources for this strategy, visit:
countyhealthrankings.org/strategies-and-solutions/what-works-for-health/strategies/youth-transfer-to-the-adult-criminal-justice-system
To see all strategies:
countyhealthrankings.org/whatworks