|
|
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 |
