Effects on Violence of Laws and Policies Facilitating
the Transfer of Juveniles from the Juvenile Justice
System to the Adult Justice System
A Systematic Review
Angela McGowan, JD, MPH, Robert Hahn, PhD, MPH, Akiva Liberman, PhD, Alex Crosby, MD, MPH,
Mindy Fullilove, MD, Robert Johnson, MD, Eve Moscicki, ScD, MPH, LeShawndra Price, PhD,
Susan Snyder, PhD, Farris Tuma, ScD, Jessica Lowy, MPH, Peter Briss, MD, MPH, Stella Cory, MD, MPH,
Glenda Stone, PhD, Task Force on Community Preventive Services
Abstract:

The independent, nonfederal Task Force on Community Preventive Services (Task Force),
which directs development of the Guide to Community Preventive Services (Community Guide),
has conducted a systematic review of published scientific evidence concerning the
effectiveness of laws and policies that facilitate the transfer of juveniles to the adult criminal
justice system, on either preventing or reducing violence (1) among those youth who
experience the adult criminal system or (2) in the juvenile population as a whole.
This review focuses on interpersonal violence. Violence may lead to the juvenile’s initial
arrest and entry into the justice system and, for those who are arrested, may be committed
subsequent to exiting the justice system. Here transfer is defined as the placement of
juveniles aged less than 18 years under the jurisdiction of the adult criminal justice system,
rather than the juvenile justice system, following arrest. Using the methods developed by
the Community Guide to conduct a systematic review of literature and provide recommendations to public health decision makers, the review team found that transferring juveniles
to the adult justice system generally increases, rather than decreases, rates of violence
among transferred youth. Evidence was insufficient for the Task Force on Community
Preventive Services to determine the effect of such laws and policies in reducing violent
behavior in the overall juvenile population. Overall, the Task Force recommends against
laws or policies facilitating the transfer of juveniles from the juvenile to the adult judicial
system for the purpose of reducing violence.
(Am J Prev Med 2007;32(4S):S7–S28) © 2007 American Journal of Preventive Medicine

Introduction

T

he purpose of this review was to determine
whether laws or policies that facilitate the transfer
of juveniles to the adult criminal justice system
reduce interpersonal violence, either specifically, among
those juveniles who have experienced the adult justice
system, or generally, in the juvenile population as a whole.

From the Community Guide Branch, Coordinating Center for Health
Information and Service (McGowan, Hahn, Snyder, Lowy, Briss,
Cory, Stone), and Etiology and Surveillance Branch, National Center
for Injury Prevention and Control (Crosby), Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia; Columbia University,
Mailman School of Public Health (Fullilove), New York, New York;
New Jersey Medical School, Department of Pediatrics (Johnson),
Newark, New Jersey; National Institute of Justice (Liberman), Washington, DC; and Division of Pediatric Translational Research and
Treatment Development (Moscicki, Price), Division of Adult Translational Research and Treatment Development (Tuma), National
Institutes of Mental Health, Bethesda, Maryland
Address correspondence and reprint requests to: Robert A. Hahn,
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road, MS
E-69, Atlanta GA 30333. E-mail: rah1@cdc.gov.

Although the legal term “juvenile” is defined differently
among the states, for purposes of this review, a juvenile is
a person aged less than 18 years. One rationale for
facilitating the transfer of juveniles to the adult justice
system is that this may deter juveniles from committing
crimes, because they perceive the adult justice system as
more severe and punitive than the juvenile system. For
purposes of this review, “transfer” refers to placing juveniles under the jurisdiction of the adult criminal justice
system, rather than the juvenile justice system, following
arrest. Transfer is also referred to as “waiver,” denoting
the waiver of authority by the juvenile court that allows for
transfer of a juvenile defendant to an adult criminal court;
juveniles not transferred to the adult court system are
often said to be “retained” in the juvenile system.

Background
Violence by juveniles is a major public health problem
in the United States. Rates of violent crime, including

Am J Prev Med 2007;32(4S)
© 2007 American Journal of Preventive Medicine • Published by Elsevier Inc.

0749-3797/07/$–see front matter
doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2006.12.003

S7

simple and aggravated assault, robbery, and rape, are
greater among people aged 12 to 20 years than in all
age groups except those aged 21 to 29 years, as assessed
in a 2003 national survey of crime victims, the National
Crime Victimization Survey, which is based on victims’
experiences and therefore excludes homicide.1 Although they constitute only about 25% of the population, youth aged less than 18 years have been responsible for committing approximately 30% of all violent
crime (which includes homicide, rape and other sexual
assault, robbery, and simple and aggravated assault)
and 40% of serious violent crime (which excludes
simple assault) in the past 20 years.2 Rates of youth
homicide are higher in the United States than in most
developed countries.3 In a representative national survey in 2002, U.S. adults reported more than 1.87
million incidents of victimization by perpetrators estimated to be between the ages of 12 and 20 years—a rate
of approximately 5.1 incidents of victimization per 100
juveniles in this age group.4,5 Although arrest and
victimization data show declines among juveniles for
violent acts in general following a peak reached in
1993–1994, self-report of offenses continues to indicate
high rates of violence.6
The first juvenile court in the United States was
established in 1899 in Chicago. By 1925, all states
except Maine and Wyoming had separate juvenile
systems.7 In the United States, juvenile and adult criminal law are principally handled at the state level;
consequently, states have diverse mechanisms to allow
juveniles to be transferred to the adult criminal justice
system.2,6,8 Although states have their own juvenile and
adult criminal systems and laws, common trends are
discernible across states.
A separate judicial process for juveniles has been
justified on several grounds related to psychosocial
development in the juvenile population.9 In general,
juveniles differ from adults in their biological development and mental processes and capacities. These differences are cited to justify the recent Supreme Court
decision to ban capital punishment for crimes committed when the offender was aged less than 18 years at the
time the crime was committed.10 First, it has been
argued that juveniles are less aware of consequences,
less responsible, and thus less culpable for their actions.9 For these reasons, juveniles cannot be held as
accountable as adults and should receive different and
more lenient punishment. It has also been argued that
juveniles have less ability than adults to understand and
thus participate in the standard, adult judicial process,
and, therefore also, should be subject to a separate
judicial process. A recent study of juveniles11 (both in
juvenile detention and in the community) indicates
that at less than 16 years of age, juveniles on average
lack the cognitive competence to understand and participate in the judicial process as required by law;
furthermore, they make judgments comparable to
S8

those of adults found incompetent to stand trial. Finally, it has been argued that juveniles are more
malleable and amenable to reform of their behavior,
and thus, the judicial response to their deviant behavior
should, “in the interests of the child,” emphasize reform of the juvenile rather than, or in addition to,
punishment—in contrast to the punitive focus of the
adult criminal system.12 Individual juveniles vary greatly
in their degree of cognitive development and there are
few clear dividing lines by age. Policy regarding the
shift of jurisdiction from juvenile to adult court remains
controversial.
From its inception, the philosophy of the juvenile
court has been “parens patriae,” meaning that the state
acts as a parent for those who cannot take care of
themselves.2,7,13 Transfer of a juvenile from juvenile to
adult court jurisdiction required an individualized determination of lack of amenability to treatment.7,14 This
philosophy was practiced through informal court procedures with weak safeguards for the legal rights of the
juveniles, until a series of Supreme Court cases, beginning in the late 1960s, imposed additional safeguards
already established in adult justice systems.15 Recent
changes in the law, however, extend the juvenile court’s
mission to include protection of the community as well
as the interests of the child.16
Following the increases in violent juvenile crime in
the late 1980s and early 1990s, most states modified
their laws to facilitate the transfer of juveniles to the
adult justice system.2,7 Between 1992 and 1998, all but
three states expanded their transfer provisions to facilitate prosecuting juveniles charged with certain crimes
in the adult criminal court system17–20; this trend has
continued, but slowed, in recent years.21 Bishop17 estimates that 20% to 25% of all juvenile offenders—
210,000 to 260,000 juveniles—were prosecuted as
adults in 1996.
There are six main mechanisms by which youth aged
less than 18 may be tried in the adult criminal justice
system. In “judicial waiver,” the traditional mechanism,
a juvenile court judge may waive a youth to the adult
system, generally based on perceived lack of amenability to treatment, which in turn is often based on
considerations such as age, seriousness of the current
offense, and prior delinquency.21 In “prosecutorial
waiver,” the prosecutor has the discretion to file a case
in the juvenile or the adult criminal court system. In
“statutory exclusion,” youth of particular ages charged
with particular crimes are excluded from juvenile justice system jurisdiction. When particular charges are
excluded by law from juvenile court by statutory means,
discretion also reverts to prosecutors, who decide which
charges are filed.22,23 The increases in transfer due to
the preceding three mechanisms may be amplified by a
policy of “once an adult, always an adult,” whereby
youth once transferred to adult court are also transferred for any future offending.21 With “lowered age of

American Journal of Preventive Medicine, Volume 32, Number 4S

www.ajpm-online.net

adult court jurisdiction,” states set the age at which one
is considered responsible for criminal actions, and no
longer eligible for juvenile court, to an age younger
than the traditional age of 18. Finally, in many states,
juvenile who are married or otherwise “emancipated”
(i.e., released from parental authority) are excluded
from juvenile court. For youth who have not reached
the age of adult court jurisdiction, the adult court often
has the authority to transfer juveniles back to the
juvenile court when cases are deemed inappropriate for
the adult criminal court system. This is generally referred to as “reverse waiver.”
Finally, states are experimenting with “blended sentencing,” which allows a juvenile to be sentenced to
both juvenile and adult sanctions by one court.
Blended sentencing by the juvenile court allows the
court to monitor youth beyond the traditional end of
juvenile jurisdiction.24 This frequently involves juvenile
incarceration until the age of adult court jurisdiction,
followed by adult incarceration. This greater sentencing flexibility may reduce the pressure to transfer court
jurisdiction, but little research has yet been conducted
on how blended sentencing is used in practice.25

Specific Versus General Deterrence
Reductions in violence are hypothesized to occur
through transfer by two means: “specific deterrence”
and “general deterrence.” In specific deterrence, juveniles who have been subject to the adult justice system
are thought to be deterred from committing subsequent offenses. In general deterrence, all youth in the
population who would be subject to transfer provisions
are thought to be deterred from offending by the
perceived severity of sanctions they would face under
the adult criminal justice system. Note that “deterrence” here refers to the behavioral outcome of reduced initial or subsequent offending and not to
decision making processes which may accompany such
outcomes. In addition, if juveniles in adult detention
settings serve longer sentences than they would serve in
juvenile settings, then strengthened transfer policies
may also reduce the violence of transferred juveniles
(i.e., violence outside of the prison setting) by increasing incapacitation, the inability of convicts to commit
crime against the public during incarceration. Incapacitation as a deterrent, however, depends on the assumption that longer sentences would be given in adult
courts compared with juvenile courts.
Research on the effectiveness of specific deterrence
and general deterrence requires different study designs
and effect measures. In specific deterrence research,
outcome measures are derived from comparing the
recidivism of those youth who have experienced the
adult criminal justice system with the recidivism of
youth retained in juvenile court. In general deterrence
research, the outcome measures are rates of offense in
April 2007

the intervention population, such as the number of
juveniles per 100,000 arrested for violent crimes. Comparison groups for general deterrence must necessarily
be drawn from another place, from a time before
enactment of the policy, or from a different age group
among whom the transfer laws are weaker or absent.
Researchers strive for comparison groups unaffected by
the law but who are otherwise as similar as possible and
similarly affected by many of the other social forces
influencing offending.
In our assessment of general deterrence, studies
comparing rates of violence before and after implementation of a strengthened transfer policy without
concurrent comparison groups (e.g., Risler et al.26) are
not included. Juvenile offending rates change over time
for many reasons, as evidenced by the dramatic rise and
then decline in crime in general, and in juvenile
violence in particular during the late 1980s and early
1990s.27,28 Thus, we considered the use of comparison
groups unaffected by the law to be a critical design
feature in evaluating the general deterrent effect on
crime of this particular law. Without such concurrent
comparison groups, any law enacted during a period of
decline in crime would seem to have a deterrent effect,
as indicated by simple before-and-after differences in
rates of offending.
This review focused on violent outcomes, as measured by rates of arrest; one study assessed violent crime
convictions. Some studies report violent and nonviolent
offending arrests together and do not distinguish violent from other offending. For the purposes of this
review, such studies are included, but this broader
focus is considered a limitation (see Assessing Study
Design and Execution section).

The Guide to Community Preventive Services
The systematic reviews in this report represent the work
of the independent, nonfederal Task Force on Community Preventive Services, which is developing the
Community Guide to Preventive Services (Community Guide)
with the support of the U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services in collaboration with public and private partners. The Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention (CDC) provides staff support to the Task
Force for development of the Community Guide. More
information about the Community Guide and the Task
Force can be found at www.thecommunityguide.org
and in previous publications.29,30

Healthy People 2010 Goals and Objectives
Using interventions that are effective in reducing violence may help to reach several objectives specified in
Healthy People 2010,31 the disease prevention and health
promotion agenda for the United States. These objectives identify some of the significant preventable threats
to health and focus the efforts of public health systems,
Am J Prev Med 2007;32(4S)

S9

Table 1. Selected Healthy People 2010 objectives related to violence prevention
Objective
Injury prevention
Reduce firearm-related deaths
(Objective 15-3)
Reduce nonfatal firearmrelated injuries (15-5)
Extend state-level child fatality
review of deaths due to
external causes for children
aged Ͻ14 years (15-6)
Violence and Abuse Prevention
Reduce homicides (15-32)
Reduce the rate of physical
assault by current or former
intimate partners (15-34)
Reduce the annual rate of
rape or attempted rape (1535)
Reduce sexual assault other
than rape (15-36)
Reduce physical assaults (1537)
Reduce physical fighting
among adolescents (15-38)
Reduce weapon carrying by
adolescents on school
property (15-39)
a

Population
All people
All people
Children aged Ͻ14
years

Baseline (year)
11.3 deaths/100,000 people
(1998)a
24.0 injuries/100,000 people
(1997)
Developmental

2010 objective
4.1 deaths/100,000 people
8.6 injuries/100,000 people

6.5 deaths/100,000 people
(1998)a
4.4 assaults/1000 people (1998)

3.0 deaths/100,000 people

Persons aged Ͼ12
years

0.8 rapes or attempted rapes/
1000 people (1998)

0.7 rapes or attempted
rapes/1000 people

Persons aged Ͼ12
years
Persons aged Ͼ12
years
Adolescents in grades
9–12
Adolescents in grades
9–12

0.6 sexual assaults other than
rape/1000 people (1998)
31.1 physical assaults/1000
people (1998)
36% engaged in physical fighting
in past 12 months (1999)
6.9% carried weapon on school
property in past 30 days

0.4 sexual assaults other than
rape/1000 people
13.6 physical assaults/1000
people
32% engage in physical
fighting
4.9% carry weapon on school
property

All people
Persons aged Ͼ12
years

3.3 assaults/1000 people

Age adjusted to the year 2000 standard population.

legislators, and law enforcement officials for addressing
those threats. Many of the proposed Healthy People
objectives in Chapter 15, “Injury and Violence Prevention,” related to this intervention and relevant to juvenile transfer are shown in Table 1.

Methods
General Community Guide methods for systematic reviews have
been discussed in detail elsewhere.32 This section briefly
describes the specific methods used in this review.
In Community Guide systematic reviews, evidence is summarized about the effectiveness of interventions in changing one
or more outcomes (here, violence), as well as other positive
or negative effects of the intervention. If an intervention is
found to be effective, then available evidence is also summarized regarding the applicability of the findings (i.e., the
extent to which available data indicate that the intervention
might be effective in diverse populations and settings), economic impact, and barriers to the implementation of interventions. If an intervention is found to result in harm,
available evidence may also be summarized regarding the
applicability of the finding of harm (i.e., the extent to which
available data indicate that the intervention might or might
not be harmful to specific populations and settings), and any
applicable barriers to reducing the harms or substituting
other choices that are more effective or less harmful. Economic impact is not considered for interventions found to be
harmful or if effectiveness is not established, unless the
intervention is widespread and economic analysis may illuminate its ongoing consequences.

S10

As with other Community Guide reviews, the process used
to systematically review evidence and then translate that
evidence into conclusions involved forming a systematic
review development team; developing a conceptual approach to organizing, grouping, and selecting interventions; selecting interventions to evaluate; searching for and
retrieving evidence; assessing the quality of and abstracting
information from each study; assessing the quality of and
drawing conclusions about the body of evidence of effectiveness; and translating the evidence of effectiveness into
recommendations.

Systematic Review Development Team
Three groups of individuals served on the systematic review
development team: the coordination team, the abstraction
team, and the consultation team. The coordination team—
consisting of a Task Force member, methodology experts in
systematic reviews and economics from the Community
Guide Branch of the CDC’s National Center for Health
Marketing, and experts on violence from the CDC’s National
Center for Injury Prevention and Control, the National
Institutes of Health, and the National Institute of Justice—
drafted the conceptual frameworks for the reviews, coordinated the data collection and review process, and drafted
evidence tables, summaries of the evidence and the reports.
The abstraction team collected and recorded data from
studies for inclusion in the systematic reviews. The consultation team, comprised of national experts on violence-related
topics, was involved in the initial selection of interventions to
be reviewed, provided ongoing advice by request, and reviewed the final product.

American Journal of Preventive Medicine, Volume 32, Number 4S

www.ajpm-online.net

Search for Evidence
Electronic searches for published research were conducted in
databases from the National Criminal Justice Reference Service, Education Resources Information Center, PsycINFO,
Wilson Social Sciences Abstracts, Social SciSearch, National
Technical Information Service, Medline, and Lexis/Nexis.
Search terms used included “juvenile transfer” and its synonyms, as well as “efficacy” and “recidivism.” Additionally,
references listed in retrieved articles were evaluated and,
where relevant, obtained and abstracted. Consultations with
experts were held to find additional published reports of
studies. Finally, the review team conducted Internet searches
to seek additional studies not found through these traditional
search methods. Journal articles, governmental reports,
books, and book chapters were eligible for inclusion.
Articles published before February 2003 became candidates for inclusion in the systematic review if they evaluated
the specified policy or law, assessed a transfer-related violent
outcome (i.e., arrest, conviction, or re-arrest), were conducted in a high-income country,a reported on a primary
study rather than, for example, a guideline or review, and
compared a group of people exposed to the intervention
(i.e., law or policy) with a comparison group not exposed or
less exposed to the intervention. Studies that provided relevant data for review were examined, even if the authors’
research goals differed from those of the review. While
searching for evidence, the team also sought information
about effects of transfer on outcomes not related to violence,
such as reductions in property crime and overrepresentation
of minorities among transferred juveniles.
Multiple articles were treated as a single study if they
reported on the same transfer policy applied to the same
population in the same time period. Conversely, one article
was treated as multiple studies if it reported separately on
multiple transfer policies, multiple populations, or time periods that did not overlap. If separate research teams assessed
the same policy in the same population and time frame, the
study that received a better rating by Community Guide design
and execution criteria was chosen to represent this effect.

Assessing Study Design and Execution
Each study that met Community Guide criteria for a candidate
study was read and rated by the abstraction team. Disagreements among the abstractors were presented to the coordination team for reconciliation, and all candidate studies were
presented for discussion by the coordination team. Standard
Community Guide criteria were used to assess the study design
and execution. Only data from qualifying studies (for this
review, those with greatest or moderate design suitability,
a

High-income countries as designated by the World Bank are Andorra, Antigua and Barbuda, Aruba, Australia, Austria, The Bahamas,
Bahrain, Barbados, Belgium, Bermuda, Brunei, Canada, Cayman
Islands, Channel Islands, Cyprus, Denmark, Faeroe Islands, Finland,
France, French Polynesia, Germany, Greece, Greenland, Guam,
Hong Kong (China), Iceland, Ireland, Isle of Man, Israel, Italy, Japan,
Republic of Korea, Kuwait, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Macao
(China), Malta, Monaco, Netherlands, Netherlands Antilles, New
Caledonia, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Puerto Rico, Qatar, San
Marino, Singapore, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Taiwan
(China), United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United States, and
Virgin Islands (U.S.).

April 2007

comparison population, and good or fair execution) were
used to determine the effectiveness of the reviewed
intervention.
Design suitability was assessed for each candidate study.
Our system may result in classification of study design differing from that of study authors. According to Community Guide
criteria, “greatest design suitability” refers to studies with a
concurrent comparison group and prospective data collection, “moderate design suitability” refers both to retrospective
studies and studies with multiple pre- or post-intervention
measurements but no concurrent comparison group, “least
suitable design” refers to cross-sectional studies or studies
with only single pre- and post-intervention measurements and
without concurrent comparison groups.
The review team assessed limitations in execution for the
purposes of our review, and may differ from an assessment of
limitations for the study’s original purposes. Following Community Guide methods, the execution of candidate studies was
assessed and coded for each of nine specific limitations.
Limitations may be assigned for the study’s failure to describe
the study population and intervention (1 limitation), failure
to describe sampling (1 limitation), failure to measure exposures or outcomes effectively (1 limitation each), failure to
demonstrate effective follow-up (1 limitation), failure to use
appropriate analytic methods (1 limitation), failure to control
for either confounding or other bias (1 limitation each), or
for some other problem in study execution (1 limitation). All
limitations are counted equally. The Community Guide uses
good execution to refer to studies with 0 to 1 limitations, fair
execution to refer to studies with 2 to 4 limitations, and
limited execution to refer to studies with Ն5 limitations. We
did not assign a limitation for failure to provide demographic
details for studies of general deterrence comparing states or
cities since this information is readily available from other
sources.

Outcome Measures and Effect Size Calculation
and Summary
Unless otherwise noted, results of each study are given as
point estimates for the relative change in the violent crime
rates attributable to the interventions. The team calculated
baselines and percent changes using the following formulas
for relative change.
For studies with before-and-after measurements and concurrent comparison groups,

͑Ipost ⁄ Ipre͒ ⁄ ͑Cpost ⁄ Cpre͒ Ϫ 1

(1)

where:
Ipost ϭ last reported outcome rate in the intervention group
after the intervention;
Ipre ϭ reported outcome rate in the intervention group
before the intervention;
Cpost ϭ last reported outcome rate in the comparison group
after the intervention;
Cpre ϭ reported outcome rate in the comparison group
before the intervention.
In specific deterrence studies, intervention groups were
defined as juveniles experiencing transfer to the adult justice
system, and control groups as juveniles retained in the
juvenile system. In general deterrence studies, intervention

Am J Prev Med 2007;32(4S)

S11

groups were defined as populations (e.g., in states or cities)
exposed to a changed transfer policy, and control groups as
populations not exposed to such a change.
For studies with post-intervention measurements only and
concurrent comparison groups,

͑Ipost Ϫ Cpost͒ ⁄ Cpost

(2)

If modeled results were reported from logistic regression,
odds ratios were adjusted33,34 for comparability to relative
rate changes estimated from other studies:
RR ϭ OR ⁄ ͓͑1 Ϫ P0͔ ϩ ͓P0 ϫ OR͔͒ ,

(3)

where:
RR ϭ relative risk;
OR ϭ odds ratio to be converted;
P0 ϭ incidence of the outcome of interest in the unexposed
population (i.e., juveniles retained in the juvenile justice
system).
In the case of specific deterrence studies, a positive value
for the effect measures calculated using one of these formulas
indicates that there is a greater rate of violence among
transferred than among comparison (retained) juveniles. In
the case of general deterrence studies, a positive value
indicates a greater rate of violence in the population subject
to the strengthened transfer law than in the comparison
population.
In the reporting of study findings, the standard two-tailed p
value Յ0.05 was used as a measure of statistical significance.
When available, effect measures that were adjusted for potential confounders through multivariate analysis were preferred
over crude effect measures. Follow-up periods of Ͻ1 year
were considered a limitation. If effect measures reported by
the authors could not be converted into percentage changes
(e.g., results were presented only in graphical form, without
statistics or numerical assessments), the reported findings are
described in the text.
Using Community Guide methods described elsewhere,32 the
team then combined the individual studies reviewed into a
single body of evidence and summarized its strength on the
basis of the number of qualifying studies, the strength of their
design and execution, and the size and consistency of effects.
For evidence to be considered sufficient to merit recommendation of the intervention, the magnitude of the effect must
be deemed of public health importance. Statistical significance is generally considered only when there is only one
qualifying study. A single study of greatest design suitability
and good execution can provide sufficient evidence, if the
effect is statistically significant (pϽ0.05). Three studies of
moderate design suitability and fair execution can provide
sufficient evidence of effectiveness if findings are consistent
in direction and size. Results that are deemed sufficient to
draw a conclusion are summarized both graphically and
statistically.

Reviews of Evidence
Results of studies on specific and general deterrence are
presented separately because they examine different populations and use different methods.

S12

Results, Part I
Specific Deterrence Effects
Our search identified six studies14,35– 40 that examined
the effects of juvenile transfer on subsequent violent
offenses by those juveniles who have been transferred.
Descriptive information about design suitability, limitations of execution, and outcomes evaluated in these
studies is provided in Appendix A. More detailed
descriptions and evaluations of these studies are provided at the website, www.thecommunityguide.org. All
six studies that evaluated specific deterrence were of
greatest design suitability and good execution. Follow-up times for evaluating risk for re-offending ranged
from 18 months14 to 6 years.40
A major methodologic concern in studies of specific
deterrence is selection bias—transfer to adult criminal
court is generally intended for youth who are more
serious offenders than youth who are retained in the
juvenile court system, although this may not occur in
practice.41 To the extent that those transferred are
more serious offenders, transferred youth would be
expected to have greater risk of subsequent violence,
independent of any effect of their experience with the
adult criminal system. Most studies of the specific
deterrent effect of transfer have been conducted in
single jurisdictions, thus making it difficult to find
control populations, since all juveniles are subject to
the same law or policy. To control for possible selection
bias, study authors generally restrict the cases considered for inclusion in the study to serious crimes among
those eligible for transfer, and then compare the
violent outcomes of juveniles in cases actually transferred with those in cases retained in the juvenile
system. Statistical controls for factors that may play a
role in transfer decisions (e.g., criminal history) may
also be used to further control selection bias.14,42 Two
studies conducted in single jurisdictions go to greater
lengths to control selection bias, by limiting comparisons to pairs of cases that are matched on critical case
variables.37,40
To date, one published study has used a different
approach to control for selection bias. Rather than
compare similar cases within a jurisdiction, Fagan36,43
compared recidivism between similar juvenile cases in
two adjacent jurisdictions (i.e., regions within bordering states) with different transfer provisions. In contrast
to studies within jurisdictions, in which a judge may
transfer more serious juveniles while retaining the less
serious ones, this design eliminates any decision maker
from selecting cases for the adult versus the juvenile
justice system, but makes the selection of jurisdictions
comparable in background characteristics and potential confounders a critical task. The threat to this design
is that arrest criteria as interpreted by law enforcement
officials in different jurisdictions may differ. Fagan

American Journal of Preventive Medicine, Volume 32, Number 4S

www.ajpm-online.net

compares criteria across jurisdictions to assess this
problem.
An additional methodologic concern was the possibility of ascertainment bias (i.e., that juveniles who had
initially committed more serious crimes and thus were
subject to the adult judicial system, would also be more
intensely monitored for subsequent criminal behavior
and more likely to be re-arrested, regardless of intervening judicial process). However, this seems implausible in the large urban jurisdictions in which most of this
research has been conducted, where most law enforcement officials would be unlikely to have knowledge of a
youth’s court experience when making an arrest.

Effectiveness
In a prospective cohort study, Fagan43 examined the
re-arrest of 15- to 16-year-old youth who were initially
arrested in 1981–1982 for robbery or burglary (which is
not regarded as violent), in the New York City Metropolitan Area (including the highly urbanized northern
counties of New Jersey). He compared re-arrest of these
youth in similar counties in New York and neighboring
New Jersey.b In New York, the age of adult court
jurisdiction is 16 years, and under the 1978 Juvenile
Offender Law, 15-year-olds are legislatively excluded
from trial in juvenile court for 15 felonies, including
first- and second-degree robbery and burglary. In New
Jersey, 18 years is the age of adult court jurisdiction and
there is no legislative exclusion. The age of adult court
jurisdiction is the age at which the state holds a person
legally responsible for behavior, including criminal
behavior. Thus, Fagan’s intervention (New York) sample of arrested juveniles was transferred to adult court,
while the comparison (New Jersey) sample was retained
in juvenile court. Fagan followed the 1981–1982 arrest
cohorts through June 1989. The minimum time “at
risk” (while not incarcerated) for committing new
crimes in the community was 2 years.36
To estimate recidivism, Fagan36 used competing hazard models, which control for time at risk. He included
age, time from arrest to disposition (i.e., judicial decision), and sentence length as covariates, and explored
the interaction of transfer with sentence length. If their
sentences did not include time in prison, Fagan found
that transferred juveniles were 39% more likely than
retained juveniles to be re-arrested on a violent offense.
This effect (greater violent recidivism among transferred juveniles) was magnified for sentences that included incarceration.36 For example, among transferred juveniles receiving prison sentences of a year,
there was a 100% greater rate of violent recidivism,
b

Fagan43 matched counties on key crime and socioeconomic indicators including crime and criminal justice, demographic, socioeconomic, labor force, and housing characteristics (differing by Ͻ10%).
The counties selected were Queens and Kings (Brooklyn) in New
York, and Essex (Newark) and Hudson (Jersey City) in New Jersey.

April 2007

compared with those retained. The majority of those
arrested and tried in both adult and juvenile courts
received sentences not requiring incarceration, such as
probation, restitution, or suspended sentences.36
A team of researchers evaluated Florida’s juvenile
transfer laws in separate studies of two different cohorts.37,40 The first study compared the overall re-arrest
rates of juveniles who were initially arrested in 1987 and
then either transferred or retained.40,41 Each youth
transferred to adult court was matched to a youth
retained in the juvenile court on six factors (most
serious offense, number of counts, number of prior
referrals to the juvenile system, most serious prior
offense, age, and gender) and, when possible, on race
as well.
An early follow-up report from this first study examined re-arrest through the end of 1988. When controlled for time available to commit further crime
following release, the estimated re-arrest rate per year
of exposure was 54% for transferred youth compared
with 32% for retained youth.41 In a later report,40 the
same youth were followed through November 15, 1994
to determine re-arrest rates. Overall, although transferred youth were re-arrested sooner, the two groups
were re-arrested at similar rates (42% for transferred
juveniles vs 43% for retained juveniles).
However, results differed for juveniles who were
initially arrested for misdemeanors versus those initially
arrested for felony offenses. Among those initially arrested for misdemeanors (22.6% of the sample), rearrest rates were higher for transferred than for retained youth. In contrast, among those initially arrested
for felonies (77.4% of the sample), and specifically
among those initially arrested for property felonies
(32.8% of the sample), re-arrest rates were somewhat
lower for transferred than for retained youth. The
numbers in these reported results, however, were not
easily converted to the effect estimates we generally
report (i.e., relative change). Winner et al.40 confirmed
these results by logistic regression, which controlled for
age, gender, and criminal history. Survival analyses,
which assess the relative rates of outcome (in this
instance re-arrest for any crime) over time in intervention and control populations, found a significant effect
among misdemeanants, who were re-arrested earlier
when transferred than when retained, but this effect
was not statistically significant among felons. Overall,
the results of this study were inconsistent, indicating
increased recidivism over the short term among transferred juveniles, but over the longer term, reduced
recidivism for some transferred juveniles and increased
recidivism for others.
The second study of juvenile transfer to adult justice
systems in Florida37 essentially replicated the design in
the previous study, following implementation in 1990
and 1994 of juvenile laws that increased the breadth of
prosecutorial waiver. This study followed youth arrested
Am J Prev Med 2007;32(4S)

S13

in 1995–1996 and matched pairs of transferred and
retained youth on the same factors as those matched in
the earlier study, with the addition of race. Additional
factors (e.g., weapon use) were also used to create a
“seriousness” index. A subset of “best-matched pairs”
was identified, in which each transferred juvenile was
matched with a retained juvenile with at least as high a
seriousness score (rather than an equivalent score).
Because it is possible that retained subjects in comparison pairs might have higher seriousness scores, this
criterion may bias the analysis against finding increased
recidivism among transferred youth. The outcome
compared was felony re-arrest, including nonviolent as
well as violent felonies. In this study, the recidivism
examined was restricted to felony offenses committed
after age 18, on the grounds that this would ensure
equivalent records of subsequent offending. Among
the best-matched pairs, transferred youth showed 34%
more recidivism than retained youth.
Another study38,42 measured the effects of transfer in
Hennepin County, Minnesota. All cases in which the
prosecutor filed a motion to transfer a juvenile between
1986 and 1992 were examined. Among juveniles assessed, 60% were transferred. Recidivism rates for
youth who were transferred to the adult system were
then compared with rates for those who were retained
in the juvenile justice system. In this study, recidivism
was measured by conviction or by adjudication, its
equivalent in the juvenile justice system. Youth were
considered “at risk” for a new crime, arrest, and conviction, and followed for at least 2 years while in the
community (i.e., not incarcerated).
One of the authors of this study (Podkopacz)42
reported the results of logistic regression analyses of
the effects of transfer on subsequent conviction for
violent and nonviolent crimes combined. The analyses
controlled for potential confounders including gender,
criminal history, and whether the case resulted in
incarceration. In their report38 on subsequent conviction for violence alone (i.e., separated from more
general crime), the researchers did not control for
confounding. Given the potential for bias associated
with the transfer of more serious offenders, the review
team regarded controlling for confounding by the
seriousness of initial crime as more critical than specific
violent outcomes, for which controlled results were not
available. The logistic regression analyses showed transfer associated with a 26.5% increased likelihood of
further crime (ORϭ1.93 [b ϭ 0.66], P0 ϭ 0.565).
Myers14 studied males aged 15 to 18 years arrested in
Pennsylvania in 1994 for robbery, aggravated assault, or
both, involving use of a deadly weapon. Subsequent
arrests for violent crime through 1997 were examined,
comparing transferred juveniles to those retained in
the juvenile court system. Before 1996, transfer was
largely a matter of judicial discretion; however, under
1996 juvenile justice statutes, these cases would have
S14

been legislatively excluded from juvenile courts. By
using a cohort of juveniles arrested before the statutory
change, Myers14 attempted to anticipate the effects of
the new transfer provisions before their implementation. Multivariate analyses controlled for race, urbanicity, home and school settings, and prior offense history,
including age at first arrest. Over a mean period of
approximately 18 months, the estimated probability of
arrest for a subsequent violent felony was 13% for
retained juveniles and 23% for transferred juveniles.
Thus, transfer was associated with a 77% greater likelihood of post-dispositional violent felony arrest.
Finally, like Myers, Barnoski35 studied the effect of
Washington State’s 1994 Violence Reduction Act by
examining the effects of discretionary transfers prior to
implementation of the new law. The 1994 act legislatively excluded from original jurisdiction in juvenile
court those 16- and 17-year-olds charged with any of
nine “serious violent felonies” or those with specified
offending histories. Barnoski35 compared recidivism
rates for transferred versus retained youth arrested on
these same felonies in the 2 years before enactment of
the 1994 act, when transfer was discretionary. Controlling for offenses charged in the case, prior record of
offenses, gender, and ethnicity, no difference in recidivism was found between transferred and retained
juveniles (11% of both retained and transferred juveniles were arrested for a subsequent violent felony
within 18 months of release from prison; effect size was
0.00). Barnoski35 also examined juveniles transferred
after passage of the 1994 law. However, these data are
not reviewed here, because follow-up time for the
post-law cohort was short and data were available for
only a small proportion of the population.
In summary, only one of the reviewed studies showed
any evidence that transfer of juveniles to the adult
justice system deterred either violent or other reoffending. Winner40 found that transfer of juveniles
initially arrested for property crimes was associated with
a decrease in recidivism compared with juveniles initially arrested for similar crimes and retained in the
juvenile system. In this study, among juveniles initially
arrested for crimes other than property crimes, greater
recidivism was found among those transferred than
among those retained. One reviewed study35 found no
effect. The remaining four studies14,36,37,39,42,43 all
found a harmful effect, in which transferred juveniles
committed more subsequent violent and total crime
than retained juveniles. Overall, among studies for
which a single effect can be calculated, effect sizes
ranged from 0.00 to 0.77 with a median effect size of
0.337 (Figure 1). This positive effect size indicates that
the weight of evidence shows greater rates of violence
among transferred than among retained juveniles;
transferred juveniles were approximately 33.7% more
likely to be re-arrested for a violent or other crime than
were juveniles retained in the juvenile justice system.

American Journal of Preventive Medicine, Volume 32, Number 4S

www.ajpm-online.net

Figure 1. Effects of transfer on re-arrests of transferred juveniles. (Results of study by Winner et al. (1997) were not presented
here because of complex effect modification by initial offense and other status characteristics.)

These studies used different strategies to control
for selection bias. One study used a cross-jurisdiction
design to control for selection bias.43 Among the
studies conducted within single jurisdictions, two
used carefully matched pairs to control for selection
bias,37,40 and three relied on the strategy of multivariate statistical controls.14,35,39 If selection bias had
been a major confounding factor in these results,
effect sizes adjusted for confounders should be
smaller than crude effect sizes. However, in a study
that assessed this matter by providing bivariate and
multivariate analyses,14 the effect adjusted for confounders was greater than the unadjusted effect,
indicating that, if selection bias was present, it was
less influential than confounders acting in a contrary
direction. Finally, the level of consistency in results
across diverse design strategies provides assurance
that the findings are not primarily due to characteristics of study design.

Conclusion
On the basis of strong evidence that juveniles transferred to the adult justice system have greater rates of
subsequent violence than juveniles retained in the
April 2007

juvenile justice system, the Task Force on Community
Preventive Services concludes that strengthened transfer policies are harmful for those juveniles who experience transfer. Transferring juveniles to the adult justice
system is counterproductive as a strategy for deterring
subsequent violence.

Results, Part II
General Deterrence
Three studies35,44 – 46 met our inclusion criteria for an
assessment of the general deterrence effect of transfer
laws or policies; all evaluated the effects of changes to a
state’s transfer laws. We also reviewed the tangential
evidence from a study47 that examined the effect of the
transition to the age of adult court jurisdiction on rates
of juvenile offending, as measured by offending rates in
the general juvenile population within that state. Descriptive information about design suitability, limitations of execution, and outcomes evaluated in these
studies is provided in Appendix B. More detailed
descriptions of the studies included in this review, and
how they were evaluated, are provided at the Community
Guide website, www.thecommunityguide.com.
Am J Prev Med 2007;32(4S)

S15

Three studies35,44 – 46 that met our inclusion criteria
evaluated the effects of state transfer laws on violent
outcomes among the general juvenile population. All
were of greatest design suitability and fair execution.
We did not compute effect sizes for these studies
because the necessary data were not provided.

Effectiveness
As noted above, Washington State’s 1994 Violence
Reduction Act legislatively excluded from initial jurisdiction in juvenile court all 16- and 17-year-olds
charged with specified violent felonies or criminal
histories. A 1997 amendment expanded the original list
of offenses and combinations of offending histories
that would exclude 16- and 17-year-olds from jurisdiction in juvenile court. Barnoski35 examined the effect
on state arrests for violent crime from 1989 to 2000
among 10- to 17-year-olds. Results, presented only
graphically in the report, clearly showed that violent
offenses peaked in 1994 and then declined. Barnoski35
used national juvenile offending trends as a comparison. Without this, one might have concluded that the
1994 law deterred juvenile violence; the Washington
trend, however, clearly parallels the national trend in
arrests for violent crime, which also peaked in 1994 and
subsequently declined.2 Therefore, Barnoski35 concludes that “we cannot attribute the decrease in juvenile arrests for violent crimes in Washington State solely
to the automatic transfer statutes.”
Jensen and Metsger44 examined the deterrent effect
of a 1981 Idaho law mandating automatic transfer to
the adult criminal justice system of 14- to 18-year-olds
charged with any of five violent crimes. Statewide
juvenile violent crime arrest rates for the population
aged less than 18 years were averaged for the previous
5 years (1976 –1980) and for the 5 years following the
legislative change (1982–1986). Changes in the number of arrests of 14- to 18-year-olds for violent offenses
in Idaho were compared with those in Wyoming and
Montana over the same periods. In Idaho, average
arrest rates actually increased from the period before to
the period after the legislation, while rates decreased in
the comparison states. Thus, the new transfer law was
associated with subsequent increases in violence in
Idaho. Jensen and Metsger44 conducted a second analysis of trends of juvenile violent crime in Idaho, controlling for potential confounders, but without comparing the trends in Idaho to trends in a population
without comparable laws. For reasons noted above (i.e.,
the absence of a concurrent control population), we
did not include findings from this second analysis and
used the interstate comparison instead.
As described in our review of specific deterrence,
New York’s 1978 Juvenile Offender Law excluded from
initial jurisdiction of the juvenile court 13- to 15-yearolds arrested on several specified felonies. Singer and
S16

McDowall45 used interrupted time series methods to
examine monthly arrest rates for 13- to 15-year-olds on
four violent crimes— homicide, assault, robbery, and
rape— between 1974 and 1984 (spanning the change in
law). Arson was also examined in the study, but is not
classified as a violent crime and is thus not included in
our analysis.
In this study, New York City (NYC) was analyzed
separately from the rest of the state. For NYC, two
comparison populations were examined, neither of
which was subject to the changes in transfer legislation.
Study authors first compared arrest data for 13- to
15-year-old offenders with data for 16- to 19-year-old
offenders in NYC. (Because 16 years is the age of adult
court jurisdiction in New York, the older offenders were
already too old for the juvenile justice system and, thus,
unaffected by the Juvenile Offender Law.) The second
comparison was of arrest data for 13- to 15-year-old NYC
youth to data for Philadelphia youth in the same age
range.
Using arrest data from the two comparison groups
makes alternative explanations for changes in arrest
rates in the intervention group less likely. Conceptually,
if changes in arrest rates for the intervention group (13to 15-year-olds in NYC) were paralleled by similar
outcomes for either comparison group, this would
suggest that something other than the intervention
caused the change. Only changes in the intervention
group not paralleled in either comparison group could
plausibly be attributable to the change in law.
However, no consistent pattern of results was found
across offenses. Only for rape was a statistically significant decrease shown for the intervention group. The
NYC comparison group (16- to 19-year-olds), however,
showed a larger decrease in rape, which was also
statistically significant. The decline was considerably
smaller in the Philadelphia comparison group, suggesting a local confounding effect, not attributable to the
change in transfer, in NYC.
In the analysis for upstate New York, Singer and
McDowall45 used 16- to 19-year-olds in the region as the
comparison group. For 13- to 15-year-olds (the intervention group), none of the violent crimes examined
declined significantly, while assault increased significantly. Similar trends were found for the comparison
group. In sum, Singer and McDowall45 found no consistent pattern of evidence to suggest a general deterrence effect of the strengthened New York transfer law.
Finally, we reviewed a study47 that assessed the general deterrent effect of reaching the age of adult court
jurisdiction in various states. Levitt47 assumed that if a
state’s adult criminal system were relatively more punitive than its juvenile system, juveniles would be deterred
from committing crimes when they reached the age of
adult court jurisdiction. Levitt47 did not directly examine the effects of transfer laws or changes in transfer
laws. He examined the effect of the transition to the age

American Journal of Preventive Medicine, Volume 32, Number 4S

www.ajpm-online.net

of adult court jurisdiction on year-to-year changes in
arrest rates, as a function of the relative punitiveness of
the adult versus juvenile system in each state. To gauge
relative punitiveness, Levitt47 used the ratio of people
incarcerated in each system—juvenile and adult—relative to age-specific offending rates; offending rates were
measured as the proportion of reported crimes for
which a suspect is arrested.
Levitt47 analyzed seven age-specific offending rates
(for ages 15 through 21) in a regression model that also
controlled for state demographic factors. He found that
the effect of the age of adult court jurisdiction was
conditional on the relative punitiveness of the juvenile
and adult/criminal systems. In states with especially
punitive criminal versus juvenile justice systems, the age
of adult court jurisdiction was associated with a relative
decrease (or slower increase) in offending between
years preceding transition to the age of majority and
the transition to the age of adult court jurisdiction.
However, in less-punitive states and at the average level
of punitiveness across all states in the study (as calculated by the review team), transition to the age of adult
court jurisdiction was actually associated with an increase in violence.c Levitt47 speculated that this apparently counterdeterrent effect of the age of adult court
jurisdiction “may be driven by the fact that a large
fraction of juveniles are released from custody just prior
to attainment of the age of adult court jurisdiction” and
may therefore be able to commit additional crimes.
Levitt’s47 complex results have mixed implications
for the possible deterrent effects of transfer laws and
policies. Results for the most punitive states show a
deterrent effect of the age of adult court jurisdiction,
while the results for most states seem to show a counterdeterrent effect. While Levitt47 speculated about a
confounding effect that may account for the latter
result, the empirical results regarding the actual deterrent effect remain ambiguous.

Conclusion
According to Community Guide rules of evidence, there
is insufficient evidence to conclude whether laws or
policies facilitating the transfer of juveniles to the adult
criminal justice system are effective in preventing or
reducing violence in the general juvenile population.
While the number and quality of studies are sufficient,
their findings are inconsistent. One study of general
deterrence reports no apparent effect,35 one reports
mixed effects,39 and one reports a counterdeterrent
effect.44 A study examining the effect of transition to
the age of adult court jurisdiction suggests the possibilc

The relevant equations are shown in Levitt,47 table 5. Model 3 gives
the change in violent offending at adulthood as follows: (– 0.121 ϫ
relative punitiveness) ϩ 0.241 ϭ (– 0.121 ϫ 1.42) ϩ 0.241 ϭ 0.069.
The mean relative punitiveness in Levitt47 is 1.42 (p. 1178).

April 2007

ity of general deterrence, but provides ambiguous
evidence of whether, on average, reaching the age of
adult court jurisdiction deters or increases violence
among potential offenders.d

Additional Issues Regarding Strengthened
Transfer Laws and Policies
The remainder of this review addresses conclusions
pertaining to both specific and general deterrence.
Applicability. The studies reviewed here assessed specific deterrence in Washington State, Pennsylvania, and
regions of New York, Minnesota, and Florida. Studies of
general deterrence included Washington state, regions
of New York, and Idaho; Levitt’s47 study included
information from multiple states. These states are geographically and demographically diverse, suggesting
broader applicability of the findings reported here.
Other positive or negative effects. Five additional outcomes that may be associated with the transfer of
juveniles to the adult judicial system are worthy of
mention, although they are not systematically reviewed
here. First, youth under court jurisdiction may be
released from custody before disposition of their case,
even if arrested for serious violent crimes. Rates of
release may be associated with subsequent transfer. For
example, in 1990 –1994, among youth charged with
violent offenses in the nation’s largest 75 counties, 44%
of youth subsequently transferred were released before
disposition, whereas 57% of retained youth were released before disposition.48 However, the cases may not
be of comparable seriousness. Increased release rates,
in turn, could allow youth to commit additional offenses, including violent offenses, before their cases
reach disposition.
Second, transfer may also be associated with the
victimization of juvenile offenders themselves during
incarceration. Evidence on this topic from the studies
reviewed is mixed. One study of four cities between
1981 and 1984 reported rates of victimization of 37% in
juvenile training schools (i.e., residential schools where
delinquents receive vocational training), compared
with 46% for those in adult prison.49 Rates of inmate
suicide among detained juveniles may also differ between those in juvenile and adult judicial institutions,
although there are few good estimates. Memory50 estimated 1978 suicide rates as 2041 per 100,000 for youth
d

As this review was going to press, a new article was published on the
general deterrent effects of increased legislative exclusion.43 Although we did not formally include it in our review because it was
outside our publication date cutoffs, it is one of the stronger studies
to date regarding the general deterrence effect of increasing transfer.
The study used time series methods, similar to those used by Singer
and McDowall (1988),45 to examine the effects of increased statutory
exclusion in 22 states between 1979 and 2003. Of the 22 states, only
one showed a general deterrence effect, leading the authors to
conclude that transfer laws do not promote the general deterrence of
violent crime.

Am J Prev Med 2007;32(4S)

S17

in adult detention facilities, 57 per 100,000 for those in
juvenile detention centers, and 12.4 per 100,000 for all
those aged 12 to 24 years in the U.S. population. On the
other hand, more recent analyses of suicides in juvenile
correctional facilities suggest that suicide rates for
incarcerated juveniles are similar to rates for juveniles
in the general population.51
Third, incarcerated violent juveniles are “incapacitated” (i.e., prevented from committing subsequent
violent acts in the community) during their period of
incarceration. The studies reviewed provided some
evidence on the relative length of incarceration of
juveniles convicted in adult versus juvenile courts.
Fagan36 reported that juveniles retained in the juvenile
system received slightly longer sentences, although the
difference was not statistically significant. In contrast,
Myers14 found that transferred juveniles received substantially longer sentences, both in bivariate analysis
and controlling for background differences. Barnoski35
also reported longer sentences for transferred juveniles
than for retained juveniles. Finally, Podkopacz42 reported longer sentences for juveniles convicted of
offenses that required a prison commitment in the
adult system (e.g., a crime committed with a weapon),
but shorter sentences for juveniles transferred for other
crimes. Thus, the apparently conflicting data from this
small sample of studies do not clearly indicate greater
incapacitation for transferred than for retained
juveniles.
More generally, research is mixed on whether adult
courts are more punitive than juvenile courts to youth
with comparable criminal profiles, and punitiveness
may depend on the type of offense. Many studies have
found the adult court to be more punitive than the
juvenile court, but some have found the adult court to
be more lenient.52,53 Relative to older defendants in
the adult court, juveniles may appear less threatening
and their cases may appear less severe to those hearing
their cases. In addition, although juvenile criminal
records have become increasingly available,2 their offending histories have in the past been less available to
the adult court because of privacy provisions, possibly
allowing the impression that a juvenile is a less-serious
or less-hardened offender than his or her actions would
indicate. In combination, these factors may lead to
less-punitive sanctions in the adult than in the juvenile
court. While national statistics indicate that, overall,
adult courts are more punitive to juveniles than juvenile courts, much of this disparity is due to differences
in severity of crimes or criminal histories of defendants
or other specific factors between the cases in the two
court systems.54 This problem of selection, which challenges research on the specific deterrence effects of
transfer, also challenges research seeking to establish
the relative punitiveness of the two courts. Feld55 has
suggested that the adult court may respond differently
to juveniles charged with property crimes than those
S18

charged with violent crimes, being more lenient to the
former and more punitive to the latter. For violent
offenders, a recent review concludes that “most transferred youth convicted of violent offenses receive sentences far more severe than could be imposed in the
vast majority of the nation’s juvenile courts.”17
Fourth, while this review focuses on effects on violent
crime, researchers have also examined recidivism of
juveniles charged with crimes not regarded as violent
(e.g., burglary). Four of the reviewed studies report on
outcomes among nonviolent offenders, with inconsistent findings. In analyses controlling for background
characteristics of offenders, Fagan36 found no significant effects of transfer on overall re-arrests among
nonviolent offenders. Transferred youth showed
higher rates of subsequent arrest for nonviolent misdemeanors and lower rates for drug-related crimes. Similarly, Barnoski35 found no overall effect of transfer on
nonviolent felony recidivism. In table 6 of Podkopacz
and Feld,38 they report that transferred youth had a
lower rate of felony drug convictions and a lower rate of
misdemeanor convictions, but a higher rate of felony
convictions for property crimes; however, these analyses did not control for confounders. The multivariate
analysis by Myers14 similarly indicates greater overall
recidivism among transferred juveniles—including
both violent and nonviolent re-offending. In sum, the
effects of transfer on crimes not regarded as violent are
not yet clear, although transferred youth seem to show
lower rates of later drug offenses.
Fifth, the question of differential treatment of minorities in the justice system overall has long been an issue.2
Although the relationship of race to transfer is not generally a focus of the studies reviewed here, several of the
studies of specific deterrence provide information on
race. Among the reviewed studies, the design of the
Florida studies by Bishop,41 Winner et al.,40 and LanzaKaduce et al.37,40,41 precludes consideration of this matter, because they matched transferred and retained cohorts on race. Myers14 and Podkopacz and Feld,38 who
studied transfers that were largely discretionary, found
that the cases of whites were slightly, albeit not significantly, more likely to be transferred. In contrast, Fagan36
studied the effects of transfer when it was largely nondiscretionary (i.e., determined by some combination of age
and severity of crime), and found no significant association between race and transfer. Barnoski35 examined
changes over time as transfer policy became less discretionary as it expanded legislative exclusion of certain
crimes from juvenile courts. A more proportional representation of minorities was found among transferred cases
following the statutory change. That is, the proportion of
blacks among those transferred decreased from 31% to
22%, while the proportion of whites increased from 51%
to 63%. The proportion of women transferred after the
expanded exclusion laws took effect increased from 2% to

American Journal of Preventive Medicine, Volume 32, Number 4S

www.ajpm-online.net

7%, suggesting a previous selection bias against women.
For a recent review of this topic, see Bortner et al.16
Barriers to reducing the use of transfer policies. While
this review found that strengthened transfer policies generally result in greater re-arrest for crime, including
violent crime, among those who are transferred than
among those who are retained in the juvenile system of
justice, strengthened transfer policies may nonetheless be
favored by some policymakers or the public for other
reasons (e.g., retribution against serious crime or incapacitation of serious offenders). Policymakers will have to
weigh competing interests in making policy decisions.
The recent Supreme Court decision, Roper v. Simmons,10
which bans capital punishment for offenders who committed their crimes while minors, suggests a growing
sentiment for treating juveniles in a separate system on
the basis of their developmental stage.

Results, Part III
Research Issues
Although the Task Force found evidence of harm in the
transfer of juveniles to adult courts as an intervention
for the purpose of preventing violence, transfer policies
are currently in effect, and the following important
research issues remain insofar as these policies remain
in place. Available studies may provide data allowing for
additional analyses.
●

●

●

●

We found insufficient evidence regarding general deterrence. Excepting one study,47 which examined the
associations of age of adult court jurisdiction and rates
of arrest rather than the effects of transfer per se, the
studies reviewed here assessed limited geographic areas and, in general, used simple methodologies. Data
may be available to apply time series methods to a
broader array of regions and to adjust for confounding
variables with ecologic designs (see footnote c).
It is not clear whether the effect of increased violence
among juveniles who experience the adult versus the
juvenile justice system is attributable to the overall
judicial process, to the differences in sanctions experienced, or to some other component of the process.
Among the studies reviewed, analyses by Fagan36 and
Podkopacz42 indicate that the effects of transfer are
not exclusively attributable to incarceration, but also
involve the overall justice system, which may result in
acquittal or parole. This issue merits further
exploration.
The effectiveness of transfer policies on violence across
levels of severity (e.g., murder versus assault) should
also be examined. While several studies reviewed indicate different effects for differing initial offenses, other
studies do not stratify effects by initial offense.
Systematic comparison of state transfer laws should be
undertaken to determine the extent to which the
specific provisions of state laws included in the review

April 2007

●

are representative of all state transfer provisions. Differences in the application and enforcement of provisions should also be assessed.
Exploration of the costs of transferring youth to the
adult criminal system versus retaining them in the
juvenile system are rare.56 In some sense, evaluating
costs of interventions (e.g., transfer) that cause net
harm seems unnecessary; because any spending on
harmful interventions appears wasteful, the more
spending, the more waste. On the other hand, however, documenting the variability and relative costs of
the two judicial and correctional systems, the distribution of responsibility for these costs across different
levels of government and society, and the net balance
of program costs, the costs of subsequent crime, and
the costs of opportunities lost to the juveniles themselves might allow a constructive discussion of the
economic consequences of change.

Discussion
Certain limitations in our findings should be noted. First,
the intervention assessed here, namely transfer policy,
varies substantially from state to state. The reviewed
studies of specific deterrence and general deterrence
cover a small number of states (excluding Levitt’s47 study
of a related topic with a national sample). These reviewed
studies were the only ones that met our standards and may
not represent transfer laws among all states.
Second, the outcome measures in all these studies
result from official records of violent offending, either
arrest or conviction, rather than from direct measures of
violence. However, there are many determinants of who
gets arrested for crimes and may then be convicted. The
perpetrators of most crimes are not arrested,57 and there
are errors in arrests as well. Studies measuring violence by
self-report were not available; however, the review team
would have preferred them. Nevertheless, arrest rates are
among the best available and most commonly used indicators of crime, and thus the best available outcome for
assessment in this review.
Third, given the impossibility of experimental trials in
policies such as transfer laws, the challenges of controlling
for potential confounding are great. The studies of specific deterrence reviewed here have used several approaches to control confounding, including matched
pairs within jurisdictions, cross-jurisdictional comparisons
with control of sociodemographic and criminologic variables, and analytic control for background characteristics.
The convergence of results across these studies suggests
that increased violent recidivism following transfer is a
robust finding in spite of these challenges to controlling
for potential confounders.
Fourth, the effects of transfer policies on violence and
other crime may differ across levels of juvenile crime
severity (e.g., misdemeanors or felonies) and should be
examined. To ensure comparability, the studies reviewed
Am J Prev Med 2007;32(4S)

S19

here control for the severity of the crime for which the
juvenile is at risk of being transferred and, where possible,
for the juvenile’s criminal history as well. They have not
generally assessed whether the effects of transfer differed
for juveniles with more or less serious offenses and offense
histories; perhaps transfer might be argued to be more
effective or less harmful if restricted to the most serious
offenders. In fact, the Florida studies37,40,41 document a
large number of misdemeanants transferred to adult
court, and find greater harm for these offenders. In any
case, the possibility of transferring the most serious juvenile offenders was available in all court systems before the
strengthening and formalizing of the transfer policies
reviewed here. What has resulted from the changes assessed in this review is the broad lowering of thresholds
for the seriousness of crimes for which juveniles are
transferred.
This review, along with the accompanying recommendation from the Task Force on Community Preventive Services, is expected to provide guidance and serve
as a useful tool for public health and juvenile justice
policymakers, for program planners and implementers,
and for researchers. Review of the evidence on effect of
transfer laws on subsequent violence among those
transferred to adult criminal justice systems indicates
that transfer of juveniles to the adult criminal system
generally results in increased rather than decreased
subsequent violence, compared with violence among
juveniles retained in the juvenile system. In addition,
the evidence on whether transfer laws deter juveniles in
the general population from violent crime is inconclusive. Overall, available evidence indicates that use of
transfer laws and strengthened transfer policies is counterproductive for the purpose of reducing juvenile
violence and enhancing public safety.
We are grateful for information and comments provided by
Melissa Sickmund, PhD, senior research associate, National
Center for Juvenile Justice, Pittsburgh PA, and Steven Levitt,
PhD, Department of Economics, University of Chicago.
Points of view are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention, the National Institute of Justice, the Department
of Justice, or the National Institutes of Health.
No financial conflict of interest was reported by the authors
of this paper.

References
1. Maguire K, Pastore AL, eds. Sourcebook of criminal justice statistics 2003.
Washington DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics,
2005.
2. Snyder HN, Sickmund M. Juvenile offenders and victims: 1999 national
report. Washington DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, National Center of Juvenile Justice, 1999 (NCJ 178257).
3. Krug EG, Dahlberg LL, Mercy JA, Zwi AB, Lozano R. World report on
violence and health. Geneva: World Health Organization, 2002.
4. Maguire K, Pastore AL, eds. Sourcebook of criminal justice statistics 2002.
Washington DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics,
2004.

S20

5. U.S. Census Bureau. Statistical abstract of the United States. Washington
DC: U.S. Department of Commerce, 2001.
6. U.S. Surgeon General. Youth violence: a report of the Surgeon General.
Washington DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2001.
7. Commission on Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Juvenile
crime, juvenile justice. Washington DC: National Academy Press, 2000.
8. Sickmund M, Snyder HN, Poe-Yamagata E. Juvenile offenders and victims:
1997 update on violence. Washington DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention, National Center of Juvenile Justice, 1997 (NCJ
165703).
9. Steinberg L, Cauffman E. A developmental perspective on jurisdictional
boundary. In: Fagan J, Zimring FE, eds. The changing borders of juvenile
justice: transfer of adolescents to the criminal court. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 2000:379 – 406.
10. Roper, Superintendent, Potosi Correctional Center v. Simmons, 543 U.S.
551 (2005).
11. Grisso T, Steinberg L, Woolard J, et al. Juveniles’ competence to stand trial:
a comparison of adolescents’ and adults’ capacities as trial defendants. Law
Hum Behav 2003;27:333– 63.
12. Allen FA. Foreword. In: Fagan J, Zimring FE, eds. The changing borders of
juvenile justice: transfer of adolescents to the criminal court. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 2000:IX–XVI.
13. Tanenhaus DS. The evolution of transfer out of the juvenile court. In:
Fagan J, Zimring FE, eds. The changing borders of juvenile justice: transfer
of adolescents to the criminal court. Chicago: University of Chicago Press,
2000:13– 44.
14. Myers DL. Excluding violent youths from juvenile court: the effectiveness of
legislative waiver. New York: LFB Scholarly Publishing, 2001.
15. Butts JA, Mitchell O. Brick by brick: dismantling the border between
juvenile and adult justice. In: Friel CM, ed. Criminal justice 2000. Vol. 2.
Boundary changes in criminal justice organizations. Washington DC:
National Institute of Justice, 2000:167–213.
16. Bortner MA, Zatz MS, Hawkins DF. Race and transfer: empirical research
and social context. In: Fagan J, Zimring FE, eds. The changing borders of
juvenile justice: transfer of adolescents to the criminal court. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 2000:277–320.
17. Bishop DM. Juvenile offenders in the adult criminal justice system. In:
Tonry M, ed. Crime and justice. Chicago: University of Chicago Press,
2000:81–167.
18. Griffin P, Torbet P, Szymanski L, National Center for Juvenile Justice.
Trying juveniles as adults in criminal court: an analysis of state transfer
provisions. Washington DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice
Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 1998
(NCJ 172836).
19. Torbet P, Gable R, Hurst IH, Montgomery I, Szymanski L, Thomas D. State
responses to serious and violent juvenile crime. Washington DC: Office of
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 1996 (NCJ 161565).
20. Torbet P, Szymanski L. State legislative responses to serious and violent
juvenile crime: 1996 –97 update. Washington DC: Office of Juvenile Justice
and Delinquency Programs, 1998 (NCJ 172835).
21. Griffin P. Trying and sentencing juveniles as adults: an analysis of state
transfer and blended sentencing laws. Pittsburgh PA: National Center for
Juvenile Justice, 2003.
22. Bishop D, Frazier C. Consequences of waiver. In: Fagan J, Zimring FE, eds.
The changing borders of juvenile justice: transfer of adolescents to the
criminal court. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000:227–76.
23. Zimring FE. American youth violence. New York: Oxford University Press,
1998.
24. Redding RE, Howell JC. Blended sentencing in American juvenile courts.
In: Fagan J, Zimring FE, eds. The changing borders of juvenile justice:
transfer of adolescents to the criminal court. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 2000:145– 80.
25. Cheesman II FL, Cohen T, Dancy D, Kleinman M, Mott N, Green H.
Blended sentencing in Minnesota: on target for justice and public safety?
An evaluation. Williamsburg VA: National Center for State Courts, 2002.
26. Risler EA, Sweatman T, Nackerud L. Evaluating the Georgia legislative
waiver’s effectiveness in deterring juvenile crime. Res Soc Work Pract
1998;8:657– 67.
27. Blumstein A, Rivara FP, Rosenfeld R. The rise and decline of homicide—
and why. Annu Rev Public Health 2000;21:505– 41.
28. Cook PJ, Laub JH. After the epidemic: recent trends in youth violence in
the United States. In: Tonry M, ed. Crime and justice, a review of research.
Vol. 29. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2002:1–37.

American Journal of Preventive Medicine, Volume 32, Number 4S

www.ajpm-online.net

29. Task Force on Community Preventive Services. Introducing the Guide to
Community Preventive Services: methods, first recommendations, and
expert commentary. Am J Prev Med 2000;18(suppl 1):1–142.
30. Zaza S, Briss PA, Harris KW, eds. The guide to community preventive
services: what works to promote health? New York: Oxford University Press,
2005.
31. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Healthy people 2010, 2nd
ed. Washington DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2000.
32. Briss PA, Zaza S, Pappaioanou M, et al. Developing an evidence-based
guide to community preventive services—methods. Am J Prev Med 2000;
18(suppl 1):35– 43.
33. Liberman AM. How much more likely? The implications of odds ratios for
probabilities Am J Eval 2005;26:253– 66.
34. Zhang J, Yu KF. What’s the relative risk? A method of correcting the odds
ratio in cohort studies of common outcomes JAMA 1998;280:1690 –1.
35. Barnoski R. Changes in Washington State’s jurisdiction of juvenile offenders: examining the impact. Olympia: Washington State Institute for Public
Policy, 2003 (03-01-1203).
36. Fagan J. The comparative impacts of juvenile and criminal court sanctions
on adolescent felony offenders. Law Policy 1996;18:77–119.
37. Lanza-Kaduce L, Frazier CE, Lane J, Bishop DM. Juvenile transfer to
criminal court study: final report. Tallahassee: Florida Department of
Juvenile Justice, 2002 (1-8-2002, 02-02).
38. Podkopacz MR, Feld BC. Judicial waiver policy and practice: persistence,
seriousness and race. Law Inequal 1995;14:74 –178.
39. Podkopacz MR, Feld BC. The end of the line: an empirical study of judicial
waiver. J Crim Law Criminol 1996;86:449 –92.
40. Winner L, Lanza-Kaduce L, Bishop DM, Frazier CE. The transfer of
juveniles to criminal court: reexamining recidivism over the long term.
Crime Delinq 1997;43:548 – 63.
41. Bishop DM, Frazier CE, Lanza-Kaduce L, Winner L. The transfer of
juveniles to criminal court: does it make a difference? Crime Delinq
1996;42:171–91.
42. Podkopacz MR. The juvenile court’s final decision: an empirical examination of transferring juveniles to adult court. Minneapolis: University of
Minnesota, November 1996.

April 2007

43. Fagan J. Separating the men from the boys: the comparative advantage of
juvenile versus criminal court sanctions on recidivism among adolescent
felony offenders. In: Howell JC, Krisberg B, Hawkins JD, Wilson JJ, eds. A
sourcebook: serious, violent, and chronic juvenile offenders. Thousand
Oaks CA: Sage, 1995:238 – 60.
44. Jensen EL, Metsger LK. A test of the deterrent effect of legislative waiver on
violent juvenile crime. Crime Delinq 1994;40:96 –104.
45. Singer SI, McDowall D. Criminalizing delinquency: the deterrent effects of
the New York Juvenile Offender Law. Law Soc Rev 1988;22:521–35.
46. Singer SI. Recriminalizing delinquency: violent juvenile crime and juvenile
justice reform. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 1996.
47. Levitt SD. Juvenile crime and punishment. J Polit Econ 1998;106:1156 – 85.
48. Strom KJ, Smith SK, Snyder HN. Juvenile felony defendants in criminal
courts: state court processing statistics, 1990 –94. Washington DC: Office of
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 1998 (NCJ 165815).
49. Forst M, Fagan J, Vivona TS. Youth in prisons and training schools:
perceptions and consequences of the treatment-custody dichotomy. Juv
Fam Court J 1989;40:1–14.
50. Memory J. Juvenile suicides in secure detention facilities: correction of
published rates. Death Stud 1989;13:455– 63.
51. Snyder HN. Juvenile arrests 2003. Washington DC: Office of Juvenile
Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 2005 (NCJ 209735).
52. Houghtalin M, Mays GL. Criminal dispositions of New Mexico juveniles
transferred to adult court. Crime Delinq 1991;37:393– 407.
53. Thomas CW, Bilchik S. Prosecuting juveniles in criminal courts: a legal and
empirical analysis. J Crim Law Criminol 1985;76:439 –79.
54. Kupchik A. Prosecuting adolescents in criminal courts: criminal or juvenile
justice? Social Problems 2003;50:439 – 60.
55. Feld BC. Juvenile and criminal justice systems’ responses to youth violence.
In: Tonry M, Moore MH, eds. Youth violence: crime and justice, a review of
research. Vol. 24. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1998:2–27.
56. Roman J, Butts JA. The economics of juvenile jurisdiction. A white paper
from the Research Roundtable on estimating the costs and benefits of
the separate juvenile justice system. Washington DC: Urban Institute,
2005.
57. Dunford FW, Elliott DS. Identifying career offenders using self-reported
data. J Res Crime Delinq 2005;21:57– 87.

Am J Prev Med 2007;32(4S)

S21

S22
American Journal of Preventive Medicine, Volume 32, Number 4S

Appendix A. Studies measuring specific deterrence effects of juvenile transfer policies.
Location
Study population
Sample size (N)
Sample demographic
characteristics

Intervention
population
Comparison
population

Washington state
Youth 16–17 years old
arrested 1/1/1992–7/1/1994
N = 913
Retained youth, n = 738
Age: 16 yrs 54%; 17 yrs
46%
Sex: F 7%; M 93%
Race: white 56%; black 20%
Transferred youth, n = 175
Age: 16 yrs 26%; 17 yrs
74%
Sex: F 2%; M 98%
Race: white 51%; black 31%

Bishop et al (1996);
Winner et al (1997)3
Greatest: prospective,
with matched
comparison
Good (1)

Florida
Youth arrested 1/1/1985–
12/30/1987.
N = 2887 matched pairs
Demographics: Male: 92%

• Proxy measure of
outcome (i.e., rearrest for any crime)
Analysis of discordant
pairs; logistic
regression, controlling
for background and
history; time to and
frequency of re-arrest

Age: 17 yrs 60%; 16 yrs
25%; 15 yrs 25%; <15 yrs
c
3%

Author (year)
Design suitability:
design
Limitations of
execution (#)
Specific limitations
Analytic methods
Barnoski (2003)1
Greatest: prospective
cohort study with
concurrent comparison
Good (0)

Historical Context

Washington State
expanded automatic
transfer provisions in
1994 & 1997. This
study examined an
earlier cohort arrested
• No limitations
on charges that would
have made them
Multivariate analysis,
eligible for automatic
controlling for
demographics, charge, transfer had they been
arrested after the 1994
and offending history
law.

2

www.ajpm-online.net

Race: Transferred youth
(53% white; 47% nonwhite)
Non-transferred youth
(58% white; 42% nonwhite)

Results
Reported effect
measure
Follow-up time; %
sample or N with
sufficient time at risk
for recidivism analysisa

Reported effect

Value used in
review)b

Youth arrested on any of
nine serious felonies, or
with specified offending
histories, and
transferred to criminal
justice system
Youth meeting same
arrest and offending
history criteria, but
retained in juvenile
justice system

Violent felony re-arrests
during 18 mos follow-up
after release from
confinement, adjusted
for confounders by
logistic regression
Retained youth: 81%
(600 of 738 followed up)
Transferred youth: 51%
(90 of 175 followed up)

Transferred youth =
11%
Retained youth =
11%

% increase in
recidivism
associated with
transfer, compared
with retention
Effect size = 0.0%

Youth transferred from
the Florida juvenile
justice system to the
adult justice system
Youth retained in the
juvenile system,
matched with transferred
youth on six criteria:
most serious current
charge, number of
counts, most serious
prior offenses, number
of prior referrals, age,
gender (race matched
when possible)

Re-arrest for any crime
through Nov 15, 1994;
over 6 years
93% (2700 pairs [2887
total pairs – 187 lost] )

Probability of any
rearrest among
transferred juveniles,
compared with
retained juveniles:
0.95 (p=0.332)

Because significant
effect modification
by initial arrest
(misdemeanor vs.
felony and felony
type) was found in
logistic regression
analysis, and
because full model
coefficients were
not published,
effect sizes were
not calculated.

April 2007

Location
Study population
Sample size (N)
Sample demographic
characteristics

Intervention
population
Comparison
population

New York Juvenile
Offender Law of 1978
legislatively excludes
from juvenile
processing 14–15 yr
olds on 15 charges,
• Sample
and 13 yr olds on nondemographics not
capital murder
described
In NY 16 yrs is age of
Proportions re-arrested adult court jurisdiction
and re-incarcerated;
In NJ, age of adult
time to first re-arrest
court jurisdiction is 18;
Re-arrest rate;
no legislative exclusion
proportional hazards of
specific types of
subsequent crime,
including violent crime

New York City metro area
15 and 16 yr olds arrested
1/1/1981–12/31/1982 on
either felony robbery or
burglary
N = 800 youth (200 in each
of 4 counties)
Sampled on age (15 or 16);
other demographics not
stated

Lanza-Kaduce (2002)6
Greatest: prospective
matched pair
comparison
Fair (2)

Florida (6 out of 20 judicial
circuits, both urban and
rural)
Youth arrested in 1995–
1996
N = 475 matched pairs
N = 315 “best matched
pairs” (Best matched pairs
exclude pairs in which
transferred youth had a
worse criminal background
than retained youth on a 12item index. Possibility of
worse criminal background
among retained youth not
noted.)

Author (year)
Design suitability:
design
Limitations of
execution (#)
Specific limitations
Analytic methods

Historical Context

Fagan (1995, 1996)4,5
Greatest: prospective
cohort study with
comparison
Good (1)

Am J Prev Med 2007;32(4S)

• Sample
demographics not
provided
• Proxy measure of
outcome (i.e., rearrest for any felony
Study compared felony
recidivism rates and
assessed discordant
pairs in “best matched”
pair data subset (i.e.,
retained pair member
at least as serious as
transferred member)

1994 changes in
Florida law extended
prosecutorial waiver for
14- and 15-year olds,
and also for certain
repeat and violent
offenders of any age

Results
Reported effect
measure
Follow-up time; %
sample or N with
sufficient time at risk
for recidivism analysisa

Reported effect

Value used in
b
review)

Youth arrested in 2
counties in NY on either
felony robbery or
burglary
Youth arrested in 2
socio-demographically
similar counties in NJ on
equivalent charges

Re-arrest and time to rearrest
Follow-up through
6/30/1989; at least 2
years “at risk” following
release

Proportional hazard
model for violent
crime re-arrest:
Exp (B) = 0.72
(p<.05), (juvenile vs.
adult court
associated with 28%
decreased rate of rearrest for violent
crime)
Note: The model
includes a significant
interaction of
transfer with
sentence length; the
transfer effect
increases with
longer sentences

Effect size used is
based on transfer
main effect term
alone, and
underestimates the
effect for those with
sentences including
incarceration.
Increased violent
recidivism for
transfer = 39%
(1/0.72) ? 1
Note: Most of the
sample in each
court was not
incarcerated.

Youth transferred to
adult court system
Youth retained in the
juvenile system who
were matched on 7
criteria: most serious
current charge, number
of counts, most serious
prior offenses, number
of prior referrals, age,
gender, race

Felony recidivism after
age 18
Recidivism data
collected through early
2001 Depending on age
at arrest, the recidivism
periods after age 18
ranged from <1 to over
4+ years, equivalent
within matched pairs

Best-matched pairs:
Felony recidivism
higher among
transferred than
retained juveniles
(49.2% vs 36.8%)
Ratio of discordant
pairs among the
best-matched =
1.76
Only transferred
youth re-arrested (90
pairs) vs only
retained youth rearrested (51 pairs)

% increase in
felony recidivism for
transferred vs.
retained youth
Effect Size: 33.7%
(49.2/36.8) – 1

S23

S24
American Journal of Preventive Medicine, Volume 32, Number 4S

Author (year)
Design suitability:
design
Limitations of
execution (#)
Specific limitations
Analytic methods

Historical Context

Myers (2001)7
Greatest: prospective
cohort study
Good (0)
Logistic regression of
overall re-arrest, and
violent felony re-arrest,
controlling for
demographics, criminal
history, current offense
and case processing;
Survival models of time
to recidivism following
release

1996 Pennsylvania
law expanded transfer
by excluding from
juvenile court murder
and several violent
crimes committed with
a deadly weapon by
juveniles between 15
and 18 yrs of age at
the time of offense.
This study examined a
sample from an earlier
cohort, who were
arrested on charges
that would have made
them eligible for
automatic transfer had
they occurred after the
legal change

www.ajpm-online.net

Podkopacz & Feld
(2001)
Podkopacz (1996)
Greatest: prospective
cohort study
Good (1)
No analysis assessing
violent outcome while
controlling background
confounding
Logistic regression

Location
Study population
Sample size (N)
Sample demographic
characteristics

Intervention
population
Comparison
population

Results
Reported effect
measure
Follow-up time; %
sample or N with
sufficient time at risk
for recidivism analysisa

Reported effect

Value used in
b
review)

Pennsylvania
Males aged 15–18 yrs,
arrested 1/1/1994–
2/31/1994
N = 557 males
Transferred: 138
Retained: 419
Mean age:
16.7 yrs transferred
juveniles; 16.0 yrs retained
juveniles
Race:
72% transferred nonwhite;
82% retained nonwhite

Youth transferred to
adult court
Youth retained in
juvenile court

Violent felony re-arrests
Follow-up until 6/30/1998
(mean time “at risk” in
the community for
committing a subsequent
crime: 17.9 months)
Follow-up for those not
still incarcerated as of
Dec. 31, 1997, 89% (494
of original 557)

Logistic regression
of violent recidivism
following final
disposition
B = .692 (SE .463),
(p>0.10)
OR = 2.0

% increase in
violent felony
recidivism for
transferred
compared with
retained juveniles,
calculated from
reported modeled
proportions of
violent recidivism
Transferred youth:
0.2305
Retained youth:
0.1304
Effect size = 77%
(0.2305 /0.1304) –
1

Minnesota (Hennepin
County)
Juveniles arrested in 1986–
1992 for whom a motion
was filed for transfer to adult
court; some were
transferred, others retained.
N = 330 youth
Transferred = 215;
Retained = 115
Age at offense: mean 16.5
yrs
Race: 55% African
American, 28% white; 17%
other

Youth transferred to
adult court system
Youth motioned for
transfer, but retained in
juvenile court system

New adjudicated or
convicted offense
Follow-up: at least 2 yrs
of “at risk” time
N = 290 (excluding 40
youth with insufficient
time at risk)

Reconviction for any
offense, controlled
for criminal history,
gender, age at
transfer decision,
type of sentence:
Transfer OR : 1.93,
p<.05.
(i.e., reconvicted
youth more likely to
have been
transferred than
retained)

% increase in
reconviction among
transferred
juveniles compared
with retained
juveniles: Effect
size: 26.5%
(OR was applied to
retained
reconviction rate, to
generate RR)

Key: mo month; N sample size; NA not available; yr year; NJ New Jersey; NY New York ; OR odds ratio; vs versus

April 2007

a

Assessment of attrition is not applicable in these studies, as they report re-arrest in the presence of re-arrest records and assume no re-arrest in the
absence of records.

b

If results were reported from logistic regression models, odds ratios were transformed into relative rate changes (21,41) so that these effect measures
could be more appropriately compared with other studies in the body of evidence.

c

Percentages add to >100% (error in original data)
References for Appendix A
1.

Barnoski R. Changes in Washington State’s jurisdiction of juvenile offenders: examining the impact. Olympia: Washington State Institute for Public Policy, 2003, 03-011203.

2.

Bishop DM, Frazier CE, Lanza-Kaduce L, Winner L. The transfer of juveniles to criminal court: does it make a difference? Crime Delinq 1996;42:171-91.

3.

Winner L, Lanza-Kaduce L, Bishop DM, Frazier CE. The transfer of juveniles to criminal court: reexamining recidivism over the long term. Crime Delinq 1997;43:548-63.

4.

Fagan J. Separating the men from the boys: the comparative advantage of juvenile versus criminal court sanctions on recidivism among adolescent felony offenders. In:
Howell JC, Krisberg B, Hawkins JD, Wilson JJ, eds. A sourcebook: serious, violent, and chronic juvenile offenders. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1995:238-60.

5.

Fagan J. The comparative impacts of juvenile and criminal court sanctions on adolescent felony offenders. Law Policy 1996;18:77-119.

6.

Lanza-Kaduce L, Frazier CE, Lane J, Bishop DM. Juvenile Transfer to Criminal Court Study: final report. Tallahassee: Florida Department of Juvenile Justice, 1-8-2002,
02-02.

7.

Myers DL. Excluding violent youths from juvenile court: the effectiveness of legislative waiver. McShane M, Williams IFL, eds. New York: LFB Scholarly, 2001.

8.

Podkopacz MR. The juvenile court's final decision: an empirical examination of transferring juveniles to adult court. 1996.

Am J Prev Med 2007;32(4S)
S25

S26
American Journal of Preventive Medicine, Volume 32, Number 4S

Appendix B. Studies measuring general deterrence effects of juvenile transfer policies.
Author (year)
Design suitability: design
Limitations of
execution (#)
Specific limitations
Analytic methods

Historical
Context

Location
Study period
Unit of analysis
Sample size (N)
Sample
demographics

Results

Intervention group
Comparison group

Reported effect
measure
Comparison
period

Reported effect

Value used in
reviewa

Barnoski (2003)
Greatest: before-and-after
population-based study
Good (1)

Washington
State expanded
automatic
transfer
provisions in
• No control for
1994 & 1997
confounding
16 and 17 yr
olds with
Graphical comparison of
specified
Washington State and
national violent crime arrest criminal
offenses and
rate trends
histories were
automatically
transferred

Washington state
Late 1980s to late
1990s
Juveniles 10 – 17
yrs of age
Population-based
(not sampled)
Demographics NA

Juveniles (10–17) in
Washington state in yrs
following law changes
Graphically compared with:
Juveniles (10–17) in
Washington state in yrs
preceding law changes.
Juveniles (10–17) in U.S. in
yrs preceding and following
Washington law changes

Violent arrest
rates among
juveniles (10–17
yrs) per 1000
juveniles
Comparison
period:
late 1980s–late
1990s

“Thus, we cannot attribute the
decrease in juvenile arrests for
violent crimes in the state solely
to the change in WA’s
jurisdiction statute.”

No effect
Quantitative effect
cannot be
computed from the
graphical analysis

Jensen, Metsger (1994)
Greatest: before-and-after
intervention with concurrent
comparison (Additional
analysis—before-and-after
design without concurrent
comparison—not
considered in this review.)
Fair (2)

Idaho
1976 – 1986
States (Idaho,
compared with
Wyoming and
Montana)
Population-based
(not sampled)
Demographics NA

Juveniles <18 yrs of age in
Idaho in yrs following law
changes, 1982–86
Compared with:
Juveniles <18 yrs of age in
Idaho in yrs preceding law
changes, 1976–80
Juveniles <18 yrs of age in
Wyoming and Montana in yrs
preceding and following law
changes in Idaho

Changes in mean
juvenile arrest
rates, 1982–86
compared with
1976–80

Before-and-after differences of
means juvenile violent crime
arrest rates

Increase in violent
crime arrest rates
in state with
strengthened
transfer law, in
comparison with
neighboring states
without this law
Effect size not
computed
because
population data
not provided

1981 Idaho law
transferred
more juveniles
to adult court.
There were no
comparable
changes in
comparison
states,
Wyoming and
• Selection of comparison Montana.
populations not well
justified

www.ajpm-online.net

• No control of
confounding
Comparison of changes in
rates of violent crime before
and after law in intervention
and comparison states

ID
12.8 p<0.005
WY
–4.2 p<0.025
MT
–14.1 p<0.005

April 2007

Author (year)
Design suitability: design
Limitations of
execution (#)
Specific limitations
Analytic methods
Singer & McDowell (1988)
Singer (1996)
Greatest: prospective
cohort study
Good (0)
• No limitations
Interrupted time series
analysis and rate
comparisons

Historical
Context
New York
Juvenile
Offender Law of
1978
legislatively
excludes from
juvenile
processing
14–15 yr olds
on 15 charges,
and 13 yr olds
on non-capital
murder

Location
Study period
Unit of analysis
Sample size (N)
Sample
demographics
New York City and
Upper New York
State
Jan. 1974 –
Dec.1984
Regions/cities
NYC and NYS are
compared.
Philadelphia is
used as an
additional
comparison for
NYC
Population-based
(not sampled)
Demographics NA

Results

Intervention group
Comparison group
Two different sets of
intervention and comparison
groups:
A. Juveniles in New York City
ages 13–15 yrs
Compared with:
Juveniles in New York City
ages 16–19 yrs
Juveniles in Philadelphia,
ages 13–15 yrs
B. Juveniles in upper New
York State, ages 13–15 yrs
compared with:
Juveniles in upper New York
State, ages 16–19 yrs

Reported effect
measure
Comparison
period
Time series of
monthly arrests for
homicides,
assaults,
robberies, and
rapes, with 1978
date of New York
law as intervention
point.
Comparison
period:
January 1974 –
December 1984

Value used in
reviewa

Reported effect

Shift in level of crime
following introduction of law
t
in 1978
Ω
Homicides
NYC 13–15
NYC 16–19
Phil 13–15
Assaults
NYC 13–15
NYC 16–19
Phil 13–15
Robberies
NYC 13–15
NYC 16–19
Phil 13–15

Am J Prev Med 2007;32(4S)

Rapes
NYC 13–15
NYC 16–19
Phil 13–15
Homicides
NYS 13–15
NYS 16–19

–0.9633 –1.62
2.0370 1.55
–0.6586 –2.71
0.0230 0.81
–21.3500 –1.49
–4.7540 –3.32b
16.0100 0.63
17.3400 0.35
7.4100 1.95
–4.1570 –3.12b
–6.4120 –3.14b
–.5748 –0.92
–0.0104 –0.37
0.0012 0.00

Assaults
NYS 13–15
NYS 16–19

4.4320
2.2520

4.42
1.48

Robberies
NYS 13–15
NYS 16–19

2.6180
9.9870

1.38
3.08

Rapes
NYS 13–15
NYS 16–19

0.4211
0.8510

1.34
1.39

Effect size not
computed
because
heterogeneous
results within the
study

S27

S28
American Journal of Preventive Medicine, Volume 32, Number 4S

Key: aggr aggravated; N sample size; NA not available; NS not significant; NYC New York City; NYS Upper New York State; Phil Philadelphia; t t-test; vs versus; yr year;

Ω time series estimate of shift in the level of crime associated with introduction of the law
a

Because of heterogeneous methodologies and the absence of requisite and commensurate data among studies, we did not calculate an overall effect size
for this body of evidence.

b

p <0.05

References for Appendix B
1.

Barnoski R. Changes in Washington State’s jurisdiction of juvenile offenders: examining the impact. Olympia: Washington State Institute for Public Policy, 2003, 03-011203.

2.

Jensen EL, Metsger LK. A test of the deterrent effect of legislative waiver on violent juvenile crime. Crime Delinq 1994;40:96-104

3.

Singer SI, McDowall D. Criminalizing delinquency: the deterrent effects of the New York Juvenile Offender Law. Law Soc Rev 1988;22:521-35.

4.

Singer SI. Recriminalizing delinquency: violent juvenile crime and juvenile justice reform. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 1996.

www.ajpm-online.net