U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Justice Programs
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

Worki ng lor Youth Justice and Safety

Melodee Hanes, Acting Administrator

December 2012

Pathways to Desistance
How and why do many serious
adolescent offenders stop offending while others continue to
commit crimes? This series of bulletins presents findings from the
Pathways to Desistance study, a
multidisciplinary investigation that
attempts to answer this question.
Investigators interviewed 1,354
young offenders from Philadelphia
and Phoenix for 7 years after their
convictions to learn what factors
(e.g., individual maturation, life
changes, and involvement with
the criminal justice system) lead
youth who have committed serious
offenses to persist in or desist from
offending.
As a result of these interviews
and a review of official records,
researchers have collected the most
comprehensive dataset available
about serious adolescent offenders
and their lives in late adolescence
and early adulthood.
These data provide an unprecedented look at how young people
mature out of offending and what
the justice system can do to promote positive changes in the lives
of these youth.

Transfer of Juveniles to Adult Court:
Effects of a Broad Policy in One Court
Edward P. Mulvey and Carol A. Schubert

Highlights
This bulletin presents findings from the Pathways to Desistance study about the
effects of transfer from juvenile court to adult court on a sample of serious
adolescent offenders in Maricopa County, AZ. The authors compare the extant
literature with findings from the Pathways study and discuss the possible implications of these findings for future changes in transfer statutes. Following are
some key points:
•	 Adolescents in the adult system may be at risk for disruptions in their
personal development, identity formation, relationships, learning,
growth in skills and competencies, and positive movement into adult
status.
•	 Most of the youth in the study who were sent to adult facilities returned to the community within a few years, varying widely in their
levels of adjustment. Youth were more likely to successfully adjust
when they were not influenced by antisocial peers.
•	 Prior work indicates that transferred youth are more likely to commit
criminal acts than adolescents kept in the juvenile justice system.
•	 Findings from the Pathways study indicate that transfer may have a
differential effect (either reducing or increasing offending), depending on the juvenile’s presenting offense and prior offense history.

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

ojjdp.gov

DECEMBER 2012

Transfer of Juveniles to Adult Court:
Effects of a Broad Policy in One Court
Edward P. Mulvey and Carol A. Schubert
Transferring an adolescent offender to adult court is a
weighty decision. It has far-reaching implications for the
adolescent involved and significant symbolic meaning for
the justice system. For the adolescent, transfer to the adult
system holds the possibility of harsher punishment (including physical, sexual, or psychological victimization by
other inmates) and enduring developmental costs (Chung,
Little, and Steinberg, 2005; Mulvey and Schubert, 2012).
For the system, transferring an adolescent to adult court is
an unambiguous statement that the criminal justice system
will no longer shelter the adolescent, by virtue of his or her
acts, from harsh justice. Transfer to adult court indicates
that the demand for proportional punishment has trumped
the goal of individualized rehabilitation found in the juvenile justice system (Zimring, 2005).
Since the court’s inception, juvenile justice policymakers
and professionals have wrestled with the decision about
when to transfer an adolescent to adult court (Tanenhaus,
2004). Currently, individual states have combinations of
statutorily defined mechanisms for determining when the
movement of a juvenile case to adult court is required or
appropriate, including procedures such as judicial transfer, certification, automatic waiver, or direct file (Griffin,
2003; Fagan and Zimring, 2000). In general, state statutes
define a set of crimes for adolescent offenders of a certain
age that warrant processing in the adult system (i.e., a
statutory exclusion from the presumed jurisdiction of the
juvenile court). Most states also have a mechanism (e.g.,
decertification, reverse waiver) for returning the case to
the jurisdiction of the juvenile court when deemed appropriate. (See Sickmund, 1994; Griffin, 2006; and Redding,
2008, for an elaboration of these statutory provisions.)
Statutory standards have not always driven the process of
transferring an adolescent to adult court. For most of the

2

Juvenile Justice Bulletin

history of the juvenile court, the decision to transfer an adolescent offender to the adult court rested primarily on the
discretion of the juvenile court judge. Since the inception
of the juvenile court in 1899, transfer was possible for a
range of “heinous” offenses when the juvenile court judge
deemed that the resources available to the court were insufficient to rehabilitate an adolescent (Tanenhaus, 2000).
During the late 1980s and early 1990s, however, a
sharp rise in violent crime produced intense interest in
the causes of juvenile crime and the effectiveness of the
juvenile justice system. Juvenile arrests for violent offenses
jumped dramatically during this time period, increasing
64 percent nationally between 1980 and 1994 (Butts and
Travis, 2002). In addition, some highly publicized cases
of juveniles committing repeated, serious violent offenses
contributed to public perception that the juvenile justice
system was inadequate to intervene effectively with adolescents who were a legitimate threat to public safety (Butterfield, 1995). These forces even prompted radical, and
ultimately unfounded, rhetoric about a coming wave of
adolescent “superpredators” unlike any previous juvenile
offenders in their heartlessness and lack of response to
interventions (DiIulio, 1995).
In this context, the public began to distrust the ability
of the juvenile justice system to ensure public safety, and
state legislatures added statutory provisions to ensure that
youth who committed certain serious offenses were not
roaming the streets. Between 1992 and 1999, all but one
state expanded legislation that made it easier for juveniles to be tried as adults (Hansen, 2001). These changes
increased the set of crimes that qualified an adolescent for
transfer, lifted age restrictions, and added statutory exclusion and prosecutorial discretion as methods for achieving
transfer to adult court. The movement of adolescents to
adult court was no longer the product of a juvenile court

judge exercising his or her discretion; it was instead largely
the product of who fell into the statutorily defined net
of eligibility and was not waived back to juvenile court.
Rather than relying on a judgment of individual appropriateness regarding transfer, the emphasis was instead on the
act, not the actor, and on retribution, not rehabilitation
(Griffin, 2006).

Effects of Changes in Transfer
Policies on Practice
It is generally believed that these statutory reforms produced an increase in the rate of transfer, at least in a large
number of locales (Fagan, 2008; Penney and Moretti,
2005). However, it is difficult to gauge the specific effects
of these changes because of the lack of comprehensive and
consistent data about transferred adolescent offenders. No
systematic national count of the number of youth who are
transferred or waived to criminal court exists, nor are there
consistent data on the characteristics of these adolescents
across locales. The National Center for Juvenile Justice
tracks judicial transfers made at the discretion of juvenile
court judges. These figures show a clear decline in adolescent transfers using this mechanism, presumably because
other statutory mechanisms have increased their rate of
transfer (Adams and Addie, 2010). However, no accurate
tallies of the total number of transfers across all possible
mechanisms exists.
The sources for estimating the number of adolescents in
adult prisons or jails on any given day or during any given
period of time are also inconsistent (Woolard et al., 2005).
According to available data, the number and proportion
of adolescents in adult prisons appear to have peaked in
the mid-1990s (about 5,000 prisoners, or 2.3 percent of
the total prison population, according to Hartney, 2006)
and to have fallen since then to less than 3,000, or 1.2
percent, in 2004 (Hartney, 2006; see Austin, Johnson,
and Gregoriou, 2000, for somewhat larger estimates for
the mid-1990s). Estimates of the number of adolescents in
adult jails on any given day are considerably greater, ranging from about 7,000 (Hartney, 2006) to 19,000 (Austin,
Johnson, and Gregoriou, 2000)—about 1 in 10 youth
incarcerated in the United States are admitted to an adult
prison or jail (Eggleston, 2007).
In addition, little is actually known about outcomes for
adolescent offenders who are transferred to the adult
system. The Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) funded a
recent study to compile available information about the
number of adolescents who were transferred across a range
of locales and the subsequent sanctions these individuals received. Study results are anticipated in 2012 and are
expected to be “the best national estimates ever, and the

most detailed exploration of who the kids are and what
actually happens to them” (Kelly, 2010, p. 31).
Despite the lack of definitive numeric estimates, it is
reasonable to assume that the changes in transfer statutes
have led to an increase in the heterogeneity of the youth
sent to adult court in many locales (Schubert et al., 2010).
That is, expansions of the transfer statutes and an increased
reliance on the presenting offense have made it easier for
the adult court to process a broader range of adolescents;
these adolescents likely differ widely in their prior legal
involvement, developmental status (because there is now
a wider age span for youth who are eligible for transfer),
and specific risk factors related to offending. In general,
researchers believe that the group of adolescents now
transferred to adult court includes “a broad range of
offenders who are neither particularly serious nor particularly chronic” (Bishop and Frazier, 2000, p. 265).

Reconsideration of the Current
Transfer Policy
The wisdom of current transfer policies has been widely
questioned, and some have begun to voice two major concerns about the potential impacts of these practices (Fagan
and Zimring, 2000; Redding, 2008). The first concern
is about fairness: Does placement in adult court expose
adolescents to punishments and conditions that are unduly
harsh? The second concern is about utility: Does the
practice of juvenile transfer to adult court actually reduce
crime as compared with placement in juvenile court?

Possible Detrimental Effects of Transfer
This section discusses some of the detrimental effects of
transferring juveniles to adult court.

Longer Sentences
One potentially harmful outcome for transferred adolescent offenders is a longer or harsher sentence than
they might have experienced if they had remained in the
juvenile justice system. Both sides of the political spectrum seem to believe that this is the case. Those in favor
of “get tough” policies promote long sentences for youth
and see transfer to the adult system as a method to achieve
this end. Meanwhile, those opposing adult sentences for
juveniles imply that transfer to adult court produces long
confinement in an adult facility.
Although clearly there are adolescents who receive extended stays in adult correctional facilities that could not
be imposed on them if they stayed in the juvenile justice
system, the overall impact of transfer on extending institutional confinement for all adolescents involved in

Juvenile Justice Bulletin

3

this process is not totally clear. For one thing, about 20
percent of transferred adolescent offenders receive probation in adult court (Bishop, 2000). For those who receive
adult sentences, some evidence exists that juveniles who
are transferred receive harsher or more punitive sentences
compared with those who remain in the juvenile justice
system (Kupchik, Fagan, and Liberman, 2003; Kurlychek
and Johnson, 2004; Myers, 2003), possibly because the
mere knowledge that a youth was transferred may convey
a heightened level of risk to the judge, who may address
it through a longer sentence (Kurlychek and Johnson,
2010). Males (2008), however, tracked 35,000 releasees
from the California Department of Juvenile Justice and
reported that juveniles were released from the adult system
after a shorter time served than youth who were sentenced
for the same offenses in the juvenile justice system.
Whatever the increased chance of extended incarceration
might be with processing in the adult court, it is still clear
that many adolescents who are processed in adult court are
not necessarily confined for extended periods but, instead,
come back to the community while they are still young
adults. Redding (1999, citing a 1996 Texas study) reports
that, although 87 percent of a sample of 946 juveniles
received longer sentences in criminal court than they would
have received in juvenile court, the average prison time
actually served was only 3.5 years (an average of about 27
percent of the sentence imposed). In addition, BJS estimated that 78 percent of persons who were younger than
age 18 when admitted to a state prison in 1997 would be
released by age 21 (Strom, 2000). Whether or not they
receive harsher sentences, the majority of adolescents transferred to the adult court are nonetheless coming back to
the community during their early adulthood.

Victimization
Victimization in adult jail or prison presents another very
real and troubling possibility for adolescents processed in

4

Juvenile Justice Bulletin

the adult system. The idea that other inmates or guards
may subject adolescent offenders to physical, sexual, or
psychological victimization because they are confined in
adult facilities gives pause to even the most ardent supporters of retribution as a justification for transfer. As
Mulvey and Schubert (2012) note, “Doing the time for
doing the crime might be seen as fair, but doing much
worse time because the crime was done while an adolescent seems to tip the balance beyond even-handed justice”
(p. 846).
The available evidence points to the conclusion that adolescents are at increased risk of being physically or sexually
victimized when they are housed in adult facilities. Even
though adolescents represent only a small proportion of
inmates in adult facilities, in 2005, 21 percent of all victims of substantiated incidents of inmate-on-inmate sexual
violence in jails were juveniles younger than age 18 (Beck
and Harrison, 2008). In addition, Beyer (1997) states that
juveniles in adult facilities are five times more likely to be
sexually assaulted and two times more likely to be beaten
by staff than youth held in juvenile facilities (see also Feld,
1977, for a discussion of violence in juvenile settings).
These estimates, however, are based on limited data. Interviews of inmates that BJS researchers conducted indicate
that the annual prevalence of sexual assaults in juvenile
facilities may range from 12 percent (Beck, Harrison,
and Guerino, 2010) to 20 percent (National Prison Rape
Elimination Commission Report, 2009). In contrast, other
survey data by Fagan and Kupchik (as cited in Fagan,
2008, p. 101) indicate that in the juvenile facilities examined, the rates of reported physical violence were greater
than the rates that adolescents in adult facilities reported.
Although the exact amount of increased risk of assault may
be in question, the studies in this area generally document
that the risk of assault for a juvenile in an adult facility is
substantially greater than the risk for an adult in the same
facility.
The fact that an adolescent is at increased risk for assault
in an adult facility is not surprising—placements in prisons and jails put relatively immature and inexperienced
adolescents into a social environment that requires a tough

“Adolescents transferred to the adult system can experience harmful disruptions
in their development during late adolescence and early adulthood.”

exterior to survive. Such an arrangement seems to inevitably increase an adolescent’s chances of being involved in a
physical confrontation, either through efforts to establish
a reputation or to resist assaults or sexual advances (Lane
et al., 2002; McShane and Williams, 1989). The exact
amount of increased risk of victimization is difficult to estimate, however, given the inadequacies of the data available
and the tenuous validity of comparing datasets collected in
different ways (Mulvey and Schubert, 2012).

Disruptions in Development
In addition to the immediate physical and psychological
dangers resulting from incarceration, adolescents transferred to the adult system can also experience harmful disruptions in their development during late adolescence and
early adulthood. Adolescent offenders can be assumed to
be particularly diverse, and potentially delayed, in many aspects of social development (Monahan et al., 2009). Also,
considerable evidence exists that prison and jail environments present challenges to one’s sense of self and identity
that even hardened criminals find disorienting, upsetting,
and traumatic. Particularly vulnerable adolescents are thus
taking the next steps of their developmental journey in an
environment that does not promote physical or emotional
health and that may harm their progress as well. Although
an adolescent and an adult might receive what appears to
be an equivalent sentence for a similar crime (e.g., 3 years
for a felony assault), adolescents are paying for their crimes
at a different point in their life journey; the impact of this
experience may be more dramatic as a result.
Identity formation is one of the most salient processes of
adolescent development that incarceration might affect.
To fashion a sense of self (i.e., to figure out who one is in
relation to family and others, as well as what one’s future
might hold), most adolescents follow a pattern of individuating from parents, orienting toward peers, and integrating
components of attitudes and behavior into an autonomous
self-identity (Collins and Steinberg, 2006). The last stage
of this process involves choosing the identity that actually
“fits” from the many that might have been “tried on”—as

well as reconciling and consolidating what the person might
want to be (the idealized self) with what the person might
worry about being or becoming (the feared self) (Oyserman and Fryberg, 2006). Navigating this developmental
period successfully requires supportive adults, healthy
relationships with peers, and opportunities to make autonomous decisions (Scott and Steinberg, 2008).
Adolescents in adult facilities try to accomplish this developmental task in environments that present very real dangers
to their safety; this is hardly an environment in which experimentation with a wide range of self-presentations or alternative viewpoints can be pursued with impunity. Instead, the
pervasive influence of prisonization—adaptation to prison
through identification with the role of being a criminal
among criminals (Clemmer, 1958; Gillespie, 2003)—can
be expected to undermine healthy identity development.
In addition, the likelihood of receiving positive support for
identity development from either peers or adults in these
settings seems low. Peer relationships often offer little more
than “schooling” that is useful for later criminality (Maruna
and Toch, 2005), and adult relationships are likely to be
negative. In the end, prisons and jails are primarily designed
to break down identities, not foster new, resilient ones that
are adaptive to the world outside the facility walls. Adolescents in these settings are forming a sense of who they are in
an environment that tells them they should not trust anyone
and they should not try to be different.
Adolescents in the adult system also often lose critical opportunities for learning in late adolescence. By definition,
adolescence marks the transition period between childhood and adulthood during which an individual progresses toward adult levels of responsibility and adult roles.
Adolescents gradually take greater control over an expanding range of life decisions; they also make mistakes, pick
up pointers, and learn lessons along the way. According to
Zimring (2005), during this period adolescents are operating with a “learner’s permit” for developing maturity; they
are generally under the watchful eye of caring individuals
and are afforded more tolerance from society for making
bad choices.

Juvenile Justice Bulletin

5

Spending time in prison or jail, however, curtails the
amount of an adolescent’s “practice time” to freely develop skills and competencies in several areas. Learning
about job-related expectations, gaining résumé-building
skills, discovering qualities in a potential life partner,
learning how to spend unstructured time, and learning
to manage a household are not easily acquired behavioral
repertoires—they require some trial and error. The regimented and highly structured schedules and restrictions
in jail and prison environments, however, at best reduce
opportunities to develop lasting romantic relationships,
identify career interests, or develop work skills. Even the
most progressive of these environments (e.g., specialized
young adult offender programs) cannot provide experiences as broad as those provided to unconfined youth.

Do Transfer Policies Reduce Crime?
Over the past two decades, researchers and policymakers
have become increasingly interested in whether expanded
statutory guidelines for juvenile transfers to adult court
have actually reduced overall criminal offending by transferred adolescents or juvenile crime more generally. There
are a number of ways in which such statutory guidelines
could affect crime levels. First, locking up serious offenders could reduce crime because highly criminally active
adolescents are removed from the streets during the years
they would be committing these crimes (incapacitation).
Second, tougher and more inclusive transfer policies
could deter future crime; i.e., adolescent offenders transferred to adult court might refrain from future offending
because they have learned that the criminal justice system
will impose a harsh penalty if they offend seriously again
(specific deterrence). In addition, other adolescents,
although not transferred themselves, might reduce their
offending because they are aware that harsher penalties
are in place, thus making the cost of continued offending
unacceptably high (general deterrence).
There is no solid empirical information about the potential effects of incapacitation on the offending of adolescents transferred to adult court. Such analyses would
require estimates of the amount of crime that these
individuals might have committed compared with the

incapacitation effect that might have been obtained
if these same individuals had remained in the juvenile
justice system. Although some analyses indicate that
increased incarceration rates have produced some incapacitation effect (Spelman, 2000), the amount of crime
reduction attributable to expanded transfer policies is
unclear. There is some reason to be skeptical that the
effect would be large because the level of incapacitation
achieved from incarceration depends on whether the
most criminally active individuals are being confined. This
is a questionable assumption, given that transfer statutes
are based primarily on the current offense rather than the
overall risk and chronicity of offending (Redding, 2008).
It is also unclear whether a general deterrence effect exists
that is attributable to more stringent transfer statutes.
Jensen and Metsger (1994), using a time-series approach,
found a 13-percent increase in arrest rates for violent
juvenile crime in Idaho after the implementation of an
automatic transfer statute. Singer and colleagues (Singer
and McDowell, 1988; Singer, 1996) found that a New
York statute that automatically sends violent juvenile offenders to adult court had no deterrent effect on overall
juvenile crime, even though the law was widely applied
and publicized in the media. In contrast, Levitt (1998)
conducted an econometrically oriented, multistate study
that found support for a deterrence effect. In these
analyses, the investigators found an estimated 25-percent
decrease in violent juvenile crime and a 10- to 15-percent
decrease in property crime that juveniles committed in
states that had lowered the age of jurisdiction for transfer
to adult court. The largest effects were in states with the
greatest disparity in the severity of punishment between
the adult and juvenile courts. Levitt’s study is notable
for its unique methodological approach; it examined the
associations between the statutory age of jurisdiction
and observed crime rates rather than conducting a more
typical analysis of crimes in comparable samples. Overall,
the amount of research supporting or refuting general
deterrence effects is extremely sparse and inconclusive
(McGowan et al., 2007).
More work has been done regarding the specific deterrence effects of juvenile transfers to adult court; numerous

“Youth who associate with more antisocial peers resume
antisocial activity more quickly and are rearrested more
quickly than those who have more positive social relationships.”
6

Juvenile Justice Bulletin

studies compare the arrest histories of samples of juvenile
offenders processed in the juvenile justice system with
those processed in the adult court system. For example,
Fagan and colleagues (Fagan, 1996; Kupchik, Fagan, and
Liberman, 2003) examined a natural experiment on the
deterrent effects of juvenile versus adult court sanctions by
comparing recidivism among 15- and 16-year-olds from
two matched communities (one in New York and one in
New Jersey) who were charged with robbery and burglary.
The transfer laws for these crimes differed in the two
states (New York has a lower age of criminal responsibility for adult court), permitting a comparison of outcomes
for youth who live in otherwise comparable neighboring
counties. The researchers found that for robbery offenders, transfer was associated with a greater likelihood of,
and quicker time to, rearrest. Although significant, these
effects could only be generalized to robbery offenses,
as the authors found no such significant differences for
burglary offenders. In another well-known study, Bishop
and colleagues (1996) and Winner and colleagues (1997)
estimated the effects of transfers on future recidivism in a
sample of Florida juvenile transfer cases, as compared with
nontransfer cases, after matching on seven factors (number and seriousness of charges, number and seriousness of
prior convictions, age, race, and gender). The researchers
found that transferred youth had an increased likelihood of
recidivism and reoffended more quickly than their nontransferred counterparts. Finally, Myers (2003) analyzed
outcomes for 494 youth from Pennsylvania, 79 of whom
were transferred to adult court and 415 who were retained
in juvenile court. Using statistical controls for selection
bias, Myers also concluded that transferred youth had
greater rates of recidivism.
Studies like these have contributed to the conclusion
that juvenile transfer policies uniformly produce negative
outcomes. Some scholars have indicated that transferred
adolescents are more likely to recidivate, recidivate at a
greater rate, and be rearrested for more serious offenses,
on average, than those retained in the juvenile justice
system (Bishop and Frazier, 2000). In addition, several
reports have asserted that transfer laws are at the least
ineffective (i.e., they do not prevent future crime among

those transferred; see Redding, 2008) and may in fact be
harmful (i.e., counterproductive for the purpose of reducing crime and enhancing public safety; see McGowan et
al., 2007; Young and Gainsborough, 2000).

The Next Generation of
Transfer Research
The studies on which these conclusions are based are impressive; however, like all research, they have some inevitable limitations. First, it is debatable whether this research
has fully addressed the issue of sample selection when
assessing the impact of being transferred to adult court or
retained in juvenile court. A comparison of offenders who
are transferred to adult court and those who are not transferred involves two groups that are inherently different
in important ways that predate incarceration and that
may affect any comparison of the groups’ patterns of
reoffending. Consequently, observed differences (e.g.,
greater arrest rates) in the transferred population cannot
be accurately attributed to the transfer experience itself
as long as these differences in outcomes might also be
partially or fully attributable to fundamental differences
between the transferred and retained youth. Prior work
(e.g., Bishop et al., 1996; Winner et al., 1997) has controlled statistically for several factors (such as age, offense,
and number of prior petitions) that might influence the
likelihood that an individual’s case will be transferred to
criminal court and are associated with greater levels of future arrest. These efforts undoubtedly provide some level
of correction for existing group differences. Because there
is no random assignment to the “treatment condition” of
juvenile transfer to adult court, however, there is always
the question of whether these methods have provided
enough control to make the two groups directly comparable on outcomes (Loughran and Mulvey, 2010).

Juvenile Justice Bulletin

7

ABOUT THE PATHWAYS TO DESISTANCE STUDY
The Pathways to Desistance study is a multidisciplinary,
multisite longitudinal investigation of how serious juvenile offenders make the transition from adolescence to adulthood.
It follows 1,354 young offenders from Philadelphia County,
PA, and Maricopa County, AZ (metropolitan Phoenix), for
7 years after their conviction. This study has collected the
most comprehensive dataset currently available about serious
adolescent offenders and their lives in late adolescence and
early adulthood. It looks at the factors that lead youth who
have committed serious offenses to persist in or desist from
offending. Among the aims of the study are to:
l

l

l

	 Identify initial patterns of how serious adolescent offenders
stop antisocial activity.
	 Describe the role of social context and developmental
changes in promoting these positive changes.
	 Compare the effects of sanctions and interventions in promoting these changes.

Characteristics of Study Participants
Enrollment took place between November 2000 and March
2003, and the research team concluded data collection in
2010. In general, participating youth were at least 14 years old
and younger than 18 years old at the time of their study index
petition; 8 youth were 13 years old and 16 youth were older
than age 18 but younger than 19 at the time of their index
petition. The youth in the sample were adjudicated delinquent
or found guilty of a serious (overwhelmingly felony-level) violent crime, property offense, or drug offense at their current
court appearance. Although felony drug offenses are among
the eligible charges, the study limited the proportion of male
drug offenders to no more than 15 percent; this limit ensures a
heterogeneous sample of serious offenders. Because investigators wanted to include a large enough sample of female
offenders—a group neglected in previous research—this limit
did not apply to female drug offenders. In addition, youth
whose cases were considered for trial in the adult criminal
justice system were enrolled, regardless of the offense
committed.
At the time of their baseline interview, participants were an
average of 16.5 years old. The sample was 84 percent male
and 80 percent minority (41 percent black, 34 percent Hispanic, and 5 percent American Indian/other). For approximately
one-quarter (25.5 percent) of study participants, the study
index petition was their first petition to court. Of the remaining participants (those with a petition before the study index
petition), 69 percent had 2 or more prior petitions; the average
was 3 in Maricopa County and 2.8 in Philadelphia County
(exclusive of the study index offense). At both sites, more than
40 percent of the adolescents enrolled were adjudicated of
felony crimes against persons (i.e., murder, robbery, aggravated assault, sex offenses, and kidnapping). At the time of
8

Juvenile Justice Bulletin

the baseline interview for the study, 50 percent of these adolescents were in an institutional setting (usually a residential
treatment center); during the 7 years after study enrollment,
87 percent of the sample spent some time in an institutional
setting.

Interview Methodology
Immediately after enrollment, researchers conducted a structured 4-hour baseline interview (in two sessions) with each
adolescent. This interview included a thorough assessment
of the adolescent’s self-reported social background, developmental history, psychological functioning, psychosocial
maturity, attitudes about illegal behavior, intelligence, school
achievement and engagement, work experience, mental
health, current and previous substance use and abuse, family
and peer relationships, use of social services, and antisocial
behavior.
After the baseline interview, researchers interviewed study
participants every 6 months for the first 3 years, and annually
thereafter. At each followup interview, researchers gathered
information on the adolescent’s self-reported behavior and
experiences during the previous 6-month or 1-year reporting
period, including any illegal activity, drug or alcohol use, and
involvement with treatment or other services. Youth’s selfreports about illegal activities included information about the
range, the number, and other circumstances of those activities
(e.g., whether or not others took part). In addition, the followup interviews collected a wide range of information about
changes in life situations (e.g., living arrangements, employment), developmental factors (e.g., likelihood of thinking about
and planning for the future, relationships with parents), and
functional capacities (e.g., mental health symptoms).
Researchers also asked participants to report monthly about
certain variables (e.g., school attendance, work performance,
and involvement in interventions and sanctions) to maximize
the amount of information obtained and to detect activity
cycles shorter than the reporting period.
In addition to the interviews of study participants, for the first
3 years of the study, researchers annually interviewed a family
member or friend about the study participant to validate the
participant’s responses. Each year, researchers also reviewed
official records (local juvenile and adult court records and FBI
nationwide arrest records) for each adolescent.
Investigators have now completed the last (84-month) set
of followup interviews, and the research team is conducting
analyses of interview data. The study maintained the adolescents’ participation throughout the project: At each followup
interview point, researchers found and interviewed approximately 90 percent of the enrolled sample. Researchers have
completed more than 21,000 interviews in all.

Second, this work focuses on the effects of transfer only
in terms of the persistence of criminal involvement; the
impact of transfer may also involve other social and developmental domains. For example, involvement with the
adult court can affect facets of successful adjustment (e.g.,
employment and social relationships), either promoting or
curtailing continued offending (Chung, Little, and Steinberg, 2005). Although the question of whether transfer
increases or decreases the rate of future arrests is certainly
a salient policy issue, it does not address the other effects
on an adolescent’s life and life chances.
Third, these studies have not rigorously and consistently
considered the possibility of variation in subgroups. The
transferred group might contain identifiable subgroups
with different outcomes related to case characteristics.
Certain identifiable groups of transferred adolescent
offenders (e.g., those charged with particular types of
crimes) might be more likely to have positive or negative
outcomes. Some types of youth may be easily deterred
(e.g., those with limited legal histories or who have positive peer support), whereas others may not consider the
possibility of prison time a sufficient threat to desist from
crime. Alternatively, certain malleable characteristics (e.g.,
association with antisocial peers, substance use) may be
related to positive or negative outcomes among transferred adolescents, providing guidance about the factors
that should be assessed for adolescents who are eligible for
transfer and those who should be targeted for intervention. Unfortunately, studies about transfer to adult court
have paid only cursory attention to this issue, usually
comparing two broad groups: youth retained in the juvenile justice system versus those transferred to adult court.
When variability was considered in these analyses, comparisons were usually made within groups formed on the
basis of charged offenses (Fagan, 1996; Gottfredson and
Gottfredson, 1986; Petersilia et al., 1985).
The final point is particularly relevant when fashioning
future research studies. Expanded statutes that create a
wider net to catch juvenile offenders for transfer to adult
court will likely lead to an “inappropriate aggregation”
(Zimring, 1998)—that is, different types of offenders,
with different responses to transfer consequences, are
inadvertently combined for analytic purposes. If marked
variability exists in the effects of transfer on subgroups of
those adolescents who are eligible to be transferred, then
looking for a single effect across all transferred individuals is an inadequate way to evaluate the merits of transfer
policy. A more realistic, and potentially valuable, method
would be to see how juvenile transfer to adult court might
have differential effects, depending on the characteristics of both the offender and the offense. For example,
inexperienced offenders might respond very differently to
criminal sanctions when compared with more seasoned
offenders (Loughran et al., 2012; Pogarsky and Piquero,

2003). If, as asserted earlier, transfer to adult court is an
enduring component of the criminal justice process, the
core question is not whether transfer policy is “good” or
“bad”; instead, the question is how to refine this practice
to do more good and less harm. Thus, a “new generation”
of research on this topic should provide information about
differential outcomes for transferred youth and point to
ways in which transfer statutes can more effectively target
the appropriate groups of adolescents.

Analyses of Juvenile Transfer
Using Data From the Pathways
to Desistance Study
Pathways to Desistance1 investigators and collaborators
from the juvenile justice system in Maricopa County, AZ,
examined the outcomes of transfer to adult court for youth
enrolled in the Pathways study from that locale (see “About
the Pathways to Desistance Study”). The goals of the
analyses were (1) to describe the variability in outcomes for
transferred youth and (2) to assess the effect of transfer to
adult court, both overall and for subgroups of adolescents
with different histories and who were convicted of different
types of offenses. The approach used for the data analyses
was developed in collaboration with juvenile court professionals, judges, and policymakers from Maricopa County;
this addressed issues being discussed in Arizona at the time
regarding possible changes in its transfer statute.
Data from the Pathways study were well suited to these
tasks. First, the study captures a comprehensive array of information about serious adolescent offenders who are making the transition to adulthood—indicators of individual
functioning, psychosocial development, family context, personal relationships, and community context—all of which
have not been examined previously for this group. Second,
it offers an opportunity to investigate juvenile transfer in
one locale (Maricopa County, AZ) with a high rate of transfer to adult court, an example of what occurs when highly
inclusive statutory guidelines are put into place.

The Sample
The analyses reported here used only cases enrolled in the
Pathways study from Maricopa County, AZ. There are
654 adolescents in this Arizona sample; 193 (29 percent)
of them were transferred to adult court. In the Philadelphia sample, there was a much lower rate of transfer
to adult court; only 51 (7 percent) of the 700 enrollees
were transferred to adult court for the offense that made
them eligible for the study. The statutes in Arizona throw
a wide net for transfer to adult court, and thus provide a
reasonable test of the effects of a broad transfer statute on
adolescent outcomes.
Juvenile Justice Bulletin

9

“There is no solid empirical information about the potential effects of
incapacitation on the offending of adolescents transferred to adult court.”

Under Arizona law, there are multiple paths (judicial,
statutory, and prosecutorial) by which a youth can be
transferred, there is a broad range of offenses that can produce automatic transfer, and the age of exclusion from juvenile court is in some situations quite young (e.g., 8 years
old). Also, there is no provision for a hearing to return to
juvenile court if an adolescent is charged with an offense
eligible for transfer, and once a juvenile from Arizona has
been prosecuted as an adult in criminal court, all subsequent cases involving that youth (regardless of the crime)
come under adult criminal court jurisdiction. Six other
states (California, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Oklahoma,
and Vermont) offer the same range of transfer mechanisms, and nearly every other state has some combination
of the options available in these states (Griffin, 2006).
Youth from the Pathways study who were transferred to
adult court in Arizona were, on average, 17 years old,
predominantly minority (59 percent Hispanic, 12 percent
African American, 21 percent white, and 8 percent other),
and overwhelmingly male (94 percent). The sample
included 10 girls. This group had an average of three
petitions to juvenile court prior to their baseline interview.
Their first petition, on average, was at age 15, and 29 percent of the transferred youth had no court petitions prior
to the offense qualifying them for inclusion in the study.
There were notable differences between the group of 193
adolescents transferred to adult court and the 461 participants retained in the Arizona juvenile court system. Those
in the transferred group were significantly older at the
time of enrollment, older at their first petition to court,
had more prior petitions before the study baseline interview, were more likely to be members of a minority group,
had parents with a lower level of education, and were
involved with more antisocial peers.
The individuals studied here were followed from the time
of study enrollment through their 4-year followup interview
(average followup period = 1,544 days). During that 4-year
period, a maximum of seven followup interviews could have
been completed. Eighty-one percent (n = 156) of the 193
adolescents transferred to adult court completed all 7 followup interviews, and another 10 percent (n = 20) missed
10

Juvenile Justice Bulletin

only 1 interview. Twenty-eight of these adolescents spent
the entire 4-year followup period in a correctional facility
as a result of the offense that qualified them for the study
(these adolescents are excluded from later analyses of the
community adjustment of the transferred youth).

What Happens to Transferred
Adolescents?
A series of analyses (Schubert et al., 2010) describes the
variability in the sample of 193 adolescents in Arizona who
were transferred to adult court in terms of community
outcomes. The measures of community outcomes were
(1) arrest following release from the initial disposition stay,
(2) subsequent overnight stay in a facility after the initial
disposition stay, (3) reported participation in antisocial activities, and (4) participation in gainful activity, defined as
either working or attending school. Researchers integrated
information from the interviews with the adolescents
and official records to calculate these outcome measures.
Schubert and colleagues (2010) provide more information
about the measures used for each outcome.
In addition to describing the prevalence of outcomes for
these adolescents, the researchers also examined the case
characteristics associated with different outcomes; i.e.,
they looked at whether particular case characteristics were
associated with a greater likelihood of arrest, placement in
an institution, self-reported antisocial activities, or participation in gainful activity. For these analyses, researchers
assigned each case a set of risk-need factor scores that
depicted the youth’s status regarding a range of background characteristics known to be predictive of continued
future offending (see Mulvey, Schubert, and Chung,
2007, for more details regarding the instruments used and
the calculation of these scores). The risk-need scores
calculated were (1) association with antisocial peers,
(2) antisocial attitudes, (3) parental antisocial history,
(4) school difficulties, (5) substance use problems, and
(6) mood/anxiety problems. A series of regressions
tested whether legal, demographic, psychological, and
risk-need case characteristics predicted the time to
occurrence of each of the outcomes.

Findings include the following:
•	 Youth who are transferred to the adult system do not
always experience “hard time.” Although 73 percent of
this sample were incarcerated (either in prison or jail),
19 percent were placed on probation and 8 percent had
their cases dismissed.
•	 Youth experience many challenges in the community
while on probation or following release from an adult
facility. Although the vast majority are involved in gainful activity quickly (within 2.5 months) and consistently
(for nearly three-quarters of the months they spend in
the community), the majority (77 percent) also resumed
some level of antisocial activity and two-thirds were subsequently arrested or placed in an institutional setting.
Only 18 of these youth (out of 193) managed to break
out of this antisocial pattern completely.
•	 In this sample, prior history was strongly related to
outcomes. Youth who were transferred to adult court
at their first court petition were older and more mature;
they also had a lower rate of rearrest and were more
likely to return to gainful activity than those who had prior
court petitions. The level of prior offending, even among
transferred adolescents who committed more serious
crimes, was related to subsequent adjustment in the
community. Those with fewer prior petitions generally
had significantly better outcomes than those who had
more prior petitions to court.
•	 Legal factors (e.g., number of prior petitions, age at
first prior offense, and whether the offense was a crime
against a person) and the six risk-need factors predicted
certain outcomes. However, psychological (e.g., IQ,
measures of psychosocial maturity) and demographic
(e.g., age, ethnicity, level of parental education) factors
were not related to outcomes.
•	 Youth who associated with more antisocial peers resumed antisocial activity more quickly and were rearrested more quickly than those who had more positive
social relationships. This supports the general contention that juveniles, even serious offenders who are

transferred to adult court, are highly susceptible to
negative peer influences and outside pressures.

How Does Transfer to Adult Court Affect
Future Offending?
A second series of analyses (Loughran et al., 2010) builds
on the initial descriptive work and tests whether similar
youth (some transferred and some retained in the juvenile
justice system) were more or less successful in the community. The research team used propensity score matching (Rosenbaum and Rubin, 1983) in these analyses to
construct two groups of youth—one group that was
transferred to adult court and another group that was
retained in juvenile court—that had similar background
characteristics. The outcomes for these two groups were
then compared to see if being transferred to adult court
had a positive or negative effect.
In this situation, the propensity score matching procedure first uses a wide variety of variables to construct a
model that differentiates the cases transferred to adult
court from those retained in the juvenile justice system. It
then assigns each case a propensity score that reflects how
much that individual case “looks like” a case that would
be transferred to adult court. Each case that was actually transferred is then matched with a case that was not
transferred but has the same propensity score. The groups
constructed this way (i.e., the transferred group and the
matched group) are then compared to make sure that they
are equivalent on a variety of case characteristics. If they
are similar on a large number of background characteristics, these factors can be eliminated as potential causes of
any observed group differences on outcomes. In this set
of analyses, the transferred group and the matched group
(derived from propensity score matching) were equivalent
on the case characteristics shown in the sidebar, “Characteristics With No Difference Between Matched Groups of
Offenders” on page 12.

Juvenile Justice Bulletin

11

The adolescents transferred to adult court and the matched
comparison group were compared on the outcomes of
rearrest and self-reported involvement in antisocial activities. These analyses produced three principal findings:
•	 A review of the entire sample of transferred juveniles
and their matched comparison cases in the juvenile justice system showed no effect of transfer on the rate of

rearrest. Unlike previous studies, the researchers found
that when background characteristics (e.g., psychosocial maturity, risk-need indicators, emotional reactivity)
were stringently controlled for, transfer to adult court
did not raise the arrest rate appreciably.
•	 Despite this overall null effect, there was evidence of
differential effects of transfer. Transferred adolescents

CHARACTERISTICS WITH NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN
MATCHED GROUPS OF OFFENDERS	
When the researchers matched offenders whose cases
were transferred to adult court with similar offenders
whose cases were retained in juvenile court, they found no
difference in the following sets of characteristics:

• Psychopathy: Psychopathy checklist factors 1 and 2.

•	 Demographic: Age, gender, race/ethnicity (white/black/
Hispanic/other), parents’ education.

• Exposure to violence as a victim/witness.

•	 Household composition: One/both biological parents
present.

• Psychological development: Weinberger Adjustment
Inventory—consideration of others, impulse control,
suppression of anger, temperament; Psychosocial Maturity Index; resistance to peer influence.

•	 Intelligence: IQ.
•	 Employment: Employed.
•	 Official record information: Number of prior petitions,
age at first prior petition.
•	 Gang involvement.
•	 Number of early onset behavior problems.
•	 Services: Any overnight stays in a facility, any involvement in community service.
•	 Risk-need factors: Antisocial history/attitudes, mood/
anxiety problems, parental antisocial history, association with antisocial peers, school difficulties, substance
use problems.
•	 Trait anxiety: Total anxiety score (Revised Child
Manifest Anxiety Scale).
•	 Substance use and mental health disorders: Alcohol/
drug abuse or dependency, presence of a selected
mental health diagnosis.

• Acculturation: Overall/affirmation and belonging/
identity achievement (multigroup measure of ethnic
identity).

• Emotional reactivity: Self-regulation (Children’s
Emotion Regulation scale).
• Social and personal costs and rewards of punishment: Certainty of punishment (self/others), cost of
punishment (variety/freedom issues/material issues),
social costs of punishment, personal rewards to crime.
• Perceptions of procedural justice.
• Social support: Domains of social support (number).
• Academic motivation: Motivation to succeed.
• Moral disengagement.
• Involvement in community activities: Past 6 months
(percent).
• Number of unsupervised routine activities.
• Personal capital and social ties: Social capital (closure
and integration/perceived opportunity for work/social
integration).

Notes:
Revised Child Manifest Anxiety Scale: A 37-item self-report instrument used to assess the level and nature of anxiety (Reynolds and Richmond, 1985).
Psychopathy checklist (PCL) factors 1 and 2: The PCL is a 20-item scale that is frequently divided into 2 factors. Factor 1 is composed of items
assessing interpersonal style and factor 2 assesses antisocial behavior (Forth, Kosson, and Hare, 2003; Jones et al., 2006; Cooke and Michie, 2001).
Weinberger Adjustment Inventory: A scale used to assess an individual’s social-emotional adjustment (i.e., impulse control, suppression of aggression,
consideration of others, and temperance) (Weinberger and Schwartz, 1990).
Psychosocial Maturity Index: A scale used to assess personal responsibility (i.e., self-reliance, identity, and work orientation) (Greenberger et al., 1974).
Children’s Emotion Regulation scale: A scale used to obtain a self-report assessment of the adolescent’s ability to regulate emotions (Walden, Harris,
and Catron, 2003).

12

Juvenile Justice Bulletin

charged with crimes against persons (e.g., felony assault,
robbery) showed lower rates of rearrest, and transferred
adolescents charged with property crimes (e.g., burglary)
showed greater rates of rearrest (see figure below). These
effects were present even after controlling for other factors that were statistically significantly different between
the juveniles transferred to adult court and those retained
in the juvenile justice system. The figure illustrates the
differences in the rearrest rates for each group.

fully explore the issue of heterogeneity among transferred
individuals, the importance of which other researchers
have emphasized (Bishop, 2000; Zimring, 1998). A considerable amount of variability exists within the Pathways
sample of transferred youth in Arizona in both legal and
certain risk-need factors as well as adjustment following
involvement in the adult court system.

Discussion of Findings

It is important to remember, however, that these analyses reflect regularities in one locale only. The use of data
from Maricopa County illustrates the processes that would
probably be seen in other metropolitan areas with highly
inclusive transfer policies. At the same time, different
results may be obtained in different locales with different
types of offenders or different practices. More research on
these differences is clearly needed.

The findings reported in this bulletin are compelling because they extend the story regarding what is known about
juveniles transferred to adult court while addressing some
limitations in previous investigations. The sample is composed entirely of serious juvenile offenders; the outcomes
observed and the comparison cases considered are highly
appropriate for examining the impact of transfer. These are
the adolescents who are most likely to be transferred to
adult court. Because the datasets are comprehensive, the
researchers were able to rule out a wide range of possibly
confounding factors; this is an improvement over much
of the existing research, which contains more limited data
(Kurlychek and Johnson, 2010). Perhaps most important,
the Pathways data provide a unique opportunity to more

Despite this limitation, findings across both sets of analyses still highlight the following points relevant to locales
with high rates of transfer to adult court. First, transferred
youth do come back to the community and most of them
continue to be involved in criminal behavior. Following
release from an adult facility or while on probation, these
youth managed to return to school or work. However, nearly half of the released youth reported engaging in persistent
antisocial activity, and about two-thirds were rearrested or
returned to an institutional setting. At the same time, these
results indicate that some characteristics related to these
negative outcomes (e.g., antisocial attitudes, association
with antisocial peers) could be targets for intervention when
these young people return to the community.

•	 Individuals with either no prior petitions or one prior
petition fared better in terms of being rearrested, regardless of court jurisdiction (i.e., adult or juvenile court).

Rearrest Rates by Arresting Offense Group (Matched Samples)
1.6
1.4

–0.84

+0.47

Rate of rearrest

1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
Serious Violent Felonies
Juvenile

Property/Felony (not UCR Part I)
Adult

Note: Youth in the Pathways study who were sent to the adult system for a serious violent
felony offense (excluding sex offenses) had a subsequent arrest rate that was 0.84 less than
those who remained in the juvenile justice system. Youth in the Pathways study who were sent
to the adult system for a property offense or another felony (other than Uniform Crime Reports
(UCR) Part I and excluding drug offenses) had a subsequent arrest rate that was 0.47 greater
than those who remained in the juvenile justice system.

Second, this work suggests ways to refine the
groups who are eligible for transfer so that transfer
policy can be more limited and effective. These
analyses provide clear evidence that certain case
characteristics, most notably type of offense and
prior history, are differentially related to outcomes
among transferred adolescents. Transfer seems to
have its intended effect with serious violent offenders, but it has a detrimental effect with serious
property offenders. Similarly, serious adolescent offenders with no prior petitions are likely to increase
their rearrest rate if transferred, compared with
adolescents retained in the juvenile justice system.
Taken together, these issues provide a springboard
for discussions about how to improve current practices, and whether adolescents charged with certain
types of offenses might be more successful and lawabiding if they remain in the juvenile justice system.
These are the next challenging topics for discussion
when considering reasonable reforms to the practice of transferring juveniles to adult court.

Juvenile Justice Bulletin

13

Endnotes
1. OJJDP is sponsoring the Pathways to Desistance study
(Project Number 2007–MU–FX–0002) in partnership
with the National Institute of Justice (Project Number
2008–IJ–CX–0023), the John D. and Catherine T.
MacArthur Foundation, the William T. Grant Foundation,
the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, the William Penn
Foundation, the National Institute on Drug Abuse (Grant
Number R01DA019697), the Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention, the Pennsylvania Commission on Crime
and Delinquency, and the Arizona State Governor’s Justice
Commission. Investigators for this study are Edward P.
Mulvey, Ph.D. (University of Pittsburgh), Robert Brame,
Ph.D. (University of North Carolina–Charlotte), Elizabeth
Cauffman, Ph.D. (University of California–Irvine), Laurie
Chassin, Ph.D. (Arizona State University), Sonia CotaRobles, Ph.D. (Temple University), Jeffrey Fagan, Ph.D.
(Columbia University), George Knight, Ph.D. (Arizona
State University), Sandra Losoya, Ph.D. (Arizona State
University), Alex Piquero, Ph.D. (Florida State University), Carol A. Schubert, M.P.H. (University of Pittsburgh),
and Laurence Steinberg, Ph.D. (Temple University). More
details about the study can be found in a previous OJJDP
fact sheet (Mulvey, 2011) and at the study Web site (www.
pathwaysstudy.pitt.edu), which includes a list of publications from the study.

References
Adams, B., and Addie, S. 2010. Delinquency Cases Waived
to Criminal Court, 2007. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
Austin, J., Johnson, K., and Gregoriou, M. 2000. Juveniles
in Adult Prisons and Jails: A National Assessment. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice
Programs, Bureau of Justice Assistance.
Beck, A., and Harrison, P.M. 2008. Sexual Victimization
in State and Federal Prisons Reported by Inmates, 2007.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of
Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Bishop, D. 2000. Juvenile offenders in the adult criminal
justice system. In Crime and Justice: A Review of Research,
edited by M. Tonry. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago
Press, pp. 81–167.
Bishop, D., and Frazier, C. 2000. Consequences of transfer. In The Changing Borders of Juvenile Justice: Transfer of
Adolescents to the Criminal Court, edited by J. Fagan and
F. Zimring. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Bishop, D., Frazier, C., Lanza-Kaduce, L., and Winner, L.
1996. The transfer of juveniles to criminal court: Does it
make a difference? Crime & Delinquency 42:171–191.
Butterfield, F. 1995. All God’s Children. New York, NY:
Knopf.
Butts, J., and Travis, J. 2002. The Rise and Fall of American Youth Violence: 1980 to 2000. Washington, DC: Urban
Institute.
Chung, H., Little, M., and Steinberg, L. 2005. The transition to adulthood for adolescents in the juvenile justice
system: A developmental perspective. In On Your Own
Without a Net: The Transition to Adulthood for Vulnerable Populations, edited by D.W. Osgood, E.M. Foster,
C. Flanagan, and R. Gretchen. Chicago, IL: University of
Chicago Press.
Clemmer, D. 1958. The Prison Community. New York,
NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Beck, A., Harrison, P.M., and Guerino, P. 2010. Sexual
Victimization in Juvenile Facilities Reported by Youth,
2008–09. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice,
Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Collins, W.A., and Steinberg, L. 2006. Adolescent development in interpersonal context. In Handbook of Child
Psychology: Socioemotional Processes, edited by W. Damon
and N. Eisenberg. New York, NY: Wiley.

Beyer, M. 1997. Experts for juveniles at risk of adult sentences. In More Than Meets the Eye: Rethinking Assessment,
Competency and Sentencing for a Harsher Era of Juvenile
Justice, edited by P. Puritz, A. Capozello, and W. Shang.
Washington, DC: American Bar Association Juvenile Justice Center.

Cooke, D.J., and Michie, C. 2001. Refining the construct
of psychopath: Toward a hierarchical model. Psychological
Assessment 13(2):171–188.

14

Juvenile Justice Bulletin

DiIulio, J. 1995. The coming of the super-predators.
Weekly Standard (November 27):23.

Eggleston, A. 2007. Perceptual Punishment: The Consequences of Adult Convictions for Youth. Washington, DC:
Campaign for Youth Justice.
Fagan, J. 1996. The comparative advantage of juvenile
versus criminal court sanctions on recidivism among adolescent felony offenders. Law & Policy 18:77–112.
Fagan, J. 2008. Juvenile crime and criminal justice: Resolving border disputes. Future of Children 18(2):81–118.
Fagan, J., and Zimring, F.E. 2000. The Changing Borders
of Juvenile Justice: Transfer of Adolescents to the Criminal
Court. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Jones, S., Cauffman, E., Miller, J., and Mulvey, E. 2006.
Investigating different factor structures of the Psychopathy Checklist: Youth version: Confirmatory factor analytic
findings. Psychological Assessment 18:33–48.
Kelly, J. 2010. Justice initiates new study of juveniles
transferred to adult courts. Youth Today (November/
December):31.
Kupchik, A., Fagan, J., and Liberman, A. 2003. Punishment, proportionality, and jurisdictional transfer of adolescent offenders: A test of the leniency gap hypotheses.
Stanford Law and Policy Review 14:57–83.

Feld, B. 1977. Neutralizing Inmate Violence: Juvenile Offenders in Institutions. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger Publishing Company.

Kurlychek, M.C., and Johnson, B.D. 2004. The juvenile penalty: A comparison of juvenile and young adult
sentencing outcomes in criminal court. Criminology
42(2):485–517.

Forth, A., Kosson, D., and Hare, R. 2003. The Hare Psychopathy Checklist: Youth Version, Technical Manual. North
Tonawanda, NY: Multi-Health Systems, Inc.

Kurlychek, M.C., and Johnson, B.D. 2010. Juvenility and
punishment: Sentencing juveniles in adult criminal court.
Criminology 48(3):725–757.

Gillespie, W. 2003. Prisonization: Individual and Institutional Factors Affecting Inmate Conduct. New York, NY:
LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC.

Lane, J., Lanza-Kaduce, L., Frazier, C.E., and Bishop,
D.M. 2002. Adult versus juvenile sanctions: Voices of
incarcerated youths. Crime & Delinquency 48:431–455.

Gottfredson, S.D., and Gottfredson, D.M. 1986. Accuracy
of prediction models. In Criminal Careers and “Career
Criminals,” edited by A. Blumstein, J. Cohen, J. Roth, and
C.A. Visher. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences Press, pp. 212–290.

Levitt, S.D. 1998. Juvenile crime and punishment. Journal
of Political Economy 106(6):1156–1185.

Greenberger, E., Josselson, R., Knerr, C., and Knerr, B.
1974. The measurement and structure of psychosocial
maturity. Journal of Youth and Adolescence 4:127–143.
Griffin, P. 2003. Trying and Sentencing Juveniles as Adults:
An Analysis of State Transfer and Blended Sentencing Laws.
Pittsburgh, PA: National Center for Juvenile Justice.
Griffin, P. 2006. National Overviews: State Juvenile Justice
Profiles. Pittsburgh, PA: National Center for Juvenile
Justice.
Hansen, B. 2001. Kids in prison. The CQ Researcher
27:345–376.
Hartney, C. 2006. Youth Under Age 18 in the Adult Criminal Justice System. San Francisco, CA: National Council
on Crime and Delinquency.
Jensen, E., and Metsger, L. 1994. A test of the deterrent
effect of legislative waiver on violent juvenile crime. Crime
& Delinquency 40:96–104.

Loughran, T., and Mulvey, E.P. 2010. Estimating treatment effects: Matching quantification to the question.
In Handbook of Quantitative Criminology, edited by A.
Piquero and D. Weisburd. New York, NY: Springer, pp.
163–181.
Loughran, T.A., Mulvey, E.P., Schubert, C.A., Chassin, L.,
Steinberg, L., Piquero, A.R., Cota-Robles, S., Fagan, J.,
Cauffman, E., and Losoya, S.H. 2010. Differential effects
of adult court transfer on juvenile offender recidivism. Law
and Human Behavior 34(6):476–488.
Loughran, T., Piquero, A.R., Fagan, J., and Mulvey, E.P.
2012. Differential deterrence: Studying heterogeneity and
changes in perceptual deterrence among serious youthful
offenders. Crime & Delinquency 58(1):3–27.
Males, M.A. 2008. Myths and facts about “direct file,”
minorities, and adult-court sentencing. Available online: www.cjcj.org/post/juvenile/justice/myths/and/
facts/about/direct/file/minorities/and/adult/court/
sentencing/0.

Juvenile Justice Bulletin

15

Maruna, S., and Toch, H. 2005. The impact of imprisonment on the desistance process. In Prisoner Reentry and
Crime in America, edited by J. Travis and C. Visher. New
York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
McGowan, A., Hahn, R., Liberman, A., Crosby, A., Fullilove, M., Johnson, R., Moscicki, E., Price, L., Snyder,
S., Tuma, F., Lowy, J., Briss, P., Cory, S., and Stone, G.
2007. 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. American
Journal of Preventative Medicine 32(4s):S7–S28.
McShane, M.D., and Williams, F.P. 1989. The prison
adjustment of juvenile offenders. Crime & Delinquency
35(2):254–269.
Monahan, K.C., Steinberg, L., Cauffman, E., and Mulvey,
E.P. 2009. Trajectories of antisocial behavior and psychosocial maturity from adolescence to young adulthood.
Developmental Psychology 45(6):1654–1668.
Mulvey, E. 2011. Highlights From Pathways to Desistance:
A Longitudinal Study of Serious Adolescent Offenders.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of
Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
Mulvey, E., and Schubert, C. 2012. Youth in prison and
beyond. In Oxford Handbook on Juvenile Crime and Juvenile Justice, edited by B. Feld and D. Bishop. New York,
NY: Oxford University Press, pp. 843–867.
Mulvey, E., Schubert, C., and Chung, H.L. 2007. Service use after court involvement in a sample of serious
adolescent offenders. Children and Youth Services Review
29:518–544.
Myers, D. 2003. The recidivism of violent youths in
juvenile and adult court: A consideration of selection bias.
Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice 1(1):79–101.
National Prison Rape Elimination Commission Report.
2009. Available online: www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/
226680.pdf.
Oyserman, D., and Fryberg, S.A. 2006. The possible
selves of diverse adolescents: Content and function across
gender, race and national origin. In Possible Selves: Theory,
Research, and Application, edited by C. Dunkela and J.
Kerpelman. Huntington, NY: Nova Science Publishers.

16

Juvenile Justice Bulletin

Penney, S.R., and Moretti, M.M. 2005. The transfer of
juveniles to adult court in Canada and the United States:
Confused agendas and compromised assessment procedures. International Journal of Forensic Mental Health
4(1):19–37.
Petersilia, J., Turner, S., Kahan, J., and Peterson, J. 1985.
Executive summary of RAND’s study, “Granting felons
probation: Public risks and alternatives.” Crime & Delinquency 31:379–392.
Pogarsky, G., and Piquero, A.R. 2003. Can punishment
encourage offending? Investigating the “resetting” effect.
Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 40:95–120.
Redding, R.E. 1999. Examining legal issues: Juvenile
offenders in criminal court and adult prison. Corrections
Today (April):92–123.
Redding, R.E. 2008. Juvenile Transfer Laws: An Effective
Deterrent to Delinquency? Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
Reynolds, C.R., and Richmond, B.O. 1985. Revised
Children’s Manifest Anxiety Scale: RCMAS Manual. Los
Angeles, CA: Western Psychological Services.
Rosenbaum, P.R., and Rubin, D.B. 1983. The central role
of the propensity score in observational studies for causal
effects. Biometricka 70:41–55.
Schubert, C.A., Mulvey, E.P., Loughran, T., Fagan, J.,
Chassin, L., Piquero, A., Losoya, S., Steinberg, L., and
Cauffman, E. 2010. Predicting outcomes for transferred
youth: Implications for policy and practice. Law and Human Behavior 34(6):460–475.
Scott, E., and Steinberg, L. 2008. Rethinking Juvenile
Justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Sickmund, M. 1994. How Juveniles Get to Criminal Court.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of
Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
Singer, S.I. 1996. Recriminalizing Delinquency: Violent
Juvenile Crime and Juvenile Justice Reform. New York,
NY: Cambridge University Press.
Singer, S.I., and McDowell, D. 1988. Criminalizing delinquency: The deterrent effects of the New York Juvenile
Offender Law. Law & Society Review 22:521–535.

Spelman, W. 2000. What recent studies do (and don’t) tell
us about imprisonment and crime. In Crime and Justice:
A Review of Research, edited by M. Tonry. Chicago, IL:
University of Chicago Press, pp. 419–494.

Winner, L., Lanza-Kaduce, L., Bishop, D., and Frazier,
C. 1997. The transfer of juveniles to criminal court:
Re-examining recidivism over the long term. Crime &
Delinquency 43(4):548–563.

Strom, K.J. 2000. Profile of State Prisoners Under Age 18,
1985–97. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice,
Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Woolard, J.L., Odgers, C., Lanza-Kaduce, L., and Daglis,
H. 2005. Juveniles within adult correctional settings:
Legal pathways and developmental considerations. International Journal of Forensic Mental Health 4:1–18.

Tanenhaus, D.S. 2000. The evolution of transfer out of
the juvenile court. In The Changing Borders of Juvenile
Justice, edited by J. Fagan and F.E. Zimring. Chicago, IL:
University of Chicago Press, pp. 13–44.

Young, M.C., and Gainsborough, J. 2000. Prosecuting
Juveniles in Adult Court: An Assessment of Trends and
Consequences. Washington, DC: The Sentencing Project.

Tanenhaus, D.S. 2004. Juvenile Justice in the Making.
New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Zimring, F.E. 1998. American Youth Violence. New York,
NY: Oxford University Press.

Walden, T.A., Harris, V.S., and Catron, T.F. 2003.
How I feel: A self-report measure of emotional arousal
and regulation for children. Psychological Assessment
15(3):399–412.

Zimring, F.E. 2005. American Juvenile Justice. New York,
NY: Oxford University Press.

Weinberger, D.A., and Schwartz, G.E. 1990. Distress and
restraint as superordinate dimensions of self-reported adjustment: A typological perspective. Journal of Personality
58(2):381–417.

Juvenile Justice Bulletin

17

U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Justice Programs
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

*NCJ~232932*

PRESORTED STANDARD
POSTAGE & FEES PAID
DOJ/OJJDP
PERMIT NO. G–91

Washington, DC 20531
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use $300

Acknowledgments

This bulletin was prepared under grant number

Edward P. Mulvey, Ph.D., is Professor of Psychiatry and Director of the Law
and Psychiatry Program at the Western Psychiatric Institute and Clinic
(WPIC), University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine. Carol A. Schubert,
M.P.H., is the Research Program Administrator of the Law and Psychiatry
Program at WPIC.

Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP),

2007–MU–FX–0002 from the Office of Juvenile
U.S. Department of Justice.
Points of view or opinions expressed in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of
OJJDP or the U.S. Department of Justice.

Share With Your Colleagues
Unless otherwise noted, OJJDP publications
are not copyright protected. We encourage you
to reproduce this document, share it with your
colleagues, and reprint it in your newsletter
or journal. However, if you reprint, please cite
OJJDP and the authors of this bulletin. We are
also interested in your feedback, such as how
you received a copy, how you intend to use the
information, and how OJJDP materials meet

Please direct comments
and/or questions to:
National Criminal Justice
Reference Service
P.O. Box 6000
Rockville, MD 20849–6000
800–851–3420
301–519–5600 (fax)

The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention is a component of the
Office of Justice Programs, which also
includes the Bureau of Justice Assistance;
the Bureau of Justice Statistics; the National
Institute of Justice; the Office for Victims
of Crime; and the Office of Sex Offender
Sentencing, Monitoring, Apprehending,
Registering, and Tracking.

Web: tellncjrs.ncjrs.gov

your individual or agency needs.

NCJ 232932