youth in the adult criminal justice system-national trends

Jessica Sandoval, MPADirector,Field OperationsCampaign for Youth Justice

Youth in the Adult Criminal Justice

System-National Trends

An estimated 250,000 chi ldren are prosecuted, sentenced, or incarcerated as adults each year in the United States.

Youth prosecuted in the adult system are at the most racial disparate part of the system continuum.

I f present trends continue, one out of every three Afr ican-American males born today can expect to spend t ime in prison.

Most of the youth prosecuted in adult court are charged with non-violent offenses.

Research shows that youth that are prosecuted as adults are 34% more l ikely to be arrested for other crime.

Youth sentenced as adults receive an adult criminal record, are often denied voting r ights, employment and educational opportunit ies, and can be barred from receiving student financial aid and other government assistance.

YOUTH IN ADULT SYSTEM HIGHLIGHTS

Nearly 100,000 chi ldren are housed in adult ja i ls and prisons each year.

Youth in adult system are at the greatest r isk of sexual vict imization.

Many youth who are held in adult ja i ls have not even been convicted. Research shows that many never wi l l . As many as one-half of these youth wil l be sent back to the juveni le just ice system or wil l not be convicted.

Many chi ldren are often placed in isolation which can produce harmful consequences, including death. Youth are frequently locked down 23 hours a day.

Youth housed in adult ja i ls are 36 t imes more l ikely to commit suicide than are youth housed in juveni le detention faci l i t ies.

Currently, 40 states permit or require that youth charged as adults be held before they are tr ied in an adult jai l . In some states, i f they are convicted, they may be required to serve their entire sentence in an adult jai l .

YOUTH HOUSED IN ADULT JAILS AND PRISONS

HOW DO YOUTH GET TO THE ADULT SYSTEM?

YOUTH IN THE ADULT SYSTEM CONT.

Turning the Tide

In the past 5 years, more than 30 pieces of legislation in nearly half of the states have changed their laws regarding youth in the adult system.

These trends are not short-term, but is a long-term restructuring of the juvenile justice system.

Reform efforts have been in all regions of the country and supported by bipartisan legislators and governors.

STATE TRENDS HIGHLIGHTS

TREND 1--States and local jurisdictions remove youth from adult jails and prisons.

Colorado, Maine, Virginia, Minnesota, Idaho, Oregon, Texas and Pennsylvania.

TREND 2--States raise the age of juvenile court jurisdiction.Connecticut, Illinois and Mississippi.

TREND 3--States change transfer laws to keep more youth in juvenile courts.

Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Nevada, Ohio, Utah, Virginia and Washington.

TREND 4--States rethink sentencing laws for youth.Colorado, Georgia, Texas and Washington.

RECENT TRENDS

SB 259, was passed unanimously by the Virginia House of Delegates and the Virginia Senate.

The legislation creates a presumption that youth who are being tried as adults are held in juvenile detention centers pretrial.

VIRGINIA

Series of reforms:

2012 Remove youth from adult jai ls pre-trial

2012 Provide judges more discretion whether youth should be in adult court

2010 requires all school districts to provide educational services during school year to youth held in adult jai ls

COLORADO

CONNECTICUT

• As of January, 2010, 16-year-olds joined the juvenile system

• As of July, 2012, 17-year-olds joined the juvenile system

• Removed 10,000 16&17-year-olds from the adult system in since 2010

AlabamaArizonaColoradoDistr ict of ColumbiaMarylandMassachusettsMichiganNew YorkUtahFloridaGeorgiaIdahoTexasWashingtonNevadaWyomingWisconsinOregon

OTHER STATES EXAMINING TRANSFER LAWS

Erin Davies, Public Policy AttorneyChildren’s Law Center, Inc.

OHIO: TRENDS FOR YOUTH IN ADULT

COURT

Age Where Tried

Where Sentence Served

Basis for Adult Court Involvement

Bindover – Mandatory and Discretionary

14+ Adult Court Adult System Age, offense, and

other factors

Serious Youthful Offender (SYO)

10+ Juvenile Court

Juvenile System and Potentially Adult System (after age 14)

Age, offense, and other factors

Youth 18+ in Juvenile Court

18-21

Juvenile Court

Juvenile System and Adult System Age

OHIO: TRACKS TO THE ADULT SYSTEM FOR JUVENILE COURT-INVOLVED YOUTH

Three Main Platforms for Reform:

Information gathering LegislativeOther advocacy efforts

OVERVIEW: RECENT REFORMS FOR OHIO YOUTH IN ADULT COURT

Information Gathering:Data collection and report release

Story collection project

RECENT REFORMS FOR OHIO YOUTH IN ADULT COURT: INFORMATION GATHERING

Fact 1: Approximately 300 youth are bound over each year.

OHIO: BOUND OVER YOUTH DATA

Fact 2: Bindover is used much more frequently than SYO.

OHIO: BOUND OVER YOUTH DATA

Fact 3: Bindover disproportionately affects non-White youth who make up 84% of bound over youth.

OHIO: BOUND OVER YOUTH DATA

Fact 4: The vast majority of bound over youth receive a sentence of 5 years or less.

OHIO: BOUND OVER YOUTH DATA

Any Pun-ishment for 5 years or less, (67%)

Prison for 5+ years (33%)

Fact 5: Based on geography, bindover looks very different based on numbers and rate:Numbers: Over the past 10 years, only 10

counties have bound over an average of 10 or more youth. 78 counties bind over less than 10 youth per year, including 11 counties that did not bind over any youth over the past 10 years.

Rates: Bindover rates, however, show a very different picture, with rural counties having a high rate of bindover.

OHIO: BOUND OVER YOUTH DATA

Youth 14-17 Population

Number of Youth: 60,000+ 30,000-59,999 10,000-29,999 5,000-9,999 2,000-4,999 Below 2,000

Ohio Bindover Numbers (10 Year Avg.)

Number of Youth: 50+ 30-49 10-29 1-9 Less than 1 0

Youth 14-17 Population

Number of Youth: 60,000+ 30,000-59,999 10,000-29,999 5,000-9,999 2,000-4,999 Below 2,000

Ohio Bindover Rate (10 Year Avg.)

Number of Youth: 30+ 10-29.9 5-9.9 1-4.9 Less than 1 0

Legislative changes:HB 86 – Reverse waiver provision

SB 337 – Retention of youth in juvenile detention facilities instead of adult jails

RECENT REFORMS FOR OHIO YOUTH IN ADULT COURT: LEGISLATIVE CHANGE

Ohio mandatory bindover law: Applies to youth ages 16 and 17 years old

charged with:- Category One Offenses - Aggravated

Murder/Attempt or Murder/Attempt- Category Two Offenses committed with a

firearm (Voluntary Manslaughter, Involuntary Manslaughter (F1), Aggravated Robbery, Aggravated Burglary, Rape, or Aggravated Arson)

Once a prosecutor charges a youth with a mandatory bindover offense, juvenile court must only find probable cause before waiving to adult court.

OHIO REFORMS: HB 86 – REVERSE WAIVER

Context:Original position: Eliminate mandatory

bindover and make all bindovers discretionaryProcess:

- Ohio House approved eliminating mandatory bindover by a vote of 96-2

- Ohio Senate Committee would not consider eliminating mandatory bindover

Compromise position: Reverse waiver included in HB 86, which went into effect of September 2011

OHIO REFORMS: HB 86 – REVERSE WAIVER

Goals:Designed to give youth who are

convicted of a lesser offense in adult court to get a “re-do” in juvenile court.

Prevent prosecutors from overcharging in order to initiate mandatory bindover .

OHIO REFORMS: HB 86 – REVERSE WAIVER

OHIO REFORMS: HB 86 – REVERSE WAIVER

Youth Convicted In Adult Court

Of:

Result :

Non-Bindover Offense Youth returned to Juvenile Court

Mandatory Bindover Offense

Youth remains in Adult Court

Discretionary Bindover Offense

Youth returned to Juvenile Court BUT can return to Adult Court (after prosecutor

objection and judicial amenability hearing)

Outcomes: Limited data collection. Several youth have been reverse waived

back to the juvenile justice system either after plea bargains or jury verdicts for lesser offenses

Juvenile courts have found some of these youth amenable to remain in juvenile court – some counties more than others

OHIO REFORMS: HB 86 – REVERSE WAIVER

Context:Ohio’s Governor pushed legislation

designed to reduce collateral sanctions for individuals in the court system

Governor’s office held listening sessions throughout state

Jail placement provisions included in bill, SB 337 that went into effect September 28, 2012

OHIO REFORMS: SB 337 - JAIL PLACEMENT

Goals:To recognize that youth are different than

adults.To remove youth from harms of adult jails,

where they are:- At a significantly increased risk of suicide- At great risk of physical and sexual assault

- Often unable to access appropriate education services

- Often placed in isolation

OHIO REFORMS: SB 337 - JAIL PLACEMENT

Prior law: Courts were permitted to keep two types of youth in juvenile detention instead of adult jails:Youth ages 18-21 under juvenile court jurisdiction

Youth bound over to adult court

OHIO REFORMS: SB 337 - JAIL PLACEMENT

SB 337: Creates a presumption that these youth would remain in a juvenile detention center unless the juvenile court holds a hearing and determines:The youth is a threat to the safety and

security of juvenile detentionThe jail is a better placement option

for the youth

OHIO REFORMS: SB 337 - JAIL PLACEMENT

Threat to the safety and security of the facility standard (may include, but is not limited to) if the youth: Injured or created an imminent danger to

life or health self or others through violent behavior;

Escaped from the facility on more than one occasion; or

Established a pattern of disruptive behavior as verified by a written record that the youth's behavior is not conducive to the established policies and procedures of the facility or program in which the youth is being held.

OHIO REFORMS: SB 337 - JAIL PLACEMENT

Appropriate place of confinement: Age Deprived of contact with other people or lack of access to

recreational facilities or age-appropriate education due to separation

Emotional state, intelligence, and developmental maturity, including trauma, and the risk to the person in an adult jail

Whether juvenile detention would provide community protection

Relative ability of the available adult and juvenile detention facilities to meet the needs of the person , including mental health and education

Presents an imminent risk of self-inflicted harm or an imminent risk of harm to others within a juvenile facility;

Any other relevant factors.

OHIO REFORMS: SB 337 - JAIL PLACEMENT

Petition process:Non-emergency: Can be filed every 30

days and the youth must allege facts or circumstances that, if true, would warrant reconsideration of the youth’s placement.

Emergency: Can be filed anytime if the youth is facing (an imminent danger from others or the youth's self.

OHIO REFORMS: SB 337 - JAIL PLACEMENT

Outcomes:Bill went into effect a month agoDetention facilities took different approaches (i.e. retroactive application) and are working on providing long-term programming for youth

OHIO REFORMS: SB 337 - JAIL PLACEMENT

Other Advocacy: Special education in jails Meetings with leadership in

Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections

Technical assistance to attorneys on bindover cases

RECENT REFORMS FOR OHIO YOUTH IN ADULT COURT: OTHER ADVOCACY

Remove youth from adult jails and prisons

Change Ohio’s bindover law so more youth remain in juvenile court

Shore up and encourage utilization of Ohio’s SYO law as an alternative for bindover

Strengthen data collection

OHIO YOUTH IN ADULT COURT: WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE?

Stephanie Kollmann

Children and Family Just ice Center

PRELIMINARY FINDINGS:RAISING THE AGE OF

JUVENILE JURISDICTION IN ILLINOIS

BACKGROUND RESEARCH QUESTIONS METHODS LEGAL LANDSCAPE EFFECTS OF RAISING THE AGE

(MISDEMEANORS) POTENTIAL IMPACT OF RAISING

THE AGE (FELONIES)

AGENDA

BACKGROUND

Public Act 095-1031 (Raise the Age – Misdemeanor) 17-year-old misdemeanants under juvenile court jurisdiction Effective January 1, 2010

Public Act 096-1199 (Commission Report) Charged IJJC (SAG) with delivering a report and

recommendations Effective January 1, 2011

“Study the impact of, develop timelines, and propose a funding structure to accommodate the expansion of the jurisdiction of the Illinois Juvenile Court to include youth age 17 under the jurisdiction of the Juvenile Court Act of 1987” 20 ILCS 505/17a-9(a)(6)

BACKGROUND

RESEARCH QUESTIONS

Questions about 17-year-old jurisdiction What is the current legal status of 17-year-olds? What are the developmental characteristics of 17-year-olds? What aspects of juvenile jurisdiction are unique?

Questions about the juvenile justice system Did raising the age for misdemeanors overwhelm

institutions/actors? What will be the impact of raising the age for felonies?

RESEARCH QUESTIONS

METHODS

Legal ResearchBest Practices/Youth DevelopmentData RequestsPractitioner Interviews

METHODS

Legal Research Historic Practices Caselaw Other States/National Trends International Standards IL Statutes

Jurisdiction Detention Transfer

Best Practices/Youth DevelopmentData RequestsPractitioner Interviews

METHODS

Legal ResearchBest Practices/Youth Development

Literature Review Biological Maturation Recidivism/Outcomes

Data RequestsPractitioner Interviews

METHODS

Legal ResearchBest Practices/Youth DevelopmentData Requests

Administrative Office of the Illinois Courts Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority Illinois Department of Commerce

Census 2010 State Repository Illinois Department of Corrections Illinois Department of Juvenile Justice Juvenile Management Information System

University of Illinois, Center for Prevention Research and Development

Practitioner Interviews

METHODS

Legal ResearchBest Practices/Youth DevelopmentData RequestsPractitioner Interviews

12-county Sample Narrative Responses Law Enforcement Prosecutors and Defenders Probation Officers Juvenile Detention Centers Adult Jails

METHODS

Q: WHAT IS THE LEGAL STATUS OF 17-

YEAR-OLDS?

Definition of Juvenile Court Jurisdiction InternationallyNationallyFederal/State/Local lawsSupreme Court decisions

LEGAL STATUS OF 17-YEAR-OLDS

Oldest age at which case is presumed to enter juvenile court

What it is NOT Detention Age

Transfer Age Complex network of circumstances under which youth who start

in juvenile court are removed to adult court Uses criteria outside age to determine applicability of transfer

“Age Out” Date (end of jurisdiction) In IL, this is 21

WHAT IS JUVENILE COURT JURISDICTION?

* Not rat ified by the Uni ted States or Somal ia

INTERNATIONALLY

17 18 21UN Convention on the

Rights of the Child*United Kingdom AustriaMost of Europe Germany

Canada LithuaniaMexico (19) Spain

American Bar Association has recommended using 18 as the age of adulthood for over 30 years.

Federal age of majority for both victim and perpetrator is 18.

Only 11 other states set delinquency age below 18: 16 – NY, NC 17 – GA, LA, MA, MI, MO, NH, SC, TX, WI

Recently raised to 18: CT, MS

Other recent trends MO: status offenders under 19 OK: misdemeanors up to 18.5 CO: select juvenile sentencing for youth 18-21 RI: stopped attempt to decrease age in 2007

NATIONALLY

American Bar Association has recommended using 18 as the age of adulthood for over 30 years.

Federal age of majority for both victim and perpetrator is 18.

Only 11 other states set delinquency age below 18: 16 – NY, NC 17 – GA, LA, MA, MI, MO, NH, SC, TX, WI

Recently raised to 18: CT, MS

Other recent trends MO: status offenders under 19 OK: misdemeanors up to 18.5 CO: select juvenile sentencing for youth 18-21 RI: stopped attempt to decrease age in 2007

NATIONALLY

17 18* 21Truancy IL age of majority Juvenile Court Act (end)

ContractVoting (26th Amendment)Standing to sue individuallyEntitlements/benefitsDCFS/Child Abuse DCFS/Child Abuse (end)

Military enlistment (some) Military enlistment (all)

Full driver’s licenseState sexual consent Federal sexual consentStatewide curfew Local curfew (some)MPAA-rated films (R/NC-17)

Lottery, tattoo/piercing, tobacco, adult books, decongestants

Alcohol, gambling, adult entertainment

Parental liability (*19)

FEDERAL/STATE/LOCAL ADULTHOOD

[N]one of what [Graham] said about children—about their distinctive (and transitory) mental traits and en vironmental vulnerabilities—is crime-specific. Miller v. Alabama (2012)

Emphasis on brain development and science specific to young offenders under 18: Roper v. Simmons (2005) (raised certain protections from 16 to 18) Graham v. Florida (2010) Miller v. Alabama (2012)

Characteristics Immature Impressionable Unpredictable

SUPREME COURT AND SCIENCE

Individualized determinations of maturity impossible

Young age perceived as aggravating factor

Adults mistake “school smarts” for maturity

Administrative ease and efficiency

Individualized determinations of adulthood may still be made in a small number of limit cases

WHY SET A CATEGORICAL RULE?

Q: WHAT ASPECTS OF JUVENILE

JURISDICTION ARE UNIQUE?

Juvenile AdultParental Notification of Arrest NoJuvenile Officer to Safeguard Youth NoParental Summons/Accountability No Parent Obligation or StandingDetained with Age Peers General PopulationOption of DCFS Resolution UnlikelyJuvenile Court Expertise: Judges, prosecutors, defenders, probation officers, detention staff

High Volume of Cases: Youth expertise unnecessary

Indeterminate Sentencing Determinate SentencingRehabilitation Purpose + Accountability

Incapacitation and Deterrence Focus

Confidential Public RecordDecisions consider risk screenings and social history

Incomplete information

DELINQUENCY VS. CRIMINAL COURT

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Task Force findings based on comprehensive review of every

published or government-conducted study on transfer policies 34% more likely to be arrested if youth in the adult system36 times more likely to commit suicide

“[T]o the extent that transfer policies are implemented to reduce violent or other criminal behavior, available evidence indicates that they do more harm than good . . . the use of transfer laws and strengthened transfer policies is counterproductive to reducing juvenile violence and enhancing public safety .”

“Effects on Violence of Laws and Policies Facilitating the Transfer of Youth from the Juvenile to the Adult Justice System: A Report on Recommendations of the Task Force on Community Preventive Services” MWMR (November 2007)

YOUTH IN ADULT COURT: RECIDIVISM AND DETERRENCE

June 2010 Bulletin, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) 6 total studies - between 494 and 5,476 youth in each

Every single study showed higher recidivism in adult system – even when youth was given probation and not incarcerated

“Laws that make it easier to transfer youth to the adult criminal court system have l itt le or no general deterrent effect, meaning they do not prevent youth from engaging in criminal behavior .”

“Youth transferred to the adult system are more likely to be rearrested and to reoffend than youth who committed similar crimes, but were retained in the juvenile justice system.”

Richard E. Redding, Juvenile Transfer Laws: An Effective Deterrent to Delinquency? OJJDP Bulletin (June 2010)

YOUTH IN ADULT COURT: RECIDIVISM AND DETERRENCE

June 2010 Bulletin, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP)

Why stark differences in recidivism? Felony stigma Feelings of injustice Fraternization with adults Incarceration trauma Lack of rehabilitation focus Deemphasis on family support Loss of employment opportunities Decrease in lifelong earning potential

YOUTH IN ADULT COURT: RECIDIVISM AND DETERRENCE

Q: WHAT WAS THE IMPACT OF RAISING

THE AGE FOR MISDEMEANANTS?

ANTICIPATED IMPACT

ACTUAL EFFECT ARREST PETITION ADJUDICATION PROBATION DETENTION INCARCERATION

SYSTEM IMPACT

Based on most recent arrest data at the time (2009)

ANTICIPATED IMPACT

Based on most recent arrest data at the time (2009)

+38.4%

ANTICIPATED IMPACT

ARRESTS

NUMBER OF 17-YEAR-OLD ARRESTS SINCE 2005

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 20110

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

FelonyUnknownAdult MisdemeanorJuvenile Misdemeanor (optional reporting)

RTA

Source: ICJIA

NUMBER OF 17-YEAR-OLD ARRESTS SINCE 2009

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 20110

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

FelonyUnknownAdult MisdemeanorJuvenile Misdemeanor (optional reporting)

-13%

-37%

-41%

RTA

Source: ICJIA

PETITIONS

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 -

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

CookPetitionsAOICNorthern (w/o Cook)PetitionsCentralPetitionsSouthern Petitions

STATEWIDE JUVENILE PETITIONS2005-2011

RTA

+3.1%

Source: AOIC, ICJIA

PROPORTION OF JUVENILE PETITIONS 2011 CASELOAD

Traffic, Ordinance Violation, ConservationCriminal Other Civil Civil Law Abuse/Neglect and Delinquency

0.9%

Source: AOIC

ADJUDICATIONS

STATEWIDE DELINQUENCY ADJUDICATIONS 2005-2010

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 -

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

Northern (w/o Cook)CentralSouth

RTA

Source: AOIC, ICJIA

STATEWIDE DELINQUENCY ADJUDICATIONS 2005-2010

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 -

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

Northern (w/o Cook)CentralSouth

RTA

Source: AOIC, ICJIA

-7%

JUVENILE PROBATION

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

-

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

OtherAdministrativeInformalContinuedSupervisionStandard

JUVENILE PROBATION CASELOAD SINCE 1995

RTA

Source: AOIC, ICJIA

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

-

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

OtherAdministrativeInformalContinuedSupervisionStandard

JUVENILE PROBATION CASELOAD SINCE 1995

RTA

Source: AOIC, ICJIA

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 -

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

18,000

20,000

OtherAdministrativeInformalContinuedSupervisionStandard

JUVENILE PROBATION CASELOAD 2005-2011

RTA

Source: AOIC, ICJIA

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 -

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

18,000

20,000

OtherAdministrativeInformalContinuedSupervisionStandard

JUVENILE PROBATION CASELOAD 2005-2011

RTA

-3%

Source: AOIC, ICJIA

JUVENILE DETENTION

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

9/1/11

-8/31

/12

Capaci

ty -

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

CapacityAverageDailyPopulation

POPULATION TREND, STATEWIDE JUVENILE DETENTION CENTERS

Source: JMIS, NCCD

RTA

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

9/1/11

-8/31

/12

Capaci

ty -

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

CapacityAverageDailyPopulation

POPULATION TREND, STATEWIDE JUVENILE DETENTION CENTERS

Source: JMIS, NCCD

RTA

DETENTION CENTERS AVERAGE DAILY POPULATION TREND BY REGION

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

9/1/11

-8/31

/12 -

100

200

300

400

500

600

CookOther NorthernCentralSouthern

Source: JMIS, NCCD, CCB

RTA

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

9/1/11

-8/31

/12 -

100

200

300

400

500

600

CookOther NorthernCentralSouthern

DETENTION CENTERS AVERAGE DAILY POPULATION TREND BY REGION

Source: JMIS, NCCD, CCB

RTA

-33%

DETENTION CENTERS AVERAGE DAILY POPULATION TREND BY REGION

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

9/1/11

-8/31

/12 -

100

200

300

400

500

600

CookOther NorthernCentralSouthern

Source: JMIS, NCCD, CCB

RTA

REGIONAL DETENTION CENTERS POPULATION TREND SINCE 2006

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 9/1/11-8/31/12

-

50

100

150

200

250

300

Other NorthernCentralSouthern

Source: JMIS

RTA

REGIONAL DETENTION CENTERS POPULATION TREND SINCE 2006

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 9/1/11-8/31/12

-

50

100

150

200

250

300

Other NorthernCentralSouthern

Source: JMIS

RTA

-24%-22%-29%

REGIONAL DETENTION CENTERS POPULATION TREND SINCE 2009

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 9/1/11-8/31/12

-

50

100

150

200

250

300

Other NorthernCentralSouthern

Source: JMIS

RTA

-03%-14%-12%

REGIONAL DETENTION CENTER POPULATION AND CAPACITY

Cook Other Northern

Central Southern -

100

200

300

400

500

600

9/1/11-8/31/12Capacity

Source: JMIS, IJJC

Champa

ign

Frankl

in

Kane

+ DuPag

e

Kane

Tx Knox Lak

eLaS

alle

Madiso

n

McLean

Peori

a

Sang

amon

St. Clair

Vermilio

n Will

Winneb

ago

-

20

40

60

80

100

120

9/1/11-8/31/12Capacity

VARIANCE, REGIONAL DETENTION CENTER POPULATION AND CAPACITY

Source: JMIS, IJJC

Champa

ign

Frankl

in

Kane

+ DuPag

e

Kane

Tx Knox Lak

eLaS

alle

Madiso

n

McLean

Peori

a

Sang

amon

St. Clair

Vermilio

n Will

Winneb

ago

-

20

40

60

80

100

120

9/1/11-8/31/12Capacity

VARIANCE, REGIONAL DETENTION CENTER POPULATION AND CAPACITY

104%33%

Source: JMIS, IJJC

JUVENILE INCARCERATION

IDJJ FACILITY ADMISSIONSFY2003-2011

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 20110

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

Delinquent Court Evaluation Technical Parole Violator

Source: IDJJ

RTA

IDJJ MISDEMEANOR COURT ADMISSIONS BY AGE GROUP

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 20100

50

100

150

200

250

16 and Under17Over 17

Source: IDJJ

RTA

IDJJ POPULATION FY03-FY11

FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY110

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

1,800

DJJEnd of FYPopulation

Source: IDJJ

-02%

RTA

ARREST -41% Statewide, 17yo misdemeanor arrests (2011) (unreliable) -13% Statewide, 17yo adult felony arrests (2011)

PETITION +03% Statewide, all ages (2011)

ADJUDICATION -07% Statewide, all ages (2010) (Cook not reporting)

JUVENILE PROBATION -03% Statewide, all ages (2011)

JUVENILE DETENTION -20% Statewide, all ages (last 12 mo.); -09% non-Cook, -33%

Cook INCARCERATION

-02% Statewide, all ages, IDJJ (FY11) -15% Statewide, 17yo adult felony admissions to IDOC (FY11)

SUMMARY: SYSTEM DATA SINCE 2010

Q: WERE THERE ANY QUALITATIVE

IMPACTS OF RAISING THE AGE FOR

MISDEMEANANTS?

Law Enforcement Police department (largest city) Sheriff’s office (investigations)

Pretrial Detention Sheriff’s office (county jail) Detention Center

Court Practitioners Court Services Prosecutors Defenders Probation

State Corrections

ENTITIES IN INTERVIEW SAMPLE

COUNTY TOTAL YOUTH ARRESTS 2008

YOUTH ARREST RATE PER 1,000 LARGEST CITY

Cook* 29,519 59 ChicagoKane* 1,981 35 AuroraMarion 124 33 CentraliaMcHenry 684 20 Crystal LakeMorgan 254 89 JacksonvilleOgle† 110 20 RochellePeoria* 352 21 PeoriaSangamon* 499 28 Springfield

St. Clair* 308 12 BellevilleVermilion* 165 22 DanvilleWill* 1,429 19 JolietWinnebago* 2,048 70 Rockford

STATEWIDE 47,068 18 Chicago

COUNTIES IN INTERVIEW SAMPLE

Data: ICJIA

* County has detention center

† Prosecutor’s office not included

93 Entities56

ResponsesResponse

Rate 60%

August – December 2011

INTERVIEW RESPONSES

13%

29%

21%

29%

9%

Cook

Collar

Northern

Central

Southern

Implementation Transfer Procedures Interrogation, Charging, Pretrial Detention PoliciesUnit Funding/Capacity ConcernsPublic Safety ImpactLocal Youth Programs, Services, Housing, EmploymentAnticipated Impact of Felony Implementation

INTERVIEW TOPICS

Q: WHAT WILL BE THE IMPACT OF

RAISING THE AGE FOR FELONIES?

NUMBER OF ARRESTS

Felony orMisdemeanor?

Misdemeanor 18,090 arrests in

2009*

Felony 4,012

arrests in 2011

Transfer

RTA 2010

* Last year of reliable data due to reporting changes.

RTA Felony

OVERVIEW: TRANSFER LAWS

Presumptive Transfer15yo + aggravating factors UNLESS judge finds amenable under clear and convincing evidence

Most Class X felonies; firearms discharge

Discretionary TransferAny minor over 13 + probable cause + judicial finding that juvenile court is not in the best interest of the public

Any crime

Mandatory Transfer

15yo + presumptive transfer crime + forcible felony

15yo + forcible felony + Felony + Gang Any felony

Automatic Transfer

15yo + presumptive transfer crime + forcible felonyMurder, Agg. CSA, Armed Robbery with Gun, Carjacking with Gun

Unaffected by changes to juvenile court jurisdiction

As young as 13

Any type of crime

Case-by-case basis

OVERVIEW: TRANSFER LAWS

REDUCTION OF DISPROPORTIONATE MINORITY IMPACT

Source: OJJDP, IDJJ, IDOC

DOC 17

DJJ 17 MisD

Illinois 17

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

African-AmericanHispanicWhite Non-HispanicOther

COLLATERAL CONSEQUENCES OF FELONY CONVICTION

Public Housing TANF

Student Loans Military Enlistment

10% to 40% Wage Reduction Adoption/Foster Parenting

Occupational Licenses Jury Duty

Food Stamps DeportationVoting (in other states)

CONCLUSION

Raising the age is consistent with legal trends is consistent with adolescent development and behavior is an efficient use of juvenile court resources

improves public safety decreases long-term costs

Raising the age for misdemeanors (2010) did not overwhelm the juvenile justice system created inconsistencies and uncertainty

Raising the age for felonies (future) anticipated to be manageable will promote uniformity, clarity does not affect transfer for serious offenses

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS