youth in the adult criminal justice system-national trends
DESCRIPTION
Youth in the Adult Criminal Justice System-National Trends. Jessica Sandoval, MPA Director, Field Operations Campaign for Youth Justice. Youth in Adult System Highlights. An estimated 250,000 children are prosecuted, sentenced, or incarcerated as adults each year in the United States . - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
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