Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 29, 2024 Mon
Time: 9:37 pm
Time: 9:37 pm
Results for juvenile court transfer
15 results foundAuthor: Deitch, Michele Title: From Time Out to Hard Time: Young Children in the Adult Criminal Justice System Summary: This report provides a look at how the nation treats young children who commit serious crimes, analyzes the available data with regard to the transfer of young children to adult criminal court, documents the extremely harsh and tragic consequences that follow when young children go into the adult criminal justice system, examines international practices, and offers policy recommendations to address this situation. Details: Austin, TX: The University of Texas at Austin, LBJ School of Public Affairs, 2009. 116p. Source: Year: 2009 Country: United States URL: Shelf Number: 115642 Keywords: Juvenile Court TransferJuvenile Justice, Administration ofJuvenile Offenders |
Author: Ziedenberg, Jason Title: Misguided Measures: The Outcomes and Impacts of Measure 11 on Oregon’s Youth Summary: Oregon voters passed Measure 11 in November 1994. The measure created new mandatory minimum sentences for 16 crimes and required that youth charged with those crimes be tried as adults. The legislature subsequently added more crimes to Measure 11. Today, Measure 11 requires youth ages 15 years or older charged with one of 21 crimes to be prosecuted automatically in the adult criminal justice system and if convicted of that crime, to serve the same mandatory sentence that applies to adults. Fifteen years after Measure 11 was enacted, the Campaign for Youth Justice and Partnership for Safety and Justice embarked on a study to determine the impact that Measure 11 was having on youth in Oregon. The authors analyzed data on 3,274 young people indicted with Measure 11 offenses since 1995. The authors also looked at a subset of 759 cases handled between 2006 and 2008 to understand the current way Measure 11 is being implemented in the 36 Oregon counties. The report examines the detrimental impact of Measure 11 in a thorough, in-depth analysis of its effect on youth and public safety in Oregon. According to the data, Measure 11 has not made Oregon any safer. In fact, most youth charged with Measure 11 offenses are not the most serious youth offenders, but they receive the most serious sentences, little to no rehabilitative services, and face lifelong barriers to becoming productive citizens even after they have served their sentence. The report provides clear reasons why the public should reconsider Measure 11 for juveniles in addition to a list of recommendations that incorporate the latest research on curbing juvenile delinquency and recidivism in order to improve youth justice policies and increase public safety in Oregon Details: Washington, DC: Campaign for Youth Justice; Portland, OR: Partnership for Safety and Justice, 2011. 92p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 28, 2011 at: http://www.campaignforyouthjustice.org/documents/Misguided_Measures_July_2011.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.campaignforyouthjustice.org/documents/Misguided_Measures_July_2011.pdf Shelf Number: 122191 Keywords: Juvenile Court TransferJuvenile DetentionJuvenile Justice (Oregon)Juvenile OffendersWaiver (of Juvenile Court Jurisdiction |
Author: Arthur, Pat Title: A Call to Stop Child Prosecutions in Wyoming Adult Courts Summary: Unlike any other state in the nation, Wyoming commonly prosecutes children as criminals, imposing adult sentences for misbehavior more typical of normal adolescence than criminal. At significant cost to Wyoming taxpayers, children as young as eight years old who get in trouble for such transgressions as smoking at school, drinking at a weekend party, stealing a pack of gum, or skateboarding in the wrong place are being criminally prosecuted in adult courts in counties and cities throughout the state. While these adolescent misbehaviors may be challenging to families and communities trying to raise healthy kids, they present little or no real threat to public safety. Nevertheless, Wyoming uses costly criminal procedures and expensive detention beds to punish children for conduct that is more effectively addressed in the home or at school. It is estimated that 85-90% of children in trouble with the law in Wyoming are currently being processed through adult, not juvenile, courts where they become saddled with adult criminal convictions for minor misbehaviors. In the adult court system, kids receive few of the rehabilitative social services available in the juvenile justice system. With such extraordinary criminal court involvement in the rearing of Wyoming’s teens, it is no wonder that the state has the second highest juvenile incarceration rate in the country. Details: Oakland, CA: National Center for Youth Law, 2010. 28p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 2, 2011 at: http://www.youthlaw.org/fileadmin/ncyl/youthlaw/juv_justice/A_Call_to_Stop_Child_Prosecutions.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://www.youthlaw.org/fileadmin/ncyl/youthlaw/juv_justice/A_Call_to_Stop_Child_Prosecutions.pdf Shelf Number: 122252 Keywords: Juvenile Court TransferJuvenile Offenders (Wyoming)Waiver (of Juvenile Court Jurisdiction) |
Author: Teji, Selena Title: An Analysis of Direct Adult Criminal Court Filing 2003-2009: What Has Been the Effect of Proposition 21? Summary: The following report is Part Four of the Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice’s (CJCJ) Juvenile Justice Realignment Series. Direct adult criminal court filing is a process that allows prosecutorial discretion to file cases involving juveniles accused of certain violent and serious offenses in adult court without obtaining judicial permission, a power granted by Proposition 21 in 2000. This report studies the practice of direct-filing in California’s 58 counties during 2003 through 2009 in order to assess the potential effect of the originally proposed Division of Juvenile Facilities closure on this practice. Details: San Francisco, CA: Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice, 2011. 14p. Source: Internet Resource: Juvenile Justice Realignment Series: Accessed September 2, 2011 at: http://www.cjcj.org/files/What_has_been_the_effect_of_Prop_21.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.cjcj.org/files/What_has_been_the_effect_of_Prop_21.pdf Shelf Number: 122615 Keywords: Juvenile Court TransferJuvenile Offenders (California)Waiver (of Juvenile Court Jurisdiction) |
Author: Arya, Neelum Title: A Tangled Web of Justice: American Indian and Alaska Native Youth in Federal, State and Tribal Justice Systems Summary: This report presents an examination of how Native American youth are disproportionately affected by transfer laws. Key findings include that many Native American youth commit low-level offenses and receive either no court intervention or disproportionately severe sanctions. Also examines the interaction of the tribal justice system with the state and federal justice systems and how that impacts youth transfer. Details: Washington, DC: Campaign for Youth Justice, 2009. 43p. Source: Internet Resource: Policy Brief, Race and Ethnicity Series Vol. 1: Accessed October 4, 2011 at: http://www.campaignforyouthjustice.org/documents/CFYJPB_TangledJustice.pdf Year: 2009 Country: United States URL: http://www.campaignforyouthjustice.org/documents/CFYJPB_TangledJustice.pdf Shelf Number: 114889 Keywords: American IndiansIndigenous YouthJuvenile Court TransferMinority YouthWaiver (of Juvenile Court Jurisdiction) |
Author: Arya, Neelum Title: Critical Condition: African-American Youth in the Justice System Summary: This reports presents an examination of how African-American youth are disproportionately affected by transfer laws. Key findings include that most African-American youth are transferred by statutory exclusion or prosecutorial waiver mechanisms, many are not convicted (suggesting that the cases brought against them are not very strong), and that most youth prosecuted in the adult system are not serious violent offenders. Details: Washington, DC: Campaign for Youth Justice, 2008. 50p. Source: Internet Resource: Policy Brief, Race and Ethnicity Vol. 2: Accessed October 4, 2011 at: http://www.campaignforyouthjustice.org/documents/CFYJPB_CriticalCondition.pdf Year: 2008 Country: United States URL: http://www.campaignforyouthjustice.org/documents/CFYJPB_CriticalCondition.pdf Shelf Number: 114889 Keywords: Juvenile Court TransferMinority GroupsWaiver (of Juvenile Court Jurisdiction) |
Author: Kunkle, Susan M. Title: Bind Over and Blended Sentencing in Ohio Summary: In the early 1990s, juvenile crime in the US appeared to be increasing in frequency and seemed to be exceedingly more violent. In state after state, legislative efforts increased the mechanisms of transfer, made transfer mandatory for a larger number of offenses, and generally sought to remove more serious and violent juveniles from the special jurisdiction of the juvenile courts. This research is an effort to understand how those legislative actions were operationalized by the juvenile courts, specifically by identifying the relationship between legal and extra legal variables and dispositional outcomes. In Ohio, three outcomes are salient in the disposition of cases of youthful offenders who engage in felony-level, violent, and/or repetitive criminal offending – retain in the juvenile court, a blended sentence that straddles both the juvenile and adult criminal court system, and a transfer of the case from the juvenile to the adult criminal court system. Data were collected from five Ohio Juvenile Courts and the Ohio Department of Youth Services and consist of populations of transferred and blended sentence cases and a sample of felony adjudication cases from the years of 2002 through 2006. Multinomial logistic regression was used to analyze the data; retained in the juvenile court was identified as the reference factor. The use of a weapon, the severity of the offense, if the offense was violent, prior record, the age of the offender at the time of the offense, and the age of the offender at first contact with the juvenile justice system were significant in the decision to transfer a case to the adult criminal court system. The use of a weapon, the severity of the offense, prior record, and the age of the offender at the time of the offense were significant in the decision to dispose of a case through a blended sentence. Details: Kent, OH: Kent State University, Department of Political Science, 2011. 161p. Source: Internet Resource: Dissertation: Accessed January 13, 2012 at: http://etd.ohiolink.edu/view.cgi/Kunkle%20Susan%20M.pdf?kent1302131672 Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://etd.ohiolink.edu/view.cgi/Kunkle%20Susan%20M.pdf?kent1302131672 Shelf Number: 122527 Keywords: Blended SentencesJuvenile Court TransferJuvenile CourtsJuvenile OffendersPunishmentSentencing (Ohio)Waiver (of Juvenile Court Disposition) |
Author: Berlin, Lisa J. Title: Juvenile or Adult? Adolescent Off enders and the Line Between the Juvenile and Criminal Justice Systems Summary: Most states’ juvenile justice systems have two main goals: increased public safety and the rehabilitation of adolescent offenders to prevent future crime. Policymakers and others need balanced information about the most effective ways to meet both goals. Currently, North Carolina, New York, and Connecticut are the only states that prosecute 16- and 17-year-olds charged with a crime in adult criminal court. The North Carolina General Assembly is addressing the question of whether 16- and 17-year-olds charged with a crime should be prosecuted in juvenile court instead. The question of whether adolescent offenders should be prosecuted in the juvenile or adult system is important because off enders aged 16-24 account for 37 percent of arrests for violent crimes in the United States and North Carolina. Policies that impact the frequency and duration of criminal activity among 16- and 17-year-olds have a major impact on overall crime rates and public safety. This Family Impact Seminar briefing report addresses the line between the juvenile and adults systems. A “family impact perspective” on policymaking informs this report. Just as policymakers routinely consider the environmental or economic impact of policies and programs, Family Impact Seminars help policymakers examine impact on families by providing research findings and evidence-based strategies. This report consists of five briefs: Brief 1 provides background and recent history on the handling of adolescent offenders in the United States and North Carolina; a description of how the current North Carolina juvenile justice system works; recent North Carolina juvenile justice statistics; and information on programs and facilities for adolescent offenders in North Carolina and other states. Brief 2 discusses research on youth development pertaining to three issues central to policies for adolescent offenders: blameworthiness, competence to stand trial, and the potential for an adolescent’s character to change. Brief 3 details how other states treat adolescent offenders. Brief 4 discusses research on how juvenile crime rates respond to changes in punishment laws. Brief 5 presents three policy options and a series of further considerations. The briefing report concludes with a glossary, a list of acronyms, a list of additional resources, and a chart of the current legal age in NC for different activities. Details: Durham, NC: Center for Child and Family Policy, Duke University, 2007. 42p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed January 20, 2012 at: http://www.childandfamilypolicy.duke.edu/pdfs/familyimpact/2007/BriefingReport_07.pdf Year: 2007 Country: United States URL: http://www.childandfamilypolicy.duke.edu/pdfs/familyimpact/2007/BriefingReport_07.pdf Shelf Number: 123690 Keywords: AdolescentsJuvenile Court TransferJuvenile OffendersWaiver (of Juvenile Court Jurisdiction) |
Author: Deitch, Michele Title: Conditions for Certified Juveniles in Texas County Jails Summary: The majority of juveniles who are accused of committing crimes in Texas are tried in juvenile courts, however, each year a small number of youth are transferred to the adult criminal justice system for trial. This process is referred to as certification. Until September 2011, Texas law required that all juveniles certified to be tried as adults were housed in adult county jails while they awaited their trials. In 2011, the 82nd Texas Legislature passed Senate Bill 1209 (SB 1209), which provided local juvenile boards the option to adopt a policy allowing for certified juveniles to be confined in juvenile detention centers rather than adult county jails. If the juvenile board adopts such a policy, the final decision as to where a particular youth would be housed would be up to the juvenile judge conducting the certification hearing. Although SB 1209 allows juvenile boards to create an option for certified youth to be confined in juvenile detention centers, until now there has been little information about the conditions for certified juveniles who are awaiting trial in county jails across the state. Without this information, it may be difficult for juvenile boards to determine whether juvenile detention centers or county jails are best suited to house certified youth, and to adopt an appropriate policy in response to SB 1209. To gather more information about the conditions for certified juveniles in Texas county jails, we worked with the Texas Commission on Jail Standards (TCJS) to conduct a survey of county jails in Texas that have experience housing certified juveniles. The survey focused on five key areas: housing, contact with adults, out-of-cell time, educational programming, and other programming. This report aims to provide a clearer picture of the conditions for certified juveniles in county jails based on the findings of this survey. The report provides a comprehensive assessment of how certified juveniles are housed in county jails in Texas, and the challenges faced by jail administrators when they confine certified youth. This information should help inform juvenile boards as they consider how to implement SB 1209, and can also inform policy makers, state and county agencies, and advocates in future discussions about the most appropriate way to manage the confinement of certified juveniles. Details: Austin, TX: Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs, The University of Texas at Austin, 2012. 54p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 10, 2012 at: https://www.utexas.edu/lbj/sites/default/files/file/news/Conditions%20for%20Certified%20Juveniles%20in%20Texas%20County%20Jails-FINAL-3.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: https://www.utexas.edu/lbj/sites/default/files/file/news/Conditions%20for%20Certified%20Juveniles%20in%20Texas%20County%20Jails-FINAL-3.pdf Shelf Number: 125233 Keywords: County JailsJuvenile Court TransferJuvenile DetentionJuvenile Offenders (Texas)Waiver (of Juvenile Court Jurisdiction) |
Author: Children's Law Center, Inc. Title: Falling Through the Cracks: A New Look at Ohio Youth in the Adult Criminal Justice System Summary: Over the past 20 years, Ohio laws have changed to make it increasingly easier for youth to come into contact with the adult criminal justice system. Although Ohio has recently taken a step towards removing youth from the adult system, these policies have resulted in over 300 youth are processed in adult court or placed in adult jails and prisons each year in Ohio. Falling Through the Cracks examines recent national research on the harmful effects of these policies as well as the national trend toward reducing the number of youth in adult court by states across the country – including Ohio – and the U.S. Supreme Court. The report also includes extensive Ohio-specific information, including original data on outcomes for youth who are bound over to adult court and recommendations on how to change Ohio law and practice on youth in adult court. Details: Covington, KY: Children's Law Center, Inc., 2012. 16p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 10, 2012 at: http://www.childrenslawky.org/storage/documents/Falling%20Through%20The%20Cracks%20-%20A%20New%20Look%20at%20Ohio%20Youth%20in%20the%20Adult%20Criminal%20Justice%20System%20-%20May%202012.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://www.childrenslawky.org/storage/documents/Falling%20Through%20The%20Cracks%20-%20A%20New%20Look%20at%20Ohio%20Youth%20in%20the%20Adult%20Criminal%20Justice%20System%20-%20May%202012.pdf Shelf Number: 125238 Keywords: Juvenile Court TransferJuvenile Offenders (Ohio)Waiver (of Juvenile Court Jurisdiction) |
Author: New York. Governor's Children's Cabinet Advisory Board Title: Advancing a Fair and Just Age of Criminal Responsibility for Youth in New York State Summary: New York, a state long considered a leader in justice-related issues, is falling behind the vast majority of states on a critical issue – the age of criminal responsibility. While most states treat 16 and 17 year olds as juveniles, New York treats all 16 and 17 year olds as adults for criminal responsibility – if arrested after their 16th birthday, they are taken to adult court, spend time detained or do time in local adult jails and can be incarcerated in state run adult correctional institutions if sentenced to longer than one year. Key stakeholders to contribute to the analysis must include the Office of Court Administration, Division of Criminal Justice Services, Office of Probation and Correctional Alternatives, Office of Children and Family Services, the educational community, local criminal and family court judges, defense counsels including public defenders and district attorneys, local commissioners of probation, social services, non-profit juvenile justice services providers, as well as experts in the fields of adolescent medicine and psychology, and criminal and juvenile justice. In view of the foregoing, the Governor’s Children’s Cabinet Advisory Board, a non-partisan, independent, diverse group of experts, believes the time is now to commission a comprehensive study of New York’s justice system in order to determine a fair and just age of criminal responsibility. New York’s children deserve a system of justice that both holds them accountable for their behavior and allows them to learn from their mistakes and become productive citizens. This needs to be accomplished with the highest regard for public safety. Details: New York: Governor's Children's Cabinet Advisory Board, 2011. 6p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 3, 2012 at http://www.campaignforyouthjustice.org/documents/Advancing_a_Fair_and_Just_Age_of_Criminal_Responsibility_for_Youth_in_NYS.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.campaignforyouthjustice.org/documents/Advancing_a_Fair_and_Just_Age_of_Criminal_Responsibility_for_Youth_in_NYS.pdf Shelf Number: 126869 Keywords: Age of Responsibility (New York)Juvenile Court TransferJuvenile JusticeJuvenile Justice Reform (New York)Juvenile Offenders (New York)Waiver (of Juvenile Court Jurisdiction) |
Author: Mulvey, Edward P. Title: Transfer of Juveniles to Adult Court: Effects of a Broad Policy in One Court Summary: 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. Details: Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 2012. 20p. Source: Internet Resource: Juvenile Justice Bulletin, December 2012: Accessed January 24, 2013 at: http://www.ojjdp.gov/pubs/232932.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://www.ojjdp.gov/pubs/232932.pdf Shelf Number: 127379 Keywords: Juvenile Court TransferJuvenile OffendersPathways to DesistancePeer InfluenceWaiver, of Juvenile Court Jurisdiction (U.S.) |
Author: Jetzer, Keri-Anne Title: Juveniles Sentenced As Adults and Juvenile Decline Hearings Summary: Over the past several years, increased attention has been paid to juveniles who were sentenced as adults, both nationally and in Washington state. Until now, no single agency or organization in the state tracked juveniles who had been through the declination process and/or juveniles who have been sentenced as adults from the time they are charged to the time of sentencing on through their confinement. Decline hearings are held when a youth is pending juvenile court proceedings and the juvenile court decides to either retain jurisdiction or remand the youth to adult court1. In 2012, the Washington State Statistical Analysis Center received funding from the Bureau of Justice Statistics to create a dataset2 of juveniles who had been sentenced as adults and of juveniles who had received a decline hearing but were sentenced in juvenile court for calendar years 2007 through 2011. This research brief provides the first comprehensive look at these populations. Details: Olympia, WA: Washington State Statistical Analysis Center, 2013. 5p. Source: Internet Resource: Research Brief No. 72: Accessed August 13, 2014 at: http://www.ofm.wa.gov/researchbriefs/2013/brief072.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.ofm.wa.gov/researchbriefs/2013/brief072.pdf Shelf Number: 133037 Keywords: Juvenile Court Jurisdiction Juvenile Court TransferJuvenile Offenders (Washington State) Waiver (of juvenile Court Jurisdiction) |
Author: Bellas, Marcia L. Title: Disproportionate Minority Contact Assessment: Court and Diversion Referral Decisions in Vermont's Juvenile Justice System Summary: In 2002, the State of Vermont began to monitor the contact of minority youth relative to white youth at various points in the Juvenile Justice system. In addition to compiling a statewide matrix annually, Vermont's juvenile justice specialist also gathers aggregate-level data for Chittenden, Rutland and Bennington Counties. The Vermont Center for Justice Research (VCJR) conducted three prior DMC assessments using individual-level data to determine the mechanisms responsible for the DMC reflected in aggregate-level data. These assessments examined DMC in admissions to Vermont's juvenile detention facility, DMC in arrests in four municipalities, and DMC in arrests in Burlington, Vermont's largest municipality. The primary goal of the current assessment was to explore whether there were indicators of DMC during at three-year period at three decision points in the juvenile justice system - referrals to juvenile court, referrals to adult court, and referrals to diversion, including to the extent possible pre-charge referrals to Community Justice Centers (CJCs). The assessment used individual-level court, juvenile/criminal history and CJC data for youth in Chittenden, Rutland and Bennington Counties for fiscal years 2009-2011 to determine whether individual-level differences between white and minority youth explain any disproportionate minority representation at the decision points of interest. Details: Northfield Falls, VT: Vermont Center for Justice Research, 2014. 66p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 6, 2014 at: http://www.vcjr.org/reports/reportscrimjust/reports/dmcrpt_files/DMC%20Assessment%202014.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://www.vcjr.org/reports/reportscrimjust/reports/dmcrpt_files/DMC%20Assessment%202014.pdf Shelf Number: 133558 Keywords: Disproportionate Minority ContactJuvenile CourtJuvenile Court TransferJuvenile Justice Systems (Vermont)Juvenile OffendersWaiver (of Juvenile Court Jurisdiction |
Author: Gewirtz, Marian Title: Recidivism Among Juvenile Offenders in New York City, 2007-2012: A Comparison by Case Outcome Summary: New York State's Juvenile Offender (JO) Law was passed as part of the Omnibus Crime Control Bill of 1978 in response to concerns about serious crime committed by young offenders. The JO Law lowered the age of criminal responsibility for juveniles in New York State from age 16, already among the lowest in the country, to age 14 for selected serious felony offenses1 and to age 13 when the charge was second degree murder. In accordance with the provisions of this law, cases are brought directly to the adult rather than the juvenile court for prosecution. Previous CJA research on recidivism among juveniles processed in the adult courts in New York City focused solely on juveniles processed in the Supreme Court (upper court), excluding the many juveniles whose cases were dismissed in the Criminal Court (lower court) or transferred to the Family Court. Furthermore, the previous research did not directly consider re-arrest during pretrial case processing. That is, that research tracked re-arrest regardless of whether the re-arrest occurred before the initial case reached disposition, between disposition and sentencing, after sentencing, or even after the juvenile served any sentence. However, the research showed very high rates of recidivism. Most of the juveniles were re-arrested at some point (three quarters were re-arrested within four years at risk and half were re-arrested for a violent felony offense within that time), though only 16 percent of the re-arrests in that study were prior to disposition. The current research focuses on the relationship between recidivism and case outcome. Re-arrest rates are compared across juveniles whose cases reached disposition in the Criminal Court, by dismissal or by transfer to the Family Court, or in the Supreme Court, by conviction3 or by dismissal or transfer to the Family Court. We begin with a description of the research dataset and of the juveniles that are in the two groups used in this research. The second section presents case outcome and release status in the full research file to provide context for the two research groups. The third section discusses the relationship between case outcome and the demographic and court-related characteristics of the juveniles. The re-arrests are the focus in the fourth section which includes discussion of the first re-arrest, re-arrest rates by demographic, CJA interview and court-related factors, as well as re-arrest rates by time at risk to re-arrest. We then report the results of multivariate analyses using Cox proportional hazards regression to explore the factors associated with elapsed time to first pretrial re-arrest and first pretrial felony re-arrest for both research groups to determine if re-arrest varies by case outcome. Details: New York: New York City Criminal Justice Agency, 2015. 57p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 25, 2015 at: http://www.nycja.org/library.php Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://www.nycja.org/library.php Shelf Number: 137337 Keywords: Case ProcessingJuvenile Court TransferJuvenile OffendersRe-ArrestRecidivismWaiver (of Juvenile Court Jurisdiction) |