Youth in the Adult Criminal Justice System-National Trends

1. Youth in the Adult Criminal Justice System-National Trends Jessica Sandoval, MPA Director, Field Operations Campaign for Youth Justice

2. Youth in Adult System Highlights • An estimated 250,000 children 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. • If present trends continue, one out of every three African-American males born today can expect to spend time 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 likely to be arrested for other crime. • Youth sentenced as adults receive an adult criminal record, are often denied voting rights, employment and educational opportunities, and can be barred from receiving student financial aidand other government assistance.

3. Youth Housed in Adult Jails and Prisons • Nearly 100,000 children are housed in adult jails and prisons each year. • Youth in adult system are at the greatest risk of sexual victimization. • Many youth who are held in adult jails have not even been convicted. Research shows that many never will. As many as one-half of these youth will be sent back to the juvenile justice system or will not be convicted. • Many children 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 jails are 36 times more likely to commit suicide than are youth housed in juvenile detention facilities. • Currently, 40 states permit or require that youth charged as adults be held before they are tried in an adult jail. In some states, if they are convicted, they may be required to serve their entire sentence in an adult jail.

4. How do Youth Get to the Adult System?

5. Youth in the Adult System cont.

6. State Trends Highlights • Turning the Tide • In the past 5 years, more than 30 pieces of legislation in nearly half of thestates 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.

7. Recent Trends 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.

8. Virginia 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.

9. Colorado Series of reforms: • 2012 Remove youth from adult jails 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 jails

10. 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

11. Other States Examining Transfer Laws Alabama Arizona Colorado District of Columbia Maryland Massachusetts Michigan New York Utah Florida Georgia Idaho Texas Washington Nevada Wyoming Wisconsin Oregon

12. Ohio: Trends for Youth in Adult Court Erin Davies, Public Policy Attorney Children’s Law Center, Inc.

13. Ohio: Tracks to the Adult System for Juvenile Court-Involved Youth

14. Overview: Recent Reforms for Ohio Youth in Adult Court Three Main Platforms for Reform: • Information gathering • Legislative • Other advocacy efforts

15. Recent Reforms for Ohio Youth in Adult Court: Information Gathering Information Gathering: • Data collection and report release • Story collection project

16. Ohio: Bound Over Youth Data Fact 1: Approximately 300 youth are bound over each year.

17. Ohio: Bound Over Youth Data Fact 2: Bindover is used much more frequently than SYO.

18. Ohio: Bound Over Youth Data Fact 3: Bindover disproportionately affects non-White youth who make up 84% of bound over youth.

19. Ohio: Bound Over Youth Data Fact 4: The vast majority of bound over youth receive a sentence of 5 years or less.

20. Ohio: Bound Over Youth Data 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.

21. 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

22. Ohio Bindover Numbers (10 Year Avg.) Number of Youth: 50+ 30-49 10-29 1-9 Less than 1 0

23. 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

24. Ohio Bindover Rate (10 Year Avg.) Number of Youth: 30+ 10-29.9 5-9.9 1-4.9 Less than 1 0

25. Recent Reforms for Ohio Youth in Adult Court: Legislative Change Legislative changes: • HB 86 – Reverse waiver provision • SB 337 – Retention of youth in juvenile detention facilities instead of adult jails

26. Ohio Reforms: HB 86 – Reverse Waiver 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.

27. Ohio Reforms: HB 86 – Reverse Waiver Context: • Original position: Eliminate mandatory bindover and make all bindovers discretionary • Process: • 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

28. 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.

29. Ohio Reforms: HB 86 – Reverse Waiver

30. Ohio Reforms: HB 86 – Reverse Waiver 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

31. Ohio Reforms: SB 337 - Jail Placement 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

32. 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

33. 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

34. 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 detention • The jail is a better placement option for the youth

35. 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.

36. 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.

37. 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.

38. Ohio Reforms: SB 337 - Jail Placement Outcomes: • Bill went into effect a month ago • Detention facilities took different approaches (i.e. retroactive application) and are working on providing long-term programming for youth

39. Recent Reforms for Ohio Youth in Adult Court: Other Advocacy Other Advocacy: • Special education in jails • Meetings with leadership in Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections • Technical assistance to attorneys on bindover cases

40. Ohio Youth in Adult Court: Where Do We Go From Here? • 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

41. Preliminary findings:raising the age of juvenile jurisdiction in Illinois Stephanie Kollmann Children and Family Justice Center

42. agenda • BACKGROUND • RESEARCH QUESTIONS • METHODS • LEGAL LANDSCAPE • EFFECTS OF RAISING THE AGE (MISDEMEANORS) • POTENTIAL IMPACT OF RAISING THE AGE (FELONIES)

43. background

44. 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)

45. Research questions

46. 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?

47. methods

48. methods • Legal Research • Best Practices/Youth Development • Data Requests • Practitioner Interviews

49. methods • Legal Research • Historic Practices • Caselaw • Other States/National Trends • International Standards • IL Statutes • Jurisdiction • Detention • Transfer • Best Practices/Youth Development • Data Requests • Practitioner Interviews

50. methods • Legal Research • Best Practices/Youth Development • Literature Review • Biological Maturation • Recidivism/Outcomes • Data Requests • Practitioner Interviews