JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM STAKEHOLDER PERSPECTIVES OF THE

JUVENILE TRANSFER PROCESS AND THE IMPACT IT HAS ON JUVENILE

OFFENDERS

by

Tia J. Warren

W
KAY CARTER, PhD, Faculty Mentor and Chair

ROBERT HANSER, PhD, Committee Member

IE
MATHEW COLLINS, PhD, Committee Member
EV
Elizabeth Koenig, JD, Dean, School of Public Service Leadership
PR

A Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment

Of the Requirements for the Degree

Doctor of Philosophy

Capella University

August 2015
 ProQuest Number: 3724950

All rights reserved

INFORMATION TO ALL USERS

The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.

In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.

W
IE
EV
ProQuest 3724950

Published by ProQuest LLC (2015). Copyright of the Dissertation is held by the Author.

All rights reserved.

PR

This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code
Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC.

ProQuest LLC.
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, MI 48106 - 1346
 W
IE
© Tia Warren, 2015
EV
PR
 Abstract

A difference of opinion is present among past and present researchers in the field of

juvenile justice reform. This qualitative case study examined the attitudes and opinions of

juvenile justice system stakeholders in North Carolina regarding the juvenile transfer

process and the impact stakeholders felt the process has on juvenile offenders. North

Carolina law still allows juvenile offenders aged 16 and 17 to be charged in adult

criminal court regardless of the crime committed. 16 and 17 year olds charged and

W
convicted in the adult criminal justice system is a compelling issue that has national

implication and the views of juvenile justice system stakeholders should be confirmed by
IE
rigorous scientific investigation. The results of this qualitative case study suggested that

there was growing support for the claim that transferring juvenile offenders out of the
EV
juvenile justice system and into the criminal justice system has a negative impact on the

safety and long-term well-being of juvenile offenders. This research study contributes to
PR

existing literature, which could possibly aid in the ongoing debate about whether to raise

the age of juvenile jurisdiction from sixteen to eighteen years of age in the state of North

Carolina. The findings of this research study provide some evidence that juvenile justice

system stakeholders are knowledgeable of the overall juvenile transfer process and have

serious concerns about the impact of transfer and waiver of the juvenile offender, but are

not directly involved in the decision to transfer. The use of data triangulation allowed

similar themes to emerge from all points of data which ensured validity in the research

findings.
 Dedication

I dedicate this dissertation to my family. A special feeling of gratitude to my late

grandmother who would have turned 100 years old this past May of 2015. Her words of

encouragement and push for tenacity continued to ring in my ears. My parents TJ and

Geraldine Warren Sr. have never left my side and are very special. My children Briana,

Tre’ and Taylor have been supportive throughout the entire process. I want to thank you

all for your continuous support and belief in me.

W
IE
EV
PR

iii
 Acknowledgments

I would like to thank my mentor, Dr Kay Carter for her patience, expertise and

continuous commitment throughout my dissertation journey. I would also like to thank

my committee members, Dr. Robert Hanser, Dr. Marian Mosser and Dr. Matthew

Collins, for serving on my committee and dedicating their precious time and energy to

countless hours of reading, reflecting and encouraging me during this dissertation

process. I would like to give a special acknowledgement to my friend and colleague,

W
Eveangel Savage, whom we shared numerous phone calls and emails supporting one

another as we maneuvered through our dissertation journey.

IE
EV
PR

iv
 Table of Contents

Acknowledgments iv

List of Figures viii

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 1

Introduction to the Problem 1

Background of the Study 4

Statement of the Problem 8

Purpose of the Study 13

W
Rationale 14

Research Questions 15

Significance of the Study

IE 16

Definition of Terms 17
EV
Assumptions and Limitations 19

Nature of Study 20
PR

Summary 22

Organization of the Remainder of the Study 23

CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW 24

History of Juvenile Court 24

Transfer and Waiver Provisions 27

Contributing Factors to Juvenile Transfer 29

Impact of Transfer and Waiver on Juvenile Offenders 30

Transfer and Waiver Provisions Specific to North Carolina 32

v
 Why 16 and 17 Year Old Juvenile Offenders are placed in the Adult Criminal

Justice System? 37

Why 16 and 17 year olds should remain in the Juvenile Justice System? 39

North Carolina and the Juvenile Justice Delinquency Prevention Act 42

Conclusion 43

CHAPTER 3. METHODOLOGY 44

Introduction 44

Researcher’s Assumptions 44

W
Theoretical Foundation 46

Research design 47

Participants
IE 50

Interview Questions 51
EV
Research Questions 52

Data Collection Procedures 52

PR

Data Analysis Procedures 53

Triangulation 56

Limitations of Research Design 56

Ethical Considerations 57

Conclusion 58

CHAPTER 4. RESULTS 59

Introduction 59

Demographics 60

vi
 Summary of Results 63

Examination of Transcripts from 2012 Research Study 74

Comparing the Data 77

Conclusion 78

CHAPTER 5. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 81

Conclusions 81

Recommendations for Policy and Research 87

REFERENCES 89

APPENDIX A. STATEMENT OF ORIGINAL WORK 93

W
IE
EV
PR

vii
 List of Figures

Figure 1. Map of Juvenile Age of Jurisdiction and Transfer to Adult Court Laws 29

Figure 2. Map of North Carolina Counties 35

Figure 3. North Carolina Juvenile Justice Process 36

Figure 4. Costs and Benefits (in Millions) of Adding 30,500 North Carolina Youth
Aged Sixteen to Seventeen to Juvenile Jurisdiction 41

Figure 5. Community Service Provider Demographic Data 61

Figure 6. Law Enforcement Demographic Data 62

Figure 7. High School Administrators Demographic Data 63

W
Figure 8. (Category 1) Factors used in Transferring Juveniles to Adult Court
Jurisdiction 65
IE
Figure 9. (Category 2) Factors Considered in Juvenile Sentencing 66

Figure 10. (Category 3) Issues that arise after a juvenile is transferred to adult court
EV
jurisdiction 67

Figure 11. (Category 4) Most Typical Characteristics of Juvenile Offenders who are
transferred to Adult Court Jurisdiction 68
PR

Figure 12. Examination of Scholarly Articles Specific to this Research Study 71

viii
 CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION

Introduction to the Problem

Juvenile justice policies enacted during the late 19th century that targeted juvenile

offenders resulted in adultification policies that increased the number of youth tried in the

adult criminal court system and incarcerated in adult prisons (Benekos & Merlo, 2008).

According to Kupchik (2006) “This proliferation of laws transferring juveniles from

juvenile court to criminal court, also known as known as transfer policies, fits within a

larger crime control movement of being “tough on crime,” and tough on juvenile crime in

W
particular” (p.309). All states within the U.S. have transfer laws that allow or require
IE
youth to be prosecuted as adults for serious offenses, regardless of their age (National

Conference of State Legislature, 2014). Currently in 40 states, the maximum age of

EV
juvenile jurisdiction is seventeen, while in eight states; the age of juvenile jurisdiction is

sixteen. In two states the line is drawn at fifteen years of age and 16 and 17 year old
PR

juvenile offenders are automatically tried in the adult system, regardless of the crime

committed. According to The Human Rights Watch (2008) as cited by Allen, Trzcinski,

and Kubiak (2012), “Forty-four states have laws that disregard the scientific evidence

confirming the developmental limitations of children and allow those as young as 10

years to be sentenced to “life without the possibility of parole” (p.79).

An increase in juvenile violence during the mid 19th century resulted in legislator

responses that passed laws allowing juvenile offenders to be tried as adults. Since then,

although juvenile crime has decreased, juveniles are still being transferred from the

1
juvenile justice system into the adult criminal justice system. The findings of a literature

review conducted by the UCLA School of Law in 2010 presented a number of negative

consequences associated with transfer laws. The findings suggested that justice is not

served by forcing juveniles through a system that was never intended to process youth.

Moreover, the transfer laws put into place have only aggravated the problems that were

originally sought to address (UCLA School of Law, 2010). Under some circumstances,

there has been an increased shift of discretionary power from judges to prosecutors.

Moreover, no limits are placed on the types of offenses for which a prosecutor may

W
charge a juvenile in criminal court (UCLA School of Law, 2010). The findings also

suggest that transfer laws not only disproportionately affect youth of color, but youth
IE
transferred to the jurisdiction of the criminal justice system are convicted and

incarcerated at a higher rate than youth who remain in the jurisdiction of the juvenile
EV
justice system (UCLA School of Law, 2010). The authors concluded that transfer laws

have demonstrated no proven deterrent effect and have caused an increase in recidivism
PR

across a number of jurisdictions (UCLA School of Law, 2010).

Lambie and Randell (2013) argued that “Incarcerating juveniles in adult facilities

failed to meet the developmental and criminogenic needs of youth offenders and is

limited in its ability to provide appropriate rehabilitation” (p.997). Along similar lines,

Jacobs (2013) argued that “The system developed to waive children into adult criminal

court is highly informal and largely arbitrary” (p.997). Mulvey and Schubert (2012)

suggested that “Current transfer policies have been widely questioned, regarding fairness

and utility” (p.3).

2
 Grisso et al. (1988) were the first to examine systematically the characteristics of

juveniles who were transferred to adult courts. For example, one research study analyzed

influences such as age at current offense, race, previous convictions, and seriousness of

crime that can contribute to the decisions received by juvenile in adult criminal court.

The findings suggested that there were significant differences among such characteristics

for juveniles adjudicated in adult criminal court. Discretional data reviewed in the study

found that a majority of youth transferred through judicial discretion provisions were 16

and 17 years of age. A second research study conducted by Salekin et al (2001) that

W
surveyed juvenile court judges with substantial experience in juvenile transfer cases

found that the average age of transferred juvenile’s reported by a judge was fifteen. The
IE
National Juvenile Justice Network (2013) argued that age should be considered as a

mitigating factor at all times and at all stages of transfer to the adult criminal justice
EV
system.

However, while some studies are designed to gain a better understanding of the
PR

juvenile transfer process, such as examining characteristics of juvenile offenders and how

they are associated with a judge’s decision making process, they fail to address more

specific questions about the current process and impact of transfers on juveniles. Some

scholars and academics agree that judicial waiver literature reveals that it is not as well

developed as the juvenile justice sentencing literature. Griffin, Addie, Adam, and

Firestine (2011) argued that “In order to obtain the critical information that policymakers,

planners and other concerned citizens need to assess the impact of expanded transfer

laws, we must extend our knowledge of the prosecution of juveniles in criminal courts”

3
(p.1). As an expansion of Salekin, Neumann, Leistico, and Zalot (2001) research study

that examined the perspectives of juvenile court judges regarding the juvenile transfer

process, this current study sought to gain a better understanding of the impact of juvenile

transfer process, through the perspectives of juvenile justice system stakeholders.

Background of the Study

The Bureau of Justice Statistics (2010) asserted that “The development of a

distinct juvenile justice system that is designed to recognize issues associated with the

W
punishment of juvenile offenders is recognized as one of the most progressive

developments in the evolution of criminal justice in the United States” (p. 1). The Office
IE
of Juvenile Justice Delinquency and Prevention released The National Report Series in

February 2014 that showed the U.S. courts handled nearly 1.4 million delinquency cases
EV
concerning juvenile jurisdiction in 2010. Puzzanchera and Addie (2014) reported in the

National Report Series that 54% of the cases were handled formally. Cases handled
PR

formally meant that a petition was filed requesting adjudication or waiver hearing

(Puzzanchera & Addie, 2014). The rate of delinquency cases that were judicially waived

remained at a lower level from 1985 to 1988, but rose between the period of 1988 to

1994, where they remained at a steady level through 2010 (Puzzanchera & Addie, 2014).

The type of offenses, offense profiles, and case characteristics of judicially waived cases

changed considerably during that time, where person offenses outnumbered property

offenses among the cases waived (Puzzanchera & Addie, 2014). From a nationwide

perspective, in 2010, juvenile court judges waived jurisdiction for an estimated 6,000

4
delinquency cases, which were transferred to the adult criminal court system

(Puzzanchera & Addie, 2014).

On the other hand, 16 and 17 year old juvenile offenders in the state of North

Carolina are taken out of the mix when it comes to reporting the rate of transfer because

they are already within the original jurisdiction of the adult criminal court system (Griffin

et al., 2011). Moreover, the state of North Carolina does not allow youths to appeal for a

reverse waiver to be transferred back into the juvenile justice system (Campaign for

Youth Justice, 2013). Recent legislation was approved by a subcommittee of the House

W
Judiciary Committee in North Carolina that would allow all 16 and 17 year old juvenile

offenders convicted of misdemeanors to remain in the juvenile justice system, but those
IE
16 and 17 year old juvenile offenders convicted of felony crimes would still remain in the

adult criminal justice system. North Carolina’s Right on Crime organization partnered
EV
with the John Locke Foundation to provide research on juvenile court jurisdiction over

minors. Together, these two organizations found adult court jurisdiction and adjudication
PR

of youths does not deter juveniles from crime and recidivism rates for juveniles handled

in the adult criminal justice system remain higher than those juveniles who remain in the

juvenile justice system. Furthermore, adult correctional facilities and criminal justice

processes leave juveniles at risk for long-term impacts on their social, physical and

mental well-being, and are unproductive for rehabilitative purposes (Right on Crime

Campaign, 2014).

Applegate and Davis (2009) suggested that “Available research provides only

minimal insight into why some people support transferring juveniles to the adult court”

5
(p. 57). Further evidence supporting Applegate and Davis (2009), regarding the minimal

insight of why people support juvenile transfer may lie in the findings of Allen et al.

(2012) who suggests that “It is unclear what the general public’s perceptions really are

regarding culpability and the extent to which assessments of development are linked to

assessments of severity of punishment” (p.80). Applegate and Davis (2009) further

reviewed studies that revealed that negative views of transfer are associated with support

for rehabilitation as a sentencing aim in general for juveniles” (p.57). Along similar lines,

a research study conducted by a nonprofit organization, The Campaign for Youth Justice

W
in 2011, who opposed trying juveniles as adults, found that the public overwhelmingly

supports rehabilitation and treatment for juveniles in trouble, not prosecution in the adult
IE
court or incarceration in adult jails and prisons. The problem remains that adolescent’s

can be removed from the jurisdiction of the juvenile justice system and placed in the
EV
jurisdiction of the adult criminal justice system (Grisso, 1996). Juveniles convicted and

sentenced in the criminal justice system for minor offenses are at risk for permanent
PR

criminal records, harmful living conditions, lack of educational programs and resources.

The American Bar Association suggested that the law has long defined a line

between adult and juvenile offenders, but that law has been drawn in different places, for

different reasons. It is important to gauge public opinion regarding juvenile jurisdiction

considering that public opinion may not only influence sentencing policy but sentencing

decisions as well. Gauging public opinion through surveys and opinion polls are most

often conducted by government, academic, or private groups. The collected information

can provide revealing attitudes and perceptions of the public and the public’s view of the

6
effectiveness of criminal justice policies and programs and its application to juvenile

offenders. Although existing research showed consistent public support for transferring

serious juvenile offenders out of the juvenile justice system, Applegate and Davis (2009)

argued that previous research conducted on how the public feels about transferring youth

out of the juvenile justice system was somewhat outdated and does little to explain the

reasons individuals support transfer.

However, recent studies and polls about juveniles who break the law and the

juvenile justice system found that the public’s understanding of the toughest practices

W
applied to juvenile offenders is not necessarily the smartest practices (National Juvenile

Justice Network, 2013). One study conducted by the Campaign for Youth Justice in
IE
2011, polled 1,000 adults regarding the effectiveness of the juvenile justice system. The

findings suggested that 69% of the respondents favored removing juveniles out of the
EV
adult criminal justice system and into the juvenile justice system and that the transfer of

juveniles shouldn’t be so automatic. Eight-two percent of respondents favored judges

PR

over prosecutors as having the discretion to transfer juveniles to the adult criminal justice

system when necessary, and more than three-quarters of respondents agreed that juvenile

offenders have the potential to grow and change their lives, post conviction (National

Juvenile Justice Network, 2013). Other findings regarding juvenile crime found that the

public supports rehabilitation and treatment as a way to deter violent and non-violent

juveniles from crime. In addition, the public opposed transferring juveniles to adult court

jurisdiction without an individual determination in each case. The findings further

suggested that blacks are more likely to be transferred to adult court jurisdiction that

7
white juveniles, and that the public believes strongly in a separate juvenile justice system

(National Juvenile Justice Network, 2013). The National Juvenile Justice Network (2013)

asserted that “As youth crime rises and falls, advocates will need to continually provide

policymakers with the truth about the public’s attitudes towards the treatment of youth

who come into conflict with the law” (p. 1). Allen et al. (2012), suggested that “Much of

the rationale for the discrepancy between research on adolescent development and the

presence of harsh sentencing laws, stems from the perception that there is public mandate

to be tough on crime” (p.80).

W
However, previous studies reveal findings regarding attitudes and opinions of the

effectiveness of the juvenile justice system from judges, juvenile court counselors, and
IE
probation officers, while there was a lack of evidence providing perspectives from other

juvenile justice system stakeholders, such as public school administrators and staff,
EV
community service providers and law enforcement officers.
PR

Statement of the Problem

The problem is that juvenile offenders can be removed from the jurisdiction of the

juvenile justice system and placed in the jurisdiction of the adult criminal justice system.

Moreover, with 16 and 17 year old juvenile offenders in North Carolina, being charged

and convicted in the adult criminal justice system regardless of the crime committed, a

number of important policy questions have been raised for decision makers, as well as the

citizens of N.C. In the ongoing debate in N.C. regarding juvenile or adult court

jurisdiction for 16 and 17 year olds, more well researched information needs to be

8
available showing the life-long impact on 16 and 17 year old juvenile offenders charged

and convicted in the adult criminal justice system for minor crimes. North Carolina’s

current policy for handling 16 and 17 year old offenders in the adult criminal justice

system is counterproductive (Action for Children of North Carolina Child, 2015). 16 and

17 year olds remaining in the juvenile justice system are more likely to have parents

involved whereas, in the adult criminal justice system 16 and 17 year olds can make bail

and leave county jail without a parents’ permission. In the juvenile justice system, 16 and

17 year olds must attend school or get a GED and in the adult criminal justice system, 16

W
and 17 year olds have no education requirements. The juvenile justice system provides

age appropriate services, treatment and punishment, whereas, in the adult criminal justice
IE
system some services are not required or even offered, and those that are offered are

intended for adults ((Action for Children of North Carolina Child, 2015).
EV
Much of the literature published since 2000 suggests that incarcerating juveniles

in adult facilities fails to meet the developmental and criminogenic needs of juvenile
PR

offenders and is limited in its ability to provide appropriate rehabilitation (Lambie &

Randell, 2013). Moreover, juveniles transferred out of the juvenile justice system for

committing violent crimes are at risk for negative behavioral and mental health

consequences, including ongoing engagement in offending behaviors and contact with

the justice system (Lambie & Randell, 2013). According to Mulvey & Schubert (2013),

“In addition to the immediate physical and psychological dangers resulting from

incarceration, juveniles transferred to the adult system can also experience harmful dis-

ruptions in their development during late adolescence and early adulthood” (p.5).

9
 Although incarcerating juveniles in adult facilities is seen as a necessary means of

public protection, earlier research indicates that it is not an effective option in terms of

cost or outcome (Lambie & Randell, 2013). Lambie and Randell (2013) further asserted

that “Although a large body of literature tends o agree on evidence-based treatments as

the most effective options for young offenders, governmental policies and justice

decisions have yet to reflect such policies” (p.456).

A number of studies have compared the long-term outcomes of juvenile offenders

retained in the adult criminal justice system to those who were retained in the juvenile

W
system. One study from the United States found alternate programs such as diversion and

mentoring programs were more cost effective than that of incarceration, which was the
IE
least effective in terms of cost of rehabilitation (Lambie & Randell, 2013). However,

Henggeler and Schoenwald (2011) argued that the five percent of juveniles who are
EV
eligible for these alternate programs never receive such evidence-based treatments.

Another study called The Pathways to Desistance study, examined 1,354 serious
PR

violent and serious property juvenile offenders from two different counties in

Pennsylvania, after their conviction, over a 7 year period. The juvenile offenders in this

study are at least 14 years old and younger than 18. Of the 1,354 juvenile offenders

transferred, a portion of the offenders were retained in the juvenile justice system. Both

groups had similar characteristics. The findings revealed that transferred youth who

return to the community continue to be involved in criminal activity. However, some

youth managed to return to school or work, while others continued engaging in antisocial

activity, and two-thirds of the transferred juveniles were rearrested and returned to an

10
institutional setting. Mulvey and Schubert (2012) noted that “Transfer has its intended

effect with serious juvenile offenders but it has a detrimental effect for serious property

juvenile offenders” (p.13).

A report brief provided by the Center for Child and Family Policy revealed

findings from two studies that examined 16 and 17 year old offenders from cities in New

York, and offenders with similar characteristics from cities in New Jersey. The samples

of juvenile offenders lived in the same types of metropolitan areas, but as offenders, were

treated differently among the two states. New York treated all seventeen year old

W
offenders as adults and sixteen year olds as adults that were charged with certain offenses

under the state’s legislative exclusion statute, while New Jersey maintained all 16 and 17
IE
year old offenders in the juvenile justice system (Center for Child and Family Policy,

n.d.). The first study examined 400 juvenile offenders from New York in the early
EV
1980’s, charged and convicted in the adult system with first degree burglary. Another 400

juvenile offenders in New Jersey, charged and convicted with first and second degree
PR

robbery and retained in the juvenile justice system, was compared in the study. The

juvenile offenders in New York’s adult system showed higher rates of recidivism, re-

incarceration, and shorter times to re-arrest compared to juvenile offenders in the state of

New Jersey (Center for Child and Family Policy, 2007).

A second investigation involved two thousand juvenile offenders from the early

nineties, charged with robbery, burglary, and assault were followed over a 7- year period

(Center for Child and Family Policy, 2007). A comparison of juvenile’s offenders in New

York’s adult court system found those juvenile offenders were 85% more likely to be re-

11
arrested for violent crimes and 44% more likely to be re-arrested for felony crimes

(Center for Child and Family Policy, 2007). However, juveniles prosecuted in the

juvenile justice system were more likely to be re-arrested for drug offenses, than

juveniles in the adult criminal justice system (Center for Child and Family Policy, 2007).

These findings were found to be inconsistent with the general pattern. While

jurisdictional laws differ from state to state, North Carolina is the only state that allows

all 16 and 17 year olds to be charged and convicted in the adult criminal justice system

for minor crimes. Ziedenberg (2011) asserted that “In 2007, 247,000 youth under the age

of eighteen ended up in adult court as a result of jurisdictional age laws” (p.6). In some

W
states juvenile jurisdiction ends at age fifteen, such as North Carolina, and other states,
IE
such as Oklahoma and Tennessee, juvenile jurisdiction ends at age eighteen (Ziedenberg,

2011). States such as Mississippi and North Dakota, end juvenile jurisdiction at nineteen,
EV
while Alabama, Connecticut, and Delaware end juvenile jurisdiction at age twenty

(Ziedenberg, 2011). A state’s decision to transfer a juvenile out of the juvenile

PR

jurisdiction and into adult court jurisdiction, as a result of jurisdictional laws can have a

negative long-term impact on the offender. Such practices places juveniles at risk for

receiving successful rehabilitation, effective educational programs and resources,

appropriate family support, and risk of being placed in an harmful or disruptive

environment. Mulvey and Schubert (2012) suggested that “For the system, transferring an

adolescent to adult court is an unambiguous statement that the criminal justice system

will no longer shelter the adolescent, by virtue of his or her acts, from harsh justice”

(p.2). Further, Mulvey and Schubert (2012) suggested that “Transfer to adult court

12
indicates that the demand for proportional punishment has trumped the goal of

individualized rehabilitation found in the juvenile justice system” (p.2).

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this qualitative case study is to examine the attitudes and

perspectives of juvenile justice system stakeholders in the state of North Carolina

regarding the juvenile transfer process and the impact it has on juvenile offenders. This

study was conducted in the state of North Carolina because of its laws on juvenile

W
offenders who are mandated to be tried and convicted in the adult criminal justice system

at the age of sixteen and up, regardless of the crime. 16 and 17 year olds charged and
IE
convicted in the adult criminal justice system is a compelling issue that has national

implication and the views of juvenile justice system stakeholders should be confirmed by
EV
rigorous scientific investigation. In addition, this study will expand the results of a

previous study conducted by Salekin et al. (2001) who examined the responses of
PR

juvenile court judges regarding factors specific to the transfer of juveniles. Juvenile

justice system stakeholders exercise substantial discretion in their daily work with

troubled and troubling juvenile offenders, and therefore, are considered an important part

of the juvenile justice system. Research findings on juvenile transfer have the potential to

impact both policy and practice (Redding, 2010). Although wide range policy changes

are unlikely to develop quickly, efforts to reverse the current trend of the juvenile justice

system, to transfer youths to adult court and the ease, with which it can be done, need to

be reviewed and understood. Benekos and Merlo (2008) conclude that “Perceptions of

13
juvenile sanctions in the United States, domestic and international are an important

dimension of policy” (p.30).

Rationale

This qualitative case study seeks to expand the results of Salekin et al. (2001) study.

Salekin et al. (2001) research study examined the responses of juvenile court judges who

were asked to clarify three poorly defined constructs (dangerousness, sophistication-

maturity, and amenability to treatment) used in judicial waiver decisions via prototype

W
theory. This research study will examine the perspectives of a sample of juvenile justice

system stakeholders by asking them to specify more recent factors that they feel are used
IE
in determining the transfer process via the prototype theory. The prototype theory is the

categorization of items and concepts by individuals. According Eleanor Rosch’s early

EV
1970’s prototype theory, with an individual’s increased experiences and exposure to a

particular category, their prototype evolves into a central representation for that particular
PR

category.

Available evidence derived from previously conducted research pertaining to transfer

and waiver provisions associated with juvenile offenders found that juvenile court judges

were knowledgeable about the ineffectiveness of transfer in reducing recidivism and were

somewhat less likely to transfer juvenile offenders to the criminal court. In addition,

research findings suggested that educating justice system professionals about the research

on transfer may reduce the number of cases transferred to criminal court or the number of

transferred cases that result in criminal sanctions (Redding, 2010).

14