Estimating the effects of shrinking the criminal justice system on criminal recidivism

• Published date: 01 August 2022
• Author: Charles E. Loeffler,Anthony A. Braga
• Date: 01 August 2022
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9133.12588

DOI: ./- .

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Estimating the effects of shrinking the criminal

justice system on criminal recidivism

Charles E. Loeffler Anthony A. Braga

Department of Criminology, University of

Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania,

USA

Correspondence

Charles E. Loeffler, Department of

Criminology, University of Pennsylvania,

 Locust Walk,Philadelphia, PA ,

USA.

Email: cloef@upenn.edu

Abstract

Research Summary: Weexamined the impact of Raise

the Age (RTA) in Massachusetts, which increased the

maximum jurisdictional age for its juvenile court in

late . Using statewide re-arraignment data and

a difference-in-differences research design comparing

affected -year-olds to unaffected -year-olds, we find

that RTA increased recidivism for affected -year-olds.

The observed increases in recidivism were especially

large for -year-olds without prior justice involvement.

This result may stem from the more ex tensive use of pre-

trial supervision or the diminished deterrence of prose-

cution within the Massachusetts juvenile justice system.

Policy Implications: This study demonstrates that

prosecuting older adolescents as juveniles can exacer-

bate rather than reduce future justice involvement. This

finding highlights the ongoing risk of unanticipated and

iatrogenic impacts of criminal justice interventions. It

also suggests the need for caution in further expansions

of RTA until evidence of anticipated programmaticben-

efits can be confirmed.

KEYWORDS

Iatrogenic effects, juvenile justice, Raise the Age, recidivism

Criminology & Public Policy. ;:–. ©  American Society of Criminology. 595wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/capp

596 LOEFFLER  BRAGA

The single broadest juvenile justice policy initiative currently being enacted in the United States

is Raise the Age (RTA)—amove to increase the upper age boundary of the juvenile justice system

to  years of age in jurisdictions with sub- ages of majority. Just over  years ago,  states

had sub- ages of majority. If any of the approximately  million -year-olds residing in these

states were arrested by police, they would automatically have their cases handled in the adult

justice system (U.S. Census Bureau, ). Currently, just three states continue to have sub-

ages of majority with all three actively considering eliminating this practice. In addition, several

states are presently considering moving their ages of majority beyond  (NGA, ; Young,).

Vermont is already in the process of doing so (Albans, ). Altogether, this reform has likely

already shifted between , and , adolescent arrests from the adult justice system into

the juvenile justice system (Puzzanchera, ; Snyder, Cooper et al., ).

The impetus for this rapidly expanding nationwide jurisdictional boundary can be found in

a desire for developmentally informed justice policies. Several decades of research have docu-

mented the ineffectiveness of tough-on-crime juvenile justice policies, such as juvenile transfer

(Bishop, ;Bishopetal.,; Fagan, ; Loughran et al., ), juvenile waiver, and juve-

nile direct file laws (Augustyn & Loughran, ). Nearly twodecades of research have also high-

lighted the distinct developmental limitations and needs of justice-involved youth (Cauffman,

; Grisso & Schwartz, ; Matthews et al., ; Steinberg & Cauffman, , ). These

include limited emotional regulation, reduced capacity for participation in their own defense,

and greater amenability for rehabilitation (National Academy of Sciences, ). These twin bod-

ies of research have provided a clear case for handling more young adult cases within the more

developmentally-focused juvenile justice system. A system with an emphasis on educational pro-

gramming, automatic sealing of criminal records, and rehabilitative services often administered

in community settings rather than custodial facilities.

Given RTA’s staggered roll out across the country and its projected reductions in adolescent

criminal justice contact as well as exposure to incarceration, it is well-suited for evaluation (Schi-

raldi, ). However, to date, only two of these earliest state implementations have even been

partially evaluated with largely insignificant results (Circo & Scranton, ;Fowler&Kurly-

chek, ; Loeffler & Chalfin, ; Loeffler & Grunwald, a; Robinson & Kurlychek, ).

This has led to calls for additional studies, especially additional studies examining the impact

of RTA policies on recidivism at the individual level (Farrington et al., ). The present study

examines the experience of RTAin Massachusetts, the third state to adopt the policy in late .

Using individual-level re-arraignment data to measure recidivism, this study estimates the effects

of Massachusetts’  RTA law on a key component of the RTA policy—its impact on future

criminal justice contact following the expansion of the juvenile court jurisdiction from  years

of age to  years of age. The results of this evaluation suggest that RTA had an adverse effect on

the likelihood of recidivism for -year-olds, especially those without prior justice involvement.

These results highlight the ongoing risk of heterogeneous and iatrogenic impacts of criminal jus-

tice policy changes even when evidence-based policies are adopted. Implications for emerging

adult justice policy are discussed.

1 ADOLESCENT JUSTICE INVOLVEMENT

Studies have repeatedly demonstrated that while biological maturity proceeds in a commonly

understood fashion, with physical and intellectual maturity increasing rapidly during the teenage

years, psychosocial maturity of adolescents is not fully achieved until much later, oftentimes not