The Decertification of Transferred Youth

• Author: Kareem L. Jordan,David L. Myers
• Published date: 01 April 2007
• Date: 01 April 2007
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/1541204006295150
• Subject Matter: Articles

188

The Decertification of

Transferred Youth

Examining the Determinants of Reverse Waiver

Kareem L. Jordan

University of North Florida

David L. Myers

Indiana University of Pennsylvania

Much of the research on juvenile transfer to adult court examines the predictors of the waiver

decision. Few studies, however, have focused on the determinants of decertification, a process

whereby certain initially transferred youth are reverse waived to juvenile court. This study

sought to examine this underresearched area by focusing specifically on the factors that pre-

dict decertification and utilizing quantitative data pertaining to 345 youth initially transferred

to adult court in 1996 under Pennsylvania’s law that automatically excludes certain youth from

juvenile court jurisdiction. The findings indicated that legal factors are the strongest predictors

of decertification. The need for further research and policy implications also are discussed.

Keywords: Act 33; juvenile decertification; juvenile transfer; legislative waiver; offense

exclusion

In reacting to the growing concern of youth violence, legislatures and juvenile courts

enacted numerous “get tough” policies (Taylor, Fritsch, & Caeti, 2002), including more

juveniles being sent to detention and correctional facilities. The most popular policy, however,

was for states to make it easier to transfer certain youth to adult criminal court (Jordan, 2006;

Torbet, Gable, Hurst, Montgomery, Szymanski, & Thomas, 1996). Historically, juvenile

transfer was thought to be reserved for the small numbers of serious and violent offenders.

However, modern transfer laws sought to change and increase the use of this practice, by

reducing judicial discretion in juvenile court, enhancing prosecutorial power to file charges

directly in adult court, and statutorily excluding certain offenses and offenders from juvenile

court jurisdiction. The underlying rationale was that greater use of juvenile transfer, particu-

larly for violent offenders, would boost accountability and punishment for these youth.

Several states, however, have a mechanism in place where initially transferred youth can

be decertified (or reverse waived) back to juvenile court. The purpose of the current study,

therefore, was to identify the statistical predictors of decertification to juvenile court, a highly

underresearched area of inquiry in the juvenile justice literature.

Youth Violence and

Juvenile Justice

Volume 5 Number 2

April 2007 188-206

© 2007 Sage Publications

10.1177/1541204006295150

http://yvj.sagepub.com

hosted at

http://online.sagepub.com

Authors’ Note: An earlier version of this article was presented at the annual meeting of the American Society

of Criminology in 2003 (Nashville, TN). We would like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their helpful

comments and suggestions.

Jordan, Myers / Decertification of Transferred Youth 189

Past Empirical Research

During the past 20 years, as transferring juveniles to adult court grew in popularity, an

increasing number of empirical studies also were conducted on this topic. This body of

research has included studies that have considered the influence of legal variables (e.g.,

offense seriousness and prior record) and extralegal factors (e.g., age and race) in the transfer

process.

Legal Factors

Overall, research that has examined the characteristics of waived offenders generally indi-

cates that offense seriousness and prior record are the strongest predictors of the decision to

transfer (Barnes & Franz, 1989; Clarke, 1996; Clement, 1997; Fritsch, Caeti, & Hemmens,

1996; Houghtalin & Mays, 1991; Keiter, 1973; Kinder,Veneziano, Fichter, & Azuma, 1995;

Myers, 2003; Sridharan, Greenfield, & Blakley, 2004). In general, the more serious the

offense committed, the greater the likelihood of transfer. Moreover, the more extensive the

prior record of youth, the greater the chance of being transferred to adult court. These stud-

ies suggest that legal variables affect the perceptions of youth’s amenability to treatment in

the juvenile court system. If youth are viewed as not being able to benefit from the treatment

provided by the juvenile court, the likely result is transfer to the adult system.

Extralegal Factors

Extralegal variables, however, also may play a role. Older youths, for example, consis-

tently are found more likely to be waived than younger offenders (Fagan & Deschenes,

1990; Myers, 2003; Podkopacz & Feld, 1996; Poulos & Orchowsky, 1994). In contrast, the

effect of race is widely debated. Most descriptive research finds that non-Whites make up

a majority of those who are transferred to adult court (Clarke, 1996; Clement, 1997; Keiter,

1973; Thomas & Bilchik, 1985). However, other multivariate studies have found no direct

race effect, while controlling for other explanatory factors (Fagan, 1990; Fagan, Forst, &

Vivona, 1987; Podkopacz & Feld, 1996). Some researchers believe that the effect of race

on transfer is indirect, affecting court outcomes earlier in the process, which in turn may

have a subsequent effect on transfer (see, e.g., Podkopacz & Feld, 1996).

More recent research on prosecutorial waiver in Virginia also has found legal variables

to be significant in predicting which cases were transferred to adult court (Sridharan et al.,

2004). However, the same research also found school status to be significant in the certifi-

cation decision. Those who dropped out of school were more likely to be waived to adult

court than those who were enrolled in school.

Although past empirical research on juvenile transfer decisions has provided several

important findings, this body of literature also is limited. Most of the prior studies have exam-

ined juveniles transferred through judicial waiver, which occurs when a juvenile court judge

makes the decision to send a case to adult court (DeFrances & Strom, 1997; Griffin, Torbet,

& Szymanski, 1998). Much less research has been done on prosecutorial waiver (see, e.g.,

Sridharan et al., 2004), which in certain cases grants prosecutors the authority to file charges

directly in adult court, and hardly any studies have investigated offense exclusion cases,1