Differential Effects of Adult Court Transfer on Juvenile Offender Recidivism
Open accessAbstract
Prior research indicates that adolescent offenders transferred to adult court are more likely to recidivate than those retained in the juvenile system. The studies supporting this conclusion, however, are limited in addressing the issue of heterogeneity among transferred adolescents. This study estimates the effect of transfer on later crime using a sample of 654 serious juvenile offenders, 29% of whom were transferred. We use propensity score matching to reduce potential selection bias, and we partition the sample on legal characteristics to examine subgroup effects. We find an overall null effect of transfer on re-arrest, but evidence of differential effects of transfer for adolescents with different offending histories. These results suggest that evaluating the effects of transfer for all transferred adolescents together may lead to misguided policy conclusions.
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
This study estimates whether transfer to adult court affects later re-arrest among serious juvenile offenders, using propensity score methods to reduce selection bias. It finds no overall effect of transfer, but exploratory evidence that effects differ by charge type, with person-crime transfer associated with lower re-arrest.
Key findings
- Among 654 serious juvenile offenders in Maricopa County, AZ, 29% (193/654) were transferred to adult court; after exclusions, the working transfer sample was 128.
- The overall estimated average treatment effect on the treated was −.23 arrests per year (SE = .22; t = −1.03), described as a null effect and roughly one fewer arrest every four years.
- Before adjustment, transferred youth averaged about .91 arrests per year versus about .93 for retained youth.
- Subgroup analyses found a negative and significant interaction between adult court transfer and person-crime charge, suggesting lower re-arrest for transferred person offenders; the property-crime base coefficient was positive but not statistically significant.
- For prior petitions, there was no significant interaction with transfer; having 0 or 1 prior petition was associated with lower re-arrest regardless of court setting.
Methods
- Data came from the Pathways to Desistance study, using the Maricopa County, AZ subsample of adolescents adjudicated for serious offenses, mostly felonies, who were 14–17 at the qualifying offense and averaged 17 at baseline.
- The outcome was yearly rate of re-arrest, calculated from juvenile petitions and FBI adult arrest records, divided by time on the street after disposition or release through the 48-month follow-up.
- The main analysis used propensity score estimation with 59 baseline covariates, subclassification into quintiles, and balance checks; subgroup analyses used regressions with charge type or prior petitions, transfer status, their interaction, and controls for 16 initially imbalanced covariates.
Limitations
- The paper states that subgroup sample sizes were too small to estimate conditional treatment effects with propensity score methods, so subgroup findings are exploratory and need replication in larger samples and other jurisdictions.
- The paper states that group-specific effects can control for but not fully rule out selection bias from observable covariates, and that the analyses do not address drug or sex offenders because of Pathways design limits.
- The paper states that the most serious offenders charged with murder, rape, or arson were screened out because they were confined for the entire recall period, and that results should not be extrapolated outside the 14–18 age range, especially to youth younger than 14.
- Evident from the text: transfer was not randomly assigned, so causal inference depends on the adequacy of the propensity score and covariate balance rather than experimental design.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
4 of 22 cited sources checked · 3 supported · 0 flagged · accuracy not yet measured
- Study design and conductcitation
The authors used propensity score matching to lessen selection bias.
“We use propensity score matching to reduce potential selection bias”
- Also stated in: § Current Focus · plain
“the current empirical study uses propensity score methodology (Rosenbaum & Rubin, 1983), an alternative statistical method selected to account for selection bias.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked- cites Rosenbaum & Rubin, 1983 source
- Also stated in: § Current Focus · plain
- Premisecitation
Conditional on two individuals having the same propensity score, treatment status is independent of all observed characteristics.
“Rosenbaum and Rubin (1983) show that, conditional on two individuals, one treated and one control, having an identical propensity score, the difference in treatment status becomes independent of all observable characteristics.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked- cites Rosenbaum and Rubin (1983) source
- Findingown data
The study found evidence that transfer effects differ for adolescents with different offending histories.
“but evidence of differential effects of transfer for adolescents with different offending histories”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: After propensity score matching, no unmeasured confounding remains, so the estimated transfer effects can be interpreted causally.
- Rests on an assumption: The 65 excluded transferred cases do not substantially bias the estimated transfer effects.
- Rests on an assumption: The re-arrest measure based on JOLTS and FBI records accurately captures subsequent criminal involvement.
- Rests on an assumption: The four-year follow-up period is long enough to capture the effects of transfer on recidivism.
- Findingown data
After subclassification, the estimated average treatment effect on the treated of transfer on re-arrest is -.23 (SE = .22; t = -1.03).
“After accounting for the potential selection biases in the initial covariates using subclassification, the estimated ATT is −.23 (SE = .22; t-statistic = −1.03).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: There are no unmeasured confounders beyond the covariates included in the propensity score or subgroup models that affect both transfer and recidivism.
- Findingown data
There was a negative and significant interaction between adult court and person crime, indicating a reduction in offending associated with transfer for person offenders even after controlling for primary selection factors.
“In contrast, note that there is a negative and significant interaction effect between adult court and person crime, which suggests that there is a reduction in offending associated with transfer for those who engage in person crimes, even when controlling for primary selection factors.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
- Findingown data
The study found no overall effect of transfer on re-arrest.
“We find an overall null effect of transfer on re-arrest”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: After propensity score matching, no unmeasured confounding remains, so the estimated transfer effects can be interpreted causally.
- Rests on an assumption: The 65 excluded transferred cases do not substantially bias the estimated transfer effects.
- Rests on an assumption: The re-arrest measure based on JOLTS and FBI records accurately captures subsequent criminal involvement.
- Rests on an assumption: The four-year follow-up period is long enough to capture the effects of transfer on recidivism.
- Findingown data
After subclassification, the distribution of F-statistics for main and interaction effects was considerably reduced.
“Notice that after subclassification, the distribution of associated F-statistics for both main and interaction effects is considerably reduced.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
Within the limited age spectrum of the transfer sample, age was unimportant.
“It is important to note that only within this limited age spectrum do we find age to be unimportant.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Study design and conductown data
Age, race, and gender were among the baseline covariates that were imbalanced.
“Also, several important demographic factors including age, race, and gender are out of balance.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Premisereasoning
Transferred and retained offenders differ in important preexisting ways that may affect re-offending comparisons.
“A comparison of offenders who do and do not get transferred to adult court thus involves a contrast of two groups that are inherently different in important, preexisting ways which may affect any comparison of the groups’ patterns of re-offending.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationown data
Transfer to adult court has a null effect on re-arrest rate among transferred individuals, the average treatment effect on the treated.
“Thus, we conclude that this result points to a null effect of transfer.”
- Also stated in: § Discussion · plain
“First, across the entire sample of transferred individuals, there is a null effect of transfer on rate of re-arrest.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: There are no unmeasured confounders beyond the covariates included in the propensity score or subgroup models that affect both transfer and recidivism.
- Also stated in: § Discussion · plain
- Study design and conductown data
The subgroup sample sizes were too small to estimate propensity scores and conditional average treatment effects for the charge-type and prior-petition subgroups.
“After dividing the full sample into subgroups based on charge group and priors, we are unable to actually estimate the conditional ATT, a group-specific treatment effect. This is due to the very limited sample size in each subgroup, which prevented us from employing propensity score methods as we do above.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Study design and conductown data
The limited power of the sample precludes drawing sweeping policy conclusions about the absolute magnitude of the subgroup effects.
“As discussed above, the limited power of our sample precludes us from drawing sweeping policy conclusions about the absolute magnitude of either of these effects in the subgroups examined.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationown data
There was a significant main effect of low priors, indicating that individuals with 0 or 1 prior petition had lower future re-arrest rates than those with more priors, regardless of court setting.
“This negative effect can be interpreted as low priors being associated with a lower rate of future re-arrest for individuals in both adult and juvenile court, and it suggests that individuals with low priors tend to fare better than those with many priors regardless of the court setting.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Study design and conductown data
At baseline, 16 of the 59 covariates were imbalanced between the transferred and retained groups.
“Notice that initially, 16 out of the 59 covariates are out of balance.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Premisenone given
The studies behind that conclusion do not adequately handle heterogeneity among transferred adolescents.
“The studies supporting this conclusion, however, are limited in addressing the issue of heterogeneity among transferred adolescents.”
- Also stated in: § The Effects of Transfer · plain
“The existing research behind this conclusion, however, is limited by its inability to address adequately the issue of heterogeneity in adolescents transferred to adult court.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Also stated in: § The Effects of Transfer · plain
- Interpretationown data
Some imbalanced covariates, including prior petitions, perceived punishment costs, and violence exposure, could potentially create selection bias.
“Furthermore, some of those which are out of balance could also potentially lead to selection biases, such as number of prior petitions, perception of punishment costs, and exposure to violence.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Study design and conductreasoning
The re-arrest rate measure controls for time exposed in the community.
“The main benefit of this measure was that it controls for exposure time in the community, as opposed to either a binary marker for re-arrest or total number of arrests post-disposition, both of which may be confounded with exposure time.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: The re-arrest measure based on JOLTS and FBI records accurately captures subsequent criminal involvement.
- Interpretationown data
Assessing transfer effects for all transferred adolescents as one group may produce misguided policy conclusions.
“These results suggest that evaluating the effects of transfer for all transferred adolescents together may lead to misguided policy conclusions.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: After propensity score matching, no unmeasured confounding remains, so the estimated transfer effects can be interpreted causally.
- Rests on an assumption: The 65 excluded transferred cases do not substantially bias the estimated transfer effects.
- Rests on an assumption: The re-arrest measure based on JOLTS and FBI records accurately captures subsequent criminal involvement.
- Rests on an assumption: The four-year follow-up period is long enough to capture the effects of transfer on recidivism.
- Premisereasoning
Some factors linked to transfer may also be linked to higher future recidivism.
“Furthermore, some of these same factors associated with transfer may also be associated with higher levels of future recidivism.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationown data
The charge-type results suggest a differential effect of transfer, with a greater reduction in offending for person offenders than for property offenders.
“This difference suggests that there may indeed be a differential effect of transfer, as the reduction in offending is greater for transferring person offenders as compared to the effect gained from transferring property offenders.”
- Also stated in: § Discussion · hedged
“The differential effects suggest that transferred adolescents charged with person crimes show lower rates of re-arrest, even after controlling for those covariates which are statistically significantly different between the adult and juvenile groups.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Also stated in: § Discussion · hedged
- Interpretationreasoning
The achieved covariate balance was better than would be expected from randomization, since at alpha .05 about 3 of 59 covariates would be expected to be imbalanced.
“Note that this is actually better balance of observable covariates than one might expect from randomization, since, at α = .05, we would expect about 3 of these 59 to be out of balance.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Premisereasoning
Observed recidivism differences cannot be attributed to transfer if they may stem from fundamental differences between the groups.
“Consequently, observed differences (e.g., higher recidivism rates) in the transferred population cannot be accurately attributed to the transfer experience itself, as long as these differences in outcomes might also be partially or fully attributable to fundamental differences between the transferred and retained youth.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Premisecitation
Expanding transfer laws may have created influential heterogeneity among transferred individuals.
“This view, however, may be myopic if expanding transfer laws have generated influential heterogeneity among the population of transferred individuals, as Bishop (2000) asserts and is demonstrated in another analysis from this study (Schubert et al., 2009).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked- cites Bishop (2000) source
- cites Schubert et al., 2009
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Study design and conductown data
The transferred and retained groups did not differ significantly in average follow-up days.
“There was no significant difference between the transferred and retained group in average days of follow up.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Interpretationreasoning
The unadjusted difference in re-arrest rates cannot be interpreted as a valid causal treatment effect of transfer because of selection problems.
“As elaborated above, however, selection problems prevent us from interpreting this difference or lack of difference as a valid indicator of the causal treatment effect of transfer.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Study design and conductreasoning
The study can estimate causal effects of transfer more rigorously than earlier work, though not definitively.
“As a result, we are able to estimate the causal effects of transfer to adult court more stringently (though never definitively) than previously possible.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: After propensity score matching, no unmeasured confounding remains, so the estimated transfer effects can be interpreted causally.
- Interpretationreasoning
The Pathways data provide a better opportunity to study transfer effects because the sample consists entirely of serious juvenile offenders, making counterfactual outcomes more appropriate than comparing transferred individuals to less serious offenders.
“These findings are compelling because the data from the Pathways study provide an excellent opportunity to study this question more carefully than possible in prior investigations. First, given that the sample is comprised entirely of serious juvenile offenders, the counterfactual outcomes are more appropriate than if we were to compare a sample of transferred individuals to less serious offenders”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationown data
The ability to rule out a wide range of confounders is an improvement over much existing literature that had limited data for defining a control group.
“Also, as discussed above, the ability to rule out such a wide range of confounders is an improvement over much of the existing literature which had limited data on which to define a control group.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Premisecitation
Stratification into quintiles based on propensity scores can remove approximately 90% of the initial imbalance in each baseline covariate.
“Rosenbaum and Rubin (1984) contend that stratification using quintiles (i.e., five equally sized subgroups) can remove approximately 90% of the initial imbalance in each of the baseline covariates.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Rosenbaum and Rubin (1984) source
- May combine two claims. 18
- Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 18
May combine two claims.
PremisecitationBishop et al. and Winner et al. found transferred youth were more likely to recidivate and reoffended sooner than non-transferred youth.
“They also found that transferred youth had an increased likelihood of recidivism and re-offended more quickly than their non-transferred counterparts.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 2 sources checked- cites Bishop, Frazier, Lanza-Kaduce, and Winner (1996) source
The retrieved passages contain a STARS bibliography page and an abstract, but no passages from the paper’s body or results. Searches for recidivism rates and time to failure did not retrieve full-text evidence, so the claim cannot be verified from the available paper text. (LLM, conf=0.75)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured - cites Winner, Lanza-Kaduce, Bishop, and Frazier (1997) source
Classified as probably not a substantial claim.
PremisecitationMyers concluded that transferred youth had higher recidivism rates.
“Using statistical controls for selection bias, Myers also concluded that transferred youth had higher rates of recidivism.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked- cites Myers (2003) source
May combine two claims.
Findingown dataBefore subclassification, the mean re-arrest rate was about .91 per year for transferred individuals and about .93 per year for retained individuals, a negligible difference.
“Prior to subclassification, the mean rate of re-arrest for those individuals transferred to adult court was about .91 arrests per year, compared to about .93 arrests per year for those individuals retained in the juvenile system. The difference in arrests per year is essentially negligible, suggesting that there is no difference between rate of re-arrest as an outcome for these two groups overall.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown dataIn the prior-petition model, there was no significant interaction between low priors and transfer, so a differential effect of transfer by number of priors could not be established.
“Notice in this case, while there is no significant interaction effect of low priors and transfer, which would suggest a differential effect of transfer, there is a significant main effect of low priors which remains even after controlling for the initial selection factors.”
- Also stated in: § Exploring Potential Treatment Effect Heterogeneity · hedged
“However, we are unable to reject a null hypothesis of a differential effect of transfer conditional on number or priors.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Also stated in: § Exploring Potential Treatment Effect Heterogeneity · hedged
May combine two claims.
Findingown dataIn the charge-type regression, the adult court coefficient was positive, indicating higher re-arrest for transferred property offenders than retained property offenders, but the difference was not statistically significant.
“Notice that the coefficient for adult court is positive, suggesting that for individuals charged with property crimes (i.e., the base category) the rate of re-arrest is actually higher for those transferred than those retained in juvenile court, although this difference fails to approach conventional statistical significance.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimClassified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.
Findingown dataThe charge-type subgroups contained 45 transferred property offenders with 138 juvenile cases and 63 transferred person offenders with 136 juvenile cases; the prior-petition subgroups contained 65 transferred individuals with 0 or 1 prior and 180 juvenile cases, and 63 transferred individuals with 2 or more priors and 205 juvenile cases.
“For the division based on charge type, there are only 45 transferred individuals in the property crime subgroup (with another 138 juvenile cases), and only 63 transferred individuals in the person crime subgroup (136 juvenile cases). For the division based on prior petitions, there are 65 transferred individuals with either 0 or 1 prior petitions (with another 180 juvenile cases), and there are 63”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimClassified as probably not a substantial claim.
Study design and conductown dataThe study checked covariate balance between groups before adjudication.
“Fortunately, we were able to check for covariate balance, that is, differences between groups prior to adjudication.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S1 (asserted).
InterpretationreasoningThe overall null effect of transfer may mask differential effects within subgroups of transferred individuals.
“The overall null effect may actually be masking differential effects within different groups.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimClassified as probably not a substantial claim.
Study design and conductown dataIn the subgroup analyses, the authors controlled for the 16 covariates that were initially imbalanced to attempt to control for selection.
“Also, we control for the 16 covariates which were initially out of balance between the adult and juvenile groups to provide some reasonable attempt at controlling for selection (though by no means eliminating it).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: The 16 initially imbalanced covariates are the primary selection factors sufficient to provide reasonable control for selection in the subgroup regressions.
May combine two claims.
PremisecitationThose reforms raised the transfer rate and probably increased the diversity of youth sent to adult court.
“As a result of these changes, there was an increase in the rate of transfer and a likely increase in the heterogeneity of the youth sent to adult court, with considerable variability in the adolescents constituting this expanded pool of adult court cases (Schubert et al., 2009).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Schubert et al., 2009
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
May combine two claims.
PremisereasoningBecause there is no random assignment to transfer, the two groups are not directly comparable, which blocks confident causal inferences.
“In formal statistical parlance, since there is no random assignment to the ‘treatment condition’ of transfer to adult court, the two groups are not directly comparable. This phenomenon prevents researchers from making confident causal inferences about the effects of adult court transfer on important outcomes.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimMay combine two claims.
Study design and conductown dataThe retained group had more time at risk in the community; transferred youth spent 33% of the recall period in a facility versus 21% for retained youth.
“Time at risk in the community, however, was greater for the group retained in the juvenile court. Youth transferred to the adult court spent, on average, 33% of the recall period in a facility while youth retained in the juvenile system spent, on average, 21% of their time in a facility.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims.
Interpretationown dataThe estimated ATT is not statistically significant at conventional levels and is small in magnitude, about one fewer arrest every four years, so it is not practically or policy meaningful.
“However, not only is this estimate not statistically significant at conventional levels, but its small magnitude (indicating only about one less arrest every four years for adult cases as compared to those retained in juvenile court) suggests that it is not very meaningful in either a practical or policy sense.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimClassified as probably not a substantial claim.
Premisenone givenFactors such as age, offense, and prior petitions may affect whether a case is transferred to criminal court.
“Several factors, including but not limited to age, offense, and number of prior petitions, may influence the likelihood that an individual's case is transferred to criminal court.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimClassified as probably not a substantial claim.
Premisenone givenEarlier research gave little attention to possible differential transfer effects on subgroups.
“Prior research has paid only limited attention to the possible differential effects of transfer on subgroups of offenders.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Study design and conductcitationA standardized bias percentage above 20 indicates a covariate may be out of balance.
“Rosenbaum and Rubin offer that a standardized difference percentage value greater than 20 for any covariate would suggest that the covariate is out of balance.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Rosenbaum and Rubin
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Study design and conductreasoningExcluding the most serious offenders, those charged with murder, rape, or arson, may bias the overall treatment effect estimate.
“Another possible limitation is the screening of the most serious offenders from the sample (i.e., those charged with murder, rape or arson, all of whom spent the entire recall period in confinement), as it may be creating a biased estimate of the overall treatment effect of transfer.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim- Rests on an assumption: Youth charged with murder, rape, or arson would almost always be transferred to adult court regardless of the statutory scheme.
Classified as probably not a substantial claim.
Study design and conductreasoningAfter exclusions, the working transfer sample contained 128 cases.
“This yields a working transfer sample of n = 128.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimClassified as probably not a substantial claim.
Premisenone givenMuch research and debate treated transfer as having one universal effect across individuals and offense types.
“Much of the research and debate on transfer policy has pointed toward a singular, universal effect of transfer across all individuals and offense types.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimClassified as probably not a substantial claim.
Study design and conductown dataThe charge-group coefficients should be interpreted with caution because of limited sample size.
“As mentioned, we need to interpret our results, in particular the estimated coefficients for the charge group category, with ample caution, given the limited sample size involved.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimMay combine two claims.
Interpretationown dataThe results should not be extrapolated outside the transfer sample age range of 14 to 18, with less than 5% age 14, and provide no empirical basis for policy on transferring youth younger than 14.
“Furthermore, with respect to age, we caution against extrapolating these results outside of the age range of our transfer sample (ages 14–18, with less than 5% 14 year olds).”
- Also stated in: § Discussion · plain
“Further, we emphasize that, even if the current results were replicated and/or strengthened in future studies, these results still provide no relevant empirical basis for policy regarding transfer of youth younger than age 14.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Also stated in: § Discussion · plain
May combine two claims.
PremisecitationCurrent charge and prior offending history are legally relevant and readily ascertainable and are demonstrated indicators of likely future success in transferred youth.
“Current charge and past offending history serve this purpose well. While obviously proxies for a variety of other offender characteristics, they are both readily ascertainable and legally relevant, as well as demonstrated indicators of likely future success in transferred youth (Schubert et al., 2009).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Schubert et al., 2009
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
May combine two claims.
InterpretationreasoningMultiple factors may affect both later recidivism and the probability of transfer, so unadjusted associations between transfer and recidivism may reflect confounding rather than a causal effect.
“In summary, there are multiple factors which may be simultaneously affecting both later recidivism in offenders as well as the likelihood that that an offender is transferred to adult court. Thus, any basic associations relating transfer to adult court to later recidivism may, in fact, be due to the confounding of these factors and not by a causal mechanism.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimMay combine two claims.
Study design and conductown dataAfter subclassification, only one of the 59 main effects and none of the interaction effects were significant, indicating sufficient covariate balance.
“Overall, only one of the 59 main effects, and none of the interaction effects, is significant, suggesting that we have achieved sufficient covariate balance.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimMay combine two claims.
Interpretationown dataFor some individuals transfer may reduce criminal activity and for others it may increase it, although the increases are not statistically significant.
“Like other studies focusing on the effects of incarceration on subsequent criminal activity (Bhati & Piquero, 2007; Piquero & Blumstein, 2007), our results do suggest that, for some individuals, transfer may reduce criminal activity and, for others, it may increase it, although these increases are not statistically significant.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked- cites Bhati & Piquero, 2007
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- cites Piquero & Blumstein, 2007 source
Classified as probably not a substantial claim.
InterpretationcitationThe Pathways data allow fuller exploration of heterogeneity among transferred individuals, an issue emphasized by others.
“Perhaps most importantly, the Pathways data provide a unique opportunity to more fully explore the issue of heterogeneity among transferred individuals, the importance of which has been emphasized by others (Bishop, 2000; Zimring, 1998).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checkedClassified as probably not a substantial claim.
Study design and conductown dataThe analysis considered 59 baseline covariates to rule them out as potential confounders.
“Specifically, we considered 59 covariates measured at baseline, including demographic, family history, peer, legal, psychological, substance abuse, psychosocial maturity, and prior adjustment factors. Each of these factors was specifically selected to be ruled out as a potential confounder within the analysis.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimMay combine two claims.
Study design and conductown dataThe analyses do not address transfer effects for drug or sex offenders, and the Pathways design limited the number of drug offenders, limiting applicability for generalized legal reform.
“In addition, these analyses do not address the impact of transfer on drug or sex offenders. Although drug offenders may constitute a sizable proportion of transferred youth in some locales, the design of the Pathways study limited the number of drug offenders in the sample, thus limiting the applicability of these findings for generalized legal reform.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimClassified as probably not a substantial claim.
PremisecitationAccording to earlier studies, adolescents sent to adult court reoffend at higher rates than those kept in juvenile court.
“Prior research indicates that adolescent offenders transferred to adult court are more likely to recidivate than those retained in the juvenile system.”
- Also stated in: § The Effects of Transfer · hedged
“numerous commentators and scholars have come to the conclusion that transferred adolescents are more likely to “recidivate, recidivate at a higher rate, and be rearrested for more serious offenses, on average, than those retained in the juvenile system” (Bishop & Frazier, 2000).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Bishop & Frazier, 2000
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Also stated in: § The Effects of Transfer · hedged
May combine two claims.
PremisecitationReforms in the 1990s and early 2000s expanded who was eligible for transfer and the methods by which transfer could occur.
“These statutory revisions both widened the net of eligibility and broadened the range of mechanisms by which transfer could be accomplished.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Griffin, 2003
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Study design and conductcitationThe study used the standardized bias statistic to assess balance.
“Second, we also considered the standardized bias statistic (SBS) advised by Rosenbaum and Rubin (1985), to ensure that differences between the conditional variables were not dependent upon sample size.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Rosenbaum and Rubin (1985)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Classified as probably not a substantial claim.
Study design and conductcitationThe propensity score model was selected iteratively with covariate balance as the primary goal rather than by explicitly modeling the selection process.
“Model selection is conducted through an iterative process, with the primary goal of achieving covariate balance afterwards (Heckman, Ichimura, Smith, & Todd, 1998; Rosenbaum & Rubin, 1984), as opposed to explicit modeling of the selection process.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checkedMay combine two claims.
PremisecitationFagan found that transfer was linked to higher likelihood and quicker re-arrest for robbery offenders, but not for burglary offenders.
“They found that, for robbery offenders, transfer was associated with a higher likelihood of, and quicker time to, re-arrest. While significant, these effects could only be generalized to robbery offenses, as the authors found no such significant differences for burglary offenders.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked- cites Fagan (1995)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- cites Fagan, Kupchick, & Liberman, 2003
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Classified as probably not a substantial claim.
PremisereasoningIt is unclear whether the statistical controls in prior studies achieved their aim.
“It is unclear, however, whether or not the statistical controls used to adjust for selection bias in these investigations achieved their goal.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimMay combine two claims.
Study design and conductreasoningFor group-specific effects, selection biases due to observable covariates can be controlled for but not completely ruled out, so those results are largely exploratory and need replication in larger samples and other jurisdictions.
“Furthermore, for the group-specific effects, we can control for, but not completely rule out, selection biases due to observable covariates. Thus, these group-specific results should be thought of as largely exploratory, and they should be replicated in a larger sample and in other jurisdictions.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: There are no unmeasured confounders beyond the covariates included in the propensity score or subgroup models that affect both transfer and recidivism.
- Rests on an assumption: The 16 initially imbalanced covariates are the primary selection factors sufficient to provide reasonable control for selection in the subgroup regressions.
The paper relies on this without support.
After propensity score matching, no unmeasured confounding remains, so the estimated transfer effects can be interpreted causally.
“This approach, when used in conjunction with the richness of the Pathways data, allows us to consider and subsequently rule out many pretreatment variables which may be confounders, instead of direct matching on only a limited number of them.”
“As a result, we are able to estimate the causal effects of transfer to adult court more stringently (though never definitively) than previously possible.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The 65 excluded transferred cases do not substantially bias the estimated transfer effects.
“We excluded from these analyses 65 cases that had been transferred to adult court because the case was either dismissed in adult court (n = 15), there was missing court record information (n = 8), a missing follow-up interview prevented us from knowing when the youth was first released from his/her disposition stay (n = 14), or the adolescent was not released from their disposition stay before the”
“We consider the implications of excluded cases in the discussion below.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The re-arrest measure based on JOLTS and FBI records accurately captures subsequent criminal involvement.
“We used rate of re-arrest as a measure of subsequent involvement in criminal activity. Indicators of arrest prior to age 18 were based on reports of petitions to juvenile court recorded in the Juvenile On-Line Tracking System (JOLTS) used in Maricopa County. Arrests after age 18 were based on nationwide FBI arrest records.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The four-year follow-up period is long enough to capture the effects of transfer on recidivism.
“Adolescents in the sample were followed from the date of their baseline interview (within 45 days of their juvenile court adjudication or within 90 days of their adult court arraignment) through the date of their 4-year follow-up interview.”
The paper relies on this without support.
There are no unmeasured confounders beyond the covariates included in the propensity score or subgroup models that affect both transfer and recidivism.
“After accounting for the potential selection biases in the initial covariates using subclassification, the estimated ATT is −.23 (SE = .22; t-statistic = −1.03).”
“Furthermore, for the group-specific effects, we can control for, but not completely rule out, selection biases due to observable covariates.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Youth charged with murder, rape, or arson would almost always be transferred to adult court regardless of the statutory scheme.
“Indeed, an individual in this age group charged with such a serious crime will almost always be transferred to adult court, regardless of the statutory scheme governing this practice.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The 16 initially imbalanced covariates are the primary selection factors sufficient to provide reasonable control for selection in the subgroup regressions.
“Also, we control for the 16 covariates which were initially out of balance between the adult and juvenile groups to provide some reasonable attempt at controlling for selection (though by no means eliminating it).”
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Transfer percentage rounds to 30%, not 29%
MinorThe stated 193 transferred participants out of 654 equal 29.51%. Rounded to a whole percent, that is 30%, rather than the reported 29%.
Reported 29 · recomputed 29.510703
“a relatively high percentage (29%; 193/654) of Pathways participants enrolled in Arizona were processed in the adult system.”
Cites
The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects
ROSENBAUM, P. R., & RUBIN, D. B. (1983) · Biometrika · doi:10.1093/biomet/70.1.41 · Cited by 31,241 · cited 4× · see citing works
“Unlike previous analyses of the effects of transfer, the current empirical study uses propensity score methodology ( Rosenbaum & Rubin, 1983 ), an alternative statistical method selected to account for selection bias.”
InfluentialReducing Bias in Observational Studies Using Subclassification on the Propensity Score
Rosenbaum, P. R., & Rubin, D. B. (1984) · Journal of the American Statistical Association · doi:10.1080/01621459.1984.10478078 · Cited by 3,082 · cited 4× · see citing works
“Model selection is conducted through an iterative process, with the primary goal of achieving covariate balance afterwards (Heckman, Ichimura, Smith, & Todd, 1998; Rosenbaum & Rubin, 1984 ), as opposed to explicit modeling of the selection process.”
InfluentialRosenbaum, P. R. (2002) · Springer series in statistics · doi:10.1007/978-1-4757-3692-2 · Cited by 2,414 · see citing works
Characterizing Selection Bias Using Experimental Data
Heckman, J., Ichimura, H., Smith, J., & Todd, P. (1998) · Econometrica · doi:10.2307/2999630 · Cited by 2,286 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Model selection is conducted through an iterative process, with the primary goal of achieving covariate balance afterwards ( Heckman, Ichimura, Smith, & Todd, 1998; Rosenbaum & Rubin, 1984), as opposed to explicit modeling of the selection process.”
Developmental Theories of Crime and Delinquency
Scarpitti, F. R., & Thornberry, T. P. (1997) · Contemporary Sociology A Journal of Reviews · doi:10.2307/2654661 · Cited by 781 · see citing works
A Life-Course Theory of Cumulative Disadvantage and the Stability of Delinquency
Sampson, R. J., & Laub John, H. (2018) · Routledge eBooks · doi:10.4324/9780203793350-4 · Cited by 657 · cited 1× · see citing works
“…M anuscript N IH -PA Author M anuscript N IH -PA Author M anuscript serious crimes might also promote several other problems, including labeling (Sampson & Laub, 1997; Smith & Paternoster, 1990) and developmental barriers (Steinberg & Cauffman, 2000), which are potentially costly to both the…”
Haskell, M. R., & Yablonsky, L. (1978) · Cited by 570 · see citing works
Handbook of Quantitative Criminology
Piquero, A. R., & Weisburd, D. L. (2009) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-0-387-77650-7 · Cited by 543 · see citing works
Self-citationSteinberg, L. D., & Scott, E. S. (2003) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/0003-066x.58.12.1009 · Cited by 473 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Assumptions about adolescent culpability and amenability to treatment as well as the effectiveness of risk assessment all underpin societal determinations about when and how to transfer an adolescent offender to the adult system (Mulvey & Leistico, 2008; Steinberg & Scott, 2003).”
Self-citationWass, H. (1985) · Issues in Comprehensive Pediatric Nursing · doi:10.3109/01460868509006351 · Cited by 450 · see citing works
Theory and Research on Desistance from Antisocial Activity among Serious Adolescent Offenders
Mulvey, E. P., Steinberg, L. D., Fagan, J., Cauffman, E. E., Piquero, A. R., Chassin, L., Knight, G. P., Brame, R., Schubert, C. A., Hecker, T. E., et al. (2004) · Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice · doi:10.1177/1541204004265864 · Cited by 431 · cited 5× · see citing works
“More information regarding the rationale and overall design of the study can be found in Mulvey et al. (2004); details regarding recruitment, a description of the full sample and the study methodology are discussed in Schubert et al.”
InfluentialSelf-citationOperational Lessons from the Pathways to Desistance Project
Schubert, C. A., Mulvey, E. P., Steinberg, L. D., Cauffman, E. E., Losoya, S. H., Hecker, T. E., Chassin, L., & Knight, G. P. (2004) · Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice · doi:10.1177/1541204004265875 · Cited by 382 · cited 3× · see citing works
“More information regarding the rationale and overall design of the study can be found in Mulvey et al. (2004); details regarding recruitment, a description of the full sample and the study methodology are discussed in Schubert et al. (2004).”
Self-citationBad Kids: Race and the Transformation of the Juvenile Court
Crawford, C., & Feld, B. C. (2001) · Contemporary Sociology A Journal of Reviews · doi:10.2307/3089790 · Cited by 366 · cited 1× · see citing works
“This critical decision has long been a flash point for disagreement between advocates of a more rehabilitation-focused juvenile system and those who see proportionality and retribution as equally (or more) legitimate goals that must be achieved when dealing with serious juvenile crime (Feld, 1999).”
Feld, B. C. (1999) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780195097870.001.0001 · Cited by 345 · see citing works
Zimring, F. E. (1998) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780195121452.001.0001 · Cited by 300 · see citing works
Piquero, A. R., Blumstein, A., Brame, R. W., Haapanen, R., Mulvey, E. P., & Nagin, D. S. (2001) · Journal of Adolescent Research · doi:10.1177/0743558401161005 · Cited by 285 · cited 1× · see citing works
“The importance of controlling for exposure time has been noted elsewhere (Piquero et al., 2001).”
Self-citationDelinquency Careers: Innocents, Desisters, and Persisters
Blumstein, A., Farrington, D. P., & Moitra, S. D. (1985) · Crime and Justice · doi:10.1086/449107 · Cited by 273 · cited 2× · see citing works
“Following the rationale of Blumstein, Farrington, and Moitra (1985), we divide the sample between those individuals with either 0 or 1 prior petition and those with 2 or more priors.”
The Transfer of Juveniles to Criminal Court: Does It Make a Difference?
Bishop, D. M., Frazier, C. E., Lanza-Kaduce, L., & Winner, L. (1996) · Crime & Delinquency · doi:10.1177/0011128796042002001 · Cited by 253 · see citing works
Can Punishment Encourage Offending? Investigating The “resetting” Effect
Pogarsky, G., & Piquero, A. R. (2003) · Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency · doi:10.1177/0022427802239255 · Cited by 224 · cited 1× · see citing works
“It might be, for example, that inexperienced offenders respond much differently to criminal sanctions compared to more seasoned ones (e.g., Loughran, Piquero, Fagan, & Mulvey, in press; Pogarsky & Piquero, 2003).”
Self-citationZimring, F. E. (2016) · New York University Press eBooks · doi:10.18574/nyu/9781479816873.003.0002 · Cited by 219 · cited 2× · see citing works
“net to catch juvenile offenders for transfer to adult court, it is likely that we have what Zimring (1998) describes as an 'inappropriate aggregation' - that is, different types of offenders with different responses to transfer consequences being inadvertently combined together for analytic purposes.”
The Changing Borders of Juvenile Justice: Transfer of Adolescents to the Criminal Court
Fagan, J. A., & Zimring, F. E. (2000) · eYLS (Yale Law School) · Cited by 205 · see citing works
Self-citationRubin, D. B., & Thomas, N. (1992) · Biometrika · doi:10.1093/biomet/79.4.797 · Cited by 189 · cited 2× · see citing works
“It is important to note that covariate balance, and not model parsimony, is the primary goal of estimating the propensity score ( Rubin & Thomas, 1992 ).”
The Transfer of Juveniles to Criminal Court: Reexamining Recidivism Over the Long Term
Winner, L., Lanza-Kaduce, L., Bishop, D. M., & Frazier, C. E. (1997) · Crime & Delinquency · doi:10.1177/0011128797043004009 · Cited by 161 · see citing works
FAGAN, J. (1996) · Law & Policy · doi:10.1111/j.1467-9930.1996.tb00165.x · Cited by 160 · see citing works
Self-citationJuvenile Offenders in the Adult Criminal Justice System
Bishop, D. M. (2000) · Crime and Justice · doi:10.1086/652199 · Cited by 160 · cited 2× · see citing works
“Perhaps most importantly, the Pathways data provide a unique opportunity to more fully explore the issue of heterogeneity among transferred individuals, the importance of which has been emphasized by others (Bishop, 2000; Zimring, 1998).”
Does Incapacitation Reduce Crime?
Piquero, A. R., & Blumstein, A. (2007) · Journal of Quantitative Criminology · doi:10.1007/s10940-007-9030-6 · Cited by 111 · cited 2× · see citing works
“Like other studies focusing on the effects of incarceration on subsequent criminal activity (Bhati & Piquero, 2007; Piquero & Blumstein, 2007 ), our results do suggest that, for some individuals, transfer may reduce criminal activity and, for others, it may increase it, although these increases are not statistically s…”
Self-citationFormal Processing and Future Delinquency: Deviance Amplification as Selection Artifact
Smith, D. A., & Paternoster, R. (1990) · Law & Society Review · doi:10.2307/3053663 · Cited by 106 · cited 2× · see citing works
“Previous empirical research on the effects of transfer have attempted to address the problem of selection bias (Smith & Paternoster, 1990).”
Juvenile transfer laws: An effective deterrent to delinquency?
Redding, R. E. (2008) · PsycEXTRA Dataset · doi:10.1037/e479412008-001 · Cited by 105 · cited 1× · see citing works
“There has certainly been an oft-voiced consensus that transfer policies uniformly produce negative outcomes (Redding, 2008).”
Loughran, T. A., Piquero, A. R., Fagan, J., & Mulvey, E. P. (2009) · Crime & Delinquency · doi:10.1177/0011128709345971 · Cited by 97 · cited 1× · see citing works
“It might be, for example, that inexperienced offenders respond much differently to criminal sanctions compared to more seasoned ones (e.g., Loughran, Piquero, Fagan, & Mulvey, in press; Pogarsky & Piquero, 2003).”
Self-citationThe Recidivism of Violent Youths in Juvenile and Adult Court: A Consideration of Selection Bias
Myers, D. L. (2003) · Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice · doi:10.1177/1541204002238365 · Cited by 89 · cited 2× · see citing works
“…policy has been that youth meeting either criterion are distinctly different from other youthful offenders and are better handled with the harsher sanctions they would find in a punitive-oriented criminal court as compared to the rehabilitation-minded juvenile court (Kupchik, 2003; Myers, 2003).”
Predictions for National Football League Games Via Linear-Model Methodology
Harville, D. A. (1980) · Journal of the American Statistical Association · doi:10.1080/01621459.1980.10477504 · Cited by 87 · see citing works
Improving Professional Judgments of Risk and Amenability in Juvenile Justice
Mulvey, E. P., & Iselin, A.-M. R. (2008) · The Future of Children · doi:10.1353/foc.0.0012 · Cited by 57 · see citing works
Self-citation(2007) · bepress Legal Repository · Cited by 50 · see citing works
Self-citationProsecuting Adolescents in Criminal Courts: Criminal or Juvenile Justice?
Kupchik, A. (2003) · Social Problems · doi:10.1525/sp.2003.50.3.439 · Cited by 34 · cited 2× · see citing works
“…policy has been that youth meeting either criterion are distinctly different from other youthful offenders and are better handled with the harsher sanctions they would find in a punitive-oriented criminal court as compared to the rehabilitation-minded juvenile court (Kupchik, 2003; Myers, 2003).”
Fagan, J., Kupchik, A., & Liberman, A. (2004) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.491202 · Cited by 34 · see citing works
Self-citationPredicting outcomes for youth transferred to adult court.
Schubert, C. A., Mulvey, E. P., Loughran, T. A., Fagan, J., Chassin, L. A., Piquero, A. R., Losoya, S. H., Steinberg, L., & Cauffman, E. (2010) · Law and Human Behavior · doi:10.1007/s10979-009-9209-5 · Cited by 33 · see citing works
Self-citationEstimating Treatment Effects: Matching Quantification to the Question
Loughran, T. A., & Mulvey, E. P. (2010) · Handbook of Quantitative Criminology · doi:10.1007/978-0-387-77650-7_9 · Cited by 16 · see citing works
Self-citation
Flagged first, then by citations
3 of the 40 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- Fagan, J., & Zimring, F. E. (Eds.). (2000). The changing borders of juvenile justice: Transfer of adolescents to the criminal court. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
- Zimring, F. E. (2000). The punitive necessity of waiver. In J. Fagan & F. E. Zimring (Eds.), The changing borders of juvenile justice: Transfer of adolescents to the criminal court (pp. 207–224). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
The impact of incarceration on juvenile offenders
Lambie, I., & Randell, I. (2013) · Clinical Psychology Review · doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2013.01.007 · Cited by 291 · see citing works
“have null or negative effects on later offending and that a more punitive approach is unlikely to be productive (Gatti et al., 2009; Lane et al., 2002; Lanza-Kaduce et al., 2005; Loughran et al., 2010; Mulvey, 2011; Myers, 2003).”
BackgroundResultLutze, F. E., Rosky, J. W., & Hamilton, Z. K. (2013) · Criminal Justice and Behavior · doi:10.1177/0093854813510164 · Cited by 143 · see citing works
“Although a common diagnostic metric of sample balance, due to the partial influence of sample size, significance tests alone can be misleading (Austin, 2008; Loughran et al., 2010).”
BackgroundJuvenile Justice Policy and Practice: A Developmental Perspective
Monahan, K. C., Steinberg, L. D., & Piquero, A. R. (2015) · Crime and Justice · doi:10.1086/681553 · Cited by 131 · see citing works
“After using propensity score matching to reduce potential selection bias for 59 covariates, Loughran et al. (2010) estimated the effects of transfer on 4-year rearrests for 128 youths.”
MethodSelf-citationThe Effect of Race/Ethnicity on Sentencing: Examining Sentence Type, Jail Length, and Prison Length
Jordan, K. L., & Freiburger, T. L. (2014) · Journal of Ethnicity in Criminal Justice · doi:10.1080/15377938.2014.984045 · Cited by 85 · see citing works
“However, research strongly suggests that t-test scores alone can be misleading because of statistical significance being partially influenced by the sample size (Austin, 2008; Loughran et al., 2010; Rosenbaum & Rubin, 1985).”
BackgroundMethodA critical examination of “being Black” in the juvenile justice system.
Peck, J. H., & Jennings, W. G. (2016) · Law and Human Behavior · doi:10.1037/lhb0000180 · Cited by 70 · see citing works
The (ir)relevance of procedural justice in the pathways to crime.
Augustyn, M. B. (2015) · Law and Human Behavior · doi:10.1037/lhb0000122 · Cited by 55 · see citing works
Juvenile Transfer and the Specific Deterrence Hypothesis: Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis
Zane, S. N., Welsh, B. C., & Mears, D. P. (2016) · Criminology & Public Policy · doi:10.1111/1745-9133.12222 · Cited by 48 · see citing works
Piquero, A. R., Monahan, K. C., Glasheen, C., Schubert, C. A., & Mulvey, E. P. (2012) · Crime & Delinquency · doi:10.1177/0011128712459491 · Cited by 44 · see citing works
“All individual characteristics used in the analyses were measured at the baseline interview and have been used in previous Pathways studies (e.g., Loughran et al., 2010; Schubert et al., 2010).”
MethodSelf-citationSharlein, J. (2016) · Crime & Delinquency · doi:10.1177/0011128716678193 · Cited by 32 · see citing works
Estimating the Crime Effects of Raising the Age of Majority
Loeffler, C. E., & Chalfin, A. J. (2017) · Criminology & Public Policy · doi:10.1111/1745-9133.12268 · Cited by 32 · see citing works
“3 juvenile transfer has developed in recent years documenting the consequences of shifting serious and/or repeat juvenile felony offenders into the adult justice system (Fagan 1996; Bishop et al. 1996; Lanza-Kaduce, Bishop, and Frazier 2005; McGowan et al. 2007; Loughran et al., 2010; Redding 2010; Mulvey and Schubert…”
BackgroundEsposito, M. H., Lee, H. E., Hicken, M. T., Porter, L. C., & Herting, J. R. (2017) · Longitudinal and Life Course Studies · doi:10.14301/llcs.v8i1.405 · Cited by 33 · see citing works
“Previous research indicates that these experiences differ (Loughran et al., 2010), and these differences may have different implications for health.”
Predicting outcomes for youth transferred to adult court.
Schubert, C. A., Mulvey, E. P., Loughran, T. A., Fagan, J., Chassin, L. A., Piquero, A. R., Losoya, S. H., Steinberg, L., & Cauffman, E. (2010) · Law and Human Behavior · doi:10.1007/s10979-009-9209-5 · Cited by 33 · see citing works
“We address this issue in an accompanying paper (Loughran et al., 2010).”
BackgroundInfluentialSelf-citationBoduszek, D., Hyland, P., & Bourke, A. (2012) · Journal of Criminal Psychology · doi:10.1108/20093821211264414 · Cited by 32 · see citing works
“Previous research strongly suggests that t-test scores can be misleading, due to statistical significance being partially influenced by the sample size (Rosenbaum and Rubin, 1985; Austin, 2008; Loughran et al., 2010).”
BackgroundJuvenile transfer and recidivism: a propensity score matching approach
Jordan, K. L. (2011) · Journal of Crime and Justice · doi:10.1080/0735648x.2011.632133 · Cited by 32 · see citing works
“( 2010 ) utilized propensity score matching to assess the impact of transfer on recidivism among a sample of youth in Maricopa County, Arizona.”
MethodJUVENILE WAIVER AS A MECHANISM OF SOCIAL STRATIFICATION: A FOCUS ON HUMAN CAPITAL*
Augustyn, M. B., & Loughran, T. A. (2017) · Criminology · doi:10.1111/1745-9125.12136 · Cited by 28 · see citing works
Self-citationKnight, G. P., Losoya, S. H., Cho, Y. I., et al. (2012) · Journal of Research on Adolescence · doi:10.1111/j.1532-7795.2012.00819.x · Cited by 28 · see citing works
Self-citationHamilton, Z. K., & Campbell, C. M. (2014) · Criminal Justice and Behavior · doi:10.1177/0093854814546132 · Cited by 18 · see citing works
Loeffler, C. E., & Grunwald, B. (2015) · Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency · doi:10.1177/0022427815581858 · Cited by 25 · see citing works
“But the literature reveals significant evidence of treatment effect heterogeneity (Fagan 1996; Fagan et al. 2007; Hansen and Waddell 2014; Lee and McCrary 2009; Loughran et al. 2010), suggesting that the negative effect of adult processing for transfer-eligible populations may not generalize to all juvenile population…”
BackgroundResultInfluentialDecriminalizing Delinquency: The Effect of Raising the Age of Majority on Juvenile Recidivism
Loeffler, C. E., & Grunwald, B. (2015) · The Journal of Legal Studies · doi:10.1086/684297 · Cited by 23 · see citing works
“and Liberman 2007) and some evidence of treatment effect heterogeneity (Loughran et al. 2010; Fagan, Kupchik, and Liberman 2007).”
BackgroundA Developmental Perspective on Adolescent Risk‐Taking and Criminal Behavior
Cauffman, E. E., Cavanagh, C., Donley, S., & Thomas, A. G. (2015) · Wiley eBooks · doi:10.1002/9781118512449.ch6 · Cited by 24 · see citing works
Self-citationBoduszek, D., Shevlin, M. E., Adamson, G., et al. (2013) · Deviant Behavior · doi:10.1080/01639625.2012.748628 · Cited by 22 · see citing works
“The standardized absolute percentage difference is based on the means, and not influenced by the unit of measurement or the sample size (Loughran et al. 2010; Rosenbaum and Rubin 1985).”
BackgroundJuvenile Status and Criminal Sentencing
Jordan, K. L. (2013) · Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice · doi:10.1177/1541204013505298 · Cited by 21 · see citing works
“Research also indicates that transferred youth are more likely to recidivate more often and more quickly than youth in the juvenile system (Bishop, Frazier, Lanza-Kaduce, & Winner, 1996; Lanza-Kaduce, Lane, Bishop, & Frazier, 2005; Myers, 2003b; Winner, Lanza-Kaduce, Bishop, & Frazier, 1997), though more recent resear…”
ResultPsychopathy, gang membership, and moral disengagement among juvenile offenders
Dhingra, K., Debowska, A., Sharratt, K., Hyland, P., & Kola, S. (2015) · Journal of Criminal Psychology · doi:10.1108/jcp-11-2014-0016 · Cited by 21 · see citing works
Juvenile Transfer to Adult Court
Myers, D. L. (2016) · Criminology & Public Policy · doi:10.1111/1745-9133.12232 · Cited by 18 · see citing works
“selection bias, but as a result of data and analytical limitations, it is unclear whether those investigations achieved their goal (Loughran et al., 2010).”
BackgroundResultInfluentialDebowska, A., Boduszek, D., Dhingra, K., & DeLisi, M. (2016) · Deviant Behavior · doi:10.1080/01639625.2015.1060805 · Cited by 18 · see citing works
“Previous research has indicated that t-test scores can be misleading, due to statistical significance being partially influenced by the sample size (Austin, 2008; Loughran et al., 2010; Rosenbaum & Rubin, 1985).”
REVISITING JUVENILE WAIVER: INTEGRATING THE INCAPACITATION EXPERIENCE*
Augustyn, M. B., & McGloin, J. M. (2017) · Criminology · doi:10.1111/1745-9125.12165 · Cited by 14 · see citing works
Robinson, K., & Kurlychek, M. C. (2019) · Justice Evaluation Journal · doi:10.1080/24751979.2019.1585927 · Cited by 13 · see citing works
Redding, R. E. (2016) · Criminology & Public Policy · doi:10.1111/1745-9133.12239 · Cited by 13 · see citing works
Mulvey, E. P., & Schubert, C. A. (2012) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195385106.013.0033 · Cited by 13 · see citing works
Self-citationMaloney, C., & Miller, J. E. (2014) · Justice Quarterly · doi:10.1080/07418825.2013.863961 · Cited by 12 · see citing works
“These include the results of the chisquare and t-tests for significance, along with the standardized difference in means, or “percent bias”, of covariates (Loughran et al., 2010; Rosenbaum & Rubin, 1985).”
MethodFowler, E., & Kurlychek, M. C. (2017) · Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice · doi:10.1177/1541204017708017 · Cited by 10 · see citing works
“For example, Loughran et al. (2010) found overall null effects when comparing reoffending of a matched group of serious juvenile offenders in Pennsylvania and Arizona adjudicated in either juvenile court or adult court via transfer.”
BackgroundKelleher, C., Boduszek, D., Bourke, A., et al. (2013) · Sex Education · doi:10.1080/14681811.2012.760448 · Cited by 10 · see citing works
Estimating the effects of shrinking the criminal justice system on criminal recidivism
Loeffler, C. E., & Braga, A. A. (2022) · Criminology & Public Policy · doi:10.1111/1745-9133.12588 · Cited by 9 · see citing works
Effectiveness of a Domestic Abuse Program for Australian Indigenous Offenders
Blatch, C., O’Sullivan, K., Goodman‐Delahunty, J., et al. (2020) · International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology · doi:10.1177/0306624x19900979 · Cited by 9 · see citing works
“(2012) have reported that PS-matched cohorts can be used with acceptable accuracy to examine subgroup effects, if there are large numbers of outcome events in the subgroups and particularly if the subgroups are binary (Loughran et al., 2010).”
BackgroundCauffman, E. E., Donley, S., & Thomas, A. G. (2017) · Criminology & Public Policy · doi:10.1111/1745-9133.12257 · Cited by 7 · see citing works
Self-citationPechorro, P. S., DeLisi, M., Freitas, A., Gonçalves, R. A., & Nunes, C. (2022) · International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology · doi:10.1177/0306624x211066838 · Cited by 6 · see citing works
“, suppression of aggression) but found that it was not related to waiver to adult criminal court (Loughran et al., 2010).”
BackgroundSilver, I. A., Semenza, D. C., & WOOLDREDGE, J. D. (2025) · The British Journal of Criminology · doi:10.1093/bjc/azae094 · Cited by 9 · see citing works
Park, I., & Sullivan, C. J. (2021) · Criminal Justice Policy Review · doi:10.1177/08874034211014927 · Cited by 6 · see citing works
“…a null or mixed effect on recidivism (Bishop & Frazier, 2000; Fagan, 1996; Jensen & Metsger, 1994; McGowan et al., 2007), an increasing number of researchers have studied the factors that condition the impact of transfer (e.g., Augustyn & McGloin, 2018; Loughran et al., 2010; Trulson et al., 2020).”
BackgroundKurlychek, M. C., Kijowski, M. C., & Gagnon, A. (2021) · Social Problems · doi:10.1093/socpro/spab078 · Cited by 6 · see citing works
Swanson, J. W., Tong, G., Easter, M. M., et al. (2022) · Preventive Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.ypmed.2022.107279 · Cited by 6 · see citing works
“At the same time, it must be acknowledged that prosecuting minors as adults and incarcerating them at an impressionable age and critical stage of life-course development may produce negligible benefits (Loughran et al., 2010; Loughran et al., 2009) while exacting a high human cost both to the affected individuals and…”
BackgroundTrulson, C. R., Craig, J. M., Caudill, J. W., & DeLisi, M. (2020) · Crime & Delinquency · doi:10.1177/0011128720911640 · Cited by 6 · see citing works
“…of subsets of offender types, the researchers discovered that those juvenile offenders waived for person-related crimes exhibited lower re-arrest outcomes and those with fewer prior court petitions also evinced 892 Crime & Delinquency 66(6-7) lower re-arrest outcomes (Loughran et al., 2010).”
BackgroundJordan, K. L. (2012) · Journal of juvenile justice · Cited by 5 · see citing works
Assessing Youth Early in the Juvenile Justice System
Hobbs, A. N. M., Wulf‐Ludden, T., & Strawhun, J. (2013) · Cited by 5 · see citing works
(Crime) School is in Session: Mapping Illegal Earnings to Institutional PlacementPreprint
Nguyen, H., Loughran, T., Paternoster, R., Fagan, J. A., & Piquero, A. R. (2013) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.2228431 · Cited by 4 · see citing works
Self-citationLoughran, T. A., Paternoster, R., & Weiss, D. B. (2015) · Wiley eBooks · doi:10.1002/9781118512449.ch4 · Cited by 5 · see citing works
Self-citationZottoli, T. M., Daftary‐Kapur, T., & Zapf, P. A. (2015) · Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice · doi:10.1080/15228932.2015.1099335 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
“Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 19(1), 81–97. doi:10.1037/a0027808 Kent V. United States, 383 U.S. 541.”
BackgroundInfluentialPiquero, A. R. (2021) · Journal of Developmental and Life-Course Criminology · doi:10.1007/s40865-021-00173-9 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
Self-citation9. Deterring Serious and Chronic Offenders
Loughran, T. A., Piquero, A. R., Fagan, J. A., et al. (2016) · New York University Press eBooks · doi:10.18574/nyu/9780814721377.003.0009 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
Self-citationImproving responses to juvenile burglary offenders
Roth, J. J., & Pierce, M. B. (2019) · Safer Communities · doi:10.1108/sc-09-2018-0026 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
Being Tried and Sentenced as an Adult: Amplifying Voices of Transferred Juveniles
Jaspers, Y., Christiaens, J., & Nuytiens, A. (2023) · Youth Justice · doi:10.1177/14732254231182035 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
“…at a faster rate than young people who have been retained within juvenile justice (see, e.g. Bishop et al., 1996; Fagan, 1996; Fagan and Piquero, 2007; Fagan et al., 2007; Jensen and Metsger, 1994; Jordan, 2014; Lanza-Kaduce et al., 2005; Loughran et al., 2010; Myers, 2003; Steiner et al., 2006).”
BackgroundLutze, F. E., & Rosky, J. W. (2014) · Cited by 2 · see citing works
Silver, I. A., Semenza, D. C., & Wooldredge, J. (2024) · Social Science Research Network · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4762726 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
Lehmann, P. S., & Lee, J. E. (2025) · Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency · doi:10.1177/00224278251347567 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
“…to reduce crime and enhance public safety, prior research consistently has revealed that transferred youth experience limited deterrence bene fi ts (Loughran et al. 2010; Zane, Welsh and Mears 2016) and instead often have an increased likelihood of recidivism relative to similar youth who were…”
How Research from Developmental and Life-Course Criminology Can Better Guide Juvenile Justice Policy
Piquero, A. R. (2026) · Social Sciences · doi:10.3390/socsci15050309 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
Self-citationThe Developmental Science of Children in Criminal and Dependency Court
Enriquez, R., Brown, L. F., Goodman, G. S., Metcalf, S., & Quas, J. A. (2023) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780197549513.013.5 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
The Effects of Transfer Laws on Youth With Sexual or Robbery Offenses
Rinehart, J. K., Armstrong, K., Shields, R. T., & Letourneau, E. J. (2016) · Criminal Justice and Behavior · doi:10.1177/0093854816659517 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
“…the majority of extant research has found little to no evidence of deterrent effects (e.g., Bishop, Frazier, Lanza-Kaduce, & Winner, 1996; Lanza-Kaduce, Lane, Bishop, & Frazier, 2005; McGowan et al., 2007; Myers, 2003b; Podkopacz & Feld, 1996; Winner, Lanza-Kaduce, Bishop, & Frazier, 1997).”
BackgroundPathways of Transferred Youth Offenders into Adulthood
Jaspers, Y., Nuytiens, A., Christiaens, J., et al. (2017) · Youth Justice · doi:10.1177/1473225417700324 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
“More specifically, transfer may have a positive effect on recidivism for transferred youngsters with no or very few previous offences (Entorf, 2012; Loughran et al., 2010).”
BackgroundThe Juvenile Justice Response to Violence
Butts, J. A., & Szkola, J. (2021) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-89999-2_108 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
Commentary: nuances of reverse-waiver evaluations of adolescents in adult criminal court.
Lyons, C. L., Adams, A. N., & Dahan, A. (2012) · PubMed · Cited by 1 · see citing works
Waiver to Criminal Court (also Transfer or Certification)
Jordan, K. L. (2017) · The Encyclopedia of Juvenile Delinquency and Justice · doi:10.1002/9781118524275.ejdj0028 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
Makhurane, F. (2019) · Unisa Institutional Repository (University of South Africa) · Cited by 1 · see citing works
Adams, B., & Addie, S. (2013) · The Encyclopedia of Criminology and Criminal Justice · doi:10.1002/9781118517383.wbeccj139
AP-LS 2011 International Congress on Psychology and Law
Regency, H. (2011)
Juveniles in Adult Court Repercussions and Benefits for Juveniles and Communities
Gulstad, R. (2016) · UST Research Online (University of St. Thomas - Minnesota)
Mulvey, E. P., Piquero, A. R., Monahan, K. C., et al. (2012)
Self-citationThe Juvenile Justice Response to Violence
Butts, J. A., & Szkola, J. (2019) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-62122-7_108-1
Juvenile Sentencing, Criminal Court
Miner‐Romanoff, K. (2017) · The Encyclopedia of Juvenile Delinquency and Justice · doi:10.1002/9781118524275.ejdj0114
Loeffler, C. E., & Grunwald, B. (2013) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.2375982
Crianças e adolescentes no banco dos réus: o debate sobre a redução da maioridade penal
Mansur, T. S. (2022) · Edifes eBooks · doi:10.36524/9788582635605
Developing JC and Transfer to CC Theories/Propositions (T/Ps)
(2023) · IGI Global eBooks · doi:10.4018/978-1-7998-7923-7.ch002
Research Addressing Transfer to CC
(2023) · IGI Global eBooks · doi:10.4018/978-1-7998-7923-7.ch012
(2023) · IGI Global eBooks · doi:10.4018/978-1-7998-7923-7.ch015
The Limitation Argument, Part 1
(2023) · IGI Global eBooks · doi:10.4018/978-1-7998-7923-7.ch010
The contemporary American juvenile justice system: Revisiting parens patriae
Celińska, K., & Cheboubi, A. (2022) · Archiwum Kryminologii. · doi:10.7420/ak2022.04
Loeffler, C. E., & Bersani, B. E. (2025) · Justice Quarterly · doi:10.1080/07418825.2025.2551789
“In addition, institutional placement has been found to increase youth’s criminal capital and later offending (Bayer et al., 2009; Gatti et al., 2009; Loughran et al., 2010; Nguyen et al., 2017; Petitclerc et al., 2013).”
- Authors
- Loughran, T. A., Mulvey, E. P., Schubert, C. A., Chassin, L. A., Steinberg, L., Piquero, A. R., Fagan, J., Cota-Robles, S., Cauffman, E., & Losoya, S.
- Affiliations
- University of South Florida (US)
- University of Pittsburgh (US)
- Arizona State University (US)
- Temple University (US)
- Florida State University (US)
- Columbia University (US)
- University of California, Irvine (US)
- Corresponding author
- Mulvey, Edward P.
- Venue
- Law and Human Behavior
- Published
- 2010-12
- Volume
- 34
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 476-488
- ISSN
- 0147-7307 (ISSN-L)
- 1573-661X
- PMC
- PMC2901422
- OpenAlex
- W2083209261
- Cited by
- 77
- References
- 40
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 4 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 9 · 2012: 7
- FWCI
- 20.66
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Locations
- Law and Human Behavior (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
- Griffith Research Online (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institute of Justice
- John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation
- William T. Grant Foundation
- Robert Wood Johnson Foundation
- William Penn Foundation
- Center for Disease Control
- National Institute on Drug Abuse (R01DA019697)
- Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency
- Arizona Governor’s Justice Commission
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Criminal Justice and Corrections Analysis
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Crime Patterns and Interventions
- Social Sciences › Law › Criminal Justice and Penology
- Keywords
- adult court, juvenile recidivism, serious juvenile offenders, subgroup heterogeneity, rearrest, juvenile justice policy
- MeSH terms
- Adolescent, Arizona, Criminal Law, Female, Humans, Juvenile Delinquency, Longitudinal Studies, Male, Pennsylvania, Propensity Score
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-09-28.
Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-09-28.
Cited sources are checked by gpt-6-sol.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
