79 John F. Kennedy Street
Cambridge, MA 02138
617.495.5188
www.hks.harvard.edu/criminaljustice

Public Safety and Emerging Adults
in Connecticut:
Providing Effective and Developmentally
Appropriate Responses for Youth Under Age 21

Lael Chester and Vincent Schiraldi
Submitted to the Tow Youth Justice Institute
University of New Haven
December 15, 2016
Finalized December 28, 2016

 The authors would like to express their many thanks for all of the support and assistance
provided by their colleagues at the Program in Criminal Justice Policy and Management
at the Harvard Kennedy School and talented and hardworking Research Assistants, a
crew that includes: Bruce Western, Brian Welch, Kendra Bradner, Rachel Corey, Felix
Owusu, Angela Wang, Juliana Ratner, Anamika Dwivedi, Daniel Edelman, Courtney
Payne, Lina Hidalgo and Yohana Beyene.
Similarly, appreciation and gratitude is extended to the Tow Youth Justice Institute at the
University of New Haven for this wonderful collaboration, with special recognition to:
William Carbone, Erika Nowakowski, Danielle Cooper, Kendell Coker and consultant
Laura Downs.
Finally, we extend a huge thank you to Representative Toni Walker and Secretary
Benjamin Barnes, Co-Chairs of the Juvenile Justice Policy and Oversight Committee, all
the members of the JJPOC and JJPOC working groups, Undersecretary of Criminal
Justice Michael Lawlor, Undersecretary of Legal Affairs Natalie Wagner, and everyone
who has spent time and effort sharing relevant and important information with us over the
past months.

Lael Elizabeth Hiam Chester is a Research Fellow at the Program in Criminal Justice Policy and
Management at the Harvard Kennedy School, where she directs research projects on Young Adult
Justice (ages 18 – 25). An attorney who has focused her career on juvenile, criminal and civil rights
law and policy, her prior positions include: Executive Director of Citizens for Juvenile Justice (CfJJ),
a statewide non-profit dedicated to improving the juvenile justice system in Massachusetts; Assistant
Attorney General in the Civil Rights Division of the Massachusetts Attorney General’s Office; and
Albert Martin Sacks Clinical Fellow at the Criminal Justice Institute at Harvard. Chester is a graduate
of Harvard Law School and Barnard College.
Vincent Schiraldi is a Senior Research Fellow directing the Program in Criminal Justice Policy and
Management (PCJ) at Harvard Kennedy School (HKS). Schiraldi arrives at HKS with long experience
in public life, first coming to prominence as founder of the policy think tank, the Justice Policy
Institute, then moving to government as director of the juvenile corrections in Washington, DC, and
then as Commissioner of the New York City Department of Probation. Most recently Schiraldi served
as Senior Advisor to the New York City Mayor’s Office of Criminal Justice. In Washington and New
York, Schiraldi gained a national reputation as a fearless reformer who emphasized the humane and
decent treatment of the men, women, and children under his correctional supervision. For Schiraldi,
making communities safer and reducing crime necessarily means improving fairness in the system and
developing opportunities in the poor communities where the crime problem is most serious. He
pioneered efforts at community-based alternatives to incarceration with the YouthLink initiative in
Washington DC, in New York City with the NeON network and the Close to Home program.
Schiraldi received a MSW from New York University, and a Bachelor of Arts from Binghamton
University.

Public Safety and Emerging Adults in Connecticut

ii

 TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................. iv
Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 1
Methodology .......................................................................................................................................... 3
Question #1: How Would This Reform Fit Into Connecticut’s Substantial
Experience with Justice Reform, Including the Past “Raise the Age” Initiative
That Successfully Expanded Juvenile Jurisdiction from 16 to 18? ..................................................... 5
• Connecticut’s Legacy of Reform............................................................................................... 5
Question #2: What Lessons Can Be Learned from Other Jurisdictions in the
United States and Abroad About More Effective Ways to Address Emerging Adults
in the Justice System? ............................................................................................................................ 9
• The Role That Age Plays in the Justice System ........................................................................ 9
• National Perspective ................................................................................................................ 13
• International Perspective ......................................................................................................... 15
Question #3: What Would Be the Broader Impacts of These Proposed Reforms
on Connecticut’s Justice System?........................................................................................................ 19
• Arrest ....................................................................................................................................... 22
• Diversion ................................................................................................................................. 24
• Detention ................................................................................................................................. 27
• Court Cases ............................................................................................................................. 29
• Commitment (DCF) & Incarceration (DOC)
• Special Populations ................................................................................................................. 37
o Youth Under 12 Years Old ......................................................................................... 37
o Females ...................................................................................................................... 39
o Racial and Ethnic Minorities ..................................................................................... 40
Question #4: What Are the Key Issues That Need to Be Addressed to Ensure
the Successful Implementation of These New Reforms in Connecticut? .......................................... 42
• How This Proposal Intersects With Federal Laws and Rules.................................................. 42
o The Juvenile Justice Delinquency Prevention Act (JJDPA) ...................................... 42
o The Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA) ................................................................. 43
o Pell Grants ................................................................................................................. 44
• Identifying Needs and Providing Developmentally Appropriate Services
to Emerging Adults ................................................................................................................. 46
o Educational/Vocational Services ............................................................................... 47
o Mental Health/Substance Abuse ................................................................................ 48
o Housing...................................................................................................................... 49
o Family Involvement/Parenting .................................................................................. 50
• The Proposal’s Impact on the Department of Children and Families...................................... 50
• Fiscal Impact .......................................................................................................................... 56
Conclusion ........................................................................................................................................... 59
Recommendations ............................................................................................................................... 61
Appendix A .......................................................................................................................................... 67

Public Safety and Emerging Adults in Connecticut

iii

 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Connecticut, a recognized leader in justice reform, is once again examining a new
strategy to improve public safety: Providing effective and developmentally appropriate
responses for youth under age 21.
In 2016, Governor Dannel Malloy proposed legislation that would gradually incorporate
18, 19 and 20-year-olds into the juvenile justice system over a three-year period. This
proposal would affect approximately 10,000 individuals each year when the law is fully
implemented. An estimated one-third of these emerging adults will be diverted and given
the opportunity to resolve their cases in an effective but non-judicial manner. While the
bill contains provisions to continue to prosecute and sentence youth ages 15 to 21 in the
adult criminal justice system for the most serious offenses, it provides the opportunity of
an individualized, rehabilitative system for the vast majority of the population in
question.
To explore the potential effects of this proposal both for public safety and outcomes for
emerging adults, the Harvard Kennedy School Program in Criminal Justice Policy and
Management, (PCJ), in collaboration with the Tow Youth Justice Institute (TYJI) of the
University of New Haven, embarked on an action research project to answer the
following questions:
•
•
•
•

How would this reform fit into Connecticut’s substantial experience with justice
reform, including the past “raise the age” initiative that successfully expanded
juvenile jurisdiction from age 16 to 18?
What lessons can be learned from other jurisdictions in the United States and
abroad about more effective ways to address emerging adults in the justice
system?
What would be the broader impacts of these proposed reforms on Connecticut’s
justice system?
What are the key issues that need to be addressed to ensure the successful
implementation of these new reforms in Connecticut?

To answer these questions, PCJ conducted literature reviews in the fields of
neurobiology, developmental psychology and life course criminology, as well as
examined research on best and emerging practices nationally and internationally that
target young, court-involved offenders. Over a four-month period, TYJI organized and
PCJ facilitated a series of meetings in Connecticut to discuss the proposal and seek
feedback about both the opportunities and the challenges presented by the proposal (see
Appendix A). Participants of these meetings included members of the Juvenile Justice
Policy and Oversight Committee (JJPOC) as well as government officials, advocates,
academics and private citizens. Finally, PCJ requested and analyzed non-identified data
from the state agencies as well as other publicly available data (e.g., arrest data from the
Uniform Crime Report) to provide a better understanding of the potential impacts of the
proposal’s implementation on both the juvenile and criminal justice systems.

Public Safety and Emerging Adults in Connecticut

iv

 PCJ also examined this proposal in the context of the significant justice reform initiatives
that Connecticut has accomplished in the last several decades. This includes the earlier
“raise the age” initiative from age 16 to 18 (fully implemented in 2012), which resulted in
positive impacts on both public safety and the state budget. Corresponding with these
prior reforms, Connecticut has experienced a dramatic decline in crime and incarceration,
particularly with respect to emerging adults: Arrests for 18, 19 and 20-year-olds dropped
by 66% from 2008 to 2015, while emerging adults sentenced to prison declined by a
notable 43% from 2005 to 2015. These substantial reductions provide Connecticut an
exceptional foundation for implementing this new reform proposal.

Who are “emerging adults”?
Emerging adults, a term first coined in 2000 by psychologist and author Jeffrey Arnett
at Clark University, has become increasingly adopted in the criminal justice arena.
The term invokes a critical developmental period: the transition from a child who is
dependent on parents or guardians for supervision and guidance (as well as emotional
and financial support) into a fully mature, independent adult who engages as a
productive and healthy member of society. Connecticut’s proposal would impact a
subset of this group – 18, 19 and 20-year-olds – which constitute approximately 4% of
the overall population and 10% of arrests in the State.
In the United States, emerging adults have generally been treated in our criminal justice
systems in the same manner as older, more mature adults. The results of this
undifferentiated and generic approach have been demonstrably poor, be it in terms of
public safety, individual well-being, or cost effectiveness. Emerging adults comprise a
disproportionately high percentage of arrests: In the U.S., emerging adults (ages 18 – 24)
make up 10% of the U.S. population but 30% of arrests; in Connecticut, emerging adults
(ages 18 – 20) comprise 4% of the state’s population but 10% of arrests. Emerging adults
have the highest recidivism rates of any age group, again both nationally and in
Connecticut. Yet this is also an age of opportunity – a time when arrest rates begin to
decline and when the life trajectory of young people can be influenced for the better.
As parents know well, and research bears out, this period is marked by significant
intellectual, emotional, and social transformations that can continue into the mid-20s.
Emerging adults are more volatile in emotionally charged settings, more susceptible to
peer and other outside influences, more impulsive and less future-oriented. These factors
are all amplified for those who have experienced trauma. Most emerging adults will
mature normally through this stage between childhood and adulthood, and reach the
developmental bridges (e.g., steady work and marriage) that research shows will allow
them to “age out” of criminality. By recognizing the developmental needs of emerging
adults and applying more developmentally appropriate responses, Connecticut has
introduced a cutting-edge strategy to improve public safety by creating a more
developmentally appropriate response to law breaking by youth in this age group.

Public Safety and Emerging Adults in Connecticut

v

 In highlighting the opportunities and challenges of including emerging adults in the
Connecticut juvenile justice system, this report identifies some key issues and explores
them in greater detail. These include: extending pre-arraignment diversion to 18, 19 and
20-year-olds; identifying and applying evidence-based services to emerging adults,
particularly for mental health and substance abuse, educational and vocational services,
housing stability, and family involvement; defining emerging adults within the
Connecticut statutory framework and expressing the intent to include this population in
the juvenile justice system without unintentionally creating conflicts with federal laws
and rules (e.g., the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act and the Prison Rape
Elimination Act); and monitoring and reducing racial/ethnic disparities of both youth
under 18 as well as emerging adults in the juvenile justice system.
This report examines some of the fiscal implications of the proposal, a particularly
critical consideration in light of the recent significant reduction in the state budget
(including staff and service contracts in both the juvenile and criminal justice systems).
To the degree possible, the re-allocation and re-investment of resources is explored and
the cost-savings that will flow from the proposal are highlighted.
The report concludes with fifteen specific recommendations for the implementation of
this proposal that can be summarized in the following four categories:
A. Focus and cost-effectiveness: These recommendations are designed to increase
the likelihood of successful outcomes, lower costs to taxpayers, allow the system
to focus on youth and emerging adults truly in need of intervention, and “rightsize” the system so that it is better able to absorb the expanded population of
emerging adults (Recommendations 1 - 3).
B. Breadth of application: Applying the benefits of the juvenile justice system as
much as possible to 18, 19 and 20-year-olds, including the expertise of the
professionals within the juvenile system (Recommendations 4 - 5) in a practical
manner that minimizes unnecessary law changes (Recommendations 6 - 7).
C. Investment in reforms: Taking the opportunity of this watershed moment to
increase investments in effective programming (e.g., educational services and
vocational training) in the community and, when necessary, within residential
treatment facilities (Recommendations 8 - 10), and to consider making some other
important reforms to better serve both youth under 18 as well as emerging adults
(Recommendations 11 - 13).
D. Institutional acceptance of “emerging adults”: Intentionally fostering a culture
shift and philosophically embracing emerging adults within the juvenile justice
system, which will require additional training, monitoring, evaluation and
leadership (Recommendations 14 - 15).
Connecticut could become the first state to implement a comprehensive legal framework
to specifically address emerging adults in the juvenile justice system. However, it is not

Public Safety and Emerging Adults in Connecticut

vi

 the only state considering such reforms; both Illinois and Vermont held legislative
hearings this past year with similar proposals. Moreover, specialized court sessions,
probation and parole caseloads, and correctional housing units targeting emerging adults
have been increasingly sprouting up and expanding across the country, a phenomenon
thoroughly documented and catalogued in the National Institute of Justice’s June 2016
report, Environmental Scan of Developmentally Appropriate Criminal Justice Responses
to Justice-Involved Young Adults. In sum, effectively implementing Connecticut’s
proposal to provide emerging adults with developmentally appropriate responses within
an expanded juvenile justice system will provide a better understanding of what works,
and the country will be watching closely.

Public Safety and Emerging Adults in Connecticut

vii

 INTRODUCTION
“The future of our nation depends upon the future of
our young people – including young people
who have become involved with our justice system.”
– Loretta Lynch, April 2016
On January 28, 2016, Governor Dannel P. Malloy visited the Juvenile Justice Policy and
Oversight Committee (JJPOC) to propose the gradual expansion of the jurisdiction of the
juvenile justice system to include 18, 19 and 20-year-olds. The change would be made
over a three-year period. In the letter that he simultaneously submitted to the JJPOC, the
Governor emphasized that the goal of his proposed changes is to increase public safety:
Creating a justice system that enables our young adults to avoid the permanent
effects of a criminal record will reduce crime and will help our young people have
a greater chance for success. It will enable them to have a chance at finding
employment, housing and go to school without carrying the weight of a
permanent record. It is the right thing to do. 1
At this meeting, the Governor also discussed previous efforts to elicit feedback on this
important policy initiative and explicitly asked for JJPOC’s assistance in considering the
implementation issues of this “new raise the age effort.”
The Program in Criminal Justice Policy and Management at the Harvard Kennedy School
(PCJ) has undertaken this Action Research Project to provide guidance to the JJPOC and
the State of Connecticut on how best to successfully implement an expansion of the
juvenile justice system. The work has been supported by a grant to Connecticut from the
United States Department of Justice’s Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention entitled “Second Chance Act: Smart on Juvenile Justice: Community
Supervision Initiative.” PCJ has worked in collaboration with the Tow Youth Justice
Institute (TYJI) at the University of New Haven in producing this report. 2
Connecticut’s pursuit of more effective ways to respond to emerging adults in its justice
system is commendable and puts Connecticut in the forefront of our nation’s approach to
crime prevention and reduction. As will be explained below, the outcomes for 18 to 25year-olds in our justice system have been particularly poor. The data show that not only
are these individuals “failing,” but that the justice system is failing them. As a result,
society is losing increasing numbers of young people to incarceration as well as
unproductive and unhealthy lives. In effect, the justice system is harming these
individuals, their families, and society as a whole, resulting in further victimization and
the erosion of public safety.

Public Safety and Emerging Adults in Connecticut

1

 Despite these challenges, there is growing recognition that this age cohort also presents
significant opportunities to intervene effectively in a positive manner – to improve the
individual outcomes of emerging adults and to increase public safety and system fairness.
This report is intended to be a resource for the reform efforts in Connecticut to leverage
these opportunities. As such, the report addresses four key questions:
•
•
•
•

How would this reform fit into Connecticut’s substantial experience with justice
reform, including the past “raise the age” initiative that successfully expanded the
juvenile jurisdiction age from 16 to 18?
What lessons can be learned from other jurisdictions in the United States and
abroad about more effective ways to address emerging adults in the justice
system?
What would be the broader impacts of these proposed reforms on Connecticut’s
justice system?
What are the key issues that need to be addressed to ensure the successful
implementation of these new reforms in Connecticut?

PCJ wishes to acknowledge the support of Connecticut in this endeavor, including private
citizens, government officials, advocates, academics and especially the members of the
Juvenile Justice Policy and Oversight Committee who devoted considerable time and
effort to share their knowledge and opinions. Please note that this publication does not
express the views of the Judicial Branch, Department of Children and Families,
Department of Correction or the State of Connecticut. The views and opinions expressed
are those of the authors.
WHAT THE GOVERNOR’S PROPOSAL SEEKS TO CHANGE
Most 18 to 21-year-olds (those charged with less serious offenses) would be included in
the juvenile system. They would have an opportunity to participate in pre-arraignment
diversion and be adjudicated/convicted of a delinquency offense. If detained, they would
be held in a juvenile facility (now operated by Court Support Services Division) and, if
committed, sentenced to the custody of the Department of Children and Families.
WHAT THE GOVERNOR’S PROPOSAL DOES NOT CURRENTLY SEEK TO
CHANGE
If current waiver provisions stay as is, all 15 to 21-year-olds charged with serious
offenses would be prosecuted in the adult session. These proceedings would be open to
the public (unless designated as a Youthful Offender) and, if ordered to be confined
during the court case, the youths or emerging adults would be detained in a Department
of Correction (DOC) facility (not a juvenile facility). If sentenced to confinement by a
judge after a conviction, these youths and emerging adults would be incarcerated at a
Department of Correction facility (not a juvenile facility operated by DCF).

Public Safety and Emerging Adults in Connecticut

2

 METHODOLOGY
PCJ conducted this Action Research Project to explore the most effective ways to
implement the proposal to absorb emerging adults through age 20 in the juvenile justice
system and to provide developmentally appropriate and effective community-based
responses to offenders under the age of 21. PCJ developed four specific questions
(outlined in the Introduction above) and then pursued a variety of different research
methods to seek out the answers. These included conducting literature reviews in the
fields of neurobiology, developmental psychology and life course criminology. At both
the national and international levels, PCJ examined a growing body of research on best
and emerging practices that target young, court-involved emerging adults. Over a fourmonth period, TYJI organized and PCJ facilitated a series of meetings in Connecticut to
discuss the proposal and to seek feedback about both the opportunities and the challenges
presented. Participants of these “focus groups” included members of the Juvenile Justice
Policy and Oversight Committee as well as a wide range of government officials,
advocates, academics and private citizens (see Appendix A for the list of these meetings).
PCJ also spoke individually to some of the key juvenile and criminal justice leaders in
person or by phone. In order to allow for open and free flowing brainstorming sessions,
PCJ did not record any of the meetings or attempt to identify statements from particular
individuals.
In addition to the above background research and analysis, PCJ also collected and
analyzed juvenile and criminal justice data from Connecticut. Some of the data was
publicly available, such as the arrest data from the Uniform Crime Report. However,
PCJ also submitted specific requests for non-identified data to the Department of
Children and Families, the Judiciary and the Department of Correction. This data was
collected in order to examine how emerging adults are currently flowing through the
justice system and analyze the potential impact on both the juvenile and adult justice
systems during the implementation of this proposal.
Because of the type and scope of this Action Research Project, this report does not
include information about the opinions of the individuals who will be most directly
affected by the proposed policy changes: court-involved emerging adults. Some of the
participants in the various focus group meetings raised concerns that emerging adults
could be confused or even opposed to the notion of being processed in the juvenile
system, rather than the adult criminal justice system. Others noted that if emerging adults
did have a negative reaction to the proposed changes, this could be indicative of the
developmental stage of emerging adults (who are often more concerned with immediate
“status” rather than long-term consequences) as well as the misconceived notion that
juvenile courts are mere “kiddie courts.” Researching the views and opinions of emerging
adults themselves, and asking them about what they believe would be most helpful to
both hold them accountable and also provide them an opportunity to move on in a
positive manner to become productive members of our communities, is an area of future
study that would be useful for Connecticut to undertake in the future. 3 But on the
assumption that public safety can be more effectively protected through the successful

Public Safety and Emerging Adults in Connecticut

3

 outcome of an emerging adult’s experience in the justice system, the absence of such
research in the meantime does not preclude us from making recommendations now.
This report makes fifteen recommendations, all of which were (1) identified and
developed through the above methodology and (2) selected because they appeared to be
most relevant and also addressed the concerns or issues most often raised by different
groups during the “listening tour” conducted over the course of this project.
Finally, it should be noted that this report uses the term “emerging adults” to define
individuals between the ages of 18 up to and including 20. This term replaces that of
“young adults,” which was the specific term used in the proposed legislation filed earlier
this year. The change was a conscious and deliberate choice, one that reflects PCJ’s
belief that “emerging adults” more accurately describes this important and distinct
developmental stage. “Emerging adult,” a term first coined in 2000 by psychologist and
author Jeffrey Arnett at Clark University, has become increasingly adopted in the
criminal justice arena and invokes a critical developmental period: the transition from a
child who is dependent on parents or guardians for supervision and guidance (as well as
emotional and financial support) into a fully mature, independent adult who engages as a
productive and healthy member of society. The section of this report entitled “The Role
That Age Plays In The Justice System” will provide greater details about this “inbetween” stage as well as its implications to the justice system.

Public Safety and Emerging Adults in Connecticut

4

 QUESTION #1:
How would this reform fit into Connecticut’s substantial experience with justice
reform, including the past “raise the age” initiative that successfully expanded juvenile
jurisdiction from 16 to 18?
Connecticut’s Legacy of Reform
Connecticut has a long track record of tackling justice reform and has been recognized as
a national leader in the past couple of decades, especially for the improvements made to
the juvenile justice system. As the Justice Policy Institute has pointed out:
Perhaps more than any other state, Connecticut has absorbed the growing body
of the knowledge about youth development, adolescent brain research and
delinquency, adopted its lessons, and used the information to fundamentally reinvent its approach to juvenile justice. As a result, Connecticut’s system today is
far and away more successful, more humane, and more cost-effective than it was
10 or 20 years ago. 4
Although not an exhaustive list, here are some highlights of past reform efforts that have
a bearing on this emerging adult initiative:
•

•
•

In 2000, Connecticut commissioned the Connecticut Policy and Economic Council to
provide an in-depth recidivism analysis. The report, released in 2002, provided
unwelcome and somewhat shocking news: 20 of 22 alternative programs being
funded and implemented in Connecticut were ineffective at best – and that some of
the programs may have increased the chances of recidivism. 5 In response, the
Department of Children and Families and the Court Support Services Division
committed substantial funding to expand and improve the network of evidence-based
community programs for court-involved youth. By 2009, the annual budget for
programs reached $39 million. 6 The new and improved programming included the
development of “YES! Centers” around the state that offer a mix of individual and
group programing for youth on probation, as well as the adoption of well-respected,
evidence-based, non-residential treatment models, such as Multi-Systemic Therapy
(MST) 7 and Functional Family Therapy (FFT). 8
In 2006, Connecticut engaged in a thorough strategic planning process for its juvenile
justice system, a formal, thoughtful and inclusive process that few (if any) other states
have replicated.
In 2007, Connecticut passed legislation, often referred to as “Raise the Age,” that
raised the upper age of juvenile jurisdiction from 16 to 18. At the time, Connecticut
was one of only three states in the country to automatically prosecute all children as
young as 16 as adults. Connecticut implemented the upward shift in age of
jurisdiction in a gradual manner: 16-year-olds were included in the juvenile system on
January 1, 2010 and 17-year-olds were added later on July 1, 2012. 9 This Raise the

Public Safety and Emerging Adults in Connecticut

5

 •

•

•

Age initiative has been implemented in a fiscally sound manner and proven to have
advanced public safety. (The discussion from Question 3: What would be the
broader impacts of these proposed reforms on Connecticut’s justice system below
further examines the impact of this earlier Raise the Age initiative on the juvenile
caseloads and crime rates, while the section entitled “Fiscal Impact” reviews the
implications of reform on the State budget).
At the same time that Connecticut was raising the age of juvenile court jurisdiction to
18, it expanded its diversion programs, providing greater opportunity to effectively
serve youth referred to court for an alleged criminal offense in a less formal, nonjudicial manner. The Connecticut diversion system includes Juvenile Review Boards
(JRBs), which are panels comprised of community volunteers, police, school
personnel and or/local agency staff, who collectively work to resolve a youth’s case.
Outcomes can include the requirement for the youth to engage in substance abuse
treatment, to pay restitution to the victim and/or to write a letter of apology, among
other resolutions. Many of the JRBs have formally adopted a Restorative Justice
approach. 10
Connecticut has implemented a number of substantial reforms to stop the
“criminalization” of youth who have been referred to court for a “Family with Service
Needs” (FWSN) case for a “status offense.” Although FWSN cases are non-criminal
cases (addressing behavior that is contrary to the child’s own interest, such as running
away from home), children were often treated in the same manner as a delinquent,
both jeopardizing their well-being and increasing the likelihood that they would later
become involved with the delinquency and/or criminal justice systems. Perhaps one
of the most significant reforms occurred in 2007 with a new law that ended the
practice of detaining or committing children in locked facilities on the grounds that
the child disobeyed a judge’s order in a status (non-criminal) case. In addition,
Connecticut has taken a number of other bold steps to reform the FWSN system,
including a law passed just this year (2016) that eliminates both “truancy” and
“defiance of school rules” as grounds for judicial intervention within the FWSN
system. 11
Connecticut has also tackled one of the other big “feeders” into the juvenile justice
system: the school-to-prison pipeline. In 2007, Connecticut severely limited its public
schools’ use of out-of-school suspensions and began implementing memoranda of
understandings between school and local police to reduce in-school arrests for lowlevel behavior. 12 In 2009, Connecticut launched a School-Based Diversion Initiative
(SBDI). 13 And, in a dramatic move that garnered national headlines, the Connecticut
juvenile courts began rejecting court referrals for school-based arrests for minor
misbehavior. 14 Connecticut has made efforts to offer training on an ongoing basis to
all school districts to implement Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports
(PBIS), a pro-active approach that has been found to be effective in both reducing
incidents of misbehavior as well as increasing academic success. 15 The law
eliminating the school-based grounds of filing a FWSN for truancy and defiance of
school rules (mentioned above), will have a substantial impact on further reducing the
school-to-prison-pipeline in Connecticut and will undoubtedly become a model in the
country when it takes effect on August 15, 2017.

Public Safety and Emerging Adults in Connecticut

6

 •

Although the focus of this list has been on reforms in the juvenile justice system, we
would be remiss not to mention that Connecticut has also made great strides in
tackling much-needed reforms in the adult criminal justice system as well. As just
one example, in 2003 Connecticut started working with the Council of State
Governments Justice Center to address the rapid growth of the prison population and
correction spending. 16 A year later, Connecticut became the first state to enact Justice
Reinvestment, with approximately $14 million reinvested into programming and
services administrated by the Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services. 17

This hard-won list of accomplishments did not, of course, develop in a vacuum. Some of
the reform efforts in Connecticut came about in direct response to specific crises, similar
to those that have periodically caught the public’s attention in other states and at the
national level. In some cases, litigation has been the means to expose some of the
system’s failings, most notably in the Emily J. class action suit filed in 1993, which
highlighted the deplorable conditions in the detention centers at the time, with
overcrowded, unsanitary, and unsafe environments and neglectful and overly punitive
supervision. A more recent example of public attention drawn to problems in the juvenile
justice system came from last year’s publication of the Office of the Child Advocate’s
investigative report on the Connecticut Juvenile Training School and Pueblo Unit that
revealed “urgent safety problems for youth.” Troubling findings included: “inadequate
suicide prevention, lack of appropriate support and training for staff, inadequate and
harmful crisis management, and an opaque system that, despite significant public
funding, reports scant information regarding quality, public safety outcomes, and
oversight.” 18 Such litigation and investigative reports have been critical catalysts for
reform over the years.
One particular failing in the recent history of the Connecticut juvenile justice system was
the construction of the Connecticut Juvenile Training School (CJTS), a large, 230 bedfacility. In 2001, Connecticut’s Governor John Rowland declined to adopt
recommendations to build a therapeutic facility or regionalized network of smaller
facilities—an approach that had been adopted by Missouri, and was considered a national
model in juvenile corrections for youths found delinquent and sentenced to the custody of
the state. Instead, Governor Rowland opted to build the CJTS, which was modeled on a
maximum-security adult prison in Ohio. Although it would later be discovered that the
contracting process had been rigged (Governor Rowland subsequently resigned from
office in 2004 and was sentenced to prison along with the Chief of Staff and contractor),
CJTS opened in August 2001. Many consider this a tragic mistake that the state
continues to try to mitigate – or at the very least a “missed opportunity” for reform.
Fortunately, Connecticut has closed the Pueblo Unit (hardware secure facility for girls)
and taken significant steps to reduce the population of youth held in CJTS. As of the
writing of DCF’s October 18, 2016 report on CJTS that was presented to JJPOC, there
were only 42 boys housed there. 19 Recently, Governor Malloy announced that CTJS will
be closed by July 2018 and plans are underway to develop a more appropriate, model
alternative (see section “The Proposals Impact on the Department of Children and
Families below for further discussion). 20

Public Safety and Emerging Adults in Connecticut

7

 Despite such setbacks, the impressive list of reforms that have been accomplished to date
in Connecticut occurred in large measure because of the hard work and dedication of
organizations and individuals committed to improving the justice system. Many key
leaders in the judicial, legislative and executive branches of government, as well as an
array of public policy advocates, lawyers, service providers and funders from private
foundations, have made these reforms possible. Fortunately, many if not most of these
key leaders are still working towards further reform today.
Finally, it is worth noting that the comparatively rapid implementation of Connecticut’s
reforms is at least partly due to its political structure. In contrast to most other states,
Connecticut has a statewide justice system and no county level jurisdictions. Each state
agency has offices, courts or facilities scattered in different parts of the state but they are
all overseen by the state agency. For instance, the statewide Superior Court holds both
juvenile and adult sessions around the state, the Office of the State Prosecutor prosecutes
all juvenile and criminal cases statewide, the Division of Public Defender Services
provides counsel to indigent juveniles and defendants, the Court Support Services
Division runs the juvenile detention centers, the Department of Children and Families
oversees all committed youth, and the Department of Correction has custody of
individuals (both under and over 18) who have been sentenced to prison. An exception to
the statewide system is the police: there are separate departments for the major cities as
well as many of the towns. But there is also the statewide Connecticut State Police,
which provides law enforcement services for approximately half of the State’s 169
municipalities 21 and for those areas not covered by local departments. Due to the
integrated nature of Connecticut’s legal system, reforms enacted at a higher policy level
do not need to be implemented in a piecemeal fashion among various local jurisdictions
across the state, but rather can be immediately implemented on a statewide basis. This
structure allows Connecticut to avoid the classic “state versus locality” power struggles
experienced in many other states, thereby enabling Connecticut to implement reforms in
a consistent and rapid manner across the entire state.
In PCJ’s facilitated meetings around the state to discuss the implementation of this
proposal, reactions varied. Many expressed approval and enthusiasm over the prospect of
Connecticut building on its past success in improving the juvenile justice system by
expanding an individualized, rehabilitative model to 18, 19 and 20-year-olds. However,
there was also some apprehension that these new reform efforts could unintentionally
diminish—or even harm—the previous hard-won improvements that have been achieved
for youth under age 18. Accordingly, the recommendations included in this report are
offered with the view that the successful incorporation of emerging adults in the juvenile
justice system must not be achieved at the detriment of the younger youth who have been
swept into the juvenile justice system.

Public Safety and Emerging Adults in Connecticut

8

 QUESTION #2:
What lessons can be learned from other jurisdictions in the United States and abroad
about more effective ways to address emerging adults in the justice system?
The Role That Age Plays in the Justice System
Until the implementation of Connecticut’s last “raise the age” legislation began in 2010,
Connecticut automatically treated anyone 16 and above as an adult for criminal law
purposes, prosecuting them in the adult court and sentencing them to adult prisons. Since
the law was fully implemented in July 2012, Connecticut has used the 18th birthday as the
default demarcation between the juvenile and the adult justice systems. But under this
current proposal, this line would gradually rise to 21 over a period of three years.
The age of majority chosen for criminal law purposes has never been set in stone. In
1899, Cook County, Illinois, was the first jurisdiction in the country to establish a
separate juvenile court for children under the age of 16. The idea quickly spread; within
25 years every other state except two (Maine and Wyoming) had followed suit, using a
range of upper ages for their newly created juvenile justice systems, generally between
the ages of 16 to 18. 22 At times, different ages were sometimes picked for different
genders; for instance in 1905, Illinois lawmakers raised the age of juvenile jurisdiction
from 16 to 17 for boys and from 16 to 18 for girls. 23 Between the court’s inception and
today however, most states that set the age of juvenile court jurisdiction below 18
gradually raised the age to 18, leaving the seven states that have jurisdictional limits
before age 18 as today’s outliers. 24
Over the ensuing century, there was not a great deal of public debate or attention about
the age set for juvenile jurisdiction. But in the 1990s, the United States experienced a rise
in juvenile crime, eliciting a “tough on crime” response – one supporting the view that
any child who committed a serious or “adult crime” deserved “adult time.”
Consequently, many states quickly changed their laws to allow more children under age
18 to be tried and sentenced as adults and incarcerated in adult facilities.
Although this drastic response was implemented in the pursuit of enhancing public
safety, it ultimately backfired. Research on the cohort of young individuals subjected to
“adult time” soon began to demonstrate a high rate of recidivism. Specifically, when
comparing youth who were prosecuted in the adult system to those retained in the
juvenile system, the former had a 34% to 77% greater likelihood of being re-arrested for
a crime. They were also more likely to be re-arrested for a more violent crime than those
exiting the juvenile system. 25
In addition to these findings, more recent research has revealed a strong distinction
between the development of children and adults, undermining the assumptions made in
automatically treating youth as adults in the adult criminal justice system. Neurological
research over the last two decades has found that brain development continues into early
adulthood (mid-20s or beyond) and that adolescents are particularly prone to risky

Public Safety and Emerging Adults in Connecticut

9

 behavior, a proclivity that naturally declines with maturity. Specifically, research has
shown that youths are:
•
•
•
•

Prone to be impulsive;
More sensitive to immediate rewards and less future-oriented;
More volatile in emotionally charged settings; and
Highly susceptible to peer and other outside influences. 26

All of these factors have proven to be more pronounced for youth who have experienced
trauma, which is estimated to be between 75 - 93% of all youth in the juvenile justice
system. 27
The picture is not entirely bleak. While youth are vulnerable to negative influences, the
persistent and rapid physical, emotional, and cognitive development of adolescents and
emerging adults also makes them particularly susceptible to positive influences.
Research reveals that the vast majority of children will grow up and out of their risky
(and sometimes criminal) behavior. 28 As many parents know from experience, it takes
time to grow up.
Connecticut was one of the first states to question the wisdom of automatically treating
children as mini-adults. This reflection led the state to reverse the national trend to try
more children as adults by passing the “raise the age” law to age 18 in 2007 (fully
implemented by 2012). Following Connecticut’s lead over the past decade, six other
states have raised the age of juvenile jurisdiction to 18: Mississippi, Massachusetts,
Illinois, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Louisiana. 29
Criminal law is not the only area where society has struggled to define the age of adult
maturity. The legal age to drive in Connecticut is 16, to vote is 18 and to purchase
alcohol is 21. California recently raised the age of purchasing tobacco to 21. Most rental
car companies will not rent to individuals under the age of 25, deeming the risk too high.
The Affordable Care Act allows parents to keep their “dependent child” on their health
plans until age 26, regardless of whether or not the child is living with the parent.
The research that has influenced Connecticut and other states to redesign the parameters
of the juvenile justice system has also had an impact on judicial jurisprudence,
particularly from the United States Supreme Court. In a relatively rapid succession of
decisions from 2005 to 2012, the Supreme Court has cited commonsense understanding
of adolescent development as well as the large body of research in neuroscience and
developmental psychology to find that adolescents have distinctive attributes and that
these distinctions have important constitutional significance. Most significantly, under
both the 8th Amendment and Due Process jurisprudence, the Court has held that youth
have greater constitutional rights than adults. 30

Public Safety and Emerging Adults in Connecticut

10

 In addition, sociological data tells us that youth in the United States are entering into
traditional, stabilizing adult roles later than in previous generations. The transition to
adulthood has become prolonged, and the developmental milestones associated with both
adulthood and desistence from committing crime, such as full employment and marriage,
have become delayed. 31 As just one example, in 1960, 45% of 18 to 24-year-olds were
married. In 2010, only 9% were married. 32 Sociologists have described the levels of
detachment of 16 – 24-year-olds from mainstream institutions (e.g., employment) as a
problem of “disconnection” and noted its increase over the decades, particularly for
young men of color with little schooling, who are over-represented in our justice
system. 33
In shining the light of recent neurological, developmental, and sociological research on
the justice system, it is not surprising to discover that the age-rates of criminal offenses
are highest during the teenage years and that they only start to decline in the early 20s.
This phenomenon, which has been found to be universal in all Western populations, 34 is
reflected in the “age-crime curve” 35:

Interestingly, irrespective of the age of onset of offending, most will desist “naturally”
during the young adult years. 36 As highlighted in a 2013 report for the Department of
Justice states:
…many young people who offend at ages 19 to 20 and who are now fed
into the adult justice system (and are more likely to receive longer sentences than
in the juvenile justice system), would have been likely to desist naturally in the
next few years. It seems likely that justice system processing makes them worse
rather than better…
In summary, developmental studies of the persistence in and desistence
from offending between adolescence and early adulthood do not support the
notion that there is any kind of naturally occurring break in the prevalence of
offending at age 18. Persistence in offending is not immutable; interventions

Public Safety and Emerging Adults in Connecticut

11

 outside of the justice system…can improve a young person’s desistance from
offending between adolescence and early adulthood. 37
The problem of using 18 as a stark demarcation of the “transition” between childhood
and adulthood is that the criminal justice system could, unintentionally, be making this
natural maturing process worse rather than better: Emerging adults are “branded” as
criminal and are weighed down with a criminal conviction that will follow them
throughout the rest of their adult lives, affecting their employment, housing and
educational opportunities. The juvenile justice system, on the other hand, holds the
individual accountable but provides developmentally appropriate services and allows the
individual to exit the system without a public “conviction.”
The chart below – prepared by PCJ to compare the Connecticut juvenile justice system to
the adult criminal justice system – highlights the key differences of the two systems. The
most important distinctions are the juvenile system’s focus on rehabilitation, with
individualized assessments and treatment, and the absence of a “conviction” as a public
record. By recognizing that there is no “magic moment” of adulthood and extending the
jurisdiction of the juvenile system to emerging adults (while still allowing youth with
more serious offenses/prior records to be tried as adults), Connecticut will be giving
individuals the time and support to desist and move downward on the infamous bell
curve.

Public Safety and Emerging Adults in Connecticut

12

 National Perspective
No state has yet to raise the age of juvenile jurisdiction over age 18, but this could change
under current reform efforts in Connecticut. Specifically, by recognizing “emerging
adults” as a distinct developmental stage that deserves developmentally appropriate
responses in the criminal justice system, Connecticut has placed itself on the forefront of
justice reform in this country.
National attention to emerging adults in the criminal justice system – and questions about
whether there might be more effective ways of handling them – has been quickly gaining
prominence in the last few years with the publications of a number of influential research
papers. 38 One of the reasons for this upsurge in interest is the recent developmental and
sociological research described above. But another reason is the recognition that
emerging adults are failing in our justice system. Nationally, approximately 78% of 18 to
24-year-olds released from state or federal prison are rearrested within three years, a
significantly higher recidivism rate than for the released population as a whole. The
racial disparities of emerging adults is particularly troubling: In 2012, the rate of
incarceration in state or federal prison for males ages 18 and 19 was nearly three times
greater for Hispanic people and more than nine times greater for Black people than for
Caucasians. 39 These facts have led many to ask: Can we do better and, if so, how?
In addition to Connecticut, legislators in Illinois and Vermont held hearings in 2016 for
proposals to raise the age of juvenile jurisdiction to include emerging adults up to age 21.
In January, a subject matter hearing was held in Illinois, in which testimony was
presented by the Cook County Jail raising concerns about the appropriateness of housing
emerging adults in jail. Data from the jail was also presented showing that one-third of
the 7,777 emerging adults who were incarcerated in it in 2015 were convicted of
misdemeanor offenses. 40 This subject matter hearing, co-chaired by four House
Committee Chairs, led to the filing of House Bill 6308, which sought to raise the age of
juvenile jurisdiction for misdemeanor offenses to age 21. This reflected a strategy used
previously in Illinois, when the state moved the age of juvenile jurisdiction from age 17
to 18 first for misdemeanor offenses (implemented in 2009) and then later for felony
cases (implemented in 2014). HB 6308 was held up in the House Judiciary Committee
following a hearing where questions were raised over whether young adults could be
waived to adult court if their cases began in juvenile court. But in the meantime, there is
a plan in place, including designated funding, to open a community restorative justice
court in Chicago in the spring of 2017 specifically designed for young adults from age 18
to their 26th birthday. The court will be located in North Lawndale, 41 will be presided
over by a Juvenile Court Judge, and will handle misdemeanor as well as some felony
cases. 42
Vermont also considered raising the age of juvenile jurisdiction to age 21, with the
Senate Committee on Judiciary holding a hearing on the matter on March 24, 2016.
Ultimately, the legislature directed the Justice Oversight Committee to study the
feasibility of raising the age for this cohort except for the most serious offenses (known
in Vermont as “the big 12 offenses”), thereby postponing the decision to a future date.

Public Safety and Emerging Adults in Connecticut

13

 But Vermont did pass legislation that greatly expanded youthful offender status to
emerging adults up to their 22nd birthday. 43 This expansion will take effect in 2018 and is
significantly different than the current and limited youthful offender provision, which is
used infrequently, and only applies to individuals before they turn eighteen (regardless of
the age they allegedly committed the crime), and requires a plea (without an admission,
the case must remain in the adult criminal justice system). This new law will allow any
party to move for the emerging adult (again, up to the 22nd birthday) to be treated as a
youthful offender and the court will conduct a hearing to determine the individual’s
amenability for treatment. Bench trials will be available for those designated as a
youthful offender (although youthful offenders must waive their right to a jury trial to
proceed as a youthful offender). At the time of disposition, the juvenile correctional
agency (Vermont Department of Children and Families) and the adult correctional
agency (Vermont Department of Corrections) will co-author a report with
recommendations for services, supervision and confinement. The youthful offender can
be supervised by either the juvenile or the adult correctional agency, depending on the
report’s recommendations about which agency would be most appropriate for that
particular case.
A few issues remain to be worked out with Vermont’s new youthful offender statute
before it is implemented, some of which were outlined in a report submitted to the Joint
Legislative Justice Oversight Committee on November 1, 2016, and technical
amendments will most likely be introduced soon. 44 But the passage of such an expansive
statute demonstrates Vermont’s strong commitment to approaching emerging adults in a
new and different manner – one that adopts some of the rehabilitative features of the
juvenile justice system – in the belief that it will improve public safety.
In addition to these legislative proposals to raise the age of juvenile jurisdiction and
expand youthful offender statutes, states have been taking other steps to address
emerging adults. For example, California, Kansas, Oregon and Wisconsin have extended
youth-facility placements past age 18 and even past age 21, to give emerging adults the
opportunity to receive rehabilitative treatment.
Another increasingly popular approach is to develop special correctional units or
facilities within the adult correctional system specifically designed for emerging or young
adults, with targeted programming for the needs of this age group. One specific example
of such a program is the Mountain View Young Adult Offender Program in Charleston,
Maine. Faced with closing a juvenile correctional facility due to decreasing caseloads,
Maine converted the facility in April 2014 and designated one section specifically for 18
to 26-year-olds. Many of the previous juvenile facility staff have shifted focus to the
emerging adults in this reconstituted facility. 45 A number of states, counties and cities
have also recently announced plans to open special facilities for young adults, including
Connecticut, Vermont, New York City and Essex, Middlesex and Suffolk Counties,
Massachusetts. Once again, Connecticut has been a model for other states, working
closely with the Vera Institute of Justice to carefully and thoughtfully consider staff
training needs, effective disciplinary approaches, ways to retain connections to family

Public Safety and Emerging Adults in Connecticut

14

 members, and an array of appropriate programming, including education, and vocational
services.
There have also been numerous court- and prosecutor-driven initiatives focused on
emerging adults that have sprung up on a local, county and federal district level. Two of
the most well-known are the Young Adult Court in San Francisco Superior Court 46 and
the Young Adult Opportunity Pilot Program offered by the United States District Court
of the Southern District of New York. 47 The National Institute of Justice initiated an
Environmental Scan in November 2015, in an attempt to identify all the existing
programs and initiatives scattered around the country that are specifically directed to this
age cohort. Noting that the search was “neither straightforward nor simple,” the NIJ
published its findings in a report in July 2016, identifying 40 different local initiatives
that included young adult courts, probation/parole programs, District Attorney-led
programs, community-based partnerships, and prison-based programs. This plethora of
local programs demonstrates the remarkably high level of interest and investment in
adopting developmentally appropriate responses to emerging adults in the justice system
that is currently being embraced on a national level. 48
“An adolescent or young adult who jumps a turnstile or steals a smartphone may be
acting from the same governing impulse as someone who commits a robbery or an
assault. That doesn’t mean the more violent crime doesn’t deserve greater accountability
– including possible detention – but if our goal is to deter future crime, then we have to
consider whether our responses are facilitating the aging-out process or simply
perpetuating a cycle of criminal behavior.”
The Honorable Karol V. Mason, Assistant Attorney General, Office of Justice
Programs. 49
International Perspective
Applying the rehabilitative goals and services of the juvenile justice system to emerging
adults (18 and over) is relatively new to the United States but a firmly established
concept internationally. The past three decades have seen the following important
international bodies identify young adult offenders as a group to be distinguished for their
distinct developmental stage and best served by applying the same special provisions
traditionally applied to youth under age 18:
(1) The United Nation Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile
Justice, more commonly known as the Beijing Rules and adopted by General
Assembly resolution in 1985, recommends that “efforts shall also be made to
extend the principles embodied in the Rules to young adult offenders” (e.g., the
adoption of a rehabilitative approach, rather than merely punitive).

Public Safety and Emerging Adults in Connecticut

15

 (2) The International Association of Penal Law (IAPL) (the world’s oldest
association of specialists in penal law that convenes 50 national groups to
research and produce resolutions about criminal law) included in the resolutions
flowing from their 17th International Congress in 2004 provisions for emerging
adults. 50 The recommendations included that legislation for young adults must be
adapted in a similar way for minors given that the state of adolescence can be
prolonged into young adulthood, 51 that educational measures as alternative
sanctions may be extended to individuals to the age of 25, 52 and that special
provisions for minors may be extended to crimes committed by persons up to the
age of 25. 53
(3) The Council of Europe (founded in 1949 and consisting of 47 member states and
covering over 800 million people) has passed recommendations firmly placing
young adults within the purview of the juvenile justice system. A
recommendation adopted in 2003 acknowledged the delayed transition into
adulthood, with the Committee of Ministers writing that the “the age of legal
majority does not necessarily coincide with the age of maturity”. 54 Rules within
that recommendation state that young adults under the age of 21 should be treated
comparably to juveniles when the judge is of the opinion that they are not as
mature and responsible for their actions as full adults 55 and facilitate entry into the
labor market by ensuring young adult offenders are not required to disclose
criminal records to prospective employers. 56 In 2008, a further recommendation
defined young adult offenders as between the ages of 18 and 21. 57 The
Committee of Ministers commentary on the recommendation acknowledged the
progress of many European countries in the preceding 15 years in this area, and
concluded that, “it is an evidence based policy to encourage legislators to extend
the scope of juvenile justice to the age group of young adults.” 58
There are now numerous examples of countries that have embraced within their domestic
legal structures the principles endorsed by these international bodies. Although not
confined to Europe, it is worth noting that in a recent survey of European countries, all
but seven countries have special provisions for prosecuting and/or sentencing young
adults. The three countries below are examples of justice systems that have been tailored
to respond specifically to young adults.
Japan
Both Japan’s juvenile and civil laws state that all persons under age 20 are
children. 59 Thus, teenagers 14-19 are, by default, dealt with in Family Court and, if
sentenced to confinement, placed in the youth reform school. 60 Under certain
circumstances, the Court can determine that the youth (age 14 and up) should be
transferred and tried in adult court; however, the media is still prevented from disclosing
the youth’s identity. 61 In addition, in the relatively rare circumstance that a teenager is
sentenced as an adult, attempts are made to separate them from older adults. 62 Due to
low populations in the youth rehabilitative facilities, many of the young adults (up to age
26) are housed and treated in such facilities. 63

Public Safety and Emerging Adults in Connecticut

16

 Germany
In 1953, based on concerns about the development of fatherless youth post World War II,
Germany raised the jurisdiction of the juvenile court through age 20 and extended the
possibility of confinement in a juvenile treatment facility until age 24. 64 Under the
German Juvenile Justice Act (Jugendgerichtsgesetz), courts are tasked with considering
the young adult’s maturity, developmental stage, and circumstances when determining
the best avenue of treatment. 65
The majority of young adults are prosecuted in the juvenile system, and the proportion
continues to rise. In 1965, for instance, 38% of young adults were sentenced as juveniles,
rising to 67% in 2012. 66 Unlike the United States, young adults are more likely to be
prosecuted in the juvenile system for serious offences. In 2012, over 90% of young
adults were sentenced under the juvenile law for homicide, rape, and other serious bodily
injury crimes (compared to only 48% of motor vehicle sentences), 67 reflecting confidence
in the ability of the juvenile system to appropriately handle even the most serious
offenses.
It was an invitation from the Vera Institute of Justice to Governor Malloy and the
Department of Correction Commissioner Scott Semple in June 2015 to tour European
prisons and observe the rehabilitative correctional systems that influenced the Governor’s
proposal to raise the age in Connecticut to 21. 68 Neustrelitz Prison, a facility for only
young adults aged 15 to 25, demonstrated the potential benefits of a therapeutic approach,
even in a locked setting. 69
The Netherlands
The Netherlands has a longstanding tradition of focusing on the needs of its emerging
adult justice-involved population. As early as 1937, the Netherlands had two special
emerging adult prisons for males and females 18 to 23 year olds. 70
In 1971, a separate justice system with specific criminal sanctions for emerging adults
ages 18 to 23 was proposed by the Wiarda Committee 71 (established by the Dutch
Government to present suggestions for reform on the legal status of children). 72 This was
also supported by the Anneveldt Committee (established by the Dutch Government to
review the juvenile justice system 73), which in 1982 proposed extending such a system to
24 year olds. 74 While neither Committees’ recommendations were incorporated into
Dutch law at the time, discussions continued and culminated in 2010, when the new
government introduced “adolescentenstrafrecht” a major change to the law.
Implemented in April 2013, Adolescentenstrafrecht provides that all young offenders
from ages 12 to 23 are eligible for juvenile law (previously limited to young offenders up

Public Safety and Emerging Adults in Connecticut

17

 to 21), 75 including a wide range of educational measures for young adults and sanctions
such as community service work or compensatory work for damage caused. 76 The
maximum incarceration sentence a juvenile can receive is 7 years in exceptional
circumstances. 77
Although this law was enacted too recently to fully discern its impact, it is worth noting
the recent prison closings in The Netherlands (including five planned for the next few
years) due to a surplus of unused prison beds. 78

Public Safety and Emerging Adults in Connecticut

18

 QUESTION #3:
What would be the broader impacts of these proposed reforms on Connecticut’s justice
system?
By implementing this proposal, Connecticut would be moving many – but not all – of the
18, 19 and 20-year-olds that are now statutorily prosecuted and sentenced as adults by
virtue of their age into the juvenile justice system. This will result in a reduction in
caseloads throughout the adult criminal justice system (including the courts, detention,
probation and prison caseloads and/or populations) with an approximately corresponding
increase in the juvenile system. But because of the size difference between the two
justice systems, the impact of this proposal will be felt most strongly by the juvenile
justice system. Implementing the proposal gradually – over a three-year period – should
assist Connecticut in coping with the changes. In addition, Connecticut has experienced
a significant decline in crime that, were it to continue, would also make the incorporation
of emerging adults into the juvenile system easier. Finally, there are a number of
strategies that Connecticut is using now that could be expanded (e.g., diversion) or
adopted (e.g., raising the lower-age of juvenile jurisdiction above age 7) that are
discussed below, that would make room for emerging adults in the juvenile justice
system.
The following two flow charts show (1) the general path that emerging adults currently
take through the adult criminal justice system, and (2) the general path that they would
take once the proposal to raise the age of jurisdiction to 21 is implemented (note that
these charts are slightly simplified and were created by PCJ and reviewed by several
JJPOC members).

Public Safety and Emerging Adults in Connecticut

19

 Current System
Flow Chart of 18, 19 and 20 year olds in the CT justice system

 

 

 

 

   

 

 

Police 
Detention
D.O.C. Facility

Adult Court

 

 

 

 

 

diversion . .
etc.
unsuccessful Conv1ction

 

 

 

 

Incarceration
Doc.
Kill
Entry into the system Suspended
Prosecution (adI?t caseload) sentence

Sentencing

   

 

 

 

 

 

Public Safely and Emerging Adults in Connecticut 20

In order to understand how the implementation of the proposal to raise the age of juvenile
jurisdiction to age 21 would impact both the juvenile and the adult justice systems, PCJ
requested non-identified data on the caseloads and caseload trends (for both juvenile and
emerging adults at each major step of the process) from all the relevant state agencies.
The sections below include the findings from the data received.

Public Safety and Emerging Adults in Connecticut

21

 Arrest
For emerging adults now entering Connecticut’s criminal justice system, the first step is
typically an arrest by the police, followed directly by a court appearance in the adult
criminal court. When this proposal is implemented, police will still most likely be the
first point of contact; however, assuming that the police follow the same practice used for
youth under 18, emerging adults will usually be summoned to court rather than be sent
there directly.
Over the past decade, Connecticut has experienced a dramatic decline in arrests of both
youth under 18 and emerging adults, as showcased in the graph below. In 2008, arrests
peaked at a high of 177,855 across the State, with 25,369 arrests for all youth under 18 (a
time when Connecticut still treated all 16 and 17-years-olds as adults) and 26,831 arrests
for emerging adults (ages 18-20). In 2015 (year not shown on chart below), total arrests
in the state had dropped to a 10-year low of 99,920, with 8,168 arrests for youth under 18
and 8,994 arrests for emerging adults. 79 This represents a 43.8% decrease in arrests
overall, a 67.8% decrease for youth under age 18 and a 66.5% decrease for emerging
adults.

Public Safety and Emerging Adults in Connecticut

22

 From 2013 (the year after Connecticut began including 17-year-olds in its juvenile justice
system), arrests for emerging adults have declined by 36.1%. Assuming that this rate of
decline continues into 2017, when 18-year-olds would begin to be included in the
juvenile justice system, there would be approximately 1,769 18-year-olds arrested that
year. Assuming a continuing declining trend, the number of arrests for 19 and 20-yearolds would also be lower, especially by the time they begin to be included in the juvenile
system in years two and three of the implementation.
Although the number of arrests will vary for each age group during the implementation, it
is likely that the proportion of arrests from each age group will remain relatively stable,
unless additional reforms are implemented (such as raising the lower age of juvenile
jurisdiction, as discussed below).

Some of the participants of the JJPOC working groups and focus groups that PCJ
facilitated over the last few months expressed a belief that emerging adults are arrested
for more serious offenses than youth under 18. As the following chart demonstrates, the
five most frequently arrested offenses for emerging adults are remarkably similar to the
most common arrests for 15 to 17-year-olds. It should be noted that the category “All
Other Non-traffic offenses,” the most common offense for emerging adult arrests,
includes such non-serious offenses as trespass and disturbing the peace; and the category
“Other Assault” is for what is otherwise known as “simple assault” in which no weapon
is involved and there is no aggravated or serious injury reported. So, although the

Public Safety and Emerging Adults in Connecticut

23

 numbers of arrests leading to a court referral to juvenile court will increase during the
implementation of the expansion of the juvenile court, the types of offenses charged
should be quite similar. The one exception worth noting is the increase in drug abuse
violations. As one might expect, the prevalence of substance abuse and addiction appears
to increase with the age cohort of emerging adults.

Diversion
In the Connecticut juvenile justice system, diversion is a common practice in the “frontend” of the system. Participants at the JJPOC and focus group meetings commonly
described three stages of the juvenile justice system when diversion most frequently
occurs:
•
•
•

Police/pre-court diversion: This can be formal or informal but provides an
opportunity to find a resolution for the alleged offense without a referral being
made to the Juvenile Court.
Post-court referral and pre-arraignment diversion: This is most commonly
referred to as “non-judicial” diversion and occurs after a case has been referred to
the Juvenile Court and has been screened by a Juvenile Probation Officer.
Post-arraignment/judicial diversion: This occurs after a juvenile has been formally
charged with a delinquency offense but before there is a formal disposition.

The importance of developing and maintaining an effective and robust diversion system
in the justice system has long been recognized but too often fails to be implemented by
states. 80 Literature over the past 35 years sets forth five purposes of diversion: reducing
recidivism, providing services, avoiding labeling effects, reducing system costs and
reducing unnecessary social control. 81 Not only is the implementation of diversion good

Public Safety and Emerging Adults in Connecticut

24

 public policy, it becomes critically important when a system is facing an increase in
caseloads, as it is with the implementation of this proposal. Just as Connecticut expanded
diversion when it previously raised the age of juvenile jurisdiction from 16 to 18, the
state needs to once again focus on the use and expansion of effective diversion when it
includes emerging adults.
In June 2015, the JJPOC set specific target goals for the juvenile justice system, and one
of these goals was focused on diversion (the other two were focused on reducing
incarceration and recidivism). By June 30, 2018, JJPOC’s goal is to increase diversion
by 10%. JJPOC’s Data Sharing Work Group gave a presentation at the October 20, 2016
JJPOC meeting indicating that Connecticut is well on its way to achieving, if not
surpassing, this goal: The Data Sharing Work Group reported that there has been 15%
decrease in delinquency referrals to the juvenile courts since 2015 and that referrals to the
Juvenile Review Boards increased by 33% from FY08/09 to FY15/16.
But data on exactly when and how diversion is applied in Connecticut’s juvenile justice
system is limited, making it difficult to assess the impact of including emerging adults in
the system with any detail. For instance, there is no data available on how many youth
participate in the police/pre-court diversion process in Connecticut each year. PCJ
recommends that once emerging adults are included in the juvenile justice system, they
be eligible to participate in and benefit from this less formal diversion process and to the
same degree as those under age 18. The research is clear that providing limited
interventions, like “cautioning” by the police, in less serious, low risk cases (e.g.,
disorderly conduct) are much more effective (and less costly) than pursuing traditional
court processing. 82 In fact, research shows that involvement in the judicial system for
these types of cases produces negative outcomes, 83 so to the degree possible, such
diversion by police should be encouraged.
There are some data available about the diversion offered by the Juvenile Review Boards,
which can take referrals from a number of different sources including the police, schools
and the court, but unfortunately these data are also limited. Connecticut is still
developing a process to collect information from each JRB in a uniform, comprehensive
and timely manner, so JJPOC and others will be able to analyze this data as it becomes
available in the future. In the meantime, PCJ did receive and review some of the data
from this past fiscal year 84 and was able to identify two important factors:
•
•

Approximately three-quarters of referrals to JRBs are completed successfully; and
JRBs are handling cases with offenses that largely match the offenses that most
frequently lead to arrests for emerging adults:

Public Safety and Emerging Adults in Connecticut

25

 Once emerging adults are included in the juvenile justice system, they should have the
opportunity to participate in this diversion process and should benefit to the same degree
as the youth under age 18. Whether the success rate would be the same for emerging
adults is unknown, and Connecticut should carefully track outcomes and make
adjustment if this recommendation is adopted. Other important issues that cannot be
addressed at this time are the current capacity of JRBs and the services and referrals
needed to appropriately serve this new age cohort. All of these issues deserve to be
studied carefully, emphasizing the need for the data collection process to be firmly
established and implemented. But certainly the model of JRBs, the standards established
by the Youth Services Association, 85 and the adoption of such principles as Restorative
Justice, 86 fit many of the “best practices” that have been established in the field of justice
reform. 87
Data on juvenile diversion that are readily available comes from the Judiciary and shows
that a large percentage of juvenile cases are diverted from formal prosecution through the
screening process conducted by Probation when a case is referred to the Juvenile Court
(some of which may then be referred to JRBs) and designated as “non-judicial handling.”
In 2015, there were a total of 10,176 cases disposed in the Juvenile Court. Of these, 36%
or 3,640 cases were handled in a non-judicial process and the rest, 64%, were handled in
the judicial (traditional) manner.
Although the data does not indicate how many of the judicial cases are diverted after
arraignment, the data does show that a majority of these cases (3,988 out of 6,536 judicial
cases) were dismissed in some manner (e.g., withdrawal, return to police, discharge,
referral to JRB, etc.), ended in a not guilty finding or were otherwise disposed of in a
manner that did not involve a guilty finding. This means that of the 10,176 juvenile cases
referred to the Juvenile Court in 2015, approximately a quarter resulted in a delinquency
finding, while about three-quarters were diverted or were otherwise disposed without any
formal finding.

Public Safety and Emerging Adults in Connecticut

26

 In contrast, the adult criminal justice system has no formal pre-arraignment diversion
programs. Once arrested, emerging adults are sent to court to be formally processed.
There are a number of special sessions and diversionary programs (e.g., Community
Court and drug intervention program) 88 offered to adult defendants but these become
available only after the court process has begun.
The data that PCJ received from the Judiciary do not indicate how many of the cases
involving emerging adults are diverted using these special sessions and programs. But an
examination of the dispositions in 2015 shows there were a total of 27,613 dispositions
involving offenses allegedly committed by 18, 19 and 20 year olds, in which 14%
resulted in a guilty finding, 29% were categorized as something “other” than a
conviction, and 57% were not guilty or dismissed in some manner.
By including emerging adults in the juvenile justice system, the opportunities for frontend diversion, the most useful and effective response to low level and low risk cases, will
be provided in a way that does not exist in the adult system. Obviously, diversion will
not be appropriate for every case involving an emerging adult – just as it is not for every
youth under 18. But as the discussion below on court cases will show, the majority
(55%) of cases involving emerging adults are prosecuted for low level misdemeanor
offenses, so applying the front-end diversion opportunities in the juvenile justice system
should be beneficial by both increasing positive outcomes (and providing long-term
savings) and reducing court cases (and lowering short-term expenses). This is
particularly important when the juvenile system is expanding, allowing the system to
focus its attention and resources on only those who cannot be better served outside of the
formal justice system.
Detention
Currently, youth accused of committing a criminal offense before turning 18 can be
detained (held in secure confinement) while the case is pending. Most of these youth
(except for those prosecuted as an adult, which will be discussed below) will be held in
one of two juvenile facilities, which are operated by CSSD.
Connecticut has experienced a substantial decline in the juvenile detention caseload in
recent years. In 2005, there were 2,925 admissions to juvenile detention with an average
daily juvenile detention population of 138 youth. In 2015, there were 1,818 detention
admissions with an average daily population of 54. This represents an overall decline of
38% in juvenile detention admissions, which is particularly striking when considering the
fact that Connecticut added both 16 and 17-year-olds to its juvenile justice system during
this time period. It was the steep declines in the detention admissions of the younger
youth (approximately 79.7% decline for 12-year-olds, 71.5% for 13-year-olds, 71.2% for
14-year-olds and 73% for 15-year-olds) that more than offset the expansion of the system
to the older youth. The following chart shows the detention admissions for the different

Public Safety and Emerging Adults in Connecticut

27

 age youth over time with the upward spikes up for 16 and 17-year-old reflecting the
statutory changes in the age of jurisdiction:

All emerging adults who are detained pretrial at the ages of 18, 19 or 20 are currently
detained in facilities operated by the Department of Correction (DOC). In addition, some
youth under age 18 are also held in adult detention facilities if they have been transferred
(either by automatic or discretionary statutory transfer provisions) to the adult system.
The DOC collects data on the average daily population rather than the number of
admissions, as recorded by CSSD for juveniles (seen in the chart above), and the DOC
daily population data for the specific ages includes both unsentenced and sentenced
individuals. But when looking at the daily population of the individuals held in DOC
detention facilities (including both pretrial and convicted individuals), the data shows a
decline: For all ages, there was a 12% decrease in the average daily detention population
from 2005 to 2015. For youth under 18, there was a dramatic drop of 76%, which must,
in part, reflect the statutory change in the age of jurisdiction, with the 16 and 17-year-olds
being included in the juvenile justice system during this time period. For emerging
adults, there was a 50% decrease in the average daily population.
Further analysis will be required before the actual number of emerging adults held
pretrial in DOC detention facilities can be properly assessed: It is unknown how many of
the average population of 729 emerging adults detained in DOC facilities in 2015 were
actually pretrial (unsentenced) detainees. Furthermore, it is unknown how many of these
Public Safety and Emerging Adults in Connecticut

28

 were being held for charges that would subject them to statutory transfer provisions,
which means that they would be held in DOC even when the age of jurisdiction is raised
to 21.
Even without the availability of the relevant detention data, it is to be expected that
moving many of the emerging adults from the adult to juvenile detention systems will
have a significant impact on the smaller, juvenile detention system. But there are two
factors that make this transition easier than it otherwise could be:
1. Detention admissions have been declining steadily and at a particularly high rate
for both youth and emerging adults and, if this trend continues, the populations
will be even lower when emerging adults are gradually incorporated in the
juvenile system over a three-year period.
2. Detention admissions from the juvenile session should decline at an even greater
rate when the new detention law, which passed earlier this year, takes effect in
January 2017. Among other things, this law will limit the use of detention to only
those who cannot be appropriately placed in a less restrictive alternative and will
require CSSD to develop and implement a new detention risk assessment
instrument. 89
Shifting most emerging adults from the adult detention system to the juvenile one is not,
of course, just a shuffle of numbers: It is an important shift in philosophy as well.
Considerable research and attention has been focused on the use of juvenile detention
over the last few decades, and it is now widely recognized that detention is not a benign
event, but rather can cause considerable harm. 90 Research shows that detention can
negatively impact young persons’ physical and emotional well-being, their education and
their employment. 91 Pre-trial detention also increases the likelihood that the youth
detained will later be sentenced to confinement, with research showing that youth who
are detained pre-trial are three times more likely to be committed to custody than youth
who remain successfully in the community during the pre-adjudication period. 92 Finally,
some studies have shown that detention increases recidivism, especially amongst youth
who have a low risk of reoffending. 93
The fact that most emerging adults (except those subject to automatic or discretionary
transfer provisions) will be included in the juvenile detention system will increase the
juvenile detention caseload. But it should also result in further declines in the total
number of detentions in Connecticut (limiting detention to only cases where there are no
appropriate alternatives and for as short a period of time as possible), which will reduce
long-term costs and improve outcomes.
Court Cases
Over the past decade, the overall number of juvenile dispositions in Connecticut’s
Juvenile Session decreased 34% (from 15,387 dispositions in 2005 to 10,176 in 2015).

Public Safety and Emerging Adults in Connecticut

29

 This reduction would be noteworthy under any circumstances, but it is particularly
remarkable given that the age of jurisdiction was raised during this time period – meaning
that both 16 and 17-year-olds were added to juvenile cases instead of being processed in
the adult criminal court. The chart below shows the trends in juvenile cases from 2006 to
2015 (2005 is not included due to missing age category data for that year); it is critical to
bear in mind that the dramatic spikes up for the 16 and 17-year-olds mark the two stages
of the last “raise the age” reform to age 18.

In 2015, there were 182 youth who were transferred to the adult criminal court, either by
automatic or discretionary statutory provisions. This was a 36% increase from 2005,
when 134 youth were transferred. This increase is not surprising since, again, both 16
and 17-year-olds were incorporated into the juvenile session during this period and thus
were subject to these transfer provisions. In 2015, Connecticut passed a new law that
raised the minimum age of transfers from 14 to 15 and eliminated automatic transfer for
certain class B felonies. 94 This should reduce the number of cases involving youth under
18 from being transferred to criminal court going forward.
As the chart below shows, more than three-quarters of the 2015 juvenile delinquency
cases involved misdemeanor offenses or other minor cases (e.g., infractions) while 21%
involved a felony offense as the most serious charge listed.

Public Safety and Emerging Adults in Connecticut

30

 The dispositions of delinquency cases in 2015 show that 36% of the cases were handled
non-judicially and another 39% were resolved without a conviction. The 25% of cases
that resulted in a delinquency finding were most likely to end with a sentence of
probation. Only 3% of all delinquency case dispositions resulted in a commitment to
DCF.

Public Safety and Emerging Adults in Connecticut

31

 The court case trend for emerging adults in the adult criminal justice system is similarly
encouraging, with a 51% reduction in case dispositions from 2005 to 2015. Examining
the case disposition in 2015, it appears that there were 161 cases, or 0.6% of the total
cases, that would have been subject to automatic transfer to adult court if the age of
juvenile jurisdiction had been 21 instead of 18. In addition, 18% of the dispositions were
for felony cases, which are subject to discretionary transfers. Over half of the cases
involved misdemeanor offenses and another 27% involved other, less serious offenses
(e.g., infractions). As the chart below shows, the breakdown of the types of offenses
remains fairly consistent for 18, 19 and 20-year-olds.

Public Safety and Emerging Adults in Connecticut

32

 Over half (57%) of all emerging adult cases in adult criminal court were disposed without
a finding of guilt (e.g., “not guilty” finding or dismissal) and another 29% were resolved
in some other manner that also did not result in a guilty finding. Of those cases that
resulted in convicted, probation and incarceration sentences were about equally common
with each representing 4% of the overall dispositions for emerging adults.

Public Safety and Emerging Adults in Connecticut

33

 Commitment (DCF) & Incarceration (DOC)
Because DCF and DOC collect data on their caseloads in different ways, it was difficult
to compare confinement data in the juvenile and adult systems. As a result, this report
uses the sentencing data from the judiciary to track trends but uses “a snapshot” or a head
count on a particular day by DCF and DOC to analyze the breakdown of the population
of youth and emerging adults in the different types of facilities.
Starting with the trends of youth committed to the Department of Children and Families
by a judge from the Juvenile Session, there was a 54% drop in the number of cases that
resulted in a commitment to DCF from 2005 to 2015. Similar to the decline in the
juvenile detention caseload, the decrease in the committed caseload is particularly
noteworthy considering that 16- and 17-year-olds were added to the juvenile justice
system during this time period. Once again, the decline in the number of commitments of
younger youth more than offset the inclusion of 16 and 17-year-olds in the juvenile
justice system.
As might be expected, the older youth (ages 17 and 18) represent the largest share of the
DCF caseload with the proportions tracking the ages in a descending order. The

Public Safety and Emerging Adults in Connecticut

34

 following chart shows the proportion of the different ages as recorded by DCF at the time
of placement in 2015:

The average daily population of committed youth is about 250 but not all of these youth
are confined: 44% are in DCF residential programs, 11% are incarcerated or detained for
a new crime allegedly committed after their sentence to DCF, and 45% are living at home
and being supervised by DCF. 95 For the committed youth being housed in residential
programs, these range from the most secure (e.g., the Connecticut Juvenile Training
School), to non-secure group homes and foster homes. 96 According to a recent DCF
report published in October 2016, of the 109 youth living in a residential setting, 53 were
confined in secure facilities with 42 male youth at the CJTS and 11 female youth at
Journey House. 97 One of the greatest advantages to including emerging adults in the
juvenile system is the much greater degree of flexibility that DCF has both for placement
options and length of secure confinement, flexibility that does not exist in adult
correctional system. Given the compelling research showing that longer terms of
juvenile incarceration have little impact on lowering recidivism rates and, in fact, are
associated with increased recidivism risk, 98 this flexibility is critically important.
But DCF does not have custody of all youth sentenced to confinement for offenses
committed before their 18th birthday, nor will this proposed expansion of the juvenile
justice system change this. Because Connecticut has both automatic and discretionary

Public Safety and Emerging Adults in Connecticut

35

 transfer provisions, there is a cohort of 15, 16 and 17-year-olds who are prosecuted in
adult criminal court and who sometimes end up being sentenced to adult prison. The
caseload of these youth under age 18 who are held in DOC facilities has declined from a
high of 175 in 2008 to only 27 in 2015, an 85% drop.
One of the JJPOC working groups has begun to examine this small group of youth in the
adult correctional system. Concerns have been raised as to whether public safety would
be better served by providing these youth with the individualized, rehabilitative services
available in the juvenile justice system and protecting them from the known harms to
youth held in the adult prisons. These discussions are timely and important: With the
proposed expansion of the juvenile justice system to 21, this group could get “lost in the
shuffle” and overlooked.
The cases of emerging adults in the adult criminal court that resulted in a sentence of
incarceration, including split sentences, has also decreased from 2005 to 2015 by 43%.
The population in the DOC (as counted on the same day of each year) shows a 12.5%
decline for all ages but a much greater 57% drop for emerging adults. In 2005, emerging
adults made up 6.3% of the overall population of incarcerated people in Connecticut but,
because of their greater rate of decline in custody, they made up only 3.1% of the overall
prison population in 2015.
The following chart provides information about the age breakdown of the youth and
emerging adults incarcerated in DOC prisons in 2015:

Public Safety and Emerging Adults in Connecticut

36

 Special Populations
There are three particular populations of youth and emerging adults that deserve some
additional discussion:
Youth Under Age 12
As Connecticut plans to raise the upper-end of the age of juvenile jurisdiction to include
emerging adults, PCJ recommends that it consider simultaneously raising the age of the
lower-end of jurisdiction, which is currently at age 7. There have been a number of
concerns raised by legal experts and social scientists regarding the capacity of very young
children to stand trial. 99 For similar reasons, we might expect that formal prosecution
may have a great adverse effect for young children than for older youth. There are other
systems (e.g., child welfare system) that could serve these young children more
effectively. As Connecticut raises the age juvenile jurisdiction to 21, increasing the
juvenile justice caseload and shifting the focus to the older population, it becomes even
more important to find more appropriate and effective ways to treat the youngest
children.
There is, unfortunately, no clear norm in the United States regarding the age of the lowerend of juvenile jurisdiction: One state sets the age at 6, five states join Connecticut at age
7, three states set the age at 8, 10 states set the age at 10, and 30 states have not
established any lower-age of juvenile jurisdiction. 100 However, international norms have
been firmly established at age 12, 101 and there have been some recent legislative
proposals in some states to try to match these standards, 102 including a bill in Nebraska
that was recently passed to set the lower age to 11, effective July 1, 2017. 103
As the chart below shows, the delinquency cases of children under age 12 in the
Connecticut juvenile justice system has decreased 75.8% over the past decade:

Public Safety and Emerging Adults in Connecticut

37

 When younger children are involved in the juvenile justice system, the vast majority of
cases, 90%, are resolved without any conviction or finding. As the chart below shows,
59% of the cases disposed for youth under 12 in 2015 were handled in a non-judicial
process and another 31% of the cases were dismissed or disposed in some manner that
did not involve a delinquency finding:

Public Safety and Emerging Adults in Connecticut

38

 In 2015, there were two children under 12 held in a CSSD pre-trial detention facility,
compared to 45 in 2006, and there were no cases that resulted in a commitment to DCF.
PCJ has no detailed information about the one case that was recorded as being transferred
to the adult court in 2015. By far, the most frequent dispositional outcome for these
youth was the nine youth placed on probation. Probation provides a case management
function that could be replaced by child welfare case managers rather than probation
supervision, which carries with it a heightened stigma and brings youth under age 12 into
contact with older youth in probation offices and programming.
Females
Girls represent a minority in the juvenile justice population (although they are the fastest
growing segment of the juvenile justice population). 104 Similarly, female emerging
adults represent a relatively small percentage of those involved in the adult criminal
justice system: Females made up 23.2% of emerging adult arrests in 2014, 22.4% of the
adult criminal court cases in 2015, and 4.2% of the emerging adult incarceration
population in prison, calculated by a head count in 2015. As Connecticut expands the
juvenile justice system to include juveniles, it must ensure that the needs of female courtinvolved emerging adults – although only a small minority of the emerging adult
population – are nevertheless being appropriately addressed.

Public Safety and Emerging Adults in Connecticut

39

 Racial and Ethnic Minorities
The federal Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act requires states to collect
race and ethnicity data at all the major decision points in the juvenile justice system (from
arrest to confinement) and to adopt strategies to reduce any disparities found. 105 In
almost every state in the country, disparities have been found to exist and these
differences cannot be explained by a difference in criminal history and offending
behavior of different racial and ethnic groups. 106 According to the last assessment
completed by Connecticut in 2009, racial and ethnic disparities not only exist but actually
increased in some of the key stages of its juvenile justice system. Connecticut’s own
study also found that disparities existed even when white and minority youth were
similarly charged. 107 A recent report published by DCF showed that the committed
caseload included 26.7% Caucasian youth and 73.3% youth of color. 108
National data shows that the disparities also exist for court-involved emerging adults: 18
and 19-year-old Black males were found to be imprisoned at a rate over nine times
greater than Caucasians. 109

The data on emerging adults in the Connecticut adult criminal justice system shows that
racial and ethnic minorities are also over-represented and that the disparities increase as
cases move deeper into the justice system. While emerging adults of color make up
roughly 36% of Connecticut’s overall population and youth in criminal court, they are
45% of those sentenced to probation, 50% of those sentenced to prison, and a staggering
85% of those incarcerated in Connecticut prisons as of the head count on January 1,
2015.

Public Safety and Emerging Adults in Connecticut

40

 Racial and ethnic disparities are extremely troubling and raise questions about the
fundamental fairness of the justice system and they can undermine the perceived integrity
of the system. As described in a recent report on Connecticut youths’ perspective of the
justice system, youth “…were acutely aware of how a young person’s race, ethnicity and
socioeconomic status not only determine a young person’s access to opportunities but
also how he or she is treated within the justice system.” 110
One of the advantages of Connecticut’s proposal to raise the age of juvenile jurisdiction
to 21 is that the state will be required to collect and analyze the race and ethnicity data for
emerging adults as well as youth under 18. In addition, efforts to reduce the disparities
will target youth and emerging adults, both groups that show high rates of disparity.

Public Safety and Emerging Adults in Connecticut

41

 QUESTION #4:
What are the key issues that need to be addressed to ensure the successful
implementation of these new reforms in Connecticut?
The implementation of this proposal will have several legal, policy, operational, and
fiscal implications for Connecticut. This section of the report discusses four issues that
PCJ believes deserves extra attention from policy makers in preparing for the
implementation of the expansion of the juvenile justice system to include emerging
adults.
How This Proposal Intersects with Federal Laws and Rules
PCJ has identified the following three specific federal programs or statutes that could be
directly implicated by the proposal to include young adults ages 18 – 21 in the
Connecticut juvenile justice system and offers an analysis of the potential impact. 111
The Juvenile Justice Delinquency Prevention Act
The Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act (JJDPA), first enacted in 1974,
requires states to abide by four core requirements in order to receive federal funding. One
of those requirements involves the sight and sound separation of juveniles from adults. 112
Specifically, the JJDPA provides that “juveniles alleged to be or found to be
delinquent…will not be detained or confined in any institution in which they have contact
with adult inmates.” 113 The application of this provision is further laid out in a Guidance
Manual for facilities under the JJDPA, which states that “[i]t is important to note that the
separation requirement prohibits a state from transferring adult offenders to a juvenile
correctional authority for placement in a juvenile facility. For example, an adult could not
be transferred to a juvenile detention center to alleviate overcrowding in an adult
facility.” 114 The purpose of this requirement is straightforward and important: to prevent
children and youth from both psychological and physical harm that could be caused by
older, developmentally more sophisticated and sometimes more serious adult offenders.
The question that arises, however, is whether Connecticut would violate the JJDPA by
including 18, 19 and 20 year olds in the juvenile system.
While the JJDPA bans the mingling of criminally charged adults with juveniles, it does
not appear to bar the housing of adjudicated youth over 18 with those under 18. Under
the JJDPA, “adult inmate” is defined as “an individual who a) has reached the age of full
criminal responsibility under applicable State law; and b) has been arrested and is in
custody for or awaiting trial on a criminal charge, or is convicted of a criminal charge
offense.” 115 Under the Connecticut proposal, emerging adults (unless transferred to adult
court), would be tried in the juvenile session and adjudicated, not convicted. Therefore,
they would not be classified as an “adult inmate” and would not need to be separated
from younger youth who also are being prosecuted in the juvenile system. 116

Public Safety and Emerging Adults in Connecticut

42

 Nationally, age mingling of youth under and over age 18 in juvenile facilities is a
common practice. The maximum extended age of juvenile jurisdiction in most states is
over 18, extending in some states as far as 24. 117 A 2012 Bureau of Justice Statistics
report found a mixture of youth under age 15 and over age 18 in fully half of the 322
facilities surveyed in 2012. 118 In a quarter of the facilities surveyed, more than a third of
their population was over age18. 119 Connecticut already houses youth under and over the
age of 18 together: For instance in the Connecticut Juvenile Training School, 9 of the 48
held on December 12, 2016, were over the age of 18. 120
There is movement in some states towards a more mixed population. In Oregon, for
instance, facilities have begun housing youth not based on age or charge but on other
social factors. Yet there are no indications that compliance with JJDPA has become an
issue in Oregon or other such states that mix the age populations within their juvenile
systems. The important factor with regards to JJPDPA is the designation of youth (or in
Connecticut, emerging adults) in the juvenile system, rather than a specific cut-off age.
The Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA)
The Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA), passed in 2003, establishes a zero-tolerance
standard for sexual violence in prison, jails, juvenile facilities and other criminal justice
institutions. 121 Under the law, the Department of Justice was required to issue “a final
rule adopting national standards for the detection, prevention, reduction, and punishment
of prison rape,” 122 which it accomplished in 2012. 123 “In 2015, more than 7,600 prisons,
jails, community-based facilities, and juvenile correctional facilities nationwide were
covered by PREA.” 124 Failure to comply with PREA standards results in the loss of 5%
of federal funding provided to the state for prison-related purposes. 125
The rules and regulations promulgated under PREA establish particularly strict standards
for “youthful inmates,” a category defined as youth under age 18 who are held in adult
facilities. Such youthful inmates may not be housed anywhere in which they will “have
sight, sound, or physical contact with any adult inmate through use of a shared dayroom
or other common space, shower area, or sleeping quarters.” 126 Sight and sound
separation must also be maintained outside of housing units absent direct staff
supervision. 127 Similarly, in lockups, “[j]uvenile and youthful detainees shall be held
separately from adult detainees.” 128 Similar to the sight and sound separation
requirement of the JJDPA, the question arises of whether Connecticut would
(unintentionally) violate PREA by including 18, 19 and 20-year-olds in its juvenile
system.
PREA, however, makes a critical distinction between adult and juvenile facilities, and it
is this distinction that provides leeway for Connecticut and other states to house emerging
adults with those under 18. A “juvenile facility” is defined as “a facility primarily used
for the confinement of juveniles pursuant to the juvenile justice system or criminal justice
system.” 129 This definition is intended to include group homes and halfway houses that
house juveniles. 130 A “juvenile” is defined as “any person under the age of 18, unless
under adult court supervision and confined or detained in a prison or jail.” 131 Subpart D

Public Safety and Emerging Adults in Connecticut

43

 of PREA, which outlines the standards for juvenile facilities, makes no mention of age
factors or requirements for separation. 132 But reading these definitions and standards
together, it is clear that the PREA rules contemplate the housing of those under and over
18 in a single juvenile facility, without requiring age segregation. This impression is
confirmed by the Department of Justice commentary on the PREA standards, as
published in the Federal Register:
Some commenters recommended that the definition of juvenile include persons
over the age of 18 who are currently in the custody of the juvenile justice system,
because some state juvenile justice systems hold persons beyond that age who
were originally adjudicated as juvenile delinquents. The final rule does not make
that change. The set of standards for juvenile facilities refers throughout to
‘‘residents.’’ A ‘‘resident’’ is defined as ‘‘any person confined or detained in a
juvenile facility.’’ Thus, the standards already cover over-18 persons confined in
a facility that is primarily used for the confinement of under-18 persons, and the
commenters’ proposed change is not needed. 133
Connecticut will need to define clearly the status of the facilities that will house emerging
adults as they are gradually included in the juvenile system. As long as the facilities are
designed primarily for juveniles in the juvenile system, and emerging adults are newly
included in the juvenile system, it should not be subject to PREA age restrictions.
Concerns have been raised, however, that even if PREA does not provide any legal or
financial obstacles to treating emerging adults in juvenile facilities with those under age18, the mere presence of older youth would increase the risk of sexual violence. The
Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) recently released a report that sheds some light on this
issue; 134 providing an in-depth statistical analysis of data collected in 2012, the BJS
sought to identify rates of sexual victimization of youth in facilities, and what
characteristics of youth and facilities were associated with this victimization. 135 One of
the factors by which the report explored vulnerability was “age mixture.” 136 The report
noted that age mixture was associated with staff-on-youth sexual misconduct, with
facilities with a mix of young minors and adults (under 15 and over 18) reporting the
highest rates of misconduct. 137 However, age mixture was not a significant factor in the
rates of youth-on-youth sexual assault. 138 Factors such as gender composition and
staffing instability were deemed to be more substantive in facility-level attributes
associated with sexual victimization than age mixture. 139 These findings should make the
training and supervision of the staff at the residential treatment facilities a high priority
for Connecticut as emerging adults gradually are incorporated into its juvenile system.
Pell Grants
Pell Grants are need-based grants awarded by the federal government to students who
have not earned a bachelor’s or professional degree. 140 The amount awarded to an
individual student is based on the student’s financial need, the cost of attendance, and the
type and length of schooling. 141 For the 2016-17 award-year, the maximum award is

Public Safety and Emerging Adults in Connecticut

44

 $5,815. 142 A student may receive Pell Grants for no more than twelve semesters, or
around six years. 143 Students may use their grants at any of 5,400 postsecondary
institutions. 144 These include not only undergraduate institutions but also technical and
vocational schools. 145
Under the law, students “incarcerated in a federal or state penal institution,” 146 are
ineligible for Federal Pell Grants, except for the few fortunate students who are in states
that are participating in a limited, federal pilot program (which includes Connecticut). 147
In 2014, the Department of Education clarified the definition of “incarcerated” in a “Dear
Colleague Letter,” stating clearly that this prohibition does not apply to students housed
within juvenile justice facilities, because these facilities are not “penal institutions.” 148
The term “juvenile justice facility” was defined within the Letter as “all public or private
residential facilities that are operated primarily for the care and rehabilitation of youth
who, under State juvenile justice laws, (1) are accused of committing a delinquent act; (2)
have been adjudicated delinquent; or (3) are determined to be in need of supervision.” 149
Moreover, the Letter clarified that it is the status of the facility that renders a student
eligible, rather than individual criteria of age or offense:
This Federal Pell Grant Eligibility applies for students who are confined in
juvenile justice facilities regardless of the student’s age, the type of sentence the
student received (such as a blended sentence), the length of the sentence the
student is serving, and whether the student was adjudicated as a juvenile or
convicted as an adult. 150
In addition, a Questions and Answers document attached to the “Dear Colleague Letter”
laid out the logistics of applying for aid from a juvenile justice facility. 151 For students
held in juvenile facilities, the cost of attendance does not include living expenses, but
does include tuition and fees, as well as books and supplies if required. 152 Students may
obtain funding for programs that extend beyond the length of their stay in a juvenile
facility. 153
Given the careful wording of the Letter and the strong emphasis on the status of the
facility rather than the individual, it can be concluded that Connecticut would not be
jeopardizing the awards of Pell Grants to youth in the juvenile system by implementing
this proposal. In fact, the proposed reforms would have the beneficial effect of increasing
the number of youth in Connecticut who could take advantage of Pell Grants. At the
moment, the only reason any 18, 19 and 20 year olds who are convicted and sentenced to
incarceration in the adult Connecticut Department of Correction can use Pell Grants is
because the state is participating in a federal pilot program. Once included in the juvenile
system, these emerging adults would be eligible simply by being treated in the juvenile
system.
In conclusion, JJDPA, PREA and Pell Grants do not appear to pose any substantial
obstacles to Connecticut’s proposal to raise the age of juvenile jurisdiction. In fact,

Public Safety and Emerging Adults in Connecticut

45

 including emerging adults ages 18, 19 and 20 in the juvenile justice system is likely to
render them eligible for Pell Grants if confined when they would not normally be eligible
if incarcerated in an adult facility. Nonetheless, the definitions of categories such as
“juvenile” and language used such as the word “primarily,” play a significant role in
evaluating how the federal laws and rules will be applied to the Connecticut justice
system. Legislation should clearly state the fact that emerging adults will be processed in
the “juvenile” docket and treated in the juvenile justice system in facilities “primarily”
designed for the rehabilitation of juveniles (unless such emerging adults are formally
transferred to the adult system).
Identifying Needs and Providing Developmentally Appropriate Services to
Emerging Adults
In order to successfully implement the inclusion of emerging adults in the juvenile justice
system, Connecticut will need to provide developmentally appropriate services and
treatment targeted specifically to this age cohort. Unfortunately, due to the longstanding
practice of lumping emerging adults with all adults in the criminal justice system,
researchers do not have a great deal of information to offer about this group. Specifically,
studies have generally not broken out samples of adolescents, emerging adults, and older
adults using the same measures for all age categories. 154 This should change, however.
As Connecticut and other jurisdictions innovate and advance laws, policies and practices
in the justice system to specifically address emerging adults, researchers will be given
significant incentives to focus future studies on the category of emerging adults—a group
that attained significant public policy attention.
PCJ has identified four specific categories of services that Connecticut will need to
enhance and tailor specifically to emerging adults: (1) educational/vocational services,
(2) mental health/substance abuse, (3) housing, and (4) family involvement/parenting.
These categories were based on several data and information sources, including: the most
current research available; the key elements of the “positive youth development”
framework (which focuses on protective factors and strengths rather than solely risk
factor and problems); 155 and thoughtful input provided by experienced practitioners who
work with court-involved emerging adults both inside and outside the Connecticut justice
system.
The following provides only a brief overview of the issues under each of the four
categories. It will be imperative for Connecticut, with the assistance of the JJPOC, to
study each category to determine what services are now available for emerging adults in
Connecticut, whether connected or independent of the adult criminal justice system. After
a preliminary environmental scan, a determination can be made of (1) whether these
services can be accessed for emerging adults involved in the juvenile justice system, and
(2) whether there are gaps that need to be filled with an expansion of current services or
the development of new services. Involvement in the justice system can interrupt and
prevent the development of strong social networks and support systems needed to
successfully transition into adulthood. Consequently, providing these services to

Public Safety and Emerging Adults in Connecticut

46

 emerging adults in the community, or in the least restrictive setting as possible, should be
the goal.
Educational/Vocational Services
Court-involved emerging adults are often significantly behind their peers in educational
attainment and job readiness. Less than 20% of people incarcerated nationally have a
high school diploma or GED, compared to approximately 75% of all males age 18 –
24. 156 This is not only disconcerting in terms of the low probability that these emerging
adults will be able to secure stable and well-paid jobs, but also in terms of the increased
risk to public safety, given the research demonstrating the effectiveness of education (as
well as supportive work opportunities) in reducing recidivism.
Broadly speaking, our society assumes that 18-year-olds are finishing high school and
that 19 and 20-year olds are studying in college. Under either of these circumstances,
emerging adults find themselves in a physically and emotionally safe environment—with
at least four years within such an environment to mature. Unfortunately, for the
population of emerging adults being swept into the justice system, these circumstances
rarely apply.
Under the current juvenile justice system, many problems have arisen in the delivery of
high quality educational and vocational services, and a number of specific reforms have
been identified, including in Connecticut. 157 Despite these challenges to the current
juvenile justice system, emerging adults will undoubtedly benefit from the focus and
attention on educational services that have been emphasized in the design of the juvenile
justice system—and largely ignored in the adult justice system. As just one example of
how the difference is built into the legal structure, the “Raise the Grade” Act (Public Act
14-99) that was passed in 2014 requires that “each youth who is in a secure facility run or
contracted for by the Court Support Services Division shall have a case plan that
describes the youth’s educational needs and grade-level performance and identifies what
supports or services will or are being provided to support academic performance.” In
contrast, there is no equivalent requirement applied to adult prisoners.
Under the Governor’s proposal, there is also a better chance that emerging adults will
receive specialized educational services. Adjudicated youth are three to four times as
likely to require special education and/or related aids and services than students in
community schools. 158 Under federal law, these students with disabilities are entitled to
special education until the end of the school year following their 21st birthday or when
the students accept a high school diploma, whichever comes first. These rights are not
extinguished in any way by being an emerging adult involved in the justice system.
Although PCJ is not endorsing any particular program in Connecticut, we note that a
number of participants who attended PCJ’s facilitated discussions referred to the
Hartford-based Options Education Services (OES) program as a useful model. Serving
youth and emerging adults through age 21, this program provides both educational and
vocational services with the goal of independent living. Through an environmental scan,

Public Safety and Emerging Adults in Connecticut

47

 Connecticut can identify any extant educational and vocational programs that are similar
to OES, and then assess the capacity and scope of these existing programs to serve
appropriately the court-involved emerging adult population.
In addition, there are programs outside of Connecticut that may be useful models to
consider:
1. Roca is an organization in Massachusetts that focuses on engaging young adults
wrapped in cycles of incarceration and poverty. The non-profit works to develop
young adult education and employment skills for young mothers, gang affiliated
and other high-risk youth. Data shows that upon completing the two years of Roca
programming, participants’ criminal behaviors reduced significantly: 93% are not
re-arrested, 95% are not re-incarcerated, and 88% of those on probation adhered
to their conditions. 159 Roca is now the subject of a rigorous, independent
randomized clinical trial as part of one of the nation’s largest social innovation
bonds.
2. United Teens Equality Center (UTEC) serves “impact youth” between the ages of
17 and 25-years-old who are seriously gang- or criminally-involved. Priority for
UTEC programming is given to those who are exiting prison with a felony
conviction, who lack high school credentials, and who are young parents.
Outcome measurements from UTEC have also been positive: Of those who
completed the programming, 83% had not been arrested since leaving the
program and 82% were currently employed. 160
3. The Neighborhood Opportunity Network (NeON) in New York was launched as
part of Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s Young Men’s Initiative, focusing policy
changes and programming on young adults in New York City. NeONs are
neighborhood based probation offices that provided probation clients ages 16 to
24 with academic support, supported work, mentoring and employment
preparation. An initial evaluation shows a 23% lower re-arrest rate for the mid- to
high- risk youth in NeONs versus probation clients in non-NeON neighborhoods
who received standard probation services. 161
Mental Health/Substance Abuse
Mental health and substance abuse are prevalent problems throughout the juvenile and
criminal justice systems. A national study of correctional facilities in 2005 found that
over half of all incarcerated individuals had a mental health problem, identified by a
recent clinical diagnosis or treatment by a mental health professional and/or recent selfreported symptoms of depression, mania, or psychotic disorders based on the criteria in
the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition (DSM-IV). 162
Young adults (age 24 and younger) had the highest rate of mental health problems of any
age group. 163 Furthermore, it is estimated that 75-95% of system-involved youth exhibit
symptoms of trauma due to exposure to violence, 164 and it would seem consistent that
similar rates would be found in the population of court-involved emerging adults.
In addition, young adults have some of the highest rates of alcohol and substance abuse.
For example, in 2014 rates of binge drinking (drinking five or more drinks on a single

Public Safety and Emerging Adults in Connecticut

48

 occasion) were 28.5% for people ages 18 to 20 and 43.3% for people ages 21 to 25. In
terms of illicit drug use, the highest rate is for emerging adults ages 18-20, exceeding just
slightly the second highest rate for young adults ages 21-25. 165 It is not surprising,
therefore, that drug abuse violations constituted the fourth most frequent reason for arrest
for emerging adults in Connecticut in 2014 (year with most recent data available),
representing about 10% of arrests for this age group. 166
In the PCJ-facilitated discussions on the proposal to include emerging adults in the
juvenile justice system, many participants expressed particular concern about some of the
differences in the types of mental health diagnoses for this age group. The first onset of
schizophrenia, for example, usually occurs in late adolescence and young adulthood
(early 20’s). 167 Mental health professionals now working in the juvenile justice system
may not have experience or expertise in treating this chronic and severe mental illness.
These are significant concerns. Fortunately, Connecticut has an existing institutional
resource at-hand that it can and should use as it prepares to serve emerging adults in the
juvenile justice system. This is the Young Adult Services Division of Connecticut’s
Department of Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services. The Division serves 18-25year-olds with a history of mental health problems and/or substance abuse to whom it
applies trauma sensitive treatment. 168 With both expertise and experience about how best
to serve this age group, the Young Adult Services Division should be able to assist
JJPOC identify the gaps in services that will need to be addressed.
Finally, the development of the evidence-based program Multisystemic Therapy (MST)
has recently been adapted specifically for emerging adults (MST-EA) and has shown
impressive results. In a study in the Journal of Behavioral Health Services and Research,
the majority of 41 participants aged 17-20 who had mental health diagnosis and recent
arrest and incarceration successfully completed the interventions. Moreover, client
satisfaction with MST-EA implementation was high and pre-post-analyses showed
significant reductions in clients’ mental health symptoms, further involvement in the
justice system, and associations with antisocial peers. MST-EA is now the subject of a
rigorous, independent randomized clinical trial. 169
Housing
The critical role of stable and safe housing should be self-evident regarding school
attendance, employment, mental and physical health, social well-being and many of the
protective factors associated with a reduction in recidivism. Accordingly, stable and safe
housing was flagged by many in PCJ’s facilitated sessions as an area that needs much
greater attention with the implementation of the inclusion of emerging adults in the
juvenile justice system. By extension, this means that housing stability is currently
under-addressed for this age cohort in the criminal justice system.
Today in the United States, there are more young adults living at home than at any time
recorded in the past 130 years. 170 It is likely that the vast majority of court-involved
emerging adults are still dependent on their families for housing (as well as for food and

Public Safety and Emerging Adults in Connecticut

49

 finances). But the housing situation could be more complicated for emerging adults than
youth under 18, especially for those who are transitioning out of the foster care system. It
will be important to conduct a careful assessment of the housing needs for emerging
adults at all stages of the legal process and a common assessment measure should be
adopted and integrated into existing tools used by juvenile justice professionals. In
addition, Connecticut, through the JJPOC, should commission a study to examine the
housing needs of court-involved young adults with a particular focus on ensuring that a
sufficient array of services is available to support this age cohort (whether that means
engaging in family mediation so the emerging adult can stay with family, or finding other
suitable alternatives).
Family Involvement/Parenting
Because most emerging adults are still very much dependent on their families for
financial, physical and emotional support, the engagement of the families should produce
better outcomes for emerging adults—just as research has shown how important family
engagement is for youth in the juvenile justice system. 171 But as was noted by many of
the Connecticut-based professionals currently working with emerging adults outside of
the juvenile justice system, the definition of “family” needs to be broadened for this age
group. Engagement of “family” should include not just parents and legal guardians, but
other responsible adults that play an important role in the emerging adults’ life, including
older siblings, mentors, grandparents, coaches, etc.
Another aspect of family involvement that will need more attention under the proposal
will be providing services and support to the emerging adults who are themselves parents.
In 2007, 44.1% of young adults aged 24 or younger in state prisons were estimated to be
parents. 172 Although research on the impact of parental incarceration on parents and their
children has not focused on emerging adults, research on the broader population has
found parental incarceration associated with a number of negative outcomes for both the
parent and the child, including family economic hardships, instability of parental
relationships and increased risk of child behavior problems. 173
The Proposal’s Impact on the Department of Children and Families
Although the inclusion of emerging adults will have an impact on all of the justice system
agencies (e.g., police departments, courts, etc.), the effect on the Department of Children
and Families (DCF) will be particularly significant. While the most obvious factor will be
the projected increase in the caseload of committed youth, DCF is facing a range of other
current and prospective challenges. Notably, at almost every meeting facilitated by PCJ
in Connecticut over the last few months, participants raised numerous concerns about
how DCF would be able to successfully incorporate emerging adults in their juvenile
correctional services. Consequently, PCJ believes that this topic deserves extra attention
when planning for the implementation of the expansion of the juvenile justice system.

Public Safety and Emerging Adults in Connecticut

50

 DCF has an enormous statutory mandate inasmuch as it oversees the following
protections:
•
•
•

the child welfare system, including protection from abuse and neglect and status
offense cases;
children’s mental health, including behavioral health and substance abuse
services; and
the juvenile justice system, including both residential and non-residential services
and treatment for youth found to have committed delinquency offenses and then
sentenced by a judge to the custody of DCF.

With such a wide purview, DCF can be involved at any time in a child’s life from birth to
his or her 21st birthday due to a host of different reasons. At the same time—for the very
same reasons—DCF has minimum control over its own caseload.
Connecticut is one of the few states to designate a single agency to handle all three types
of cases – child welfare, children’s mental health and juvenile justice. In regard to the
practices of other states around the country, the 2015 report of the Council of Juvenile
Correctional Administrators (CJCA) 174 found that:
•
•
•

eleven states included juvenile corrections within a larger human services agency;
eight states had divisions within the adult corrections system; and
the remaining thirty states had either free-standing agencies in the executive
branch or distinct agencies under a human services umbrella.

Within the broad mandate of DCF, juvenile justice represents a tiny fraction of its work,
with the juvenile justice committed population making up just 3% of the agency’s overall
caseload. 175 This 3% also includes “cross-over” youth, who are being simultaneously
served in both the child welfare system and the juvenile justice systems, meaning that the
percentage of youth being served only for juvenile justice is even smaller. 176
Consequently, although the implementation of the Governor’s proposal to include
emerging adults in the juvenile justice system will increase the caseload at DCF
(especially in the short-term), the overall percentage of juvenile cases will nonetheless
remain a small fraction of the agency’s work.
These facts raise a number of questions, all of which were expressed by participants at
the meetings facilitated by PCJ:
•
•
•
•

Will emerging adults receive the attention they deserve under the current
organizational structure at DCF?
Will DCF be able to focus on the needs of emerging adults, a population with
which they have had comparatively less experience?
Can DCF make the necessary culture shift from working with younger youth to
working effectively with emerging adults?
How will the incorporation of emerging adults fit in with all the competing and
important issues facing DCF, including efforts to successfully meet the

Public Safety and Emerging Adults in Connecticut

51

 compliance standards being actively overseen by a court monitor after decades of
federal oversight of DCF and child protective services? 177
Clearly, for DCF to successfully include emerging adults, Connecticut will need to
devote considerable attention and focus to sort out these important issues – and to put
forth strong leadership in the process. But the timing for this proposed reform is
particularly opportune since Connecticut is already setting plans for other substantial
reforms in the “deep-end” of the juvenile justice system. This provides DCF with a
unique opportunity to redirect resources and to redesign the overall juvenile correctional
system, ultimately creating a system that will serve both youth and emerging adults as
effectively as possible.
One of the reform efforts currently underway is the planned closure by July 2018 of the
Connecticut Juvenile Training School (CJTS), the State’s most secure facility for boys. 178
A large 230-bed facility that now holds less than 50 youth, CJTS is a substantial drain on
the state coffers. As of September 30, 2016, the operating costs for CJTS for FY 2017
had reached $34, 913,439. 179 CJTS’s very design – modeled after a large maximumsecurity prison in Ohio for adults – has been shown by research to be ineffective and even
harmful to youth housed in such a facility. 180 And reports from Connecticut’s Office of
the Child Advocate (OCA) have recently exposed safety concerns at CJTS, including
improper handling of youths’ suicidal behavior as well as the overuse of restraint and
seclusion practices, among other critical issues. 181
Connecticut’s decision to close the Connecticut Juvenile Training School (CJTS) – its
large juvenile prison – is supported by both research and historic evidence demonstrating
that attempts to renovate and improve youth prisons are futile; they should be closed and
replaced with effective and available alternatives:
“The failure of youth prisons to help young people get back on track, as well as their
failure to protect public safety, flows from inherent flaws in the model itself. Adult-style
prisons that emphasize confinement and control are devoid of the essentials required for
healthy adolescent development – engaged adults focused on their development, a peer
group that models prosocial behavior, opportunities for academic success, and activities
that contribute to developing decision-making and critical thinking skills [citation
deleted]. At the same time, these facilities provide too many of the elements that
exacerbate the trauma that most confined youth have already experienced and reinforce
poor choices and impulsive behavior.” Patrick McCarthy, Vincent Schiraldi and Miriam
Shark, The Future of Youth Justice: A Community-Based Alternative to the Youth Prison
Model. 182
With the future planned closure of CJTS, along with the recent closure of DCF’s secure
facility for girls (Pueblo Unit) that the OCA also found to have safety concerns,
Connecticut can shed outdated approaches to juvenile corrections, turning instead to the
design and implementation of a new and model approach. This would include a
statewide network of small treatment facilities (e.g., 15-40 beds each, with the youngest
youth housed in the smallest facilities) that provide a full range of placement options,

Public Safety and Emerging Adults in Connecticut

52

 ranging from high-end facilities that are hardware and staff secure to less secure
placements such as foster care and supported independent living. Connecticut could use
both state-run facilities, as they have done with CJTS, and also contract with non-profit
providers. Although there is no evidence indicating that either the government or private
sector is more effective, private contracts do provide greater flexibility. Connecticut can
either increase or decrease the number of beds “purchased” in the annual (or periodic)
contracts based on future fluctuations in the committed population, as has been done
effectively in New York City. The Administration of Children’s Services in New York
City contracts with non-profits to run both hardware and staff secure facilities. When the
caseloads declined from over 500 youth to under 180, the City was able to quickly reduce
the number of beds by cancelling or trimming these contracts. 183 Over the last several
months, there have been some discussions at JJPOC meetings that non-profits might not
be interested in contracting for secure facilities or might “reject” certain youth to be
placed in the facilities that they operated. However, Connecticut can look to such
neighboring states as Massachusetts and New York that have a history of successfully
contracting with private, non-profit organizations to operate some of their treatment
facilities, including the most secure ones.
Both the publicly and privately run facilities should be subject to licensing by an
independent agency to ensure that minimum standards of care are being met and that
there is proper oversight. Models for such a licensing process can be found in two
neighboring states. In Maine, residential treatment facilities – all run by the private
sector – are required to be licensed by the Department of Health and Humans Services. 184
In Massachusetts, all residential treatment facilities – whether operated by the
Department of Youth Services or a private organization – must be licensed and are
overseen by the Department of Early Education and Care in the Executive Office of
Education. 185
As noted above, another advantage to the current reform proposal would be in regard to
the location and number of facilities treating juveniles and emerging adults. Although
Connecticut is not a geographically large state, having only one secure facility rather than
a number spread across the state is not ideal. In this regard, it is worth noting that CJTS is
located in Middletown rather than in any of the three largest cities of Bridgeport,
Hartford and New Haven. By adopting a network of smaller residential treatment
facilities, Connecticut can spread them out across the state for closer proximity to
families and communities.
In addition to geographic considerations, another major advantage of having smaller
residential facilities with a range of care is the ability to thoughtfully and carefully place
youth together based on key factors such as age, maturity, sophistication, type of service
needs and educational attainment. This will become particularly important when
emerging adults become incorporated into the DCF committed population, who will have
a greater need for particular services generally expected by an older population, such as
post-high school education, vocational training and, in some cases, preparation for
independent living.

Public Safety and Emerging Adults in Connecticut

53

 In the same manner that Connecticut should design a statewide network of residential
treatment services, the state should also create and expand the range of community-based
options that can safely keep youth and emerging adults at home and/or more actively
engaged with the services in their own communities. Again, these options can be
provided by both public and private entities to provide for as much flexibility as possible.
Many of the youth and emerging adults committed to DCF may not need to be confined
or confined for long periods of time. In fact, research shows that lengthy confinement
fails to reduce recidivism, fails to produce better outcomes than alternative sanctions and,
in some instances, can actually be counterproductive. 186
A topic that to date has rarely been raised, but which PCJ believes is important for
Connecticut policy makers to consider, is whether the legislative proposal to raise the age
of juvenile jurisdiction should include a complementary provision to raise the age of
commitments to DCF above age 20 for emerging adults. It would be possible, for
instance, to have a 20-year-old prosecuted in juvenile court and sentenced to the custody
of DCF and, if no other changes were made to the law, then DCF’s involvement would
end within months (or even days), depending on how close the 20-year-old is to his or her
21st birthday. It would seem reasonable, therefore, to increase the upper-age of DCF
custody for emerging adults to age 22. There is considerable national precedent and
experience for extending juvenile corrections beyond 20, with at least four states having
extended youth-facility placements past age 21 (as discussed earlier in the report).
Oregon, for instance, retains custody in the Oregon Youth Authority up to age 24.
Providing strong leadership to undertake the expansion of the committed population to
include emerging adults, and perhaps retaining custody beyond the current age limit,
could be accomplished within DCF. It would be imperative, however, for the agency to
designate a leader to focus exclusively on the design and implementation of the new
model system, overseeing both the full continuum of residential facilities and
community-based services. This leader would also need to assist the agency in making a
cultural or identity shift; although DCF has worked with emerging adults for many years
(again, custody can continue up to age 21), the numbers of emerging adults in the
caseload are so small that the needs of this age cohort have not been thoroughly evaluated
or made a top priority.
An alternative approach that Connecticut should consider is to unify all juvenile
corrections within one agency, either as a division of DCF or as a separate agency.
Currently, the responsibility and oversight of juvenile corrections is split by two different
state agencies: CSSD oversees detention and DCF oversees commitments. A newly
created youth/emerging adult services agency could potentially work in a more efficient
manner to improve conditions of confinement for the limited number of youth and
emerging adults who will require confinement and improve service delivery needs and
community supervision for the rest. In addition, many of the efforts to reduce
unnecessary confinement, such as the Juvenile Detention Alternative Initiative, can be
successfully implemented to reduce both the detention and commitment populations, and
having one agency oversee these efforts may produce greater results.

Public Safety and Emerging Adults in Connecticut

54

 Again, there are numerous models for Connecticut to consider. Massachusetts, for
instance, has all juvenile corrections overseen by the Department of Youth Services, an
agency within the Executive Office’s Health and Humane Services where other child
serving agencies are housed, such as the Department of Children and Families that
handles all child welfare cases. New York, on the other hand, has one state agency that
handles both child welfare and child protection cases (the Office of Children and Family
Services), but the juvenile justice piece is directed by a Deputy Commissioner and
assisted by three Associated Commissioners to each oversee community partnerships,
facilities management and youth programs and services on a statewide level. New York
has one added layer of complexity to its juvenile justice oversight: Because of the Close
to Home Initiative, youth from the City who are placed in secure or staff secure care are
committed to the custody of the New York City Administration for Children’s Services
(ACS) for both residential services and aftercare.
In principle, having a single agency that handles both child welfare and juvenile justice is
appealing. There is tremendous overlap of youth in the juvenile justice system and youth
who have been swept in to the child welfare system, either as a victim of abuse or neglect
or as a “status offender” (a youth who is allegedly acting out against his or her own best
interest, e.g. a runaway). The youth involved in both the child welfare and juvenile
justice systems are commonly referred to as “dual status.” Research shows that being
abused or neglected as a child increases the likelihood of arrest as a juvenile by 59%, as
an adult by 28%, and for a violent crime by 30%. 187 By housing both child welfare and
juvenile justice within one agency, there is arguably a greater capacity for the full range
of child services to be better coordinated and integrated. In addition, combining child
welfare with juvenile justice within one agency should, theoretically, prevent the child
welfare system from the well-documented phenomenon of “dumping” a difficult child
into the juvenile justice system, by involving law enforcement in response to behavior
that most families would manage to handle themselves, as a way to effectively get rid of
a problematic child welfare case.
But at least anecdotally, PCJ heard complaints by some in Connecticut that this type of
“dumping” of child welfare cases has been happening under the current structure.
Having both functions under one agency hardly guarantees intra-agency collaboration.
Many have also expressed a lack of confidence in DCF’s ability to serve the committed
youth in its care now, in part because juvenile justice is such a small part of the
Department’s overall mission and it is difficult to garner focused attention except in
moments of crisis. At this watershed moment for Connecticut policy makers when the
state is poised to provide developmentally appropriate services to justice-involved
emerging adults, designating one agency to focus exclusively on detention and
commitment (including aftercare and community programming) may be the most
appealing model to follow.

Public Safety and Emerging Adults in Connecticut

55

 Fiscal Impact
PCJ was not requested to conduct a budget analysis for the implementation of the
proposal, and the relevant budgetary information was not provided. But like all reform
initiatives, the budgetary implications of this proposal deserve some discussion—
especially when Connecticut has been experiencing difficult budgetary challenges,
including significant cuts to the state agencies involved in the justice systems as well as
cuts to the contracts with private agencies that closely partner with the state agencies in
this work. 188
The incorporation of emerging adults in the juvenile justice system will, to a large extent,
involve the re-allocation of resources rather than additional funding. This is because
emerging adults are already being arrested, prosecuted, defended, detained, tried,
sentenced, supervised on probation and sentenced to incarceration. So for emerging
adults that will be processed in the juvenile justice system in the future, there will be a
corresponding reduction in the adult criminal justice caseload. For example, the overall
caseload for adult probation officers will decline slightly and the overall caseloads for
juvenile probation officers will increase. Although personnel will need to be transferred
to cover the shift in population, the changes can all be handled internally by CSSD.
In addition, the automatic and discretionary statutory provisions now used for 15, 16 and
17-year olds will be similarly applied to emerging adults. As a result, the cases with the
most serious charges that use up a greater share of justice system resources will be
processed in the adult criminal justice system, and will not significantly impact the
juvenile justice system’s resources.
By increasing the jurisdictional age gradually over a three year period, with 18-year-olds
included in year one, 19-year-olds in year two, and 20-year-olds in year three, state
agencies such as CSSD will be able to adapt over time and will benefit from the naturally
occurring attrition process. Specifically, as staff retire or leave for other reasons, CSSD
will be able to fill the open positions with new juvenile probation officers.
This does not mean, however, that there will not be some costs associated with the
implementation of this reform initiative. The costs to run the juvenile justice system is
typically higher than the adult system, partly because it is a smaller system with smaller
caseloads (economy of scale) and partly because it provides individualized, rehabilitative
treatment with more intensive supervision and professional involvement. Certainly the
biggest cost differential involves incarceration. In Connecticut, the average cost for a day
of incarceration at a DOC adult prison in FY15 was $178 and it was higher, $336, at the
Manson Youth Institution where the male youth are held. 189 The average cost for a day
of commitment at CJTS in FY15 was $1,682. 190
But this still does not mean that the short-term costs will be large or unmanageable. This
is because the juvenile justice system offers much greater opportunities for diversion (see
discussion in Section entitled “Diversion” above). By raising the age of juvenile
jurisdiction to 21, PCJ estimates that approximately one-third of the emerging adult court

Public Safety and Emerging Adults in Connecticut

56

 cases that would otherwise be formally prosecuted in the adult system will be
successfully handled in a non-judicial—and, consequently, less expensive—manner in
the juvenile system.
Furthermore, even in those cases when confinement is necessary, the juvenile justice
system provides much greater flexibility and opportunities to reduce the burden and costs
to taxpayers. For example, as of January 1, 2017, juvenile detention will be limited by
law only to those who cannot be appropriately placed in a less restrictive alternative, a
change that should significantly reduce the already shrinking juvenile detention
caseload. 191 Once emerging adults are included in the juvenile system and are subject to
the detention reform law, Connecticut will reduce the detention caseload of this age
cohort to a much greater degree than would have been the case had all emerging adults
been processed in the adult criminal justice system.
Similarly, it seems likely that the emerging adults sentenced to DCF custody under the
juvenile justice system will serve less time in the most costly secure confinement
facilities than they would have had they been sentenced to an adult DOC prison. DCF
has discretion over the placement of youth in its custody and, by closing CJTS and
instituting a more effective and less expensive network of small residential facilities and
community programs, DCF will be able to use a full-range of appropriate and lessexpensive placement options.
Finally, there is reason to cautiously believe that there may be a salutary effect on
criminal and juvenile justice populations from raising the age of juvenile court
jurisdiction. When Connecticut raised the age of juvenile court jurisdiction to 17 in 2010,
arrests of 16-year-olds declined more than was expected by previous years’ trends. As
the chart below depicts, arrests of 16-year-olds had been declining by an average of 6%
per year in the years leading up to 2010 (the dotted blue line depicts arrests if that trend
had persisted at a rate of 6% annual decline). However, after 16-year-olds were included
in the juvenile justice system, arrests of 16-year-olds were actually 28% lower than the
projected trend (dotted orange line).
While further study of this phenomenon is warranted, data like these (and similar findings
from Illinois) led the Vera Institute of Justice to dub this a deflationary “raise the age
effect.”
Research in Connecticut has also found that 16-year-olds tried in Juvenile Session were
rearrested at a rate almost 39% lower than matched youths their same age who had been
previously tried as adults. 192 After raising the age of juvenile jurisdiction to 18,
Connecticut now has its lowest number of juveniles in pretrial detention, its lowest
number of committed youth in the Connecticut Juvenile Training School, and the lowest
number of emerging adult prisoners ages 18 to 21 in its adult prisons in a quartercentury. 193 These data offer a hopeful picture in two ways – they portend that the
potential impact of these changes may be less significant than might be feared, and they
raise the possibility that the juvenile system, writ large, has some unused capacity that
can help cushion the impact of this initiative.

Public Safety and Emerging Adults in Connecticut

57

 Final Report of the Governor’s Commission on Youth, Public Safety and Justice 194

There are, however, two foreseeable short-term costs that cannot be avoided and are
essential for the success of the implementation:
1. Additional services for emerging adults: It would be inconsistent and ineffective
to include emerging adults in the juvenile system and then fail to provide them
with individualized and developmentally appropriate services. Although many of
the services already offered in Connecticut’s juvenile justice system can be
applied to emerging adults, the variety and quantity will need to be enhanced.
For instance, there will need to be more post-high school educational, vocational
and independent living services than what is currently available.
2. Professional training: Working with emerging adults will be different than
working with either juveniles or mature adults. Professionals and staff in the
juvenile justice system must be given information to better understand this
special, in-between stage of development in order to provide the most effective
treatment, services and supervision.
Overall, in considering the budgetary ramifications of the Governor’s proposal, a critical
point is that any and all of these short-term costs incurred by its successful
implementation may be offset by greater long-term savings for Connecticut. The cost to
society when just one court-involved young person grows up to engage in a lifetime of
serious and chronic crime is staggering: Factoring in lost wages, unpaid taxes, harm to
victims and criminal justice expenditures, the estimated cost for one person is $3.8
million.195 Research has found that evidence-based programs such as multi-systemic

Public Safety and Emerging Adults in Connecticut

58

 therapy, already being used in Connecticut and which can be adapted for the emerging
adult population (MST-EA), provides financial benefits to taxpayers as well important
benefits to victims – both tangible (e.g. property damage) and intangible (emotional harm
and reduced quality of life). Researchers have calculated the cumulative benefits for each
MST participant to range between $75,100 to $199,374 196 or, measured another way by
different researchers, each dollar spent on MST accrues a benefit of $13.36. 197
The public strongly supports treatment and services over confinement. A nationally
representative poll found that “3 in 4 voters believe that juvenile offenders should receive
treatment, counseling, and supervision to help them avoid reoffending, even if it means
that they spend no time in a correctional facility.” 198
Connecticut knows better than almost any State the perils of trying to accurately predict
the costs of a Raise the Age initiative. In February 2004, a high level panel led by the
state’s chief juvenile judge issued a report estimating the cost of adding 16 and 17-yearolds to the juvenile system would be $84 million in operating costs and an additional $81
million in new construction costs. 199 Fortunately, these predictions never bore fruit:
After including both 16 and 17-year-olds in the juvenile system, Connecticut enjoyed a
lower juvenile caseload than before the reform, lower juvenile crime rate, and with no
additional financial costs. 200 At the same time, it is important to note that Connecticut
did not raise the age in a vacuum; the change in jurisdictional age was tied to a slew of
other critically important reform initiatives including, most importantly, the expansion of
diversion. This is an experience worth replicating as Connecticut plans the
implementation of this proposal to further expand the juvenile justice system.
CONCLUSION
Over the last decade, the United States has experienced a wave of reforms in crime
control policies, with many states reexamining “the ways in which they respond to
offenders at every stage of the criminal justice process, from arrest and punishment to
reentry and rehabilitation.” 201 This change has been described as a “turning tide,” within
which an unusual synergy has formed between evidence-based scholars and fiscally
conservative politicians, among others, to push for more effective laws, policies and
practices in the justice system.
But until recently, the idea of “emerging adults” was not recognized as a distinct
developmental stage with important implications for improving our justice system. As
explained by Former Assistant Attorney General Laurie O. Robinson:
...we have not paid enough attention to the later teenage and early adult
years as a discrete period of social and behavioral development… If we hope to
gain a complete understanding of what works to prevent delinquency from
evolving into persistent criminal behavior, we need to look more closely at this
critical stage of life and develop our sense of effective interventions and
categories of appropriate sanctions. 202

Public Safety and Emerging Adults in Connecticut

59

 Connecticut is on the forefront of this movement to recognize and serve the needs of
emerging adults. By recognizing and identifying justice-involved emerging adults as a
specific population in need of age-appropriate services—and then presenting a concrete
proposal to provide developmentally appropriate responses within an expanded juvenile
justice system—Connecticut is ultimately ensuring a positive impact on public safety.
In addition to the review and analysis contained in this report, PCJ offers 15 specific
recommendations for how the state can implement this proposal over the coming years.
These recommendations can be summarized in the following four categories:
E. Focus and cost-effectiveness: Ensuring that Connecticut’s formal juvenile justice
system (e.g. juvenile court cases) is reserved for those cases that cannot be
otherwise appropriately and effectively served without formal system intervention
(Recommendations 1 - 3). These recommendations are designed to increase the
likelihood of successful outcomes, lower costs to taxpayers, allow the system to
focus on youth and emerging adults truly in need of intervention, and “right-size”
the system so that it is better able to absorb the expanded population of emerging
adults.
F. Breadth of application: Applying the benefits of the juvenile justice system as
much as possible to 18, 19 and 20-year-olds, including the expertise of the
professionals within the juvenile system (Recommendations 4 - 5) in a practical
manner that minimizes unnecessary law changes (Recommendations 6 - 7).
G. Investment in reforms: Taking the opportunity of this watershed moment to
increase investments in effective programming (e.g., educational services and
vocational training) in the community and, when necessary, within residential
treatment facilities (Recommendations 8 - 10). Also, to consider making some
other important reforms within the current juvenile justice system to better serve
both youth under 18 as well as emerging adults (Recommendations 11 - 13).
H. Institutional acceptance of “emerging adults”: Intentionally fostering a culture
shift and philosophically embracing emerging adults within the juvenile justice
system, which will require additional training, monitoring, evaluation and
leadership (Recommendations 14 - 15).
This report does not provide answers and guidance for every issue that was raised during
the course of this action research project, and there undoubtedly will be other issues that
will arise during the actual implementation. Further study and planning will be
necessary, especially regarding some of the more practical operational issues (e.g.,
transportation). But Connecticut has led the way on a number of significant justice
reforms in the past decades and has a well-respected cadre of experienced and dedicated
leaders in both the public and private sectors to oversee and assist in the implementation
of this proposal. The country will be watching closely.

Public Safety and Emerging Adults in Connecticut

60

 RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Invest in and expand the diversion system, especially diversion at the frontend of the system:
Perhaps the most significant of the many advantages of expanding the
juvenile justice system to include emerging adults would be the increased
opportunity for 18-20 year-olds to participate in diversion. In
Connecticut’s juvenile justice system, cases can be diverted from the
formal judicial process with successful outcomes at numerous stages of
the system by the police, schools, probation (even before an arraignment),
Juvenile Review Boards, prosecutors, and judges. This wide range of
diversion options – especially options used at the front-end of the system
before a case is formally heard in court, and which research shows to be a
particularly opportune time to divert – does not exist in the adult criminal
justice system. The 18-20 year-olds who are arrested by the police are
formally charged in court, and only after does some diversion become
available. In contrast, within the juvenile court more than one-third of all
cases are resolved in a non-judicial manner, and more than 50% of all
court referrals conclude without any finding of adjudication. There is
reason to believe that a similarly significant percentage of referrals for 1820 year-olds would also be appropriately resolved if this cohort were
given the same wide-range of diversion options, resulting in short-term
fiscal benefits (e.g., reducing the court caseload) as well as long-term
savings (by increasing positive outcomes).
2. Invest in and expand alternatives to pre-trial detention.
Research shows that incarcerating youth and emerging adults is not only
expensive, but often a traumatizing and counter-productive experience that
should be used only when there are no safe and less-restrictive alternatives
available. Connecticut has considerable experience and expertise in
developing alternatives to pre-trial detention for those in the juvenile
system. Due in part to Connecticut’s efforts to provide alternatives to
detention (along with decreasing crime rates), the juvenile detention
population decreased to such a degree that Connecticut was able to close
one of its three juvenile detention centers in 2012. Since then, juvenile
detention admissions have continued to decline by 10% (2012-2015). By
expanding detention alternatives to emerging adults, detaining only the
few emerging adults who require secure confinement in facilities operated
by CSSD when there are no appropriate alternatives, and then holding
them for the shortest time period possible, Connecticut would
simultaneously improve outcomes and cut costs.
3. Raise the lower-end of juvenile jurisdiction from age 7 to age 12.
In 2015, there were 171 delinquency referrals to the Connecticut juvenile
court for children younger than 12, consisting of about 2% of

Public Safety and Emerging Adults in Connecticut

61

 Connecticut’s overall delinquency cases. There is no clear norm regarding
the appropriate age of the lower end of jurisdiction in the United States:
one state sets the age at 6, five states join Connecticut at age 7, three states
set the age 8, ten states at age 10, and 30 states have not established a
lower age of juvenile jurisdiction. However, international norms have
been firmly established at age 12. Within the United States, there appears
to be growing concern that young children lack the competency to
understand the complicated legal concepts needed to meaningfully
exercise their rights. Research also points to the harm that can be caused
by formal prosecution of young children and indicates that other systems
(e.g., child welfare) may serve young children more effectively. By raising
the lower-end of juvenile jurisdiction, Connecticut would more
appropriately serve the very young children and enable the juvenile justice
system to more effectively focus on adolescents and emerging adults.
4. Assign Juvenile Probation Officers to the emerging adult cases.
Currently, probation officers supervise emerging adults in the adult
criminal court session. But as emerging adults gradually migrate into the
juvenile justice system, it would make sense for juvenile probation
officers – who have the training for and experience of working with
adolescents in the juvenile court – to supervise this population. This would
be a re-allocation of resources, with negligible additional costs.
5. Protect identities of emerging adults from the public during prosecution in the
juvenile system (whether Connecticut decides to have open or closed
courtrooms).
In the information-gathering sessions facilitated by PCJ regarding the
value of prosecuting emerging adults in open or closed sessions in juvenile
court, many of the key stakeholders expressed divergent views. However,
there was overwhelming consensus for protecting the emerging adults’
identity if the proceedings are held in Juvenile Court (and not transferred
to the adult criminal session). When an emerging adult takes positive
steps forward (e.g., searching for a job), the benefits of having been
“adjudicated” or convicted of a delinquency offense in a juvenile session
rather than “convicted” of a criminal offense in an adult session would
lose much of its value if the identity of the emerging adult were widely
disseminated.
6. Maintain the current rules governing police interrogations for emerging
adults.
Rules have already been established in Connecticut regarding the
admission, confession or statement of children 15 and under (requiring the
presence of a parent or guardian who has been informed of their rights)
and individuals 16 to 17 (requiring that “reasonable efforts” to contact a
parent or guardian of the child be made). Emerging adults 18 and over
have been governed by Miranda v. Arizona and its progeny, and there is

Public Safety and Emerging Adults in Connecticut

62

 no known precedent or consensus from stakeholders that would suggest a
change.
7. Continue to process motor vehicle cases in adult court.
When Connecticut previously raised the age of juvenile jurisdiction from
16 to 18, motor vehicle offenses were kept in adult court. The law does
allow the judge to move a motor vehicle case to juvenile court if the
disposition could include jail time. With the further gradual expansion of
the juvenile justice system to 21, following this precedent for emerging
adults should reduce the impact of an increase in cases in the juvenile
court without adding any confusion to the established system.
8. Clarify the roles of the Department of Children and Families (DCF) and the
Department of Mental Health and Addictive Services (DMHAS) and develop
a closer partnership between these two agencies.
Currently, DCF provides mental health services to children up to 18 and
DMHAS provides services for those 18 and over, with the special Young
Adult Services unit focusing on 18 to 25-year-olds with the highest needs
and a history of involvement with DCF. With the gradual inclusion of 18,
19 and 20 year-olds into the juvenile system, clarity would need to be
provided about which agency provides the mental health services for
court-involved emerging adults, especially if an emerging adult is
prosecuted in the juvenile system and sentenced to a DCF residential
treatment facility. In addition to establishing clear delineation of the roles
and responsibilities, these agencies would also need to develop an even
closer partnership in order to ensure the smooth transition of services.
9. Elevate the importance of housing stability for emerging adults by developing
a common assessment measure for these services, integrating that measure
into existing assessment tools, and then planning for housing stability at all
stages of the justice system.
Stable, safe housing is an essential element for reducing recidivism.
Housing stability provides emerging adults the ability to benefit from
education and employment opportunities. As the majority of emerging
adults live with their families (or, if fortunate, at college), it is to be
expected that the vast majority of emerging adults who are involved in the
justice system are still dependent on their families for housing (as well as
food and finances). But a careful assessment of housing needs for
emerging adults must be conducted at all stages of the legal process and a
common assessment measure should be adopted and integrated into
existing tools used by juvenile justice professionals. Furthermore,
Connecticut (through the Juvenile Justice Policy and Oversight
Committee) should commission a study to examine the housing needs of
court-involved emerging adults with a particular focus on ensuring that a
sufficient array of services is available to support this age cohort (whether

Public Safety and Emerging Adults in Connecticut

63

 that means engaging in family mediation so the emerging adult can stay
with family, or finding other suitable alternatives).
10. Invest in educational and vocational services targeted specifically for
emerging adults.
Court-involved emerging adults are often significantly behind their peers
in educational attainment and job readiness. For instance, national data
shows that the majority of court-involved emerging adults between the
ages of 18-24 have not graduated high school or obtained a GED,
disturbing data that are undoubtedly higher for the younger cohort of 1820 year-olds. However, research also shows that education and
employment are both effective in reducing recidivism. A number of useful
examples from both inside and outside the justice systems can provide
guidance to Connecticut on ways to successfully engage and support the
educational and job skill needs of this age cohort. JJPOC, largely through
its active work groups, has done some significant work already examining
the current services available to emerging adults, as well as best practices
that could be adopted. It would be helpful to officially expand the scope
of a JJPOC work group to formally incorporate this work going forward.
11. Provide victim services for cases prosecuted in the juvenile court session.
Some have rightly raised concerns that victim services that are offered in
adult court might not be always offered in juvenile court. We recommend
that victim services be available for victims of offenses committed by both
youth under age 18 as well as emerging adults who are prosecuted in the
juvenile session. There should be no diminution of victims’ services
under this reform and the types of services offered to victims should never
depend on the particular age of the offender.
12. Develop a full continuum of care for all youth and emerging adults sentenced
to the Department of Children and Families through a regionalized network
of small, therapeutic facilities for the small number who need to be confined,
and a network of community-based programs in youth’s neighborhoods.
Further consider the best organizational structure to oversee all juvenile
corrections that can effectively serve both youth and emerging adults in a
single agency.
This is an opportune moment for Connecticut to restructure its juvenile
correctional system: Not only will the system need to accommodate
emerging adults who are committed to the custody of DCF from the
juvenile court, but Connecticut must plan on this expansion without the
Connecticut Juvenile Training School (CJTS), a large hardware-secure
prison that was built for 230 beds but now holds less than 50 youth. Based
on the growing national consensus over research showing that such large
youth prisons are ineffective and even harmful to the youth, as well as the
high costs of maintaining such a facility ($34,913,439 in operating costs
for CJTS in FY 2017 as of September 30, 2016), Connecticut plans to

Public Safety and Emerging Adults in Connecticut

64

 close CJTS in 2018. A new, model approach would include a statewide
network of small treatment facilities (e.g., 15-40 beds each, with the
youngest youth housed in the smallest facilities) that provide a full range
of placement options from high-end, hardware and staff secure, to low-end
placement, such as foster care and supported independent living. Facilities
could be state-run, contracted out to non-profits, or a combination of
public and private, would be licensed by an independent agency, and
would be spread across the state for closer proximity to families and
communities. States such as neighboring Massachusetts and New York
have had success in contracting with private, non-profit organizations to
operate some of their treatment facilities, including the most secure ones.
In addition, Connecticut should consider creating and expanding the range
of community-based options that can safely keep youth and emerging
adults at home and/or more actively engaged with the services in their own
communities. By creating such a statewide network of both facilities and
community-based services that are run by both state and private entities,
there will be much greater flexibility in accommodating emerging adults
and their treatment needs.
Currently, the responsibility and oversight of juvenile corrections is split
by two agencies. CSSD oversees detention and DCF oversees
commitments. With the addition of 18, 19 and 20-year-olds to the mix,
Connecticut should consider unifying all of juvenile corrections
(residential facilities for detention and commitment and community
supervision) as well as the procurement of a continuum of communitybased care into one agency focused exclusively on youth and emerging
adults in the juvenile justice system. A newly created youth/emerging
adult services agency could focus on the unique needs of this population,
the creation of the continuum of care, and small rehabilitative facilities for
the few youth who require confinement. Models of such a consolidated
organizational structure are discussed in the full report.
13. Reconsider the automatic transfer of 15 – 17 year olds.
In 2015, there were 180 youth (ages 15, 16 or 17 when they allegedly
committed an offense) who were transferred to adult court. With the
proposed expansion of the juvenile justice system to 21, this group could
get “lost in the shuffle” and overlooked, with little assessment of whether
they could be appropriately treated in the individualized, rehabilitative
approach offered by the juvenile justice system. Connecticut should take
this opportunity to consider limiting or eliminating the list of offenses that
require automatic transfer to adult court for this age group, creating
instead a judicial waiver process that provides the opportunity for cases to
be heard in the juvenile court and where a judge can assess whether the
case can be appropriately resolved in the juvenile system or needs to be
judicially waived to the adult court.

Public Safety and Emerging Adults in Connecticut

65

 14. Expand training of professionals working in the juvenile justice on the specific
developmental needs of emerging adults and effective interventions.
Connecticut has made a number of significant improvements to the
juvenile justice system in the last 20 years; this success is largely
dependent on the professionalism of the juvenile justice community in
Connecticut, which will need support as it expands its attention to
emerging adults. Specific training should be provided to all the
professionals who will be working with emerging adults in the juvenile
system, including police, judges, probation officers, staff in residential
facilities, prosecutors, defense attorneys, providers and contractors.
15. Assign to the Juvenile Justice Policy and Oversight Committee (JJPOC) the
responsibility of providing the needed leadership, strategic planning and
oversight of the implementation of this proposal.
The JJPOC is a unique resource and the envy of many other states around
the country with its impressive membership and staff support that have
managed to produce a long list of accomplishments. JJPOC successfully
led the earlier “Raise the Age” campaign and played a critical role
evaluating the outcomes of the reform, including making further suggested
changes in both laws and policies. JJPOC has both the experience and
expertise to work in close partnership with the three branches of
government to implement this proposal to further expand the juvenile
justice system to also include emerging adults.
Finally, JJPOC could play an important role in helping Connecticut seek
funding assistance from philanthropy to conduct a rigorous, independent
evaluation of this unprecedented change. Marking a watershed in the
evolution of the juvenile justice system, Connecticut would be the first
state in the country to include emerging adults in the juvenile justice
system. Measuring and sharing the outcomes of this initiative will be
critically important not only to Connecticut, as it continues its work to
improve its justice system, but to the entire nation.

Public Safety and Emerging Adults in Connecticut

66

 APPENDIX A
The Program in Criminal Justice’s “Listening Tour”:
The following is a list of meetings facilitated by PCJ and organized by TYJI to gather
information and feedback about the implementation of the proposal to include emerging
adults in Connecticut’s juvenile justice system
A. Meetings with the Juvenile Justice and Policy Oversight Committee Members
• 7/7/16: Co-chairs of all the JJPOC work groups (via phone)
• 7/8/16: Cross-Data Sharing Work Group (held in Wethersfield).
• 7/11/16: Recidivism Work Group (Hartford)
• 7/13/16: Incarceration Work Group (New Haven)
• 7/15/16: Diversion Work Group (Middletown)
• 11/28/16: Co-chairs of the JJPOC work groups (Hartford)
B. Meetings with “focus groups” consisting of staff from key stakeholders in the
justice system:
• 7/28/16: Judicial Branch Court Support Services Division and
Court Operations (Hartford)
• 8/10/16: Department of Children and Families (Hartford)
• 8/17/16: State Department of Education (Middletown)
• 8/17/16: Department of Correction (Wethersfield)
• 9.8.16: Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services
(Middletown)
• 9/15/16: Legislators (Hartford)
C. “Ad hoc” meetings open to the community:
• 7/28/16 in Hartford
• 7/29/16 in New Haven
D. Presentations to and discussions with the full JJPOC:
• 4/21/16 JJPOC meeting
• 11/17/16 JJPOC meeting

Public Safety and Emerging Adults in Connecticut

67

 1 Malloy, Dannel (January 28, 2016). “Implementation of the Second Raise the Age Initiative.”
https://www.cga.ct.gov/app/tfs%5C20141215_Juvenile%20Justice%20Policy%20and%20Oversight%20Co
mmittee%5C20160128/Gov%202016%2001%2028%20Ltr%20to%20JJPOC%20.pdf
2
The Youth Justice Institute at the University of New Haven is also legally designated to staff the JJPOC.
See, http://www.newhaven.edu/lee-college/institutes/Tow-Youth-Justice-Institute/juvenile-justice-policyoversight-committee/
3
The Connecticut Juvenile Justice Alliance and Youth First held four listening sessions in the spring and
summer of 2016 with 40 youth from Bridgeport, New Haven and Hartford, to gather input and feedback
from system-involved youth about community reinvestment, alternatives to incarceration and what young
people need to be successful. Although the project was not focused on emerging adults involved in the
justice system, it is safe to assume that some of the participants were emerging adults at the time of the
sessions and that the experiences and opinions they expressed are also relevant and informative for the
purposes of this report. Findings from the listening sessions and eight policy recommendations are
included in the report: “Walk in Our Shoes: Youth Share their Ideas for Changing Connecticut’s Juvenile
Justice System.” http://www.ctjja.org/resources/pdf/YFCTpaper.pdf
4
Mendel, Richard (2013). “Juvenile Justice Reform in Connecticut: How Collaboration and Commitment
Have Improved Public Safety and Outcomes for Youth.” Justice Policy Institute, p.1.
http://www.justicepolicy.org/uploads/justicepolicy/documents/jpi_juvenile_justice_reform_in_ct.pdf
5
Dougherty, V., Sieve, M., and Thomalla. T. (2002). “State of Connecticut Juvenile Justice Programs:
Recidivism Outcome Evaluation.” Connecticut Policy and Economic Council.
6
Mendel, Richard (2013). “Juvenile Justice Reform in Connecticut: How Collaboration and Commitment
Have Improved Public Safety and Outcomes for Youth.” Justice Policy Institute.
http://www.justicepolicy.org/uploads/justicepolicy/documents/jpi_juvenile_justice_reform_in_ct.pdf
7
MST Institute (2015). “Multisystemic Therapy.” http://mstservices.com/what-is-mst/what-is-mst
8
National Institute of Justice (2011). “Program Profile: Functional Family Therapy (FFT).”
http://www.crimesolutions.gov/ProgramDetails.aspx?ID=122
9
Note: The inclusion of 17 year olds was delayed by an amendment passed in 2009 to give Connecticut
more time to prepare and plan for the change.
10
Restorative is based on the principles that crime is injury, which creates an obligation to make things
right, and the offender should accept responsibility and act to repair the harm done. Bilchik, Shay (1998).
“Guide of Implementing the Balanced and Restorative Justice Model.” Office of Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention. https://www.ojjdp.gov/pubs/implementing/contents.html
11
Connecticut Public Act No. 16-147. “An Act Concerning The Recommendations Of The Juvenile Justice
Policy And Oversight Committee.” https://www.cga.ct.gov/2016/act/pa/pdf/2016PA-00147-R00HB-05642PA.pdf
12
Connecticut Code Chapter 170§10-233c: Suspension of pupils.
https://www.cga.ct.gov/current/pub/chap_170.htm#sec_10-233c
13
Child Health and Development Institute of Connecticut, Inc. “SBDI (The Connecticut School-Based
Diversion Initiative).” Child Health and Development Institute of Connecticut, Inc.
http://www.chdi.org/our-work/mental-health/school-based-mental-health/sbdi/
14
Collins, Dave (January 24, 2015). “Connecticut focuses on reducing school arrests.” Associated Press.
http://wtnh.com/2015/01/24/connecticut-focuses-on-reducing-school-arrests/
15
State Education Resource Center (March 2009). “Positive Behavior Support Data Report and Summary:
A Look at Connecticut.” http://www.pbis.org/common/cms/files/pbisresources/0309pbsdataCT.pdf
16
The Council of State Governments Justice Center. “Connecticut.” https://csgjusticecenter.org/jr/ct/
17
Thompson, Michael (April 22, 2014). “Joint Informational Hearing, Judiciary and Appropriations
Committees.” The Council of State Governments Justice Center. https://csgjusticecenter.org/wpcontent/uploads/2014/04/CT-Justice-Reinvestment-Informational.pdf
18
Eagan, S.H., Kramer, M., and Panciera, H. (July 22, 2015). “Investigative Facility Report: Connecticut
Juvenile Training School and Pueblo Unit.” Office of the Child Advocate.
http://www.ct.gov/oca/lib/oca/oca_investigative_cjts_pueblo_report_july_22_2015.pdf

Public Safety and Emerging Adults in Connecticut

68

 19

Muniz, Fernando J. (October 18, 2016). “Plan for Closure of the Connecticut Training School.”
Department of Children and Families, p.6.
http://www.ct.gov/dcf/lib/dcf/cjts/pdf/cjts_closure_plan_(final).pdf
20
Ibid, p.2.
21
Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection (2014). “Mission Statement of the Department
of Emergency Services and Public Protection.” http://www.ct.gov/despp/cwp/view.asp?a=4156&q=487896
22
Butts, J.A., and Mitchell, O. (July 2000). “Brick by Brick: Dismantling the Border Between Juvenile and
Adult Justice.” Criminal Justice 2000 v.2, ed. Charles M. Friel, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of
Justice, National Institute of Justice: p.167-213, NCJ 182409.
https://www.ncjrs.gov/criminal_justice2000/vol_2/02f2.pdf
23
Willrich, Michael (2003). City of Courts: Socializing Justice in Progressive Era Chicago, New York,
N.Y.: Cambridge University Press, p.209.
24
Campaign for Youth Justice. The Impact of "Raise the Age" Laws. June 7, 2016.
http://www.campaignforyouthjustice.org/images/factsheets/RTAImpactTwoPagerJune72016final.pdf
25
Redding, Richard E. (June 2010). “Juvenile Transfer Laws: An Effective Deterrent to Delinquency?”
Juvenile Justice Bulletin, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention. NCJ 220595. https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/220595.pdf and;
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (November 30, 2007). “Effects on Violence of Laws and
Policies Facilitating the Transfer of Youth from the Juvenile to the Adult Justice System: A Report on
Recommendations of the Task Force on Community Preventive Services,” Morbidity and Mortality Weekly
Report v.56(RR-9), p.7. http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/pdf/rr/rr5609.pdf
26
Schiraldi, V., Western, B., and Bradner, K. (September 2015). “Community-Based Responses to JusticeInvolved Young Adults.” New Thinking in Community Corrections Bulletin. Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice. NCJ 248900.
https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/248900.pdf and; Ridgeway, G. and Listenbee, R. (February 2014).
“Young Offenders: What Happens and What Should Happen.” Justice Research, Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice. NCJ 242653.
https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/242653.pdf
27
Adams, Erica J. (July 2010). “Healing Invisible Wounds: Why Investing in Trauma-Informed Care for
Children Makes Sense.” Justice Policy Institute. http://www.justicepolicy.org/images/upload/1007_REP_HealingInvisibleWounds_JJ-PS.pdf
28
Scott, E.S. and Steinberg, L. (2010). Rethinking Juvenile Justice, Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University
Press, p.53.
29
Five states set the upper age of juvenile jurisdiction at 17: GA, MI, MO, TX and WI. Two states set it at
16: NC and NY. In the last legislative session (2015-6), legislation was proposed to raise the age of
juvenile court jurisdiction to 18 in six states, successfully passing in Louisiana and South Carolina. It
should be noted that even in states that set the age of juvenile jurisdiction to 18, there are there are still
provisions to allow youth under 18 to be prosecuted as adults in certain circumstances (usually depending
on the severity of the alleged offense), similar to the current proposal in Connecticut that would allow some
youth between the ages of 15 – 20 to be prosecuted as adults.
30
Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005) held that the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments forbid the
imposition of the death penalty on anyone under 18 when the crime was committed. Graham v. Florida,
560 U.S. 48 (2010) found that the Constitution also prohibits life-without-parole sentences for youth (under
18) in non-homicide cases. Miller v. Alabama, 132 S.Ct. 2455 (2012) ruled that the Eighth Amendment
forbids mandatory juvenile life-without-parole sentences. J.D.B. v. North Carolina, 131 S. Ct. 2394 (2011)
once again grounded constitutional principles in evolving developmental and scientific research, this time
in the context of the Due Process Clause, holding that the age of a child must inform a Miranda custody
analysis. Referencing prior decisions (including those in the context of the Eighth Amendment), the Court
observed, “’our history is replete with laws and judicial recognition’ that children cannot be viewed simply
as miniature adults” (citations omitted). Id. at 2404.
31
Schiraldi, V., Western, B., and Bradner, K. (September 2015). “Community-Based Responses to JusticeInvolved Young Adults.” New Thinking in Community Corrections Bulletin. Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice. NCJ 248900.
https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/248900.pdf
32
Ibid.

Public Safety and Emerging Adults in Connecticut

69

 33

Ibid.
Loeber, R., Farrington, D., and Petechuk, D. (July 2013). “From Juvenile Delinquency to Young Adult
Offending.” Study Group on the Transitions Between Juvenile Delinquency and Adult Crime. Washington,
D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice.
https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/242931.pdf
35
Ibid, Figure 2.
36
Ibid, p.4.
37
Ibid, p.7.
38
Schiraldi, V., Western, B., and Bradner, K. (September 2015). “Community-Based Responses to JusticeInvolved Young Adults.” New Thinking in Community Corrections Bulletin. Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice. NCJ 248900.
https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/248900.pdf and; The Council of State Governments Justice Center
(November 2015). “Reducing Recidivism and Improving Other Outcomes for Young Adults in the Juvenile
and Adult Criminal Justice Systems.” https://csgjusticecenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/TransitionalAge-Brief.pdf and; Hayek, Connie (June 2016). Environmental Scan of Developmentally Appropriate
Criminal Justice Responses to Justice-Involved Young Adults. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of
Justice, National Institute of Justice. NCJ 249902. https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/249902.pdf and;
Zeira, Y., and Baldwin, M. (February 2016). “Pioneers in Young Adult Justice: 10 Initiatives and Programs
Improving Criminal Justice for Young Adults.” Roca, Inc. and; Loeber, R., Farrington, D., and Petechuk,
D. (July 2013). “From Juvenile Delinquency to Young Adult Offending.” Study Group on the Transitions
Between Juvenile Delinquency and Adult Crime. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National
Institute of Justice. https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/242931.pdf and; Forman, B. and Yee, S.
(December 2015). “Viewing Justice Reinvestment Through a Developmental Lens: New Approaches to
Reducing Young Adult Recidivism in Massachusetts.” MassINC. http://massinc.org/wpcontent/uploads/2015/12/young.offenders.brief_.pdf
39
Schiraldi, V., Western, B., and Bradner, K. (September 2015). “Community-Based Responses to JusticeInvolved Young Adults.” New Thinking in Community Corrections Bulletin. Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice. NCJ 248900, p.7.
https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/248900.pdf
40
Information provided to the Program in Criminal Justice by Elizabeth Clark, President and Founder of
the Juvenile Justice Initiative. Elizabeth Clark, personal communication, November 30, 2016.
41
Jonathan Kozol focused on North Lawndale in one of his chapters in his well-known book Savage
Inequalities: Children in America’s Schools, published in 1991. He quoted one resident who poignantly
described this community as “an industrial slum without the industry.” Although North Lawndale has
experienced some revitalization since Kozol’s book, the community is still struggling economically, with
high rates of poverty and unemployment, and is “notorious for the number of its youth who are in trouble
with the law.” “North Lawndale Today.” Steans Family Foundation.
http://www.steansfamilyfoundation.org/lawndale_today.shtml.
42
Circuit Court of Cook County. (April 4, 2016). Circuit Court Wins Grant to Create Community Court
http://www.cookcountycourt.org/MEDIA/ViewPressRelease/tabid/338/ArticleId/2458/Circuit-Court-winsgrant-to-create-Community-Court.aspx
43
Vermont No. 153. “An Act relating to jurisdiction over delinquency proceedings by the Family Division
of the Superior Court.”
http://legislature.vermont.gov/assets/Documents/2016/Docs/ACTS/ACT153/ACT153%20As%20Enacted.p
df
44
Vastine, Karen (November 1, 2016). “Youthful Offenders Report.” Report to the Vermont Legislature.
http://legislature.vermont.gov/assets/Legislative-Reports/Youthful-Offenders-Report-12-10.28.16.pdf
45
State of Maine Department of Corrections. “Mountain View Youth Development Center.”
http://maine.gov/corrections/juvenile/Facilities/MVYDC/index.htm
46
The Superior Court of California: County of San Francisco. “Young Adult Court.”
http://www.sfsuperiorcourt.org/divisions/collaborative/yac
47
Preska, L. and Friedland, E. (August 17, 2015). “SDNY Young Adult Opportunity Program.” Office of
the District Court Executive: United States District Court Southern District of New York.
http://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/docs/SDNY%20Young%20Adult%20Opportunity%20Program.pdf
34

Public Safety and Emerging Adults in Connecticut

70

 48

“The process of identifying programs that are focused on addressing the developmental needs of young
adults in the criminal justice system has proven to be neither straightforward nor simple. Programs tend to
be localized, with limited publication outside the local jurisdictions.” Hayek, Connie (June 2016).
Environmental Scan of Developmentally Appropriate Criminal Justice Responses to Justice-Involved
Young Adults. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice. NCJ 249902.
https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/249902.pdf
49
Mason, Karol V (July 15, 2015). “Catching Up with Science: A Forum on Transition-Aged Youth in the
Criminal Justice System.” Speech, New York, NY.
http://ojp.gov/newsroom/speeches/2015speeches/ojp07152015.pdf
50
de la Cuesta, J.L., and Cordero, I.B. (Eds.) (2015). “Resolutions of the Congresses of the International
Association of Penal Law (1926-2014).” v.86, p. 405-7.
51
Ibid, p.406-7.
52
Ibid, p.406.
53
Ibid.
54
Council of Europe: Committee of Ministers. (Adopted September 24, 2003). “Recommendation Rec 20
of the Committee of Ministers to member States concerning new ways of dealing with juvenile delinquency
and the role of juvenile justice.” 853rd meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.
55
Ibid, p.3.
56
Ibid.
57
Council of Europe: Committee of Ministers (November 5, 2008). “Recommendation CM/Rec (2008)11
of the Committee of Ministers to member states on the European Rules for juvenile offenders subject to
sanctions or measures.” 1040th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.
58
Council of Europe: Committee of Ministers (2008). “Commentary to the European Rules for juvenile
offenders subject to sanctions or measures.”
http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/standardsetting/prisons/Commentary_Rec_2008_11E.pdf
59
Ito, Masami (May 23, 2015). “Shifting the Scales of Juvenile Justice.” The Japan Times.
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2015/05/23/national/social-issues/shifting-scales-juvenile-justice/#.V55fqJM29U
60
Ishida, Kanako (February 2015). “Young Adults in Conflict with the Law: Opportunities for Diversion.”
Juvenile Justice Initiative, p.4. http://jjustice.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/Young-Adults-in-Conflictwith-the-Law-Opportunities-for-Diversion.pdf
61
Ibid.
62
Ibid.
63
Ibid.
64
Clarke, Elizabeth (March 17, 2015). “Op-ed: Germany’s ‘Normalized’ Juvenile Facilities a Success.”
Juvenile Justice Information Exchange. http://jjie.org/op-ed-germanys-normalized-juvenile-facilities-asuccess/108482/
65
Ishida, Kanako (February 2015). “Young Adults in Conflict with the Law: Opportunities for Diversion.”
Juvenile Justice Initiative, p.2. http://jjustice.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/Young-Adults-in-Conflictwith-the-Law-Opportunities-for-Diversion.pdf
66
Pruin, I. and Dunkel, F. (March 2015). “Better in Europe? European Responses to Young Adult
Offending.” Transition to Adulthood, p. 42. https://www.barrowcadbury.org.uk/wpcontent/uploads/2015/02/T2A_Better-in-Europe_Report-_online.pdf
67
The reasons for prosecuting motor vehicle offenses and other less serious crimes in the adult criminal
justice system include less cost to system, ability to impose and collect fines, as well as less need for
rehabilitative services; Pruin, I. and Dunkel, F. (March 2015). “Better in Europe? European Responses to
Young Adult Offending.” Transition to Adulthood, p.43-44, 46. https://www.barrowcadbury.org.uk/wpcontent/uploads/2015/02/T2A_Better-in-Europe_Report-_online.pdf
68
“During my visit to Germany earlier this year, I was surprised that German courts treat all arrestees under
the age of 21 as juveniles. I believe that we can learn from their system.” Gov. Malloy’s Prepared Remarks
Today on Criminal Justice Reform, Press Release, Friday, Nov. 6, 2015.
69
Röder, Julian (June 19, 2015). "How Germany Treats Juveniles." The Marshall Project.
https://www.themarshallproject.org/2015/06/19/how-germany-treats-juveniles#.mVwm3X2t5
70
One was for young men (1937-1975) and another was for young women (1937-1953). Pruin, I. and
Dunkel, F. (March 2015). “Better in Europe? European Responses to Young Adult Offending.” Transition

Public Safety and Emerging Adults in Connecticut

71

 to Adulthood, p. 58. https://www.barrowcadbury.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/T2A_Better-inEurope_Report-_online.pdf
71
Pruin, I. and Dunkel, F. (March 2015). “Better in Europe? European Responses to Young Adult
Offending.” Transition to Adulthood, p. 57. https://www.barrowcadbury.org.uk/wpcontent/uploads/2015/02/T2A_Better-in-Europe_Report-_online.pdf
72
van Walsum, Sarah (2008). The Family and the Nation: Dutch Family Migration Policies. Cambridge,
UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, p.43.
73
Hoeve, M. and van der Laan. P.H. (2012). Persisters and Desisters in Crime from Adolescence Into
Adulthood. Surrey, UK: Ashgate Publishing, p.161.
74
Pruin, I. and Dunkel, F. (March 2015). “Better in Europe? European Responses to Young Adult
Offending.” Transition to Adulthood, p. 57. https://www.barrowcadbury.org.uk/wpcontent/uploads/2015/02/T2A_Better-in-Europe_Report-_online.pdf
75
Ibid.
76
Ishida, Kanako (February 2015). “Young Adults in Conflict with the Law: Opportunities for Diversion.”
Juvenile Justice Initiative, p.3. http://jjustice.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/Young-Adults-in-Conflictwith-the-Law-Opportunities-for-Diversion.pdf
77
Pruin, I. and Dunkel, F. (March 2015). “Better in Europe? European Responses to Young Adult
Offending.” Transition to Adulthood, p. 63. https://www.barrowcadbury.org.uk/wpcontent/uploads/2015/02/T2A_Better-in-Europe_Report-_online.pdf
78
Garza, Frida (March 22, 2016). “The Netherlands Keeps Having to Close its Prisons Due to a Lack of
Prisoners.” Quartz. http://qz.com/644914/the-netherlands-keeps-having-to-close-its-prisons-due-to-lack-ofprisoners/
79
The arrest data for 2015 comes from the State’s own reporting:
http://www.dpsdata.ct.gov/dps/ucr/data/2015/Crime%20in%20Connecticut%202015.pdf. This data is not
included in the chart above since the data source for the earlier years comes from the FBI’s Uniform Crime
Report Data, which appears to be slightly different than the data reported on the Connecticut government’s
website.
80
See e.g., Citizens for Juvenile Justice (November 2016). “Less Crime for Less Money, Why
Massachusetts should reduce unnecessary and harmful court processing for children and teens.”
http://www.cfjj.org/pdf/Diversion_White_Paper.pdf and; Models for Change Juvenile Diversion
Workgroup (March 2011). “Juvenile Diversion Guidebook.” www.modelsforchange.net/publications/301
81
Models for Change Juvenile Diversion Workgroup (2011). “Juvenile Diversion Guidebook.” p.8.
http://www.modelsforchange.net/publications/301
82
Wilson, Holly A. and Hoge, Robert D. (2013). “The Effect of Youth Diversion Programs on Recidivism:
A Meta-Analytic Review.” Criminal Justice and Behavior, v.40(5): p.497-518.
83
Ibid, p.514.
84
PCJ received data from Barry Goff by email on November 23, 2016. The overall JRB caseload for the
most recent fiscal year appears to be approximately 2,200 (when reported by age, the total was 2,234 but
when reported by gender, the total number was 2,115). Since a substantial number of the caseload had data
missing on race and ethnicity (over 10%), PCJ did not include this information in this Report. However, the
efforts being made to increase the accurate reporting and collection of JRB is critically important to being
able to provide an accurate estimate of the caseloads when emerging adults are included in to the juvenile
system.
85
Rosenberg, J., Montes, C., and Carino, F. (2010). “Recommended Best Practices Connecticut’s Youth
Service Bureau Service Delivery Model For Juvenile Review Boards. Connecticut Youth Services
Association. http://www.ctyouthservices.org/CustomerContent/WWW/CMS/files/CYSAJuvenileReviewBoardBestPracticesFinalApproved1-10.pdf
86
Regional Youth Adult Social Action Partnership. “Restorative Justice.” www.ryasap.org/restorativejustice/
87
Models for Change Juvenile Diversion Workgroup (2011). “Juvenile Diversion Guidebook.”
http://www.modelsforchange.net/publications/301
88
See e.g. Lists of the different programs offered in the Connecticut Superior Court Criminal Division can
be found at https://www.jud.ct.gov/Publications/cr137P.pdf
89
Under the new law, no child may be placed in detention unless a judge of the Superior Court determines,
based on the available facts, that (A) there is probable cause to believe that the child has committed the acts

Public Safety and Emerging Adults in Connecticut

72

 alleged, (B) there is no less restrictive alternative available, and (C) there is (i) probable cause to believe
that the child will pose a risk to public safety if released to the community prior to the court hearing or
disposition, (ii) a need to hold the child in order to ensure the child's appearance before the court, as
demonstrated by the child's previous failure to respond to the court process, or (iii) a need to hold the child
for another jurisdiction. See e.g. http://www.ct.gov/opm/cwp/view.asp?Q=383628
90
See e.g., Holman, B. and Ziedenberg, J. (2007). “The Dangers of Detention: The Impact of Incarcerating
Youth in Detention and Other Secure Facilities.” Justice Policy Institute.
http://www.justicepolicy.org/images/upload/06-11_rep_dangersofdetention_jj.pdf
91
Ibid.
92
Ibid.
93
Ibid.
94
Orlando, James (October 21, 2016). “Automatic Transfer of Juveniles from Juvenile to Criminal Court.”
Connecticut Office of Legislative Research. https://www.cga.ct.gov/2016/rpt/pdf/2016-R-0214.pdf
95
Muniz, Fernando J. (October 18, 2016). “Plan for Closure of the Connecticut Training School.”
Department of Children and Families, p.6.
http://www.ct.gov/dcf/lib/dcf/cjts/pdf/cjts_closure_plan_(final).pdf
96
Ibid.
97
Ibid, p.6-7.
98
Bonnie, R.J., Johnson, R.L., Chemers, B.M., and Schuck, J., (Eds.) (2013). Reforming Juvenile Justice: A
Developmental Approach. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press.
99
See e.g., Grisso, Thomas et al. (August 2003). “Juveniles Competence to Stand Trial: A Comparison of
Adolescents’ and Adults’ Capacity as Trial Defendants.” Law and Human Behavior v.27(4): p.333-63.
100
The National Juvenile Defender Center (NJDC) provides an up-to-date graphic documenting the
minimum age (or lack of limits) of juvenile jurisdiction in various states: http://njdc.info/practice-policyresources/state-profiles/multi-jurisdiction-data/minimum-age-for-delinquency-adjudication-multijurisdiction-survey/
101
See e.g., UN Committee on the Rights of the Child (2007). “Convention on the Rights of the Child
General Comment No. 10: Children’s Rights in Juvenile Justice.” Paragraph 32.
http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/crc/docs/CRC.C.GC.10.pdf
102
See e.g., Citizens for Juvenile Justice (2016). “Keeping Young Children on Track to Success Raising the
Lower Age of Juvenile Jurisdiction Sections 4, 6-10, and 13 of S.905 (Sen. Spilka) and H.1436 (Rep.
Khan).” http://www.cfjj.org/pdf/FACTSHEETRaisingLowerAge.pdf
103
Brooks, Pansing et al., Legislative Bill 894. 104th Legislature of Nebraska.
https://files.acrobat.com/a/preview/e29324c6-efbb-4318-920f-afa63e6eab7f
104
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (December 2014). “Meeting the Educational
Needs of System-Involved Youth,” p.2. https://www.ojjdp.gov/programs/commitment120814.pdf
105
For a description of DMC and the requirements within JJDPA, see
https://www.ojjdp.gov/Programs/ProgSummary.asp?pi=18
106
National Council on Crime and Delinquency (January 2007). “And Justice for Some: Differential
Treatment of Youth of Color in the Justice System.”
http://www.nccdglobal.org/sites/default/files/publication_pdf/justice-for-some.pdf
107
Ricketelli, D.M., Hartstone, E.C., and Murphy, K.L. (May 15, 2009). “A Second Reassessment of
Disproportionate Minority Contact.”
http://www.ct.gov/opm/lib/opm/cjppd/cjjjyd/jjydpublications/final_report_dmc_study_may_2009.pdf
108
Muniz, Fernando J. (October 18, 2016). “Plan for Closure of the Connecticut Training School.”
Department of Children and Families. http://www.ct.gov/dcf/lib/dcf/cjts/pdf/cjts_closure_plan_(final).pdf
109
Schiraldi, V., Western, B., and Bradner, K. (September 2015). “Community-Based Responses to JusticeInvolved Young Adults.” New Thinking in Community Corrections Bulletin. Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice. NCJ 248900, p.7.
110
Connecticut Juvenile Justice Alliance (2016). “Walk in Our Shoes: Youth Share their Ideas for
Changing Connecticut’s Juvenile Justice System,” p.12. http://www.ctjja.org/resources/pdf/YFCTpaper.pdf
111
It should be noted that in addition to reviewing federal statutes, regulations, guidance documents and
case law for this section of the research report, PCJ also spoke to several experts in the field to explore the
intersection of these three federal mandates with Connecticut’s proposed reforms. PCJ wishes to express

Public Safety and Emerging Adults in Connecticut

73

 our appreciation to the following people for their thoughtful comments: Julie Abbate, Deputy Chief at U.S.
Department of Justice; Dr. Mary Livers, Ret. Louisiana Deputy Secretary of the Office of Juvenile Justice;
Marc Schindler, Executive Director of Justice Policy Institute; and Jason Szanyi, Deputy Director of the
Center for Children’s Law and Policy. Although conversations with these experts helped guide our
research, the conclusions and recommendations expressed here are those of the report’s authors only.
112
The JJDPA was first enacted in 1974 and now includes four “core requirements.” In addition to sight
and sound separation, JJPDA requires: the deinstitutionalization of status offenders, the removal of
juveniles from adult jail and lockup and reducing disproportionate minority contact. See Coalition for
Juvenile Justice. “History of the JJDPA.” http://www.juvjustice.org/federal-policy/juvenile-justice-anddelinquency-prevention-act
113
42 U.S.C. § 5633 (a)(12)(A).
114
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (October 2010). “Guidance Manual for
Monitoring Facilities Under the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 2002.”
115
42 U.S.C. § 5603.
116
Although it is not relevant to this discussion of emerging adults in the Connecticut juvenile system, it is
worth noting that the status of the youth (as criminally charged rather than adjudicated in the juvenile
system) is not the only factor that implicates the separation requirement of the JJDPA (which may have an
impact on other aspects of the Connecticut justice system). The Administrator of the Office of Juvenile
Justice and Delinquency Prevention, in a clarifying memo released in 2008, states that juveniles charged as
adults who have not yet reached the state’s maximum age of extended juvenile jurisdiction can be housed
in juvenile facilities without sight and sound separation. However, once a criminally charged youth reaches
the maximum age of juvenile jurisdiction, his or her presence would violate the separation requirement,
even if they had not served the full length of their sentence.
117
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (October 2010). “Guidance Manual for
Monitoring Facilities Under the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 2002:” Appendix K:
Age of Full Criminal Responsibility and Maximum Age of Extended Juvenile Court Jurisdiction—50-State
Survey.
118
Beck, A.J., Cantor, D., Hartge, J., Smith, T. (2013). “Sexual Victimization in Juvenile Facilities
Reported by Youth, 2012: National Survey of Youth in Custody, 2012.” Bureau of Justice Statistics.
https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/svjfry12.pdf
119
Ibid, p.60.
120
Information provided by Fernando J. Muñiz, Deputy Commissioner of the Department of Children and
Families, in an email to PCJ on December 7, 2016.
121
42 U.S.C. § 15602.
122
42 U.S.C. § 15607 (a)(1).
123
28 C.F.R. pt. 115 (2012).
124
Bureau of Justice Statistics (June 2016). “PREA Data Collection Activities 2016.” Bureau of Justice
Statistics.
http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/pdca16.pdf?ed2f26df2d9c416fbddddd2330a778c6=mluuuvsivkmxnfxvfs
125
The PREA rules are often considered a new minimum standard of care, and a state’s failure to comply
raises some concern for potential liability.
126
28 C.F.R. § 115.14 (2012)
127
Ibid. In those states in which the age of adult criminal responsibility is under 18, raising the age to a
minimum of 18 makes sound financial sense, as PREA compliance is costly. See, e.g., Henneke, Elizabeth
A. (May 14, 2015). “Raise the Age Leads to PREA Compliance in Texas,” Campaign for Youth Justice
Blog. http://campaignforyouthjustice.org/news/blog/item/raise-the-age-leads-to-prea-compliance-in-texas
128
28 C.F.R. § 115.114 (2012)
129
Id. at § 115.5 (emphasis added).
130
National Standards to Prevent, Detect, and Respond to Prison Rape, 77 Fed. Reg. 37106, 37114 (June
20, 2012) (to be codified at 28 C.F.R. pt. 115).
131
28 C.F.R. § 115.114 (2012)
132
See id. at §§ 115.311 - 115.393. For a discussion of the application of PREA to Connecticut juvenile
facilities with regards to transgender inmates, as well as the intricacies of adult transfer in juvenile cases,
see In re Doe, No. F04JV32912660A, 2014 WL 2600505 (Conn. Super. Ct. May 6, 2014).

Public Safety and Emerging Adults in Connecticut

74

 133

National Standards to Prevent, Detect, and Respond to Prison Rape, 77 Fed. Reg. 37106, 37115 (June
20, 2012) (to be codified at 28 C.F.R. pt. 115).
134
Heaton, L. et al. (June 28, 2016). “Facility-level and Individual-level Correlates of Sexual Victimization
in Juvenile Facilities, 2012.” Bureau of Justice Statistics Working Paper Series WP-2016-01.
135
Ibid, p.2.
136
Ibid, p.57.
137
Ibid, p.60.
138
Ibid, p.60.
139
Ibid, p.101.
140
Federal Student Aid. “Federal Pell Grants.” https://studentaid.ed.gov/sa/types/grants-scholarships/pell
141
Ibid.
142
Ibid.
143
Ibid.
144
U.S. Department of Education. “Federal Pell Grant Program.”
http://www2.ed.gov/programs/fpg/index.html
145
See, e.g., thePell.com. “Connecticut Pell Grant.” http://www.thepell.com/state-pell-grants/connecticutpell-grant.shtml (listing schools that participate in the Connecticut Pell Grant Program).
146
20 U.S.C. § 1070a (6).
147
U.S. Department of Education (July 31, 2015). “U.S. Department of Education Launches Second
Chance Pell Pilot Program for Incarcerated Individuals.” http://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/usdepartment-education-launches-second-chance-pell-pilot-program-incarcerated-individuals
148
Mahaffie, Lynn B. (December 8, 2014). “Federal Pell Grant Eligibility for Students Confined or
Incarcerated in Locations That Are Not Federal or State Penal Institutions.” U.S. Department of Education.
https://ifap.ed.gov/dpcletters/attachments/GEN1421.pdf. See also Abdul-Alim, Jamaal (December 9, 2014).
“Pell Grant Eligibility Clarification Opens Doors of Opportunity for Juvenile Offenders.” Diverse
Education. http://diverseeducation.com/article/68327/ (explaining why the need for clarification had
existed).
149
Mahaffie, Lynn B. (December 8, 2014). “Federal Pell Grant Eligibility for Students Confined or
Incarcerated in Locations That Are Not Federal or State Penal Institutions.” U.S. Department of Education,
p.2. https://ifap.ed.gov/dpcletters/attachments/GEN1421.pdf
150
Ibid, p.2-3.
151
U.S. Department of Education (December 8, 2014). “Questions and Answers for Dear Colleague Letter
GEN-14-21.” https://ifap.ed.gov/dpcletters/attachments/GEN1421FAQAttachment.pdf
152
Ibid, p.3.
153
Ibid.
154
Scott, E.S., Bonnie, R.J., and Steinberg, L (2016). “Young Adulthood as a Transitional Legal Category:
Science, Social Change, and Justice Policy.” Fordham Law Review. v.85: p.648.
155
Butts, J.A., Bazemore, G., and Meroe, A.S. (2010). “Framing Justice Interventions Using the Concepts
of Positive Youth Development.” Positive Youth Justice.
https://positiveyouthjustice.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/pyj2010.pdf
156
Osgood, D.W., Foster, E.M., Flanagan, C., and G.R. (Eds.) (2005). On Your Own without a Net: The
transition to adulthood for vulnerable populations. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press: p.114-144.
157
See e.g., Dufresne, Alexandra, et al. (2015). “Students First: Ensuring Excellence and Opportunity for
Students in Connecticut’s Juvenile Justice System.” Center for Children’s Advocacy.
https://www.cga.ct.gov/app/tfs%5C20141215_Juvenile%20Justice%20Policy%20and%20Oversight%20Co
mmittee%5C20160128/Final%20Report%20by%20CCA%20on%20educational%20barriers%20.pdf
158
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (December 2014). “Meeting the Educational
Needs of System-Involved Youth.” https://www.ojjdp.gov/programs/commitment120814.pdf
159
Baldwin, Molly, and Yotam Zeira. From Evidence-Based Practices to a Comprehensive Intervention
Model for High-Risk Young Men: The Story of Roca. New Thinking in Community Corrections Bulletin.
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, (forthcoming).
160
https://www.utec-lowell.org/impact
161
http://www.nyc.gov/html/prob/html/neon/neon.shtml

Public Safety and Emerging Adults in Connecticut

75

 162

James, Doris J. and Glaze, Lauren E. (September 2006). “Mental Health Problems of Prison and Jail
Inmates.” Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice
Statistics. https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/mhppji.pdf
163
Ibid.
164
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (December 2014). “Meeting the Educational
Needs of System-Involved Youth,” p.3. https://www.ojjdp.gov/programs/commitment120814.pdf
165
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (March 2, 2016). “Age- and Gender-Based
Populations.” http://www.samhsa.gov/specific-populations/age-gender-based
166
Federal Bureau of Investigation Uniform Crime Reports.
167
Gogtay, Nitin, et al. (May 2011). “Age of Onset of Schizophrenia: Perspectives From Structural
Neuroimaging Studies.” Schizophrenia Bulletin v.37(3): p.504-11.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3080674/
168
Department of Mental Health & Addiction Services (November 7, 2016). “Young Adult Services
Division.” http://www.ct.gov/dmhas/cwp/view.asp?q=334784
169
Davis, Maryann, Sheidow, Ashli J., and McCart, Michael R., (2015). Reducing Recidivism and
Symptoms in Emerging Adults with Serious Mental Health Conditions and Justice System Involvement, The
Journal of Behavior Health Services and Research, v.2(2).
170
Fry, Richard (May 24, 2016). “For First Time in Modern Era, Living With Parents Edges Out Other
Living Arrangements for 18- to 34-Year-Olds.” Pew Research Center: Social & Demographic Trends.
http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2016/05/24/for-first-time-in-modern-era-living-with-parents-edges-outother-living-arrangements-for-18-to-34-year-olds/
171
See e.g., Vera Institute of Justice. “Family Engagement In the Juvenile Justice System: Juvenile Justice
Factsheet 5.” http://archive.vera.org/sites/default/files/resources/downloads/family-engagement-juvenilejustice.pdf
172
Glaze, Lauren E. and Maruschak, Laura M. (August 8, 2008) “Parents in Prison and Their Minor
Children.” Bureau of Justice Statistics. http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=823
173
Bonnie, R.J., Stroud, C., Breiner, H. (Eds.) (January 27, 2015). “Investing in the Health and Well-Being
of Young.” Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK284797/
174
Loughran, Edward J. (March 23, 2015). “Review of New Hampshire Juvenile Justice System.” Council
of Juvenile Correctional Administrators. http://governor.nh.gov/commissions-task-forces/adolescentyouth/documents/ay-05-15-2015-jj-system.pdf
175
Kinscherff, Robert (July 1, 2015). “Strategic Review of CJTS/Pueblo Girls Program Policies and
Practices,” p.12. http://www.ct.gov/dcf/lib/dcf/agency/pdf/reportcjtspueblo.pdf
176
Ibid.
177
For information about the federal oversight, see e.g.,
http://www.ct.gov/dcf/lib/dcf/press_releases/JuanF_GovernorsPress_Release.pdf and
http://www.childrensrights.org/class_action/connecticut/
178
Muniz, Fernando J. (October 18, 2016). “Plan for Closure of the Connecticut Training School.”
Department of Children and Families. http://www.ct.gov/dcf/lib/dcf/cjts/pdf/cjts_closure_plan_(final).pdf
179
Information provided to PCJ by OPM October 27, 2016. Although still a high cost, the cost of operating
CJTS has been reduced in the last couple of years with layoffs and other actions. In FY15, the budget for
CJTS was just under $53 million.
180
McCarthy, P., Schiraldi, V., and Shark, M. (October 2016). “The Future of Youth Justice: A
Community-Based Alternative to the Youth Prison Model.” National Institute of Justice.
https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/250142.pdf
181
State of Connecticut Office of the Child Advocate. (July 22, 2015). "Investigative Facility Report:
Connecticut Juvenile Training School and Pueblo Unit."
http://www.ct.gov/oca/lib/oca/oca_investigative_cjts_pueblo_report_july_22_2015.pdf
182
McCarthy, P., Schiraldi, V., and Shark, M. (October 2016). “The Future of Youth Justice: A
Community-Based Alternative to the Youth Prison Model.” National Institute of Justice.
https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/250142.pdf

Public Safety and Emerging Adults in Connecticut

76

 183

Information shared by Vincent Schiraldi, Senior Fellow at the Program of Criminal Justice and
Management, at a presentation to the Connecticut Juvenile Justice Policy and Oversight Committee on
November 17, 2016.
184
Maine Department of Health and Human Services. “Chapter 113: Regulations Governing the Licensing
and Functioning of Assisted Housing Programs.” https://www1.maine.gov/sos/cec/rules/10/ch113.htm
185
Massachusetts Early Education and Care. “Licensing Requirements for Residential and Placement Care
Providers.” Massachusetts Executive Office of Education. http://www.mass.gov/edu/birth-grade-12/earlyeducation-and-care/licensing/adoption-foster-care-and-residential-care-lic-/licensing-requirements-forresidential-and.html
186
See e.g., The Pew Charitable Trust (April 20, 2015). “Issue Brief – Re-examining Juvenile
Incarceration: High cost, poor outcomes spark shift to alternatives, April 20, 2015,
http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/issue-briefs/2015/04/reexamining-juvenileincarceration and; Models for Change. “Research on Pathways to Desistance: December 2012 Update.”
http://www.modelsforchange.net/publications/357
187
Wiig, J.K., Tuell, J.A., and Heldman, J.K (2013). “Guidebook for Juvenile Justice & Child Welfare
System Coordination and Integration: A Framework for Improved Outcomes, 3rd Edition.” Models for
Change. http://rfknrcjj.org/images/PDFs/Guidebook-for-JJ-and-CW-System-Coordination-and-IntegrationCover.pdf
188
See e.g., Phaneuf, Keith M. (November 30, 2016). “Walker: ‘Devastating’ cuts cannot solve CT’s
budget woes.” The CT Mirror. http://ctmirror.org/2016/11/30/walker-devastating-cuts-cannot-solve-ctsbudget-woes/
189
Information provided by email to PCJ from the Office of the State Comptroller on December 14, 2016.
190
Ibid.
191
Connecticut Public Act No. 16-147. “An Act Concerning The Recommendations Of The Juvenile
Justice Policy And Oversight Committee.” https://www.cga.ct.gov/2016/act/pa/pdf/2016PA-00147R00HB-05642-PA.pdf
Under this new law, no child may be placed in detention unless a judge of the Superior Court determines,
based on the available facts, that (A) there is probable cause to believe that the child has committed the acts
alleged, (B) there is no less restrictive alternative available, and (C) there is (i) probable cause to believe
that the child will pose a risk to public safety if released to the community prior to the court hearing or
disposition, (ii) a need to hold the child in order to ensure the child's appearance before the court, as
demonstrated by the child's previous failure to respond to the court process, or (iii) a need to hold the child
for another jurisdiction.
192
Governor’s Commission on Youth, Public Safety and Justice. “Final Report of the Governor’s
Commission on Youth, Public Safety and Justice: Recommendations for Juvenile Justice Reform in New
York State,” p.30-1.
https://www.governor.ny.gov/sites/governor.ny.gov/files/atoms/files/ReportofCommissiononYouthPublicS
afetyandJustice_0.pdf
193
Governor Dannel P. Malloy (November 6, 2015). “Gov. Malloy’s Prepared Remarks Today on Criminal
Justice Reform.” Connecticut Law Review Symposium. http://portal.ct.gov/Office-of-the-Governor/PressRoom/Press-Releases/2015/11-2015/Gov-Malloys-Prepared-Remarks-Today-on-Criminal-Justice-Reform?
194
Governor’s Commission on Youth, Public Safety and Justice (2014). “Final Report of the Governor’s
Commission on Youth, Public Safety and Justice: Recommendations for Juvenile Justice Reform in New
York State,” p.146
195
Mendel, Richard (2013). “Juvenile Justice Reform in Connecticut: How Collaboration and Commitment
Have Improved Public Safety and Outcomes for Youth.” Justice Policy Institute, p.28.
http://www.justicepolicy.org/uploads/justicepolicy/documents/jpi_juvenile_justice_reform_in_ct.pdf
196
Klietz, S.J., Borduin, C.M., and Schaeffer, C.M. (October 2010). “Cost-benefit analysis of
multisystemic therapy with serious and violent juvenile offenders.” Journal of Family Psychology, v.24(5):
p.657-66.
197
Aos, Steve (October 2002). “The Juvenile Justice System in Washington State: Recommendations to
Improve Cost-Effectiveness.” Olympia, WA: Washington State Institute for Public Policy.
http://www.wsipp.wa.gov/Reports/74

Public Safety and Emerging Adults in Connecticut

77

 198

The Pew Charitable Trusts. (April 20, 2015). “Re-Examining Juvenile Incarceration: High cost, poor
outcomes spark shift to alternatives.” Public Safety Performance Project.
http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/issue-briefs/2015/04/reexamining-juvenileincarceration
199
Connecticut Judicial Branch (2004). “Juvenile Jurisdiction Implementation Team Report.” and; Mendel,
Richard. 2013. “Juvenile Justice Reform in Connecticut: How Collaboration and Commitment Have
Improved Public Safety and Outcomes for Youth.” Justice Policy Institute.
200
Mendel, Richard (2013). “Juvenile Justice Reform in Connecticut: How Collaboration and Commitment
Have Improved Public Safety and Outcomes for Youth.” Justice Policy Institute, p.1.
http://www.justicepolicy.org/uploads/justicepolicy/documents/jpi_juvenile_justice_reform_in_ct.pdf
201
Subramanian, R., Moreno, R., and Broomhead, S. (July 2014). “Recalibrating Justice: A Review of 2013
State Sentencing and Corrections Trends.” Vera Institute of Justice.
http://archive.vera.org/sites/default/files/resources/downloads/state-sentencing-and-corrections-trends2013-v2.pdf
202
Robinson, Laurie O. (2012). Foreword, From Delinquency to Adult Crime: Criminal Careers, Justice
Policy, and Prevention. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Public Safety and Emerging Adults in Connecticut

78