Juvenile transfer and recidivism: a propensity score matching approach

Revisiting Juvenile Waiver: Integrating the Incapacitation Experience*

“…As mentioned, selection bias is a significant concern when estimating the waiver effect given that the same attributes that often determine waiver are also related to offending. In recent years, it was argued in two studies that propensity score methodology was better able to reduce selection bias than were prior approaches (Jordan, ; Loughran et al., ). Interestingly, a deterrent and a null effect of waiver, respectively, were identified in these studies.…”

“…Much more empirical attention has been directed at the specific deterrent effect of waiver (Zane, Welsh, and Mears, ; see also McGowan et al., ; Redding, ). The results of several studies demonstrate that waiver has a criminogenic effect (e.g., Lanza‐Kaduce et al., ; Myers, ; Redding, ), with fewer identifying a deterrent effect (e.g., Jordan, ). Importantly, however, scholars note that one should not blindly accept the findings from all waiver evaluations given that many studies were not designed to account for the fact that many of the same factors that influence the likelihood of being waived to criminal court also affect the likelihood of recidivism (e.g., number of prior offenses, age, and nature of current offense; see Loughran et al., ; Zane, Welsh, and Mears, ).…”

“…A more rigorous consideration of the waiver‐incapacitation experience requires addressing the issue of selection across multiple comparison groups (i.e., differences across and within waiver status). Accounting for this pretreatment heterogeneity is undoubtedly challenging, but the findings reported in Loughran et al.’s () work offer some guidance (see also Jordan, ) as Loughran et al. argued that propensity score approaches offer a particularly rigorous way to address selection bias in waiver studies.…”

“…In addition to punishing serious juvenile offenders more harshly, policy makers also hoped waiver would produce deterrent effects (Bernard and Kurlychek, ; Kurlychek, ). Nevertheless, evaluators have failed to identify a general deterrent effect of waiver (e.g., Risler, Sweatman, and Nackerud, ), and research on the specific deterrent effect of juvenile waiver is mixed, with some results indicating a criminogenic effect (e.g., Bishop et al., ; Fagan, ; Fagan, Kupchik, and Liberman, ), some suggesting a null effect (e.g., Loughran et al., ), and others indicating a specific deterrent effect (e.g., Jordan, ). In an attempt to summarize these studies, researchers conducting a recent meta‐analysis found that juvenile transfer had a small but statistically nonsignificant increase on recidivism (Zane, Welsh, and Mears, ).…”

Juvenile Justice Policy and Practice: A Developmental Perspective

“…tion of the relationship between transfer and subsequent offending must consider the confounding of these potential covariates. Jordan (2014), using data from a sample of Pennsylvania violent youths, provides a good example. 21 Zimring and Rushin (2013) examined whether state law changes in juvenile justice systems in the 1990s contributed to declines in juvenile homicide rates through 2009.…”