Endnotes and Resources: A Decade of NCSC Research on Blended Sentencing of Juvenile Offenders


1  Between 1992 and 1995, 41 states changed their laws to make waiver to adult court easier, 16 states modified or added statutes requiring mandatory minimum periods of incarceration for certain violent or serious offenders, and 12 states extended the maximum age of the juvenile court’s continuing jurisdiction over juvenile offenders—most often to age 21 (Sickmund, Snyder, and Poe-Yamagata, 1997).

2  That is, the randomly selected sample of conventional juvenile offenders was proportionately distributed among the five counties according to the proportion that each county represented of the total 2002-04 adjudications.

3  Objective risk-assessment instruments were created to minimize subjectivity and unreliability associated with clinical decision making. Objective tools evaluate all offenders using the same set of criteria and information that can be factually verified. The results are then tabulated in some fashion, and predetermined uniform decision functions, such as cutting scores or decision trees, decide the outcome.


Cheesman, F., H. Green, T. Cohen, D. Dancy, M. Kleiman, and N. Mott (2002). “Blended Sentencing in Minnesota: On Target for Justice and Public Safety? An Evaluation.” Report, National Center for State Courts, Williamsburg, Va.

Cheesman, F., N. Waters, and H. Hurst IV (2010). “Who Gets a Second Chance? An Investigation of Ohio’s Blended Juvenile Sentence,” 33 Journal of Health and Human Services Administration 406.

Cheesman, F., N. Waters, H. Hurst, G. Halemba, S. Maggard, and T. Sohoni (2010). “Who Gets a Second Chance? An Evaluation of Blended Sentencing in Ohio and Vermont.” Report, National Center for State Courts, Williamsburg, Va.

Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (1996). “Combating Violence and Delinquency: The National Juvenile Justice Action Plan.” Report, Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Washington, D.C.

Feld, B (1995). “Violent Youth and Public Policy: A Case Study of Juvenile Justice Law Reform,” 79 Minnesota Law Review 965.

Latessa, E., B. Lovins, and K. Ostrowski (2009). “The Ohio Youth Assessment System.” Report, Center for Criminal Justice Research, University of Cincinnati.

National Center for Juvenile Justice (2009). “Which States Have Blended Sentencing Laws?” National Overviews, National Center for Juvenile Justice, Pittsburgh, Pa.

National Criminal Justice Association (1997). Juvenile Justice Reform Initiatives in the States: 1994-1996. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

Podkopacz, M., and B. Feld(2001). “The Back-Door to Prison: Waiver Reform, ‘Blended Sentencing,’ and the Law of Unintended Consequences,” 91 Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 997.

Poe-Yamagata, E., and M. A. Jones (2000). And Justice for Some. Washington, DC: National Council on Crime and Delinquency.

Redding, R., and J. Howell (2000). “Blended Sentencing in American Juvenile Courts.” In J. Fagan and F. Zimring (eds.), The Changing Borders of Juvenile Justice. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Sickmund, M., H. Snyder, and E. Poe-Yamagata (1997). Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 1997 Update on Violence. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

Silver, E., and L. Chow-Martin (2002). “A Multiple Models Approach to Assessing Recidivism Risk: Implications for Judicial Decision Making,” 29 Criminal Justice and Behavior 538.

Torbet, P., R. Gable, H. Hearst, I. Montgomery, L. Szymanski, and D. Thomas (1996). State Responses to Serious and Violent Juvenile Crime. Washington, DC: National Center for Juvenile Justice.

Torbet, P., P. Griffin, H. Hurst, and L. MacKenzie (2000). Juveniles Facing Criminal Sanctions: Three States That Changed the Rules. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

Vincent, G., A. Terry, and S. Maney (2010). “Risk/Needs Tools for Antisocial Behavior and Violence Among Youthful Populations.” In J. Andrade (ed.), Handbook of Violence Risk Assessment and Treatment: New Approaches for Mental Health Professionals. New York: Springer Publishing Company.

Warren, R. (2007). Evidence-Based Practice to Reduce Recidivism: Implications for State Judiciaries. Washington, DC: Crime and Justice Institute and National Institute of Corrections, Community Corrections Division.