Referrals to Juvenile Court for delinquency in Connecticut have been decreasing over the last decade, even as the age of juvenile court jurisdiction has increased. The age of jurisdiction began including 16 year olds on January 1, 2010 and 17 year olds on July 1, 2012. According to the Judicial Branch, it was anticipated that processing of referrals for of 16 and 17 years olds would double the number of cases handled by the juvenile court annually; however, the result has been far from reality. Connecticut Voices for Children attributes the jurisdictional changes to the Raise the Age law passed in 2007, which created a five-year schedule for implementation of these policy changes. These changes have made a significant impact in the trend, creating brief spikes in the number of referrals as the jurisdiction expanded.

Children and youth referred for delinquency made up roughly 71% of all juvenile court referrals in 2015; totaling 9,938 referrals for 6,633 unique juveniles. The remaining 29% of referrals were for Family with Service Needs (FWSN) complaints; offenses that would not be a crime if committed by an adult (e.g., truancy, running away, beyond control of parent). The vast majority of the delinquency referrals in 2013 were for misdemeanors; just under 67%.

Delinquency referrals in 2015 were overwhelmingly for males at 71% to 29%. As their ages progressed, youth were more likely to be referred. White, Non-Hispanic students just barely made up the majority, with 36%, followed by black (35%), Hispanic (27%), and then Other/Missing Data (2%). As a total trend from 2007-2015, Connecticut Voices for Children claims that the significant decline can be partially attributed to an increase in youth being diverted from juvenile justice towards other interventions.

Once a child or youth has been referred to Juvenile Court for Delinquency the most immediate impact is a higher likelihood of being re-referred (i.e., recidivism). The CT Mirror’s report on data collected from the Department of Public Safety shows that sixty percent of youth offenders age 17 and younger will, within two years, offend again or violate probation. Depending on the juvenile’s court referral, continued system involvement poses the risk of further adversely affecting the child or youth, as was documented in the Emily J. v. Weicker class-action lawsuit about the conditions of confinement in the state detention centers. In addition to these negative impacts, young offenders may have a court record that is not automatically erased (if ever), are often delayed in their schooling, and have limited access to an educational surrogate when identified with a special education need. However, the State of Connecticut has made substantial strides to improve upon the systemic problems that faced the juvenile justice system in the 1990s, particularly with a substantial reinvestment from congregate care to in-home family treatment models.

Beyond Raise the Age, other reforms have been undertaken to ease the reliance on confinement, improve treatment based on race and ethnicity, and expanded the availability of evidence-based treatment programs focused on communities and families. Connecticut Voices for Children notes that the expansion of Juvenile Review Boards and similar programs has played a positive role in diverting youth from court and addressing normative delinquent behavior through preventative, restorative, and therapeutic strategies. Governor Malloy and the Connecticut General Assembly are actively seeking to reform the entire justice system, including juvenile justice, through what has been titled the “Second Chance Society” law signed in July 2015.

• Judicial Branch Court Support Services Division
• Department of Children and Families
• African American Affairs Commission
• Latino and Puerto Rican Affairs Commission

• Increase school referrals to a behavioral health mobile crisis intervention. (CHDI)
• Expand a school and community-based restorative justice practices to help to hold students accountable for their behavior, address wrongdoing to victims, and restore relationships, outside of formal juvenile court involvement. (CHDI)
• Reduce the number of in-school juvenile arrests among Hispanics. (LPRAC)
• Divert Families With Service Needs cases away from the Court and into community-based services. (CSSD)
• Create/Expand early intervention strategies for juveniles 12 years of age and younger, identified with greater risk for further delinquency or Out-of-Home Placements to prevent recidivism and the child’s further penetration into the Juvenile Justice system. (CSSD)
• Address trauma experienced by children and youth referred to the court for delinquent and FWSN behaviors by referral to community based treatment centers. (CSSD)
• Enhance assessments used to determine the risk and needs of children and youth referred to the court, including trauma and substance abuse screening. (CSSD)
• Enhance quality assurance procedures to ensure the quality of client contacts and case planning for children and their families. (CSSD)
• Reduce court referrals for school-bsed arrest and reduce the use of the suspension and expulsion by schools. (CSSD)
• Support student engagement and success by tracking and reporting truancy referrals by school district and by school in order to reduce chronic absenteeism and provide early identification and intervention to students and families challenged by school attendance. (CSSD)
• Better identify need and provide more access to trauma-informed treatment for juvenile justice involved children and families. (CSSD)
• Continue community building through Local Interagency Service Teams (LISTs) and Disproportionate Minority Contact (DMC) reduction committees. (CSSD)
• Increase school/police training and continue policy/practice changes to reduce DMCs and disparate treatment in the juvenile justice system. (CSSD)

Strategies provided by the Judicial Branch Court Support Services Division (CSSD), the Child Health and Development Institute of Connecticut, and the Latino and Puerto Rico Affairs Commission (LPRAC)

Data Source: Connecticut Judicial Branch, Court Operations

This information reflects on delinquency cases: not FWSN or YIC.

Referrals are broken out by referral type, town of residence, ethnicity, age and gender.

Note: referrals are not unique juveniles so if a juvenile was arrested multiple times in a year, each triggers a new referral.

Age = age at time of offense