State's attorneys flag accountability gaps for 18–20‑year‑olds in juvenile system

Kim McManus, an attorney with the Department of State's Attorneys and Sheriffs, told the Judiciary committee on Jan. 16 that prosecutors and partner agencies see a recurring accountability gap for 18‑ to 20‑year‑olds handled as juvenile delinquents.

McManus said the gap stems from several procedural and supervision differences between juveniles under 18 and older youth: the Department of Children and Families (DCF) supervises juvenile delinquents but lacks custodial authority for those 18 and older; the Department of Corrections (DOC) is not involved with juvenile delinquents; judges vary in whether they set conditions of release; and tailored programs for 18‑ to 20‑year‑olds are often missing. "DOC is not involved with our 18, 19, 20 year old juvenile, delinquents," McManus said.

Why it matters: several committee members were considering how proposals to raise the age might move more 18‑ and 19‑year‑old cases into family court. McManus warned that without programing and supervision tools suited to that age group, some youth who need services may instead "age out" of the system without completing disposition plans or accountability measures.

Key points McManus presented: - Initial court timing and emergency holds: most citations lead to an initial court date weeks after an incident — "from anywhere from 4 to 6 to 8 weeks," she said — although an emergency "flash" option can bring a juvenile before a judge within 24 hours in urgent cases. - Screening tools and discretion: McManus described the YASI risk‑assessment tool as useful but imperfect and stressed prosecutors retain discretion. She said prosecutors can decline diversion even when a risk tool recommends it, citing past limits (for example, on domestic‑violence cases) that sometimes prevented diversion. - Differences by age: for those under 18, courts routinely involve a parent or appoint a guardian ad litem; that extra adult role generally does not apply once a juvenile turns 18, except in limited circumstances. - Supervision limits for older juveniles: DCF has more enforcement options for those under 18. Once a delinquent turns 18, caseworkers lack custodial leverage and some tools that can compel engagement, McManus said. - Programming gaps: McManus and committee members discussed a shortage of services tailored to young adults — for example, counseling groups that are age‑appropriate for 18‑ and 19‑year‑olds rather than adult probation groups with much older participants. - Aging out and revocation hearings: McManus warned that youthful‑offender and juvenile cases have statutory due‑process protections that require notice and a hearing before a judge can revoke status and transfer a case to criminal court. She described situations where a young person missed required hearings and subsequently passed the division's jurisdictional cutoff (22 years old), after which the family‑division remedy could no longer be completed.

Committee members pressed for data. McManus acknowledged limits in retrospective juvenile data — "once the case is disposed of, it goes away" — and said the state's attorneys will reach out to counties and the judiciary to provide "a few snapshots" for the committee at the next meeting.

The hearing produced no formal votes or legislative decisions; McManus said she would return to the committee next week to answer follow‑up questions and provide data snapshots.

Ending: Committee members signaled interest in follow up on programming, caseloads, and timelines for transfer or revocation hearings; McManus said the state's attorneys will seek county snapshots and additional data for the next session.