Table 3.

Implications of Research Findings for the SB 439 Policymaking Process

Research Component and Findings	Dissemination	Implications for Policy
Component 1: Literature Review on Young Children in Conflict with Law Purpose: Conceptual examination by academic partners examining a minimum age of juvenile court jurisdiction from an ethical, rights-based, and child development standpoint. Conclusion: Based on the existing literature, establishing legal minimum age thresholds for juvenile court jurisdiction aligned with international human rights and legal and medical standards, thus warranting further exploration.	Policy brief Academic article6 Presented to academics Presented to policymakers and stakeholders	Led to policymaker and stakeholder interest in partnering with academics to further explore treatment of young children in conflict with the law in California
Component 2: Analysis of California Department of Justice Statewide Data Purpose: Measurement of issue scope by academic and stakeholder partners using California Department of Justice (DOJ) to quantify the number of young children with juvenile legal system involvement across the state. Findings: 1) In 2015, 590 children under age 12 were prosecuted in California’s juvenile legal system. 2) The youngest child prosecuted in 2015 was a five-year-old African-American boy charged with curfew violation. 3) Most charges were for misdemeanor offenses and only 30 court petitions resulted in a child being taken into custody after trial. 4) Children under age 12 were rarely referred for extreme violence. For example, from 2010–2015, no petitions for homicide or rape were sustained by the court. 5) Young children from racial/ethnic minority groups and children from rural areas were even more over-represented in California’s juvenile legal system than the disparities present at older youth ages. Conclusion: The issue of the prosecution and incarceration of young children in California was significant, but not too large in scope that it would overwhelm state and community systems to address it.	Policy brief Academic article11 Alongside stakeholder partner, discussed findings with policymaker partner	Findings of scope of issue used by policymaker and other lawmakers during hearings and votes to debate proposed minimum age bill
Component 3: Analysis of Child Incarceration Using Add Health Dataset Purpose: Analysis of the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent to Adult Health dataset by academic partners to examine whether longitudinal patterns existed at the national level regarding young children with histories of incarceration. Findings: 1) Individuals first incarcerated as young children were disproportionately male, Black or Hispanic, and from lower socio-economic strata, compared to individuals first incarcerated at older youth ages or never incarcerated. 2) Incarceration as young children predicted worse adult health outcomes, including worse general health and higher rates of functional limitations, depression, and suicidal thoughts, compared to first incarceration at older adolescent ages. Conclusion: The trends of racial/ethnic disparities that the team documented in California existed nationally and that child incarceration was a marker for lifelong health risk	Academic articles3,12 Discussed findings with stakeholder and policymaker partners	Findings referenced by stakeholder partners and other advocates working towards minimum age laws
Component 4: California Case Study of Laws and Practices Related to Young Children Who Come to the Attention of Law Enforcement Purpose: In-depth legal analysis by academic and legal partners of statutes and case law relevant to young children who come to the attention of law enforcement, combined with interviews with youth justice stakeholders in focal counties. Findings: 1) Legal protections related to capacity (i.e., the ability to knowingly commit a wrongful act, and competency (i.e., the ability to comprehend legal trial processes), were inconsistently applied, which led to unjust and unequal burden on young children involved in the juvenile legal system. 2) Interviewees voiced concern that establishing a minimum age law that was too low could be more harmful than helpful for children. Conclusion: Implementation of existing legal protections in California was inconsistent and a minimum age law would address policy gaps and potentially remediate disparities based on race and geography.	Policy brief Academic article11 Alongside stakeholder partner, discussed findings with policymaker partner	Provided specific guidance on legal rationale for minimum age laws and age thresholds in California.
Component 5: Six State Comparison of Laws and Practices Related to Young Children Who Come to the Attention of Law Enforcement Purpose: Academics and stakeholder partners repeated the analyses of California by comparing the six largest U.S. states, including California, three of which had minimum age laws and three of which did not, in terms of their laws and practices regarding young children who come to the attention of law enforcement. Methods included legal review and informant interviews. Findings: 1) Interviewees, all from large urban counties, viewed juvenile legal system involvement as developmentally inappropriate for young children, but were not as unified as to what “age” childhood ends and adolescence begins and at what age formal sanctions should be applied. 2) Interviewees identified need for legislative approaches to protect young children from harmful juvenile legal system involvement. 3) Interviewees recommended bolstering existing, alternative services to help children, such as through education, mental health, or child welfare systems, as well as through family and community supports and diversion programs Conclusion: Variation across state laws existed. Prosecution of young children was developmentally inappropriate and alternate pathways should be bolstered.	Academic article13 Alongside stakeholder partner, discussed findings with policymaker partner	Provided guidance on legal rationale for minimum age laws and considerations for age thresholds in California.