States vary in how each sets the basic playing field for juvenile justice with lower and upper age boundaries. State legislatures further create a range of complex exceptions for transfer to criminal court based on case-by-case, age and offense specifics.
State juvenile justice profiles highlight the topical content of the JJGPS across its six main menu content areas and dozens of underlying juvenile justice reform topics. Each profile begins with the most recent state trend data on juvenile arrests and custody issues from national data collections followed by a checklist of highlights for comparing and contrasting juvenile justice policy.
Connecticut is not a P.L. 280 state, though Land Claims Settlement Acts may permit state criminal and civil jurisdiction with the Mashantucket Pequot and Mohegan Nation. CT recognizes tribes that are not federally recognized. See Pub. L. 98–134, §6, Oct. 18, 1983, 97 Stat. 855.
N/A: Insufficient data to compute arrest rates
* Rates used to compute ratio based on fewer than 10 observations
Author: Connecticut Office of Policy Management
Does not track RRIs 2010–2010
Points of contact
Stages during the juvenile justice process tracked for relative rate indicators (RRIs).
All minorities (as a group)
Black / African American
American Indian / Alaska Native
Native Hawaiian / Pacific Islander
Other / Mixed
The Connecticut Office of Policy Management publishes data on Disproportionate Minority Contact (DMC) from a biennial report. Connecticut reports percentages and frequencies on for 3 out of 9 recommended decision points for 2 populations. Data is reported statewide. It is unclear if race and ethnicity are reported as separate variables.
Author: Connecticut Office of Policy and Management Criminal Justice Policy and Planning Division
DMC assessment Geography: State
The Connecticut Office of Policy and Management, Criminal Justice Policy and Planning Division completed an assessment in 2009 for the whole state. Data was assessed from 2006 for African American, and Hispanic youth. Decision points assessed were referral, detention, confinement, and transfer to adult court. Research methods included multivariate analysis and descriptive statistics.
Juvenile Justice GPS (Geography, Policy, Practice, Statistics) is a project to develop a repository providing state policy makers and system stakeholders with a clear understanding of the juvenile justice landscape in the states.