A teenager charged with the same crime can face dramatically different consequences depending on where they live.

In one state, a young person accused of a serious offense may be sent to a juvenile facility focused on treatment and rehabilitation. In another, they could face adult criminal proceedings, a permanent record and the possibility of an adult prison sentence.

This year, more than half a dozen states, including Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri and Utah, have passed new laws reshaping their juvenile legal systems. While some have adopted measures designed to divert more young people from incarceration, others have sought to impose stiffer penalties and expand prosecutors’ authority to pursue adult charges. 

The opposite tacks underscore an increasingly fractured approach to juvenile justice nationwide.

The new laws also come as states grapple with how to respond to serious crimes committed by children while weighing decades of research suggesting adolescents are more capable of rehabilitation than adults. 

Videos of youth-involved assaults, carjackings and large gatherings sometimes called “teen takeovers” frequently spread online, fueling renewed debate over whether tougher punishments or expanded diversion programs are the better path to improving public safety.

In Hawaii, for example, a new law signed in June by Democratic Gov. Josh Green requires judges to consider a child’s history of trauma before deciding whether to transfer a juvenile case to adult court. The law, which took effect immediately upon Green’s signature, also prohibits minors who are victims of sex trafficking or sexual assault from being prosecuted as adults for crimes committed as a result of their exploitation.

Research suggests that incarcerating children and teens in adult prisons, where they may face lengthy sentences and restrictive conditions, can increase the risk of reoffending.

“It wasn’t a question of whether kids had been traumatized, but actually how many traumas they’d experienced,” said Sara Thomas, a research assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Northwestern University, referring to research that found young people held at the Cook County Juvenile Temporary Detention Center in Chicago had experienced a median of six traumatic events.

Colorado Democratic Gov. Jared Polis signed into law in March a measure that, when it takes effect in August, will overhaul parts of the state’s youthful offender system by requiring trauma-informed care, individualized treatment plans, therapy and reentry-focused programming.

A new law in Minnesota, which also takes effect in August, will raise the minimum age at which a child can enter the juvenile justice system for an offense from 10 to 13. The change stems from legislation passed in 2024. 

Once it takes effect, Minnesota will become one of only three states with a minimum age of delinquency set at 13, joining Maryland and New Hampshire, according to the National Youth Justice Network, an advocacy and research organization.  

Other states are moving in the opposite direction, giving prosecutors and courts more authority to pursue adult penalties in serious cases and arguing that violent offenses require stronger consequences, regardless of a defendant’s age.

In Missouri, a new law will give prosecutors more authority to seek adult charges against young people. Previously, only a juvenile officer or court could request a hearing to transfer a case to adult court. The law also narrows the offenses eligible for adult prosecution to Class A and Class B felonies, such as homicide, first-degree burglary and certain sex offenses, while requiring juvenile records and fingerprints to be added to the state’s criminal history database.

“Missouri must address the revolving door for repeat violent offenders –– and that includes juveniles,” Republican Gov. Mike Kehoe said in a news release.

Mississippi also expanded the circumstances under which young people can face adult charges. A new law effective this month requires 13-year-olds to automatically be tried in adult court for most violent crimes committed while possessing a firearm, even if the firearm was not used. The law prohibits children younger than 13 from being held responsible in adult court for misdemeanors or felonies, though parents or guardians may face civil liability.

A changing landscape

Beginning in the 1990s, amid concerns over violent youth crime, many states expanded laws that allowed more juveniles to be prosecuted as adults. 

But as juvenile crime declined over the following decades and research on adolescent brain development grew, many states began reconsidering those policies. Research suggests that the parts of the brain involved in impulse control, decision making and evaluating long-term consequences continue developing into early adulthood. 

Maryland Gov. Wes Moore signed the Youth Charging Reform Act into law in May 2026, altering how the state handles juvenile jurisdiction, detention, and confinement. The law, which goes into effect in October, limits when children younger than 13 can be charged with crimes and establishes new reporting metrics to track youth outcomes.

The new law preserves automatic adult court jurisdiction for teens 16 and older accused of offenses punishable by life imprisonment, including homicide and rape. Judges will retain the authority to transfer 14- and 15-year-olds accused of those same life-punishable offenses to adult court under the state’s existing transfer procedures.

The law also tightens detention rules, requiring intake officers to authorize the detention of any child 16 or older accused of a handgun violation or violent crime. By October 2029, children will be barred from being held in adult correctional facilities.

Supporters said the changes recognize that young children who engage in delinquent behavior often have unmet mental health, educational or family needs that are better addressed through services than incarceration.

“This progress brings us closer to ensuring that hundreds of young people in Maryland are met with support and services in the juvenile system, rather than being routed into a process that leads to worse outcomes for both youth and public safety,” state Democratic Sen. Will Smith Jr., the bill’s primary sponsor, said in a news release.

The Maryland State’s Attorneys’ Association views the new law as a step backward, arguing that the state Department of Juvenile Services is not equipped to handle young people accused of violent and repeat offenses.

Baltimore City State’s Attorney Ivan Bates, the association’s president, also criticized the state’s juvenile legal system in a post on X (formerly Twitter), calling it “broken,” just weeks after a multi-jurisdictional crime ring investigation that led to charges against five teens.

“We cannot continue sending children back into a broken system and expect them to be rehabilitated while also expecting our communities to remain safe,” Bates wrote.

Supporters of changes like Maryland’s new law argue that adult convictions can create long-term barriers to employment, housing and education, making it harder for young people to successfully transition into adulthood. Juvenile records are generally confidential.

“Transfer of youth to adult court is bad public policy,” said Mary Ann Scali, the executive director of The Gault Center, a national organization that trains and supports defense attorneys who represent young people in court. “It causes more harm and does not lead to better outcomes for young people or communities.”

Sarah Johnson, senior youth defense counsel with The Gault Center, said research does not support the argument that moving children into adult court improves public safety.

“Transfer does not increase public safety. Transfer increases recidivism. Transfer traumatizes young people because they’re now placed in an adult facility,” Johnson said, noting that children may face heightened risks of physical and sexual abuse from other incarcerated people and staff.

A 2007 review by the Community Preventive Services Task Force, a panel established by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to assess the effectiveness of community-based prevention programs and policies, found that transferring young people to adult court did not reduce reoffending and was associated with higher rates of recidivism.

From the peak in youth arrests in 1996 to 2024, the latest year with available data, youth arrests have declined by about 83%, according to federal data. While the number of estimated youth arrests increased between 2021 and 2023 during the COVID-19 pandemic, they fell again in 2024, which is lower than pre-pandemic levels.

In 2024, children and teens accounted for 6.8% of all arrests, according to the latest crime statistics maintained by the FBI. They made up about 10% of arrests for violent crimes and 9.5% of arrests for property crimes.

Despite the long-term decline in youth arrests, states continue to debate how to handle the small percentage of young people involved in serious offenses — and what approaches are most effective at preventing future crime. 

In Utah, lawmakers approved a measure allowing judges to send someone convicted of aggravated murder to adult prison if the person was 17 at the time of the offense and turns 18 before sentencing. The law also expands the state’s collection of recidivism data, including information on arrests and jail time.

Kansas, meanwhile, moved in the opposite direction this year, rolling back parts of a 2016 legislative package designed to reduce youth confinement. A new law, which was adopted in April, creates additional residential placements, expands detention requirements for some youth accused of firearm offenses and repeat offenses, and increases possible sentences for youth who use firearms during crimes. 

Accountability and public safety

While some experts emphasize rehabilitation and keeping young people out of the adult system, others argue that accountability and public safety must remain central goals — particularly when young people commit serious violent offenses. They argue that rehabilitation should not come at the expense of accountability and that the justice system must address the harm caused to victims and communities.

In 2024, Louisiana and North Carolina both passed laws expanding the circumstances under which older teens can face adult criminal proceedings.

In Louisiana, a law pushed by Republican Gov. Jeff Landry rolled back the 2017 “Raise the Age” law that had moved most 17-year-olds into the juvenile justice system while allowing prosecutors to seek adult charges in individual cases. The new law requires all 17-year-olds accused of crimes to be processed through the adult criminal justice system, removing that case-by-case discretion.

As the state has embraced a more punitive approach, it has also seen the cost of its juvenile legal system rise — as well as the number of young people behind bars.

Louisiana also is expanding its youth prison capacity, with plans to open a new 56-bed juvenile facility in Vernon Parish and add 36 beds at the Jetson Center for Youth in East Baton Rouge Parish. 

Some youth advocates say the expansion risks exposing more young people to the harms associated with incarceration.

“When you build a jail, you find a way to fill them,” said Alaina Bloodworth, the executive director of the Black Public Defender Association. Bloodworth previously served as a public defender in Baton Rouge for seven years. “We’re just really going backwards.” 

In North Carolina, a 2024 law requires 16- and 17-year-olds charged with Class A through E felonies to begin their cases in adult criminal court rather than juvenile court, reversing a previous effort to raise the age of juvenile court jurisdiction. The change has contributed to a sharp increase in the share of youth in detention who are facing adult charges, rising from 39% in 2024 to 65% in 2025, according to the state’s annual report on juvenile justice.

The debate over how to balance accountability and rehabilitation has also been shaped by high-profile incidents involving young people that receive widespread attention online. Viral videos of youth assaults, carjackings and large gatherings have fueled public pressure for tougher approaches to youth crime.

In South Carolina, a Fourth of July city-permitted neighborhood block party in North Charleston drew national attention after videos of the incident spread online. Police said the gathering turned violent, with reports of fights, gunfire and fireworks being fired at vehicles. Officers recovered four firearms, including two automatic weapons, as well as a “makeshift spear,” according to local police.

Two female police officers were injured while attempting to break up fights, and seven people, including four teenagers, were arrested, according to local police.

“We need some help from the community because stuff like this is getting dangerous,” North Charleston police Chief Ron Camacho said during a news conference.  

“I’m looking for any way possible to try and solve this issue of unruly juveniles.” 

Stateline reporter Amanda Watford can be reached at awatford@stateline.org.

States and cities are loosening building code requirements in an effort to lower construction costs and boost affordable housing.

Some of these changes include allowing low-rise apartment buildings to have just one stairway, reducing how often building codes are updated and rolling back specific electrical or fire safety standards.

But critics have raised safety concerns, noting that existing rules were shaped by past tragedies and aim to prevent future harm.

For example, having only one staircase could allow a developer to add another unit or expand the size of units, said Nicolle Aube, principal and founder of Civex, a planning and civil engineering consulting firm, and an American Planning Association board member.

“But then there’s this flip side, that by removing these codes and protections, it carries this additional risk for the developer and the occupants of the building if the worst-case scenario happens,” she said.

Many states are considering single-stairway apartment laws.

They generally take one of four approaches, said Alex Horowitz, housing policy director at The Pew Charitable Trusts: begin with a study, allow single-stairway buildings statewide, update the state building code while letting local governments opt out, or give localities authority to allow them. Pew has lobbied for and testified in favor of the changes.

Two national developments could make it easier for more states and cities to allow single-stairway buildings, Horowitz said.

The first are proposed updates by the International Code Council, the organization that develops the model codes many states use as the basis for their building rules. An update to its multifamily code, for example, would allow single-stairway buildings to add a fourth story.

Second, the bipartisan 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act moving through Congress would direct the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development to develop model guidelines for residential buildings with a single stairway not exceeding six stories.

According to Pew, 19 states and Washington, D.C., introduced bills between 2022 and 2025 to study or allow single-stairway apartment buildings, and seven states passed them in 2025 alone.

This year, Idaho enacted a new law that allows local governments to permit certain apartment buildings to use one stairway — generally up to six stories without an occupiable roof, or five stories with one, along with limits on units per floor, sprinklers, stair width, and smoke and fire detection.

Colorado’s law enacted last year requires certain municipalities to modify their building codes by Dec. 1, 2027, to allow five-story multifamily residential buildings to be served by a single exit. Texas’ 2025 law lets municipalities authorize single-stairway apartment buildings up to six stories.

Colorado state Rep. Andrew Boesenecker, a Democrat who sponsored the new law, came to this issue because the state needed to find a way to make smaller multifamily projects more feasible. He said the policy can help on infill lots where a traditional two-stairway apartment building may not fit.

“Single stairway or smart stairway buildings are not only a very safe way to build multi-family housing, they also bring a product to market that’s just not being offered,” Boesenecker said.

Colorado is one 16 states without a statewide building code, making local implementation a major focus. Boesenecker said lawmakers had to look at “ways that you can make it feasible through local governments to adopt this standard into their building code.”

He said the work to get the support of those skeptical of single-staircase legislation happened a year prior to the bill’s passage, when lawmakers worked with fire chiefs, fire marshals and firefighters’ unions for about a year to get them to a “neutral position” on the bill.

In Texas, Democratic state Sen. Nate Johnson said the law he sponsored will allow for architectural innovation as well as maximizing multi-family housing on odd-shaped and smaller lots.

Johnson said modernizing building codes does not come at the risk of safety.

“Who knows what policies once served well and now, after decades of technological advances and changes in land use, impede good design?” Johnson said. “We have regulations for a reason, and I’m not for throwing out what protects the public. Markets tend to easily meet the challenges of sound regulatory protections.”

Lawmakers in Illinois, New York and Rhode Island considered single-stairway bills this year, but none passed before the legislatures adjourned for the year.

But moving in the opposite direction, Connecticut lawmakers this year repealed the single-stairway law they had passed in 2024, after objections from fire safety officials.

Beyond staircases, Horowitz, of Pew, said this year saw the first legislative sessions in which states have taken a look at elevators to reduce building costs. Washington state enacted a new elevator law this year that directs the state’s Building Code Council to allow smaller apartment buildings, with at most six stories and 24 units, to use smaller and less expensive passenger elevators.

Maine removed some elevator-related requirements, including for certain smoke and draft equipment and for two-way emergency video communication systems inside elevators.

Research by the Center for Building in North America, a nonprofit research group that co-authored Pew’s single-stairway report, found that installing elevators in the United States and Canada is at least three times as expensive as in Western Europe or East Asia. U.S. and Canadian installations start around $150,000, compared with roughly $50,000 in several high-income countries, the group found.

Is it safe?

Pew researchers found that modern four- to six-story single-stairway apartment buildings can be as safe as other residential buildings when they include fire-safety features such as sprinklers, smoke detectors, code-compliant drywall, self-closing doors and protected stairways.

Horowitz said Pew researchers counted every fire death in New York City and Seattle — two cities that have long allowed single-stairway apartment buildings — over 12 years.

In New York City, Pew identified 4,440 modern single-stairway buildings and found their fire-death rate was the same as other residential buildings — about five deaths per million occupant-years. Pew also found that the deaths it identified in modern single-stair buildings appeared to occur in the unit where the fire started, not because smoke or fire penetrated the single stairway.

“Modern apartment buildings are much, much, much safer than other housing. It is not even close,” Horowitz said. “The data is clear and policymakers are following the data in this instance.”

But Sean DeCrane, the director of fire fighter health and safety operational services for the International Association of Fire Fighters, said single-stairway proposals often fail to account for residents’ potential slowness to evacuate during a fire, and how firefighters use the same stairwell to reach trapped occupants.

The IAFF cites as one example a Manhattan apartment fire on May 4 that killed three people and injured 14. The fire that trapped residents in a smoke-filled stairwell serving as the building’s only means of escape. IAFF says the fire appeared to start on the first floor and spread upward through the stairwell.

“When we take over the stairwell, occupant egress effectively stops,” DeCrane told Stateline. “So now you’re requiring firefighters to physically remove occupants out of a burning building.”

During a fire, residents may not leave when an alarm first sounds, he said, especially in apartment buildings where false alarms or smoke alarms from a kitchen mishap are common. Some residents do not try to evacuate until they smell smoke or believe they are in danger.

“Just because they hear an alarm doesn’t necessarily signify risk to them.”

Aube, of the American Planning Association, said state lawmakers should learn from California’s approach — which in 2023 directed the state fire marshal to study single-stair buildings — before lawmakers make building codes changes.

“There is a lot of technical information that lawmakers and the public need to learn before considering removing a code,” she said.

The California Office of the State Fire Marshal released that report early this year. It said safeguards such as sprinkler and smoke detectors “do not fully substitute” for having two stairwells and notes that fire departments in the state nearly unanimously oppose single stairways. But it suggested a variety of measures that should be implemented if single-stairway buildings are allowed.

Electrical codes

In recent years, some states have changed parts of their fire and electrical codes, seeking to make a dent in the total cost of a project. Arizona last year barred counties from requiring fire sprinklers in accessory dwelling units.

Indiana this year barred state and local governments from requiring arc fault circuit interrupters, or AFCIs, in certain residential buildings and emergency responder communication systems in some larger structures. AFCIs prevent electrical fires by detecting arcing in damaged or loose wiring before it builds heat inside a wall.

The Indiana bill’s lead sponsor, Republican state Rep. Doug Miller, said the state needed to “put a stake in the ground” to meet its need of roughly 50,000 homes, according to the Indiana Capital Chronicle. The Indiana Builders Association said local rules accounted for 24% of the cost for a new home.

This year, Iowa changed parts of the state electrical code, including AFCI and GFCI requirements. Ground fault circuit interrupters, or GFCIs, are designed to protect people from electric shock by shutting off power when they detect a fault in the current. Supporters said these changes can help keep electrical costs low for builders and consumers.

Iowa Democratic state Rep. Jeff Cooling, who is also an electrician, said the late-session legislation takes away some kitchen GFCI requirements, removes AFCI requirements and allows cheaper ceiling boxes in places where future homeowners may install heavy fixtures or ceiling fans. He opposed the bill.

Cooling said lawmakers often talk about code changes as a way to shave costs from new housing. But as an electrician, he said many of those requirements were adopted for a reason and usually after high-profile injuries, fires or deaths prompted necessary review and updates.

“None of these codes change just to change them,” Cooling said. “They’ve changed because people have been seriously injured or killed.”

Cooling said fellow electricians he spoke with estimated the Iowa changes would save about $850 on an average new house. “That’s a rounding error,” he said.

And for Cooling, that amount of savings is too small to justify removing protections at the sake of human lives.

“It’s not the world that we want to live in where we try to balance safety and what turns out to be low-cost savings,” he said.

Waiting on new building codes

Building codes are usually updated every three years through a public process, while states and local governments retain authority to amend and enforce them.

A new law passed in Connecticut will stretch what is normally a three-year state building code update schedule into a six-year gap, pausing updates between 2024 and 2030 cycles. The state is expected to produce a report due by Jan. 1, 2029, that will evaluate the effects of a six-year cycle for building code revisions.

Housing industry groups say Connecticut is not alone in extending or pausing the time between adopting building code changes. Last year, California froze most residential code changes through June 2031. North Carolina moved its residential code to a six-year review cycle in 2023.

The Connecticut proposal drew opposition from code officials and the International Code Council. Building officials and code organizations have warned that slowing adoption of new codes can also delay updates meant to respond to new risks.

Aube, the urban planner, said that code changes are not a silver bullet in the affordability puzzle.

“There’s not one answer,” she said. “It’s like making a cake, right? There’s a whole bunch of different ingredients that go in.”

Stateline reporter Robbie Sequeira can be reached at rsequeira@stateline.org.