Childhood Offenders Rehabilitation and Safety Act of 2026
- Sponsor
- Rep. Kamlager-Dove, Sydney [D-CA-37]
- Committees
- Ways and Means Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Oct 29, 2026
Bottom line
This bill seeks to reform federal juvenile justice practices by raising age thresholds and limiting murder liability for minors, while simultaneously promoting inter-agency collaboration to better serve at-risk youth.
What it actually does
This bill amends Title 18 of the U.S. Code to revise definitions and procedures for juvenile offenders, raising the minimum age for federal juvenile delinquency proceedings to 12 and increasing the age for transfer to adult prosecution from 15 to 16 for most offenses. It also limits murder liability for individuals under 18, requiring direct intent or active participation with intent to kill. Additionally, the bill establishes a competitive grant program under Title IV of the Social Security Act to foster collaboration between state child welfare and juvenile justice systems, focusing on data collection and improved practices for vulnerable youth populations.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that the bill reflects modern understanding of adolescent brain development and the potential for rehabilitation, ensuring that children are not unnecessarily subjected to the adult criminal justice system. They contend that raising age limits and restricting murder liability for minors aligns federal law with best practices for juvenile justice. Furthermore, the grant program will enhance crucial collaboration between child welfare and juvenile justice systems, leading to more effective interventions and improved outcomes for vulnerable youth, including those with dual status or who are survivors of commercial sexual exploitation.
Opponents contend
Opponents might argue that raising the age for federal juvenile delinquency proceedings and limiting murder liability for minors could potentially endanger public safety by allowing older or more serious juvenile offenders to avoid adult prosecution for serious crimes. They may contend that certain violent offenses, regardless of age, warrant adult accountability. Concerns could also be raised about the potential administrative burden and costs associated with the new grant program for states, and whether the federal government should be dictating state-level collaboration in these areas.
The bill is moderately complex due to its amendments to existing code and establishment of a new grant program, requiring careful reading to understand its full implications.
Section 2(a), amending 18 U.S.C. 5031
Minimum Age for Federal Juvenile Delinquency
This provision amends the definition of "juvenile" in federal law, specifying that a person must be at least twelve years of age to be considered a "juvenile" for the purpose of federal delinquency proceedings. It also clarifies that an act must be committed by a person who has reached their twelfth birthday but is under 18 to be considered an act of juvenile delinquency.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that children under 12 are generally not capable of forming the criminal intent necessary for federal prosecution and should be handled through child welfare or other non-punitive systems. This change aligns with developmental science.
Critics contend
Critics might argue that excluding children under 12 entirely could create a gap in accountability for serious offenses committed by very young individuals, potentially leaving victims without justice in federal cases.
Tradeoffs
Balances the need for accountability with the understanding of child development and the preference for non-carceral interventions for very young children.
Section 2(b), amending 18 U.S.C. 5032
Raising Age for Adult Transfer and Modifying Transfer Criteria
This section raises the age at which a juvenile can be transferred to adult criminal prosecution from 15 to 16. It also removes specific provisions that allowed transfer for certain violent crimes at age 13 and eliminates mandatory transfer for repeat felony offenders. Additionally, it expands the criteria for judicial consideration during transfer hearings to include a juvenile's prior exposure to adverse childhood experiences, childhood trauma, involvement in the child welfare system, rehabilitative potential, and the best interest of the child, while removing consideration of a juvenile's "leadership role" in an offense.
Section 2(c), amending 18 U.S.C. 5039
Preventing Contact with Adults in Confinement
This provision amends federal law to prohibit juveniles from being committed to any correctional institution or prison where they would have regular contact with adults incarcerated for crimes or awaiting trial. The original text only mentioned "correctional institution" and "regular contact with adults incarcerated because they have been convicted of a crime or are awaiting trial on criminal charges", this amendment explicitly adds "prison" and removes the "regular contact" clause, making the prohibition more absolute. It also changes "near" to "near their" for gender neutrality.
Section 2(d), adding new subsection to 18 U.S.C. 1111
Age-Based Limitations on Federal Murder Liability
This new subsection specifies that a person under 18 at the time of a crime listed under 18 U.S.C. 1111(a) (federal murder) is liable for murder only if they intentionally or knowingly caused the death, or, if not the actual killer, aided, abetted, or assisted with the intent to kill. If these conditions are not met, the person is to be sentenced for the crime they committed or attempted to commit, not murder.
Section 3
Comprehensive Statistics on Juvenile and Child Offenders
This section mandates the Bureau of Justice Statistics to publish, within one year of enactment and annually thereafter, a comprehensive statistical review and analysis of children under 18 involved in the federal justice system, and individuals incarcerated for crimes committed as children. The review must include data on adjudications, transfers, convictions, offenses, ages, demographics (race, ethnicity, disability, gender, sex, gender identity), distance from home during custody, and sentence lengths.
Section 4, adding new subsection to Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 629f)
CONNECT Act Grants for Inter-Agency Collaboration
This section, known as the "CONNECT Act," amends the Social Security Act to authorize the Secretary of Health and Human Services to award competitive grants to State child welfare and juvenile justice agencies. The grants aim to enhance collaboration, collect data, and develop practices for children excluded from juvenile adjudication by age (under 12 and over 15), child survivors of commercial sexual exploitation, dual status youth, and crossover children. Grants are for 2-5 years, with possible extensions, and require applications detailing leadership groups, identification strategies, proposed practices, and local government involvement.
Defines a "juvenile" for federal delinquency purposes as a person "at least twelve years of age," effectively excluding children under 12 from federal juvenile delinquency proceedings.
Section 2(a), amending 18 U.S.C. 5031
Why it matters:This is a standard legislative technique for modifying definitions within existing code. It's not necessarily evasive, but the impact of a definitional change can be significant.
Case for: Advocates for juvenile justice reform argue that children under 12 lack the cognitive and emotional maturity to be held criminally responsible in the federal system and should instead be addressed through child welfare or mental health services.
Case against: Some may argue that for very serious offenses, even young children should face some form of federal accountability, and this exclusion could create a gap where no federal jurisdiction applies.
Estimated impact: Significantly alters the scope of federal juvenile jurisdiction, potentially shifting responsibility for very young offenders to state or local child welfare systems.
Eliminates the provision that mandated the transfer of juveniles to adult criminal prosecution if they were alleged to have committed a felony after their sixteenth birthday involving force or certain drug/firearm offenses, and had a previous felony conviction.
Section 2(b)(4), striking a specific clause in 18 U.S.C. 5032
Why it matters:This is a standard legislative technique for repealing specific provisions. The length of the removed text might make its full implications less immediately obvious.
Case for: Proponents of juvenile justice reform argue that mandatory transfer provisions remove judicial discretion and prevent consideration of a juvenile's individual circumstances, rehabilitative potential, and developmental stage, leading to harsher and less effective outcomes.
Case against: Critics might argue that mandatory transfer for repeat violent or serious felony offenders is necessary to protect public safety and ensure accountability for juveniles who demonstrate a pattern of serious criminal behavior.
Estimated impact: Increases judicial discretion in transfer decisions for certain repeat juvenile offenders, potentially leading to more juveniles remaining in the juvenile system rather than being prosecuted as adults.
The purpose of the CONNECT Act grants explicitly includes addressing the needs of "children excluded from juvenile adjudication by age (under age of 12 and over the age of 15 years old)".
Section 4(d)(1) and (3)(A)(i), (ii), (iii), (C)(iii)(II)(aa), (C)(iii)(III)(bb), (cc), (dd)
Why it matters:This is part of a comprehensive list of target populations. It might be less prominent than the broader goal of collaboration. The "over 15" part is interesting because the bill raises the transfer age to 16, so it's referring to those *excluded* from juvenile adjudication, which implies they are being treated as adults.
Case for: Supporters would argue that these specific age groups, especially those who "age out" of juvenile jurisdiction or are too young for it, are particularly vulnerable and require focused attention and collaborative support from both child welfare and juvenile justice systems.
Case against: Some might question the inclusion of "over the age of 15 years old" as a group "excluded from juvenile adjudication by age" in the context of a grant focused on juvenile justice, especially if it refers to those transferred to adult court, suggesting a potential tension with the bill's other reforms to keep more youth in the juvenile system.
Estimated impact: Directs grant funding and state collaboration efforts towards specific, often overlooked, populations of children at the intersection of child welfare and juvenile justice systems.