Recidivism Among Justice-Involved Youth: Findings From JJ-TRIALS

• DOI: 10.1177/0093854820922891
• Author: Doris Weiland,George Joe,Angela A. Robertson,Katherine Elkington,Zhou Fang,Jennifer Pankow,Megan Dickson,Larkin Mcreynolds,Sheena Gardner,Michael Dennis,Richard Dembo
• Date: 01 September 2020
• Published date: 01 September 2020
• Subject Matter: Articles

922891CJBXXX10.1177/0093854820922891Criminal Justice and BehaviorRobertson et al. / Recidivism Among Justice-involved Youth
research-article2020
Recidivism Among Justice-involved
Youth
Findings From JJ-tRiAls
ANgELA A. ROBERTSON
ZHOU FANg
Mississippi State University
DORIS WEILAND
Temple University
gEORgE JOE
Texas Christian University
SHEENA gARDNER
Mississippi State University
RICHARD DEMBO
University of South Florida
LARkIN MCREyNOLDS
Columbia University
MEgAN DICkSON
University of Kentucky
JENNIFER PANkOW
Texas Christian University
MICHAEL DENNIS
Chestnut Health Systems
kATHERINE ELkINgTON
Columbia University
AuthoRs’ note: The authors gratefully acknowledge the collaborative contributions of National Institute
on Drug Abuse (NIDA) and support from the following grant awards: Chestnut Health Systems (U01DA03622);
Columbia University (U01DA036226); Emory University (U01DA036233); Mississippi State University
(U01DA036176); Temple University (U01DA036225); Texas Christian University (U01DA036224); and
University of Kentucky (U01DA036158). NIDA Science Officer on this project is Tisha Wiley. Clinical Trials
Registration: NCT02672150. The contents of this publication are solely the responsibility of the authors and do
not necessarily represent the official views of the NIDA, National Institutes of Health (NIH), or the participat-
ing universities or juvenile justice systems. This study was funded under the JJ-TRIALS cooperative agreement,
funded at the NIDA by the NIH. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Angela A.
Robertson, Social Science Research Center, Mississippi State University, 1 Research Blvd, Suite 103, Starkville,
MS 39762, USA; e-mail: angela.robertson@msstate.edu.
CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR, 2020, Vol. 47, No. 9, September 2020, 1059 –1078.
DOI: 10.1177/0093854820922891
ht
ps:/
doi.
rg
Article reuse guidelines: sagepub.com/journals-permissions
© 2020 International Association for Correctional and Forensic Psychology
1059

---

1060 CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR
Recidivism, and the factors related to it, remains a highly significant concern among juvenile justice researchers, practi-
tioners, and policy makers. Recent studies highlight the need to examine multiple measures of recidivism as well as
conduct multilevel analyses of this phenomenon. Using data collected in a National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA)-
funded Juvenile Justice-Translational Research on Interventions for Adolescents in the Legal System (JJ-TRIALS) coop-
erative agreement, we examined individual- and site-level factors related to 1-year recidivism among probation youth in
20 sites in five states to answer research questions related to how recidivism rates differ across sites and the relationships
between individual-level variables and a county-level concentrated disadvantage measure and recidivism. Our findings of
large site differences in recidivism rates, and complex relationships between individual and county-level predictors of
recidivism, highlight the need for more nuanced, contextually informed, multilevel approaches in studying recidivism
among juveniles.
Keywords: recidivism among justice involved youth; recidivism; juvenile justice; predictors of juvenile recidivism
Preventing recidivism among juveniles remains a priority for the juvenile justice (JJ)
system. In addition to the significant costs associated with juvenile delinquency (Welsh
et al., 2008), problems such as increased rates of substance use (SU) (Welty et al., 2017),
dropping out of school (kirk & Sampson, 2013), and continued offending into adulthood
(Stouthamer-Loeber, 2010) are also correlated with juvenile offending. given these far-
reaching effects and the commonly-held goal across JJ systems of reducing recidivism
(Harris et al., 2009), recidivism rates have been a traditional metric of program effective-
ness within JJ.
meAsuRing Recidivism
Measuring and reporting recidivism is vital for tracking probation outcomes; for evaluat-
ing the effectiveness of interventions; and for informing JJ policy, practice, and resource
allocation, yet no consensus exists with respect to defining recidivism or the length of fol-
low-up period for determining occurrences of recidivism (Deal et al., 2015). A new offense
or rearrest is the most commonly used indicator by researchers and program evaluators
(Harris, Lockwood, et al., 2011). Other commonly used definitions include delinquency
adjudication within the juvenile system (the equivalent of conviction in the adult criminal
justice system) for a subsequent arrest and re-incarceration/commitment to a juvenile cor-
rectional facility (Cottle et al., 2001). Some have argued that rearrest rates are better for
understanding offending patterns in the community, while delinquency adjudication rates,
which may result in more intensive community supervision or out-of-home placements, are
better for guiding probation practices and programming for high-risk youth (Hyatt &
Barnes, 2017). Among 40 states responding to a survey, researchers found that JJ agencies
typically utilized more than one measure and that nearly half (48%) used adjudication and/
or commitment decisions to define recidivism (Harris et al., 2009).
The definition (i.e., new offense/rearrest, adjudication, or re-incarceration/commitment),
the length of the tracking period, and youth characteristics used influence recidivism rates
differently. Because the number of youth decreases at each subsequent case processing
decision point (Snyder & Sickmund, 2006), the use of rearrest as an indicator of recidivism
produces higher rates than adjudication, since only a subset of youth arrested will be adju-
dicated. For example, the 12-month rates for juveniles on probation in Virginia were 34.1%
and 23.3% in 2015 (Virginia Department of Juvenile Justice, 2018).

---

Robertson et al. / RECIDIVISM AMONg JUSTICE-INVOLVED yOUTH 1061
The duration of the follow-up period is also important, as a longer tracking period offers
more opportunity for youth to come back into contact with the justice system (Deal et al.,
2015). Among those who recidivate, the recidivism event is most likely to occur within the
first year, but the percentage who recidivate continues to rise over longer follow-up periods
(Mulder et al., 2011). For example, rates were 22.0% within six months, 34.1% within 12
months, 51.2% within 24 months, and 61.2% within 36 months (Virginia Department of
Juvenile Justice, 2018).
The population of interest also affects the recidivism rate. In a series of studies of Florida
juveniles who completed community-based services, the rearrest rate for all youth was
19.4% (Wolff et al., 2015), but the rate for a sample was 41% (Wolff et al., 2016). The dif-
ference in these rates is attributed to the proportion of youth assessed as low risk for reoff-
ending (i.e., 75.5% in the population vs. 39% in the sample) and higher rates of males and
Black youth in the sample. Studies of recidivism among juveniles committing serious
offenses have found 1-year rearrest rates of 67% among males returning to New Jersey
communities from juvenile correctional facilities (LeBaron, 2002).
Recidivism is important for determining the effectiveness of JJ interventions and for
informing JJ policy. However, no consensus on the definition or tracking period exists. In
response to issues related to measuring and using recidivism data to inform policy, practice,
and resource allocation, the Council of State governments Justice Center (2014) developed
several recommendations, including measuring recidivism multiple ways and analyzing
recidivism data to account for youth risk levels as well as other key characteristics, such as
service needs.
JuRisdictionAl diFFeRences in Recidivism
Another issue in the study of juvenile recidivism is the generalizability of findings across
studies. Even if recidivism is defined in the same way and similar types of individuals are
tracked for the same amount of time, recidivism rates can vary considerably across studies
(Cottle et al., 2001), by state (Snyder & Sickmund, 2006), within the same state (Wolff
et al., 2015), and even among neighborhoods within a single municipality (grunwald et al.,
2010). The few studies that have examined recidivism across multiple sites have found
significant differences across sites (Aalsma et al., 2015; Schweitzer et al., 2017). Neither
study, however, included site-specific or contextual level variables that might help explain
the site differences in recidivism rates.
given growing empirical support for the effects of community context on delinquency
and crime (Sampson, 2012; Sampson & groves, 1989), a number of juvenile recidivism
studies have included contextual variables, especially neighborhood socioeconomic disad-
vantage. The results are mixed. Two studies did not find an association between contextual
factors and recidivism (Harris, Mennis et al., 2011; Leverso et al., 2015), while others have
found significant and positive relationships with juvenile recidivism (kalist et al., 2015;
Wolff, Baglivio, Intravia, et al., 2017; Wolff et al., 2015, 2016; yan, 2009).
Finally, some studies found that the impact of neighborhood context matters for some.
Neighborhood-level disadvantage and social capital were associated with drug offense
recidivism, but not with violent, property or general recidivism among delinquent males
(grunwald et al., 2010). While not directly associated with self-reported violence and delin-
quent behavior...