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

Abstract

Recidivism, and the factors related to it, remains a highly significant concern among juvenile justice researchers, practitioners, 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) cooperative 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.

Impact of implementation interventions to improve substance use service delivery on recidivism among justice-involved youth

“…Previous research found large site differences in recidivism rates during the baseline period (Robertson et al, 2020 ). The overall recidivism rate by site at baseline ranged from 6.4% to 68.8%.…”

“…Variations in JJ site data documentation and multiple new arrests/referrals to JJ within weeks of the initial intake for some youth called for standardizing how these conditions were interpreted in the study datasets. Cases where multiple new JJ referrals occurred within 30 days of the initial intake were collapsed so that a recidivism event was counted only if a second JJ referral occurred 30 or more days after JJ intake (Robertson et al, 2020 ).…”

“…This previous study, which tested for differences in recidivism rates across sites, included socioeconomic characteristics of the county, characteristics of youth residing in the county, and local juvenile justice policies and procedures. Examination of possible influences on baseline recidivism found that concentrated disadvantage at the county level, rates of SU screening and determination of SU services need by JJ agency, the percentage of youth of color, rates of juvenile property and felony offenses, and the percentage of juveniles placed on more intensive levels of community supervision all varied substantially across the different JJ agencies and were also associated with recidivism (Robertson et al, 2020 ). To control for site differences, the Site variable was dummy coded such that the largest site ( n = 2638) was the reference category.…”

“…We also included need for SU services and level of supervision as these variables were among the strongest individual-level predictors of recidivism (Robertson et al, 2020 ). Determination of need for SU services was based on the presence of one or more of the following indicators: referral to the court for alcohol or drug related offenses; results from drug testing, screening tools, and clinical assessments; JJ staff recommendations; and judicial mandates to SU services.…”

“…Examining individual risk factors for youth involved with the legal system is essential in reducing the likelihood of reoffending. Substance use (SU) is among the factors routinely assessed at intake to the JJ system in reviewing recidivism risk (Baglivio, 2009 ) because of its strong association with delinquent behavior (DeLisi et al, 2015 ; Dembo et al, 1997 ; Leukefeld et al, 2017 ; Mulvey et al, 2010 ), and recidivism (Hoeve, McReynolds, & Wasserman, 2014 ; McReynolds et al, 2010 ; Robertson et al, 2020 ; Stoolmiller & Blechman, 2005 ; Van der Put et al, 2014 ). Youth in the juvenile justice system have substantially higher rates of alcohol, marijuana, and cocaine use compared with youth in the general population (Miech et al, 2018 ; Mieczkowski et al, 1998 ; Mulvey et al, 2010 ), with approximately 51% of youth involved with community supervision having SU problems requiring treatment (Scott et al, 2019 ).…”