Juvenile Recidivism Data: Informing Policy, Practice, Resource Allocation

1. Measuring and Using Juvenile Recidivism Data to Inform Policy, Practice, and Resource Allocation Michael Thompson, Director Council of State Governments Justice Center July 28, 2014 Washington, D.C.

2. Dramatic Progress But More Work Needed National Arrests Per 100,000 Juveniles Ages 10-17 (1980-2011) Declines in State Commitment Rates (1997-2011) -51% Decrease From Peak National Avg. Connecticut Georgia Mississippi Rhode Island Tennessee *Easy Access to the Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention *Juvenile Arrest Rates for All Crimes, 1980-2011, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

3. Most states are not sufficiently tracking recidivism data for youth under the custody of their state juvenile correctional agency Does your state track recidivism for youth in state custody? Into adult criminal justice system Of the 39 states, how many track recidivism in more than one form of contact with the justice system? 31 Yes No 29 Technical violations of parole 24 Re-arrests 23 12 Offense Needs Of the 39 states, how many analyze recidivism according to? Length of stay 23 12 Locale 21 11 Risk level Program

4. Key Recommendations • Measure recidivism for all youth involved with the juvenile justice system, considering the multiple ways they may have subsequent contact with the justice system • Make recidivism data available to key constituents and the general public • Use recidivism data to inform juvenile justice policy, practice, and resource allocation • Develop and maintain the infrastructure necessary to collect, analyze, and report recidivism data • Analyze recidivism data to account for youth’s risk levels, as well as other key youth characteristics and variables

5. Core Principles for Reducing Recidivism and Improving Other Outcomes for Youth in the Juvenile Justice System Michael Thompson, Director Council of State Governments Justice Center July 28, 2014 Washington, D.C.

6. How to Use the White Paper Develop a full understanding of what works Integrate distinct improvement strategies Operationalize these principles with fidelity to the research Assess current efforts and measure progress towards improvement

7. Core Principles • Principle 1 • Base supervision, service, and resource allocation decisions on the results of validated risk and needs assessments. • Principle 2 • Adopt and effectively implement programs and services demonstrated to reduce recidivism and improve other youth outcomes, and use data to evaluate the results and direct system improvements. • Principle 3 • Employ a coordinated approach across service systems to address youth’s needs. • Principle 4 • Tailor system policies, programs, and supervision to reflect the distinct developmental needs of adolescents.

8. White Paper and Issue Brief in Action Piloting issue brief recommendations to help state systems track recidivism and use this data to guide system decisions and hold agencies accountable. Piloting white paper checklists to help state systems assess and strengthen policies and practices to improve outcomes for youth KS NE TN NE PA UT

9. Texas Juvenile Outcome Study Michael Thompson, Director Council of State Governments Justice Center July 28, 2014 Washington, D.C.

10. Dramatic Decline in Youth Committed to State Incarceration in Texas Total Texas Admissions to State Facilities (FY 2002 – FY 2012)

11. High State-Wide Recidivism Rates: Impact of Reforms on Recidivism a Significant Concern Re-Arrest Rate

12. High State-Wide Recidivism Rates (continued) Incarceration Rate

13. Reforms Shifted Funding from Incarceration to Community-Based Interventions 2004-2005 Biennial Budget 2014-2015 Biennial Budget Average Daily Population in State Correctional Facilities:4,910 Average Daily Population in State Correctional Facilities:1,066

14. Texas Juvenile Justice Study Questions Are recidivism rates lower for the types of youth who used to be incarcerated in state correctional facilities, but who today are diverted from such incarceration settings? What might explain variations in recidivism rates among similar youth placed in under community supervision? How do recidivism rates compare from one community-based intervention to the next? To what extent were the policy reforms effective in reducing the number of youth in state-run correctional facilities?

15. Most Extensive Data in the Country for the Study 487,602 Youth and 850,434 Records Tracked 2006 2005 2011 2012 2013 2008 2009 2010 2007 Juveniles Released from Secure State Facilities Juveniles Placed on Deferred Prosecution or Probation Supervision

16. December 2014 release will have major impact both in Texas and nationally Study will guide national conversation as states who have reduced number of kids in secure confinement seek to understand better what policies and investments are effective in reducing subsequent contact with juvenile justice system Texas legislature will examine study findings in January 2015 and use results to inform major policy decisions

17. Thank You Join our distribution list to receive CSG Justice Center project updates! www.csgjusticecenter.org/subscribe For more information, contact Josh Weber (jweber@csg.org) The presentation was developed by members of the Council of State Governments Justice Center staff. The statements made reflect the views of the authors, and should not be considered the official position of the Justice Center, the members of the Council of State Governments, or the funding agency supporting the work. Citations available for statistics presented in preceding slides available on CSG Justice Center web site.