|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
Large
Extra Large
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
|
|
North Carolina Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission JUVENILE RECIDIVISM STUDY: FY 2004/05 JUVENILE SAMPLE Prepared By Karen Calhoun Vicky Etheridge Tamara Flinchum Ashleigh Gallagher, Ph.D. Ginny Hevener Susan Katzenelson Submitted Pursuant to Session Law 2005-276, Section 14.19 May 1, 2009 JUVENILE RECIDIVISM STUDY: FY 2004/05 JUVENILE SAMPLE North Carolina Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission P.O. Box 2472 Raleigh, NC 27602 (919) 890-1470 www.nccourts.org/courts/crs/councils/spac The Honorable W. Erwin Spainhour Susan Katzenelson Chairman Executive Director NC SENTENCING AND POLICY ADVISORY COMMISSION MEMBERSHIP Hon. W. Erwin Spainhour, Chairman Superior Court Judge Dr. David Barlow Professor, Fayetteville State University Sheriff Hayden Bentley NC Sheriffs’ Association Hon. Stan Bingham State Senator Hon. Alice L. Bordsen State Representative Judge Charles E. Brown NC District Court Judges’ Association Joseph B. Cheshire V NC Academy of Trial Lawyers Locke T. Clifford NC Bar Association Louise Davis NC Community Sentencing Association Judge Richard A. Elmore NC Court of Appeals Judge Robert C. Ervin NC Conference of Superior Court Judges Hon. Paul H. Gibson NC Association of County Commissioners William P. Hart NC Attorney General’s Office Secretary Linda Hayes NC Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Mary Y. “Larry” Hines Private Citizen, Governor’s Appointee Hon. Robert F. Johnson NC Conference of District Attorneys Secretary Alvin W. Keller NC Department of Correction Hon. Eleanor Kinnaird State Senator Charles Mann NC Post-Release Supervision & Parole Commission Moe McKnight NC Retail Merchants’ Association Luther T. Moore Lieutenant Governor’s Appointee Judge Fred G. Morrison, Jr. Justice Fellowship Chief Frank Palombo NC Association of Chiefs of Police June Ray NC Association of Clerks of Superior Court Billy J. Sanders Commission Chairman’s Appointee Hon. John J. Snow, Jr. State Senator Hon. Timothy L. Spear State Representative Jonathan Williams NC Dept. of Crime Control & Public Safety Vacant NC Victim Assistance Network Vacant State Representative NC SENTENCING AND POLICY ADVISORY COMMISSION STAFF Susan Katzenelson Executive Director John Madler Associate Director for Policy, Staff Attorney Ginny Hevener Associate Director for Research Karen Calhoun Tamara Flinchum Senior Research & Policy Associate Senior Research & Policy Associate Marlee Moore-Gurrera, Ph.D. Ashleigh Gallagher, Ph.D. Senior Research & Policy Associate Research & Policy Associate David Lagos Sara Thomas Research & Policy Associate Research & Policy Associate Vicky Etheridge Administrative Assistant TABLE OF CONTENTS I. JUVENILE RECIDIVISM STUDY DIRECTIVE AND METHODOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 The Juvenile Justice System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Intake Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Pre-Dispositional Hearings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Probable Cause Hearing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Transfer Hearing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Adjudicatory Hearing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Dispositional Hearing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Overview of the Process. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Table 1.1: Juvenile Disposition Chart . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Dispositional Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Level 1 (Community) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Level 2 (Intermediate). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Level 3 (Commitment) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Juvenile Recidivism Research Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Data Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Sample . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7 Independent Variables and Outcome Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Analysis and Report Outline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 II. STATISTICAL PROFILE AND RECIDIVISM OF THE JUVENILE SAMPLE . . . . . . . . . . 9 Statistical Profile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Sample Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Figure 2.1: Juvenile Recidivism Sample . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Personal Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Table 2.1: Demographic Profile of Juveniles by Level of Involvement . . . . . . 11 Most Serious Sample Offense . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Table 2.2: Most Serious Sample Offense by Level of Involvement . . . . . . . . . 12 Recidivism in the Juvenile Justice and Criminal Justice Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Follow-up Period and Time at Risk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Figure 2.2: Average Number of Follow-up Months under Juvenile and Adult Jurisdictions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Juvenile and Adult Recidivism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Subsequent Juvenile Complaints and Adult Arrests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Table 2.3: Recidivism Rates for Juvenile Complaints and Adult Arrests by Level of Involvement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Figure 2.3: Average Time to First Subsequent Complaint or Adult Arrest during Follow-up . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16 Table 2.4: Recidivistic Events by Level of Involvement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Subsequent Juvenile Adjudications and Adult Convictions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Table 2.5: Recidivism Rates for Juvenile Adjudications and Adult Convictions by Level of Involvement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18 Sample Offense and Recidivism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Table 2.6: Recidivism Rates by Sample Offense and Level of Involvement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Table 2.7: Most Serious Recidivistic Offense by Most Serious Sample Offense . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Age at Sample Offense and Recidivism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Table 2.8: Recidivism Rates for Juveniles by Age at Sample Offense and Level of Involvement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Additional Juvenile Justice Involvement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Juvenile Commitment and Adult Arrests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Table 2.9: Commitment to Youth Development Center by Level of Involvement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Table 2.10: Adult Arrests by Commitment to Youth Development Center and by Level of Involvement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Juvenile Detention Center Admission and Adult Arrests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Table 2.11: Admission to Detention Center by Level of Involvement . . . 22 Juvenile Transfers to Superior Court . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Table 2.12: Adult Arrests by Admission to Detention Center and Level of Involvement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Multivariate Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Logistic Regression Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Dependent Variables (Outcome Measures) Modeled . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Independent Variables Used in the Regression Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Logistic Regression Analyses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Table 2.13: Effect of Personal and Juvenile Justice Factors on Recidivism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Sample Profile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Outcome Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Key Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 III. STATISTICAL PROFILE AND RECIDIVISM OF JUVENILES ADJUDICATED DELINQUENT AND DISPOSED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Statistical Profile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Personal Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Risk and Needs Assessments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Table 3.1: Select Risk and Needs Indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Table 3.2: Risk Level by Needs Level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Sample Offense, Delinquency History, and Dispositions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Table 3.3: Offense Classification by Delinquency History Level . . . . . . . . . . 31 Table 3.4: Disposition Levels by Offense Classification and Delinquency History Level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Risk and Needs Levels and Dispositions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Figure 3.1: Risk Level and Needs Level by Disposition Level . . . . . . . . . . . . .33 Court-Ordered Sanctions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33 Table 3.5: Specific Sanctions Ordered at Disposition by Offense Classification and Disposition Level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Table 3.6: Specific Sanctions Ordered at Disposition by Risk Level and Needs Level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Recidivism in the Juvenile Justice and Criminal Justice Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Juvenile and Adult Recidivism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Subsequent Juvenile Complaints/Adjudications and Adult Arrests/Convictions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Figure 3.2: Recidivism Rates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Sample Offense and Recidivism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Table 3.7: Recidivism Rates by Sample Offense Classification . . . . . . . . 40 Table 3.8: Recidivism Rates by Delinquency History Level . . . . . . . . . . 41 Table 3.9: Recidivism Rates by Disposition Level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 Risk and Needs Levels and Recidivism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 Table 3.10: Recidivism Rates by Risk Level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 Table 3.11: Recidivism Rates by Needs Level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 Figure 3.3: Overall Recidivism Rates by Disposition Level and by Risk and Needs Levels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 Court-ordered Sanctions and Recidivism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 Table 3.12: Overall Recidivism Rates by Specific Sanctions Ordered at Disposition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 Multivariate Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 Logistic Regression Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 Dependent Variables (Outcome Measures) Modeled . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 Independent Variables Used in the Regression Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 Logistic Regression Analyses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 Table 3.13: Effect of Personal and Juvenile Justice Factors on Recidivism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 Subgroup Profile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 Key Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 IV. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 Figure 4.1: Three-Year Recidivism Rates for the FY 2004/05 Juvenile Sample . . . . . . . . . 51 APPENDIX A.1: North Carolina Assessment of Juvenile Risk of Future Offending . . . . . . . . 55 APPENDIX A.2: North Carolina Assessment of Juvenile Needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 APPENDIX B: Juvenile Disposition Chart . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 APPENDIX C: Dispositional Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 1 CHAPTER ONE JUVENILE RECIDIVISM STUDY DIRECTIVE AND METHODOLOGY INTRODUCTION In the 2005 Session of the General Assembly, the legislature amended Chapter 164 of the General Statutes to direct the North Carolina Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission (hereinafter referred to as the Sentencing Commission) to conduct biennial juvenile recidivism studies on adjudicated youth in the state. (Session Law 2005-276, Section 14.19) § 164-48. Biennial report on juvenile recidivism. The Judicial Department, through the North Carolina Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission, shall conduct biennial recidivism studies of juveniles in North Carolina. Each study shall be based on a sample of juveniles adjudicated delinquent and document subsequent involvement in both the juvenile justice system and criminal justice system for at least two years following the sample adjudication. All State agencies shall provide data as requested by the Sentencing Commission. The Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission shall report the results of the first recidivism study to the Chairs of the Senate and House of Representatives Appropriation Committees and the Chairs of the Senate and House of Representatives Appropriation Subcommittees on Justice and Public Safety by May 1, 2007, and future reports shall be made by May 1 of each odd-numbered year. Following the 2007 report, this is the Sentencing Commission’s second biennial report on juvenile recidivism, submitted to the North Carolina General Assembly on May 1, 2009. THE JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM The Juvenile Justice Reform Act of 1998, which became effective on July 1, 1999, brought about the first major changes to the juvenile justice system in twenty years. Notable changes included: the establishment of a consolidated Office of Juvenile Justice to coordinate and administer the juvenile justice system (which, in 2000, became the Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention – DJJDP), the creation of a dispositional chart for use with juveniles adjudicated delinquent, and the formation of local juvenile justice planning bodies (i.e., Juvenile Crime Prevention Councils). Other changes were made which affected the processing of juveniles through the justice system. In North Carolina, juveniles are considered to be under the jurisdiction of the juvenile court if they are at least six years old and not older than 16 years old at the time that they are alleged to have committed a delinquent offense. However, juveniles who are at least 13 years of age and are alleged to have committed a felony may be transferred into the criminal justice 2 system and tried as adults. For a juvenile who is alleged to have committed a Class A felony at age 13 or older, the court must transfer the case to Superior Court if probable cause is found in juvenile court. In order to provide some context for this study, the following sections describe the processing of juveniles within the juvenile justice system. Juveniles who were adjudicated and received a disposition, as well as dispositional alternatives available to the court, are particularly highlighted. Intake Process All juveniles enter the juvenile justice system by having a formal complaint lodged by a law enforcement officer or private citizen. There are two types of complaints – the delinquency complaint alleges that a juvenile committed a criminal offense, while the undisciplined complaint alleges non-criminal behavior (e.g., running away, unlawful absences from school, incorrigible behavior within the home). For purposes of this study, only juveniles who had a delinquency complaint will be discussed. Any juvenile who is subject to a delinquency complaint must go through the intake process for the complaint to be screened and evaluated by a DJJDP court counselor. The court counselor has up to 30 days to determine if a complaint should be handled outside the court, or if a complaint should be filed as a petition and set for a hearing before a juvenile court judge. The length and extent of the intake process is based primarily on whether a juvenile is charged with one of the most serious, statutorily defined group of offenses (i.e., non-divertible offenses1) and/or whether a juvenile is confined in a detention center at the time that the complaint is submitted. During the intake phase, a court counselor conducts interviews with the juvenile, the person(s) legally responsible for the juvenile, and other individuals who might have relevant information about the juvenile. Upon reviewing the information gathered during the evaluation, the court counselor determines if the complaint should be closed, diverted, or approved for filing as a petition and brought before the court. If the court counselor decides that a case does not require further action, either by some form of follow-up by a court counselor or through a court hearing, the case is deemed closed. The juveniles in closed cases are typically less problematic and generally have little, if any, history of delinquent behavior. Closed cases constitute the lowest point of involvement in the juvenile justice system. When a court counselor determines that a juvenile’s case should not be brought to court, but that the juvenile is in need of follow-up and referral to a community-based resource (e.g., restitution, counseling), the counselor can then divert the juvenile pursuant to a diversion plan that is developed in conjunction with the juvenile and the juvenile’s parent, guardian, or custodian. If a more formal diversion plan is needed, the court counselor, juvenile, and 1 Non-divertible offenses are defined in G.S. § 7B-1701 as murder, first- or second-degree rape, first- or second-degree sexual offense, arson, felony drug offense under Article 5 of G.S. Chapter 90, first-degree burglary, crime against nature, or a felony involving the willful infliction of serious bodily injury or which was committed by use of a deadly weapon. 3 juvenile’s responsible party enter into a diversion contract. Both the plan and the contract are in effect for up to six months, during which time a court counselor conducts periodic reviews to ensure the compliance of the juvenile and his/her family. Compliance with the recommendations of the plan or contract results in the finalization of the juvenile’s diversion. If the parties fail to comply, the counselor may re-evaluate the decision to divert and subsequently file the complaint as a petition in juvenile court. If a court counselor concludes, at any point in the intake process, that the juvenile would be best served by referring the case to court, the counselor can authorize the filing of the complaint as a petition and schedule it for a hearing before a juvenile court judge. Pre-Dispositional Hearings Probable Cause Hearing2 Probable cause hearings are held in all felony cases in which the juvenile was at least 13 years old at the time of the alleged offense. During these hearings, the district attorney’s office must present sufficient evidence to the court that shows there is probable cause to believe that the alleged offense was committed by the juvenile in question. If probable cause is not found, the court may either dismiss the proceeding or find probable cause that the juvenile committed a lesser included offense (e.g., a misdemeanor) and proceed to the adjudicatory hearing, which can immediately follow the probable cause hearing or be set for another date. If probable cause is found and transfer to superior court is not statutorily required (i.e., non-Class A felonies), the court proceeds to a transfer hearing, which can occur on the same day. Transfer Hearing At the transfer hearing, the court considers a number of factors in reaching a decision on whether the juvenile’s case will be transferred to superior court. If the case is transferred, the juvenile is tried as an adult and is subject to the same sentencing options that would apply in any felony criminal case. If the judge retains juvenile court jurisdiction and does not transfer the juvenile to superior court, the case then proceeds to the adjudicatory hearing, which can immediately follow the transfer hearing or be set for a later date. Adjudicatory Hearing The adjudicatory hearing allows for the court to hear evidence from the district attorney, the juvenile’s attorney, and the complainant in order to make a determination of whether or not the juvenile committed the act(s) alleged in the petition(s). If the court finds that the allegations in the petition have not been proven “beyond a reasonable doubt,” the petition is dismissed and the matter is closed. If the court finds that the allegations have been proven, the juvenile is adjudicated delinquent and the court proceeds to the dispositional hearing. 2 Prior to a probable cause hearing, juveniles with a felony petition are scheduled for a first appearance hearing during which a judge determines whether the juvenile has an attorney and provides the juvenile and parent or responsible party with information pertaining to the allegation and future hearings. 4 Dispositional Hearing Overview of the Process The dispositional hearing, which may or may not occur on the same date as the adjudicatory hearing, marks the part of the process in which the court decides the sanctions, services, and conditions that will be ordered for the juvenile as a result of the adjudicated offense(s). G.S. § 7B-2500 states that the purposes of a disposition are “to design an appropriate plan to meet the needs of the juvenile and to achieve the objectives of the State in exercising jurisdiction, including the protection of the public.” In most cases, juvenile court judges use the predisposition report, which is prepared by the court counselor’s office, in developing a disposition. A risk and needs assessment is also completed by a court counselor on all adjudicated juveniles3 and is attached to this report. This assessment contains information pertaining to the juvenile’s social, medical, psychiatric, psychological, and educational history, as well as any factors indicating the probability of the juvenile engaging in future delinquency. (See Appendix A.) As shown in Table 1.1, the court’s selection of dispositional alternatives is governed by statute through a graduated sanctions chart that classifies juvenile offenders according to the seriousness of their adjudicated offense (vertical axis) and the degree and extent of their delinquent history (horizontal axis). (See Appendix B for more detailed information.) Table 1.1 Juvenile Disposition Chart Delinquency History Level Offense Classification Low 0 – 1 point Medium 2 – 3 points High 4 or more points Violent Class A – E felonies Level 2 or 3 Level 3 Level 3 Serious Class F – I felonies Class A1 misdemeanors Level 1 or 2 Level 2 Level 2 or 3 Minor Class 1 – 3 misdemeanors Level 1 Level 1 or 2 Level 2 Once the court has determined the offense classification and the delinquency history level for the juvenile, the dispositional level can be ascertained. Each cell within the juvenile disposition chart authorizes one or more dispositional levels for a particular combination of 3 Beginning in 2006, the risk and needs assessment was incorporated into the intake process for use in the initial decision to approve or not approve a complaint for filing, as well as for use at disposition. 5 offense classification and delinquency history level. There are three different dispositional levels – Level 1, Level 2, and Level 3 – each of which offers its own list of dispositional alternatives from which a judge must select at least one. Dispositional Alternatives Level 1 (Community) A Level 1 or community disposition offers the court less restrictive dispositional alternatives such as probation, community-based programs, non-residential and residential treatment programs, lower degrees of community service and restitution, and sanctions that place specific limitations on a juvenile (e.g., curfew, no association with specified persons, not be in specified places). (See Appendix C for a complete list of dispositional alternatives for all three levels.) It is noteworthy that many of the community-based programs for adjudicated youth who can receive a Level 1 or 2 disposition are funded through Juvenile Crime Prevention Council (JCPC) grants. Level 2 (Intermediate) Level 2 or intermediate dispositions are generally more restrictive than Level 1 dispositions. Level 2 dispositional alternatives include options such as intensive probation, group home placements (e.g., multipurpose group homes), regimented training programs, and house arrest. For Level 2 dispositions, a juvenile can be ordered to make restitution that is in excess of $500 or perform up to 200 hours of community service. The court can also utilize any Level 1 dispositional option for a juvenile adjudicated at Level 2. Several Level 2 options which offer a more restrictive environment for adjudicated juveniles are available for Level 1 dispositions as well. Eckerd Wilderness Camps serve juveniles with behavioral problems in a year-round, residential therapeutic environment.4 These camps have a contractual agreement with the DJJDP to operate seven camps in North Carolina. Supervised day programs, which allow a juvenile to remain in the community through a highly structured program of services, also represent an alternative that is available at both of the first two dispositional levels. An even more restrictive option is available for Level 1 or 2 dispositions in the form of intermittent confinement in a detention center. Detention centers are facilities that are approved to provide secure, temporary confinement and care for juveniles who meet statutorily defined criteria.5 The court can impose intermittent confinement for no more than five 24-hour periods as part of a Level 1 disposition. When a Level 2 disposition is authorized, the court can impose confinement on an intermittent basis for up to fourteen 24-hour periods. Because of the short-term nature of detention, programs and services offered in these centers are limited. 4 The wilderness camps serve a diverse group of juveniles, including those displaying problematic behavior who are not court-involved. 5 In addition to utilizing a detention placement as a dispositional alternative, juveniles can also be detained by the court pending their adjudicatory or dispositional hearing, or their adult hearing following the transfer of the case from juvenile court. 6 Level 3 (Commitment) A Level 3 or commitment disposition provides the most restrictive sanction available to a juvenile court judge, commitment to a Youth Development Center (YDC). A YDC, as defined in G.S. § 7B-1501(20), is “a secure residential facility authorized to provide long-term treatment, education, and rehabilitative services for delinquent juveniles committed by the court to the Department [DJJDP].” Unless a youth is under the age of 10, a court exercising jurisdiction over a juvenile for whom a Level 3 disposition is authorized must commit the juvenile to the DJJDP for placement in a YDC.6 However, G.S. § 7B-2513(e) states that the DJJDP, following assessment of a juvenile, may provide commitment services to the juvenile in a program not located in a YDC or detention facility (i.e., community commitment). Another exception gives the court discretion to impose a Level 2 disposition rather than a Level 3 disposition if the court makes written findings that substantiate extraordinary needs on the part of the juvenile in question. The length of a juvenile’s commitment must be at least six months; however, there are statutory provisions for extended jurisdiction for committed youth.7 Upon completion of their term of commitment, juveniles are subject to a minimum of 90 days of post-release supervision. The DJJDP currently houses approximately 400 committed juveniles in nine YDCs, including four new facilities that opened in 2008. JUVENILE RECIDIVISM RESEARCH DESIGN The research design for the 2009 biennial juvenile recidivism study was first specified in the Sentencing Commission’s 2005 “Report on the Proposed Methodology for Measuring Juvenile Recidivism in North Carolina” to the General Assembly.8 Based on that blueprint, the research strategy for the current study included: The selection of a population of juveniles brought to court with a delinquent complaint during the sample period of July 1, 2004 through June 30, 2005. The tracking of all juveniles in the sample for a fixed three-year follow-up period from their first court involvement in the sample period. The definition of recidivism as all subsequent delinquent complaints and adult arrests within the three years following the first court event of the juveniles within the sample period. 6 Pursuant to G.S. § 7B-2508(d), a court may impose a Level 3 disposition (commitment to a Youth Development Center) in lieu of a Level 2 disposition if the juvenile has previously received a Level 3 disposition in a prior juvenile action. Additionally, G.S. § 7B-2508 (g) allows for juveniles who have been adjudicated of a Minor offense to be committed to a YDC if the juvenile has been adjudicated of four or more prior offenses. 7 G.S. § 7B-2513(a). 8 North Carolina Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission, Report on the Proposed Methodology for Measuring Juvenile Recidivism in North Carolina Pursuant to Session Law 2004-124, Section 16.5, Raleigh, NC: North Carolina Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission, 2005. 7 It should be noted that the current report expands the study beyond its legislatively mandated scope. Juveniles adjudicated delinquent are studied within the context of all juveniles brought to court with a delinquent complaint in FY 2004/05, and the sample is followed for a three-year period to capture their delinquent and criminal reinvolvement. Data Sources Information for this report was collected from three sources: North Carolina Juvenile Online Information Network (NC-JOIN) – the DJJDP’s management information system contains data on all juveniles brought to court with a complaint; their demographic and social history information; current offense and disposition; and subsequent involvement in the juvenile justice system. North Carolina Department of Justice (DOJ) automated database – the DOJ criminal history database includes information on fingerprinted adult arrests and convictions for the sample subjects.9 DJJDP staff interviews – providing descriptive state level information regarding policies and practices in the juvenile system. Sample There were 20,236 juveniles identified in the DJJDP’s automated database who were brought to juvenile court and had their delinquent complaint either closed without further action, diverted, dismissed, or adjudicated between July 1, 2004 and June 30, 2005. The three-year fixed follow-up was calculated individually for each juvenile from the date of the event that prompted their inclusion in the sample. If a juvenile had more than one sample event during the sample period, his/her case was grouped based on the earliest of these events.10 If a juvenile had two or more court events on the same day, the most serious of these events was counted as the prompt for inclusion in the sample. Applying these criteria, the 20,236 sample juveniles were divided into four groups based on their level of involvement for their first court event: juveniles with cases adjudicated, dismissed, diverted, or closed. Independent Variables and Outcome Measures Background information available for all cases was limited to basic demographic data and offense charges filed. A variety of additional background characteristics and juvenile justice factors were extracted from NC-JOIN for juveniles adjudicated and disposed. 9 Note that the age of majority in North Carolina for criminal matters is 16. Anyone 16 years of age or older at the time of committing an offense is charged and processed in adult court. 10 Note that this method of grouping sample juveniles represents a change from the method used in the North Carolina Sentencing Commission's 2007 Juvenile Recidivism Study. In that earlier study, “[if] a juvenile had more than one sample event during the sampling period, his/her case was grouped based on the most serious of these events, ranked from adjudicated to dismissed, diverted, and closed.” 8 The primary outcome measure of recidivism was defined as either a delinquent juvenile complaint or an adult arrest that occurred within the three-year follow-up subsequent to the initial event. Additional measures of recidivism included the offense severity of recidivistic events, as well as subsequent adjudications and convictions. ANALYSIS AND REPORT OUTLINE Chapter Two provides a basic statistical profile of the juveniles whose cases were closed (n=5,715), diverted (n=5,100), dismissed (n=2,409), or adjudicated (n=7,012) delinquent in North Carolina between July 1, 2004 and June 30, 2005. The chapter also describes the sample’s subsequent (i.e., recidivistic) involvement in the juvenile and criminal justice systems during the three-year follow-up period and introduces multivariate techniques to compare the outcome measures for the four groups. Chapter Three presents a more complete statistical profile of the juveniles adjudicated and disposed (n=6,605), for whom the NC-JOIN database contained detailed court information, program assignments, and risk and needs assessments. The descriptive information is supplemented by an analysis of juvenile and adult recidivism of the adjudicated and disposed group and an exploration of the relationship between background and systemic factors and recidivistic outcomes. Finally, Chapter Four summarizes the findings of the report and offers some conclusions. 9 CHAPTER TWO STATISTICAL PROFILE AND RECIDIVISM OF THE JUVENILE SAMPLE This chapter profiles a cohort of juveniles processed through North Carolina’s juvenile justice system from July 1, 2004 through June 30, 2005. The first section describes the sample selection process and provides a statistical profile of the juvenile sample. The second section discusses the juveniles’ recidivism in the juvenile justice and criminal justice systems. Finally, the last section utilizes multivariate analysis to explore the impact of a variety of factors on recidivism. STATISTICAL PROFILE Sample Selection All of the 20,236 juveniles studied in the sample were brought to the attention of the juvenile justice system with at least one delinquent complaint. Based on the first decision that was made regarding their case in FY 2004/05, they were assigned to one of four levels of involvement – juveniles with complaints that were closed, diverted, dismissed, or adjudicated. If more than one decision or event occurred on the same day, the juvenile was assigned to a group based on the most serious event, as determined by the level of involvement in the system from a closed case (least serious) to diversion, dismissal, and adjudication (most serious). As shown in Figure 2.1, there were 5,715 juveniles in the sample whose cases were closed, 5,100 juveniles whose cases were diverted, 2,409 juveniles whose cases were dismissed, and 7,012 juveniles whose cases were adjudicated during the sample period. The information available for all four sample groups included basic demographic data, offense charges, confinement at juvenile facilities, and measures of recidivism. Personal Characteristics Table 2.1 presents the distribution of the demographic characteristics for the closed, diverted, dismissed, and adjudicated groups. At the time of their alleged offenses, the juveniles’ mean age was 13.6 years, with a median of 14.0 years. The majority of juveniles (62.8%) were 14- or 15-years old when the offense occurred. The diverted and closed groups had a slightly higher proportion of juveniles nine years or younger; the adjudicated and dismissed groups had a higher proportion of juveniles 14 years and older. Seventy percent of the sample juveniles were male. Adjudicated juveniles had the highest rate of males at 77.4% while the juveniles whose cases were closed had the lowest rate of males at 65.6%. 10 Definitions for the Juvenile Recidivism Sample Groups All juveniles in the sample had at least one delinquent complaint. Their assignment to a group within the sample was based on the first decision that was made regarding the complaint in their case in FY 2004/05. Closed: Complaint was closed at intake by a court counselor, with no further action required. Diverted: Complaint was diverted from court by a court counselor who developed a plan or contract for the juvenile to comply with certain conditions. Non-compliance with the plan or contract could later result in the filing of the complaint as a petition in juvenile court. Dismissed: Complaint was filed as a petition and dismissed by the court during the pre-adjudicatory or adjudicatory hearing. Adjudicated: Complaint was filed as a petition and the juvenile was adjudicated delinquent by the court. The adjudication may or may not have had a disposition entered in the time frame of the study. Almost 52% of the juveniles in the sample were black, 39.8% were white, 4.5% were Latino, and 4.2% were identified as other or unknown. The dismissed group had the highest percent of black juveniles (56.5%), while the diverted group had the lowest percent (46.6%). Most Serious Sample Offense A comparison of the groups with respect to their offense profile is provided in Table 2.2. The most serious offense charged in the complaint was used to compare juveniles whose cases were closed, diverted, or dismissed; information provided for the adjudicated group was based on the most serious offense at adjudication.11 11 For the purposes of this report, the term “sample offense” refers to the most serious offense charged in the complaint for the closed, diverted, or dismissed groups or the most serious adjudicated charge for the adjudicated group. 11 Table 2.1 Demographic Profile of Juveniles by Level of Involvement Demographic Level of Involvement Profile Adjudicated n=7,012 Dismissed n=2,409 Diverted n=5,100 Closed n=5,715 All N=20,236 Age at Offense Mean 13.8 13.6 13.5 13.5 13.6 Median 14 14 14 14 14 Age at Offense % % % % # % 6-9 Years 1.1 2.4 2.5 3.4 456 2.2 10 Years 1.5 2.6 1.8 2.2 385 1.9 11 Years 3.8 5.2 4.8 4.8 909 4.5 12 Years 9.1 9.7 10.9 10.5 2,030 10.0 13 Years 18.6 17.6 19.6 17.9 3,754 18.6 14 Years 29.1 27.5 28.4 27.5 5,722 28.3 15 Years 36.8 35.0 32.0 33.7 6,980 34.5 Gender % % % % # % Male 77.4 70.8 66.1 65.6 14,248 70.4 Female 22.6 29.2 33.9 34.4 5,988 29.6 Race % % % % # % Black 53.8 56.5 46.6 50.9 10,420 51.5 White 37.4 34.1 46.4 39.2 8,054 39.8 Latino 4.4 4.6 3.3 5.5 901 4.5 Other/Unknown 4.4 4.8 3.7 4.4 861 4.2 Note: No race information was available for Latino juveniles. Due to low percentages, American Indian, Asian, and multi-racial juveniles were combined with other/unknown into one category. SOURCE: NC Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission, FY 2004/05 Juvenile Recidivism Sample Eighty-nine percent of the 20,236 juveniles had a misdemeanor as their most serious sample offense. Felonies comprised 22.4% and 19.2% respectively of the offenses for the adjudicated and dismissed groups, but only 3.2% and 2.1% respectively of the offenses for the diverted and closed groups. Overall, 1.4% of the sample were charged with violent offenses (felony offense classes A through E), 17.1% were charged with serious offenses (felony offense classes F through I and misdemeanor class A1), and 81.5% were charged with minor offenses (misdemeanor classes 1 through 3).12 None of the juveniles with closed or diverted cases were charged with violent offenses and only a small percentage were charged with serious offenses. 12 See Chapter One for a discussion of offense classifications in the Juvenile Disposition Chart. 12 These findings reflect both legal and court counselor considerations such as continued court processing for non-divertible and other serious felonies, and closing the case or seeking diversion for those juveniles with less serious offenses (especially those charged with misdemeanors). It should be noted that the seriousness of the adjudicated juveniles’ offense conduct might be somewhat underrepresented, due to the practice of plea negotiation and charge reduction in some judicial districts. Table 2.2 Most Serious Sample Offense by Level of Involvement Level of Involvement Adjudicated n=7,012 Dismissed n=2,409 Diverted n=5,100 Closed n=5,715 All N=20,236 Most Serious Sample Offense % % % % # % Offense Type Felony 22.4 19.2 3.2 2.1 2,312 11.4 Misdemeanor 77.6 80.8 96.8 97.9 17,924 88.6 Offense Classification Violent 2.7 3.7 0.0 0.0 279 1.4 Serious 29.1 25.3 8.2 6.9 3,464 17.1 Minor 68.2 71.0 91.8 93.1 16,493 81.5 Note: For the adjudicated group, offense information is based on the most serious offense at adjudication. For the other groups, offense information is based on the most serious alleged offense at time of complaint. SOURCE: NC Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission, FY 2004/05 Juvenile Recidivism Sample RECIDIVISM IN THE JUVENILE JUSTICE AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEMS Juveniles in the FY 2004/05 sample were tracked in the juvenile justice system and/or the adult criminal justice system to determine whether they re-offended during the three-year follow-up period. The primary measures of recidivism for this study were delinquent juvenile complaints and adult arrests that occurred subsequent to the FY 2004/05 event placing the juvenile in the sample.13 Follow-up Period and Time at Risk Each juvenile in the sample was followed for a period of three years to determine whether subsequent involvement with the juvenile justice or adult criminal justice systems 13 DJJDP’s NC-JOIN database was used to determine subsequent juvenile complaints, while DOJ’s criminal history database was used to determine adult arrests. 13 occurred. The follow-up period was calculated individually by using the date a decision (e.g., diversion, adjudication) was reached in the juvenile’s case as the starting point. Given that the age of adult jurisdiction in North Carolina is 16 years, a large number of juveniles in the FY 2004/05 sample reached the age of criminal responsibility during the three-year follow-up. Most juveniles (76.8%) spent at least a portion of the three-year follow-up under both juvenile and adult jurisdiction. Almost 16% of the juveniles remained under the jurisdiction of the juvenile justice system for their entire three-year period and were never under adult jurisdiction. A smaller proportion of the juveniles (7.3%) had already turned 16 years old at sample entry and were under adult jurisdiction for their entire three-year follow-up. In examining recidivism in either system, this study tracked subsequent delinquent complaints for the 18,754 who were under juvenile jurisdiction at least some of the time, and tracked adult arrests for the 17,011 who were under adult jurisdiction at least some of the time. Figure 2.2 provides information on the time at risk of recidivating spent as a juvenile and as an adult during the three-year follow-up. The sample as a whole was at risk to be processed in the juvenile justice system for 17.3 months, or 48% of the 36 follow-up months and was at risk to be charged as an adult in the criminal justice system for an average of 18.7 months, or 52% of the total follow-up months. Based on their age distribution (see Table 2.1.), juveniles whose cases were diverted or closed were younger and had a shorter average time at risk as adults (16.9 and 17.5 months respectively) than juveniles whose cases were adjudicated or dismissed (20.3 and 20.5 months respectively). Figure 2.2: Average Number of Follow-up Months under Juvenile and Adult Jurisdictions 15.7 Months (44%) 15.5 Months (43%) 19.1 Months (53%) 18.5 Months (51%) 17.3 Months (48%) 20.3 Months (56%) 20.5 Months (57%) 16.9 Months (47%) 17.5 Months (49%) 18.7 Months (52%) 0 12 24 36 All Closed Diverted Dismissed Adjudicated Months under Juvenile Jurisdiction Months under Adult Jurisdiction SOURCE: NC Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission, FY 2004/05 Juvenile Recidivism Sample 14 A fixed follow-up period was used in an attempt to obtain the same “window of opportunity” for each juvenile to re-offend. However, in actuality the window of opportunity was not necessarily similar for each sample subject – some may have been committed to a YDC or admitted to a detention center in the juvenile justice system, while others may have been incarcerated in local jails or in prison in the adult criminal justice system. Juvenile and Adult Recidivism Subsequent delinquent complaints (also referred to as “subsequent complaints”) were used as the primary measure for juvenile recidivism, supplemented with information on subsequent adjudications that resulted from those recidivistic complaints. A subsequent delinquent complaint had to occur after the start date of the three-year follow-up period and the juvenile had to have committed the alleged offense before age 16 in order for the complaint to be considered recidivism.14 Subsequent adjudications resulting from those complaints also had to conform to those time constraints in the follow-up.15 In addition, juveniles had to be at risk in the juvenile justice system; therefore, 1,482 juveniles were excluded from the juvenile recidivism analysis because they had already aged out of the juvenile justice system at the start of the follow-up. Arrests were used as the primary measure for adult recidivism, supplemented with information on convictions. Adult arrests had to occur within the three-year follow-up and the date of arrest had to occur after the juvenile turned 16 years old in order to be counted as recidivism.16 Convictions were defined similarly, and the arrest leading to the conviction also must have occurred in the follow-up period. In addition, juveniles had to be at risk in the adult criminal justice system; therefore, 3,225 juveniles were excluded from the adult recidivism analysis because they were under juvenile jurisdiction for the entire follow-up period. Finally, a combined measure of subsequent juvenile complaints and/or adult arrests was compiled to indicate any recidivistic involvement in either system, which was supplemented by a similar measure for subsequent juvenile adjudications and/or adult convictions.17 All 20,236 sample juveniles were included in analyzing overall recidivism. 14 Although the subsequent delinquent complaint had to occur within the three-year follow-up, the date that the alleged offense occurred could have been prior to the follow-up period. 15 Throughout the report, the term “subsequent adjudications” is used. This term refers to adjudications during the three-year follow-up for juveniles who have no prior adjudications, as well as for those who have prior adjudications. 16 Although the adult arrest had to occur within the three-year follow-up, the date that the alleged offense occurred could have been prior to the follow-up period. 17 Tables referring to only juvenile recidivism, or only adult recidivism, state so specifically. Otherwise, the terms “recidivism” or “overall recidivism” in this report refer to having either a subsequent delinquent juvenile complaint, an adult arrest, or both. 15 Subsequent Juvenile Complaints and Adult Arrests Table 2.3 presents the three primary measures of recidivism for the entire sample and the four groups. Of the 20,236 juveniles in the sample, 44.8% had a subsequent juvenile complaint and/or adult arrest (“overall recidivism”). Of those juveniles under juvenile jurisdiction during follow-up (n=18,754), 36.7% had a subsequent delinquent complaint. Of those juveniles under adult jurisdiction during follow-up (n=17,011), 21.4% had an adult arrest. Level of involvement was closely correlated with recidivism: the further a juvenile was processed in the juvenile justice system, the more likely that juvenile was to recidivate, with the overall recidivism rate ranging from 35.5% for the group with a closed complaint to 55.7% for the adjudicated group. Table 2.3 Recidivism Rates for Juvenile Complaints and Adult Arrests by Level of Involvement Subsequent Complaints Adult Arrests Overall Level of Recidivism Involvement n % n % N % Adjudicated 6,304 45.7 6,175 28.1 7,012 55.7 Dismissed 2,050 40.8 2,057 25.5 2,409 48.0 Diverted 4,951 31.9 4,157 15.3 5,100 38.7 Closed 5,449 29.0 4,622 15.9 5,715 35.5 TOTAL 18,754 36.7 17,011 21.4 20,236 44.8 SOURCE: NC Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission, FY 2004/05 Juvenile Recidivism Sample For those juveniles with at least one subsequent delinquent complaint or arrest during the three-year follow-up, the first recidivistic event occurred an average of 11.6 months after the beginning of their follow-up. (See Figure 2.3.) Adjudicated and dismissed juveniles tended to recidivate somewhat earlier than the juveniles whose cases were diverted or closed. It should be noted that a number of juveniles spent some portion of that “time to failure” under some form of supervision in the community or in confinement. 16 Figure 2.3: Average Time to First Subsequent Complaint or Adult Arrest during Follow-up 12.2 Months 12.8 Months 11.3 Months 10.8 Months 11.6 Months 0 12 24 36 All Closed Diverted Dismissed Adjudicated Months SOURCE: NC Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission, FY 2004/05 Juvenile Recidivism Sample Table 2.4 provides information on the total number of recidivistic events for those juveniles who had a subsequent juvenile complaint, an adult arrest, or both during the follow-up period. The 9,064 juveniles who had at least one subsequent delinquent complaint or adult arrest accounted for a total of 22,026 recidivistic events. The adjudicated group accounted for the highest volume of subsequent complaints and/or adult arrests at 10,133. Table 2.4 also includes information on the mean number of recidivistic events. The average number of overall subsequent complaints and/or adult arrests for those juveniles who re-offended was 2.4 for the three-year follow-up. The adjudicated and dismissed juveniles had a higher average number of recidivistic events (at 2.6 each) than the diverted or closed juveniles (2.2 and 2.3 respectively) during follow-up. Subsequent Juvenile Adjudications and Adult Convictions Table 2.5 details subsequent adjudication and conviction rates for the four sample groups. As expected, adjudication/conviction rates were lower than complaint/arrest rates for two reasons: due to cases being closed, dismissed, or acquitted, and due to a time lag between initial processing and court action, possibly falling outside the follow-up period. Adjudication/conviction rates indicated patterns similar to complaint/arrest rates – the more serious the level of involvement in the juvenile justice system, the higher the rate of subsequent adjudications/convictions. Of those juveniles under juvenile jurisdiction during follow-up (n=18,754), 24.1% had a subsequent adjudication. Of those juveniles under adult jurisdiction during follow-up (n=17,011), 11.0% had an adult conviction. The combined recidivistic adjudication/conviction rate for the sample was 29.2%, with 40.4% for the adjudicated group compared to 19.8% for the group with closed complaints. Table 2.4 Recidivistic Events by Level of Involvement Total Number and Average Number of Recidivistic Events During the Three-Year Follow-Up Period Subsequent Complaints n=18,754 Adult Arrests n=17,011 Overall Recidivism Level of N=20,236 Involvement # of Juveniles with Any Complaint # of Complaints Average # of Complaints # of Juveniles with Any Arrest # of Arrests Average # of Arrests # of Juveniles with Any Complaint or Arrest # of Complaints and/or Arrests Average # of Complaint s and/or Arrests Adjudicated 2,879 6,598 2.3 1,737 3,516 2.0 3,904 10,133 2.6 Dismissed 837 1,821 2.2 525 1,142 2.2 1,156 2,972 2.6 Diverted 1,579 3,211 2.0 635 1,041 1.6 1,973 4,257 2.2 Closed 1,580 3,330 2.1 735 1,328 1.8 2,031 4,664 2.3 All 6,875 14,960 2.2 3,632 7,027 1.9 9,064 22,026 2.4 SOURCE: NC Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission, FY 2004/05 Juvenile Recidivism Sample 18 Table 2.5 Recidivism Rates for Juvenile Adjudications and Adult Convictions by Level of Involvement Subsequent Adjudications Convictions Adjudications and/or Convictions Level of Involvement n % n % N % Adjudicated 6,304 33.7 6,175 15.9 7,012 40.4 Dismissed 2,050 25.5 2,057 14.6 2,409 31.1 Diverted 4,951 20.0 4,157 6.5 5,100 23.3 Closed 5,449 16.2 4,622 7.0 5,715 19.8 TOTAL 18,754 24.1 17,011 11.0 20,236 29.2 SOURCE: NC Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission, FY 2004/05 Juvenile Recidivism Sample Sample Offense and Recidivism While the most serious sample offense for the majority of juveniles at all levels of involvement was a misdemeanor, the relative percentage of felony offenses was significantly higher for the dismissed and adjudicated cases (19% and 22% respectively) than for the diverted and closed cases (3% and 2% respectively). (See Table 2.2.) Juveniles charged with a felony as their most serious sample offense were more likely to recidivate than those charged with a misdemeanor – 51% and 44% respectively. (See Table 2.6.) However, this finding did not hold true for each of the specific groups. Juveniles with adjudicated, diverted, and closed complaints were more likely to recidivate if their sample adjudication or complaint was a misdemeanor. Dismissed juveniles were more likely to recidivate if their sample complaint was a felony. The relationship between the sample offense and subsequent recidivistic offense is explored in Table 2.7 for the 8,945 juveniles with any recidivism. Within the three-year follow-up, juveniles with a sample felony offense were more likely (65.7%) to have a felony offense as their most serious subsequent offense. Similarly, juveniles who had a sample misdemeanor offense were more likely (54.9%) to have a misdemeanor offense as their most serious subsequent offense. As expected, adjudicated and dismissed juveniles were more likely to have a subsequent felony complaint or adult arrest (55.3% and 52.9% respectively) than juveniles whose cases were diverted or closed (39.5% and 38.7% respectively). 19 Table 2.6 Recidivism Rates by Sample Offense and Level of Involvement Recidivism Rates for Juveniles with a: Felony Misdemeanor Overall Level of Recidivism Involvement n % n % N % Adjudicated 1,568 54.3 5,444 56.1 7,012 55.7 Dismissed 463 51.0 1,946 47.3 2,409 48.0 Diverted 162 32.1 4,938 38.9 5,100 38.7 Closed 119 32.8 5,596 35.6 5,715 35.5 All 2,312 51.0 17,924 44.0 20,236 44.8 SOURCE: NC Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission, FY 2004/05 Juvenile Recidivism Sample Table 2.7 Most Serious Recidivistic Offense by Most Serious Sample Offense Most Serious Recidivistic Offense Felony n=4,276 Misdemeanor n=4,669 Sample Offense N % % Felony 1,156 65.7 34.3 Misdemeanor 7,789 45.1 54.9 Total 8,945 47.8 52.2 Note: There were 119 offenses missing due to the type of offense (felony or misdemeanor) being unknown for the most serious recidivistic offense. SOURCE: NC Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission, FY 2004/05 Juvenile Recidivism Sample Age at Sample Offense and Recidivism Table 2.8 provides recidivism rates by the juvenile’s age at the time of the sample offense and by level of involvement in the juvenile justice system. As expected, the youngest juveniles had the lowest recidivism rates at 22.6% for 6- to 9-year-olds. The rate of recidivism increased to its highest levels for juveniles aged 12 and 13 (54.0% and 52.9% respectively), and declined again considerably for the 14- and 15-year-olds (to 47.0% and 37.3% respectively). 20 Table 2.8 Recidivism Rates for Juveniles by Age at Sample Offense and Level of Involvement Age at % % % % % Sample Offense N Adjudicated n=7,012 Dismissed n=2,409 Diverted n=5,100 Closed n=5,715 All N=20,236 6-9 years 456 33.8 25.9 26.2 15.2 22.6 10 years 385 54.4 40.3 43.6 26.2 40.3 11 years 909 55.5 59.5 42.7 38.6 47.5 12 years 2,030 67.4 63.7 46.1 43.2 54.0 13 years 3,754 65.2 52.0 45.7 44.8 52.9 14 years 5,722 58.4 50.2 40.4 37.1 47.0 15 years 6,980 46.5 40.3 30.5 29.3 37.3 All 20,236 55.7 48.0 38.7 35.5 44.8 SOURCE: NC Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission, FY 2004/05 Juvenile Recidivism Sample Additional Juvenile Justice Involvement One of the more consistent research findings links juvenile confinement to an increased probability of adult criminality. To examine this assertion, information was collected for each juvenile on commitment to a YDC and admission to a detention center any time between the sample entry and the end of their follow-up period. In the following sections, adult arrest rates are examined for juveniles who were committed to a YDC, admitted to a detention center, or transferred to adult court during follow-up. Juvenile Commitment and Adult Arrests Table 2.9 describes commitment rates for the four groups while under juvenile jurisdiction during the three-year follow-up. Commitment to a YDC is the most severe sanction available for juveniles who are adjudicated delinquent. A YDC commitment is not necessarily linked to the sample event for the four groups and could have resulted either from a delinquent complaint prior to the follow-up period or from a delinquent complaint that occurred during the follow-up period. Of the entire sample, 4.2% had one or more commitments to a YDC, with the highest rate of 9.2% for those in the adjudicated group. 21 Table 2.9 Commitment to Youth Development Center by Level of Involvement YDC Commitment No YDC Level of Commitment Involvement N n % n % Adjudicated 7,012 642 9.2 6,370 90.8 Dismissed 2,409 81 3.4 2,328 96.6 Diverted 5,100 63 1.2 5,037 98.8 Closed 5,715 69 1.2 5,646 98.8 All 20,236 855 4.2 19,381 95.8 SOURCE: NC Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission, FY 2004/05 Juvenile Recidivism Sample Table 2.10 compares adult arrest rates for juveniles in the sample who had no YDC commitments with those who had one or more YDC commitments. Thirty-five percent of those with a YDC commitment had at least one subsequent adult arrest compared to 20.7% of those with no YDC commitments. This differential in adult recidivism rates held true for all four groups. Table 2.10 Adult Arrests by Commitment to Youth Development Center and Level of Involvement Adult Arrests for Juveniles with: YDC Commitment No YDC Commitment Adult Level of Arrests Involvement n % n % n % Adjudicated 585 36.4 5,590 27.3 6,175 28.1 Dismissed 67 41.8 1,990 25.0 2,057 25.5 Diverted 50 28.0 4,107 15.1 4,157 15.3 Closed 52 17.3 4,570 15.9 4,622 15.9 All 754 35.0 16,257 20.7 17,011 21.4 SOURCE: NC Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission, FY 2004/05 Juvenile Recidivism Sample 22 Juvenile Detention Center Admission and Adult Arrests Admission to a detention center can occur while a juvenile awaits adjudication and disposition, or as a condition of probation. Table 2.11 provides the detention center admission rates for the four groups. Of the entire sample, 22.8% had at least one admission to a detention center. The rate ranged from a high of 42.1% for the adjudicated group to a low of 10.4% for the group with a closed case. Table 2.11 Admission to Detention Center by Level of Involvement Detention Center Admission No Detention Center Level of Admission Involvement N n % n % Adjudicated 7,012 2,955 42.1 4,057 57.9 Dismissed 2,409 456 18.9 1,953 81.1 Diverted 5,100 609 11.9 4,491 88.1 Closed 5,715 594 10.4 5,121 89.6 All 20,236 4,614 22.8 15,622 77.2 SOURCE: NC Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission, FY 2004/05 Juvenile Recidivism Sample Similar to commitment to a YDC, a history of admissions to detention centers was in direct relationship with an increased probability of adult arrest. (See Table 2.12.) Almost 34% of those with at least one juvenile detention center admission had one or more adult arrests, compared to 17.7% of those with no juvenile detention center admissions – again, a difference in recidivism rates found in all four levels of involvement. Overall, experiencing some form of confinement during their juvenile years increased the sample’s rate of adult arrests between 14% and 16%. Juvenile Transfers to Superior Court As mentioned in Chapter One, juveniles alleged to be delinquent may be transferred to the Superior Court for trial as adults. There were 57 juveniles who, after selection into the study sample, were transferred to adult court during the follow-up period. No information is available about findings of guilt or innocence, or dispositions, in those proceedings. However, 42.6% of the juveniles transferred to adult court had at least one or more adult arrest during follow-up compared to 21.3% of those juveniles who were not transferred to adult court during follow-up. 23 Table 2.12 Adult Arrests by Admission to Detention Center and Level of Involvement Adult Arrests for Juveniles with: Detention Center Admission No Detention Center Admission Adult Level of Arrests Involvement n % n % n % Adjudicated 2,602 34.5 3,573 23.5 6,175 28.1 Dismissed 378 37.3 1,679 22.9 2,057 25.5 Diverted 466 26.8 3,691 13.8 4,157 15.3 Closed 450 31.6 4,172 14.2 4,622 15.9 All 3,896 33.5 13,115 17.7 17,011 21.4 SOURCE: NC Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission, FY 2004/05 Juvenile Recidivism Sample MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS Logistic Regression Models A regression model is a statistical tool used to estimate the association of a set of independent variables (e.g., age, sex, offense seriousness) with a dependent variable (e.g., subsequent delinquent complaint, adult arrest), while also quantifying the singular contribution of each of the variables in the model. This type of analysis allows for a determination of whether level of involvement in the juvenile justice system, for example, has any relationship with a juvenile’s probability of recidivating while controlling for other factors such as age, gender, and race. It also indicates the relative importance of the independent variables in relation to recidivism. Using logistic regression,18 several models were tested to determine how a set of independent variables was related to the probability of overall recidivism for the entire sample of juveniles (n=20,236) and to the probability of adult arrest for those juveniles who aged into the adult criminal justice system during the three-year follow-up (n=17,011). It should be noted that while the effects reported in this analysis may reveal the existence of a relationship between an independent variable such as age and a dependent (outcome) variable such as adult arrest, such effects do not necessarily imply a causal relationship between age and arrest.19 18 Logistic regression involves regression using the logit (i.e., the logarithm of the odds) of an outcome occurring. This type of analysis is most appropriate for regression models with a dichotomous dependent variable such as being rearrested or not. 19 The effects were converted from logistic model coefficients and indicate the estimated increase or decrease in the probability of an outcome occurring which is associated with each independent variable for the average offender. See Aldrich and Nelson (1984; 41-44) for further information on converting logistic coefficients to “effects.” 24 Dependent Variables (Outcome Measures) Modeled The regression analyses in this section modeled two dependent variables: ► Overall Recidivism – any subsequent delinquent complaint, adult arrest, or both ► Adult Arrest – subsequent adult arrest only Independent Variables Used in the Regression Models Variables available for the entire sample included gender, race, age at sample event, seriousness level of sample offense, level of involvement in the juvenile justice system for sample offense, whether a juvenile had any YDC commitments or detention center admissions during the three-year follow-up period, and the amount of time (in months) the juvenile was at risk to be charged as an adult in the criminal justice system. Logistic Regression Analyses Table 2.13 displays the estimated effect of the independent variables in each model on the outcome measure modeled. The effects listed should be interpreted based on the following criteria: whether the effect of the variable is statistically significant (i.e., with a relationship unlikely to be the result of random chance) and, if so, the direction and magnitude of the variable’s effect on the outcome. In general, only estimated effects that are statistically significant are reviewed. Model 1 contains the estimated effects of each independent variable on a juvenile’s probability of having a delinquent complaint or an arrest during the three-year follow-up period. All juveniles in the FY 2004/05 juvenile recidivism sample were included in the analysis of overall recidivism presented in Model 1. The average probability of recidivism for the FY 2004/05 sample was 44.8%, and this outcome was related to a number of personal, offense-related, and court involvement factors. The values presented for Model 1 indicate the approximate change in the probability of delinquent complaint or arrest associated with each independent variable relative to a reference category. Being a male, for example, enhanced the probability of subsequent complaint or arrest by 17.8% over that of being a female. Black juveniles had an increased probability (of 15.5%) of subsequent complaint or arrest compared to non-black juveniles. With each additional year of age (based on the juvenile’s age at sample event), the probability of complaint or arrest decreased 1.3%. 25 Table 2.13 Effect of Personal and Juvenile Justice Factors on Recidivism Independent Variables Model 1: Overall Recidivism n=20,236 (44.8%) Model 2: Adult Arrest n=17,011 (21.4%) Personal Characteristics Black 15.5% 16.9% Male 17.8% 25.5% Age at Event -1.3% NS Offense Classification Violent Reference Reference Serious 14.1% 10.6% Minor 15.9% 10.3% Level of Involvement Adjudicated Reference Reference Dismissed -7.1% NS Diverted -15.0% -3.6% Closed -18.4% -3.9% Commitment to YDC or Detention Center n/a 18.1% Adult Months n/a 1.1% Note: For the adjudicated group, offense information is based on the most serious offense at adjudication. For the other groups, offense information is based on the most serious offense at time of complaint. SOURCE: NC Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission, FY 2004/05 Juvenile Recidivism Sample Those juveniles with a serious or minor offense had an increased likelihood of complaint or arrest (14.1% and 15.9% respectively) compared with those juveniles with a violent offense. However, this finding may be related to YDC commitment during the follow-up period.20 In FY 2004/05, the average YDC length of stay for juveniles adjudicated delinquent was 12.9 months.21 Almost 26% of juveniles with a violent offense were committed to a YDC during follow-up compared to only 9.7% of juveniles with a serious offense classification and 2.7% of juveniles 20 The length of a juvenile’s commitment must be at least six months; however, there are statutory provisions for extended jurisdiction for committed youth. G.S.§ 7B-2513. 21 North Carolina Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission’s Juvenile Delinquent Population Projections Fiscal Year 2008/09 to Fiscal Year 2012/13, 2008. 26 with a minor offense classification. Thus, the proportion of time within the three-year follow-up period in which a juvenile could potentially recidivate was greater for juveniles with a serious or minor offense. Finally, all levels of court involvement that did not result in adjudication also significantly reduced the probability of subsequent delinquent complaint or arrest, ranging from an 18.4% reduction for juveniles whose cases were closed, to a 15.0% reduction for juveniles whose cases were diverted, and a 7.1% reduction for juveniles whose cases were dismissed. For those juveniles who aged into the adult criminal justice system during the three-year follow-up period (n=17,011), Model 2 examined the estimated effects of each independent variable on having an adult arrest during follow-up (an average probability of 21.4%). A systemic variable was added to this model: commitment to either a YDC or to a detention center any time between sample entry and the end of the follow-up period. In addition, the amount of time (in months) the juvenile was an adult (16 years or older) during the three-year follow-up period was included as a control variable. The independent variables had similar effects to those in Model 1. Black juveniles and male juveniles had an increased probability of having an adult arrest compared to non-black juveniles and female juveniles. Juveniles who had a serious or minor offense were more likely (10.6% and 10.3% respectively) to be arrested than those with a violent offense. Juveniles whose cases were diverted or closed had a significantly reduced probability of arrest compared to those juveniles who were adjudicated (3.6% and 3.9% respectively). Juveniles whose cases were dismissed did not significantly differ from the adjudicated group. Commitment to either a YDC or a detention center increased the likelihood of arrest by 18.1%. Finally, for each additional month spent as an adult in the follow-up period, the probability of having an adult arrest increased 1.1%. SUMMARY The following section presents a summary of the major findings in Chapter Two: Sample Profile The 20,236 juveniles comprising the FY 2004/05 sample were grouped based on their level of involvement in the juvenile justice system. The four levels, ranked from least to most serious, included juveniles whose cases were either closed (n=5,715), diverted (n=5,100), dismissed (n=2,409), or adjudicated (n=7,012). Of the sample juveniles, 70.4% were male, 51.5% were black, and the mean age was 13.6 years. The majority of the juveniles (88.6%) had a misdemeanor as their most serious sample offense. Outcome Measures Three primary recidivism measures were used: subsequent delinquent juvenile complaint, adult arrest, and a combined measure of complaint and/or arrest (i.e., overall recidivism) – with a fixed three-year follow-up period for each juvenile. 27 The overall recidivism rate for the sample was 44.8%. The rate of subsequent delinquent complaint was 36.7%; the rate of adult arrest was 21.4%. Key Findings A stair-step progression of recidivism was observed among the sample subgroups: the adjudicated group recidivated at the highest rate, and the closed group recidivated at the lowest rate. The type of sample offense (i.e., felony or misdemeanor) was related to both the rate of recidivism and to the type of recidivistic offense. There was a complex relationship between juvenile age and rate of recidivism. Juveniles aged 6-9 had the lowest rate of recidivism; juveniles aged 10-12 showed a gradually increasing rate, with recidivism peaking at ages 12-13; and those aged 14-15 showed considerably decreasing rates. Multivariate statistics examined the net effect of personal characteristics and systemic factors on two outcomes: overall recidivism and adult arrest. The following factors increased the likelihood of recidivism: being male, black and having a serious or minor sample offense (relative to violent). The following factors decreased the likelihood of recidivism: being younger and having a closed, diverted, or dismissed case (as opposed to an adjudicated case). Further, juvenile confinement increased the probability of adult arrest, as did the amount of time juveniles spent under adult jurisdiction. The next chapter provides a more in-depth look at adjudicated and disposed juveniles, a subgroup of the adjudicated juveniles discussed in this chapter. For this subgroup, more extensive information was available about their assessed risk and needs, their delinquent profile, and their dispositional sanctions. 28 CHAPTER THREE STATISTICAL PROFILE AND RECIDIVISM OF JUVENILES ADJUDICATED DELINQUENT AND DISPOSED This chapter examines in more detail a subgroup of the juveniles adjudicated delinquent from July 1, 2004 through June 30, 2005 discussed in Chapter Two. Specifically, it examines those adjudicated juveniles who had a disposition entered in DJJDP’s NC-JOIN database (hereinafter referred to as juveniles adjudicated and disposed). The first section provides a statistical profile that includes detailed court information, risk and needs assessments, and court-ordered sanctions for the subgroup. The second section examines the recidivism of adjudicated and disposed juveniles in both the juvenile justice and criminal justice systems. Finally, the last section provides a multivariate analysis of the impact of a variety of pre-existing factors on the juveniles’ recidivism. STATISTICAL PROFILE Of the 7,012 juveniles adjudicated during FY 2004/05, 6,605 juveniles (or 94%) also had a disposition entered into the NC-JOIN database.22 As detailed in the following sections, there is considerably more information available for this subgroup, including risk and needs assessments, offense classification, delinquency history level, disposition imposed, and sanctions ordered at disposition. Personal Characteristics There were no differences in the demographic profile of the adjudicated and disposed subgroup when compared to the 7,012 adjudicated juveniles or to the 407 adjudicated juveniles who did not have a disposition. The majority of the juveniles in this subgroup were male (77.6%) and black (54.1%), with a mean age of 13.8 years at sample offense. (See Table 2.1 in Chapter Two for further details regarding the demographic profile of adjudicated juveniles and the other sample groups.) Risk and Needs Assessments Prior to disposition, DJJDP staff administer instruments to assess the risk of future delinquency and the individual needs of all adjudicated juveniles; Table 3.1 lists select results of the assessments for this subgroup.23 Most notable among the risk factors, 89.2% of the juveniles had school behavior problems, 50.4% had at least one prior intake referral, 34.1% had at least one prior adjudication, and 35.7% had parents/guardians who were unwilling or unable to provide parental supervision. 22 In the juvenile justice system, the dispositional hearing often occurs at a later date than the adjudicatory hearing in order for a pre-disposition report to be completed. As a result, disposition may not have occurred during FY 2004/05 for the adjudicated juveniles in the sample. 23 See Appendix A for a copy of the North Carolina Assessment of Juvenile Risk of Future Offending and the North Carolina Assessment of Juvenile Needs instruments. 29 Table 3.1 Select Risk and Needs Indicators Juveniles Adjudicated and Disposed Risk Assessment (n=6,291) % First Referral Before Age 12 13.4 Prior Intake Referrals 50.4 Prior Adjudications 34.1 Prior Assaults 24.1 Had Run Away 17.9 Had School Behavior Problems 89.2 Parents/Guardians Unwilling/Unable to Provide Parental Supervision 35.7 High Risk 12.1 Needs Assessment (n=6,301) % Functioning Below Academic Grade Level 19.3 Juvenile Parent Status (i.e., is a parent) 1.7 History of Victimization 20.4 Risky Sexual Behavior 9.3 Mental Health Needs Are Being Addressed 71.3 Basic Needs Are Not Being Met 0.8 Impaired Functioning (i.e., medical, dental, health/hygiene) 0.8 Conflict in the Home 28.1 Parent, Guardian or Custodian has Disabilities 5.9 One or More Members of Household Have Substance Abuse Problems 14.6 Indication of Family Members Involvement in Criminal Activity 40.0 High Needs 7.4 Combined Risk and Needs Measures (n=6,605) % Substance Use 38.7 Gang Affiliation 6.1 Negative Peer Relationships 77.1 Note: Of the 6,605 juveniles adjudicated and disposed, there were 314 cases with missing values for risk variables and 304 cases with missing values for needs variables. SOURCE: NC Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission, FY 2004/05 Juvenile Recidivism Sample 30 The needs assessment revealed that very few juveniles were having unmet basic needs (0.8%). Most juveniles identified with mental health needs were having those needs addressed (71.3%). Problems related to home-life were also evident, with 40% of the juveniles having criminality in their family, 28.1% experiencing conflict in the home, and 20.4% having some history of victimization. Combining risk and needs indicators, 38.7% of the juveniles adjudicated and disposed had substance abuse problems, while 77.1% had negative peer relationships and 6.1% reported some type of gang affiliation. Using the assessment instruments, DJJDP staff computes a separate risk and needs score for each adjudicated juvenile, placing the juvenile in a low, medium, or high level for both risk and needs. Just over one-third of the juveniles scored in the lowest levels of both needs and risk (36.3%), and only a small group (3.5%) demonstrated both a high level of needs and risk. (See Table 3.2.) Sixty-three percent of the adjudicated and disposed juveniles placed in the same level of needs and risk (as highlighted in the shaded diagonal cells of Table 3.2). Table 3.2 Risk Level by Needs Level Juveniles Adjudicated and Disposed Needs Level Risk Level N % Low n=3,065 % Medium n=2,707 % High n=463 % Total n=6,235 Low 3,068 36.3 12.3 0.6 49.2 Medium 2,406 12.0 23.3 3.4 38.6 High 761 0.9 7.8 3.5 12.2 Total 6,235 49.2 43.4 7.4 100.0 Note: Of the 6,605 juveniles adjudicated and disposed, there were 370 cases with missing values for both risk and needs variables. SOURCE: NC Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission, FY 2004/05 Juvenile Recidivism Sample Sample Offense, Delinquency History, and Dispositions Felonies constituted the most serious adjudicated offense for 23.1% of the juveniles adjudicated and disposed. Table 3.3 shows that only 2.8% of this subgroup was adjudicated for a violent offense, with 29.8% adjudicated for a serious offense, and 67.4% for a minor offense. Seventy-nine percent were in the low delinquency history level, 12.2% were in the medium delinquency history level, and 8.8% were in the high delinquency history level. The single largest group of juveniles had little or no delinquency history and was adjudicated for non-violent misdemeanors. The more serious the adjudicated offense, the higher the delinquency history level – 17.2% of the juveniles adjudicated for a violent offense were in the highest delinquency history level, compared to 11.3% of those adjudicated for a serious offense and 7.3% of those adjudicated for a minor offense. 31 Table 3.3 Offense Classification by Delinquency History Level Juveniles Adjudicated and Disposed Delinquency History Level Offense Classification N % Low 0 – 1 point n=5,220 % Medium 2 – 3 points n=803 % High 4+ points n=582 % Total n=6,605 Violent (Class A – Class E) 186 72.0 10.8 17.2 2.8 Serious (Class F – Class A1) 1,966 71.7 17.0 11.3 29.8 Minor (Class 1 – Class 3) 4,453 82.6 10.1 7.3 67.4 Total 6,605 79.0 12.2 8.8 100.0 SOURCE: NC Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission, FY 2004/05 Juvenile Recidivism Sample Table 3.4 describes the dispositions imposed for the subgroup by offense classification and delinquency history level.24 Overall, 71.1% of the juveniles received a Level 1 (or community) disposition, 26.1% received a Level 2 (or intermediate) disposition, and 2.8% received a Level 3 disposition (or commitment to a YDC). The rate of Level 1 dispositions was highest for juveniles adjudicated for a minor offense and lowest for those adjudicated for a violent offense (85.3% and 8.1% respectively). Conversely, the rate of Level 3 dispositions was highest for juveniles adjudicated for a violent offense and lowest for those adjudicated for a minor offense (25.9% and 1.0% respectively). Risk and Needs Levels and Dispositions Figure 3.1 explores the relationship between the juvenile’s risk and needs levels and the disposition level imposed. As expected, there was a stepwise progression with the juvenile’s risk level increasing as the disposition level increased.25 Overall, 57.4% of juveniles with a Level 1 disposition were low risk compared to 31.0% of juveniles with a Level 2 disposition and 11.2% of juveniles with a Level 3 disposition. Of juveniles with a Level 3 disposition, 64.2% were identified as high risk – much higher than juveniles with Level 2 or Level 1 dispositions at 24.1% and 5.7% respectively. 24 For a description of the three disposition levels, see Chapter One and Appendix B. 25 It should be noted that prior adjudications increase not only a juvenile’s risk score, but also his/her placement in the Juvenile Disposition Chart. Table 3.4 Disposition Levels by Offense Classification and Delinquency History Level Juveniles Adjudicated and Disposed Offense Delinquency History Level Classification Low 0 – 1 Point Medium 2 – 3 Points High 4+ Points TOTAL Violent (Class A – Class E) Level 2/Level 3 Level 1: 14 (10.5%) Level 2: 102 (76.1%) Level 3: 18 (13.4%) n = 134 Level 3 Level 1: 1 (5.0%) Level 2: 14 (70.0%) Level 3: 5 (25.0%) n = 20 Level 3 Level 1: 0 (0.0%) Level 2: 6 (19.3%) Level 3: 25 (80.7%) n = 31 Level 1: 15 (8.1%) Level 2: 122 (66.0%) Level 3: 48 (25.9%) n = 185 Serious (Class F – Class A1) Level 1/Level 2 Level 1: 809 (57.4%) Level 2: 598 (42.5%) Level 3: 1 (0.1%) n = 1,408 Level 2 Level 1: 68 (20.4%) Level 2: 262 (78.4%) Level 3: 4 (1.2%) n = 334 Level 2/Level 3 Level 1: 7 (3.1%) Level 2: 128 (57.4%) Level 3: 88 (39.5%) n = 223 Level 1: 884 (45.0%) Level 2: 988 (50.3%) Level 3: 93 (4.7%) n = 1,965 Minor (Class 1 – Class 3) Level 1 Level 1: 3,592 (98.0%) Level 2: 70 (1.9%) Level 3: 2 (0.1%) n = 3,664 Level 1/Level 2 Level 1: 170 (37.8%) Level 2: 276 (61.5%) Level 3: 3 (0.7%) n = 449 Level 2 Level 1: 23 (7.1%) Level 2: 261 (80.3%) Level 3: 41 (12.6%) n = 325 Level 1: 3,785 (85.3%) Level 2: 607 (13.7%) Level 3: 46 (1.0%) n = 4,438 TOTAL Level 1: 4,415 (84.8%) Level 2: 770 (14.8%) Level 3: 21 (0.4%) n = 5,206 Level 1: 239 (29.8%) Level 2: 552 (68.7%) Level 3: 12 (1.5%) n = 803 Level 1: 30 (5.2%) Level 2: 395 (68.2%) Level 3: 154 (26.6%) n = 579 Level 1: 4,684 (71.1%) Level 2: 1,717 (26.1%) Level 3: 187 (2.8%) n = 6,588 Note: In FY 2004/05, there were 254 cases (or 3.9%) involving a disposition not specified by the dispositional chart. However, it must be noted that certain provisions of the juvenile code allow a judge to impose a disposition other than those specified by the chart. Under G.S. 7B-2508(e), judges may find “extraordinary needs” and impose a lower level disposition. Under G.S. 7B-2508(g), juveniles adjudicated delinquent for a minor offense with four or more prior adjudications may be committed to a YDC. Finally, under G.S. 7B-2508(d), juveniles adjudicated for a minor offense with a previous Level 3 disposition may be committed to a YDC. In addition, 17 juveniles with missing disposition levels were excluded from this table. SOURCE: NC Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission, FY 2004/05 Juvenile Recidivism Sample 33 A similar stair-step progression was found in the relationship between the needs level and the disposition level of juveniles. Fifty-four percent of juveniles with a Level 1 disposition were low needs compared to 38.3% of juveniles with a Level 2 disposition and 16.8% of juveniles with a Level 3 disposition. Conversely, 19.0% of the juveniles with a Level 3 disposition were high needs while a much lower percentage of juveniles with a Level 2 or a Level 1 disposition were high needs (11.0% and 5.6% respectively). (See Figure 3.1.) Figure 3.1 Risk Level and Needs Level by Disposition Level Juveniles Adjudicated and Disposed Risk Level by Disposition Level 57.4% 31.0% 11.2% 36.9% 44.9% 24.6% 5.7% 24.1% 64.2% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Low Risk Medium Risk High Risk Needs Level by Disposition Level 54.4% 38.3% 16.8% 40.0% 50.7% 64.2% 5.6% 11.0% 19.0% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Low Needs Medium Needs High Needs Note: Of the 6,605 juveniles adjudicated and disposed, there were 311 cases with missing values for risk level, 303 cases with missing values for needs level, and 17 cases with missing values for disposition level. SOURCE: NC Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission, FY 2004/05 Juvenile Recidivism Sample Court-Ordered Sanctions Based on the Juvenile Justice Reform Act of 1998, the dispositional alternatives available to the court for juveniles who have been adjudicated delinquent are dependent primarily on the classification of the adjudicated offense (i.e., minor, serious, violent) and the delinquency history level of the juvenile (i.e., low, medium, high).26 Once these categories are determined, the juvenile is assigned to one of three dispositional levels from which the court can select sanctions that are available under each level. Level 1 dispositional alternatives are the least restrictive, while Level 3 alternatives are the most restrictive. (See Appendix C.) 26 See Chapter One for more information. 34 In addition to the disposition level imposed by the court, NC-JOIN also contains information on sanctions ordered at the dispositional hearing. This information is limited in that it only indicates that a particular sanction was ordered – it does not indicate whether the juvenile complied with the sanction, the length of participation, or whether the juvenile successfully completed the sanction. Specific sanctions were selected for further analysis. These sanctions were categorized as follows: 1) treatment/placement; 2) restorative justice; 3) school- or work-related; 4) other restrictive conditions; and 5) parental responsibility. The sanctions in the treatment/placement category are from both Levels 1 and 2 and offer a broad range in their degree of restrictiveness. Sanctions in this category include: specified programs that address substance abuse or treatment issues; out-of home placement options (i.e., group home, regimented training program, wilderness camp); programs that are community-based but have more limitations (i.e., supervised day program, intensive probation, house arrest); and intermittent confinement in a detention center.27 The restorative justice category is comprised of sanctions that offer opportunities for the juvenile offender to actively make reparations for his/her delinquent behavior through community service, financial restitution or fines, and victim-offender reconciliation.28 The sanctions within the school/work-related category pertain to the juvenile either complying with school attendance and/or maintaining passing grades, or being regularly employed (if excused from school attendance). Other restrictive conditions are those sanctions that limit the juvenile’s activities and peer associations, such as obeying a set curfew, not associating with specific persons, not being in specific places, cooperating with drug testing, and not possessing alcohol or drugs. Finally, the parental responsibility category relates to parental support of and involvement in sanctions set forth by the court. Table 3.5 provides information on selected sanctions imposed for the 6,605 juveniles in the FY 2004/05 sample who were adjudicated and disposed. It is important to note that juveniles are often ordered to comply with more than one sanction and, therefore, are likely to be represented in multiple categories in Table 3.5 and Table 3.6. Of the 6,605 juveniles who were adjudicated and disposed, 96.0% were ordered to comply with more than one of the sanctions selected for further analysis. The majority of juveniles were ordered to comply with other restrictive conditions (80.4%) and school- or work-related conditions (76.3%). Sanctions falling within these two categories also represented the largest groups of specific sanctions ordered, with 75.6% of juveniles ordered to comply with school-related sanctions and 69.8% of juveniles ordered to comply with drug testing and/or not use alcohol or controlled substances. Overall, 64.7% of juveniles were ordered to comply with a treatment/placement sanction, with 47.9% ordered to cooperate with a specified program, 28.3% ordered to intermittent detention confinement, and 11.8% ordered to a wilderness program. Nearly one-half of the 27 For juveniles receiving a Level 1 sanction, intermittent confinement can be up to five days. A Level 2 sanction allows for intermittent confinement up to fourteen days. 28 Community service up to 100 hours and restitution less than $500 are considered Level 1 sanctions, while community service more than 100 hours and restitution greater than $500 are considered Level 2 sanctions. Table 3.5 Specific Sanctions Ordered at Disposition by Offense Classification and Disposition Level Juveniles Adjudicated and Disposed Type of Sanction Ordered N % VioOlefnfte nseS Cerliaosusisf icatMioinn or 1 Disposit2io n Level 3 Treatment/Placement 4,275 64.7 2.8 29.3 67.9 70.2 29.7 0.2 Cooperate with Specified Program 3,164 47.9 3.0 28.0 69.0 73.7 26.1 0.2 Group Home 95 1.4 0.0 52.6 47.4 20.0 80.0 0.0 Regimented Training Program 55 0.8 3.6 60.0 36.4 10.9 89.1 0.0 Supervised Day Program 106 1.6 2.8 68.9 28.3 6.6 93.4 0.0 Wilderness Program 778 11.8 1.9 31.5 66.6 62.0 38.0 0.0 Intensive Probation 108 1.6 13.0 51.9 35.2 17.6 81.5 0.9 House Arrest 120 1.8 9.2 50.0 40.8 14.2 85.0 0.8 Intermittent Detention Confinement 1,869 28.3 2.8 30.3 66.9 64.0 35.9 0.1 Restorative Justice 3,285 49.7 1.5 32.8 65.7 74.0 25.9 0.1 Community Service 2,444 37.0 1.6 30.7 67.8 75.2 24.8 0.1 Restitution/Fine 1,390 21.0 1.3 40.4 58.3 69.3 30.6 0.1 Victim-Offender Reconciliation 109 1.7 0.0 39.5 60.6 86.2 13.8 0.0 School/Work-Related 5,036 76.3 2.3 29.2 68.5 76.2 23.7 0.1 School-Related 4,993 75.6 2.3 29.2 68.5 76.2 23.7 0.1 Work-Related 693 10.5 1.7 32.5 65.8 71.1 28.7 0.1 Other Restrictive Conditions 5,309 80.4 2.3 29.2 68.5 75.6 24.3 0.1 Curfew 3,947 59.8 2.2 28.7 69.1 74.9 24.9 0.2 No Assoc with Specific Person/Not be in Specific Places 3,690 55.9 2.6 30.5 66.9 75.0 24.9 0.1 Drug Testing/No Alcohol/No Contr Subst 4,607 69.8 2.3 28.5 69.3 75.7 24.2 0.1 Parental Responsibility 3,011 45.6 2.2 28.4 69.4 73.9 25.7 0.4 Note: Juveniles may be represented in multiple sanction categories. Of the 6,605 juveniles adjudicated and disposed, there were 17 cases with missing values for disposition level. Percentages may not add to 100.0% due to rounding. SOURCE: NC Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission, FY 2004/05 Juvenile Recidivism Sample 36 juveniles (49.7%) were ordered to comply with restorative justice conditions, while slightly less (45.6%) received dispositional orders relating to the court’s authority over parents of adjudicated delinquent juveniles. The least frequently ordered sanctions included assignment to a group home (1.4%), a regimented training program (0.8%), a supervised day program (1.6%), intensive probation (1.6%), house arrest (1.8%), and victim-offender reconciliation (1.7%). Table 3.5 also provides information on the offense classification and disposition level of juveniles ordered to comply with a specific sanction or a category of sanctions. The distribution by offense classification was very similar for each of the five major sanction categories, with 1.5% to 2.8% of juveniles adjudicated delinquent for a violent offense, 28.4% to 32.8% for a serious offense, and 65.7% to 69.4% for a minor offense. The distribution for these categories was also consistent with the overall distribution of offense classification for the adjudicated and disposed group (2.8% had a violent offense, 29.8% had a serious offense, and 67.4% had a minor offense as their sample offense). The specific sanctions under the categories of school/work-related, other restrictive conditions, and parental responsibility generally followed the offense classification pattern of the overall group, while more variation was found for specific sanctions in the treatment/placement category and the restorative justice category. For example, of the 108 juveniles who were ordered to comply with intensive probation, 13.0% had a violent offense, 51.9% had a serious offense, and 35.2% had a minor offense as their most serious sample offense. For the specific sanctions, variations were primarily found between the percentages of juveniles with a serious offense and with a minor offense given the low percentage of juveniles with a violent offense. Looking at disposition level, the majority of variations were found between Level 1 and Level 2 since so few juveniles received a Level 3 disposition. Juveniles who were ordered to comply with a treatment/placement sanction were slightly more likely to have received a Level 2 disposition than those in the other overall sanction categories. Similar to the finding for offense classification, more variation was found between the specific sanctions with respect to the disposition level of juveniles ordered to comply with such sanctions. Juveniles ordered to comply with a wilderness camp program, cooperate with a specified program, perform community service, pay restitution or a fine, or to reconcile with the victim were more likely to have received a Level 1 disposition. Juveniles ordered to comply with a regimented training program or a supervised day program were more likely to have received a Level 2 disposition (89.1% and 93.4% respectively). Table 3.6 provides information on the risk and needs levels of juveniles ordered to comply with the sanctions examined for this study. The type of sanction ordered varied considerably based on risk and needs levels of juveniles. Juveniles who were ordered to comply with a treatment/placement sanction or whose parents were ordered to cooperate with the court’s disposition had higher risk and needs levels than juveniles ordered to comply with the other sanction categories. For example, 29.7% of juveniles ordered to a supervised day program were high risk and 14.0% were high needs; 26.9% of juveniles ordered to a group home were high risk and 18.3% were high needs. On the opposite end of the spectrum, only 3.7% of juveniles ordered to reconcile with their victim were high risk and 7.3% were high needs; 7.9% of juveniles ordered to perform community service were high risk and 6.1% were high needs. Table 3.6 Specific Sanctions Ordered at Disposition by Risk Level and Needs Level Juveniles Adjudicated and Disposed Type of Sanction Ordered N % Low RisMk Lede vel High Low NeeMdse Lde vel High Treatment/Placement 4,275 64.7 47.7 40.7 11.6 46.0 46.3 7.7 Cooperate with Specified Program 3,164 47.9 48.5 40.5 11.0 45.1 46.7 8.2 Group Home 95 1.4 21.5 51.6 26.9 24.7 57.0 18.3 Regimented Training Program 55 0.8 22.6 52.8 24.5 30.2 62.3 7.6 Supervised Day Program 106 1.6 25.7 44.6 29.7 22.0 64.0 14.0 Wilderness Program 778 11.8 41.4 43.5 15.1 41.0 50.7 8.4 Intensive Probation 108 1.6 24.8 49.5 25.7 28.0 61.7 10.3 House Arrest 120 1.8 19.8 53.5 26.7 32.5 55.6 12.0 Intermittent Detention Confinement 1,869 28.3 46.4 41.8 11.8 47.8 45.1 7.1 Restorative Justice 3,285 49.7 54.6 37.0 8.4 54.3 39.9 5.8 Community Service 2,444 37.0 53.7 38.4 7.9 53.9 40.0 6.1 Restitution/Fine 1,390 21.0 56.6 34.4 8.9 57.3 37.3 5.4 Victim-Offender Reconciliation 109 1.7 56.9 39.5 3.7 54.1 38.5 7.3 School/Work-Related 5,036 76.3 52.7 38.6 8.7 50.9 42.4 6.7 School-Related 4,993 75.6 52.8 38.5 8.7 51.0 42.4 6.7 Work-Related 693 10.5 45.7 43.9 10.5 46.1 44.9 9.0 Other Restrictive Conditions 5,309 80.4 52.0 38.9 9.1 50.4 42.7 6.9 Curfew 3,947 59.8 50.1 40.5 9.4 48.0 44.7 7.3 No Assoc with Specific Person/Not be in Specific Places 3,690 55.9 53.3 37.8 8.9 50.6 42.5 6.9 Drug Testing/No Alcohol/No Contr Subst 4,607 69.8 51.0 39.8 9.2 48.6 44.2 7.2 Parental Responsibility 3,011 45.6 48.1 41.4 10.5 44.4 46.8 8.8 Note: Juveniles may be represented in multiple sanction categories. Of the 6,605 juveniles adjudicated and disposed, there were 370 cases with missing values for both risk and needs variables. Percentages may not add to 100.0% due to rounding. SOURCE: NC Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission, FY 2004/05 Juvenile Recidivism Sample 38 RECIDIVISM IN THE JUVENILE JUSTICE AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEMS As discussed in Chapter Two, juveniles in the FY 2004/05 sample were tracked for three years to determine whether they re-offended during that period. For the adjudicated and disposed group (n=6,605), the follow-up started at their adjudication date and, as with the other sample groups, the primary measures of recidivism were subsequent delinquent juvenile complaints and adult arrests.29 For most juveniles who were adjudicated and disposed, the time at risk to recidivate was divided between the juvenile and adult systems as juveniles, turning 16, moved from juvenile to adult legal jurisdiction. Similar to the entire group of adjudicated juveniles (described in Chapter Two), the majority of the adjudicated and disposed subgroup (79%) spent at least a portion of the three-year follow-up in both systems. Overall, the subgroup was under juvenile jurisdiction for 15.7 months (or 44% of the 36-month follow-up) and under adult jurisdiction for 20.3 months (or 56% of the remaining follow-up months). It is important to note that time at risk, while initially equal for all juveniles in the FY 2004/05 sample through the use of a fixed three-year follow-up period, was shortened for some juveniles due to confinement in a YDC or detention center in the juvenile justice system and/or jail or prison in the adult system. Juvenile and Adult Recidivism Subsequent delinquent complaints30 (also referred to as subsequent complaints) were used as the primary measure for juvenile recidivism, supplemented with information on subsequent adjudications that resulted from those recidivistic complaints. Juveniles had to be at risk in the juvenile justice system; therefore, 627 juveniles were excluded from the juvenile recidivism analysis because they had already aged out of the juvenile justice system at the start of the follow-up. Arrests31 were used as the primary measure for adult recidivism, supplemented with information on convictions. Juveniles had to be at risk in the adult criminal justice system; therefore, 770 juveniles were excluded from the adult recidivism analysis because they were under juvenile jurisdiction for the entire follow-up period. Finally, a combined measure of subsequent juvenile complaints and/or adult arrests was compiled to indicate any recidivistic involvement in either system, which was supplemented by a 29 DJJDP’s NC-JOIN database was used to determine subsequent delinquent complaints and adjudications, while DOJ’s criminal history database was used to determine adult arrests and convictions. 30 Although the subsequent complaint had to occur within the three-year follow-up, the date that the alleged offense occurred could have been prior to the follow-up period. 31 Although the adult arrest had to occur within the three-year follow-up, the date that the alleged offense occurred could have been prior to the follow-up period. 39 similar measure for subsequent juvenile adjudications and/or adult convictions.32 All 6,605 adjudicated and disposed juveniles were included in analyzing overall recidivism. Subsequent Juvenile Complaints/Adjudications and Adult Arrests/Convictions Figure 3.2 presents the three measures of recidivism for the subgroup. Of the 6,605 juveniles adjudicated and disposed, 3,738 (or 56.6%) had a subsequent juvenile complaint and/or an adult arrest (“overall recidivism”). Of the 5,978 juveniles under juvenile jurisdiction during the follow-up, 2,780 (or 46.5%) had a subsequent delinquent complaint. Of the 5,835 juveniles under adult jurisdiction during the follow-up, 1,650 (or 28.3%) had an adult arrest. Figure 3.2 also details subsequent adjudication and conviction rates for the subgroup. The overall adjudication or conviction rate was 41.4%. Of the juveniles under juvenile jurisdiction during follow-up, 34.5% had a subsequent adjudication. Of those juveniles under adult jurisdiction during follow-up, 16.0% had an adult conviction. Figure 3.2 Recidivism Rates Juveniles Adjudicated and Disposed Subsequent Complaints and/or Adult Arrests 46.5% 28.3% 56.6% 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% Subsequent Complaints Adult Arrests Overall Recidivism Subsequent Adjudications and/or Convictions 34.5% 16.0% 41.4% 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% Subsequent Adjudications Adult Convictions Adjudications and/or Convictions SOURCE: NC Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission, FY 2004/05 Juvenile Recidivism Sample For those adjudicated and disposed juveniles with at least one subsequent juvenile complaint or adult arrest during follow-up, their first recidivistic event occurred an average of 32 Tables referring to only juvenile recidivism, or only adult recidivism, state so specifically. Otherwise, in this report the terms “recidivism” or “overall recidivism” refer to having a subsequent juvenile complaint, an adult arrest, or both. 40 10.7 months after the start of the follow-up period. During the three-year follow-up period, 3,738 juveniles had a total of 9,721 subsequent juvenile complaints and/or adult arrests with an average of 2.6 recidivistic events. Sample Offense and Recidivism Table 3.7 presents the three primary recidivism measures for adjudicated and disposed juveniles by the offense classification of their most serious adjudicated sample offense. Juveniles adjudicated for a violent offense had a considerably lower recidivism rate – 39.8% – than either the juveniles adjudicated for a serious or a minor offense – 57.5% and 56.9% respectively. A difference in the “window of opportunity” to commit additional acts of delinquency might explain this difference. Confinement in a YDC, averaging over 12 months,33 reduced the time at risk for recidivism, especially during the juvenile portion of the follow-up for juveniles adjudicated of a violent offense. Overall, 35.5% of the juveniles adjudicated for a violent offense were committed to a YDC sometime during the follow-up period, compared to 15.1% of those with a serious offense and 6.0% of those with a minor offense. Table 3.7 Recidivism Rates by Sample Offense Classification Juveniles Adjudicated and Disposed Subsequent Complaints Adult Arrests Overall Offense Recidivism Classification n % n % N % Violent (Class A – Class E) 161 27.3 168 23.2 186 39.8 Serious (Class F – Class A1) 1,758 45.7 1,759 30.8 1,966 57.5 Minor (Class 1 – Class 3) 4,059 47.6 3,908 27.4 4,453 56.9 Total 5,978 46.5 5,835 28.3 6,605 56.6 SOURCE: NC Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission, FY 2004/05 Juvenile Recidivism Sample Tables 3.8 and 3.9 highlight comparable patterns of increased recidivism rates based on the severity of prior delinquency and disposition level at sample entry. As the severity of prior delinquency history increased, rates increased for all three measures of recidivism. Similarly, as the severity of dispositions increased, so did the overall rate of recidivism. A notable break in this pattern was the significantly lower rate of subsequent juvenile complaints for those committed to a YDC. One explanation for this finding is related to the juvenile’s window of opportunity to recidivate. Of the adjudicated juveniles who received a Level 3 YDC commitment at disposition, the majority (82.9%) were 14- and 15-year-olds and had aged out of 33 North Carolina Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission’s Juvenile Delinquent Population Projections Fiscal Year 2008/09 to Fiscal Year 2012/13, 2008. 41 the juvenile system while in confinement. They re-offended at an accelerated pace upon release as adults, as indicated by their much higher adult arrest rate. Table 3.8 Recidivism Rates by Delinquency History Level Juveniles Adjudicated and Disposed Subsequent Complaints Adult Arrests Overall Delinquency Recidivism History Level n % n % n % Low 4,781 45.1 4,551 25.5 5,220 54.2 Medium 707 50.1 732 31.7 803 61.0 High 490 54.9 552 46.7 582 72.3 Total 5,978 46.5 5,835 28.3 6,605 56.6 SOURCE: NC Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission, FY 2004/05 Juvenile Recidivism Sample Table 3.9 Recidivism Rates by Disposition Level Juveniles Adjudicated and Disposed Subsequent Complaints Adult Arrests Overall Disposition Recidivism Level n % n % n % Level 1 (Community) 4,294 45.2 4,070 25.5 4,684 54.2 Level 2 (Intermediate) 1,520 51.6 1,566 33.0 1,717 62.4 Level 3 (Commitment) 152 34.2 184 50.5 187 64.7 Total 5,966 46.5 5,820 28.3 6,588 56.7 Note: Of the 6,605 juveniles adjudicated and disposed, there were 17 cases with missing values for disposition level. SOURCE: NC Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission, FY 2004/05 Juvenile Recidivism Sample Risk and Needs Levels and Recidivism Recidivism rates were also found to vary by risk and needs scores. (See Tables 3.10 and 3.11.) For both measures, the differences in recidivism rates were greater between low and medium levels of risk or needs than between medium and high levels. Overall recidivism increased from 42 46.4% for low risk to 71.5% for high risk juveniles, and from 50.2% for low needs to 60.8% for high needs juveniles. Table 3.10 Recidivism Rates by Risk Level Juveniles Adjudicated and Disposed Subsequent Complaints Adult Arrests Overall Risk Recidivism Level n % n % n % Low 2,853 38.2 2,676 20.9 3,104 46.4 Medium 2,187 54.1 2,169 32.1 2,426 64.6 High 664 53.6 731 44.7 764 71.5 Total 5,704 46.1 5,576 28.4 6,294 56.4 Note: Of the 6,605 juveniles adjudicated and disposed, there were 311 cases with missing values for risk level. SOURCE: NC Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission, FY 2004/05 Juvenile Recidivism Sample Table 3.11 Recidivism Rates by Needs Level Juveniles Adjudicated and Disposed Subsequent Complaints Adult Arrests Overall Needs Recidivism Level n % n % n % Low 2,818 41.3 2,675 24.6 3,097 50.2 Medium 2,484 51.5 2,461 31.7 2,738 62.8 High 410 47.1 445 32.8 467 60.8 Total 5,712 46.2 5,581 28.4 6,302 56.5 Note: Of the 6,605 juveniles adjudicated and disposed, there were 303 cases with missing values for needs level. SOURCE: NC Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission, FY 2004/05 Juvenile Recidivism Sample The stair-step pattern in overall recidivism rates found by the disposition level and by the risk level for juveniles (see Tables 3.9 and 3.10) was also found when examining recidivism rates by disposition level and controlling for risk level. Figure 3.3 illustrates the relationship between disposition level and overall recidivism (i.e., juvenile complaints and/or adult arrests) during the three-year follow-up when controlling for risk level. Once risk level is controlled, the differences in recidivism rates between the juveniles in the different disposition levels are 43 diminished. For the three-year follow-up period, recidivism rates for low risk juveniles ranged from 45% to 50%, while recidivism rates for high risk juveniles ranged from 68% to 73%. A slightly different pattern is evident when examining recidivism rates by disposition level and controlling for needs level. Once needs level is controlled, the differences in recidivism rates between the juveniles in the different disposition levels are somewhat diminished; however, the recidivism rates are slightly higher for medium needs juveniles than for high needs juveniles in all three disposition levels. For the three-year follow-up period, recidivism rates for low needs juveniles ranged from 48% to 60%, while recidivism rates for high needs juveniles ranged from 59% to 64%. Figure 3.3 Overall Recidivism Rates by Disposition Level and by Risk and Needs Levels Juveniles Adjudicated and Disposed Overall Recidivism Rates by Disposition Level and Risk Level 46% 64% 71% 50% 65% 73% 45% 66% 68% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% Low Risk Medium Risk High Risk Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Overall Recidivism Rates by Disposition Level and Needs Level 48% 57% 61% 59% 66% 64% 60% 67% 62% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% Low Needs Medium Needs High Needs Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Note: Of the 6,605 juveniles adjudicated and disposed, there were 311 cases with missing values for risk level, 303 cases with missing values for needs level, and 17 cases with missing values for disposition level. SOURCE: NC Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission, FY 2004/05 Juvenile Recidivism Sample Court-Ordered Sanctions and Recidivism Table 3.12 examines the overall recidivism rate for juveniles ordered to comply with specific sanctions ordered at disposition. Recidivism rates varied only slightly – from 55.1% to 56.9% – for the overall sanction categories, with more variation found for specific sanctions. Juveniles ordered to a group home and/or to house arrest had the highest recidivism rates (72.6% 44 Table 3.12 Overall Recidivism Rates by Specific Sanctions Ordered at Disposition Juveniles Adjudicated and Disposed Type of Sanction Ordered N % % Overall Recidivism Treatment/Placement 4,275 64.7 56.9 Cooperate with Specified Program 3,164 47.9 56.5 Group Home 95 1.4 72.6 Regimented Training Program 55 0.8 58.2 Supervised Day Program 106 1.6 60.4 Wilderness Program 778 11.8 62.5 Intensive Probation 108 1.6 63.9 House Arrest 120 1.8 69.2 Intermittent Detention Confinement 1,869 28.3 57.6 Restorative Justice 3,285 49.7 55.2 Community Service 2,444 37.0 55.0 Restitution/Fine 1,390 21.0 55.4 Victim-Offender Reconciliation 109 1.7 48.6 School/Work-Related 5,036 76.3 55.7 School-Related 4,993 75.6 55.7 Work-Related 693 10.5 55.0 Other Restrictive Conditions 5,309 80.4 56.0 Curfew 3,947 59.8 56.9 No Assoc with Specific Person/Not be in Specific Places 3,690 55.9 54.3 Drug Testing/No Alcohol/No Contr Subst 4,607 69.8 56.0 Parental Responsibility 3,011 45.6 55.1 Note: Juveniles may be represented in multiple sanction categories. SOURCE: NC Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission, FY 2004/05 Juvenile Recidivism Sample and 69.2% respectively), while juveniles ordered to reconcile with the victim had the lowest recidivism rates (48.6%). When examining recidivism rates for specific sanctions, the offense classification, disposition level, risk level, and needs level of juveniles assigned to such sanctions should be considered. For example, a higher percentage of juveniles ordered to a group home and/or to house arrest had a serious offense as their sample offense, received a Level 2 disposition, and had higher risk and needs levels when compared to juveniles ordered to comply with other sanctions (such as victim-offender reconciliation). 45 The multivariate analysis that follows further examines the recidivism of juveniles adjudicated and disposed, while controlling for factors such as personal characteristics, offense classification, and risk and needs levels. MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS Logistic Regression Models Using logistic regression,34 several models were tested to determine how a set of independent variables was related to the probability of overall recidivism (subsequent delinquent complaint and/or arrest) for the subset of juveniles who were adjudicated and disposed (n=6,605) and to the probability of adult arrest for those juveniles who aged into the adult criminal justice system during the three-year follow-up period (n=5,835). As previously noted, while the effects reported in this analysis may reveal the existence of a relationship between an independent variable and a dependent (outcome) variable, such effects do not necessarily imply a causal relationship between those variables. Dependent Variables (Outcome Measures) Modeled The regression analyses in this section model two dependent variables: ► Overall Recidivism – any subsequent delinquent complaint, arrest, or both ► Adult Arrest – subsequent adult arrest only Independent Variables Used in the Regression Models The regression analyses in this section include the following independent variables: ► Personal Characteristics – race, gender, and age ► Offense Classification – violent, serious, and minor ► Delinquency History Level – low, medium, and high ► Risk Level – low, medium, and high as assessed by DJJDP’s risk instrument ► Needs Level – low, medium, and high as assessed by DJJDP’s needs instrument ► Several individual items from the risk assessment – whether or not the juvenile had prior referral(s), was delinquent under the age of 12, is supervised adequately by parent, has positive peer relationships, and has substance abuse problems ► Commitment to YDC or Detention Center – whether or not the juvenile was committed to either a YDC or a detention center between sample entry and the end of the follow-up period ► Adult months – the amount of time in months the juvenile has been under adult jurisdiction (age 16 or older) 34 See Chapter Two for further discussion of the logistic regression statistical tool. 46 Logistic Regression Analyses Table 3.13 displays the estimated effects of the independent variables in each model on the outcome measure modeled. As previously mentioned, the effects listed should be interpreted based on the following criteria: whether the effect of the variable is statistically significant (i.e., with a relationship unlikely to be the result of random chance) and, if so, the direction and magnitude of the variable’s effect on the outcome. In general, only estimated effects that are statistically significant are reviewed. Model 3 contains the estimated effects of each independent variable on an adjudicated and disposed juvenile’s probability of having a subsequent delinquent complaint and/or arrest (overall recidivism) during the three-year follow-up period. The average probability of overall recidivism for the adjudicated and disposed group was 56.5% and this outcome was related to a number of personal, offense-related, and court involvement factors. The values presented for Model 3 indicate the approximate change in the probability of complaint or arrest associated with each independent variable relative to a reference category. Being a male, for example, enhanced the probability of subsequent complaint or arrest by 17.4% over that of being a female. Black juveniles had an increased probability (of 17.0%) of subsequent complaint or arrest compared to non-black juveniles. With each additional year of age based on the juvenile’s age at sample entry, the probability of complaint or arrest decreased 7.7%. Juveniles with a serious or minor offense classification had an increased likelihood of subsequent complaint or arrest (17.0% and 18.5% respectively) compared with those juveniles with a violent offense classification. As previously noted, this finding may be related to YDC commitment during the follow-up period for those juveniles with a violent offense level.35 There were no statistical differences between the probability of subsequent complaint or arrest for juveniles who had low and medium delinquency history levels; however, those juveniles with a high delinquency history level were 7.4% more likely to recidivate than the low delinquency history group. No statistical differences were found among juveniles who received a Level 1 (community), Level 2 (intermediate) or Level 3 (YDC) disposition. Juveniles who were assessed as having a medium or high risk of re-offending were more likely to have a subsequent complaint or arrest (10.6% and 15.4% respectively) than juveniles in the low risk group. There were no statistical differences in overall recidivism for juveniles with low, medium, and high levels of needs. 35 See Chapter Two for further discussion. 47 Table 3.13 Effect of Personal and Juvenile Justice Factors on Recidivism: Adjudicated and Disposed Juveniles Independent Variables Model 3: Overall Recidivism n=6,217 (56.5%) Model 4: Adult Arrest n=5,524 (28.4%) Personal Characteristics Black 17.0% 19.0% Male 17.4% 28.4% Age at Event -7.7% -6.0% Offense Classification Violent Reference Reference Serious 17.0% 12.7% Minor 18.5% 13.0% Delinquency History Level Low Reference Reference Medium NS NS High 7.4% NS Disposition Level Level 1 Reference n/a Level 2 NS n/a Level 3 NS n/a Risk Level Low Reference Reference Medium 10.6% 7.3% High 15.4% 14.2% Needs Level Low Reference Reference Medium NS NS High NS NS Individual Risk Variables Prior Referral 9.1% NS Delinquent under 12 -10.8% NS Adequate Supervision by Parent NS 5.8% Positive Peer Relations -6.1% -3.9% Substance Abuse 4.4% NS School Problems None Reference Reference Low 10.5% NS Medium 8.8% NS High 12.1% NS Commitment (YDC or Detention) n/a 10.5% Adult Months n/a 1.7% Note: Model 3 – Of the 6,605 juveniles that comprise the adjudicated and disposed group, 388 were excluded from analysis due to missing data for one or more of the variables. Model 4 – Of the 5,835 juveniles who aged into the adult criminal justice system during follow-up, 311 were excluded from analysis due to missing data. SOURCE: NC Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission, FY 2004/05 Juvenile Recidivism Sample 48 Because the risk levels were significant predictors of overall recidivism, several individual risk variables of interest were also included to see if they predicted the likelihood of complaint or arrest over and above the risk level itself.36 Juveniles who had a prior juvenile justice referral were 9.1% more likely to have a subsequent complaint or arrest than those juveniles who did not have a prior referral. Being 12 years or less at the time of first delinquent complaint decreased the likelihood of overall recidivism by 10.8%. Having adequate parental supervision was not significantly related to the likelihood of recidivism. Juveniles who had positive peer relationships were 6.1% less likely to have a subsequent complaint or arrest than juveniles who did not have positive peer relationships; juveniles who had substance abuse problems were 4.4% more likely to recidivate than those with no substance abuse problems. Juveniles with low, medium, or high levels of school problems were all more likely to recidivate (10.5%, 8.8% and 12.1% respectively) than juveniles with no school problems. For those adjudicated and disposed juveniles who aged into the adult criminal justice system during the three-year follow-up period (n=5,835), Model 4 was tested to examine the estimated effects of having an adult arrest during follow-up (an average probability of 28.4%). A systemic variable was added to this model: commitment to either a YDC or to a detention center any time between sample entry and the end of the follow-up period. In addition, the amount of time (in months) the juvenile was an adult (16 years or older) during the three-year follow-up period was included as a control variable. As in Model 3, black juveniles and male juveniles had an increased probability of having an adult arrest compared to non-black juveniles and female juveniles. With each additional year of age for the juvenile’s age at event, the probability of complaint or arrest decreased 6.0%. Juveniles who had a serious or minor offense were more likely (12.7% and 13.0% respectively) to be arrested than those with a violent offense. Juveniles who were assessed as medium or high risk were more likely to be arrested than those with a low risk level (7.3% and 14.2% respectively). Over and above the risk level, several risk assessment items significantly predicted recidivism. Juveniles with adequate parental supervision were 5.8% more likely to be arrested than those without adequate parental supervision. Juveniles who had positive peer relationships were 3.9% less likely to be arrested than those who did not have positive peer relationships. Commitment to either a YDC or to a detention center increased the likelihood of an adult arrest by 10.5%. Finally, for each additional month spent as an adult in the follow-up period, the probability of having an adult arrest increased 1.7%. 36 A preliminary logistic regression model including all the individual risk assessment items and risk level was conducted. Individual items that were statistically significant (p<.05) over and above the contribution of risk level were included in Models 3 and 4. 49 SUMMARY The following section presents a summary of the major findings in Chapter Three: Subgroup Profile A subgroup of 6,605 juveniles (32.6% of sample) were adjudicated and disposed within the study's time frame. A wealth of additional information was available for this subgroup, including their personal needs and risk to re-offend, their adjudicated sample offense, delinquency history, level of disposition, and specific sanctions ordered by the court. Close to half of the adjudicated and disposed juveniles had both low needs and low risk levels; only 7.4% had high needs and 12.2% had high risk levels. The majority (67.4%) of the subgroup were adjudicated for minor (misdemeanor) offenses; had very little or no delinquency history (79.0%), and received a Level 1 community-based disposition (71.9%). Only a small fraction (2.7%) was adjudicated for violent offenses; had a significant delinquency history (8.8%); or were committed to a YDC (2.5%). Key Findings The level of disposition was closely related to both the adjudicated juveniles’ risk and needs and to the seriousness of their offense and prior delinquency. There was also a direct relationship, in the expected direction, between the seriousness of the offense, the prior delinquency, and the type of disposition imposed by the court. Recidivism rates for adjudicated and disposed juveniles were higher than those for the entire sample: 46.5% of the subgroup had a subsequent delinquent complaint, 28.3% had an adult arrest, and 56.6% had either or both measures of recidivism. Rates generally increased with higher levels of risk, needs, delinquency history, and disposition type. Juveniles adjudicated for serious or minor offenses had higher recidivism rates than those adjudicated for violent offenses, most likely due to the reduced time at risk for those committed to a YDC. Recidivism rates varied by dispositional sanctions, with the highest rates for juveniles ordered to group home or house arrest sanctions and the lowes
Click tabs to swap between content that is broken into logical sections.
Title | Juvenile recidivism study : FY.... juvenile sample |
Other Title | FY.... juvenile sample; Fiscal year.... juvenile sample |
Date | 2009-05-01 |
Description | 2004/2005 |
Digital Characteristics-A | 986 KB; 70 p. |
Digital Format | application/pdf |
Full Text | North Carolina Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission JUVENILE RECIDIVISM STUDY: FY 2004/05 JUVENILE SAMPLE Prepared By Karen Calhoun Vicky Etheridge Tamara Flinchum Ashleigh Gallagher, Ph.D. Ginny Hevener Susan Katzenelson Submitted Pursuant to Session Law 2005-276, Section 14.19 May 1, 2009 JUVENILE RECIDIVISM STUDY: FY 2004/05 JUVENILE SAMPLE North Carolina Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission P.O. Box 2472 Raleigh, NC 27602 (919) 890-1470 www.nccourts.org/courts/crs/councils/spac The Honorable W. Erwin Spainhour Susan Katzenelson Chairman Executive Director NC SENTENCING AND POLICY ADVISORY COMMISSION MEMBERSHIP Hon. W. Erwin Spainhour, Chairman Superior Court Judge Dr. David Barlow Professor, Fayetteville State University Sheriff Hayden Bentley NC Sheriffs’ Association Hon. Stan Bingham State Senator Hon. Alice L. Bordsen State Representative Judge Charles E. Brown NC District Court Judges’ Association Joseph B. Cheshire V NC Academy of Trial Lawyers Locke T. Clifford NC Bar Association Louise Davis NC Community Sentencing Association Judge Richard A. Elmore NC Court of Appeals Judge Robert C. Ervin NC Conference of Superior Court Judges Hon. Paul H. Gibson NC Association of County Commissioners William P. Hart NC Attorney General’s Office Secretary Linda Hayes NC Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Mary Y. “Larry” Hines Private Citizen, Governor’s Appointee Hon. Robert F. Johnson NC Conference of District Attorneys Secretary Alvin W. Keller NC Department of Correction Hon. Eleanor Kinnaird State Senator Charles Mann NC Post-Release Supervision & Parole Commission Moe McKnight NC Retail Merchants’ Association Luther T. Moore Lieutenant Governor’s Appointee Judge Fred G. Morrison, Jr. Justice Fellowship Chief Frank Palombo NC Association of Chiefs of Police June Ray NC Association of Clerks of Superior Court Billy J. Sanders Commission Chairman’s Appointee Hon. John J. Snow, Jr. State Senator Hon. Timothy L. Spear State Representative Jonathan Williams NC Dept. of Crime Control & Public Safety Vacant NC Victim Assistance Network Vacant State Representative NC SENTENCING AND POLICY ADVISORY COMMISSION STAFF Susan Katzenelson Executive Director John Madler Associate Director for Policy, Staff Attorney Ginny Hevener Associate Director for Research Karen Calhoun Tamara Flinchum Senior Research & Policy Associate Senior Research & Policy Associate Marlee Moore-Gurrera, Ph.D. Ashleigh Gallagher, Ph.D. Senior Research & Policy Associate Research & Policy Associate David Lagos Sara Thomas Research & Policy Associate Research & Policy Associate Vicky Etheridge Administrative Assistant TABLE OF CONTENTS I. JUVENILE RECIDIVISM STUDY DIRECTIVE AND METHODOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 The Juvenile Justice System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Intake Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Pre-Dispositional Hearings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Probable Cause Hearing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Transfer Hearing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Adjudicatory Hearing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Dispositional Hearing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Overview of the Process. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Table 1.1: Juvenile Disposition Chart . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Dispositional Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Level 1 (Community) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Level 2 (Intermediate). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Level 3 (Commitment) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Juvenile Recidivism Research Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Data Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Sample . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7 Independent Variables and Outcome Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Analysis and Report Outline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 II. STATISTICAL PROFILE AND RECIDIVISM OF THE JUVENILE SAMPLE . . . . . . . . . . 9 Statistical Profile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Sample Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Figure 2.1: Juvenile Recidivism Sample . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Personal Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Table 2.1: Demographic Profile of Juveniles by Level of Involvement . . . . . . 11 Most Serious Sample Offense . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Table 2.2: Most Serious Sample Offense by Level of Involvement . . . . . . . . . 12 Recidivism in the Juvenile Justice and Criminal Justice Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Follow-up Period and Time at Risk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Figure 2.2: Average Number of Follow-up Months under Juvenile and Adult Jurisdictions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Juvenile and Adult Recidivism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Subsequent Juvenile Complaints and Adult Arrests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Table 2.3: Recidivism Rates for Juvenile Complaints and Adult Arrests by Level of Involvement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Figure 2.3: Average Time to First Subsequent Complaint or Adult Arrest during Follow-up . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16 Table 2.4: Recidivistic Events by Level of Involvement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Subsequent Juvenile Adjudications and Adult Convictions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Table 2.5: Recidivism Rates for Juvenile Adjudications and Adult Convictions by Level of Involvement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18 Sample Offense and Recidivism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Table 2.6: Recidivism Rates by Sample Offense and Level of Involvement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Table 2.7: Most Serious Recidivistic Offense by Most Serious Sample Offense . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Age at Sample Offense and Recidivism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Table 2.8: Recidivism Rates for Juveniles by Age at Sample Offense and Level of Involvement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Additional Juvenile Justice Involvement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Juvenile Commitment and Adult Arrests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Table 2.9: Commitment to Youth Development Center by Level of Involvement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Table 2.10: Adult Arrests by Commitment to Youth Development Center and by Level of Involvement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Juvenile Detention Center Admission and Adult Arrests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Table 2.11: Admission to Detention Center by Level of Involvement . . . 22 Juvenile Transfers to Superior Court . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Table 2.12: Adult Arrests by Admission to Detention Center and Level of Involvement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Multivariate Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Logistic Regression Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Dependent Variables (Outcome Measures) Modeled . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Independent Variables Used in the Regression Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Logistic Regression Analyses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Table 2.13: Effect of Personal and Juvenile Justice Factors on Recidivism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Sample Profile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Outcome Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Key Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 III. STATISTICAL PROFILE AND RECIDIVISM OF JUVENILES ADJUDICATED DELINQUENT AND DISPOSED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Statistical Profile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Personal Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Risk and Needs Assessments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Table 3.1: Select Risk and Needs Indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Table 3.2: Risk Level by Needs Level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Sample Offense, Delinquency History, and Dispositions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Table 3.3: Offense Classification by Delinquency History Level . . . . . . . . . . 31 Table 3.4: Disposition Levels by Offense Classification and Delinquency History Level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Risk and Needs Levels and Dispositions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Figure 3.1: Risk Level and Needs Level by Disposition Level . . . . . . . . . . . . .33 Court-Ordered Sanctions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33 Table 3.5: Specific Sanctions Ordered at Disposition by Offense Classification and Disposition Level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Table 3.6: Specific Sanctions Ordered at Disposition by Risk Level and Needs Level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Recidivism in the Juvenile Justice and Criminal Justice Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Juvenile and Adult Recidivism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Subsequent Juvenile Complaints/Adjudications and Adult Arrests/Convictions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Figure 3.2: Recidivism Rates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Sample Offense and Recidivism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Table 3.7: Recidivism Rates by Sample Offense Classification . . . . . . . . 40 Table 3.8: Recidivism Rates by Delinquency History Level . . . . . . . . . . 41 Table 3.9: Recidivism Rates by Disposition Level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 Risk and Needs Levels and Recidivism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 Table 3.10: Recidivism Rates by Risk Level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 Table 3.11: Recidivism Rates by Needs Level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 Figure 3.3: Overall Recidivism Rates by Disposition Level and by Risk and Needs Levels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 Court-ordered Sanctions and Recidivism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 Table 3.12: Overall Recidivism Rates by Specific Sanctions Ordered at Disposition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 Multivariate Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 Logistic Regression Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 Dependent Variables (Outcome Measures) Modeled . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 Independent Variables Used in the Regression Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 Logistic Regression Analyses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 Table 3.13: Effect of Personal and Juvenile Justice Factors on Recidivism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 Subgroup Profile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 Key Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 IV. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 Figure 4.1: Three-Year Recidivism Rates for the FY 2004/05 Juvenile Sample . . . . . . . . . 51 APPENDIX A.1: North Carolina Assessment of Juvenile Risk of Future Offending . . . . . . . . 55 APPENDIX A.2: North Carolina Assessment of Juvenile Needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 APPENDIX B: Juvenile Disposition Chart . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 APPENDIX C: Dispositional Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 1 CHAPTER ONE JUVENILE RECIDIVISM STUDY DIRECTIVE AND METHODOLOGY INTRODUCTION In the 2005 Session of the General Assembly, the legislature amended Chapter 164 of the General Statutes to direct the North Carolina Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission (hereinafter referred to as the Sentencing Commission) to conduct biennial juvenile recidivism studies on adjudicated youth in the state. (Session Law 2005-276, Section 14.19) § 164-48. Biennial report on juvenile recidivism. The Judicial Department, through the North Carolina Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission, shall conduct biennial recidivism studies of juveniles in North Carolina. Each study shall be based on a sample of juveniles adjudicated delinquent and document subsequent involvement in both the juvenile justice system and criminal justice system for at least two years following the sample adjudication. All State agencies shall provide data as requested by the Sentencing Commission. The Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission shall report the results of the first recidivism study to the Chairs of the Senate and House of Representatives Appropriation Committees and the Chairs of the Senate and House of Representatives Appropriation Subcommittees on Justice and Public Safety by May 1, 2007, and future reports shall be made by May 1 of each odd-numbered year. Following the 2007 report, this is the Sentencing Commission’s second biennial report on juvenile recidivism, submitted to the North Carolina General Assembly on May 1, 2009. THE JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM The Juvenile Justice Reform Act of 1998, which became effective on July 1, 1999, brought about the first major changes to the juvenile justice system in twenty years. Notable changes included: the establishment of a consolidated Office of Juvenile Justice to coordinate and administer the juvenile justice system (which, in 2000, became the Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention – DJJDP), the creation of a dispositional chart for use with juveniles adjudicated delinquent, and the formation of local juvenile justice planning bodies (i.e., Juvenile Crime Prevention Councils). Other changes were made which affected the processing of juveniles through the justice system. In North Carolina, juveniles are considered to be under the jurisdiction of the juvenile court if they are at least six years old and not older than 16 years old at the time that they are alleged to have committed a delinquent offense. However, juveniles who are at least 13 years of age and are alleged to have committed a felony may be transferred into the criminal justice 2 system and tried as adults. For a juvenile who is alleged to have committed a Class A felony at age 13 or older, the court must transfer the case to Superior Court if probable cause is found in juvenile court. In order to provide some context for this study, the following sections describe the processing of juveniles within the juvenile justice system. Juveniles who were adjudicated and received a disposition, as well as dispositional alternatives available to the court, are particularly highlighted. Intake Process All juveniles enter the juvenile justice system by having a formal complaint lodged by a law enforcement officer or private citizen. There are two types of complaints – the delinquency complaint alleges that a juvenile committed a criminal offense, while the undisciplined complaint alleges non-criminal behavior (e.g., running away, unlawful absences from school, incorrigible behavior within the home). For purposes of this study, only juveniles who had a delinquency complaint will be discussed. Any juvenile who is subject to a delinquency complaint must go through the intake process for the complaint to be screened and evaluated by a DJJDP court counselor. The court counselor has up to 30 days to determine if a complaint should be handled outside the court, or if a complaint should be filed as a petition and set for a hearing before a juvenile court judge. The length and extent of the intake process is based primarily on whether a juvenile is charged with one of the most serious, statutorily defined group of offenses (i.e., non-divertible offenses1) and/or whether a juvenile is confined in a detention center at the time that the complaint is submitted. During the intake phase, a court counselor conducts interviews with the juvenile, the person(s) legally responsible for the juvenile, and other individuals who might have relevant information about the juvenile. Upon reviewing the information gathered during the evaluation, the court counselor determines if the complaint should be closed, diverted, or approved for filing as a petition and brought before the court. If the court counselor decides that a case does not require further action, either by some form of follow-up by a court counselor or through a court hearing, the case is deemed closed. The juveniles in closed cases are typically less problematic and generally have little, if any, history of delinquent behavior. Closed cases constitute the lowest point of involvement in the juvenile justice system. When a court counselor determines that a juvenile’s case should not be brought to court, but that the juvenile is in need of follow-up and referral to a community-based resource (e.g., restitution, counseling), the counselor can then divert the juvenile pursuant to a diversion plan that is developed in conjunction with the juvenile and the juvenile’s parent, guardian, or custodian. If a more formal diversion plan is needed, the court counselor, juvenile, and 1 Non-divertible offenses are defined in G.S. § 7B-1701 as murder, first- or second-degree rape, first- or second-degree sexual offense, arson, felony drug offense under Article 5 of G.S. Chapter 90, first-degree burglary, crime against nature, or a felony involving the willful infliction of serious bodily injury or which was committed by use of a deadly weapon. 3 juvenile’s responsible party enter into a diversion contract. Both the plan and the contract are in effect for up to six months, during which time a court counselor conducts periodic reviews to ensure the compliance of the juvenile and his/her family. Compliance with the recommendations of the plan or contract results in the finalization of the juvenile’s diversion. If the parties fail to comply, the counselor may re-evaluate the decision to divert and subsequently file the complaint as a petition in juvenile court. If a court counselor concludes, at any point in the intake process, that the juvenile would be best served by referring the case to court, the counselor can authorize the filing of the complaint as a petition and schedule it for a hearing before a juvenile court judge. Pre-Dispositional Hearings Probable Cause Hearing2 Probable cause hearings are held in all felony cases in which the juvenile was at least 13 years old at the time of the alleged offense. During these hearings, the district attorney’s office must present sufficient evidence to the court that shows there is probable cause to believe that the alleged offense was committed by the juvenile in question. If probable cause is not found, the court may either dismiss the proceeding or find probable cause that the juvenile committed a lesser included offense (e.g., a misdemeanor) and proceed to the adjudicatory hearing, which can immediately follow the probable cause hearing or be set for another date. If probable cause is found and transfer to superior court is not statutorily required (i.e., non-Class A felonies), the court proceeds to a transfer hearing, which can occur on the same day. Transfer Hearing At the transfer hearing, the court considers a number of factors in reaching a decision on whether the juvenile’s case will be transferred to superior court. If the case is transferred, the juvenile is tried as an adult and is subject to the same sentencing options that would apply in any felony criminal case. If the judge retains juvenile court jurisdiction and does not transfer the juvenile to superior court, the case then proceeds to the adjudicatory hearing, which can immediately follow the transfer hearing or be set for a later date. Adjudicatory Hearing The adjudicatory hearing allows for the court to hear evidence from the district attorney, the juvenile’s attorney, and the complainant in order to make a determination of whether or not the juvenile committed the act(s) alleged in the petition(s). If the court finds that the allegations in the petition have not been proven “beyond a reasonable doubt,” the petition is dismissed and the matter is closed. If the court finds that the allegations have been proven, the juvenile is adjudicated delinquent and the court proceeds to the dispositional hearing. 2 Prior to a probable cause hearing, juveniles with a felony petition are scheduled for a first appearance hearing during which a judge determines whether the juvenile has an attorney and provides the juvenile and parent or responsible party with information pertaining to the allegation and future hearings. 4 Dispositional Hearing Overview of the Process The dispositional hearing, which may or may not occur on the same date as the adjudicatory hearing, marks the part of the process in which the court decides the sanctions, services, and conditions that will be ordered for the juvenile as a result of the adjudicated offense(s). G.S. § 7B-2500 states that the purposes of a disposition are “to design an appropriate plan to meet the needs of the juvenile and to achieve the objectives of the State in exercising jurisdiction, including the protection of the public.” In most cases, juvenile court judges use the predisposition report, which is prepared by the court counselor’s office, in developing a disposition. A risk and needs assessment is also completed by a court counselor on all adjudicated juveniles3 and is attached to this report. This assessment contains information pertaining to the juvenile’s social, medical, psychiatric, psychological, and educational history, as well as any factors indicating the probability of the juvenile engaging in future delinquency. (See Appendix A.) As shown in Table 1.1, the court’s selection of dispositional alternatives is governed by statute through a graduated sanctions chart that classifies juvenile offenders according to the seriousness of their adjudicated offense (vertical axis) and the degree and extent of their delinquent history (horizontal axis). (See Appendix B for more detailed information.) Table 1.1 Juvenile Disposition Chart Delinquency History Level Offense Classification Low 0 – 1 point Medium 2 – 3 points High 4 or more points Violent Class A – E felonies Level 2 or 3 Level 3 Level 3 Serious Class F – I felonies Class A1 misdemeanors Level 1 or 2 Level 2 Level 2 or 3 Minor Class 1 – 3 misdemeanors Level 1 Level 1 or 2 Level 2 Once the court has determined the offense classification and the delinquency history level for the juvenile, the dispositional level can be ascertained. Each cell within the juvenile disposition chart authorizes one or more dispositional levels for a particular combination of 3 Beginning in 2006, the risk and needs assessment was incorporated into the intake process for use in the initial decision to approve or not approve a complaint for filing, as well as for use at disposition. 5 offense classification and delinquency history level. There are three different dispositional levels – Level 1, Level 2, and Level 3 – each of which offers its own list of dispositional alternatives from which a judge must select at least one. Dispositional Alternatives Level 1 (Community) A Level 1 or community disposition offers the court less restrictive dispositional alternatives such as probation, community-based programs, non-residential and residential treatment programs, lower degrees of community service and restitution, and sanctions that place specific limitations on a juvenile (e.g., curfew, no association with specified persons, not be in specified places). (See Appendix C for a complete list of dispositional alternatives for all three levels.) It is noteworthy that many of the community-based programs for adjudicated youth who can receive a Level 1 or 2 disposition are funded through Juvenile Crime Prevention Council (JCPC) grants. Level 2 (Intermediate) Level 2 or intermediate dispositions are generally more restrictive than Level 1 dispositions. Level 2 dispositional alternatives include options such as intensive probation, group home placements (e.g., multipurpose group homes), regimented training programs, and house arrest. For Level 2 dispositions, a juvenile can be ordered to make restitution that is in excess of $500 or perform up to 200 hours of community service. The court can also utilize any Level 1 dispositional option for a juvenile adjudicated at Level 2. Several Level 2 options which offer a more restrictive environment for adjudicated juveniles are available for Level 1 dispositions as well. Eckerd Wilderness Camps serve juveniles with behavioral problems in a year-round, residential therapeutic environment.4 These camps have a contractual agreement with the DJJDP to operate seven camps in North Carolina. Supervised day programs, which allow a juvenile to remain in the community through a highly structured program of services, also represent an alternative that is available at both of the first two dispositional levels. An even more restrictive option is available for Level 1 or 2 dispositions in the form of intermittent confinement in a detention center. Detention centers are facilities that are approved to provide secure, temporary confinement and care for juveniles who meet statutorily defined criteria.5 The court can impose intermittent confinement for no more than five 24-hour periods as part of a Level 1 disposition. When a Level 2 disposition is authorized, the court can impose confinement on an intermittent basis for up to fourteen 24-hour periods. Because of the short-term nature of detention, programs and services offered in these centers are limited. 4 The wilderness camps serve a diverse group of juveniles, including those displaying problematic behavior who are not court-involved. 5 In addition to utilizing a detention placement as a dispositional alternative, juveniles can also be detained by the court pending their adjudicatory or dispositional hearing, or their adult hearing following the transfer of the case from juvenile court. 6 Level 3 (Commitment) A Level 3 or commitment disposition provides the most restrictive sanction available to a juvenile court judge, commitment to a Youth Development Center (YDC). A YDC, as defined in G.S. § 7B-1501(20), is “a secure residential facility authorized to provide long-term treatment, education, and rehabilitative services for delinquent juveniles committed by the court to the Department [DJJDP].” Unless a youth is under the age of 10, a court exercising jurisdiction over a juvenile for whom a Level 3 disposition is authorized must commit the juvenile to the DJJDP for placement in a YDC.6 However, G.S. § 7B-2513(e) states that the DJJDP, following assessment of a juvenile, may provide commitment services to the juvenile in a program not located in a YDC or detention facility (i.e., community commitment). Another exception gives the court discretion to impose a Level 2 disposition rather than a Level 3 disposition if the court makes written findings that substantiate extraordinary needs on the part of the juvenile in question. The length of a juvenile’s commitment must be at least six months; however, there are statutory provisions for extended jurisdiction for committed youth.7 Upon completion of their term of commitment, juveniles are subject to a minimum of 90 days of post-release supervision. The DJJDP currently houses approximately 400 committed juveniles in nine YDCs, including four new facilities that opened in 2008. JUVENILE RECIDIVISM RESEARCH DESIGN The research design for the 2009 biennial juvenile recidivism study was first specified in the Sentencing Commission’s 2005 “Report on the Proposed Methodology for Measuring Juvenile Recidivism in North Carolina” to the General Assembly.8 Based on that blueprint, the research strategy for the current study included: The selection of a population of juveniles brought to court with a delinquent complaint during the sample period of July 1, 2004 through June 30, 2005. The tracking of all juveniles in the sample for a fixed three-year follow-up period from their first court involvement in the sample period. The definition of recidivism as all subsequent delinquent complaints and adult arrests within the three years following the first court event of the juveniles within the sample period. 6 Pursuant to G.S. § 7B-2508(d), a court may impose a Level 3 disposition (commitment to a Youth Development Center) in lieu of a Level 2 disposition if the juvenile has previously received a Level 3 disposition in a prior juvenile action. Additionally, G.S. § 7B-2508 (g) allows for juveniles who have been adjudicated of a Minor offense to be committed to a YDC if the juvenile has been adjudicated of four or more prior offenses. 7 G.S. § 7B-2513(a). 8 North Carolina Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission, Report on the Proposed Methodology for Measuring Juvenile Recidivism in North Carolina Pursuant to Session Law 2004-124, Section 16.5, Raleigh, NC: North Carolina Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission, 2005. 7 It should be noted that the current report expands the study beyond its legislatively mandated scope. Juveniles adjudicated delinquent are studied within the context of all juveniles brought to court with a delinquent complaint in FY 2004/05, and the sample is followed for a three-year period to capture their delinquent and criminal reinvolvement. Data Sources Information for this report was collected from three sources: North Carolina Juvenile Online Information Network (NC-JOIN) – the DJJDP’s management information system contains data on all juveniles brought to court with a complaint; their demographic and social history information; current offense and disposition; and subsequent involvement in the juvenile justice system. North Carolina Department of Justice (DOJ) automated database – the DOJ criminal history database includes information on fingerprinted adult arrests and convictions for the sample subjects.9 DJJDP staff interviews – providing descriptive state level information regarding policies and practices in the juvenile system. Sample There were 20,236 juveniles identified in the DJJDP’s automated database who were brought to juvenile court and had their delinquent complaint either closed without further action, diverted, dismissed, or adjudicated between July 1, 2004 and June 30, 2005. The three-year fixed follow-up was calculated individually for each juvenile from the date of the event that prompted their inclusion in the sample. If a juvenile had more than one sample event during the sample period, his/her case was grouped based on the earliest of these events.10 If a juvenile had two or more court events on the same day, the most serious of these events was counted as the prompt for inclusion in the sample. Applying these criteria, the 20,236 sample juveniles were divided into four groups based on their level of involvement for their first court event: juveniles with cases adjudicated, dismissed, diverted, or closed. Independent Variables and Outcome Measures Background information available for all cases was limited to basic demographic data and offense charges filed. A variety of additional background characteristics and juvenile justice factors were extracted from NC-JOIN for juveniles adjudicated and disposed. 9 Note that the age of majority in North Carolina for criminal matters is 16. Anyone 16 years of age or older at the time of committing an offense is charged and processed in adult court. 10 Note that this method of grouping sample juveniles represents a change from the method used in the North Carolina Sentencing Commission's 2007 Juvenile Recidivism Study. In that earlier study, “[if] a juvenile had more than one sample event during the sampling period, his/her case was grouped based on the most serious of these events, ranked from adjudicated to dismissed, diverted, and closed.” 8 The primary outcome measure of recidivism was defined as either a delinquent juvenile complaint or an adult arrest that occurred within the three-year follow-up subsequent to the initial event. Additional measures of recidivism included the offense severity of recidivistic events, as well as subsequent adjudications and convictions. ANALYSIS AND REPORT OUTLINE Chapter Two provides a basic statistical profile of the juveniles whose cases were closed (n=5,715), diverted (n=5,100), dismissed (n=2,409), or adjudicated (n=7,012) delinquent in North Carolina between July 1, 2004 and June 30, 2005. The chapter also describes the sample’s subsequent (i.e., recidivistic) involvement in the juvenile and criminal justice systems during the three-year follow-up period and introduces multivariate techniques to compare the outcome measures for the four groups. Chapter Three presents a more complete statistical profile of the juveniles adjudicated and disposed (n=6,605), for whom the NC-JOIN database contained detailed court information, program assignments, and risk and needs assessments. The descriptive information is supplemented by an analysis of juvenile and adult recidivism of the adjudicated and disposed group and an exploration of the relationship between background and systemic factors and recidivistic outcomes. Finally, Chapter Four summarizes the findings of the report and offers some conclusions. 9 CHAPTER TWO STATISTICAL PROFILE AND RECIDIVISM OF THE JUVENILE SAMPLE This chapter profiles a cohort of juveniles processed through North Carolina’s juvenile justice system from July 1, 2004 through June 30, 2005. The first section describes the sample selection process and provides a statistical profile of the juvenile sample. The second section discusses the juveniles’ recidivism in the juvenile justice and criminal justice systems. Finally, the last section utilizes multivariate analysis to explore the impact of a variety of factors on recidivism. STATISTICAL PROFILE Sample Selection All of the 20,236 juveniles studied in the sample were brought to the attention of the juvenile justice system with at least one delinquent complaint. Based on the first decision that was made regarding their case in FY 2004/05, they were assigned to one of four levels of involvement – juveniles with complaints that were closed, diverted, dismissed, or adjudicated. If more than one decision or event occurred on the same day, the juvenile was assigned to a group based on the most serious event, as determined by the level of involvement in the system from a closed case (least serious) to diversion, dismissal, and adjudication (most serious). As shown in Figure 2.1, there were 5,715 juveniles in the sample whose cases were closed, 5,100 juveniles whose cases were diverted, 2,409 juveniles whose cases were dismissed, and 7,012 juveniles whose cases were adjudicated during the sample period. The information available for all four sample groups included basic demographic data, offense charges, confinement at juvenile facilities, and measures of recidivism. Personal Characteristics Table 2.1 presents the distribution of the demographic characteristics for the closed, diverted, dismissed, and adjudicated groups. At the time of their alleged offenses, the juveniles’ mean age was 13.6 years, with a median of 14.0 years. The majority of juveniles (62.8%) were 14- or 15-years old when the offense occurred. The diverted and closed groups had a slightly higher proportion of juveniles nine years or younger; the adjudicated and dismissed groups had a higher proportion of juveniles 14 years and older. Seventy percent of the sample juveniles were male. Adjudicated juveniles had the highest rate of males at 77.4% while the juveniles whose cases were closed had the lowest rate of males at 65.6%. 10 Definitions for the Juvenile Recidivism Sample Groups All juveniles in the sample had at least one delinquent complaint. Their assignment to a group within the sample was based on the first decision that was made regarding the complaint in their case in FY 2004/05. Closed: Complaint was closed at intake by a court counselor, with no further action required. Diverted: Complaint was diverted from court by a court counselor who developed a plan or contract for the juvenile to comply with certain conditions. Non-compliance with the plan or contract could later result in the filing of the complaint as a petition in juvenile court. Dismissed: Complaint was filed as a petition and dismissed by the court during the pre-adjudicatory or adjudicatory hearing. Adjudicated: Complaint was filed as a petition and the juvenile was adjudicated delinquent by the court. The adjudication may or may not have had a disposition entered in the time frame of the study. Almost 52% of the juveniles in the sample were black, 39.8% were white, 4.5% were Latino, and 4.2% were identified as other or unknown. The dismissed group had the highest percent of black juveniles (56.5%), while the diverted group had the lowest percent (46.6%). Most Serious Sample Offense A comparison of the groups with respect to their offense profile is provided in Table 2.2. The most serious offense charged in the complaint was used to compare juveniles whose cases were closed, diverted, or dismissed; information provided for the adjudicated group was based on the most serious offense at adjudication.11 11 For the purposes of this report, the term “sample offense” refers to the most serious offense charged in the complaint for the closed, diverted, or dismissed groups or the most serious adjudicated charge for the adjudicated group. 11 Table 2.1 Demographic Profile of Juveniles by Level of Involvement Demographic Level of Involvement Profile Adjudicated n=7,012 Dismissed n=2,409 Diverted n=5,100 Closed n=5,715 All N=20,236 Age at Offense Mean 13.8 13.6 13.5 13.5 13.6 Median 14 14 14 14 14 Age at Offense % % % % # % 6-9 Years 1.1 2.4 2.5 3.4 456 2.2 10 Years 1.5 2.6 1.8 2.2 385 1.9 11 Years 3.8 5.2 4.8 4.8 909 4.5 12 Years 9.1 9.7 10.9 10.5 2,030 10.0 13 Years 18.6 17.6 19.6 17.9 3,754 18.6 14 Years 29.1 27.5 28.4 27.5 5,722 28.3 15 Years 36.8 35.0 32.0 33.7 6,980 34.5 Gender % % % % # % Male 77.4 70.8 66.1 65.6 14,248 70.4 Female 22.6 29.2 33.9 34.4 5,988 29.6 Race % % % % # % Black 53.8 56.5 46.6 50.9 10,420 51.5 White 37.4 34.1 46.4 39.2 8,054 39.8 Latino 4.4 4.6 3.3 5.5 901 4.5 Other/Unknown 4.4 4.8 3.7 4.4 861 4.2 Note: No race information was available for Latino juveniles. Due to low percentages, American Indian, Asian, and multi-racial juveniles were combined with other/unknown into one category. SOURCE: NC Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission, FY 2004/05 Juvenile Recidivism Sample Eighty-nine percent of the 20,236 juveniles had a misdemeanor as their most serious sample offense. Felonies comprised 22.4% and 19.2% respectively of the offenses for the adjudicated and dismissed groups, but only 3.2% and 2.1% respectively of the offenses for the diverted and closed groups. Overall, 1.4% of the sample were charged with violent offenses (felony offense classes A through E), 17.1% were charged with serious offenses (felony offense classes F through I and misdemeanor class A1), and 81.5% were charged with minor offenses (misdemeanor classes 1 through 3).12 None of the juveniles with closed or diverted cases were charged with violent offenses and only a small percentage were charged with serious offenses. 12 See Chapter One for a discussion of offense classifications in the Juvenile Disposition Chart. 12 These findings reflect both legal and court counselor considerations such as continued court processing for non-divertible and other serious felonies, and closing the case or seeking diversion for those juveniles with less serious offenses (especially those charged with misdemeanors). It should be noted that the seriousness of the adjudicated juveniles’ offense conduct might be somewhat underrepresented, due to the practice of plea negotiation and charge reduction in some judicial districts. Table 2.2 Most Serious Sample Offense by Level of Involvement Level of Involvement Adjudicated n=7,012 Dismissed n=2,409 Diverted n=5,100 Closed n=5,715 All N=20,236 Most Serious Sample Offense % % % % # % Offense Type Felony 22.4 19.2 3.2 2.1 2,312 11.4 Misdemeanor 77.6 80.8 96.8 97.9 17,924 88.6 Offense Classification Violent 2.7 3.7 0.0 0.0 279 1.4 Serious 29.1 25.3 8.2 6.9 3,464 17.1 Minor 68.2 71.0 91.8 93.1 16,493 81.5 Note: For the adjudicated group, offense information is based on the most serious offense at adjudication. For the other groups, offense information is based on the most serious alleged offense at time of complaint. SOURCE: NC Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission, FY 2004/05 Juvenile Recidivism Sample RECIDIVISM IN THE JUVENILE JUSTICE AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEMS Juveniles in the FY 2004/05 sample were tracked in the juvenile justice system and/or the adult criminal justice system to determine whether they re-offended during the three-year follow-up period. The primary measures of recidivism for this study were delinquent juvenile complaints and adult arrests that occurred subsequent to the FY 2004/05 event placing the juvenile in the sample.13 Follow-up Period and Time at Risk Each juvenile in the sample was followed for a period of three years to determine whether subsequent involvement with the juvenile justice or adult criminal justice systems 13 DJJDP’s NC-JOIN database was used to determine subsequent juvenile complaints, while DOJ’s criminal history database was used to determine adult arrests. 13 occurred. The follow-up period was calculated individually by using the date a decision (e.g., diversion, adjudication) was reached in the juvenile’s case as the starting point. Given that the age of adult jurisdiction in North Carolina is 16 years, a large number of juveniles in the FY 2004/05 sample reached the age of criminal responsibility during the three-year follow-up. Most juveniles (76.8%) spent at least a portion of the three-year follow-up under both juvenile and adult jurisdiction. Almost 16% of the juveniles remained under the jurisdiction of the juvenile justice system for their entire three-year period and were never under adult jurisdiction. A smaller proportion of the juveniles (7.3%) had already turned 16 years old at sample entry and were under adult jurisdiction for their entire three-year follow-up. In examining recidivism in either system, this study tracked subsequent delinquent complaints for the 18,754 who were under juvenile jurisdiction at least some of the time, and tracked adult arrests for the 17,011 who were under adult jurisdiction at least some of the time. Figure 2.2 provides information on the time at risk of recidivating spent as a juvenile and as an adult during the three-year follow-up. The sample as a whole was at risk to be processed in the juvenile justice system for 17.3 months, or 48% of the 36 follow-up months and was at risk to be charged as an adult in the criminal justice system for an average of 18.7 months, or 52% of the total follow-up months. Based on their age distribution (see Table 2.1.), juveniles whose cases were diverted or closed were younger and had a shorter average time at risk as adults (16.9 and 17.5 months respectively) than juveniles whose cases were adjudicated or dismissed (20.3 and 20.5 months respectively). Figure 2.2: Average Number of Follow-up Months under Juvenile and Adult Jurisdictions 15.7 Months (44%) 15.5 Months (43%) 19.1 Months (53%) 18.5 Months (51%) 17.3 Months (48%) 20.3 Months (56%) 20.5 Months (57%) 16.9 Months (47%) 17.5 Months (49%) 18.7 Months (52%) 0 12 24 36 All Closed Diverted Dismissed Adjudicated Months under Juvenile Jurisdiction Months under Adult Jurisdiction SOURCE: NC Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission, FY 2004/05 Juvenile Recidivism Sample 14 A fixed follow-up period was used in an attempt to obtain the same “window of opportunity” for each juvenile to re-offend. However, in actuality the window of opportunity was not necessarily similar for each sample subject – some may have been committed to a YDC or admitted to a detention center in the juvenile justice system, while others may have been incarcerated in local jails or in prison in the adult criminal justice system. Juvenile and Adult Recidivism Subsequent delinquent complaints (also referred to as “subsequent complaints”) were used as the primary measure for juvenile recidivism, supplemented with information on subsequent adjudications that resulted from those recidivistic complaints. A subsequent delinquent complaint had to occur after the start date of the three-year follow-up period and the juvenile had to have committed the alleged offense before age 16 in order for the complaint to be considered recidivism.14 Subsequent adjudications resulting from those complaints also had to conform to those time constraints in the follow-up.15 In addition, juveniles had to be at risk in the juvenile justice system; therefore, 1,482 juveniles were excluded from the juvenile recidivism analysis because they had already aged out of the juvenile justice system at the start of the follow-up. Arrests were used as the primary measure for adult recidivism, supplemented with information on convictions. Adult arrests had to occur within the three-year follow-up and the date of arrest had to occur after the juvenile turned 16 years old in order to be counted as recidivism.16 Convictions were defined similarly, and the arrest leading to the conviction also must have occurred in the follow-up period. In addition, juveniles had to be at risk in the adult criminal justice system; therefore, 3,225 juveniles were excluded from the adult recidivism analysis because they were under juvenile jurisdiction for the entire follow-up period. Finally, a combined measure of subsequent juvenile complaints and/or adult arrests was compiled to indicate any recidivistic involvement in either system, which was supplemented by a similar measure for subsequent juvenile adjudications and/or adult convictions.17 All 20,236 sample juveniles were included in analyzing overall recidivism. 14 Although the subsequent delinquent complaint had to occur within the three-year follow-up, the date that the alleged offense occurred could have been prior to the follow-up period. 15 Throughout the report, the term “subsequent adjudications” is used. This term refers to adjudications during the three-year follow-up for juveniles who have no prior adjudications, as well as for those who have prior adjudications. 16 Although the adult arrest had to occur within the three-year follow-up, the date that the alleged offense occurred could have been prior to the follow-up period. 17 Tables referring to only juvenile recidivism, or only adult recidivism, state so specifically. Otherwise, the terms “recidivism” or “overall recidivism” in this report refer to having either a subsequent delinquent juvenile complaint, an adult arrest, or both. 15 Subsequent Juvenile Complaints and Adult Arrests Table 2.3 presents the three primary measures of recidivism for the entire sample and the four groups. Of the 20,236 juveniles in the sample, 44.8% had a subsequent juvenile complaint and/or adult arrest (“overall recidivism”). Of those juveniles under juvenile jurisdiction during follow-up (n=18,754), 36.7% had a subsequent delinquent complaint. Of those juveniles under adult jurisdiction during follow-up (n=17,011), 21.4% had an adult arrest. Level of involvement was closely correlated with recidivism: the further a juvenile was processed in the juvenile justice system, the more likely that juvenile was to recidivate, with the overall recidivism rate ranging from 35.5% for the group with a closed complaint to 55.7% for the adjudicated group. Table 2.3 Recidivism Rates for Juvenile Complaints and Adult Arrests by Level of Involvement Subsequent Complaints Adult Arrests Overall Level of Recidivism Involvement n % n % N % Adjudicated 6,304 45.7 6,175 28.1 7,012 55.7 Dismissed 2,050 40.8 2,057 25.5 2,409 48.0 Diverted 4,951 31.9 4,157 15.3 5,100 38.7 Closed 5,449 29.0 4,622 15.9 5,715 35.5 TOTAL 18,754 36.7 17,011 21.4 20,236 44.8 SOURCE: NC Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission, FY 2004/05 Juvenile Recidivism Sample For those juveniles with at least one subsequent delinquent complaint or arrest during the three-year follow-up, the first recidivistic event occurred an average of 11.6 months after the beginning of their follow-up. (See Figure 2.3.) Adjudicated and dismissed juveniles tended to recidivate somewhat earlier than the juveniles whose cases were diverted or closed. It should be noted that a number of juveniles spent some portion of that “time to failure” under some form of supervision in the community or in confinement. 16 Figure 2.3: Average Time to First Subsequent Complaint or Adult Arrest during Follow-up 12.2 Months 12.8 Months 11.3 Months 10.8 Months 11.6 Months 0 12 24 36 All Closed Diverted Dismissed Adjudicated Months SOURCE: NC Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission, FY 2004/05 Juvenile Recidivism Sample Table 2.4 provides information on the total number of recidivistic events for those juveniles who had a subsequent juvenile complaint, an adult arrest, or both during the follow-up period. The 9,064 juveniles who had at least one subsequent delinquent complaint or adult arrest accounted for a total of 22,026 recidivistic events. The adjudicated group accounted for the highest volume of subsequent complaints and/or adult arrests at 10,133. Table 2.4 also includes information on the mean number of recidivistic events. The average number of overall subsequent complaints and/or adult arrests for those juveniles who re-offended was 2.4 for the three-year follow-up. The adjudicated and dismissed juveniles had a higher average number of recidivistic events (at 2.6 each) than the diverted or closed juveniles (2.2 and 2.3 respectively) during follow-up. Subsequent Juvenile Adjudications and Adult Convictions Table 2.5 details subsequent adjudication and conviction rates for the four sample groups. As expected, adjudication/conviction rates were lower than complaint/arrest rates for two reasons: due to cases being closed, dismissed, or acquitted, and due to a time lag between initial processing and court action, possibly falling outside the follow-up period. Adjudication/conviction rates indicated patterns similar to complaint/arrest rates – the more serious the level of involvement in the juvenile justice system, the higher the rate of subsequent adjudications/convictions. Of those juveniles under juvenile jurisdiction during follow-up (n=18,754), 24.1% had a subsequent adjudication. Of those juveniles under adult jurisdiction during follow-up (n=17,011), 11.0% had an adult conviction. The combined recidivistic adjudication/conviction rate for the sample was 29.2%, with 40.4% for the adjudicated group compared to 19.8% for the group with closed complaints. Table 2.4 Recidivistic Events by Level of Involvement Total Number and Average Number of Recidivistic Events During the Three-Year Follow-Up Period Subsequent Complaints n=18,754 Adult Arrests n=17,011 Overall Recidivism Level of N=20,236 Involvement # of Juveniles with Any Complaint # of Complaints Average # of Complaints # of Juveniles with Any Arrest # of Arrests Average # of Arrests # of Juveniles with Any Complaint or Arrest # of Complaints and/or Arrests Average # of Complaint s and/or Arrests Adjudicated 2,879 6,598 2.3 1,737 3,516 2.0 3,904 10,133 2.6 Dismissed 837 1,821 2.2 525 1,142 2.2 1,156 2,972 2.6 Diverted 1,579 3,211 2.0 635 1,041 1.6 1,973 4,257 2.2 Closed 1,580 3,330 2.1 735 1,328 1.8 2,031 4,664 2.3 All 6,875 14,960 2.2 3,632 7,027 1.9 9,064 22,026 2.4 SOURCE: NC Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission, FY 2004/05 Juvenile Recidivism Sample 18 Table 2.5 Recidivism Rates for Juvenile Adjudications and Adult Convictions by Level of Involvement Subsequent Adjudications Convictions Adjudications and/or Convictions Level of Involvement n % n % N % Adjudicated 6,304 33.7 6,175 15.9 7,012 40.4 Dismissed 2,050 25.5 2,057 14.6 2,409 31.1 Diverted 4,951 20.0 4,157 6.5 5,100 23.3 Closed 5,449 16.2 4,622 7.0 5,715 19.8 TOTAL 18,754 24.1 17,011 11.0 20,236 29.2 SOURCE: NC Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission, FY 2004/05 Juvenile Recidivism Sample Sample Offense and Recidivism While the most serious sample offense for the majority of juveniles at all levels of involvement was a misdemeanor, the relative percentage of felony offenses was significantly higher for the dismissed and adjudicated cases (19% and 22% respectively) than for the diverted and closed cases (3% and 2% respectively). (See Table 2.2.) Juveniles charged with a felony as their most serious sample offense were more likely to recidivate than those charged with a misdemeanor – 51% and 44% respectively. (See Table 2.6.) However, this finding did not hold true for each of the specific groups. Juveniles with adjudicated, diverted, and closed complaints were more likely to recidivate if their sample adjudication or complaint was a misdemeanor. Dismissed juveniles were more likely to recidivate if their sample complaint was a felony. The relationship between the sample offense and subsequent recidivistic offense is explored in Table 2.7 for the 8,945 juveniles with any recidivism. Within the three-year follow-up, juveniles with a sample felony offense were more likely (65.7%) to have a felony offense as their most serious subsequent offense. Similarly, juveniles who had a sample misdemeanor offense were more likely (54.9%) to have a misdemeanor offense as their most serious subsequent offense. As expected, adjudicated and dismissed juveniles were more likely to have a subsequent felony complaint or adult arrest (55.3% and 52.9% respectively) than juveniles whose cases were diverted or closed (39.5% and 38.7% respectively). 19 Table 2.6 Recidivism Rates by Sample Offense and Level of Involvement Recidivism Rates for Juveniles with a: Felony Misdemeanor Overall Level of Recidivism Involvement n % n % N % Adjudicated 1,568 54.3 5,444 56.1 7,012 55.7 Dismissed 463 51.0 1,946 47.3 2,409 48.0 Diverted 162 32.1 4,938 38.9 5,100 38.7 Closed 119 32.8 5,596 35.6 5,715 35.5 All 2,312 51.0 17,924 44.0 20,236 44.8 SOURCE: NC Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission, FY 2004/05 Juvenile Recidivism Sample Table 2.7 Most Serious Recidivistic Offense by Most Serious Sample Offense Most Serious Recidivistic Offense Felony n=4,276 Misdemeanor n=4,669 Sample Offense N % % Felony 1,156 65.7 34.3 Misdemeanor 7,789 45.1 54.9 Total 8,945 47.8 52.2 Note: There were 119 offenses missing due to the type of offense (felony or misdemeanor) being unknown for the most serious recidivistic offense. SOURCE: NC Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission, FY 2004/05 Juvenile Recidivism Sample Age at Sample Offense and Recidivism Table 2.8 provides recidivism rates by the juvenile’s age at the time of the sample offense and by level of involvement in the juvenile justice system. As expected, the youngest juveniles had the lowest recidivism rates at 22.6% for 6- to 9-year-olds. The rate of recidivism increased to its highest levels for juveniles aged 12 and 13 (54.0% and 52.9% respectively), and declined again considerably for the 14- and 15-year-olds (to 47.0% and 37.3% respectively). 20 Table 2.8 Recidivism Rates for Juveniles by Age at Sample Offense and Level of Involvement Age at % % % % % Sample Offense N Adjudicated n=7,012 Dismissed n=2,409 Diverted n=5,100 Closed n=5,715 All N=20,236 6-9 years 456 33.8 25.9 26.2 15.2 22.6 10 years 385 54.4 40.3 43.6 26.2 40.3 11 years 909 55.5 59.5 42.7 38.6 47.5 12 years 2,030 67.4 63.7 46.1 43.2 54.0 13 years 3,754 65.2 52.0 45.7 44.8 52.9 14 years 5,722 58.4 50.2 40.4 37.1 47.0 15 years 6,980 46.5 40.3 30.5 29.3 37.3 All 20,236 55.7 48.0 38.7 35.5 44.8 SOURCE: NC Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission, FY 2004/05 Juvenile Recidivism Sample Additional Juvenile Justice Involvement One of the more consistent research findings links juvenile confinement to an increased probability of adult criminality. To examine this assertion, information was collected for each juvenile on commitment to a YDC and admission to a detention center any time between the sample entry and the end of their follow-up period. In the following sections, adult arrest rates are examined for juveniles who were committed to a YDC, admitted to a detention center, or transferred to adult court during follow-up. Juvenile Commitment and Adult Arrests Table 2.9 describes commitment rates for the four groups while under juvenile jurisdiction during the three-year follow-up. Commitment to a YDC is the most severe sanction available for juveniles who are adjudicated delinquent. A YDC commitment is not necessarily linked to the sample event for the four groups and could have resulted either from a delinquent complaint prior to the follow-up period or from a delinquent complaint that occurred during the follow-up period. Of the entire sample, 4.2% had one or more commitments to a YDC, with the highest rate of 9.2% for those in the adjudicated group. 21 Table 2.9 Commitment to Youth Development Center by Level of Involvement YDC Commitment No YDC Level of Commitment Involvement N n % n % Adjudicated 7,012 642 9.2 6,370 90.8 Dismissed 2,409 81 3.4 2,328 96.6 Diverted 5,100 63 1.2 5,037 98.8 Closed 5,715 69 1.2 5,646 98.8 All 20,236 855 4.2 19,381 95.8 SOURCE: NC Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission, FY 2004/05 Juvenile Recidivism Sample Table 2.10 compares adult arrest rates for juveniles in the sample who had no YDC commitments with those who had one or more YDC commitments. Thirty-five percent of those with a YDC commitment had at least one subsequent adult arrest compared to 20.7% of those with no YDC commitments. This differential in adult recidivism rates held true for all four groups. Table 2.10 Adult Arrests by Commitment to Youth Development Center and Level of Involvement Adult Arrests for Juveniles with: YDC Commitment No YDC Commitment Adult Level of Arrests Involvement n % n % n % Adjudicated 585 36.4 5,590 27.3 6,175 28.1 Dismissed 67 41.8 1,990 25.0 2,057 25.5 Diverted 50 28.0 4,107 15.1 4,157 15.3 Closed 52 17.3 4,570 15.9 4,622 15.9 All 754 35.0 16,257 20.7 17,011 21.4 SOURCE: NC Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission, FY 2004/05 Juvenile Recidivism Sample 22 Juvenile Detention Center Admission and Adult Arrests Admission to a detention center can occur while a juvenile awaits adjudication and disposition, or as a condition of probation. Table 2.11 provides the detention center admission rates for the four groups. Of the entire sample, 22.8% had at least one admission to a detention center. The rate ranged from a high of 42.1% for the adjudicated group to a low of 10.4% for the group with a closed case. Table 2.11 Admission to Detention Center by Level of Involvement Detention Center Admission No Detention Center Level of Admission Involvement N n % n % Adjudicated 7,012 2,955 42.1 4,057 57.9 Dismissed 2,409 456 18.9 1,953 81.1 Diverted 5,100 609 11.9 4,491 88.1 Closed 5,715 594 10.4 5,121 89.6 All 20,236 4,614 22.8 15,622 77.2 SOURCE: NC Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission, FY 2004/05 Juvenile Recidivism Sample Similar to commitment to a YDC, a history of admissions to detention centers was in direct relationship with an increased probability of adult arrest. (See Table 2.12.) Almost 34% of those with at least one juvenile detention center admission had one or more adult arrests, compared to 17.7% of those with no juvenile detention center admissions – again, a difference in recidivism rates found in all four levels of involvement. Overall, experiencing some form of confinement during their juvenile years increased the sample’s rate of adult arrests between 14% and 16%. Juvenile Transfers to Superior Court As mentioned in Chapter One, juveniles alleged to be delinquent may be transferred to the Superior Court for trial as adults. There were 57 juveniles who, after selection into the study sample, were transferred to adult court during the follow-up period. No information is available about findings of guilt or innocence, or dispositions, in those proceedings. However, 42.6% of the juveniles transferred to adult court had at least one or more adult arrest during follow-up compared to 21.3% of those juveniles who were not transferred to adult court during follow-up. 23 Table 2.12 Adult Arrests by Admission to Detention Center and Level of Involvement Adult Arrests for Juveniles with: Detention Center Admission No Detention Center Admission Adult Level of Arrests Involvement n % n % n % Adjudicated 2,602 34.5 3,573 23.5 6,175 28.1 Dismissed 378 37.3 1,679 22.9 2,057 25.5 Diverted 466 26.8 3,691 13.8 4,157 15.3 Closed 450 31.6 4,172 14.2 4,622 15.9 All 3,896 33.5 13,115 17.7 17,011 21.4 SOURCE: NC Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission, FY 2004/05 Juvenile Recidivism Sample MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS Logistic Regression Models A regression model is a statistical tool used to estimate the association of a set of independent variables (e.g., age, sex, offense seriousness) with a dependent variable (e.g., subsequent delinquent complaint, adult arrest), while also quantifying the singular contribution of each of the variables in the model. This type of analysis allows for a determination of whether level of involvement in the juvenile justice system, for example, has any relationship with a juvenile’s probability of recidivating while controlling for other factors such as age, gender, and race. It also indicates the relative importance of the independent variables in relation to recidivism. Using logistic regression,18 several models were tested to determine how a set of independent variables was related to the probability of overall recidivism for the entire sample of juveniles (n=20,236) and to the probability of adult arrest for those juveniles who aged into the adult criminal justice system during the three-year follow-up (n=17,011). It should be noted that while the effects reported in this analysis may reveal the existence of a relationship between an independent variable such as age and a dependent (outcome) variable such as adult arrest, such effects do not necessarily imply a causal relationship between age and arrest.19 18 Logistic regression involves regression using the logit (i.e., the logarithm of the odds) of an outcome occurring. This type of analysis is most appropriate for regression models with a dichotomous dependent variable such as being rearrested or not. 19 The effects were converted from logistic model coefficients and indicate the estimated increase or decrease in the probability of an outcome occurring which is associated with each independent variable for the average offender. See Aldrich and Nelson (1984; 41-44) for further information on converting logistic coefficients to “effects.” 24 Dependent Variables (Outcome Measures) Modeled The regression analyses in this section modeled two dependent variables: ► Overall Recidivism – any subsequent delinquent complaint, adult arrest, or both ► Adult Arrest – subsequent adult arrest only Independent Variables Used in the Regression Models Variables available for the entire sample included gender, race, age at sample event, seriousness level of sample offense, level of involvement in the juvenile justice system for sample offense, whether a juvenile had any YDC commitments or detention center admissions during the three-year follow-up period, and the amount of time (in months) the juvenile was at risk to be charged as an adult in the criminal justice system. Logistic Regression Analyses Table 2.13 displays the estimated effect of the independent variables in each model on the outcome measure modeled. The effects listed should be interpreted based on the following criteria: whether the effect of the variable is statistically significant (i.e., with a relationship unlikely to be the result of random chance) and, if so, the direction and magnitude of the variable’s effect on the outcome. In general, only estimated effects that are statistically significant are reviewed. Model 1 contains the estimated effects of each independent variable on a juvenile’s probability of having a delinquent complaint or an arrest during the three-year follow-up period. All juveniles in the FY 2004/05 juvenile recidivism sample were included in the analysis of overall recidivism presented in Model 1. The average probability of recidivism for the FY 2004/05 sample was 44.8%, and this outcome was related to a number of personal, offense-related, and court involvement factors. The values presented for Model 1 indicate the approximate change in the probability of delinquent complaint or arrest associated with each independent variable relative to a reference category. Being a male, for example, enhanced the probability of subsequent complaint or arrest by 17.8% over that of being a female. Black juveniles had an increased probability (of 15.5%) of subsequent complaint or arrest compared to non-black juveniles. With each additional year of age (based on the juvenile’s age at sample event), the probability of complaint or arrest decreased 1.3%. 25 Table 2.13 Effect of Personal and Juvenile Justice Factors on Recidivism Independent Variables Model 1: Overall Recidivism n=20,236 (44.8%) Model 2: Adult Arrest n=17,011 (21.4%) Personal Characteristics Black 15.5% 16.9% Male 17.8% 25.5% Age at Event -1.3% NS Offense Classification Violent Reference Reference Serious 14.1% 10.6% Minor 15.9% 10.3% Level of Involvement Adjudicated Reference Reference Dismissed -7.1% NS Diverted -15.0% -3.6% Closed -18.4% -3.9% Commitment to YDC or Detention Center n/a 18.1% Adult Months n/a 1.1% Note: For the adjudicated group, offense information is based on the most serious offense at adjudication. For the other groups, offense information is based on the most serious offense at time of complaint. SOURCE: NC Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission, FY 2004/05 Juvenile Recidivism Sample Those juveniles with a serious or minor offense had an increased likelihood of complaint or arrest (14.1% and 15.9% respectively) compared with those juveniles with a violent offense. However, this finding may be related to YDC commitment during the follow-up period.20 In FY 2004/05, the average YDC length of stay for juveniles adjudicated delinquent was 12.9 months.21 Almost 26% of juveniles with a violent offense were committed to a YDC during follow-up compared to only 9.7% of juveniles with a serious offense classification and 2.7% of juveniles 20 The length of a juvenile’s commitment must be at least six months; however, there are statutory provisions for extended jurisdiction for committed youth. G.S.§ 7B-2513. 21 North Carolina Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission’s Juvenile Delinquent Population Projections Fiscal Year 2008/09 to Fiscal Year 2012/13, 2008. 26 with a minor offense classification. Thus, the proportion of time within the three-year follow-up period in which a juvenile could potentially recidivate was greater for juveniles with a serious or minor offense. Finally, all levels of court involvement that did not result in adjudication also significantly reduced the probability of subsequent delinquent complaint or arrest, ranging from an 18.4% reduction for juveniles whose cases were closed, to a 15.0% reduction for juveniles whose cases were diverted, and a 7.1% reduction for juveniles whose cases were dismissed. For those juveniles who aged into the adult criminal justice system during the three-year follow-up period (n=17,011), Model 2 examined the estimated effects of each independent variable on having an adult arrest during follow-up (an average probability of 21.4%). A systemic variable was added to this model: commitment to either a YDC or to a detention center any time between sample entry and the end of the follow-up period. In addition, the amount of time (in months) the juvenile was an adult (16 years or older) during the three-year follow-up period was included as a control variable. The independent variables had similar effects to those in Model 1. Black juveniles and male juveniles had an increased probability of having an adult arrest compared to non-black juveniles and female juveniles. Juveniles who had a serious or minor offense were more likely (10.6% and 10.3% respectively) to be arrested than those with a violent offense. Juveniles whose cases were diverted or closed had a significantly reduced probability of arrest compared to those juveniles who were adjudicated (3.6% and 3.9% respectively). Juveniles whose cases were dismissed did not significantly differ from the adjudicated group. Commitment to either a YDC or a detention center increased the likelihood of arrest by 18.1%. Finally, for each additional month spent as an adult in the follow-up period, the probability of having an adult arrest increased 1.1%. SUMMARY The following section presents a summary of the major findings in Chapter Two: Sample Profile The 20,236 juveniles comprising the FY 2004/05 sample were grouped based on their level of involvement in the juvenile justice system. The four levels, ranked from least to most serious, included juveniles whose cases were either closed (n=5,715), diverted (n=5,100), dismissed (n=2,409), or adjudicated (n=7,012). Of the sample juveniles, 70.4% were male, 51.5% were black, and the mean age was 13.6 years. The majority of the juveniles (88.6%) had a misdemeanor as their most serious sample offense. Outcome Measures Three primary recidivism measures were used: subsequent delinquent juvenile complaint, adult arrest, and a combined measure of complaint and/or arrest (i.e., overall recidivism) – with a fixed three-year follow-up period for each juvenile. 27 The overall recidivism rate for the sample was 44.8%. The rate of subsequent delinquent complaint was 36.7%; the rate of adult arrest was 21.4%. Key Findings A stair-step progression of recidivism was observed among the sample subgroups: the adjudicated group recidivated at the highest rate, and the closed group recidivated at the lowest rate. The type of sample offense (i.e., felony or misdemeanor) was related to both the rate of recidivism and to the type of recidivistic offense. There was a complex relationship between juvenile age and rate of recidivism. Juveniles aged 6-9 had the lowest rate of recidivism; juveniles aged 10-12 showed a gradually increasing rate, with recidivism peaking at ages 12-13; and those aged 14-15 showed considerably decreasing rates. Multivariate statistics examined the net effect of personal characteristics and systemic factors on two outcomes: overall recidivism and adult arrest. The following factors increased the likelihood of recidivism: being male, black and having a serious or minor sample offense (relative to violent). The following factors decreased the likelihood of recidivism: being younger and having a closed, diverted, or dismissed case (as opposed to an adjudicated case). Further, juvenile confinement increased the probability of adult arrest, as did the amount of time juveniles spent under adult jurisdiction. The next chapter provides a more in-depth look at adjudicated and disposed juveniles, a subgroup of the adjudicated juveniles discussed in this chapter. For this subgroup, more extensive information was available about their assessed risk and needs, their delinquent profile, and their dispositional sanctions. 28 CHAPTER THREE STATISTICAL PROFILE AND RECIDIVISM OF JUVENILES ADJUDICATED DELINQUENT AND DISPOSED This chapter examines in more detail a subgroup of the juveniles adjudicated delinquent from July 1, 2004 through June 30, 2005 discussed in Chapter Two. Specifically, it examines those adjudicated juveniles who had a disposition entered in DJJDP’s NC-JOIN database (hereinafter referred to as juveniles adjudicated and disposed). The first section provides a statistical profile that includes detailed court information, risk and needs assessments, and court-ordered sanctions for the subgroup. The second section examines the recidivism of adjudicated and disposed juveniles in both the juvenile justice and criminal justice systems. Finally, the last section provides a multivariate analysis of the impact of a variety of pre-existing factors on the juveniles’ recidivism. STATISTICAL PROFILE Of the 7,012 juveniles adjudicated during FY 2004/05, 6,605 juveniles (or 94%) also had a disposition entered into the NC-JOIN database.22 As detailed in the following sections, there is considerably more information available for this subgroup, including risk and needs assessments, offense classification, delinquency history level, disposition imposed, and sanctions ordered at disposition. Personal Characteristics There were no differences in the demographic profile of the adjudicated and disposed subgroup when compared to the 7,012 adjudicated juveniles or to the 407 adjudicated juveniles who did not have a disposition. The majority of the juveniles in this subgroup were male (77.6%) and black (54.1%), with a mean age of 13.8 years at sample offense. (See Table 2.1 in Chapter Two for further details regarding the demographic profile of adjudicated juveniles and the other sample groups.) Risk and Needs Assessments Prior to disposition, DJJDP staff administer instruments to assess the risk of future delinquency and the individual needs of all adjudicated juveniles; Table 3.1 lists select results of the assessments for this subgroup.23 Most notable among the risk factors, 89.2% of the juveniles had school behavior problems, 50.4% had at least one prior intake referral, 34.1% had at least one prior adjudication, and 35.7% had parents/guardians who were unwilling or unable to provide parental supervision. 22 In the juvenile justice system, the dispositional hearing often occurs at a later date than the adjudicatory hearing in order for a pre-disposition report to be completed. As a result, disposition may not have occurred during FY 2004/05 for the adjudicated juveniles in the sample. 23 See Appendix A for a copy of the North Carolina Assessment of Juvenile Risk of Future Offending and the North Carolina Assessment of Juvenile Needs instruments. 29 Table 3.1 Select Risk and Needs Indicators Juveniles Adjudicated and Disposed Risk Assessment (n=6,291) % First Referral Before Age 12 13.4 Prior Intake Referrals 50.4 Prior Adjudications 34.1 Prior Assaults 24.1 Had Run Away 17.9 Had School Behavior Problems 89.2 Parents/Guardians Unwilling/Unable to Provide Parental Supervision 35.7 High Risk 12.1 Needs Assessment (n=6,301) % Functioning Below Academic Grade Level 19.3 Juvenile Parent Status (i.e., is a parent) 1.7 History of Victimization 20.4 Risky Sexual Behavior 9.3 Mental Health Needs Are Being Addressed 71.3 Basic Needs Are Not Being Met 0.8 Impaired Functioning (i.e., medical, dental, health/hygiene) 0.8 Conflict in the Home 28.1 Parent, Guardian or Custodian has Disabilities 5.9 One or More Members of Household Have Substance Abuse Problems 14.6 Indication of Family Members Involvement in Criminal Activity 40.0 High Needs 7.4 Combined Risk and Needs Measures (n=6,605) % Substance Use 38.7 Gang Affiliation 6.1 Negative Peer Relationships 77.1 Note: Of the 6,605 juveniles adjudicated and disposed, there were 314 cases with missing values for risk variables and 304 cases with missing values for needs variables. SOURCE: NC Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission, FY 2004/05 Juvenile Recidivism Sample 30 The needs assessment revealed that very few juveniles were having unmet basic needs (0.8%). Most juveniles identified with mental health needs were having those needs addressed (71.3%). Problems related to home-life were also evident, with 40% of the juveniles having criminality in their family, 28.1% experiencing conflict in the home, and 20.4% having some history of victimization. Combining risk and needs indicators, 38.7% of the juveniles adjudicated and disposed had substance abuse problems, while 77.1% had negative peer relationships and 6.1% reported some type of gang affiliation. Using the assessment instruments, DJJDP staff computes a separate risk and needs score for each adjudicated juvenile, placing the juvenile in a low, medium, or high level for both risk and needs. Just over one-third of the juveniles scored in the lowest levels of both needs and risk (36.3%), and only a small group (3.5%) demonstrated both a high level of needs and risk. (See Table 3.2.) Sixty-three percent of the adjudicated and disposed juveniles placed in the same level of needs and risk (as highlighted in the shaded diagonal cells of Table 3.2). Table 3.2 Risk Level by Needs Level Juveniles Adjudicated and Disposed Needs Level Risk Level N % Low n=3,065 % Medium n=2,707 % High n=463 % Total n=6,235 Low 3,068 36.3 12.3 0.6 49.2 Medium 2,406 12.0 23.3 3.4 38.6 High 761 0.9 7.8 3.5 12.2 Total 6,235 49.2 43.4 7.4 100.0 Note: Of the 6,605 juveniles adjudicated and disposed, there were 370 cases with missing values for both risk and needs variables. SOURCE: NC Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission, FY 2004/05 Juvenile Recidivism Sample Sample Offense, Delinquency History, and Dispositions Felonies constituted the most serious adjudicated offense for 23.1% of the juveniles adjudicated and disposed. Table 3.3 shows that only 2.8% of this subgroup was adjudicated for a violent offense, with 29.8% adjudicated for a serious offense, and 67.4% for a minor offense. Seventy-nine percent were in the low delinquency history level, 12.2% were in the medium delinquency history level, and 8.8% were in the high delinquency history level. The single largest group of juveniles had little or no delinquency history and was adjudicated for non-violent misdemeanors. The more serious the adjudicated offense, the higher the delinquency history level – 17.2% of the juveniles adjudicated for a violent offense were in the highest delinquency history level, compared to 11.3% of those adjudicated for a serious offense and 7.3% of those adjudicated for a minor offense. 31 Table 3.3 Offense Classification by Delinquency History Level Juveniles Adjudicated and Disposed Delinquency History Level Offense Classification N % Low 0 – 1 point n=5,220 % Medium 2 – 3 points n=803 % High 4+ points n=582 % Total n=6,605 Violent (Class A – Class E) 186 72.0 10.8 17.2 2.8 Serious (Class F – Class A1) 1,966 71.7 17.0 11.3 29.8 Minor (Class 1 – Class 3) 4,453 82.6 10.1 7.3 67.4 Total 6,605 79.0 12.2 8.8 100.0 SOURCE: NC Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission, FY 2004/05 Juvenile Recidivism Sample Table 3.4 describes the dispositions imposed for the subgroup by offense classification and delinquency history level.24 Overall, 71.1% of the juveniles received a Level 1 (or community) disposition, 26.1% received a Level 2 (or intermediate) disposition, and 2.8% received a Level 3 disposition (or commitment to a YDC). The rate of Level 1 dispositions was highest for juveniles adjudicated for a minor offense and lowest for those adjudicated for a violent offense (85.3% and 8.1% respectively). Conversely, the rate of Level 3 dispositions was highest for juveniles adjudicated for a violent offense and lowest for those adjudicated for a minor offense (25.9% and 1.0% respectively). Risk and Needs Levels and Dispositions Figure 3.1 explores the relationship between the juvenile’s risk and needs levels and the disposition level imposed. As expected, there was a stepwise progression with the juvenile’s risk level increasing as the disposition level increased.25 Overall, 57.4% of juveniles with a Level 1 disposition were low risk compared to 31.0% of juveniles with a Level 2 disposition and 11.2% of juveniles with a Level 3 disposition. Of juveniles with a Level 3 disposition, 64.2% were identified as high risk – much higher than juveniles with Level 2 or Level 1 dispositions at 24.1% and 5.7% respectively. 24 For a description of the three disposition levels, see Chapter One and Appendix B. 25 It should be noted that prior adjudications increase not only a juvenile’s risk score, but also his/her placement in the Juvenile Disposition Chart. Table 3.4 Disposition Levels by Offense Classification and Delinquency History Level Juveniles Adjudicated and Disposed Offense Delinquency History Level Classification Low 0 – 1 Point Medium 2 – 3 Points High 4+ Points TOTAL Violent (Class A – Class E) Level 2/Level 3 Level 1: 14 (10.5%) Level 2: 102 (76.1%) Level 3: 18 (13.4%) n = 134 Level 3 Level 1: 1 (5.0%) Level 2: 14 (70.0%) Level 3: 5 (25.0%) n = 20 Level 3 Level 1: 0 (0.0%) Level 2: 6 (19.3%) Level 3: 25 (80.7%) n = 31 Level 1: 15 (8.1%) Level 2: 122 (66.0%) Level 3: 48 (25.9%) n = 185 Serious (Class F – Class A1) Level 1/Level 2 Level 1: 809 (57.4%) Level 2: 598 (42.5%) Level 3: 1 (0.1%) n = 1,408 Level 2 Level 1: 68 (20.4%) Level 2: 262 (78.4%) Level 3: 4 (1.2%) n = 334 Level 2/Level 3 Level 1: 7 (3.1%) Level 2: 128 (57.4%) Level 3: 88 (39.5%) n = 223 Level 1: 884 (45.0%) Level 2: 988 (50.3%) Level 3: 93 (4.7%) n = 1,965 Minor (Class 1 – Class 3) Level 1 Level 1: 3,592 (98.0%) Level 2: 70 (1.9%) Level 3: 2 (0.1%) n = 3,664 Level 1/Level 2 Level 1: 170 (37.8%) Level 2: 276 (61.5%) Level 3: 3 (0.7%) n = 449 Level 2 Level 1: 23 (7.1%) Level 2: 261 (80.3%) Level 3: 41 (12.6%) n = 325 Level 1: 3,785 (85.3%) Level 2: 607 (13.7%) Level 3: 46 (1.0%) n = 4,438 TOTAL Level 1: 4,415 (84.8%) Level 2: 770 (14.8%) Level 3: 21 (0.4%) n = 5,206 Level 1: 239 (29.8%) Level 2: 552 (68.7%) Level 3: 12 (1.5%) n = 803 Level 1: 30 (5.2%) Level 2: 395 (68.2%) Level 3: 154 (26.6%) n = 579 Level 1: 4,684 (71.1%) Level 2: 1,717 (26.1%) Level 3: 187 (2.8%) n = 6,588 Note: In FY 2004/05, there were 254 cases (or 3.9%) involving a disposition not specified by the dispositional chart. However, it must be noted that certain provisions of the juvenile code allow a judge to impose a disposition other than those specified by the chart. Under G.S. 7B-2508(e), judges may find “extraordinary needs” and impose a lower level disposition. Under G.S. 7B-2508(g), juveniles adjudicated delinquent for a minor offense with four or more prior adjudications may be committed to a YDC. Finally, under G.S. 7B-2508(d), juveniles adjudicated for a minor offense with a previous Level 3 disposition may be committed to a YDC. In addition, 17 juveniles with missing disposition levels were excluded from this table. SOURCE: NC Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission, FY 2004/05 Juvenile Recidivism Sample 33 A similar stair-step progression was found in the relationship between the needs level and the disposition level of juveniles. Fifty-four percent of juveniles with a Level 1 disposition were low needs compared to 38.3% of juveniles with a Level 2 disposition and 16.8% of juveniles with a Level 3 disposition. Conversely, 19.0% of the juveniles with a Level 3 disposition were high needs while a much lower percentage of juveniles with a Level 2 or a Level 1 disposition were high needs (11.0% and 5.6% respectively). (See Figure 3.1.) Figure 3.1 Risk Level and Needs Level by Disposition Level Juveniles Adjudicated and Disposed Risk Level by Disposition Level 57.4% 31.0% 11.2% 36.9% 44.9% 24.6% 5.7% 24.1% 64.2% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Low Risk Medium Risk High Risk Needs Level by Disposition Level 54.4% 38.3% 16.8% 40.0% 50.7% 64.2% 5.6% 11.0% 19.0% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Low Needs Medium Needs High Needs Note: Of the 6,605 juveniles adjudicated and disposed, there were 311 cases with missing values for risk level, 303 cases with missing values for needs level, and 17 cases with missing values for disposition level. SOURCE: NC Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission, FY 2004/05 Juvenile Recidivism Sample Court-Ordered Sanctions Based on the Juvenile Justice Reform Act of 1998, the dispositional alternatives available to the court for juveniles who have been adjudicated delinquent are dependent primarily on the classification of the adjudicated offense (i.e., minor, serious, violent) and the delinquency history level of the juvenile (i.e., low, medium, high).26 Once these categories are determined, the juvenile is assigned to one of three dispositional levels from which the court can select sanctions that are available under each level. Level 1 dispositional alternatives are the least restrictive, while Level 3 alternatives are the most restrictive. (See Appendix C.) 26 See Chapter One for more information. 34 In addition to the disposition level imposed by the court, NC-JOIN also contains information on sanctions ordered at the dispositional hearing. This information is limited in that it only indicates that a particular sanction was ordered – it does not indicate whether the juvenile complied with the sanction, the length of participation, or whether the juvenile successfully completed the sanction. Specific sanctions were selected for further analysis. These sanctions were categorized as follows: 1) treatment/placement; 2) restorative justice; 3) school- or work-related; 4) other restrictive conditions; and 5) parental responsibility. The sanctions in the treatment/placement category are from both Levels 1 and 2 and offer a broad range in their degree of restrictiveness. Sanctions in this category include: specified programs that address substance abuse or treatment issues; out-of home placement options (i.e., group home, regimented training program, wilderness camp); programs that are community-based but have more limitations (i.e., supervised day program, intensive probation, house arrest); and intermittent confinement in a detention center.27 The restorative justice category is comprised of sanctions that offer opportunities for the juvenile offender to actively make reparations for his/her delinquent behavior through community service, financial restitution or fines, and victim-offender reconciliation.28 The sanctions within the school/work-related category pertain to the juvenile either complying with school attendance and/or maintaining passing grades, or being regularly employed (if excused from school attendance). Other restrictive conditions are those sanctions that limit the juvenile’s activities and peer associations, such as obeying a set curfew, not associating with specific persons, not being in specific places, cooperating with drug testing, and not possessing alcohol or drugs. Finally, the parental responsibility category relates to parental support of and involvement in sanctions set forth by the court. Table 3.5 provides information on selected sanctions imposed for the 6,605 juveniles in the FY 2004/05 sample who were adjudicated and disposed. It is important to note that juveniles are often ordered to comply with more than one sanction and, therefore, are likely to be represented in multiple categories in Table 3.5 and Table 3.6. Of the 6,605 juveniles who were adjudicated and disposed, 96.0% were ordered to comply with more than one of the sanctions selected for further analysis. The majority of juveniles were ordered to comply with other restrictive conditions (80.4%) and school- or work-related conditions (76.3%). Sanctions falling within these two categories also represented the largest groups of specific sanctions ordered, with 75.6% of juveniles ordered to comply with school-related sanctions and 69.8% of juveniles ordered to comply with drug testing and/or not use alcohol or controlled substances. Overall, 64.7% of juveniles were ordered to comply with a treatment/placement sanction, with 47.9% ordered to cooperate with a specified program, 28.3% ordered to intermittent detention confinement, and 11.8% ordered to a wilderness program. Nearly one-half of the 27 For juveniles receiving a Level 1 sanction, intermittent confinement can be up to five days. A Level 2 sanction allows for intermittent confinement up to fourteen days. 28 Community service up to 100 hours and restitution less than $500 are considered Level 1 sanctions, while community service more than 100 hours and restitution greater than $500 are considered Level 2 sanctions. Table 3.5 Specific Sanctions Ordered at Disposition by Offense Classification and Disposition Level Juveniles Adjudicated and Disposed Type of Sanction Ordered N % VioOlefnfte nseS Cerliaosusisf icatMioinn or 1 Disposit2io n Level 3 Treatment/Placement 4,275 64.7 2.8 29.3 67.9 70.2 29.7 0.2 Cooperate with Specified Program 3,164 47.9 3.0 28.0 69.0 73.7 26.1 0.2 Group Home 95 1.4 0.0 52.6 47.4 20.0 80.0 0.0 Regimented Training Program 55 0.8 3.6 60.0 36.4 10.9 89.1 0.0 Supervised Day Program 106 1.6 2.8 68.9 28.3 6.6 93.4 0.0 Wilderness Program 778 11.8 1.9 31.5 66.6 62.0 38.0 0.0 Intensive Probation 108 1.6 13.0 51.9 35.2 17.6 81.5 0.9 House Arrest 120 1.8 9.2 50.0 40.8 14.2 85.0 0.8 Intermittent Detention Confinement 1,869 28.3 2.8 30.3 66.9 64.0 35.9 0.1 Restorative Justice 3,285 49.7 1.5 32.8 65.7 74.0 25.9 0.1 Community Service 2,444 37.0 1.6 30.7 67.8 75.2 24.8 0.1 Restitution/Fine 1,390 21.0 1.3 40.4 58.3 69.3 30.6 0.1 Victim-Offender Reconciliation 109 1.7 0.0 39.5 60.6 86.2 13.8 0.0 School/Work-Related 5,036 76.3 2.3 29.2 68.5 76.2 23.7 0.1 School-Related 4,993 75.6 2.3 29.2 68.5 76.2 23.7 0.1 Work-Related 693 10.5 1.7 32.5 65.8 71.1 28.7 0.1 Other Restrictive Conditions 5,309 80.4 2.3 29.2 68.5 75.6 24.3 0.1 Curfew 3,947 59.8 2.2 28.7 69.1 74.9 24.9 0.2 No Assoc with Specific Person/Not be in Specific Places 3,690 55.9 2.6 30.5 66.9 75.0 24.9 0.1 Drug Testing/No Alcohol/No Contr Subst 4,607 69.8 2.3 28.5 69.3 75.7 24.2 0.1 Parental Responsibility 3,011 45.6 2.2 28.4 69.4 73.9 25.7 0.4 Note: Juveniles may be represented in multiple sanction categories. Of the 6,605 juveniles adjudicated and disposed, there were 17 cases with missing values for disposition level. Percentages may not add to 100.0% due to rounding. SOURCE: NC Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission, FY 2004/05 Juvenile Recidivism Sample 36 juveniles (49.7%) were ordered to comply with restorative justice conditions, while slightly less (45.6%) received dispositional orders relating to the court’s authority over parents of adjudicated delinquent juveniles. The least frequently ordered sanctions included assignment to a group home (1.4%), a regimented training program (0.8%), a supervised day program (1.6%), intensive probation (1.6%), house arrest (1.8%), and victim-offender reconciliation (1.7%). Table 3.5 also provides information on the offense classification and disposition level of juveniles ordered to comply with a specific sanction or a category of sanctions. The distribution by offense classification was very similar for each of the five major sanction categories, with 1.5% to 2.8% of juveniles adjudicated delinquent for a violent offense, 28.4% to 32.8% for a serious offense, and 65.7% to 69.4% for a minor offense. The distribution for these categories was also consistent with the overall distribution of offense classification for the adjudicated and disposed group (2.8% had a violent offense, 29.8% had a serious offense, and 67.4% had a minor offense as their sample offense). The specific sanctions under the categories of school/work-related, other restrictive conditions, and parental responsibility generally followed the offense classification pattern of the overall group, while more variation was found for specific sanctions in the treatment/placement category and the restorative justice category. For example, of the 108 juveniles who were ordered to comply with intensive probation, 13.0% had a violent offense, 51.9% had a serious offense, and 35.2% had a minor offense as their most serious sample offense. For the specific sanctions, variations were primarily found between the percentages of juveniles with a serious offense and with a minor offense given the low percentage of juveniles with a violent offense. Looking at disposition level, the majority of variations were found between Level 1 and Level 2 since so few juveniles received a Level 3 disposition. Juveniles who were ordered to comply with a treatment/placement sanction were slightly more likely to have received a Level 2 disposition than those in the other overall sanction categories. Similar to the finding for offense classification, more variation was found between the specific sanctions with respect to the disposition level of juveniles ordered to comply with such sanctions. Juveniles ordered to comply with a wilderness camp program, cooperate with a specified program, perform community service, pay restitution or a fine, or to reconcile with the victim were more likely to have received a Level 1 disposition. Juveniles ordered to comply with a regimented training program or a supervised day program were more likely to have received a Level 2 disposition (89.1% and 93.4% respectively). Table 3.6 provides information on the risk and needs levels of juveniles ordered to comply with the sanctions examined for this study. The type of sanction ordered varied considerably based on risk and needs levels of juveniles. Juveniles who were ordered to comply with a treatment/placement sanction or whose parents were ordered to cooperate with the court’s disposition had higher risk and needs levels than juveniles ordered to comply with the other sanction categories. For example, 29.7% of juveniles ordered to a supervised day program were high risk and 14.0% were high needs; 26.9% of juveniles ordered to a group home were high risk and 18.3% were high needs. On the opposite end of the spectrum, only 3.7% of juveniles ordered to reconcile with their victim were high risk and 7.3% were high needs; 7.9% of juveniles ordered to perform community service were high risk and 6.1% were high needs. Table 3.6 Specific Sanctions Ordered at Disposition by Risk Level and Needs Level Juveniles Adjudicated and Disposed Type of Sanction Ordered N % Low RisMk Lede vel High Low NeeMdse Lde vel High Treatment/Placement 4,275 64.7 47.7 40.7 11.6 46.0 46.3 7.7 Cooperate with Specified Program 3,164 47.9 48.5 40.5 11.0 45.1 46.7 8.2 Group Home 95 1.4 21.5 51.6 26.9 24.7 57.0 18.3 Regimented Training Program 55 0.8 22.6 52.8 24.5 30.2 62.3 7.6 Supervised Day Program 106 1.6 25.7 44.6 29.7 22.0 64.0 14.0 Wilderness Program 778 11.8 41.4 43.5 15.1 41.0 50.7 8.4 Intensive Probation 108 1.6 24.8 49.5 25.7 28.0 61.7 10.3 House Arrest 120 1.8 19.8 53.5 26.7 32.5 55.6 12.0 Intermittent Detention Confinement 1,869 28.3 46.4 41.8 11.8 47.8 45.1 7.1 Restorative Justice 3,285 49.7 54.6 37.0 8.4 54.3 39.9 5.8 Community Service 2,444 37.0 53.7 38.4 7.9 53.9 40.0 6.1 Restitution/Fine 1,390 21.0 56.6 34.4 8.9 57.3 37.3 5.4 Victim-Offender Reconciliation 109 1.7 56.9 39.5 3.7 54.1 38.5 7.3 School/Work-Related 5,036 76.3 52.7 38.6 8.7 50.9 42.4 6.7 School-Related 4,993 75.6 52.8 38.5 8.7 51.0 42.4 6.7 Work-Related 693 10.5 45.7 43.9 10.5 46.1 44.9 9.0 Other Restrictive Conditions 5,309 80.4 52.0 38.9 9.1 50.4 42.7 6.9 Curfew 3,947 59.8 50.1 40.5 9.4 48.0 44.7 7.3 No Assoc with Specific Person/Not be in Specific Places 3,690 55.9 53.3 37.8 8.9 50.6 42.5 6.9 Drug Testing/No Alcohol/No Contr Subst 4,607 69.8 51.0 39.8 9.2 48.6 44.2 7.2 Parental Responsibility 3,011 45.6 48.1 41.4 10.5 44.4 46.8 8.8 Note: Juveniles may be represented in multiple sanction categories. Of the 6,605 juveniles adjudicated and disposed, there were 370 cases with missing values for both risk and needs variables. Percentages may not add to 100.0% due to rounding. SOURCE: NC Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission, FY 2004/05 Juvenile Recidivism Sample 38 RECIDIVISM IN THE JUVENILE JUSTICE AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEMS As discussed in Chapter Two, juveniles in the FY 2004/05 sample were tracked for three years to determine whether they re-offended during that period. For the adjudicated and disposed group (n=6,605), the follow-up started at their adjudication date and, as with the other sample groups, the primary measures of recidivism were subsequent delinquent juvenile complaints and adult arrests.29 For most juveniles who were adjudicated and disposed, the time at risk to recidivate was divided between the juvenile and adult systems as juveniles, turning 16, moved from juvenile to adult legal jurisdiction. Similar to the entire group of adjudicated juveniles (described in Chapter Two), the majority of the adjudicated and disposed subgroup (79%) spent at least a portion of the three-year follow-up in both systems. Overall, the subgroup was under juvenile jurisdiction for 15.7 months (or 44% of the 36-month follow-up) and under adult jurisdiction for 20.3 months (or 56% of the remaining follow-up months). It is important to note that time at risk, while initially equal for all juveniles in the FY 2004/05 sample through the use of a fixed three-year follow-up period, was shortened for some juveniles due to confinement in a YDC or detention center in the juvenile justice system and/or jail or prison in the adult system. Juvenile and Adult Recidivism Subsequent delinquent complaints30 (also referred to as subsequent complaints) were used as the primary measure for juvenile recidivism, supplemented with information on subsequent adjudications that resulted from those recidivistic complaints. Juveniles had to be at risk in the juvenile justice system; therefore, 627 juveniles were excluded from the juvenile recidivism analysis because they had already aged out of the juvenile justice system at the start of the follow-up. Arrests31 were used as the primary measure for adult recidivism, supplemented with information on convictions. Juveniles had to be at risk in the adult criminal justice system; therefore, 770 juveniles were excluded from the adult recidivism analysis because they were under juvenile jurisdiction for the entire follow-up period. Finally, a combined measure of subsequent juvenile complaints and/or adult arrests was compiled to indicate any recidivistic involvement in either system, which was supplemented by a 29 DJJDP’s NC-JOIN database was used to determine subsequent delinquent complaints and adjudications, while DOJ’s criminal history database was used to determine adult arrests and convictions. 30 Although the subsequent complaint had to occur within the three-year follow-up, the date that the alleged offense occurred could have been prior to the follow-up period. 31 Although the adult arrest had to occur within the three-year follow-up, the date that the alleged offense occurred could have been prior to the follow-up period. 39 similar measure for subsequent juvenile adjudications and/or adult convictions.32 All 6,605 adjudicated and disposed juveniles were included in analyzing overall recidivism. Subsequent Juvenile Complaints/Adjudications and Adult Arrests/Convictions Figure 3.2 presents the three measures of recidivism for the subgroup. Of the 6,605 juveniles adjudicated and disposed, 3,738 (or 56.6%) had a subsequent juvenile complaint and/or an adult arrest (“overall recidivism”). Of the 5,978 juveniles under juvenile jurisdiction during the follow-up, 2,780 (or 46.5%) had a subsequent delinquent complaint. Of the 5,835 juveniles under adult jurisdiction during the follow-up, 1,650 (or 28.3%) had an adult arrest. Figure 3.2 also details subsequent adjudication and conviction rates for the subgroup. The overall adjudication or conviction rate was 41.4%. Of the juveniles under juvenile jurisdiction during follow-up, 34.5% had a subsequent adjudication. Of those juveniles under adult jurisdiction during follow-up, 16.0% had an adult conviction. Figure 3.2 Recidivism Rates Juveniles Adjudicated and Disposed Subsequent Complaints and/or Adult Arrests 46.5% 28.3% 56.6% 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% Subsequent Complaints Adult Arrests Overall Recidivism Subsequent Adjudications and/or Convictions 34.5% 16.0% 41.4% 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% Subsequent Adjudications Adult Convictions Adjudications and/or Convictions SOURCE: NC Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission, FY 2004/05 Juvenile Recidivism Sample For those adjudicated and disposed juveniles with at least one subsequent juvenile complaint or adult arrest during follow-up, their first recidivistic event occurred an average of 32 Tables referring to only juvenile recidivism, or only adult recidivism, state so specifically. Otherwise, in this report the terms “recidivism” or “overall recidivism” refer to having a subsequent juvenile complaint, an adult arrest, or both. 40 10.7 months after the start of the follow-up period. During the three-year follow-up period, 3,738 juveniles had a total of 9,721 subsequent juvenile complaints and/or adult arrests with an average of 2.6 recidivistic events. Sample Offense and Recidivism Table 3.7 presents the three primary recidivism measures for adjudicated and disposed juveniles by the offense classification of their most serious adjudicated sample offense. Juveniles adjudicated for a violent offense had a considerably lower recidivism rate – 39.8% – than either the juveniles adjudicated for a serious or a minor offense – 57.5% and 56.9% respectively. A difference in the “window of opportunity” to commit additional acts of delinquency might explain this difference. Confinement in a YDC, averaging over 12 months,33 reduced the time at risk for recidivism, especially during the juvenile portion of the follow-up for juveniles adjudicated of a violent offense. Overall, 35.5% of the juveniles adjudicated for a violent offense were committed to a YDC sometime during the follow-up period, compared to 15.1% of those with a serious offense and 6.0% of those with a minor offense. Table 3.7 Recidivism Rates by Sample Offense Classification Juveniles Adjudicated and Disposed Subsequent Complaints Adult Arrests Overall Offense Recidivism Classification n % n % N % Violent (Class A – Class E) 161 27.3 168 23.2 186 39.8 Serious (Class F – Class A1) 1,758 45.7 1,759 30.8 1,966 57.5 Minor (Class 1 – Class 3) 4,059 47.6 3,908 27.4 4,453 56.9 Total 5,978 46.5 5,835 28.3 6,605 56.6 SOURCE: NC Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission, FY 2004/05 Juvenile Recidivism Sample Tables 3.8 and 3.9 highlight comparable patterns of increased recidivism rates based on the severity of prior delinquency and disposition level at sample entry. As the severity of prior delinquency history increased, rates increased for all three measures of recidivism. Similarly, as the severity of dispositions increased, so did the overall rate of recidivism. A notable break in this pattern was the significantly lower rate of subsequent juvenile complaints for those committed to a YDC. One explanation for this finding is related to the juvenile’s window of opportunity to recidivate. Of the adjudicated juveniles who received a Level 3 YDC commitment at disposition, the majority (82.9%) were 14- and 15-year-olds and had aged out of 33 North Carolina Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission’s Juvenile Delinquent Population Projections Fiscal Year 2008/09 to Fiscal Year 2012/13, 2008. 41 the juvenile system while in confinement. They re-offended at an accelerated pace upon release as adults, as indicated by their much higher adult arrest rate. Table 3.8 Recidivism Rates by Delinquency History Level Juveniles Adjudicated and Disposed Subsequent Complaints Adult Arrests Overall Delinquency Recidivism History Level n % n % n % Low 4,781 45.1 4,551 25.5 5,220 54.2 Medium 707 50.1 732 31.7 803 61.0 High 490 54.9 552 46.7 582 72.3 Total 5,978 46.5 5,835 28.3 6,605 56.6 SOURCE: NC Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission, FY 2004/05 Juvenile Recidivism Sample Table 3.9 Recidivism Rates by Disposition Level Juveniles Adjudicated and Disposed Subsequent Complaints Adult Arrests Overall Disposition Recidivism Level n % n % n % Level 1 (Community) 4,294 45.2 4,070 25.5 4,684 54.2 Level 2 (Intermediate) 1,520 51.6 1,566 33.0 1,717 62.4 Level 3 (Commitment) 152 34.2 184 50.5 187 64.7 Total 5,966 46.5 5,820 28.3 6,588 56.7 Note: Of the 6,605 juveniles adjudicated and disposed, there were 17 cases with missing values for disposition level. SOURCE: NC Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission, FY 2004/05 Juvenile Recidivism Sample Risk and Needs Levels and Recidivism Recidivism rates were also found to vary by risk and needs scores. (See Tables 3.10 and 3.11.) For both measures, the differences in recidivism rates were greater between low and medium levels of risk or needs than between medium and high levels. Overall recidivism increased from 42 46.4% for low risk to 71.5% for high risk juveniles, and from 50.2% for low needs to 60.8% for high needs juveniles. Table 3.10 Recidivism Rates by Risk Level Juveniles Adjudicated and Disposed Subsequent Complaints Adult Arrests Overall Risk Recidivism Level n % n % n % Low 2,853 38.2 2,676 20.9 3,104 46.4 Medium 2,187 54.1 2,169 32.1 2,426 64.6 High 664 53.6 731 44.7 764 71.5 Total 5,704 46.1 5,576 28.4 6,294 56.4 Note: Of the 6,605 juveniles adjudicated and disposed, there were 311 cases with missing values for risk level. SOURCE: NC Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission, FY 2004/05 Juvenile Recidivism Sample Table 3.11 Recidivism Rates by Needs Level Juveniles Adjudicated and Disposed Subsequent Complaints Adult Arrests Overall Needs Recidivism Level n % n % n % Low 2,818 41.3 2,675 24.6 3,097 50.2 Medium 2,484 51.5 2,461 31.7 2,738 62.8 High 410 47.1 445 32.8 467 60.8 Total 5,712 46.2 5,581 28.4 6,302 56.5 Note: Of the 6,605 juveniles adjudicated and disposed, there were 303 cases with missing values for needs level. SOURCE: NC Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission, FY 2004/05 Juvenile Recidivism Sample The stair-step pattern in overall recidivism rates found by the disposition level and by the risk level for juveniles (see Tables 3.9 and 3.10) was also found when examining recidivism rates by disposition level and controlling for risk level. Figure 3.3 illustrates the relationship between disposition level and overall recidivism (i.e., juvenile complaints and/or adult arrests) during the three-year follow-up when controlling for risk level. Once risk level is controlled, the differences in recidivism rates between the juveniles in the different disposition levels are 43 diminished. For the three-year follow-up period, recidivism rates for low risk juveniles ranged from 45% to 50%, while recidivism rates for high risk juveniles ranged from 68% to 73%. A slightly different pattern is evident when examining recidivism rates by disposition level and controlling for needs level. Once needs level is controlled, the differences in recidivism rates between the juveniles in the different disposition levels are somewhat diminished; however, the recidivism rates are slightly higher for medium needs juveniles than for high needs juveniles in all three disposition levels. For the three-year follow-up period, recidivism rates for low needs juveniles ranged from 48% to 60%, while recidivism rates for high needs juveniles ranged from 59% to 64%. Figure 3.3 Overall Recidivism Rates by Disposition Level and by Risk and Needs Levels Juveniles Adjudicated and Disposed Overall Recidivism Rates by Disposition Level and Risk Level 46% 64% 71% 50% 65% 73% 45% 66% 68% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% Low Risk Medium Risk High Risk Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Overall Recidivism Rates by Disposition Level and Needs Level 48% 57% 61% 59% 66% 64% 60% 67% 62% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% Low Needs Medium Needs High Needs Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Note: Of the 6,605 juveniles adjudicated and disposed, there were 311 cases with missing values for risk level, 303 cases with missing values for needs level, and 17 cases with missing values for disposition level. SOURCE: NC Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission, FY 2004/05 Juvenile Recidivism Sample Court-Ordered Sanctions and Recidivism Table 3.12 examines the overall recidivism rate for juveniles ordered to comply with specific sanctions ordered at disposition. Recidivism rates varied only slightly – from 55.1% to 56.9% – for the overall sanction categories, with more variation found for specific sanctions. Juveniles ordered to a group home and/or to house arrest had the highest recidivism rates (72.6% 44 Table 3.12 Overall Recidivism Rates by Specific Sanctions Ordered at Disposition Juveniles Adjudicated and Disposed Type of Sanction Ordered N % % Overall Recidivism Treatment/Placement 4,275 64.7 56.9 Cooperate with Specified Program 3,164 47.9 56.5 Group Home 95 1.4 72.6 Regimented Training Program 55 0.8 58.2 Supervised Day Program 106 1.6 60.4 Wilderness Program 778 11.8 62.5 Intensive Probation 108 1.6 63.9 House Arrest 120 1.8 69.2 Intermittent Detention Confinement 1,869 28.3 57.6 Restorative Justice 3,285 49.7 55.2 Community Service 2,444 37.0 55.0 Restitution/Fine 1,390 21.0 55.4 Victim-Offender Reconciliation 109 1.7 48.6 School/Work-Related 5,036 76.3 55.7 School-Related 4,993 75.6 55.7 Work-Related 693 10.5 55.0 Other Restrictive Conditions 5,309 80.4 56.0 Curfew 3,947 59.8 56.9 No Assoc with Specific Person/Not be in Specific Places 3,690 55.9 54.3 Drug Testing/No Alcohol/No Contr Subst 4,607 69.8 56.0 Parental Responsibility 3,011 45.6 55.1 Note: Juveniles may be represented in multiple sanction categories. SOURCE: NC Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission, FY 2004/05 Juvenile Recidivism Sample and 69.2% respectively), while juveniles ordered to reconcile with the victim had the lowest recidivism rates (48.6%). When examining recidivism rates for specific sanctions, the offense classification, disposition level, risk level, and needs level of juveniles assigned to such sanctions should be considered. For example, a higher percentage of juveniles ordered to a group home and/or to house arrest had a serious offense as their sample offense, received a Level 2 disposition, and had higher risk and needs levels when compared to juveniles ordered to comply with other sanctions (such as victim-offender reconciliation). 45 The multivariate analysis that follows further examines the recidivism of juveniles adjudicated and disposed, while controlling for factors such as personal characteristics, offense classification, and risk and needs levels. MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS Logistic Regression Models Using logistic regression,34 several models were tested to determine how a set of independent variables was related to the probability of overall recidivism (subsequent delinquent complaint and/or arrest) for the subset of juveniles who were adjudicated and disposed (n=6,605) and to the probability of adult arrest for those juveniles who aged into the adult criminal justice system during the three-year follow-up period (n=5,835). As previously noted, while the effects reported in this analysis may reveal the existence of a relationship between an independent variable and a dependent (outcome) variable, such effects do not necessarily imply a causal relationship between those variables. Dependent Variables (Outcome Measures) Modeled The regression analyses in this section model two dependent variables: ► Overall Recidivism – any subsequent delinquent complaint, arrest, or both ► Adult Arrest – subsequent adult arrest only Independent Variables Used in the Regression Models The regression analyses in this section include the following independent variables: ► Personal Characteristics – race, gender, and age ► Offense Classification – violent, serious, and minor ► Delinquency History Level – low, medium, and high ► Risk Level – low, medium, and high as assessed by DJJDP’s risk instrument ► Needs Level – low, medium, and high as assessed by DJJDP’s needs instrument ► Several individual items from the risk assessment – whether or not the juvenile had prior referral(s), was delinquent under the age of 12, is supervised adequately by parent, has positive peer relationships, and has substance abuse problems ► Commitment to YDC or Detention Center – whether or not the juvenile was committed to either a YDC or a detention center between sample entry and the end of the follow-up period ► Adult months – the amount of time in months the juvenile has been under adult jurisdiction (age 16 or older) 34 See Chapter Two for further discussion of the logistic regression statistical tool. 46 Logistic Regression Analyses Table 3.13 displays the estimated effects of the independent variables in each model on the outcome measure modeled. As previously mentioned, the effects listed should be interpreted based on the following criteria: whether the effect of the variable is statistically significant (i.e., with a relationship unlikely to be the result of random chance) and, if so, the direction and magnitude of the variable’s effect on the outcome. In general, only estimated effects that are statistically significant are reviewed. Model 3 contains the estimated effects of each independent variable on an adjudicated and disposed juvenile’s probability of having a subsequent delinquent complaint and/or arrest (overall recidivism) during the three-year follow-up period. The average probability of overall recidivism for the adjudicated and disposed group was 56.5% and this outcome was related to a number of personal, offense-related, and court involvement factors. The values presented for Model 3 indicate the approximate change in the probability of complaint or arrest associated with each independent variable relative to a reference category. Being a male, for example, enhanced the probability of subsequent complaint or arrest by 17.4% over that of being a female. Black juveniles had an increased probability (of 17.0%) of subsequent complaint or arrest compared to non-black juveniles. With each additional year of age based on the juvenile’s age at sample entry, the probability of complaint or arrest decreased 7.7%. Juveniles with a serious or minor offense classification had an increased likelihood of subsequent complaint or arrest (17.0% and 18.5% respectively) compared with those juveniles with a violent offense classification. As previously noted, this finding may be related to YDC commitment during the follow-up period for those juveniles with a violent offense level.35 There were no statistical differences between the probability of subsequent complaint or arrest for juveniles who had low and medium delinquency history levels; however, those juveniles with a high delinquency history level were 7.4% more likely to recidivate than the low delinquency history group. No statistical differences were found among juveniles who received a Level 1 (community), Level 2 (intermediate) or Level 3 (YDC) disposition. Juveniles who were assessed as having a medium or high risk of re-offending were more likely to have a subsequent complaint or arrest (10.6% and 15.4% respectively) than juveniles in the low risk group. There were no statistical differences in overall recidivism for juveniles with low, medium, and high levels of needs. 35 See Chapter Two for further discussion. 47 Table 3.13 Effect of Personal and Juvenile Justice Factors on Recidivism: Adjudicated and Disposed Juveniles Independent Variables Model 3: Overall Recidivism n=6,217 (56.5%) Model 4: Adult Arrest n=5,524 (28.4%) Personal Characteristics Black 17.0% 19.0% Male 17.4% 28.4% Age at Event -7.7% -6.0% Offense Classification Violent Reference Reference Serious 17.0% 12.7% Minor 18.5% 13.0% Delinquency History Level Low Reference Reference Medium NS NS High 7.4% NS Disposition Level Level 1 Reference n/a Level 2 NS n/a Level 3 NS n/a Risk Level Low Reference Reference Medium 10.6% 7.3% High 15.4% 14.2% Needs Level Low Reference Reference Medium NS NS High NS NS Individual Risk Variables Prior Referral 9.1% NS Delinquent under 12 -10.8% NS Adequate Supervision by Parent NS 5.8% Positive Peer Relations -6.1% -3.9% Substance Abuse 4.4% NS School Problems None Reference Reference Low 10.5% NS Medium 8.8% NS High 12.1% NS Commitment (YDC or Detention) n/a 10.5% Adult Months n/a 1.7% Note: Model 3 – Of the 6,605 juveniles that comprise the adjudicated and disposed group, 388 were excluded from analysis due to missing data for one or more of the variables. Model 4 – Of the 5,835 juveniles who aged into the adult criminal justice system during follow-up, 311 were excluded from analysis due to missing data. SOURCE: NC Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission, FY 2004/05 Juvenile Recidivism Sample 48 Because the risk levels were significant predictors of overall recidivism, several individual risk variables of interest were also included to see if they predicted the likelihood of complaint or arrest over and above the risk level itself.36 Juveniles who had a prior juvenile justice referral were 9.1% more likely to have a subsequent complaint or arrest than those juveniles who did not have a prior referral. Being 12 years or less at the time of first delinquent complaint decreased the likelihood of overall recidivism by 10.8%. Having adequate parental supervision was not significantly related to the likelihood of recidivism. Juveniles who had positive peer relationships were 6.1% less likely to have a subsequent complaint or arrest than juveniles who did not have positive peer relationships; juveniles who had substance abuse problems were 4.4% more likely to recidivate than those with no substance abuse problems. Juveniles with low, medium, or high levels of school problems were all more likely to recidivate (10.5%, 8.8% and 12.1% respectively) than juveniles with no school problems. For those adjudicated and disposed juveniles who aged into the adult criminal justice system during the three-year follow-up period (n=5,835), Model 4 was tested to examine the estimated effects of having an adult arrest during follow-up (an average probability of 28.4%). A systemic variable was added to this model: commitment to either a YDC or to a detention center any time between sample entry and the end of the follow-up period. In addition, the amount of time (in months) the juvenile was an adult (16 years or older) during the three-year follow-up period was included as a control variable. As in Model 3, black juveniles and male juveniles had an increased probability of having an adult arrest compared to non-black juveniles and female juveniles. With each additional year of age for the juvenile’s age at event, the probability of complaint or arrest decreased 6.0%. Juveniles who had a serious or minor offense were more likely (12.7% and 13.0% respectively) to be arrested than those with a violent offense. Juveniles who were assessed as medium or high risk were more likely to be arrested than those with a low risk level (7.3% and 14.2% respectively). Over and above the risk level, several risk assessment items significantly predicted recidivism. Juveniles with adequate parental supervision were 5.8% more likely to be arrested than those without adequate parental supervision. Juveniles who had positive peer relationships were 3.9% less likely to be arrested than those who did not have positive peer relationships. Commitment to either a YDC or to a detention center increased the likelihood of an adult arrest by 10.5%. Finally, for each additional month spent as an adult in the follow-up period, the probability of having an adult arrest increased 1.7%. 36 A preliminary logistic regression model including all the individual risk assessment items and risk level was conducted. Individual items that were statistically significant (p<.05) over and above the contribution of risk level were included in Models 3 and 4. 49 SUMMARY The following section presents a summary of the major findings in Chapter Three: Subgroup Profile A subgroup of 6,605 juveniles (32.6% of sample) were adjudicated and disposed within the study's time frame. A wealth of additional information was available for this subgroup, including their personal needs and risk to re-offend, their adjudicated sample offense, delinquency history, level of disposition, and specific sanctions ordered by the court. Close to half of the adjudicated and disposed juveniles had both low needs and low risk levels; only 7.4% had high needs and 12.2% had high risk levels. The majority (67.4%) of the subgroup were adjudicated for minor (misdemeanor) offenses; had very little or no delinquency history (79.0%), and received a Level 1 community-based disposition (71.9%). Only a small fraction (2.7%) was adjudicated for violent offenses; had a significant delinquency history (8.8%); or were committed to a YDC (2.5%). Key Findings The level of disposition was closely related to both the adjudicated juveniles’ risk and needs and to the seriousness of their offense and prior delinquency. There was also a direct relationship, in the expected direction, between the seriousness of the offense, the prior delinquency, and the type of disposition imposed by the court. Recidivism rates for adjudicated and disposed juveniles were higher than those for the entire sample: 46.5% of the subgroup had a subsequent delinquent complaint, 28.3% had an adult arrest, and 56.6% had either or both measures of recidivism. Rates generally increased with higher levels of risk, needs, delinquency history, and disposition type. Juveniles adjudicated for serious or minor offenses had higher recidivism rates than those adjudicated for violent offenses, most likely due to the reduced time at risk for those committed to a YDC. Recidivism rates varied by dispositional sanctions, with the highest rates for juveniles ordered to group home or house arrest sanctions and the lowes |
OCLC number | 727359675 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
A |
|
B |
|
C |
|
D |
|
F |
|
G |
|
L |
|
M |
|
N |
|
O |
|
R |
|
S |
|
T |
|
V |
|
W |
|
|
|