Juvenile recidivism study : FY .... juvenile sample

              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