Measuring Juvenile Recidivism

Measuring Juvenile Recidivism

Data collection and reporting practices in juvenile corrections

Reducing recidivism is a key indicator of success for juvenile corrections agencies. But a recent survey of these agencies in all 50 states and the District of Columbia found that 1 in 4 does not regularly collect and report recidivism data, and fewer than half use measures that provide a comprehensive picture of youth reoffending. Stronger data collection would give policymakers a better understanding of how their systems are performing and help identify strategies for improvement. The survey, conducted by The Pew Charitable Trusts’ public safety performance project, the Council of State Governments’ Justice Center, and the Council of Juvenile Correctional Administrators, examined current practices in data collection, measurement, and reporting for juvenile recidivism.

Click on each state for detailed information

This interactive works only with IE 9 or above. Please update your browser version.
You can also download the data associated with this interactive by clicking the icons listed under "Download Resources" at the bottom of this page.

Most juvenile correctional agencies do not use multiple definitions of recidivism that allow for meaningful comparisons.

Only 21 agencies use more than one of the standard definitions of recidivism: rearrest, readjudication or conviction, and recommitment to a juvenile or adult corrections facility. The most common definition is readjudication or conviction (28 agencies), but fewer than half define recidivism to include either a subsequent arrest (16 agencies) or commitment to a juvenile or adult corrections facility (25 agencies). Furthermore, some states do not follow juveniles long enough to adequately measure their reoffending. At least 21 agencies follow offenders for 12 months after release, but only 19 track recidivism for 36 months. A total of 30 agencies are able to follow juvenile offenders into the adult criminal justice system.

Using multiple definitions and requiring longer follow-up periods help policymakers spot areas in need of attention, from law enforcement practices to court case processing to correctional programming.