Idaho Statistical Analysis Center

Grants and Research

Idaho State Police

Characteristics and Outcomes of

Justice-Involved Youth in Idaho

In collaboration with:
Idaho Department of Juvenile Corrections
Idaho Department of Health and Welfare
Idaho Department of Corrections
 Characteristics and Outcomes of
Justice-Involved Youth in Idaho

Authors:
Danielle Swerin, M.A.
Thomas Strauss, MPA

For more information:

Email: pgr@isp.idaho.gov
Website: www.isp.idaho.gov/pgr/Research/sac.html

Published: September 2018

This project was supported by Grant No. 2014‐BJ‐CX‐K025 awarded by the Bureau of Justice Statistics. The Bureau of Justice Statistics is
a component of the Office of Justice Programs, which also includes the Bureau of Justice Assistance, the National Institute of Justice,
the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, the Office for Victims of Crime, and the Office of Sex Offender Sentencing,
Monitoring, Apprehending, Registering, and Tracking. Points of view or opinions in this document are those of the author and do not
necessarily represent the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice, nor the Idaho State Police.
 Table of Contents
Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................... 1
Review of Research ........................................................................................................................... 2
Introduction .............................................................................................................................................. 2
Prevalence of Mental Health and Substance Use Disorders Among Justice‐Involved Youth ....................... 2
The Impact of Trauma ............................................................................................................................... 3
Outcomes ................................................................................................................................................. 3
Effective Interventions .............................................................................................................................. 4
Conclusion ................................................................................................................................................ 5

Methodology .................................................................................................................................... 6
Limitations ................................................................................................................................................ 6

Results .............................................................................................................................................. 7
Initial Custody Level Assessment (ICLA) ..................................................................................................... 7
Demographics ........................................................................................................................................... 7
Days in Custody......................................................................................................................................... 8
Types of Offenses ...................................................................................................................................... 8
Assessments ............................................................................................................................................. 9
Family Criminality and Abuse ........................................................................................................................................ 9
Massachusetts Youth Screening Instrument (MAYSI) ................................................................................................. 10
Youth Level of Service Inventory (YLSI) ....................................................................................................................... 11
Progress, Assessment, Reclassification (PAR) ............................................................................................................. 11

Outcomes ............................................................................................................................................... 12
Employment ................................................................................................................................................................ 12
Education .................................................................................................................................................................... 12
Recidivism ................................................................................................................................................................... 13

Youth with 20‐511A Court Orders ........................................................................................................... 16

Conclusions and Policy Implications ................................................................................................ 17

Directions for Future Research ........................................................................................................ 18
References ...................................................................................................................................... 19
Appendix A: MAYSI Traumatic Experiences Domain ................................................................................ 23
Appendix B: Regression Models .............................................................................................................. 23
Appendix C: Female Offenders in IDJC Custody ....................................................................................... 25
Appendix D: Sex Offenders in IDJC Custody ............................................................................................. 26
Executive Summary

It is well known that most youth who enter the juvenile justice system struggle with mental
health and/or substance abuse concerns. This project sought to discover to what extent this
applies to youth under the supervision of the Idaho Department of Juvenile Corrections
(IDJC), as well as how these youth perform on a few key outcome measures after leaving
custody. To that end, data were collected from multiple state agencies on 843 youth who
entered IDJC custody between 2012 and 2016.

Characteristics of Justice-Involved Youth

• 92% suffered from a mental health and/or substance abuse concern.
• Nearly two-thirds had a history of family criminality and/or abuse. Similarly, about
two-thirds reported experiencing at least one traumatic event in their lives.
• Youth with mental health concerns alone entered IDJC at an earlier age and stayed
in custody longer than any other group.

Outcomes for Justice-Involved Youth

• 56% of youth were charged with a new crime and nearly 1 in 4 were placed under
IDOC supervision within three years of release or turning 18.
• The rate of recidivism was substantially higher for youth with substance abuse and
co-occurring concerns compared to those without.
• Youth with no mental health or substance abuse concerns were most successful in
acquiring jobs after being released from IDJC, while those with a substance abuse
concern were the least successful.

20-511A Court Orders*

• 28% of youth in IDJC custody were evaluated by the Department of Behavioral
Health (DBH) pursuant to a 20-511A court order. Of these, 99% were formally
diagnosed with at least one mental health or substance abuse disorder.
• The top three mental health diagnoses were oppositional-defiant disorder (50%),
Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) (47%), and major depression
(34%).
• There was not a significant difference in recidivism or employment rates between
those with a 20-511A order and those without.

*
This section of Idaho Code involves performing mental health assessments and plans of treatment for juvenile offenders when the judge
has reason to believe they are suffering a serious emotional disturbance, as defined in section 16-2403 of Idaho Code, that has not been
adequately addressed.

1
Review of Research
Introduction
According to 2016 population estimates, there are more than 70 million youth in the United
States and more than 400,000 in Idaho alone1,2. One in four Idaho residents are under the
age of 182. In Idaho, an estimated 200 per 100,000 juveniles are in residential placement
compared to 152 per 100,000 juveniles nationally3.When considering statewide population
estimates, this equates to nearly 900 Idaho juveniles. With limited community-based
resources, especially for long-term care, the juvenile justice system has become one of the
primary mechanisms for accessing mental health and substance abuse services nationally4.
As a result, a substantial proportion of detained youth in the U.S. and locally suffer from
mental health and/or substance use disorders. One meta-analysis found that “adolescents in
detention and correctional facilities were about 10 times more likely to suffer from psychosis
than the general adolescent population” (p.1010)5. In Idaho, more than 58% of detained
juveniles meet the criteria for a mental health problem and 42% are positively screened for
substance use disorder6. Considering the substantial impact of mental health and substance
abuse on the juvenile justice system nationally and locally, further inquiry is warranted. Using
a solutions-based framework, this section of the report will review prevalence, common
underlying factors, short and long-term outcomes, and effective interventions for justice-
involved youth with mental health and/or substance abuse concerns.

Prevalence of Mental Health and Substance Use Disorders Among

Justice-Involved Youth
It is well-established in research that the majority of justice-involved youth suffer from mental
health and/or substance use disorders. One article examining fifteen different studies found
that an average of nearly 70% of justice-involved youth have at least one psychiatric
disorder7. The most common externalizing disorders identified in this study included conduct
disorder (46.4%), substance use disorder (45.1%), oppositional defiant disorder (19.8%), and
attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (13.5%). The most common internalizing disorders
included anxiety disorder (15.9%), major depression (12%), and post-traumatic stress
disorder (9.6%). These results are confirmed by a variety of other studies reporting that an
estimated 60-97% of justice-involved youth have at least one mental or behavioral health
disorder8-14.

In addition to mental health concerns, justice-involved youth also exhibit high rates of
substance abuse. According to a nationally representative study of more than 7,000 youth,
juveniles in custody are nearly three times more likely to report using marijuana, five times
more likely to report using crack or cocaine, and at least four times more likely to report using
methamphetamine compared to youth in the general population15. Research further suggests
that approximately 30-65% of justice-involved youth suffer from co-occurring substance
abuse and mental health concerns8,10,12,16,17. In fact, the majority (60.8%) of youth with a
mental health concern are also diagnosed with substance use disorder14.

2
The Impact of Trauma
Considering the pervasiveness of mental health and substance use disorders among justice-
involved youth, it is critical to examine potential underlying causes in order to develop and
inform effective interventions. Although trauma is frequently included in measurements of
mental health (i.e., Posttraumatic Stress Disorder [PTSD]), its unique and substantial impact
on risk and outcomes warrants individual examination. Studies of justice-involved youth have
consistently found that a history of trauma increases risk for delinquency, mental health
problems, substance abuse, suicidal ideation, and PTSD18-26. Some researchers suggest that
traumatic experiences may facilitate mental health problems and substance abuse, which
subsequently increases risk of delinquency19. For example, an individual who was abused
may develop PTSD and/or begin using substances as a coping mechanism to deal with the
trauma symptoms, subsequently increasing risk of delinquency. The high rates of trauma,
mental health disorders, and substance abuse among justice-involved youth lends support for
this theory. In fact, some studies report almost universal trauma among detained youth, with
as many as 95% reporting at least one adverse childhood experience15,18,24,27. From a local
perspective, recent analyses suggest that 70% of youth in state custody in Idaho have
suffered a history of abuse6.

While a history of trauma is prevalent among all justice-involved youth, research suggests
that the prevalence and impact of these traumatic experiences may be especially prominent
among females. Specifically, multiple studies have identified higher rates of sexual abuse and
PTSD among detained females compared to detained males10,15,21,24. Additional research
suggests that justice-involved females are more than twice as likely to meet criteria for PTSD
compared to males (41% and 18%, respectively)10 and four to eight times more likely to
report a history of sexual abuse15,21. Because of the frequency and impact of trauma on
delinquency, especially among females, multiple researchers have highlighted the
importance of trauma-informed and gender-specific treatments for justice-involved youth4,17,
18,21,23,26,28-30
.

Outcomes
In addition to examining potential underlying causes of mental health and substance use
disorders, it is also important to assess their impact on both short and long-term outcomes
among justice-involved youth. Although mental health and substance use disorders may
impact a variety of life outcomes (e.g., education, employment, quality of life), the vast
majority of current literature focuses on recidivism. Despite the abundance of available
research, results are inconsistent regarding the impact of mental health on reoffending. Some
researchers suggest that mental health disorders are associated with an increased risk of
recidivism31-34 while others document no effect8,35-37. Variations based on type of mental
health diagnosis have also been noted. For example, a recent meta-analysis found a higher
risk of recidivism among juveniles with externalizing disorders (e.g., conduct disorder,
ADHD), but not for juveniles with internalizing disorders (e.g., depression, anxiety)34. Some
research indicates that internalizing disorders serve as a protective factor against future
offending32,34, while other research identifies poorer outcomes among juveniles with anxiety
including a higher rate of recidivism among females37.

3
Contrary to research on mental health alone, it is clear that substance abuse and co-
occurring disorders have an impact on delinquency8,17,22,31,32,34,35,37,38. Specifically, substance
abuse has been found to increase the risk of recidivism even when accounting for a variety of
criminogenic risk factors37. The impact of mental health and substance abuse disorders on
recidivism also varies based on gender. Specifically, substance abuse significantly increases
the number of offenses for males, but not for females, while having a mental health disorder
significantly increases delinquency outcomes for females, but not for males28. In sum,
substance use and co-occurring disorders are consistently linked to delinquency outcomes
while the impact of mental health alone varies based on gender and type of disorder.

In addition to recidivism, mental health disorders may also impact future employment,
education, and financial success29. A study of female detainees found higher levels of
employment, educational, and financial problems among participants with a personality
disorder compared to participants with no mental health disorder. However, no difference was
observed between participants with an Axis I problem (e.g., attention deficit hyperactivity
disorder, substance abuse, suicidality, PTSD, dissociation, etc.) and those with no
documented mental health concern29.

Effective Interventions
Considering the impact of mental health and substance use disorders on recidivism and other
life outcomes, broad and specific evidence-based practices have been identified to improve
outcomes among justice-involved youth with behavioral health disorders. Broad, empirically
supported strategies consistently identified in available research include:

(1) prompt and comprehensive screening procedures to identify treatment needs;

(2) a coordinated system of care that includes cross-agency collaboration; and

(3) integrated treatment strategies that address mental health, substance use, and
criminogenic risk factors4,8,10,12,16,25,36,37,39-46.

The documented benefits of these strategies include improved identification of service needs
and likelihood of follow-up treatment, reduction in recidivism, and receipt of community-based
mental health care40,41,44. Further research highlights the educational benefits of mental
health interventions for justice-involved youth including higher rates of high school completion
and lower drop-out rates47.

Using this framework, several specific, evidence-based treatment programs have been
developed and implemented in communities and detention centers. “The most effective
treatment models that have demonstrated delinquency-reducing benefits for youth with
mental disorders include Functional Family Therapy [FFT], Treatment Foster Care, and
Multisystemic therapy [MST]. Interestingly, all of these therapeutic models are similar in that
they involve families and youth, are community based, and deal with problem behaviors and

4
stresses as a systematic family unit”(p. 7)45. In addition to home and community-based
models, “Cognitive Behavioral Therapy has emerged as the best validated therapeutic
approach for children and adolescents who experience trauma-related symptoms, particularly
symptoms associated with anxiety or mood disorders”(p. 43)4. Although a variety of other
effective models are available, these four interventions* are consistently cited as evidence-
based treatment models for justice-involved youth with mental health disorders4,17,45,47-49.

In addition to intensive, community-based treatment models, several interventions have been

developed for use within juvenile facilities. With an understanding of the impact of trauma on
mental health, substance abuse, and recidivism, effective interventions are frequently
developed using a trauma-informed approach. Specifically, researchers have identified four
effective trauma-informed treatments for juvenile justice facilities including: Attachment, Self-
Regulation, and Competency (ARC); Sanctuary; Structured Psychotherapy for Adolescents
Responding to Chronic Stress (SPARCS); and Trauma Affect Regulation: Guide for
Education and Therapy (TARGET)23. Two additional interventions identified by researchers
include Trauma and Grief Components Therapy for Adolescents (TGCTA) and Skills Training
in Affective and Interpersonal Regulation for Adolescents (STAIR-A)26. Use of these
programs in conjunction with the community-based treatments discussed above provide a
necessary continuum of care for detained juveniles by implementing well-documented,
evidence-based strategies throughout the juvenile justice process*.

Conclusion
It is well-documented in research that a substantial number of justice-involved youth suffer
from mental health and/or substance use concerns, which may be manifestations of past
trauma. While the individual impact of mental health disorders on recidivism is unclear, it is
evident that substance use disorder and a history of trauma increase likelihood of recidivism.
Despite the frequency and negative effects of mental health disorders, substance abuse, and
past trauma, there are a multitude of evidence-based programs and practices that
significantly improve outcomes for justice-involved youth including intensive community-
based programs, such as MST and FFT, and trauma-informed interventions within detention
centers, such as Sanctuary and TARGET. The implementation of these programs combined
with the administration of appropriate screenings/assessments, a wraparound approach to
service provision, and integrated treatments that address the complex needs of juvenile
offenders are key components of an effective response to justice-involved youth.

*
More information about these programs can be found at www.crimesolutions.gov.

5
Methodology

Characteristics of justice-involved youth in Idaho were measured using data provided by the
Idaho Department of Juvenile Corrections (IDJC). Specifically, data included information for
all juveniles committed to an IDJC facility between January 1, 2012 through December 31,
2016 (n = 843). Through the use of data sharing partnerships, outcomes were measured
using data from a variety of state agencies including the Idaho Department of Labor (IDOL),
State Board of Education (SBOE), Department of Behavioral Health (DBH), Idaho Supreme
Court (ISC), and Idaho Department of Corrections (IDOC).

Using this data, analyses were conducted for youth with mental health concerns only (MH),
substance abuse concerns only (SA), co-occurring concerns (CO), or neither.
• MH = youth in need of mental health treatment while in IDJC custody per the clinician’s
assessment
• SA = youth in need of substance abuse treatment while in IDJC custody per the
clinician’s assessment
• CO = youth in need of both mental health and substance abuse treatment while in
IDJC custody per the clinician’s assessment
• Neither = youth who are not in need of mental health or substance abuse treatment
per the clinician’s assessment.

Limitations
As with any analysis of secondary data, the researchers cannot confirm the data provided
were documented consistently or without errors. However, any data entry errors identified
during analyses were discussed with the providing agency and modified, if necessary, to
ensure accuracy. Due to variations in data collection across facilities and/or changes in
policies and procedures over time, some of the variables contained large amounts of missing
data. This primarily impacted analyses of Massachusetts Youth Screening Instrument
(MAYSI) and Youth Level of Service Inventory (YLSI) scores with 29% of youth missing a
MAYSI and 19% missing a YLSI.

Due to changing definitions and methods of data collection, some data were only available for
certain years. Specifically, IDOL data was only available for 2016, SBOE data was only
available for the 2015 and 2016 school years, and data from the Idaho Supreme Court was
only available through 2015. As a result, the sample sizes were much smaller for these
analyses. Additionally, the small percentage of juveniles enrolled in post-secondary education
prohibited researchers from running predictive analyses with SBOE data.

Because youth with co-occurring concerns accounted for such a large percentage of youth
who recidivated as an adult, the other groups had very small sample sizes. As a result,
predictive analyses only included the co-occurring group, meaning that researchers were
unable to accurately determine if mental health concerns only or substance abuse concerns
only had a statistically significant impact on recidivism or employment. While this study did
include all youth committed to IDJC within a five-year period, a longer study period could
potentially capture a large enough sample to include those other groups.

6
Results
Initial Custody Level Assessment (ICLA)
92% of youth in an
Upon arrival at an IDJC facility, youth are assessed
by a clinician who determines if the youth needs IDJC facility have a
mental health treatment only (MH), substance use mental health concern,
treatment only (SA), both (CO), or neither. Nearly all substance abuse
youth committed to IDJC (92%) were found to have concern, or both.
significant enough mental health and/or substance
use concerns to warrant treatment. Of those, 42%
were identified as having both mental health and
substance abuse concerns.

Demographics Mental Health Substance

(MH) Only Abuse (SA) Only
The majority of youth committed to IDJC between 25% 25%
2012 and 2016 were white (65%) or Hispanic
Treatment
(21%). Comparatively, 78% of youth with a
mental health concern were white and 36% of
Needs
youth with a substance abuse concern were Neither
Co‐Occurring
Hispanic. 8%
(MH & SA)
42%
Females accounted for 14% of all commitments.
Of those, nearly two-thirds (65%) had co-
occurring mental health and substance abuse
concerns and less than 3% had neither. Race/Ethnicity, Gender, and Age
Comparatively, 37% of males had co-occurring Race/Ethnicity All
concerns and 9% had neither. White 65%
Hispanic 21%
The average age of youth committed to IDJC
Black 3%
custody was 16.2 years. Those with a MH concern American Indian 2%
were among the youngest committed (15.6 years), Asian 1%
while those with an SA concern (16.5 years) and Pacific Islander 0%
co-occurring concerns (16.5 years) were often Other/Mixed 1%
older. Most youth (86%) were committed during Unknown 7%
their high school years. Gender
Male 86%
At release, the average youth was 17.9 years old. Female 14%
Individuals with SA (51%) and co-occurring (59%) Age at Commitment
concerns often remained in custody after turning 18. 11‐13 Years 8%
14‐17 Years 86%
18+ Years 7%
Mean 16.2
n = 843

7
Days in Custody
IDJC has the authority to hold youth on indeterminate sentences, meaning that youth remain
in custody until they complete their treatment program or age out of the juvenile justice
system. While it is assumed that youth will be released before their nineteenth birthday; they
may remain in custody until their twenty-first birthday with approval from the custody review
board. The average time spent in custody for all youth who were discharged was 580.80 days
(n=747)*. Those with MH concerns tended to have longer terms (664.34 days), while those
with SA concerns experienced shorter terms (513.21 days).

664.34
581.26 552.42
513.21

MH SA CO Neither

Types of Offenses
Property crimes (35%), crimes against persons (34%), and sex crimes (22%) accounted for
the majority of all commitments (n=928). However, the most common offense type within
ICLA groups varied widely. Sexual offenses were most common in the “neither” (53%) and
MH (45%) groups while property crimes were most common among those with SA (55%) and
co-occurring (37%) concerns. Drug and alcohol offenses were committed exclusively by
those with a documented substance abuse concern (including the co-occurring group).

Most Serious Offense Resulting in Commitment

8
Assessments
Family Criminality and Abuse
In addition to providing insight on mental health and substance use issues, the ICLA also
contains components related to family history (n=822). Most juveniles committed to an IDJC
facility between 2012 and 2016 (66%) had a family history of criminal involvement or a
documented pattern of abuse, neglect, or probation violations (PVs). These rates are highest
among those with SA (68%) and co-occurring (73%) concerns.

50% 49%

33%
31%
25% 24%
18%
14%

MH SA CO Neither
1+ household member with a conviction Pattern of neglect/abuse or PVs

In addition to family criminality, the ICLA contains questions regarding where youth were
living immediately prior to being committed to an IDJC facility (n=812). The majority of youth
(83%) lived in a household that did not include both biological parents. Rates of youth living
with one biological parent were highest among those with SA (70%) and co-occurring (66%)
concerns.

Foster Care
7% Both Parents
Other Family 17%
Member
13%
Living
Situation at
Time of
Commitment
One Biological Parent
63%

9
Massachusetts Youth Screening Instrument (MAYSI)
IDJC uses the Massachusetts Youth Screening Instrument (MAYSI) to further explore the
individual needs of youth in custody (n=601). This assessment is conducted soon after a
youth enters an IDJC facility and includes an evaluation of suicide risk. Youth can be
assigned “caution” status based on the results of this evaluation, and appropriate surveillance
measures can be taken to reduce the risk of self-harm while the juvenile is in custody. Higher
rates of suicide cautions were issued to youth in the mental health (17%) and co-occurring
groups (20%), illustrating the overlap between mental health concerns and suicidal ideation.

Percent of Youth with a Caution or Warning Status for

Suicidal Ideation

20%
17%

5% 5%

MH SA CO Neither

The Traumatic Experiences domain of the MAYSI gauges an individual’s past proximity to
traumatic events, either as a victim or a witness. Nearly two-thirds (65%) of youth reported
experiencing at least one traumatic event or trauma symptom, with higher rates occurring in
the mental health (66%) and co-occurring (75%) groups (see Appendix A for additional
information on how this is measured).

Youth Reporting a History of Trauma

75%
66%

52%
49%

MH SA CO Neither

10
Youth Level of Service Inventory (YLSI)
The Youth Level of Service Inventory (YLSI) is a tool for measuring a youth’s criminogenic
risks and needs. YLSI assessments are currently conducted at the county level prior to
admittance into IDJC custody. The assessment covers seven domains and a total is used to
classify individuals as low (0-8 points), moderate (9-22), high (23-34), or very high (35-42)
risk. The average total score among all youth was 19.72 (n=682). The mental health group
displayed lower total scores with an average of 15.28, while the SA (22.88) and co-occurring
(22.31) groups averaged higher scores.

22.88 22.31

15.28
12.38

MH SA CO Neither

Progress, Assessment, Reclassification (PAR)

IDJC uses the Progress, Assessment, Reclassification (PAR) tool to continually assess risk
levels and treatment progress. Youth are re-evaluated every 60 days and assigned a risk
level between 1 (lowest) and 5 (highest). At intake, 82% of all youth scored at Level 3 or
higher (n=842). On their final evaluations, 81% scored at either Level 1 or 2. The co-occurring
group averaged the highest initial and final PAR scores (3.58 and 1.86, respectively), while
the neither group averaged the lowest (2.77 and 1.49, respectively).

3.58
3.30 3.37

2.77

1.77 1.86
1.63
1.49

MH SA CO Neither
First PAR Average Last PAR Average

11
Outcomes

Employment

Employment data is provided for juveniles who have been out of custody for one year and
were at least 17 years old at release. At the time of data collection for this project, IDJC had
collected six consecutive quarters of data, beginning with quarter one of 2016. Therefore,
employment data were analyzed for juveniles meeting the above criteria who were released
between January 1, 2015 and June 30, 2016 (n=166). Overall, 43% of these juveniles had a
job with taxable wages within one year of release. Youth with substance abuse concerns had
the lowest post-release employment rate (34%) and youth with no mental health or substance
abuse concern had the highest (67%).

Post‐Release Employment Rates

Top 5 Industries
67% 1. Food Preparation and Serving (31%)

2. Sales (19%)
44% 45%
3. Business/Financial Operations (15%)
34%

4. Construction/Extraction (13%)

5. Farming/Fishing/Forestry (10%)

MH SA CO Neither

Education

Of the 239 youth who were released between January 1, 2014 and December 31, 2016 and
had their high school diploma or GED at the time of release, 10 (4%) enrolled in college in the
2015 or 2016 school year. Of those who enrolled, most attended a community college in
Idaho.

12
Recidivism
Recidivism was measured using three events as
indicators. First, court data was analyzed to Within 3 Years:
determine how many youth had a new criminal
case filed against them as an adult. A guilty 56% were charged with a new crime
disposition in any of those cases was used as the
second indicator. Court records were available 54% received a guilty disposition
through the end of 2015, yielding a maximum
follow-up period of three years for these two 24% were under the supervision of
indicators (n=201). Finally, data from the Idaho the Idaho Department of Corrections
Department of Corrections (IDOC) was used to
determine how many youth were under IDOC 20% were incarcerated in an Idaho
supervision as an adult*. IDOC data was Department of Corrections facility
available through the end of 2017, which
expands the maximum follow-up period to five
years for this indicator (n=466). At least one year
of data was available for all youth included in
these analyses.

Percent Charged with a New Crime

63%
59%

31%

17%

MH SA CO Neither

As illustrated above, youth in the co-occurring group were significantly more likely to be
charged with a new crime within three years of release compared to all other groups (see
Appendix B for regression results). When considering gender, 100% of females who
recidivated were in the co-occurring group (n=11).

*
“Under supervision” includes individuals who were on felony probation, committed to an IDOC rider program,
committed to a state prison, or on parole.
“Incarcerated” includes individuals who were committed to a state prison or an IDOC rider program.

13
 Month of First Court Filing
70

60
Cumulative # of Youth

50

40

30

20

10

Neither MH SA CO

Of all youth who were charged with a new crime, the average time between release from
IDJC (if 18 years or older at time of release) or turning 18 (if released under 18) and court
filing date was 287.73 days. As illustrated above, most reoffending occurred between 4 and
18 months after release or turning 18. A total of 36% were charged with a new crime within
one year and 55% within two years. Reoffending rates were highest among youth who were
17 or 18 when first committed to IDJC (62% and 55%, respectively).

New Court Filing by Age at First Commitment

62%
55%
51%

39%

15 years 16 years 17 years 18 years

14
 70%

61%
Of the youth who had
a criminal court case
filed against them as
an adult, 70% were
24% charged with a drug or
alcohol offense.
2%

Drug/Alcohol Property Violent Sex

Similar to trends found in court records, juveniles with substance abuse or co-occurring
concerns were most likely to be placed on IDOC supervision as an adult within five years of
being released (if 18 or older at time of release) or turning 18 (if released under 18).

Percent Placed on IDOC Supervision

30% 30%

27%
25%

20%
19%

15%
12%
10%

5%

0%
1 Year 2 Years 3 Years 4 Years 5 Years
Neither MH SA Co‐Occurring

15
Youth with 20-511A Court Orders*
During the juvenile court process, the judge may also
require youth to be evaluated by the Department of
Behavioral Health (DBH) by issuing a 20-511A order. If 86% of youth who
deemed eligible, these individuals may receive community received a 20‐511A
programming through DBH. Youth who received at least order had more than
one 20-511A court order comprised 28% of the sample
one mental health
(n=234).
diagnosis and 46% had
The outcomes of 20-511A evaluations mirrored those of the co‐occurring substance
ICLA assessments. Nearly all youth (96%) were diagnosed
abuse disorder.
with at least one mental illness. Most (86%) were
diagnosed with at least two, and 46% were diagnosed with
co-occurring mental health and substance abuse problems.

DBH Diagnoses

Oppositional‐Defiant Disorder 50%

Substance Abuse Disorder 47%

ADHD 47%

Major Depression 34%

Conduct Disorder 33%

PTSD 26%

Anxiety Disorder 17%

Nearly three-quarters (74%) of those evaluated were enrolled in at least one treatment
program through DBH. The average number of days each case was open for ongoing
treatment was 337.87 days, although nearly half (43%) completed their treatment in less than
one year.

Receipt of a 20-511A order as a juvenile did not significantly impact performance on any of
the outcome measures (see Appendix B for regression results). Employment rates and court
filings were identical between the two groups (43% and 56%, respectively). Additionally, 24%
with an order were under IDOC supervision within five years, compared to 27% of those
without.

*
This section of Idaho Code involves performing mental health assessments and plans of treatment for juvenile offenders when the judge
has reason to believe they are suffering a serious emotional disturbance, as defined in section 16-2403 of Idaho Code, that has not been
adequately addressed.

16
Conclusions and Policy Implications
Outcomes for justice-involved youth in Idaho are mixed, and often related to the type of
problem with which the individual is struggling. On all three recidivism measures, youth with
only mental health concerns outperformed youth who struggle with substance abuse. On the
other hand, the mental health group performed at the same level or worse than the other
groups on the employment and education measures; they held jobs and attended college at
equal or lower rates.

In light of these findings, the following recommendations are provided to improve Idaho’s
juvenile justice system:

• Emphasize treatment for youth with substance abuse and co-occurring

problems. These groups were most likely to recidivate and least likely to sustain
employment after release from IDJC. This was particularly true for females considering
that 100% of females who were charged with a new crime struggled with co-occurring
mental health and substance abuse concerns. The low success rates among these
youth may be partially due to their age and length of time spent in custody. Youth with
substance abuse and co-occurring concerns spent fewer days in custody and were
older when first committed compared to youth with mental health concerns only.
Based on these trends, intervening earlier and providing targeted programming for a
longer period of time may help improve outcomes for these youth. Because the
majority of youth who recidivate are committing drug and alcohol offenses as an adult,
it is imperative that programming target the underlying causes of substance abuse
specifically.

• Provide long-term aftercare services to youth who are released from IDJC. While
most youth did well during the first three months after release or turning 18, there was
a steady increase in new court filings from month 4 to month 18. Although this study
did not consider what services are available to youth after release, it is possible that
after “aging out” of the juvenile justice system, their access to services is drastically
reduced. Partnering with community-based providers to ensure access to services
during that 18-month window would enhance the support structure available to
struggling youth during this critical time.

• Continue to improve collaboration and data sharing among state agencies that
have contact with justice-involved youth. As noted in the literature review, few
studies have attempted to use any measure other than recidivism to determine the
effectiveness of the juvenile justice system. Idaho is breaking new ground in collecting
information on justice-involved youth from multiple agencies, making it possible to
evaluate a variety of outcomes. Using this information, researchers, practitioners, and
policymakers can gain a richer understanding of what factors influence their successes
and failures as adults. However, at this time, the amount of data available for analysis
is limited. Continuing to refine these systems and foster more cooperation between
agencies will not only facilitate further research, but as integrated treatment plans
become more prevalent, it would aid in the development of this model in Idaho.

17
Directions for Future Research
This study can be used as a springboard for future research on justice-involved youth in
Idaho. The following are examples of research topics that could be explored using this data
set or similar data collected at a later date.

• Examining the unique characteristics of IDJC’s female population. Females in

IDJC custody are disproportionately affected by co-occurring mental health and
substance abuse issues. In fact, every female who recidivated had co-occurring
concerns. More in-depth research examining characteristics and outcomes for female
offenders could help enhance programming for female offenders specifically.

• Further exploration of IDJC’s sex offender population. The majority of youth with
neither mental health nor substance abuse concerns are committed for a sex offense.
Sex offenders also represent a relatively large percentage of all juveniles committed to
IDJC custody. With this in mind, more in-depth research is needed to examine the
unique dynamics of this group.

• Identifying factors that influence youth success after release from IDJC custody.
The present study found that youth perform relatively well for the first three months
after release or turning 18. Further examination of what factors are associated with this
successful transition could be used to enhance reentry and aftercare programs.

• Determining the effect of trauma on characteristics and outcomes of IDJC youth.

Previous research has indicated that trauma plays an integral role in youth
delinquency. However, gaps in data did not allow for the inclusion of trauma in any
predictive analyses. Additional data collection would allow this important factor to be
included in future research.

18
References

1. United States Census Bureau. (2016a). QuickFacts: United States. Retrieved from
https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US/AGE295216#viewtop

2. United States Census Bureau. (2016b). QuickFacts: Idaho. Retrieved from

https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/ID/AGE295216#viewtop

3. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. (2015). OJJDP statistical briefing book:
Juvenile residential placement rates by state, 2013. Retrieved from
https://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/corrections/qa08601.asp?qaDate=2013&text=no&maplink=link1

4. Skowyra, K.R. & Cocozza, J.J. (2007). Blueprint for change: A comprehensive model for the
identification and treatment of youth with mental health needs in contact with the juvenile
justice system. National Center for Mental Health and Juvenile Justice. Retrieved from
https://www.ncmhjj.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/2007_Blueprint-for-Change-Full-
Report.pdf

5. Fazel, S., Doll, H., & Langstrom, N. (2008). Mental disorders among adolescents in juvenile
detention and correctional facilities: A systematic review and metaregression analysis of 25
surveys. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 49(9), 1010-
1019.

6. Riley, F. (2014). Idaho’s implementation of substance use disorder services for juvenile justice
populations. Corrections Today. Retrieved from https://insurancenewsnet.com/oarticle/Idahos-
Implementation-of-Substance-Use-Disorder14,-Services-for-Juvenile-Justice-P-a-
532498#.WZRlBNKGPRY.

7. Colins, O., Vermeiren, R., Vreugdenhil, C., van den Brink, W., Doreleijers, T., & Broekaert, E.
(2010). Psychiatric disorders in detained male adolescents: A systematic literature review.
Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 55(4), 255-263.

8. Schubert, C.A. & Mulvey, E.P. (2014). Behavioral health problems, treatment, and outcomes in
serious youthful offenders. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Retrieved
from https://www.ojjdp.gov/pubs/242440.pdf

9. Burke, J.D., Mulvey, E.P., & Schubert, C.A. (2015). Prevalence of mental health problems and
service use among first-time juvenile offenders. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 24, 3774-
3781.

10. Robertson, A.A., Dill, P.L., Husain, J., & Undesser, C. (2004). Prevalence of mental illness and
substance abuse disorders among incarcerated juvenile offenders in Mississippi. Child
Psychiatry and Human Development, 35(1), 55-74.

11. Teplin, L.A., Abram, K.M., McClelland, G.M., Dulcan, M.K., & Mericle, A.A. (2002). Psychiatric
disorders in youth in juvenile detention. Archives of General Psychiatry, 59(12), 1133-1143.

12. Teplin, L.A., Abram, K.M., McClelland, G.M., Mericle, A.A., Dulcan, M.K., & Washburn, J.J.
(2006). Psychiatric disorders of youth in detention. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention. Retrieved from https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/210331.pdf

19
13. Drerup, L.C., Croysdale, A., & Hoffman, N.G. (2008). Patterns of behavioral health conditions
among adolescents in a juvenile justice system. Professional Psychology: Research and
Practice, 39(2), 122-128.

14. Schufelt, J.L. & Cocozza, J.J. (2006). Youth with mental health disorders in the juvenile justice
system: Results from a multi-state prevalence study. National Center for Mental Health and
Juvenile Justice. Retrieved from https://ncmhjj.com/wp-
content/uploads/2013/11/PrevalenceRPB.pdf

15. Sedlak, A.J. & McPherson, K. (2010). Survey of youth in residential placement: Youth’s needs and
services. Retrieved from https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/grants/227660.pdf

16. Hussey, D.L., Drinkard, A.M., & Flannery, D.J. (2007). Comorbid substance use and mental
disorders among offending youth. Journal of Social Work Practice in the Addictions, 7(1/2),
117-138.

17. Kretschmar, J.M., Butcher, F., Flannery, D.J., & Singer, M.I. (2016). Diverting juvenile justice-
involved youth with behavioral health issues from detention: Preliminary findings from Ohio’s
Behavioral Health Juvenile Justice (BHJJ) initiative. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 27(3),
302-325.

18. Becker, S.P. & Kerig, P.K. (2011). Posttraumatic stress symptoms are associated with the
frequency and severity of delinquency among detained boys. Journal of Clinical Child &
Adolescent Psychology, 40(5), 765-771.

19. Bender, K. (2010). Why do some maltreated youth become juvenile offenders? A call for further
investigation and adaptation of youth services. Children and Youth Services Review, 32, 466-
473.

20. Benner, G.J., Stage, S.A., Nelson, J.R., Laederich, M., & Ralston, N.C. (2010). Predicting the
cumulative recidivism of juvenile detainees. Journal of Behavior Analysis of Offender and
Victim: Treatment and Prevention, 2(1), 51-62.

21. Bhatta, M.P., Jefferis, E., Kavadas, A., Alemagno, S.A., & Shaffer-King, P. (2014). Suicidal
behaviors among adolescents in juvenile detention: Role of adverse life experiences. PLOS
One, 9(2), 1-7.

22. Cottle, C.C., Lee, R.J., & Heilbrun, K. (2001). The prediction of criminal recidivism in juveniles: A
meta-analysis. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 28(3), 367-394.

23. Ford, J.D. & Blaustein, M.E. (2013). Systemic self-regulation: A framework for trauma-informed
services in residential juvenile justice programs. Journal of Family Violence, 28, 665-677.

24. Ford, J.D., Hartman, J.K., Hawke, J., & Chapman, J.F. (2008). Traumatic victimization,
posttraumatic stress disorder, suicidal ideation, and substance abuse risk among juvenile
justice-involved youth. Journal of Child & Adolescent Trauma, 1, 75-91.

25. Mallett, C.A. (2014). Youthful offending and delinquency: The comorbid impact of maltreatment,
mental health problems, and learning disabilities. Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal,
31,369-392.

26. Pickens, I. (2016). Laying the groundwork: Conceptualizing a trauma-informed system of care in
juvenile detention. Journal of Infant, Child, and Adolescent Psychotherapy, 15(3), 220-230.

20
27. Abram, K.M., Teplin, L.A., Charles, D.R., Longworth, S.L., McClelland, G.M., & Dulcan, M.K.
(2004). Posttraumatic stress disorder and trauma in youth in juvenile detention. Archives of
General Psychiatry, 61(4), 403-410.

28. Welch-Brewer, C.L., Stoddard-Dare, P., & Mallett, C.A. (2011). Race, substance abuse, and
mental health disorders as predictors of juvenile court outcomes: Do they vary by gender?
Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal, 28, 229-241.

29. van der Molen, E., Vermeiren, R.R.J.M., Krabbendam, A.A., Beekman, A.T.F., Doreleijers, T.A.H.,
& Jansen, L.M.C. (2013). Detained adolescent females’ multiple mental health and adjustment
problem outcomes in young adulthood. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 54(9),
950-957.

30. Greenbaum, C.A. & Javdani, S. (2017). Expressive writing intervention promotes resilience among
juvenile justice-involved youth. Children and Youth Services Review, 73, 220-229.

31. Feldmann, T.M. (2014). Factors contributing to juvenile recidivism in a predominately Hispanic
population (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from https://tamucc-ir.tdl.org/tamucc-
ir/bitstream/handle/1969.6/558/Taylor%20Feldmann.pdf?sequence=1.

32. Hein, S., Barbot, B., Square, A., Chapman, J., Geib, C.F., & Grigorenko, E.L. (2017). Violent
offending among juveniles: A 7-year longitudinal study of recidivism, desistence, and
associations with mental health. Law and Human Behavior, 41(3), 273-283.

33. Mallett, C.A. (2013). Factors related to recidivism for youthful offenders. Social Work Faculty
Publications. Retrieved from
http://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1029&context=clsowo_facp
ub.

34. Wibbelink, C.J.M., Hoeve, M., Stams, G.J.J.M., & Oort, F.J. (2017). A meta-analysis of the
association between mental disorders and juvenile recidivism. Aggression and Violent
Behavior, 33, 78-90.

35. Elkington, K.S., Teplin, L.A., Abram, K.M., Jakubowski, J.A., Dulcan, M.K., & Welty, L.J. (2015).
Psychiatric disorders and violence: A study of delinquent youth after detention. Journal of the
American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 54(4), 302-312.

36. McCormick, S., Peterson-Badali, & Skilling, T.A. (2017). The role of mental health and specific
responsivity in juvenile justice rehabilitation. Law and Human Behavior, 41(1), 55-67.

37. Schubert, C.A., Mulvey, E.P., & Glasheen, C. (2011). Influence of mental health and substance
use problems and criminogenic risk on outcomes in serious juvenile offenders. Journal of the
American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 50(9), 925-937.

38. Manchak, S.M., Sullivan, C.C., Schweitzer, M., & Sullivan, C.J. (2016). The influence of co-
occurring mental health and substance use problems on the effectiveness of juvenile drug
courts. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 27(3), 247-264.

39. Aalsma, M.C., Brown, J.R., Holloway, E.D., & Ott, M.A. (2014a). Connection to mental health care
upon community reentry for detained youth: A qualitative study. BMC Public Health, 14(117).

21
40. Aalsma, M.C., Schwartz, K., & Perkins, A.J. (2014b). A statewide collaboration to initiate mental
health screening and assess services for detained youths in Indiana. American Journal of
Public Health, 104(10), e82-e88.

41. Hammond, S. (2007). Mental health needs of juvenile offenders. National Conference of State
Legislatures. Retrieved from https://www.ncsl.org/print/cj/mentaljjneeds.pdf

42. Hodgdon, H. (n.d.). Juvenile offenders and substance use and abuse. The Future of Children.
Retrieved from
https://www.princeton.edu/futureofchildren/publications/highlights/18_02_Highlights_05.pdf

43. Letters, P. & Stathis, S. (2004). A mental health and substance abuse service for a youth
detention centre. Australasian Psychiatry, 12(2), 126-129.

44. Regional Research Institute for Human Services. (2006). The integrated co-occurring treatment
model (ICT): A new treatment model for youth with co-occurring disorders involved in the
juvenile justice system. Retrieved from https://www.pathwaysrtc.pdx.edu/pdf/fpS0608.pdf

45. Underwood, L.A. & Washington, A. (2016). Mental illness and juvenile offenders. International
Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 13, 228-241.

46. Zeola, M.P., Guina, J., & Nahhas, R.W. (2017). Mental health referrals reduce recidivism in first-
time juvenile offenders, but how do we determine who is referred? Psychiatric Quarterly, 88,
167-183.

47. Cuellar, A. & Dave, D.M. (2016). Causal effects of mental health treatment on education outcomes
for youth in the justice system. Economics of Education Review, 54, 321-339.

48. Aalsma, M.C., White, L.M., Lau, K.S.L., Perkins, A., Monahan, P., & Grisso, T. (2015). Behavioral
health care needs, detention-based care, and criminal recidivism at community reentry from
juvenile detention: A multisite survival curve analysis. American Journal of Public Health,
105(7), 1372-1378.

49. Zajac, K., Sheidow, A.J., & Davis, M. (2015). Juvenile justice, mental health, and the transition to
adulthood: A review of service system involvement and unmet needs in the U.S.. Children and
Youth Services Review, 56, 139-148.

22
Appendix A: MAYSI Traumatic Experiences Domain
For the MAYSI, a trained staff member asks juveniles a series of questions to gauge the
youth’s risk level across a variety of domains. For the traumatic experiences domain,
juveniles are asked the following questions:

1. Have you ever in your whole life had something very bad or terrifying happen to you?
2. Have you ever been badly hurt or been in danger of getting badly hurt or killed?
3. Have you ever been raped or been in danger of getting raped?
4. Have you ever had a lot of bad thoughts or dreams about a bad or scary event?
5. Have you ever seen someone severely injured or killed?

Each question is counted as one point towards the final score in the traumatic experiences
domain. Therefore, the highest score a youth could receive for this domain is a five. For the
purposes of this report, a score of 1-5 was found to indicate that the youth had experienced a
traumatic event and/or trauma symptom prior to being committed to an IDJC facility.

Appendix B: Regression Models

Regression models were constructed to determine whether membership in the ICLA Co-
Occurring group was a predictor of employment and/or recidivism outcomes. Due to the small
nature of the sample size and the composition of the four ICLA groups, predictive analyses
were not able to be completed for the MH and SA groups.

Logistic Regression Model: Employment

The employment model for the co-occurring group was not statistically significant (χ2 (6) =
7.315, p = .293, R2 = .059). Holding all other variables constant, youth in the co-occurring
group were 27% more likely to have a job within one year of release from IDJC than those in
the other groups.

Variables B Wald df p Odds Ratio

Gender .829 2.133 1 .144 2.292
Violent Crime as a Juvenile .425 1.690 1 .194 1.530
Family Criminality ‐.422 1.679 1 .195 .656
Living with Biological Parent(s) ‐.491 1.208 1 .272 .612
20‐511A Order .095 .062 1 .803 1.099
ICLA Co‐Occurring .239 .472 1 .492 1.270
Constant ‐1.052 2.892 1 .089

23
Cox Regression Model: New Court Filings

The overall court filing model for the co-occurring group was not statistically significant (χ2 (6)
= 11.402, p = .077, -2 log likelihood = 1066.63). Holding all other variables constant,
membership in the co-occurring group was associated with a 54% increase in the odds of
having a new court filing after becoming at-risk (turning 18 or being released from IDJC,
whichever comes last; p = .032).

Variables B Wald df p Odds Ratio

Gender 0.410 1.584 1 0.208 1.508
20‐511A Order 0.086 0.168 1 0.682 1.090
Violent Crime as a Juvenile ‐0.321 2.625 1 0.105 0.725
Family Criminality 0.209 1.190 1 0.275 1.233
Living with Biological Parent(s) ‐0.275 1.021 1 0.312 0.760
ICLA Co‐Occurring 0.430 4.612 1 0.032 1.538

Cox Regression Model: IDOC Supervision

The IDOC supervision model for the co-occurring group was not statistically significant (χ2 (6)
= 5.923, p = .432, -2 log likelihood = 1357.625). Holding all other variables constant,
membership in the co-occurring group was associated with a 33% increase in the odds of
being sentenced to IDOC supervision after becoming at-risk (turning 18 or being released
from IDJC, whichever comes last; p = .133).

Variables B Wald df p Odds Ratio

Gender 0.025 0.008 1 0.930 1.025
20‐511A Order ‐0.188 0.775 1 0.379 0.829
Violent Crime as a Juvenile ‐0.155 0.692 1 0.406 0.856
Family Criminality 0.251 1.870 1 0.171 1.286
Living with Biological Parent(s) 0.081 0.111 1 0.739 1.084
ICLA Co‐Occurring 0.287 2.259 1 0.133 1.332

24
 Appendix C: Female Offenders in IDJC Custody

Mental Health

65% of females had co‐occurring mental health

and substance abuse concerns
(compared to 37% of males)
Neither
3%
Only
22%

79% of females reported a history of trauma

(compared to 62% of males)

Treatment Needs
Substance
Abuse Only
10%

48%
of females had a new criminal case of Females in
filed against them within 3 years IDJC Custody
(compared to 56% of males)

Co‐Occurring

22
was the average YLSI score for female
offenders 65%
(compared to 19 for males)

Self‐reported history of trauma 79%

62%
At least one household member with a criminal 48%
conviction 44%
Living in foster care or with non‐parental family 29% Females
member 18%
Males
Caution or warning status for suicidal ideations 15%
upon arrival at IDJC 10%
40%
Received at least one 20‐511A court order
26%

Recidivism Measures Types of Court Cases Filed

57% 54%
48% 48% 82%
68%
61%
55%
27% 26% 18%
25% 0% 2%
Court Filing within 3 Guilty Disposition IDOC Supervision Drug/Alcohol Property Violent Sexual
Years within 3 Years within 5 Years

Females Males Females with Case Filing Males with Case Filing

Note: Time to recidivism was calculated from the time of release from IDJC custody (if over 18 at release) or from the individual’s 18th
birthday (if under 18 at release). Court case percentages may not add to 100% due to individuals having one or more cases that involve
different types of charges.

25
 Appendix D: Sex Offenders in IDJC Custody

27%
of sex offenders had substance abuse
concerns Substance
(compared to 77% of non‐sex offenders) Mental Health Abuse Only
Only 7%
52%

693
was the average number of days
in custody for sex offenders Co‐Occurring
(compared to 551 for non‐sex offenders) 20%
Treatment Needs

13
was the average YLSI score of Sex Offenders in
for sex offenders IDJC Custody
(compared to 22 for non‐sex offenders)

33% of sex offenders had a new criminal

case filed against them within 3 years
(compared to 58% of non‐sex offenders)
Neither
20%

69%
Self‐reported
Self‐reported historyofoftrauma
history trauma
63%
At least one household member with criminal 37%
At least one household member conviction
with a criminal conviction 46%
Living in foster care or with non‐parental family 26% Sex Offenders
Living in foster care or with non‐parental
member family member 18%
Non‐Sex Offenders
YLSI score in in
“high” oror
“very 14%
YLSI score "high" "veryhigh”
high"range
range
49%
14%
Received
Received atat leastone
least one20‐511A
20‐511Acourt
courtorder
order
32%

Recidivism Measures Types of Court Cases Filed

60% 58% 75%

63%

33% 30% 30% 40%

9% 10%
20% 20% 25% 1%
Court Filing within Guilty Disposition IDOC Supervision Drug/Alcohol Property Violent Sexual
3 Years within 3 Years within 5 Years

Sex Offenders Non‐Sex Offenders Sex Offenders with Court Filing Non‐Sex Offenders with Court Filing

Note: Time to recidivism was calculated from the time of release from IDJC custody (if over 18 at release) or from the individual’s 18th
birthday (if under 18 at release). Court case percentages may not add to 100% due to individuals having one or more cases that involve
different types of charges.

26