Factors Influencing Recidivism Among Juvenile Offenders

Introduction

The American Civil Liberties Union reports that nearly 60,000 youth under the age of 18 are incarcerated in the United States every day. What is even more alarming, however, is the number of juveniles re-offending and being re-incarcerated within five years of their release. It is estimated that approximately 44% of offenders are rearrested within the first year of their release, with juveniles making up 55% of these rearrests (Alper, Durose, & Markman, 2018). The high recidivism rates among juvenile offenders highlight the need for greater public awareness of the issue.

Studies have already shown that incarceration dramatically impacts juveniles' futures by interrupting their social systems and disrupting their opportunities to receive an education (Chetty & Hendren, 2017; Mallett, 2013). At the macro level, incarceration burdens the economy. Mukku and colleagues (2012) found that averting incarceration would reduce the government's expenses by $17 billion annually, mainly for non-violent-related crimes. For these reasons, this study reinforces the need to educate the public about factors that lead to incarceration and, by extension, recidivism among juvenile offenders, and to develop an intervention manual to minimize this risk.

Recidivism presents a unique challenge for administrators and policymakers in the criminal justice system. Very high recidivism rates signify the system's inability to adequately rehabilitate and reintegrate offenders into their communities. Worryingly, national recidivism rates in the United States remain significantly high. Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) data released in 2018 showed that 5 in 6 (83 percent) of offenders released in 2005 across 30 states had been rearrested at least once between then and 2014 (Alper et al., 2018). Approximately 44% of offenders are rearrested before the end of their first year after release (Alper et al., 2018). According to the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP), juveniles make up approximately 55% of offenders who are rearrested within their first year of release (OJJDP, 2017).

National data on juvenile recidivism does not exist, as juvenile justice is handled at the state level. Nevertheless, state data points to a worrying trend. A 2018 report from the State of Indiana puts juvenile recidivism at a rate of 33.3% for offenders released in 2015 (Indiana Department of Correction [IDOC], 2018). Of the 688 juveniles released in 2015, 229 had been rearrested at least once by 2017—145 as juveniles and 84 as adults (IDOC, 2018). Similarly, 2015 data from the State of California indicates a juvenile recidivism rate of 50.5% in 2014–15, up from 49.1% in 2013–14 (California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation [CDCR], 2015). The highest juvenile recidivism rates have been reported in New Jersey, where data from 2010–11 indicates that 81% of juvenile offenders had been rearrested at least once within three years of their release, with 71% of those arrests resulting in a new conviction or adjudication (New Jersey Department of Corrections, 2016).

Incarceration dramatically impacts juveniles' futures. It removes them from the safety and protection of their communities, interrupts their social systems—including friendships and church involvement—disrupts their educational opportunities, and may expose them to additional violence (Gilman, Hill, & Hawkins, 2015). Re-incarceration has an even greater impact on the individual, as it significantly diminishes the chances of ever fully exiting the criminal justice system.

A rich body of literature analyzes the factors that exacerbate the risk of reoffending among previously incarcerated individuals. However, most existing studies adopt a general approach to recidivism without focusing specifically on juveniles. Findings obtained from adult offender populations may not be generalizable to juvenile offenders, as adults and juveniles respond differently to societal influences. Furthermore, most existing studies examine factors that influence recidivism outside the criminal justice system while ignoring factors within the system—specifically, experiences during incarceration—that increase the risk of recidivism.

The proposed study seeks to address these knowledge gaps by analyzing the factors that exacerbate recidivism risk among juveniles, including those factors that arise during the period of incarceration. It also seeks to determine whether the factors that influence the risk of juvenile recidivism are the same as those affecting older offenders.

Several recommendations have been advanced to enhance the rehabilitation of incarcerated juvenile offenders and minimize recidivism risk. For instance, Elrod and Ryder (2020) propose restorative government and community collaborations through churches, Boys and Girls Clubs, and other community organizations to address the justice component. Other studies, such as Gilman et al. (2015), have proposed expanding residential placement programs as an alternative to incarceration for juvenile offenders. Under residential placement programs, youth are placed in residential homes with families or in facilities that have specialized training. Residential placement programs are considered more effective than incarceration in minimizing future reoffending risk, as they employ a community-oriented approach (Brown & Smith, 2018).

However, opponents of residential programs argue that they only increase aggression and violence among youth, since these programs are not physically secure and often involve placement of like-minded youth with similar behavioral profiles under under-trained and poorly paid staff (Brown & Smith, 2018). Critics also argue that residential programs may not uphold strict disciplinary measures comparable to juvenile incarceration facilities, which may defeat their overall purpose. Amid the ongoing debate about what does or does not minimize recidivism among delinquent juveniles, it is crucial to educate the public and policymakers about the factors that influence the risk of recidivism among juvenile offenders. Understanding those factors is the first step toward developing effective programs to address them.

The current study seeks to analyze the factors that influence recidivism among juvenile offenders and develop an intervention manual to reduce this risk. The findings will provide crucial insights for policymakers on the specific factors that drive juvenile recidivism and, consequently, on the rehabilitation programs most appropriate for this group. The research questions guiding the study are as follows:

RQ1: What factors exacerbate the risk of recidivism among juvenile offenders?

RQ2: What intervention would be most effective in rehabilitating juvenile offenders and minimizing their risk of recidivism?

Literature Review: Variables Influencing Recidivism Risk

This study seeks to identify and analyze the structural factors that influence recidivism among juvenile offenders. This chapter reviews the literature on the factors exacerbating recidivism risk among former inmates and is divided into three sections. The first reviews the literature on quality-of-life variables influencing recidivism risk. The second reviews the literature on the role of unemployment in fueling recidivism. The final section identifies the knowledge gaps in the reviewed literature and how the proposed study will address them.

Recidivism is defined as the act of returning to prison within three years of one's release (Chetty & Hendren, 2017). Multiple studies have been conducted to identify factors that exacerbate this risk among former inmates. There is broad agreement across the literature that an individual's quality of life upon release influences their likelihood of repeat offending in young adulthood (Mallett, 2013). Pereira and Maia (2017) conducted a study analyzing the relationship between criminal history and reoffending rate among Portuguese prisoners and concluded that quality of life was a significant influencer of criminal thinking among former inmates. Those surrounded by low-quality-of-life indicators faced higher risks of recidivism.

These findings were replicated by Barett and Katsiyannis (2015), who analyzed the effect of demographic elements—particularly race—on recidivism rates among juveniles in South Carolina. Like Pereira and Maia (2017), the study found a significant likelihood of recidivism in young adults with a history of juvenile delinquency, as well as among African Americans, with police presence, crime, and poverty emerging as significant factors. Although both studies adopt similar approaches, Barett and Katsiyannis (2015) focus on demographic variables in predicting recidivism risk, a dimension that Pereira and Maia (2017) did not address.

A study by Grunwald et al. (2010) also reported a strong association between quality-of-life indicators—specifically neighborhood characteristics—and the risk of recidivism. Like Barett and Katsiyannis (2015), Grunwald et al. (2010) found a positive correlation between neighborhood disorganization, childhood poverty, drug use, mental illness, socioeconomic status, and negative family dynamics and the risk of reoffending upon release. However, unlike Barett and Katsiyannis (2015), Grunwald et al. (2010) found no significant relationship between police presence and recidivism risk.

Grunwald et al. (2010) introduced environmental factors in explaining criminal behavior—a finding replicated by Mulder et al. (2010). Based on social control theory, Mulder et al. (2010) established that child neglect, family breakdown, and high neighborhood crime rates significantly impact juveniles' chances of reoffending upon release from incarceration. Ryan et al. (2013) also analyzed the effect of parental attachment—specifically child neglect—on recidivism risk, using statewide data on youth involved in the childcare system. The study found a significant positive correlation between the risk of repeat offense and child neglect, particularly being in foster care. Based on this evidence, early interventions for children in foster care and supportive services for parents accused of neglect or abuse appear warranted.

Ryan et al. (2013) also introduced the vital dimension of time, establishing that approximately 61% of convicted youths who recidivated did so within 18 months of their initial arrest. This finding is intriguing: youth are released and re-offend—and are re-incarcerated—very quickly. This may be linked to Mulder et al.'s (2010) finding that the environment into which a juvenile is placed immediately upon release has a significant impact on their recidivism risk. Studies focused on the time elapsed between release and re-arrest among juvenile offenders remain limited, making this a key area for future research.

Studies contend that most offenders have difficulty obtaining employment upon release from incarceration, which increases their risk of reoffending (Ramakers et al., 2017; Nally et al., 2014). However, researchers have differed on whether post-incarceration employment actually reduces recidivism risk. A study by Tripodi, Kim, and Bender (2009) exploring the relationship between employment and recidivism for parolees found that post-incarceration employment did not significantly decrease the likelihood of recidivism but only increased the time before re-incarceration. In other words, parolees who secured employment spent more time crime-free in the community before ultimately returning to prison (Tripodi et al., 2009).

More recent studies have found a positive association between unemployment and recidivism risk. In their five-year follow-up study, Nally et al. (2014) found a negative association between post-release employment and recidivism, though employment rates varied with the nature of the crime for which one was incarcerated. Their findings place drug and sex offenders at the highest risk of post-incarceration unemployment and non-violent offenders at the lowest risk (Nally et al., 2014). These findings conflict with those of Bhuller et al. (2016), who found a significant association between post-incarceration employment and recidivism but found no significant association between the nature of the crime and the employment rate. Both studies, however, found evidence of a negative association between incarceration and employment prospects.

Regarding why former inmates are less likely to obtain employment upon release, researchers contend that unemployment among ex-convicts is mainly due to a lack of skills, selection effects, and social barriers. According to Bhuller et al. (2016), selection has the most significant influence, with most employers unwilling to hire former inmates for fear of reputational damage. Other studies have shown that the risk of recidivism depends not only on securing employment but also on the nature of that employment. In their longitudinal study examining recidivism rates among Dutch prisoners, Ramakers et al. (2017) found that former inmates were less likely to be employed in higher-occupational-level positions (stable jobs), arguing that most ex-prisoners lack the required skills and must settle for less stable employment. However, Bhuller et al. (2016) contend that selection—rather than lack of skills—is the primary barrier to employment for ex-prisoners.

Both Bhuller et al. (2016) and Ramakers et al. (2017) agree that post-incarceration unemployment increases recidivism risk, but Ramakers et al. (2017) further argue that the type of employment also matters: jobs with higher occupational stability are associated with lower recidivism risks than less stable jobs. This finding was replicated by Schnepel (2018), who found that employment in manufacturing and construction industries helped reduce recidivism, while other types of jobs characterized by low wages did not have the same effect. More research is needed to understand accurately the role of job stability in influencing recidivism. However, these findings collectively point to the need to enhance offenders' opportunities to obtain stable employment upon release as a means of minimizing recidivism risk.

There is consensus across the literature that juvenile delinquency is associated with a high risk of future reoffending. Studies have shown a negative correlation between quality-of-life indicators and recidivism risk, and there is evidence of a significant relationship between the nature of the offense and the risk of recidivism, with offenders involved in violent crime reporting higher reoffending rates. Notably, however, most of these studies adopt a general approach without specifically focusing on juveniles.

Furthermore, most existing studies focus on exacerbating recidivism influences outside the criminal justice system, with little attention to the factors that influence recidivism during incarceration. The proposed study seeks to address these gaps by examining the following questions: What factors exacerbate the risk of recidivism among juvenile offenders? What interventions would help to reduce that risk? The ultimate aim is to develop an intervention manual to minimize recidivism risk based on the identified aggravating factors.

Theoretical Framework: Social Learning Theory

The development of the intervention manual is guided by the precepts of Albert Bandura's social learning theory. The theory suggests that individuals learn by observing others' actions and the negative or positive consequences associated with those actions (Hunter-Reel, 2013). The theory rests on two fundamental assumptions. The first is that humans are naturally social and learn through social interactions such as reciprocal teaching, apprenticeships, and collaborations (Hunter-Reel, 2013). The second is that human beings have significant control over their actions and environments and can therefore meaningfully shape their own learning (Hunter-Reel, 2013). The proposed study uses the precepts of social learning theory to develop an intervention manual that shows how juvenile intervention programs should be structured to enhance learning, reduce criminal inclinations, and minimize the risk of reoffending.

Several studies have employed social learning theory within the context of offender rehabilitation in correctional facilities. Sundnt et al. (2014) sought to determine the extent to which prison chaplain rehabilitation programs employed social learning theory precepts. The study was based on Andrews and Kiessling's findings, which showed that correctional counseling interventions rooted in social learning theory are associated with lower offender recidivism rates (Sundnt et al., 2014). The researchers interviewed prison chaplains on how they used education, changed values through religion, taught vocational skills, or helped offenders address emotional problems. They also sought to identify how frequently chaplains offered support therapy, group counseling, client-centered counseling, and behavioral methods. The study concluded that chaplains who employed rehabilitation interventions rooted in social learning theory assumptions were associated with lower reoffending risks than those who did not emphasize these approaches (Sundnt et al., 2014).

Another study by Phipps et al. (2001) used offenders themselves as participants to determine the effect of selected rehabilitation interventions on crime outcomes, operating on the assumption that programs rooted in social learning theory are likely to significantly affect offenders' outcomes. The study found that programs promoting effective interaction among offenders were more effective than those that limited interactions. For drug-involved offenders, drug treatment programs in the community were more effective than adult drug courts, in-prison therapeutic communities (with or without aftercare), and cognitive-behavioral therapy in reducing criminal outcomes upon release (Phipps et al., 2001). Therapeutic community programs were also more effective than jail diversion programs for reducing criminal outcomes among offenders with mental illness (Phipps et al., 2001).

For sex offenders, the study established that faith-based programs were the most effective in reducing criminal outcomes (Phipps et al., 2001). Interventions such as psychotherapy, cognitive-behavioral treatment, and behavioral treatment were less effective for this group (Phipps et al., 2001). A comparison of intermediate sanctions found treatment-oriented approaches to be more effective than surveillance-based approaches, regular supervision, boot camps, and electronic monitoring (Phipps et al., 2001). Although the study does not directly cite social learning theory, its findings indicate greater efficacy for interventions that promote learning and enhance social interactions.

A further study by Davis et al. (2013) sought to determine whether correctional education significantly affected recidivism risk upon release. The study found that correctional education programs reduced the risk of re-arrest within three years of release by 12.9 percentage points (Davis et al., 2013). The researchers also found that the impact of such programs depends on the type of instruction method used, with significant effects for instructional techniques that promote learning through interaction with instructors and college faculty external to the correctional facility (Davis et al., 2013). The researchers explain their findings through the lens of social learning theory: because learning occurs by observing and learning from others' experiences, offenders develop an admiration for the freedom and knowledge that people outside the facility possess, and this admiration reduces their inclination to recidivate (Davis et al., 2013).

Although social learning theory was selected as the guiding framework for this study, the relevance of other theories—such as social bond theory and social disorganization theory—cannot be dismissed. Social bond theory was ultimately set aside because of its assumption that human beings are naturally self-interested and do not require external motivation to commit crime. The proposed study seeks to minimize the risk of community influences, which are external stimuli; an assumption that external stimuli do not influence criminal behavior therefore does not fit the study's context. Social disorganization theory, in turn, emphasizes changes in ecological structures such as racial composition—factors that are beyond the scope of this study.