Juvenile Justice Recidivism of Youth Enrolled in Wraparound
June 1 , 2012 –June 30, 2014
Wraparound Milwaukee views the collection of recidivism data as an important accountability measure
that allows for the monitoring of the internal program (supporting evidence-based practice), providing
data for gauging continuous quality improvement, and keeping all interested stakeholders and the
community-at-large informed.
This is the fifth report of an ongoing data collection and study on recidivism in Wraparound Milwaukee.
Consistent with the outcomes of the previous four studies (September 2010, February 2011, June
2012, September 2012), the rates of recidivism appear to be stable across time.
In line with the recommendations by the Public Policy Forum who completed a recidivism study for
Delinquency and Court Services (July 2012), this study will capture a 2 year period of time which will
allow for the tracking of any fluctuations in outcomes that may be related to programmatic changes.
The study explored the following areas:
I.
II.
III.
IV.
The overall recidivism during enrollment
The re-offending pattern across time in Wraparound
A discrete look at the high risk populations
Investigation of Multiple Offenders
Population:
Youth enrolled in Wraparound are adjudicated delinquents and are a sub set of youth within the
Juvenile Justice System who are placed on supervision with Delinquency and Court Services. They
represent about 40% of youth on probation. Additionally, these youth exhibit mental health and
significant emotional needs which identifies them as having the most complex needs amongst the
adjudicated population.
Youth enrolled in Wraparound must have serious mental health challenges and meet the State
definition for the Severe Emotional Disturbance. The criteria include: 1. A Diagnostic and Statistical
Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV-TR) diagnosis 2. A functional impairment (in 2 or more areas)
compared to expected developmental levels in school, community, the family, self care or with social
relationships 3. Is receiving services from two or more service systems and 4. The disability must have
persisted for six months and be expected to persist for a year or longer.
Through collaboration with the Delinquency and Court Services Division of Milwaukee County,
Wraparound Milwaukee obtains data of referrals to Juvenile Court for new charges for all youth who reoffend while enrolled in Wraparound. The decision to use referral data is based on access and timelines
of data acquisition. It is important to note that there is no perfect approach. Using referral data over-
estimates the population while
adjudication data under-estimates
the population. As with any research,
the reader should be cognizant of the
definitions used.
Chart 1: Distribution of Males & Females in
Wraparound (n=1091)
Percentage of
Females in
Wraparound
Percentage of
Males Wraparound
19.34%
80.66%
The population considered in this
study includes all youth who were
enrolled in Wraparound anytime
between June 1, 2012 and June 30, 2014. There were a total of 1091 youth with delinquency orders
that were being served during this time period, of which 880 were males and 211 were females (see
Chart 1).
The Outcomes:
Chart 2: Overall Recidivism Rate for
Wraparound Milwaukee (n= 1091)
I. Recidivism during Wraparound
Enrollment
14.20%
Overall Recidivism Rates:
Fourteen percent (155 youth out of
the total population of 1091)
exhibited new, referred offenses
during enrollment in Wraparound.
The balance of youth (936) had not
re-offended (see Chart 2)
Percent Re-offending
Percent with no
Re-offenses
85.80%
Chart 3: Male & Female Re-offenders in the Total
Wraparound Population (n=1091)
11.82%
2.38%
Proportionally there are a greater
percentage of males (11.82%) that
recidivate compared to 2.38% of the
female population in Wraparound.
The re-offense pattern across gender
lines in the total Wraparound
population can be viewed in Chart 3.
However, the percentage of females
re-offending (12.32%) in the total
female population of 211 is not
significantly different (p >.3) than the
percentage (14.65%) of males reoffending in the total male
population. (See chart 4)
Percentage of Male
Re-offenders
Percentage of Female
Re-offenders
85.79%
Percentage of
Non-Reoffenders
Chart 4: Male & Female Re-offenders in each
Gender Specific Population
100%
80%
185
751
60%
Non Re-offenders
40%
Re-offenders
20%
0%
26
129
Total Female
Population
Total Male
Population
II. Re-offending Patterns
Within the framework of 24 months,
Chart 5: Re-offending Pattern of All Youth in
the exploration of these outcomes
Wraparound in the First 24 Months of Program
provides a snapshot pattern of
50.00%
recidivism across time (see Chart 5).
40.00%
The analysis reveals a general trend
30.00%
of decreased recidivism between the
first and 15th month of participation
20.00%
in Wraparound. Although there is
10.00%
some leveling off across time, youth
0.00%
who re-offend do so at significantly
<3
4-6
7-9
10-12 13-15 16-18 19-21 22-24
higher rates earlier in the program,
Time to Re-Offense in Months
and the number that recidivate
decreases as the youth becomes more engaged in the program (p<.0001 confidence level between the
1-3 month cluster and the 10-12 month clusters respectively). This re-offending pattern has been
consistently the same in all 5 studies of recidivism. There are a few implications of these outcomes.
First, that it takes time to establish engagement and commitment to the program and therefore, this
pattern of re-offending would be expected. This data also reveals that youth are most vulnerable for reoffending very early in the program. This strongly suggests that attention to ameliorating risk factors
related to re-offending should be addressed immediately and directly by the family team when the
youth enters the program.
Offenses:
Chart 6 represents the array of
Chart 6: Intake Offense vs Re-Offense Type
offense types and a comparison of
Comparison
45.00%
the shifts in offenses when youth
40.00%
re-offend. Essentially, the data
35.00%
30.00%
reveals that with this population, the
25.00%
highest percentages of offenses are
20.00%
15.00%
ones of property and the lowest
10.00%
incidence are sexual and drug
5.00%
0.00%
related. Although there are some
Property Disorderly Assault
Weapons
Drugs
minor percentage shifts, there are
Conduct
no statistically significant differences
Intake
42.60%
25.80%
12.90%
12.90%
0%
Reoffense
37.40%
29.80%
15.50%
9.70%
4.51%
in any of the categories between the
percentage of intake offenses and the corresponding re-offenses.
Sexual
5.80%
3.22%
Offense Code Analysis:
For the 155 that re-offended, data
Chart 7: Change in Offense Level
was collected to assess shifts in
90
offense codes (misdemeanor to
No Change in Offense
80
felony or felony to misdemeanor)
Code
70
from enrollment to re-offense;
Misdemeanor to Felony
60
essentially trying to answer the
50
Felony to Misdemeanor
question of whether offending
40
behaviors become more severe or
JIPS to Misdemeanor
30
less severe during enrollment (see
20
Chart 7). According to the data, the
JIPS to Felony
10
overwhelming number of youth
0
continued to offend at essentially the
same severity level as they did when entering Wraparound.
A break-out of the 28 youth that came originally into Wraparound on Juveniles in Need of Protection or
Services orders (JIPS) and then offended reveals that they engage in an equal number of felony and
misdemeanor offenses. Further investigation of how Wraparound can influence the severity of
recidivism offenses of the entire population of re-offenders is warranted.
III. High Risk Recidivism
The high risk group is identified
Chart 8: Percentage of High Risk Youth in
during the intake process based on
Wraparound Milwaukee (n=1091)
key historical and behavioral markers,
as well as a clinical review that
34.92%
Percentage of Nondepicts them as dangerous to
High Risk in the
Wraparound Population
themselves or others. Chart 8
represents the overall percentage of
65.01%
Percentage of High Risk
high risk youth in regular
Re-offenders
Wraparound. This high risk group,
totaling 381 youth, revealed an
overall lower recidivism rate of 9.4 %( 36/381 high risk youth) than the non risk re-offenders (16.76% or
117/710 non high risk youth.)
This high risk group is comprised of 2
Chart 9: Comparison of Non High Risk Re-offenders,
distinct sub-groupings; (1) those that
Non JSO High Risk and JSO Re-offenders (n= 155)
have been identified as high risk with
Percentage of Non-JSO
no sexual offense history (n=233);
13%
High Risk Re-offenders
10%
and (2) those that are adjudicated sex
Percentage of High Risk
offenders (JSO) (n=148). A separate
JSO Re-offenders
77%
analysis of the high risk groups was
Percentage of Non High
Risk Re-ofenders
conducted; the two high risk
populations (High Risk and High Risk
Juvenile Sex Offenders (JSO) were compared to the re-offenders that were not designated high risk. Of
the total re-offender population, only 15 or 10% are JSO youth and 21 or 13% are high risk youth
without sexual offense history. As seen on Chart 9, the high risk groups continue to evidence a lower
recidivism rate. The data reveals that the high risk groups recidivated significantly less than the Nonhigh Risk youth (p<.0009). A reasonable explanation appears to be related to the added intervention
programming applied to the High Risk population. Although the essential principals of Wraparound are
delivered to all groups, the high risk group receives more specialized clinical and administrative
oversight aimed at ensuring consistent application of best practices and clinical risk management
interventions.
IV. Multiple Re-offenders
According to the data, 39.4%
Chart 10: Recidivism Rate of Multiple Re-offenders
(61/155) of the re-offenders are
within the Total Re-offending Population (n=155)
multiple offenders (see chart 10.)
This suggests that the likelihood of
39.40%
Number of Multiple
committing multiple offenses once a
60.60%
Re-offenders
single re-offense has occurred is
Number of Single
significant. This general level of
Re-offenders
multiple re-offense has been
relatively consistent across the past
recidivism studies. It is also true,
Chart 11: Male & Female Multiple Re-offenders in
however, that 60.6% (94/155) of reeach Gender Specific Population
offenders only recidivated once.
100%
90%
18
76
Analyzing this data across gender
80%
70%
lines reveals that 42% of male reSingle Re-offenders
60%
offenders are arrested for multiple
50%
40%
Multiple Re-offenders
crimes and 28% of female re30%
20%
offenders are arrested for multiple
10%
7
54
crimes (see chart 11.) Although, it
0%
Total Female Population Total Male Population
appears on face that the likelihood
that female re-offenders will exhibit multiple offenses is less than males, statistically this difference is
not significant (p=.1902). The notion that females exhibit multiple offenses at a lower rate than males
is rejected. Therefore, awareness and support of females throughout the Wraparound process should
be implemented with the same measure of vigilance as for the male population.
Conclusions:
As recommended by the Public Policy Forum, there has been a shift in the data collection process so that
the outcomes are evaluated and reported in 2 year intervals. This allows for a connection between
recidivism data and the present workings of Wraparound. So as Wraparound evolves and changes
across time, the responsiveness of the recidivism data can also be analyzed specific to those
programmatic time periods.
The recidivism rate for youth enrolled in Wraparound Milwaukee remains stable and low. The overall
recidivism rate for the current two-year time period between June 1, 2012 and June 30, 2014 is 14.2%
(n=155/1091). The range of recidivism in the past five annual studies, beginning with October 2009 is
from 11.9% to 21%. The mean recidivism rate over this same period is 16.6%. It can be further
concluded that the outcomes from the high risk population suggest that the additional best evidencebased practice interventions that take place has discernible effects.
In summary the following results have been revealed through this research:
 Overall recidivism remains low
 A pattern of early re-offense behaviors (<3 months), suggest that youth need time to engage in
the program and therefore, close attention to youth during this critical time is vital
 High risk youth in fact have significantly lower recidivism rates
 More in-depth investigation of multiple re-offenders is necessary
In general, this data supports the assertion that Wraparound Milwaukee is a cost-effective approach to
reducing youth crime and the harmful impact it has on the community, participants’ families, and the
participants themselves.
Respectfully submitted,
Pnina Goldfarb, Ph.D.