EDORA
Skip to content
∑

EDORA • Learn

Justice Index ¡ Advocacy Lab ¡ Field Guide

EDORA Learn — Articles

← Back to Learning Center

Recidivism & Reentry

Leaving the system isn’t the end of a youth’s story—it’s the hardest chapter to write. Recidivism and reentry outcomes tell us how well systems prepare young people to return home, reconnect to school, and avoid new system contact.

Introduction: The Measure of Success

Policymakers often judge programs by a single number: the recidivism rate. But that rate can mean many things depending on how it’s defined. Some states count re-arrests, others new adjudications or returns to placement. What matters more than the number itself is whether reentry programs give youth a fair chance to succeed in the first place.

A 12-month return rate doesn’t capture a youth’s story—whether they found stable housing, stayed in school, or rebuilt family ties. True reform measures progress in life outcomes, not just system contact.

Key Findings

  • Definitions vary widely: Arkansas and Missouri track reoffending within 12 and 24 months, while Louisiana reports new adjudications only.
  • Aftercare matters: Youth who receive coordinated aftercare are up to 30% less likely to return within a year.
  • Education continuity predicts stability: Reenrolling within 30 days of release correlates with lower recidivism.
  • Rural access gaps persist: In some counties, youth travel hours for post-release supervision or therapy.

State Comparisons

Arkansas reports a one-year return-to-custody rate near 35%, down from 42% in 2017. Texas shows lower rates among youth completing reentry programs that include job placement and counseling. Louisiana highlights its “Credible Messenger” program—pairing mentors with returning youth—as a promising model for reducing technical violations.

Missouri’s regional group home system continues to show long-term advantages, with stronger education continuity and family contact, while Oklahoma reports progress in linking parole youth directly to behavioral health caseworkers within 7 days of release.

What Works

  • Pre-release planning: Youth should meet their reentry team and service providers before leaving placement.
  • Warm handoffs: Smooth transitions between facility staff and community providers prevent service gaps.
  • Education and employment bridges: Coordinated re-enrollment and workforce connections stabilize reentry.
  • Coaching models: Mentor-style supervision builds accountability through relationships, not compliance checks.

Future Outlook

The next evolution of reentry tracking is longitudinal. Instead of stopping at 12 months, states are beginning to follow youth for two to five years after release. This broader lens captures education, employment, and health outcomes alongside new offenses.

Advances in cross-agency data sharing—between juvenile justice, education, workforce, and health departments—will soon make it possible to measure long-term impact, not just short-term returns. That’s the difference between counting recidivism and understanding recovery.

Sources

  • Arkansas Division of Youth Services Recidivism Reports (2017–2024)
  • Texas Juvenile Justice Department: Reentry Evaluation Series
  • Missouri DYS: Aftercare Outcomes Study
  • Louisiana Office of Juvenile Justice Annual Review (OJJ, 2023)
  • OJJDP Recidivism Measurement Toolkit (2022)

Related reading: Screening & Risk Tools — where the journey begins.