Measuring the outcomes of criminal justice interventions should include recidivism, but exclusive reliance on recidivism is ill-advised and potentially reckless.
Measuring the outcomes of criminal justice interventions should include recidivism, but exclusive reliance on recidivism is ill-advised and potentially reckless.
Building the CVI evidence base for the future will require theoretically informed, intentionally causal evaluation studies.
Crime data can inform news reporting across many topics, from local government and legal affairs to economics and immigration. It’s important to know where to find reliable data and how to use it responsibly.
Public officials may point to “juvenile” crime when responding to public concerns about community safety. Recent statements by federal officials echo the political rhetoric of the 1990s when politicians across the country blamed young people for what were actually generalized increases in crime.
The Research and Evaluation Center at John Jay College of Criminal Justice reviewed some of the innovative programs operated by Maryland’s Department of Juvenile Services, including “The Thrive Academy” (TTA) and an intervention strategy known as “Safer Stronger Together” (SST).
Despite various shortcomings, the research team found important indicators that suggest positive benefits of the State initiatives to prevent crime and violence. When researchers analyzed violent and property index crimes (i.e., aggravated assault, robbery, burglary, and larceny), the change in crime occurrences sometimes varied by the amount of funding received. Using 2010 as the base year and tracking crime rates through 2023, researchers found that total index crimes dropped 14 percent in counties receiving funding, but index crimes grew 13 percent in counties that received no funding for the three main initiatives.