Between 2010 and 2019, more than 42,000 youths became involved with the Harris County juvenile justice system. Their alleged offenses range from a single, minor transgression to repeated involvement in violent crimes. By the time they "aged out" at 17, their experiences with the juvenile justice system showed striking differences. Some came into contact with the system only once, while others had multiple interactions. Some spent large amounts of time in pre-adjudicated detention or residential placement, while others were supervised at home. By analyzing their histories, individual characteristics, and the system as a whole, we can answer critical questions about the nature of their interactions and explore the possibility of systems-level change based on those insights.
In this report, we use data to describe the multiple ways in which youths interact with the Harris County Juvenile Justice System.
Using detailed referral data, the tables and figures we present here analyze the entire history of interactions of justice-involved youths, from the time of their first contact with the system until they reached age 17—a period we will refer to as the youth's lifetime in the system, or lifetime.
Instead of focusing on the youths in the system right now, analyzing the entire history of youths who were involved with the system at some point in their adolescence has various advantages. First, it allows us look at the system as a whole by following a large number of youths during a critical window of time: their adolescence. Second, organizing the data this way enables us to describe their experiences, such as how frequently are youths involved with the system. Third, we are able to explore how the characteristics of youths’ interactions with the system change as some youths have repeated interactions. This historical approach can help us understand whether information available at the time of initial contact with the system can be used to proactively identify youths who are at higher risk of repeated involvement. Ultimately, this opens up the possibility of systems-level change through studying the impact of various decisions on youths' trajectories.
Because we are interested in youths' entire history of (lifetime) contacts, we restrict our analysis to the sample of youths for whom we observe all possible contacts. Thus, all the youths in our sample have already aged out (turned 17 years old) by 2019. These exclude youths who, for example, had their first contact with the system at age 14 in 2018 as these youths were still "in the system" in 2019. Thus, this report takes a historical look at the Harris County Juvenile Justice System, reflecting the system as it was experienced by youths who are no longer under its jurisdiction. This implies that any recent changes to the juvenile justice system will not be captured by this report, or will only be captured to the extent they were experienced by some of the youths who aged out very recently. This includes any changes in overall policies and approaches that may have been implemented during the past few years. For the same reason, this report will not reflect any changes in the operation of the juvenile justice system prompted by the COVID-19 pandemic.
We divide the report into three sections.
In Involvement characteristics, you will see the general characteristics of youths in our sample and the range of lifetime contacts with the system.
In Involvement trajectories, you will see how offense, detention, disposition, and other outcomes evolved as (some) youths had repeated interactions with the system.
In First contact and lifetime involvement, you can explore the characteristics and decisions associated with a youth's first contact with the system, understanding that this initial contact may foreshadow a youth's entire history of involvement.
The analysis in this report provides a detailed representation of the multiple ways in which youths interact with the Harris County juvenile justice system. It looks at the overall level of involvement of youths with the system, as measured by the number of contacts or referrals accumulated throughout their lives. It also explores how those contacts, and the ways in which the system reacted to them, changed as some youths became repeatedly involved with the system. Furthermore, it explores the extent to which information available at the time of a youth's first contact with the system may or may not help identify youths who could benefit from preventative and rehabilitative programs. Overall, three broad conclusions arise from this descriptive analysis.
- While the majority of youths had one single contact with the system, a small group of justice-involved youths accounted for a disproportionately high share of referrals. Even among youths whose first contact occurred at very early ages, the majority of youths in this analysis had only one contact with the system. However, a disproportionately high share of referrals was concentrated among a relatively small group of youths. These facts highlight the importance of accurately identifying youths' needs early on to prevent future involvement with the system. Furthermore, if these needs can be accurately anticipated, preventative programs could target a relatively small share of youths. (See the Involvement characteristics section for more on this conclusion)
- The percentage of felonies increased only moderately with the number of contacts. However, the consequences for those who became repeatedly involved with the system grew substantially more severe. For example, among boys, roughly one out of every three contacts includes a felony, regardless of whether it is the youth's first, second, or fourth contact. At the same time, the system’s treatment of youths who became repeatedly involved increased in severity. The total time spent in pre-adjudicated detention, for instance, increased substantially with the number of contacts. Similarly, dispositions stiffened from Deferred Adjudication and Deferred Prosecution to Probation and Placements as youths became repeatedly involved with the system. Thus, the data show a system that punished offense repetition beyond the severity of the offenses. Therefore, youths who became repeatedly involved with the system were increasingly more likely to be pushed towards more punitive and restrictive parts of the system. Furthermore, youths of color were generally more likely to be detained and to receive relatively more severe dispositions. Thus, these patterns disproportionately affected them and may have further exacerbated racial disparities in the system. (See the Involvement trajectories section for more on this conclusion)
- A felony in the first contact, often used to measure risk of future involvement, is not associated with repeated interaction with the system for boys and only moderately for girls. The first two conclusions highlight the importance and potential benefit of early identification of youths who are at a higher risk of becoming repeatedly involved with the system. Thus, we study whether characteristics at the time of initial contact correlate with future involvement, as measured by the total number of contacts. The data show youths who had more contacts with the system were more likely to have had an earlier initial contact with the system. On the other hand, the data suggest boys who had more contacts with the system were not more likely to have a felony offense as part of their initial contact, a common measure used to assess risk (see example table for boys below). Among girls, those with more involvement were only moderately more likely to have a felony as part of their initial contact. Nevertheless, youths with more overall contacts were significantly more likely to spend any time in detention in their first contact, and less likely to receive a disposition of Deferred Prosecution or Deferred Adjudication during their first contact. This last observation, however, cannot be interpreted as evidence that these detention and disposition decisions led to the higher subsequent involvement of youths with the system. It could be the opposite, where the initial detention screening is actually successful in identifying youth who are more likely to return to the system. Further and rigorous research is needed to evaluate whether this is true. (See the First contact and lifetime involvement section for more on this conclusion)
We have designed this report in a way that encourages readers to engage with the data. Throughout this report, you can actively select different groups of youths to view various data points illustrating their involvement in the juvenile justice system and outcomes across their lifetime in the system. Using the controls located to the left of each page, you can apply filters based on sex, race, and age at first contact (however, some combinations of these filters may not be available due to small sample sizes).
In each section, we first introduce the tables and figures and provide a description of how these are organized. This description will walk you through each figure and provide guidance on how to read and interpret the data in it. We then provide a short analysis of the type of insights you can gather from these tables and figures, and highlight some key patterns or conclusions.
Finally, each of part of this report builds upon the facts and conclusions presented in previous sections. For instance, many sections are designed to dig deeper into key insights from the previous section. Thus, we suggest that readers first explore the report sequentially.
Contact or interaction: An incident for which the youth is referred to the juvenile justice system. In most cases, a contact will include a single alleged offense or violation of probation (a single referral). However, in some cases, the contact will include multiple alleged offenses. When this happens, the report will represent the group of alleged offenses in the contact using the most serious offense in the group. Similarly, as these multiple offenses may have different dispositions, the dashboard will display the most severe disposition in the group.
Lifetime: Refers to a youth’s lifetime in the system, from first contact until age 17.
Offenses: The report groups offenses into three broad categories: misdemeanors, felonies, technical violations of probation.
- Misdemeanor: low-level offenses. This report excludes class-C misdemeanors, the less serious kind, as these are not currently handled in the juvenile justice system.
- Felony: More serious offenses. They range from jail felony to capital felonies.
- Serious felony: A felony that involves actions against another person (including aggravated robberies) and are categorized as class 2 felonies or above.
- Technical violations of probation (VOPs): Violations of the terms of probation, as determined by a youth’s disposition of a prior case. These do not include new offenses.
Outcomes:
- Pre-adjudicated detention: Detention in a facility prior to the final decision on a youth’s case (Adjudication). Detention is not a punishment for the offense. Rather, it is thought as a preventative measure when the youths is considered to pose a risk to others or to ensure appearance in Court hearings. In practice, a youth is not formally detained until a Judge orders so, but can be admitted to detention prior to the hearing (which needs to occur within 48 hours of admission). This report does not differentiate between admissions and formal detentions.
Disposition: the final decision as to how a youth’s case will be handled. In some cases, these final decisions are made by a judge. In other cases, the District Attorney’s (DA) office will make a decision before the case is seen by a judge (i.e. without making a petition). In the dashboard, we have grouped all the possible dispositions of a youth’s case under the categories below.
- Non-suited/Dismissed: includes cases in which no probable cause was found, the case was withdrawn, or the case was dismissed by the judge.
- Pending: includes cases in which a final disposition has not been made at the time the data were obtained.
- Deferred Prosecution: is a disposition that involves some level of supervision from the Juvenile Probation Department. By making this decision, the DA chooses not to petition the Court to see the case, diverting the youth from the system. If the youth fails the conditions of supervision, the DA may choose to continue with the prosecution of the case and petition the Court.
- Deferred Adjudication: is a disposition that involves some supervision from the Juvenile Probation Department. As opposed to Deferred Prosecution, the decision is made after the case has been petitioned. Following the supervision period, a final decision is issued on the case. This final decision might involve another disposition (such as probation) or a dismissal of the case.
- Probation: is a disposition that puts the youth under strict supervision of the Juvenile Probation Department for a specified period ordered by a judge. However, the youth is placed under the custody of his/her family or legal guardians, hence avoiding any out-of-home placement.
- HCJPD Placement is a disposition that involves out-of-home placement in local facilities. Under this disposition, youths are placed on probation and under the custody of the Juvenile Probation Department (HCJPD). Usually, the probationary period, and its corresponding supervision, continues when the youth returns to the custody of their families.
- TJJD is a disposition that involves out-of-home placement in state facilities run by the Texas Juvenile Justice Department (TJJD). Under this disposition, youths are placed on probation and under the custody of the Juvenile Probation Department (HCJPD). Usually, the probationary period, and its corresponding supervision, continues when the youth returns to the custody of their families.
This report uses referral data provided by the Harris County Juvenile Probation Department (HCJPD). The data include youth, offense, detention, disposition, and placement records for all youths referred to HCJPD between 2010 and 2020. However, we limit the sample for our analysis to youths who were born between 2000 and 2002 and had their first contact with the system when they were between 12 and 16 years old. All youths in our sample aged out between 2017 and 2019. By limiting our sample in this way, we look only at youths who have already aged out (turned 17). For this group of youths, we observe all possible contacts with the Harris County juvenile justice system. Figure 1 shows the year in which the first contact occurred for youths in our sample, by age at first contact. For example, the youths in our sample who had their first contact at age 13 (light blue line) had their first contact with the system between 2013 and 2016. Hovering over each line displays the number of youths in our sample for each combination of year of first contact and age at first contact.
As shown in the previous figure, we will often group youths based on their age at the time of first contact with the system. By grouping youths in this way, we are able to uncover potential differences and similarities between the types of youths who tend to have an earlier or later initial contact with the system. Furthermore, separating youths into these groups allows us to properly characterize the evolution of their involvement at each age following their initial contact.
A note about analyzing lifetime outcomes: Youths whose first contact occurs earlier in life have a longer window of time to have a subsequent contact with the system. Thus, when analyzing lifetime outcomes, such as the total number of referrals, it will be important to differentiate youths based on their age at initial contact.
A note about aging out: In Texas, a youth is no longer under the jurisdiction of the Juvenile Court when he or she turns 17 years old. However, some youths are still under the supervision of the HCJPD after they turn 17. For example, a youth could be referred when he is 16 and then receive a disposition of probation, with his probationary period extending beyond his 17th birthday. For the purposes of this report, and to use the same criteria to analyze all youths who could have a contact with the system, we use only data for referrals occurring before a youth's 17th birthday.
We begin by exploring the characteristics of the youths in our sample. You can select whether you want to display the table for boys or girls. For boys, you can also filter down by race/ethnicity (this is not possible for girls due to small sample sizes).
Reading the tables in this section
We group youths by their ages at first contact, which are presented in different columns in the table below.
- Top section: Number and share of youths in each group. For example, among boys in our sample, only 8% of them had their first contact with the system when they were 12, while 30% had their first contact at age 16. These shares are almost identical for girls.
- Middle section: Continues description and presents the share of youths in each group, as defined by the age at first contact, who are classified under each racial or ethnic category. As it can be seen, the racial composition does not seem to vary with age at first contact. This is true for both boys and girls.
- Bottom section: Different statistics characterizing the overall involvement of youths in each group. Most of the rates presented in this section are lifetime rates. For example, Referrals per youth aggregates, for each youth, the total number of referrals from the time of first contact until he or she turns 17 years old. Nevertheless, few rates, such as % youth with felony at first contact, do not aggregate over this entire period and are labeled accordingly.
Engaging with the data
What we see: We should expect fewer total contacts from youths whose first contact with the system happened at an older age, as they have fewer years to be subsequently involved with the system. This mechanism may explain some of the differences in the total number of contacts we observe for youths with different ages at first contact, for example:
- Boys with first contact at age 12 have, on average, 2.9 total referrals between age 12 and age 16
- Boys with first contact at age 16 have only 1.3 total referrals
Interpretation: This mechanical difference is not the only possible explanation for these differences in total involvement. It is also possible that youths with first contact at early ages are more likely to be involved with the system. These data are not sufficient to distinguish between these two explanations.
What we see: The two final rows of the table show the share of youths in each group with only one contact throughout their lives and the percent of those for whom their first contact included an alleged felony. Among the observations:
- Rates are similar independent of the age of first contact, both for females and males.
- The severity of the initial alleged offense is not different for youths whose initial contact with the system occurs at an earlier age, as compared with youths whose initial contact happens later.
- For girls and boys as well, the majority of youths have only one contact with the system throughout their whole lives. This is true regardless of age at first contact, although the share with only one contact increases with initial age, as expected.
- Nevertheless, the share of youths with a single contact is strongly correlated with race. Black boys are far less likely than white boys, for example, to have a single contact.
Interpretation: For most justice-involved youths, their involvement with the system was limited to a single contact. Only a fraction of youths had repeated interactions with the system. In the next sections, we explore in more detail the characteristics of these repeated contacts. Because youths of color, particularly black youths, are more likely to have more than one contact, the ways in which the system treated these repeated offenses disproportionately affects youths of color.
Reading the graphs in this section
The figure below groups youths by age at first contact and shows the proportion of youths in each of the groups who had any contact with the system, at any given age. By definition, all youths in each group have a contact with the system in the first age that corresponds to their group. Youths with contacts at any other age are not necessarily the same across the different ages.
Engaging with the data
Only a fraction of youths has a new contact with the system in the years following their initial contact. Indeed, less than 30% of boys have a new contact at any given age following their initial contact, while this percentage is always lower than one in five for girls. Thus, consistently with the data shown in the previous section, only a fraction of youths is engaged in a pattern of repeated interactions with the system. However, these patterns differ substantially by race, as the share of white youths with further contacts is considerably lower than the share for youths of color.
Reading the graphs in this section
The figure below characterizes the degree of involvement with the juvenile justice system by showing the distribution of various measures of lifetime interactions with the system. As shown by the first set of bars to the left, for a majority of justice-involved youths, their involvement with the system was limited to a single contact. For example, even among boys whose first contact happened at age 12, 52% of them had only one contact with the system. Nevertheless, there is a non-negligible fraction of youths who had multiple contacts with the system throughout their lives. Among these, some have only two contacts but a small group has a large number of contacts, represented by the bars that extend to the right.
Using the filters on the left, you can select different measures of involvement, such as referrals - overall and by type of alleged offense - or contacts (which may include multiple referrals from a single incident). For example, using felonies as the measure of involvement, the set of bars at the left end of the graph shows that a majority of youths have no felony referrals.
Engaging with the data
What we see: In general, these distributions show a high concentration of youths with one referral – or zero, in the case of felonies – and a tail that tapers off slowly. This provides evidence of three facts, some of which are not immediately obvious.
- There is a large amount of variation in terms of the total number of interactions, even among those with more than one contact.
- The relatively wide tail shows the group of youths with a very large number of contacts may account for a disproportionately large number of referrals.
- Consistent with previous graphs, the share of Black youths with large numbers of total contacts is considerably higher than the comparable share for white youths.
Interpretation: There is no sharp distinction between two broad groups of youths, one with only one contact and one with a large number of contacts. To the contrary, the data show that, even among youths with repeated interactions with the system, some may have few (e.g. only two) contacts while others may have more than five. This could be suggestive of similarly important differences in youths' needs, even among those with repeated contacts. We explore the extent to which this is true in the next section.
A small, yet relevant, fraction of youths has numerous lifetime contacts with the system. We now explore in more detail the extent to which referrals and contacts are concentrated among a relatively small group of youths.
Reading the graphs in this section
As in all of our previous graphs and tables, we group youths by age at first contact. To create the figure below, we rank youths from the highest to the lowest number of lifetime referrals (or any other measure of involvement). The horizontal axis in the figure represents this rank, going from highest (left) to lowest (right). For example, the 25% point in the horizontal axis corresponds to the 25% of youths with the most referrals. The vertical axis shows the fraction of referrals that corresponds to the group of youths in the horizontal axis. For example, a point with 25% on the horizontal axis and 50% on the vertical axis represents that the 25% of youths with the most referrals account for 50% of all referrals (among those with the same age at first contact). Thus, lines farther away from the 45-degree line represent a higher concentration of referrals among a relatively small number of youths.
The table below shows the concentration of referrals in a slightly different and more detailed way. For each group (as defined by the filters on the left), the table shows the proportion of youths with a specific number of referrals and the share of referrals that correspond to that group of youths. As an example, take the group of boys whose first contact occurred at age 14. There are 845 youths in this group with only one referral, so there were exactly 845 referrals associated with them. These 845 youths represent 51% of all youths in their group. However, their 845 referrals accounted for only 21% of referrals in their group. As we move down the table, the percentage of youths with a larger number of lifetime referrals start accounting for a disproportionately large share of all referrals in their group. For instance, the 112 youths with exactly four referrals represent only 7% of youths but accounted for 11% of all referrals.
Engaging with the data
What we see: The data show a pattern of concentration of referrals. For example, for boys whose first contact happened at age 15, more than half of referrals came from the 25% of youths with the most referrals. These patterns of concentration are more pronounced for youths with earlier initial contacts. These groups are represented by the navy and blue lines in the graph, which are noticeably higher (farther away from the 45-degree line) than the yellow and pink lines. Similarly, the data show a more pronounced concentration among boys than girls.
Interpretation: These data reinforce the importance of correctly identifying the needs of these youths, developing effective programs that prevent re-offending, and implementing rehabilitative interventions that limit the degree and severity of involvement among those who are involved in repeated offenses. The next section on the menu on the left, Involvement Trajectories, analyzes in more detail the characteristics of contacts as (some) youths became progressively more involved with the system.
In this section, we explore how key youth and referral characteristics changed as some youths became repeatedly involved with the juvenile justice system. To do this, most of the tables and figures in this section show statistics by contact number. For example, when looking at alleged offenses, we show the proportion of misdemeanors, felonies, and technical violations of probation (VOPs) for youths in their first contact with the system, their second contact with the system, and so on.
The figure below shows the total number of youths who had a first and subsequent contact, up to six-plus. Because there are 8,278 boys in our sample, and everyone in our sample had at least one contact with the system, there are 8,278 boys with a first contact—which is the bar chart on the left. Only 2,892 of those boys had two or more contacts, so there are 2,892 boys with a second contact. The last bar (to the right) groups all contacts that are the sixth or more for a given youth.
Using the tabs at the top, you can navigate to different parts of this section. The next three tabs show how offense distributions, detention outcomes, and dispositions change as youths had repeated contacts with the system. These allow us to explore whether youths became involved in more serious offenses as they had more and more contacts, whether they spent more time in detention (prior to adjudication), and the extent to which they received different types of dispositions. The next tab shows age patterns as the number of contacts increases. This will highlight the fact that youths with more contacts also tend to be older. Indeed, the last tab details how some of the same key outcomes change as youths aged. Thus, the reader should keep in mind that these graphs do not allow us to completely separate changes in outcomes related to repeated contacts from those related to a youth’s age or length in the system.
We begin by exploring how offenses changed as some youths had repeated contacts with the system. Specifically, we provide evidence of the extent to which youths became involved in more serious offenses as they had more and more contacts.
Reading the graphs in this section
The graph below organizes contacts by order. For each of these possible contacts, we show the proportion with a misdemeanor, felony, or technical violations of probation (VOPs) as the most serious offense. First contacts appear to the left of the graph. Because youths cannot be in probation before they have had any contact with the system, first contacts can only include felonies or misdemeanors. As we move towards the second contact and beyond, the bars start to include the category of VOP. For reference, at the right end of the graph we include the proportion of contacts involving each type of offense when we group all possible contacts.
Felony offenses, however, include a wide range of different kinds of offenses, both in terms of severity and type. In general, concerns about public safety revolve around violent and serious offenses. To this end, the graph below defines a serious felony as a felony that involves actions against another person (including aggravated robberies) which are also codified as category 2 felonies or above.
Engaging with the data
What we see: As the graphs for girls and boys illustrate, the data show only a moderate increase in the share of felony offenses as youths became involved in repeated contacts with the system. Among the observations:
- For boys, there is only a very moderate increase in the share of felonies as the contact order increases. Roughly one out of every three contacts included a felony, regardless of whether we look at youth's first, fourth, or sixth contact. For girls, there is a small difference in the share of felonies between the first contact and all subsequent contacts. However, even among those in their sixth contact or more, less than 30% include a felony offense.
- The share of felonies is slightly, and consistently, higher for Black youths than for white and Hispanic youths.
- The share of serious felonies increased at a higher rate than felonies in general. This pattern is more pronounced for white youths than for Black or Hispanic youths.
These same patterns hold in general for all groups of youths, regardless of age at first contact. However, as we move from the first contact to higher order ones, we can see a consistent decrease in the share of misdemeanors, which is corresponded by an almost equivalent increase in the share of technical VOPs (those not including a new offense). Thus, as a share of new offenses, felonies did increase with the number of contacts.
Interpretation: This means that those who did engage in new offenses, which are a subset of those in contact with the system, transitioned towards more severe offenses. When looking at serious felonies, the data show that, unlike felonies in general, the fraction of boys’ contacts involving serious felonies moderately increased as youths became repeatedly involved with the system. Thus, even though the fraction of contacts with felonies stayed almost constant, the types of felonies appears to have moderately shifted towards more serious offenses. This pattern is relatively more pronounced for some subgroups (e.g. white boys) than others (e.g. Hispanic boys). For girls, the data do not show a similar pattern: the figures suggest a difference between first contacts and repeated contacts, but not a consistent increase in the fraction of serious felonies with each additional contact.
In any given contact with the system, youths may or may not spend time in pre-adjudicated detention. A multitude of decisions, ranging from initial actions by law enforcement officials to formal decisions of judges during detention hearings, determines whether a specific youth is admitted to detention and how long he or she spends there. The figures below show the amount of time spent in pre-adjudicated detention, by contact number.
The next graph displays the number of days spent in detention, among those with any time in detention. We divide time in detention into five categories, with longer "stays" represented by darker shades. For boys, 17% of them spent more than a month in detention (the two darkest categories) during their first contact. This share grew to 45% by the fourth contact and 58% after the sixth contact. The same pattern can be observed for girls, for whom the share of those spending more than a month in detention, among those with any time in detention, grew from 13% to 58% between the first and fourth contacts. The second graph below displays the average number of days spent in detention, among those who spent any time in detention.
Reading the graphs in this section
The first graph shows the fraction of youths who spent any time in detention. For boys, the likelihood of spending any time in detention increases consistently with each contact. By the sixth contact, the fraction of youths with detention has jumped more than 50% (from under 10% to 15%). For girls, the likelihood of spending any time in detention is lower than it is for boys and increases only when we move from the first to the second contact.
Engaging with the data
What we see: The data show that youths who had repeated contacts with the system were more likely to spend time in detention. Moreover, for those with any time in detention, the total time spent in detention increased with each contact. Visually, this pattern is represented by the progressive darkening of the bars as the number of contacts increases.
Furthermore, the data show that Black and, to a lesser extent, Hispanic youths were more likely to be detained, especially for initial contacts. Likewise, white youths who were detained spent, on average, fewer time in detention. For example, the average time in detention for boys who were detained in their second contact was 43 days for black boys but only 23 days for white boys.
Interpretation: This increasing likelihood of detention and the increasing time in detention with each contact may be reflecting two potential causes. On the one hand, the system may be choosing to use detention more often in response to repeated offenses. On the other hand, the youths who are more likely to be detained may also tend to have more contacts. In this case, youths with a higher likelihood of detention will be overrepresented in the group with more contacts. These two explanations are not mutually exclusive.
On average, and for most contacts, Black and Hispanic youths are more likely to be detained, and spend more time in detention, than white youths. For boys (for whom we have more data available) detention rates only become comparable across groups after the fourth contact. Although some of these differences may be explained by differential severity of offenses (as seen in previous sections), the size of these differences suggest that offenses alone do not explain differences in detention rates.
We conclude the analysis of key referral outcomes by looking at how the referrals from different contacts were disposed.
Reading the graphs in this section
To simplify the visual analysis, the figure below combines different dispositions into six categories, based on the severity of their consequences for youths. Cases shown as Dismissed include both dismissed and non-suited cases. Even though Deferred Prosecutions and Deferred Adjudications have many substantive and procedural differences, we group them together in a single category based on the fact that both of these dispositions are similarly less punitive and restrictive than other dispositions. Probation includes cases were there was probation supervision without any out-of-home placement. Thus, cases under Placement include those who were placed in a residential facility under the supervision of the county’s juvenile probation department, even if they included a subsequent probationary period in the community.
Consequently, TJJD commitments are included in a separate category. Finally, the category Other contains very different dispositions whose only commonality is the fact that they represent a relatively low fraction of cases, which makes their separate visual representation and statistical analysis unfeasible (notably, youths certified as adults are included in this category). Nevertheless, to symbolize the fact that this category cannot be associated with a particular degree of severity, the figure displays it using a neutral gray color.
Engaging with the data
What we see: For youths in all groups, dispositions of referrals in their first contact tended to involve less severe consequences.
- In their first contact, 60% of boys and 71% of girls received a disposition of Deferred Prosecution or Deferred Adjudication. These rates are lower for Black youths than for Hispanic and white youths.
- In the second contact, the share of Deferred Prosecutions and Deferred Adjudications fell substantially (to 13% for boys, for example). This decrease was met with a large increase in Probation and Placement.
- As youths returned even beyond their second contact, Probation dispositions began to decrease, while local Placement and Texas Juvenile Justice Department (TJJD) commitments increased.
Interpretation: Once some youths had repeated involvements, decisions became more punitive. Overall, this figure suggests a system that punished offense repetition beyond the severity of those offenses, which, as shown in previous sections, did not increase at the same pace with the number of contacts. The evidence also suggests that black youths were more likely to receive more severe dispositions during their initial contacts. However, these disparities are no longer observable for youths after their third contact.
Reading the graphs in this section
The graph below shows the distribution of ages at the time of contact for contacts in each order. The first column shows the distribution of ages at first contact. As expected, as some youths had repeated contacts, the proportion of younger youths starts decreasing. Conversely, the proportion of 15- and 16-year-olds starts increasing. This is captured by the darkening of the graph (older ages) as we move to the right. To complement this information, the second graph below displays the average age by contact number. You can use the filters on the left to focus on youths based on their age at first contact.
Engaging with the data
What we see: There is a large amount of variation in how contacts are spread out over many possible years. For example, among boys whose first contact happened at age 14 and had at least three contacts with the system:
- 16% (75 youths) had those three contacts at age 14
- 24% (107 youths) had their third contact at age 16
Interpretation: This highlights the variability in the patterns of involvement, even among youths of the same gender, same age at first contact, with at least a given number of contacts (at least three in this example). Even among youths who share these characteristics, some youths had already accumulated several contacts within a year of their first contact, while others spread them out over multiple years.
Based on the close relation between age and contact order, we conclude this section by showing age-specific statistics for many of the outcomes we have discussed.
Reading the graphs in this section
Each table in this focuses on youths whose first contact happened at the same age, which can be selected using the filters on the left. Each row in the table summarizes all contacts that occurred at each age. Thus, by construction, the first row includes all youths in the group, as it presents statistics for the first possible age, shared by all youths in the group. The next rows show statistics related to the contacts of youths who had further involvement with the system at that specific age. The last row presents lifetime statistics, which aggregate all contacts for the youths in the group, across all possible ages.
Engaging with the data
What we see: For illustrative purposes, we focus on boys with first contact at age 13. Among them, only 25% of had a subsequent contact at age 14. For this group:
- The share of contacts with at least one felony is 40%
- 65% spend any time in detention
- 42% spend time under probation supervision (without out-of-home placement)
- 40% spend any time in a residential placement
Interpretation: Overall, these tables confirm the patterns described in previous sections. As youths with repeated offenses become older, their contacts are more likely to involve time in detention and relatively more severe or restrictive dispositions. This general pattern holds true regardless of the age at first contact.
As we have seen, most justice-involved youths' entire interaction with the system was limited to a single contact. Moreover, in most cases, this single contact did not involve a felony and received a less punitive disposition, such as Deferred Prosecution. However, a small yet crucial group of youths was involved in repeated contacts with the system. This, in turn, has been historically associated with a quick progression towards more severe dispositions, such as local placement and/or TJJD commitments. Based on these patterns, in this section we examine whether characteristics of youths at their initial contact provide useful information to identify youths who are more likely to have subsequent repeated contacts with the system. If this were the case, this information could be used to target preventative and rehabilitative interventions that address these youths' needs early on, thus aiming at preventing trajectories of potentially deep involvement with the system. We also explore how key outcomes of a youth's first contact may relate to subsequent repeated contacts, and consider how to interpret these potential associations.
Reading the tables in this section
The table below compares groups of youths in terms of their lifetime involvement, as measured by the number of contacts with the Harris County juvenile justice system between age 12 and age 16. Each column corresponds to one of these groups. For example, the first column shows statistics for youths who only had one contact with the system. The last column shows youths who had a total of five or more contacts with the system. The different rows show characteristics of the youths or their contact at the time of their first contact with the system. If these characteristics were significantly different, then this information could be used to identify youths who might be are risk of future involvement with the system, thus allowing to target preventative efforts to this group.
The first part of the table displays various characteristics of the offense or youth at the time of first contact. The rest of the table shows the referral source and age at time of first contact.
Engaging with the data
What we see: The first row shows the share of youths in each group whose first contact included a felony offense. Notably, a similar proportion of boys of all groups of youths was involved in a felony during their first contact. For example:
- Among boys with a single lifetime contact, 27% had a felony in their first (and only) contact.
- Among boys with five or more contacts, 28% of youths had a felony during their first contact.
The same pattern holds when we restrict the comparison to serious felonies (which we have defined as felony 2 and above involving an offense against another person). This pattern is also comparable across racial groups.
For girls, on the other hand, those with more subsequent contacts were more likely to be involved in a felony during their first contact. For example:
- Whereas only 15% of those with only one contact were involved in a felony during that contact, 23% of those with five or more lifetime contacts had a felony during their first contact.
- The only dimension with noticeable differences between groups is whether the initial contact involved multiple referrals (i.e. multiple offenses in the same incident).
There appear to be some minor differences with respect to the source of referral. The age profiles, on the other hand, are substantially different. For example:
- 54% of boys with five or more contacts were younger than 14 years old at the time of their first contact
- Only 22% of those with two lifetime contacts were these ages at the time of their initial contact
Interpretation: These tables allow us to explore whether differences existed at the time of first contacts, in terms of information available at the time, between youths who subsequently had more or less involvement with the system. If these characteristics were significantly different, then data and information available at the time of initial contact could be used to target programs aimed at preventing future involvement with the system. Notably, commonly used measures to assess risk, such as the characteristics of the alleged offense, are not predictive of future involvement. Among the characteristics included in these tables, only two appear to be correlated with future involvement: age at first contact and having more than one referral (charge) in the first contact. Of these two, age at first contact shows the strongest relationship to future involvement.
Reading the tables in this section
We conclude by presenting the association between lifetime involvement and detention and disposition outcomes during a youth's first contact. The tables below are structured in the same way as the ones in the previous section, with columns representing groups of youths defined by their total number of lifetime contacts. Thus, this table explores whether the experience during the first contact, in terms of detention and disposition outcomes, differs between youths who subsequently had more or less involvement with the system. For example, 59% of boys who had five or more lifetime contacts spent time in detention during their first contact, as opposed to 29% of those with a single contact.
Engaging with the data
What we see: The share of boys with detention among those with five or more contacts during their entire lifetime is almost twice as large (59%) than the same share for those with a single contact (29%). Similarly, future involvement is associated with more severe dispositions during the first contact. For example, 78% of girls with a single contact had Deferred Prosecution or Deferred Adjudication as a disposition in their first and only contact. On the contrary, only 31% of those who ended up having five or more contacts had any of these dispositions during their first contact. These patterns are comparable across racial groups.
Interpretation: In general, these tables show a positive association between spending any time in detention during the first contact and future involvement with the system. This is true for girls and boys, regardless of race. These tables show that youths with a higher degree of involvement, as measured by their total number of contacts with the system, were more likely to be detained and receive relatively more severe dispositions during their first contact. To the extent that youths of color, particularly black youths, are more likely to be detained and to receive relatively more severe dispositions than white youths, these patterns have a disproportionate effect on them.
However, it is very important to note that these associations do not necessarily imply a causal link between detention and disposition outcomes and future level of involvement. Take, for instance, the fraction of youths with a Probation disposition in their first contact. The table shows that youths who had more than one contact with the system throughout their life were more likely to have received a Probation disposition during their first contact (this is true for boys and girls). Nevertheless, there are multiple possible explanations for this association.
First, youths with more serious offenses, who are more likely to receive relatively more severe dispositions, may also be more likely to have more subsequent contacts. The table in the previous section, however, showed that the likelihood of being involved in a felony, or in a serious felony, during the first contact was not different between these groups of youths. Second, it is possible that the multiple parties involved in determining that disposition, such as judges, the District Attorney, and HCJPD officers, were able to gather additional information about the youth's situation, which resulted in a disposition of probation instead of a less severe option. If this additional information is also correlated with future involvement, then it would be more likely to observe youths with more involvement having received probation as a disposition in their first contact. Unfortunately, such information is not available in our dataset, so it is possible that these more severe outcomes are the result of information that decision makers had, but we do not observe. Finally, it is also possible that having a probation disposition itself leads to a higher likelihood of future involvement relative to less severe dispositions, for example through the possibility of a technical violation of the conditions of probation. The data in these tables do not allow us to separate these possible (non-mutually exclusive) explanations.
This report presented a descriptive overview of the multiple ways in which a cohort of youths, born between 2000 and 2002, interacted with the Harris County Juvenile Justice System. This analysis highlighted the importance of the many decisions that shape the trajectories of youths throughout their involvement with the system. It also provided evidence of racial disparities in many of these decisions. We see this analysis as a first step towards a rigorous understanding of the specific ways in which each of these decisions affect justice-involved youths. Thus, future work will delve deeper into the patterns uncovered in this report and analyze the impact of all of these decisions in determining the level and characteristics of the interactions of youths with the juvenile justice system. Likewise, future work will rigorously explore the many racial disparities highlighted here, aiming to identify concrete actions that could address the sources of these disparities.
- The Texas Policy Lab
If reading this report raised additional questions that you would like us to explore in future analyses, please share your thoughts with us by emailing us at texaspolicylab@rice.edu.