:1Juurut.lr QJxutrt .af ,.alIt Qrnuuty .~ .J - National Criminal Justice ...

participants and the control group. according to the crime categories
discussed previously. The most interesting aspect of Table XII is
in the dramatic decrease in property crimes among program non-completions
and control recidivists. While program recidivists are sUbstantially
high in this category with 63.3%$ the other two drop to 36.4%
and 38.8% respectively, with all three experiencing an increase in
status offenses, with 16.7%, 22,7%, and 36.7%. The frequency of
status offenders for the control recidivists may to some extent
reflect the method of selection for this group (d~scussed previously).
It remains discouraging, nevertheless, to note the high incidence of
recidivism among status offenders.
For both program and control recidivists, the offenses involved
in their subsequent referrals are again skewed toward victimless and
status offenses, In one respect this is a positive finding since it
indicates involvement in criminal activity (such as breaking and
entering. larcenY'of a motor vehicle, etc.) has declined. Changes
in offense categories for the control group are not, on the other
hand. this posi ti ve) w'i th the data indicating a rise from zero involvement
in crimes against persons to 8.2%. There was a shift also
to a higher incidence of victimless crimes with fewer status offenses.
A further encouraging finding 'is that successful program participants
have recidivated at a rate of 18.7% compared with a 43.0%
rate in the control group. Only three of these exceeded a 12-month
time ~eriod
thereby minimizing the argument that the time factor mak~s
~ c~mparison of the two groups impossible. For program recidiVists,
the average length of time between the offense at time of enrollment
and the subsequent referral was 5.1 months.
For the controls it was
6.1 months.
.....'