Measuring Milwaukee County Juvenile Justice Recidivism

To what should Milwaukee County attribute its declining adult and juvenile detention population? This question took shape in a research brief published a year ago by the Public Policy Forum, entitled “Milwaukee County Detainee Populations at Historic Lows: Why is it happening and what does it mean?” In that report, the Forum urged county law enforcement officials and policymakers to consider whether justice system policies that may have contributed to the decline were effective and should be sustained.

Milwaukee County’s Delinquency and Court Services Division (DCSD) asked the Forum to help in making that assessment for the array of services it offers to youth in the juvenile justice system. Success in curbing repeat delinquent behavior can have impacts into adulthood, making the juvenile justice system one critical piece in efforts to control crime and its related costs. 

The most common way to assess the success of juvenile delinquency programming is to measure the extent to which participants commit additional crimes, otherwise known as recidivism.  However, the best approach to defining a recidivistic event is not always clear cut, with many variations seen nationally.

The Forum’s newest research brief reviews the manner in which DCSD defines recidivism and its progress in reducing it.  The following points summarize our findings:

• Using DCSD’s recidivism methodology, we find no significant changes in recidivism over five cohorts of youth aging out of the juvenile justice system between 2006 and 2010.  However, categorizing youth based on the year in which they age out of the system (i.e. turn 17-years-old) has its limitations, as this approach blurs impacts of year-to-year policy and programmatic changes.
• Under our alternative methodology for measuring recidivism, we categorize youth by the year in which they are referred for their first delinquent offense and allow for a uniform follow-up period.  Using this method, we find lower rates of recidivism for youth first referred in 2007 and 2008 than in the prior three years. Although two years of improved outcomes do not guarantee a new trend, this positive improvement begs further research into whether changes made in policy or programs during that time could be the cause.
• Under either measure of recidivism, we find a small group of chronic offenders accounts for a substantial percentage of repeat offenses, a trend often seen nationally.  Consequently, increased attention to programs and strategies aimed at chronic offenders may be warranted.
• It may be appropriate for DCSD along with other justice system officials to carefully contemplate which recidivism definition or set of definitions would best achieve performance assessment goals in the future.

Recidivism likely will continue to be the most prominent outcome measure used by policymakers in Milwaukee County to understand the performance of juvenile justice programs. Continued progress in developing and standardizing this evaluative tool will be critical as a means of helping the county's juvenile justice system articulate system performance and improve the spectrum of services it provides to county youth.

Our research brief, commissioned by DCSD, can be accessed here.

Possibilities for shared or consolidated fire services in southern Milwaukee County

A new report released by the Public Policy Forum this morning finds that the five municipal fire departments in the southern part of Milwaukee County work closely together, providing mutual aid in times of high activity and cooperating in areas ranging from training to special rescue teams.  That begs the question: could the five departments do even more to share services, perhaps even following the lead of the North Shore Fire Department to fully consolidate?

In order to assess that question, the Forum worked with administrators and fire chiefs from Franklin, Greendale, Greenfield, Hales Corners and Oak Creek to explore several options for enhanced sharing and coordination, including a model for a consolidated fire department. The project was initiated by a work group formed one year ago by the Intergovernmental Coordinating Council, which has been exploring a range of possibilities for greater service sharing among Milwaukee County’s 19 municipal governments.

A similar fire and dispatch project also is underway in Cudahy, Saint Francis and South Milwaukee.

The new Forum report focuses initially on consideration of enhanced cooperation and sharing in various areas of fire department operations that could occur within existing administrative and operational frameworks.

It then moves on to model three increasingly comprehensive consolidation approaches:

• A Coordinated Support Services model, which involves the creation of unified bureaus to conduct training, vehicle maintenance and fire inspection services for the five departments collectively.
• An Operational Consolidation model, which envisions a unified operations framework under which the “closest unit responds” regardless of municipal boundary, but which retains the five departments as separate entities with independent personnel, vehicles and governance.
• A Full Consolidation model, under which the five departments would merge into a Southern Milwaukee County Fire Department with its own governance structure, budget, personnel, equipment, and operational framework.

The fiscal and operational analysis associated with those models suggests that each holds potential for improving the coordination and efficiency of fire and emergency medical services in the five communities. The analysis also shows, however, that substantial financial savings only would be achieved with the more comprehensive consolidation models.

The full consolidation model, for example, could yield more than $1 million per year in annual operating budget savings and nearly $4 million in vehicle replacement savings over five years, without closing any existing station locations or cutting firefighter positions. Those potential benefits, of course, must be weighed by each municipality against any perceived negative impacts that would result from ceding local control of fire and emergency medical services to a consolidated department.

The report concludes by suggesting that the five municipalities consider the findings within the context of their own financial and operational needs and concerns. As they do so, it says, “they should keep in mind that a phased approach is a viable option, in which enhanced service sharing is implemented first as a possible precursor to operational or full consolidation; and that additional planning and analysis – as well as creation of a framework for an intergovernmental agreement between the five communities – will be needed to definitively project fiscal and operational impacts associated with the operational and full consolidation models.”

The full report – which was sponsored in part by the Helen Bader Foundation and the Greater Milwaukee Committee – can be accessed here.