Overview 

State and local leaders across the country have made 

concerted efforts to scale back juvenile incarceration, and 

their efforts have yielded signifcant results: the national 

juvenile incarceration rate has been cut in half over the 

last decade.1 As a result, a greater number of youth in the 

juvenile justice system are now being supervised in their 

communities, which research shows leads to lower rearrest 

rates,2 and states are increasingly allocating the majority 

of their juvenile justice resources to community-based 

supervision and services. 

While reducing youth incarceration is a signifcant 

accomplishment, many states have struggled to reduce 

recidivism and improve other outcomes for youth, such as 

those related to education and employment. For example, 

an analysis of approximately 60,000 youth in Texas 

found that even after the state had doubled spending on 

community-based supervision and services, recidivism 

rates remained unchanged; in fact, youth who received no 

services at all fared no worse than youth who had received 

treatment and other supports.3 Research has also shown 

that, in a number of states, more than half of those youth 

who are still incarcerated and released from correctional 

facilities are rearrested or reincarcerated within two years.4

To address these challenges, the National Reentry 

Resource Center (NRRC) and The Council of State 

Governments (CSG) Justice Center, in partnership 

with the U.S. Department of Justice’s Offce of Juvenile 

Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP), launched 

Improving Outcomes for Youth: A Statewide Juvenile 

Justice Initiative (IOYouth). IOYouth supports states to 

identify, enact, and successfully implement policies and 

funding strategies that research shows work to reduce 

recidivism and improve other outcomes for youth in the 

juvenile justice system. Through this initiative, states 

receive intensive technical assistance from the CSG 

Justice Center to undergo a comprehensive, data-driven 

assessment of their juvenile justice system, develop 

policy options to improve outcomes for youth based on 

this assessment, and translate these policy options into 

legislative and appropriations changes. 

Process 

Like most states across the country, Nevada currently 

has fewer youth in its juvenile justice system than at any 

point in the last decade, with a majority of those youth 

now being supervised in the community rather than in 

correctional or residential treatment facilities. Between 

2006 and 2014, the number of youth who were committed 

to the Nevada Division of Child and Family Services 

(DCFS) for delinquent offenses decreased by 54 percent.

However, Nevada still allocates signifcant resources for 

youth under system supervision. In 2016, approximately 

$61 million was spent on supervision and services across 

Nevada’s two largest counties (Clark and Washoe), in 

addition to approximately $28 million at the state level. 

State and county leaders became increasingly frustrated 

that, in spite of these considerable investments, they 

did not have the necessary data capacity to track system 

performance and youth outcomes to determine whether 

resources were being used effectively. Additionally, while 

state and local leaders shared common frustrations with 

the functioning of the juvenile justice system, including 

its shortage of behavioral health services and evidencebased services more generally, the lack of data made it 

Nevada’s Statewide Approach to Reducing Recidivism and 

Improving Outcomes for Youth in the Juvenile Justice System

SEPTEMBER 2017
diffcult to objectively pinpoint specifc areas of poor 

performance and establish consensus for how best to 

improve the system. 

Nevada sought to address this challenge through 

IOYouth, and was selected as the frst IOYouth state 

in large part due to the commitment of state leaders, 

including Governor Brian Sandoval, First Lady Kathleen 

Sandoval, and Supreme Court Justice Nancy Saitta. 

This initiative built upon Nevada’s strong history of 

interbranch and interagency collaboration on juvenile 

justice improvement efforts, as well as reforms adopted 

through the Nevada Supreme Court Commission on 

Statewide Juvenile Justice Reform in the previous decade.

Governor Sandoval offcially launched Nevada’s 

IOYouth initiative in July 2016 by signing an executive 

order that established a statewide, interbranch, 

bipartisan task force to oversee the project. First Lady 

Sandoval and Justice Saitta cochaired the task force, 

which comprised state and local juvenile justice leaders, 

state legislators, public defenders, district attorneys, and 

juvenile court judges, among others. 

Over the course of several months, CSG Justice Center 

staff conducted the most comprehensive, data-driven 

assessment of Nevada’s juvenile justice system to date, 

with an in-depth quantitative analysis of: (1) trends 

in the state and local juvenile justice systems; (2) the 

management, tracking, and evaluation of juvenile 

justice system performance and youth outcomes; and 

(3) the supervision and services provided to youth on 

probation, in facilities, and on parole. The analysis 

encompassed case-level juvenile justice data from 

Nevada’s DCFS, as well as the state’s two largest 

county juvenile probation agencies in Clark and 

Washoe counties. Beyond the quantitative analysis, 

leadership and staff from state and local juvenile 

justice agencies, judicial offcials, state legislators, 

public defenders, district attorneys, behavioral health 

leaders, and youth in the juvenile justice system and 

their families participated in a series of interviews and 

focus groups. 

CSG Justice Center staff then presented fndings from 

the assessment to the statewide task force, and supported 

task force members in reaching consensus on a set of 

policy options that were ultimately introduced in the 2017 

legislative session. 

Key Findings

The assessment process led to three overarching fndings 

about Nevada’s juvenile justice system, which mirror the 

challenges faced in many states across the country:

Nevada does not regularly or comprehensively track 

recidivism rates or other outcomes for youth in the 

juvenile justice system, and the limited data available 

indicates that youth in the juvenile justice system 

experience poor outcomes. The analysis found that 

Nevada lacks the data infrastructure and research capacity 

necessary to analyze system performance and determine 

whether resources are being used effciently. The limited 

outcome data that is available demonstrates that youth 

often cycle through the Nevada juvenile justice system 

multiple times. More than half of youth who started 

probation between 2013 and 2015 in Clark and Washoe 

counties had at least one subsequent offense during or 

after their supervision. By the time youth are committed 

to a state-run correctional facility, they average 11 prior 

referrals. Additionally, more than one in fve youth released 

from state facilities have their parole revoked, and more 

than half commit a new offense while on parole.

Although Nevada has recently seen a signifcant 

drop in the number of youth referred to the juvenile 

justice system, a greater proportion of those youth 

who are referred to the system are being petitioned, 

detained, adjudicated, and formally supervised.

From 2013 to 2015, despite a 17-percent decline 

in referrals to the juvenile justice system, a greater 

proportion of youth who were adjudicated during that 

time period received formal supervision, were placed in 

a residential facility or youth camp, and were committed 

to a state-run correctional facility. In fact, between 2013 

and 2015, the number of youth committed to state-run 

correctional facilities increased by 32 percent. 
Despite signifcant spending on Nevada’s juvenile 

justice system—almost $90 million in 2015—state 

and county agencies do not ensure that youth are 

matched with the most appropriate levels and types 

of supervision and services based on their risk and 

needs. Nevada does not consistently use a validated 

risk and needs assessment tool at the state or local levels 

to make disposition decisions, match youth with the 

appropriate level of supervision based on their risk of 

reoffending, or match them with the appropriate type 

and intensity of services based on their criminogenic 

needs. At the same time, Nevada does not provide 

any direct support for research-based juvenile justice 

services through its statutes, funding mechanisms, or 

administrative rules to ensure that the services youth do 

receive are effective. Additionally, service procurement 

processes are often based on informal agreements or 

referral processes rather than performance-based contracts 

that require the use of research-based programs and 

practices. And fnally, the collection of outcome data and 

the regular, formal administration of quality assurance 

practices to measure and improve service quality are rare. 

Summary of AB472

Nevada’s IOYouth task force reached consensus on 

a set of policy options to address these fndings. 

Sponsored by Governor Sandoval, AB472 codifes 

the policy framework developed by the task force and 

includes an additional $1.6 million for the FY2017–

FY2019 biennium to support the adoption and 

implementation of key policy and practice changes. 

AB472 received unanimous bipartisan support from 

the Nevada State Legislature, and was signed into law 

by Governor Sandoval on June 16, 2017. Provisions of 

AB472 include:

n Establishment of a Juvenile Justice Oversight 

Commission to supervise the implementation 

of AB472 and serve as a point of coordination 

for juvenile justice policy, practice, and resource 

allocation across state and local lines and all branches 

of government

n Requirement that DCFS, local departments of 

juvenile services, and the Youth Parole Bureau 

develop and collect data on system-wide performance 

measures, with DCFS analyzing data from local 

departments to identify trends and evaluate system 

performance, and reporting this information annually 

to the governor and the legislature 

n Requirement that oversight commission members 

conduct annual quality assurance reviews of state 

juvenile correctional facilities and county youth camps 

using a research-based assessment tool, identify needed 

corrective actions, and submit a facility improvement 

plan to the governor and the legislature

n Adoption of a statewide validated risk and needs 

assessment and mental health screening tool to assist 

the juvenile court and state and local departments 

of juvenile services in determining the appropriate 

actions to take for each youth, with the following 

measures:

• All delinquent youth must receive a risk and needs 

assessment and mental health screening prior to 

disposition, and the juvenile court must use these 

results to inform disposition decisions

• Local departments of juvenile services must 

use the results of risk and needs assessments to 

develop individualized case plans for youth on 

probation and reentry plans for youth committed 

to local county youth camps

• DCFS must use the results of risk and needs 

assessments to inform placement, length of stay, 

case and reentry planning, and parole revocation 

decisions 

n	 Requirement—through an annual phase-in process—

that all state (non-Medicaid) funding for juvenile 

justice services is used only for evidence-based 

programs and services, and development of a fveyear strategic plan to increase the use of evidencebased programs and practices, including the following 

provisions:
• An evidence-based resource center will be 

established to provide technical assistance, 

training, and other support to the state, local 

departments, and providers on the adoption 

and effective implementation of evidence-based 

programs and services 

• DCFS must submit an annual report to the 

governor, commission, and legislature on 

compliance with the evidence-base standards 

established in the commission’s strategic plan, 

and report performance data annually on service 

delivery and youth outcomes 

Implementing AB472 will require additional bipartisan, 

interbranch support and commitment from local and 

state juvenile justice leaders. The establishment of the 

Juvenile Justice Oversight Commission will help ensure 

that this level of commitment continues. Additionally, 

given consistent fndings that states struggle to 

implement new policies and practices with high quality 

and fdelity to the research, the CSG Justice Center will 

continue to work with offcials across Nevada’s juvenile 

justice system to guide and assist them in implementing 

the new policies and tracking implementation progress 

and youth outcomes. 

Improving Outcomes for Youth: A Statewide Juvenile Justice Initiative (IOYouth) is a project of the National Reentry Resource Center (NRRC) 

and The Council of State Governments (CSG) Justice Center, conducted in partnership with the Offce of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 

Prevention. The CSG Justice Center is a national nonproft organization that serves policymakers at the local, state, and federal levels from 

all branches of government. The CSG Justice Center provides practical, nonpartisan, research-driven strategies and tools to increase public 

safety and strengthen communities.

Notes

1. M. Sickmund, T. J. Sladky, W. Kang, and C. Puzzanchera, “Easy Access to the Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement,” last modified June 

1, 2017, http://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/ezacjrp/. 

2. T. Fabelo, N. Arrigona, M. D. Thompson, A. Clemens, and M. P. Marchbanks, Closer to Home: An Analysis of the State and Local Impact of the 

Texas Juvenile Justice Reforms (New York: The Council of State Governments Justice Center, 2015), http://csgjusticecenter.org/wp-content/

uploads/2015/01/texas-JJ-reform-closer-to-home.pdf.

3. Ibid.

4. Ibid.; New York State Juvenile Justice Advisory Group, Tough on Crime: Promoting Public Safety by Doing What Works (Albany, NY: New York 

State Juvenile Justice Advisory Group, 2010).

This project was supported by Grant No. 2016-MU-BX-K011 awarded by the Bureau of Justice Assistance. The Bureau of Justice Assistance is a 

component of the Department of Justice’s Office of Justice Programs, which also includes the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the National Institute of 

Justice, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, the Office for Victims of Crime, and the SMART Office. Points of view or opinions in this 

document are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

“This legislation represents a unifed effort 

by all three branches of government to better 

protect public safety and improve outcomes for 

youth in our juvenile justice system by making 

the system more cost-effcient and effective.” 

– Governor Brian Sandoval