Blame the system, excuse the behavior
In 2023, shortly after taking office, Hennepin County Attorney Mary Moriarty hired the University of Minnesota to conduct a study of juvenile justice system interventions in Hennepin County. The study, entitled “Reimagining Youth Justice in Hennepin County: Modeling the Impact and Effectiveness of Prosecutorial Responses,” sought to determine the effects on recidivism from ten (10) interventions such as pre-charge diversion, declining to prosecute, post charge diversion and formal charges leading to court intervention.
The study was released in mid-November and concluded that “recidivism increases with each legal system contact,” while recommending that the Hennepin County Attorney expand eligibility of pre-charge diversion interventions, especially involving youth of color.
The U of M’s Medical School’s Department of Pediatrics conducted the study as part of the Reimagining Youth Justice project at the Medical School, funded by Hennepin County. All of it seems a bit out of place.
The study was conducted over two years. It started with data from over 34,000 juvenile cases submitted between 2016 – 2023 and analyzed the outcomes of ten “interventions” including the formal court process, and various pre and post charge diversion pathways. The study used data and modeling to show that cases diverted away from the formal court system resulted in less recidivism.
While I don’t dispute with the mathematical accuracy of the data presented, I have concerns that the conclusions drawn from the data are incomplete and misleading. And there is little doubt they will be used as cover by Moriarty to prosecute fewer juvenile offenders going forward.
The process supports Moriarty’s pattern of blaming the “system” while excusing the “behavior.” In the end, Hennepin County juvenile offenders are now likely to face fewer consequences for their actions.
Concerns
First, of the 34,000 cases originally in play, the study ended up excluding nearly 23,000 cases, including 9,870 cases which either occurred in 2023 or involved offenders older than 16.5 years of age. In addition, researchers excluded 7,328 cases because they involved offenders with multiple offenses occurring over a short time. The descriptions of the cases reviewed, and the variety of cases excluded are detailed in several different sections of the study, making it difficult to track and understand. Ultimately the study examined just 11,607 cases.
The decision to exclude so many cases, including those involving + 16.5-year-olds who are arguably in their most active and serious period of juvenile delinquency, left a lot of valuable data out of the analysis. It seems the study should have included their cases by carrying over analysis into adult court system to determine recidivism. This may have been important given the study’s own conclusion that “recidivism increases with each legal system contact.”
Another concern arises from the definition and duration used for recidivism. The study defines recidivism as: “A new charged delinquency case based on a submitted case with the data reviewed after the start of the accountability process for an existing case.” Note: the accountability process begins with the prosecutor’s initial decision on a previously submitted case. This reduces the evaluation period compared to a period beginning when a sanction is imposed, for example. This longer period of evaluation would offer a more meaningful look at recidivism.
Further concern with the definition of recidivism is that it evaluated re-referral within six (6) months and twelve (12) months after the accountability process from a previous case began. As alluded to above, this is far too short of a period to make any reliable conclusions about whether a particular intervention is effective in reducing recidivism. Most definitions of recidivism involve a period of three (3) years or more (usually following a conviction). This leads to more consistency in evaluating re-offending over a longer period. The shorter evaluation periods in this study make comparisons less meaningful, especially among a wide range of offenses – minor to serious.
The primary findings of the study claim to show that a variety of diversion interventions lead to lower recidivism rates than outcomes following formal court intervention. This conclusion, while accurately portraying the data analyzed, is misleading. It’s misleading because it compares youth who commit minor crimes or have no prior offenses (youth most likely to receive diversion) with those who commit more serious crimes or have a history of offending (youth most likely to receive court intervention). The actions and attitudes of these two groups of offenders could not be more starkly divided and cannot be reliably compared.
Furthermore, the quantity of offenders in the various data pools vary greatly, making comparisons suspect. For example, the number of felony referrals to pre-charge diversion used in the calculation of recidivism rates from 2016-2023 was just 112. The 12-month recidivism rate for this group was 8.9%. This low recidivism rate is not surprising, given the participants were picked, by policy, due to the low level of the offense and their relatively clean record, both of which suggest the offender would likely respond well to diversion. Contrast this with the 1,177 felony referrals to the formal court process. These cases were, by policy, more serious offenses and more likely to include repeat offenders. It isn’t surprising that this group is far more likely to re-offend (44.1%). That does not prove the decision to divert leads to better outcomes. It proves that the policies in place that guide which cases should be diverted, and which shouldn’t are remarkably accurate.
Regarding which offenses are eligible for diversion, Moriarty has been quick to list several crimes that would not qualify under her new diversion effort. They included murder, 1st and 2nd degree assault and robbery, carjacking, several firearm related crimes, etc. But a closer review of the list reveals a great variety of violent and gun related cases that are not disqualifiers and will likely result in diversion from the formal court process. And even if an offense is listed as a disqualifier, Moriarty has provided the caveat that any case could be diverted with “special approval.”
Other concerns include the study’s frequent assertion that the system is creating racial disparities. The study acknowledges that, for example, African American’s represent 13% of Hennepin County’s population, but that African American juveniles represent 50% of all first offense referrals to the county attorney, 70% of second through fourth referrals, and 90% of referrals twelve or more. It also acknowledges that “youth with a gun” cases were 77.2% African American. It offers this information, suggesting the system has created these racial disparities, yet offers no evidence that these referral rates are unjust or that they are inconsistent with corresponding offense rates.
The study concludes, without explanation, that “…this level of disparities cannot be explained by differences in behavior alone and instead demonstrates how the way society – and in this case the justice system – treats people based on their real or perceived race becomes a possible risk factor for worse outcomes.”
Data to help complete the story
A misleading aspect of the study, and subsequent presentations, is the comparison of pre 2023 data regarding interventions and outcomes, against 2023-2025 offense data. Moriarty suggests the data proves that diversion initiatives by her office are reducing juvenile offending in Hennepin County. This is a major stretch.
It is true that many crimes have decreased in the last couple of years. But that dip isn’t exclusive to Hennepin County – it’s happened across the country. Whether that reduction is the result of criminals being incapacitated for their offenses during some of the peaks of violence in 2022-2023, or whether it’s the result of law enforcement slowly returning to a more proactive stance following the anti-police movement of 2020, or both, the US has seen a drop in crime.
However, the more important takeaway regarding crime rates is not their recent dip, but the fact they remain significantly higher than they were just a few years prior. This is a proper and more meaningful comparison which I’ve written about frequently.
When we conduct a more thorough look into current levels of crime in Hennepin County we find the following:
- In 2025 Moriarty has charged juvenile cases presented to her office at a rate 13% less than her predecessor did in 2021.
- In 2025 Moriarty has applied pre-charge diversion of juvenile cases presented to her office at a rate 14% more than her predecessor did in 2021.
- In 2025 Hennepin County juvenile offenders committed 36% more person crimes than they had committed in 2021 (1010 to 742). What’s even more illustrative is how that increase compares to the rest of the state which experienced a far more modest 6% increase over the same period. As a result, Hennepin County is underperforming, by 30%, the rest of the state at reducing person crime offenses committed by juveniles.
- In 2025 the number of property crime offenses committed by juveniles in Hennepin County was virtually even with the number in 2021 (1105 to 1102). The rest of the state experienced a 6% decrease in the number of property crimes committed by juvenile offenders over the same period. Hennepin County is underperforming, by 6%, the rest of the state at reducing property crimes committed by juveniles.
- In 2025 despite being far less inclined to divert juvenile offenders away from traditional court interventions, outstate county attorneys are outperforming Hennepin County in their responses to person and property crimes.
- In 2025 Moriarty has suggested her polices of pre-charge intervention are reducing Motor vehicle theft by juveniles. However, while representing just 20% of the state’s juveniles, in 2025 Hennepin County was home to more motor vehicle thefts by juveniles than the rest of the state combined. And once again, despite large decreases in this crime since 2023, motor vehicle theft by juveniles in Hennepin County remained 23% higher in 2025 than in 2021. Over the same period the rest of the state experienced a 4% drop in motor vehicle thefts by juveniles, meaning Hennepin County is underperforming the rest of the state by 27%.
(Source: BCA Crime Data Explorer and the Hennepin County Attorney Data Dashboard using January-September and year-to-date comparisons)
Support the juvenile justice system, don’t abandon it
Hennepin County is home to over 20% of the state’s entire juvenile crime. Yet, Hennepin County Juvenile Court judges have few out of home placement options for offenders – a situation exacerbated by the closing of the Hennepin County Home School in 2021.
The lack of placement options makes it far more likely that a juvenile offender will be conditionally released back into the home and social environment that played a part in their initial offense. Given the lack of placement options, its surprising re-offending isn’t even more common.
Social justice advocates fail to appreciate the value that incapacitation can play in public safety. They argue that introducing a juvenile offender to traditional juvenile justice court sanctions is the problem, not the offending itself.
Rather than abandoning the traditional court system, we should be supporting that system, ensuring it has placement options and other rehabilitative tools at its disposal to properly deal with the cases coming in – especially serious and violent cases.
Takeaway
Data cuts both ways.
While some juvenile crime has fallen in Hennepin County (and across the nation) in the past two years it is misleading to suggest social justice policies have led to this decrease. Data shows that Hennepin County, a progressive county championing many social justice initiatives, has significantly underperformed its counterparts in juvenile crime reduction.
Our criminal justice system, and especially our juvenile justice system, benefits from fast, firm, and consequential responses to crime. Any parent will attest that applying swift consequences to misbehavior is the best way to ensure good behavior. When a parent fails to provide a prompt and consequential response to misbehavior, they are teaching their child that misbehavior will be tolerated.
There is no difference with the juvenile justice system – especially as the seriousness of offenses increase. The system needs to act swiftly and consequentially, or offenders will learn there are no consequences to offending. When that is the lesson learned, we all lose.
We need to ensure that our juvenile justice system has adequate placement options to remove juvenile offenders from the environments that helped influence their criminal behavior. This is done through incapacitation, not “community based” placement or home monitoring that even many parents of juvenile offenders decry.
I don’t suggest that I have all the answers to a complicated problem like juvenile recidivism, but it’s clear that a system of 2nd, 3rd, and 4th chances underperforms a system of swift and certain consequences.
We should be investing more in to court-based resources that ensure juvenile offenders face swift and certain consequences, and less in to diversion programs and other non-court-based interventions.