Most of the youth placed in DFY custody were proven recidivists with multiple personal risk factors and facing difficult environmental circumstances. Case files were reviewed for a subsample of 2,763 JDs and PINS. The analyses included recidivism measures for two distinct time periods: between first release from residential confinement to community supervision and final discharge from DFY custody; and following final discharge from DFY custody. Descriptive summaries include rates of rearrest and reconviction within 36 months of discharge for those cases in which a full 3 years of follow-up time was available. The study found that 81 percent of males and 45 percent of females were arrested within 36 months of discharge from DFY custody. PINS had substantially lower recidivism rates than JD's or JO's. There was little difference between recidivism rates for JDs and those for JOs. Across conditions, the three factors that were most consistently associated with the risk of recidivism were criminal history, age at discharge, and community characteristics. After controlling for significant risk factors, most analyses found no consistent differences in recidivism by type of residential facility, residential movement pattern, type of first nonresidential service, or residential length of stay; however, for male JDs, an intermediate "step down" from residential centers to group homes was more effective in preventing short-term recidivism than direct release from residential centers to standard community care. On-site interviews and existing literature suggest that the high recidivism rates may be attributable to inconsistency of approach among program staff, lack of program continuity in the transition from residential confinement to aftercare, and lack of long-term support systems to bring youth successfully into young adulthood. Efforts to strengthen residential programs should be accompanied by development and rigorous evaluation of programs that provide a graduated transition from institutional care to independent living, ensure continuity of programming across service settings, and place significantly increased emphasis on aftercare and family circumstances. 6 figures, 3 tables, and 108 references