Demeter states the study’s findings as comparable to other relevant studies, arguing that programs
are successful when they prevent youth from participating in delinquent behavior (Accessed 2018). These
types of programs [community-based programs; school-based programs; home-visiting programs that focus
on engagement, establishment, and maintenance of new patterns of family behavior, treatment of youth
with serious clinical problems; collaborative planning; and problem solving] engage the juvenile with his or
her community in a way that makes youth feel like they are a part of the community that they are
reintegrating into (Demeter, Accessed 2018). Demeter specifically mentions multisystemic therapy [which is
often used in diversion programming], and school violence prevention and maintenance programs, noting
their success in reducing criminal behavior by improving family functioning and lessening the association
that juveniles have with deviant peers (Accessed, 2018).
Some limitations of Demeter’s study were only using data from Massachusetts and grouping by zip
code; Demeter only used reconvictions of new crimes [not technical violations] when calculating
recidivism rates, and due to the high age range of the study, some youth could have aged out-lowering the
reconviction rate, as well (Accessed 2018). Based on the findings of the study, Demeter suggests designing a
learning program that specifically targets juveniles in the reintegration period to educate and support these
youth outside of confinement, as well as creating the position of a “cell to classroom coordinator (CCC)”
to increase communication and alleviate processing challenges between schools and detention centers
(Accessed 2018). According to Demeter, future research should focus on asking reoffenders what factors
led them to recidivate and further evaluating neighborhood risk factors and their influence on recidivism
(Accessed 2018).
Program Procedures
For Florida’s fourth circuit, the youth’s first point of contact with the JJS is when they are arrested
for a crime. They are then taken to a Pretrial Detention Facility to be fingerprinted and formally processed.
After which the juvenile is sent to the Juvenile Assessment Center (JAC) to be tested for services needed
(SAO, Accessed 2019). This is often done through self-reporting mechanisms as well as the Detention Risk
Assessment Instrument (DRAI) (SAO, Accessed 2019). Based on the results of the DRAI, juveniles are either
released to his or her parent or detained until the first hearing, when the judge decides whether to release
or further detain the youth (SAO, Accessed 2019). If the judge determines that the youth should continue
to be held in a detention facility, the juvenile stays for an additional 21 days [maximum] (SAO, Accessed
2019). Depending on the intricacy of the case, the adjudication hearing can be up to ninety days out (SAO,
Accessed 2019). From there, the charges are either dropped or the juvenile is sent to diversion, sentenced to
commitment or probation, or “direct filed” where the youth is forced to serve his or her sentence in an adult
prison (SAO, Accessed 2019).
If sent to a juvenile commitment program, the youth is sent to 1) a non-residential facility through
a minimum-risk day program for up to a year, 2) a non-secure residential facility that usually lasts between
six and nine months, 3) a high-risk residential facility, with more “intensive restrictions on activities and
socialization”, or 4) a maximum-risk facility much like an adult prison typically for eighteen months or
longer (SAO, Accessed 2019). Often these options are succeeded by a post-commitment supervision period
similar to probation or released on conditions (SAO, Accessed 2019).
According to the National Bureau of Economic Research, incarceration in adolescence increases the
likelihood of recidivism as an adult by 22-24% (Aizer and Doyle, 2013). It is challenging to study the impact
that confinement has on youth in residential facilities due to the difficulty of making a clear distinction
between the effects of the JJS and the personal challenges that these youth may face in their daily lives,
such as “concentrated poverty, challenged schools, gaps in the public health system, and intergenerational
violence”, which are common factors in the communities that most confined youth come from (JPI, 2014).
Cost
The Justice Policy Institute (JPI) addresses one of the major concerns regarding commitment costs
by recommending that states find a way to “develop consistent standards for measuring per diem and
confinement costs” – a frequent critique of the JJS (2014). It is quite challenging to consistently describe
direct costs for every state because each state and local JJS is different (See Appendix D for national
commitment costs) (JPI, 2014).
50