Interestingly, although many people assume minors’ arrest records are expunged at 18,
Florida statute mandates that the state’s Criminal Justice Information Program hold the criminal records
of minors until age 25 or 26, depending on the offense severity (JPAD, 2016). This shows that in the state
of Florida, a juvenile’s record really does carry into adulthood and can negatively impact the rest of his or
her life.
Another point that the author makes is that, “diverting youth pre-arrest not only directly reduces
the likelihood that they will reoffend, but also allows juveniles to engage in current and future
opportunities that may further disincentivize reoffending in adulthood” (JPAD, 2016). JPAD coordinators
believe that the JPAD program facilitates public safety by conserving tax dollars and saving expensive
arrests for offenders that are a higher risk of reoffending (JPAD, 2016). There is a stark contrast between
the cost of a civil citation ($386) and the cost of an arrest ($5,000) (JPAD, 2016). Unfortunately,
consistency is one of the JPAD program’s weaker points, which is reminiscent of the JJS at large.
Some JPAD programs are not reflective of statute standards (S.985.12, FS) pertaining to eligibility
requirements and program application (JPAD, 2016). A juvenile’s likelihood of placement in a JPAD
program is more likely to reflect the youth’s geographical location within the state of Florida than the
severity of the crime committed or the youth’s likelihood of re-arrest (JPAD, 2016).
Discrepancies in eligibility requirements can be the difference between a youth referral in one
county and an arrest right over the county line (JPAD, 2016). Only 15 of the 67 JPAD programs actually
use the eligibility standards verbatim (JPAD, 2016). The author also notes utilization issues, stating that 21
counties admitted less than 15% of eligible juveniles from 2015-2016 (JPAD, 2016). The 11,000
juveniles that were eligible during this time period were diverted post-arrest in most cases, costing the
state unnecessary transactional fees and costing the children avoidable arrest records (JPAD, 2016). The
author attributes eligibility and utilization issues to the means by which JPAD became a statewide
network – as an unfunded mandate. JPAD programs often include counseling, behavioral health services,
urinalysis monitoring, community service, and victim restitution amongst other services (JPAD, 2016).
The author found that, “JPAD programs are shown to reduce recidivism more than post-arrest
diversion or probation, and do so without risking public safety, burdening low-level juvenile offenders
with a criminal record, or imposing high costs on Florida taxpayers” (JPAD, 2016). The author advocates
for a graduated system within the JPAD program, where admission standards and consequences both
escalate with successive offenses to alleviate any eligibility or utilization issues (JPAD, 2016).
Similar to JPAD in results, the Correct Course diversion initiative in Wayne County [Detroit],
Michigan serviced 1,017 youth post-arrest between May 2007 and May 2009 (Hodges et al., 2011). The
Juvenile Inventory for Functioning (JIFF) was used as a self-administered, computerized interview that
produces an individualized service plan [which the family receives a copy of] based on youth needs
(Hodges et al., 2011). The staff, caregiver, and child review the list of goals from the JIFF results and work
together to match services to goals, create more specific goals and prioritize them appropriately (Hodges
et al., 2011). With 95% of students feeling comfortable about “being ‘interviewed by a computer”, the JIFF
is an efficient way to ensure consistency [without staff training] and maintain interviewer objectivity
(Hodges et al., 2011).
The Child and Adolescent Functional Assessment Scale was used to create the JIFF assessment,
which has “extensive evidence of reliability, validity, and sensitivity to change” (Hodges et al., 2011).The
JIFF identifies the needs of the juveniles across 10 psycho-social domains of functioning – school,
bullying, noncompliance in the home, family environment [reflecting undesirable behavior by others in
the home, not the youth], unsafe community behavior, feelings (trauma, depression, anxiety), self-harm
potential, thinking (irrational thought), substance use, and health-related concerns (Hodges et al., 2011). In
addition, the juveniles received a mandatory alcohol and other drug screening because more than 80% of
Wayne County’s adjudicated youth were shown to have recently used illegal substances, which is a ma-
jor risk factor for other illegal activity (Hodges et al., 2011). Using an assessment like JIFF to identify risk
factors and anti-social behaviors of the child that have the potential to lead to future delinquency can help
juveniles to improve their behavior and prevent future delinquency by targeting these behaviors before
they lead to juvenile recidivism.
46