Estimating cost differences between juvenile diversion and commitment for the state of
Florida allows lawmakers to see the clear disparities between effectively using state monies through
diversion programming and potentially wasting taxpayer dollars on inefficient and ineffective
strategies like commitment for juveniles that don’t pose a risk to public safety. There is now a clear
visible difference in the annual and daily return on investment on each strategy of juvenile
rehabilitation.
Future research should focus on measuring diversion programming and commitment within
the same circuits to ensure that the same community is being measured and compared. One of the
main goals of such a study would be to measure if recidivism rates for non-violent felony offenders
who have successfully completed a diversion program are consistent with the previous findings on
recidivism rates for misdemeanor offenders who have successfully completed a diversion program.
In addition, more time and resources should be allocated to collecting data from each
diversion program branch from every county within each circuit in the state of Florida, so that data
could effectively be pooled for each diversion program. JDAP was one of the few diversion programs
in the state of Florida with enough data provided from circuits to calculate conclusive statistics for
the purposes of this study. Data should be collected for each diversion program on the number of
juveniles serviced in a given year, recidivism rates (for each offense type-i.e. non-violent, property
felonies, misdemeanor violent offenses, etc.), program budget, average length of stay by offense type,
percentage of successful program completion by offense type, etc.
In future polling studies, asking questions that allow the respondent to choose from
different sanctioning approaches for a given crime committed to avoid acquiescence bias (the
tendency to respond in the affirmative regardless of the question’s content) would make for a more
accurate representation of public opinion, which studies show is more nuanced on juvenile
sanctioning than politicians would expect (Mears, 2014). By accurately representing constituent
opinions on juvenile sanctioning, political figures could be more inclined to take a more moderate
stance on juvenile justice than the punitive stance that is often perceived as a safer bet for reelection.
POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS
A major recommendation for Florida lawmakers and local SAO is to fully utilize diversion
programs for all eligible juveniles. Every circuit has at least one JPAD diversion program but there
is a severe underutilization of diversion programs, in general. For example, between 2015 and 2016,
11,000 youth who met eligibility requirements for Florida JPAD programs were referred to diversion
post arrest, instead (JPAD, 2016). Not only did JPAD underutilization cost the state countless dollars
in processing fees for youth (arrests, imprisonment, etc.), it caused 11,000 youth in this example
alone to be arrested unnecessarily.
In addition, psychosocial outcomes should be measured regularly by diversion programs and
residential facilities to ensure that youth needs are being met by the sanction received (Dembo et al.,
2008). As a proven protective factor of juvenile recidivism, increasing prosocial activities within
targeted neighborhoods and increasing juvenile awareness of the prosocial activities available to
them within the youth’s own community would immensely benefit at-risk youth (Demeter, 2016).
Due to learning disabilities, poor school records, and educational neglect during a juvenile
reintegration period from a residential facility, school availability increased the likelihood of a
juvenile reoffending (Demeter, 2016). Creating a cell to classroom coordinator position within the
SAO for juveniles reintegrating from residential placement would reduce the transition time, in
which the juvenile is unenrolled in schooling (Demeter, 2016). A philosophical shift in the JJS of
relinquishing the notion of punitive accountability for juveniles and focusing instead on more
effective means of rehabilitation would result in a safer community than what currently exists
(Russell, 2017).
57