This shift can only be accomplished by educating the public, JJS staff, and policymakers on risk
and protective factors for juvenile (re)offending and the most effective ways to reduce recidivism and
rehabilitate youth by addressing these needs. An estimated 65% of youth in the JJS have mental health
disorders, 25-50% of youth in residential facilities have substance abuse disorders, and another 65% of
youth in the JJS have past or present child welfare system involvement (Farn, 2018). Unfortunately, due
to depleted resources and a lack of training, many JJS jurisdictions are not properly equipped to address
the multi-systemic and complex needs of these youth alone (Farn, 2018). When youth don’t receive the
services needed to treat these underlying factors that put youth at a higher risk of crime, rehabilitation is
less likely to occur resulting in stagnate recidivism rates rather than the decline in recidivism rates that
diversion services can provide. These interventions could include “improving family interactions through
holistic, family-centered interventions, teaching discipline and life skills, encouraging prosocial
behaviors, [and] building natural positive support systems within the community…” (Farn, 2018).
Secure facilities should only be utilized for serious, violent, and chronic offenders as interventions
are proven to be most effective when used for youth who are at a high risk of recidivism and can actually
negatively affect juveniles who are at a lower risk level (Farn, 2018) (Russell, 2017). It has been
empirically proven that program effectiveness can be weakened for incarcerated youth and residential
placement can increase the likelihood of recidivism (Russell, 2017). In one study, nearly sixty percent of
the 47, 303 youth placed in a residential facility were charged for property, public order, status offenses,
and technical violations (Farn, 2018). Although youth at a high risk of reoffending for a serious crime
might require a higher dosage of treatment in secure placement, “low-risk youth who commit non-vio-
lent offenses often age out of adolescent delinquent behaviors on their own and are more likely to benefit
from low dosage, community-based services” (Farn, 2018).
A Detention Risk Assessment Instrument [which has been tested for validity and
reliability] should be implemented statewide prior to juvenile sanctioning to assess the likelihood that
youth will reoffend (See Appendix K). The early identification of a youth’s risks and needs allows school
and community interventions to be more effective in addressing delinquent behaviors before
residential placement becomes the appropriate course of action (Farn, 2018). It is strongly recommended
that evidence-based diversion programs are only utilized for youth who would otherwise be involved
in the JJS for residential placement or probation [in some cases] in an effort to reduce the net widening
effect; which occurs when low-risk youth who would traditionally have little to no JJS interaction are
sent further into the JJS unnecessarily-often to the youth’s detriment (Farn, 2018). Most importantly, it
is strongly recommended that the JJS facilitates a “culture of data-driven policy reform” in the quest for
justice, rehabilitation, and safer communities (Farn, 2018).
PUBLIC POLICY SIGNIFICANCE
Legislation
Florida Statute 985.12 Section 1 pertaining to civil citations (CC) and pre-arrest diversion (PAD)
programs should be amended to “mandate” [instead of “encourage”] that counties, municipalities and
public educational institutions participate in CC and PAD programs as offered by their judicial circuit.
Section 2 a) includes creating clear eligibility requirements for CC/PAD programs but does not require
the jurisdiction to divert youth to the program if that juvenile meets the eligibility requirements. State
funding should be reduced for any jurisdiction that fails to divert 85% of eligible youth. This percentage
is a reasonable start to diverting all eligible youth in an effort to maximize rehabilitation and minimize
taxpayer costs. These jurisdictions are wasting state funds to commit youth that are diversion-eligible,
as diversion programming is much cheaper than the alternative commitment sanctions. Accountability
measures should be put in place to ensure successful criteria implementation.
reduced for that jurisdiction.
58