CONCLUSION
In closing, the juvenile justice system is broken. An ideological shift has taken place from the JJS
founders’ intent to a culture of punitive accountability. Countless taxpayer dollars have been
wasted on sentencing youth to commitment when they are eligible for and would be better served by
evidence-based diversion programming. The underutilization of diversion programming is often due to
the philosophical ideations of a judge or the state attorney’s office or political optics instead of evidence
and statistics.
First-time non-violent felonies are often sent to commitment despite the low likelihood that
the youth will re-offend. Not only is this a costly option, as diversion is often much less expensive than
housing a juvenile in a residential facility; it is also detrimental to the child and dangerous for the public.
Sending youth who are charged with non-violent offenses and are at a low risk of reoffending to
commitment fails to make society any safer, since studies show commitment to increase the likelihood of
reoffending [recidivism] in youth with a low probability of recidivism. For the reasons stated previously,
public safety and lower recidivism for juvenile offenders can best be reached through diversion
programming for nonviolent felony offenses, as opposed to commitment dispositions.
Between the cost savings of utilizing JDAP in lieu of commitment ($12,561.81 a year for one
property offender) and drastic difference in recidivism rates (35.6% for commitment and 11% for diversion
for the Florida 2016-17 fiscal year), the statistics are in diversion’s favor. An antiquated system will only
continue to produce the same results that have been seen in the past. The longer the Florida JJS continues
to operate this way, basing youth placement on ideology rather than hard facts, the more youth will be
dis-serviced by their own community and the more taxpayer monies will be misallocated when it could
be better spent elsewhere. The shift in ideology and JJS organizational culture will make all the difference
for our communities and our youth.
The inclusion of first-time nonviolent felony offenses like felony vandalism, felony drug,
auto-theft, and burglary in diversion programming is necessary in order to facilitate positive changes in
the juvenile justice system and the community these youth reintegrate into. The desire for punitive
accountability for juveniles must be relinquished and replaced by the needs of our youth and their
rehabilitation. 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. Data-driven policy reform is the only way that Florida can
make the most of its JJS. The data collected in this capstone is only the beginning, highlighting the
shortcomings of an outdated system, one that fails to keep up with the data. It is in the hands of Florida
policymakers to make a data-driven decision for the sake of our communities and our youth.
60