The Bench & Bar magazine is published to provide members of the KBA with information that will increase their knowledge of the law, improve the practice of law, and assist in improving the quality of legal services for the citizenry.
Issue link: https://kentuckybenchandbar.epubxp.com/i/104896
(OPPAGA), documented $51.2 million in savings over five years. 15 Florida's Redirection Program is a "communitybased, familycentered alternative to residential juvenile justice commitment programs."16 The probability of prison admission as an adult declined by 35 percent for those that completed the program.17 A second example is Pennsylvania. There, a portfolio of evidence-based programs was introduced and returned $317 million dollars over and above their cost.18 One program, Botvin LifeSkills Training, yielded $25 of benefits for every one dollar in costs.19 A final and dramatic example is California. The Governor attempted in the 2012-13 budget to eliminate the Division of Juvenile Justice all together.21 In a 16-year process known as juvenile justice realignment, juveniles are being transferred from state facilities back to their home counties, along with the accompanying costs. As a result of the realignment, seven out of eleven juvenile justice facilities have been closed. California was spending half a billion dollars to incarcerate 2,000 youth offenders prior to the realignment.22 INCARCERATION AND RESIDENTIAL PLACEMENT ARE EXPENSIVE AND INEFFECTIVE AND MAY INCREASE CRIME Incarceration does not have any deterrent effect on crime. In one large sample, spanning nine years and 20 states, there was no correlation between juvenile incarceration rates and violent and property crime rates.23 In other words, the number of kids in jail was irrelevant to the number of crimes committed. Even worse, one study found that incarceration increased recidivism.24 Incarceration and residential placement was found to be no more effective than probation or community services and is a more expensive intervention.25 A 2009 study, Iatrogenic Effect of Juvenile Justice, found "that the more restrictive and more intense the justice intervention was, the greater was its negative impact. [P]lacement in an institution exerts by far the strongest criminogenic effect . . . ."26 The authors conclude, "as confirmed by past and present research, intervention by the juvenile court increases the likelihood of adult criminality."27 They recommended focusing on prevention to minimize contact with courts and dispersing troubled youths to minimize labeling and peer contagion. Programming is more effective and costs less when done in the community.28 USE THE RISK PRINCIPLE The risk principle is the idea that supervision and treatment should be correlated to recidivism. It answers the question of whom to target for services. The principle states that the government should supervise and treat those who are most likely to reoffend. Those who are least likely to reoffend should receive less, and possibly no, supervi- Figure 1—Return on Investment for Prevention Programs in Pennsylvania20 12 Bench & Bar January 2013 sion and treatment. Note that the concept is not related to the kind of crime committed. A felon may be at low risk to reoffend and thus not need extensive supervision and treatment. A misdemeanant, on the other hand, could be at high risk to recidivate and deserve intensive supervision or treatment. In "[m]eta-analysis after meta-analysis,"29 correctional interventions directed toward high-risk offenders produced effects of two to six times than those directed at low-risk offenders. The effect was present when applied to juveniles as well.30 "When taken together, these . . .studies provide strong evidence that more intense correctional interventions are more effective when delivered to higher-risk offenders."31 A related finding is that these interventions "can increase the failure rates of low-risk offenders."32 Programs that accept "low-risk" offenders should return them back to the environments that made them "low-risk" in the first place.33 ACCURATE ASSESSMENTS ARE KEY The idea of risk assessment is to sort kids into those who are least likely to commit crimes and those who are most likely to commit crimes. By asking a series of questions, an assessor hopes to predict which kids are likely to commit a new crime. "Risk assessments are now considered the cornerstone of effective correctional intervention."34 As of 2007, the use of juvenile risk assessments grew from 33 percent of states in 1990 to 86 percent by 2003.35 The Court Designated Workers' Office (CDW) is tasked with operating Kentucky's juvenile diversion program.36 The program serves as the initial intake and referral of charges for kids accused of offenses.37 The CDW uses the Global Appraisal of Individual Needs Short Screener (GSS) to assess kids.38 Diversion of low-risk offenders from court continues to be a recommended strategy.39 In a 2007 study of juvenile risk assessments, the author reviewed 28 studies to determine if juvenile recidivism could be predicted.40 The study's principal finding was that the assess-