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
ments predicted "repeat offending as expected. Moreover," the assessments had roughly the same predictive validity as ones used with adults.41 Thus their continued use is justified.42 No clear-cut finding was reached on which risk assessment instrument was best.43 Instead, the choice of risk assessment should be governed by local needs. If efficiency is the priority, then a local actuarial model may be best. Where used for service planning, the Youth Level of Service/Case Management Inventory (YLS/CMI) would "presumably reduce offending."44 Arkansas, which has undergone an extensive reform effort, chose a locally derived, actuarial model for courts and adopted the YLS/CMI for state commitments as recommended in the 2007 study.45 MINIMIZE INEFFECTIVE BEHAVIOR STRATEGIES Since the mid 1990s, a great deal of research has been conducted. Zero-tolerance policies,46 expulsions and suspensions,47 incarceration,48 boot camps,49 transfer of youth to adult court,50 Scared Straight51 and D.A.R.E.52 have garnered significant, if not unanimous, criticism as being ineffective. MAXIMIZE EVIDENCE-BASED, COST-EFFECTIVE STRATEGIES Finding evidence-based, cost-effective strategies has never been easier.53 A good starting point is the Washington State Institute for Public Policy (WSIPP). WSIPP systematically reviews the research on specific programming, calculates benefits minus costs and gives the odds of a positive net present value.54 For example, WSIPP has found the program with the highest rate of return is Family Functional Therapy (FFT). The program cost $3,262 and yielded benefits of $67,108. For every dollar spent on FFT, the state realized $21.57 in benefits. The likelihood of implementing the program with a positive net return was 100 percent.55 In other words, poor implementation was unlikely to derail the projected savings. Programming already in existence or with low entry costs may be more appealing to a local community. Candidates include victim offender conferencing,56 youth mentoring,57 teen court58 and juvenile drug court.59 ALIGN FUNDING WITH THE RESEARCH Many states have incentivized local governments to keep kids in the community and minimize incarceration. In 1993, Ohio passed a bill which created the Reasoned and Equitable Community and Local Alternative to Incarceration of Minors (RECLAIM). The purpose was to reduce commitments and incarcerations to the Ohio Department of Youth Services (DYS).60 Between 1993 and 2005, Ohio juvenile courts received a yearly allocation for providing local treatment which was reduced when a child was placed in detention or community corrections facility. Since 2005, the formula has changed and is based on a four-year average of juvenile felony adjudications. Counties are not charged for "public safety beds," which are serious criminal violations.61 The DYS population was reduced from 2600 in May 1993 to approximately 650 in December 2011.62 In an effort to address service shortages at the local level, Illinois launched its "Redeploy Illinois" in 2004.63 State funds were to be allocated to counties based on a formula:64 local jurisdictions were rewarded for creating alternatives to detention and penalized for the use of detention.65 Court commitments, the primary target of the legislation, went from 115 in 2004 to seven in 2007, a 94 percent reduction.66 One of the key accomplishments was that Redeploy Illinois "removed the once popular fiscal incentive to send youth to state correctional facilities."67 New York, Pennsylvania, California, Texas and Wisconsin have changed their funding calculus as well.68 CONCLUSION Meaningful juvenile justice reform follows a predictable path. A prerequisite is understanding that punitive, exclusionary and stigmatizing interventions are unlikely to reduce crime and may increase anti-social behavior. Of those, incarceration and out-of-home placement are the most expensive and detrimental interventions. Put another way, a great deal of research supports which programs work—and don't work—and finding them has never been easier. Additionally, services are more likely to be effective when provided in the community where the child lives. When evidence-based programming is targeted to high-risk kids using a proven risk January 2013 Bench & Bar 13