Grant Proposal. Second Chance Act Smart On Juvenile Justice:

Florida Legislatures created the Florida Department of Juvenile Justice in 1994 to serve as the state agency responsible for youth involved in the juvenile justice system. Although the state agency is under the authority of the state governor, Secretary Christina Daly, who provides leadership for the organization, each circuit has a leadership team who runs the daily operation of each sub-department. The Department’s headquarter is located in Tallahassee Florida where 3,000 employees are employed statewide. Broward County, the seventeenth circuit employs one hundred and twenty employees in Probation. The Department’s mission is to increase public safety by reducing juvenile delinquency through effective prevention, intervention and treatment services that strengthen families and turn around the lives of troubled youth. The Department’s vision is that the children and families of Florida will live in safe, nurturing communities that provide for their needs, recognize their strengths and support their success. The Department has five guiding principles: Prevention and education are paramount; Strengthen partnerships with judicial, legislative and community stakeholders; Promote public safety through effective intervention; provide a safe and nurturing environment for our children and preserve and restore physical and mental health (http://www.djj.state.fl.us/about-us/mission).

For starters, children in the juvenile correction system are not rehabilitated for drug addictions or treated for mental health conditions. Being incarcerated does nothing positive for them. These children become stuck in the cycle of arrests and reoffending, in which every time they are brought back to a facility it is now exponentially harder for them to return to be a functioning member of society. In fact, there are kids who have been trapped “in this system for decades” (Mayeux). Obviously juvenile detention policies do not work, or these children would have been reformed and not have been in the same situation for so long. Young adults stuck in this cycle get released and then are immediately back where they started when they break another law, harming the teenager’s future, and endangering public safety (Mayeux). Society, in fact, would benefit from a rehabilitory stance on juvenile crime instead of a punishing one. Juvenile detention intervenes in these at-risk children’s lives in a way that actually turns them into criminals, by imposing stereotypes on them, and treating them like they are dangerous, and not worth fixing. The American perspective on juvenile crime needs to change, because the current program is not benefitting at-risk children, or

Rehabilitation for at risk teens has been an ongoing issue that runs deep in certain communities. When kids at young ages are exposed to stress and have to cope early on with dysfunction they are denied the opportunity to mature and conditioned to commit thinking errors that perpetuate a young offender into an adult offender. To find ways to break this cycle John Hubner accounts his time on the Giddings State School Capital Offenders Program and how a group of counselors are able to combine many strategies in rehabilitating young offenders who have committed serious crimes. Young people convicted of serious crimes are often transferred to adult prisons that institutionalize young people to prison life only increasing the likely hood of

Studies suggest that there is a divide between the government and public response to juvenile incarceration. Bullis & Yovas (2005) state that support is given to correctional facilities to house juvenile offenders as a form of punishment (as cited in Shannon, 2013, p. 17). Individuals who support this perspective are often more likely to support the construction of more prisons and stern penalties on crime based upon the presumptions that youthful offenders are aware of the consequences of their actions (Drakeford, 2002 as cited in Shannon, 2013, p. 17). On the other hand, opponents of this perspective believe that incarceration creates an opportunity to rehabilitate the offenders (Huffine, 2006 as cited in Shannon, 2013, p. 18). This perspective supports the purpose of juvenile detention centers as “preparatory in nature – that is, offering services focused on the development of skills needed to return successfully to mainstream

As with adults, many nonviolent, substance-abusing juvenile offenders repeatedly cycle through the system due to a lack of intervention measures that would provide sanctions and services necessary to change their deviant behavior. In an attempt to resolve this problem, many communities have established juvenile drug courts. Determining the target population and eligibility is centered on making use of limited available resources. Because of this, most juvenile drug courts focus on non-violent juveniles with moderate to heavy substance abuse problems. The offender must sign the drug court agreement and a release of information, which states they admit to committing the crime.

Clearly, there is a need to make communities safe and assist a population of African American male youth, that are headed towards a continued self destruction path, of criminal life. Causes such as lack of employment, lack of education, social disparities and an injustice justice system, leads to high recidivism rates among African-American juvenile offenders. It is imperative that programs are implemented in areas such as rehabilitation, intervention, job ready skills, substance abuse treatment, educational skills and anti-social behavior programs, to help move the African American male juvenile youth into a positive direction. In a direction of not having to make life criminal choices, from living in communities of disparities and

The Juvenile Justice system, since its conception over a century ago, has been one at conflict with itself. Originally conceived as a fatherly entity intervening into the lives of the troubled urban youths, it has since been transformed into a rigid and adversarial arena restrained by the demands of personal liberty and due process. The nature of a juvenile's experience within the juvenile justice system has come almost full circle from being treated as an adult, then as an unaccountable child, now almost as an adult once more.

North Carolina is the only state that prosecute 16 and 17 year olds that is charged with criminal offenses in the criminal justice system. These criminal records can have severe collateral consequences especially for minorities. While having a grave fiscal impact on individuals, families and communities. Due to this, Durham County introduced a Misdemeanor Diversion program (MDP) which is a 90 day program that tries to avoid a first arrest for low-risk youth in Durham- County. The purpose of this program is to keep the youth out of the adult criminal system.

To address the increasing recidivism rate among offenders in the juvenile and adult criminal justice system, comprehensive restorative justice programs should expand to a much wider faction of the United States criminal justice system. Programs should be implemented on federal, state, and local levels to effectively and efficiently achieve this goal. The goals that should be strived for must be kept in mind so that adequate progress can be made and so that benchmarks will be met when required. Administrators must not let their restorative justice system fall behind to the point of no return, as many would argue that the current system of criminal justice has. This paper will focus on the requirements for proper management and administration of the proposed solution. The requirements include the skills needed for effective management of the proposal, identifying poor managerial skills and the ways to improve those skills, the necessity of benchmarks and milestones, and reasons that may delay proper implementation.

America cannot afford to continue incarcerating nonviolent criminals. Why reward offenders with food, clothing, shelter, medical care, and treatment programs at the taxpayers ' expense? Community supervision programs that require offenders to work to support themselves and their families make better sense. In addition, offenders should pay supervision fees, restitution to victims and court costs. Further, offenders on community supervision could utilize to addiction treatment programs and mental health services to avoid re-offending. Community supervision offers an excellent alternative to the high cost of incarceration while shifting the financial burden to the offender.

To examine current treatments, firstly, seeing the re-offenders rate is helpful. Although the re-offenders rate of juvenile offenders are not calculated nationally, according to 2010 Juvenile justice Outcome Evaluation Report (2010) by California Department of Correction and Rehabilitation (CDCR) in California, State-level incarceration recidivism rate of minors released in fiscal year 2004 to 2005 is 56.5 percent. 56.5 percent of released juvenile offenders returned to incarceration within 3 years. Also 81.1 percent of minors leased in fiscal 2004 to 2005 were rearrested. 2012 Outcome Evaluation Report (2012) by CDCR shows 25.4 percent of juvenile offenders who released from Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) in 2007 to 2008 returned to Division of Adult institutions (DAI). From 2010 to 2012, the rate had decreased more than half. However, in 2010 to 2012, still one of every four juvenile offenders commit a crime again. The expectable recidivism rate can be considered as a large number. The higher

Introduction: Recidivism or, habitual relapses into crime, has time and time again proven to be an issue among delinquents, which thereby increases the overall juvenile prison population. This issue has become more prevalent than what we realize. Unless a unit for measuring a juvenile’s risk of recidivism is enacted and used to determine a system to promote effective prevention, than the juvenile prison population will continue to increase. Our court system should not only focus on punishing the said juvenile but also enforce a program or policy that will allow for prevention of recidivism. So the question remains, how can recidivism in the juvenile prison population be prevented so that it is no longer the central cause for increased

It is the mission of the South Carolina Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) to protect the public and reclaim juveniles through prevention, community services, education, and rehabilitative services in the least restrictive environment. -Sylvia Murray, Director

The goals of juvenile corrections are too deter, rehabilitate and reintegrate, prevent, punish and reattribute, as well as isolate and control youth offenders and offenses. Each different goal comes with its own challenges. The goal of deterrence has its limits; because rules and former sanctions, as well anti-criminal modeling and reinforcement are met with young rebellious minds. Traditional counseling and diversion which are integral aspects of community corrections can sometimes be ineffective, and studies have shown that sometimes a natural self intervention can take place as the youth grows older; resulting in the youth outgrowing delinquency.

Finally, literature on the juvenile justice system often focuses on program implementation and effectiveness at addressing rehabilitation, as well as diversion techniques within the system (Greenwood, 2008). This review audits these problems in detail and establishes them within the bigger struggle in the juvenile justice system to rehabilitate youth offenders.