Research Summary The juvenile court was established to help children through the use of punishment and rehabilitation and, in so doing, “save” them from a life of crime and disadvantage. Diversion programs and policies emerged in the 1970s as one way to achieve this goal. Despite concerns about its potential harm, diversion became increasingly popular in subsequent decades. We examine the logic of a prominent contemporary diversion effort, civil citation, to illuminate tensions inherent to traditional and contemporary diversion. We then review extant evidence on traditional diversion efforts, examine civil citation laws, and identify the salience of both traditional and contemporary, police‐centered diversion efforts for youth and the juvenile court. The analysis highlights that diversion may help children but that it also may harm them. It highlights that the risk of net‐widening for the police and the court is considerable. And it highlights the importance of, and need for, research on the use and effects of diversion and the conditions under which it may produce benefits and avoid harms. Policy Implications This article recommends a more tempered embrace of diversion and a fuller embrace of research‐guided efforts to achieve the juvenile court's ideals. Diversion may be effective under certain conditions, but these conditions need to be identified and then met.

Maltreated youths are more susceptible to exploitation in human trafficking. Sexual abuse in connection with high ACE scores may serve as a key predictor of exploitation in human trafficking for both boys and girls.

Research Summary The Florida Department of Juvenile Justice has implemented a disposition matrix to guide recommendations made by juvenile probation officers to the court. This study examines whether recidivism rates for dispositions/placements made within the suggested range of this matrix differ from those outside of the suggested range. Using a sample of 38,117 juvenile offenders, we found that the dispositions/placements within the suggested range had an average recidivism rate of 19.4%, whereas those whose dispositions were outside the range had an average recidivism rate twice as high (38.7%). Furthermore, dispositions/placements that were the least restrictive option within the suggested range performed best. Dispositions above the suggested range (more restrictive) performed poorly, although those below the suggested range (less restrictive than suggested) performed the worst. These results held for males and females, across race/ethnicity, and across risk to reoffend levels. Policy Implications Implementation of structured decision‐making tools leads to questions from stakeholders and front‐line staff charged with using those tools regarding their effectiveness. Research and theory‐based justifications do not hold the weight actual data from the implementation population provide. These tools help control costs, facilitate planning, and can improve outcomes. Monthly monitoring of adherence rates, development of override and management oversight protocols, and regular feedback to front‐line staff are critical components of success.

Although research has oft-documented a maltreatment-delinquency link, the effect of involvement in-and timing of-child welfare system involvement on offending has received less attention. We examine whether the timing of child welfare involvement has differential effects on recidivism of deep-end juvenile offenders (youth who have been adjudicated delinquent by the court and placed in juvenile justice residential programs). The current study uses a large, diverse sample of 12,955 youth completing juvenile justice residential programs between 1 January 2010 and 30 June 2013 in Florida (13 % female, 55 % Black, 11 % Hispanic). Additionally, we explore the direct effects of childhood traumatic events on delinquency, as well as their indirect effects through child welfare involvement using structural equation modeling. The findings indicate that adverse childhood experiences fail to exert a direct effect on recidivism, but do exhibit a significant indirect effect on recidivism through child welfare involvement, which is itself associated with recidivism. This means that while having exposures to more types of childhood traumatic events does not, in and of itself, increase the likelihood of re-offending, effects of such experiences operate through child welfare placement. Differences in the effects of maltreatment timing and of adverse childhood experiences are observed across sex and race/ethnicity subgroups. Across all racial subgroups, exposures to adverse childhood experiences have a significant effect on the likelihood of child welfare placement, yet child welfare placement exerts a significant effect on recidivism for White and Hispanic youth, but not for Black youth. Only Hispanic female and White male youth with overlapping child welfare and juvenile justice cases (open cases in both systems at the same time during the study period) were more likely to recidivate than their delinquent-only counterpart youth. Crossover status (child welfare and juvenile justice involvement, whether prior or open cases) was essentially irrelevant with respect to the re-offending of Black youth completing juvenile justice residential programs. The findings indicate the effects of exposure to adverse childhood experiences, and child welfare system and juvenile justice system involvement on re-offending are not uniform across subgroups of youth but that earlier child welfare involvement is more detrimental than concurrent child welfare system involvement when it does matter.