I began examining Indiana’s juvenile justice system with a question affecting people my age: When a young person is referred to the justice system, what determines whether that referral leads to help, accountability and a second chance or to deeper involvement in the system?
I expected the numbers to answer that question neatly. Instead, I learned how difficult it can be to determine whether young people in different counties have comparable opportunities.
St. Joseph County makes the issue local. Indiana’s diversion directory, based on counties’ self-reported information, lists Five Star Life’s LIFT program, a community-based option for certain low-risk, first-time, misdemeanor and status offense cases. Its mentoring, skill-building, truancy and family services show what local capacity can provide and why access should not rest on geography.
One statewide fact makes the problem concrete. According to the Youth Justice Oversight Committee’s 2023 diversion report, 68 of 85 responding counties reported diversion programming beyond informal adjustment; the other 17 listed no programming beyond informal adjustment. That does not prove that young people in every one of those counties have no path to support, nor does it explain why programs are absent. It does show that the reported availability of structured alternatives was uneven enough to demand a public response.
The human stakes are plain. Detention can disrupt school, family routines and the relationships that help a young person regain stability. Good diversion does not mean excusing harm. It can require accountability while connecting a family to counseling, mentoring, restorative practices or other support that addresses why a young person entered the system in the first place.
Indiana has already acted on this principle. The state has diversion and community alternatives grants. It has also created a Youth and Family Advisory Group. Those steps recognize that effective juvenile justice requires more than a courtroom.
Now Indiana should ask whether its commitments reach the places with the fewest alternatives. A grant program is only as useful as its ability to expand real capacity: a provider who can see a family, transportation that can get a young person to an appointment, a school partnership that can support reentry and community programs that exist outside the largest counties.
This is where county flexibility should become a source of learning rather than geographic luck. Counties should be free to develop better approaches. One may build a partnership with mental health providers; another may create restorative-justice programming through schools, faith communities, or local nonprofits. The state should not flatten that innovation. It should identify what works, help smaller or resource-constrained counties adapt it and make the results visible.
My legal research showed where local discretion enters Indiana’s juvenile justice system. My quantitative work showed why it is difficult to see the results of that discretion across counties. Together, they point to a civic obligation: Indiana should ensure that local capacity does not decide the entire range of options available to a young person.
That starts with sustained, targeted investment. Indiana should continue and expand its diversion grants, prioritize counties with the fewest community-based alternatives and publish whether those investments expanded access. The state should report not only how much money was awarded, but whether new services became available, how many young people used them, and what happened afterward.
It should also give young people and families a permanent, formal role in evaluating the system. A youth advisory group should not be an occasional consultation. Indiana could designate youth and family seats in oversight processes, invite public testimony, publish recommendations and require agencies to respond in writing. Data and legal analysis reveal a great deal; they do not always reveal what an appointment feels like when transportation is unavailable or whether a family understood the choice it was offered.
No policy can make every county identical, and it should not try. But the values Indiana brings to young people should not become weaker at the county line. The General Assembly should sustain and target diversion funding, require public evidence of whether it expanded access and establish a permanent youth-and-family voice in statewide oversight.
Every young person deserves more than geographic luck.
Malek Kamal is a senior at Homestead High School in Fort Wayne and a student researcher examining Indiana juvenile justice under university faculty mentorship. He has also served as a legal intern, filed an amicus curiae brief with the Indiana Supreme Court and researched commentary considered by the United States Sentencing Commission.
This article originally appeared on South Bend Tribune: Luck shouldn’t decide a child’s chance at diversion | Opinion
Reporting by Malek Kamal, Guest columnist / South Bend Tribune
USA TODAY Network via Reuters Connect
By Malek Kamal, Guest columnist | USA TODAY Network
