Overview
This week, we begin our examination of contemporary responses to youths’ illegal behaviors. The goal for this week is to assess pre-adjudication responses to youths’ illegal behavior. Primarily, our focus will be on nonformal responses or diversion. As a prelude to this discussion, we will consider the “school to prison pipeline” as it provides a good way to understand the need for diversion in juvenile justice.
Objectives
Upon completion of this week’s lesson, you should be able to:
- Define what is meant by the “school to prison pipeline.”
- Explain how the political economy contributes to the school to prison pipeline.
- Explain how trends in education, policing, and juvenile justice contribute to the school to prison pipeline
- Describe juvenile arrest trends and trends in the willingness of police to refer youths to juvenile court.
- Define radical nonintervention or true diversion and assess the role in can play in juvenile justice.
- Explain the rationale for diversion and its value in juvenile justice.
- Describe diversion programs that appear to be effective and programs that are not effective
- Assess arguments that are made in support of diversion.
- Assess the potential problems that should be addressed when developing or operating diversion programs
Tasks
- View Video Lecture (Part 1 and Part 2 below) on the School to Prison Pipeline. While viewing the videos, use the pause feature to stop the slides when needed so that you can examine the content.
Part 1
Part 2 - Watch the video: Rethinking Challenging Kids-Where There’s a Skill There’s a Way | J. Stuart Ablon | TEDxBeaconStreet
- Read the material below, Juvenile Diversion.
- View Video Lecture 3
2
Source: Elrod, P., & R. Scott Ryder (2021). Juvenile justice: A social, historical and legal perspective (5th ed.). Burlington, MA: Jones & Bartlett Learning.
Introduction
Although there is a lack of agreement on how to define diversion, the intent of diversion is to respond to youths who violate the law in ways that keep them out of (i.e., diverted from) the formal juvenile justice process.1
Diversion
is based on the fact that formal responses to youths who violate the law, such as arrest and referral to the juvenile court, do not always protect the best interests of children, nor do such responses necessarily protect the community. Indeed, decisions that lead youths to become formally involved with the juvenile court or other juvenile justice institutions may be harmful to many youths and increase the likelihood of future delinquent behavior. This is because
formal processing may cause a youth to develop a negative or delinquent self-image,2 stigmatize a youth in the eyes of significant others,3 or subject a youth to inhumane treatment. In addition, formal processing may restrict a youth’s opportunities to associate with law-abiding peers or to engage in conventional activities, and it may encourage youths to associate with peers engaged in delinquency. As a result, youths who become formally involved in juvenile justice may engage in more delinquency, not less. Consequently, efforts to divert youths from the juvenile justice process
(e.g., by warning and releasing) as well as efforts to divert youth to specific diversionary programs
(e.g., counseling and community service programs) have long been a part of juvenile justice practice. In addition, in recent years, diversion has been touted as a way to reduce the problem of minority overrepresentation in juvenile justice.4
Early Efforts at Diversion
Efforts to divert children from normal criminal justice processing have a long history. Before the development of specialized correctional institutions for youths in the 1800s, children were subject to the same laws and criminal justice process as adults. Nevertheless, there is considerable evidence that they were often spared the harshest penalties because of their age. Historically, police officers, sheriffs, constables, and others responsible for law enforcement have at times decided to ignore the illegal actions of youths. At other times, law enforcement officers have handled matters on their own by warning youths, returning them to their parents for punishment, or meting out
punishment themselves. To some extent, efforts to spare youths from the most severe punishments or to let them escape punishment altogether were based on the recognition that the young were less experienced and that formal or severe punishments would provide little benefit to the youth or the community.
The development of the houses of refuge in the early 1800s and the juvenile court movement in the late 1800s and early 1900s are often cited as early examples of efforts to divert youths from the adult criminal justice process.5 Indeed, the houses of refuge were partly established to divert children from the harsh conditions of adult correctional institutions, which were seen by 19th century child advocates as harmful to youths and likely to produce more dangerous offenders.6 Later, the child savers of the late 1800s and their supporters helped establish juvenile courts in an effort to divert children from adult jails and prisons and from adult courts, which were often reluctant to sanction and control wayward children.7
Although diversion has a long history, the development of routine diversionary strategies and specialized diversion programs began to gain momentum in the late 1960s. The decade of the 1960s was a time of widespread social unrest, increases in juvenile arrests, and critical scrutiny of basic institutions, including juvenile justice. Concern about the effectiveness of formal responses to juvenile offenses was clearly reflected in recommendations made by the 1967 President’s Commission on Law Enforcement and the Administration of Justice. These recommendations
were formulated to improve juvenile justice practice and served as a catalyst for the development
of diversion programs during the late 1960s and 1970s. According to the commission:
The formal sanctioning system and pronouncement of delinquency should be used
only as a last resort. In place of the formal system, dispositional alternatives to adjudication
must be developed for dealing with juveniles, including agencies to provide and coordinate
services and procedures to achieve necessary control without unnecessary stigma . . . .
The range of conduct for which court intervention is authorized should be narrowed,
with greater emphasis upon consensual and informal means of meeting the problems of
difficult children.8
To facilitate the number of diversionary responses available to communities, the commission called for the establishment of youth services bureaus. These bureaus were intended to supplement existing community agencies that dealt with children and to coordinate programs and services for youths involved in delinquent behavior as well as other youths in the community. They also were intended to serve as an alternative to juvenile court processing in the hope that substantial numbers of youths would be diverted from the formal juvenile justice process each year.9 Through federal grants, primarily from the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration (LEAA) and the Office of Youth Development and Delinquency Prevention and with smaller matching grants Provided by local and state governments, youth services bureaus were established in communities
around the country.
10 Typically, youth services bureaus had five basic goals:
1. Divert juveniles from the formal juvenile justice system.
2. Fill gaps in service by advocating for youths and developing services for youths and their families.
3. Provide case coordination and program coordination.
4. Modify youth services systems so that they could better meet youths’ needs.
5. Involve youths in the decision-making process.11
Evaluation studies found that the typical youth services bureau was staffed by five or six full-time staff members and from one to 50 volunteers. The types of services they provided included tutoring; recreational programming; individual, group, and family counseling; and job referral. The typical bureau operated in a low socioeconomic status urban neighborhood
where there were high rates of crime and unemployment and limited resources for youths. Each year, the typical bureau served approximately 350 youths who were self-referred or referred by the police, schools, and parents, among other sources.12
Although youth services bureaus were popular in many jurisdictions, they experienced some problems. One difficult issue they faced was the question of voluntary participation. The ideal was to provide services to youths, and possibly their families, on a voluntary basis. However, if a youth or a family member failed to follow through on treatment plans developed by a bureau, a referral to the appropriate juvenile court was often made, even if the youth avoided further delinquent behavior. In addition, if a bureau determined that a youth was not likely to benefit from its services, he or she could be returned to the original referral source.13 Such practices, of course, could result in formal processing—hardly what diversion programs are designed to accomplish. In addition to funding youth services bureaus, LEAA helped fund a variety of other diversion programs in communities around the country. These programs included “alternative schools, job development and training programs, police social work programs, and family counseling programs
for youths referred by the police, schools, and court intake personnel.”14
In the late 1970s, however, LEAA began to alter its priorities away from prevention and diversion and shift funds into law enforcement and rehabilitation programs. The initial LEAA funding for the youth services bureaus was intended as seed money to help them establish local prevention and diversion programs, but after a certain period, usually two years, communities
were expected to continue funding these programs on their own. In some cases, communities did assume full support of local youth services bureaus, but by 1982 many bureaus partly developed with LEAA seed money were discontinued because of a lack of funds.15 Nevertheless, a perceived need for diversion programs continued to motivate the development of such programs in communities around the country.
The Theoretical Foundation of Diversion
Like other responses to youths’ behaviors, diversion from the formal juvenile justice process is based on an underlying theory. As previously noted, for a long time many law enforcement officials, juvenile justice reformers, and students of crime and punishment have doubted the reformative potential of adult courts, jails, and prisons and have sought to spare youths from criminal processing. In addition, many of these people and others have questioned the wisdom of involving youths in the juvenile justice process and have argued that other responses are more appropriate in many cases. These concerns became amplified as a result of the political and social unrest that characterized much of the 1960s and 1970s. This amplification was aided by the popularity of labeling theory, which explained how responses to youths’ problem behaviors such as delinquency could lead to more problems. These two factors, questions about the value of formal processing for many youths and a theoretical rationale for diverting youths, helped spur the development of diversion programs beginning in the late 1960s and early 1970s.
The Social Context of the 1960s and the Popularization of
Diversion
The 1960s and early 1970s proved to be fruitful for the development and proliferation of diversionary responses to youths’ illegal behavior. For one thing, this period was marked by considerable social unrest, and a substantial portion of the protests that occurred were initiated and led by youths. Furthermore, many Americans, both young and old, seriously questioned
the operation of basic institutions, including criminal and juvenile justice agencies. Added to this was a marked increase in juvenile arrest rates as a growing adolescent population began to have increasing contact with the police and the juvenile courts. Not only were increasing numbers of young persons being arrested and processed by juvenile courts for violent and property offenses, but more youths were being arrested and processed for status offenses as well. Indeed, according to the President’s Commission on Law Enforcement and the Administration of Justice, more than 25% of the youths in juvenile courts and institutions were status offenders.16
Also during the 1960s and 1970s, the societal reaction perspective, or what is sometimes referred to as labeling theory, began to play a more important role in criminological thinking.17 This perspective focused on three interrelated topics: “(1) the historical development of deviant labels, (2) the process by which labels are applied, and (3) the consequences of being labeled.”18 A major argument of this perspective is that social responses, particularly formal social responses, can contribute to subsequent delinquent behavior. As a result, it argued for the diversion and deinstitutionalization of juvenile offenders when possible and questioned the wisdom of responding through formal means to each act of youth misbehavior.
The first topic of concern to societal reaction or labeling theorists encompasses two subtopics: how deviant categories such as delinquent are produced and how social control mechanisms such as the juvenile court are established. A good example of a work focused on this topic is Anthony Platt’s classic book The Child Savers, which examines the “invention of delinquency” and the development of the first juvenile court in Chicago in 1899, a court that was primarily designed to control problem youths.19
The second topic includes the way in which control agents apply deviant labels to others and the factors that influence an individual’s efforts to resist or accept these labels.20 According to the societal reaction or labeling perspective, being labeled with a term like delinquent or chronic offender may cause a person to develop negative self-perceptions and cause others to respond to the person based on the label. Furthermore, labeling can limit the opportunities available to the person and lead him or her to develop a deviant identity, increasing the likelihood of subsequent offending. Thus, societal reaction researchers in the field of juvenile justice might examine how police, judges, prosecutors, probation officers, and other control agents attempt to apply labels such as delinquent, status offender, and chronic offender to youths. In addition, they might explore a range of factors—such as youths’ perceptions of themselves, family influences, peer reactions, and interactions between youths and others—that tend to reinforce a deviant label or help youths resist such a label.
The topic that has received the most attention in juvenile justice circles is the third topic area of interest to societal reaction or labeling theory researchers: the consequences of being labeled. According to societal reaction or labeling theorists, labels such as delinquent, chronic offender, thief, doper and the like can have a variety of negative consequences for those who are
labeled. For example, a label attached to a person can lead others to assume things about the person that may not be true. A youth who has gotten into trouble in the past and has been labeled as a delinquent may be incorrectly treated as untrustworthy or may be treated more punitively as a result of being labeled. Indeed, the perceptions that social control agents have of others appear to play an important role in how youths are treated. If, through being labeled, youths are believed
to possess undesirable characteristics associated in the public mind with criminality or potential criminality, they are more likely to be formally processed by police and other control agents and to be avoided by law-abiding individuals.
Another problem noted by societal reaction theorists is that youths saddled with a negative label often have fewer opportunities for involvement in normal law-abiding activities. Without such opportunities, they are more likely to associate with those in similar circumstances, thus increasing the likelihood of further deviance.21 Furthermore, responding to youths as if they were a lesser form of human being may lead youths to see themselves in a more negative light.22
In an interesting study, Charles Frazier described the case of a young man named Ken, who was tried and “branded” a criminal in a small town. Frazier noted that labeling Ken as a criminal led his former friends and associates to see him differently. Rejected by his former friends, Ken had fewer opportunities to engage in conventional activities and began to see himself as a criminal.23 According to societal reaction theorists, being treated as different and being denied opportunities
to associate with law-abiding persons may cause an individual to adopt a delinquent or criminal identity that becomes a master status—one that becomes the person’s primary public identity and that overrides other statuses the individual may enjoy.24
A critical issue raised by societal reaction theorists is whether responses to deviant behavior such as delinquency can increase the likelihood of additional deviance. This possibility was spelled out by sociologist Edwin Lemert in 1951, when he distinguished between primary and secondary deviance. According to Lemert:
Primary deviance is assumed to arise in a wide variety of social, cultural, and psychological
contexts, and at best has only marginal implications for the psychic structure of the individual. As a result, primary deviance does not lead the individual to see themselves in a fundamentally different way. However, repeated reactions to the individual’s behavior can result in a process where changes in the individual’s identity and social roles can occur and this can produce secondary deviance. Secondary deviation is deviant behavior, or social roles based upon it, which becomes a means of defense, attack, or adaptation to overt and covert problems created by the societal reaction to primary deviation. In effect, the original “causes” of the deviation recede and give way to the central importance of the disapproving, degradational, and isolating reactions of society.25
The Policy Implications of Societal Reaction (Labeling) Theory
Societal reaction theory has had a profound effect on social policy,26 yet its policy implications are rather different from those of other theoretical approaches. In contrast to those who argue that punishment of some sort needs to be imposed to deter youths from further delinquent activity, societal reaction theorists call for minimal intervention or none at all whenever possible to avoid the negative consequences of labeling. For example, Edwin Lemert made a case for the use of “judicious nonintervention,”27 arguing that much delinquent behavior is normal. Similarly,
sociologist Edwin Schur argued for a policy of radical nonintervention or what is sometimes called true
diversion (i.e., leaving children alone whenever possible) to avoid the negative consequences associated with involvement in the juvenile justice process.28
Societal reaction theory had an important influence on those who looked critically at the juvenile justice process in the 1960s and 1970s. In addition to serving as the theoretical rationale for diversion, it played a significant role in the development of three other juvenile justice reforms implemented during this period: decriminalization, increased emphasis on due process, and deinstitutionalization. Each reform stressed keeping juveniles out of the formal juvenile justice process whenever possible.29
Decriminalization
Advocates of the societal reaction perspective pointed out that the criminalization of some behaviors often produces more harm than good. For example, behaviors such as running away from home and not going to school are undesirable behaviors, but treating them as crimes does not necessarily benefit the youths who engage in them. On the contrary, treating truants and runaways as juvenile offenders may actually have many undesirable consequences. In addition, formal
responses to status offenses, according to critics, were expensive and ineffective. As a result, societal reaction theorists favored the decriminalization of status offenses (i.e., redefining them as social problems to be dealt with by welfare agencies as opposed to criminal actions handled by juvenile courts), and this policy was adopted in many jurisdictions around the country.
Increased Emphasis on Due Process
Societal reaction theorists also were wary of the discretionary powers available to juvenile justice officials, including police and judges. Many of these theorists claimed that juvenile justice officials often abused their authority and acted in ways that were harmful to those under their care. As a solution, Edwin Schur argued for “a return to the rule of law.”30 According to this approach, constitutional safeguards should be extended to youths to protect them from the power of the state. Moreover, punishments should be spelled out in law and should be determinate, preventing
capricious actions on the part of officials inclined to extend punishments indefinitely.
Societal reaction theory has been cited as an important contributor to the movement to extend due process protections to juveniles. Today juveniles enjoy more due process protections than they did before the mid-1960s, but the extent to which the juvenile justice process has become more humane in its treatment of youths is not clear.31 Simply extending legal protections to youths does not mean that those protections will be implemented in practice, and considerable
evidence suggests that the extension of due process protections to juveniles has had less of an effect on juvenile court proceedings than some have claimed.32
Deinstitutionalization
Another reform supported by those influenced by the societal reaction perspective was deinstitutionalization—the removal of juveniles from correctional facilities. Like diversion, deinstitutionalization was intended to protect youths from the harmful effects of incarceration. Indeed, criminologists from diverse theoretical positions argued that the reform of youths involved in delinquent behavior required efforts to “improve attachments to family and school, increase
academic skills, open up legitimate opportunities, and reduce association with delinquent peers.”33 The incarceration of youths accomplishes none of these objectives. As the president’s commission stated in its 1967 report, The Challenge of Crime in a Free Society, “Institutions tend to isolate offenders from society, both physically and psychologically, cutting them off from schools, jobs, families, and other supportive influences and increasing the probability that the label of criminal will be indelibly impressed upon them.”34
Several states—including Massachusetts, Maryland, Missouri, North Dakota, South Dakota, Oregon, and Utah—have made efforts to implement community-based correctional strategies, and others such as Kansas, Virginia, and Connecticut have articulated the importance of community-based programs and have taken steps to move in this direction.35 The most ambitious of these efforts was led by Jerome Miller, commissioner of the Department of Youth Services in Massachusetts during the 1970s. Under Miller’s direction, Massachusetts dramatically reduced its institutional population
by closing training schools and placing youths in community-based programs. Moreover, this occurred despite claims that Miller’s actions would produce an upsurge in juvenile crime. That did not happen in communities where a network of community-based programs existed.36 In addition, several states have made considerable progress in removing status offenders from correctional facilities.37
Arguments in Support of Diversion Programs
One argument offered in support of diversion is that it can reduce the stigma and other negative
consequences of being arrested and thus reduce the probability of recidivism. Other supporting reasons and arguments also have been advanced. For example, diversion programs are believed to allow some youths to receive assistance who would not otherwise be helped because juvenile corrections programs often fail to provide needed services to youths. Advocates also point out that diversion programs allow juvenile justice decision makers to use discretion and be more flexible than many courts in responding to youths.38 Furthermore, many people favor diversion because it reduces the burden placed on juvenile court resources by decreasing the number of youths referred to the courts. In addition, diversion programs promise the added benefit of freeing up scarce resources, which could then be devoted to dealing with more youths involved in serious criminal
behaviors.39
Another argument offered in support of diversion is based on the fact that many youths who engage in delinquent behavior are not identified and punished, yet they cease offending without formal intervention. Nor do youths’ behaviors always escalate if they are not identified and punished. This suggests that formal intervention is often unnecessary. Given the potential
negative consequences of formal processing, subjecting youths to formal processing can cause them great harm (and the community great harm to the extent that these youths are encouraged to engage in further delinquency).
One final argument for diversion is that it has the potential to reduce disproportionate minority
contact (DMC). DMC refers to a long-standing problem in juvenile justice in which minority youth
are disproportionately represented at each stage of the juvenile justice process. If youth are diverted from the juvenile justice process, this could reduce or eliminate DMC. This is more likely when radical nonintervention or true diversion is used. In addition, involvement in diversion programs could also help reduce DMC if youths are not referred to court if they fail to attend the program or adhere to program guidelines or conditions. However, there are several potential
problems with diversion programs that could contribute to DMC. We examine those problems later in this section of the course.
The Spread of Diversion Programs Since the 1960s
As already noted, many diversion programs have been developed since the late 1960s. Among the most popular have been Scared Straight programs; family crisis-intervention programs for status offenders; limited individual, family, and group counseling programs for status and youths involved in criminal activity; runaway shelters; individual and family counseling programs coupled with educational, employment, and recreational services; basic casework and counseling programs; dispute-resolution programs involving restitution and community service; and teen court, truancy court, drug court, and restorative justice programs more recently. Unfortunately, many of these
programs have not been carefully evaluated or only a small number of evaluations have been conducted. As a result, their effectiveness has not been clearly demonstrated. The following sections examine some of the programs that have been evaluated.
Scared Straight or Deterrence-Based Programs
Scared Straight programs, which began to be developed in the 1970s, were popularized by several
films about the Juvenile Awareness Project, which began in September 1976 at Rahway State Prison in New Jersey, a maximum-security institution, and a more recent television series on the A&E
network, Beyond Scared Straight. The first film—Scared Straight!—received considerable publicity and presented testimonial evidence that suggested the program was a tremendous success. Indeed, the film won both an Emmy and an Academy Award; it was shown to countless youth groups and school classes, and it aired on national television in 1979. The second and third films, essentially 10-year and 20-year follow-ups of the initial documentary, made similar claims regarding the effectiveness of the Juvenile Awareness Project.
In California, “scaring kids straight” became so popular that legislation was introduced that required busing 15,000 juveniles to state prisons for confrontation sessions similar to those at Rahway. In many other communities, tours of prisons and jails and confrontations with inmates were arranged to scare youths straight.43 The Juvenile Awareness Project was developed by a group of inmates called “lifers” who were serving long prison terms at Rahway. The goal of the lifers was to expose youths to the harsh realities of prison. To accomplish their goal, they did more than just
describe conditions in Rahway. The basic intervention employed consisted of a confrontation in which oral and sometimes physical abuse and intimidation were used to convey the brutality and human indignities characteristic of life in a prison such as Rahway. The prisoners who developed the program believed that making youths understand the consequences of their delinquent behavior would act as a deterrent to subsequent delinquency. Deterrence is the ability of the threat of a legal sanction or its application to prevent illegal behavior. Moreover, it is based on the idea that most persons are free-willed, rational, and hedonistic actors who will weigh the pros and cons
of different courses of action and behave in ways that increase rewards (pleasure) and minimize costs (pain). However, the program developers may not have considered the extent to which youths—because of their level of development, lack of life experience, and need for social experimentation—were likely to be impacted by a program lasting several hours and based on deterrence theory assumptions.
Although the Scared Straight! films and the A&E series claim that these programs are successful, an evaluation of the Juvenile Awareness Project at Rahway by James Finckenauer was far less encouraging.44 Finckenauer found that the youths who typically attended the Juvenile Awareness Project at Rahway were less delinquent than the films suggested. More disturbing, his research indicated that youths who went through the Rahway project were more likely to engage in subsequent delinquency than youths who had not attended the program.45 There were, however,
problems with Finckenauer’s evaluation. The evaluation design had called for the random assignment of youths to the experimental condition (the Rahway program) or to a control condition (no treatment). However, some of the agencies that selected youths did not select them on a completely random basis. Consequently, it is possible that the two groups may not be comparable. Even so, evaluations of programs similar to the Rahway program have produced results much like those reported by Finckenauer.
In a review of the evaluations of two other programs designed to scare youths straight, Richard Lundman found no evidence that those programs were effective.46 In one program that was similar to the program at Rahway because it used a confrontational style of interaction between youths and inmates, Lundman found no differences between experimental and control subjects over a six-month follow-up period. In the other program, which consisted of a tour of the facility
and meetings between inmates and youths, he found that youths who went through the program were more likely to engage in subsequent delinquency than youths in a control group (who did not participate in the program). This finding mirrors that of the most extensive examination of these types of programs to date. This research, conducted by Anthony Petrosino, Carolyn Turpin-Petrosino, Megan Hollis-Peel, and Julia Lavvenberg, consisted of an extensive review of the existing literature on programs like Scared Straight as well as a meta-analysis (a data-analysis technique
that examines treatment effects across different studies) of the existing literature. This research, as well as a meta-analysis conducted by James Finckenauer and Patricia Gavin, concluded that these programs are ineffective.47 In discussing the results of their research on juvenile awareness programs, Petrosino and his colleagues noted the following results:
These randomized trials, conducted over a 25-year period in eight different jurisdictions,
provide evidence that “Scared Straight” and other “juvenile awareness” programs are not
effective as a stand-alone crime prevention strategy. More importantly, they provide empirical evidence—under experimental conditions—that these programs likely increase the odds that children exposed to them will commit offenses in the future. Despite the variability in the type of intervention used, ranging from harsh, confrontational interactions to tours of the facility converge on the same result: an increase in criminality in the experimental group when compared to a no-treatment control. Doing nothing would have been better than exposing juveniles to the program.48
Family Crisis-Intervention Programs
Another type of diversion program involves providing crisis-intervention services to children and families in hopes of preventing subsequent problems and formal court involvement. A good example of this type of diversion program was developed in Sacramento, California, in 1969. Known as the Sacramento 601 Diversion Project, the program was intended to divert youths charged with status offenses from detention and formal court processing by having specially trained probation officers provide short-term crisis-intervention and treatment services to the youths and their families.50
This program focused on status offense cases referred to the juvenile court by police, parents, and school officials. The youths referred to the program were typically White, poor, female, and younger than 15 years of age. Also, three-quarters of the referred youths had no previous contact with the court. The usual reason for referral was the existence of family problems.51 When a youth was referred to the court, a specially trained probation officer would contact the youth’s parents and request that the parents and youth come to Juvenile Hall for an immediate counseling
session. When they arrived at Juvenile Hall, the probation officer would read the Miranda warning and explain that participation was voluntary. The officer indicated, however, that if they did not wish to participate in an immediate counseling session, their case would be referred to the court. The youth and parents were also told that if they agreed to participate in a counseling session, they could return for a limited number of sessions (the limit was five) if they chose to do so. It is no surprise that most parents and their children agreed to participate in counseling.52 After a juvenile waived his or her rights, a counseling session began in which the probation officer used family-intervention techniques. Essentially, these techniques were intended to get the family to look at the problem as a family issue that should be addressed by the entire family rather than by incarcerating the youth.53
An evaluation of the Sacramento 601 Diversion Project, which employed an experimental design, indicated that it produced some promising results. Only around 14% of those youths handled by the specially trained project probation officers were detained, and only some 4% were petitioned to the court. In comparison, of the youths handled by regular probation officers, 55% were detained and around 20% were petitioned to court.54
In addition, the program evaluation found that the project reduced recidivism. A follow-up study of youths 12 months after their involvement in the program found that 46% of those who received the specialized diversion services had another court referral, and 22% were referred to the court for a criminal offense. In comparison, 54% of those handled by regular probation officers were subsequently referred, and around 30% were referred for a criminal offense.55
Diversion Programs That Employ Individual, Family, and Group Counseling Services
Given the apparent success of the Sacramento County 601 Diversion Project, 11 other jurisdictions in California developed similar programs and began to evaluate those projects in the mid-1970s. These projects were developed in Compton, El Centro, Fremont, Irvine, La Colonia, Mendocino, Simi Valley, Stockton, Vacaville, and Vallejo. They were similar to the Sacramento 601 Diversion Project in several ways. For example, they substituted short-term family and individual counseling for detention and referral to juvenile court.56
There were, however, important differences between these projects and the Sacramento project. For example, more of the youths involved in these projects were male, Hispanic, and African American, and some were diverted after committing criminal offenses. In these projects, juveniles were referred by either police or probation officers. Youths received individual, family, and group counseling for four to six weeks on average, and the counseling included nearly six hours of contact services.57
The evaluators of these projects employed a quasi-experimental design—that is, they did not
use random assignment of youth to experimental and control conditions but instead attempted to approximate equivalence of the groups by comparing youths serviced by the diversion programs with youths who had similar race, age, sex, ethnicity, prior arrests, and referral source characteristics but were not serviced by the programs. Arrests of the individuals in the two
groups were then compared six months after the arrest that brought them to the attention of the authorities.58 A comparison of the two groups revealed that youths serviced by the diversion programs were arrested slightly less often during the six-month follow-up period than youths in the other group (around 25% compared with about 31%).59 These results suggest that diversion programs may produce modest reductions in recidivism. The researchers also found that diversion seems to have some benefits for males and females and for youths engaged in both criminal and status offending.
Diversion Programs That Employ Individual and Family Counseling
in Conjunction with Employment, Educational, and Recreational Services
As the number of diversion programs increased in the United States, researchers raised questions about their effectiveness. Among other things, they looked at the types of evaluations that had been done. In most instances, the diversion research in California was based on quasi-experimental designs, so it was difficult to tell whether the programs themselves had reduced recidivism or whether it was some unknown factor. Furthermore, it was unclear if diversion could be used effectively with criminal offenders, although there was some indication that it could. Finally, none
of the evaluations of diversion programs had employed a no-treatment group. Consequently, it was difficult to determine what the benefits of diversion programs were compared with doing nothing—a radical nonintervention approach.60 In response to these concerns and others, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention made $10 million available for the National Evaluation of Diversion Programs in the 1970s. As a result, four jurisdictions—Kansas City, Missouri; Memphis, Tennessee; Orange County, Florida; and New York City—developed experimental diversion projects. Each project excluded status offenders and included radical nonintervention as one of the experimental conditions. Those conditions consisted of (1) assigning youths to the diversion project, (2) doing nothing, and (3) referring the youths back to the original referral source for normal handling. This meant that some but not all of these youths penetrated
the juvenile justice system.61
Diverted juveniles in each of the four projects received individual and family counseling, and educational services were available to youths. However, each project tended to emphasize different services. For example, in Orange County, recreational services were emphasized; in Kansas City, some diverted juveniles were assigned adult counselors who acted as advocates in dealings with public agencies and organizations such as schools.62
An evaluation of these projects indicated no difference in rearrests among the three groups six and 12 months following the intervention. At the six-month point, 22% of the youths who had been enrolled in a diversion program, 22% of those released (radical nonintervention), and 22% of those handled in the usual way had experienced at least one rearrest. After 12 months, 31% of those diverted, 30% of those released, and 32% of those handled in the usual way had experienced at least one rearrest.63 The finding of “no difference” in the outcomes of the different types of diversion is important for at least two reasons: First, it suggests that youth law violators may benefit from diversion; second, it suggests that doing less may be just as effective as doing more—that placement in the juvenile justice process may not be the best way of dealing with many juveniles who violate the law.
Programs That Use Basic Counseling and Casework Services
Other diversion programs provide basic counseling and casework services to youths. One example is the Adolescent Diversion Project in Michigan, which was evaluated between 1976 and 1981. The subjects involved in this project consisted of both status and criminal offenders, but youths charged with crime index offenses against persons and youths already on probation were not included. The two most common offenses committed by the subjects were larceny–theft (34%) and breaking and entering (24%). The average age of the subjects was 14; 84% of the subjects were male, and slightly less than 30% were African American or Hispanic.64 The longer of the two studies of the Adolescent Diversion Project began in 1976 and lasted until 1981. It examined the effectiveness of multiple
interventions provided by university students working for a course grade. Each student received specialized training in the type of intervention to which he or she had been assigned, and each worked with clients for six to eight hours a week for 18 weeks. The students were monitored and evaluated by graduate students, their clients, and the professors responsible for the study. The interventions included family-focused behavioral contracting and client advocacy for youths provided by trained students, behavioral contracting and client advocacy for youths provided
by trained students and a juvenile court employee, individually tailored client interventions designed by students given minimal training, relationship building led by specially trained university students, and standard court processing.65
A second study began in 1979 and lasted until 1981 and investigated diversion interventions consisting of behavioral interventions and child advocacy. As in the other study, some youths were returned to the referral source for normal processing. However, the types of people who provided the services expanded to include graduate students and community volunteers.
Again, each service provider was trained to provide diversion services to one client, each spent six
to eight hours a week with the client, and each was carefully monitored and evaluated.66 The two studies of the Adolescent Diversion Project indicate that many of the interventions appear to
have been effective in reducing subsequent delinquent activity, at least when compared with normal court processing. The interventions that were the most effective were those that provided behavioral contracting and child advocacy services and those that focused on relationship building. Particularly effective were those interventions led by community volunteers. The least effective involved the provision of behavioral contracting and child advocacy services by students and a juvenile court employee and standard court processing. These findings support the view of societal reaction theorists, who claim that formal intervention can have a negative effect on youths.67
Another type of program that has received attention in recent years is mentoring. Clearly, the best known of these programs is the Big Brothers Big Sisters program. This program involves carefully chosen matches between a mentor (Big Brother or Big Sister) and a youth and has been found to be an effective intervention for many youths. A study of Big Brothers Big Sisters in the early 1990s found that children who were matched with a Big Brother or Big Sister were less likely to begin using illegal drugs or alcohol, skip school or class, or hit someone. Also, the mentored children were more confident of their performance in schoolwork and showed improved
family interaction compared with children who were not matched.68 Moreover, a meta-analysis of various treatment programs for juvenile offenders conducted by Mark Lipsey found that mentoring programs in general reduced recidivism by 21%.69
Although there is evidence that mentoring programs can be effective, other studies have produced negative results. One well-documented early study, the Cambridge–Somerville Youth Study, used adult counselors who met with randomly selected at-risk youths and their families approximately once a month and with other social agencies over a two-year period to guide the youths in ways that lessened the likelihood they would engage in delinquency. The adult counselors
provided a range of services to the youths and their families that included arranging physical exams, working on family relations, locating employment for youths and family members, tutoring youths, having youths assessed for reading disabilities and arranging for corrective action, obtaining legal advice for the family, arranging psychiatric services for youths and family members, advocating with teachers, and teaching youth hobbies, among other services. However, an evaluation showed that youths who received services were just as likely to engage in delinquency
as youths who did not receive program services. In fact, program youths committed more offenses than youths who did not receive services.70 Similarly, in a review of evaluations of various mentoring programs for youths, Devon Brewer, J. David Hawkins, Richard Catalano, and Holly Neckerman failed to find positive effects for many of the programs.71 Although not all of the programs evaluated could be considered diversion programs, these studies demonstrate the diversity of mentoring programs that exist and make evident the need for continuing research to better understand the characteristics of effective programs.
Contemporary Diversion Strategies and Programs
Today, as in the past, diversion is frequently used in juvenile justice, and diversion strategies are of two basic types: radical nonintervention and involvement in a diversion program. A police policy that entails the warning and release of some juvenile offenders is an example of radical nonintervention. A policy that encourages police officers to refer youths (and possibly their parents) to a diversion program is an example of the second type of strategy. Some diversion
programs have operated for many years. Other diversion programs, even ones found to be effective with youths, no longer exist. In this section, we examine some of the more popular types of diversion programs found around the country.
As in the past, contemporary diversion programs are operated by various types of juvenile justice and community agencies. Many communities have diversion programs operated by the local juvenile court or probation agency, others have diversion programs run by the police department, and still others have diversion programs operated by separate public or private agencies. Whether operated by juvenile justice or community agencies, diversion programs may employ a variety of interventions intended to reduce the continued involvement of youths in delinquency. The interventions include providing basic casework services to youths; truancy courts; crisis intervention to assist youths and their families; individual, family, and group counseling; conflict resolution; mentoring; participation in restitution and community service programs; and teen courts, among others. Following are three examples of more contemporary types of diversion programs that have received some attention in the evaluation literature.
Functional Family Therapy
Functional Family Therapy (FFT) is short-term intervention for youths 11 to 18 years of age. The intervention is typically delivered in 12 to 14 sessions over a three- to five-month period by a trained therapist and is designed for youths exhibiting behavioral or emotional problems. FFT it is a strength-based intervention that is designed to assess and provide interventions that build on protective factors and addresses risk factors in the family and in the youth’s social environment
that contribute to problem behaviors. The FFT clinical model consists of five components: (1) engagement, (2) motivation, (3) relational assessment, (4) behavior change, and (5) generalization. In addition, each FFT component has its own goals, focus, and intervention strategies intended to achieve intervention goals. The engagement stage of FFT focuses on building relationships between the therapist and family members where the family understands that the therapist is aware of family strengths and is responsive to family needs. The motivation component of FFT focuses on creating a positive context for change by building connections with family members that decrease hostility, conflict, and blame within the family and increase family members’ sense of hope for a positive future. The goal of the relational assessment phase is to identify interaction patterns among family members and the functions or payoffs of family members’ behaviors. This phase provides information to the therapist that can be used in planning for behavior change. The behavioral change component of FFT focuses on improving family functioning and the development of skills that help family members address family issues, including depression and substance abuse. This is often done through the use of cognitive-behavioral strategies.72 Cognitive-behavior strategies are based on the idea that thoughts influence emotions which, in turn, affect behaviors. Consequently, cognitive-behavioral strategies address problem behaviors by changing the dysfunctional beliefs, thoughts, and behavior patterns that lead to problem behaviors.73 The final phase of FFT, generalization, is designed to extend improvements made within the family setting to other contexts such as the community and schools and to develop plans for addressing future challenges. It also includes involving other systems such as juvenile diversion or probation in the treatment process.74
An important attribute of the FFT model is that several studies have been done by model developers and others examining various FFT outcomes. Moreover, this research has been used to make improvements in the model over time. Overall, research on specific FFT programs and meta-analyses that examine multiple FFT programs have generally supported its effectiveness with a diverse range of youths and families in the United States and abroad and for many problem behaviors, including substance abuse and other forms of delinquency. In addition, studies that
have examined the costs associated with FFT have found that it far less expensive than residential programs. Moreover, because it is associated with lower recidivism, there are additional cost savings. For example, one study in Florida that compared community alternatives, including FFT, to residential placement found that the community programs had lower rates of recidivism and were less expensive to operate. As a result, it is estimated that Florida saved $93 million by placing youths in community-based programs as opposed to residential facilities.75
As is true with all program interventions, many factors have been found to be related to the effectiveness of FFT. For example, a key element in program effectiveness is the ability to develop a close working relationship between FFT therapists and family members. In addition, cultural sensitivity and awareness on the part of therapists, ensuring that clients get an appropriate “dose” of the treatment, and implementing the treatment model as intended have also been found to be associated with positive outcomes.76
Teen Courts
Another type of diversion program that has grown in popularity in recent years is teen court. A distinguishing feature of these courts is that juveniles, under the guidance of adults, play important roles in case processing and determining the types of dispositions used. Typically, these courts handle relatively young offenders with no prior arrests, and in most instances they deal primarily with cases involving theft, minor assaults, disorderly conduct, possession and use of alcohol, and vandalism.77
Advocates of teen court programs maintain that these programs make use of youths’ desire to be accepted by their peers to encourage them to take responsibility for their behavior and engage in more socially acceptable behavior in the future. Moreover, supporters argue that not only does teen court help youths who are the defendants in cases but also those youths who staff the court and the community as a whole. By involving many youths and adults in the teen court process, advocates believe that teen courts engender greater community involvement in the legal
system, encourage community cohesion, promote law-abiding behavior, and do all of this in a cost-effective manner.78
Currently, four basic teen court models are found around the country:
1. Adult judge. An adult judge presides over the court and oversees court operations. Youths act as
attorneys, jurors, clerks, bailiffs, and other court officers and staff. This is the most popular model
around the country.
2. Youth judge. This format is similar to the adult judge model, but a youth serves as the judge.
3. Tribunal. Youth attorneys present their cases to a panel of three youth judges who determine
the appropriate disposition. A jury composed of youths is not used in this model because the tribunal makes case decisions.
4. Peer jury. This model does not use youth attorneys. Instead, the case is presented to the peer
jury by a youth or an adult. In this model, the peer jury questions the defendant directly.79
Because the growth in teen courts is relatively recent, there is not yet an extensive body of research documenting their effectiveness. Some program evaluations have reported recidivism rates of 3% to 8% between six and 12 months after program completion. In addition, there is good evidence that at least some of these programs produce improved perceptions of authority, justice, and the legal system. Other studies, however, have reported recidivism rates of 24% to 32%.80 An evaluation of teen courts in Alaska, Arizona, Maryland, and Missouri found that youths in two of the four sites displayed significantly lower rates of recidivism compared with youths who did not go through the program.81 To date, the research indicates that some but not all of these programs appear to have a positive effect on youths’ behavior. Further, a more recent meta-analysis of 11 teen court programs found that, overall, they were not more effective than other diversion approaches or formal processing.82 Moreover, there is some indication that some programs
may lead to negative labeling of some youths, particularly minority youths, and net widening (i.e., intervening with youths who would otherwise be left alone if not for the program).83 Overall, the research results on teen courts are mixed; until more comprehensive studies of these programs are completed, more definitive claims about the viability of teen court programs are premature.
Restorative Justice, Conflict-Resolution, and Mediation Programs
Restorative justice programs consist of a variety of interventions designed to mediate or resolve conflicts between juvenile offenders and their victims. Proponents of restorative justice argue that simply focusing on punishing the offender hinders efforts to achieve justice. In contrast to current efforts that focus solely on the offender, restorative justice is concerned with achieving justice for both offenders and victims. Indeed, restorative justice is intended to repair the harm done to victims and their communities. It does this by involving the interested parties such as the victim, the youth who committed the offense, and a community representative in a nonconfrontational setting where an agreeable resolution to the youth’s illegal behavior can be reached. As a result, these programs
are intended to provide rehabilitative services to offending youths and deliver therapeutic benefits
for victims. Moreover, they are believed to be cost-effective, and the focus on offender accountability, victim restitution, and community service is appealing to the public.
One type of restorative justice program that is designed to divert youths from the formal juvenile justice process is restorative justice conferencing. In a restorative justice conference, the youth who committed the offense, the victim, and supporters of the offender and the victim meet with a trained facilitator to discuss the offense and examine the harm it caused. Supporters have an opportunity to discuss how they have been affected by the offense, and at the conclusion of the conference, a written agreement is completed specifying how the offender can make amends to those who have been harmed. Typically, the agreement involves an apology and restitution to the
victim, but it can include other elements such as community service or requirements that youths improve their school performance or behavior at home.84
Although there is limited research on restorative justice conferencing with youth charged with delinquency, research on programs using some form of restorative justice have produced favorable results.85 One evaluation using an experimental design looked at restorative justice conferencing for first-time young offenders (median 13 years old) who had committed
nonserious offenses noted several positive outcomes. An analysis of interviews with victims revealed that those who participated in conferencing expressed much higher levels of satisfaction with the way their cases were handled compared with those in other diversion programs. Levels
of satisfaction were similar for youths and parents involved in conferences and other types of
diversion programs. Youths randomly assigned to participate in conferences compared with those assigned to other diversion programs, however, had significantly higher program completion rates than those in other diversion programs and significantly lower levels of rearrest six and 12 months after their initial arrest. These findings indicate that restorative justice conferencing is a promising approach for diverting youths from the formal justice process and can produce high levels of satisfaction among conference participants.86
A more recent evaluation of a restorative justice
program in Maricopa County, Arizona, by Nancy Rodriguez also uncovered positive program effects. Rodriguez found that youths who participated in the restorative justice program were less likely to have a new petition filed with the juvenile court than comparison youths who participated in a probation department–designed diversion program during a two-year follow- up period. She also found that girls and youths with minor or no criminal histories appeared to benefit the most from the restorative justice intervention.87
These evaluations indicate that some restorative justice programs are associated with improved youths’ perceptions of juvenile justice, program completion, a reduction in costs, and reduced recidivism. Also, there is some evidence that victims who choose to participate in restorative justice conferences report positive experiences.88 Other research, however, has found that many restorative justice programs appear to be no better than normal processing at reducing recidivism or improving youths’ and victims’ perceptions of juvenile justice.89 Overall, this research indicates that some but not all restorative justice programs appear to be associated with a variety of positive outcomes. However, more research is needed to get a better picture of the operation
and effectiveness of restorative justice programs.
Another relatively new type of diversionary intervention is the juvenile drug court. Although these programs were originally developed as diversion programs,92 most of these programs are presently found at the postadjudicatory stage of the juvenile justice process. Nevertheless, some programs are used as diversion programs. Typically, drug courts provide
services to youths for nine months to a year by a court team consisting of a judge, a prosecutor, a defense attorney, treatment providers, and casework staff such as an intake, diversion, or probation worker. Also, programs generally require youths and their parents to sign an agreement accepting the goals of the program, which usually include the following:
• providing immediate interventions, structure, and treatment supported by judicial monitoring;
addressing problems;
• helping youths improve behaviors and resist drugs;
• enhancing education skills, self-concept, and positive relationships;
• assisting families in providing structure and guidance for youths; and
• promoting accountability for youths and service providers.93
Although the number of juvenile drug courts has grown, research on their effectiveness has been mixed. One meta-analysis of adult and juvenile drug courts indicated that juvenile drug courts had a smaller impact on recidivism than adult drug courts, although they were, in general, modestly effective. Moreover, some evidence suggests that drug court participants who complete programs tend to be more successful. 94 In contrast, a more recent study that compared youths in nine drug courts to youths on regular probation found lower levels of program completion and higher levels of recidivism among drug court youths. The study also found that the higher levels of juvenile
justice system monitoring and involvement (e.g., drug tests, other treatment program referrals, and case status hearings) were related to negative outcomes, whereas a higher ratio of positive incentives to sanctions were associated with positive outcomes.95 These evaluation results are important because they shed light on important program characteristics that can influence outcomes.
Other diversion programs that are found in many communities focus on school truancy. Many of these programs use a progressive series of interventions intended to identify factors related to absenteeism and to work with families and their children to improve school attendance. For example, the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s office implemented the Abolish Chronic Truancy (ACT) program in 1991 in cooperation with select elementary schools. During the 2013–2014 school year, the program had contact with 3,500 children. The program is staffed by specially
trained district attorney (DA) personnel, school administrators, and teachers. ACT consists of three
stages:
1. Students and their parents or guardians are identified and placed in the ACT program where they
meet with DA and school system personnel. If the youth’s attendance does not improve, he or she
is referred to the school attendance review team (SART).
2. The SART works to identify the factors causing the youth’s truancy and develop solutions. If the
youth’s attendance does not improve, then the youth and his or her parents or guardians are
referred to the school attendance review board (SARB).
3. The SARB attempts to help the youth and family address the youth’s attendance, but if the problem is not satisfactorily resolved at this stage, then the youth and his or her parents or guardians are either referred for prosecution or to a mediation program offered by the DA’s office.
According to the district attorney’s Web page, there was a 50% reduction in truancy among youths referred to ACT during the year following their initial referral.96 Several truancy-reduction programs exist around the country, and many of these programs provide a series of escalating steps intended to help youths improve their attendance and avoid formal court action. These steps typically include sending letters to parents, having police or truancy officers contact parents, and meetings with school staff and juvenile justice system representatives to identify problems and develop plans to improve youths’ attendance. However, many of these programs have not been carefully evaluated.
Another truancy-reduction approach involves truancy courts. One such program that has been evaluated is the Truancy Court Diversion Program (TCDP) that has been in operation in Warren County, Kentucky, since 1999. Children who satisfy the statutory requirements for truancy are referred to the program, although some students are referred earlier if they have a sibling who has previously exhibited truancy. Once they are in the program, information about the home environment and school performance are collected and an interview with the family court judge is scheduled. In addition, behavior contracts are signed that spell out program expectations, a case
plan is developed, and community services are identified that can be used to meet child and family needs. Over the semester in which youths are typically in the program, the TCDP director and judge meet biweekly with them. Also, weekly progress reports on students are completed and shared with parents, and subsequent interviews are held involving all youths and parents involved in the program. A program evaluation that compared 74 elementary and junior high students involved in the program with a comparable group found that unexcused absences and tardies among TDCP program participants declined significantly. This was not true for the control subjects. However, it was also found that elementary school subjects were more likely than junior high school participants to maintain their improved attendance during the semester after the program.97 These results suggest that the TCDP may be a promising approach to truancy, although additional research is needed to determine its effectiveness over time and its potential with older students, as well as determining how well it might compare with other approaches to truancy.
The Effectiveness of Diversion
Supporters of diversion strategies and programs maintain that such programs decrease the number
of youths involved in the formal juvenile justice process, reduce offending among youths who receive diversionary treatment, minimize the stigma associated with formal intervention, are more cost-effective than formal processing, reduce the level of coercion employed by juvenile justice agencies, and reduce minority overrepresentation in the formal juvenile justice process.98 As previously noted, many evaluation studies of diversionary programs have found them superior to formal court processing in many respects,99 but some evaluation studies have found that some programs fall short of their goals. In fact, although some evaluation studies indicate that diversion
programs can reduce recidivism or the programs are at least as effective as formal processing at reducing recidivism,100 other studies have found that some diversion programs are associated with higher levels of subsequent offending.101
As this dicussion indicates, a wide range of programs and interventions, including warning and release, make up diversion. Moreover, the evaluation research on diversion continues to leave many questions about its effectiveness unanswered. Meta-analyses that have examined the research literature on diversion indicate that diversion programs are associated with only modest reductions in recidivism that are not significantly different from minimal or no intervention or referral to court.102 This is particularly true of programs that provide minimal casework services,
teen courts, and mentoring programs. Moreover, this research indicates that youths who are at
low risk of offending receive little or no benefit from formal diversion programs. Although diversion programs in general appear to have little impact on many youths’ behavior, family-focused interventions were found to have a more significant impact on recidivism. In addition, restorative justice programs were also found to show promise even though their impact on recidivism was modest.103
Notes
1. President’s Commission on Law Enforcement and
Administration of Justice. (1967). Task force report:
Juvenile delinquency and youth crime. Washington, DC: U.S.
Government Printing Office.
2. Carter, R. M., & Klein, M. (Eds.). (1967). Back on the street:
The diversion of juvenile offenders. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
3. Schur, E. M. (1973). Radical nonintervention: Rethinking the
delinquency problem. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
4. Lundman, R. J. (2001). Prevention and control of juvenile
delinquency (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University
Press.
5. Whitehead, J. T., & Lab, S. P. (1996). Juvenile justice: An
introduction (2nd ed.).
Cincinnati, OH: Anderson.
6. Krisberg, B., & Austin, J. F. (1993). Reinventing juvenile
justice. Newbury Park,
CA: Sage.
7. Platt, A. M. (1977). The child savers: The invention of delinquency
(2nd ed.). Chicago,
IL: University of Chicago Press.
8. President’s Commission (1967), p. 2.
9. Rubin, H. T. (1985). Juvenile justice: Policy, practice, and law
(2nd ed.). New York, NY: Random House.
10. Roberts, A. R. (1998a). The emergence and proliferation of
juvenile diversion programs. In A. R. Roberts (Ed.), Juvenile
justice: Policies, programs, and services (2nd ed.). Chicago, IL:
Nelson-Hall.
11. Roberts, A. R. (1998b). Community strategies with juvenile
offenders. In A. R. Roberts (Ed.), Juvenile justice: Policies,
programs, and services (2nd ed.). Chicago, IL: Nelson-Hall,
p. 117.
12. Roberts (1998b).
13. Rubin (1985).
14. Roberts (1998a), p. 81.
15. Roberts (1998b).
16. President’s Commission (1967).
17. Lilly, J. R., Cullen, F. T., & Ball, R. A. (2007). Criminological
theory: Context and consequences (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
18. Pfohl, S. J. (1994). Images of deviance and social control: A
sociological history (2nd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill,
p. 370.
19. Platt (1977).
20. Pfohl (1994).
21. Lilly et al. (2007).
22. Garfinkel, H. (1956). Conditions of successful degradation
ceremonies. American Journal of Sociology, 61, 420–424;
Tannenbaum, F. (1938). Crime and the community. New York,
NY: Columbia University Press.
23. Frazier, C. (1976). Theoretical approaches to deviance: An
evaluation. Columbus, OH: Merrill.
24. Becker, H. S. (1963). Outsiders: Studies in the sociology of
deviance. New York, NY: The Free Press.
25. Lemert, E. (1951). Social pathology: A systematic approach
to the theory of sociopathic behavior. New York, NY: McGraw-
Hill, p. 48.
26. Empey, L. T., Stafford, M. C., & Hay, C. H. (1999). American
delinquency: Its meaning and construction (4th ed.). Belmont,
CA: Wadsworth.
27. Lemert, E. M. (1967). The juvenile court: Quest and realities.
In President’s Commission (1967).
28. Schur (1973).
29. Empey et al. (1999).
30. Schur (1973), p. 169.
31. Cullen, F. T., & Gilbert, K. (1982). Reaffirming rehabilitation.
Cincinnati, OH: Anderson.
32. Bernard, T. J., & Kurlychek, M. C. (2010). The cycle of juvenile
justice (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
33. Empey et al. (1999).
34. President’s Commission (1967), p. 165.
35. Bartollas, C., & Miller, S. J. (2008). Juvenile justice in America
(5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson-Prentice Hall;
Faruqee, M. (2016, October 26). Youth prisons don’t work.
Here’s what does. Time. Retrieved from http://time.com
/4543401/youth-prison-reform/; Krisberg & Austin (1993).
36. Miller, J. G. (1998). Last one over the wall: The Massachusetts
experiment in closing reform schools (2nd ed.). Columbus,
OH: Ohio State University Press.
37. Coalition for Juvenile Justice. (2011). Deinstitutionalization
of status offenders (DSO) facts and resources. Washington, DC:
Author; Snyder, H. N., & Sickmund, M. (2006). Juvenile
offenders and victims: 2006 national report. Washington, DC:
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention; see
Tiegen, A. (2019, January 10). The NCSL blog. Retrieved
from http://www.ncsl.org/blog/2019/01/10/ new-tool-shows
-data-on-juvenile-status-offenses.aspx
38. Vito, G. F., & Wilson, D. G. (1985). The American juvenile
justice system. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
39. Vito & Wilson (1985).
40. Agnew, R. (2001). Juvenile delinquency: Causes and control.
Los Angeles, CA: Roxbury; Gold, M. (1966). Undetected
delinquent behavior. Journal of Research in Crime and
Delinquency, 3, 27–46; Short, J., & Nye, F. I. (1958). Extent
of unrecorded delinquency: Tentative conclusions. Journal
of Criminal Law, Criminology, and Police Science, 49, 296–302.
41. Huizinga, D., & Elliott, D. S. (1987). Juvenile offenders:
Prevalence, offender incidence, and arrest rates by race.
Crime and Delinquency, 33, 206–223.
42. See Loeber, R., Hoeve, M., Farrington, D. P., & Howell, C. J.
(2012). Overview, conclusions, and policy and research
recommendations. In R. Loeber, M. Hoeve, N. Wim Slot,
& P. H. Laan (Eds.), Persisters and desisters in crime from
adolescence into adulthood. Explanation, prevention and
punishment. New York, NY: Routledge; Whitehead & Lab
(1996). This resource cites Lab, S. P. (1982). The identification
of juveniles for nonintervention. Doctoral dissertation, Florida
State University, Tallahassee, FL.
43. Finckenauer, J. O., & Gavin, P. W. (1999). Scared straight:
The panacea phenomenon revisited. Prospect Heights, IL:
Waveland Press; Lundman (2001).
44. Finckenauer & Gavin (1999).
45. Finckenauer & Gavin (1999).
46. Lundman (2001).
47. Finckenauer & Gavin (1999); Petrosino et al. (2004).
“Scared Straight” and other juvenile awareness programs
for preventing juvenile delinquency. Campbell Systematic
Reviews. Philadelphia, PA: Campbell Collaboration;
Petrosino, A., Turpin-Petrosino, C., Hollis-Peel, M. E., &
Lavenberg, J. G. (2013). “Scared Straight” and other juvenile
awareness programs for preventing juvenile delinquency
(review). Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 1.
48. Petrosino et al. (2004), pp. 14–15.
49. Finckenauer & Gavin (1999).
50. Baron, R. & Feeney, F. (1976). An exemplary project: Juvenile
diversion through family counseling. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Justice.
51. Lundman (2001).
52. Baron & Feeney (1976).
53. Lundman (2001).
54. Lundman (2001).
55. Lundman (2001).
56. Lundman (2001).
57. Palmer et al. (1978). The evaluation of juvenile diversion
projects: Final report. Sacramento, CA: California Youth
Authority.
58. Palmer et al. (1978).
59. Lundman (2001).
60. Lundman (2001).
61. Lundman (2001).
62. Dunford et al. (1981). National evaluation of diversion projects:
Final report. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency
Prevention.
63. Lundman (2001).
64. Lundman, R. J. (1993). Prevention and control of juvenile
delinquency (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University
Press.
65. Davidson et al. (1990). Alternative treatments for troubled
youth: The case of diversion from the juvenile justice system.
New York, NY: Plenum.
66. Davidson et al. (1990).
67. Davidson et al. (1990); Lundman (2001).
68. Tierney et al. (1995). Making a difference: An impact study
of Big Brothers Big Sisters. Philadelphia, PA: Public/Private
Ventures.
69. Lipsey, M. W. (2009). The primary factors that characterize
effective interventions with juvenile offenders: A meta-analytic
overview. Victims and Offenders, 4, 124–147.
70. Lundman (2001).
71. Brewer, D. D., Hawkins, J. D., Catalano, R. F., & Neckerman,
H. J. (1995). A review of evaluations of selected strategies in
childhood, adolescence, and the community. In J. C. Howell,
B. Krisberg, et al. (Eds.), Serious, violent, and chronic juvenile
offenders: A sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
72. Functional Family Therapy. (2019). Clinical model. Retrieved
from https://www.fftllc.com/about-fft-training/clinical-model
.html
73. Development Services Group, Inc. (2010). Cognitive
Behavioral Treatment. Literature Review. Washington, DC:
Office of
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
74. Functional Family Therapy (2019).
75. Robbins, M. S., Alexander, J. F., Turner, C. W., & Holliman,
A. (2016). Evolution of Functional Family Therapy as an
evidence-based practice for adolescents with disruptive
behavior problems. Family Process, 55(3), 543–557.
76. Robbins et al. (2016).
77. Butts, J. A., & Buck, J. (2000). Teen courts: A focus on
research. Juvenile Justice Bulletin. Washington, DC: Office of
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
78. Butts & Buck (2000).
79. Nessel, P. A. (2000). Youth court: A national movement.
Technical Assistance Bulletin, 17. Chicago, IL: American Bar
Association.
80. Butts & Buck (2000).
81. Butts, J. A., Buck, J., & Coggeshall, M. B. (2002). The impact
of teen court on young offenders. Washington, DC: Urban
Institute Press.
82. Bouchard, J., & Wong, J. S. (2017). A jury of their peers:
A meta-analysis of the effects of teen court on criminal
recidivism. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 46, 1472–1487.
83. Rasmussen, A. (2004). Teen court referral, sentencing,
and subsequent recidivism: Two proportional hazards
models and a little speculation. Crime and Delinquency, 50,
615–635.
84. McGarrell, E. F. (2001). Restorative justice conferences as
an early response to young offenders. Juvenile Justice Bulletin.
Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention.
85. Galaway, B. (1988). Crime victim and offender mediation
as a social work strategy. Social Service Review, 62, 668–683;
Marshall, T., & Merry, S. (1990). Crime and accountability:
Victim–offender mediation in practice. London: HMSO;
Rodriguez, N. (2007). Restorative justice at work: Examining
the impact of restorative justice resolutions on juvenile
recidivism. Crime and Delinquency, 53, 355–379;
Schneider, A. L. (1986). Restitution and recidivism rates of
juvenile offenders: Results from four experimental studies.
Criminology, 24, 533–552; Sherman, L. W., Strang, H.,
Mayo-
Wilson, E., Woods, D. J., & Ariel, B. (2015). Are
restorative justice conferences effective in reducing repeat
offending? Findings from a Campbell Systematic Review.
Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 31, 1–24; Umbreit, M., &
Coates, R. (1993). Cross-site analysis of victim–offender
mediation in four states. Crime and Delinquency, 39, 565–585.
86. McGarrell (2001).
87.
Rodriguez (2007).
88. Strang, H., Sherman, L. W., Angel, C. M., Woods, D. A.,
Bennett, S. F., Newbury-Birch, D., & Inkpen, N. (2006).
Victim evaluations of face-to-face restorative justice
conferences: A quasi-experimental analysis. Journal of Social
Issues, 62(2), 281–306.
89. Livingstone, N., Macdonald, G., & Carr, N. (2013).
Restorative justice conferencing for reducing recidivism
in young offenders (aged 7 to 21). Cochrane Database of
Systematic Reviews, Issue 2.
90. Braithwaite, J. (1999). Restorative justice: Assessing
optimistic and pessimistic accounts. In M. Tonry (Ed.),
Crime and justice: A review of the research (Vol. 25). Chicago,
IL: University of Chicago Press.
91. Crawford, A., & Newburn, T. (2003). Youth offending
and restorative justice: Implementing reform in youth justice.
Portland, OR: Willan; Weitekamp, E. G. M. (1999). The
history of restorative justice. In G. Bazemore & L. Walgrave
(Eds.), Restorative justice: Repairing the harm of youth crime.
Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press.
92. Finn, P., & Newlyn, A. K. (1993). Miami drug court gives
drug defendants a second chance. National Institute of Justice
Journal, 227, 13–26.
93. Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA). (2003). Juvenile
drug courts: Strategies in practice. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Justice.
94. Mitchell, O., Wilson, D. B., Eggers, A., & MacKenzie, D. L.
(2012). Assessing the effectiveness of drug courts on
recidivism: A meta-analytic review of traditional and nontraditional
drug courts. Journal of Criminal Justice, 40, 60–71.
95. Long, J., & Sullivan, C. J. (2017). Learning more from
evaluation of justice interventions: Further consideration of
theoretical mechanisms in juvenile drug courts. Crime and
Delinquency, 63(9), 1091–1115.
96. Los Angeles District Attorney’s Office. (2019). Truancy
prevention. Retrieved from http://da.co.la.ca.us/operations
/truancy-prevention.
97. Shoenfelt, B., & Huddleston, M. R. (2006). The Truancy
Court Diversion Program of the Family Court, Warren Circuit
Court Division III, Bowling Green, Kentucky: An evaluation
of impact on attendance and academic performance. Family
Court Review, 44(4), 683–695.
98. Lundman (2001); Whitehead & Lab (1996).
99. Butts & Buck (2000); Butts et al. (2002); Lundman (2001);
McGarrell (2001); Quay, H. C., & Love, C. T. (1977). The
effect of a juvenile diversion program on rearrests. Criminal
Justice and Behavior, 4, 377–396; Regoli, R., Wilderman, E., &
Pogrebin, M. (1985). Using an alternative evaluation
measure for assessing juvenile diversion programs. Children
and Youth Services Review, 7, 21–38; Rodriguez (2007).
100. Baron, R., & Feeney, F. (1973). Preventing delinquency
through diversion: The Sacramento County 601 Diversion
Project. Federal Probation, 37, 13–18; Baron & Feeney
(1976); Butts et al. (2002); Davidson et al. (1990); Dunford
et al. (1981); Palmer et al. (1978); Lundman (2001);
McGarrell (2001); Quay & Love (1977); Regoli et al. (1985);
Rodriguez (2007).
101. Davidson et al. (1990); Elliott et al. (1978). Diversion: A study
of alternative processing practices. Boulder, CO: Behavioral
Research Institute; Finckenauer, J. (1982). Scared Straight!
and the panacea phenomenon. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice
Hall; Finckenauer & Gavin (1999); Lincoln, S. B. (1976).
Juvenile referral and recidivism. In R. M. Carter & M. W. Klein
(Eds.), Back on the street: Diversion of juvenile offenders.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall; Lundman (2001).
102. Gensheimer, L. K., Mayer, J. P., Gottschalk, R.,& Davidson, W. S. II.
(1986). Diverting youth from the juvenile justice system:
A meta-analysis of intervention efficacy. In S. J. Apter, &
A. P. Goldstein (Eds.), Youth violence: Program & prospects. New
York, NY: Pergamon Press; Schwalbe, C. S., Gearing, R. E.,
Mackenzie, M., & Brewer, K. B. (2012). A meta-analysis
of experimental studies of diversion programs for juvenile
offenders. Clinical Psychology Review, 32, 26–33.
103. Schwalbe et al. (2012).