Juvenile Diversion: Results of a Three Year Experimental Study

In a three year longitudinal study of first time juvenile status offenders assigned at random to three treatment groups and a control group, no significant differences were found in recidivism rates among the groups. A total of 398 juveniles in this study were cited for offenses of tobacco or alcohol in a medium-sized metropolitan northwest city. The offenders were assigned at random to four groups: a traditional magistrate court, a traditional Youth Court diversion program, a new non-judicial diversion program and a control group. None of the groups including the control group showed a significant difference in recidivism rates. It was determined from the evaluation of all groups that the diversion program offered the most cost effective program intervention to provide more services to potentially troubled teens. 1.0 Introduction American prisons and are the most populated in the world and show few signs of slowing in their growth rates (Harrison and Beck, 2003). As of December 2002, 2,166,260 persons were incarcerated in the U.S. prisons and local jails (Harrison and Beck, 2003). Of that number over 110,284 were juveniles (Harrison and Beck, 2003). Many of the adults in American prisons began their criminal careers as juveniles (Sherman, Gottfredson, MacKenzie, Eck, Reuter, & Bushway, 1998). As we continue to search for ways to break the cycle of crime, we have attempted to rehabilitate adult offenders as well as juveniles. One approach to breaking this cycle of adult incarceration has been to divert juvenile offenders from the justice system as early as possible. This present research was designed to determine which intervention was the most effective in ending recidivism of juveniles.. 1.1 Literature Review The concept of diversion of juveniles from the juvenile justice system has a long history in the scholarly literature as well as in federal juvenile justice policy. The theoretical background of diversion is based on the “labeling” principles dating back to Tannebaum (1938). The scholarly debate was further developed by the research of both Becker (1963) as well as Lemert (1951). Becker (1963) argued that labeling by certain social groups in power have a detrimental effect on juveniles. The work of Lemert (1951) discussed the effect of secondary deviance of juveniles that were processed through the juvenile justice system and contributed to the argument that the system, instead of helping, may actually contribute to further delinquent acts of juveniles. Over the past 30 years many research projects have been conducted to test various methods of diversion. While much research has been conducted to test diversion methods, few have taken advantage of true field experimental conditions (Campbell, D.T., 1969; Severy & Whitaker, 1982). Unfortunately, utilizing true experimental designs in the juvenile justice setting can have serious political implications (Severy & Whitaker, 1982). Yet, the absence of a control group design prevents testing from a base line. The methodology of this project allowed the comparison of the groups to each other and the comparison of the different treatment interventions to a baseline control group.