Diversion Decision-Making Process From the Juvenile Court Practitioners' Perceptive: Results of a Survey

• NCJ Number: 193226
• Journal: Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice Volume: 18 Issue: 1 Dated: February 2002 Pages: 20-36
• Author(s): Roberto H. Potter; Suman Kakar
• Date Published: February 2002
• Length: 17 pages
• Publication Format: Article
• Publication Type: Report (Study/Research)
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America

Annotation

This article presents a study analyzing the diversion decision-making process from the practitioner’s perspective and examining the impact of legal and nonlegal factors on decision-makers.

Abstract

This research addresses the overall goal of determining what factors affect decisions either to divert juveniles from the formal juvenile justice process or to process them through the system. The survey population included persons occupying positions as prosecutors (county attorneys) and court-designated intake workers in the State of Kentucky during 1998. Self-report survey methodology was used. Respondents were asked to rank how important each item was in a list of legal and nonlegal factors in their decision to divert a youth from or process the youth through the juvenile justice system. Results revealed that attorneys and intake workers varied significantly in their general and specific perceptions of diversion. They also differed in opinion and understanding of juvenile diversion guidelines and restrictions placed on diversion. When asked about the effect of legal and extralegal factors, significant differences were discerned. Attorneys tended to fall into similar response patterns while intake workers demonstrated a broader range in rating the factors listed. Prosecutors tended to rate traditional legal factors as more important, whereas intake workers had a wider range of rating these factors. Legal factors exerted a much more significant influence than individual characteristics. Severity of the crime and prior record rather than personal attributes of the juvenile guided their decision-making process. Intake workers reported taking social and personal factors into account. “Professional ideology” or “theory of the office” should be included in the study of diversion and in other justice system decision-making as well. The fact that the intake workers see race as a relevant factor in decision-making more than the prosecutors raises several questions. 6 tables, 34 references