Evaluation Findings: The Detention Diversion Advocacy Program Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

• NCJ Number: 202623
• Author(s): Lisa B. Feldman M.A.; Charis E. Kubrin Ph.D.
• Date Published: August 2002
• Length: 19 pages
• Corporate Author: George Washington University
• Sale Source: George Washington University
• Publication Format: Document (Online)
• Publication Type: Program/Project Evaluation
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America
• Note: Downloaded October 27, 2003.

Annotation

This report presents evaluation findings for Philadelphia’s Detention Diversion Advocacy Program (DDAP).

Abstract

General issues and trends in juvenile adjudication across the country are presented to illustrate the challenges facing juvenile correctional systems. One of the most pressing issues is the overrepresentation of minority youth in juvenile correctional facilities. During the early 1990’s, Federal grant guidelines required that States assess levels of minority youth incarceration and work toward reducing the overrepresentation of minority youth incarceration rates. After highlighting some of the outcomes of these Federal guidelines, the authors focus on juvenile detention challenges in Philadelphia. A historical context for juvenile justice in Philadelphia is presented, and spans the years 1970 through the 1990’s. In 2000, the DDAP program was designed to reduce overcrowding in Philadelphia’s juvenile correctional facilities, to reduce the disproportionate confinement of minority youth, to improve the quality of services, and to demonstrate that community-based services can serve as an effective alternative to juvenile detention. The evaluation of the DDAP program focused on the state of juvenile detention in Philadelphia and the social and political issues it had been dealing with, such as overcrowding. The evaluation also examined whether the DDAP program effectively monitored high-risk juveniles in the community and whether the DDAP community corrections program was an effective alternative to youth detention. Data were collected from 97 youth who participated in DDAP from December 2000 through December 2001. Demographic information, offense information, case information, and outcome information were all examined. The evaluation revealed that the DDAP program staff should have a greater presence in the courtroom to coordinate with judges about program referrals. Also, the goal of providing quality, treatment oriented services has not been fully met; the authors recommend that DDAP place a greater emphasis on connecting clients with other support services. Finally, the authors recommend that DDAP develop and implement an electronic case management and recording system to track clients. Tables, appendix