NCJ Number
94488
Date Published
Unknown
Length
179 pages
Annotation
After describing five probation-operated juvenile diversion programs in five New York counties (Erie, Rensselaer, Chautauquo, Suffolk, and Westchester), this report presents the methodology, findings, and recommendations, from an evaluation of these programs.
Abstract
The targeted programs are assumed to be representative of types of diversion programs operating, the clients served, and the services provided. The programs have the following common elements: probation-operated and servicing both delinquents and status offenders. Their primary purposes are to minimize the number of adjudications in family court and the rearrest of those diverted. The evaluation tested 16 hypotheses devised to address the primary issue: whether probation-operated juvenile diversion programs 'make a difference' compared to traditional intake procedures. There were five groups of hypotheses dealing with the following areas: program goals and program location, process and system issues, client changes, program services, and program costs. It is concluded that diversion programs do not significantly reduce recidivism beyond the rate observed for traditionally processed intake clients. Further, success rates vary from program to program as a function of client characteristics and offense type rather than program/treatment efforts. Also, diversion programs keep clients in the probation system longer (predisposition) than intake clients, but they reduce the proportion of clients going to petition. Diversion programs show a tendency to 'widen the net' through their informal style and drawing persons into the justice system whose cases would otherwise be adjusted outside or earlier in the system. Finally, based on long-range outcome variables (recontact, time to recontact, and seriousness of outcome offenses), diversion is less cost-effective than traditional intake procedures. Recommendations are offered in the areas of research, a reconsideration of the concept of diversion, eligibility standards, length of program, followup practice, and program monitoring, as well as program management. Appendixes contain (1) a review of the literature and critique of evaluations, (2) statistical analysis, and (3) a study of self-esteem and normative values in Troy, N.Y.