|
Abstract
|
VioLit summary:
OBJECTIVE:
The purpose of this article by Lipsey et al. was to demonstrate the multiple evidence strategy by evaluating a juvenile diversion program.
METHODOLOGY:
The researchers employed both non-experimental and quasi-experimental research designs. They looked at 3 programs affiliated with the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department which each serve 2 police agencies. Through these programs, arrested juveniles (age 17 and under) were referred to social services, primarily for individual and family counseling through agencies which have contracts with the projects. Some juveniles also received remedial reading, recreational and substance abuse services. The goals of these diversion programs were twofold and this research aimed to evaluate how well the program met the two goals.
The first goal was to limit the penetration of juveniles into the justice system by diverting them to other agencies. In conducting their evaluation of whether or not the projects met the first goal, the researchers employed a non-experimental research design. Officers in the participating sheriff stations were asked to fill out forms for every juvenile arrest which yielded information about the offense, the juvenile's criminal record, and specific characteristics about the juvenile (e.g., age, how cooperative he/she was). Over 1200 forms (representing 53% of all juvenile arrests) were collected for the three month period during which the study was conducted. The researchers collected information on the number of juveniles referred to probation before and after the diversion program was implemented using data from official police statistics as well as Probation Department records. Using data from these surveys and the official records the researchers analyzed the proportion of cases which were diverted in contrast to those which were "counsel-and-release" or probation referrals. Next, they examined the trends in police referrals to probation to see if this number was reduced with the implementation of a diversion program. They further looked at whether or not the police agencies were meeting their potential for the number of youths who could be served by diversion programs. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and discriminant analysis.
The second objective of this diversion program was "to prevent juvenile delinquency through the remedial effects of social services on the juveniles served" (p 286). To assess whether or not the program met the second goal the authors first measured the amount of service given to each youth (to see if reducing delinquency was even plausible). Next, they employed two different methods of measuring the extent of any reduction in delinquency. First, a direct assessment of client recidivism was made using three different quasi-experimental designs: tie-breaking randomization (wherein police officers who were unsure of whether or not offenders should be diverted or counseled and released were asked to alternate), regression-discontinuity design, and a matched group design. The second means of measuring the reduction in delinquency was through an examination of area-wide arrest rates. The results of each of these two measures were compared to one another in order to determine whether they gave congruent estimates of the effects of the program. Data were analyzed using chi-square statistics and regression analysis.
FINDINGS/DISCUSSION:
It was found that approximately 75% of the juveniles referred to diversion programs would have previously been sent home to their parents; less than one-fourth were diverted from probation or a referral to juvenile courts. The authors found that the number of probation referrals dropped approximately 2.2% with the implementation of diversion projects (representing 4.7% of the total juvenile arrests) and that the diversion programs were not being used as alternatives to the juvenile justice system. The authors concluded that the programs were not successful at reaching their first goal of providing a social service alternative to probation and the courts for juvenile offenders. They attributed this failure to the police and their hesitancy to use social services in place of the juvenile justice system and to the fact that police had a difficult time distinguishing between probation-type cases and counsel-and-release type cases at the time of arrest.
With respect to the second goal of preventing delinquency through the remedial effects of the social services offered to the juveniles the authors found more success. It was found that nearly 62% of those referred to diversion programs completed the full week of services and that only 6% failed to receive any service at all. They noted that the average juvenile offender received nearly 12 hours of counseling over the course of 10 to 15 weeks and that the juveniles who received more services had lower rates of recidivism. The researchers found that each of the quasi-experimental designs that they employed revealed that the youths in the diversion program were significantly different (or almost significantly different in the case of the matched group design) from those who were treated and released in terms of their lower recidivism rates. Juvenile arrest rates in the communities with diversion programs showed a downward trend, although the researchers noted that this trend was beginning before the projects began. The declining arrest rates were most noticeable in areas with the most active diversion programs.
The authors concluded that diversion programs demonstrated little success in providing an alternative to the justice system for juvenile offenders and that, although they found success for some juveniles in terms of low recidivism, these juveniles were the type who would have been classified as counsel-and-release anyway. The projects were not successful in treating older, more experienced and more high-risk offenders. Although their findings did not demonstrate strong support for the program they were evaluating, the authors pointed out the strength and reliability of their evaluation methodology which used multiple research designs and relied upon data from numerous sources.
AUTHORS' RECOMMENDATIONS:
The authors recommended that evaluations of social programs include a diversity of measures, data sources and research designs in order to detect biases, increase validity, and broaden the opportunity to identify effects of the program. They argued that programs themselves cannot be fairly critiqued until the evaluation methodology has been eliminated as a source of potential bias and/or misinterpreted findings.
(CSPV Abstract - Copyright © 1992-2007 by the Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence, Institute of Behavioral Science, Regents of the University of Colorado)
California
Diversion Program
Juvenile Crime
Juvenile Delinquency
Juvenile Offender
Intervention Program
Prevention Program
Program Effectiveness
Program Evaluation
Juvenile Justice System
Justice System Intervention
Justice System Prevention
Correctional Decision Making
Delinquency Intervention
Delinquency Prevention
Crime Intervention
Crime Prevention
03-05 |