- Email: [email protected]
Using an alternative evaluation measure for assessing juvenile diversion programs
Using an Alternative Evaluation Measure for Assessing Juvenile Diversion Programs
University
Division
Robert Regoli of Colorado,
Boulder
Elizabeth Wilderman of Youth Services, State
University
Mark Pogrebin of Colorado,
of Colorado
Denver
This paper describes the effectiveness of six juvenile diversion programs in the metropolitan area of Denver, Colorado. Program success was measured by recidivism reduction. Horvever. statistical client-baseline matching by using a one-for-one method and a variable definition of recidivism, r$‘e managed to overcome drawbacks that often occur when using reciclivism as an outcome indicator. Together, program participants sho\\.ecl a 267~ reduction in recidivism rate over that of a matched baseline sample. Although four of the six programs studiecl accounted for the overall success rate, we explain ~.hy two of the programs showed no significant reductions in reciclivism rates.
The inability to rehabilitate (e.g., Empey, Short, 1979)
of the juvenile justice system to curb youth crime and offenders is causing more and more criminologists 1979; Krisberg & Schwartz, 1982; Liazos, 19’79; to question its efficacy. It is now common to heal
22
Regoli,
Wilderman,
and Pogrebin
complaints that juvenile courts are poorly organized quasi-legal organizations that are ill-equipped to address problems coming befijre them. Sot only are juvenile courts understaffed. but also the! are overly bureaucratic, and sometimes have failed to protect the constitutional rights of youths (James, 1977; Srveeriey, 1982). hloreover. the juvenile justice system has been attacked for implementing ineffective treatment programs, as \\.ell as for high costs of institutionalization and the consequences of’ labeling >‘oung offenders (Bullington, SproLvls. Catkin, & Phillips, 197s). Because traditional strategies for handling offenders have failed, there is increasing support for alternatives to system processing. One approach that has received i\,iclespread attention is diversion-the process of diverting youths away f’rom fi>rmal OI of‘ficial contact l\.ith the juvenile justice svstem and reterring them instead to programs in the community that provide services aimed at replacing their delinquent behavior with la\\,-abiding constructive behaviors. Cnfortunately, research on ju\,enile diversion prowarns suggests that the,, may merely be an extension of an ineffec
Assessing
Juvenile
Diversion
Programs
23
K- Regoli, 1983). hloreover, this remains true even though other indicators are available-such as those derived from the interactionist perspective, which include reduction of alienation and increased access to social roles (Elliott ,ui Biancharci, 19iS)-and no one argues that recidivism is absolutely an inappropriate measure. Rather, the disenchantment with using recidivism rests with methocioiogies and interpretive flalvs inherent in those research studies using recidivism as the lone program evaluation criterion (e.g., Gibbons & Blake, 19i6; Rutherford ,Y: AlcDermott, 1976). In this study, u.e have conceptualized recidivism differenti~ than have most others. For LIS, recidivism is not a static measure; rather, recidivism occurs when one reenters the system clrlcl is processed to or bevond the point of previous exit. Thus, the ciefinition of recidivism varies, ciepending upon the point at pvhich one is esited from the system. For example, a youth referred to a diversion program at the point of court intake ~.oulci not be consiciereci a reciciivist if she/he was rearrested and then lectured anti reieaseci, but wo~~ici be considered a recidivist if, after arrest, she/he i\.ere processed on again to court intake, the previous point from r\.hich she/he was diverted. Likewise, a matched baseline youth ~vo~~ici be considered a reciciivist onlv if she/he was rearrested ad referreci on to court intake, the pre&ous point from which he/she \\.as released. In short, we view recidivism as a construct that can take on more than one dimension; not as a constant. This definition of recidivism allows one to measure the effects diversion might have on minimizing as well as pre\,enting subsequent svstems contact. .\s will be explained further in the methods section, the baseline against which the diverted vouths’ success is measured is constructed parallel to the diverted youth sample, with youths exited at police, pre-filing, and post-filirig levels of the system, f-or ~vhom recidivism is also defined as reentry into the system and processing to point of previous exit. This co&istency in definition of success between the client and baseline samples a\,oids the problems associated with the interpretation of “success” because success is a matter of directional difference from the baseline and not an ail-ornothing occurrence. The Divrrsion Programs. When this stuciy project began, approximately 73,271 youth aged 10 to 17 years resided in the Denver metropolitan area (Colorado Division of Criminal Justice, 1977, p. 419). The many youth-serving agencies in this area include six state-funded, community-based ju\,eniie diversion programs that originally were developed and funded by the La\\ En-
24
Regoli,
Wilderman,
and Pogrebin
f’orcement ;\ssistance Administration starting in 1973. In their first ti months of’ state funding (July-December 1976). I.846 youth (about ‘L.57~ of the metropolitan juvcnite population) were referred for services. Four of the diversion programs. North Denver \r’outh Services, Inc. (ND), Northeast Denver Youth Services (NED), and Southeast Denver E’outh Services (SLt’D), provided brokerage as i\ell as direct services (e.g., counseling, educational, recreational, and job-related) fix youths residing in their respective quadrants of the city. Youths \\.ere referred to the programs from Denver’s police department. ju\,enile court, schools, social agencies, the Department of‘ Institutions, and by parents or themselves. XII program services were of‘f’ered on a voluntary basis. and varied in length from an aserage of 1 to 2 weeks for needs assessment and brokerage 0111~. to 6 to 12 mvnths for extended direct services. The services were ‘expected tv resolve the youths’ delinquent behaviors. \$u a direct-service agency A fifth program, Police-to-Partners. sercing youth throughout Denver who i\‘ere referred b!, the police programs. Police-tv-Partners or bv the precedin g four diversion prv\iciecl direct, Ivng-term services (9 months-2 years) on a ~vluntar? basis, >k*hich consisted of matching each juvenile Jr,ith an adult. and fostering and supplementing this relationship through cvunseleducation services, again ing, recreational activities, and remedial tow*nrd the end of resol\ling the juveniles‘ delinquents. Project New Pride, the finai program evaluated, ‘~vas an intenfor post-~lc~jL]clicator~, lower socioecosive superVision program Its numerous services adinner-city delinquents. nomic status, dressed individual academic and social adjustment needs of’ clients. Because the pr(!gram served as an alternative to incarceration, all yvuths Fvere referred by the Dertver Juvenile Court and received services fvr 12 months. Methods The e\xluation of these programs involved a three-part study. -i-he first part estabiished baseline criteria against \k.hich program success cvulcl be measured. It consisted of obtaining a random sample of- non-diverted youth involved in the Denier .ju\.enile justice system, and calculating their recidivism rates fvr specific t’ime part involved obtaining arrest and periods at risk. The second cvut-t filing information on all youth served by the diversion pro1976, and calculating client grams between July and December The third part consisted of recidivism rates for each program. selecting samples of the baseline population that wet-e similar to each client sample on the most important recidivism-l.elated char-
Assessing Juvenile
Diversion
Programs
23
acteristics and comparing the client and matched nondiverted juvenile recidivism rates. Each of these parts is detaiied here. tfith recidivism defined as reentry into the justice system to point of previous exit, the first part of our studv teas carried out as fi~llows: A baseline population was selected which consisted of a stratified random sample of 834 youth who were involved in the Denver Juvenile Justice Sy,stent between July 1 and December 31. 1975, and followed up until Juiy t, 1976, who tvere not at any time before or during this period referred to any of the Denver Juvenile Diversion Programs. That is, data were collected on set proportions of males and females and of police arrestees and court referrals. XI1 other factors rtrere free to vary insofar as the sampling \qas random. ;tnd ali juveniles were tracked For a minimum of 6 months. Differences betrveen diverted and nondiverted vouth were minimal, due to the circumstances that the “suppll;” &f offenders exceeded the capacity of the di\.ersion programs in Denver, so that many of the same types of youth were lectured and released. diverted, or referreci to court by the police. At the police IeveI, the same individuals ntade these dispositional decisions during both the baseline and client tracking period. ~~dciition~~ll~, due to the diversity in diversion programs, many of the same types of vouth were dcver-ted by the court or processed through the court system. X‘hese circumstances obviate the need for a quasi-experimental random assignment design, for all of these factors were built into the normal referral process. Cl’ith a baseline popLlI~~tio1~ of 834 juveniles, and client samples of‘ from ‘73 to 199, it was not possible to obtain a one-for-one match on each of the seven variables that bvere chosen to describe the baseline population. By breaking do\+.n these factors singly (sho\\.n in Table l), it is clear that three factors influenced recidivism rate differences the most-number of months at risk, level of exit from justice system, and number of priors. Priors for -juveniles exited at the police level \\.ere number of arrests prior to the one kvhich qualified them to be included in the sample; priors for juveniles exited at the court levels ivere number of‘ referrals to court prior to the one which qualified them to be part of the sample. Therefore, because of the limited size of the baseline population, and the large number of combinations that result from crossing just these three factors (six levels of months at risk, three levels of exit from justice system, and three levels of priors), these variables were selected as ones to match baseline and client samples. Table 2 illustrates the numbers of juveniles in the baseline population that fall into each sariable category and their respective recidivism rates. The data reflect the probabilities of reentry into
Regoli,
26
TABLE Baseline
Sample
Breakdown NLllllbel~
Risk
iIt
Wilderman,
and Pogrebin
1 Across Salient Factors
SllInbeI- of Kecidi\-icts
Kecitli\~istn Kare
.:10:5 .27-l .L’i!) 1H3
4 5.3 150 ‘) --. ‘) C)
3s -lo 30
.:3-i I .:5 IO .:I 7 3
YS 72
.I1HI ,230
135 li
15
.I I I .I 18
X3
31
1TO
1!!
‘)
‘70
.:‘, I-1 ,337
1-l 83-l
23-I
.2s I
Assessing
Juvenile
Diversion
Programs
28
Regoli,
Wilderman,
and Pogrebin
the sk’steni to the point of previous exit tor 34 different types of nond’i\,erteci ju\,eniles. Finally. each client bias matched to the same type of youth in the baseline population on the number of months at risk, level of exit. and number of priors; their corresponding recidivism rates for both the client and baseline were compared: and, recidivism samples \b’as defined as reentry into the justice system to or beyond the point of previous exit. Thus, the comparisons of client and baseline recidivism rates are bet\\,een groups of juveniles indi\idualla matched on the most important factors we could determine i\.ere related to recidivism, and the variable definition of recidivism \\xs consistent betl\.een both groups. There is no baseline against lvhich to compare school, social agent\‘, and self-parent referrals that had had no previous in\,olvethese particular clients, as ment ‘in the justice svstem. Therefore, rx.ell as those’for tt.hok we did not know number of months at risk, le\,el of exit from the justice system, or number of priors. are not However, school, social included in the recidl\,isni comparisons. agency, and self-parent referrals that did have previous in\vl\.ement in the justice system are included in the recidivism comparisons. Xi a closing note, bear in mind that in a stucly like this tvher-e clients had a maximum of- from I to 6 months at risk. only. shortterm program effects can be measured. In fact, the average times at risk for clients in each of’ our diversion programs ranged from 2.7 to 5.2 months. lvith a mean time at risk for all clients of 3.6 months. Although previous research has shown that short-term program effects for ju\penile diversion are the most dramatic of an\ 1973), readers must recognizk time period (Elliott x1 Blanchard, that short-term results do not necessarilv indicate \b.hat longer term program effects might be. D’ithout long-term data, 1s.e onlv can speculate on probable effects. Findings
Overall, the 760 _juveniles referred to the di\.ersion programs sho\\.eci less recidi\.ism than the expected (baseline) rate of .18-k. For the 509 lvho received services, recidivism w’as 26% less than the baseline rate of .ZlS, a reduction that was statisticall!, significant. Differences betw.een client and baseline recicli\ism rates w.ere tested for statistical significance at the .05 level of.confidence usin,g a two-tailed test. Table 3 shows these overall results. and compar-lsons between client and baseline recidivism rates across each factor are given. An inspection of Table 3 reveals that regardless of- the factor
Assessing
Juvenile
Diversion
Programs TABLE
29
3
Comparison of Client and Baseline Recidivism Rate for All Programs Client Number Risk
Variable
at Number of Recidivism Recidivists Rate
Baseline Recidivism Rate
Sex
Male Female
562 196
81 20
.150 .102
,182 ,188
255 285 213
31 49 24
.__ 1”” .I72 ,113
.166 .I91 .198
iVumber of Priors 0 1
403 143
48 23
.119 .161
.142 ,192
Most Serious Prior Felony Misdemeanor Other lesser
170 144 43
29
18 9
,171 .125 .209
,245 .223 .20 1
184 377 199
24 59 21
.130 .15i ,106
.I36 .178 .239
571
97
.170
.166
65 124
3 4
.046 ,032
.I05 .307
171 459 18
7 74 7
.04 1 .161 .389
.232 ,153 .266
Ethnicity Anglo Spanish Black
surname
offense
A@ 12 or Under 13-15 16 or Over Exit Level Police Court pre-filing/ filing Court post-filing Referral Source Courts Police and/or Schools
YSB
(continued on next page)
30
Regoli,
Wilderman,
and Pogrebin
Table 3 (continued)
Client Number Risk Social agencies Dept. of institutions Self/parent
“0 18 7-1
at Nunlber of Recidivism Recidivists Rate -I 0
I”
Baseline Recidivists Rate
.i100 0
,162
Itltuku Dispsitiotl
Received services i”;o need for services Ref’usecl services Unable to contact Pending and other
,161 .09-l ,133 .I Iti .043
.036
-I $1
.093
15 “0 5-l 760
1o-1
.” I8 .1:31 .I43 I30 .ooo
139 ‘) I I ::J 16 ,137
.I84
examined, the total effect of diversion programs is to reduce recidivism. There are, how.ever, exceptions to this conclusion. For instance, for the factor Most Serious Prior, \ve see in the categor) Other Lesser Offense the recidivism rate for clients actually increased from that observed for the baseline sample. Aloreover, at least one instance of an increase from baseline to client rates is detected for three other variables: Exit Level, Referral Source, and Intake Disposition. But data in Table 3 do not allow us to identif!; sjwcific program eff-ects. That is, even though an overall reduction III recicli!ism NXS observed (from .I84 to .137) we cannot say whether that difference holds across individual programs (a general change) or if the difference simply is accounted for by one or two of the programs. This issue is addressed in Tables 4 and 5. In these tables, we have examined the separate effects of the successful and unsuccessful programs. In doing this ptre see that four of the six programs account for the overall success observed. Two programs showed no significant reductions in client recidivism.
Assessing
Juvenile
Diversion
Programs
31
.A closer inspection of Table -I reveals se\.eral curious findings about the successful diversion programs. Foremost is that rzo single factor affected recidivism rates similarly across diversion programs. For instance, if we turn our attention to the “number of priors” Lxriable and compare recidivism rates for each category of this t’&tor for the four successful programs, no consistent pattern is noted. In three of the diversion programs, persons rvith two or more priors had the highest recidivism rates: sL,hile in the remaining program (Northeast Denver 1’011th Services), persons having only one prior had a recidivism rate more than double that for the “tW0 or more prior” categor!‘. Similar inconsistencies also are noted fi)r other variables including most serious prior, age, and exit level, to name but three. Although t\.e cannot identify the factor(s) that actually e?cplain differences in recidivism rates, overall client recidivism rates are about equal for the four successful cli\,ersion programs (ranging from 5.3 to 8.3) and that except for Project Net\. Pride, client recidivism rates \\.ere about one half the baseline rates. (In Project New Pride the client recidivism rate I\XS about one fifth of the baseline rate!) Examining the programs that failed in Table 3, we see that both of these programs diverted some kincls of vouth from further criminal involvement. For instance, recidivism rates in both programs t‘orfemales Lvere lower. And tvhile some may consider this finding an observation, a quick comparison of Tables 4 ancl (_,illustrates that f’emale recidivism rates l\‘ere lou.er in 011 of the diversion programs. This finding implies the possibility of some important differences bet\\,een hoi\. young itsomen and men respond to formal intervention. In short, the findings suggest that one’s sex ma) be a salient determinant of recicli\isni regardless of program serixes. There are many inconsistencies among the data in Table 3. -Fhe same variables, generally, clo not account for the overall increased recidivism rates in the t1k.o failed programs. Except for the most “serious prior offense” factor, the effect other variables ha\.e on overall recidivism rates is irregular. Examining each program more specifically, several comments are in order. In the case of the Police-to-Partners, there is a general leveling off in client recidivism rates, as opposed to a rate increase for the same types of nondiverted juveniles over time (see “hlonth at Risk” portion of Table 3). This suggests that the one-to-one relationship upon which this program is based may have some unique effects on delinquent activity. Namely, o\‘er the initial months, it seems that either the relationship has not yet been established or that the client is testing the relationship through additional negative behavior. But once the relationship is established
Regoli,
Wilderman,
and Pogrebin
, I .
--
r. >i
>i
--
,-
-2 = = I^ -__ --3.
-
II
^I
-
2-
Assessing Juvenile
Diversion
----:. % =
:
5 + ---,--
I 2
2i
‘3
r_
-1
‘3
>I
”
2
&
=’
2
----
--_---
Z
. CT.
=
:
-
=
.^
=I_
’
:
:
I
:
:
:
:
:
’
’
3-_--
1: ,-
I
=
.=
31
=
=
=
1c.
5
5
>I
>I
I.
%
-
=
,-I
2
,-:
-----= >I I;
---_I.
=
=
----I.
II
r.
%,
,--
-
l.
-
r-
=
--^A_^
f.
75
>, 2
+ -
------
-_---
‘_
r-
-
a.<=’
VW---
2:
M-1
=
33
_^---
r.
-_1-_ ---: =
Programs
----_ = !
!
!
_I
I.
,;
-
-
=
:=I
-
-
z
r,
I. >I
>l
‘2
8:
3,
-
I_
.-
-
----31
2
-
I.
j
-:
= =I
-
5,
7.
3,
= ,, -
Ir=’
?. ”
=
I.
1--------
>I >i
.L -
v
-
--v-w -
I.
7
=
>I
--_-= -
L
A-_---
,r:
I.
-
Y
7
-
,,
.;
.^’ -
1;’ ->i
--------::-
:
:‘I
i
:i
-4,
-_----
=, -
2
--%
e-m-
=,
=
=
=
,_-I
=
.=
-
,<
,L
-
-_--_ -
2
=
=
-
I
=
I
----
r.
I
-
=
=
7-z
-
=
.^ =
.-
,.
-
-T, -
-
‘I
Regoli,
34
TABLE Comparison
of ClientiBaseline
Wilderrnan,
and Pogrebin
5
Recidivism
Rates for Unsuccessful
Programs
Police to Partners Client
Southt\.est Ikn\.e~ \I’outh Services Sb stem Client
. # ot Recidivists”
# At Kisk
# At Risk
# Of Kecicli~~ists”
H6
96 (30.2)
133
3 I (‘13.0) ( Ii.“)
33
8 (24.2)
(5.7)
49
.i (10.2) (13.3)
35 .57 23
7 (lS.4) 19 (33.3) H (34.S)
(23.2) (“3.2) (26.1)
64 III H
I4 (21.9) i’o (18.0) ” (“5.U)
(16.3) (16.9) (20.3)
74
2’0
(19.3) (30.5) (Y0.Y)
103 3X 30
13 (14.ti) 14 (36.8) 3 (10.0)
(13.4) (24.4)
1tj “3
(2i.O)
4 (23.0) x (32.0)
43
11 (24.4)
6-l
20
10
(31.3)
3 (30.0)
(‘LY.0)
( 17.5) (27.4)
48
(29.3)
;o
c)6
119
34 (“s.(i) (23.8) 1w _ (____) (____) s _ (____) (____) l(j
107
30
_
8 (167) (24.0) :, (12.5)
‘I’3
(li.3) (13.2)
(18.4) (Ii.“)
3.3 (‘Ll.c_)) (16.6) 0) ( 4.8) 0 ( 1 i 6.1) . (“4.0) -.
(____) (____) ‘-‘_1 I ( 4.2) (17.6) (23.4) 122 26 (21.3) (lY.S) (80.0) (“8.5) 3 1 (33.3) (28.6) ( 0) (39. 1) 3 0 ( 0) (39.1) (____) (____) _ - (____) (____) 0) (20.3) 3’1 8 (iz3.0) (24.4) ( (28.0)
?J
4
‘2
0
3
(1
_
(cottlirttrtd
on
ttat
fiagr)
Assessing
Juvenile
Diversion
Programs
35
Table 5 (continued)
Denver Youth Services
Police
Southwest
to Partners Client # At Risk
Variable
System Client
# Of Recidivists”
# At Risk
# Of Recidivistsb
Intake Disposition
Received services Refused services Unable to contact Pending and other
119
-
34 (28.6) - (----) - (----) - (----)
(23.8) (----) (----) (----)
10’7 15 3 53
0 ( 0) 2 (12.5) 3 (30.0) 2 (66.7) 27O( 0) (34.2)
( 4.8)
36
( 8.1) (i3.3) (17.7) (26.6) (30.3)
45 22 36 387
34 (28.6)
(23.8)
184
28 4 0 4
(26.2)
(21.8) (16.1) ( 0) (18.6) ( 7.6) ( 6.9) (26.i)
~Month(s) at Risk
1
8
2
16
3 4 :
10 3 ‘79 3
TOTAL
SXXIPLE
~Y:lient recidi\isrn “Baseline
recidivism
rate shown
119 in rrr&r
rate showy
in fbr
colun~n under r/g/d column
“# of recidivists”
under
3 ( 8.3)
( 8.9) ( 9.1) (30.6) (28.6) (36.8)
( 5.3) ( 9.3) (15.1) (19.5) (25.8) (33.2)
36 (19.6)
(16.8)
4 2 11 14 2
categorv.
“# of recidivists”
categor),
the negative behavior levels off, and may even decrease beyond the time limits of this project. Thus, we are hesitant to categorize Policeto-Partners as a failed program. Xn accurate assessment may require that longer time periods be studied. In the case of the second failing program, the Southwest Denver Youth Services System, the highest increases in client recidivism rates were betiveen the first and second 3 Months at Risk groups. Inquiry into specific programmatic circumstances and clientele served during Jul!:, August, and September-the seemingl! problem months accordmg to the recidivism results-revealed that there were unique events associated with this time period. The program had just been consolidated from three separate projects into one, and only the most difficult clients ivere retained. Thus, the early group of clients differed from the program’s normal referral population, making it possible that the concurrent major programmatic changes caused some temporary disruption of services.
Regoli,
36 Summary
Wilderman,
and Pogrebin
and Conclusions
Official reports of recidivism rates appeared to be viable measures of juvenile diversion program effectiveness in the present evaluation study. The appropriateness of utilizing this measure of success was due in part to the circumstances surrounding the client referral process, which were similar to those of a quasi-experimental random assignment design, and to the statistical baseline-client matching method employed to measure program results. together, achieved a notable reduction in The six programs, client recidivism rates over an individually matched baseline population of nondiverted juveniles involved in the Denver Juvenile .Justice System. In light of current evidence that juvenile diversion may not be working, this study provides some evidence of effectiveness under the particular circumstances of these diversion programs. The concepts of delinquency and juvenile justice that were developed in the late 19th century have undergone considerable changes. Some criminologists believe that the current revolution in juvenile justice is part of a larger tra~lsformatioI1 in American be‘liefs, values, and social arrangements (Xfiiler, 1979). 1t’hateter the cause(s), the current revolution is constructing new lvavs to control and socialize children. This revolution has seen the prd:iferation of the practice of formal diversion of offenders from the justice systern. At its inception, diversion was siewed as a panacea to the llis plaguing the failing juvenile justice svstern. Its objectives-to reduce the numbers ofjuveniles entering the system, to provide earl! intervention treatment services, and to reduce recidivism-were widely accepted and applied in ttle early 1970s. The proliferation of diversion i\.as accompanied by increasing skepticism and criticism. Critics generally focused on lack of constitutional safeguards for diverted juveniles, the widening net of social control, unattainabie goais of reducing recidivism and avoiding and poor program evaluation; these became labeling offenders, issues for future diversion programs to consider. Yet, while these substantive issues are real and significant. often critiques of diversion programs were too heavily oriented to them at the expense of In other words, perhaps our conalternative evaluative strategies. ceptualization of the dependent variabie (recidivism) was simplified to the point of it not being able to detect small differences among the mayy diversion programs. This study operationalized diversion differently than have most others. And while our results indicated a trend toward reduced recidivism based on diversion services, it remains unknown
Assessing Juvenile
Diversion
Programs
37
what characteristics of each diversion program actually produced lower recidivism rates. In short, the prime unanswered question is, “Generally, why did four programs work?” We cannot directly address this question with the data available to us, yet we can speculate as to “Why didn’t all the programs fail?” First, three of the fout programs were structured similarly. Each one was offered on a voluntary basis and provided clients with a variety of services, ranging from needs assessment to extended direct services. The other successful program, on the other hand, was an intensive supervilower socioeconomic status. sion program for post-adjudicatory, sort, ranging inner-city delinquents. Services, too, were a different from handling individual academic services to social adjustment needs of clients. About at1 that can be concluded from the data is that the successful programs were better able to help youth than The successful programs were better were the failed programs. able to realize their goal(s) because they were better able to manage scarce resources and to develop community support regardmg administrative-political concerns of the diversion program than did the failing programs. Bfsyond these rather general comments, no additiona speculation is m order. References
Bullington, 3.. Sprawls. J., Catkin, D., &z Phillips, M. (1978). X critique of ciix-ersionary juvenile justice. Crinle clnd Drlitqurtq. -34, 5Q-7 1. Carter, G. IV.. Ly Gilbert, G. R. (1973. June). AH uz~~l~Ao~ progrrs.s report of t/w Alternate Routes Project. L’npubtished monograph, Regional Research Institute in Social kVelfare, University of Southern California, Los Angeles. Colorado Division of Criminal Justice. (19X). Juvenile justice 8~ delinquency prevention plan. Denver, CO. deGrazia, E. (1973, January). Report on pre-trial diversion of accused offenders to community mental health treatment programs. IVashington. DC. Georgeto\
38
Regoli,
Wilderman,
and Pogrebin
Hawkins, J. D.. Cassidy. C.. Light. N., ,Y- Miller. K. (1977). Interpreting official records as indicnrors of recidivism in evaluating delinquency prevention programs. Cr~mirtolqs. 15, 39-I-424.
Krisberg. B.. k Schwartz. I. (195’1). Rrthlnkirlg jurwilu ju.sticr. Prepared for the Hubert H. Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs. Xlinneapolis: University of Alinnesota. I.iazos. A. (1979). Capitalism. socialism. and clelinquencv. In L. T. Empey (Ed.). T//r 1utlcr.r o/ ct~ild/u~od and jrtvr,lilr judicr (pp. 336-79). Charlottesville. [‘.A: University of Virginia Press. \liller. J. G. (1970). The revolution in juvenile justice: From rhetoric to rhetoric. In L. 1‘. Empe) (Ed.), ?%r firlrcrr o/- chiltl/m~~lc~rrdjrtr~nilr jr~rlicr (pp. tiC;- I 11). Charlottesville, l’.-I: Universit! of I’irginia Press. Pogrebin, hl.. Poole. E. D., k Regoli, R. ,\l. (1983). Corutrra-llrlg nr~c/implrrw~~~ir~gn Paper presented at the American motlrl ju;*f~rlilc tlrditfc/crr~w rlirw5im puqpm. Society of’ Criminolog\ keeting, Denver, CO. Kutherford. A., k AlcDermott, R. ( i9i6, September). Jtrwr~i/r tlkvr-slott. Sational Evaluation Program Phase I Summary &port. L’.S. Department of Justice. LE..-\.;\. k N.I.L.E.C.;\. Short. J. F.. .Jr. (1979). Social contexts of. child rights XICI delinquent!. In I_ -1‘. E:rnpry (Ed.). T/cr, fftlrcrt, of chi/d/uw/f coltl j/c:lrrli/f,jr/.\lrc.r(pp. I i3--L) IO). Charlottesville. L’;-\: Uniter-sit\ of \‘irginia Press. S\\.eeney. P. (198’1). O~l~~homa~ju\enile officials agree to swepin, 0 changes. C:rjrrw liOK\ .\lng”;iw s. 39-45.
University
Division
Robert Regoli of Colorado,
Boulder
Elizabeth Wilderman of Youth Services, State
University
Mark Pogrebin of Colorado,
of Colorado
Denver
This paper describes the effectiveness of six juvenile diversion programs in the metropolitan area of Denver, Colorado. Program success was measured by recidivism reduction. Horvever. statistical client-baseline matching by using a one-for-one method and a variable definition of recidivism, r$‘e managed to overcome drawbacks that often occur when using reciclivism as an outcome indicator. Together, program participants sho\\.ecl a 267~ reduction in recidivism rate over that of a matched baseline sample. Although four of the six programs studiecl accounted for the overall success rate, we explain ~.hy two of the programs showed no significant reductions in reciclivism rates.
The inability to rehabilitate (e.g., Empey, Short, 1979)
of the juvenile justice system to curb youth crime and offenders is causing more and more criminologists 1979; Krisberg & Schwartz, 1982; Liazos, 19’79; to question its efficacy. It is now common to heal
22
Regoli,
Wilderman,
and Pogrebin
complaints that juvenile courts are poorly organized quasi-legal organizations that are ill-equipped to address problems coming befijre them. Sot only are juvenile courts understaffed. but also the! are overly bureaucratic, and sometimes have failed to protect the constitutional rights of youths (James, 1977; Srveeriey, 1982). hloreover. the juvenile justice system has been attacked for implementing ineffective treatment programs, as \\.ell as for high costs of institutionalization and the consequences of’ labeling >‘oung offenders (Bullington, SproLvls. Catkin, & Phillips, 197s). Because traditional strategies for handling offenders have failed, there is increasing support for alternatives to system processing. One approach that has received i\,iclespread attention is diversion-the process of diverting youths away f’rom fi>rmal OI of‘ficial contact l\.ith the juvenile justice svstem and reterring them instead to programs in the community that provide services aimed at replacing their delinquent behavior with la\\,-abiding constructive behaviors. Cnfortunately, research on ju\,enile diversion prowarns suggests that the,, may merely be an extension of an ineffec
Assessing
Juvenile
Diversion
Programs
23
K- Regoli, 1983). hloreover, this remains true even though other indicators are available-such as those derived from the interactionist perspective, which include reduction of alienation and increased access to social roles (Elliott ,ui Biancharci, 19iS)-and no one argues that recidivism is absolutely an inappropriate measure. Rather, the disenchantment with using recidivism rests with methocioiogies and interpretive flalvs inherent in those research studies using recidivism as the lone program evaluation criterion (e.g., Gibbons & Blake, 19i6; Rutherford ,Y: AlcDermott, 1976). In this study, u.e have conceptualized recidivism differenti~ than have most others. For LIS, recidivism is not a static measure; rather, recidivism occurs when one reenters the system clrlcl is processed to or bevond the point of previous exit. Thus, the ciefinition of recidivism varies, ciepending upon the point at pvhich one is esited from the system. For example, a youth referred to a diversion program at the point of court intake ~.oulci not be consiciereci a reciciivist if she/he was rearrested and then lectured anti reieaseci, but wo~~ici be considered a recidivist if, after arrest, she/he i\.ere processed on again to court intake, the previous point from r\.hich she/he was diverted. Likewise, a matched baseline youth ~vo~~ici be considered a reciciivist onlv if she/he was rearrested ad referreci on to court intake, the pre&ous point from which he/she \\.as released. In short, we view recidivism as a construct that can take on more than one dimension; not as a constant. This definition of recidivism allows one to measure the effects diversion might have on minimizing as well as pre\,enting subsequent svstems contact. .\s will be explained further in the methods section, the baseline against which the diverted vouths’ success is measured is constructed parallel to the diverted youth sample, with youths exited at police, pre-filing, and post-filirig levels of the system, f-or ~vhom recidivism is also defined as reentry into the system and processing to point of previous exit. This co&istency in definition of success between the client and baseline samples a\,oids the problems associated with the interpretation of “success” because success is a matter of directional difference from the baseline and not an ail-ornothing occurrence. The Divrrsion Programs. When this stuciy project began, approximately 73,271 youth aged 10 to 17 years resided in the Denver metropolitan area (Colorado Division of Criminal Justice, 1977, p. 419). The many youth-serving agencies in this area include six state-funded, community-based ju\,eniie diversion programs that originally were developed and funded by the La\\ En-
24
Regoli,
Wilderman,
and Pogrebin
f’orcement ;\ssistance Administration starting in 1973. In their first ti months of’ state funding (July-December 1976). I.846 youth (about ‘L.57~ of the metropolitan juvcnite population) were referred for services. Four of the diversion programs. North Denver \r’outh Services, Inc. (ND), Northeast Denver Youth Services (NED), and Southeast Denver E’outh Services (SLt’D), provided brokerage as i\ell as direct services (e.g., counseling, educational, recreational, and job-related) fix youths residing in their respective quadrants of the city. Youths \\.ere referred to the programs from Denver’s police department. ju\,enile court, schools, social agencies, the Department of‘ Institutions, and by parents or themselves. XII program services were of‘f’ered on a voluntary basis. and varied in length from an aserage of 1 to 2 weeks for needs assessment and brokerage 0111~. to 6 to 12 mvnths for extended direct services. The services were ‘expected tv resolve the youths’ delinquent behaviors. \$u a direct-service agency A fifth program, Police-to-Partners. sercing youth throughout Denver who i\‘ere referred b!, the police programs. Police-tv-Partners or bv the precedin g four diversion prv\iciecl direct, Ivng-term services (9 months-2 years) on a ~vluntar? basis, >k*hich consisted of matching each juvenile Jr,ith an adult. and fostering and supplementing this relationship through cvunseleducation services, again ing, recreational activities, and remedial tow*nrd the end of resol\ling the juveniles‘ delinquents. Project New Pride, the finai program evaluated, ‘~vas an intenfor post-~lc~jL]clicator~, lower socioecosive superVision program Its numerous services adinner-city delinquents. nomic status, dressed individual academic and social adjustment needs of’ clients. Because the pr(!gram served as an alternative to incarceration, all yvuths Fvere referred by the Dertver Juvenile Court and received services fvr 12 months. Methods The e\xluation of these programs involved a three-part study. -i-he first part estabiished baseline criteria against \k.hich program success cvulcl be measured. It consisted of obtaining a random sample of- non-diverted youth involved in the Denier .ju\.enile justice system, and calculating their recidivism rates fvr specific t’ime part involved obtaining arrest and periods at risk. The second cvut-t filing information on all youth served by the diversion pro1976, and calculating client grams between July and December The third part consisted of recidivism rates for each program. selecting samples of the baseline population that wet-e similar to each client sample on the most important recidivism-l.elated char-
Assessing Juvenile
Diversion
Programs
23
acteristics and comparing the client and matched nondiverted juvenile recidivism rates. Each of these parts is detaiied here. tfith recidivism defined as reentry into the justice system to point of previous exit, the first part of our studv teas carried out as fi~llows: A baseline population was selected which consisted of a stratified random sample of 834 youth who were involved in the Denver Juvenile Justice Sy,stent between July 1 and December 31. 1975, and followed up until Juiy t, 1976, who tvere not at any time before or during this period referred to any of the Denver Juvenile Diversion Programs. That is, data were collected on set proportions of males and females and of police arrestees and court referrals. XI1 other factors rtrere free to vary insofar as the sampling \qas random. ;tnd ali juveniles were tracked For a minimum of 6 months. Differences betrveen diverted and nondiverted vouth were minimal, due to the circumstances that the “suppll;” &f offenders exceeded the capacity of the di\.ersion programs in Denver, so that many of the same types of youth were lectured and released. diverted, or referreci to court by the police. At the police IeveI, the same individuals ntade these dispositional decisions during both the baseline and client tracking period. ~~dciition~~ll~, due to the diversity in diversion programs, many of the same types of vouth were dcver-ted by the court or processed through the court system. X‘hese circumstances obviate the need for a quasi-experimental random assignment design, for all of these factors were built into the normal referral process. Cl’ith a baseline popLlI~~tio1~ of 834 juveniles, and client samples of‘ from ‘73 to 199, it was not possible to obtain a one-for-one match on each of the seven variables that bvere chosen to describe the baseline population. By breaking do\+.n these factors singly (sho\\.n in Table l), it is clear that three factors influenced recidivism rate differences the most-number of months at risk, level of exit from justice system, and number of priors. Priors for -juveniles exited at the police level \\.ere number of arrests prior to the one kvhich qualified them to be included in the sample; priors for juveniles exited at the court levels ivere number of‘ referrals to court prior to the one which qualified them to be part of the sample. Therefore, because of the limited size of the baseline population, and the large number of combinations that result from crossing just these three factors (six levels of months at risk, three levels of exit from justice system, and three levels of priors), these variables were selected as ones to match baseline and client samples. Table 2 illustrates the numbers of juveniles in the baseline population that fall into each sariable category and their respective recidivism rates. The data reflect the probabilities of reentry into
Regoli,
26
TABLE Baseline
Sample
Breakdown NLllllbel~
Risk
iIt
Wilderman,
and Pogrebin
1 Across Salient Factors
SllInbeI- of Kecidi\-icts
Kecitli\~istn Kare
.:10:5 .27-l .L’i!) 1H3
4 5.3 150 ‘) --. ‘) C)
3s -lo 30
.:3-i I .:5 IO .:I 7 3
YS 72
.I1HI ,230
135 li
15
.I I I .I 18
X3
31
1TO
1!!
‘)
‘70
.:‘, I-1 ,337
1-l 83-l
23-I
.2s I
Assessing
Juvenile
Diversion
Programs
28
Regoli,
Wilderman,
and Pogrebin
the sk’steni to the point of previous exit tor 34 different types of nond’i\,erteci ju\,eniles. Finally. each client bias matched to the same type of youth in the baseline population on the number of months at risk, level of exit. and number of priors; their corresponding recidivism rates for both the client and baseline were compared: and, recidivism samples \b’as defined as reentry into the justice system to or beyond the point of previous exit. Thus, the comparisons of client and baseline recidivism rates are bet\\,een groups of juveniles indi\idualla matched on the most important factors we could determine i\.ere related to recidivism, and the variable definition of recidivism \\xs consistent betl\.een both groups. There is no baseline against lvhich to compare school, social agent\‘, and self-parent referrals that had had no previous in\,olvethese particular clients, as ment ‘in the justice svstem. Therefore, rx.ell as those’for tt.hok we did not know number of months at risk, le\,el of exit from the justice system, or number of priors. are not However, school, social included in the recidl\,isni comparisons. agency, and self-parent referrals that did have previous in\vl\.ement in the justice system are included in the recidivism comparisons. Xi a closing note, bear in mind that in a stucly like this tvher-e clients had a maximum of- from I to 6 months at risk. only. shortterm program effects can be measured. In fact, the average times at risk for clients in each of’ our diversion programs ranged from 2.7 to 5.2 months. lvith a mean time at risk for all clients of 3.6 months. Although previous research has shown that short-term program effects for ju\penile diversion are the most dramatic of an\ 1973), readers must recognizk time period (Elliott x1 Blanchard, that short-term results do not necessarilv indicate \b.hat longer term program effects might be. D’ithout long-term data, 1s.e onlv can speculate on probable effects. Findings
Overall, the 760 _juveniles referred to the di\.ersion programs sho\\.eci less recidi\.ism than the expected (baseline) rate of .18-k. For the 509 lvho received services, recidivism w’as 26% less than the baseline rate of .ZlS, a reduction that was statisticall!, significant. Differences betw.een client and baseline recicli\ism rates w.ere tested for statistical significance at the .05 level of.confidence usin,g a two-tailed test. Table 3 shows these overall results. and compar-lsons between client and baseline recidivism rates across each factor are given. An inspection of Table 3 reveals that regardless of- the factor
Assessing
Juvenile
Diversion
Programs TABLE
29
3
Comparison of Client and Baseline Recidivism Rate for All Programs Client Number Risk
Variable
at Number of Recidivism Recidivists Rate
Baseline Recidivism Rate
Sex
Male Female
562 196
81 20
.150 .102
,182 ,188
255 285 213
31 49 24
.__ 1”” .I72 ,113
.166 .I91 .198
iVumber of Priors 0 1
403 143
48 23
.119 .161
.142 ,192
Most Serious Prior Felony Misdemeanor Other lesser
170 144 43
29
18 9
,171 .125 .209
,245 .223 .20 1
184 377 199
24 59 21
.130 .15i ,106
.I36 .178 .239
571
97
.170
.166
65 124
3 4
.046 ,032
.I05 .307
171 459 18
7 74 7
.04 1 .161 .389
.232 ,153 .266
Ethnicity Anglo Spanish Black
surname
offense
A@ 12 or Under 13-15 16 or Over Exit Level Police Court pre-filing/ filing Court post-filing Referral Source Courts Police and/or Schools
YSB
(continued on next page)
30
Regoli,
Wilderman,
and Pogrebin
Table 3 (continued)
Client Number Risk Social agencies Dept. of institutions Self/parent
“0 18 7-1
at Nunlber of Recidivism Recidivists Rate -I 0
I”
Baseline Recidivists Rate
.i100 0
,162
Itltuku Dispsitiotl
Received services i”;o need for services Ref’usecl services Unable to contact Pending and other
,161 .09-l ,133 .I Iti .043
.036
-I $1
.093
15 “0 5-l 760
1o-1
.” I8 .1:31 .I43 I30 .ooo
139 ‘) I I ::J 16 ,137
.I84
examined, the total effect of diversion programs is to reduce recidivism. There are, how.ever, exceptions to this conclusion. For instance, for the factor Most Serious Prior, \ve see in the categor) Other Lesser Offense the recidivism rate for clients actually increased from that observed for the baseline sample. Aloreover, at least one instance of an increase from baseline to client rates is detected for three other variables: Exit Level, Referral Source, and Intake Disposition. But data in Table 3 do not allow us to identif!; sjwcific program eff-ects. That is, even though an overall reduction III recicli!ism NXS observed (from .I84 to .137) we cannot say whether that difference holds across individual programs (a general change) or if the difference simply is accounted for by one or two of the programs. This issue is addressed in Tables 4 and 5. In these tables, we have examined the separate effects of the successful and unsuccessful programs. In doing this ptre see that four of the six programs account for the overall success observed. Two programs showed no significant reductions in client recidivism.
Assessing
Juvenile
Diversion
Programs
31
.A closer inspection of Table -I reveals se\.eral curious findings about the successful diversion programs. Foremost is that rzo single factor affected recidivism rates similarly across diversion programs. For instance, if we turn our attention to the “number of priors” Lxriable and compare recidivism rates for each category of this t’&tor for the four successful programs, no consistent pattern is noted. In three of the diversion programs, persons rvith two or more priors had the highest recidivism rates: sL,hile in the remaining program (Northeast Denver 1’011th Services), persons having only one prior had a recidivism rate more than double that for the “tW0 or more prior” categor!‘. Similar inconsistencies also are noted fi)r other variables including most serious prior, age, and exit level, to name but three. Although t\.e cannot identify the factor(s) that actually e?cplain differences in recidivism rates, overall client recidivism rates are about equal for the four successful cli\,ersion programs (ranging from 5.3 to 8.3) and that except for Project Net\. Pride, client recidivism rates \\.ere about one half the baseline rates. (In Project New Pride the client recidivism rate I\XS about one fifth of the baseline rate!) Examining the programs that failed in Table 3, we see that both of these programs diverted some kincls of vouth from further criminal involvement. For instance, recidivism rates in both programs t‘orfemales Lvere lower. And tvhile some may consider this finding an observation, a quick comparison of Tables 4 ancl (_,illustrates that f’emale recidivism rates l\‘ere lou.er in 011 of the diversion programs. This finding implies the possibility of some important differences bet\\,een hoi\. young itsomen and men respond to formal intervention. In short, the findings suggest that one’s sex ma) be a salient determinant of recicli\isni regardless of program serixes. There are many inconsistencies among the data in Table 3. -Fhe same variables, generally, clo not account for the overall increased recidivism rates in the t1k.o failed programs. Except for the most “serious prior offense” factor, the effect other variables ha\.e on overall recidivism rates is irregular. Examining each program more specifically, several comments are in order. In the case of the Police-to-Partners, there is a general leveling off in client recidivism rates, as opposed to a rate increase for the same types of nondiverted juveniles over time (see “hlonth at Risk” portion of Table 3). This suggests that the one-to-one relationship upon which this program is based may have some unique effects on delinquent activity. Namely, o\‘er the initial months, it seems that either the relationship has not yet been established or that the client is testing the relationship through additional negative behavior. But once the relationship is established
Regoli,
Wilderman,
and Pogrebin
, I .
--
r. >i
>i
--
,-
-2 = = I^ -__ --3.
-
II
^I
-
2-
Assessing Juvenile
Diversion
----:. % =
:
5 + ---,--
I 2
2i
‘3
r_
-1
‘3
>I
”
2
&
=’
2
----
--_---
Z
. CT.
=
:
-
=
.^
=I_
’
:
:
I
:
:
:
:
:
’
’
3-_--
1: ,-
I
=
.=
31
=
=
=
1c.
5
5
>I
>I
I.
%
-
=
,-I
2
,-:
-----= >I I;
---_I.
=
=
----I.
II
r.
%,
,--
-
l.
-
r-
=
--^A_^
f.
75
>, 2
+ -
------
-_---
‘_
r-
-
a.<=’
VW---
2:
M-1
=
33
_^---
r.
-_1-_ ---: =
Programs
----_ = !
!
!
_I
I.
,;
-
-
=
:=I
-
-
z
r,
I. >I
>l
‘2
8:
3,
-
I_
.-
-
----31
2
-
I.
j
-:
= =I
-
5,
7.
3,
= ,, -
Ir=’
?. ”
=
I.
1--------
>I >i
.L -
v
-
--v-w -
I.
7
=
>I
--_-= -
L
A-_---
,r:
I.
-
Y
7
-
,,
.;
.^’ -
1;’ ->i
--------::-
:
:‘I
i
:i
-4,
-_----
=, -
2
--%
e-m-
=,
=
=
=
,_-I
=
.=
-
,<
,L
-
-_--_ -
2
=
=
-
I
=
I
----
r.
I
-
=
=
7-z
-
=
.^ =
.-
,.
-
-T, -
-
‘I
Regoli,
34
TABLE Comparison
of ClientiBaseline
Wilderrnan,
and Pogrebin
5
Recidivism
Rates for Unsuccessful
Programs
Police to Partners Client
Southt\.est Ikn\.e~ \I’outh Services Sb stem Client
. # ot Recidivists”
# At Kisk
# At Risk
# Of Kecicli~~ists”
H6
96 (30.2)
133
3 I (‘13.0) ( Ii.“)
33
8 (24.2)
(5.7)
49
.i (10.2) (13.3)
35 .57 23
7 (lS.4) 19 (33.3) H (34.S)
(23.2) (“3.2) (26.1)
64 III H
I4 (21.9) i’o (18.0) ” (“5.U)
(16.3) (16.9) (20.3)
74
2’0
(19.3) (30.5) (Y0.Y)
103 3X 30
13 (14.ti) 14 (36.8) 3 (10.0)
(13.4) (24.4)
1tj “3
(2i.O)
4 (23.0) x (32.0)
43
11 (24.4)
6-l
20
10
(31.3)
3 (30.0)
(‘LY.0)
( 17.5) (27.4)
48
(29.3)
;o
c)6
119
34 (“s.(i) (23.8) 1w _ (____) (____) s _ (____) (____) l(j
107
30
_
8 (167) (24.0) :, (12.5)
‘I’3
(li.3) (13.2)
(18.4) (Ii.“)
3.3 (‘Ll.c_)) (16.6) 0) ( 4.8) 0 ( 1 i 6.1) . (“4.0) -.
(____) (____) ‘-‘_1 I ( 4.2) (17.6) (23.4) 122 26 (21.3) (lY.S) (80.0) (“8.5) 3 1 (33.3) (28.6) ( 0) (39. 1) 3 0 ( 0) (39.1) (____) (____) _ - (____) (____) 0) (20.3) 3’1 8 (iz3.0) (24.4) ( (28.0)
?J
4
‘2
0
3
(1
_
(cottlirttrtd
on
ttat
fiagr)
Assessing
Juvenile
Diversion
Programs
35
Table 5 (continued)
Denver Youth Services
Police
Southwest
to Partners Client # At Risk
Variable
System Client
# Of Recidivists”
# At Risk
# Of Recidivistsb
Intake Disposition
Received services Refused services Unable to contact Pending and other
119
-
34 (28.6) - (----) - (----) - (----)
(23.8) (----) (----) (----)
10’7 15 3 53
0 ( 0) 2 (12.5) 3 (30.0) 2 (66.7) 27O( 0) (34.2)
( 4.8)
36
( 8.1) (i3.3) (17.7) (26.6) (30.3)
45 22 36 387
34 (28.6)
(23.8)
184
28 4 0 4
(26.2)
(21.8) (16.1) ( 0) (18.6) ( 7.6) ( 6.9) (26.i)
~Month(s) at Risk
1
8
2
16
3 4 :
10 3 ‘79 3
TOTAL
SXXIPLE
~Y:lient recidi\isrn “Baseline
recidivism
rate shown
119 in rrr&r
rate showy
in fbr
colun~n under r/g/d column
“# of recidivists”
under
3 ( 8.3)
( 8.9) ( 9.1) (30.6) (28.6) (36.8)
( 5.3) ( 9.3) (15.1) (19.5) (25.8) (33.2)
36 (19.6)
(16.8)
4 2 11 14 2
categorv.
“# of recidivists”
categor),
the negative behavior levels off, and may even decrease beyond the time limits of this project. Thus, we are hesitant to categorize Policeto-Partners as a failed program. Xn accurate assessment may require that longer time periods be studied. In the case of the second failing program, the Southwest Denver Youth Services System, the highest increases in client recidivism rates were betiveen the first and second 3 Months at Risk groups. Inquiry into specific programmatic circumstances and clientele served during Jul!:, August, and September-the seemingl! problem months accordmg to the recidivism results-revealed that there were unique events associated with this time period. The program had just been consolidated from three separate projects into one, and only the most difficult clients ivere retained. Thus, the early group of clients differed from the program’s normal referral population, making it possible that the concurrent major programmatic changes caused some temporary disruption of services.
Regoli,
36 Summary
Wilderman,
and Pogrebin
and Conclusions
Official reports of recidivism rates appeared to be viable measures of juvenile diversion program effectiveness in the present evaluation study. The appropriateness of utilizing this measure of success was due in part to the circumstances surrounding the client referral process, which were similar to those of a quasi-experimental random assignment design, and to the statistical baseline-client matching method employed to measure program results. together, achieved a notable reduction in The six programs, client recidivism rates over an individually matched baseline population of nondiverted juveniles involved in the Denver Juvenile .Justice System. In light of current evidence that juvenile diversion may not be working, this study provides some evidence of effectiveness under the particular circumstances of these diversion programs. The concepts of delinquency and juvenile justice that were developed in the late 19th century have undergone considerable changes. Some criminologists believe that the current revolution in juvenile justice is part of a larger tra~lsformatioI1 in American be‘liefs, values, and social arrangements (Xfiiler, 1979). 1t’hateter the cause(s), the current revolution is constructing new lvavs to control and socialize children. This revolution has seen the prd:iferation of the practice of formal diversion of offenders from the justice systern. At its inception, diversion was siewed as a panacea to the llis plaguing the failing juvenile justice svstern. Its objectives-to reduce the numbers ofjuveniles entering the system, to provide earl! intervention treatment services, and to reduce recidivism-were widely accepted and applied in ttle early 1970s. The proliferation of diversion i\.as accompanied by increasing skepticism and criticism. Critics generally focused on lack of constitutional safeguards for diverted juveniles, the widening net of social control, unattainabie goais of reducing recidivism and avoiding and poor program evaluation; these became labeling offenders, issues for future diversion programs to consider. Yet, while these substantive issues are real and significant. often critiques of diversion programs were too heavily oriented to them at the expense of In other words, perhaps our conalternative evaluative strategies. ceptualization of the dependent variabie (recidivism) was simplified to the point of it not being able to detect small differences among the mayy diversion programs. This study operationalized diversion differently than have most others. And while our results indicated a trend toward reduced recidivism based on diversion services, it remains unknown
Assessing Juvenile
Diversion
Programs
37
what characteristics of each diversion program actually produced lower recidivism rates. In short, the prime unanswered question is, “Generally, why did four programs work?” We cannot directly address this question with the data available to us, yet we can speculate as to “Why didn’t all the programs fail?” First, three of the fout programs were structured similarly. Each one was offered on a voluntary basis and provided clients with a variety of services, ranging from needs assessment to extended direct services. The other successful program, on the other hand, was an intensive supervilower socioeconomic status. sion program for post-adjudicatory, sort, ranging inner-city delinquents. Services, too, were a different from handling individual academic services to social adjustment needs of clients. About at1 that can be concluded from the data is that the successful programs were better able to help youth than The successful programs were better were the failed programs. able to realize their goal(s) because they were better able to manage scarce resources and to develop community support regardmg administrative-political concerns of the diversion program than did the failing programs. Bfsyond these rather general comments, no additiona speculation is m order. References
Bullington, 3.. Sprawls. J., Catkin, D., &z Phillips, M. (1978). X critique of ciix-ersionary juvenile justice. Crinle clnd Drlitqurtq. -34, 5Q-7 1. Carter, G. IV.. Ly Gilbert, G. R. (1973. June). AH uz~~l~Ao~ progrrs.s report of t/w Alternate Routes Project. L’npubtished monograph, Regional Research Institute in Social kVelfare, University of Southern California, Los Angeles. Colorado Division of Criminal Justice. (19X). Juvenile justice 8~ delinquency prevention plan. Denver, CO. deGrazia, E. (1973, January). Report on pre-trial diversion of accused offenders to community mental health treatment programs. IVashington. DC. Georgeto\
38
Regoli,
Wilderman,
and Pogrebin
Hawkins, J. D.. Cassidy. C.. Light. N., ,Y- Miller. K. (1977). Interpreting official records as indicnrors of recidivism in evaluating delinquency prevention programs. Cr~mirtolqs. 15, 39-I-424.
Krisberg. B.. k Schwartz. I. (195’1). Rrthlnkirlg jurwilu ju.sticr. Prepared for the Hubert H. Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs. Xlinneapolis: University of Alinnesota. I.iazos. A. (1979). Capitalism. socialism. and clelinquencv. In L. T. Empey (Ed.). T//r 1utlcr.r o/ ct~ild/u~od and jrtvr,lilr judicr (pp. 336-79). Charlottesville. [‘.A: University of Virginia Press. \liller. J. G. (1970). The revolution in juvenile justice: From rhetoric to rhetoric. In L. 1‘. Empe) (Ed.), ?%r firlrcrr o/- chiltl/m~~lc~rrdjrtr~nilr jr~rlicr (pp. tiC;- I 11). Charlottesville, l’.-I: Universit! of I’irginia Press. Pogrebin, hl.. Poole. E. D., k Regoli, R. ,\l. (1983). Corutrra-llrlg nr~c/implrrw~~~ir~gn Paper presented at the American motlrl ju;*f~rlilc tlrditfc/crr~w rlirw5im puqpm. Society of’ Criminolog\ keeting, Denver, CO. Kutherford. A., k AlcDermott, R. ( i9i6, September). Jtrwr~i/r tlkvr-slott. Sational Evaluation Program Phase I Summary &port. L’.S. Department of Justice. LE..-\.;\. k N.I.L.E.C.;\. Short. J. F.. .Jr. (1979). Social contexts of. child rights XICI delinquent!. In I_ -1‘. E:rnpry (Ed.). T/cr, fftlrcrt, of chi/d/uw/f coltl j/c:lrrli/f,jr/.\lrc.r(pp. I i3--L) IO). Charlottesville. L’;-\: Uniter-sit\ of \‘irginia Press. S\\.eeney. P. (198’1). O~l~~homa~ju\enile officials agree to swepin, 0 changes. C:rjrrw liOK\ .\lng”;iw s. 39-45.