The Social Science Journal 41 (2004) 129–135

Control group study of juvenile diversion programs: anexperiment in juvenile diversion—the comparison of three

methods and a control group

Steven Patrick∗, Robert Marsh, Wade Bundy, Susan Mimura, Tina Perkins

Department of Sociology, Boise State University, Boise, ID 83725, USA

Abstract

Juvenile diversion methods have been tested in many states in an effort to reduce recidivism. Thispaper reports on an experimental juvenile diversion program and the evaluation to assess the effects onrecidivism during the experimental period. In this control group design first-time juvenile status offenderswere randomly assigned to three experimental groups: Juvenile Accountability Program, Youth Court,or Magistrate Court and compared with an Educational Control group.

The data revealed that the Juvenile Accountability diversion program, which diverted offenders fromthe justice system and held them accountable of their offenses, showed positive signs for reducingrecidivism.© 2003 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

American prisons are the world’s most populated with little sign of slowing in their growthrates (Beck, 2000). As of December 1999, 2,026,596 persons were incarcerated in the U.S.(Beck, 2000). Of that number 105,790 were juveniles (Beck, 2000). Many of the adults inAmerican prisons began their criminal careers as juveniles(Sherman et al., 1998). As we con-tinue to search for ways to break the cycle of crime, we have attempted to rehabilitate adultoffenders as well as juveniles. One approach to breaking this cycle of adult incarceration isto divert juveniles from the justice system as early as possible. This work will present theinitial results of one such program to divert juveniles based on an experimental methodology

∗ Corresponding author. Tel.:+1-208-426-3225.E-mail address: spatric@boisestate.edu (S. Patrick).

0362-3319/$ – see front matter © 2003 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.doi:10.1016/j.soscij.2003.10.012

130 S. Patrick et al. / The Social Science Journal 41 (2004) 129–135

designed to compare an educational control group with two popular diversion programs and atraditional “misdemeanant court-based” approach.

1.1. Literature review

Over the past 30 years many research projects have been conducted to test various methodsof diversion. While much research has been conducted to test diversion methods, few havetaken advantage of true field experimental conditions (Campbell, 1969; Severy & Whitaker,1982). Unfortunately, utilizing true experimental designs in the juvenile justice setting canhave serious political implications (Severy & Whitaker, 1982). Yet, the absence of a controlgroup prevents testing from a base line. This project, as it progresses over the experimentalperiod, will allow the comparison of the groups to each other and the comparison of them to abaseline control group.

In addition to research design questions, a number of other issues are also significant. Oneof the most significant issues raised by diversion is the “net-widening” effect of this type ofprograms. In an evaluation of 11 California diversion projectsBohnstedt (1978)found thathalf of the 3,871 clients served would not have been processed by the system if court diversionprograms were not available.Cournarelos and Weatherburn (1995)noted that if the court didnothing, most first time young offenders would not get into any further trouble.

In addition to the “net-widening” effect, the current “get tough” accountability approacheshave increased and negatively impacted juvenile court case loads.Butts (1996)reported that66% more status offenders were processed by the juvenile court in 1994 than 1985. At the sametime his study noted that delinquency petitions increased dramatically. This calls into questionthe philosophy of the juvenile court when compared to the adult court. As the court becomesmore punitive it continues to be burdened by increased caseloads for both serious and statusoffenders (Butts, 1996; Minor, Hartmann, & Terry, 1997).

“Treating youth in the community diversion is seen as a way to reduce further involve-ment with the juvenile justice system. The idea has been particularly intriguing because of itsadded benefit of relieving an overburdened judicial system (Whitaker, Severy, & Morton 1984,pp. 175–176).”

1.2. Theoretical foundation

Diverting juvenile offenders from the traditional juvenile justice system has been influencedby various theories but most prominently labeling theory (Klein, 1986; Schur, 1971) anddifferential association theory (Osgood & Weichselbaum, 1984).

2. Experimental methodology

All true experiments require both random assignment to groups and a control group. A fieldexperiment takes place outside a laboratory environment. When the city decided to begin anew diversion program funded by a federal grant, they wished to see which diversion programworked best at reducing recidivism and thus break the cycle of criminal incarceration. For

S. Patrick et al. / The Social Science Journal 41 (2004) 129–135 131

several years the city had run a Youth Court as one diversion program but this program couldnot handle an increasing case load. The Youth Court had been started to reduce the growingcase load of the magistrate court which could not handle the growing case load due to changesin the laws bring more juveniles into the system. The new Juvenile Accountability Programwas designed to handle a larger case load efficiently but would not be adopted if the resultsover the experimental period were not as good as or better than the alternatives. It was furtherdetermined that to compare only two groups would not be sufficient to determine efficacy. Tofully determine which diversion program was best at reducing recidivism, an control groupwould have to be included. It was additionally determined that the inclusion of the MagistrateCourt as a fourth group would balance the experimental analysis by allowing a comparisonwith traditional methods of juvenile adjudication that these other programs were designed tosupplement.

When the program began, the four groups were setup and first time juvenile offenderscharged with the status crimes of tobacco or alcohol possession were randomly assigned toone of the four groups. At the end of 1 year, the experiment assignment was halted and thegroups analyzed. Those subjects found to not match the experiment criteria (not first timeoffenders or charged with additional crimes not covered by the study) or those that did notcomplete the programs they were assigned to were disqualified and removed from the study.The final number of juvenile subjects assigned to the groups was: Juvenile Accountability (JA)72, Youth Court (YC) 75, Magistrate Court (MC) 83, Educational Control group (EG) 68.

2.1. Juvenile Accountability group

The parents of juveniles that were randomly assigned to the Juvenile Accountability Programwere notified in writing that their son/daughter had been issued a citation and was being referredto the program as an alternative to being sent to Magistrate’s Court. In order to participate inthe program at least one parent had to accompany the juvenile to the program to discussthe circumstances of the citation; determine a possible cause and result of the citation; andultimately divert the citation from Magistrate’s Court to the Juvenile Accountability Program.After this notification, the juveniles went through a structured intervention that included anIntake/Assessment Process to collect information including socio-demographic variables aswell as their history of substance abuse and use. Juveniles were also directed to additionalcommunity services if needed. Parents were required to complete a confidential questionnaire.Based on the intake process, a program was developed and both the juvenile and parent signeda contract to complete the conditions stipulated in the Juvenile Accountability Program. Thiscontract required the juvenile to complete approximately 15–20 h of community service as partof the program. The juvenile was required to pay any restitution due by the end of the program;attend a Court Alcohol or Drug Awareness Class and make an optional (may be required byprogram coordinator or parent) supervised visit to the jail to visit an inmate incarcerated on asentence of alcohol, drugs, or violence. At the conclusion of this program, the juvenile wrote atleast a two-page essay analyzing the experience. The final aspect of this program was an ExitInterview, which involved a form completed by both a parent and juvenile and an interviewwith the Director of the Program. If the juvenile did not re-offend for 1 year the citation wasremoved from their permanent record.

132 S. Patrick et al. / The Social Science Journal 41 (2004) 129–135

2.2. Youth Court group

Juveniles in the second intervention program were randomly assigned to the Youth CourtProgram offered as a service through the YMCA. A judge presided over the largely student-runprocess. High school students volunteered to participate as jury members and attorneys for theYouth Court. The jury generally consisted of at least 20 students who heard eight cases weekly.Students were assigned to serve as “prosecutors” and “defense attorneys.” The sentence usuallyinvolved a tobacco or alcohol education course, community service hours in a designatedprogram, and an essay at the conclusion of the program. In most cases, juveniles received:8 h of counseling; 10–20 h of community service; a class in substance abuse for more seriousoffenders; and an essay or poster at program completion.

In addition to these interventions, juveniles with a more severe nicotine addiction werereferred to a hospital based intensive “stop smoking” class for a reduced fee. Again, if thejuvenile did not re-offend for 1 year, the citation was cleared from their permanent record.

2.3. Magistrate’s Court

These cases were handled along the traditional lines of the court. Generally the sentencefrom the court included a fine and stern warning from the judge regarding future use of illegalsubstances. This resulted in a permanent record for the juvenile.

2.4. Educational Control group

The control group was composed of approximately one-fourth of all individual juvenilemisdemeanor citations involving alcohol and tobacco possession. Juveniles that were placein the control group were referred to the Juvenile Accountability Administrator for a briefassessment and “pardon interview.” They were also offered community resources on a voluntarybasis. In this brief interview, the juvenile was informed of the citation and shown a short filmentitled “Enough Is Enough.” The juvenile was informed that the citation would not be filedin the event that he or she discontinued the behavior named in the citation for at least 1 year.

3. Findings

While this study is in its earliest stages (initial data collection period), there are interestingfindings beginning to surface. In order to access the programs the researchers determined if therandomly assigned groups were statistically the same. After this analysis recidivism figureswere calculated.

3.1. Are the groups statistically random

In order for an experiment to yield valid results, the experimental and control groups mustbe statistically the same. Random assignment is necessary but if the groups are not statistically

S. Patrick et al. / The Social Science Journal 41 (2004) 129–135 133

Table 1Frequencies by program group

Recidivism by program group (chi square 14.072, sig. .296)None 1 2 3 4 Totals

JA 69 2 1 0 0 72YC 68 6 0 0 1 75MC 76 5 2 0 0 83EG 59 8 0 1 0 68Totals 272 21 3 1 1 298

Age by program group (chi square 23.370, sig. .177)12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Totals

JA 1 4 7 17 25 12 6 72YC 0 1 14 12 26 20 2 75MC 1 2 8 20 23 18 8 80EG 1 4 6 15 12 25 5 68Totals 3 11 35 64 86 75 21 295

Ethnicity by program group (chi square 7.831, sig. .551)White Hispanic Black Asian Totals

JA 64 4 2 2 72YC 44 2 0 1 47MC 43 5 0 1 49EG 63 2 0 1 66Totals 214 13 2 5 234

Gender by program group (chi square 1.417, sig. .701)Male Female Totals

JA 35 37 72YC 42 33 75MC 46 34 80EG 38 30 68Totals 161 134 295

Recoded recidivism by program group (chi square 3.659, sig. .301)No recidivism Yes recidivism Totals

JA 69 3 72YC 68 7 75MC 76 7 83EG 59 9 68Totals 272 26 298

Recoded ethnicity by program group (chi square 3.096, sig. .377)White Other Totals

JA 64 8 72YC 44 3 47MC 43 6 49EG 63 3 66Totals 214 20 234

the same then randomness is not sufficient. A series of chi square analyses showed that thegroups are not statistically different in regards to the age, gender or ethnicity.

Table 1shows the cross tabulation distributions for age, ethnicity, gender, recidivism, re-coded ethnicity and recoded recidivism by four groups as well as chi square and significancelevels.

134 S. Patrick et al. / The Social Science Journal 41 (2004) 129–135

These statistics show that in addition to random assignment, these four groups, while slightlydifferent in size, are statistically not different from each other. The recoded cross tabulationare shown due to the small numbers of non-whites in Idaho as well as the small number ofjuveniles who have recidivated during the initial data collection period.

3.2. Initial comparison of recidivism

The groups were statistically the same but the ultimate goal of this project was to reducerecidivism. While it is too early in the research project to have conclusive findings, initialprojections/speculations can be made. While an analysis of varianceF test does not reach sta-tistical significance meaning that these groups are not different statistically, the actual numbersshow a trend. The JA group has the smallest number of recidivists (3) and the EG having themost (9). The other two groups with 7 each fall between these two extremes. If these trendscontinue it appears that the JA Program may show advantages over alternative methods ofdiversion or punishment. Perhaps more interestingly, and somewhat unexpectedly the YC (aform of diversion) and the MC (a traditional punishment) have equal numbers of re-offenders.

4. Discussion

While it is still to early to make solid judgments regarding which, if any, group has statis-tically different rates of recidivism, it does appear that the Juvenile Accountability group isbetter at reducing recidivism. While the results are tentative, is seem that keeping juvenilescompletely out of the justice system (Youth Court simply places peers in the adult adjudica-tion process) but still holding them accountable will reduce the recidivism of first time statusoffenders.

A potential reason for the apparent success of the Juvenile Accountability Program canbe related to the labeling perspective. Labeling theory believes that offenders become careercriminals at least partly through negative interactions with the authority figures. Police, Judgesand even the trappings of authority behind the procedures of the Youth Court serve as powerful,legitimate authority figures that label first time offenders as deviant. The Juvenile Account-ability Program does not have these trappings in that an administrative bureaucrat with limitedlegitimate power guides the fledgling offender through a program of service and education thatwill result in no criminal charges.

5. Conclusions

This work has been an initial report and this study will continue for at least 2 years. Thisexperimental work should demonstrate which of the major methods of dealing with first timejuvenile status offends is best suited to reducing future involvement with the criminal justicesystem. If these initial results showing the Juvenile Accountability Program is better at reducingrecidivism hold over the next two measurement years, then this could serve as the template forfuture tests with different juvenile groups.

S. Patrick et al. / The Social Science Journal 41 (2004) 129–135 135

Future work from this study will report on the extensive characteristics obtained from theJuvenile Accountability and Educational/Dismissed Control groups. This reports will includewho first time offenders are and how the compare to the general public as well as an analysisof the parental involvement in the program.

Acknowledgments

This research supported by Federal Grant Number 99-JA42-01.

References

Beck, A. J. (2000, August).Prisoners in the 1999. U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Officeof Justice Programs.

Bohnstedt, M. (1978). Answers to three questions about juvenile diversion.Journal of Research in Crime andDelinquency, 24(1), 109–123.

Butts, J. A. (1996).Juvenile justice bulletin: Offenders in Juvenile Court, 1994. Washington, DC: U.S. Departmentof Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

Campbell, D. T. (1969). Reforms as experiments.American Psychologist, 24, 409–429.Cournarelos, C., & Weatherburn, D. (1995). Targeting prevention strategies to reduce juvenile recidivism.Australian

and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 28(1), 55–72.Klein, M. W. (1986). Labeling theory and delinquency policy: An experimental test.Criminal Justice and Behavior,

13(1), 47–79.Minor, K. I., Hartmann, D. J., & Terry, S. (1997). Predictors of Juvenile Court actions and recidivism.Crime and

Delinquency, 43(3), 328–344.Osgood, D. W., & Weichselbaum, H. F. (1984). Juvenile diversion: When practice matches theory.Journal of

Research in Crime and Delinquency, 21(1), 33–56.Schur, E. M. (1971).Labeling deviant behavior. New York: Harper & Row.Severy, L. J., & Whitaker, J. M. (1982). Juvenile diversion: An experimental analysis of effectiveness.Evaluation

Review, 6(6), 753–774.Sherman, L. W., Gottfredson, D., MacKenzie, D., Eck, J., Reuter, P., Bushway, S. (1998).Preventing crime: What

works, what doesn’t, what’s promising. A report to the United States Congress, National Institute of Justice.Whitaker, J. M., Severy, M. J., & Morton, D. S. (1984). A comprehensive community-based Youth Diversion

Program.Child Welfare, LXIII(2), 175–181.