Application of Precharge Diversion Programs

• Published date: 01 August 2016
• Date: 01 August 2016
• Author: Robert D. Hoge
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9133.12244

POLICY ESSAY

JUVENILE COURT AND DIVERSION

Application of Precharge Diversion Programs

Robert D. Hoge

Carleton University

The most common form of diversion program refers youth accused of a criminal

act to a program outside the justice system. This referral normally occurs before

a formal criminal charge is laid. Nevertheless, and as Daniel Mears, Joshua Kuch,

Andrea Lindsey, Sonja Siennick, George Pesta, Mark Greenwald, and Thomas Blomberg

(2016: 953–981) indicate, diversion programs display considerable variability in procedures

and format.

First, although most of these programs divert youth precharge, in some cases, the

diversion occurs postcharge but before any further processing occurs in the judicial system.

Programs also differ in the source of the diversion decision. In some cases, the decision to

divert youth rests with probation or intake officers after a referral by the police. In other

cases, the police officer apprehending the youth may have responsibility for the diversion

decision with, in some but not all cases, a further review provided by personnel within the

diversion program. In most cases of diversion, though, the youth must agree to accept the

diversion referral and admit guilt to the crime in question.

The nature of diversion programs differs. Sometimes diversion simply involves pro-

viding the youth with a caution or warning, which may be delivered informally or more

formally in the form of a civil citation. The warning is issued by the police and may involve

no further action, whereas in other cases, the civil citation involves referral to a diversion

program. When a referral to diversion occurs by civil citation, other steps are followed as

part of the diversion action. These steps may involve an accountability action (e.g., letter

of apology and community service) and a treatment intervention. They will generally in-

clude a community-based service relevant to the needs of the youth (e.g., substance abuse,

anger management, and education). Failure to complete the accountability and treatment

requirements may entail referral back to the system for further processing. (A broader range

of diversion options is available [e.g., youth courts, drug courts, and restorative justice

programs], but these are generally outside the scope of the discussion in this review.)

Direct correspondence to Robert D. Hoge, Department of Psychology, A500A Loeb Building, Carleton

University, 1125 Colonel By Drive Ottawa, Ontario K1S 5B6, Canada (e-mail: robert.hoge@carleton.ca).

DOI:10.1111/1745-9133.12244 C2016 American Society of Criminology 991

Criminology & Public Policy rVolume 15 rIssue 3