Juvenile Diversion: Results of a 3-Year Experimental Study

• Author: Steven Patrick,Robert Marsh
• DOI: 10.1177/0887403404266584
• Date: 01 March 2005
• Published date: 01 March 2005
• Subject Matter: Articles

10.1177/0887403404266584CRIMINAL JUSTICE POLICY REVIEW / March 2005Patrick, Marsh / JUVENILE DIVERSION

Juvenile Diversion: Results

of a 3-Year Experimental Study

Steven Patrick

Robert Marsh

Boise State University

In a 3-year longitudinal study of first-time juvenile status offenders assigned at ran-

dom to three treatment groups and a control group, no significant differences were

found in recidivism ratesamong the groups. A total of 398 juveniles in this study were

cited for offenses of tobacco or alcohol in a medium-sized metropolitan northwest

city. The offenders wereassigned at random to four groups: a traditional magistrate

court, a traditional youth court diversion program,a new nonjudicial-diversion pro-

gram, and a controlgroup. None of the groups, including the control group,showed a

significant differencein recidivism rates. It was determined from the evaluation of all

groups that the diversion programoffered the most cost-effective program interven-

tion to provide more services to potentially troubled teens.

Keywords: juvenile; diversion; experimental

American prisons are the most populated in the world and show few signs of

slowing in their growth rates (Harrison & Beck, 2003). As of December

2002, 2,166,260 persons were incarcerated in the U.S. prisons and local

jails (Harrison & Beck, 2003). Of that number more than 110,284 were

juveniles (Harrison & Beck, 2003).

Many of the adults in U.S. prisons began their criminal careers as juve-

niles (Sherman et al., 1998). As we continue to search for ways to break the

cycle of crime, we have attempted to rehabilitate adult offenders as well as

juveniles. One approach to breaking this cycle of adult incarceration has

been to divert juvenile offenders from the justice system as early as possi-

ble. The current research was designed to determine which intervention was

the most effective in ending recidivism of juveniles.

59

Criminal Justice Policy Review, Volume 16, Number 1, March 2005 59-73

DOI: 10.1177/0887403404266584

© 2005 Sage Publications