Answers to Three Questions about Juvenile Diversion

Abstract

This article reports on an evaluation of eleven California diversion projects and presents answers to the following three questions: (1) How many clients did the program actually divert? (2) How much money did the program save? and (3) Did the program reduce recidivism? In answer to these questions, the research findings indicate that only half of the clients were diverted from the justice system. The other half would not have been processed further if the projects had not been available. Since so few of the clients would have been processed further, there were no net savings. Program costs were greater than savings. With regard to recidivism, most of the diversion project clients were rearrested within six months at about the same rate as the matched comparison cases which were processed tradition ally. However, three individual projects did reduce recidivism during the six- month follow-up period. The researchers recommend that diversion projects concentrate services on clients who otherwise would be processed beyond probation intake. This con centration should accomplish the following: (1) increase the number of clients actually diverted from justice system processing, (2) increase savings to the justice system (which savings could be used to fund diversion services), and (3) increase the probability of reducing recidivism. The researchers also suggest that diversion projects provide services simi lar to those offered by the projects which reduced recidivism—long-term in dividual contact and counseling or specialized family crisis counseling, de pending upon the characteristics of the client, his or her family, and the staff person assigned. These services should be supplemented with recreation, tutor ing, and other school-related support as needed.