A diversion program that aims to reduce recidivism rates and any further involvement with the juvenile justice system by treating youth through community diversion.
Blueprints: Insufficient Evidence
American prisons are the world's most populated with little sign of slowing in their growth rates. As of December 1999, 2,026,596 persons were incarcerated in the United States and of that number 105,790 were juveniles. Many of the adults in American prisons began their criminal careers as juveniles. One approach to breaking the cycle of adult incarceration is to divert juveniles from the justice system as early as possible. Juvenile diversion methods have been tested in many states in an effort to reduce recidivism. This study is an evaluation of three experimental groups: Juvenile Accountability Program, Youth Court, or Magistrate Court which are compared with an Educational Control group.
Juvenile Accountability group: The parents of juveniles that were randomly assigned to the Juvenile Accountability Program were notified in writing that their son/daughter had been issued a citation and was being referred to the program as an alternative to being sent to Magistrate's Court. In order to participate in the program at least one parent had to accompany the juvenile to the program to discuss the circumstances of the citation; determine a possible cause and result of the citation; and ultimately divert the citation from Magistrate's Court to the Juvenile Accountability Program. After this notification, the juveniles went through a structured intervention that included an Intake/Assessment Process to collect information including socio-demographic variables as well as their history of substance abuse and use. Juveniles were also directed to additional community 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 signed a contract to complete the conditions stipulated in the Juvenile Accountability Program. This contract required the juvenile to complete approximately 15-20 hours of community service as part of 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 by program coordinator or parent) supervised visit to the jail to visit an inmate incarcerated on a sentence of alcohol, drugs, or violence. At the conclusion of this program, the juvenile wrote at least a two-page essay analyzing the experience. The final aspect of this program was an Exit Interview, which involved a form completed by both a parent and juvenile and an interview with the Director of the Program. If the juvenile did not re-offend for 1 year the citation was removed from their permanent record.
Youth Court group: Juveniles in the second intervention program were randomly assigned to the Youth Court Program offered as a service through the YMCA. A judge presided over the largely student-run process. High school students volunteered to participate as jury members and attorneys for the Youth 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 usually involved a tobacco or alcohol education course, community service hours in a designated program, and an essay at the conclusion of the program. In most cases, juveniles received: 8 hours of counseling; 10-20 hours of community service; a class in substance abuse for more serious offenders; and an essay or poster at program completion. In addition to these interventions, juveniles with a more severe nicotine addiction were referred to a hospital based intensive "stop smoking" class for a reduced fee. Again, if the juvenile did not re-offend for 1 year, the citation was cleared from their permanent record.
Magistrate's Court: These cases were handled along the traditional lines of the court. Generally the sentence from the court included a fine and stern warning from the judge regarding future use of illegal substances. This resulted in a permanent record for the juvenile.
Educational Control group: The control group was composed of approximately one-fourth of all individual juvenile misdemeanor citations involving alcohol and tobacco possession. Juveniles that were place in the control group were referred to the Juvenile Accountability Administrator for a brief assessment and "pardon interview." They were also offered community resources on a voluntary basis. In this brief interview, the juvenile was informed of the citation and shown a short film entitled "Enough Is Enough." The juvenile was informed that the citation would not be filed in the event that he or she discontinued the behavior named in the citation for at least 1 year.
The study was a field experiment designed to include randomization and a control group. When the program began, four groups were setup and first-time juvenile offenders charged with the status crimes of tobacco or alcohol possession were randomly assigned to one of the four groups: Juvenile Accountability Program, Youth Court, Magistrate Court, or an Educational Control group.
Source: Washington State Institute for Public Policy
All benefit-cost ratios are the most recent estimates published by The Washington State Institute for Public Policy for Blueprint programs implemented in Washington State. These ratios are based on a) meta-analysis estimates of effect size and b) monetized benefits and calculated costs for programs as delivered in the State of Washington. Caution is recommended in applying these estimates of the benefit-cost ratio to any other state or local area. They are provided as an illustration of the benefit-cost ratio found in one specific state. When feasible, local costs and monetized benefits should be used to calculate expected local benefit-cost ratios. The formula for this calculation can be found on the WSIPP website.
A diversion program that aims to reduce recidivism rates and any further involvement with the juvenile justice system by treating youth through community diversion.
The programs target all first time juvenile offenders charged with a status crime of tobacco or alcohol possession in the justice system
All
Risk Factors: Drug abuse and alcohol abuse
Protective Factors: Diversion of juveniles from the criminal justice system
*Risk/Protective Factor was significantly impacted by the program
Juvenile Accountability group: The parents of juveniles that were randomly assigned to the Juvenile Accountability Program were notified in writing that their son/daughter had been issued a citation and was being referred to the program as an alternative to being sent to Magistrate's Court. In order to participate in the program at least one parent had to accompany the juvenile to the program to discuss the circumstances of the citation; determine a possible cause and result of the citation; and ultimately divert the citation from Magistrate's Court to the Juvenile Accountability Program. After this notification, the juveniles went through a structured intervention that included an Intake/Assessment Process to collect information including socio-demographic variables as well as their history of substance abuse and use. Juveniles were also directed to additional community 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 signed a contract to complete the conditions stipulated in the Juvenile Accountability Program. This contract required the juvenile to complete approximately 15-20 hours of community service as part of 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 by program coordinator or parent) supervised visit to the jail to visit an inmate incarcerated on a sentence of alcohol, drugs, or violence. At the conclusion of this program, the juvenile wrote at least a two-page essay analyzing the experience. The final aspect of this program was an Exit Interview, which involved a form completed by both a parent and juvenile and an interview with the Director of the Program. If the juvenile did not re-offend for 1 year the citation was removed from their permanent record.
Youth Court group: Juveniles in the second intervention program were randomly assigned to the Youth Court Program offered as a service through the YMCA. A judge presided over the largely student-run process. High school students volunteered to participate as jury members and attorneys for the Youth 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 usually involved a tobacco or alcohol education course, community service hours in a designated program, and an essay at the conclusion of the program. In most cases, juveniles received: 8 hours of counseling; 10-20 hours of community service; a class in substance abuse for more serious offenders; and an essay or poster at program completion. In addition to these interventions, juveniles with a more severe nicotine addiction were referred to a hospital based intensive "stop smoking" class for a reduced fee. Again, if the juvenile did not re-offend for 1 year, the citation was cleared from their permanent record.
Magistrate's Court: These cases were handled along the traditional lines of the court. Generally the sentence from the court included a fine and stern warning from the judge regarding future use of illegal substances. This resulted in a permanent record for the juvenile.
Educational Control group: The control group was composed of approximately one-fourth of all individual juvenile misdemeanor citations involving alcohol and tobacco possession. Juveniles that were place in the control group were referred to the Juvenile Accountability Administrator for a brief assessment and "pardon interview." They were also offered community resources on a voluntary basis. In this brief interview, the juvenile was informed of the citation and shown a short film entitled "Enough Is Enough." The juvenile was informed that the citation would not be filed in the event that he or she discontinued the behavior named in the citation for at least 1 year.
Diverting juvenile offenders from the traditional juvenile justice system has been influenced by various theories but most prominently labeling theory and differential association theory. Labeling theory believes that offenders become career criminals at least partly through negative interactions with authority figures. Police, judges, and 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 accountability program does not have these trappings in that an administrative bureaucrat with limited legitimate power guides the offender through a program of service and education that will result in no criminal charges.
The study was a field experiment designed to include randomization and a control group. When the program began, four groups were setup and first-time juvenile offenders charged with the status crimes of tobacco or alcohol possession were randomly assigned to one of the four groups: Juvenile Accountability Program, Youth Court, Magistrate Court, or an Educational Control group.
None of the groups were found to differ statistically in recidivism, however, a trend was discovered. The Juvenile Accountability group had the smallest number of recidivists (3) and the Educational Control group had the most (9). The other two groups with 7 each fall between these two extremes. If these trends continue it appears that the Juvenile Accountability Program may show advantages over alternative methods of diversion or punishment.
The sample ethnicity was described as primarily Caucasian (54%), with 3% Hispanic, 1.2% Asian, and .5% African American participants. The researchers state that the ethnic unbalance is due to small numbers of non-whites in Idaho. Another problem with the generalizability of the findings was that all of the participants were recruited from the state of Idaho only. Future research would want to include more ethnic and geographical diversity to increase the generalizability of the findings.
No race- or gender-specific effects were tested in the evaluation of this program.
There was no report included on attrition of the sample, so comparability of conditions is not known. Attrition may be the cause of the intervention ineffectiveness at reducing recidivism rates. While a trend was found suggesting that the Juvenile Accountability Program may have future effects on recidivism, the groups did not differ statistically in re-offense rates. Future research will continue for at least 2 years, hopefully revealing which of the major methods of dealing with first time juvenile offenders is best suited to reducing future involvement with the criminal justice system. Lastly, it is not clear the time period measured for recidivism and whether the period was equivalent for all groups. Future research should include a clear measurement period, as well as, an operational definition of recidivism.
Blueprints: Insufficient Evidence
1. The parents of juveniles that were randomly assigned to the Juvenile Accountability Program were notified in writing that their son/daughter had been issued a citation and was being referred to the program as an alternative to being sent to Magistrate's Court.
2. Juveniles in the second intervention program were randomly assigned to the Youth Court Program offered as a service through the YMCA. A judge presided over the largely student-run process.
3. The Magistrate's Court cases were handled along the traditional lines of the court. Generally the sentence from the court included a fine and stern warning from the judge regarding future use of illegal substances. This resulted in a permanent record for the juvenile.
4. The Educational Control group was composed of approximately one-fourth of all individual juvenile misdemeanor citations involving alcohol and tobacco possession. Juveniles that were place in the control group were referred to the Juvenile Accountability Administrator for a brief assessment and "pardon interview." They were also offered community resources on a voluntary basis.
At the end of 1 year, the experiment assignment was halted and the groups analyzed. Those subjects found to not match the experiment criteria (not first time offenders or charged with additional crimes not covered by the study) or those that did not complete 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). There was no report given on the original sample size, attrition, or attrition analyses. Pretest group equivalence tests revealed no differences between groups in regard to age, gender, or ethnicity.
Sample: The sample was described as being 12-18 years old. The sample ethnicity was described as primarily Caucasian (54%), with 3% Hispanic, 1.2% Asian, and .5% African American participants. Gender was described as 40% male and 33% female. The groups were not different on age, gender, or ethnicity.
Measures: Recidivism rates were measured across treatment conditions.
Analysis: ANOVAs were conducted on the recidivism rates of the four groups.
Long-Term: There were no long-term effects reported in this study.