U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government, Department of Justice.

NCJRS Virtual Library

The Virtual Library houses over 235,000 criminal justice resources, including all known OJP works.
Click here to search the NCJRS Virtual Library

Constructing and Implementing a Model Juvenile Diversion Program

NCJ Number
93518
Journal
Youth and Society Volume: 15 Issue: 3 Dated: (March 1984) Pages: 305-324
Author(s)
M R Pogrebin; E D Poole; R M Regoli
Date Published
1984
Length
20 pages
Annotation
The Adams County Juvenile Diversion Project (ACJD) (Colorado) avoided widening the social control net for juveniles, reduced court and probation caseloads, and reduced recidivism.
Abstract
Services provided by ACJD were oriented toward helping juveniles and their families solve specific problems or meet specific needs through a variety of treatment and referral programs. These services were geared to both intervention and maintenance goals and continually monitored by program staff. Factors contributing to the realization of these efforts were (1) the availability of sufficient resources (community and justice system), (2) interagency networking, and (3) community support regarding administrative-political concerns of the diversion program. An experimental design was used to test the effectiveness of diversion services. The project ran from October 1977 through March 1979, during which time 848 juveniles were referred. The recidivism measures for the experimental and control groups were calculated monthly to show continuous trends in project effectiveness. Through its organzational structure and careful monitoring of the intake process, the selection of only low-risk candidates was avoided. Written statements by the District Attorney's Office regarding each client's prediversion eligibility enabled the project to avoid widening the net and drawing more juveniles into the system. Additionally, due process safeguards were built into procedures to protect client rights. At the end of 18 months, the treatment group had a lower recidivism rate than the control group. The available data did not permit the identification of specific project characteristics that contributed to the lowering of the recidivism rate. Tabular and graphic data, 9 notes, and 14 references are provided.