Diversion in the Canadian Juvenile Justice System: A Tale of Two Cities

Abstract The present study attempted to evaluate the effectiveness of diversion in the juvenile justice system by comparing two different communities. One community has a formalized, well-established diversion program whereas the other community utilizes the Family Court to a much greater extent. Preliminary data suggests no difference in recidivism for a matched sample of young offenders. The implications of the study are discussed in terms of future research on diversion and the need for appropriate comparison groups. In the past two decades, diversion programs have been one of the major innovations within the juvenile justice system. These programs have attempted to divert juveniles from the formal process involving court hearings by creating alternative interventions at the policy and community level. The basic premises underlying these programs is that the formal court system may do more harm than good by labeling youngsters as “delinquent” and rendering them more vulnerable by involvement in an adversary process (Reference numbers 4, 12, 14). Diversion programs that provide youngsters with an opportunity to make restitution or perform community services are compensation for their misbehavior are seen as more immediate and meaningful consequences than awaiting a formal adversarial court hearing (5, 13). However, diversion programs have not met with universal acceptance. Critics have pointed out that programs, in fact, “widen the justice net” by processing children who never would have gone to court anyway (3, 7). As well, concerns have been raised as to the protection of clients' legal rights in the diversion program and the dangers of “double jeopardy” in the event that failure in a program could lead to an even more severe disposition by the court (8, 9). The debate over the effectiveness of diversion programs has been fueled by the lack of research. Although there are many studies that suggest the success of this approach (1, 6, 10), the research has suffered in its credibility due to the absence of appropriate control groups. The present study attempted to fill this significant void in previous evaluations of diversion, by comparing two communities in southwestern Ontario with different approaches to juvenile justice. The cities of Windsor and London are approximately 200 km apart, with comparative populations (200,000 vs 250,000). Windsor has well established diversion programs with substantial support of community agencies, the police force and Crown Attorney's office. This program is described in detail elsewhere (2, 11) so will not be outlined here. London has no such program and consequently has an obviously greater number of youngsters handled through the formalized juvenile court. The authors hoped to capitalize on this “naturally occurring difference” in approach between the two cities by examining the rate of recidivism of young offenders as well as determine their attitudes (and that of their parents) toward the interventions they received. The hypotheses in the pilot studies outlined were that the diversion program youth in Windsor would have a more positive attitude about their intervention and would be less likely to recidivate than a matched sample of youth in London, based on the theoretical underpinning of diversion as well as the results of previous outcome studies.     

Labeling effects of initial juvenile justice system processing decision on youth interpersonal ties*

The juvenile justice system can process youth in myriad ways. Youth who are formally processed, relative to being informally processed, may experience more public and harsh sanctions that label youth more negatively as “deviant.” Drawing on labeling theory, the current study evaluates the relative effect of formal justice system processing on the interpersonal dynamics of youth peer networks. Using data from the Crossroads Study, a multisite longitudinal sample of first-time adolescent offenders, the current study applies augmented inverse probability weighting and generalized mixed-effects models to estimate the effects of formal processing on friendship selection processes of homophily and withdrawal and considers whether these effects vary by race and ethnicity. Consistent with expectations of homophily, formally processed youth acquire more new deviant peers and fewer nondeviant peers during the 3 years after their initial processing decision compared with informally processed youth. The findings suggest no differences exist across processing types in withdrawal from friends. These effects were consistent across racial and ethnic groups. Ultimately, this study explores the dynamic interpersonal mechanisms associated with labeling theory and offers additional insight into the negative effects of formal processing.     

PUBLIC OPINION AND THE FOUNDATION OF THE JUVENILE COURT*

Over 100 years ago, juvenile courts emerged out of the belief that juveniles are different from adults—less culpable and more rehabilitatable—and can be "saved" from a life of crime and disadvantage. Today, the juvenile justice system is under attack through increasing calls to eliminate it and enactment of statutes designed to place younger offenders in the adult justice system. However, little evidence exists that policy makers have taken the full range of public views into account. At the same time, scholarly accounts of calls to eliminate the juvenile justice system have neglected the role of public opinion. The current study addresses this situation by examining public views about 1) abolishing juvenile justice and 2) the proper upper age of original juvenile court jurisdiction. Particular attention is given to the notion that child‐saving and "get tough" orientations influence public views about juvenile justice. The analyses suggest support for the lingering appeal of juvenile justice among the public and the idea that youth can be “saved,” as well as arguments about the politicization and criminalization of juvenile justice. They also highlight that the public, like states, holds variable views about the appropriate age of juvenile court jurisdiction. We discuss the implications of the study and avenues for future research. Why is it not just and proper to treat these juvenile offenders, as we deal with the neglected children, as a wise and merciful father handles his own child whose errors are not discovered by the authorities? Why is it not the duty of the state, instead of asking merely whether a boy or a girl has committed a specific offense, to find out what he is, physically, mentally, morally, and then if it learns that he is treading the path that leads to criminality, to take him in charge, not so much to punish as to reform, not to degrade but to uplift, not to crush but to develop, to make him not a criminal but a worthy citizen.     

Arbitrary Arbitration: Diverting Juveniles Into the Justice System

Abstract Considerable research has examined the effects of diverting juveniles away from the juvenile justice system. These studies have seldom investigated the possibility that diversion may inadvertently “widen the net.” This article assesses the relationship between diversion and net-widening by evaluating a leading Florida-based diversionary program, and this program's capacity to “create a clientele” in order to justify its very existence. The diversionary program under evaluation herein boasts a 98% nonrecidivist rate among its clients, and is touted as a prototype diversionary program for the nation. The current study results, however, indicate that a majority of youths diverted by this program have committed such trivial acts that entrance into any aspect of the juvenile justice system—even under the guise of a diversionary program—seems unwarranted. The results further suggest that among youths who have committed serious juvenile crimes, most are terminated unsuccessfully from this program, and are returned to the justice system for prosecution.     

THE JUVENILE PENALTY: A COMPARISON OF JUVENILE AND YOUNG ADULT SENTENCING OUTCOMES IN CRIMINAL COURT*

This study uses criminal court data from the Pennsylvania Commission on Sentencing (PCS) to investigate the sentencing of juvenile offenders processed in adult criminal court by comparing their sentencing outcomes to those of young adult offenders in similar situations. Because the expanded juvenile exclusion and transfer policies of the 1990s have led to an increase in the number of juveniles convicted in adult courts, we argue that it is critical to better understand the judicial decision making processes involved. We introduce competitive hypotheses on the relative leniency or severity of sentencing outcomes for transferred juveniles and interpret our results with the focal concerns theoretical perspective on sentencing. Our findings indicate that juvenile offenders in adult court are sentenced more severely than their young adult counterparts. Moreover, findings suggest that juvenile status interacts with and conditions the effects of other important sentencing factors including offense type, offense severity and prior criminal record. We discuss these results as they relate to immediate outcomes for transferred juveniles, criminal court processes in general and the broader social implications for juvenile justice policy concerning the transfer of juveniles to criminal court.     

The Evolution of Balanced and Restorative Justice

Maloney, Armstrong, and Romig presented a portrait of “Joey,” who was the exemplar of what was wrong with the juvenile justice system, in 1988 when they published The Balanced Approach in this Journal. In response, they reimagined a juvenile justice system predicated on balancing three fundamental goals—protection of community, accountability to victims, and development of competencies to prepare juvenile court‐involved youth for productive roles in their communities. The authors examine the evolution of balanced and restorative justice and re‐imagine how Joey's life may have been different at critical junctures of his juvenile court involvement.     

A 21st Century Developmentally Appropriate Juvenile Probation Approach

Principles of adolescent development have accelerated positive changes to the juvenile justice system. These changes have been most pronounced in reducing reliance on incarceration and in approaches to sentencing of youth tried as adults. While juvenile probation has made some developmentally friendly adjustments, it remains an area that is fertile for reform. Many of the principles and goals in this paper have been endorsed by the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges (NCJFCJ), which “supports and is committed to juvenile probation systems that conform to the latest knowledge of adolescent development and adolescent brain science,” and which “recommends that courts cease imposing ‘conditions of probation’ and instead support probation departments’ developing, with families and youth, individualized case plans that set expectations and goals.” 1 NCJFCJ's July, 2017 resolution in support of developmentally appropriate juvenile probation services built on earlier NCJFCJ policies. From the time NCJFCJ adopted Juvenile Delinquency Guidelines in 2005, those policies have grown increasingly robust. 2     

Judges’ Perceptions of Screening,Assessment, Prevention,and Treatment for Substance Use, Mental Health,and HIV among Juveniles on Community Supervision: Results of a National Survey

Juvenile Justice‐Translational Research on Interventions for Adolescents in the Legal System (JJ‐TRIALS) National Survey was funded in part to describe the current status of screening, assessment, prevention and treatment for substance use, mental health, and HIV for youth on community supervision within the US juvenile justice system. Surveys were administered to community supervision agencies and their primary behavioral healthcare providers, as well as the juvenile or family court judge with the largest caseload of youth on community supervision. This article presents the findings from the judges’ survey. Survey results indicated juvenile and family court judges were open to innovations for improving the court's performance, rated their relationships with collaborators highly, and appreciated the impact of screening, assessment, prevention, and treatment on judicial practices.     

The King County (Washington) Systems Integration Initiative: A First Look at the Kent District Dual System Youth Pilot Program

King County is one of five counties in Washington State participating in the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation's Models for Change juvenile justice reform initiative. One key aspect of King County's Models for Change participation involves ongoing “systems integration” work intended to improve how youth who have cross‐over involvement in multiple systems—e.g., juvenile justice, child welfare, education, mental health, and/or others—are handled. These cross‐over cases often present a range of challenges to juvenile courts including substantial risk factors that increase their likelihood of continuing system involvement. This article provides a first look at an emerging pilot project in King County that is intended to improve how cross‐over cases are handled by child welfare and juvenile probation with the longer term goal of improving outcomes for these difficult cases.     

What's “New” About the Balanced Approach?

Over the past decade, many juvenile justice professionals became familiar with the “Balanced Approach as a new mission for juvenile probation. In recent months, a number of jurisdictions have adopted the Balanced Approach, by statute or policy, as the mission for their juvenile courts and juvenile justice systems. However, a great deal of misunderstanding persists about the meaning and practical differences between the Balanced Approach and other intervention models. While both quality and consistency of implementation of “balanced” policy and practice vary widely, some juvenile justice managers are using this new mission as a tool or “roadmap” for comprehensive re-structuring of juvenile justice systems and agencies. This paper argues that when viewed as a guide to systemic, rather than programmatic, reform, the Balanced Approach can be clearly distinguished from both the traditional individual treatment and the new retributive/punitive juvenile justice missions. Six critical differences between the Balanced Approach and these missions are described.     

RESTITUTION AND RECIDIVISM RATES OF JUVENILE OFFENDERS: RESULTS FROM FOUR EXPERIMENTAL STUDIES*

One of the major changes in juvenile justice during the past decade has been the increased reliance on restitution as a sanction for juvenile offenders. Although a great deal has been learned during the past 10 years about the operation of restitution programs, much remains unknown regarding its impact on recidivism rates. This report contains the results from four random-assignment experiments conducted simultaneously in four communities: Boise, Idaho, Washington, D. C., Clayton County, Georgia, and Oklahoma County, Oklahoma. In all four studies, youths were randomly assigned into restitution and into traditional dispositions. On the whole, the results show that restitution may have a small but important effect on recidivism. However, not all programs will be able to achieve this effect, either because of program management and strategy, community circumstances, or other factors. Youths in the restitution groups never had higher recidivism rates than those in probation or detention conditions. In two of the four studies, the juveniles in restitution clearly had fewer subsequent recontacts with the court during the two-to-three-year follow-up.     

Do legal variables predict police decisions regarding the prosecution of juvenile offenders?

This study investigated whether legal variables predict police dispositions as regards the prosecution of juveniles. For this purpose first apprehensions of a sample of 479 Israeli adolescents (aged 13.5–15.5) in a one-year period were analyzed. The association between the legal variables and police dispositions was analyzed separately within four hierarchical stages of involvement with the juvenile justice system. Previous referral to court and previous court appearance were found to be excellent predictors of police decision to prosecute. However, in the earlier stages of involvement with the juvenile justice system, (i.e., when juveniles had no previous court referrals or appearances), the predicting power of the few available legal variables (type and seriousness of offense and number of previous police apprehensions) was found to be negligible. In the discussion of the findings, the contradicting labeling and deterrence theories are applied to the functioning of the juvenile units within the police: The present study has empirically identified the specific point where police decision-making reflects a switch-over from the labeling to the deterrence approach. Some suggestions for future research are put forward in order to improve the predictability of police dispositions at the early stages of the juvenile's involvement with the criminal justice system.     

The Conditioning Effects of Race and Gender on the Juvenile Court Outcomes of Delinquent and “Neglected” Types of Offenders

Drawing upon concepts from prior research that emphasize race and gender stereotyping, the present research compares how delinquent and “neglected” types of offenses (i.e. status offenses, probation violations, youth charged with contempt) are treated across three juvenile court outcomes. Beyond how offense type may directly impact case outcomes, we also investigated whether race and gender influenced juvenile justice processing within each offense type. Using data from two Mid-Atlantic States, results indicated that type of offense, race, and gender resulted in both severe and lenient case outcomes depending on the stage examined. By including different types of offenses that represent a significant percentage of youth that have been relatively neglected in prior research, the current study provides greater insight into the contexts of race and gender disparities in juvenile justice decision-making. The implications of the findings and directions for future research are also discussed.     

THE CONCEPTUALIZATION OF DISCRIMINATION IN THE JUVENILE JUSTICE PROCESS: THE IMPACT OF ADMINISTRATIVE FACTORS AND SCREENING DECISIONS ON JUVENILE COURT DISPOSITIONS

Research on race, sex, and social class discrimination in the juvenile justice process has yielded mixed results. These conflicting findings have been attributed to the use of diverse research strategies and various methodological shortcomings. There are, however, two potentially important issues that have not been previously addressed: the need to examine the juvenile justice system as a process, rather than as a series of separate and unrelated decision points, and the failure to control for the impact of administrative factors such as pretrial detention. The purpose of the research reported here is to examine the impact of race, sex, and social class on juvenile court dispositions while controlling for pretrial detention and appropriate legal factors. The analytical strategy employed permits an examination of the impact of these factors over three stages of the juvenile justice process: referral, adjudication, and disposition.
Findings indicate that while legal factors and pretrial detention decline in importance as predictors of disposition as one moves from an examination of all referred to adjudicated youth, race and social class become more important. These results are discussed in terms of their methodological significance and their implications for the conceptualization of discrimination in the juvenile justice process.     

Juvenile Mental Health Court: Rationale and Protocols

Under the sponsorship of the judiciary, the Santa Clara County, California Juvenile Court, in partnership with the Juvenile Mental Health Department and a technical assistance agency (SOLOMON), has pioneered a Juvenile Mental Health Court for seriously mentally ill children who have become involved in the criminal justice system. The judiciary, probation department, district attorney, public defender, county counsel, and service providers have collectively embarked upon the implementation of a modern approach to mental health diagnosis, triage, and treatment services for youth and families who come in contact with the justice system as a result of the combination of serious mental illness and juvenile delinquency. This article presents the court's rationale and protocols.     

JUVENILITY AND PUNISHMENT: SENTENCING JUVENILES IN ADULT CRIMINAL COURT*

The study outlined in this article addressed a key limitation of prior research on the punishment of juveniles transferred to adult court by employing propensity score matching techniques to create more comparable samples of juvenile and young adult offenders. Using recent data from the Maryland State Commission on Criminal Sentencing Policy, it tested competing theoretical propositions about the salience of juvenile status in adult court. Findings indicate that even after rigorous statistical matching procedures, juvenile offenders are punished more severely than their young adult counterparts. We found no evidence that this “juvenile penalty” is exacerbated by an offender's race or gender, but it does vary starkly across offense type and mode of transfer, being driven primarily by drug crimes and discretionary waivers. The import of these findings is discussed as they relate to the future of juvenile justice policy regarding the continued use of juvenile transfer to adult court.     

JUVENILE COURT DISPOSITIONS:

The research question precipitated by the concern for “just sanctions” and effective treatment for future juvenile programs is: What have been the criterion used by juvenile court decision makers in disposition sentencing. Disposition is analyzed for both nonstatus and status offense groups. The method of analysis is a stepwise discriminant function. The findings indicate the importance of legalistic variables and a social class bias in the dispositions of both offense groups. The social class bias is much stronger in the case of status offenders and increases at subsequent court disposition levels. These data support the labeling-conflict contention of class bias in the application of sanctions and suggest a policy directive for future delinquency prevention programs.     

CHALLENGES FACING CROSSOVER YOUTH: AN EXAMINATION OF JUVENILE‐JUSTICE DECISION MAKING AND RECIDIVISM

Although a substantial amount of research documents the increased likelihood of maltreated youths to engage in delinquency, very little is known about them once they cross into delinquency. These youths are often referred to as “crossover youth,”“dual jurisdiction,” or “dually involved” youth, and based on a growing amount of research, it appears these youths face a number of challenges. They have significant educational problems, high rates of placement changes and high rates of substance abuse and mental health problems, and when they enter the juvenile justice system, they are more likely to stay longer and penetrate deeper into the system then their nonmaltreated counterparts. Using data from Los Angeles County (N= 581), the purpose of this study is to identify what characteristics among a crossover population are more likely to result in receiving harsher dispositions and higher recidivism rates.     

Individualization,criminalization, or problem resolution: A factorial survey of juvenile court judges' decisions to incarcerate youthful felony offenders

Existing research on the criteria used by juvenile court judges in choosing dispositions is limited in two respects. First, the predictor variables included in most investigations have been limited either in number or in the quality of their measurement. Second, research has not focused on sentencing decisions for serious offenders. Using a factorial survey of juvenile court judges, the present study seeks to determine what factors shape disposition decisions for juvenile felony offenders. The results suggest that judges focus primarily on offense characteristics, and are influenced only marginally by the offender's social characteristics. These findings are more consistent with the view that juvenile courts are becoming “criminalized” than with the view that individualized treatment is the goal. An alternative interpretation—that judges may be problem solvers, trying to dispose of cases efficiently—also is proposed.     

REFLECTIONS ON A STUDY OF JUVENILE PERCEPTIONS

This is a report on a study of perceptions of juvenile offenders who were processed through the juvenile court. A total of 265 boys were interviewed before and after their court hearing. They were randomly chosen from the court dockets of three midwestern cities. The interview guide was composed of twelve semantic differential scales which sought to measure perceptions of the juvenile and judge on the factors of “potency” and “evaluation”; in addition, a number of open-ended questions were asked which covered a number of possible dimensions of effects of the court experience upon the juvenile. Responses to the semantic differential scales are related to such variables as age, socio-economic class, composition of household and recidivism. The results of this study are of two types: findings based upon response data, and speculations where the data do not offer significant substantiation.