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.     

A Life Table Approach to Estimating Disproportionate Minority Contact in the Juvenile Justice System

Disproportionate minority contact (DMC) in the U.S. juvenile justice system persists despite substantial efforts to reduce it. The juvenile justice system is comprised of a series of interconnected stages, yet few studies to-date use methods to measure DMC that take the cascading nature of the decision-making process into account. Our study addresses this gap by applying life table analysis to identify the cumulative nature of DMC across multiple stages of the juvenile justice system using data from 2008 to 2010 in Georgia that include white, black, and Hispanic/Latino youth. We then compare these state-level results to life tables from a national sample of black youth and a subnational sample of Hispanic/Latino youth. Our findings show that arrest/referral accounts for the greatest proportion of total system-wide DMC for black youth, but most of the total DMC for Hispanic/Latino youth results from later stages.     

A Practical Approach to Evaluating and Improving Juvenile Justice Programs

For more than a decade, the juvenile justice field in the United States has been dominated by the seventh “moral panic” over juvenile delinquency. This panic led to an overreaction to juvenile delinquency by legislators and juvenile justice officials. The main consequence is a “crisis of overload” in many state and local juvenile justice systems across the country. Tools are available to help juvenile courts effectively manage the overload of court clients. Most important, a new method has been developed for evaluating existing programs against research‐based standards that have been synthesized from juvenile justice program evaluations. This tool enables states and localities to take a practical approach to improving juvenile justice system programs.     

Socializing Distrust of the Justice System through the Family in Juvenile Delinquency Court

Juvenile delinquency courts in the United States generally require parents to attend all court hearings, but little is known about how parents' experiences in the court process affect their discussions of the justice system with their court‐involved children. Using multiperspectival and longitudinal data combining observations with interviews of parents and youth in two courts, this research finds that many parents discuss the legal process in negative terms with their children when parents are outside the presence of legal authorities. This research adds to the literature on legal socialization by examining how parents' perceptions of law and their experiences with the court become part of the socializing content provided by parents to their court‐involved children. Creating a more meaningful role for parents in the juvenile justice process may potentially lead to more positive discussions of the court process between parents and juvenile defendants.     

Family Conferencing for Juvenile Offenders: A Singaporean Case Study in Restorative Justice

Restorative justice has been or is being adopted in many parts of the world, including countries in Asia. In the case of Singapore, restorative justice was adopted by the court system in 1997 as its guiding philosophy in its approach towards juvenile offenders. This article traces the adoption of restorative justice by the Juvenile Court in Singapore and the use of family conferencing in the light of the principles of restorative justice. It concludes by suggesting areas where the family conferencing system in Singapore can be improved, and possible lessons for other jurisdictions considering adopting family conferencing.     

The Justice Model in the Juvenile Justice System: Washington State's Experience

In 1977, the Washington State Legislature enacted radical modifications of its juvenile justice code. Explicitly abandoning the parens patriae philosophy of the juvenile justice system, a "justice" philosophy was adopted. Provisions of the law include a determinate sentencing structure, the divestiture of status offenses, greater due process rights for juveniles, and a formalized diversion process which emphasizes accountability rather than treatment. This paper brings together the available research on the implementation of the law to assess how the introduction of a justice approach has influenced equality, fairness, and punishment levels in Washington State's juvenile justice system.     

The Juvenile Justice Reform Act of 2018: Updating the Federal Approach to Youth Involved,and At‐Risk of Becoming Involved,in the Juvenile Justice System

On December 21, 2018, the Juvenile Justice Reform Act was signed into law, marking the first update in 16 years to the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974, as amended. The reforms reflect much of the knowledge that has been gained through research and science over the past decade and strengthen the Act’s core protections for youth in the juvenile justice system. The changes also expand the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention’s role in research, and technical assistance, and provide for additional oversight for related programs.     

危机干预模式在未成年缓刑人员矫正工作中的应用

未成年缓刑人员是社区矫正对象中的一个特殊群体。由于其心理、生理尚未成熟，因此羁押及刑事审判的过程会对其带来极大的冲击。被判处刑罚，埘未成年缓刑人员而言是一个严重的突发事件，对其本人及其家人都会造成巨大的压力，容易导致未成年缓刑人员存认知和情感上出现功能失调而无法应对种种闲难，从而可能出现离家出走、重新犯罪等行为。因此，如何存未成年缓刑人员的矫正工作中应用危机干预模式进行介入，使其取得心理平衡，对于促使其顺利回归社会、预防重新犯罪具有重要意义。     

The Violent Female Juvenile Offender: An Ignored Minority Within the Juvenile Justice System

Little attention is given to the violent female adolescent. While there is no argument that males commit most of the violent crimes (both juveniles and adults), violent females may demand the attention of policy-makers and administrators. Historically there has been a lack of program offerings for these offenders. This article examines violent female adolescent offenders referred to the Clark County (Las Vegas, Nevada) Juvenile Court Services in two different years (1985 and 1988). This examination includes a review of programs and alternatives for these offenders and a review of what is currently being done by the juvenile justice system to accommodate this population. Dispositions and programmatic treatment offerings for violent adolescent males and females are compared. Recommendations are offered for the juvenile justice system for consideration.     

Why Juvenile Courts Should Address Family Violence: Promising Practices to Improve Intervention Outcomes

The prevalence of domestic violence in juvenile court cases justifies modifying our interventions to reflect this unfortunate reality. This article focuses primarily on juvenile victimization of parents and the model programs emerging in juvenile courts to address it. Part I examines family violence's prevalence in the juvenile court caseloads, despite its lack of consideration in most dispositions. Part II begins with a comparative analysis of the drug court trend and discusses the trend's applicability for specialized family violence applications in the Juvenile Court. The King County (Wash.) Juvenile Court's Step‐Up Program is introduced, which directly addresses family violence with intervention programs for youth perpetrators and abused parents, followed by the Santa Clara County (Calif.) Juvenile Court's Family Violence program, shown as a model worthy of replication. Part III details the process by which the Travis County (Texas) Juvenile Court is implementing a program similar to these models. Part IV concludes that juvenile courts must address family violence as an overt or underlying issue in many cases and must identify and address the danger to our troubled youths, whether offender or victim. I argue that the domestic violence community's treatment expertise must inform our juvenile courts' interventions with violent, often insular, families. In Travis County, we are committed to learning as much as possible about youth resilience–to identify and treat battered and battering teens to prevent the inter‐generational cycle from repeating itself while making our homes, communities, and schools safe.