Page 14 - NCJA Journal_volume1_issue1-final

more likely to become involved with the juvenile justice system the following year as compared to

students who did not experience school disciplinary action (Fabelo et al., 2011).

Diversion Research/Evaluation and National Best Practices

Previous examinations of the efficacy of juvenile diversion have yielded mixed results.

Gensheimer, Mayer, Gottschalk, and Davidson (1986) evaluated 44 studies only to determine that

the juvenile diversion programs studied were no more effective than adjudicating juveniles

delinquent through the juvenile court. The Adolescent Diversion Project (ADP) out of Michigan

State University was evaluated by Davidson and colleagues and determined that youth who

participated in the 18-week intervention were less likely to have a petition filed in court in the two

years following the program, as compared to their control group, but did not differ in rates of self-

reported delinquency (Davidson et al., 1987). Subsequent studies of ADP confirmed these findings

with a 22% recidivism rate for the experimental group versus 32% for the control group (Smith et

al., 2004).

Cocozza et al., (2005) studied the Miami-Dade Juvenile Assessment Center’s (JAC) Post-

Arrest Diversion Program (PAD). They suggest that youthful offenders often present with multiple

challenges, including mental health problems, substance use issues, low academic achievement,

and violence/trauma exposure. Thus, Cocozza et al. (2005) contend that to address these

challenges, a broad network of community-based services needs to be offered. They conclude that

successful diversion programs leverage their community relationships, establish trust across

systems, and work towards mutual goals. They propose that the Miami-Dade JAC could serve as a

national model based on its “evidence-based systematic approach to assessment, case planning, and

supervision; the support from community-based service providers to support youth in the PAD

program; and the commitment of the PAD and JAC staff to improve the lives and well-being of

youth in the program and their families” (Cocozza et al., 2005, p. 948).

7