Page 25 - NCJA Journal_volume1_issue1-final

Participants who had not yet reached a full 12 months post-involvement were excluded from the

analyses, resulting in a county sample of 2,471. Table 4 presents recidivism of the county

subsamples across all years included in the analyses.

Table 4. The proportion of Participants Recidivating within 12 Months

Subsample Category Recidivism w/in 12 Months Total

% Yes (n) % No (n)

Program Completers 12.4% (216) 87.6% (1,519) 1,735

Non-Completers 37.3% (104) 62.7% (175) 279

Rejected at Screening 27.8% (127) 72.2% (330) 457

Quantitative Findings

One-way ANOVAs across the county samples were used to answer the first research

question, “How does the recidivism rate for Youth Diversion Program completers compare to those

who were rejected at screening, those youth who enroll but do not complete the program, and the

state’s general diverted juvenile population?” A significantly lower recidivism rate for the program

completers of the Youth Diversion Program was found as compared to youth who did not complete

the program or who were rejected at screening (see Table 5). The group rejected at screening also

showed significantly lower recidivism as compared to the non-completers (p<0.003). Finally, the

Youth Diversion Program recidivism rate was also nearly half the rate of the state youth recidivism

rate of 25%.

Table 5. ANOVA for Recidivism across Subsamples

Subsample Category n Recidivism Rate (n)

18