Page 30 - NCJA Journal_volume1_issue1-final

YDP, beginning in 2016. Due to the newness of that program component, there were insufficient

data to test for a positive or negative impact of the quarterly interaction with an SRO. Finally,

assessment scores were not compiled in a central location, and thus, analysis of the use or impact of

intake screenings was also not possible.

Conclusion

This Youth Diversion Program was the result of local law enforcement’s concern that many

youths in the community was on a path from the schoolhouse to the jailhouse. Youth need to be

held accountable for their actions, but many may age out of delinquency and contact with the

justice system should be reserved for those whose crimes are more severe or present as a risk

(Cuellar et al., 2006). The findings of this study suggest that the Youth Diversion Program

provides a community-based solution which fosters appropriate youth development, keeps children

in schools and reduces their contact with juvenile/criminal justice (disrupting the school-to-prison

pipeline), provides family-centered supports, and includes various community services working

together, and is effective at reducing participants’ reoffending.

It also revealed areas where the Youth Diversion Program may strengthen both its

programmatic and data collection efforts, which would allow for a more robust future evaluation.

A data collection tool could guide the data entry of the Diversion Specialists and School Resource

Officers to increase the accuracy and completeness of the data. A second instrument should be

created for the service providers to ensure that standardized and consistent screenings are

conducted that are not only strengths-based but that also take into account youth development

(Cocozza et al., 2005; Dembo et al., 2007; Winder & Denious, 2013) and regularly capture

important information, such as what evidence-based services are delivered, rates and influence of

staff turnover, and the impact on desired outcomes.

23