Crime Prevention 
 No. 9 

Research Review
 

Formal System Processing of 

Juveniles: Effects on Delinquency 

Anthony Petrosino 

WestEd 

Carolyn Turpin-Petrosino 

Bridgewater State University 

Sarah Guckenburg 

WestEd 
Suggested citation: 

Petrosino, Anthony, Carolyn Turpin-Petrosino, and Sarah Guckenburg. 2013. 

Formal System Processing of Juveniles: Effects on Delinquency. No. 9 of Crime 

Prevention Research Review. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 

Office of Community Oriented Policing Services. 

The opinions contained herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily 

represent the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 

References to specific agencies, companies, products, or services should not be 

considered an endorsement by the author(s) or the U.S. Department of Justice. 

Rather, the references are illustrations to supplement discussion of the issues. 

The Internet references cited in this publication were valid as of the date of this 

publication. Given that URLs and websites are in constant flux, neither the 

author(s) nor the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services can vouch for 

their current validity. 

The Campbell Collaboration Crime and Justice Group 

(www.campbellcollaboration.org/ccjg) is an international 

network of researchers that prepares, updates, and rapidly 

disseminates systematic reviews of high-quality research 

conducted worldwide on effective methods to reduce 

crime and delinquency and improve the quality of justice. 

February 2013 

ISBN: 978-1-932582-73-4 
Contents 

Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
 

Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
 

Summary of Systematic Review Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
 

Descriptive Findings. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
 

Meta-Analysis: Main Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
 

Meta-Analysis: Moderator Analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
 

Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
 

List of Included Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
 

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
 

Appendix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
 

1 
2 

Acknowledgments 

We appreciate the comments and guidance of David Wilson, Charlotte Gill, and 

anonymous peer reviewers of the Campbell Collaboration protocol and final review draft 

(see Petrosino et al. 2010) upon which this COPS Office publication is based. To that end, 

we also thank Michael Borenstein, creator of Comprehensive Meta-Analysis, for his helpful 

responses to our questions about the use of the software, and Arild Bjorndal, Norwegian 

Knowledge Centre for the Health Services, for assisting us with funding. 

We appreciate the guidance of Nazmia Alqadi with the COPS Office and the comments of 

WestEd colleagues Alison Cohen, Susan Hayes, and Claire Morgan. 
What leads to the best outcomes for juveniles? 

Introduction 
4 

Introduction 

Justice practitioners have tremendous discretion on how to handle less serious juvenile 

offenders—those who commit offenses that are of moderate or low severity such as small 

property crimes or disorderly person violations. Police officers, district attorneys, juvenile 

court intake officers, juvenile and family court judges, and other officials can decide whether 

the youth should be moved formally through the juvenile justice system, or diverted out to 

a special program (diversion with services) or to receive nothing (diversion without services). 

Figure 1 illustrates this process. 

A juvenile picked up by the police or referred by other sources, if not diverted out, will 

move formally through the system. This would ultimately lead to an adjudication in which 

the youth’s guilt or innocence would be determined; if guilty, the youth would then face a 

disposition or sentencing. However, at any point the youth can also be diverted out the system 

to counseling or services, or released altogether. 

An important policy question is: What leads to the best outcomes for juveniles? The question 

on how to handle such offenders is not a trivial one. For example, in 2009 nearly two million 

juveniles were arrested by police (Puzzanchera and Adams 2011), but most of these juveniles 

were arrested for minor crimes. 

There is some debate over how less serious juvenile offenders should be handled. Given 

the juvenile justice system’s dual goal of protecting public safety while rehabilitating youth 

offenders, it is not surprising that a strong argument for traditional processing can be made. 

For example, some officials believe low-level offenses are a gateway to more serious offending 

and should be dealt with intensively to prevent the juvenile from becoming a repeat offender. 

Some officials believe official system processing and subsequent handling by the juvenile court 

will deter or scare low-level offenders from future misconduct. Some officials also believe that 

the primary role of the juvenile (or sometimes family) court is to rehabilitate the child, and, 

therefore, they believe offenders can be better linked to treatment and services via the court 

system. In two studies that tracked youths appearing in juvenile court in Pennsylvania (Brown 

et al. 1987; Brown et al. 1989), juvenile offenders who were adjudicated earlier rather than 

later were less likely to be convicted of an adult offense. 
Figure 1. Case Flow Diagram 

5 

Source: Snyder and Sickmund 1995 
6 

On the other hand, there are those who argue for a minimalist position—that the lowlevel offender should be handled in as non-intrusive a manner as possible. Researchers have 

warned of a possible labeling effect that may come from official processing of juveniles 

(see Schur 1973). For example, a petition that results in an official determination of the 

child as “delinquent” can lead to significant others around the child beginning to treat 

him or her differently. Such a juvenile may receive increased police scrutiny and end up 

getting rearrested more often than juveniles who are not under the same surveillance. The 

same actions that resulted in police turning a blind eye to misconduct may now result in 

an arrest. Labeling is theorized to have other potential impacts, including economic or 

educational losses and marginalization by significant others such as family and friends. 

There are other theories, apart from labeling, that could explain why further processing in 

the juvenile system may increase crime. For example, such processing could further expose 

youth to more deviant peers, resulting in a harmful effect (see Dishion et al. 1999). 

A further consideration for policymakers is that release or diversion options may be cheaper 

than juvenile court processing, so even a net gain of zero (i.e., no crime impact whatsoever) 

favors the release/diversion group in a cost-benefit analysis. Finally, there is concern over 

whether formal handling of youth occurs more frequently among minority youth from 

lower-income neighborhoods, leading to their disproportionate representation in the 

juvenile justice system. 

For less serious juvenile offenders, the question is whether it is better to process the child 

through the juvenile justice system or to divert the child out of the system. To find out 

whether a policy alternative works, the scientific evidence surrounding this question must 

be examined, including prior experimental evaluations of the outcomes of this decision and 

whether they support handling juvenile offenders formally or informally. 
 

 

 

...all included studies compared the effects of formally 

moving a youth along the juvenile justice system to 

diverting the youth altogether. 

Summary of Systematic 

Review Methods 
8 

Summary of Systematic Review Methods 

To be included in this review, studies had to use a randomized experimental design 

because only randomized experiments control both the known and unknown factors that 

can influence outcomes (besides the intervention under investigation). Another criterion 

was that the participants in the study had to be juveniles who were ages 17 or younger. 

Moreover, to provide the fairest test of the effects of formally moving through the system, 

the juveniles could not yet have been officially adjudicated (i.e., found guilty) for their 

current offense. 

Although the language used in each study differed (e.g., comparing “traditional processing” 

or “system processing” to diversion), all included studies compared the effects of formally 

moving a youth along the juvenile justice system to diverting the youth altogether. 

The review included studies published or available up through 2008. To be as 

comprehensive as possible, relevant studies available in languages other than English were 

obtained and translated whenever possible. And each study had to provide data on at least 

one outcome of delinquency. 

A variety of search methods (e.g., electronic searches and contacting colleagues) were 

used to find studies, which included both published documents like journal articles and 

unpublished documents like dissertations. 

Researchers used a preliminary instrument to capture data on each study. These data 

were then used to summarize the effects of juvenile system processing compared to the 

diversion condition. They were also used to examine how these effects change depending 

on the characteristics of the study or the intervention (see Appendix on page 26). The main 

impacts of formal system processing were reported for four different crime outcomes: 

1. Prevalence: What percentage of each group failed or succeeded? 

2. Incidence: What was the average number of offenses or other incidents per group? 

3. Severity: What was the average severity of offenses committed by each group? Or what 

percentage of persons in each group later reoffended by committing violent crimes? 

4. Self-report: What was the impact on self-reported offenses by processed youth (rather 

than officially measured outcomes such as police arrest)? 
 

The studies included 7,304 juveniles across 

29 experiments reported over a 35-year period. 

Descriptive Findings 
10 

Descriptive Findings 

Twenty-nine experimental studies published between 1973 and 2008 (see Figure 2) were 

included in this review (for a list of included studies, see page 20). Approximately 75 

percent of the included studies were published or reported before 1990, likely reflecting the 

early interest in diversion as an alternative to the juvenile justice system process during the 

1970s and 1980s and the amount of funding made available at that time for implementing 

randomized experiments to test these diversionary innovations. 

The studies included 7,304 juveniles across 29 experiments reported over a 35-year period. An 

important characteristic of the studies is the type of control group. Half of the studies (51.7 

percent) compared processing to diversion with services, which included such interventions as 

family counseling, restorative justice conferencing, and education programs. The other studies 

(48.3 percent) assigned juveniles to diversion without services or programs, such as counsel 

and release, or release directly to parents. 

Figure 2. Year Experiment was Published 

Source: Petrosino et al. 2010 
 

 

 

[Diversion groups represent] an approximate 5 to 

6 percent increase in delinquency prevalence for 

processed youth in the studies. 

Meta-Analysis: 

Main Effects 
12 

Meta-Analysis: Main Effects To summarize the results of the 29 experiments statistically, meta-analysis was used. To conduct 

a meta-analysis, the difference between the two groups in the study, such as processing versus 

diversion, had to be converted to a common metric (Lipsey and Wilson 2001; Boruch and 

Petrosino 2004). This common metric is called an effect size. 

There are many kinds of effect sizes, and a common one—Cohen’s d (i.e., the standardized 

difference in means)—was used in this review. An effect size of zero means there was absolutely 

no difference in delinquency between processing and diversion. A positive effect size (above 

zero) indicates that processing reduced delinquency compared to diversion. Conversely, 

a negative effect size indicates that processing had a backfire effect and actually increased 

delinquency compared to diversion. 

A series of meta-analyses were conducted. Figure 3, known as a forest plot, provides a visual 

summary of the effects reported by the 27 studies that included at least one outcome of 

delinquency prevalence (i.e., the percentage of each group that was delinquent). It indicates the 

effect of moving a youth formally through the system on delinquency, compared to diverted 

youth, on the first measurement or follow-up period. 
 

Figure 3. System Processing Effects on Delinquency Prevalence at First Follow-Up 

Study name1 Std diff in means and 95% CI 1 Some citations include multiple studies 

that took place in different places or 

different projects. For these, additional 

details have been provided to help 

distinguish the place or project. 

13 

Source: Petrosino et al. 2010 

Figure 3 shows that, overall, system processing was associated with an average increase in 

delinquency prevalence. The overall effect size across the studies is –.11. In technical terms, 

this means that the diversion groups performed about .11 standard deviation units better than 

the processing group on delinquency prevalence. In other words, it represents an approximate 

5 to 6 percent increase in delinquency prevalence for processed youth in the studies. 
This result is consistent through all of the meta-analyses conducted on the 29 studies. Table 

1 summarizes all of these main effects. In these statistical analyses, no attempt was made to 

look at different types of studies. Instead, the main effect—i.e., average effect size across all 

of the studies—was reported. In every instance, processing was associated with increasing 

delinquency, regardless of how it was measured (i.e., prevalence, incidence, severity, and 

self-report). Note that sometimes there were multiple follow-up measurements for prevalence 

outcomes. Thus, the effect size for the longest follow-up period was also reported. 

Table 1. Summary of Effects on Delinquency Outcomes 

Prevalence 

(N=27) 

Incidence 

(N=7) 

Severity 

(N=9) 

Self-report 

(N=5) 

First effect –.11 (CI –.22, .02) –.23 (CI –.41, –.06) –.14 (CI –.33, .05) –.15 (CI –.40, .10) 

Longest effect –.15 (CI –.265, –.035) 

14 
 

 

...the youth were diverted from the system to receive 

services, such as counseling... 

Meta-Analysis: 

Moderator Analysis 
 

 

 

 

 

16 

Meta-Analysis: Moderator Analysis 

Moderator analysis refers to breaking down the main effects into smaller subgroups based on 

characteristics (see the Appendix on page 26) of the program or the study. Table 2 presents an 

important moderator for analysis and shows that the effect size differed for the two types of 

diversionary experiences to which processing was being compared. Caution must be exercised 

in interpreting these results due to the small number of studies in some of the analyses. 

The first type of diversion involves juveniles who were diverted from the system and received 

no services. In the table, this is called “doing nothing.” In the second type, the youth were 

diverted from the system to receive services, such as counseling or another intervention, and 

this is called “doing something.” 

As Table 2 indicates, processing seems to have had no crime control effect whether 

compared to diversion (“doing nothing”) or to diversion with services (“doing something”). 

In fact, the effect sizes are negative in direction, indicating that processing increases 

delinquency relative to the diversion conditions. For example, when processing is compared 

to “doing nothing,” the effect size for prevalence is slightly negative (–.04). This effect size is 

still negative and substantially larger for incidence outcomes (–.36). A slightly positive but 

nearly negligible impact is reported for severity outcomes (.02). 

However, when system processing is compared to “doing something,” the effect size is 

consistently negative and larger across all three delinquency outcomes (i.e., prevalence, 

incidence, and severity). The effect sizes range from –.16 to –.33. 

Table 2. Effects of Processing Compared to Two Different 

Diversion Groups at First Follow-Up 

Type of Control Group Crime Control Results 

(N = number of studies) 

Processing versus “doing nothing,” i.e., 

counsel and release 

Prevalence: (14) –.04 

Incidence: (3) –.36 

Severity: (6) .02 

Processing versus “doing something,” i.e., Prevalence: (15) –.16 

diversion program/service Incidence: (4) –.18 

Severity: (3) –.33 
 

 

 

...jurisdictions should review their policies 

regarding the handling of juveniles coming to 

the attention of legal authorities. 

Conclusion 
18 

Conclusion 

This review, which examined the results of 29 randomized controlled trials, finds no evidence 

that formally moving juveniles through the juvenile justice system has a crime control effect. 

In fact, all analyses showed an average main effect that was negative: i.e., processing increased 

delinquency. This was consistent not only across measures of prevalence, incidence, severity, 

and self-report but also regardless of whether looking at the first or longest time interval 

the crime measure was reported. A moderating analysis examining the type of diversionary 

alternative indicated that processing was not as effective as “doing nothing” (i.e., diversion 

without services) and was even more negative when diversion was coupled with some type of 

service or intervention (i.e., diversion with services). 

Given the overall negative results for processing across these studies and outcome measures, 

jurisdictions should review their policies regarding the handling of juveniles coming to the 

attention of legal authorities. Any reasonable cost-benefit analysis has to take into account 

not only the lack of a crime control effect for processing but also that it is the more expensive 

way to deal with youth in nearly all instances except when compared to a very intensive 

diversionary alternative. 

For example, jurisdictions should examine if a larger percentage of less serious juvenile 

delinquent cases can be diverted. Such policies should be evaluated after they are implemented 

to determine if these variations did reduce juvenile justice costs and, more important, whether 

they resulted in no greater risk to public safety. 

These experiments compared formal processing to diversion, with or without services. The data 

from these studies do not support any policy of expanding diversion programs to juveniles that 

would not have been officially processed under any circumstances. Such expansion, referred to 

as “net-widening,” would expand the reach of the juvenile justice system to youth for which 

the processing versus diversion decision is irrelevant because their offenses were so minor that 

they would not be formally processed. 
List of Included Studies
 
20 

List of Included Studies 

Note: Some citations include multiple studies that took place in different places or different projects. 

Baron, R., and F. Feeney. 1976. Juvenile Diversion through Family Counseling. Washington, 

D.C.: National Institute of Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice. (Two studies are included 

in this report.) 

Bauer, Michelle, Gilda Bordeaux, John Cole, William S. Davidson, Arnoldo Martinez, 

Christina Mitchell, and Dolly Singleton. 1980. “A Diversion Program for Juvenile 

Offenders: The Experience of Ingham County, Michigan.” Justice and Family Court Journal 

31 (August): 53–62. 

Blakely, Craig H. 1981. “The Diversion of Juvenile Delinquents: A First Step toward the 

Dissemination of a Successful Innovation.” Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University 

(Psychology). 

Curran, J.T., R. Bonn, B. Johnson, C. Grenchanik, K. Moss, and M. Colitti. 1977. Nassau 

County Probation Department: Operation Juvenile Intercept, Evaluation, Final Report. New 

York: John Jay College of Criminal Justice. 

Davidson, William S., II, Robin Redner, Richard L. Amdur, and Christina M. Mitchell. 1990. 

Alternative Treatments for Troubled Youth: The Case of Diversion from the Justice System. New 

York: Plenum Press. 

Davidson, William S., II, Robin Redner, Craig H. Blakely, Christina M. Mitchell, and James 

G. Emshoff. 1987. “Diversion of Juvenile Offenders: An Experimental Comparison.” 


Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 55 (1): 68–75.
 

Dunford, F.W., D.W. Osgood, and H.F. Weichselbaum. 1982. National Evaluation of Diversion 

Projects: Executive Summary. Washington, D.C.: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 

Prevention. (Three studies are included in this report.) 

Emshoff, James G., and Craig H. Blakely. 1983. “The Diversion of Delinquent Youth: FamilyFocused Intervention.” Children and Youth Services Review 5:343–356. 

Hintzen, Rachel, Keith Inouye, and Beryl Iramina. 1979. A Three Year Follow-Up Study of 

Project ’75. Research Report. Manoa, HI: University of Hawaii, School of Social Work, Social 

Welfare Development and Research Center. 
Klein, Malcolm W. 1986. “Labeling Theory and Delinquency Policy: An Experimental Test.” 

Criminal Justice and Behavior 13 (1): 47–79. 

Koch, R.J. 1985. “Community Service and Outright Release as Alternatives to Juvenile Court: 

An Experimental Evaluation.” Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University. 

McCold, P., and B. Wachtel. 1998. Restorative Policing Experiment: The Bethlehem Pennsylvania 

Police Family Group Conferencing Project. Bethlehem, PA: Community Service Foundation. 

Patrick, S., and R. Marsh. 2005. “Juvenile Diversion: Results of a 3-Year Experimental Study.” 

Criminal Justice Policy Review 16 (1): 59–73. 

Quay, H.C., and C.T. Love. 1977. “The Effect of a Juvenile Diversion Program on Rearrests.” 

Criminal Justice and Behavior 4 (4): 377–396. 

Quincy, R.L. 1981. “An Evaluation of the Effectiveness of the Youth Service Bureau Diversion 

Concept: A Study of Labeling Theory as Related to Juvenile Justice System Penetration.” 

Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University. 

Severy, L.J., and J.M. Whitaker. 1982. “Juvenile Diversion: An Experimental Analysis of 

Effectiveness.” Evaluation Review 6 (6): 753–774. 

Sherman, L.W., H. Strang, and D.J. Woods. 2000. Recidivism Patterns in the Canberra 

Reintegrative Shaming Experiments (RISE). Canberra, Australia: Australian National 

University. (Two studies are included in this report.) 

Smith, E.P., A.M. Wolf, D.M. Cantillon, O. Thomas, and W.S. Davidson. 2004. 

“The Adolescent Diversion Project: 25 Years of Research on an Ecological Model of 

Intervention.” Journal of Offender Rehabilitation 27 (2/3): 29–48. 

Smith, P., M. Bohnstedt, and T. Tompkins. 1979. “Juvenile Diversion Evaluation: Report of 

an Experimental Study.” Pretrial Services Annual Journal 2:118–140. 

Stickle, W.P., N.M. Connell, D.M. Wilson, and D. Gottfredson. 2008. “An Experimental 

Evaluation of Teen Courts.” Journal of Experimental Criminology 4 (2): 137–163. 

True, D.A. 1973. “Evaluative Research in a Police Juvenile Diversion Program.” Ph.D. 

dissertation, University of Oregon. 

University Associates. 1986. Diversion in Michigan: Final Report. Lansing, MI: Michigan State 

University. (Four studies are included in this report.) 

21 

References
 
24 

References 

Boruch, Robert F., and Anthony Petrosino. 2004. “Systematic Reviews, Meta-Analyses, 

Research Syntheses.” The Handbook of Practical Program Evaluation, edited by Joseph 

Wholey, Harry Hatry, and Kathryn Newcomer. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. 

Brown, W.K., T.P. Miller, and R.L. Jenkins. 1987. “The Favorable Effect of Juvenile 

Court Adjudication of Delinquent Youth on the First Contact with the Juvenile Justice 

System.” Juvenile and Family Court Journal 38 (3): 21–26. 

Brown, W.K., T.P. Miller, R.L. Jenkins, and W.A. Rhodes. 1989. “The Effect of Early 

Juvenile Court Adjudication on Adult Outcome.” International Journal of Offender 

Therapy and Comparative Criminology 33 (3): 177–183. 

Dishion, T.J., J. McCord, and F. Poulin. 1999. “When Interventions Harm: Peer Groups 

and Problem Behavior.” American Psychologist 54:755–764. 

Lipsey, Mark W., and David B. Wilson. 2001. Practical Meta-Analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: 

SAGE Publications. 

Petrosino A., C. Turpin-Petrosino, and S. Guckenburg. 2010. “Formal System Processing of 

Juveniles: Effects on Delinquency.” Campbell Systematic Reviews. doi:10.4073/csr.2010.1. 

www.campbellcollaboration.org/lib/download/761/. 

Puzzanchera, C., and B. Adams. 2011. Juvenile Arrests 2009. Washington, D.C.: Bureau of 

Justice Statistics. 

Schur, E. 1973. Radical Nonintervention: Rethinking the Delinquency Problem. Englewood 

Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. 

Snyder, H.N., and M. Sickmund. 1995. “What are the Stages of Delinquency Case 

Processing in the Juvenile Justice System?” Figure in chapter 4 of Juvenile Offenders 

and Victims: A National Report. Washington, D.C.: Office of Juvenile Justice and 

Delinquency Prevention. Republished as “Case Flow Diagram,” 

www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/structure_process/case.html. 
Appendix
 
Appendix: Characteristics of Included Studies 2

Some citations include multiple studies 

that took place in different places or 

different projects. For these, additional 

details have been provided to help 

distinguish the place or project. 

26 

Citation2 System Processing 

Treatment 

Treatment 

Group N Control Group 

Baron and Feeney 1976 (601 Offenses Project) Processing 612 Family counseling 

Baron and Feeney 1976 (602 Offenses Project) Processing 105 Family counseling 

Bauer et al. 1980 Intake 33 Diversion program 

Blakely 1981 Intake 15 Diversion program (university staff ) 

Curran et al. 1977 Intake 288 Diversion program 

Davidson et al. 1987 Processing 60 Placebo 

Davidson et al. 1990 Processing 27 Three diversion programs 

Dunford et al. 1982 (Florida site) Processing 222 Release 

Dunford et al. 1982 (Kansas City site) Processing 111 Release 

Dunford et al. 1982 (New York site) Processing 158 Release 

Emshoff and Blakely 1983 Processing 26 Two diversion programs 

Hintzen et al. 1979 Hearing 65 Release 

Klein 1986 Processing 81 Counsel and release 

Koch 1985 Processing 78 Release 

McCold and Wachtel 1998 Adjudication 103 Restorative justice 

Patrick and Marsh 2005 Magistrate court 83 Education group 

Stickle et al. 2008 Processing 85 Teen court 

Quay and Love 1977 Processing 132 Diversion program (university staff ) 

Quincy 1981 Processing 31 Diversion program 

Severy and Whitaker 1982 Processing  377 Release 

Sherman et al. 2000 (Juvenile Personal Property 

Offenders) Court 62 Restorative justice 

Sherman et al. 2000 (Juvenile Property and Shoplifting 

Offenders) Court 114 Restorative justice 

Smith et al. 1979 Petition 26 Counsel and release 

Smith et al. 2004 Processing 124 Counsel and release 

True 1973 Cite to probation 6 Two diversion programs 

University Associates 1986 (Bay, Michigan site) Processing 71 Release 

University Associates 1986 (Detroit, Michigan site) Processing 124 Release 

University Associates 1986 (Kalamazoo, Michigan site) Processing 149 Release 

University Associates 1986 (Otsego, Michigan site) Processing 15 Release 
Control N Mean Age % Males % White Level of Prior Offending Current Offense Type 

977 — — — Unknown Mostly status 

111 — — — Moderate Mixed 

99 14 83 74 High Mixed 

11 14 85 70 Unknown Mixed 

306 15 58 72 Low Mostly status 

300 14 83 74 High Mixed 

102 14 84 70 High Mixed 

220 — — — None Mixed 

100 — — — High Mixed 

194 — — — High Mixed 

47 15 66 66 Unknown Mixed 

62 15 90 19 None Mostly property 

82 — — — High Mixed 

86 15 57 74 Low Mixed 

189 15 69 35 Low Mixed 

68 15 55 91 None Mostly drug 

83 15 71 64 Low Mixed 

436 16 73 71 Moderate Mostly status 

59 — — — Unknown — 

475 15 88 33 Low Mostly property 

73 16 56 — Unknown Mostly property 

124 16 84 — Moderate Mostly property 

29 15 93 65 High Mixed 

134 14 84 9 Unknown Mostly property 

8 14 100 — High Mostly property 

76 14 86 87 Low Mostly property 

135 14 34 10 Low Mostly property 

174 14 59 75 Low Mostly property 

13 15 76 100 Low Mostly property 

27 


U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of Community Oriented Policing Services 

145 N Street, N.E. 

Washington, DC 20530 

To obtain details on COPS programs, 

call the COPS Office Response Center at 800.421.6770.
 

Visit COPS Online at www.cops.usdoj.gov. 

February 2013 

e12123528 

ISBN: 978-1-932582-73-4