DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

OFF ICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS

BJA NI J OJJDP BJS OVC

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

Shay Bilchik, Administrator

From the Administrator

Between 1993 and 1997, juvenile

arrests for murder have declined

39 percent, and the juvenile arrest

rate for weapons law violations has

dropped 23 percent. Yet despite such

downturns, law enforcement agencies still made 2.8 million arrests

of persons under age 18 in 1997.

Indeed, the number of juvenile arrests

is straining the Nation’s justice system

beyond capacity, and nowhere is this

more evident than detention. By 1996,

320,900 delinquency cases involved

detention, 87,200 of which involved

person offenses. One result has been

crowding in juvenile detention facilities. The 1995 Children in Custody

census revealed that half of all public

juvenile detention centers were

operating above their design capacity.

This impacts the juvenile justice

system’s ability to provide for the

safety of juveniles in custody and

the public and to use detention as an

opportunity to identify and respond

to the short-term needs of juvenile

offenders.

Diverting appropriate youthful offenders from detention can pay dividends

for youth who are not a danger to

themselves and for those remaining

in detention. Detention Diversion

Advocacy: An Evaluation shows how

one program has benefited from a

carefully designed and implemented

diversion strategy.

Shay Bilchik

Administrator

September 1999

FPO

Juvenile delinquency continues to be

viewed as a major social problem, especially in recent years, as more and more

young people join gangs and engage in

violence. The solutions being offered by

many politicians and criminal justice officials are variations on punitive models of

crime control, emphasizing greater use of

incarceration and the certification of delinquents as adults.

This approach contributed to the overcrowding of most corrections institutions

nationwide, at both the adult level and

the juvenile level (Krisberg and Austin,

1993), in spite of research demonstrating

that a punitive approach to delinquency

may be nonproductive and create more

problems (Lemert, 1951; Schur, 1971;

Schwartz, 1989; Krisberg and Austin,

1993; Miller, 1998).

Another consequence of this more punitive approach is greater proportions of

minorities being incarcerated within the

juvenile corrections system (Krisberg and

Austin, 1993; Pope and Feyerherm, 1993;

Wordes, Bynum, and Corley, 1994). The

study by Wordes, Bynum, and Corley

(1994) is especially relevant because the

researchers addressed the specific issue

of minority overrepresentation in detention populations. Their analysis of data

from five counties in Michigan revealed

that even when variables such as offense

Detention Diversion

Advocacy: An

Evaluation

Randall G. Shelden

and prior records were considered, minority youth were more likely than

nonminority youth to be detained.

In view of the above observations, the

juvenile justice system is exploring alternatives to the use of secure facilities, as

appropriate. Some of these alternatives

have come to be known as diversion programs. This Bulletin offers an overview of

diversion programs and evaluation findings from the Detention Diversion Advocacy Project (DDAP), a disposition case

advocacy program operated in San Francisco, CA, and sponsored by the Center

on Juvenile and Criminal Justice (CJCJ).

Diversion Programs:

An Overview

Diversion is “an attempt to divert, or

channel out, youthful offenders from

the juvenile justice system” (Bynum and

Thompson, 1996:430). The concept of

diversion is based on the theory that

processing certain youth through the juvenile justice system may do more harm

than good (Lundman, 1993). The basis of

the diversion argument is that courts may

inadvertently stigmatize some youth for

having committed relatively petty acts

that might best be handled outside the

formal system. In part, diversion programs are also designed to ameliorate
2

the problem of overburdened juvenile

courts and overcrowded corrections institutions (including detention facilities),

so that courts and institutions can focus

on more serious offenders.

Diversionary tactics have a strong

theoretical background that is based

on “labeling” principles that initially

evolved from Tannenbaum (1938), who

wrote on the “dramatization of evil,” to

Becker’s (1963) notion that social groups

create deviance by labeling certain acts

as “deviant” and treating individuals who

commit those acts as “outsiders,” to

Lemert’s (1951) classic statements about

labeling leading to “secondary deviance.”

Thus, legal intervention by the juvenile

justice system may actually perpetuate

delinquency by processing cases of children and youth whose misbehavior

might be remedied more appropriately in

informal settings within the community.

Partly in response to the issues

raised by the labeling perspective, the

President’s Commission on Law Enforcement and the Administration of Justice

report (1967) called for the creation of

youth services bureaus to develop alternative programs for juvenile offenders

within local communities. The establishment of these bureaus, which quickly

appeared in most communities, began a

movement toward diverting youth, especially status offenders and nonserious

delinquents, from the juvenile court.

The concept of the youth services bureaus, however, was ambiguous. Gibbons

and Krohn (1991:313) observed, “For one

thing, the recommendation that community services be coordinated by the bureau assumed that there was a wealth of

services to be coordinated when, in fact,

the lack of such agencies and services

had been an impediment to successful

juvenile court work.”

It should not be surprising, therefore,

that conflicting expectations, findings,

and conclusions would emerge from such

a widespread, disjointed, and complicated social experiment. Although many

studies show that diversion programs are

successful in reducing subsequent deviance, these studies are balanced by studies that find no impact. In certain cases,

diversion programs were found to have

detrimental properties (Polk, 1995).

Research

Proponents of diversion, however, cite

studies such as one in Colorado that involved comparisons between an experimental group of diverted youth and a control group who received regular handling

by the juvenile justice system. The diversion program administered individual,

parental, and/or family counseling to the

diverted youth group, resulting in significantly lower recidivism rates than in the

control group (Pogrebin, Poole, and

Regoli, 1984; see also Frazier and

Cochran, 1986; Gilbert, 1977).

A large-scale diversion program in

Michigan, the Adolescent Diversion

Project (Davidson et al., 1990), included

The Center on Juvenile

and Criminal Justice

The Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice (CJCJ) is a private nonprofit organization whose mission is

to reduce society’s reliance on incarceration as a solution to social

problems. CJCJ provides programs

to persons facing prison, educates

the public about the effects of imprisonment, and provides technical

assistance to jurisdictions wishing

to establish model programs for

offender populations.

CJCJ maintains a staff of professionals with diverse backgrounds and expertise in various components of the

criminal and juvenile justice field. As

part of its commitment to reform,

CJCJ incorporates exoffenders on its

board and staff. CJCJ, which has offices in San Francisco, CA; Washington, DC; and Baltimore, MD, is recognized nationally as a leading innovator

in the juvenile and criminal justice

fields.

juveniles accused of serious criminal acts

and juveniles with status offenses. The

study concluded that diversion can be

safely extended beyond status and minor

offenders. Although most of the offenders

in the program admitted to criminal acts,

the diversion programs reported lower

recidivism rates than those reported for

normal court-processed cases.

The most successful diversion programs have been those that provide more

intensive and comprehensive services

(Dryfoos, 1990). The use of experienced

youth caseworkers is especially important to a program’s success. For example,

a program in St. Louis, MO, found that

experienced youth caseworkers engendered greater behavioral changes in the

youth than did less experienced caseworkers (Feldman, Caplinger, and

Wodarski, 1983).

Opponents of diversionary programs

cite studies that show diversion programs are unsuccessful (Rojek and

Erickson, 1982). An analysis of a police

diversion program found that diversion appeared to aggravate rather than

deter recidivism (Lincoln, 1976). Elliott,

Dunford, and Knowles (1978) found that

intervention, whether received in a traditional juvenile justice setting or in an

alternative program, resulted in an increase in levels of perceived labeling and

self-reported delinquency among youth.

Two other studies supported this finding

(Lincoln, 1976; Lipsey, Cordray, and

Berger, 1981). Other concerns raised

about diversion programs include those

related to prejudice, discrimination, civil

rights violations, and the issue of net

widening.
3

Many other projects and institutions throughout the country work with youth and

detention diversion. Some examples of these follow.

Spofford Detention Center Project—New

York, NY

In an attempt to relieve overcrowding in juvenile

detention, New York City created the Department

of Juvenile Justice in 1979. Subsequent changes

introduced to reduce the use of secure detention

included the development of a case management system for each youth detained,

which viewed the period in which the youth was detained as an opportunity to identify various needs (e.g., medicine and education). Through

the case management system, a computer-based system was created

whereby information about each youth was organized. Today, the case

management system uses a volunteer aftercare program through which

the youth and his or her family receive needed assistance after the

youth’s release from detention.

Over the years, New York City’s Spofford Detention Center was replaced

by two smaller secure facilities plus various nonsecure options. Through

such a system, the so-called dead time of youth awaiting court hearings

is reduced, thereby making it possible to meet crucial needs of these

youth (who come primarily from deprived neighborhoods). The program

has received acclaim for excellence in the management of public facilities from organizations such as the Ford Foundation and Harvard

University’s Kennedy School of Government (Krisberg and Austin, 1993).

The Key Program, Inc.—Boston, MA

The Key Program uses a case management approach in which adjudicated youth are monitored on a 24-hour basis and must conform

to strict rules in areas such as work, school,

counseling, and victim restitution. The program was initiated by the State’s commissioner of youth services in 1970 as a summer program for offenders

from area reform schools. During the program’s first summer, a small

group of offenders participated in activities such as tutoring sessions

and field trips to the Harvard University campus. The Key Program

eventually became full time, and college students (primarily from

Harvard University) would supervise youthful offenders, visiting them

in their homes, seeing them on weekends, and generally interacting

with them on a one-on-one basis. After the program became full time,

the students earned college credits and were paid a small wage (Miller,

1998). The program now closely supervises approximately 500

youthful offenders in Massachusetts.

One unique feature of the program is that staff are encouraged to

seek other jobs after 12 to 14 months of service in order to prevent

“burnout” (Krisberg and Austin, 1993).

Associated Marine Institutes—Florida

(Statewide)

A case management system has been in use in

Florida through the Associated Marine Institutes (AMI) (Krisberg and Austin, 1993). AMI

consists of various programs for youthful offenders. Through this system, most youth live

either at home or with foster parents. During

the day, they are involved in various AMI-sponsored programs, such

as training in boat repair and marine biology. Through activities such

as mentoring and tutoring, AMI’s education program helps the youth

complete their high school educations. An evaluation of AMI’s program found that its graduates do just as well if not better than youth

in other Florida diversion programs (Krisberg and Austin, 1993).

As an alternative to more traditional forms of incarceration, AMI

also operates a residential wilderness program known as the Florida

Environmental Institute. In this program, youth are involved in work

such as taking care of plants and animals, hauling logs, and doing

repair work in the Florida Everglades, where the secluded environment prevents escapes and, therefore, reduces the need for hightech security devices (Krisberg and Austin, 1993).

The RAND Corporation—Los Angeles, CA

Additional evidence in support of case advocacy is reflected in

a study by the RAND Corporation (Greenwood and Turner,

1991). The RAND study compared two groups of randomly selected youth: a control group that consisted of

youth who were recommended by their probation officers for incarceration and an experimental group that

consisted of youth for whom dispositional reports had been prepared by

case advocates. Of youth who received case advocacy disposition reports, 72 percent were diverted from institutional care, compared with 49

percent of the control group. The study also revealed resistance from

juvenile justice officials, especially probation officers, to alternative dispositions, especially those originating with case advocates. It appeared that

probation staff may have perceived intrusion into an area that had previously been considered their own “turf” (Greenwood and Turner, 1991).

CJCJ’s Oak Hill Youth Center Depopulation

Project—Washington, DC

The Oak Hill Youth Center Depopulation Project is

a case management and advocacy project located in

Washington, DC, that designs and implements case

planning and advocacy for preadjudication hearings.

The project is designed to ensure public safety through comprehensive tracking and to ensure each youth’s court appearance.

Through multilevel interventions, the project seeks to demonstrate

that community-based interventions are an effective alternative to

secure custody. The project employs a three-part referral process

through the judiciary, defense attorneys, and Youth Services Administration. Youth are not rejected from the program based solely on the

alleged offense.

Once identified, youth are interviewed and assessed to determine

their potential for success; factors considered include living arrangements, support services, and past behavior. After youth are assessed

and accepted, a comprehensive community treatment plan is immediately developed. Case plans include current offense and social background summaries along with detailed release recommendations.

Should the court adopt the community treatment plan, the youth is

released to participate in the program. Thereafter, CJCJ case managers implement the case plan through differential levels of monitoring

and supervision.
4

Net Widening

Net widening is a term most commonly used to describe a phenomenon

whereby a program is set up to divert

youth away from an institutional placement or some other type of juvenile

court disposition but, instead, merely

brings more youth into the juvenile justice system who previously would never

have entered. Instead of shrinking the

“net” of social control, one actually “widens” it to bring more in.

A true diversion program takes youth

who would ordinarily be processed within

the juvenile justice system and places

them, instead, into an alternative program.

If 1,000 youth are normally processed

within the system, a true diversion would

take, for example, 300 of those youth and

place them in alternative programs. Net

widening would occur, however, if the

alternative programs served 300 additional youth who were not part of the

original 1,000 that were normally processed. Therefore, instead of dealing with

a total of 1,000 youth (i.e., 300 in diversion programs and 700 within the juvenile

justice system), the system is processing

1,300 (1,000 plus 300). A “net gain” or a

“net widening” of 300 youth has occurred.

If diversion is to work effectively, youth

must be diverted from the system rather

than be caught up in a net-widening process. This issue becomes especially important when dealing with the ever-increasing

problem of overcrowding within the detention centers of the juvenile justice system.

When a particular detention center is

plagued by chronic overcrowding, the solution is to either increase the space available (e.g., add rooms to the current structure or build a new one) or to remove a

certain percentage of youth from that facility and place them in an alternative facility

or program.

Constitutionality and

Differential Treatment

Two additional issues related to diversion programs are constitutionality and

charges of differential treatment based on

race/ethnicity. For example, Bullington et

al. (1978) found evidence of “disposition

without adjudication” (i.e., final resolution of a case without formal court action

by a judge). Bortner, Sunderland, and

Winn (1985) found evidence of systematic

differential treatment of African Americans; African American females, for instance, were more likely to be incarcerated for status offenses while their

Caucasian counterparts were more likely

to be diverted elsewhere.

Minority youth also far outnumber Caucasian youth among those incarcerated on

any given day (Krisberg and Austin, 1993).

This issue of racial/ethnic disproportion is

a national problem. For example, minority

youth constituted 52 percent of the total

incarcerated juvenile population in 1985,

60 percent in 1989, and 65 percent in 1995.

This cannot be attributed merely to the

fact that minority youth stand a greater

chance of being arrested; minorities fare

worse than Caucasians at each subsequent

stage of processing by the juvenile justice

system. Regardless of the charge, minorities are more likely to be detained and sentenced to a corrections facility than are

Caucasians (see Fagan, Slaughter, and

Hartstone, 1987).

Nationally, in addition to the high levels

of minority incarcerations, youth in the

juvenile justice system often reflect a variety of high-risk elements that include inadequate family support, school failure, negative peer associations, and insufficient

utilization of community-based services.

Because most adjudicated youth released

from secure detention do not have community followup or supervision, risk factors

remain unaddressed (Dryfoos, 1990).

The Detention

Diversion Advocacy

Program: An Overview

The impetus for establishing DDAP in

San Francisco was, in part, that the city’s

juvenile detention system had been the

focus of criticism for the past 40 years.

Since 1951, a series of reports documented

the city’s overuse of detention and its failure to develop suitable alternative options.

The three most recent reports were completed by a local community research

agency, Jefferson and Associates, in 1987;

the National Council on Crime and Delinquency (NCCD) in 1988 (Steinhart and

Steele, 1988); and CJCJ in 1994 (Hewitt,

Shorter, and Godfrey, 1994).

The NCCD study noted that because of

the absence of alternatives, San Francisco

had a secure detention rate that ranked

third in the State (Steinhart and Steele,

1988). The same study found that 63 percent of all referrals to the juvenile court

were African American youth—far in

excess of their proportion relative to the

general population. The study by CJCJ

found that the overall incarceration rate

for African American males in San Francisco was 8,331 per 100,000 African

Americans, compared with a rate of 3,822

per 100,000 African Americans for the Nation (Hewitt, Kubota, and Schiraldi, 1992;

Hewitt, Shorter, and Godfrey, 1994). A significant reason for the high rate of incarceration was the absence of intermediate

alternatives.

Overuse of detention has been attributed partly to failure of probation department staff to consider alternative options

at the time a youth is taken into custody.

Indeed, the juvenile probation department in San Francisco has consistently

recommended detention in the majority

of its cases; one study found a 77-percent

detention rate (Steinhart and Steele, 1988);

Macallair (1994) provides a similar report.

As demonstrated in other jurisdictions,

however, when community agencies are

present to advocate for alternatives to

detention, secure custody rates decline.

A study conducted in the mid-1980’s by the
5

Massachusetts Department of Youth Services found that advocacy by community

agencies on behalf of youth at detention

hearings leads to significant reductions in

detention rates. When advocacy is combined with intensive case management,

youth receive a range of quality services

(Krisberg et al., 1988; Austin et al., 1991).

DDAP’s funding under San Francisco’s

1992–93 Children’s Services Plan—a plan

resulting from a referendum for San Francisco requiring that 1 percent of city taxes

be reserved for children’s services—

covered startup costs and initial collaboration with five San Francisco agencies:

CJCJ, Horizons Unlimited, OMI (Ocean

View, Merced Heights, and Ingleside, CA)

Pilgrim Community Center, the Potrero

Hill Neighborhood House, and the Vietnamese Youth Development Center. Subsequent participants have included the

city’s juvenile probation department, the

public defender’s office, the San Francisco

Education Services Corporation, the Log

Cabin Ranch aftercare program, and the

Omega Boys Club.

Disposition Case Advocacy

The concept behind the DDAP approach is disposition case advocacy,

defined as “the efforts of lay persons or

nonlegal experts acting on behalf of youthful offenders at disposition hearings”

(Macallair, 1994:84). Disposition case advocacy is based in part on the more general

concept of case management, defined as

a “client-level strategy for promoting the

coordination of human services, opportunities, or benefits” (1994:84). Case management seeks to integrate services across a

cluster of organizations, to ensure continuity of care, and to facilitate development

of client skills (e.g., job interviewing and

reading and writing skills) by involving

a variety of social networks and service

providers (e.g., social agencies that provide specific services to youth such as

drug counseling and crisis intervention)

(Moxley, 1989).

Detention advocacy involves identifying

youth likely to be detained pending their

adjudication. Once a potential client is

identified, DDAP case managers present a

release plan to the judge that includes a

list of appropriate community services

(e.g., tutoring, drug counseling, and family

counseling) that will be accessed on the

youth’s behalf. Additionally, the plan includes specified objectives (e.g., improved

grades, victim restitution, and drug-free

status) as a means to evaluate the youth’s

progress in the program. Emphasis is

placed on allowing the youth to live at

home while going through the program.

If home placement is not a viable option,

program staff will identify and secure a

suitable alternative. If the judge deems

the release plan acceptable, the youth is

released to DDAP supervision.

The case management model provides

frequent and consistent support and

supervision to youth and their families.

Case managers link youth to communitybased services and closely monitor their

progress. DDAP requires the case manager to have daily contact with the

youth, his or her family, and significant

others, including a minimum of three inperson meetings a week with the youth.

The youth’s family members, particularly

parents and guardians, are provided

with additional services that typically

include assistance in securing employment, daycare, drug treatment services,

and income support (e.g., food stamps).

Client Selection

Process

DDAP clients are identified primarily

through referrals from the city’s public

defender’s office, the probation department, community agencies, and parents.

Admission to DDAP is restricted to youth

currently held, or likely to be held, in secure detention. Youth selected are those

deemed at “high risk” for engaging in subsequent delinquent activity. Selection is

based on a risk assessment instrument

developed by NCCD that provides a score

to help determine the youth’s danger to

others or to himself or herself and the

likelihood that the youth will abscond

(Wiebush et al., 1995). The target population is youth whose risk assessment

scores indicate that they would ordinarily be detained. This method of selection has been termed the “deep-end”

approach (Miller, 1998). This distinction

in DDAP’s selection process is important,

because by focusing on detained youth,

the program ensures that it remains a

true diversion alternative rather than

evolving into a net-widening program.

Youth are screened by DDAP staff to determine if they are likely to be detained

and whether they present a threat to the

community.

Client screening involves gathering

background information from probation

reports, psychological evaluations, police

reports, school reports, and other pertinent documents. Interviews are conducted with youth, family members, and

professionals (e.g., teachers) to determine the types of services required. After

evaluating a potential client, DDAP staff

present a comprehensive community service plan at the youth’s detention hearing

and ask the judge to release the youth to

DDAP custody.

Because DDAP deals only with youth

who are awaiting adjudication or final disposition, the youth’s appropriateness for

the program is based on DDAP’s judgment

of whether they are likely to attend their

court hearings and whether they can live in

the community, under supervision, without

unreasonable risk to the community. This

practice is similar, in principle, to what occurs in the adult system when an individual

is released on bail pending a court hearing

(e.g., arraignments and trial).

DDAP designs and implements an individualized community service plan for

each youth, addressing a range of personal and social needs such as having

positive relationships with others. DDAP

staff monitor not only the offender but

also the quality and level of services provided by the various social service agencies in San Francisco. Because youth

services in San Francisco historically

have been fragmented by ethnicity, race,

and community, the program seeks to

represent and address the needs of

youth from the various communities

within San Francisco in the most culturally appropriate manner. DDAP offers a

more unified approach as a neutral

site within the city that is staffed by

representatives from CJCJ and other

community-based service agencies (e.g.,
6

graphic and legal variables (such as the

number of prior referrals) for all youth

who spent 3 or more days in detention

during 1994. Originally, only DDAP referrals during 1994 were to be used (n=189);

however, to have a larger sample, additional names were drawn from DDAP

referrals during the second half of 1993.

Ultimately, 271 DDAP referrals were selected for the DDAP group in the study,

and 271 were selected for the comparison group in the study (total n=542).

Each printout contained information

on referral data, age, race/ethnicity, sex,

prior referrals (including the charges),

prior risk scores, prior placements,

subsequent referrals (including the

charges), subsequent placements, and

subsequent petitions.

Additional information obtained for

the DDAP sample originated from intake

forms completed for each DDAP youth.

The answers on the forms provided information on the youth’s neighborhood,

school enrollment status (e.g., the highest grade completed and the number of

times expelled or suspended), living arrangements (e.g., whether the youth was

living with his or her parents), drug use,

and poverty indicators (e.g., living in

public housing and receiving welfare

assistance).

evaluation of the DDAP program. The

methods of the study employed chisquare statistical analysis. Data were

collected from printouts obtained from

the San Francisco Department of Juvenile

Probation in order to compare a group of

DDAP youth with a group of youth who

remained within the juvenile court system. Systematic sampling techniques

were used to select the comparison

group, while the DDAP group was made

up of DDAP referrals. The department’s

printouts showed selected sociodemoHorizons Unlimited, Potrero Hill Neighborhood House, and the Vietnamese

Youth Development Center).

Goals and Objectives

The major goals of the DDAP program

are to reduce the number of youth in courtordered detention and provide youth with

culturally relevant community-based

services and with supervision. DDAP provides an intensive level of communitybased monitoring and advocacy not available within the traditional juvenile justice

system.

Specific DDAP objectives include the

following:

◆ Ensuring that a high proportion of program clients are not rearrested while

participating in the program.

◆ Ensuring that youth appear in court as

scheduled.

◆ Reducing the population of the Youth

Guidance Center (the juvenile court),

currently the only place of juvenile

detention in the city.

◆ Providing interventions for youth diverted from secure detention facilities.

◆ Demonstrating that community-based

interventions are an effective alternative to secure custody and can meet

the needs of both the youth and the

community at a cost savings to the

public.

◆ Reducing disproportionate minority

incarceration (including detention).

Data and Sampling

Procedures

In 1997, the Youth Guidance Center in

San Francisco conducted an outcome

Group Comparisons: DDAP Group Versus Comparison Group

◆ High risk: Members of the DDAP group were significantly more likely to be

considered at high risk than members of the comparison group.

◆ Race/ethnicity: No significant difference.

◆ Sex: 23 percent of the comparison group were females, compared with 16

percent of the DDAP group.

◆ Age: 27 percent of the comparison group were 14 and under, compared with

15 percent of the DDAP group.

◆ Prior referrals: 39 percent of the comparison group had three or more prior

referrals, compared with 20 percent of the DDAP group.

◆ Prior placement: 27 percent of the DDAP group had at least one prior

placement, compared with 16 percent of the comparison group.

◆ Recidivism:

❖ The overall recidivism rate of the DDAP group was 34 percent, compared

with 60 percent for the comparison group.

❖ Only 14 percent of the DDAP group had two or more subsequent referrals,

compared with 50 percent of the comparison group.

❖ Only 9 percent of the DDAP group returned to court on a violent crime

charge, compared with 25 percent of the comparison group.

❖ Only 5 percent of the DDAP group had two or more subsequent petitions,

compared with 22 percent of the comparison group.
7

Key DDAP Concepts

The dependent variable in the study

was recidivism, which was operationally

defined as a referral to the juvenile court

on a new offense (youth committing technical violations but not charged with a specific delinquent offense were not counted

as recidivists) subsequent to the original

referral to either DDAP or to the comparison group. Data were not available (because of either time or monetary constraints) on other possible measures of

recidivism (e.g., “police contacts” and

arrests as an adult). Recidivism was subsequently subdivided into serious recidivists and minor recidivists. Serious recidivists included youth referred to court on

felonies or other serious charges (e.g.,

robbery, murder, burglary, grand theft,

and drugs), while minor recidivists included youth who committed misdemeanors (e.g., petty larceny and simple assault).

Other measures of recidivism were subsequent petitions to juvenile court and subsequent out-of-home placements.

The nature of previous offenses for

youth with prior referrals was included

among the independent variables. Previous offenses were categorized as serious

violent (e.g., robbery, murder, assault

with a deadly weapon, and rape), serious other (e.g., burglary, grand theft,

and drugs), minor (e.g., petty larceny,

simple assault, and disturbing the

peace), and technical (e.g., violating

a court order).

Another key independent variable

was risk scores, which, for research

purposes, were listed on various printouts of data compiled by the juvenile

probation department and divided into

four major categories: less than 10; 10

to 14; 15 to 19; and 20 or more. During

the course of the research, it was discovered that in filling out the “risk assessment” forms, some intake workers

stopped adding up the points once a

youth reached a score of 10 (the minimum score needed for youth to be detained), so an exact score of 10 could

theoretically be a score of 15, 20, or

more. Therefore, it was decided to

change the categories for this variable

to low risk (less than 10) or high risk

(10 or more). This method was chosen

because, according to the risk assessment form (which was originally designed by NCCD and is used across the

country), a score of 10 or more indicates that the youth is a “danger to self

or others,” is likely to “abscond,” or is

“without adequate adult supervision”

Table 1: Sociodemographic Characteristics of the 1994 DDAP Cases

Percentage Number

Race/ethnicity (n=189)

Caucasian 12.7% 24

African American 56.1 106

Hispanic 13.2 25

Asian 16.4 31

Other 1.6 3

Sex (n=189)

Male 82.5% 156

Female 17.5 33

Neighborhood (n=188)

Potrero Hill/Bayview Hunter 24.9% 47

Excelsior/Visitacion 14.8 28

Mission 12.7 24

Haight-Ashbury 12.2 23

Ocean View/Merced Heights/Ingleside 6.9 13

Tenderloin 5.8 11

Other 22.2 42

Family (n=188)

Both natural parents 27.0% 51

Mother only 46.0 87

Father only 8.5 16

Other relative 13.2 25

Other 4.7 9

Living arrangements (n=188)

With parent(s) 82.5% 156

Other relative 14.8 28

Other 2.1 4

Highest grade completed (n=178)

8th or lower 14.0% 25

9th 30.3 54

10th 32.6 58

11th 13.5 24

12th 2.2 4

GED 7.3 13

Attending school (n=181)

Yes 53.6% 97

Ever expelled/suspended (n=187)

Yes 24.1% 45

Drug of choice (n=187)

None 46.5% 87

Marijuana 44.9 84

Other 8.6 16

Used the drug in the last 90 days (n=187)

Yes 46.0% 86

Frequency of drug use (n=79)

Daily 32.9% 26

Once a week 19.0 15

Twice a week 43.0 34

Once a month or less 5.1 4

Employed (n=189)

Yes 10.7% 20

Poverty indicator

Yes 41.5% 78

Note: n=the number of referrals. See “Key DDAP Concepts” for an explanation of the variables.

Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding.
8

and, therefore, requires incarceration in

a juvenile detention facility (Wiebush et

al., 1995).

Evaluation Findings

Sociodemographic Profile

Because more detailed information

was available via intake forms for all the

youth handled by DDAP during 1994 (the

first full year of operation, n=189), a summary of several sociodemographic variables from these cases (e.g., age, race/

ethnicity, sex, and family structure) will

be reviewed first.

As noted in table 1, the majority of

DDAP clients were members of minority

groups, with African American youth accounting for 56.1 percent of the sample,

Asian and Hispanic youth accounting for

29.6 percent of the group, and Caucasian

youth accounting for 12.7 percent of the

group. Males accounted for 82.5 percent

of the sample, and they tended to come

from one of four adjoining neighborhoods

in San Francisco: Excelsior/Visitacion,

Haight-Ashbury, Mission, and Potrero Hill/

Bayview Hunter. One-fourth of all DDAP

clients originated from the adjacent

neighborhoods of Potrero Hill and

Bayview Hunter. Most DDAP clients lived

with their mothers in single-parent households. The data also indicate that school

was a problem for the DDAP group, as

only 53.6 percent were attending school

at the time they entered DDAP, and 24.1

percent of the youth had been either expelled or suspended.

Drug use was common, as 53.5 percent

of youth had ever used drugs, 46 percent

had used drugs at least once during the 90

days prior to DDAP referral, and 32.9 percent used drugs on a daily basis. Marijuana

was the most commonly used drug. Most

DDAP clients were not employed, and just

over 40 percent were living in poverty.

It is significant that for the DDAP group

alone, the one variable most strongly associated with recidivism is poverty. This

last point is further underscored by the

results of a 1990 study that focused on

crack cocaine sales in the Bayview area of

San Francisco (the area with the highest

concentration of DDAP clients) (Bowser,

Fullilove, and Fullilove, 1990). The 1990

study found that the heaviest concentration of crack cocaine sales occurred almost exclusively in the poorest housing

projects of this community, where residents have been on the margin of the

economy since the 1960’s. The study also

Table 2: General Comparisons Between the DDAP and Comparison

Groups

Percentage of Youth

DDAP Comparison Level of

Group (n=271) Group (n=271) Significance

Age 14 and under 15.1% 27.3% p<.001

Minorities 88.9 85.6 NS

Females 15.9 22.9 p<.01

Risk score of 10 or more 84.2 59.4 p<.001

Three or more prior referrals 19.9 38.7 p<.001

Nature of prior offenses NS

Serious violent offenses 23.2 30.3

Serious nonviolent offenses 28.4 23.6

Previous out-of-home placements 27.3 15.5 p<.001

Recidivism p<.001

Record of recidivism 34.3 60.1

Record of serious recidivism 23.6 45.8

Two or more subsequent referrals 14.4 50.2 p<.001

Record of subsequent 9.2 24.7 p<.001

violent crimes

Two or more subsequent petitions 5.2 21.5 p<.001

Subsequent placements 18.1 24.0 p<.001

Note: NS, not significant.

1

 The inconsistency of these observations suggests

that there are problems either with the risk instrument

itself or with the way the risk instrument was used by

staff members.

found that this mostly African American

community “has been cut off from the

city’s economic life” (1990:57–63) as the

prospects for good jobs have steadily

shrunk. The rising rates of drug sales

(especially crack) have occurred simultaneously with increases in the incidence of unprotected sex and in cases

of sexually transmitted diseases (including AIDS). The study concluded that

these problems were influenced by

“long-term community economic conditions and opportunities” (1990:57–63).

Youth see their parents and neighbors—

and themselves—cut off from the surrounding community with little hope for

the future.

How DDAP Group Compares

to Comparison Group

Several significant differences were observed between the DDAP group sample

and the comparison group sample1

 (see

table 2):

◆ A greater percentage of the comparison group (more than one-fourth) were

young (age 14 and under).

◆ The comparison group had a higher

percentage of females. This would lead

one to predict a lower recidivism rate

for the comparison group, because

not only do females have a lower rate

of initial criminal involvement than

males, but studies have shown that

females have a lower overall recidivism rate (Shelden, Horvath, and

Tracy, 1989; Shelden and ChesneyLind, 1991; and Chesney-Lind and

Shelden, 1998).

◆ DDAP youth were significantly more

likely to have risk scores of 10 or

more. This would cause one to predict

a higher recidivism rate among the

DDAP group, which was not the case.

◆ The comparison group had a higher

percentage of youth with three or more

previous referrals. This seems to conflict with the lower overall risk scores

of the comparison group, since multiple

referrals would presumably indicate

a strong probability of recidivism and,

therefore, risk.
9

◆ No significant differences were found

as to the nature of prior offenses

between the two groups. Among youth

with previous referrals, DDAP and comparison youth were equally likely to

have had prior serious offenses.

◆ The DDAP group was more likely to

have had prior placements.

Most of the above differences—except

for the number of prior referrals—might

lead one to predict a slightly higher recidivism rate among the DDAP group (i.e.,

more males, higher risk scores, and more

prior placements), yet the most significant

finding of this study was that the DDAP

group had a much lower recidivism rate.

In fact, the overall recidivism rate for the

comparison group was almost double that

for the DDAP group (60 percent versus 34

percent). Moreover, there was a significant

difference for the rate of serious recidivism

(defined as subsequent referrals for major

felonies). Further, the comparison group

was more than three times more likely to

have two or more subsequent referrals,

almost three times more likely to be referred for a violent crime, about four times

more likely to have two or more subsequent petitions, and slightly more likely to

have subsequent placements. These relationships were statistically significant at

the .001 level, except for gender differences (p<.05) and subsequent placements

(not significant).2

Because many youth in the study turned

18 during the followup period, they had

no subsequent referrals to juvenile court.

Therefore, comparisons were made controlling for age as the primary reason that older

youth had a lower recidivism rate. Tables 3

and 4 show that the comparisons between

the two groups remained essentially the

same: recidivism rates were still significantly higher for the comparison group.

When comparisons were made controlling for additional variables (see table 5),

DDAP clients had significantly lower recidivism rates than did the comparison

group. For instance, among youth with

high risk scores (10 or higher), the overall

recidivism rate for DDAP clients was 32.8

percent, compared with 58.4 percent for

the comparison group. Similar differences

were found for those with low risk scores

Table 3: Group Comparisons for Youth Referred to DDAP, Age 14 and

Under

Percentage of Youth

DDAP Comparison Level of

Group Group Significance

Minorities 87.8% 90.5% NS

Females 26.8 31.1 NS

Risk score of 10 or more 83.3 47.3 p<.01

Three or more prior referrals 9.8 35.1 p<.001

Nature of prior offenses NS

Serious violent offenses 22.0 21.6

Serious nonviolent offenses 24.4 24.3

Previous out-of-home placements 17.1 10.8 NS

Recidivism p<.001

Record of recidivism 43.9 74.3

Record of serious recidivism 31.7 63.5

Two or more subsequent referrals 17.1 63.5 p<.001

Record of subsequent 24.4 40.5 NS

violent crimes

Two or more subsequent petitions 2.4 32.4 p<.001

Subsequent placements 26.8 31.1 NS

Note: Number of referrals: 115. NS, not significant

Table 4: Group Comparisons for Youth Referred to DDAP, Age 15 and

Older

Percentage of Youth

DDAP Comparison Level of

Group Group Significance

Minorities 89.1% 83.8% NS

Females 13.9 19.8 NS

Risk score of 10 or more 87.0 64.0 p<.01

Three or more prior referrals 21.7 40.1 p<.001

Nature of prior offenses NS

Serious violent offenses 23.5 33.5

Serious nonviolent offenses 29.1 23.4

Previous out-of-home placements 29.1 17.3 p<.01

Recidivism p<.001

Record of recidivism 32.6 54.8

Record of serious recidivism 22.2 39.1

Two or more subsequent referrals 13.9 45.2 p<.001

Record of subsequent 6.5 18.8 p<.001

violent crimes

Two or more subsequent petitions 5.7 17.3 p<.001

Subsequent placements 16.5 21.3 NS

Note: Number of referrals: 427. NS, not significant.

2

 It should be noted that among the entire comparison

group of youth referred to the court during 1994, the

overall recidivism rate was 58 percent, remarkably

close to the rate for the sample as a whole. The overall

rate of subsequent petitions was 50 percent, also remarkably close to the rate for the sample as a whole.
10

Table 5: Recidivism Rates of DDAP and Comparison Groups, by Selected

Variables

Percentage of Youth

DDAP Comparison Level of

Group Group Significance

Risk score

High (10 or more) 32.8% 58.4% p<.001

Low (less than 10) 31.4 62.7 p<.02

Number of prior referrals

Three or more 50.0 70.5 p<.02

None 25.0 43.0 p<.01

Number of previous out-of-home

placements

One or more 33.8 66.7 p<.001

None 34.5 58.8 p<.001

Nature of prior offenses

Serious nonviolent offenses 42.1 70.5 p<.001

Serious violent offenses 42.9 68.3 p<.01

Minor offenses 28.1 69.0 p<.01

African Americans 38.5 66.4 p<.001

Sex

Males 35.1 63.6 p<.001

Females 30.2 48.4 NS

Age

15 and over 32.6 54.8 p<.001

14 and under 43.9 74.3 p<.001

Note: Number of referrals: 542. NS, not significant.

(under 10). The highest recidivism rates

for the DDAP group (50.0 percent) were

found among those with three or more referrals, considerably lower than the comparable rate for the comparison group

(70.5 percent).

Perhaps the most interesting finding presented in table 5 is that for youth for whom

one would normally predict a low rate of

recidivism (e.g., females and those with low

risk scores, no previous referrals, no prior

placements, and minor previous offenses),

recidivism rates were higher among the

comparison group. This finding was statistically significant for all variables except

sex; however, for females the difference

between the DDAP group and the comparison group was substantial. For three of the

variables (including low risk score), the

recidivism rate for the comparison group

was double that of the DDAP group. This

lends support to the theory that when a

youth who has a low potential for further

delinquency is detained in the juvenile justice system, the probability for future delinquency is exacerbated (Becker, 1963;

Schwartz, 1989; Schur, 1971).

Table 6 breaks down these rates further,

comparing recidivism rates by risk scores

for the two groups. The rate for serious recidivists was consistently higher among the

comparison group for most of the variables

noted here. Thus, 44 percent of the highrisk comparison group were serious recidivists, compared with only 23 percent of the

DDAP group. More critical was the finding

that among low-risk groups only 13 percent

of DDAP youth were serious recidivists,

compared with 49 percent of the comparison group. In other words, not only was the

recidivism rate consistently higher among

the comparison group, but the youth from

the comparison group who did return to

the juvenile justice system were far more

likely to return on a more serious charge,

even when they were considered to be “low

risk” (see tables 2–4).

Other Measures

of Recidivism

Although the preceding analysis measures recidivism in terms of any subsequent referral to juvenile court for new

offenses, recidivism can be measured

in many ways. Other measures include

subsequent petitions to juvenile court, subsequent referrals to juvenile court for violent offenses, and subsequent placements

outside the home.

Subsequent petitions could be considered a much better measure of success or

failure, because many referrals are never

petitioned to court for more formal hearings. One could conclude that petitioned

cases are the most serious or those with

the most evidence and that cases not petitioned to court are not serious enough

to warrant further court action or have

little or no evidence.

When subsequent petitions are used

as a measure of recidivism, as shown in

table 7, the differences between the DDAP

group and the comparison group remain

significant. Only 23.6 percent of the DDAP

group had at least one subsequent petition, compared with 47.8 percent of the

comparison group. Recidivism rates were

significantly higher among youth age 14

and under and among males who had

three or more prior referrals or the most

serious prior referrals. The variables of

race/ethnicity, prior placements, and

risk scores did not correlate with subsequent petitions.

Another possible measure of recidivism is subsequent referral to court on

a charge of violence (see table 8). Once

again, differences between the DDAP

group and the comparison group surfaced. The differences were more dramatic for this measure than for subsequent petitions: the comparison group

was almost three times more likely than

the DDAP group to return to court on a

charge of violence. Of youth age 14 and

under, 34.8 percent had subsequent referrals for violent offenses, compared

with only 12.2 percent of older youth.

Differences between Caucasian and African American youth in the DDAP group

and the comparison group were negligible, and rates for these two groups

were significantly higher than those for

other racial/ethnic groups. The greater

the number of prior referrals and the

more serious the prior referrals, the

greater the likelihood of recidivism on a

charge of violence.

A final measure of recidivism considered is subsequent out-of-home placements (see table 9). Although differences between the DDAP group and the

comparison group were not statistically

significant, the comparison group was
11

Table 7: Percentage of Youth With One or More Subsequent Petitions, by

Selected Variable (DDAP and Comparison Groups)

Percentage Level of

of Youth Significance

Sample group p<.001

DDAP 23.6%

Comparison 47.8

Age p<.05

14 and under 45.2

Over age 14 33.1

Race/ethnicity NS

Caucasian 40.6

African American 35.8

Other 33.5

Sex p<.05

Male 37.8

Female 26.7

Type of risk group NS

High risk 35.2

Low risk 38.9

Number of prior referrals p<.001

None 26.6

One 29.4

Two 42.2

Three or more 49.1

Type of prior referrals p<.001

Serious 43.2

Minor 31.1

Number of prior placements NS

One or more 35.7

None 35.7

Note: Number of referrals: 542. NS, not significant.

Table 6: Recidivism Rates of DDAP and Comparison Groups, by Risk

Group and Degree of Recidivism

Percentage of Youth

DDAP Comparison Level of

Risk Group* Group Group Significance

Low risk p<.001

Serious recidivism 13.3% 49.1%

Minor recidivism 16.1 13.6

Low risk: Total recidivism 31.4 62.7 p<.01

High risk p<.001

Serious recidivism 21.0 43.5

Minor recidivism 11.8 14.9

High risk: Total recidivism 32.8 58.4 p<.001

*Low risk=risk score of less than 10; high risk=risk score of 10 or more.

Note: Percentages may not total 100 percent due to rounding. Number of referrals: 542.

slightly more likely to have subsequent

placements. Subsequent placements

were also more likely for younger youth

and for youth with the most prior referrals, the most serious prior referrals,

and prior placements.

Summary of Findings

and Recommendations

If recidivism is used as the key measure

of success, it appears that youth referred

to DDAP have been more successful than

those not referred. Recidivism, however,

can have different meanings and can be

measured in different ways. Given the

available data (and absent data such as

self-esteem and school grades, which were

not available for this study), at least three

measures can be used: a referral to court

on a new offense (which can be further

broken down to focus on violent offenses),

a referral that results in an actual petition

to go before the judge for possible adjudication, and a referral that results in out-ofhome placement (e.g., group homes and

institutions). By each of these three

measures, the DDAP group is decidedly

more successful.

Youth characteristics that were controlled for in the recidivism comparisons

between the DDAP group and the comparison group did not vary significantly between the two groups, which suggests that

differences in recidivism rates may not be

attributable to differences in group characteristics. In fact, the DDAP group had

higher risk scores and more prior placements than the comparison group, which

would lead one to predict that the DDAP

group would have higher, rather than lower,

recidivism rates.

All the data from this study suggest that

risk scores themselves are relatively poor

predictors of outcome. Because accuracy

of the assessment forms cannot be verified,

the study’s conclusion about risk scores

must be based on existing risk scores. Nevertheless, when one puts the accuracy of

risk scores aside, the fact remains that

DDAP accepted youth, who conventional

wisdom might dictate were a threat to public safety and who would have sat in detention for days or even weeks, had recidivism

rates that were nearly 50 percent less than

the comparison group. This supports the

proposition that intensive supervision over

an extended period of time, coupled with

placement in community-based programs,

enabled DDAP youth to lead relatively normal lives, while reducing the likelihood of

further contact with the juvenile justice
12

system. How many of the DDAP or comparison group later become adult offenders is

not known.

Several reasons are offered for DDAP’s

apparent success. First, the caseloads of

DDAP caseworkers are low in comparison

with the caseloads of juvenile justice

court probation officers. DDAP caseworkers average about 10 cases each at any

one time, compared with 50 to 100 for

court probation officers in major urban

areas. Smaller caseloads typically result

in more intensive supervision, and more

intensive supervision means that the

caseworker can be “on top of things”

with regard to clients. Indeed, with small

caseloads, caseworkers can spend more

quality time with their clients in the field

rather than in an office processing paperwork, talking on the telephone, and performing other bureaucratic tasks.

Second, the DDAP program is “out of

the mainstream” of the juvenile justice

system—a true “alternative” program

rather than one of many bureaucratic extensions of the system.3

 Being out of the

mainstream means that normal bureaucratic restrictions do not generally apply.

For instance, the qualifications for being a

caseworker with DDAP are not as strict as

one might find within the juvenile justice

system (e.g., age restrictions, educational

requirements, absence of arrest records,

and “street” experience—the caseworkers

grew up in the same areas as did the clients). DDAP’s caseworkers exhibited exceptional dedication to helping youth,

and the backgrounds of DDAP workers

were similar to the backgrounds of some

of their clients (e.g., similar race/ethnicity,

neighborhood of origin, and language).

Third, DDAP’s physical location seemed

more “user friendly” than the formal system (e.g., no bars, no concrete buildings,

no devices for screening for weapons upon

entering the building, and no cells for

lockdown). Further, DDAP workers are not

officers of the court, with powers of arrest

and the usual accoutrements of such occupations (e.g., badges and guns).

A possible fourth explanation—drawn

only from speculation because no relevant data are available—could be that

because of DDAP’s intensive supervision,

caseworkers may be more likely to deflect potential problems. In addition, if

a DDAP client is in a situation that could

lead to arrest, a police officer may contact the DDAP caseworker, who may convince the officer that the situation could

be handled without a formal arrest. If

this scenario occurs with any degree of

regularity, it may be a positive sign. Police often are willing to forego arrest if

they believe that someone in authority

is available to handle a youth informally.

Usually, such youth are from more privileged backgrounds with ready access to

adults willing to take responsibility for

them. Many such youth have been saved

the stigma of formal court processing

through the intervention of significant

adults in their lives. Perhaps DDAP caseworkers can perform that function for

less privileged youth.

Recommendations for future research

and programs include the following:

◆ Given the apparent success of DDAP,

an overall expansion of the program

seems warranted, especially for youth

who have high risk scores or who otherwise would be predicted to be highly

likely to engage in repetitive, serious

delinquency. DDAP’s findings support

conclusions of other researchers in the

matter of handling so-called dangerous

youth within their own communities

(e.g., Miller, 1996, 1998).

◆ Subsequent research should include

indepth interviews of program participants and family members, DDAP caseworkers, and heads of agencies to

whose programs DDAP clients were

referred to get a clearer idea of why

the program seemed to work and what

services worked the best.

◆ Larger samples from both DDAP and

comparison groups should be drawn

Table 8: Percentage of Youth Referred to Court for Subsequent Violent

Crimes, by Selected Variables (DDAP and Comparison Groups)

Percentage Level of

of Youth Significance

Sample group p<.001

DDAP 9.2%

Comparison 24.7

Age p<.001

14 and under 34.8

Over age 14 12.2

Race/ethnicity p<.05

Caucasian 17.4

African American 20.6

Other 10.7

Sex NS

Male 18.1

Female 12.4

Type of risk group NS

High risk 14.1

Low risk 19.3

Number of prior referrals p<.05

None 13.0

One 13.4

Two 18.8

Three or more 23.9

Type of prior referrals p<.05

Serious 20.6

Minor 14.8

Number of prior placements NS

One or more 15.5

None 17.4

Note: Number of referrals: 542. NS, not significant.

3

 That is, DDAP is a separate agency with separate

funding and employees, whereas bureaucratic extensions are special programs (e.g., intensive supervision)

with funding by the juvenile court and supervision by

regular probation officers.
13

Table 9: Percentage of Youth Referred to DDAP for Subsequent

Out-of-Home Placement

Percentage Levels of

of Youth Significance

Sample group NS

DDAP 18.1%

Comparison 24.0

Age p<.05

14 and under 29.6

Over age 14 18.7

Race/ethnicity NS

Caucasian 24.6

African American 22.6

Other 16.9

Sex NS

Male 21.5

Female 19.0

Type of risk group NS

High risk 22.8

Low risk 15.9

Number of prior referrals p<.001

None 13.0

One 13.4

Two 23.4

Three or more 35.8

Type of prior referrals NS

Serious 27.3

Minor 18.0

Number of prior placements p<.05

One or more 29.3

None 18.8

Note: Number of referrals: 542. NS, not significant.

and studied to try and replicate the

findings.

◆ Youth in the sample group should be

followed to their adult years to find

out how many become adult offenders and how many subsequently are

incarcerated in adult institutions.

◆ The factors that account for DDAP’s

apparent success should be examined.

To what programs were nonrecidivists

referred? What did their caseworkers

do? In short, what did DDAP do on

behalf of these youth that other programs did not do?

◆ A reassessment of the detention

authority’s existing risk assessment

instrument seems warranted, with special attention to accuracy in filling out

the instrument on referral to juvenile

court. Subsequent research should address this problem, with emphasis on

the predictive validity of the risk assessment instrument itself. Placing a

youth in detention, or even referring

a youth to the court system itself, is a

serious step that can have far-reaching,

often negative, consequences in that

young person’s life. A risk assessment

instrument that uses a numerical

scale, even if it is based on scientific

research, should not passively be accepted as the last word. The assignment of a risk score (or any other objective numerical score) should not

go unchallenged.

◆ DDAP should remain a true alternative

agency to the formal juvenile justice

system. The program should not become bureaucratized, co-opted, or

otherwise influenced by existing

bureaucracy. The best crime control

is often conducted in the community

without the participation of any formal

bureaucratic system (Elias, 1993).

Policy Implications

The findings reported here have broad

implications in terms of national and local

policies. The past few decades have witnessed the emergence of a punitive attitude toward juvenile offenders. These

“overapplied” policies (e.g., increased

waivers of juveniles to the adult system

and mandatory sentencing of juveniles)

put some youth in facilities who could be

served successfully in the community.

Such policies have had a negligible effect

on crime and have contributed to overcrowding in prisons, jails, and juvenile

institutions. Some believe that such policies have also helped to expand an already large crime control “industry”

(Shelden and Brown, 1997; Reiman, 1995;

Donziger, 1996; Irwin and Austin, 1997).

Many policymakers continue to view

the problems of crime and delinquency

(and related problems such as drug and

alcohol abuse) first and foremost as legal

problems rather than as public health or

social problems (Prothrow-Stith, 1991).

Some progress has been made in shifting

this view, but further progress is needed.

Rarely does a purely legalistic approach

address major root causes of crime, such

as poverty, lack of educational opportunities, unemployment, and racial inequality. In fact, it can be argued that such

policies have exacerbated these problems (Miller, 1996).

One reason for the success of alternative programs such as DDAP may be that

they tend to stress the strengths of atrisk youth rather than the weaknesses.

The more traditional punitive approaches

tend to emphasize the negative aspects of

at-risk youth and focus on their faults and

negative behaviors. Programs that focus

on building strengths add to the resiliency of at-risk youth (Hawkins, Catalano,

and Miller, 1992; Hawkins and Weis, 1985).

The program described in this Bulletin

is not the solution to all juvenile justice

problems, nor is it a quick fix. Additional

research is required on this type of

program—a diversion program operated

by a separate agency—under varying

conditions and in different geographic

locations. Ideally, a longitudinal study

should be undertaken that will use a true

experimental design in which youth

would be randomly assigned to DDAP or

to regular juvenile justice programming.
14

Such extensive and long-term followups

will shed more light on a complex issue.

For Further Information

Additional sources of information

about detention diversion advocacy are

provided below:

Randall G. Shelden, Ph.D.

Department of Criminal Justice

University of Nevada-Las Vegas

Las Vegas, NV 89154–5009

702–895–0236

702–895–0252 (Fax)

E-Mail: shelden@nevada.edu

Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice

Principal address:

1622 Folsom Street, 2d Floor

San Francisco, CA 94103

415–621–5661

415–621–5466 (Fax)

E-Mail: cjcj@cjcj.org

Internet: www.cjcj.org

or

2208 Martin Luther King, Jr., Avenue SE.

Washington, DC 20020

202–678–9282

202–678–9321 (Fax)

References

Austin, J., Elms, W., Krisberg, B., and

Steele, P. 1991. Unlocking Juvenile Corrections: Evaluating the Massachusetts Department of Youth Services. San Francisco, CA:

National Council on Crime and Delinquency.

Becker, H.S. 1963. Outsiders: Studies in

the Sociology of Deviance. New York, NY:

Free Press.

Bortner, M.A., Sunderland, M.L., and

Winn, R. 1985. Race and the impact of

juvenile deinstitutionalization. Crime

and Delinquency 31(1):35–46.

Bowser, B.P., Fullilove, M.T., and

Fullilove, R.E. 1990. African-American

youth and AIDS high risk behavior: The

social context and barriers to prevention.

Youth and Society 22(1):54–67.

Bullington, B., Sprowls, J., Katkin, D.,

and Phillips, M. 1978. Critique of diversionary juvenile justice. Crime and Delinquency 24(1):59–71.

Bynum, J.E., and Thompson, W.E. 1996.

Juvenile Delinquency: A Sociological

Approach. 3d ed. Needham Heights, MA:

Allyn and Bacon.

Chesney-Lind, M., and Shelden, R.G.

1998. Girls, Delinquency and Juvenile

Justice. 2d ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth

Publishing.

Davidson, W.S. II, Redner, R., Admur,

R., and Mitchell, C. 1990. Alternative Treatments for Troubled Youth: The Case of

Diversion from the Justice System. New

York, NY: Plenum Press.

Donziger, S. 1996. Real War on Crime:

The Report of the National Criminal Justice

Commission. New York, NY: Harper

Collins.

Dryfoos, J. 1990. Adolescents at Risk:

Prevalence and Prevention. New York, NY:

Oxford University Press.

Elias, R. 1993. Victims Still: The Political

Manipulation of Crime Victims. Newbury

Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Elliott, D.S., Dunford, F.W., and

Knowles, B. 1978. Diversion: A Study of

Alternative Processing Practices: An Overview of Initial Study Findings. Boulder, CO:

Behavioral Research Institute.

Fagan, J.E., Slaughter, E., and

Hartstone, E. 1987. Blind justice? The impact of race on the juvenile justice process. Crime and Delinquency 33:224–258.

Feldman, R.A., Caplinger, T.E., and

Wodarski, J.S. 1983. The St. Louis Conundrum: The Effective Treatment of Antisocial

Youth. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Frazier, C.E., and Cochran, J.K. 1986.

Official intervention, diversion from the

juvenile justice system, and dynamics of

human services work: Effects of a reform

goal based on labeling theory. Crime and

Delinquency 32(2):157–176.

Gibbons, D.C., and Krohn, M.D. 1991.

Delinquent Behavior. 5th ed. Englewood

Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Gilbert, G.R. 1977. Alternate routes: A

diversion project in the juvenile justice

system. Evaluation Quarterly 1(2):301–318.

Greenwood, P.W., and Turner, S. 1991.

Implementing and Managing Innovative

Correctional Programs: Lessons from

OJJDP’s Private Sector Initiative. Santa

Monica, CA: The RAND Corporation.

Hawkins, J.D., Catalano, R.F., and

Miller, J.Y. 1992. Risk and protective factors for alcohol and other drug problems

in adolescence and early adulthood: Implications for substance abuse prevention. Psychological Bulletin 112:64–105.

Hawkins, J.D., and Weis, J.G. 1985. The

social development model: An integrated

approach to delinquency prevention.

Journal of Primary Prevention 6:73–79.

Hewitt, C., Kubota, K., and Schiraldi,

V. 1992. Race and Incarceration in San

Francisco: Localizing Apartheid. San Francisco, CA: Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice.

Hewitt, C., Shorter, A., and Godfrey, M.

1994. Race and Incarceration in San Francisco: Two Years Later. San Francisco, CA:

Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice.

Irwin, J., and Austin, J. 1997. It’s About

Time: America’s Imprisonment Binge. 2d

ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing.

Jefferson and Associates and Community Research and Associates. 1987. Creating a New Agenda for the Care and Treatment of San Francisco’s Youthful Offenders:

A Model Program. San Francisco, CA:

Jefferson and Associates.

Krisberg, B., and Austin, J. 1993. Reinventing Juvenile Justice. Newbury Park,

CA: Sage Publications.

Krisberg, B., Austin, J., Joe, K., and

Steele, P. 1988. A Court that Works: The

Impact of Juvenile Court Sanctions. San

Francisco, CA: National Council on Crime

and Delinquency.

Lemert, E. 1951. Social Pathology. New

York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Lincoln, S.B. 1976. Juvenile referral and

recidivism. In Back on the Street: Diversion

of Juvenile Offenders, edited by R.M.

Carter and M.W. Klein. Englewood Cliffs,

NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Lipsey, M.W., Cordray, D.S., and Berger,

D.E. 1981. Evaluation of a juvenile diversion program: Using multiple lines of evidence. Evaluation Review 5(3):283–306.

Lundman, R.J. 1993. Prevention and

Control of Delinquency. 2d ed. New York,

NY: Oxford University Press.

Macallair, D. 1994. Disposition case

advocacy in San Francisco’s juvenile

justice system: A new approach to

deinstitutionalization. Crime and Delinquency 40(1):84–95.

Miller, J. 1996. Search and Destroy:

African-American Males and the Criminal

Justice System. New York, NY: Cambridge

University Press.

Miller, J. 1998. Last One Over the Wall:

The Massachusetts Experiment in Closing

Reform Schools. 2d ed. Columbus, OH:

Ohio State University Press.

Moxley, R. 1989. Case Management.

Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.

Pogrebin, M.R., Poole, E.D., and Regoli,

R.M. 1984. Constructing and implementing

a model juvenile diversion program. Youth

and Society 15(3):305–324.
15

Polk, K. 1995. Juvenile diversion: A look

at the record. In Juvenile Delinquency,

edited by P.M. Sharp and B.W. Hancock.

Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Pope, C., and Feyerherm, W. 1993. Minorities and the Juvenile Justice System:

Research Summary. Washington, DC: U.S.

Department of Justice, Office of Justice

Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and

Delinquency Prevention.

President’s Commission on Law Enforcement and the Administration of

Justice. 1967. Task Force Report: Juvenile

Delinquency and Youth Crime. Washington,

DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Prothrow-Stith, D. 1991. Deadly Consequences. New York, NY: Harper/Collins.

Reiman, J. 1995. The Rich Get Richer

and the Poor Get Prison: Ideology, Crime,

and Criminal Justice. 4th ed. Boston, MA:

Allyn and Bacon.

Rojek, D.G. 1982. Juvenile diversion: A

study of community cooptation. In Readings in Juvenile Delinquency, edited by

D.G. Rojek and G.F. Jensen. Lexington, MA:

D.C. Heath and Company.

Rojek, D.G., and Erickson, M.L. 1982.

Reforming the juvenile justice system:

The diversion of status offenders. Law

and Society Review 16(2):241–264.

Schur, E. 1971. Labeling Deviant Behavior: Its Sociological Implications. New York,

NY: Harper and Row.

Schwartz, I. 1989. (In)justice for Juveniles: Rethinking the Best Interests of the

Child. Indianapolis, IN: Lexington Books,

D.C. Heath and Company.

Shelden, R.G., and Brown, W.B. 1997.

The crime control industry and the management of the surplus population. Paper

presented at the Western Society of Criminology, Honolulu, HI.

Shelden, R.G., and Chesney-Lind, M.

1991. Gender and race differences in

delinquent careers. Juvenile and Family

Court Journal 44:73–90.

Shelden, R.G., Horvath, J., and Tracy, S.

1989. Do status offenders get worse? Some

clarifications on the question of escalation.

Crime and Delinquency 35:202–216.

Steinhart, D., and Steele, P. 1988. San

Francisco Juvenile Detention Survey: Results and Recommendations. San Francisco, CA: National Council on Crime and

Delinquency.

Tannenbaum, F. 1938. Crime and the

Community. New York, NY: Columbia

University Press.

Wiebush, R., Baird, C., Krisberg, B., and

Onek, D. 1995. Risk assessment and classification for serious, violent, and chronic

offenders. In Serious, Violent, and Chronic

Offenders, edited by J. Howell, B. Krisberg,

J.D. Hawkins, and J.J. Wilson. Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Wordes, M., Bynum, T.S., and Corley,

C.J. 1994. Locking up youth: The impact of

race on detention decisions. Journal of

Research in Crime and Delinquency

31(2):149–165.

Acknowledgments

Randall G. Shelden, Ph.D., is a professor of criminal justice at the University of

Nevada-Las Vegas.

All photographs copyright © 1997 PhotoDisc, Inc.

Share With Your Colleagues

Unless otherwise noted, OJJDP publications are not copyright protected. We

encourage you to reproduce this document, share it with your colleagues, and

reprint it in your newsletter or journal. However, if you reprint, please cite OJJDP

and the author of this Bulletin. We are also interested in your feedback, such as

how you received a copy, how you intend to use the information, and how OJJDP

materials meet your individual or agency needs. Please direct your comments and

questions to:

Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse

Publication Reprint/Feedback

P.O. Box 6000

Rockville, MD 20849–6000

800–638–8736

301–519–5212 (Fax)

E-Mail: askncjrs@ncjrs.org

Points of view or opinions expressed in this

document are those of the author and do not

necessarily represent the official position or

policies of OJJDP or the U.S. Department of

Justice.

The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention is a component of the Office of Justice Programs, which also includes

the Bureau of Justice Assistance, the Bureau

of Justice Statistics, the National Institute of

Justice, and the Office for Victims of Crime.
PRESORTED STANDARD

POSTAGE & FEES PAID

DOJ/OJJDP

PERMIT NO. G–91

Bulletin NCJ 171155

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

Washington, DC 20531

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300