Diversion is “an attempt to divert, or channel out, youthful offenders from the juvenile justice system” (Bynum and Thompson, 1996). The primary objective of diversion programs is to redirect youths away from formal processing in the juvenile justice system, while still holding them accountable for their actions (Beck et al., 2006). Diversion programs are also intended to be less costly than formal court proceedings by diminishing the burden on the juvenile court system and reducing the caseload of juvenile probation officers, thus freeing up limited resources that allow the system to concentrate on more chronic or serious juvenile offenders (Cuellar, McReynolds, and Wasserman, 2006; Dick et al., 2004).

Diversion practices vary in terms of the juvenile justice contact point at which the youth is diverted, and the types of services provided. Juveniles may be diverted by law enforcement before arrest, during court intake, or even after adjudication but before disposition (Roush, 1996). Depending on the point at which youths are diverted, a diversion program may involve outright release with minimal services, referral to a community agency, or direct provision of services. Diversion programs may include comprehensive treatment programs, drug court, mental health court, and teen court. Other strategies include model court, truancy intervention programs, juvenile holdover programs, respite or shelter care, mentoring programs, curfew prevention programs, parent training, and underage drinking prevention and intervention programs.

The concept of diversion is based on the labeling theory that contends that processing certain youth through the juvenile justice system may do more harm than good, because it inadvertently stigmatizes and ostracizes them for having committed relatively minor acts that may have been more appropriately handled outside the formal system (Lundman, 1993). As Akers explains, labeling theory “advances the thesis that individuals who are labeled or dramatically stigmatized as deviant are likely to take on a deviant self identity and become more, rather than less, deviant than if they had not been so labeled” (1994, 128). A label of “deviant”, “delinquent,” or “juvenile offender” can affect the way in which a youth comes to define himself or herself, thus influencing future behaviors and dictating the social roles the youth is allowed to assume (Dick et al., 2004).

Proponents of diversion argue that programs are less stigmatizing than formal court involvement, result in reductions in recidivism rates, and provide youths with services they would not have otherwise received (Beck et al., 2006). Opponents argue, however, that diversion programs extend social control to youth who would ordinarily have been released to the community, do not prevent stigmatizing, may actually increase recidivism, and can lead to disproportionate representation of minority youth, as the process to select youth eligible for diversion may be arbitrary.

Evaluations of diversion programs have produced varied results. Although some studies have shown that diversion programs succeed in reducing subsequent deviance (Shelden, 1999; Krisberg and Austin, 1993; Davidson et al., 1990), as many have shown no impact, and some have even been shown to have a negative impact.

Early studies (Elliott and Blanchard, 1975; Klein, 1976) found little or no difference in recidivism between diverted and nondiverted youths. Some research suggests that diversion actually increases recidivism (Lincoln, 1976). Others have found that interventions, regardless of the setting, increase perceived labeling and self-reported delinquency among youth (Elliott, Dunford, and Knowles, 1978; Lincoln, 1976; and Lipsey, Cordray, and Berger, 1981). Consistent with this last group of findings is later work by Lemert (1981) suggesting that even treatment interventions can impose stigma on youth and lead to secondary deviance. That study raised the possibility that such programs may “widen the net” of the state system, taking in youths who otherwise might never have come into contact with the system. Many of the studies cited, however, may have been flawed by difficulties researchers encountered in constructing comparison groups for evaluation purposes (Liska, 1987).

More recent studies on diversion programs have yielded more positive results. For example, a study of the Detention Diversion Advocacy Project (DDAP) found that diverted youths were less likely than their counterparts to be referred to court for a new offense, to go before a judge for actual adjudication, or to be referred to out-of-home placement (Shelden, 1999). An evaluation of the Michigan State Diversion Project found that youths randomly assigned to one of the several treatment strategy groups were significantly less likely to have had a court petition filed during the 2 years following the end of the program, compared with the control group. The results suggested that active hands-on intervention of several kinds works better than normal court processing of juvenile offenders, but only if they were thoroughly separated from the system (Davidson et al., 1987).

Although further research is needed to determine the components of an effective diversion program, Dryfoos (1990), Mackenzie (1997), and Shelden (1999) argue that the most successful programs are those that provide intensive, comprehensive services over an extended time, coupled with placement in community-based programs. Shelden also points out the following factors as contributing to DDAP’s success: caseworkers’ small caseloads, the program’s location outside the mainstream of the juvenile justice system, the program’s physical accessibility, and benefits of intensive supervision (e.g., caseworkers’ ability to deflect potential problems and help clients avoid arrest). There is a clear need for more rigorous diversion research conducted on current youth populations.

Click here for 'Diversion' References, and to browse other references: or click one of the programs below.