Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T23:23:43.075Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Reforming the Juvenile Justice System: The Diversion of Status Offenders

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 July 2024

Dean G. Rojek  and
Maynard L. Erickson
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Diversion has emerged as one of the most popular reform tactics in the juvenile justice system. An analysis of a two-year diversion program for status offenders revealed significant conceptual and operational ambiguity. The notion of a progression of a delinquent career from status to criminal offenses was not supported. The utilization of community-based programs in place of the juvenile court resulted in agency competition for clients and lengthy treatment programs for status offenders. Finally, the impact of specialized treatment for status offenders on behavioral and attitudinal measures was not significant. It was concluded that diversion programs developed exclusively for status offenders may be predicated on faulty assumptions.

Type
Research Article
Information
Law & Society Review , Volume 16 , Issue 2 , 1982 , pp. 241 - 264
Copyright
Copyright © 1982 The Law and Society Association.

Footnotes

*

This research was supported by the U.S. Department of Justice, LEAA, Grant No. 79-JN-AX-0026.

References

References

BURSIK, Robert J. Jr. (1980) “The Dynamics of Specialization in Juvenile Offenses,” 58 Social Forces 864.Google Scholar
EMPEY, LaMar T. (1978) American Delinquency: Its Meaning and Construction. Homewood, Ill.: Dorsey Press.Google Scholar
ERICKSON, Maynard L. (1979) “Some Empirical Questions Concerning the Current Revolution in Juvenile Justice,” in Empey, LaMar T. (ed.), The Future of Childhood and Juvenile Justice. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia.Google Scholar
ETZIONI, Amitai (1976) “‘Deinstitutionalization,‘ A Public Policy Fashion,” 3 Evaluation 9.Google Scholar
FINE STONE, Harold (1976) Victims of Change: Juvenile Delinquents in American Society. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press.Google Scholar
GOODMAN, Leo (1968) “The Analysis of Cross-Classified Data: Independence, Quasi-Independence, and Interactions in Contingency Tables With or Without Missing Entries,” 63 Journal of the American Statistical Association 1091.Google Scholar
HABERMAN, Shelby J. (1973) “The Analysis of Residuals in Cross-Classified Tables,” 29 Biometrics 205.Google Scholar
HAUSER, Robert M. (1978) “A Structural Model of the Mobility Table,” 56 Social Forces 919.Google Scholar
KLEIN, Malcolm W. (1979) “Deinstitutionalization and Diversion of Juvenile Offenders: A Litany of Impediments,” in Morris, Norval and Tonry, Michael (eds.), Crime and Justice, An Annual Review of Research, Vol. 1, 1979. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
LEMERT, Edwin M. (1967) Human Deviance, Social Problems, and Social Control. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
LERMAN, Paul (1975) Community Treatment and Social Control: A Critical Analysis of Juvenile Correctional Policy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
LIPTON, Douglas, Robert, MARTINSON, and Judith, WILKS (1975) The Effectiveness of Correctional Treatment: A Survey of Treatment Evaluation Studies. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
MARTINSON, Robert (1976) “California Research at the Crossroads,” 22 Crime and Delinquency 190.Google Scholar
PAWLAK, Edward J. (1977) “Differential Selection of Juveniles for Detention,” 14 Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 152.Google Scholar
PLATT, Anthony M. (1969) The Child Savers, The Invention of Delinquency. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
President's Commisson on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice (1967) Task Force Report: Juvenile Delinquency and Youth Crime. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
ROBISON, James and Gerald, SMITH (1971) “The Effectiveness of Correctional Programs,” 17 Crime and Delinquency 67.Google Scholar
SCHUR, Edwin M. (1973) Radical Nonintervention: Rethinking the Delinquency Problem. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
SPERGEL, Irving A. (1976) “Interactions between Community Structure, Delinquency, and Social Policy in the Inner City,” in Klein, Malcolm W. (ed.), The Juvenile Justice System. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
WEIS, Joseph G., SAKUMOTO, Karleen, SEDERSTROM, John, and Carol, ZEISS (1980) Jurisdiction and the Elusive Status Offender: A Comparison of Involvement in Delinquent Behavior and Status Offenses. U.S. Government Printing Office: Washinton, D.C.Google Scholar
WOLFGANG, Marvin E., FIGLIO, Robert M., and Thorsten, SELLIN (1972) Delinquency in a Birth Cohort. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Cases Cited

In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1, 1967.Google Scholar
Kent v. United States, 383 U.S. 541, 1966.Google Scholar