This study identified populations served by diversion and explored potential effects of diversion by comparing re-arrest among diverted youth, youth on probation, and youth whose case were dismissed using a large sample of low-risk youth in Florida. Using propensity score estimation, results found youth who participated in teen court or drug court or who were on probation were more likely to be re-arrested within 1 year compared to youth whose case was dismissed. Juvenile drug court participants were more likely to be re-arrested than teen court participants. Youth on probation were more likely to be re-arrested compared to teen court participants, but there was no significant difference in re-arrest between youth on probation and juvenile drug court participants.
ArpinoB.MealliF. (2011). The specification of the propensity score in multilevel observational studies. Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, 55(4), 1770–1780.
2.
AustinP. C. (2009). Balance diagnostics for comparing the distribution of baseline covariates between treatment groups in propensity-score matched samples. Statistics in Medicine, 28(25), 3083–3107.
3.
BaglivioM. T.WolffK. T.HowellJ. C.JackowskiK.GreenwaldM. A. (2018). The search for the holy grail: Criminogenic needs matching, intervention dosage, and subsequent recidivism among serious juvenile offenders in residential placement. Criminal Justice Journal, 55, 46–57.
4.
BaiH.ClarkM. H. (2019). Propensity score methods and applications. SAGE Publications.
5.
BarnesJ. C.Ventura MillerH.MillerJ. M. (2009). Identifying leading characteristics associated with juvenile drug court admission and success: A research note. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 7(4), 350–360.
6.
BelenkoS.LoganT. K. (2003). Delivering more effective treatment to adolescents: Improving the juvenile drug court model. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 25(3), 189–211.
7.
BernburgJ. G.KrohnM. D. (2003). Labeling, life chances, and adult crime: The direct and indirect effects of official intervention in adolescence on crime in early adulthood. Criminology, 41(4), 1287–1318.
8.
BernburgJ. G.KrohnM. D.RiveraC. J. (2006). Official labeling, criminal embeddedness, and subsequent delinquency: A longitudinal test of labeling theory. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 43(1), 67–88.
9.
BishopD. M.FrazierC. E. (1996). Race effects in juvenile justice decision-making: Findings of a statewide analysis. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 86, 392.
10.
BishopD. M.LeiberM.JohnsonJ. (2010). Contexts of decision making in the juvenile justice system: An organizational approach to understanding minority overrepresentation. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 8(3), 213–233.
11.
BlairL.SullivanC.LatessaE.SullivanC. J. (2015). Juvenile drug courts: A process, outcome, and impact evaluation. Juvenile Justice Bulletin. The Urban Institute.
12.
BlombergT. G. (1983). Diversion’s disparate results and unresolved questions: An integrative evaluation perspective. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 20(1), 24–38.
13.
BontaJ.AndrewsD. A. (2007). Risk-need-responsivity model for offender assessment and rehabilitation. Die Rehabilitation, 6(1), 1–22.
14.
BouchardJ.WongJ. S. (2017). A jury of their peers: A meta-analysis of the effects of teen court on criminal recidivism. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 46(7), 1472–1487.
15.
ButtsJ. A.BuckJ. (2000). Teen courts: A focus on research. OJJDP Bulletin.
16.
ButtsJ. A.BuckJ.CoggeshallM. B. (2002). The impact of teen court on young offenders (Research Report). The Urban Institute.
17.
ButtsJ. A.OrtizJ. (2011). Teen courts–Do they work and why?New York State Bar Association Journal, 83(1), 18–21.
18.
CooperC. S. (2002). Juvenile drug treatment courts in the United States: Initial lessons learned and issues being addressed. Substance Use & Misuse, 37(12-13), 1689–1722.
FrankK. A.MaroulisS. J.DuongM. Q.KelceyB. M. (2013). What would it take to change an inference? Using Rubin’s causal model to interpret the robustness of causal inferences. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 35(4), 437–460.
25.
GaseL. N.KuoT.LaiE.StollM. A.PonceN. (2016). The impact of two Los Angeles county teen courts on youth recidivism: Comparing two informal probation programs. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 12(1), 105–126.
26.
GaseL. N.SchooleyT.DeFossetA.StollM. A.KuoT. (2016). The impact of teen courts on youth outcomes: A systematic review. Adolescent Research Review, 1(1), 51–67.
HarderV. S.StuartE. A.AnthonyJ. C. (2010). Propensity score techniques and the assessment of measured covariate balance to test causal associations in psychological research. Psychological Methods, 15(3), 234–249.
29.
KubrinC.StuckyT. D.KrohnM. D. (2009). Researching theories of crime and deviance. Oxford University Press.
30.
LeiberM. J.MackK. Y. (2003). The individual and joint effects of race, gender, and family status on juvenile justice decision-making. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 40(1), 34–70.
31.
LeiberM. J.StairsJ. M. (1999). Race, contexts, and the use of intake diversion. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 36(1), 56–86.
32.
LeiteW. (2017). Practical propensity score methods using R. SAGE Publications.
33.
LibermanA. M.KirkD. S.KimK. (2014). Labeling effects of first juvenile arrests: Secondary deviance and secondary sanctioning. Criminology, 52(3), 345–370.
34.
LiF.ZaslavskyA. M.LandrumM. B. (2013). Propensity score weighting with multilevel data. Statistics in Medicine, 32(19), 3373–3387.
35.
MarloweD. B.HeckC.HuddlestonC. W.CaseboltR. (2006). A national research agenda for drug courts: Plotting the course for second-generation scientific inquiry. Drug Court Review, 5(2), 1–32.
36.
MearsD. P. (2012). The front end of the juvenile court: Intake and informal vs. Formal processing. In BishopDonna M.FeldBarry C. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of juvenile crime and juvenile justice (pp. 573–605). Oxford University Press.
37.
MearsD. P.KuchJ. J.LindseyA. M.SiennickS. E.PestaG. B.GreenwaldM. A.BlombergT. G. (2016). Juvenile court and contemporary diversion: Helpful, harmful, or both?Criminology & Public Policy, 15(3), 953–981.
38.
MitchellO.WilsonD. B.EggersA.MacKenzieD. L. (2012). Assessing the effectiveness of drug courts on recidivism: A meta-analytic review of traditional and non-traditional drug courts. Criminal Justice Journal, 40(1), 60–71.
39.
MoffittT. E. (1993). Adolescence-limited and life-course-persistent antisocial behavior: A developmental taxonomy. Psychological Review, 100(4), 674–701.
40.
NorrisM.TwillS.KimC. (2011). Smells like teen spirit: Evaluating a Midwestern teen court. Crime and Delinquency, 57(2), 199–221.
PaternosterR.IovanniL. (1989). The labeling perspective and delinquency: An elaboration of the theory and an assessment of the evidence. Justice Quarterly, 6(3), 359–394.
45.
PatrickS.MarshR. (2005). Juvenile diversion: Results of a 3-year experimental study. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 16(1), 59–73.
46.
PetrosinoA.Turpin-PetrosinoC.GuckenburgS. (2010). Formal system processing of juveniles: Effects on delinquency. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 6(1), 1–88.
47.
PuzzancheraC.AdamsB.SickmundM. (2011). Juvenile court statistics 2008. National Center for Juvenile Justice.
48.
RayJ. V.ChildsK. (2015). Juvenile diversion. In KrohnMarvin D.LaneJ. O. D. I (Eds.), The handbook of juvenile delinquency and juvenile justice. Wiley.
49.
RosenbaumP. R.RubinD. B. (1985). Constructing a control group using multivariate matched sampling methods that incorporate the propensity score. The American Statistician, 39(1), 33–38.
50.
SampsonR. J.LaubJ. H. (1997). A life-course theory of cumulative disadvantage and the stability of delinquency. Developmental Theories of Crime and Delinquency, 7, 133–161.
51.
SanbornJ. B.SalernoA. W. (2005). The juvenile justice system: Law and process. Roxbury Publishing Company.
52.
SchwalbeC. S.GearingR. E.MacKenzieM. J.BrewerK. B.IbrahimR. (2012). A meta-analysis of experimental studies of diversion programs for juvenile offenders. Clinical Psychology Review, 32(1), 26–33.
53.
SheldenR. G.HorvathJ. A. (1987). Intake processing in a juvenile court: A comparison of legal and nonlegal variables. Juvenile and Family Court Journal, 38, 13–19.
54.
SteinD. M.DeberardS.HomanK. (2013). Predicting success and failure in juvenile drug treatment court: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 44(2), 159–168.
55.
SteinD. M.HomanK. J.DeBerardS. (2015). The effectiveness of juvenile treatment drug courts: A meta-analytic review of literature. Journal of Child & Adolescent Substance Abuse, 24(2), 80–93.
56.
StickleW. P.ConnellN. M.WilsonD. M.GottfredsonD. (2008). An experimental evaluation of teen courts. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 4(2), 137–163.
57.
Tanner-SmithE. E.LipseyM. W.WilsonD. B. (2016). Juvenile drug court effects on recidivism and drug use: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 12(4), 477–513.
58.
WassermanG. A.McReynoldsL. S.SchwalbeC. S.KeatingJ. M.JonesS. A. (2010). Psychiatric disorder, comorbidity, and suicidal behavior in juvenile justice youth. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 37(12), 1361–1376.
59.
WileyS. A.EsbensenF. A. (2016). The effect of police contact: Does official intervention result in deviance amplification?Crime and Delinquency, 62(3), 283–307.
60.
WilsonD. B.BrennanI.OlaghereA. (2018). Police-initiated diversion for youth to prevent future delinquent behavior: A systematic review. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 14, 1–88.
61.
WilsonD. M.GottfredsonD. C.StickleW. P. (2009). Gender differences in effects of teen courts on delinquency: A theory-guided evaluation. Criminal Justice Journal, 37(1), 21–27.
62.
WilsonH. A.HogeR. D. (2013). The effect of youth diversion programs on recidivism: A meta-analytic review. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 40(5), 497–518.
63.
WylieL. E.ClinkinbeardS. S.HobbsA. (2019). The application of risk–needs programming in a juvenile diversion program. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 46(8), 1128–1147.
