This study seeks to determine whether a juvenile arbitration program can alter the reach of the court in a unique fashion. Using an interrupted time-series design with a comparison group, it shows that the preprogram trend of increasing rates of judicial handling shifted to a decreasing pattern but that the rates of judicial supervision continued to climb. In addition, there were changes in the court's decision making relating to probation and commitment to residential programs associated with the implementation of the arbitration program. The author concludes that this new style of diversion, one that is sanction oriented, results in larger numbers of youth being in the system longer, subject to system requirements and control.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Austin, J.
and B. Krisberg, 1981. “Wider, Stronger, and Different Nots: The Dialectics of Criminal Justice Reform.”Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, January:165-196.
2.
Binder, A.
and G. Geis, 1984. “Ad Populum Argumentation in Criminology: Juvenile Diversion as Rhetoric.”Crime and Delinquency, 30(4):624-647.
3.
Blomberg, T. G.1977. “Diversion and Accelerated Social Control.”Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 68(2):274-282.
4.
Blomberg, T. G.1983. “Diversion's Disparate Results and Unresolved Questions: An Integrative Evaluation Perspective.”Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 20(1):24-38.
5.
Blomberg, T. G.
1984. Juvenile Arbitration Programs in Florida: An Evaluation of Cost Savings, Final Report submitted to the Florida Juvenile Justice Institute, Tallahassee, FL. Office of the State Courts Administrator.
6.
Blomberg, T. G.
, G. Heald, and M. Ezell, 1986. “Diversion and Net Widening: A Cost-Savings Assessment.”Evaluation Review, 10(1):45-64.
7.
Campbell, Donald T.
and Julian C. Stanley, 1963. Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Research. Chicago: Rand McNally.
8.
Cohen, S.
1983. “Social-Control Talk: Telling Stories About Correctional Change.” Pp. 101-129 in The Power to Punish: Contemporary Penality and Social Analysis, edited by D. Garland and P. Young. New Jersey: Humanities Press.
9.
Cohen, S.
1985. Visions of Social Control. Cambridge: Polity Press.
10.
Cressey, D. R.
and R. A. McDermott, (1973). Diversion from the Juvenile Justice System, National Assessment of Juvenile Corrections. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan.
11.
Ezell, M.
1987. “The Differential Effects of Juvenile Arbitration: A Preliminary Assessment.” Paper presented at the annual program meeting of the Council on Social Work Education, March, St. Louis.
12.
Frazier, C. E.
, P. Richards, and R. H. Potter, 1983. “Juvenile Diversion and Net Widening: Toward a Clarification of Assessment Strategies.”Human Organization, 42(2):115-122.
13.
Howard, W. G.
and B. C. Gilmore, 1983. Community Juvenile Arbitration: An Alternative in Judicial Administration. Unpublished manuscript, Pensacola: University of West Florida.
14.
Klein, M. W.
1979. “Deinstitutionalization and Diversion of Juvenile Offenders: A Litany of Impediments.” Pp. 145-201 in Crime and Justice: An Annual Review of Research, edited by N. Morris and M. Toney. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
15.
McNeece, C. A.
and M. Ezell, 1983. “Political Symbolism in Juvenile Justice: Reforming Florida's Juvenile Detention Criteria.”Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare, 10(2): 242-259.
16.
Morash, M.
1977. “Some Preliminary Results on an Impact Assessment of the Community Arbitration Program”. Paper presented at the National Conference of Criminal Justice Evaluation, February.
17.
Nejelski, P.
1976. “Diversion: Unleashing the Hound of Heaven?” Pp. 94-118 in Pursuing Justice for the Child, edited by M. K. Rosenheim. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
18.
Polk, K.1984. “Juvenile Diversion: A Look at the Record.”Crime and Delinquency, 30(4): 648-659.
19.
Rothman, D. J.
1984. Conscience and Convenience: The Asylum and its Alternatives in Progressive America, Boston: Little, Brown and Company.
20.
Scull, A. T.
1983. “Community Corrections: Panacea, Progress or Pretence?” Pp. 146-165 in The Power to Punish: Contemporary Penality and Social Analysis, edited by D. Garland and P. Young. New Jersey: Humanities Press.
21.
Scull, A. T.
1984. Decarceration: Community Treatment and the Deviant—a Radical View, 2nd Edition. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
22.
Simonton, D. K.1977. “Cross-Sectional Time-Series Experiments: Some Suggested Statistical Analyses.”Psychological Bulletin, 84(3):489-502.
23.
Vorenberg, E. W.
1982. A State of the Art Survey of Dispute Resolution Programs Involving Juveniles. Washington DC: American Bar Association.
