Measuring the impact of the proliferation ofprograms designed to divert individuals from
the criminal justice system has been hampered by three major factors: nomenclature
defining treatment criteria, failure in specifying evaluation goals, and the complexities of
gathering appropriate datafor evaluation. Each of these characteristics is examinedfrom
the political underpinnings operating within the criminal justice system. From the author's
efforts of evaluating adult diversion programs throughout California over a three-year
period, each of these characteristic's deleterious effect upon program evaluation is dis
cussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Adams, S. (1975) Evaluation Research in Corrections: A Practical Guide. Washington, DC: Law Enforcement Assistance Administration.
2.
Agopian, M. (1977) "Evaluation of adult diversion programs: the California experience." Federal Probation41: 15-18.
3.
——— (1976) Evaluation of Adult Diversion Projects: CBCEP Report No. 1. Sacramento : California Department of Corrections.
4.
Caro, F. (1971) Readings in Evaluative Research. New York: Russel Sage Foundation.
5.
Carter, R. (1975) "The diversion of offenders," in G. Perlestein and T. Phelps , Alternatives to Prison: Community Based Corrections , Pacific Palisades, CA: Goodyear .
6.
——— and M. Klein (1976) Back On the Streets: The Diversion of Juvenile Offenders, Englewood Cliffs, NJ:Prentice-Hall.
7.
Cressey, D. and R. McDermott (1973) Diversion From the Juvenile Justice System. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, National Assessment of Juvenile Corrections.
8.
Fox, J. and R. Lundman (1974) "Problems and strategies in gaining research access in police organizations." Criminology12: 52-69.
9.
Geis, G. (1975) "Program descriptions in criminal justice evaluation in E. Viano (ed.) Criminal Justice Research: Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
10.
Glaser, D. (1973) Routinizing Evaluation: Getting Feedback on Effectiveness of Crime and Delinquency Programs. Washington, DC: NIMH.
11.
Nimmer, R. (1973) Alternatives to Prosecution: A Survey of the Practice of Diversion. Chicago: American Bar Foundation.
12.
Rovner-Pieczenik, R. (1974) Pretrial Intervention Strategies: An Evaluation of Policy Related Research and Policymaker Perceptions, Washington, DC: ABA National Pretrial Intervention Service.
13.
Viano, E. (1975) Criminal Justice Research. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
14.
Vorenberg, E. and J. Vorenberg (1973) "Early diversion from the criminal justice system: practice in search of a theory," pp. 151-183 in L. Ohlin (ed.) Prisoners in America. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
15.
Zimring, F. (1974) "Measuring the impact of pretrial diversion from the criminal justice system." University of Chicago Law Rev.41, 2: 224-241.
