In an attempt to reduce the number of adjudicated juveniles being committed to the state for placement, the juvenile court in Wayne CountyMichigan implemented three intensive supervision programs to serve as alternatives to commitment. A four-year, randomized evaluation of the programs found them to be cost-effective. An analysis of court processes, however, suggested that the programs gradually came to supplement rather than to displace commitments as intended. The results of this study illustrate how juvenile justice organizations adapt to the presence of alternative programs in ways that dilute their impact.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Aldrich, H.1979Organizations And Environments. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:Prentice-Hall.
2.
Austin, J., and B. Krisberg1981Wider, stronger, and different nets: The dialectics of criminal justice reform. Journal Of Research In Crime And Delinquency, 18: 165-196.
3.
Barton, W.H., and J.A. Butts1990Viable options: Intensive supervision programs for juvenile delinquents. Crime And Delinquency, 36: 238-256.
4.
Binder, A., and G. Geis1984Ad populum argumentation in criminology: Juvenile diversion as rhetoric. Crime And Delinquency, 30: 624-647.
5.
Blomberg, T.G.1977Diversion and accelerated social control. Journal Of Criminal Law And Criminology, 68: 274-282.
6.
Child, J.1972Organizational structure, environment and performance: The role of strategic choice. Sociology, 6: 1-22.
7.
Clear, T.R., and P.L. Hardyman1990The new intensive supervision movement. Crime And Delinquency, 36: 42-60.
8.
Cohen, S.1985Visions Of Social Control: Crime, Punishment And Classification. Cambridge: Polity Press.
9.
Cullen, F.T., J.B. Cullen, and J.F. Wozniak1988Is rehabilitation dead? The myth of the punitive public. Journal Of Criminal Justice, 16: 303-317.
10.
Decker, S.A.1985A systemic analysis of diversion: Net widening and beyond. Journal Of Criminal Justice, 13: 207-216.
11.
Emery, F.E., and E.L. Trist1965The causal texture of organizational environments . Human Relations, 18: 21-31.
12.
Ezell, M.1989Juvenile arbitration: Net widening and other unintended consequences. Journal Of Research In Crime And Delinquency , 26: 358-377.
13.
Galvin, J., and K. Polk1983Juvenile justice: Time for new direction? Crime And Delinquency, 29: 325-332.
14.
Gouldner, A.1954Patterns Of Industrial Bureaucracy. New York: Free Press.
15.
Jones, P.R.1990Community corrections in Kansas: Extending community-based corrections or widening the net? Journal Of Research In Crime And Delinquency, 27: 79-101.
16.
Klein, M.W.1979Deinstitutionalization and diversion of juvenile offenders: A litany of impediments. In N. Morris & M. Tonry Eds., Crime And Justice: An Annual Review Of Research. vol. 1. Chicago: University Of Chicago Press.
17.
Lawrence, P.R., and J.W. Lorsch1967Organization And Environment. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
18.
Messinger, S.L.1955Organizational transformation: A case study of declining social movement. American Sociological Review, 20: 3-10.
19.
Petersilia, J.1990Conditions that permit intensive supervision programs to survive. Crime And Delinquency, 36: 126-145.
20.
Pfeffer, J., and G. Salancik1978The External Control Of Organizations. New York: Harper & Row.
21.
Polk, K.1987When less means more: An analysis of destructuring in criminal justice. Crime And Delinquency, 33: 358-378.
22.
Selznick, P.1949TVA And The Grass Roots. Berkeley : University Of California Press.
23.
Steinhart, D.1988California opinion poll: Public attitudes on youth crime. NCCD Focus. San Francisco: National Council On Crime And Delinquency.
