COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF THE ROSEVILLE POLICE DEPARTMENT
JUVENILE DIVERSION PROGRAM
A Project
Presented to the faculty of the Division of Criminal Justice
California State University, Sacramento
Submitted in partial satisfaction of
the requirements for the degree of
MASTER OF SCIENCE
in
Criminal Justice
by
Courtney Janell Sens
SPRING
2014
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF THE ROSEVILLE POLICE DEPARTMENT
JUVENILE DIVERSION PROGRAM
A Project
by
Courtney Janell Sens
Approved by:
__________________________________, Committee Chair
Timothy E. Croisdale, Ph.D.
____________________________
Date
ii
Student: Courtney Janell Sens
I certify that this student has met the requirements for format contained in the University
format manual, and that this project is suitable for shelving in the Library and credit is to
be awarded for the project.
__________________________, Graduate Coordinator
Yvette Farmer, Ph.D.
Division of Criminal Justice
iii
___________________
Date
Abstract
of
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF THE ROSEVILLE POLICE DEPARTMENT
JUVENILE DIVERSION PROGRAM
by
Courtney Janell Sens
This project compares the Roseville Police Department (RPD) Juvenile Diversion
Program against the principles of effective correctional intervention. Additionally, the
project examined recidivism rates among program participants. Research on diversion
provides inconsistent and widely varied findings as a result of the individuality of
programming. Principles of effective intervention are evidence based principles that
when implemented together have been proven to reduce recidivism. The three core
principles are risk, need, and responsivity (RNR). The principles were used as a
comparison tool to determine how many were being implemented by the RPD program.
Interview responses from Roseville Police officers were used to assist in the comparison.
The findings from the comparison show that RPD currently only adheres to 3 of the 15
current principles of effective intervention, with one additional principle from an earlier
work. The core RNR principles were not being adhered to by the RPD program. There
were 129 youth cited to the RPD diversion program from November 2011 to December
2012. The results of the descriptive analysis of the recidivism rates provided that only
19.4% of the youth recidivated within one year. Of the youth who recidivated, 60%
iv
committed more serious offenses. The researcher provided that in order to improve level
of adherence to the RNR principles, RPD should implement three suggestions: have
program staff attend STICS training, utilize a risk/needs assessment instrument, and
create and maintain a program manual.
_______________________, Committee Chair
Timothy E. Croisdale, Ph.D.
_______________________
Date
v
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The past few years have been quite a whirlwind. I could not have anticipated the
graduate experience to be what it was and despite the trials and tribulations, it was all
worth it. Managing a full time job while attending grad school turned out to be a real
challenge, but happily I can claim that I succeeded in it all. However, I truly would not
have been able to claim such success without the help of a few specific people. I would
never have survived this unique experience without the friendship of my good friend
Shauna. There is no other person who truly understands what the past few years were
like and without her I would have been lost. In addition to Shauna, I have to thank my
wonderful fiancé Mark for putting up with me and my pretty regular meltdowns. I also
want to express my gratitude to both my parents for their support, both emotionally and
financially. Last, but not least, thanks must be given to the staff here at CSUS,
specifically Dr. Croisdale and Dr. Farmer for all of their expertise and assistance. I truly
could not have done it without these wonderful people and I am blessed to have come out
of this experience a stronger person.
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Acknowledgements ...................................................................................................... vi
List of Tables .............................................................................................................. ix
List of Figures ............................................................................................................... x
Chapter
1. INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................1
Statement of the Problem ...................................................................................4
Scope and Limitations........................................................................................5
Definition of Terms............................................................................................6
Organization of the Project ................................................................................7
2. LITERATURE REVIEW .........................................................................................8
Introduction ........................................................................................................8
Juvenile Justice System......................................................................................9
Labeling Theory ...............................................................................................12
Diversion Programs .........................................................................................16
Recidivism .......................................................................................................23
Risk, Need, and Responsivity ..........................................................................28
Evidence Based Practices and Programs .........................................................36
Summary ..........................................................................................................42
vii
3. PROJECT OVERVIEW .........................................................................................45
Intent ................................................................................................................45
Project Process .................................................................................................45
Component One: Comparative Program Evaluation ......................................50
Additional Three Principles of Effective Correctional Intervention................85
Component Two: Descriptive Analysis of Recidivism Rates among .................
Participants .......................................................................................................93
4. RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS ...............................................103
Research Project Summary ............................................................................103
Recommendations for Program Change ........................................................106
Project Limitations .........................................................................................124
Implications....................................................................................................125
Conclusion .....................................................................................................127
Appendix A. Consent to Participate in Research .....................................................129
Appendix B. Interview Questions ............................................................................130
Appendix C. Roseville Police Officer Interviews....................................................132
Appendix D. Agency Consent Letter ........................................................................157
References…… ..........................................................................................................158
viii
LIST OF TABLES
Tables
Page
1. Juvenile’s Age at time of the Diversion Class as a Percentage of the Sample …….. 96
2. Time in which the Juvenile Re-Offended after the RPD Diversion Class Date ….. 102
3. Three-day STICS Training and Skill Maintenance Components ………………… 109
ix
LIST OF FIGURES
Figures
Page
1. Crime categories for initial diversion citation ………..……………………..……. 99
2. Crime categories for re-offense citation/ arrest …………………………………... 101
x
1
Chapter 1
Introduction
Appropriate and effective intervention for youth offending behavior is a critical
goal of the justice system. Without successful intervention, criminal behavior is
highly resistant to change, and lifetimes of offending result in substantial costs to
society. (Vitopoulos, Peterson-Badali, & Skilling, 2012, p. 1039)
Since the introduction of the juvenile justice system in the 19th Century, the focus
has shifted between punishing youthful offenders and serving the best interests of the
child. It has been thought for many years that to serve the best interests of the child, there
must be alternative interventions available to the formal justice system. These new
alternative interventions were based on theories such as labeling theory which suggests
that individuals who are labeled as deviant become stigmatized and will take on a deviant
label as part of their self-identity, thus committing more crime rather than less (Lemert,
1951). Under this premise, to avoid stigmatization, the offenders should be diverted
away from the formal juvenile justice system.
In 1967, the President’s Commission on Law Enforcement and the Administration
of Justice report called for the establishment of youth services bureaus and alternative
programs for juvenile offenders (Sheldon, 1999). These juvenile programs quickly began
to appear in most communities, leading to a movement directed at diverting youth,
particularly low level offenders, away from the juvenile court (Sheldon, 1999). One type
of alternative program that emerged was the diversion program. While diversion
programs can differ, they can generally be summarized as “any process that is used by
2
components of the criminal justice system whereby youths avoid formal juvenile court
processing and adjudication” (Roberts, 2004, p. 183). Whitehead and Lab (1996) suggest
that by reducing the negative outcomes associated with formal processing, diversion
programs can reduce delinquency and recidivism, and in turn increase public safety.
Diversion programs can vary widely between states, counties, and even cities.
Despite variation, most diversion programs share a similar goal of keeping first time
offenders and at risk youth from penetrating further into the justice system (Bechard,
Ireland, Berg, & Vogel, 2011). Since there can be a wide array of diversion programs
implemented, there is also a challenge in evaluating the effectiveness of these diversion
programs. Design and implementation are unique to the location of programs, as well as,
the targeted population and type of treatment. This creates inconsistent and widely varied
research findings. For example, in a meta-analysis conducted by Wilson and Hoge
(2013), the recidivism rates of 73 different diversion programs, with 14,573 youth
participants, were assessed yielding recidivism rates ranging from 2% to 81%. The
inability to measure effectiveness furthers the problem of inconsistency.
While researchers may not be able to determine the effectiveness of diversion
programs as a whole, they can examine individual programs to determine their level of
effectiveness. Recidivism rates are a common way to measure the effectiveness of
individual diversion programs. Using evidence based practices is another useful
measure. Evidence based practices and programs are those which have been
scientifically tested and proven effective (California Courts, 2013). By applying
3
evidence based principles to a program, the question about program effectiveness is
eliminated due to the use of ‘what works.’
Andrews and Bonta (2010b) have identified a model of effective correctional
assessment and crime prevention strategies which identifies essential elements of justice
programming. Although the number of effective principles has varied over the years,
much emphasis has been placed on three core components: risk, need, and responsivity,
also referred to as the RNR Model (Andrews & Bonta, 2010b). The risk principle
identifies the need for risk assessment and that ultimately, higher levels of service need to
be reserved for the higher risk offenders (Andrews, Bonta, & Hoge, 1990a). The needs
principle focuses on the criminogenic needs of the offender which are a subset of risk
factors. The treatment should focus on the individual offender’s identified set of needs
(Andrews et al., 1990a). The responsivity principle suggests that the styles and mode of
service delivery and implementation need to be matched to the learning style of the
offender and his or her ability (Andrews et al., 1990a).
Although risk, need, and responsivity are often referred to as the most common
elements of effective intervention, importance must also be placed on the integrity of
program implementation (Andrews, 2000). Intervention programs generally experience
failures during the implementation and follow-up stages and even the best evidence based
programs won’t be effective if they are not properly implemented and monitored (Borum,
2003). In a study conducted of four different treatment sites, Fagan (1990, as cited in
Borum, 2003) found that,
4
where the program design was well-implemented and its underlying theoretical
perspectives were in strong evidence, significantly lower recidivism rates for
violent, serious, and total crimes were observed. . . In Boston, where
implementation of the experimental program was strongest, youths consistently
had lower recidivism score than controls. (p. 260)
If a program is implemented in a manner which adheres to the principles of evidence
based programs/practices, lower recidivism rates could be expected.
Statement of the Problem
The Roseville Police Department (RPD) introduced a Juvenile Diversion Program
in November 2011. Since its inception, the RPD Juvenile Diversion Program has not
appeared to implement evidence based practices and therefore shows potential room for
improvement. The objective of this project is to conduct a comparative program
evaluation of the existing RPD Juvenile Diversion Program. The research question
focuses on whether the principles of effective intervention are being used by the RPD
Juvenile Diversion Program. The method of evaluation will be a comparison of the RPD
Juvenile Diversion Program with pre-existing research on evidence based practices,
specifically the principles of effective intervention. The comparison will be used in order
to determine how many principles of effective interventions exist in the RPD
programming. To assist in the comparison, two Roseville police officers will be
interviewed regarding their knowledge and involvement with the RPD program. After
the comparison is complete, if necessary, recommendations for improvements, based
upon the differences found between the RPD Juvenile Diversion Program and the
5
evidence based principles, will be provided. Additionally, a descriptive analysis will be
conducted on the recidivism rates of RPD Juvenile Diversion Program participants at the
one year mark following their diversion class date. This analysis will be used to answer
the research question of whether any of the RPD Juvenile Diversion Program
participant’s recidivated within that year following the class. At the conclusion of this
project, if necessary, recommendations will be made to provide ways to improve the RPD
Juvenile Diversion Program.
It is reasonable to assume that the more evidence based principles that the RPD
Juvenile Diversion Program utilizes, the more beneficial it would be. This project will
benefit the direct participants of the RPD program, the court system, and the community
as a whole. Additionally, if the RPD Juvenile Diversion Program is successful in
diverting youth away from the formal justice system, the less congested the courts system
will be creating less stigmatization of local youth who will in turn abstain from future
offending.
Scope and Limitations
The scope of the project is limited to the Roseville Police Department (RPD) and
its programming. The evaluation will use only the RPD Juvenile Diversion Program in
its comparison against evidence based research. To assist in the comparative evaluation,
the scope of the interviews conducted will be limited to two Roseville police officers who
have been deemed most knowledgeable about the RPD Juvenile Diversion Program and
its components. In addition to the comparison of the actual program, the scope of the
project is also limited to the program’s direct participants. The descriptive analysis will
6
be conducted on youth who were cited to the RPD Juvenile Diversion Program from
November 2011 until December 2012. The youth cited will generally be residents of
Roseville or outlying communities and cities. Due to the requirements of the RPD
Juvenile Diversion Program, the youth cited to the program will be low level and ideally
first time offenders. The youth would only be cited to the program for minor law
violations including municipal code violations as well as infractions and misdemeanors.
No participants have committed felony offenses and they are not allowed to be on
probation.
A limitation to the project is the lack of attendance tracking for the RPD Juvenile
Diversion Program. Citation records for program participants are tracked; however, RPD
did not track those youth who actually attended the program. Additional limitations
focus on the inability of the findings to be generalized. Since diversion programs widely
vary, the results of this project will only be applicable to the specific programming of the
RPD Juvenile Diversion Program. While the assessment tools utilized can be applied to
other programs, the findings will be specific to RPD.
Definition of Terms
The following key terms are addressed throughout the paper and are defined below:
Recidivism: For purposes of this project, recidivism is being measured as any
subsequent arrests or citations after attending the RPD Juvenile Diversion Program.
Net Widening: “The process of administrative or practical changes that result in
a greater number of individuals being controlled by the criminal justice system” (Leone,
2002, p.1087).
7
Organization of the Project
Chapter one reviewed a brief background on the topic of study and also addressed
the objective of this project. The remaining chapters will cover the project in more depth.
Chapter two is the literature review where the research previously conducted on the
project topic will be presented in detail. Chapter three will provide a project overview for
the reader to understand how the project was completed; from how the project idea was
conceptualized and into the specific procedures for completing the project. The last
chapter, chapter four, will conclude the project with results of the comparative evaluation
as well as recommendations for RPD based upon the findings of the project process.
8
Chapter 2
Literature Review
Introduction
In 2010, the adult prison population was a shocking 1.6 million nationwide
(Guerino, Harrison, & Sabol, 2011). With such a large adult population, it is important to
point out that many adults start their criminal careers as juveniles (Greenwood, 2008) and
one way to reduce future offending is to focus on delinquency prevention for juveniles
and divert them away from the justice system as early as possible (Greenwood, 2008;
Patrick, Marsh, Bundy, Mimura, & Perkins, 2004). The juvenile justice system has
undergone tremendous changes over the years, but one thing that remained constant is the
support for individualized treatment of offenders specific to their unique needs (Mears,
Cochran, Greenman, Bhati, & Greenwald, 2011).
A multitude of programs have been created, and still exist today, however the
challenge is determining which ones are effective. Unfortunately, the juvenile justice
system utilizes a number of programs which have not been evaluated making it difficult
to determine their effectiveness (Lipsey, Howell, Kelly, Chapman, & Carver, 2010).
Even more concerning is the continued use of programs such as diversion, which has
been researched in length and still produces inconsistent findings. The following sections
will address the juvenile justice system and the changes that have occurred which led to a
centralized focus on diversion and delinquency prevention. The implementation of
diversion programs will be addressed in length including a focus on recidivism, followed
9
by research for effective interventions with emphasis on evidence based practices.
Juvenile Justice System
In 1899, the first juvenile court was established in Illinois on the rationale that the
state had a right to intervene in the life of a child, also called parens patriae (Ferdinand,
2009; Snyder & Sickmund, 2006). The early courts focused on the welfare of the child
and even delinquents were seen as in need of intervention (Snyder & Sickmund, 2006).
According to Zimring (2000) two justifications exist for the creation of the juvenile court:
diversionary and interventionist. The diversionary goal was to save the children from the
harshness of the adult criminal courts, thus reducing harm done to the child, while the
interventionist goal was to create new programs for youth aimed at reducing delinquency
(Zimring, 2000). No matter what the justification, the juvenile courts functioned
differently than the criminal courts offering assistance and guidance to the youth in a
non-formal setting (Platt, 2009). The courts did not want to stigmatize the child and so
they eliminated the presence of attorneys and other individuals in the courtroom
(Ryerson, 2009; Snyder & Sickmund, 2006). The court was responsible for treating or
curing the child and thus provided direction to children in an individualized manner
dependent upon the child’s specific needs (Ryerson, 2009). The juvenile court focused
on treatment rather than punishment (Ryerson, 2009) and the disposition of any juvenile
case would be tailored to the best interests of the child (Snyder & Sickmund, 2006).
In the 1950s and 1960s people began to question the effectiveness of the juvenile
court interventions because a large number of juveniles were being institutionalized for
status offenses (Snyder & Sickmund, 2006) as well as the emergence of due process and
10
racial deficiencies (Ferdinand, 2009). With concern mounting over the practices of the
juvenile justice system, The President’s Commission on Law Enforcement and
Administration of Justice (1967) produced lengthy recommendations for change. The
President’s Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice’s report
(1967) made it clear that there was a need for alternative ways to deal with youth and
suggested the following:
The formal sanctioning system and pronouncement of delinquency should be used
only as a last resort. In place of the formal system, dispositional alternatives to
adjudication must be developed for dealing with juveniles, including agencies to
provide and coordinate services and procedures to achieve necessary control
without unnecessary stigma. (p. 2)
It was clear that the President’s Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of
Justice saw little benefit of the formal sanctions, and demanded alternative methods be
developed. These new methods would be utilized to funnel youth away from the formal
system in an attempt to minimize the crime producing effects of the system’s
interventions (Whitehead & Lab, 1996). Much of what the President’s Commission on
Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice’s report (1967) recommended was
intervention taking place before youth came into contact with the juvenile court or what
they termed pre-judicial. The President’s Commission on Law Enforcement and
Administration of Justice (1967) wrote:
What should be the goals of the pre-judicial process? First, a great deal of
juvenile misbehavior should be dealt with through alternatives to adjudication, in
11
accordance with an explicit policy to divert juvenile offenders away from formal
adjudication and authoritative disposition and to nonjudicial institutions for
guidance and other services . . . The preference for nonjudicial disposition should
be enunciated, publicized, and consistently espoused by the several social
institutions responsible for controlling and preventing delinquency. (p. 16)
Following the President’s Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of
Justice’s report, the juvenile justice system began to undergo massive changes. In 1968,
The Law Enforcement Assistance Administration (LEAA) was created (Bechard et al.,
2010). The Youth Services Bureau developed, as a subset of LEAA, to provide
alternatives for court-referred youth; one such service included diversion (Bechard et al.,
2010). Diversion became a new way of solving the justice system’s problems. Between
the years of 1971 and 1972, thirty-three diversion programs had been implemented
(Lundman, 1976). The emergence of diversion programs became even more prevalent
after the passing of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974 as it
required the deinstitutionalization of status offenders (Zimring, 2000). Snyder and
Sickmund (2006) reported that, “community-based programs, diversion, and
deinstitutionalization became the banners of juvenile justice policy in the 1970s” (p. 96).
The 1980s and 1990s saw an increase in juvenile arrests leading to a policy shift
away from rehabilitation and treatment and toward a more punishment oriented juvenile
justice system (Hamilton, Sullivan, Veysey, & Grillo, 2007). As time progressed, the
pendulum continued to swing between punishment and rehabilitation, but within the last
decade, research indicates that juvenile crime rates have declined (Beck, Ramsey, Lipps,
12
& Travis, 2006). In 2002, the juvenile violent crime arrest rate reached its lowest point
since 1980 and the property crime arrests dropped to the level of rates seen in the 1960s
(Beck et al., 2006). With emphasis back on intervention and rehabilitation, diversion
programs reclaimed their position as well as used alternatives to formal sanctions.
Returning to the initial emergence of diversion, the support for diversion programs came
at a time when the labeling theory dominated the conversation about juvenile justice and
empirical examinations supported the theory (Lundman 1976; McGrath, 2008).
Labeling Theory
Labeling theory has been the focus of multiple theorists (Becker, 1963; Lemert,
1951; Schur, 1971; Tannenbaum, 1938), and was initially conceptualized in what
Tannenbaum (1938) called a dramatization of evil. The author suggests that the traits
being targeted as negative are then emphasized resulting in the youth being labeled as
delinquent. Tannenbaum (1938) believed “the harder they work to reform the evil, the
more the evil grows under their hands” (p. 20). The transfer of evil from the act to the
actor results in the youth viewing themselves as what their label suggests, deviant
(Tannenbaum, 1938). Rather than saying that an individual committed a crime, it is now
said that the individual is a criminal (Whitehead & Lab, 1996). The process of
embracing a label and viewing yourself as others view you has also been referred to as
what Cooley called, looking glass self (1902, as cited in Whitehead & Lab, 1996).
Society’s reaction to the deviant act has been viewed as having the largest impact upon
how youth perceive themselves (Klein, 1986). If society views you as delinquent, the
13
label self-perpetuates causing internal reinforcement and acceptance, also termed a “selffulfilling prophecy” (Klein, 1986, p. 49).
The President’s Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice
(1967) suggests that all behavior is affected somewhat by community definitions. The
President’s Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice suggests that
if a youth is called a trouble maker by his neighbors, he or she may behave in accordance,
but once that role definition becomes attributed by the formal social controls, it becomes
a much more serious ordeal. When a youth is deemed delinquent, members of formal
social control will acknowledge this label and will respond to him or her as a delinquent
and different than the average citizen (President’s Commission on Law Enforcement and
Administration of Justice, 1967). Some researchers argue that the degree to which a
youth adheres to their assigned label is dependent on their subjective reactions of
themselves (Klein, 1986) and of the viewed stigmatization by the court process
(McGrath, 2008).
Edwin Lemert (1951) elaborated on this concept of the deviant label by
identifying primary and secondary levels of deviance. Primary deviance occurs in many
contexts, including social, cultural, and psychological and are generally acts which have
the likelihood of being labeled (Lemert, 1967). What determines the application of the
label is the social response to the act, not the initial cause of the deviance (Whitehead &
Lab, 1996). Secondary deviance is “deviant behavior, or social roles based upon it,
which becomes a means of defense, attack, or adaption to the overt and covert problems
14
created by the societal reaction to primary deviation” (Lemert, 1967, p. 17). Shur (1971)
described deviance as:
Human behavior is deviant to the extent that it comes to be viewed as involving a
personally discreditable departure from a group’s normative expectations, and it
elicits interpersonal or collective reactions that serve to “isolate,” “treat,”
“correct,” or “punish” individuals engaged in such behavior. (p. 24)
More simply, deviance is delinquency (Lemert, 1971). While there is no precise way one
becomes delinquent, Lemert (1971) suggests that it is a process of interactions where
integrity and moral self-worth are questioned. According to Schur (1971), “deviance is
viewed not as a static entity but rather as a continuously shaped and reshaped outcome of
dynamic processes of social interaction” (p. 8). A single deviant act will generally not
cause an individual to adhere to a label, but as identified by Lemert (1951), a sequence of
events occurs:
(1) primary deviation
(2) social penalties
(3) further primary deviation
(4) stronger penalties and rejections
(5) further deviation, perhaps with hostilities and resentment beginning to focus
upon those doing the penalizing
(6) crisis reached in the tolerance quotient, expressed in formal action by the
community stigmatizing the deviant
15
(7) strengthening of the deviant conduct as a reaction to the stigmatizing and
penalties
(8) ultimate acceptance of deviant social status and efforts at adjustment on the
basis of the associated role. (p. 77)
What begins during the process of secondary deviance is the stigmatization of the
youth. Stigmatization is a process where a person is attached with the signs of their
moral inferiority (Lemert, 1967). The author explains that this attachment occurs during
degradation rituals, one such ritual being the court appearance. When juvenile courts
were initially introduced, they were discrete and non-stigmatizing, but as they developed
in close relationship with the justice system and police, they acquired stigmatizing effects
(Lemert, 1971). At a court appearance, a judge or other officer will stand up and
broadcast to anyone present the moral failings of that juvenile. Due to its objective
nature, even more stigmatizing is the creation of a criminal record (Lemert, 1971;
President’s Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice, 1967).
The demand and support for diversion programs emerged in part due to the
labeling theory. The courts were being seen as causing delinquency of some youth
whose problems would have otherwise been normalized or ignored in community settings
(Lemert, 1971; Sheldon, 1999). With a massive press for alternative interventions which
reduce stigmatization, diversion seemed to be the answer. Since the justice system has
been shown to produce stigmatization, diversion programs will be beneficial since the
goal of diversion is to divert offenders away from the formal justice system. Diversion
16
programs will reduce the likelihood of stigmatization by reducing labeling (Patrick &
Marsh, 2005; Wilson & Hoge, 2013).
In a study conducted by Patrick et al. (2004) in which juveniles were assigned to
three groups, the Juvenile Accountability Diversion Program, Youth Court, and
Magistrate Court, they found that the juvenile accountability group had the smallest
number of recidivists. Patrick et al. (2004) partially attribute their lower recidivism rates
among the juvenile accountability group to the use of non-justice related figures with
limited power who did not stigmatize the youth. Although the Juvenile Accountability
Diversion Program provides beneficial findings, some researchers caution that diversion
programs carry with them their own set of labels (Bechard et al., 2011; Klein, 1986).
Some researchers argue that the labeling theory still functions as the most
powerful support for diverting youth away from the justice system (Coumarelos &
Weatherburn, 1995; Patrick & Marsh, 2005). Others place less emphasis on the labeling
theory and more upon other conceptual frameworks such as restorative justice and social
learning theory (Schwalbe, Gearing, MacKenzie, Brewer, & Ibrahim, 2012). Although
emphasis may be shifting, the theoretical foundation for diversion programs remains to
be found in the labeling theory. Due to the wide array of diversion programs, it is
important to examine the differing elements as well as the research findings related to
effectiveness of diversion programs.
Diversion Programs
Although diversion programs vary widely in their programming components, the
general goals and functions remain constant in different domains. Diversion programs
17
are programs which function to divert youthful offenders away from the formal justice
system. The goal of diversion rests on the theoretical foundation of the labeling theory
arguing that the formal court system stigmatizes youth. Bilchik (1998) adds that for
many youth, they have committed relatively minor crimes that would be better handled in
an informal setting. In addition to reducing stigmatization, by diverting youth away from
the formal justice system, diversion programs aim to reduce delinquency (Hamilton et al.,
2007). Delinquency prevention efforts target criminogenic needs of the offenders in
hopes of reducing the targeted behavior (Mears et al., 2011). Some researchers elaborate
on the main purpose of diversion while others choose to identify specific goals of
diversion programs. Reductions in recidivism, delinquency, costs, and contact with the
formal justice system are overwhelmingly seen as the main goals of diversion (Cocozza,
Veysey, Chapin, Dembo, Walters, & Farina, 2005; Hamilton et al., 2007; Jordan &
Farrell, 2013; Whitehead & Lab, 1996). Diversion allows youth to be protected from the
stigmatization of the courts, but still provides an accountability element where youth are
not completely absolved of their actions (Atilola, 2013) and can learn from their mistakes
without the detriment of a criminal record (Bechard et al., 2011).
Variation among diversion programs results from variation among individuals and
communities. The needs of one community are individualized and diversion programs
reflect that individuality. Atilola (2013) argues that “each jurisdiction should tailor
diversion programs in ways that meet the particular needs of children and young people .
. .” (p. 10). Program variation can be seen in point of contact, type of agency
administering the program, manner in which charges are handled, type of treatment,
18
target population, and type of intervention provided (Cocozza et al., 2005; Hamilton et
al., 2007). Program service delivery has been found more beneficial in the community
setting rather than institutionally (Hamilton et al., 2007; Wilson & Hoge, 2013).
Despite the specific goals of an individual diversion program, identification of
appropriate youth is of utmost importance. Screening and assessment of youth being
diverted into the programs allow the staff to identify who is appropriate for the programs
and also what the treatment needs are of the youth (Hamilton et al., 2007). Hamilton et
al. (2007) pointed out, “the effectiveness of a diversion program rests on its ability to
identify the multitude of problems that a given youth may exhibit, and provide or
coordinate the appropriate and comprehensive treatment for all identified needs” (p. 139).
Diversion programs include a delinquency prevention effort, as well as, a child
welfare branch aimed at addressing the specific needs of youth (Mears et al., 2011).
Assessments for risk are necessary to separate those youth who have committed minor
law violations and have low risk for recidivating with those high risk youth who are in
need of intensive treatment services (Cocozza et al., 2005). In an attempt to best deal
with these youth and provide the best treatment options, Juvenile Assessment Centers or
Community Assessment Centers are being established nationwide (Oldenettel & Wordes,
2000). Juvenile Assessment Centers are centralized single entry points for intake and
assessment of youth who come into contact with the justice system (Oldenettel &
Wordes, 2000). The authors argue that by creating a single point of entry, Juvenile
Assessment Centers eliminate the maze of caseworkers thus reducing the likelihood that
services are duplicated while also improving system efficiency.
19
When Juvenile Assessment Centers are established it creates a central point of
entry, however, in most locations, youth are sent into diversion programs through a
variety of means. Despite the means of entry, Oldenettel and Wordes (2000) still argue
that a virtual point of entry can be established through communication and information
sharing among the system professionals and service providers. Police are considered the
gate-keepers of the justice system and a large number of referrals are produced by police
contacts (Jordan & Farrell, 2013). In what Wilson & Hoge (2013) term pre and postcharge diversion, youth are either referred to diversion pre-charge or after an initial
contact with police or post-charge, where a youth has been charged with a crime, but then
ultimately is diverted into an alternative intervention. In both pre and post-charge
diversion, the youth has been deemed low risk and diversion is used in place of any
further court processing (Wilson & Hoge, 2013). The decision to refer youth can depend
on the point at which the youth is referred.
The discretion of police to divert youth, without any further charges, is beneficial
because it reduces the amount of contact youth have with the stigmatizing formal justice
system. Some researchers suggest that referrals made by police result in youth receiving
fewer interventions (Campbell & Retzlaff, 2000) and that without clear referral
guidelines, the wrong youth will end up being referred (Bull, 2005). In Australia, police
follow criteria and procedures set out by the Youth Justice Act in order to determine
which youth to refer (Clough, Lee, & Conigrave, 2008). Jordan and Farrell (2013)
suggest that rather than using strict guidelines to make decisions, police discretion allows
for each situation to receive individual consideration depending upon the circumstances
20
of that specific contact. At the same time, the authors show concern for discretionary
referral due to the entire decision to refer resting upon the specific officer dealing with
that youth. A suggested solution, to the concern over police referral, is found in a
multiple referral system where all components of the justice system engage in the referral
process, thus creating a checks and balances system for police referrals and also
increasing the opportunity for youth to be referred at all stages of the system (Jordan &
Farrell, 2013). The multiple referral system appears to be a beneficial way to reduce the
likelihood of youth being exposed to the stigmatizing effects of the formal justice system.
In addition to who refers the youth, the point at which the youth is referred is also
important.
Most youth referred to diversion are minor or first time offenders (Beck et al.,
2006). Depending on the severity of the youth’s actions, simple cautioning by police
may be sufficient to divert youth away from the justice system. In Australia, Victoria
Police use caution as a way to explain the potential impact and consequences of an
offense to a youth (Jordan & Farrell, 2013). Jordan and Farrell (2013) reported that one
year after being cautioned, 80% of youth had not reoffended. The belief that the formal
justice system is criminogenic in nature supports the need to intervene and divert youth as
early as possible (Coumarelos & Weatherburn, 1995). Rojek and Erickson (1981-1982)
discuss the use of diversion as a “first-aid treatment” of offenders in an “escalation
hypothesis” (p. 246). According to the authors, if the natural progression for offending is
upward from status offenses to misdemeanors to felonies, then using diversion for less
serious offenders may reduce their likelihood of continued career offending. Although
21
Rojek and Erickson (1981-1982) believe status offenses are pre-delinquent acts, the early
intervention and diversion of status offenders has created a concern that diversion causes
net widening.
Net widening occurs when diversion programs extend control over youth who
would not normally have been formally processed (Beck et al., 2006), thus widening the
net of social control (Sheldon, 1999). A true diversion program according to Sheldon
(1999) takes only the youth who would end up being formally processed and diverts them
into alternative programs. Sheldon (1999) depicts this phenomenon using the following
example,
If 1,000 youth are normally processed within the system, a true diversion would
take, for example, 300 of those youth and place them into alternative programs.
Net widening would occur, however, if the alternative programs served 300
additional youth who were not part of the original 1,000 that were normally
processed. Therefore, instead of dealing with a total of 1,000 youth (i.e., 300 in
diversion programs and 700 within the juvenile justice system), the system is
processing 1,300 (1,000 plus 300). A “net gain” or “net widening” of 300 youth
has occurred. (p. 4)
According to Bechard et al. (2011), the effects of net widening may result in reducing the
potential benefits of diversion programs by clouding the pool of recipients. The authors
argue that the youth who have been identified as at risk or high risk should be the
recipients of the programming, not minor status offenders. In a study of the Youth
Deterrence Program (YDP) in California, the net widening effect was measured for youth
22
referred to YDP during a three month period in 1999 (Bechard et al., 2011). Of the youth
referred, the offense which dictated referral ranged from a status offense of a curfew
violation up to a felony burglary charge (Bechard et al., 2011). The goal of the study was
to see if youth referred were actually the target population of first time non-violent
offenders who were at risk for continued behavior (Bechard et al., 2011). By breaking
down the circumstances of the charge which the youth was referred, the authors found
that most youth could have been classified as more “mischievous than criminal” (p. 620);
this resulted in a widely cast net. What remained unclear for the authors was whether the
youth referred were actually at risk or were acting their age and would eventually have
matured or aged-out of that type of behavior. Goldson (2001) suggests that offending for
many is a natural part of growing up and that with the majority of crime being nonserious, the continued offending is unlikely and that most will eventually desist from
offending on their own.
Another study on net widening occurred in Ohio on the Hamilton County
Unofficial Juvenile Court which was used to contact youth engaging in youthful
transgressions (Beck et al., 2006). An examination of the unofficial court records
yielded results showing the majority of their cases, 55%, were for criminal charges and
would most likely have resulted in formal processing (Beck et al., 2006). The authors
found that only 22% of the cases were for status offenses which may or may not have
been processed through the courts. These results do not support the net widening effect
and the Ohio unofficial courts appear to be performing their intended goals. Bohnstedt
presented other findings which show that half of the clients served would not have been
23
processed if diversion had not existed (1978, as cited in Patrick et al., 2004). These
varied findings cause one to assume that the specific programming structure may be
cause for who is diverted and not diversion programs as a whole. The variation among
diversion programs extends beyond the youth served and creates a catalog of programs
that extend from the simple caution programs mentioned above to more serious and
invasive types. As well as type variation, research has shown that the recidivism rates
among programs also vary.
Recidivism
Recidivism is simply defined as “the repetition of criminal behavior” (Snyder &
Sickmund, 2006, p. 234). One of the challenges behind researching recidivism is that
there are many different definitions employed. Recidivism can be measured in terms of
simple or general recidivism which refers to re-arrest of the offender (Klein, 1986). More
specifically, some measure certain types of recidivism, such as sexual or violent
recidivism (Wilson & Hoge, 2013). Even more complicated is the measurable variable
determined by the researcher. Often, simple or general recidivism will use re-arrest as
the measure for recidivism. Researchers vary in their methodology, with some measuring
very specific variables. Mallett, Fukushima, Stoddard-Dare, and Quinn (2013) measured
specific variables by defining recidivism as a return placement into a detention facility.
The challenge in study research such as this is because the variables are so specific the
findings are limited and may not be able to be used to support other research. No matter
which variable is being measured, ultimately recidivism is measured by the official
24
record of criminal behavior which is an underestimate of the actual reoffending rate
(Snyder & Sickmund, 2006).
Another challenge which emerges within recidivism research is the inconsistent
focus of the study. Research on adult offenders has focused on the individual offender
and their recidivism rates while research on juveniles focuses instead upon the recidivism
among programs (Quist & Matshazi, 2000). Some researchers (McGrath, 2008; Quist &
Matshazi, 2000) argue that recidivism research needs to focus on the individual offender
and their unique differences. If the programs are studied, then the findings can only
suggest that the program showed lower recidivism, but the findings are limited in their
explanation of why it was or was not successful. The individual offenders that were
included in that specific group and study could have been the cause for reduced
recidivism and therefore, they need to be the focus of the research (McGrath, 2008).
McGrath (2008) suggests that these pre-existing individual differences may be the reason
why many meta-analytic reviews are inconsistent. Meta-analysis is a useful tool to study
a large number of programs simultaneously. Prominent researchers, such as Lipsey, have
conducted meta-analytic reviews of juvenile delinquency programs and state that
generally, programs yield a 10% reduction in recidivism, but the most successful
programs can yield reduction between 20-30% (1995, 1999a, as cited in Borum, 2003).
Recidivism reductions appear to be the goal of most juvenile intervention and
treatment programs. In order to reduce recidivism levels, the most effective program
characteristics should be identified. Research has shown that certain program elements
are more beneficial to the juvenile offender than others. The length of time which the
25
youth is exposed to treatment appears to be important. Lower recidivism rates were
found for youth exposed to more invasive treatment and for a longer duration (Hamilton
et al., 2006; McGrath, 2008). In some areas, wraparound services have been used to
provide the youth with extensive services which encompass all areas of their lives, but
research has shown that it may not be the expansion of services provided that matters but
rather the type of service (Carney & Buttell, 2003).
Borum (2003) discussed the meta-analysis conducted by Lipsey (1995, 1999) in
which he identifies interpersonal skills and behavioral programs as being two of the best
treatment types for reduced recidivism, nearly 40%. More specifically, cognitive
behavioral programs yielded larger effects than pure behavior modification programs
(Lipsey, 2009; Pearson, Lipton, Cleland, & Yee, 2002). The philosophy which the
treatment is administered under has also shown to be impactful. Lipsey (2009) found that
“interventions that embodied “therapeutic” philosophies such as counseling and skills
training, were more effective than those based on strategies of control or coercionsurveillance, deterrence, and discipline” (p. 143).
Another element, which some researchers argue is important for proper treatment
identification, is a mental health screening. Project Back-on-Track is an after school
diversion program which utilizes a multifaceted approach to identifying variables related
to delinquency (Myers, Burton, Sanders, Donat, Cheney, Fitzpatrick, & Monaco, 2000).
One such screening device utilized by the authors is a Diagnostic Interview for Children
and Adolescents (DICA-IV) which assesses the participants for psychopathology. Of
youth who completed Project Back-on-Track, a shocking 93% had at least one current
26
DSM-IV diagnosis (Myers, et al., 2000). Although psychological tests do not predict
recidivism, they can be useful in determining which treatment types are most appropriate
for the individual youth (Benda & Tollett, 1999).
No matter which treatment element we introduce, the treatment needs to be a
good match for the offender’s needs. Carney and Buttell (2003) argue that “identifying
what type of community-based program works for each individual remains a pressing
need” (p. 552). According to Montgomery et al., if the treatment needs of the individual
offender are appropriately met, research has shown that only 41% of offenders will
recidivate (1994, as cited in Carney & Buttell, 2003). The difference in individual
offenders and their needs are seen in the variation among similar program types. While
McGrath (2008) found higher recidivism rates among youth who received caution type
programming, Wilson and Hoge (2013) found cautioned youth deemed low risk were
2.44 times less likely to reoffend. The key elemental difference seen in these findings is
the identified risk level of the offender.
A tremendous amount of research has been conducted on risk assessment and that
will be discussed in more detail in the following section. Generally though, researchers
find that youth who are deemed low risk are not appropriate candidates for intensive
intervention. The level of risk should match the level and severity of intervention
provided (Borum, 2003; Schwalbe et al., 2012). With risk being the strongest predictor
of reoffending (Sullivan & Latessa, 2011), researchers have focused on the variables
associated with predicting risk. Carney and Buttell (2003) believe that if professionals
27
can identify the specific characteristics that lead to delinquency and then use those
findings to focus programs accordingly, recidivism can be reduced.
Cottle, Lee, and Heilbrun (2001) conducted a meta-analysis on the predictor
variables most strongly related to reoffending. Some variables associated with risk of
offending are unchangeable (also referred to as static) such as race, age, and sex (Cottle
et al., 2001). However, of the 30 predictor variables studied, the authors found that the
strongest predictors were the age of first commitment, age of first contact with law
enforcement, and a history of non-severe pathology. More generally, Cottle et al. (2001)
found three domains which were consistently associated with recidivism: offense history,
family, and social factors. Based upon these findings, it would appear that the longer it
takes for a youth to be put into the formal justice system the less likely he or she will be
to reoffend. Since diversion programs are aimed at reducing the youth’s contact with the
formal justice system, it would seem as though it would be an effective intervention.
Massive amounts of research have been conducted on the principles of effective
interventions and those principles have been identified and discussed in detail in the
literature (Andrews, 2000; Andrews & Bonta, 2010a; Andrews & Bonta, 2010b; Andrews
et al., 1990a; Andrews et al., 1990b; Bonta, 2000; Borum, 2003; Bourgon et al., 2010;
Greenwood, 2008; Greenwood & Welsh, 2012; Hamilton et al., 2007; Henggeler, 2003;
Kennedy, 2000; Latessa, 2004; Leschied, 2000a; Leschied, 2000b; Lipsey, 2009; Lipsey
& Howell, 2012; Lipsey et al., 2010; McGuire, 2000a; McGuire, 2000b; Myers, 2013;
Ogloff & Davis, 2004; Oldenettel & Wordes, 2000; Pearson et al., 2002; Polaschek,
2012; Preston, 2000; Quist & Matshazi, 2000; Schwalbe, 2008; Sullivan & Latessa, 2011;
28
Tellier & Serin, 2000; Vitopoulos et al., 2012; Whitehead & Lab, 1996). Among those
principles are three which have been widely studied: risk, need, and responsivity, also
referred to as the RNR Model (Andrews & Bonta, 2010b).
Risk, Need, and Responsivity
The RNR model was first disseminated by Andrews, Bonta, and Hoge in 1990.
Initially introduced as just three core principles to effective rehabilitation, the model has
expanded to 18 principles of effective correctional programming (Andrews, 2000) and
then condensed to the current 15 principles (Andrews & Bonta, 2010a). The RNR Model
has been viewed as “the only empirically validated guide for criminal justice
interventions that aim to help offenders depart from that system” (Polaschek, 2012, p. 1).
This model has been widely accepted and implemented across countries, including
Canada, the United States, Britain, Europe, Australia, and New Zealand (Vitopoulos et
al., 2012). The underlying focus of the RNR Model rests on the psychology of human
behavior, also referred to as The Psychology of Criminal Conduct or PCC (Andrews &
Bonta, 2010a). Andrews and Bonta (2010a) provide a working definition of PCC as
follows:
Professionally, a psychology of criminal conduct involves the ethical application
of psychological knowledge and methods to the practical tasks of predicting and
influencing the likelihood of criminal behavior, and to the reduction of the human
and social costs associated with crime and criminal justice processing. (p. 4)
Rather than attempt to create programs we hope will work, system professionals must
develop and utilize programs based upon theory (Ogloff & Davis, 2004).
29
The PCC’s theoretical basis is concerned with individual differences in criminal
behavior and acknowledges that the process is complex, combining personality and social
psychological perspectives of offending behavior (Ogloff & Davis, 2004). These two
broad perspectives are seen as aiding in the identification of risk and need factors of
offenders as well as the implementation and staffing of the programs (Andrews & Bonta,
2010b). The PCC and all of the principles for effective rehabilitation, including RNR,
rests heavily upon the two perspectives, the General Personality and Cognitive Social
Learning (GPCSL) perspective and the Personal, Interpersonal, and Community
Reinforcement (PIC-R) perspective (Andrews & Bonta, 2010a).
Andrews and Bonta (2010a) discussed earlier research conducted by Andrews,
Bonta, and Hoge (1990) on the relationship between adherence to RNR principles and
recidivism rates. The authors discussed the findings that the effect size of the program
was highest (.30) when all three principles were adhered to. Although not specifically
discussed in the RNR literature, Day, Howells, and Rickwood (2004) suggest that since
the RNR Model shows effective with adult offenders, it should also be effective with the
juvenile offender population. No matter what the criminal sanction or setting for
treatment is, the intervention will not be effective if it does not follow the risk, need, and
responsivity principles (Andrews et al., 1990b).
Risk Principle. While risk is considered to be an empirical probability, being “at
risk” refers to an increased likelihood that one will experience a target event (Schwalbe,
2008). Risk factors are bio-psycho-social attributes which are predictive of future
behavior and correlate to the target event (Andrews et al., 1990a; Schwalbe, 2008).
30
There are two categories of risk factors, static and dynamic. Static risk factors are
generally referred to as historical markers (such as criminal history and age of first
offense) as well as dispositional (such as sex and race) that do not change over time
(Borum, 2003; Ogloff & Davis, 2004; Schwalbe, 2008). Dynamic risk factors are
generally individual, social, or situational factors that are viewed as amenable to change
depending upon the changing circumstances of the intervention (Borum, 2003; Schwalbe,
2008). The risk principle consists of two aspects, prediction and matching (Andrews et
al., 1990a). In order for an offender to receive adequate treatment, an assessment must be
done to predict their likelihood of reoffending (i.e. determining their level of risk) (Ogloff
& Davis, 2004). Polaschek (2012) suggests that crime can be prevented if intervention
services focus on higher risk offenders. The matching aspect asserts that the level of
intensity of intervention must then be matched to the offender’s risk level (Ogloff &
Davis, 2004), thus higher risk offenders should receive more intensive interventions
while lower risk offenders should receive less (Andrews & Bonta, 2010a).
Risk assessment is used to measure an individual’s level of risk in order to
appropriately assign cases to treatment (Andrews & Bonta, 2010b). The two most
commonly used risk assessments are clinical judgment and actuarial risk assessment
(Andrews & Bonta, 2010b). A clinical assessment generally results from a professional
judgment of an offender based upon that professional’s working knowledge of the
offender (Day & Howells, 2002). Actuarial risk assessments are based upon empirically
established correlations between risk and recidivism and predominately focus upon either
static or dynamic risk factors (Andrews & Bonta, 2010b; Day & Howells, 2002).While
31
Schwalbe (2008) suggests combining clinical and actuarial assessment, many other
researchers conclude that the use of clinical judgment is less reliable than that of actuarial
assessment (Andrews & Bonta, 2010b; Day & Howells, 2002).
Researchers have shown concern over the assessment of risk in juveniles.
Juveniles are constantly changing through adolescence in a time where major life changes
are occurring, not only cognitively, but also biologically, socially, and emotionally
(Borum, 2003). During this delicate time, Day et al. (2004) suggests that being labeled as
“high risk” can be detrimental to their self-image, and can potentially result in a selffulfilling prophecy. With the knowledge that juveniles are different than adults, risk
assessment devices have been created to evaluate both groups appropriately.
Borum (2003) discusses two assessment devices which focus on violent risk
among juvenile offenders, the SAVRY (Structured Assessment of Violence Risk in
Youth) and the EARL (Early Assessment Risk List). The SAVRY and EARL
assessments are based upon the Structured Professional Judgment (SPJ) model of risk
assessment and they utilize a predetermined set of risk factors which have been
empirically associated with violent offending (Borum, 2003). Although the assessment is
guided by the structured and predetermined list, the ultimate determination of risk is a
combination of clinical and actuarial assessments and rests upon the assessor’s overall
professional judgment (Borum, 2003). Gavazzi, Yarcheck, Sullivan, Jones, and Khurana
(2007) have also introduced the Global Risk Assessment Device (GRAD) which is an
internet based assessment device which provides results on risk and need assessments for
youth. The authors provide empirical support for the GRAD and suggest that by
32
appropriately identifying risk levels among first time offenders, system professionals can
appropriately place the youth in order to more quickly meet their needs.
The RNR Model utilizes the LS/CMI (Level of Service/Case Management
Inventory) for adults and its youth counterpart, the YLS/CMI (Andrews & Bonta, 2010a).
The YLS/CMI assesses risk, need, and protective factors related to a juvenile’s potential
recidivism through eight domains: offense history, family circumstances/parenting,
education/employment, peer relations, substance abuse, leisure/recreation,
personality/behavior, and attitudes/orientations (Andrews & Bonta, 2010a; Borum, 2003;
Schwalbe, 2008). The YLS/CMI is the most widely used risk-management tool across
the United States (Vitopoulos et al., 2012). Early research on the LSI-R (Level of
Service – Revised, which later became LS/CMI) outlined the eight domains which later
became termed by Andrews and Bonta (2010a) as the Central Eight risk and need factors.
Risk and need factors are connected. When reference is made to risk assessment, the
subset of dynamic risk factors, the ever-changing factors, are actually referred to as
criminogenic needs (Andrews & Bonta, 2010a).
.
Need Principle. Criminogenic needs are “dynamic attributes of offenders and
their circumstances that, when changed, are associated with changes in the chances of
recidivism” (Andrews et al., 1990, p. 31). The basis behind the needs principle is that
treatment should be focused on changing criminogenic needs because if they can be
positively altered, the offender’s chance of succeeding in the community will increase,
thus reducing the likelihood of recidivism (Ogloff & Davis, 2004). If needs of an
individual continue to be met by negative means, as the social learning theory suggests,
33
then the individual’s criminality either develops or is reinforced (Ogloff & Davis, 2004).
The Central Eight risk and need factors are subsequently broken down into The Big Four
and The Moderate Four (Andrews & Bonta, 2010a).
Andrews & Bonta (2010a) identify The Big Four as: (1) history of antisocial
behavior, (2) antisocial personality pattern, (3) antisocial cognition, and (4) antisocial
associates. The Moderate Four include: (5) family/marital circumstances, (6)
school/work, (7) leisure/recreation, and (8) substance abuse. Andrews and Bonta (2010b)
discuss an earlier work of theirs (2006) in which they conducted eight meta-analyses
which resulted in a finding of a 95% confidence interval around the predictive validity of
the Big Four and Central Eight.
The RNR Model does not mandate that treatment focus only be on criminogenic
needs, they recognize that non-criminogenic needs are also dynamic and changeable, but
research suggests that non-criminogenic needs are only weakly associated with
recidivism (Andrews & Bonta, 2010a). Examples of non-criminogenic needs include
self-esteem, anxiety, and feelings of alienation. Even though these may be areas in which
clinicians may be tempted to focus, Ogloff and Davis (2004) suggest that although it may
appear that by reducing these needs, one would reduce their likelihood to offend, research
does not support that belief. When applying the needs principle to diversion programs,
Hamilton et al. (2007) explains that a diversion program is only as effective as the
differing needs of offenders can be identified and then coordinated and matching levels
of treatment are provided.
34
Responsivity Principle. The responsivity principle of the RNR Model focuses
on the offender’s learning style and whether the treatment is administered in a way that is
aligned with those needs (Andrews et al., 1990b). Day and Howells (2002) noted that
“treatment is a learning experience, and individual factors that interfere with, or facilitate,
learning can be termed responsivity factors” (p. 41). There are two types of responsivity:
general and specific. General responsivity refers to the techniques and strategies
employed during the treatment (Andrews & Bonta, 2010b; Polaschek, 2012). The two
most influential strategies available are cognitive-behavioral and cognitive social learning
(Andrews & Bonta, 2010a). Cognitive-behavioral approaches focus on goal orientation,
skill building as well as identification of links between beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors
(Day & Howells, 2002; Polaschek, 2012). Specific responsivity stresses that treatment
needs to be individualized according to an individual’s strengths, abilities, motivations,
personality, as well as static factors such as race and age (Andrews & Bonta, 2010b).
Although these static/non-criminogenic needs may not reduce recidivism, they can
interfere with an individual’s ability to focus on their treatment and in doing so can
produce resistance for changing the criminogenic needs (Ogloff & Davis, 2004). Since a
treatment provider cannot predict an individual offender’s style of learning, Day and
Howells (2002) suggest that although financially understandable, providing offenders
with a one-size-fits-all treatment package is counterproductive.
The responsivity principle aims at identifying learning styles as well as
identifying barriers to learning. Latessa (2004) believes that not only should an
offender’s readiness for change be measured, but also that of the organization
35
implementing the treatment. A second branch of the responsivity principle addresses
those who implement the treatment, the staff (Ogloff & Davis, 2004). Employees and
workers must be willing to change their style of programming to adhere to the suggested
style of RNR. If the organization and its workers are prepared for the change, they will
be much more successful in its implementation. The treatment staff can have a profound
effect upon an offender depending on how they interact. Andrews et al. (1990b) suggests
that the workers provide and reinforce positive alternatives; not only through words, but
also through actions and these positive behaviors are modeled by the workers
implementing them. Those who implement the programming also need to be adequately
trained in the use of cognitive-behavioral techniques (Andrews & Bonta, 2010b).
On its face, the RNR Model appears simple; it provides treatment to high risk
offenders, targets factors related to offending, and implements treatment in a manner
appropriate to the recipient. In its real world application however, Andrews and Bonta
(2010b), suggest that adhering to these principles can be challenging and a focus needs to
be placed on program fidelity. Program fidelity, or the extent to which a program is
implemented as it was intended to in its theory and design (Day & Howells, 2002), is
considered one of the keys to program success (Lipsey et al., 2010). Latessa (2004)
examined the correctional programs administered in the Oklahoma Department of
Corrections to determine how well they adhered to the principles of effective
intervention. Of the 29 programs selected for review and utilizing the Correctional
Program Assessment Inventory (CPAI), Latessa (2004) only found that 9% of the
36
programs met the satisfactory level, which indicates that the remaining 91% scored needs
improvement or unsatisfactory.
Implementing programs that do not base their programming around the effective
principles of treatment (RNR), results in the wasting of money and other valuable
resources. If a program does not have empirical support, the impact on the program
participants could be detrimental to their treatment progress. In order to increase the
likelihood of program fidelity, many agencies and justice professionals are implementing
programs which have already been proven effective or evidence based programs.
Evidence Based Practices and Programs
For a principle or program to be considered evidence based, it must have utilized
scientific principles to assess the program’s effectiveness which generally results in best
practice principles (Greenwood & Welsh, 2012). Lipsey and Howell (2012) urge that the
definition of evidence based be broad in order to not only include the already proven
evidence based programs, but also to include the principles of effective intervention
which have also been proven as evidence based. Since more states are limiting funding,
creating a broader definition of evidence based will provide an opportunity for more
states to meet necessary criteria in order to receive funding. When applying evidence
based principles and programs to delinquency prevention, Greenwood and Welsh (2012)
suggest that the first step toward implementing evidence based practices, is to assess the
needs of the community or population to determine if a gap in the quality of service exists
(Greenwood, 2008). After the assessment of the existing system occurs, a jurisdiction or
agency then must decide the path for change. In order to identify successful evidence
37
based practices and programs to implement, an agency can either replace their existing
programming with an already proven evidence based program, or it can utilize the
effective principles for treatment which have been identified in meta-analyses research as
a way to improve their already existing program (Greenwood, 2008).
There are four main sources of information available regarding delinquency
prevention programs which have used scientific standards in evaluation: Blueprints for
Violence Prevention, meta-analyses conducted by Mark Lipsey, publications by the
Washington State Institute for Public Policy, and the international Campbell
Collaboration (Greenwood & Welsh, 2012). Within these sources of information, one
would find that there are three main categories of evidence based programs: proven
programs, promising programs, and effective principles (Myers, 2013).
Those evidence based programs which are referred to as proven are also referred
to as brand name and blueprint programs (Greenwood, 2008; Greenwood & Welsh,
2012). Blueprint programs also referred to as Blueprints for Violence Prevention began
in 1996 from the research efforts of Del Elliott and his colleagues from the Center for the
Study and Prevention of Violence (Borum, 2003; Greenwood & Welsh, 2012). Elliott
and his colleagues were looking to identify best-practice programs and in order to
identify those programs, they subjected the programs to rigorous experimental evaluation
and where replication must have been achieved (Borum, 2003). In order for a program to
be labeled as proven, it must demonstrate that it has a significant effect on the youth’s
problem behaviors and that effect must be sustained for a one year period after release
from the program (Borum, 2003; Greenwood & Welsh, 2012). The Blueprints for
38
Violence Prevention currently identifies eleven proven programs, which include
Functional Family Therapy (FFT) as well as Multisystemic Therapy (MST) (Borum,
2003; Greenwood, 2008).
Blueprint programs such as MST and FFT may be proven to be the most effective
for reducing future delinquency, but it does not come without a price. Since 1990,
Henggeler (2003) estimates that nearly 30 million dollars have been spent on research
related to MST alone. Although the money put into the research on these programs is
very high, so are the outcomes associated. Henggeler (2003) discussed two studies
showing the outcomes of using MST. One set of findings showed that after 4 years, rearrest was reduced by 70%, while the second study showed a 40 % reduction in re-arrest
after 2.4 years. Although the outcomes are positive, for many jurisdictions,
implementing programs such as these is a challenge due to the associated costs.
Greenwood (2008) reported that “training a single team of therapists and their supervisor
can cost more than $25,000” (p. 203). Not only are the associated costs a challenge, but
in many areas, state governments are mandating that in order for funding to be provided
for a program there must be evidence of its effectiveness (Bishop, 2012; Chemers &
Reed, 2005). States, such as Connecticut and Pennsylvania, have been proactive and
have adopted model programs from the Blueprints list (Lipsey & Howell, 2012).
Unfortunately, not all states and jurisdictions have the ability to implement a model
program and thus must look for alternative programs.
In addition to the eleven proven programs identified by the Blueprints for
Violence Prevention, they have also identified 19 promising programs or generic
39
programs. These promising or generic programs are generally identified using metaanalysis by independent researchers who are testing particular versions on the same
concept (Greenwood & Welsh, 2012). Some of the most common forms of generic
programs include counseling, behavior modification, group therapy, and parent training
(Greenwood, 2008; Greenwood & Welsh, 2012).
The last group which falls underneath the evidence based practice umbrella is the
principles of effective intervention. The principles are not programs; they are identified
techniques which have been proven to be effective in treatment settings. Three of the
effective principles were discussed earlier in the RNR Model. The most extensive metaanalysis conducted on the principles of effective intervention was done by Mark Lipsey
in 2009. Lipsey (2009) analyzed 548 studies looking for generalizations found on
elements of effective intervention. The studies were broken down into the following
categories: study methods, characteristics of juveniles, level of supervision/control, type
of intervention/program, amount and quality of service, and effect size on future
offending (Lipsey et al., 2010). The findings of the meta-analysis identified four most
relevant programmatic aspects which any program must meet in order to be considered
evidence based. The four factors include that the program must target high risk cases, the
program must take a therapeutic approach to treatment by focusing on constructive
personal development, the program must utilize evidence on what identified programs
provide the largest effects (cognitive-behavioral programs), and lastly that the program’s
amount and quality of service is appropriate, suggesting for monitoring of program
fidelity.
40
Lipsey et al. (2010) argue that the findings of Lipsey’s meta-analysis (2009)
showed that although the brand name programs such as FFT and MST did show positive
effect sizes, there were also many generic programs which showed similar results. It
appears that utilizing whichever program type best fits the needs of the offender will
yield the best results and that risk and needs assessment will be a strong indicator of
program placement. It is clear that what works has been identified, the challenge
becomes sustaining it. Agencies that are looking to either implement an evidence based
program or to improve an existing program will be successful in doing so by utilizing a
number of implementation and assessment/monitoring tools.
Implementation and Assessment Tools. In order to utilize the recommendations
that Lipsey (2009) provided, he created the Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol
(SPEP) as a means for agencies to compare existing programs to what has been found
effective in research (Lipsey et al., 2010; Lipsey & Howell, 2012). Using SPEP, an
agency would evaluate their program by matching the elements associated with best
recidivism outcomes to see how closely in-line they are (Lipsey et al., 2010). On a 100
point scale, the SPEP assesses the areas of amount and quality of treatment as well as
youth risk level (Lipsey et al., 2010; Lipsey & Howell, 2012). A limitation to the SPEP
is that it only covers therapeutic programs. Understandably, therapeutic programs have
been proven as evidence based and if an agency does not utilize therapeutic approaches
that could be the first indication for needed change. The benefit of SPEP is that it not
only evaluates the existing program against evidence based programs, but it also provides
41
recommendations for programs which do not meet evidence based criteria (Lipsey et al.,
2010).
A second implementation tool available, identified by Wandersman et al., is the
Interactive System Framework (ISF) which examines the processes involved in moving
from the development and testing of programs to the effective implementation (2008, as
cited in Myers, 2013). The ISF focuses on the communication needed between
stakeholders (funders, practitioners, trainers, and researchers) in order to make the
transition successful (Myers, 2013). ISF appears interesting in that it focuses on
communication. Many implementation and evaluation tools have not stressed the human
element of the implementation, but rather just the pragmatic elements of the design. The
responsivity principle discussed earlier emphasizes the element of the workers involved
in the implementation. In addition to the implementation tools mentioned, there is also
the ongoing assessment tools such as the Correctional Program Inventory (CPI) earlier
referred to as the Correctional Program Assessment Inventory (CPAI) (Greenwood,
2008; Latessa, 2004).
Whether it is an implementation tool such as SPEP or an ongoing assessment tool
such as CPAI, Lipsey et al. (2010) argue that these instruments must be used as part of a
Comprehensive Strategy (CS) in order to optimize the effectiveness of the juvenile justice
system. The CS is a framework in which reform is broken down into a two-tiered system
(Lipsey et al., 2010). The first tier focuses around delinquency prevention programs
(Lipsey et al., 2010). Before a youth comes into contact with the formal justice system,
programs can be utilized to divert them away. Research indicates that programs utilized
42
in the community setting will be most effective, whether they are being used to divert
offenders away from the justice system or if they are being used to help reintegrate those
who have come out of the system (Greenwood, 2008). If the first tier fails to prevent
future offending, the second tier, or the juvenile justice system must react aggressively by
assessing the offender’s risk level and needs in order to place them in appropriate
treatment programs (Lipsey et al., 2010). The CS framework is compiled of a series of
graduated sanctions, found within the two-tiers, which can be utilized by justice
professionals along a continuum at any point in an offender’s life (Lipsey et al., 2010).
According to Lipsey et al. (2010), “the collective effect of a well-constructed spectrum of
programs is likely to be much greater than the impact of a single program. . .” (p. 39).
Despite the list of obstacles associated with implementing an evidence based
program/practice, the potential benefits may be worth it. By investing in the evidence
based delinquency prevention programs, taxpayers could save “seven to ten dollars for
every dollar spent” (p. 203) and the long term benefit will be seen with reduced costs
associated with future prison spending (Greenwood, 2008). Although people are all
entitled to their own opinions, they are not entitled to their own facts and the facts prove
that implementation of evidence based programs, practices, and principles will result in
reductions in recidivism for today’s youth.
Summary
The juvenile justice system initially emerged as a means of providing a more
appropriate response to youthful offending. It was recognized that harsh punishments
were not appropriate for juveniles and that rather, treatment needed to serve the best
43
interests of the child. As time progressed, theorists discovered potentially harmful effects
of the formal court system on youthful offenders. The formal court system stigmatized
the youth as deviant, resulting in what Lemert (1967) termed secondary deviance. The
label in which the youth is given turns into a self-fulfilling prophecy in which a youth
perceives themselves as their label indicates and acts in that manner.
At the time when the labeling theory dominated, the juvenile justice system
underwent evaluation. The President’s Commission on Law Enforcement and
Administration of Justice (1967) observed flaws in the existing system and mandated that
alternative interventions be available for juveniles in order to reduce the stigmatization of
the courts. Diversion programs emerged at this time as an alternative intervention.
Diversion programs continue to be implemented today despite the massive amount of
research which provides inconsistent and mixed findings on the effectiveness of
diversion. According to Patrick and Marsh (2005), diversion “satisfies public demands
for accountability without simply labeling . . . offenders as deviant” (p. 72). Although
diversion programs are an alternative intervention which allows minor offenders to be
diverted away from the justice system, it appears counterproductive to continue to
implement programs which are not proven to be effective.
By focusing interventions around the principles of effective treatment, recidivism
outcomes may be improved. The three core principles are risk, need, and responsivity.
Simply put, the focus needs to be around assessing risk and focusing on high risk cases,
examining the needs of an offender and targeting only those needs which are deemed
criminogenic, or related to offending, and then match the treatment style with that of the
44
offender based upon what has been proven most effective, such as cognitive-behavioral
methods (Borum, 2003). Although these three principles of effective treatment
intervention are not the end all of effective methods, they are one category of evidence
based practices.
The remaining two categories include utilizing already proven Blueprint programs
such as MST and FFT or selecting a program category which has been shown as
promising. Greenwood (2008) insisted that “with more than ten years of solid evidence
now available regarding what does and does not work in preventing juvenile delinquency
and reducing recidivism, jurisdictions should be adopting an evidence based approach to
implementing new programs” (p. 201). Implementation of these already identified
programs has been proven even easier with the development of implementation tools
such as SPEP (Lipsey et al., 2010) and the CPAI (Latessa, 2004). Henggeler (2003)
suggests that 96 % of the eligible juvenile population is not receiving an evidence based
treatment. If we know what works, it is now our responsibility to ensure that we make
strides to implement these programs and principles and reduce recidivism among future
youthful offenders.
45
Chapter 3
Project Overview
Intent
The intent of this research project was to conduct a program evaluation of the
Roseville Police Department (RPD) Juvenile Diversion Program. There are two main
components of this project: The first is a comparative program evaluation of the RPD
program while the other component is a descriptive analysis of the recidivism rates
among RPD program participants. The primary objective of the comparative program
evaluation was to determine how many principles of effective intervention are utilized in
the RPD Juvenile Diversion Program. The research was focused around the question of
whether RPD implemented evidence based principles of effective intervention in their
diversion program and if so, how many principles did they implement. The primary
objective of the descriptive analysis was to determine recidivism levels among
participants. This analysis indicates how many participants recidivated within a year
following the diversion class. Having the recidivism statistic provides insight into the
percentage of recidivism among participants and the possibility of lowering the
recidivism rate in the future if found currently high.
Project Process
Background on the RPD Juvenile Diversion Program. The RPD Juvenile
Diversion Program was created in November 2011 and has been implemented on a
monthly basis since. The youth cited to the diversion program are required to attend with
a parent or guardian. Youth can be cited to the diversion program by any Roseville
46
police officer. The offense which the youth was cited to the diversion program for must
be minor in nature as the RPD Juvenile Diversion Program is designed only for minor
offenders/offenses. The offenses can be simple violations of the Roseville Municipal
Code (RMC), such as a curfew violation, as well as infraction or misdemeanor violations
of any remaining California Codes (penal code, vehicle code, business and professions
code, health and safety code, etc.). In addition to the offense, the youth must also be
considered a minor offender who does not have a lengthy criminal history. No youth are
allowed to attend the program if they are on probation. Although some of the youth may
not be residents of Roseville, all youth who are referred to the diversion program have
committed their offense within the Roseville city limits. The RPD Juvenile Diversion
Program only allows a youth to attend the program one time; therefore, there will be no
duplicate attendees.
The RPD diversion program is conducted at the Roseville Police Department in a
conference type room. There are three instructors of the program, a Roseville police
officer, a Placer County Juvenile Probation officer, and a Vice Principal of a local high
school. The three instructors present information for a variety of juvenile related issues
and crimes and present the different consequences of those crimes as law enforcement
and probation consequences as well as the consequences at the youth’s school.
Conception of the project idea. This researcher is employed by the RPD as a
police officer. While the researcher was assigned to patrol, she issued a small amount of
diversion class citations. Toward the end of 2012, the researcher was assigned to a local
high school as a Youth Services Officer (YSO). After obtaining the YSO position, the
47
researcher began to utilize the diversion class as an alternative to formal system
processing on a more frequent basis. The researcher even assumed the role of diversion
class operator on one occasion and therefore is knowledgeable and familiar with the RPD
Juvenile Diversion Program design and implementation. As a YSO, the benefit of
effective programming was apparent and so the researcher became concerned when the
RPD Juvenile Diversion Program appeared to be lacking. The RPD Juvenile Diversion
Program lacked any documented material or statistics to support implementation of the
program. Additionally, the RPD Juvenile Diversion Program had been implemented for
approximately two years and it had never been evaluated. After implementing a program
for two years, it seemed advantageous to examine its function and determine if it was a
beneficial program to continue to implement or if changes needed to be made to the
program in order for it to function more efficiently. It is counterproductive for RPD to
continue to implement a program that is not beneficial to the direct participants as well as
the community as a whole. As a result, the researcher determined there was a need to
evaluate the RPD Juvenile Diversion Program and utilized research on evidence based
principles of effective intervention as a tool for comparing the existing program.
Development of project material. In order to compare the existing RPD
Juvenile Diversion Program to the evidence based principles, research was conducted.
After conducting extensive literature searches on diversion programs, the literature
showed inconsistency among diversion programs due to the variation among
programming. Although diversion programs all have the similar goal of diverting
youthful offenders away from the formal justice system, they are all designed differently
48
to address differing needs of the target population. Since most programs are not identical
and their participants are not all alike, there is little generalizability in the findings of a
specific program. With this knowledge, it became apparent that a comparison of the
existing RPD program to another existing diversion program would not be beneficial.
What the research did show was that there are evidence based practices and principles
which have been studied and have been proven to reduce recidivism among participants
in the programs which utilized these elements.
One of the foundational researchers on the topic of effective intervention is
Donald Andrews. Through the research by Andrews and his colleagues, principles to
effective correctional treatment programs have been identified and have varied across the
years; 18 principles identified in 2000 (Andrews, 2000) and then condensed to the current
15 in Andrews and Bonta’s latest work, The Psychology of Criminal Conduct (Andrews
and Bonta, 2010a). These principles have been utilized by many others to create valuable
program assessments. One example of the use of the principles of effective intervention
was done by The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, who created
the California Program Assessment Process (CPAP) (Grattet, Jannetta, & Lin, 2006).
CPAP utilizes principles of effective intervention in order to provide a manual capable of
improving program design and implementation. Although the CPAP was not used in the
comparative evaluation, it will be referenced in regards to the researcher’s
recommendations for change which will be seen in chapter 4.
In order to adequately determine if the RPD program utilized the principles of
effective intervention, the researcher decided to interview officers directly involved with
49
the program. Interviews with the two Roseville police officers were used to guide the
determination of whether a specific principle was being utilized by the RPD program.
The researcher determined that the two Roseville police officers selected had the most
knowledge of the RPD program’s design and implementation and were the most reliable
to interview in order to make those determinations.
Project value. The RPD Juvenile Diversion Program was developed by RPD
police officers, at least one of which was assigned as a YSO at the time of development.
There was no documented information for how the program was designed or decisions
around implementation or program participants. By conducting a comparative program
evaluation, the researcher can determine if the program adheres to any evidence based
principles of effective intervention. If the program does not show adherence to evidence
based principles, it would appear that the program is lacking and needs improvement.
There is no apparent value in continuing to implement a program which is not supported
by research and has unknown recidivism effects. With the researcher’s
recommendations, seen in chapter 4, the RPD can implement changes which will improve
the RPD Juvenile Diversion Program. Improving the program will not only benefit the
direct participants of the program, but it will also benefit the families of the youth and the
community in which they reside.
Project product. The entire project serves as a product and includes the analysis
and comparison conducted along with the results. Recommendations will be included in
the following chapter, in which the researcher used the research on evidence based
50
practices and principles along with the results of the evaluation of the RPD Juvenile
Diversion Program to identify areas of improvement.
Component One: Comparative Program Evaluation
The program evaluation was conducted in a way so that the existing RPD Juvenile
Diversion Program was compared to the 15 principles of effective correctional treatment
programs (Andrews and Bonta, 2010a) to determine the RPD program’s level of
adherence to these proven principles. Research shows that those programs and principles
which have been deemed evidence based are the most beneficial to implement for
successful programming. The 15 principles of effective correctional treatment are just
one category of evidence based principles, but as Andrews and Bonta (2010a) said, “the
research is unequivocal – correctional systems can reduce recidivism through
rehabilitation, and the RNR principles can guide those seeking to design, implement, and
evaluate effective correctional interventions” (p. 420). There are many different ways to
evaluate a program. Posavac and Carey recommend a model referred to as an
improvement-focused model of evaluation, which focuses on making improvement in the
identified areas of weakness (1997, as cited in McGuire, 2000b). The use of the 15
principles of effective intervention, as a comparison against the existing RPD Juvenile
Diversion Program, provided a platform to identify the areas of weakness within the RPD
programming, therefore allowing recommendations for improvements to be made.
To assist in the comparison of the RPD Juvenile Diversion Program against the
evidence based principles of effective intervention, two Roseville police officers were
interviewed. No sampling method was utilized to select the officers who were
51
interviewed, rather, based on the working knowledge of the researcher, it was determined
that the two officers selected were the most valuable to solicit their responses based upon
their experience and involvement with the RPD program. The officer’s responses, in
conjunction with the research on the principles of effective intervention, were utilized to
make a determination as to which principles were currently being implemented by the
RPD programming.
The main support for the comparison came from the two interviews conducted
with the officers. Interviewing was chosen as the method of data collection because it
allows for the most comprehensive data to be collected. According to Seidman (2013),
“the primary way a researcher can investigate an educational organization, institution, or
process is through the experience of the individual people, the “others” who make up the
organization or carry out the process” (p. 9). Interviewing, also referred to as intensive
interviewing, resembles a social conversation, but one which is orchestrated (Gray,
Williamson, Karp, & Dalphin, 2007). This structure, combined with the use of openended questions provides the interviewer with a more flexible format in which probing
questions can be used to have the respondent elaborate on their responses. Riene Ruban
(1995, as cited in Babbie, 2007) said “qualitative interviewing design is flexible, iterative,
and continuous, rather than prepared in advance and locked in stone” (p. 305). Intensive
interviewing allows the interviewer the opportunity to seek clarification, whether within
the same meeting or at a follow up interview (Gray et al., 2007; Seidman, 2013). This
opportunity for clarification helps guard against misinterpretation by the interviewer
(Gray et al., 2007; Seidman, 2013). Due to the somewhat individualized nature of
52
intensive interviewing, the results become difficult to replicate; however, intensive
interviewing is found to have high validity because of the richness of the data obtained
(Gray et al., 2007).
The interviews were conducted at the RPD and the only two people present were
the officer being interviewed and the researcher. The officers agreed to participate
(Appendix A) in the research and also to have the interviews audio recorded. The
interviews took a semi-structured conversational style flow in which the researcher used a
set of 23 predetermined questions to guide the interview (Appendix B).
In order to best capture the responses, the interviews were audio recorded by use
of a handheld recording device. After the conclusion of the interviews, the interviews
were transcribed (Appendix C). Although a transcribed interview may not fully reflect
the interview experience, a verbatim transcription allows the researcher to work most
reliably with the words of the participants (Seidman, 2013). The analysis of the
responses was done in what Seidman (2013, p. 127) calls, “a more conventional way,” by
examining the responses for threads and patterns, also called themes. The thematic
analysis of the responses provided the researcher an opportunity to see consistency
among responses regarding an individual principle of effective intervention. These
consistencies were used to support whether an individual principle was being adhered to
by the RPD Juvenile Diversion Program. To maintain confidentiality of the officers
interviewed, the researcher removed any names and identifying information of the
participants. The transcribed interview identifies responses by the officers by use of the
label “Officer” rather than the listing of a name.
53
The data collected from the interviews are a result of the officer’s responses to a
series of mostly open-ended questions that fall within five distinct categories. The initial
questions were designed around the earlier research which identified 18 principles of
effective intervention (Andrews, 2000). The researcher chose to design the questions
around these 18 since they are more detailed and specific than the current 15; however,
the earlier 18 are a direct reflection of the current 15, with three exceptions, principles 12,
14 and 15. In the earlier work (Andrews, 2000), a focus was placed on the importance of
after care for the program participant (Principle 12), the need to create and maintain a
service plan (Principle 14), and the very specific importance of integrity in program
implementation and delivery (Principle 15). Although these three principles are not
currently listed as individual principles within those identified 15, the researcher believed
there was importance in still including them. The first couple of questions (1-2) address
the background information in regards to the RPD Juvenile Diversion Program to gain an
understanding of the purpose for the program and who the program serves. The second
set of questions (3-6) addresses three of the principles of effective intervention
(Principles 1, 2, and 13) and fall under the category of theory and ideology. Andrews and
Bonta (2010a) identify the theoretical foundation for the program as well as its service
delivery style and setting for program delivery.
The third set of questions (7-12) represents the foundational core principles
(Principles 5-11) of the effective treatment interventions: risk, need, and responsivity and
the need for assessments of each principle. All three core principles are centered on the
participant of the program and what their needs are, as well as, if their individual
54
differences are being addressed as well as considered in regards to the programming.
The fourth set of questions (13-15) addresses Principles 12 (professional discretion) of
effective intervention as well as the earlier labeled principles on service planning and the
need for follow up, all of which have been categorized as after-care. These three
principles concentrate on whether a program has follow-up and after care as well as the
level of professional discretion found within a program, all focused on the goal of relapse
prevention. And lastly, the fifth set of questions (16-23) is categorized as implementation
and program integrity. These final questions dig into the methods of implementation as
well as staff involved with the program, managerial oversight, supporting documentation
and outcome analysis. All five sets of questions combined create an interview instrument
which addressed all of the identified principles of effective intervention. Since the
interview was in a conversational style, many probing questions were asked to obtain
clarification by the interviewer in order to best determine if the specific principles were
being adhered to by the RPD Juvenile Diversion Program.
Principles of effective correctional intervention and the RPD Juvenile
Diversion Program’s level of adherence. For many, the word corrections leads them to
think of the prison system. However, the concept of corrections, as identified by
McGuire (2000a) is “the adjustment of behavior from a pattern that is criminal or antisocial to one that is more law abiding or pro-social” (The Growth of Interest in Programs
section, para. 1). Correctional programs take many forms and can be separated into
categories depending upon their desired interests. Tolan, Guerra, and Hammond identify
three crime prevention programs: primary, secondary, and tertiary (1994, as cited in
55
McGuire 2000a). The RPD Juvenile Diversion Program would most appropriately fit
within the secondary prevention category since according to Tolan et al., the focus is on
known at-risk groups such as pre-delinquents and where efforts are made to avert
subsequent offending (1994, as cited in McGuire, 2000a). The following principles of
effective correctional programs are a guide for program improvement. Each principle
will be described, identifying the central focus of that particular principle. Research will
be provided to support the claim of each principle and then the interview responses will
be examined for thematic consistencies in order to support whether the particular
principle is being utilized by the RPD Juvenile Diversion Program.
Andrews and Bonta (2010a) separated the principles into three distinct categories:
overarching principles (principles 1-3), core RNR principles and clinical issues
(principles 4-12), and organizational principles (13-15). The current 15 principles have
been condensed over the years; however, previous research (Andrews, 2000) identifies
three additional principles which are no longer individually represented: the principle
(12) on after care and follow-up, the principle (14) on service planning, and the lengthy
principle (15) on integrity in program implementation and delivery. Due to the nature of
the current comparative program evaluation, the researcher found it beneficial to add the
three previous principles in order to identify other potential areas of weakness for the
RPD Juvenile Diversion Program. Principles 1-3 are identified by Andrews and Bonta
(2010a) as Overarching Principles. These principles are not to be confused with what
Andrews and Bonta (2010a) call “active ingredients” of service which are the principles
56
that must be adhered to in order to reduce recidivism, principles of risk, need, and
responsivity (RNR) (p. 53).
Principle 1: Respect for the person and the normative context. Since
individuals and communities are all unique, Andrews and Bonta (2010a) suggest that
effective treatment interventions must acknowledge these unique situations and must also
adapt to fit particular norms of a setting. The intervention which is being delivered
should represent the norms of that community or setting (Andrews & Bonta, 2010a).
There is some recognition that there may be setting-specificity in regards to the normative
context and that the norms may vary within the agencies delivering the service (Andrews
& Bonta, 2010a). For example, mental health agencies may place greater emphasis on the
well-being of an individual, while those dealing with juveniles may focus more on
education. No matter whether the services are being given to juveniles, mentally ill,
women, etc…, Andrews and Bonta (2010a) advise that “it is necessary for them to be
given with respect for the person and in a humane, ethical, just, legal, decent, and being
otherwise normative” (p. 46).
When the RPD officers were asked about the RPD diversion program, they were
asked if it was reflective of the specific Roseville culture. Officer #1 explained that the
crimes being discussed in the Roseville setting are different than those which may be
seen in a city like Sacramento. Officer #1 said,
I think it’s more specific to Roseville and Placer County’s community, because I
think the juveniles out here are obviously not committing crimes as bad as they
57
are in Sac County right now. . . I think it’s more specific to this area because the
kids are you know uh, it’s minor offenses, super minor offenses.
Where Officer #1 indicated that the crimes discussed were specific to the Roseville
culture, Officer #2 indicated that the RPD programming is applicable to other cities when
he said, “I don’t think it is anything specific to Roseville, I think you could, you could uh
pretty much bring it into any community overnight if you wanted to.” The differences
that Officer #1 observed among the crimes committed in different cities was not
acknowledged by Officer #2. However, Officer #2 acknowledged that, “we do bring up a
lot of the Roseville School District stuff. And I would assume it would be similar
anywhere, but maybe not.” The individual nature of the differing school districts is
unknown and unfortunately neither officer identified there being any specific norms of
the Roseville culture which are unique to the programming. It appears that the focus of
the Roseville program is on the nature of the offenses, being minor offenses, whereas the
same crimes are being committed by youth in every city, but in some areas such as
Sacramento, the seriousness of the offenses may be cause for more concern. The RPD
Juvenile Diversion Program is unique to the Roseville culture simply because it directly
reflects the youth in the community and crimes which they have committed and therefore
would be indicative of the Roseville norms.
Additionally, Andrews and Bonta (2010a) discuss that Principle 1 also recognizes
that the intervention must be delivered with respect for the person. In more than one
response, Officer #1 mentioned that when addressing the youth who attend the program,
they do not specifically target each youth and point out who committed what type of
58
offense, rather they discuss the crimes while allowing for anonymity among the group in
attendance. Officer #1 explained,
. . . we don’t point out “hey you committed this, hey you committed that,” we just
know what they have committed and they know, so then we bring it up during the
class and we touch on every level, every kid that’s in that class, we know exactly
what they were cited for, so were gonna talk about that specifically.
By delivering the programming with respect for the identities of the youth, it appears that
the RPD Juvenile Diversion Program adheres to Principle #1.
Principle 2: Intervention efforts must be based on a psychological theory of
criminal behavior. There are numerous explanations as to why people commit crimes.
Professionals from many areas such as, criminology, sociology, psychology, and
psychiatry, all present ideas and theories around these causations of crime (Bonta, 2000).
However, despite the multitude of explanations, most theories can be grouped into three
broad perspectives of criminal conduct: sociological, psychopathological, and general
personality and social psychological (Bonta, 2000). The focus of Principle 2 lies within
the third perspective, the general personality and social psychological perspective
(Andrews, 2000). This theoretical model/perspective focuses on the individual’s
attitudes, beliefs, emotions, and behaviors, but even more specifically on the individual
experiences of that person which led to the criminal behavior, also referred to as learning
by observation (Andrews & Bonta, 2010a; Bonta, 2000). Principle 2 simply recommends
that the psychological theory of criminal behavior is the basis for an intervention effort
59
(Andrews, 2000; Andrews & Bonta, 2010a). Andrews and Bonta (2010a) specify that the
General Personality and Cognitive Social Learning (GPCSL) approach is recommended.
A GPCSL perspective theorizes that individuals all have fundamental dimensions
of personality and that they have biological underpinnings (Andrews & Bonta, 2010a).
Andrews and Bonta (2010a) explain that for example, as a person develops from infancy
to adulthood, they are shaped by the experiences they have, and their interactions with the
environment. Bonta (2000) provides the following example, “a child who grows up in a
home where the parents allow aggressive and hostile behavior, model antisocial attitudes
and fail to direct the child in prosocial activities (e.g., school) and appropriate
friendships, learns antisocial attitudes” (General Personality and Social Psychological
Perspectives section, para. 1). If someone wants to understand behavior in this regard,
they must understand it within psychological terms.
A strength of the GPCSL perspective is that it recognizes the importance in both
the active situation as well as the background factors which may have predisposed the
individual to engage in the situation (Andrews & Bonta, 2010a). This type of theoretical
perspective can be beneficial in identifying risk and need factors (Principles 5 and 6) as
well as necessary characteristics for influencing behavior through intervention strategies
and through approaches on staffing and management (Principles 14 and 15) (Andrews &
Bonta, 2010a). Andrews (2000) claims that the GPCSL perspective on both criminal
behavior and prevention programming is the most promising no matter if the treatment
approach is restorative justice based or retributive based or if it’s within a community
setting or elsewhere. The GPCSL can be applied across all domains such as age, sex, and
60
race and has been shown through meta-analysis to have at least a mild reduction in
reoffending compared to its sociological and deterrence counterpart programs which had
mild increases in recidivism (Andrews, 2000). When interviewing the officers from the
RPD, the researcher inquired about whether their diversion program had any theoretical
basis. Although their responses indicate that they developed the program with good
intentions and may have acknowledged the existence of theories, they did not base the
program upon theory, particularly not one based upon the research behind GPCSL. The
officer’s responses were as follows:
I mean if you look at my opinion, a theory is that you scare the crap outta these
kids not to commit any crimes, and if they continue to commit any crimes then
they are gonna be placed on probation which they hate because curfew is 6 pm,
pee testing you name it, all kinds of things happen when you are placed on
probation. (Officer #1, personal communication, March 21, 2014)
I don’t know if there was any scientific theory necessarily behind it. It you know,
there are definitely some theories on how to reduce recidivism among juveniles
and um, my self-taught way of seeing it, and I think a lot of people in probation
would agree with me, is that we need to get the parents more involved because
some of these kids didn’t have any parental involvement at all, they didn’t know
what was going on. (Officer #2, personal communication, March 21, 2014)
Based upon the responses given, it appears both officers were interested in trying
to deter the youth from committing future offenses whether through a more aggressive
scare tactic as described by Officer #1 or through the more family interactive version of
61
the programming as identified by Officer #2. However, no theoretical model was being
implemented and when asked if the officers had ever even heard of the GPCSL
perspective, both responded with a “no” resulting in the conclusion that the RPD Juvenile
Diversion Program does not adhere to Principle #2.
Principle 3: General enhancement of crime prevention strategies. Although
the RNR model and its principles of effective correctional interventions refers most times
to the correctional application of the model, Andrews and Bonta (2010a) have claimed
that the same model and its objective of reducing criminal victimization can be applied
toward many other agencies, both inside and outside of the justice and corrections field.
Simply stated, since the RPD Juvenile Diversion Program attempts to reduce future
offending, the program subsequently attempts to reduce future victimization. Principle 3
is not specifically one which is implemented, but its overarching nature appears to apply
to the RPD program. Both RPD officers indicated that they felt that the RPD Juvenile
Diversion Program functioned as a crime prevention strategy. Officer #1 elaborated
when he said, “well maybe a crime prevention intervention type of program because the
kid has already committed a crime, we just want to prevent him from committing further
crimes, of, you know, greater, bigger crime.” Officer #1 indicated that the use of “the
scare tactic that they’re gonna be placed on juvenile probation where all their rights will
be taken away” is the central feature of the programming which assists in that crime
reduction goal. The use of such deterrents is discussed in the following principle in more
detail. The following eight principles (4-11) are categorized by Andrews and Bonta
(2010a) as Core RNR Principles and Key Clinical Issues.
62
Principle 4: Introduce human service. For many years in the history of the
Criminal Justice System, the focus of corrections has been upon punishment and just
desserts models. The use of incapacitation and punishment was a way to deter offenders
from re-offending. Andrews and Bonta (2010a) argue that these traditional criminal
justice principles really have no place in the treatment arena and that they do not assist in
the recognition of an individual’s risk and need factors. The sanction issued will not
reduce offending on its own; rather, the focus needs to be on human, clinical, and social
services to assist in identifying the causes of crime (Andrews & Bonta, 2010a). Principle
4 and Principle 1 are inter-related in their context. Andrews (2000) points out, “reduction
in reoffending are to be found through the design and delivery of clinically relevant and
psychologically appropriate human service under conditions and settings considered to be
just, ethical, legal, decent, efficient, and otherwise normative” (Principle 3 section, para.
1). To assist in identifying causes of crime, a focus on psychological factors of offending
could be beneficial. Unfortunately, when the RPD officers were asked if the RPD
program focused on any psychological factors of offending, they both indicated that it did
not. Officer #1 did mention that a focus on psychological factors occurred “more so
[with] the counseling” that occurred later on following the diversion program.
The use of punishment as a deterrent is not the appropriate way to encourage
offender change. Unfortunately, on more than one response, the RPD officers indicated
that the use of potential punishment was used as a way to deter future offending. The
officers differed in their views on the program delivery. Officer #2 described it as
bringing “awareness” to the youth and said that,
63
I think the only encouragement is basically explaining to them what the next steps
are if their behavior doesn’t change. And you know it takes some effort on their
part to make that change after we give them a little bit of education on what’s
happening or what will happen.
Officer #1 took a more aggressive approach to the deterrence model and said he makes
the program, “somewhat of a chew out session cause these kids are getting a break.”
Officer #1 combines the chew out session with additional punishment. According to
Officer #1,
. . . We’re trying to implement possibly some type of punishment with this
diversion. Not a punishment, um, community service hours being assigned to
them at our level, not at the court level. Because then this way, they go back and
tell their friends because like most teenagers communicate “oh my gosh I have to
do this, because I did this.” So, we are trying to make it more so that it really
really sets home that they really don’t want to commit another crime after this.
The officers share a similar view that the RPD Juvenile Diversion Program brings
awareness to the youth and that awareness is used as a method for preventing future
offending. Not only are the police advising the youth against future offending, but as
Officer #1 explained,
And then also probation is there and they give them their status on “hey this is
what happens if you commit these crimes” and then we also have someone from
the school district and who tells them what the school consequences if these
crimes were committed at school, before school, or after school.
64
According to Officer #1, “most of it is fear thinking that they’re gonna be placed on
probation. . . . So, hopefully, them seeing the consequences after they commit another
crime, it will deter them from committing any further crimes.”
Unfortunately, research indicates that programs which focus solely on retribution,
just desserts, and deterrence, do not yield impressive reductions in offending (Andrews,
2000). Andrews (2000) found that meta-analytic findings from the Carleton University
data bank which analyzed 101 tests, showed a mild increase in reoffending for programs
which focused on increased severity of punishment compared to a positive mean effect
for programs which utilized human service when offered in the justice context of
diversion and community corrections. At this time, the RPD Juvenile Diversion Program
identifies as a program which is more deterrence based and does not adhere to Principle
#4. However, the RPD program is based in a community setting which provides potential
for implementation of human service.
Principle 5: Risk. The risk principle identifies that the level of service should be
matched to the risk level of the offender. Andrews and Bonta (2010a) explain that high
intensity treatment should be reserved for those individuals deemed high risk and that
low risk offenders should receive little to no intervention. Additionally, the high risk and
low risk offenders should not be placed into the same treatment groups due to the concern
that the pro-social networks of the low risk offender could be disturbed and potential
acquisition of the high risk offender’s pro-criminal attitudes and beliefs (Andrews, 2000;
Andrews & Bonta, 2010a; Kennedy, 2000). Andrews (2000) also points out that there is
also a concern with low risk offenders in regards to intervening with them at all.
65
Studies have found that when intensive treatment is given to the high risk
offenders, reductions in recidivism can be seen in both the community and institutional
settings (Andrews & Bonta, 2010a; Bonta, 2000). Andrews and Bonta (2010a) discuss
the largest test of the risk principle to date which was completed by Christopher
Lowenkamp and his colleagues. Lowenkamp reviewed 97 different treatment programs
in the state of Ohio to determine their level of adherence and the results of the research
found that when intensive services were given to the high risk offenders, reductions in
recidivism were 18 percent in the residential/community setting (2006, as cited in
Andrews & Bonta, 2010a). Although these findings are impressive, many programs
cannot begin to see similar types of results until the risk level of the offenders is assessed
(Principle 11). Many programs such as the RPD Juvenile Diversion Program are
designed for what they call low-level and minor offenders. When asked about who the
RPD Juvenile Diversion Program serves, Officer #2 explained, “the program is for first
time offenders and low level juvenile offenders” or as Officer #1 described it, “for
juveniles who commit minor offenses.” Although the program is designed for what they
call low level offenders, it appears that by referring to them as such, the officers are more
so referring to the crimes which they commit rather than the individual offenders level of
risk. Officer #2 further explained that:
. . . first of all, probation didn’t want anyone with a felony involved in this
diversion; they wanted them to go through the court system totally different. . . .
but I also found over time that by the time the kids were committing these crimes
it didn’t really do a whole lot of good to be sitting down and warning them of
66
potential consequences could happen at school when they were already involved
with drug sales for two years.
When asked if this was the reason why they targeted early offenders, Officer #2
explained:
Correct, and um another reason for it is over the years in law enforcement I
noticed the very um, I call them low level crimes, but like the curfew violations,
the ya know, no bicycle helmet, all that kind of stuff, 95 percent of the time in law
enforcement we will give a warning and look the other way. Where, there is
some value to trying to do some enforcement and this kind of gave us a way to
not have it be um, too punitive but it also got the at least the conversations going
with the parents and let the kids know that some of their behavior wasn’t correct,
but it didn’t have that real punitive effect.
Based upon the responses given by Officer #2, it would appear that their interpretation of
risk level is related to the severity of the crimes being committed. One may assume that
if a youth is committing minor law violations, then they are low risk and those who
commit felonies are high risk. The problem is that admittedly, RPD is not currently
differentiating between risk levels of its participants by utilization of any risk assessment
instruments which will be discussed in more detail later on (Principle 11). The concept
of a diversion program leads one to believe that the lower risk offenders would be sent to
diversion whereas the high risk offenders would be sent through regular system
processing. This belief is not supported by the practices of the RPD program and it is
unknown what level of risk the offenders being seen by the RPD program are. If the goal
67
of the RPD program is truly to only deal with low-risk offenders, then the level of
intervention must be minimal and there should not be additional intervention or
punishment attached to the diversion programming. Without knowing levels of risk
among participants, it is unknown whether RPD adheres to the risk principle. Despite
RPD being unaware of the importance of risk in terms of programming and
implementation, it is one of the core principles of the RNR principle. Additionally, the
risk factors that can be assessed to determine level of risk can either be static or dynamic.
Principle 6: Need. Those dynamic risk factors are referred to as criminogenic
needs and they can be targeted for change and potentially as a criminogenic need is
changed or reduced, so is their level of criminal activity (Andrews and Bonta, 2010a).
Examples of criminogenic needs are represented in the Central Eight major risk/need
factors: history of antisocial behavior, antisocial personality pattern, antisocial cognition,
antisocial associates, family/martial circumstances, school/work, leisure/recreation, and
substance abuse (Andrews & Bonta, 2010a). According to Andrews (2000), some of the
most promising targets include, “moving antisocial cognition and cognitive emotional
states such as resentment in the less antisocial direction, reducing association with
antisocial others and enhancing association with anti-criminal others, and building selfmanagement, self-regulation and problem solving skills” (Principle 6 section, para. 1).
When referring to enhancing certain needs, Andrews and Bonta (2010a) are referring to
what they call strength factors or protective factors. Strength factors refer to a
characteristic of a person and their situation which are related to reduced criminal
activity. Andrews and Bonta (2010a) provide the following example:
68
Attitudes toward crime may be assessed as being very negative toward crime, as
relatively neutral, or as very positive toward crime. If negative attitudes are
associated with low rates of crime relative to neutral attitudes, negative attitudes
are a strength factor. If positive attitudes are associated with high rates of crime
relative to neutral attitudes, positive attitudes are a risk factor. (p. 22)
At this time, the risk and needs principles are both connected and do not appear to be
utilized by the RPD program. When asked about risk factors, both officers indicated that
simply being a minor and committing an offense was viewed to them as a risk factor,
surely not the same as the concept of risk and needs factors as identified by Andrews and
Bonta (2010a).
As previously mentioned, the importance of risk and need factors is addressed in
Principle 11, while the mention of an assessment for strength factors is briefly addressed
in Principle 10. No matter which risk or need factors are identified, one must also
recognize the additional barriers to treatment, such as an offenders learning style which is
discussed as the principle of responsivity. According to Andrews and Bonta (2010a), it is
one challenge to get an offender into a treatment program, but it is a whole other to keep
them there.
Principle 7: General responsivity. The responsivity principle refers to
implementing treatment modes and styles that are consistent with an offender’s learning
style, motivation and aptitude (Andrews, 2000; Andrews & Bonta, 2010a). Consistent
with the GPCSL, the most powerful influence strategies that are used with offenders are
both cognitive-behavioral and cognitive social learning strategies (Andrews & Bonta,
69
2010a). Cognitive-behavioral treatments are those which connect thoughts to behaviors
and there has been support for the use of cognitive-behavioral treatments with youth
specifically (Leschied, 2000b). Some of the influence strategies found within the general
responsivity principle include modeling, reinforcement, role playing, skill building,
modification of thoughts, and practicing low risk alternative behaviors repeatedly
(Andrews & Bonta, 2010a). Some of these strategies are influenced by interpersonal
relationships which Andrews (2000) characterizes as open, warm, non-blaming and
engaging. The importance of the staff and client relationships will be explored more
deeply in Principle 14.
Although there are many beneficial influence strategies available, upon asking the
RPD officers if the RPD diversion program utilized different service delivery strategies
such as role-playing and hands on exercises (such as use of tangible items such as drug or
gang paraphernalia which could be manipulated by the participants), the responses given
indicated that they did not. Both officers explained that they utilize only a Power Point
presentation, but Officer #1 indicated that they were looking into expanding their service
delivery when he said, “…at this point we just do the visual aids…we’re trying to do,
some types of hands of interaction with the teens that are there.” With just use of
PowerPoint, the RPD Juvenile Diversion Program does not adhere to the general
responsivity principle. For many, the process of the treatment can be more influential
than the actual technique used (Preston, 2000). The author suggests that an offender’s
resistance to treatment can be affected by the variables associated with the treatment
process. If treatment interventions are to be successful, not only does the influence
70
strategy need to be based upon cognitive-behavioral /social learning strategies, but the
individual differences among offenders also must be addressed.
Principle 8: Specific responsivity. While general responsivity calls for use of
cognitive-behavioral techniques, specific responsivity calls for adapting the cognitivebehavioral technique to the individual offender’s characteristics (Andrews & Bonta,
2010a). Responsivity characteristics can be considered those factors which interfere with
or facilitate learning (Kennedy, 2000) and they can be grouped into three categories:
biological, social, and psychological (Andrews & Bonta, 2010a; Preston, 2000). If an
offender is neurotic and anxious for example, then one might recognize that a group
oriented setting may not be the most conducive format for effective treatment (Andrews
& Bonta, 2010a). Being able to identify personality and cognitive styles of offenders will
allow more successful matching of treatment style to offenders (Andrews & Bonta,
2010a). Andrews (2000) provides some examples of responsivity factors as personality,
ability, motivation, strengths, age, gender, ethnicity/race, language, and many other
barriers. Both Officer #1 and Officer #2 explained that the participants of the RPD
Juvenile Diversion Program are not differentiated based upon factors such as age and sex,
instead, “they’re all put into one large group.” Of these specific responsivity factors,
motivation has recently become the focus of much research. Miller and Rollnick define
motivation as “the probability that a person will enter into, continue, and adhere to a
specific strategy” (1991, as cited in Kennedy, 2000, Motivation as a Dynamic Variable
section, para 1).
71
Rather than the earlier thinking that an offender is either resistant to change or
motivated to change, current view is that motivation is instead a state of readiness to
change (Preston, 2000). Andrews and Bonta (2010a) point out that increasing an
offender’s motivation may be especially important when dealing with the high risk cases;
if high risk offenders are the targets of intensive treatment, then they need to be
motivated to stay in the treatment program. One counseling technique to manage
offender motivation, which is consistent with the responsivity principle, was developed
by James Prochaska and Carlo DiClemente and is called motivational interviewing (MI)
(1982, as cited in Andrews & Bonta, 2010a). MI is a model which describes the different
stages an offender can be at in regards to their readiness for change. The staff
implementing the treatment must not push an offender directly into the full structured
cognitive-behavioral treatment. Rather, it is like wading into the water, where a staff
member adjusts the treatment to the offender’s cognitive characteristics at the start of
treatment and then slowly progresses more deeply (Andrews & Bonta, 2010a; Preston,
2000). The research behind MI is quick to point out that MI is not designed to impact
recidivism, but instead it is a responsivity technique which will allow an offender to stay
in treatment where the other RNR principles can be utilized to ideally reduce recidivism.
When comparing the responsivity principles to the existing RPD Juvenile
Diversion Program, the officers were asked about the programming which is delivered to
the participants and whether it is changed to meet the specific needs of an offender or if
the same programming is given to all participants. Officer #1 explained the following:
72
No, we have an outline that we go through but, prior to class I print out all the
sheets, all the kids that are supposed to be attending and I see what types of
crimes they have committed. Um, one of the crimes that we see on there every
once in a while, and it usually comes around during 4th of July, is fireworks or
illegal fireworks and we don’t really have that much during the rest of the year on
that, so we talk about that. We target you know when the kids come in to the
diversion program . . . we know exactly what they were cited for, so were gonna
talk about that specifically.
Officer #2 added that “it did once in a while change a little bit, but I think the basic
content was the same.” Although the RPD officers identified that their programming was
reflective of the crimes being committed by the juveniles, it was not reflective of the
individual characteristics of the juveniles themselves. Kennedy (2000) advises that “it is
postulated that treatment readiness and responsivity must be assessed and considered in
treatment planning if the maximum effectiveness of supervision and treatment programs
is to be realized. . . ” (para. 1). Currently, the RPD Juvenile Diversion Program does not
adhere to the specific responsivity principle.
Principle 9: Breadth. Andrews and Bonta (2010a) identified the importance of
the needs principle and those dynamic risk factors referred to as criminogenic needs.
Additionally, they have suggested that for high risk offenders specifically, multiple
criminogenic needs must be targeted in order to see reduced recidivism. The research
findings of Andrews, Dowden, and Gendreau showed a clear association between the
number of criminogenic needs targeted and reduced recidivism (1999, as cited in
73
Andrews, 2000). Additionally, it is more detrimental to target non-criminogenic needs,
often resulting in reduced effect sizes. According to Kennedy (2000), working with noncriminogenic needs such as anxiety and self-esteem may be beneficial when addressing
responsivity issues, but will most always be inappropriate targets for risk reduction. At
this time, the RPD Juvenile Diversion Program has not even begun to target any specific
risk or needs factors and so before the program can adhere to the breadth principle, it
must first adhere to the core risk and need principles.
Principle 10: Strength. Strength factors were discussed in Principle 6 on needs.
Principle 10 stresses the role that strength factors play in regards to both prediction of
recidivism as well as specific responsivity. When working with an offender, emphasis
should be placed on enhancing those strength factors which the offender possesses. For
example, promotion of prosocial relationships is a strength factor. Officer #1 mentioned
the use of the Police Activities League (PAL) as a place where juvenile offenders are sent
to conduct community service. Although the motivation behind sending the offenders to
the PAL facility appeared to be punishment based, it is a place where police officers
interact with juvenile offenders to build prosocial relationships. Officer #1 explained the
following:
. . . there was community services hours that were being assigned to these youth,
approximately 10 hours to commit some type of community service for their, I
guess you could call it their punishment. . . . a lot of times their community
services hours are at the police activities league, is where they interact with other
police officers and then realize, “hey these police officers aren’t that bad, why
74
would I want to commit crimes and be on their bad side when I could be friends
with them.”
Although the RPD Juvenile Diversion Program may be encouraging prosocial
relationships through the Roseville Police Activities League (RPAL), the program has yet
to identify the individual youth’s strength factors which s/he already possesses. The RPD
program does not currently adhere to Principle 10 due to lack of strength assessment. An
offender may possess both strength factors as well as risk and need factors, all which are
vital to effective treatment. In order to effectively implement treatment, assessment of
these factors is necessary.
Principle 11: Structured assessment. Offender assessment should always be
the first step in treatment of an offender (Bonta, 2000). Assessments will provide a way
to identify an individual’s risk, need, and responsivity factors as well as a way to gauge
treatment gains (Serin, 2000). Over the years there has been some disagreement among
treatment providers as to which type of assessment is preferred. The two general
approaches are the clinical assessment method and the actuarial assessment (Bonta,
2000). Clinical assessments rely more heavily on an individual’s subjective and
professional judgment of the offender while an actuarial assessment is more objective
through use of statistical evidence as a means for estimating risk (Bonta, 2000).
Although some argue that the best assessment is a combination of the two methods, other
researchers argue that the actuarial assessments tend to be more accurate (Andrews &
Bonta, 2010a; Bonta, 2000).
75
Andrews and Bonta (2010a) discuss a meta-analysis that was conducted by
William Grove and his colleagues where 136 studies were used to compare actuarial and
clinical approaches. In 47% of the studies, actuarial methods out performed clinical
methods and additionally in another 47% of the studies, actuarial performed equally as
well as clinical methods resulting in only 6% of the studies which showed any benefit to
clinical assessments (Andrews & Bonta, 2010a). Bonta (2000) suggests that there is
some benefit in utilization of the two methods. The author suggests that by using two
methods, some of the error involved in a clinical assessment can be counteracted by the
use of an actuarial assessment and vice-versa. However, another benefit to the actuarial
assessment method is the ease of implementing it. Bonta (2000) argues that many staff
members could easily implement these empirically based assessments after a simple
briefing training. Especially in a setting such as the RPD Juvenile Diversion Program, it
may be the most appropriate method of assessment. When asked if the RPD program
utilized any risk assessment instruments, both officers explained that it did not. Officer
#1 said, “we should probably implement something since we have counselors on staff.”
Officer #2 also referenced these counselors in the response. When asked to explain what
he meant by counselors, Officer #1 said, “the counselors we have right now are mostly
interns from Sac State. . . . social workers.” According to Officer #1,
[the interns] will contact the parents, not the juvenile. They will contact the
parents, “we understand that your kid committed this crime, is there anything we
can help you to help your son or daughter” so that they don’t reoffend or go down
a different path.
76
It appears that the RPD has potential to set up utilization of assessment instruments, but
currently, they just make contact with the families of the youth for additional services.
There are many different assessment tools available, but Andrews and Bonta
(2010a) recommend the Level of Service Inventory – Revised (LSI-R) and its
replacement, the Level of Service/Case Management Inventory (LS/CMI). The LSI-R is
a theoretically based risk and need assessment instrument which uses those items which
research shows to be associated with criminal conduct (Andrews & Bonta, 2010a). After
the LSI-R was introduced, Andrews and Bonta (2010a) explain that the real world use of
these assessments was found to be lacking. As a result, the authors introduced the Level
of Service/Case Management Inventory (LS/CMI) which emphasizes the link between
assessment and case management. The LS/CMI includes 42 items which are centered on
the Central Eight risk/need factors. Because attention has been paid to the specific needs
of certain populations, a subset of the LS/CMI was introduced when dealing with a
juvenile population. The Youth Level of Service/Case Management Inventory
(YLS/CMI) is ideally administered on youth aged 12-17, but has been used on those as
young as 10. The descriptive analysis of the recidivism rates among the RPD Juvenile
Diversion Program participants identified that the youngest participant was 9 years old,
but that there was only one participant that age and so the majority of the participants
were from the ages 12-17 representing 98.5 % of the participants. The YLS/CMI appears
to be an appropriate fit for the age group of the RPD participants. It appears that the
counseling interns at RPD could be useful in implementing an assessment tool for the
77
youth cited to the diversion program. When asked if the interns could be useful for
assessment, Officer #1 said,
Yeah, I think so, cause these interns are on their last, they have already completed
all their school work and they just need to put in their hours before they get their
license. They need to put all these hours in so it is a good step for them and so it
helps us at the same time because they look at a youth, “hey this kid has some
serious issues that he is disclosing to us.
Since the RPD Juvenile Diversion Program was designed to be an early
intervention for minor offenders/offenses, then the use of the YLS/CMI assessment
appears to be appropriately matched. Andrews (2000) points out that when conducting
an assessment, one should be careful not to confuse seriousness of the current offense
with the risk of re-offending. The author adds that the seriousness of the offense may be
an aggravating factor but it is not a major risk factor. When the RPD officers were asked
about the use of any risk assessment devices among the RPD Juvenile Diversion
Program, both acknowledged that they did not use any and that the only target was the
age of the offender. The RPD Juvenile Diversion Program does not currently utilize any
risk assessment instruments. The social work interns that volunteer at RPD make contact
with the youth and families and are in a position to be a great asset to the future RPD
program, but at this current time, the RPD program does not adhere to Principle 11.
Principle 12: Professional discretion. While Principle’s 1 through 11 focused
on a very structured process of utilizing the principles of effective treatment
interventions, Principle 12 acknowledges that there are some rare occasions where
78
professional judgment may need to override all other structured principles such as risk,
need, and responsivity (Andrews & Bonta, 2010a). Kennedy (2000) explains that “the
most appropriate treatment decisions include professional judgment, which in turn
incorporates legal, ethical, humanitarian, cost-efficacy and clinical standards” (Four
General Principles of Classification section, para. 5). One commonly discussed area
where professional discretion may be utilized is in that of mental health. If an offender is
assessed and diagnosed as schizophrenic, that alone may be a minor risk factor, however,
if that offender is making statements which clearly show potential for violent episodes,
then the schizophrenia category would be pushed into a major risk factor (Andrews,
2000).
The recognition that every offender is individually different plays a key role in
providing a successful treatment style. When asked about the ability to utilize
professional discretion, the responses of the RPD officers indicated that there are two
different meanings to the term professional discretion. Officer #2 identified that “…the
officers have a lot of discretion whether to send them [juveniles] there in the first place.”
Based upon this response, it appears the discretion of the officer who cites the juvenile to
the RPD Diversion Program is the first act of discretion. Once an officer sends a youth to
the program, Officer #1 identifies that certain trends of the youth are recognized. Officer
#1 stated that “. . . if you see a certain trend in a kid, well uh typically when a kid gets
cited to diversion, it should be his first offense overall but, sometimes they just slip
through the cracks when we get one that’s already committed a second offense. And
yeah we address it with a little more attention. . .” The trend which Officer #1 refers to
79
appears to be more a repetition of offending rather than an acknowledgement of their
specific risk and needs. Based upon these responses, it appears that the discretion utilized
in accordance with the RPD Juvenile Diversion Program is not the same type of
discretion that Principle 12 indicates and therefore does not appear to be utilized.
The ability for a professional to deviate from the plan is reserved through the
inclusion of Principle 12. Principle 12 is considered the last of the core RNR principles
and key clinical issues identified by Andrews and Bonta (2010a). The following three
principles fall within what the authors refer to as organizational principles and cover the
areas of settings, staffing, and management.
Principle 13: Community-based. The importance of Principle 13 is found
within the setting in which the treatment program is delivered. Community-based
services are preferred to those implemented within residential or institutional settings and
are often found to be associated with lower recidivism among participants (Andrews,
2000; Andrews et al., 1990; McGuire, 2000a). For youth specifically, researchers argue
that for treatment to be effective, the youth must be able to be within the environment
where they interact with family and peers and where their behavior is being influenced
(Leschied, 2000b). The program delivered in the community setting will be in the
position to influence not only the youth, but also the social factors they interact with. The
RPD Juvenile Diversion Program is delivered in the community setting since it is not
within an institution, but it is delivered in an agency setting. Officer #2 explained
We actually tried doing it at other locations, but uh, I felt that there was some
power having it at the police department, making the parents bring their kids
80
down to the police department, having these kids walk in the doors of the police
department cause a lot of times they hadn’t ever even done that even if they had
been cited for different crimes.
Although it appears that Officer #2 was intending to provoke a deterrent for the
youth by way of having them experience the police department atmosphere, Andrews
(2000) advises that one should consider services to be home and school-based rather than
agency-based. Officer #2 frequently referred to the importance seen with incorporating
the youth’s family into the programming. According to Officer #2,
I realized that a lot of the times was that we needed to get the parents actively
involved and many times they weren’t. . . the parents had to come to these classes
with the kids so we could get their involvement, at um least see a face when we
were trying to work with these kids and these family issues they were having.
According to Leschied (2000a), attention has been given to those types of
interventions which influence the social systems that are consistent with the predictors of
risk, such as families and peers. If the goal of the RPD Juvenile Diversion Program were
to be family based, Andrews (2000) argues that these programs should be delivered in a
natural setting such as a home or community rather than at an agency office. In addition
to setting, support for family intervention comes from findings that families which
promote prosocial norms and have warm emotional attachments are more likely to have
lower rates of delinquency (Andrews & Bonta, 2010a). Although not necessarily what
the RPD Juvenile Diversion Program targets, the family and their role may be something
81
to consider for future programming. Since the RPD program is delivered in the
community setting, Principle 13 is being adhered to.
There are many different responsibilities of those who implement programming in
the complex correctional environment. From the selection of what assessment instrument
to use (Principle 11) to what theoretical model of programming is best (Principle 2),
decisions made will impact the program as well as the success in regards to public safety
(Tellier & Serin, 2000). Another incredibly important decision rests on the people who
are chosen to implement the programming as well as interact with the offenders.
Principle 14: Core correctional staff practices. Tellier and Serin (2000) argue
that staff is just as important as any of the other core RNR principles and with the right
selection, training, support, and retention, staff can enhance correctional practices and the
results. Andrews and Bonta (2010a) add that the effectiveness of an intervention is
enhanced by staff with high-quality relationship and structuring skills. The high-quality
relationship and structuring skills draw directly from the GPCSL-based interpersonal
influence strategies and behavior change approaches (Andrews & Bonta, 2010a). A highquality interpersonal relationship encourages a setting where modeling and reinforcement
strategies can more easily occur (Andrews & Bonta, 2010a).
Relationship skills can include a combination of the following: respectful, open,
warm, caring, non-blaming, flexible, understanding, collaborative, and valuing of
personal autonomy (Andrews, 2000; Andrews & Bonta, 2010a). Structuring skills
include a combination of the following: modeling anti-criminal alternatives to pro-social
attitudes, effective reinforcement, cognitive restructuring, structured learning skills, and
82
practice and training of problem solving skills, and motivational interviewing (Andrews,
2000; Andrews & Bonta, 2010a). A staff member who utilizes any of the high-quality
relationship and structuring skills will be successful with their client if they are,
according to Andrews and Bonta (2010a) able to, “(1) establish high-quality relationships
with them, (2) demonstrate anti-criminal expressions (modeling), (3) approve of the
client’s anti-criminal expressions (reinforcement), and (4) disapprove of the client’s procriminal expressions (punishment), while at the same time demonstrating alternatives” (p.
410). The underlying goal to this approach is that an offender will learn the prosocial
aspects of behavior and cognition from their regular interactions with staff (Tellier &
Serin, 2000).
Tellier and Serin (2000) suggest that organizations pay particular attention to the
staff which they select because having the right staff can greatly improve the
organization’s effectiveness. When discussing the staff who implement the RPD Juvenile
Diversion Program, Officer #2 described that, “we would always have an officer; we
would always try to have a probation officer and try to always have someone from the
school administration.” Officer #1 explained that the staff who implement the
programming are the result of assignment and interest. Officer #1 stated,
It’s mostly because we are in the youth services unit, um, that’s how we are
selected to do the diversion program. . . . There is total of 4 officers in that unit
right now and uh so that’s how we get selected to do it.
83
Although the officer who is selected is done so by assignment, the other two staff
members are involved with the RPD program as a result of their interest. According to
Officer #1,
. . . the probation officer deals primarily with juvenile crime and it was more of a
selection on his part because he wanted to be part of this program and his
superiors support him. The school staff, same thing, there’s obviously assistant
principals throughout the district, but this particular assistant principal wanted to
be part of the program and is also supported.
When questioned about whether there were any specific considerations used to select
staff, both officers identified that there were not. Officer #1 mentioned that, “they want
most primarily to be officers who are in the youth services unit. Um, probation wants
someone who is dealing with juvenile crime.”
The staffs who implement the RPD Juvenile Diversion Program are not selected
based upon any more criteria than that they are willing to participate and that they have
some connection to juveniles. Although there are no educational requirements for the
staff who implement the RPD programming, both officers explained that one of the
instructors, the school official, is clinically trained. Unsure on the exact training, Officer
#2 said “I know she is licensed as a counselor in some way. . .” and Officer #1 clarified
that “I believe. . .she has her MSW. . .” The RPD program appears to have a good
foundation within the staff who implements the program as a group of professionals who
represent the different angles of the youth justice system. Unfortunately, there is no
84
support for any use of high-quality relationship or structuring skills and so the RPD
program currently does not adhere to Principle 14.
Principle 15: Management. Effective management is necessary to ensure a
successful program implementation. Andrews and Bonta (2010a) state that the
management is important when selecting, training, and supervising staff in a way which
is consistent with the RNR principles. The authors also suggest that management needs
to monitor programming in order to provide feedback. Although mentioned in the
additional three principles, Andrews and Bonta (2010a) include program integrity
components including the availability of program manuals, monitoring program process
and change and also involving researchers in the design and delivery of service.
Effective managers will reward those employees who are high functioning (Andrews,
2000).
When RPD officers were asked about a manager or supervisor in charge of the
RPD Juvenile Diversion Program, they both identified that there is a Sergeant who does
oversee the program, but their involvement is limited. Officer #2 stated that “I don’t
recall them showing up [to the program] even once.” Officer #1 explained that, “his
involvement is just to make sure that we do the diversion program correctly and that all
the juveniles being cited to this program attend and are accounted for.” When asked to
be more specific about how the supervisor actually makes sure the program is run
correctly, Officer #1 explained that, “although he is in charge of the unit, he doesn’t
actually get too involved in the program. Actually, it is mostly probation department
85
because probation reviews all juvenile citations and they will determine who can attend
and who cannot.”
The RPD program does not have a manager who is involved in the oversight of
the program and its staff. Rather there is simply a Sergeant who is assigned to the unit
which implements the program, youth services. Because of the nearly non-existent
involvement, the RPD Juvenile Diversion Program does not adhere to Principle 15.
Additional Three Principles of Effective Correctional Intervention
Although the research by Andrews and Bonta (2010a) currently lists only 15
principles for effective intervention, an early work published by Andrews (2000) lists 18
principles. Since the earlier work of Andrews, many of the principles have been
condensed together to create one new principle, hence the reduction in the number of
principles. However, there are three specific principles which were individually
identified initially and have some beneficial information regarding effective
interventions. It appears valuable for RPD to review this information and therefore will
be included in addition to the current 15 principles.
After care, structured follow-up, continuity of care, and relapse prevention.
If there is no follow up with the individuals receiving the programming and/or treatment,
there can be no measure of change. McGuire (2000a) points out that the more support an
individual has from their different social settings, the more likely they are to sustain
change. With minors specifically, the RPD officers explained that the goal is to reduce
reoffending, but without follow-up, there is no way to measure this goal. If there is an
86
after care system in place for an individual, one can assist them when circumstances
deteriorate and potentially reduce their likelihood to re-offend (Andrews, 2000).
The RPD officers were asked about follow-up and the responses indicated that
there was little to no follow-up being done, but that is currently changing. Officer #2 felt
there is a huge benefit to follow-up and he explained that,
. . . we give them all this advice on getting help as a parent and as families and
then we never really check in with them again. So I think all those people get too
busy with life that they don’t follow up or do it themselves. I think if we had that
with police, someone calling and giving them some follow up or sending them
some information, or a house visit or something like that to follow up after the
fact, maybe a month or two later, probably would have been beneficial.
Although Officer #2 is no longer is involved with the program, the response given
regarding wishes for follow-up began to come to fruition. As Officer #1 indicated that,
The past follow up um, the kids were contacted by our uh other staff and they
basically would assign them community service hours to complete you know in a
certain amount of time. Whether it be volunteering at our police activities league
or doing some community service elsewhere.
The RPD is now having every family contacted to inquire with the parents about any
other needed services. According to Officer #1,
. . . If the parents decide “hey you know what, my kid is fine and we already have
somebody else dealing with them.” But then there will be some parents who will
87
be like, “yeah I need the extra help because I can’t control my child.” So that’s
when we intervene.
The process of following up with families appears to be developing into a useful practice
at RPD. Although initially, used as an additional form of punishment with issuance of
community service hours, it appears now the goal of follow-up is checking in with
families to see if any other assistance is needed. If a youth is doing well, then there
would be no use for follow-up, but if a youth is struggling, it is a way for RPD to pull the
youth in to receive additional services, potentially through counseling services with the
social work interns. Similar to the use of the interns for risk and need assessments, when
asked if there would be benefit in using the interns for follow-up, Officer #2 explained,
It could be but you have to get the family to buy into that person. I think a lot of
times when people hear “college intern,” they tune out a little bit. Um, an officer
probably would be more beneficial or a full time counselor if we had one at the
PD.
Whichever individual is tasked with conducting follow-up, it is clear that RPD sees a
benefit in doing the follow-up and they appear to be implementing an initial follow-up
system that is still changing, therefore there is adherence to the follow-up principle.
Create and maintain a service plan. Understandably, this principle may not
need to still be identified as its own principle, but the underlying concept is important to
note. A service plan would document risk, need, and responsivity principles addressed as
well as after care that takes place and any professional discretion utilized (Andrews,
2000). The service plan would then be updated as necessary when follow up actions are
88
taken and subjects are potentially reassessed. A service plan is unique to the individual
and is important for continuity of care. If in the case of the RPD Juvenile Diversion
Program, a specific youth reoffends or has needs for future assistance, anyone can pull
the service plan and be knowledgeable about the documented treatment for that youth.
This will reduce repetitive or inconsistent approaches and services.
When asked if RPD creates service plans for youth in order to document
treatment approaches for youth, Officer #1 explained, “not at this time, no. Unless he reoffends and then he gets contacted by probation.” Officer #2 added that “when I was
working with probation, they wanted every copy of every single citation that brought the
kid in there and they were going to keep track of that, showing that there had been some
level of intervention.” Based upon these responses, it appears that the probation
department may actually keep track of the interventions used with the youth in order to
use that for future case planning. When stated that it seemed as though probation did
more of the service plan tracking and that diversion was more of a step in that service
plan, Officer #2 stated “correct.”
The LS/CMI incorporates the importance of case management and is a tool which
could be used to both conduct follow-up as well as to include into the service plan. If
RPD began to connect their practices with those of the juvenile probation department, an
efficient service plan could potentially develop. It appears especially important for there
to be open communication with the justice components. Since the RPD Juvenile
Diversion Program is delivered by three main professionals, the police, probation, and
school, the potential for maintaining records appears attainable. The use of social work
89
interns could also be a key asset to service planning. At this point, it does not appear the
RPD adheres to a service plan principle, but the potential is very high for future
implementation.
Integrity in program implementation and delivery. This earlier principle was
very descriptive and although portions of the earlier principle are now incorporated in
Principle 14 (staffing) and Principle 15 (management) (Andrews & Bonta, 2010a), the
specific discussion of the integrity principle is still valuable. Integrity has to do with
whether a program is being delivered as planned and designed and also whether the
program is meeting its stated objectives (Andrews, 2000). McGuire (2000b) makes the
distinction between program integrity and treatment integrity. The author explains that
program integrity is an external component which examines the organizational
components of a program which are essential for proper delivery, such as trained staff,
appropriate referrals, managerial support, and clear objectives. Treatment integrity is
rather the internal aspects of the program’s delivery, such as the theoretical model in
which the treatment is delivered as well as the direct relationship between staff and
offenders (McGuire, 2000b). Whichever form of integrity is being examined, specificity
in all aspects is vital. According to Andrews (2000), “specificity enhances the
opportunity for clarity in who is being served, what is being targeted, and what style,
mode and strategy of service is being used” (Principle 15 section, para. 1).
This specificity element produces suggestions for program integrity to depend
upon: use of specific empirically sound theory, selection and training of workers,
supervision of workers and the importance on clinical background, use of program
90
manuals, program monitoring, adequate treatment dosage, and use of researchers in the
design, delivery, and evaluation of the program (Andrews, 2000). McGuire (2000b)
explains that in regards to program monitoring, there can be two general aspects. The
first focuses on basic recording and monitoring of both staff and offender selection
processes, staff training, offender attendance and completion rates, frequency of program
meetings, planning and review sessions, as well as staff supervision sessions which
would be vital to monitoring of integrity (McGuire, 2000b). All information monitored is
suggested to be maintained in manuals and reports which could be reviewed at any time
(McGuire, 2000b). When asked if the RPD Juvenile Diversion Program had manuals,
Officer #1 said, “no, we kinda just . . . wing it.” Manuals may also be beneficial to the
RPD program due to staff turnover. For example, say Officer #2 no longer works in the
Youth Services Officer assignment and someone new takes over, it would be
advantageous for RPD to have a manual available to provide the new officer in order for
s/he to learn about the program. Officer #1 was asked about what happens if s/he is
unavailable to deliver the course, and what they do to prepare the person taking their
place for the class and Officer #1 said,
. . . there is verbal instruction, but other officers have attended the program just to
make sure, in case I can’t assist. Or they can take over, cause like I said this is uh,
the diversion program is basically has to do with the penal code, health and safety
code and all the other different California codes so the other officers know what
they’re talking about when they come in and attend the diversion program.
91
Although the officer who takes the place of Officer #1 may be able to “wing it,” there
still appears to be a strong need for a program manual and when asked if a manual would
be beneficial to the RPD program, both officers strongly agreed.
Additionally, the second monitoring aspect focuses on the attendance, attrition,
and session cancellations that should also be monitored since according to McGuire
(2000b), those may be indicators of deterioration of program integrity. One of the
challenges of Component Two of this project was the descriptive analysis of the
recidivism rates among participants. Unfortunately, the RPD Juvenile Diversion Program
had not been tracking attendance for the program and so the researcher was unable to
have a comparison group for the analysis. RPD is now tracking attendance and when
asked how the youth who were cited to the program were accounted for, Officer #1
indicated that that following occurs,
When youth come to the program, I have them sign in and then compare those
who were cited to those who were actually there. I then call the parents of the kid
and let them know they missed and let them know they can go to the next month’s
class or it will be forwarded to probation and will go on the kids permanent
record. I also email probation the list of kids who attended.
All methods of monitoring of program integrity should identify areas of weakness
within the program and allow feedback for managers and staff in an attempt to rectify the
problems and improve the program. One way to strengthen program integrity is by
having clear and specific program objectives. McGuire (2000b) recommends use of the
SMART objectives (specific, measurable, achievable, realistic, and time-limited) which
92
will be beneficial for program staff since it provides a clear and cohesive vision for
program delivery and success. Program integrity allows an overall assessment and
monitoring of a program and is vital to program success. When the RPD Officers were
asked what the objective of the RPD Juvenile Diversion Program was, Officer #1 stated
that the objective is, “to deter a juvenile from committing further offenses or committing
bigger offenses such as felonies or to commit crimes once they turn 18 as an adult.”
Officer #2 added, “I think our ideal is that these guys do not commit these crimes again,
and um, there really is no way to measure that, that I know of, but I mean it wouldn’t hurt
to do that probably.” It is clear that the RPD Juvenile Diversion Program currently does
not have a SMART objective, rather just a general goal which is not consistent among
those involved in the program. At this time, the RPD Juvenile Diversion Program does
not adhere to program integrity and needs improvement in many areas such as staffing,
management, monitoring, and manuals. Recommendations on these areas will be seen in
chapter 4 of this project.
Andrews and Bonta (2010a) explain that program integrity is a moot point if the
program does not adhere to the core RNR principles because without the RNR principles,
the issues on staff selection training and monitoring do not matter. Component one of
this project focused specifically on whether the RPD Juvenile Diversion Program adhered
to any of the principles of effective interventions. Leschied (2000a) suggests that in
addition to monitoring and measuring adherence, there also should be dissemination of
information for those effective programs. Clearly, the first step in this project was to
determine if the program was successful before any dissemination could occur. One such
93
method for measuring program success is found within the recidivism rates among
program participants. Both RPD Officers indicated that they had never examined the
recidivism rates among the diversion class participants. Officer #1 added that, “I think
one time I did and it was it came back uh, the only way I checked was by calling the
county and seeing what their stats were.” There was no documented record of the
recidivism among RPD Juvenile Diversion Program participants and if there ever was,
neither officer had any knowledge of where they could find it or what it said exactly. As
a result, Component Two of this project examined the recidivism rates for the RPD
Juvenile Diversion Program in order to see where the RPD program lies on the success
scale.
Component Two: Descriptive Analysis of Recidivism Rates among Participants
The second component of this project is a descriptive analysis of the recidivism
rates among the participants of the RPD Juvenile Diversion Program. A descriptive
analysis was conducted on the recidivism rates for those youth who were cited to the
program from November 2011 until December 2012. No sampling method was utilized
for the descriptive analysis, rather the researcher used a census of every youth who was
cited to the RPD Juvenile Diversion Program from the time it began, November 2011,
through December 2012. This time period was selected so that at least one year had
passed since the date of the diversion class and the date which the analysis was
conducted. Although it would have been advantageous to have a comparison group for
the recidivism analysis that was unrealistic since the RPD did not track attendance. It
would also not have been useful to compare the recidivism among the participants of the
94
RPD program to that of any other program because as McGuire (2000b) points out, the
multiple measures of recidivism can depend on a variety of factors, all of which yield
varied results leaving the findings confusing and controversial. If the RPD had tracked
attendance, then the recidivism analysis could have included one group which had
attended diversion and one group which did not. This measure would ideally produce
more beneficial findings, but at the time of this project, that type of analysis was not
possible. Since there was no way to know which youth attended the diversion program,
the recidivism rates for every youth who was cited to the class were included in the
analysis. Once the RPD tracks attendance on a regular basis, future research can be
conducted using a comparison group.
As mentioned previously, since each diversion program is unique, it also would
not have been beneficial to compare the recidivism of the RPD program against another
agency’s diversion program. For this reason, a descriptive analysis was the best option
for examining the recidivism rate among participants of the RPD Juvenile Diversion
Program. No analysis has ever been done on the RPD recidivism rates and so the
descriptive analysis conducted by the researcher can serve as a beginning measure for the
RPD program.
The class population varied in age, but no participant was older than 17 at the
time they were referred to the program, as the diversion program is for minors only. The
class population was not limited in any way and participants could be any sex or race.
The data which were collected was an existing data set and no contact was made with any
of the youth participants. The existing data provided to the researcher were created by
95
the Crime Analysis Unit and all identifiable information about participants was removed.
The crime analyst used the Placer County Tiburon System, also referred to as NAMS, in
order to examine the record of each class participant to determine if they had been cited
or arrested following the diversion class date. The researcher only requested data from
the local Placer County Tiburon system because based on her professional experience,
juveniles generally stay within their local community until adulthood. Since the youth
maintain their local setting, the use of the Placer County Tiburon System was believed to
be the most reflective analysis of future offending and therefore the researcher did not
check into any larger systems, such as state or federal.
The measure for recidivism was any arrests or citations that occurred during a
one year period following the date which the youth was cited to the diversion class. All
youth cited during that time period were included and to ensure that no youth were
identifiable, the researcher requested that the data set be received with the names
removed. The researcher asked for the participants: sex, age at which they attended
diversion, diversion class date, crime which the youth was sent to diversion for, and if
there were any arrests or citations in the one year after diversion class attendance. If the
youth did re-offend, the researcher requested that the date of re-offense as well as the
crime which was committed be identified. By obtaining the re-offense type, the
researcher could compare the new offense to the original offense which the youth was
sent to diversion for in order to determine if it is the same crime of different.
Breakdown of the existing data set. From November 2011 until December
2012, the RPD cited 129 juveniles to the RPD Juvenile Diversion Program. The youth
96
varied in age and sex. Table 1 provides a breakdown of the age and sex of all youth who
were cited to the RPD program including a breakdown of each age group represented,
ranging from 9 years old (as the youngest) to 17 years old (as the oldest).
Based upon the analysis, it appears that male juveniles between the ages of 15-17
are the most likely to receive a citation to the RPD Juvenile Diversion Program,
representing 57.4% of all youth cited to the program. Similarly, female juveniles
between ages 14-17 appeared to be most likely to be cited, with a peak in citations for
female juveniles age 16. In addition to the demographics among the youth cited to the
program, the crimes which they were cited to diversion for were also important for
analysis.
Table 1
Juvenile’s Age at time of the Diversion Class as a Percentage of the Sample
Gender
Male
Female
Total
Age
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Total
N
0
0
0
1
4
8
29
24
21
87
%
0
0
0
.77
3.1
6.2
22.5 18.6
16.3
67.4
N
1
0
1
2
0
8
7
12
11
42
%
.77
0
.77
1.6
0
6.2
5.4
9.3
8.5
32.5
N
1
0
1
3
4
16
36
36
33
129
%
.77
0
.77
2.37
3.1
12.4
27.9 27.9
24.8
100
97
There were a total of 162 crimes which were cause for Diversion referral. The
higher number of crimes than juveniles is because some juveniles committed more than
one offense on the same incident. The different crime codes were categorized into seven
different categories: (1) physical/violent, (2) property/theft related, (3) drugs/alcohol, (4)
status offenses, (5) public nuisance, (6) municipal codes, and (7) other.
Category one represents those crimes which were physical or violent in nature and
included the following crimes: 415(1) PC (unlawful fighting), 415.5 PC (offensive words
on campus), 243.2 PC (unlawful fighting on school grounds), and 242 PC (battery).
Category two represents crimes which were related to someone’s property and also theft
related crimes such as 488 PC (petty theft), 485 PC (misappropriation of property), and
594 PC (vandalism). Category three was limited to drug and alcohol related offenses.
Although tobacco may be construed as belonging in this category, it was placed into
Category four which are status offenses. The crimes represented in the drug and alcohol
category include the following: 11357(b) HS (possession of less than an ounce of
marijuana), 11357(e) HS (possession of less than an ounce of marijuana on school
grounds), 4060 BP (unlawful possession of prescription drugs), 25662(a) BP (minor in
possession of alcohol), and 25608 BP (minor in possession of alcohol on school
grounds). Category four, status offenses, are those offenses which are only illegal for
minors to commit, including: 601(a) WI (incorrigible child), 601(b) WI (habitual truant
minor), 308(b) PC (possession of tobacco related products), 21212 VC (under 18, helmet
required), and 10.70.03 RMC (curfew). Although curfew is a municipal code as well, it
seemed more fitting for the status offense category due to it only applying to minors.
98
Category five is titled public nuisance crimes and represents the following crimes:
647(f) PC (public intoxication), 647(h) PC (prowling), 12700a HS (illegal fireworks),
602 PC (trespassing), and 369i PC (trespassing on railroad tracks). Category six included
the following Roseville Municipal Code (RMC) violations: 8.02.220a RMC (driving on
a park), 10.80.010 RMC (discharging a BB gun in city limits), and 8.02.250 RMC (being
in a park after closing hours). The last category, category seven, are the crimes which do
not fit appropriately within any of the above mentioned categories. The only crimes
found within the “other” category were 311.11 PC (possession of obscene material aka
“sexting”), 272 PC (contributing to the delinquency of a minor), and 653m PC (obscene
or harassing electronic communication).
Figure 1 provides the breakdown of each category in percentage form with results
that showed that the most common crime categories which a youth was cited to the RPD
Juvenile Diversion Program for were “status offenses” followed by “drugs/alcohol.” 59
of the 162 crimes were status offenses while 30 of the crimes were for alcohol and drugs.
99
Municipal Code
1%
Other
6%
Physical/Violent
14%
Public Nuisance
13%
Property/Theft
Related
11%
Drugs/Alcohol
19%
Status Offenses
36%
Figure 1. Crime categories for initial diversion citation.
The analysis of the recidivism data for the youth cited to the RPD Juvenile
Diversion Program showed that 25 of the 129 initial youth were either cited or arrested
for a new offense within a one year period following the diversion class date which the
juvenile was assigned. The RPD Juvenile Diversion Program is only for minor offenses
and so the recidivism analysis uncovered that 60 % of the youth committed more serious
crimes after the RPD program. Thirty two percent of juveniles committed crimes of the
same seriousness and only 8% committed less serious crimes. Seriousness was
determined by the classification of the crime and whether it was a municipal
code/infraction, misdemeanor, or the most serious which is a felony. For example, a
youth who was initially cited to diversion for an infraction re-offended and committed a
misdemeanor crime. Although the misdemeanor is still not as serious as a felony, it was
100
more serious than the earlier crime which is specific to each individual youth.
Alarmingly, of the 25 youth who re-offended, 12 of them committed felonies.
Additionally, the crime category for which the re-offense data was grouped is the same as
the seven categories used for the classification of the initial citation. Many of the
recidivism offenses were different than the originals included in the categories and
therefore, the new offenses were added to the existing ones.
In addition to the initial “physical/violent” crimes, the re-offenses added 211 PC
(robbery), 245 PC (assault with a deadly weapon), and 422 PC (terrorist threats) to
category one. Added to category two were 459 PC (burglary) and 496 PC (possession of
stolen property). Category three “drugs/alcohol” acquired 21200.5 (riding a bicycle
under the influence), 11350 HS (possession of a controlled substance), 11357(a) HS
(possession of concentrated cannabis), and 11360(f) HS (transport, import, or sell
marijuana). No new crimes were added to category four or five. Municipal code
8.02.315 (park exclusion) was added to category six. Category seven acquired the
following sections: 12500 VC (unlicensed driver), 136.1 PC (intimidate a witness or
victim), 148 PC (resist, obstruct, or delay an officer), and 148.9 PC (giving false
identification).
Figure 2 shows the breakdown of the crime categories for the recidivism offenses.
Compared to the initial crimes which youth were cited for, where status offenses were the
dominant category, the most represented category among re-offenses was “drugs/alcohol”
followed closely by “property/theft related.” The status offense category decreased
101
significantly, but could be attributed to the youth having turned 18 before the re-offenses
were committed or that their criminal career was getting more serious.
Other
16%
Physical/Violent
16%
Municipal Code
3%
Public Nuisance
5%
Property/Theft
21%
Status Offenses
16%
Drugs/Alcohol
23%
Figure 2. Crime categories for re-offense citation/ arrest.
For those who re-offended, an analysis was done on the recidivism data to see
how quickly the juvenile re-offended following the diversion class date. Table 2 breaks
down the re-offense period into four categories. The findings show that at 72%, males
were more likely to recidivate than females. The majority of both males and females
recidivated quickly after the diversion class date, within 3 months. Despite reoffending
soon after the class, the overall recidivism rate for the program is still low at 19.4%.
According to Lipsey, the best treatments show reduced recidivism rates by about 30
percent (1989, as cited in Andrews & Bonta, 2010a).
102
Table 2
Time in which the Juvenile Re-Offended after the RPD Diversion Class Date
Time of Re-Offense
Gender
Male
Female
Total
3 Months
6 Months
9 Months
12 Months
Total
N
9
4
1
4
18
%
36
16
4
16
72
N
3
1
2
1
7
%
12
4
8
4
28
N
12
5
3
5
25
%
48
20
12
20
100
The descriptive analysis serves as support for suggested improvements within
program implementation. Since the recidivism rates had never been examined by RPD,
there was no knowledge of a starting recidivism rate, one which could potentially be
improved. With the descriptive analysis, the RPD program now has a place to start when
examining improvements to the programming and how they will ultimately improve the
recidivism rates.
103
Chapter 4
Recommendations and Conclusions
Research Project Summary
The objective of this research project was to conduct a comparative program
evaluation of the RPD Juvenile Diversion Program to determine its level of adherence to
evidence based principles of effective intervention. A second objective was to conduct a
descriptive analysis of the recidivism rates among the RPD program participants. The
comparative evaluation utilized research on the individual principles as well as the
interview responses of two Roseville police officers to meet this objective. The
responses were used to determine if the existing RPD program currently utilized the
specific principles. The following 15 principles compose what Andrews and Bonta
(2010a) refer to as The Risk-Need-Responsivity (RNR) Model of Effective Correctional
Assessment and Crime Prevention Services:
Overarching Principles
Principle 1: Respect for the person and the normative context
Principle 2: Psychological theory
Principle 3: General enhancement of crime prevention services
Core RNR Principles and Key Clinical Issues
Principle 4: Introduce human service
Principle 5: Risk
Principle 6: Need
Principle 7: General responsivity
104
Principle 8: Specific responsivity
Principle 9: Breath (or multimodal)
Principle 10: Strength
Principle 11: Structured Assessment
Principle 12: Professional discretion
Organizational Principles
Principle 13: Community-based
Principle 14: Core correctional staff practices
Principle 15: Management
In addition to these current 15 principles, three additional principles were utilized for the
comparative evaluation; the principles of follow-up, service planning, and program
integrity which was identified by Andrews (2000) in an earlier work. The results of the
comparative evaluation found that the RPD program only utilized three of the current
principles of effective interventions as well as one previously identified principle from
the earlier works.
Of the three current principles which the RPD Juvenile Diversion Program
utilizes, none of them are principles categorized as core RNR principles and key clinical
issues. The three principles fall under both what Andrews and Bonta (2010a) call
overarching principles and organizational principles. The interview responses indicated
that the RPD program is delivered in a normative context (Principle 1) since it is
delivered to the specific Roseville community. Adherence to this principle was weak
since Officer #2 indicated that the programming could be delivered anywhere. However,
105
the format of the program directly results from the crimes which were committed by the
youth in the Roseville community and if the program were to be delivered in a different
community, such as Sacramento, the programming would be altered to accommodate the
specific culture and norms of those youth. Officer #2 also indicated that the
programming is delivered with respect for the youth.
According to both RPD officers, the RPD Juvenile Diversion Program identifies
itself as a crime prevention strategy. Simply attempting to reduce criminal victimization,
through use of the RPD diversion program, allows for the determination that it adheres to
Principle 3, general enhancement of crime prevention services. Falling into the
organizational principles, the RPD program clearly adheres to Principle 13 which
suggests that programming be delivered within the community setting. The remaining 15
principles are not currently being adhered to by the RPD Juvenile Diversion Program.
The one additional principle being utilized is the earlier principle recommending followup. Although currently changing, the RPD officers identified that follow-up is conducted
with the youth and that the process of follow-up is improving. Despite identifying that
follow-up occurs, both officers agreed that there is room for improvement and expansion.
Of the principles which are adhered to, unfortunately, none of them are the core
RNR principles. The three principles which are utilized by RPD are not of significant
importance and do not have much influence over reduced recidivism or offender change.
The descriptive analysis conducted on the recidivism rates among RPD program
participants did produce positive findings, showing that within a one year period
following the RPD diversion class, only 19.4 % reoffended. Although 19.4% is low, the
106
researcher would argue that if the RPD Juvenile Diversion Program were altered to
include more of the principles of effective interventions, the recidivism rate could
potentially decrease even further. The researcher will recommend ways for the RPD
program to improve its programming by inclusion of the effective principles, but
recognition must also be given to the constraints of the RPD. Understandably, RPD is
limited in its ability to accept certain recommendations due to both budget and staffing.
For this reason, the recommendations will be limited to three specific potential changes.
At this time, RPD does not provide any funding to the RPD Juvenile Diversion Program
and for some of the recommended changes to occur, allowances in these areas may need
to happen.
Recommendations for Program Change
The most important principles of effective intervention are the core risk, need, and
responsivity principles as well as the assessment of each. The RPD Juvenile Diversion
Program currently does not adhere to any of these core principles. The researcher
suggests that for the RPD program to adhere to risk, need, and responsivity, it should
implement staff training, utilize a risk assessment instrument, and also create and
maintain a program manual. It is recognized that there are more principles not being
adhered to by RPD than there are recommendations for change. Understandably, there
are many different changes which could be recommended to RPD to improve its
programming, but with recognition of the agency’s limitations and the importance of the
three core risk, need, responsivity principles, only the three will be suggested.
107
These specific three recommendations are intended to provide RPD with the
greatest likelihood for change in order to improve adherence to the core principles.
Research shows that the effect on recidivism is highest when all three core RNR
principles are adhered to and that non-adherence can actually be detrimental to crime
reduction (Andrews & Bonta, 2010a). According to Andrews and Bonta (2010a),
“nonadherence with RNR may actually be increasing crime and that the hope for crime
prevention resides in the delivery of treatment services consistent with the major
principles of effective correctional treatment” (p. 74). The following three
recommendations are intended to increase RPD’s level of adherence. The first
recommendation is to implement staff training. The staff training which appears most
beneficial is the Strategic Training Initiative in Community Supervision (STICS).
Recommendation #1: STICS. STICS was introduced as a result of challenges
that researchers saw in the real world application of the principles of effective
intervention (Bourgon, Bonta, Rugge, Scott, & Yessine, 2010). Even the most well
designed program will not succeed in real world application if the program staff is not
adequately trained (Grattet et al., 2006). Developed by James Bonta and his colleagues,
STICS is a three-day training course which is intended to maximize adherence to the
RNR principles (Andrews & Bonta, 2010a). STICS was initially created to focus on
probation officers and their interactions with the subjects they supervised. According to
Andrews and Bonta (2010a), “the goal of the [STICS] project was to deliver and evaluate
the efficacy of training in intervention practices that are consistent with the RNR model”
(p. 414). The researchers examined audio recording of the probation officers and the
108
results of the examination showed that very few officers engaged in RNR model practices
(Bourgon et al., 2010). The STICS training focuses on providing theory based practices
that are also consistent with the RNR principles. After the initial development of related
skills, researchers argue that maintenance of the skills is key and regular meetings after
the initial three day training are required.
The three-day STICS training includes 10 training modules that focus on the
General Personality and Cognitive Social Learning (GPCSL) perspective. Table 3
provides a breakdown of each module as identified by Bourgon et al. (2010). The format
of the training class is structured and there is a training manual used to assist as well as
multiple in-class exercises (Andrews & Bonta, 2010a). Day one includes an overview of
the GPCSL and recognition of the importance of RNR. Researchers point out that it is
important for staff to buy in to the GPCSL perspective because the first goal is to change
the behavior of the staff themselves (Andrews & Bonta, 2010a). The staff who
implements the treatment must first believe in the perspective and utilize its techniques in
order for the offender to change his/her behavior. The training modules that focus on
responsivity identify the importance for an offender to respect and like their staff
member, because as Andrews and Bonta (2010a) point out, “if one does not care what the
other thinks or feels, then one is free to act according to his or her own wishes” (p. 243).
To improve the relationship between staff and clients, relationship-building skills are
taught to STICS attendees and then these skills are practiced using different exercises and
role playing (Andrews & Bonta, 2010a; Bourgon et al., 2010).
109
Day two and three of STICS training focuses on teaching staff how to promote
offender change in an appropriate way. According to Andrews and Bonta (2010a), it is
critical to teach cognitive-behavioral techniques in a simple and concrete way in order for
staff to easily learn and implement the techniques on the clients. A simple cognitivebehavioral model called Behavior Sequence is taught to the staff in order for them to help
their client identify how his/her thoughts led to their behavior (Andrews & Bonta, 2010a;
Bourgon et al., 2010). Staff are also taught cognitive restructuring in order to teach
clients how to replace antisocial thoughts with prosocial thoughts. Although the threeday training is a great starting point for staff, Andrews and Bonta (2010a) argue that
repetition is root of skill maintenance and so STICS also mandates that staff meet on a
monthly basis following the class to discuss their use of STICS. The trainers who
implement STICS use teleconference to check in with the staff to see how
implementation is going and provide feedback where necessary. One year after the initial
STICS training, staff would also be required to attend a one-day refresher course
(Andrews & Bonta, 2010a).
Table 3
Three-day STICS Training and Skill Maintenance Components
Three Day STICS Training
Day
1
Method
Module 1: Overview and
rationale for STICS
Goal
Program Issue
Lay the theoretical
GPCSL
groundwork and
Theory
110
Module 2: Differential supervision
and the risk principle
evidence for
Risk Principle
many of the
Module 3: Criminogenic needs
specific skills
Need Principle
Module 4: Procriminal attitudes
taught in later
Responsivity
modules.
Principle
Show importance
Responsivity
Module 5: Responsivity principle:
Building rapport in a
of rapport and teach Principle
therapeutic relationship
relationship
building skills
2
Module 6: The Cognitive-Behavioral
Teach concrete
Responsivity
concepts/skills,
Principle
relevant to various
Responsivity
Interventions: Cognitive
criminogenic
Principle
restructuring
needs, applicable to
Model
Module 7: Cognitive-Behavioral
range of clients
Module 8: Prosocial modeling
and reinforcement
Teach modeling
Responsivity
techniques, effective Principle
use of reinforcement
and punishment
3
Module 9: Other specific cognitivebehavioral interventions
Teach core skills of
Responsivity
problem solving and Principle
self-management
111
Module 10: Strategic supervision
Provide structure
Responsivity
for each session
Principle
and overall
probation period
Skill Maintenance
Method
Goal
Program Issue
Monthly meetings
Support, skill
Skill
Formal Clinical feedback on offender-client
development
Maintenance
sessions
and integrity
Refresher course (approx. 1 year post training)
Note. The data on STICS training is adapted from “The Role of Program Design,
Implementation, and Evaluation in Evidence-Based “Real World” Community
Supervision,” by G. Bourgon, J. Bonta, T. Rugge, T. L. Scott, & A. K. Yessine, 2010,
Federal Probation, 74(1), p. 9.
The recommendation of acquiring the STICS training for RPD staff is done with
recognition that there must be managerial support for change. The resources required and
the time spent on change is generally substantial initially, but the goal is for RPD to
become well trained in order to effect change more easily in the future. Due to the
importance of managerial support, the researcher recommends that the RPD staff who
attend STICS training include oversight managers. The researcher suggests that the three
112
core staff members who implement the RPD Juvenile Diversion Program, one RPD
officer, one Placer County Juvenile Probation officer, and one school official attend the
training as well as the social work interns who work with the youth. In an interview
response, Officer #1 indicated that there are currently four Youth Services Officers
(YSOs) at RPD and that inclusion in the RPD diversion program is dependent upon the
YSO assignment. As a result, the researcher would suggest that in addition to the basic
staff members, the remaining YSOs also attend in order to provide the greatest amount of
coverage, such as if one officer leaves the YSO unit, then the remaining three will still be
trained and will be able to pass along the training to new staff members. The goal is that
if RPD were to acquire STICS training, the staff would be trained in the core RNR
principles as well as the GPCSL perspective. Once training is acquired, the RPD
program can begin to alter the programming to accommodate these changes, thus causing
the RPD Juvenile Diversion Program to adhere minimally to Principles 2 (psychological
theory), 5 (risk), 6 (need), 7/8 (responsivity). Again, if the core RNR principles are not
adhered to, the adherence to all other principles is moot.
Bourgon et al. (2010) mentioned that an agency intending to implement STICS
must first have pre-existing conditions which are deemed necessary for quality
implementation of RNR service. The authors identified that an agency must already
utilize a validated risk assessment instrument prior to STICS. As a result of the
interviews with the RPD officers, it is clear that the RPD Juvenile Diversion Program
does not use any type of risk assessment on the youth who attend the program. The
113
second major recommendation is for RPD to acquire and regularly implement an
assessment instrument.
Recommendation #2: Utilize a risk assessment instrument. Over the years,
assessment instruments have changed and adapted due to new research findings.
Andrews and Bonta (2010a) identify that the most current assessment instrument which
they recommend using is Level of Service/Case Management Inventory (LS/CMI). The
added feature of the LS/CMI which the authors found necessary is the case management
function it provides. Research showed that in real world application, there is a
disconnect between the administration of an assessment instrument and the actual usage
of the results to manage an offender’s treatment. Adapted from the LS/CMI and
designed to more appropriately match the youthful offenders, the Youth Level of
Service/Case Management Inventory (YLS/CMI) was designed (Andrews & Bonta,
2010a). Since risk and needs factors can vary across different populations, it is important
for an assessment instrument to be matched with the specific target population (Grattet et
al., 2006). The YLS/CMI is comprised of 6 components centered on the Central Eight
risk and need factors. An assessment of 42 items yields a risk level score to assist in
determining the direction of the intervention. The instrument would evaluate the
offender for factors which have been previously identified as being related to future
offending and would predict the probability of that future offending (Grattet et al., 2006).
The probability is then labeled as either low risk or high risk. The case management
function of the YLS/CMI allows for staff to track an offender’s progress.
114
The YLS/CMI is an actuarially designed assessment which allows for easy
implementation by staff members. Upon purchasing the assessment instrument, training
manuals are also available by the designers in order to maximize the effectiveness of its
use. While the initial assessment is simply calculated based upon the 42 items
assessment, the case management portion allows for a more individualized treatment
approach. The researcher of this project believes that the YLS/CMI provides RPD with
the most beneficial assessment instrument. The recommendation for using an assessment
instrument also begins a discussion of who would implement the assessment and manage
the case plan.
As both RPD officers indicated, there are social work interns who spend time
volunteering at the police department. Through the interview, the researcher developed a
vision for a way to maximize the application of the social work interns. As the officers
indicated, the interns are the ones who currently conduct follow-up with the youth and
their families. The researcher sees potential in having the interns conduct the assessment
of the youth initially. Once a youth is cited to attend the RPD Juvenile Diversion
Program, the intern would receive a copy of the citation in order to contact the youth and
their family to set up an initial assessment. Using the YLS/CMI, the intern would
conduct the assessment in order to determine the youth’s level of risk. Using the case
management function of the YLS/CMI, the intern would then also start a case file for that
youth which would be used throughout the intervention process.
Research indicates that many low risk offenders need little to no intervention,
whereas high risk offenders need intensive intervention. Research also indicates that
115
mixing low risk offenders with high risk offenders can be potentially detrimental to the
low risk offenders. Mixing of risk levels has been linked to higher recidivism for low
risk offenders (Grattet et al., 2006). These research findings have importance in the
researcher’s recommendations to RPD. As the RPD Juvenile Diversion Program is
designed today, there is one diversion class which all cited offenders attend. There is no
recognition of risk level nor are there any alterations for learning styles of the specific
offenders (responsivity). Very little interaction actually occurs with the offenders, rather
the three staff members talk at the youth about their crimes and the consequences of
them. After this one hour, one time class, the social work interns then contact the youth
and their family to see if there are any other services they can assist with. The interns
then may assign community service hours to the youth, as what Officer #1 referred to as
punishment, which are then completed at the Roseville Police Activities League (RPAL).
The researcher suggests a different approach.
Step one is to conduct a risk/need assessment on the youth who are cited to the
diversion program. Without first conducting an assessment, the interns and other staff
have no knowledge of the youth’s risk level. Although the youth who are cited to the
RPD Juvenile Diversion Program are cited for minor offenses, that does not mean that the
youth is not at high risk for future offending. The researcher finds that since the social
work interns are working on clinical training, they are best suited to implement the
assessment instrument. Having a uniformed police officer asking a youth to tell the truth
about certain issues is not likely to provoke a truthful response. The interns would
conduct the initial assessment and would also then be assigned to that youth for the
116
duration of their intervention. Using the YLS/CMI, level of risk would be identified.
The difference in risk level leads into another potential program change. As mentioned,
the RPD Juvenile Diversion Program does not separate youth, the program is delivered to
one large group. Rather than continue this procedure, it would be more beneficial to split
the youth into two groups: high risk offenders and low risk offenders. This split would
create a two-tiered model for the RPD Juvenile Diversion Program.
As research indicates, low risk youth do not need intensive intervention and the
basic awareness version of the current RPD Juvenile Diversion Program could be
sufficient. The low risk youth would attend the program and listen to the staff talk about
consequences. After the one time, one hour class, the low risk youth would then have no
further program obligations or involvement. A case management plan would still be
started for the youth as a result of the YLS/CMI, but it would simply be for
documentation only. Obviously, there is also room for error and a youth who scored as
low risk on the YLS/CMI could potentially re-offend and if that were to occur, then the
case management plan would have already been documented. The process with low-risk
youth would comprise tier one of the program.
Tier two would focus on those youth who were scored as high risk. Tier two is
the more lengthy and intensive approach to intervention. The three staff members would
still implement the RPD diversion programming, but it would be altered to accommodate
different risk, need, and responsivity components. The high risk version of the RPD
Juvenile Diversion Program could be less of a group class setting and more focused on
individual youth. The youth and his family would attend more of a meeting type setting
117
where the RPD staff would sit down with the youth and discuss their crime, the
consequences of it and then begin to implement the GPCSL based intervention
approaches which the staff would have learned in STICS training. The intern assigned to
the youth would also attend the meeting because that intern would be the one constant
person in that youth’s intervention process. The group meeting would be documented in
the case management plan, but then the intervention process would continue into a more
social work focused treatment. The intern assigned to the youth would continue to meet
with the youth and utilize GPCSL relationship building practices. Working one-on-one
with the youth to create that relationship is essential in motivating the offender to change.
Grattet et al. (2006) argue that, “program staff can play a powerful . . . role in enhancing
the motivation . . . to change using a technique called “motivational interviewing.”
Motivation interviewing is a directive, goal oriented counseling style intended to elicit
offender ambivalence about change in order to . . . resolve it” (p. 16). The different
techniques would be dependent upon the offender as well. As the responsivity factor
indicates, offenders are unique in their learning styles.
The social work interns who volunteer at RPD are assigned to RPD for a one year
period. The suggestion is then for the case management plan to span that same one year
period. As Grattet et al. (2006) pointed out, having heavy staff turnover can interfere
with the consistency of program delivery thus reducing the quality of the intervention.
After the one year period, the intervention process at the RPD level would be complete.
If resources and funding were never an issue, then further intervention could occur.
Unfortunately, at a police level, one year may be the most that is possible. During the
118
one year period, the frequency of meetings with the youth would be determined by the
intern assigned to that youth. Additionally, it is likely that some youth may need
additional intervention, whether it is mental health assistance or substance abuse issues.
The intern would work with the youth and their family during that one year to make
arrangements for future necessary assistance.
The ongoing case management plan, which the interns conduct over the one year
period also, allows for RPD to maintain a strong follow-up procedure with the youth and
their family. Although the low risk youth have limited intervention, it would also be
beneficial to maintain some type of follow-up with the family of the low risk youth. A
possible idea would be to maintain a similar procedure to what RPD currently
implements minus the issuance of community service hours. At a designated time
following attendance of the RPD Juvenile Diversion Program, possibly 6 months, the
interns would contact the family via phone to check on the youth. Simply because the
youth has not been caught reoffending does not mean that they are not in need of further
intervention. This phone call could suffice as meeting that follow-up principle.
Additionally, all case management plans would be shared with the Placer County
Juvenile Probation Department in hopes of creating a collaborative and consistent
approach to intervention. Since a juvenile probation officer is one of the three staff who
implements the RPD programming, the sharing of the case management plans would
allow for continued treatment if an offender did re-offend and ended up under probation
supervision. Probation would know what approach police had taken and what
intervention efforts had already been attempted. Sharing of the information would also
119
reduce the repetition by related agencies. There are endless options for change within
RPD and ultimately those changes are up to management. The researcher is providing
some initial recommendations for change which hopefully will encourage RPD
management to discuss these changes and any others which they prefer. This project
serves as a way to start a conversation among RPD staff, which will hopefully result in
implementation of change in order to improve the RPD Juvenile Diversion Program. No
matter what changes are made by RPD, the researcher urges them to create and maintain
a manual for the RPD Juvenile Diversion Program.
Recommendation #3: Create and maintain a program manual.
Recommendation one is to have RPD staff attend STICS training to be better suited in
implementing a diversion program that adheres to the core risk, need, and responsivity
principles. Recommendation two urges RPD to purchase and utilize a risk/needs
assessment instrument to determine the risk level for the youth. The STICS training
focuses on the fundamental principles as well as different approaches to changing
offender behavior which are consistent with the GPCSL perspective. The methods taught
such as the Behavior Sequence as well as basic relationship building skills could all be
organized into a program manual. The program manual would briefly identify the
principles of effective intervention so that anyone would be able to familiarize
themselves with the research behind the diversion program. The methods and
information learned through STICS would also be added to the manual as a simple way
to teach a new staff member the basics of what the three day course taught the original
attendees. Realistically, the price of the STICS course may be too much for repeated
120
training sessions. Rather, using what was taught to the original attendees and placing that
information into a manual may be more cost effective while still allowing the information
to be passed on. The information on the assessment instrument would also be added to
the manual. Instructions for use and sample assessment sheets would be useful visual
aids.
While the STICS training and the YLS/CMI are specific components of the
suggested RPD Juvenile Diversion Program, there is a lot of general information which
should be documented into a manual. The who, what, when, where, and why of the RPD
Juvenile Diversion Program should be documented. Grattet et al. (2006) suggests that
written program manuals are important for the intended program model to be effectively
translated to the staff. The manuals allow for program consistency, accountability, and
replication (Grattet et al., 2006).
The Who. The RPD Juvenile Diversion Program is implemented by three main
staff members, a police officer, a probation officer, and a school official. These three
members should be listed in the manual as well as their program involvement and
educational background. Interview responses from the RPD officers indicated that they
knew the school official who implemented the program had some type of clinical
background or education, but they were not sure exactly what. In order to improve
awareness, this type of education information should be documented in a manual. In
addition to the three main staff, the management who oversees the program as well as the
interns who volunteer at the department should be listed. Since these positions change,
the names could be regularly updated as needed.
121
A second component of the who would be the participants themselves. Since the
RPD Juvenile Diversion Program is implemented on a monthly basis, records should be
kept on how many youth attended the program. The manual could document the class
date, who attended, who did not, and the crimes the youth were cited for. By
documenting this data, future analysis could easily be conducted. It is recommended to
keep electronic versions of the manual and label them according to year. At the
conclusion of each year, save the file and create a new one for the next year. By tracking
the program manual by years, anyone could retrieve them to see the changes that
occurred as well as the documented statistics on attendance and recidivism.
The What. The RPD officers indicated in their interview responses that over the
years, the content of the program has been changed or altered. A description of what is
implemented to participants as well the training information could be listed in this
section. If a PowerPoint presentation is used, as the officers indicated, then a copy of it
should be imbedded into the manual. The STICS training information and procedures as
well as the YLS/CMI assessment information would be appropriate to describe in the
manual.
The When. The RPD Juvenile Diversion Program currently meets once a month
on the first Tuesday at 6:30 pm. While this is a regular meeting time, the manual could
document the date of the class for each month and if there were any cancellations of
classes and why. Additionally, if changes were to be made to the RPD program, the
manual could document the amount of time that the interns spent working with each
122
youth on a monthly basis. The data could be documented for individual interns or as a
whole.
The Where. The location which the RPD Juvenile Diversion Program is held
should be documented. If use of the RPAL facility occurs, that should also be
documented describing the facility and what activities took place there.
The Why. This portion of the manual would include the background research
mentioned above which supports the use of the evidence based principles of effective
intervention. Research which supports using STICS training as well as risk/needs
assessments would be appropriately described here as well. Unfortunately as of now,
RPD implements a program which there is no research to support. Although the
development of the program was done with good intentions, a program such as RPDs
should have research to back its use. If RPD were to utilize the principles to effective
intervention, the manual could describe the support and findings behind that decision.
Since the RPD program identifies itself as a diversion program, research and basic
information supporting diversion should be included as well.
A program manual would be a way for RPD to document the program’s
objectives, methods, staff practices, attendance records, as well as, set up convenient data
analysis if so desired. Future research could utilize the manual to determine recidivism
effects. Programs should be measuring their performance and then using the findings to
improve their program (Grattet et al., 2006). The program manual would also be
beneficial for the training of new staff members. For the simplest of reasons, any
program implemented by a police agency on the youth in their community should be
123
documented and monitored. There is little benefit to implementing a program just to be
able to claim to have one. RPD needs to be able to clearly articulate the program and all
related material. Although the initial creation of the manual could be time consuming,
once the first year is complete, future years can be implemented into the electronic
template. Different staff could be tasked with maintaining and implementing different
portions of the monthly data to be more efficient. Although for many, change is
uncomfortable, putting in the work to change the RPD Juvenile Diversion Program now
will pay off for years to come.
While these three major recommendations are seen as most beneficial, they are
not the exhaustive list of potential changes. As with every public agency, there are
limitations which prevent changes from occurring. The objective of this project was to
determine how many principles of effective intervention were being adhered to by the
RPD Juvenile Diversion Program. A secondary objective was to conduct a descriptive
analysis of the recidivism rates among program participants to acquire a better
understanding of the rates among participants. This project provided RPD with a clear
outline which provides research support for the use of the evidence based principles as
well as the results of the comparative evaluation which provided findings that RPD
currently lacked in adherence to these principles. The researcher also conducted a
descriptive analysis of the recidivism rates among program participants which allows
RPD to see specific statistics about who their program serves as well as how many
participants recidivated. The researcher then made recommendations on ways to improve
the RPD Juvenile Diversion Program. The entire project provides a package which RPD
124
can utilize to implement changes and improve their diversion program. While this
research project was effective in meeting its stated objective, there are some limitations to
the project.
Project Limitations
The focus of this project was on the RPD Juvenile Diversion Program. Although
many diversion programs exist, the comparative evaluation was focused on adherence by
the RPD. Since the focus was limited to one agency, the findings from both the
comparative evaluation as well as the descriptive recidivism analysis are specific to
Roseville and are not able to be generalized. A second limitation is that the descriptive
analysis of the recidivism rates among program participants did not utilize a comparison
group.
Unfortunately, the RPD did not record program attendance and so without having
those records it was not possible to use a comparison group. Since the data collection
period, the RPD has begun to track attendance among its participants. The purpose of the
recidivism analysis was descriptive in design and was not intended to measure the
effectiveness of the RPD Juvenile Diversion Program, but future research in that area is
recommended. It would be beneficial for RPD to conduct future research comparing the
youth who attended the program against those who did not in order to see the impact the
program had on recidivism rates. Grattet et al. (2006) point out that the best evaluations
are those which use scientific evaluation to measure recidivism of program participants.
The authors urge that the most beneficial findings result from using a treatment group as
well as a comparison group. Once this future research is conducted, the RPD can then
125
begin to claim whether the change in recidivism was a result of their program. Until that
future research occurs, the recidivism statistic is simply a statistic and no correlation can
be made.
There was a minor limitation in conducting thematic analysis of the interview
responses of the Roseville police officers. This process was conducted by the researcher
to help determine if the RPD program adhered to the principles of effective intervention.
There is possibility that an officer’s intended meaning in a response could have been
misinterpreted by the researcher. In order to limit the possibility of human error, direct
quotes were used in the comparison. The interviews were limited to only two Roseville
police officers and although the researcher had intentionally limited the interviews to
those officers with the most knowledge of the RPD program, the researcher now believes
that other individuals should also have been interviewed. Responses from the social
work interns as well as the other personnel who implement the RPD diversion program
would have been beneficial because of their differing views and levels of program
involvement.
Implications
While the findings from this research project only apply to the RPD Juvenile
Diversion Program, what has been learned through the research conducted can be applied
to other agencies/programs. The findings from the literature review provided insight into
the unique nature of diversion programs. While the concept of diversion is generally
accepted by many as the intent to divert youthful offenders away from the formal justice
system to prevent subsequent offending, the specific programs widely vary. Variations
126
can be found among who participates, what type of programming is delivered, how long
the program is, where among the justice process the diversion is implemented, and many
other factors. Due to the uniqueness of the individual programs, the research findings of
recidivism effects cannot be generalized. Since the programs are unique, it is challenging
to compare two programs against each other. However, the literature review findings did
show that there are evidence based practices/principles that have been proven effective
and can be applied to many settings. Among these evidence based principles were the
principles of effective correctional interventions identified by Donald Andrews and his
colleagues. These principles, when applied appropriately, have yielded positive findings
in regards to recidivism reductions. The results of this project and the research on the
principles could be applied by any agency utilizing any intervention program.
The recommendations of the researcher were specific to Roseville, however
another agency/program could benefit from implementing training, assessments, and
having program manuals available. The comparative evaluation brings awareness to
many working professionals that there is importance in seeking assessment of risk factors
for treatment. The better suited a treatment mechanism is to the individual receiving it,
the higher the likelihood that the treatment is effective. Thus, the more effective the
treatment, the more beneficial it is to the individual, their community, and the agencies
which serve them. If recidivism rates are reduced, resources are not wasted on treating
the same subjects repeatedly.
127
Conclusion
Through history, the goal of the Juvenile Justice System has been to serve the best
interests of the child. Programs and treatment interventions should maintain this
historical goal when dealing with youth. Over the years, a myriad of different programs
and services have erupted as a result of the pendulum swinging to the rehabilitation ideal.
One such program was the diversion program. The court system was viewed as having
stigmatizing effects on a child and so alternative sanctions were created. The challenge
with diversion is the inconsistency among programming. Diversion programs vary across
many domains and positive research findings on recidivism effects can hardly be
generalized. While the concept of diversion seems appealing to agencies, implementing a
program with diversion in the title is simply not enough. The program must actually
serve the best interests of the child. RPD created a diversion program a few years ago in
hopes of reducing the future offending of the youth involved.
The RPD could have considered the research on juvenile diversion programming
to develop an evidence based program. Rather than continue to offer a program which
has unknown effects, the researcher of this project decided to examine the RPD Juvenile
Diversion Program, its process, and its recidivism rates. Evidence based principles of
effective intervention were used as a way to compare the existing RPD program against
those principles which have been scientifically determined to be effective at reducing
recidivism. Research has shown that three core principles, risk, need, and responsivity
(RNR), are the core components to successful program outcomes. When the RPD
program was compared to the existing principles of effective intervention, it was found
128
that RPD only adhered to 3 of the 15 principles, none of which were the core RNR
principles. In order for RPD to improve their programming, three major
recommendations were made which would improve specific adherence to all three RNR
principles as well as assessment of each. The researcher also conducted a descriptive
analysis of the recidivism rates among those youth cited to the RPD program.
Surprisingly, only 19.4% of the youth reoffended. While a relatively low rate, the RPD
had not tracked attendance which limited the reliability of the findings.
In order for RPD to serve the best interests of the child, the department can
consider the recommendations for change in order to have a program which is best suited
to serve those interests. The best interests of the child and the best interests of the
department are compatible. Essentially, if RPD improves their programming to better
serve the youth, the less likely the youth will be to re-offend thus reducing the services
and time RPD must spend on tending to re-offending youth. Since the police are
considered the gate keepers to the justice system, if they make the changes at their level,
all other components of the justice system, along with the community as a whole, will
benefit. Until that occurs, the RPD Juvenile Diversion Program will remain a program
without any empirical backing; just another diversion program unable to claim any
positive effect.
129
Appendix A
Comparative Evaluation of the Roseville Police Department Juvenile Diversion Program
Consent to Participate in Research
You are being asked to participate in research which will be conducted by Ms. Courtney
Sens in support of her Master’s Degree project with the Criminal Justice Division at
California State University, Sacramento. The purpose of this study is to conduct a
comparative evaluation of the Roseville Police Department (RPD) Juvenile Diversion
Program. The evaluation will be conducted by comparing the program to the evidencebased principles of effective intervention in order to determine how many principles the
RPD program adheres to. This information is important in that it will provide a greater
insight into the benefit of the RPD Juvenile Diversion Program. As part of the
comparative evaluation, I will be asking you a series of questions regarding the RPD
Juvenile Diversion Program with focus on program design and implementation. The
interview will be recorded and transcribed.
You may not personally benefit from participating in this research. However, the study
of the RPD Juvenile Diversion program will greatly benefit the Roseville Police
Department as well as the youth served by the diversion program. Research shows that
implementation of evidence-based principles can greatly increase the success of a
program. By identifying which principles of effective intervention are being
implemented by the RPD Juvenile Diversion program, recommendations can be made for
potential improvement. A copy of the final report will be made available upon request.
The transcripts from the interview and any other documentation will be kept completely
confidential and all personal information will be removed to ensure protection of your
identity. After the interview has been transcribed, the audio recording will be destroyed,
and in any event, no later than one year after they were made. Until that time, they will
be stored in a secure location.
You will not receive any compensation for participating in this study. This procedure is
completely safe and is not associated with any known risks. If you have any questions
about this research, you may contact Ms. Courtney Sens at (xxx) xxx-xxxx or by email at
xxxxxxx@yahoo.com. You may also contact my Project Advisor Timothy E. Croisdale
with the Sacramento State Criminal Justice Division at sac52957@saclink.csus.edu.
You may decline to be a participant in this study without any consequences and may
decline to answer any question during the interview if desired. Your signature below
indicates that you have read this page and agree to participate in the research.
Signature of Roseville Police Officer
Date
130
Appendix B
Interview Questions
Good morning/afternoon/evening, thank you for agreeing to participate in my research
project, your participation is greatly appreciated. I will be interviewing you regarding the
Roseville Police Department Juvenile Diversion Program. For all the questions I will be
asking you, please just answer them to the best of your ability based upon your
knowledge and involvement with the program.
Question 1: Can you tell me about the RPD diversion program including what the
purpose of the program is and also who it serves?
Question 2: If you had involvement in the design phase of the program, can you explain
what the motivation behind designing the program was and also if you referred to any
material to assist you in designing the program?
Question 3: What type of service delivery approach does the RPD program take? For
example, does it take a retributive approach?
Question 4: Based upon your knowledge of the diversion program, was it developed
around a theory, and if so, what theory was that?
Question 5: In what type of setting is the RPD diversion program delivered in?
Question 6: Can you describe the content of the RPD diversion program which is
delivered to the participants? If you were involved in the design stages, can you describe
how you came to create that curriculum ?
Question 7: Regarding the participants, who does the RPD program serve?
Question 8: Do the services offered by the RPD diversion program target any specific
risk factors of the participants?
Question 9: To your knowledge, does the RPD diversion program utilize any risk
assessment instruments?
Question 10: Is the RPD diversion programming generic in that the same programming
is delivered to all participants, or is it changed to meet the specific needs of the
participant?
Question 11: Does the program utilize different service delivery methods? For example,
are there visual aids, hands on exercises, role playing, etc…
131
Question 12: Are the participants of the RPD diversion program split into groups
depending on factors such as age and sex, or are they all put into one large group?
Question 13: After the juvenile attends the RPD diversion program, is there any follow
up done with the youth or their family?
Question 14: To your knowledge, was the RPD diversion program designed to allow for
any discretion among program providers to accommodate specific cases?
Question 15: When a youth is cited to the diversion program, does someone create a
service plan for that youth which would be maintained to document treatment
approaches?
Question 16: What is the objective of the RPD diversion program? Is there follow up
after the youth attends to program in order to measure if the RPD program is meeting its
stated objective?
Question 17: Is there any documented training or program manuals for the RPD
diversion program? If you were involved with the design phase of the program, did you
create any documents regarding the program?
Question 18: Describe the staff which implements the RPD diversion programming?
How are they selected?
Question 19: Are there any specific considerations used to determine who is selected as
staff to implement the program? Is there any training required to be an
instructor/implementer?
Question 20: Is there a manager or supervisor who oversees the RPD diversion program?
If so, what is his or her level of involvement?
Question 21: Do the staff who implement the RPD diversion program have information
on referrals? Such as, if a child appears to need other assistance beyond what the RPD
diversion program can offer, does the staff have that information and if so, do they make
referrals for the youth?
Question 22: What happens to a youth after they attend the RPD diversion program?
Question 23: Have you ever examined the recidivism rates among participants to see if
they re-offended after attending the program?
That completes the interview, thank you again for your time.
132
Appendix C
Roseville Police Officer Interview No. 1
Interviewer: Courtney Sens, CSUS Graduate Student. Referred to as “Interviewer.”
Interviewee: Roseville Police Officer. Referred to as “Officer.”
Interviewer: “Good morning, thank you for agreeing to participate in my research
project, your participation is greatly appreciated. I will be interviewing you regarding the
Roseville Police Department Juvenile Diversion Program. For all the questions I will be
asking you, please just answer them to the best of your ability based upon your
knowledge and involvement with the program.”
Interviewer: “Alright, so to start off, can you tell me about the RPD diversion program
including what the purpose of the program is and also who it serves?”
Officer: “The diversion program I think, I think it was started approximately three, three
and a half years ago by another fellow officer. And the main purpose of the diversion
program is for minor…for juveniles who commit minor offenses and try to deter them to
commit future offenses..um and it also is more informational for the parent to see what
could happen when their kids uh do get in trouble with the law and what are the steps. It
also helps them with information to further assist their kids not to get in trouble and also
to have other sources to contact is fellow officers, school officials, and probation
officials.”
Interviewer: “Would you describe the RPD program as a crime prevention strategy?”
Officer: “Yes, absolutely.”
Interviewer: “Why so?”
Officer: “Well maybe a crime prevention intervention type of program because the kid
has already committed a crime, we just want to prevent him from committing further
crimes, of, you know, greater, bigger crime.”
Interviewer: “What part of the diversion program do you feel assists in that goal of crime
prevention, future crime prevention?”
Officer: “Probably the scare tactic that they’re gonna be placed on juvenile probation
where all their rights will be taken away. I think that scares them, or now, their driver’s
license getting suspended for an entire year whether they have one or not, depending on
the crimes they committed.”
133
Interviewer: “Alright, can you tell me about your specific involvement with the
program?”
Officer: “My involvement at this point is that I basically run the diversion program, I
teach the class which is the first Tuesday of the month with another probation officer
from Placer County and then also a school official from the Roseville Joint Unified
School District at the high school level. Um and what we do is basically run the classes
and talk to all the juveniles who are cited and referred to us.”
Interviewer: “Additionally, how much time does an offender devote to the diversion
program, such as how long do they attend, how many sessions do they attend?
Officer: “They’re only allowed to attend one time, um, usually a session runs from 40
minutes to an hour and were waiting right now to hear back from probation. That’s
gonna allow us to issue them anywhere from 4-5 hours of community service.”
Interviewer: “Since we are on the topic, can you describe what just a general/typical
diversion class looks like. Like how many people, when, where, what do you talk about,
etc…”
Officer: “The diversion class is held at the police department in one of our uh banquet
rooms I guess…not one of our banquet rooms, one of our conference rooms and basically
we have tables lined up, kind of like in a classroom setting. They are not individual
tables, they are 16 foot tables with 6 or 8 chairs on each table and the parent sits there
with their kid and we show them a slide presentation, kind of like a PowerPoint and then
we go over all the crimes the kids committed, obviously without telling each kid, “hey
what did you do.” And then also probation is there and they give them their status on
“hey this is what happens if you commit these crimes” and then we also have someone
from the school district and who tells them what the school consequences if these crimes
were committed at school, before school, or after school.”
Interviewer: “If you had involvement in the design phase of the program, can you
explain what the motivation behind designing the program was and also if you referred to
any material to assist you in designing the program?”
Officer: “Yes, um the first time with the other officer who is no longer in the unit, we sat
down and kind of looked at what crimes were being committed by the juveniles. And
these crimes were talking about are all minor offenses, so no felonies, just misdemeanor
crimes with low dollar amounts or you know in the case of vandalism or theft or anything
like that. Um and continuous crimes committed by the same juveniles, so we looked at
all things. At first we had quite a gang problem in the schools and so we included gang
134
information on there, that the schools don’t allow you to bring gang clothing to schools;
any type of gang insignia. Also, you know the thefts that were occurring, shoplifting,
you know, those were just some of the things we put in there. We looked at the crimes
juveniles were committing at the time in order to design the program.”
Interviewer: “And did you guys refer to any material to assist you with designing it, did
you refer to any resources?”
Officer: “Yeah, some of it, some of the material we referred to obviously was the school
ed. (education) code and that was with one of the school officials, because we wanted to
see what like, for example, what gang clothing was being worn. Well there is a gang
contract, well not a contract, or a gang clothing policy at the school district that if you
wear certain colors too much, they are not gonna allow you to wear them anymore, so we
kinda went off of that because the stuff that the kids were coming in for gang stuff was
primarily happening at the school level. An then the shoplifting stuff and things like that,
referred to as the penal code, referring to juvenile crime, the 601 or 602 or 300 to see
what they fall into as juvenile crime and wards of the court and things like that.”
Interviewer: “Okay, let’s see, what type of service delivery approach does the RPD
program take? For example, does it take a retributive approach, um or do you have any
information on that?”
Officer: “Before we first were doing the program, it was kinda low key, it was really
more information to the parents and the kids. But now, as we kept evolving, we tried to
make it uh somewhat of a chew out session cause these kids are getting a break. There
information is not getting forwarded to the Placer County Probation Department, it
basically is staying within our department and then once they attend this class, its like
kinda like when you attend traffic school and you get a traffic violation, it gets wiped off
your record. It’s your one shot in three years that you can do that right. Well with this,
they are getting this kinda wiped off their records; still stays in our records, but it doesn’t
affect them as much, so now it’s more of a “hey this is a warning, you are screwing up
and if you continue down this road, you’re gonna eventually be placed on probation.”
Interviewer: “Okay, based upon your knowledge of the diversion program, was it
developed around a theory, and if so, what theory was that?”
Officer: “I mean if you look at my opinion, a theory is that you scare the crap outta these
kids not to commit any crimes, and if they continue to commit any crimes then they are
gonna be placed on probation which they hate because curfew is 6 pm, pee testing you
name it, all kinds of things happen when you are placed on probation.”
135
Interviewer: “What type of setting is the RPD diversion program delivered in?”
Officer: “Right now which is one of the, I don’t like too much, but were still trying to
change is sort of a Power Point presentation at the Roseville Police Department. Um kids
come in, they sit down with their parents, it’s basically a classroom setting and basically
we go over all the consequences and the conditions of what’s gonna happen, so. It needs
to be changed a little bit in order to get them a little more active.”
Interviewer: “What would you change it to?”
Officer: “Right now we’re trying to get them to be a little more interactive, um also
we’re trying to implement possibly some type of punishment with this diversion. Not a
punishment, um, community service hours being assigned to them at our level, not at the
court level. Because then this way, they go back and tell their friends because like most
teenagers communicate “oh my gosh I have to do this, because I did this.” So, we are
trying to make it more so that it really really sets home that they really don’t want to
commit another crime after this.”
Interviewer: “Okay, can you describe the content of the RPD diversion program which is
delivered to the participants? If you were involved in the design stages, can you describe
how you came to create that curriculum?”
Officer: “Similar to what I said before, it is based on the crimes being committed. We
have, we talk about a lot of these have to do with school, things happening at the school,
as well as on the street, shoplifting with theft; vandalism, all misdemeanor crime,
misdemeanor vandalism; truancy which we emphasize quite a bit on, making kids show
up to school; fighting, um you know any kid who gets in a fight at school now gets
arrested and gets cited. Depending on the severity of the fight, it could go to probation or
it could come to the diversion program; challenging a kid to fight, um drugs, we do some
instances where it’s real minor, that they get caught with a little bit of marijuana, a tiny
bit, you know depending on the amount again, they could be cited there. Tobacco is a
huge issue with kids now days, lighters, they get cited with that and they get sent to the
diversion program. Um, just different type of infraction that could be committed.”
Interviewer: “And then you mentioned earlier that when you created, when you took part
in creating the program, you and another officer looked at what crimes were being
committed?”
Officer: “Yes, primarily we were looking at in the schools you know, the things that
were happening in the schools because we were assigned to the schools. Now we’re
looking at everything, um, that’s happening also with the just the patrol officers that their
136
dealing with. Because before it used to be dealing a lot with the curfew things ya know.
Officer used to be, two a.m., stopping kids walking down the street and things like that,
so.”
Interviewer: “Alright, regarding the participants, who does the RPD program serve
specifically?”
Officer: “The community. Mostly, most of the kids that are being cited are from the
Roseville area. I mean, every once in a while you get kids that come in from different
areas and shoplift at the stores and then they’re from a different area, but those kids that
do get cited here can go through a different ya know, as long as they attend a diversion
program, cause every city has one. Rocklin has one, Lincoln has one, and so does
Auburn PD. So, it helps primarily, I am gonna say 95 percent is Roseville residents.”
Interviewer: You mentioned that the other agencies have diversion programs. Is the
Roseville diversion program reflective of the norms of that society, being how Roseville
functions, what Roseville thinks is bad, good, um…Do you guys incorporate the
community norms when designing the program or implementing it?”
Officer: “We don’t so much get the community involved if that is what you are referring
to, we get mostly probation involved, um, because they kind of monitor and make sure
that the kids we’re sending to this diversion program will fit the characteristics of our
unit.”
Interviewer: “But, do you feel that the Roseville diversion program is reflective of the
specific community? Whereas, would the same message be useful in Sacramento, or is it
more specific to Roseville’s community?”
Officer: “I think it’s more specific to Roseville and Placer County’s community, because
I think the juveniles out here are obviously not committing crimes as bad as they are in
Sac County right now, because of lack of law enforcement. Um, so yeah, I think it’s
more specific to this area because the kids are you know uh, its minor offenses, super
minor offenses.”
Interviewer: “So you guys are not talking about stabbings and shootings?”
Officer: “No, no stabbing, shootings, or gang issues. We used to have, our diversion
program we did have a presentation on there for also gang activity because we had a lot
of gang activity back then. We completely took that slide out because we haven’t had
that issue with the kids regarding fights related to gang activity.”
137
Interviewer: “Do the services offered by the RPD diversion program target any specific
risk factors of the participants?”
Officer: “Risk factors in meaning like a different…?”
Interviewer: (interrupts Officer) “Risk factors for being a criminal potentially?”
Officer: “Yeah, absolutely, because these kids that are just barely starting to shoplift or
their barely doing drugs, I mean that’s the bottom of the barrel for crimes. I mean, and
then eventually there gonna be burglarizing neighborhoods when they get older. I mean
they start with marijuana now, they continue moving up to ya know, different types of
drugs and go into the heavier drugs. Uhm, so were trying to deter them from going that
route or even the fighting. Um, ya know you see fighting and eventually it’s not just
gonna be hands ya know, with fists, knives and guns and things like that. So, you wanna
deter them at an early level so when they get older, they don’t commit these offenses and
they create a greater scale.”
Interviewer: “You mentioned minor offenders and offenses, but does the RPD program
differentiate between kids who are low risk versus high risk, in terms of their potential to
reoffend. So, for example, even if two kids both committed a minor offense, one of them
could be a high risk kid, or a youth who is high risk for re-offending, do you guys
differentiate between the youth?”
Officer: “At this time, not necessarily. We do a little bit, what happens is now when a
kid does go to diversion or a kid is cited by an officer for a juvenile crime, it gets referred
also, to our counseling staff at RPAL. And that counseling staff looks at it and goes,
“hey this kid has got some issues that we could possibly help with.” So in that sense,
they look at it and they take the next step from there if they think this kid is going to
reoffend, or if they have some psychological issues too going on.”
Interviewer: “Okay, to your knowledge, does the RPD diversion program utilize any risk
assessment instruments to determine if the youth is low risk or high risk?”
Officer: “Not right now, but that’s a good point. Um, we should probably implement
something since we have counselors on staff.”
Interviewer: “Okay, so speaking of that, could you elaborate on the counselors? What
type of counselors do you guys have, um, what type of things do they do?”
Officer: “The counselors we have right now are mostly interns from Sac State; I think
that’s it, just from Sacramento State University.”
138
Interviewer: “What type of interns?”
Officer: “Um, social workers. Um, in that field where they’re dealing with juvenile
issues I guess, problems, psychological issues. And we do have someone who we are
bringing on board who also has their MSW. For social workers, she is going to be taking
over that specific job and analyzing these students or these juveniles who commit
offenses in Roseville, not only the ones who attend diversion but I think there also
reviewing all the juveniles files to make sure there is no issues with these kids?”
Interviewer: “And by issues, so will they be meeting with them, assessing them so to
speak to see what types of need and services they require?”
Officer: “To see if they can, if they need any more assistance. So, they will contact the
parents, not the juvenile. They will contact the parents, “we understand that your kid
committed this crime, is there anything we can help you to help your son or daughter” so
that they don’t reoffend or go down a different path.”
Interviewer: “And you call them “counseling interns,” do they do counseling?”
Officer: “Yeah, they also do counseling at the schools, some of the high schools in
town.”
Interviewer: “So do you feel that it would be appropriate, do you think those interns
could be used to do some type of risk assessment on the youth? You talked about
psychology, psychological things that might be present; do you think they would be a
useful tool to implement things like that?”
Officer: “Yeah, I think so, cause these interns are on their last, they have already
completed all their school work and they just need to put in their hours before they get
their license. They need to put all these hours in so it is a good step for them and so it
helps us at the same time because they look at a youth, “hey this kid has some serious
issues that he is disclosing to us.” Or, not only that, what if we get a kid who has been
sexually abused and never said anything, so we want to address those situations too.”
Interviewer: “So, we talked psychology stuff, does the RPD diversion program focus at
all on any specific psychological factors of offending, or is that more so applicable to the
counseling and when they reach that stage?”
Officer: “More so the counseling. We don’t take statistics on “okay we had so many
offenses,” we probably should but we are addressing our program each time, trying to
make it better, but we have not addressed “hey we have had so many offenders this way,
we have had so many offenders that way.” Basically the offense is shoplifting and we get
139
a lot of that and so the interns will obviously see that and go “oh is there some type of tie
you know, are these kids, criminals start committing bigger crimes, burglaries and stuff
like that.”
Interviewer: “Are you familiar at all with the General Personality and Cognitive Social
Learning Perspective?”
Officer: “No.”
Interviewer: “Is the RPD diversion programming generic in that the same programming
is delivered to all the participants, or is it changed to meet the specific needs of the
participant?”
Officer: “No, we have an outline that we go through but, prior to class I print out all the
sheets, all the kids that are supposed to be attending and I see what types of crimes they
have committed. Um, one of the crimes that we see on there every once in a while, and it
usually comes around during 4th of July, is fireworks or illegal fireworks and we don’t
really have that much during the rest of the year on that, so we talk about that. We target
you know when the kids come in to the diversion program, we don’t point out “hey you
committed this, hey you committed that,” we just know what they have committed and
they know, so then we bring it up during the class and we touch on every level, every kid
that’s in that class, we know exactly what they were cited for, so were gonna talk about
that specifically.”
Interviewer: “But generally speaking, it’s the same programming for everyone?”
Officer: “Yes.”
Interviewer: “Does the program utilize different service delivery methods? For example,
are there visual aids, hands on exercises, role playing, etc…”
Officer: “Uh at this point we just do the visual aids; we have the PowerPoint
presentation. And that’s what we’re trying to do, some types of hands on type of
interaction with the teens that are there.”
Interviewer: “Okay, are the participants of the RPD diversion program split into groups
depending on factors such as age and sex, or are they all put into one large group?”
Officer: “No, they’re all put into one large group.”
Interviewer: “After the juvenile attends the RPD diversion program, is there any follow
up done with the youth or their family?”
140
Officer: “Yes. That we are revamping that because uh we had some uh another staff
member follow up and were kinda changing that a little bit.”
Interviewer: “Can you elaborate on what type of follow-up is done?”
Officer: “The past follow up um, the kids were contacted by our uh other staff and they
basically would assign them community service hours to complete you know in a certain
amount of time. Whether it be volunteering at our police activities league or doing some
community service elsewhere.”
Interviewer: “You mentioned that the interns are involved in following up, is it mostly
interns or is it something that the officers could do?”
Officer: “It’s gonna be useful for both. The interns are gonna get the hours they need to
complete their licensing, but also it is gonna help us because they are gonna be able to
address some juveniles that, “hey we need to pay more closer attention to these juveniles
because they are gonna be big time offenders.” Our whole goal is to get these juveniles
out of these crime statistics so they are not committing all these things in Roseville or
anywhere else they go. So, it’s gonna help us out, it’s gonna help the families out to
deter these kids from committing any more crimes.”
Interviewer: “You mentioned that some of them would be the ones who would be
concerning, so the ones that are low-risk and not many issues with worrying about their
reoffending, those ones you won’t do any further intervention with, and you will just let
them fall off?”
Officer: “Unless the parents, like I said everybody is going to be contacted by the social
workers, um, and if the parents decide “hey you know what, my kid is fine and we
already have somebody else dealing with them.” But then there will be some parents
who will be like, “yeah I need the extra help because I can’t control my child.” So that’s
when we intervene.
Interviewer: “Is the youth’s family involved at all in the process, that follow up
process?”
Officer: “Yeah, cause they’re contacted because they uh to make sure that there okay to
complete those community service hours?”
Interviewer: “But the other family doesn’t need to be given any real type of follow up?”
Officer: “No.”
141
Interviewer: “To your knowledge, was the RPD diversion program designed to allow for
any discretion among program providers to accommodate specific cases?”
Officer: “Yes uh um, by accommodate you mean like switching the, not attending a
certain class or?”
Interviewer: “I guess just uh being able to be flexible in a specific case needing specific
type of attention versus the others?”
Officer: “Yeah if there is, I mean in you see a certain trend in a kid, well uh typically
when a kid gets cited to diversion, it should be his first offense overall but, sometimes
they just slip through the cracks when we get one that’s already committed a second
offense. And yeah we address it with a little more attention and also I mean if they need
to switch a day to attend the diversion program, probation allows them to miss one day
and as long as they come back the following session that is gonna be held, then it doesn’t
get forwarded up the chain of command at that point.”
Interviewer: “When a youth is cited to the diversion program, does someone create a
service plan for that youth which would be maintained to document treatment
approaches?”
Officer: “Not at this time, no. Unless he re-offends and then he gets contacted by
probation.”
Interviewer: “But no service plan is created?”
Officer: “No, not at this time, no.”
Interviewer: “What is the objective of the RPD diversion program?”
Officer: “To deter a juvenile from committing further offenses or committing bigger
offenses such as felonies or to commit crimes once they turn 18 as an adult.”
Interviewer: “Okay, with that said, is there follow up after the youth attends to program
in order to measure if the RPD program is meeting its stated objective?”
Officer: “At this point no, that’s a good point that maybe we should try that. No, not that
I know of.”
Interviewer: “Is there any documented training or program manuals for the RPD
diversion program? If you were involved with the design phase of the program, did you
create any documents regarding the program?”
142
Officer: “No, we kinda just, no not at this time, we wing it.” (laughs)
Interviewer: “You wing it (laughs). As far as if you are not available to implement the
programming, how does someone step in to take your place? Are there any manuals to
refer to or just verbal instruction?”
Officer: “No, there is verbal instruction, but other officers have attended the program just
to make sure, in case I can’t assist. Or they can take over, cause like I said this is uh, the
diversion program is basically has to do with the penal code, health and safety code and
all the other different California codes so the other officers know what they’re talking
about when they come in and attend the diversion program.”
Interviewer: “Do you feel that it would be beneficial for there to be a manual available to
assist someone new in coming to this position, such as if a new probation officer steps in
and was going to be helping, for them to be able to look through it, understand what the
program is about, different roles people play, things like that, do you feel that would be
beneficial?”
Officer: “Absolutely, yeah, because like I said, this program is fairly new, we barely
started this thing maybe 2 years ago and we have changed some things. Like I said, we
had the gang issue where we were talking a lot about gangs, like “you don’t want to be
doing this, or involved with that,” but we have pretty much taken that out now because
we pretty much have gotten rid of gangs in Roseville.”
Interviewer: “So, it would be useful to be able to update this information?”
Officer: “Yes, and that is one of the things we are doing, revamping the program right
now, because we want our program to have a little teeth, but not too much teeth. Like if
you were cited and get send up to the DA’s office, that way it does put a little fear in the
kids and they go “oh man, I’m not gonna do that,” and at the same time, they see that hey
this is the interaction with the police officers as well.”
Interviewer: “Using that as a beneficial deterrent, interacting with the police?”
Officer: “Yes, uh huh.”
Interviewer: “Describe the staff which implements the RPD diversion programming?
How are they selected?”
Officer: “It’s mostly because we are in the youth services unit, um, that’s how we are
selected to do the diversion program. Um, cause were dealing with you know there is
143
total of 4 officers in that program right now and uh so that’s how we get selected to do
it.”
Interviewer: “You mentioned earlier that uh there is also a probation officer and a school
official?”
Officer: “Yes.”
Interviewer: “How are they selected?”
Officer: “Well the probation officer deals primarily with juvenile crime and it was more
of a selection on his part because he wanted to be part of this program and his superiors
support him. The school staff, same thing, there’s obviously assistant principals
throughout the district, but this particular assistant principal wanted to be part of the
program and is also supported.”
Interviewer: “Okay, are any of um, to your knowledge are any of them clinically
trained?”
Officer: “Yes.”
Interviewer: “Which one?”
Officer: “The staff, the school, the school administrator.”
Interviewer: “Do you what type of clinical training he or she has?”
Officer: “I believe uh, she has her MSW or some type of social worker, it’s something to
do with counseling.”
Interviewer: “Do you know if they hold a degree?”
Officer: “Yes, I believe yes they do.”
Interviewer: “What type?”
Officer: “I believe it’s just uh (long pause), I don’t know if it’s a master degree or not I
think it might be a masters, but it might be a bachelors with a teaching credential or a you
know some type of counseling credential.”
Interviewer: You mentioned earlier that another person with a MSW was being hired on
to work in connection with the counseling interns, is there any connection between that
person and the person who puts on the diversion program with a MSW degree?
144
Officer: “Yes, the school official who helps with the diversion program is the same
person who is being hired on to oversee the counselors.”
Interviewer: “The social work interns?”
Officer: “Yeah, she is going to be the social worker for the Roseville Police Department,
and most of her job is going to be um, helping families in need with their kids.”
Interviewer: “Are there any specific considerations used to determine who is selected as
staff to implement the program? Is there any training required to be an
instructor/implementer?”
Officer: “No, they want most primarily to be officers who are in the youth services unit.
Um, probation wants someone who is dealing with juvenile crime.”
Interviewer: “So juvenile based is kind of one of the criteria?”
Officer: “Yes.”
Interviewer: “Is there a manager or supervisor who oversees the RPD diversion
program? If so, what is his or her level of involvement?”
Officer: “He is a Sergeant and his involvement is just to make sure that we do the
diversion program correctly and that all the juveniles being cited to this program attend
and are accounted for.”
Interviewer: “But beyond that, he doesn’t monitor the program?”
Officer: “No.”
Interviewer: “Can you elaborate on how the Sergeant makes sure that the program is run
correctly?”
Officer: “Although he is in charge of the unit, he doesn’t actually get too involved in the
program. Actually, it is mostly probation department because probation reviews all
juvenile citations and they will determine who can attend and who cannot.”
Interviewer: “So then how do you make sure all youth who are cited are accounted for as
you mentioned?”
Officer: “When youth come to the program, I have them sign in and then compare those
who were cited to those who were actually there. I then call the parents of the kid and let
them know they missed and let them know they can go to the next month’s class or it will
145
be forwarded to probation and will go on the kids permanent record. I also email
probation the list of kids who attended.
Interviewer: “We are almost done here so, uh do the staff who implement the RPD
diversion program have information on referrals? Such as, if a child appears to need
other assistance beyond what the RPD diversion program can offer, does the staff have
that information and if so, do they make referrals for the youth?”
Officer: “We (pause), that’s on a case by case basis cause a lot of times after a class, a
parent will approach us, cause at the end we give out all of our information like “hey if
you need more help contact us” and they will contact us and say “hey my kid is still
going down this path and I need help.” And yeah at that point, we address it and we
follow up with either doing a home visit or we assign them to one of our counseling staff
that we have um ya know onsite at the police activities league.”
Interviewer: “What about other services such as mental health or counseling or drug
treatment, do you guys make referrals to programs such as those?”
Officer: “Yeah, um yeah, through our counseling staff which has contact information to
where they can go for drug treatment and stuff like that.”
Interviewer: “Okay.”
Interviewer: “What happens to a youth after they attend the RPD diversion program?”
Officer: “They uh, get placed into our system that they have already attended the class
and as long as they don’t re-offend that file doesn’t pop up again and it stays in with
RPD. But also, there was community services hours that were being assigned to these
youth, approximately 10 hours to commit some type of community service for their, I
guess you could call it their punishment.”
Interviewer: “What was the benefit of the community services hours?”
Officer: “I think it just wakens them up a little bit. They’re like “damn ya know, I don’t
wanna…” they don’t like doing that stuff so, they don’t like to do anything um extra so,
hopefully that deters them from doing that. And then the other aspect of it is that a lot of
times their community services hours are at the police activities league, is where they
interact with other police officers and then realize, “hey these police officers aren’t that
bad, why would I want to commit crimes and be on their bad side when I could be friends
with them.”
Interviewer: “Alright.”
146
Interviewer: “How does the RPD diversion program motivate offenders to change their
behavior?”
Officer: “By the strict rules that will be placed upon them if they do re-offend. Like I
said, most of it is fear thinking that there gonna be placed on probation and a lot of these
kids have seen others kids on probation; like curfew is 6 pm, they hate that; losing their
license for a year for doing any drug or alcohol related offense, things like that; the
searches, the searches at school, they hate that kind of stuff. So, hopefully, them seeing
the consequences after they commit another crime, it will deter them from committing
any further crimes.”
Interviewer: “Have you ever examined the recidivism rates among participants to see if
they re-offended after attending the program?”
Officer: “No I have not. I think one time I did and it was it came back uh, the only way I
checked was by calling the county and seeing what their stats were.”
Interviewer: “But, as of now, no documented statistic on where the program stands.”
Officer: “No, there was something that was documented, that was supposedly looked at
by a previous staff member and the county that uh Roseville had a reduction in juvenile
crime but there not sure if it was accredited to the diversion class or not.”
Interviewer: “That completes the interview, thank you again for your time.”
147
Roseville Police Officer Interview No. 2
Interviewer: Courtney Sens, CSUS Graduate Student. Referred to as “Interviewer.”
Interviewee: Roseville Police Officer. Referred to as “Officer.”
Interviewer: “Good afternoon, thank you for agreeing to participate in my research
project, your participation is greatly appreciated. I will be interviewing you regarding the
Roseville Police Department Juvenile Diversion Program. For all the questions I will be
asking you, please just answer them to the best of your ability based upon your
knowledge and involvement with the program.”
Interviewer: “So to start off, can you tell me about the RPD diversion program including
what the purpose of the program is and also who it serves?”
Officer: “Hmm okay, the program is for first time offenders and low level juvenile
offenders. And it serves um, anyone really from the age, under age 18, but again it’s for
first time offenders.”
Interviewer: “How much time would you say does an offender devote to the program?
Such as the length of the sessions, how many sessions, etc…”
Officer: “I would say and hour is the average length of time.”
Interviewer: “Okay and it is only the one session or more than one?”
Officer: “One session.”
Interviewer: “What’s your specific involvement with the program, or do you have any?”
Officer: “At this point I don’t, I uh, I think I started working on it maybe two to three
years ago and uh kind of um, sort of invented what we are working with at the moment.
When I was in Youth Services we uh noticed there was an issue or peer court disappeared
and we had no diversion type programs for these first time offenders. And in talking to
probation, a lot of our concerns with, a lot of the officers concerns with working with
juveniles was that we didn’t see the results we were looking for and I was told that one of
the problems was that we didn’t have any diversion type programs to send them too, so
uh I worked with a couple other officers and different people in the community to start
kind of what we see today.”
Interviewer: “And that kind of leads into the next question which was, if you had
involvement in the design phase of the program, can you explain what the motivation
148
behind designing the program was and also if you referred to any material to assist you in
designing the program?”
Officer: “I think I need to give some of the credit to Karl Dyer who was the Sergeant at
one point when I was in Youth Services, he started a um, (brief pause) he occasionally
did these classes to kind of help parents learn about youth crime and it was mostly just to
give them an idea of what was out there, what youth crime that we might see. It was
kinda a real mild overview and just kinda scratched the surface of youth crime, but I
would help him with it and I noticed how involved all the parents got, how much they
appreciated it and um I realized that there was some benefit to it and uh, when we were
trying to figure out what we should do with the sort of diversion class, I realized that a lot
of the times was that we needed to get the parents actively involved and many times they
weren’t, so that was one of my first requirements, was that the parents had to come to
these classes with the kids so we could get their involvement, at um least see a face when
we were trying to work with these kids and these family issues they were having. Did I
miss any part of that question?”
Interviewer: “No, no it’s fine, so what type of service delivery approach does the RPD
program take? For example, is it a retributive type of program, it is restitution, is it
deterrence, it is, what type of delivery are you trying to implement for the kids?”
Officer: “I think you know, I don’t know if there was a lot of science behind it when I
started it, but I think my general purpose was to work on recidivism and uh working in
the schools as long as I did, I noticed that if we could get some of these parents involved
early enough, a lot of times that would stop these kids from continuing down the path that
they were going. So, initially what I kind of what I envisioned in a perfect world, how it
would work is that we would get these parents actively involved when these kids were
13, 14, 15, um especially when it’s like their first time offenses and hopefully reduce the
chance of them committing more crimes. Um , if I can talk about what I think is not
working about it, I doesn’t, I don’t think its beneficial for the children that are 17 and
have already committed several crimes and are to the point where they uh, the parents
don’t care anymore or don’t want to get involved anymore and something like that, I
think it has little effect honestly.”
Interviewer: “So how would you say the RPD program differs or is different than any
other local programs? Is it specific to the Roseville culture?”
Officer: “No, I think it differs because I don’t know of anyone else doing anything
similar yet. Um, and actually in the county there is not something similar yet. That’s
what’s different about it, I don’t think it is anything specific to Roseville, I think you
149
could, you could uh pretty much bring it into any community overnight if you wanted
to.”
Interviewer: “But do you know if the information presented is reflective of the culture of
Roseville versus somewhere like Sacramento for example?”
Officer: “Not necessarily, but we do bring up a lot of the Roseville School District stuff.
And I would assume it would be similar anywhere, but maybe not.”
Interviewer: “So um, based upon your knowledge of the diversion program, was it
developed around any theory, and if so, what theory was that?”
Officer: “I don’t know if there was any scientific theory necessarily behind it. It you
know, there are definitely some theories on how to reduce recidivism among juveniles
and um, my self-taught way of seeing it, and I think a lot of people in probation would
agree with me, is that we need to get the parents more involved because some of these
kids didn’t have any parental involvement at all, they didn’t know what was going on.
Ya know, part of the class originally we were introducing the parents to what their rights
were, what they could do and what they can’t do and I think um, by doing a lot of that it
does reduce recidivism, I don’t know if there is any specific science to what we were
doing by any means.”
Interviewer: “Does the RPD diversion program focus on any specific psychological
factors of offending?”
Officer: “Uh no, not that I know of.”
Interviewer: “Okay, and have you ever heard of the General Personality and Cognitive
Social Learning Perspective?”
Officer: “No.”
Interviewer: “Okay, in what type of setting is the RPD diversion program delivered in?”
Officer: “Um, I can’t even tell you what it is now, but when I was doing it, we were
having it here at the police department, um, for a few reasons. We actually tried doing it
at other locations, but uh, I felt that there was some power having it at the police
department, making the parents bring their kids down to the police department, having
these kids walk in the doors of the police department cause a lot of times they hadn’t ever
even done that even if they had been cited for different crimes. It honestly gave us a
location where we could connect them with other services, with other people around here;
whether it’s the counseling interns we had working at the police department at the time,
150
or if they had other problems that specific officers could help with, it just kinda gave us a
good place to do it. And then, we did it in a Power Point presentation. It changed over
the years; at first it was heavily worded up on the Power Point where I noticed we were
losing people; they just weren’t reading it. So we tried to make it at one point more
graphics and then actually somebody speaking to them rather than just reading what was
on there. Um, I think that seemed to have more of an impact. It also brought in
probation, someone from the school district. And the reason we did that was uh, I think
all three of us tend to work together when we were working with these juveniles and uh,
it was kinda powerful having a school administrator tell the parents what will happen
instead of just having an officer saying “this is what could happen to your kid if they did
X, Y, or Z.” Um, so we tried to give them a 360 view of what would happen if their kids
started going down these different paths.”
Interviewer: “You mentioned how there are counselors that assisted with different
things, can you elaborate on the counselors, what type of counselors, what they are doing,
and what their role is with diversion?”
Officer: “When we started diversion, we had the counselors that were volunteering at the
PD from Sac State and they would call and um follow up with everyone that was cited to
this program. And they would uh, kinda give them a reminder about an upcoming class.
I also used a volunteer to do that as we had less counselors. But uh, I think we probably
could have even taken it further and had them follow up after the fact and that probably
would have been beneficial to everyone.”
Interviewer: “Okay, so are these the social work interns?”
Officer: “Yes.”
Interviewer: “Okay. Okay, you definitely answered some of the questions I had down
the road as well, so that’s great. Um, basically you kinda just touched on it, but I asked if
you could describe the content specifically of what is delivered to the participants and
um, if you were involved in the design stage, how you came to create that curriculum as
far as what you’re giving to them?”
O: “So, I wanted to give not only, not so much the kids, but the parents an overview of
um, what kind of crimes we were seeing, what kinda trends we were seeing. Um, like I
said, I was in the school environment, cause that’s generally where these kids were being
contacted by us. Um, and at first it was, we would concentrate on three or four different
things. I, I remember uh for a while there being at the direction of a supervisor to really
concentrate on helmet laws and it was just too intense and it was like, it really took away
151
from it. So, I tried my best to touch on everything, but you, not to go to deep into a lot of
it, cause you can only tell a parent of a 17 year old so many times about a bicycle helmet
before you totally lose them. But, I did try to talk about everything from uh the low level
stuff like curfew and bicycle helmets all the way up to batteries and other things that
could happen on school grounds. And, um, I tried my best to incorporate anything that a
parent would see with a child that was involved with the police department in some way.”
Interviewer: “So pretty much any crime juveniles might be getting into?”
Officer: “Correct, and then we usually I would first, until I gave it up, we would preface
the different types of crimes juveniles were capable of committing which means only the
ones juveniles were capable of committing versus adults. Kinda giving them a 30 second
law course of what the different crimes kids can commit and can’t commit.”
Interviewer: “Okay.”
Interviewer: “And I think you touched on this earlier but, regarding the participants, who
does the program specifically serve? I know you mentioned minors and I think low level
offenders, anything more specific than that?”
Officer: “Uh, well I think that what I was finding was if we were sending, first of all
probation didn’t want anyone with a felony involved in this diversion; they wanted them
to go through the court system totally different. So, that was the first reason we didn’t do
that, but I also found over time that by the time the kids were committing these crimes it
really didn’t do a whole lot of good to be sitting down and warning them of potential
consequences could happen at school when they were already involved with drug sales
for two years. So uh you know…”
Interviewer: “So that’s why you targeted the earlier offenders?”
Officer: “Correct, and um another reason for it is over the years in law enforcement I
noticed the very um, I call them low level crimes, but like the curfew violations, the ya
know, no bicycle helmet, all that kind of stuff, 95 percent of the time in law enforcement
we will give a warning and look the other way. Where, there is some value to trying to
do some enforcement and this kind of gave us a way to not have it be um, too punitive
but it also got the at least the conversations going with the parents and let the kids know
that some of their behavior wasn’t correct, but it didn’t have that real punitive effect.”
Interviewer: “As far as the services offered by the RPD, does the program target any
specific risk factors of the participants or them just being minors in general?”
152
Officer: “I think it’s gonna be minors in general. I did something similar but for kids
who were involved in gangs, and that was what I was targeting specifically. But uh, this
particular program, I think it’s just minors in general.”
Interviewer: “Okay, and then as far as, related to that, to your knowledge, does the RPD
diversion program utilize any risk assessment instruments?”
Officer: “No, not to my knowledge.”
Interviewer: “Okay.”
Interviewer: “Is the RPD diversion programming generic in that the same programming
is delivered to every participant, or is it changed to meet the specific needs of the
participant?”
Officer: “It’s fairly generic, but um I mean every time we would speak, we would
sometimes let the questions dictate where we went with the program, to some degree.
Um, there were times where we got no involvement from parents, they listened and then
got out of there and then other times they would stay after and ask a half hour of
questions about marijuana or something. So, it did once in a while change a little bit, but
I think the basic content was the same.”
Interviewer: “Does the program utilize different service delivery methods? For example,
are there visual aids, hands on exercises, role playing, etc…Or did you mention, is it just
the Power Point presentation?”
Officer: “Basically just Power Point.”
Interviewer: “You mentioned that the basis for this diversion program is to deter future
offending, um if the only use is of a PowerPoint type presentation, how do you or how
does the programming encourage offenders to change their behavior?”
Officer: “Um, I think the only encouragement is basically explaining to them what the
next steps are if their behavior doesn’t change. And you know it takes some effort on
their part to make that change after we give them a little bit of education on what’s
happening or what will happen. However, if the things we say aren’t true, then I think it
doesn’t have much effect at all. I have had to talk to like different guest speakers I have
brought in there because sometimes they will say X, Y, and Z will happen and then all
the kids know better. But, I think that’s probably the only thing that encourages them.”
Interviewer: “So, awareness?”
153
Officer: “Awareness, that’s a good word, perfect.”
Interviewer: “Okay, are the participants of the RPD diversion program split into groups
depending on factors such as age and sex, or are they all put into one large group?”
Officer: “They’re all put into one large group.”
Interviewer: “After a juvenile attends the RPD diversion program, is there any follow up
done with the family or the youth?”
Officer: “No, there is not.”
Interviewer: “You mentioned follow-up earlier, speaking about that, do you believe that
there is a benefit in doing follow up and if so, what would you recommend?”
Officer: “Yeah, I think there is a huge benefit. I think that is probably where…when I
left youth service, I think that is probably one thing I would have done if I had a little
more time was changes so that we did have some follow up. Because, we give them all
this advice on getting help as a parent and as families and then we never really check in
with them again. So I think all those people get too busy with life that they don’t follow
up or do it themselves. I think if we had that with police, someone calling and giving
them some follow up or sending them some information, or a house visit or something
like that to follow up after the fact, maybe a month or two later, probably would have
been beneficial.”
Interviewer: “Okay and do you feel the interns that you mentioned potentially would be
useful in that role?”
Officer: “It could be but you have to get the family to buy in to that person. I think a lot
of times when people hear “college intern,” they tune out a little bit. Um, an officer
probably would be more beneficial or a full time counselor if we had one at the PD.”
Interviewer: “To your knowledge, was the RPD diversion program designed to allow for
any discretion among program providers to accommodate specific types of cases?”
Officer: “Well I mean, I think the officers have a lot of discretion whether they send
them there in the first place. When I was working in the schools, I ended up sending kids
there because parents were asking for that. Um, especially middle school aged. So, there
is some discretion, but not a whole lot. Once in a while somebody would just ask if they
could come and listen with their kid and once in a while I would allow it to happen.”
154
Interviewer: “Okay, let’s see, when a youth is cited to the diversion program, does
someone create a service plan for that youth which would be maintained to document
treatment approaches?”
Officer: “I think so. When I was working with probation, they wanted a copy of every
single citation that brought the kid in there and they were going to keep track of that,
showing that there has been some level of intervention. And, what I would do if I dealt
with the same kid again and he had already been to diversion is that I would make sure in
my report, that the next time they commit a crime that I mentioned that they had already
attended diversion and we had some level of intervention already.”
Interviewer: “So, it seems probation may do more of the service plan tracking. That the
diversion is more of a step in that service plan?”
Officer: “Correct.”
Interviewer: “Okay.”
Interviewer: “What is the objective of the RPD diversion program? Is there follow up
after the youth attends to program in order to measure if the RPD program is meeting its
stated objective?”
Officer: “There is none, no follow up that I know of, um. I think our ideal is that these
guys do not commit these crimes again, and um, there really is no way to measure that,
that I know of, but I mean it wouldn’t hurt to do that probably.”
Interviewer: “Is there any documented training or program manuals for the RPD
diversion program? If you were involved with the design phase of the program, did you
create any documents regarding the program?”
Officer: “No.”
Interviewer: “Do you think it would be beneficial to have a program manual available
for the diversion program to document the who, what, when, where, and why of the
program? So that if someone new was stepping in, it would be able to bring them up to
speed?”
Officer: “Sure, there is a lot of room for improvement. It’s just going to take someone
who wants to spend time and energy on it and would have to have support from the
department because it would take a lot of time to do it all correctly.”
155
Interviewer: “Um, to your knowledge, would you describe the staff which implements
the RPD diversion programming? And how are they selected?”
Officer: “They were selected by those who wanted to do it, mostly. Um, we would
always have an officer, we would always try to have a probation officer and try to always
have someone from the school administration. They were typically the same people, but
we um we definitely switched it up from time to time.”
Interviewer: “Do you know to your knowledge are um, you mentioned a probation
officer and a school official; are any of them clinically trained?”
Officer: “Yes, the school official that we used was but um…”
Interviewer: “What was his or her, to your knowledge, what was his or her clinical
background?”
Officer: “Uhhh I couldn’t tell ya. I know she is licensed as a counselor in some way or
form. And I believe a lot of probation has also gone through some of those classes too.”
Interviewer: “Okay.”
Interviewer: “Are there any specific considerations used to determine who is selected as
staff to implement the program? And you just kind of answered it is more so a
willingness to do so. Is there any training that’s required to be an instructor?”
Officer: “No.”
Interviewer: “Is there a manager or supervisor who oversees the RPD diversion
program? If so, what is his or her level of involvement?”
Officer: “I would say no. We had a Sergeant over the unit but they, during the time I
was there, I don’t recall them showing up once even.”
Interviewer: “Okay.”
Interviewer: “Do the staff who implement the RPD diversion program have information
on referrals? You kind of said this earlier, but such as, if a child appears to need other
assistance beyond what the RPD diversion program can offer, do the staff have that
information available and if so, do they make referrals for the youth, such as mental
health or drug use, etc?”
Officer: “Yes, Um but I think there has got to be some involvement with the parent
seeking it because, um, none of us are trained in that, so. If a parent came to us asking
156
specific questions, I would always give them the answer, we would always try to send
them the right direction.”
Interviewer: “What happens to a youth after they attend the RPD diversion program?”
Officer: “Well, in theory if they attended it and then commit further crimes, then it
should go to the probation department and um, the way it was originally kind of set up
was that once we have tried these different levels of intervention with the kids, then a lot
of times they can be put on probation or um have a more of a traditional criminal justice
approach to a lot of what they have done, but the way I was originally told was that the
law requires them to show some levels of interventions. Kind of another reason we
started all of this.”
Interviewer: “Have you guys ever examined the recidivism rates among participants to
see if they re-offended after attending?”
Officer: “No.”
Interviewer: “Okay, then to your knowledge, can you describe what a standard diversion
class looks like, as far as how long it is generally, how many participants. Just a quick
overview of what you would see?”
Officer: “Uh, I can tell you what I saw up until about a year ago. Generally it would be
an hour or less, I found that if we went over an hour, we lost people. Um, especially on a
work night or a school night. And we would normally have, probably 25 participants, up
to 30 maybe. And that is a parent and a child, so maybe 15 actual kids per month. There
were some months we would have less, but it was pretty routine to have 10-20.”
Interviewer: “Do you feel the diversion program is utilized by the agency as a kind of
crime reduction strategy?”
Officer: “Yeah, I would think so.”
Interviewer: “Okay, that completes the interview, thank you again for your time.”
157
Appendix D
Agency Consent Letter
158
References
Andrews, D. A. (2000). Principles of effective correctional programs (Part I, Chapter 2).
In L.L. Motiuk & R. C. Serin (Eds.). Compendium 2000 on Effective Correctional
Programming, 1(1). Retrieved from: http://www.cscscc.gc.ca/research/compendium/2000/index-eng.shtml
Andrews, D. A. & Bonta, J. (2010a). The psychology of criminal conduct (5th Edition).
New Providence, NJ: Matthew Bender & Company, Inc.
Andrews, D. A. & Bonta, J. (2010b). Rehabilitating criminal justice policy and practice.
Psychology, Public Policy and Law, 16(1), 39-55. doi: 10.1037/a0018362
Andrews, D. A., Bonta, J., & Hoge, R. D. (1990a). Classification for effective
rehabilitation: Rediscovering psychology. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 17(1),
19-52. doi: 10.1177/0093854890017001004
Andrews, D. A., Zinger, I., Hoge, R. D., Bonta, J., Gendreau, P., & Cullen, F. T. (1990b).
Does correctional treatment work? A clinically relevant and psychologically
informed meta-analysis. Criminology, 28(3), 369-404.
Atilola, O. (2013). Juvenile/youth justice management in Nigeria: Making a case for
diversion programmes. Youth Justice, 13(1), 3-16. doi:
10.1177/1365480212474731
Babbie, E. (2007). The practice of social research (11th ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomson
Wadsworth.
159
Bechard, S., Ireland, C., Berg, B., & Vogel, B. (2011). Arbitrary arbitration: Diverting
juveniles into the justice system-A reexamination after 22 years. International
Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 55(4), 605-625. doi:
10.1177/0306624X10363265
Beck, V. S., Ramsey, R. J., Lipps, T. R., Travis III, L. F. (2006). Juvenile diversion: An
outcome study of the Hamilton county, Ohio unofficial juvenile community
courts. Juvenile and Family Court Journal, Spring, 1-10.
Becker, H. S. (1963). Outsiders: Studies in the sociology of deviance. New York: The
Free Press.
Benda, B. B. & Tollett, C. L. (1999). A study of recidivism of serious and persistent
offenders among adolescents. Journal of Criminal Justice, 27(2), 111-126.
Bilchik, S. (1998). Serious and violent juvenile offenders. Juvenile Justice Bulletin.
Washington DC: US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
Bishop, D. M. (2012). Evidence-based practice and juvenile justice. Criminology &
Public Policy, 11(3), 515-523. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-9133.2012.00827.x
Bonta, J. (2000). Offender assessment: General issues and considerations (Part I, Chapter
4). In L.L. Motiuk & R. C. Serin (Eds.). Compendium 2000 on Effective
Correctional Programming, 1(1). Retrieved from: http://www.cscscc.gc.ca/research/compendium/2000/index-eng.shtml
160
Borum, R. (2003). Managing at-risk juvenile offenders in the community: Putting
evidence-based principles into practice. Journal of Contemporary Criminal
Justice, 19, 114-137. doi: 10.1177/1043986202239745
Bourgon, G., Bonta, J., Rugge, T., Scott, T., & Yessine, A. K. (2010). The role of
program design, implementation, and evaluation in evidence-based “real world”
community supervision. Federal Probation, 74(1), 2-15.
Bull, M. (2005). A comparative review of best practice guidelines for the diversion of
drug related offenders. International Journal of Drug Policy, 16, 223-234. doi:
10.1016/j.drugpo.2005.05.007
California Courts: The Judicial Branch of California. (2013). Evidence-based practice.
Judicial Council of California, Administrative Office of the Courts. Retrieved
from: http://www.courts.ca.gov/5285.htm
Campbell, J. S. & Retzlaff, P. D. (2000). Juvenile diversion interventions: Participant
description and outcomes. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 32(1/2), 57-73.
Carney, M. M., & Buttell, F. (2003). Reducing juvenile recidivism: Evaluating the
wraparound services model. Research on Social Work Practice, 13(5), 551-568.
doi: 10.1177/1049731503253364
Chemers, B. & Reed, W. (2005). Increasing evidence-based programs in criminal and
juvenile justice: A report from the front lines. European Journal on Criminal
Policy and Research, 11, 259-274. doi: 10.1007/s10610-005-3484-6
161
Clough, A. R., Lee, K. K. S., & Conigrave, K. M. (2008). Promising performance of a
juvenile justice diversion programme in remote Aboriginal communities,
Northern Territory, Australia. Drug and Alcohol Review, 27, 433-438. doi:
10.1080/09595230802089693
Cocozza, J. J., Veysey, B. M., Chapin, D. A., Dembo, R., Walters, W., & Farina, S.
(2005). Diversion from the juvenile justice system: The Miami-Dade juvenile
assessment center post-arrest diversion program. Substance Use & Misuse, 40,
935-951. doi: 10.1081/JA-200058853
Cottle, C. C., Lee, R. J., & Heilbrun, K. (2001). The prediction of criminal recidivism in
juveniles: A meta-analysis. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 28(3), 367-394. doi:
10.1177/0093854801028003005
Coumarelos, C. &Weatherburn, D. (1995). Targeting intervention strategies to reduce
juvenile recidivism. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 28, 5572. doi: 10.1177/0004865895028001
Day, A. & Howells, K. (2002). Psychological treatments for rehabilitating offenders:
Evidence-based practice comes of age. Australian Psychologist, 37(1), 39-47.
Day, A., Howells, K., & Rickwood, D. (2004). Current trends in the rehabilitation of
juvenile offenders. Australian Institute of Criminology, 284, 1-6.
Ferdinand, T. N. (2009). History overtakes the juvenile justice system. In R. J. Berger &
P. D. Gregory (Eds.), Juvenile delinquency and justice: Sociological perspectives
(pp. 45-63). Boulder, CO: Lynne Reinner Publishers, Inc.
162
Gavazzi, S. M., Yarcheck, C. M., Sullivan, J. M., Jones, S. C., & Khurana, A. (2007).
Global risk factors and the prediction of recidivism rates in a sample of first-time
misdemeanant offenders. International Journal of Offender Therapy and
Comparative Criminology, 52(3), 330-345. doi: 10.1177/0306624X07305481
Goldson, B. (2001). A rational youth justice? Some critical reflections on the research,
policy and practice relation. Probation Journal, 48, 76-85. doi:
10/1177/026455050104800202
Grattet, R., Jannetta, J., & Lin, J. (2006). Evidence-based practices in corrections: A
training manual for the California program assessment process (CPAP). Office
of Research, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) &
Center for Evidence Based Corrections, University of California Irvine.
Retrieved from
http://ucicorrections.seweb.uci.edu/files/2013/06/CPAPTrainingManual.pdf
Gray, P. S., Williamson, J. B., Karp, D. A., & Dalphin, J. R. (2007). The research
imagination: An introduction to qualitative and quantitative methods.
Cambridge, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Greenwood, P. (2008). Prevention and intervention programs for juvenile offenders. The
Future of Children, 18(2), 185-210.
Greenwood, P.W. & Welsh, B. C. (2012). Promoting evidence-based practice in
delinquency prevention at the state level: Principles, progress, and policy
directions. Criminology & Public Policy, 11(3), 493-513. doi: 10.1111/j.17459133.2012.00826.x
163
Guerino, P., Harrison, P. M., & Sabol, W. J. (2011). Prisoners in 2010 (Revised).
Washington DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.
Hamilton, Z. K., Sullivan, C. J., Veysey, B. M., & Grillo, M. (2007). Diverting multiproblem youth from juvenile justice: Investigating the importance of community
influence on placement and recidivism. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 25,
137-158. doi: 10.1002/bsl.720
Henggeler, S. W. (2003). Advantages and disadvantages of multisystemic therapy and
other evidence-based practices for treating juvenile offenders. Journal of Forensic
Psychology Practice, 3(4), 53-59. doi: 10.1300/J158v03n04_04
Jordan, L., & Farrell, J. (2013). Juvenile justice diversion in Victoria: A blank canvas?
Current Issues in Criminal Justice, 24(3), 419-437.
Kennedy, S. M. (2000). Treatment responsivity: Reducing recidivism by enhancing
treatment effectiveness (Part I, Chapter 5). In L.L. Motiuk & R. C. Serin (Eds.).
Compendium 2000 on Effective Correctional Programming, 1(1). Retrieved from:
http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/research/compendium/2000/index-eng.shtml
Klein, M. W. (1986). Labeling theory and delinquency policy: An experimental test.
Criminal Justice and Behavior, 13(1), 47-79. doi:
10.1177/0093854886013001004
Latessa, E. J. (2004). The challenge of change: Correctional programs and evidencebased practices. Criminology & Public Policy, 3(4), 547-560.
Lemert, E. M. (1951). Social pathology. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Book Company,
Inc.
164
Lemert, E. M. (1967). Human deviance, social problems, & social control. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Lemert, E. M. (1971). Instead of Court: Diversion in Juvenile Justice. Washington DC:
Government Printing Office.
Leone, M. C. (2002). Encyclopedia of crime and punishment (Vols. 3). (D. Levinson,
Ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.
Leschied, A. W. (2000a). Implementation of effective correctional programs (Part I,
Chapter 7). In L.L. Motiuk & R. C. Serin (Eds.). Compendium 2000 on
Effective Correctional Programming, 1(1). Retrieved from: http://www.cscscc.gc.ca/research/compendium/2000/index-eng.shtml
Leschied, A. W. (2000b). Informing young offender’s policy in current research: What
The future holds (Part II, Chapter 12). In L.L. Motiuk & R. C. Serin (Eds.).
Compendium 2000 on Effective Correctional Programming, 1(1). Retrieved from:
http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/research/compendium/2000/index-eng.shtml
Lipsey, M. W. (2009). The primary factors that characterize effective interventions with
juvenile offenders: A meta-analytic overview. Victims and Offenders, 4, 124147. doi: 10.1080/15564880802612573
Lipsey, M. W. & Howell, J. C. (2012). A broader view of evidence-based programs
reveals more options for state juvenile justice systems. Criminology & Public
Policy, 11(3), 515-523. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-9133.2012.00827.x
165
Lipsey, M. W., Howell, J. C., Kelly, M. R., Chapman, G., & Carver, D. (2010).
Improving the effectiveness of juvenile justice programs: A new perspective on
evidence-based practice. Retrieved from Georgetown University, Center for
Juvenile Justice Reform website:
http://cjjr.georgetown.edu/pdfs/ebp/ebppaper.pdf
Lundman, R. J. (1976). Will diversion reduce recidivism? Crime & Delinquency, 22,
428-437. doi: 10.1177/001112877602200404
Mallett, C. A., Fukushima, M., Stoddard-Dare, P., & Quinn, L. (2013). Factors related
to recidivism for youthful offenders. Criminal Justice Studies: A Critical
Journal of Crime, Law and Society, 26(1), 84-98. doi:
10.1080/1478601X.2012.705539
McGrath, A. (2008). The effect of diversion from court: A review of the evidence.
Psychiatry, Psychology, and Law, 15(2), 317-339. doi:
10.1080/13218710802014477
McGuire, J. (2000a). Defining correctional programs (Part I, Chapter 1). In L.L. Motiuk
& R. C. Serin (Eds.). Compendium 2000 on Effective Correctional Programming,
1(1). Retrieved from: http://www.cscscc.gc.ca/research/compendium/2000/index-eng.shtml
McGuire, J. (2000b). Development of a program logic model to assist evaluation (Part
III, Chapter 26). In L.L. Motiuk & R. C. Serin (Eds.). Compendium 2000 on
Effective Correctional Programming, 1(1). Retrieved from: http://www.cscscc.gc.ca/research/compendium/2000/index-eng.shtml
166
Mears, D. P., Cochran, J. C., Greenman, S. J., Bhati, A. S., & Greenwald, M. A. (2011).
Evidence on the effectiveness of juvenile court sanctions. Journal of Criminal
Justice, 39, 509-520. doi: 10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2011.09.006
Myers, D. L. (2013). Accountability and evidence-based approaches: Theory and
research for juvenile justice. Criminal Justice Studies: A Critical Journal of
Crime, Law and Society, 26(2), 197-212.
Myers, W. C., Burton, P. R. S., Sanders, P. D., Donat, K. M., Cheney, J., Fitzpatrick, T.
M., & Monaco, L. (2000). Project back-on-track at 1 year: A delinquency
treatment program for early-career juvenile offenders. Journal of American
Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 39(9), 1127-1134.
Ogloff, J. R. P. & Davis, M. R. (2004). Advances in offender assessment and
rehabilitation: Contributions of the risk-needs-responsivity approach.
Psychology, Crime & Law, 10(3), 229-242. doi: 10.1080/0683160410001662735
Oldenettel, D., & Wordes, M. (2000). The community assessment center concept.
Juvenile Justice Bulletin. Washington DC: US Department of Justice, Office of
Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
Patrick, S., & Marsh, R. (2005). Juvenile diversion: Results of a 3-year experimental
study. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 16(1), 59-73. doi:
10.1177/0887403404266584
167
Patrick, S., Marsh, R., Bundy, W., Mimura, S., & Perkins, T. (2004). Control group
study of juvenile diversion programs: An experiment in juvenile diversion-the
comparison of three methods and a control group. The Social Science Journal,
41, 129-135. doi: 10.1016/j.soscij.2003.10.012
Pearson, F., Lipton, D., Cleland, C., & Yee, D. (2002). The effects of
behavioral/cognitive-behavioral programs on recidivism. Crime & Delinquency,
48, 476-496.
Platt, A. (2009). The child-saving movement and the origins of the juvenile justice
system. In R. J. Berger & P. D. Gregory (Eds.), Juvenile delinquency and justice:
Sociological perspectives (pp. 9-26). Boulder, CO: Lynne Reinner Publishers, Inc.
Polaschek, D. L. L. (2012). An appraisal of the risk-need-responsivity (RNR) model of
offender rehabilitation and its application in correctional treatment. Legal and
Criminological Psychology, 17, 1-17. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8333.2011.02038.x
President’s Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice. (1967).
Task force report: Juvenile delinquency and youth crime. Washington, DC:
Government Printing Office.
Preston, D. L. (2000). Addressing treatment resistance in corrections (Part I, Chapter 8).
In L.L. Motiuk & R. C. Serin (Eds.). Compendium 2000 on Effective Correctional
Programming, 1(1). Retrieved from: http://www.cscscc.gc.ca/research/compendium/2000/index-eng.shtml
168
Quist, R. M. & Matshazi, D. G. M. (2000). The child and adolescent functional
assessment scale (CAFAS): A dynamic predictor of juvenile recidivism.
Adolesence, 35(137), 181-191.
Roberts, A. R. (2004). Emergence and proliferation of juvenile diversion programs. In A.
R. Roberts (Ed), Juvenile justice sourcebook: Past, present, and future (pp. 183195). New York: Oxford University Press.
Rojek, D. G. & Erickson, M. L. (1981-1982). Reforming the juvenile justice system: The
diversion of status offenders. Law & Society Review, 16(2), 241-264.
Ryerson, E. (2009). Best laid plans: The ideal juvenile court. In R. J. Berger & P. D.
Gregory (Eds.), Juvenile delinquency and justice: Sociological perspectives (pp.
27-44). Boulder, CO: Lynne Reinner Publishers, Inc.
Schur, E. M. (1971). Labeling deviant behavior: Its sociological implications. New York,
NY: Harper & Row.
Schwalbe, C. S. (2008). Strengthening the integration of actuarial risk assessment with
clinical judgment in an evidence based practice framework. Children and Youth
Services Review, 30, 1458-1464. doi: 10.1016/j.childyouth.2007.11.021
Schwalbe, C. S., Gearing, R. E., MacKenzie, M. J., Brewer, K. B., & Ibrahim, R. (2012).
A meta-analysis of experimental studies of diversion programs for juvenile
offenders. Clinical Psychology Review, 32, 26-33. doi:
10.1016/j.cpr.2011.10.002
169
Seidman, I. (2013). Interviewing as qualitative research: A guide for researchers in
education and the social sciences (4th ed.). New York, NY: Teachers College
Press.
Serin, R. C. (2000). Program evaluation: Intermediate measures of treatment success
(Part III, Chapter 24). In L.L. Motiuk & R. C. Serin (Eds.). Compendium 2000 on
Effective Correctional Programming, 1(1). Retrieved from: http://www.cscscc.gc.ca/research/compendium/2000/index-eng.shtml
Sheldon, R. G. (1999). Detention diversion advocacy: An evaluation. Juvenile Justice
Bulletin. Washington DC: US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs,
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
Snyder, H. N. & Sickmund, M. (2006). Juvenile offenders and victims: 2006 National
report. Washington, DC: U.S Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs,
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
Sullivan, C. J., & Latessa, E. (2011). The coproduction of outcomes: An integrated
assessment of youth and program effects on recidivism. Youth Justice and
Juvenile Justice, 9(3), 191-206. doi: 10.1177/1541204010393754
Tannenbaum, F. (1938). Crime and the community. New York: Columbia University
Press.
Tellier, C. & Serin, R. C. (2000). The role of staff in effective program delivery (Part II,
Chapter 21). In L.L. Motiuk & R. C. Serin (Eds.). Compendium 2000 on Effective
Correctional Programming, 1(1). Retrieved from: http://www.cscscc.gc.ca/research/compendium/2000/index-eng.shtml
170
Vitopoulos, N. A., Peterson-Badali, M., & Skilling, T. A. (2012). The relationship
between matching service to criminogenic need and recidivism in male and
female youth: Examining the RNR principles in practice. Criminal Justice and
Behavior, 39(8), 1025-1041. doi: 10.1177/0093854812442895
Whitehead, J. T. & Lab, S. P. (1996). Juvenile justice: An introduction (2nd ed.).
Cincinnati, OH: Anderson Publishing Co.
Wilson, H. A., & Hoge, R. D. (2013). The effect of youth diversion programs on
recidivism: A meta-analytic review. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 40(5), 497518. doi: 10.1177/0093854812451089
Zimring, F. E. (2000). The common thread: Diversion in juvenile justice. California
Law Review, 88(6), 2477-2495.