AN OUTCOMES STUDY OF JUVENILE DIVERSION PROGRAMS ON NON-SERIOUS DELINQUENT AND STATUS OFFENDERS by MELODY J. STEWART Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements For the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Dissertation Adviser: Dr. Victor K. Groza Mandel School of Applied Social Sciences CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY August, 2008 CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF GRADUATE STUDIES We hereby approve the dissertation of Melody J. Stewart, candidate for the Ph.D. degree*. (signed) Victor K. Groza, Ph.D. (chair of the committee) Kathleen J. Farkas, Ph.D. David B. Miller, Ph.D. Emilia N. McGucken, Ph.D. (date) May 21, 2008 * We also certify that written approval has been obtained for any proprietary material contained therein ii Copyright © 2008 by Melody J. Stewart All rights reserved iii Table of Contents Page List of Tables ………………………………………………………………….. 4 List of Figures …………………………………………………………………. 6 Acknowledgements and Dedication ………………………………………… 7 Abstract ………………………………………………………………………… 10 Chapter 1. Introduction ……………………………………………………. 12 Overview of Problem …………………………………. 13 Overview of Juvenile Diversion Programs …………. 17 Cuyahoga County Juvenile Diversion Programs …. 22 2. Theoretical Perspectives …………………………………….. 26 Labeling Theory ………………………………………. 26 Restorative Justice …………………………………… 28 Outcomes of Diversion Programs ………………….. 32 Effectiveness of Diversion Programs ………………. 35 Summary and Research Questions ………………… 39 3. Methodology …………………………………………………… 43 Research Design ……………………………………… 44 Sample and Selection Criteria ………………………. 45 Data Collection ………………………………………... 49 1 Protection of Human Subjects ……………………….. 52 Measurement – Variables and Operationalization … 53 Variable Definitions and Coding ……………………… 57 Definition of Key Terminology ………………………… 60 4. Findings …………………………………………………………. 63 Demographic Characteristics …………………………. 63 Legal Characteristics …………………………………... 65 Sample Demographic and Legal Comparisons …….. 66 Program Disposition by Demographic and Legal Characteristics ………………………………………….. 70 The Reintegrative Program …………………………… 75 The Typical Program ………………………………….. 78 Comparison of Diversion Programs …………………. 81 Research Questions and Hypotheses ………………. 86 Programmatic Components and Sanctions ………… 99 Exploratory Research …………………………………. 102 5. Discussion and Conclusion …………………………………… 108 Discussion ……………………………………………… 108 Conclusion ……………………………………………… 114 Implications for Policy, Practice, and Research …… 117 Limitations of Study …………………………………… 120 Appendices …………………………………………………………………….. 125 2 Appendix A …………………………………………….. 125 Appendix B …………………………………………….. 126 Appendix C …………………………………………….. 129 Appendix D …………………………………………….. 132 Appendix E ……………………………………………... 134 Appendix F ……………………………………………… 136 Appendix G ……………………………………………... 138 Endnotes ………………………………………………………………………... 139 References ……………………………………………………………………… 140 3 List of Tables Tables Page Table 1. Number of Participants by Diversion Program ……………………… 48 Table 2. Offense Levels and Measurement Codes ………………………….. 54 Table 3. Program Construct Variables and Corresponding Program Components and Sanctions ………………………………………….. 56 Table 4. Percentage of Youth in Each Program Assigned Construct Components/Sanctions.……………………………………………….. 57 Table 5. Sample Demographic Characteristics ………………………………. 64 Table 6. Legal Characteristics of Sample …………………………………….. 65 Table 7. Comparisons of Gender by Other Demographics ………………… 67 Table 8. Comparisons of Offense Type by Demographics ………………… 68 Table 9. Offense Level Means by Demographics …………………………… 69 Table 10. Summary of Program Disposition by Demographic and Legal Characteristics ………………………………………………………. 71 Table 11. Comparison of Program Disposition Using Chi Square on Discrete Data ………………………………………………………………….. 72 Table 12. Summary of Recidivism by Demographic and Legal Characteristics ……………………………………………………… 73 Table 13. Re-offense Levels and Measurement Codes …………………… 74 Table 14. Summary of Offense Escalation by Demographic and Legal Characteristics ……………………………………………………… 75 Table 15. Characteristics of Reintegrative CDP Subgroup ………………. 76 Table 16. Characteristics of Reintegrative CDP by Year …………………. 77 Table 17. Characteristics of Typical CDP by Subgroup …………………... 79 4 Table 18. Characteristics of Typical CDP by Year ………………………… 80 Table 19. Demographic Characteristics of Sample by Program ………… 82 Table 20. Summary of Legal Characteristics of Sample by Program …... 83 Table 21. Offenses Committed by Program ……………………………….. 85 Table 22. Chi Square Analysis of Program Completion by CDP ……….... 87 Table 23. Summary of Logistic Regression Analysis for Variables Predicting Program Completion ………………………………….. 88 Table 24. Summary of Recidivism by Diversion Program ………………… 89 Table 25. Summary of Logistic Regression Analysis for Variables Predicting Recidivism ……………………………………………… 90 Table 26. Analysis of Variance for Days to Re-offense and Diversion Program …………………………………………………. 92 Table 27. Summary of Regression Analysis for Days to Reoffending by Demographic and Legal Characteristics ………………………… 93 Table 28. Summary of Offense Escalation by Diversion Program ………. 94 Table 29. Summary of Logistic Regression Analysis for Variables Predicting Offense Escalation ……………………………………. 95 Table 30. Characteristics of Sample by Offense Type ……………………. 97 Table 31. Logistic Regression Analysis for Programmatic Components Predicting Program Completion …………………………………. 99 Table 32. Logistic Regression Analysis for Programmatic Components Predicting Recidivism …………………………………………….. 100 Table 33. Logistic Regression Analysis for Programmatic Components Predicting Offense Escalation …………………………………… 101 Table 34. Juvenile Responses to Questionnaire ………………………….. 103 Table 35. Parent/Guardian Responses to Questionnaire ……………….. 105 5 List of Figures Figures Page Figure 1 …………………………………………………………………. 32 6 Acknowledgements and Dedication There are many people to thank for their support and encouragement over the years as I completed this doctoral program. First is the chair of my dissertation committee, Dr. Victor Groza, who took me by the hand and would not let got until this dissertation was completed. His patience and guidance meant more to me than I could ever acknowledge on this page, so I just hope he knows how truly grateful I am. To the members of my committee – Dr. Kathleen Farkas, Dr. David Miller, and Dr. Emilia McGucken – thank you for your willingness to serve on my dissertation committee and for your unwavering patience and support over the years. Dr. Mark Singer, thank you for your vision and your hard work on the Mandel Leadership Fellows Program and to the Mandel family for their belief in the worth of the program. I am honored to be graduating as a Mandel Fellow. While I’m acknowledging doctors, I would be remiss if I did not thank a special group of Ph.D.s. First are the members of my cohort for their support and friendship since day one of our doctoral journey. Through all of the papers and projects, career changes and family sorrows, e-mails and get-togethers, we have formed a wonderful bond. If I had to do this all over again (and thank God I don’t) there is not another group of individuals with whom I’d rather travel this road. Dr. Kay Benjamin and Dr. Karen Popovich, thank you for knowing what I needed in order to get going and keep going on the dissertation trail. Your friendship, help, and guidance proved crucial. 7 I greatly appreciate the cooperation and the assistance of those who work with the Cuyahoga County Community Diversion Programs, particularly Heather Corcoran, Nancy Stroman, and Doug Stolarski. I could not have completed this research project without each of you. Thank you, not only for your help with the project, but for your commitment to the children of our county. To the faculty and staff of MSASS, thank you for all of your work and your assistance, especially Helen Menke, doctoral program D.A. And to my friends and family who are sick of hearing me say, “I can’t. I have to work on the you know what” – ask me now. Finally, I dedicate the completion of this dissertation and completion of the program to the memory of three women who played very important roles in my doctoral journey. Arol Shack, beloved member of the MSASS family, recruited me to this program. Her help, support, kindness, encouragement, and caring ways were a mainstay of the Ph.D. program. It is only fitting that I acknowledge her in this dedication. Elizabeth B. Lambright, who was 96 years old when she died, was my personal cheerleader and a source of inspiration to me. I was a doctoral student when we met and a doctoral student when she died. She spent the last years of her life taking great pride in my accomplishments. I regret that she is not here for this one, so I dedicate this work to her memory as well. Last, but certainly not least, anything and everything “good” that I do or that I am I owe to my mother, Ruth E. Stewart. She was, and still is, unquestionably my greatest source of inspiration. To coin a phrase from a current U.S. presidential candidate, “It’s in my DNA. It’s who I am”. My mother was my certainty in a very 8 uncertain world. So, as with all that I accomplish, I dedicate this dissertation and this degree to the loving memory of my mother. 9 An Outcomes Study of Juvenile Diversion Programs on Non-Serious Delinquent and Status Offenders Abstract by MELODY J. STEWART This study uses a retrospective cohort design to explore the impact of juvenile diversion programs on non-serious delinquent and status offenders.