Juvenile Diversion Guidebook Prepared by the Models for Change Juvenile Diversion Workgroup Prepared by: The Models for Change Juvenile Diversion Workgroup: Center for Juvenile Justice Reform National Center for Mental Health and Juvenile Justice National Juvenile Defender Center National Youth Screening and Assessment Project Robert F. Kennedy Children’s Action Corps The preparation of this document was supported by the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation through its Models for Change initiative. The authors represent five of the member organizations from the National Resource Bank, an association of organizations that provide technical assistance to states through Models for Change. Anyone may use the content of this publication, as long as it is unchanged and in the whole, for redistribution, commercial and noncommercial, with credit to Center for Juvenile Justice Reform, National Center for Mental Health and Juvenile Justice, National Juvenile Defender Center, National Youth Screening and Assessment Project, and Robert F. Kennedy Children’s Action Corps and by reprinting the copyright notice below. © Center for Juvenile Justice Reform, National Center for Mental Health and Juvenile Justice, National Juvenile Defender Center, National Youth Screening and Assessment Project, and Robert F. Kennedy Children’s Action Corps March 2011 Models for Change Models for Change is an effort to create successful and replicable models of juvenile justice reform through targeted investments in key states, with core support from the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation. Models for Change seeks to accelerate progress toward a more effective, fair, and developmentally sound juvenile justice system that holds young people accountable for their actions, provides for their rehabilitation, protects them from harm, increases their life chances, and manages the risk they pose to themselves and to the public. Key states in the Models for Change initiative have been Illinois, Louisiana, Pennsylvania, and Washington, and through action networks focusing on key issues, in California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Kansas, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, Texas, and Wisconsin. Juvenile Diversion Guidebook Prepared by the Models for Change Juvenile Diversion Workgroup ModelsforChange Systems Reform in Juvenile Justice Contents Part I. Introduction ....................................................................................................................7 Purpose for Guidebook................................................................................................7 Background ..................................................................................................................8 Part II. Overview of Diversion ................................................................................................11 A Brief History ...........................................................................................................11 Research Evidence on Diversion ..............................................................................11 Review of Statutes ...................................................................................................13 Part III. Developing & Improving Juvenile Diversion Programs .......................................17 Getting Started ..........................................................................................................17 About the Steps ........................................................................................................17 A. Purpose .................................................................................................................23 Step 1. The Objectives ........................................ 23 Step 2. Referral Decision Points ......................... 25 Step 3. Extent of Intervention ............................. 27 B. Oversight ...............................................................................................................30 Step 4. Operations ............................................... 30 Step 5. Funding .................................................... 32 C. Intake Criteria .......................................................................................................34 Step 6. Referral and Eligibility ............................ 34 Step 7. Screening and Assessment .................... 38 D. Operation Policies ................................................................................................41 Step 8. Participant Requirements ....................... 41 Step 9. Services ................................................... 44 Step 10. Incentives .............................................. 48 Step 11. Consequences of Failure to Comply .... 49 Step 12. Program Completion/Exit Criteria ........ 50 E. Legal Protections...................................................................................................52 Step 13. Information Use .................................... 52 Step 14. Legal Counsel ....................................... 53 F. Quality ....................................................................................................................56 Step 15. Program Integrity .................................. 56 Step 16. Outcome Evaluation ............................. 58 Appendix A. Models for Change .............................................................................................69 Appendix B. Diversion Workgroup ........................................................................................70 Appendix C. Advisory Board Members .................................................................................71 Appendix D. Models for Change Juvenile Diversion Survey Data Summary ................72 Appendix E. 50 State Statutory Review .................................................................................89 Attachment: Juvenile Diversion Workbook .......................................................................137 v Part 1: Introduction At one time or another, almost all adolescents engage system. These statistics, along with documented reports in risky behaviors, act without thinking, and make bad of inadequate and inappropriate care and treatment of decisions more often than they will as adults; thus, youth, have prompted reform efforts across the country many may engage in what would be judged as illegal at both the state and local levels. As a result, many behavior.1 Most youth are not apprehended every time states and localities are exploring diversion programs as they do so, but arrest is a common experience among a way to keep youth out of the juvenile justice system. adolescents, especially for youth of color in urban areas. This Guidebook aims to assist juvenile justice systems Yet only a minority of those youth will ever be arrested in developing and improving diversion programs and for a second delinquent act, or will become repeat processes. It was developed by the Models for Change offenders in adulthood.2 In other words, for the majority Juvenile Diversion Workgroup, funded by the John D. of youth who are arrested, their first delinquency is not a and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation. In 2004, the sign of a future delinquency problem. MacArthur Foundation launched a major reform effort, known as the Models for Change initiative, in response Given these facts, a strong argument can be made to the concerns expressed here. The Models for Change for having a way to avoid formal processing of youth initiative is “grounded in a commitment to a separate through the juvenile justice system under certain justice system for youth that is responsive to their conditions. Without such a mechanism, large numbers developmental needs and focused on their practical of youth are unnecessarily charged and processed rehabilitation” and seeks to “harness and direct local through the system, thus increasing a youth’s probability reform work into a larger, coordinated effort to share of further delinquencies due to their exposure to other replicable models of reform and catalyze change across delinquent youth during this process. Moreover, by the nation.”5 See Appendix A for more information on formally processing these youth, resources available Models for Change. to the juvenile justice system are used in ways that weaken the system’s capacity to process and respond to the minority of youth who actually present a risk to Purpose for the Guidebook public safety and need juvenile justice adjudication and Programs that divert youth from involvement in the rehabilitation. juvenile justice system have become more frequent in response to the growing recognition that such Over 2 million youth in the U.S. under the age of 18 are involvement often is not necessary to achieve society’s arrested each year.3 Over 600,000 youth are placed in goals. The concept of diversion was first adopted by the detention centers annually, and approximately 95,000 adult criminal justice system, and in the 1960s, became reside in secure juvenile correctional settings on any a topic of discussion in the juvenile justice system.6 In given day.4 Many of these youth become involved 1967, the President’s Commission on Law Enforcement with the juvenile justice system for relatively minor and Administration of Justice recommended exploring and nonviolent offenses. Often a lack of appropriate alternatives for addressing the needs of troubled youth community-based treatments and services to address outside of the justice