THE ‘SUCCESS’ OF FORMAL DIVERSION PROGRAMS FOR YOUTH: UNDERSTANDING WHY ALTERNATIVES TO COURT ARE SO POPULAR AMONG YOUTH AND LAW ENFORCEMENT PREPARED FOR THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF CRIMINOLOGY 2013 Carolyn Greene and Maria Jung

Diversion: What do we know?  40 years of research looking at diversion  Definition/purpose  Pre-charge  Post-charge  Literature highlights types of youth referred, recidivism and most importantly, issues of net-widening, legal rights.  Fewer studies looking at the experiences and views of youth referred to these programs  Today looking at how youth view diversion

Research Methodology  Interviews with 106 youth who had participated in pre- charge diversion, 54 youth diverted at the post-charge stage (court) as well as 150 police officers from two police departments.  Diversion case characteristics:  Offence types  Gender  Age  Youth were asked about their views of and experiences in diversion

Youths Views of Arrest Outcome  What youth thought police should have done at the time of arrest: Action by PoliceDiverted Youth (Pre-Charge) Court Youth (Post-Charge) Sent me to diversion58.0% (n=61)0.0% (n=0) Taken me to court13.3% (n=14)66.7% (n=37) Mediation8.5% (n=9)2.0% (n=1) Warned me19.0% (n=20)19.6% (n=10) No Action0.0% (n=0)3.9% (n=2) Not Sure0.9% (n=1)7.8% (n=4) Total100.0% (n=105)100.0% (n=54)

Extrajudicial Measures in Diversion  Measures received by youth were wide ranging in number and type.  Types of measures included: Community service, counselling, various crime prevention programming, drug testing, essays, probation (like) orders.  Youths views were not explained by variation in the measures assigned.

Youth Views on Diversion Measures  Views on Fairness of type and Nature Measures Nature of MeasureDiverted Youth (Pre- Charge) Court Youth (Post-Charge) Measures were fair88.0% (n=73) 80.0% (n=32) Measures were unfair9.6% (n=8) 20.0% (n=8) Not Sure2.4% (n=2) 0.0% (n=0) Total100.0% (n=83) 100.0% (n=40) Fairness of MeasureDiverted Youth (Pre-Charge) Court Youth (Post-Charge) Measures were fair93.3% (n=98) 88.2% (n=45) Measures were unfair6.7% (n=7) 11.8% (n=6) Total100.0% (n=105) 100.0% (n=51)

Youths’ Views in Context  What diverted youth thought would happen to them at the time of their arrest: Outcome of ArrestDiverted Youth (Pre-Charge) Court Youth (Post-Charge) Charged and Court44.3% (n=47)23.5% (n=12) Charged, court and Jail29.2% (n=31)60.8% (n=31) Removed from their home10.4% (n=11)5.9% (n=3) Warning only9.4% (n=10)2.0% (n=1) Did not know6.6% (n=7)0.0% (n=0) Nothing0.0% (n=0)7.8% (n=4) Total100.0% (n=106)100.0% (n=51)

In the words of youth (Pre-Charge)  “I was going straight to do some time. Because it was extortion it was a big deal” (Youth S56).  “I thought that everything that I had going for me would go down the drain. I thought I'd be charged” (Youth S81).  “I thought I would go to jail. My mom would kill me”(Youth S16).

Youth Views in Context  What youths thought would have happened if they refused pre-charge diversion program: What youth thoughtNumber of youth Police would have taken me to court 84.0% (n=89) Police would have taken me directly to jail 9.4% (n=10) Unsure6.6% (n=7) Total100.0% (n=106)

Youth Views in Context  Reasons youth gave for ‘volunteering’ to participate in pre-charge diversion: Why ParticipateNumber of Youth Avoid Charges, Court, Criminal record 77.1% (n=81) Diversion would help me9.5% (n=10) I did not have a choice5.7% (n=6) Avoid Jail3.8% (n=4) Diversion would be easy2.8% (n=3) Not sure0.9% (n=1) Total100.0% (n=105)

Broader Context  Actions Officers would have taken in most recent referral case in absence of programs:  Appears that a majority of youth were likely to have been dealt with less formally in the absence of these programs ActionPolice Caution56% (n=66) Charge44% (n=53) Total100.0% (n=119)

In the words of Police  “These kinds of kids don't need to go to court, but they [youth] need a good scare” (Officer H7).  “It's good for kids with no contact with police. It's good in cases where you would normally caution” (Officer T56).  “Calling parents would have probably been sufficient….They are good kids who made a mistake and have parents who punished even more. Bad kids don't get put through [diversion]” (Officer H17).

What are the Alternatives?  The vast majority of youth held positive views about diversion  It did not matter what happened to them in the programs –more or less severe measures did not explain variation in views.  We need to understand their views in light of what they believed would have happened to them and that majority of officers would have used less formal cautions in the absence of the Programs.

Why should we care?  Testimonials. We need to understand youths’ views within a broader context.  Legal protections. Youth may ‘volunteer’ and ‘agree to’ programs and measures in light of what they believe the alternative is. Anything is better than jail.  Net-widening. Most officers indicated they would have informally cautioned the youth in the absence of programs. Pre-charge diversion may not be an alternative to court, but instead an alternative to less formal police action.