IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/camsys/v14y2018i1p1-88.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Police‐initiated diversion for youth to prevent future delinquent behavior: a systematic review

Author

Listed:
  • David B. Wilson
  • Iain Brennan
  • Ajima Olaghere

Abstract

This Campbell systematic review examines the effects police‐initiated diversion programs on delinquent behavior, compared to traditional system processing. The review summarizes evidence from nineteen high‐quality studies, including 13 randomized controlled trials and six quasi‐experimental studies. This review includes studies that evaluated the effects of police‐led diversionary practices compared to traditional processing for youth under 18 years of age. We identified a total of 14 manuscripts representing 19 evaluations. Of these 19 evaluations, 13 used randomized controlled designs (random assignment to conditions) and 6 used quasi‐experimental designs (no random assignment to conditions). Many of these designs included two or more diversionary conditions compared to a common control (traditional processing) producing 31 treatment‐comparison contrasts for analysis. These studies were conducted between 1973 and 2011, inclusively. Most were conducted in the USA (11) with the remaining conducted in Canada (4), Australia (2), and the UK (2). The general pattern of evidence is positive, suggesting that police‐led diversion reduces the future delinquent behavior of low‐risk youth relative to traditional processing. Assuming a 50 percent reoffending rate for the traditional processing condition, the results suggest a reoffending rate of roughly 44 percent for the diverted youth. This overall benefit of diversion holds for the random assignment studies judged to be free from any obvious risks of bias. No meaningful differences were found across types of diversionary programs. Furthermore, we found no evidence to suggest these findings suffer from publication selection bias. Plain language summary Police‐led diversion of low‐risk youth reduces their future contact with the justice system Police‐led diversion of low‐risk youth who come into contact with the justice system is more effective in reducing a youth's future contact with the justice system compared to traditional processing. What is this review about? Youth misconduct and misbehavior is a normal part of adolescence and that misbehavior sometimes crosses the line from disruptive or problematic to delinquent. Nationally representative surveys of youth in the USA have indicated that minor delinquent behavior is normative, particularly for boys. The normative nature of minor delinquent behavior raises the question of how police should respond to minor delinquent behavior in a way that is corrective, but also avoids involving the youth in the criminal justice system beyond what will be effective in reducing future misbehavior. Police diversion schemes are a collection of strategies police can apply as an alternative to court processing of youth. Diversion as an option is popular among law enforcement officers, as it provides an option between ignoring youth engaged in minor wrongdoing and formally charging such youth with a crime. Police‐led diversion has the potential to reduce reoffending by limiting the exposure of low‐risk youth to potentially harmful effects of engagement with the criminal justice system. What is the aim of this review? This Campbell systematic review examines the effects police‐initiated diversion programs on delinquent behavior, compared to traditional system processing. The review summarizes evidence from nineteen high‐quality studies, including 13 randomized controlled trials and six quasi‐experimental studies. This review examined whether police‐led diversion and traditional processing of youth have different effects on rates of official delinquency. What are the main findings of this review? This review includes studies that evaluated the effects of police‐led diversionary practices compared to traditional processing for youth under 18 years of age. We identified a total of 14 manuscripts representing 19 evaluations. Of these 19 evaluations, 13 used randomized controlled designs (random assignment to conditions) and 6 used quasi‐experimental designs (no random assignment to conditions). Many of these designs included two or more diversionary conditions compared to a common control (traditional processing) producing 31 treatment‐comparison contrasts for analysis. These studies were conducted between 1973 and 2011, inclusively. Most were conducted in the USA (11) with the remaining conducted in Canada (4), Australia (2), and the UK (2). The general pattern of evidence is positive, suggesting that police‐led diversion reduces the future delinquent behavior of low‐risk youth relative to traditional processing. Assuming a 50 percent reoffending rate for the traditional processing condition, the results suggest a reoffending rate of roughly 44 percent for the diverted youth. This overall benefit of diversion holds for the random assignment studies judged to be free from any obvious risks of bias. No meaningful differences were found across types of diversionary programs. Furthermore, we found no evidence to suggest these findings suffer from publication selection bias. What do the findings of this review mean? The findings from this systematic review support the use of police‐led diversion for low‐risk youth with limited or no prior involvement with the juvenile justice system. Thus, police departments and policy‐makers should consider diversionary programs as part of the mix of solutions for addressing youth crime. Many of the studies included in the review were conducted in the 1970s and 1980s. Newer high quality studies are needed to ensure that the findings still hold for contemporary juvenile justice contexts. Additional studies are also needed outside of the USA for this same reason. Finally, we recommend that research explore the usefulness of diversion for low‐risk adult offenders. How up‐to‐date is this review? The search for eligible studies was completed in January of 2017, so only studies identifiable through January 2017 were included. This Campbell systematic review was published in May 2018. Executive summary/Abstract Background Overly punitive responses to youth misconduct may have the unintended consequence of increasing the likelihood of future delinquency; yet, overly lenient responses may fail to serve as a corrective for the misbehavior. Police diversion schemes are a collection of strategies police can apply as an alternative to court processing of youth. Police‐initiated diversion schemes aim to reduce reoffending by steering youth away from deeper penetration into the criminal justice system and by providing an alternative intervention that can help youth address psychosocial development or other needs that contribute to their problem behavior. Objectives The objective of this review was to synthesize the evidence on the effectiveness of pre‐court interventions involving police warning or counseling and release, and cautioning schemes in reducing delinquent behavior. Search methods A combination of 26 databases and websites were searched. References of relevant reviews were also scanned to identify studies. We also consulted with experts in the field. Searches were executed by two reviewers and conducted between August 2016 and January 2017. Selection criteria Only experimental and quasi‐experimental designs were eligible for this review. All quasi‐experimental designs must have had a comparison group similar to the police diversion intervention group with respect to demographic characteristics and prior involvement in delinquent behavior (i.e., at similar risk for future delinquent behavior). Additionally, studies must have included youth participants between 12 and 17 years of age who either underwent traditional system processing or were diverted from court processing through a police‐led diversion program. Studies were also eligible if delinquency‐related outcomes, including official and non‐official (self‐report or third‐party reporting) measures of delinquency were reported. Data collection and analysis This study used meta‐analysis to synthesize results across studies. This method involved systematic coding of study features and conversion of study findings into effect sizes reflecting the direction and magnitude of any police‐led diversion effect. There were 19 independent evaluations across the 14 primary documents coded for this review. From this, we coded 67 effect sizes of delinquent behavior post diversion across 31 diversion‐traditional processing comparisons. We analyzed these comparisons using two approaches. The first approach selected a single effect size per comparison based on a decision rule and the second used all 67 effect sizes, nesting these within comparison condition and evaluation design. Results The general pattern of evidence is positive, suggesting that police‐led diversion modestly reduces future delinquent behavior of low‐risk youth relative to traditional processing. Authors' conclusions The findings from this systematic review support the use of police‐led diversion for low‐risk youth with limited or no prior involvement with the juvenile justice system. Thus, police departments and policy‐makers should consider diversionary programs as part of the mix of solutions for addressing youth crime.

Suggested Citation

  • David B. Wilson & Iain Brennan & Ajima Olaghere, 2018. "Police‐initiated diversion for youth to prevent future delinquent behavior: a systematic review," Campbell Systematic Reviews, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 14(1), pages 1-88.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:camsys:v:14:y:2018:i:1:p:1-88
    DOI: 10.4073/csr.2018.5
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.4073/csr.2018.5
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.4073/csr.2018.5?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Mark M. Spiegel & Nobuyoshi Yamori, 2000. "The evolution of \"too-big-to-fail\" policy in Japan: evidence from market equity values," Pacific Basin Working Paper Series 00-01, Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco.
    2. Anthony Petrosino & Carolyn Turpin‐Petrosino & Sarah Guckenburg, 2010. "Formal System Processing of Juveniles: Effects on Delinquency," Campbell Systematic Reviews, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 6(1), pages 1-88.
    3. Philip Ashton, 2014. "The Evolving Juridical Space of Harm/Value: Remedial Powers in the Subprime Mortgage Crisis," Journal of Economic Issues, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 48(4), pages 959-979, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. McMahon, Sheila M. & Pederson, Shelby, 2020. "“Love and compassion not found Elsewhere”: A Photovoice exploration of restorative justice and nonviolent communication in a community-based juvenile justice diversion program," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 117(C).
    2. Janeen Baxter & Deborah Cobb‐Clark & Alexander Cornish & Tiffany Ho & Guyonne Kalb & Lorraine Mazerolle & Cameron Parsell & Hal Pawson & Karen Thorpe & Lihini De Silva & Stephen R. Zubrick, 2021. "Never Let a Crisis Go to Waste: Opportunities to Reduce Social Disadvantage from COVID‐19," Australian Economic Review, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, vol. 54(3), pages 343-358, September.
    3. Lorraine Mazerolle & Peter Neyroud, 2020. "Editorial: The Campbell Crime & Justice Coordinating Group: Celebrating 20 years of achievements," Campbell Systematic Reviews, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 16(2), June.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Lee A. Underwood & Aryssa Washington, 2016. "Mental Illness and Juvenile Offenders," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 13(2), pages 1-14, February.
    2. Brewer, Elijah III & Genay, Hesna & Hunter, William Curt & Kaufman, George G., 2003. "The value of banking relationships during a financial crisis: Evidence from failures of Japanese banks," Journal of the Japanese and International Economies, Elsevier, vol. 17(3), pages 233-262, September.
    3. Rixtel, Adrian van & Wiwattanakantang, Yupana & ウィワッタナカンタン, ユパナ & Souma, Toshiyuki & 相馬, 利行 & Suzuki, Kazunori & スズキ, カズノリ, 2002. "Banking in Japan: Will "Too Big To Fail" Prevail?," CEI Working Paper Series 2002-16, Center for Economic Institutions, Institute of Economic Research, Hitotsubashi University.
    4. Phil Molyneux & Klaus Schaeck & Tim Zhou, 2011. "‘Too Systemically Important to Fail’ in Banking," Working Papers 11011, Bangor Business School, Prifysgol Bangor University (Cymru / Wales).
    5. Mark M. Spiegel & Nobuyoshi Yamori, 2000. "Financial turbulence and the Japanese main bank," Pacific Basin Working Paper Series 2000-04, Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco.
    6. Imai, Masami, 2007. "The emergence of market monitoring in Japanese banks: Evidence from the subordinated debt market," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 31(5), pages 1441-1460, May.
    7. Spiegel, Mark M. & Yamori, Nobuyoshi, 2003. "The impact of Japan's financial stabilization laws on bank equity values," Journal of the Japanese and International Economies, Elsevier, vol. 17(3), pages 263-282, September.
    8. Wojciechowski, Thomas, 2020. "The relevance of the dual systems model of self-control for age-related deceleration in offending variety among juvenile offenders," Journal of Criminal Justice, Elsevier, vol. 70(C).
    9. Wikil Kwak & Ho-Young Lee & Vivek Mande, 2009. "Institutional Ownership and Income Smoothing by Japanese Banks through Loan Loss Provisions," Review of Pacific Basin Financial Markets and Policies (RPBFMP), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 12(02), pages 219-243.
    10. Robyn M. O'Connor & David L. DuBois & Lucy Bowes, 2018. "PROTOCOL: Electronic mentoring to promote positive youth outcomes for young people under 25: a systematic review," Campbell Systematic Reviews, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 14(1), pages 1-22.
    11. David B. Wilson & Iain Brennan & Ajima Olaghere, 2018. "PROTOCOL: Police initiated diversion for youth to prevent future delinquent behavior: a systematic review protocol," Campbell Systematic Reviews, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 14(1), pages 1-22.
    12. Heather Whiteside, 2019. "Foreign in a domestic sense: Puerto Rico’s debt crisis and paradoxes in critical urban studies," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 56(1), pages 147-166, January.
    13. Molyneux, Philip & Schaeck, Klaus & Zhou, Tim Mi, 2014. "‘Too systemically important to fail’ in banking – Evidence from bank mergers and acquisitions," Journal of International Money and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 49(PB), pages 258-282.
    14. Imai, Masami, 2006. "Market discipline and deposit insurance reform in Japan," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 30(12), pages 3433-3452, December.
    15. Anthony Petrosino & Claire Morgan & Trevor A. Fronius & Emily E. Tanner‐Smith & Robert F. Boruch, 2012. "Interventions in Developing Nations for Improving Primary and Secondary School Enrollment of Children: A Systematic Review," Campbell Systematic Reviews, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 8(1), pages -192.
    16. Elijah Brewer & Hesna Genay & George G. Kaufman, 2003. "Banking relationships during financial distress: the evidence from Japan," Economic Perspectives, Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, vol. 27(Q III), pages 2-18.
    17. Sarah Knuth & Shaina Potts, 2016. "Legal geographies of finance Editors' Introduction," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 48(3), pages 458-464, March.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:camsys:v:14:y:2018:i:1:p:1-88. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1891-1803 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.