Written Assignment #5

Mass Incarceration Diverting Offending Youth from Prison to Community – Based Treatment

The United States still incarcerates more young adolescents than any other country does (Rogers, 2015 ) . “ Approximately 800,00 young people under 20 years old spent time in a juvenile justice facility in the U.S. , a statistic that has increased exponentially in recen t decades ; this figure makes the U.S. the country with the highest rate of youth incarceration in the planet (Harrison & Becker, 2006 ). Incarceration in a juvenile facility is a single experience with limited consequences for some youth; however, for most youth, it is only the beginning of repeated criminal activity and contact with the justice system (Daniels, Crum, Ramaswamy, & Freudenberg, 2011) . Incarceration has repeatedly been associated with exposure to infectious diseases, c hronic medical conditions , illicit substance abuse, mental illness , violence, high unemployment rates , high school dropout rate, social stigma, and discrimination (Daniels et al., 2011 ). Therefore, it is imperative to implement alternative methods to assist in improving the lives of incarcerated youth and prevent future re – incarceration or recidivism.

Jail diversion programs are an effective alternative to jail as these reform offenders and successfully prevent them from re – offending ; this holds true for adolescents, and non – violent offenders, whose crimes were drug, alcohol, and mental health related (Center for Prison Reform, 2015) . “Juvenile diversion is an intervention strategy that redirects youths away from formal processing in the justice system, while still holding them accountable for their actions” (Wilson, 2015.).

When offending adolescents are diverted from prison to community – based treatment, they stay connected to family me mbers, services in the community, educational system, which all serves as main source of support to the teen. According to Ryan (2016), mass

incarceration is an epidemic and public health crises in the U.S that must be done away with. With diversion progra ms in place, mass incarceration rate will decline (Ryan, 2016).

J ail diversion programs enable offenders to keep jobs contributing to society, prevents trauma of prison, allows offenders to undertake their behavior without stigma of criminal conviction (Ro gers, 2015) . Also, community – based alternatives are less costly than imprisoning the youth. “The annual avera ge cost per year of a detention , depending on geographical location and cost of living, could range from $32,000 ($87 per day) to as high as $65,00 0 a year ($178 per day), with some big cities paying far more” (H olman & Ziedenberg, 2006, p. 10 ). Conversely, “a slot in a community – based program cost less than $75 a day . It provides a range of services and supports young people and their families and s eeks to address the underlying causes that got young people in trouble. Many programs also incorporate restorative justice principle so that young people have the opportunity to repair harm to victims and give back to their communities” (American Civil Lib erties Union, 2015).

Description of Targeted Group and Impact of Health Issues

“America has the highest imprisonment rate in the world with 60% jailed for nonviolent offenses” (Rogers, 2015, p.1). “The targeted groups for community – based diversion program s are young men and women , ages 11 to 17, who have committed non – violent offenses, with the exemption of homicide, firearm use for commission of a crime, kidnapping, and rape” (Rempel, 2014). For such programs to be successful, “careful attention must be p aid to screening applicants and judging who poses no threat to society and who is amenable to behavioral correction outside of a prison environment” (Rogers, 2015, p.17).

There are many health issues that adolescents face while incarcerated that affects th em physically and mentally. Jails are overcrowded and plagued by disease filled horrid conditions. Therefore it is clear that adolescents, who are incarcerated, will have more health issues than those who are not incarcerated. As reported by McCarthy , Schiraldi, & Shark ( 2016), clear evidence has been found of complete ill – treatment of youths in detention facilities, while violence and sexual abuse are not only carried out by staff members, but also enacted by other youths confined in such facilities.

Imprisonment causes tremendous trauma (Lambie & Randell, 2013, p.453) . Incarcerated youths are more likely to turn to other forms of coping mechanisms and ways to engage that are detrimental to one’s health (McCarthy et al. , 2016) . “In many cases, this may result in increased risk taking behaviors that’s often a feature of incarceration, such as violence, substance abuse, and sexual activity. Such behaviors increase their chances of contracting HIV, hepatitis, and other sexually transmitted infections” (Lam bie & Randell, 2013, p.453).

Mental health issues are not addressed in prison and are exacerbated by such an environment (Holman & Ziedenberg, 2016). “A large portion of incarcerated youth suffer from mental health problems such as depression, suicide att empts and ideation, as well as drug and alcohol abuse” (Lambie & Randell, 2013, p.453). According to Hol man & Ziedenberg (2016), detention centers have huge negative effects on the mental and physical wellbeing of adolescents. The authors reveal that one t hird of imprisoned youths diagnosed with depression, the onset occurred after they started their incarceration. They further conclude that poor mental health and conditions of confinement together, increases the chances of such teens to engage in some form of self – harm, including suicide. In addition, as per Lambie & Randell, (2013), drug

and alcohol assistance is only available in 30% of juvenile offending facilities in the U.S., and of those who really need such interventions, only 1% receives treatment.

Obesity is another health issue plaguing youths in detention facilities (Pupillo, 2016) . “It has been identified as a growing issue among incarcerated youth as a result of the sedentary lifestyle, which is likely to be continued upon rel ease back into the community” ( Lambie & Randell, 2013, p. 454). Nutrition plays a great role in adequate growth and development of children (Pupillo, 2016) . “Juvenile correction facilities qualify for the National school lunch and School breakfast Programs, which provide lo w – cost or free nutrition al meals to low – income children” (Pupillo, 2016). Furthermore, “M a ny of the accredited facilities consult with dietitians; however, it’s common for confined youths to be overfed with Federal Surplus foods. When pork was very cheap, one facility served the mea t at 19 out of 21 weekly meals” (Pupillo, 2016). This youth is at higher risk of gain ing excess weight essentially because of insufficient exercise built into the program (Pupillo, 2016).

Pupillo (2016), further revealed that reg ardless of increased rate of unmet medical needs, incarcerated adolescent youths are not often treated by a pediatrician, that’s knowledgeable in and is trained to treat the physical needs of such a population. “I visited one facility where the doctor didn ’t know children have different normal blood pressure than adults” (Pupillo, 2016). It is evident that detention facilities are not safe, and in fact impedes healthy development of youths.

Challenges and Barriers

There are several challenges and barriers s urrounding the issue of diverting offending youths to community – based treatment programs. One such a challenge is that some communities may be against placing diversion programs in their neighborhoods (Underwood, von Dresner, &

Phillip, 2006, p.295) . Some of these members may rally and put up resistance to housing such programs in their communities, as they may believe in amore punitive manner of dealing with offending youths. They may simply view having offenders in their neighborhoods as a safety hazard, furthering the stigma that offenders experience when returned to communities. (Underwood et al., 2006, p.295).

Matching youth to an adequate diversion program may be a challenge. “Each program must be examined to match and tailored to the developmental sta ge of the targeted population…This poses a problem, because in order to identify the population that would potentially benefit from treat ment, youth need to be screened” (Underwood et al., 2006, p.295). Furthermore , they found that m any community based tre atment programs , “ are understaffed and do not have the funds to implement such screen ing devices. Training new staff , providing ongoing training for staff already involved is necessary, but is also costly” (Underwood, von Dresner, & Phillip, 2006, p.295).

Anoth er challenge is net widening. “Net widening is a term most commonly used to describe a phenomenon whereby a program is set up to divert youth away from an institutional placement or some other type of juvenile court disposition , But, instead, merely brings more youth into the juvenile justice system” (Bilchik, 1999, p. 4). “Diversion programs may increase, rather than decrease, the number of youths under the control of the state, by taking in youths who otherwise might never have co me into contact wit h the system” (Office of Juvenile Justice and delinquency Prevention, 2017, p. 5). Moreove r , they found that, “p rior to implementation of diversion programs, juveniles who committed minor offenses would probably have been released from the system and would not have been negative ly affected by court processing ” (Office of Juvenile Justice and delinquency Prevention, 2017, p. 5). It has also been indicated that a lot of

the youth chosen to participate in diversion programs , “ were usually those who generally n ot continue to reoffend, contributing to the impression that a program was successful even though the youths’ behavior would have improved without intervention ” (Office of Juvenile Justice and delinquency Prevention, 2017, p. 5).

Net widening must be elimi nated in order diversion programs to be a success. For 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 in alternative programs. Net widening would occur, if the alternative programs served 300 additional youth who were not part of the original 1,0 00 that were normally processed” (Bilchik, 1999, p. 4). Therefore, instead of , “ dealing with a total of 1,000, the system is processing 1,300. A net gain or net widening of 300 youth has occurred. ” (Bilchik , 1999, p. 4).

Constitutionality is another limitation related to diversion programs. “ Evidence has been foun d of a disposition without adjudication, final resolution of a case without formal court action by a judge” ( Bilchik, 1999, p.4). “ Though diversion processes vary greatly, they all are relatively informal, for constitutional protections applicable to formal adjudicative proceedings have not been applied to diversion. It is arguable, then, that diversion deprives youth of many fundamental rights, particularly the right to counsel and the right to a probable cause determination prior to the diversion decision” (Maron, 1975, p. 23.)

Racism has also presented itself as a challenge to diversion programs. According to B ilchi k (1999), evidence has been found of syste matic differential treatment of B lack American offending youth. The author reveals that B lack females were more likely to be imprisoned for non – criminal misbehavior, whilst W hite females were more likely to be pla ced in a diversion program (Bilchik, 1999). “Minority youth also far outnumber Caucasian youth among those

incarcerated on any given day…Minorities fare worse than Caucasian at each subsequent stage of processing by the juvenile justice system, regar dless of the charge, minorities are more likely to be detained and sentenced to a corrections facility than are Caucasians” (Bilchik, 199, p.4).

Opponents of diversion programs believe that such intervention play a part in the problem of disproportionate m inority contact. For example, “an evaluation of a teen court program found that Black youths were more likely to be judged harshly by their peers than White youths” (Elrod & Scott, 2014, p. 180). The subjective manner in which diversion programs may functi on can be problematic. “Police can be influenced by their personal biases, including a youth’s race and /or socioeconomic status…some court administrators believe that police discretion often leads to inconsiste ncies in the diversion process” (Office of Ju venile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 2017, p.5). T herefore, diversion programs may be contrary to , “ the concepts of fairness and justice and violate the civil rights of youths and their families” (Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention , 2017, p.5).

Literature Review What the Experts are Saying

Despite challenges and barriers to community – based treatment, such programs are vital as they reduce mass incarceration rate , recidivism, and keep families together . According to Glassner & Carey (2017), 40% to 70% of youths who have been imprisoned will recidivate within one year of release. “Desirable results can be achieved in rehabilitative community based programs, and the results are often enhanced when programming is grounded in evidenced – ba sed practices” (Glassner & Carey, 2 017, p.1). According to Bilchik (2017), successful diversion programs are those that offer youths in depth and extensive services. “ The use of experienced youth case workers is especially important to a program’s success. For example, a program in St.

Louis, MO, found that experienced youth case workers engendered greater behavioral changes in the youth than did l ess experienced case workers” ( Bilchik, 1999, p.2).

A meta – analysis of 46 studies was conducted in 1991 for the objective of assessing positive changes, by placing offending youths in seven distinct setting. Results revealed, “Type of treatment modality used with adjudicated juvenile delinquents does seem to result in reduced recidivism; particularly promising is family counseling” (Roberts & Camasso, 1991, p.422). Another meta – analytic review study conducted in 2012 highlights the success of diversion programs in reducing recidivism more than traditional justice system processing. “The studies included in the anal ysis involved 73 diversion programs assessing 14,573 diverted youth and 18,840 youth processed by the traditional justice system. The recidivism rates for all diverted youth ranged from 2% to 81%, with an unweig hted average base rate of 31.5%” (Wilson & Ho ge, 2012, p. 504). Furthermore, “T he recidivism rate for the traditionally processed youth ranged from 8% to 81%, with an average of 41.3%, which was significantly different from that of the diverted youth. In 60 of the 73 programs, the recidivism rate of diverted youth was lower than that of youth processed by the traditional justice system” (Wilson & Hoge, 2012, p. 504).

In a quantitative study conducted by Barnert et al . , (2015), juvenile offenders were interviewed, 8 females and 12 males. All participants of the study verbalized the nec essity for parents to be more affectionate, vigilant, and directing. “The youths’ perspectives align with previous meta – analyses on program efficiency, which have demonstrated that interventions that strengthen family interactions are the most effective in improving the trajectories of youths involved in th e juvenile justice system” (Barnert et al, 2015, p.1370). Moreover, “F amily – based therapies such as Functional Family Therapy and Multisystemic Therapy, administered by an in – home therapist to a family, h ave been shown to be particularly effective. These programs have

demonstrated reductions in recidi vism of 16% and 7% respectively (Barnert et al, 2015, p.1370). Furthermore, t he programs are likely to be successful because , ”t hey build skills among the adu lts who are able to influence the vulnerable youths. Programs that help parents and adolescents negotiate challenges, build parental skills and encourage supportive environments at home may be especially effective” (Barnert et al, 2015, p.1370).

“The imp ortance for recidivism of family problems, such as parental skills, indicates that interventions should not only focus on the individual offender, but also on the family…The importance of family problems also makes good aftercare essential ” (Mulder, Brand, Bullens, & Van Marle, 2010, p.34). Furthermore, if juvenile offenders , “ return to an unchanged problematic environment, it is unlikely that any positive changes will be sustained” (Mulder et al. , 2010, p.34).

“In the 18 th century, juveniles were treated l ike adults. Other reforms followed gradually and sporadically during the late 19 th century” (Maron, 1975, p. 23). “Perhaps the most dramatic change in the practice of transfer occurred with policy reforms in the 1990s and early 2000s, when nearly every sta te in the nation attempted to dramatically toughen laws governing criminal prosecution and sentencing of juveniles…specifically, in many states, these reforms expanded the set of crimes that qualified an adolescent transfer ” (Loughran et al., 2010, p. 476) . These also, “ lifted age restrictions, and added statutory exclusion and prosecutorial discretion as methods for achieving transfer to adult court” (Loughran et al , 2010, p. 476).

By nature, the brain development and maturity of adolescents differ greatl y than that of an adult. It’s absurd to treat such a delicate population as one would an adu lt. As reported by Cohen & Casey (2014), an adolescent year is marked by a struggle betwixt striving for

independence from parental guidance, whilst still dependent on such guidance in order to meet basic needs. “Phylogenetically older regions of the brain are fine – tuned first, whereas higher order association cortices mature later, with areas of the prefrontal cortex important for regulation of behavior, not reachin g maturity until the early twenties” (Cohen & Casey, 2014, p.63). “Such youth need positive adult – youth interactions, feedback loops, and learning opportunities that help them with developmental tasks of impulse control, judgement, future orientation, and emotional maturity. The punitive, coercive atmosphere of youth prisons provides none of these critical experiences” (McCarthy, Schiraldi, & Shark, 2016, p.5) .

Clearly focus must be placed on the developmental needs of troubled youths. “During later adolesc ence, Western societies expect individuals to develop the psychosocial capabilities to meet the resp onsibilities of young adulthood” (Abrams, 2006, p. 33) Moreover, “w hen youth offenders’ routine lives are disrupted by incarceration, they are not afforded the opportunity to adequately prepare for this role transition ” (Abrams, 2006, p. 33) . For example, incarcerated youth are often , “ unable to practice typical developmental skills, such as gaining a sense of personal mastery and self – determination, forging healthy relationships with pro – social friends, or engaging in stable romantic relationships” (Abrams, 2006, p. 33).

According to Ryan (2012), placing youth offenders in prison increases the chance of recidivism. “Congregating delinquent youth together ne gatively affects their behavior and increases their chances of reoffending…Studies have shown that once young people are detained, even when controlling for their prior offenses, they are more likely than non – detained youth to end up going deeper into the system” (Holman & Ziedenberg, 2006, p. 5). Moreover, “t hese detained youth are more likely to be referred to court, see their case progress through the

system to adjudication and disposition, have a formal disposition filed against them, and receive a more serious disposition” (Holman & Ziedenberg, 2006, p. 5).

Lastly, teens do engage in troublesome behavior that they will eventually grow out of, as experience and maturity takes place. In an ar ticle written by Benda & Pavlak (1983), the authors conducted a study of 932 juvenile offenders, who withdrew from delinquency while still juvenile. “A third of young people will engage in delinquent behavior before they grow up, but will naturally age out of the delinquent behavior of their younger years. Most youth will desis t from delinquency on their own” (Holman & Ziedenberg, 2006, p. 6). For those who have more trouble, “ establishing a relationship with significant other as well as employment correlates with youthful offenders of all races aging out of delinquent behavior as they reach young adulthood” (Holman & Ziedenberg, 2006, p. 6).

Potential Interventions description of a Program

Thankfully, programs where youths are placed in community – based programs have been implemented. One such program is Close to Home (CTH) in New York City. According to the Office of children and Family Services (OCFS), Governor Andrew M. Cuomo included the program’s initiative in the 2012/2013 Executive Budget proposal. This Juvenile justice program was implemented to keep non – offending youths out of jail and close to their families and community. It permits adjudicated youths in New York City, whom Family court exempted from secure placement, to be assigned to the custody of Mew York city Administrat ion for Children services (ACS) for residential service and aftercare.

As per OCFS, the most central principle of CTH is maintaining teens close to their families. Such closeness in proximity affords family members the ease of visiting their loved

ones and the opportunity to take part in the teen’s rehabilitation programs, such actions amplifies the likelihood of youths’ success rate once released from the program. CTH is comprised of two phases Phase I and Phase II. According to NYC Administration for Chil dren’s Services, Phase I is Non – Secure Placement (NSP). Youths in this phase, are teens who committed acts that would be considered crimes if they were adults. Teens in this phase of the program:

Phase II is Limited Secure Placement (LSP). Young pe ople placed in this program are t hose who are higher risk as opposed to those in NSP. LSP has more prohibitive security features compare to NSP setting, to ascertain safety of residents, program staff, and local communities. Services provided in LSP consist of:

As per OCF, once a court order h as been placed by Family court to place teen in CTH program. ACS evaluates the needs of the youth, collects information about the teens from various sources, communicate with teen and family, and match the youth to the phase I or phase II program that best meet the needs. Once the process is complete, ACS then meets with the youth, family, CTH staff, and ACS Placement and Permanency Specialist (PPS) that’s assigned to the youth to explore placement decisions and answer questions. The length of stay in such a

program is dependent on the needs of the individual. Typically, 6 – 7 months is the average length of stay.

OCFS reveals that CTH program provides:

Advocating for Change

“The majority of youths involved in the juvenile justice system are poor, undereducated, and live in communi ties where needed services are not always readily available” (Bilchik, 1999, p.2). A diversion program that brings kids back in such communities, or offer them an alternative to detention, would have to ensure that such youths can find viable options to st eer them away from criminal activities, and help them to advance in life. One manner in which to keep children engaged and involved in pro – social activities is by offering them a way to learn and develop skills that can help them advance in life and become positive and productive citizens in their community.

My policy recommendation would be that all diversion youth programs should have a mandatory educational and job readiness/preparedness component. Such mandate ensures that school age children will be given an opportunity to further their education, no matter what

educational level they’re at. Those youth, who may not fit in well in traditional educational school setting, would be afforded vocational and employment readiness training, with real work exp erience. For example, a youth who may be 17 years old with very little high school credits, and no interest in sitting in classroom for several years to obtain high school diploma or GED, would have the opportunity to learn a trade/vocational skill. This w ill result in the youth obtaining viable employment.

According to Constantine , Kindaichi, & Miville (2007), Black and Latino high school adolescents who don’t see education as important to their future, are more likely to academically and socially disenga ge from school ; such youth are non – adjudicated teens. Just imagine how a child who has been involved in the juvenile justice system views the relevance of an educational system that may have failed them time and time again.

Another policy recommendation is application of a quality assurance mechanism attached to each program that diverts offending youths to Community programs. This will guarantee that youths are not being pulled into the juvenile justice system for the sake of the program look as if it’s working well and effectively. Quality assurance also guarantees that there’s no disproportionality in regards to race/ethnicity, in who earns the right to be eligible for admission to the diversion program. The assurance team would also make a report avail able to the general public to view annually.

Conclusion

Mass incarceration is a serious epidemic and public health crises here in the United States. Of greater importance, are the huge implications that it has on our youths. Incarceration inhibits the na tural growth and development of teens, inhibits pro – social relationships, and

separate teens from their families. It can increase chances of recidivism where such teens may delve deeper into the world of crime and delinquency.

“Every year an estimated 10 ,000 youth are incarcerated for non – violent status offenses, these kids often lack support networks, come from broken homes, or have mental health needs that contribute to their behaviors. Incarceration has not been shown to help overcome this ” (Levin, 201 4). Instead thousands of youths are , “ placed in facilities that expose them to violence, disconnect them from their families, and communities, and offer few pathways for rehabilitation. Because of their confinement, the chances they will come into contact with the law again are increased ” (Levin, 2014).

Diverting offending youth from prison to community – based treatment is a more healthy approach to dealing with this population. Such programs are committed to maintaining youths close to their families and support system, provide services that addresses their needs, and is a source of safety for the teens and general public. It is well known that during adolescence kids tend to rebel, and engage in risky behaviors, as they have not matured as yet and are see king independence. Due to this process, they often make wrong decisions and end up committing offensive acts. Such acts should not go unpunished; however, submission to harsh and unhealthy conditions of prison is not the answer. The children are the futur e; we must exercise patience and provide them with support and services that’ll successfully transition them into becoming responsible, law abiding young adults.

References

Abrams, L. S. (2006). From Corrections to Community: Youth Offenders’ Perceptions of the Challenges of Transition. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 44(2 – 3), 31 – 53.

Barnert, E. S., Perry, R., Azzi, V., Shetgiri, R., Ryan, G., Dudovitz, R.,…Chung, P.J. (2015). Incarcerated Youths’ Per spectives on Protective Factors and Risk Factors for Juvenile Offending: A Qualitative Analysis . American journal of Public Health, 105(7), 1365 – 1371.

Benda, B. B. (1983). Aging Out of Crime – A negative Area of juvenile Delinquency Theory Research and Pract ices. New Designs for Youth Development, 4(6), 21 – 27.

Cohen, A.O. & Casey, B.J. (2014). Rewiring juvenile justice: the intersection of developmental neuroscience and legal policy. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 18(2), 63 – 65.

Constantine, M., Kindaichi, M.M., & Miville, M.L.(2007). Factors Influencing the Ed ucational and Vocational Transitions of Black and Latino High School Students. Retrieved from professionalschoolcounseling.org/doi/pdf/10.5330/prsc.10.3 .bg61387395104226?code=a sca – site

Daniels, J., Crum, M., Ramaswamy, M., & Freudenberg, N.(2011). Creating REAL MEN: Description of an Intervention to Reduce Drug use, HIV Risk, and Rearrest Among

Young Men Returning to Urban Communities From Jail . Health Promotion Practices, 12(1), 44 – 54.

Elrod, P., & Ryder, S.R.(2014 ). Juvenile Justice: A Social, Historical, And Legal Perspective , 4 th edition. Burlington, M A: Jones and Bartlett Ledring.

Glassner, S.D. & Carey, M.T.(2017). One More for the Books: A Program Review of Delinquent Rehabilitation. Sociology and Criminology – Open Access, 5(1), 1 – 7.

Lambie, I. , & Randell, I. (2013). The impact of incarceration on juvenile offenders . Clinical Psychology Review, 33, 448 – 459.

Levin, M. (2014). Why are We Jailing Youth For Non – Violent Offenses. Retrieved from talkingpointsmemo.com/café/why – are – we – jailing – youth – for – non – violent – offenses.

Loughran, T.A., Mulvey, E. P., Schubert, C. A., Chassin, L.A., Steinberg, L., Piquero, A. R., …Losoya, S. (2010). Differential Effects of Adult Court Transfer on Juvenile Offender Recidivism. Law and Human Behavior, 34(6), 476 – 488.

Ma ron, A. W.(1975). Constitutional Problems of Diversion of Juvenile Delinquents. Notre Dame Law Review, 51(1), 22 – 47.

Mudler, E., Brand, E., Bullens, R., & Van Marle, H.(2010). A classification of risk factors in serious juvenile offenders and the relat ion between patterns of risk factors and recidivism. Criminal Behavior and Mental Health, 20, 23 – 38.

Office of Children and Family Services. Close to home. Retrieved from ocfs.ny.gov/main/rehab/close_to_home/.

Roberts, A. & Camaso , M. (1991). The Effect of Juvenile Offender Treatment Programs on Recidivism: A Meta – Analysis of 46 Studies. Notre Dame Journal of Law, Ethics and Public Policy, 5(2), 421 – 441 – .

Underwood, L.A., von Dresner, K.S., & Phillips, A.L.(2006). Community Treatment Programs for Juveniles: A Best – Evidence Summary . International Journal of behavioral Consultation and Therapy, 2(2),286 – 304 .

Wilson, H. A., & Hoge, R.D.(2012). The Effects of Youth diversion Programs on Recidivism: A Meta – Analytic review . Criminal Justice and Behavior, 40(5), 497 – 518.