Program Profile: Adolescent Diversion Project (Michigan State University)

This is a strengths-based, university-led program that diverts arrested youth from formal processing in the juvenile justice system and provides them with community-based services. The program is rated Effective. Participants in the program had statistically significant lower rates of official delinquency, compared with control group youth. However, there was no statistically significant difference between groups in self-reported delinquency.

An Effective rating implies that implementing the program is likely to result in the intended outcome(s).

This program's rating is based on evidence that includes at least one high-quality randomized controlled trial.

This program's rating is based on evidence that includes either 1) one study conducted in multiple sites; or 2) two or three studies, each conducted at a different site. Learn about how we make the multisite determination.

Program Goals

The Adolescent Diversion Project (ADP) is a strengths-based, university-led program that diverts arrested youth from formal processing in the juvenile justice system and provides them with community-based services. Based upon a combination of theoretical perspectives, the goal of the ADP is to prevent future delinquency by strengthening youth’s attachment to family and other prosocial individuals, increasing youth’s access to resources in the community, and keeping youth from potentially stigmatizing social contexts (such as the juvenile justice system).

The program began in 1976, through a collaboration among Michigan State University, personnel from the Ingham County (Mich.) Juvenile Court, and members of the community in response to a rise in juvenile crime and the need for cost-saving alternatives to the formal processing of juveniles.

Program Theory

The conceptual framework of the ADP involves three theoretical perspectives: social control and bonding, social learning, and social-interactionist theories. Social control theory emphasizes the importance of social bonds in preventing delinquent behavior (Hirschi 1969). Social learning theory suggests that delinquency is learned through interactions with family, peers, and others (Aker 1990). Finally, social-interactionist theory suggests that it is the labeling of behavior as delinquent that results in further social interactions that intentionally or unintentionally label youth as delinquent (Shur 1973).

Key Personnel

The ADP is run by the Psychology Department at Michigan State University. Undergraduate psychology students participate in a two-semester course in which they receive training in diversion work and carry out 8 hours per week of community-based structured mentoring. The student volunteers are trained for 8 weeks in specific behavioral intervention techniques and advocacy, followed by 18 weeks of intensive supervision while they work with juveniles referred by the Intake Division of the Ingham County Juvenile Court.

Program Components

The ADP focuses on creating an alternative to juvenile court processing within a strengths-based, advocacy framework. During the 18-week intervention, the caseworkers (i.e., student volunteers) spend 6–8 hours per week with the juveniles in their home, school, and community. The caseworkers work one-on-one with juveniles in order to provide them with services tailored to their specific needs. Caseworkers focus on improving juveniles’ skills in several areas, including family relationships, school issues, employment, and free-time activities. For example, caseworkers teach youth about resources available in the community so that juveniles can access these resources on their own once the program is over.

The first 12 weeks of services are called the active phase, and case workers spend time each week with juveniles while providing direct assistance in behavioral contracting and advocacy efforts. During the last four weeks of services, called the follow-up phase, case workers spend a little less time each week assisting juveniles in those same areas, but their role is that of a consultant, preparing juveniles to use the techniques and strategies they’ve learned following the end of the program.

Study 1

Davidson and colleagues (1987) conducted an early evaluation of the Adolescent Diversion Project (ADP) in a medium-sized industrial Midwestern city from the fall of 1976 through the spring of 1980. The study was designed to examine the effects of various intervention components of the program. There were 228 juveniles referred to the project (although eight refused to participate). The sample was 83 percent male and 26 percent were minorities, with an average age of 14.2 years. Participants had been charged with a wide variety of crime, including person, property, and status offenses. The most common crimes were larceny (34 percent) and breaking and entering (24 percent). Juveniles were referred from the local juvenile court following a preliminary hearing. Juveniles were randomly assigned to one of six conditions: action condition (AC); action condition-family focused (ACFF); action condition-court setting (ACCS); relationship condition (RC); attention placebo condition (APC); and control condition (CC). There were no significant baseline differences among the groups on demographics and prior records of arrest, court petitions, and self-report delinquency.

Juveniles in all of the treatment conditions, except for the CC, were provided with one-on-one services from volunteer college students. Services occurred in the juvenile’s natural environment. The AC (n = 76), implemented in all 5 years of the study, provided a broad intervention based on behavioral contracting and child advocacy, therefore juveniles, parents, and significant others were involved in the intervention. The ACFF (n = 24), implemented in the 4th and 5th year of the study, was identical to the AC, except that only juveniles, parents, and siblings were involved. The ACCS (n = 12), implemented during the 5th year of the study, was also identical to the AC except the college students were supervised by a member of the court staff at the court. In the RC (n = 12), implemented during the 3rd year, only the juveniles were involved in the intervention. The APC (n = 29), also implemented during the 3rd year, was not based on a prescribed model; rather, college students relied on their natural helping skills. Finally, the juveniles in the CC (n = 60), implemented each year of the study, were returned to court. The CrimeSolutions review examined the differences between the AC and the CC groups.

The primary outcome of interest was delinquency. Data on official delinquency was collected through adult and juvenile police records of 14 law enforcement agencies, in addition to data from the Law Enforcement Information Network (LEIN), which was used to search on a statewide basis for outstanding warrants. Official delinquency data was collected for 1 year prior to the referral and for 2 years after the intervention. The data included the number of alleged offenses, seriousness of alleged offense, and offense disposition. For self-report delinquency, a 29-item measure was administered to juveniles at intake and at 1 and 2 years after the intervention. Univariate chi-square analysis and analysis of variance (ANOVA) were used to examine the data.

Study 2

Smith and colleagues (2004) evaluated the effectiveness of the program when it was replicated in an urban environment. A total of 395 youths were referred to the program. The sample was 84 percent male, with an average age of 14 years. The youths were 91 percent African American, and the majority (65 percent) had been referred for property-related offenses (such as breaking and entering, larceny, and auto theft). Youth were randomly assigned to one of three conditions: diversion with services (ADP); diversion without services (warn and release); or treatment-as-usual control (juvenile justice processing). There were no significant baseline differences among the groups, except for socioeconomic status.

Youths in the diversion with services condition (n = 137) received services through the ADP. Youths in the diversion without services condition (n = 134) were returned to their parents with no further program or court contact. All referring charges were dismissed. Youths in the treatment-as-usual control condition (n = 124) were returned to the court’s jurisdiction for traditional processing which resulted in a petition to the juvenile court.

The primary outcome of interest was delinquency. Information on delinquency was collected from youth using a 29-item measure assessing illegal and delinquent behavior. Information on official delinquency was obtained from the records of 44 law enforcement jurisdictions, the juvenile court, and the LEIN. Data was collected on the number of police contacts, number of court petitions, seriousness of the offense, and disposition. The follow-up period was 12 months from the initial referral. Repeated measures analysis of variance was used to examine effects by time (pre, post, and follow-up) and by condition (diversion with services, diversion without services, and court processing as usual). No subgroup analyses were conducted.

These sources were used in the development of the program profile:

These sources were used in the development of the program profile:

Following are CrimeSolutions-rated programs that are related to this practice:

Formal System Processing for Juveniles

The practice of using traditional juvenile justice system processing in lieu of alternative sanctions to deal with juvenile criminal cases. The practice is rated No Effects for reducing recidivism compared to the youth that were diverted from the system. Test

Evidence Ratings for Outcomes

Crime & Delinquency - Multiple crime/offense types

Juvenile Diversion Programs

An intervention strategy that redirects youths away from formal processing in the juvenile justice system, while still holding them accountable for their actions. The practice is rated Promising for reducing recidivism rates of juveniles who participated in diversion programming compared with juveniles who were formally processed in the justice system.

Evidence Ratings for Outcomes

Crime & Delinquency - Multiple crime/offense types

Police-Initiated Diversion for Youth to Prevent Future Delinquent Behavior

This practice includes pre-court interventions or strategies that police can apply as an alternative to court processing or the imposition of formal charges against low-risk youth. This approach is designed to reduce reoffending by minimizing youth contact with the criminal justice system and divert youth toward services that address their psychosocial development and other needs that contribute to their at-risk behavior. The practice is rated Effective for reducing future delinquent behavior.

Evidence Ratings for Outcomes

Crime & Delinquency - Multiple crime/offense types

Family-based Treatment for Adolescent Delinquency and Problem Behaviors

In general family-based treatment practices consist of a wide range of interventions that are designed to change dysfunctional family patterns that contribute to the onset and maintenance of adolescent delinquency and other problem behaviors. This practice is rated Effective for reducing recidivism, and Promising for reducing antisocial behavior and substance use, and improving psychological functioning and school performance.

Evidence Ratings for Outcomes

	Crime & Delinquency - Multiple crime/offense types
	Mental Health & Behavioral Health - Externalizing behavior
	Drugs & Substance Abuse - Multiple substances
	Mental Health & Behavioral Health - Psychological functioning
	Education - Academic achievement/school performance

Why might a practice's outcome ratings differ from the ratings of specific programs encompassed by that practice?