skip to main content
Washington State Institute for Public Policy
Back Button

Diversion with services (vs. traditional juvenile court processing)

Juvenile Justice
Benefit-cost methods last updated December 2023.  Literature review updated May 2019.
Open PDF
Diversion is an alternative to formal sanctions or processing in the juvenile justice system. The goals of diversion are to alleviate the negative consequences associated with the juvenile justice system (e.g., stigmatizing youth as deviant) and to maintain a youth’s pro-social ties in the community. Diversion programs included in this meta-analysis vary in their structure. Some programs divert youth at the initial stages of the juvenile justice system (e.g., diverted by law enforcement upon arrest), while others divert youth once they reach the juvenile courts (e.g., pre- or post-adjudication). In place of formal sanctions or processing, youth agree to case management and to participate in community-based services (e.g., mentoring, counseling, job training).

The current analysis compares youth who received diversion programs with services to youth traditionally processed in juvenile court. These diversion programs target youth with no previous criminal history or with non-violent misdemeanor/felony offenses. The length of program enrollment for diverted youth ranges from two to eight months with most youth receiving anywhere from 30-50 hours of face-to-face time with counselors, mentors, or adult/student volunteers. In the studies in our analysis that reported demographic information, 58% of the diverted samples were youth of color and 23% were female.

Diversion programs with services compared to youth warned and released (i.e., simple release) and diversion programs without services compared to traditional juvenile court processing are excluded from this analysis and analyzed separately.

Key Terms

Court-involved youth: Youth who are processed through the juvenile justice system but who are not ordered to a period of confinement in a residential or correctional facility. This includes populations of arrested youth, diverted youth, charged youth, adjudicated youth, and youth on probation or formal supervision.

Youth in state institutions: Youth who are confined in a residential or correctional facility when they participate in the program.

Youth post-release: Youth who are returning to the community following a period of confinement in a residential or correctional facility and who participate in the program after release to the community.
 
ALL
BENEFIT-COST
META-ANALYSIS
CITATIONS
For an overview of WSIPP's Benefit-Cost Model, please see this guide. The estimates shown are present value, life cycle benefits and costs. All dollars are expressed in the base year chosen for this analysis (2022). The chance the benefits exceed the costs are derived from a Monte Carlo risk analysis. The details on this, as well as the economic discount rates and other relevant parameters are described in our Technical Documentation.
Benefit-Cost Summary Statistics Per Participant
Benefits to:
Taxpayers $1,477 Benefits minus costs $7,628
Participants $422 Benefit to cost ratio n/a
Others $2,948 Chance the program will produce
Indirect $1,350 benefits greater than the costs 100%
Total benefits $6,196
Net program cost $1,431
Benefits minus cost $7,628

Meta-analysis is a statistical method to combine the results from separate studies on a program, policy, or topic in order to estimate its effect on an outcome. WSIPP systematically evaluates all credible evaluations we can locate on each topic. The outcomes measured are the types of program impacts that were measured in the research literature (for example, crime or educational attainment). Treatment N represents the total number of individuals or units in the treatment group across the included studies.

An effect size (ES) is a standard metric that summarizes the degree to which a program or policy affects a measured outcome. If the effect size is positive, the outcome increases. If the effect size is negative, the outcome decreases. See Estimating Program Effects Using Effect Sizes for additional information.

Adjusted effect sizes are used to calculate the benefits from our benefit cost model. WSIPP may adjust effect sizes based on methodological characteristics of the study. For example, we may adjust effect sizes when a study has a weak research design or when the program developer is involved in the research. The magnitude of these adjustments varies depending on the topic area.

WSIPP may also adjust the second ES measurement. Research shows the magnitude of some effect sizes decrease over time. For those effect sizes, we estimate outcome-based adjustments which we apply between the first time ES is estimated and the second time ES is estimated. We also report the unadjusted effect size to show the effect sizes before any adjustments have been made. More details about these adjustments can be found in our Technical Documentation.

Meta-Analysis of Program Effects
Outcomes measured Treatment age No. of effect sizes Treatment N Adjusted effect sizes(ES) and standard errors(SE) used in the benefit - cost analysis Unadjusted effect size (random effects model)
First time ES is estimated Second time ES is estimated
ES SE Age ES SE Age ES p-value
Crime
Any criminal conviction according to court records, sometimes measured through charges, arrests, incarceration, or self-report.
 16 19 5491 -0.087 0.034 17 -0.087 0.034 25 -0.087 0.010
1In addition to the outcomes measured in the meta-analysis table, WSIPP measures benefits and costs estimated from other outcomes associated with those reported in the evaluation literature. For example, empirical research demonstrates that high school graduation leads to reduced crime. These associated measures provide a more complete picture of the detailed costs and benefits of the program.

2“Others” includes benefits to people other than taxpayers and participants. Depending on the program, it could include reductions in crime victimization, the economic benefits from a more educated workforce, and the benefits from employer-paid health insurance.

3“Indirect benefits” includes estimates of the net changes in the value of a statistical life and net changes in the deadweight costs of taxation.
Detailed Monetary Benefit Estimates Per Participant
Affected outcome: Resulting benefits:1 Benefits accrue to:
Taxpayers Participants Others2 Indirect3 Total
Crime Criminal justice system $1,314 $0 $2,697 $657 $4,668
Labor market earnings associated with high school graduation $209 $492 $272 $0 $974
Costs of higher education ($46) ($70) ($21) ($23) ($161)
Program cost Adjustment for deadweight cost of program $0 $0 $0 $716 $716
Totals $1,477 $422 $2,948 $1,350 $6,196
Click here to see populations selected
Detailed Annual Cost Estimates Per Participant
Annual cost Year dollars Summary
Program costs $312 2016 Present value of net program costs (in 2022 dollars) $1,431
Comparison costs $1,510 2015 Cost range (+ or -) 20%
The per-participant cost for diversion programs with services was estimated using the Spokane County Juvenile Court cost-per-day for their diversion program as reported in the 2016 Juvenile Court Services Annual Report (https://www.spokanecounty.org/ArchiveCenter/ViewFile/Item/8443), multiplied by the weighted average length of programming in the included studies, two months. We calculate the comparison group cost, traditional juvenile court processing, using the cost of court processing for misdemeanor offenses and the average length of stay for youth on juvenile local supervision, multiplied by the annual marginal cost of juvenile local supervision from Section 4.2 of Washington State Institute for Public Policy. (December 2018). Benefit-cost technical documentation. Olympia, WA: Author.
The figures shown are estimates of the costs to implement programs in Washington. The comparison group costs reflect either no treatment or treatment as usual, depending on how effect sizes were calculated in the meta-analysis. The cost range reported above reflects potential variation or uncertainty in the cost estimate; more detail can be found in our Technical Documentation.
Benefits Minus Costs
Benefits by Perspective
Taxpayer Benefits by Source of Value
Benefits Minus Costs Over Time (Cumulative Discounted Dollars)
The graph above illustrates the estimated cumulative net benefits per-participant for the first fifty years beyond the initial investment in the program. We present these cash flows in discounted dollars. If the dollars are negative (bars below $0 line), the cumulative benefits do not outweigh the cost of the program up to that point in time. The program breaks even when the dollars reach $0. At this point, the total benefits to participants, taxpayers, and others, are equal to the cost of the program. If the dollars are above $0, the benefits of the program exceed the initial investment.

Citations Used in the Meta-Analysis

Cannon, A., & Stanford, R.M. (1981). Evaluation of the juvenile alternative services project. Tallahassee, FL: Office of Children, Youth and Families.

Crofoot, J.A. (1987). A juvenile diversion program's effectiveness with varying levels of offender severity. Doctoral dissertation, United State International University. Dissertation Abstracts International No. 8713047.

Dunford, F.W., Osgood, D.W, & Weichselbaum, H.F. (1982). National evaluation of diversion projects, Final Report. U.S. Department of Justice.

Howard, W.L. (1997). The effects of tutoring, counseling and mentoring on altering the behavior of African American males in a juvenile diversion program. Dissertation: UMI 9717719.

Klein, M.W. (1986). Labeling theory and delinquency policy: an experimental test. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 13(1) 47-79.

Koch, J.R. (1986). Community service and outright release as alternatives to juvenile court: An experimental evaluation (Doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1985). Dissertation Abstracts International, 46(07), 2081A. (University Microfilms No. 85-20537).

Lipsey, M.W., Cordray, D.S., & Berger, D.E. (1981). Evaluation of a juvenile diversion program using multiple lines of evidence. Evaluation Review, 5(3), 283-306.

Quay, H.C., & Love, C.T. (1977). The effect of a juvenile diversion program on rearrests. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 4, 377-396.

Reich, W.A., Farley, E.J., Rempel, M., & Lambson, S.H. (2014). The criminal justice response to 16- and 17-year-old defendants in New York. New York, NY: Center for Court Innovation.

Seroczynski, A.D., Evans, W.N., Jobst, A.D., Horvath, L., & Carozza, G. (2015). Reading for Life and adolescent re-arrest: Evaluating a unique juvenile diversion program. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 35 (3), 662-682.

Severy, L.J., & Whitaker, J.M. (1982). Juvenile diversion: An experimental analysis of effectiveness. Evaluation Review, 6(6), 753-774.

Smith, P., Bohnstedt, M., & Tompkins, T. (1979). Juvenile diversion evaluation - Report of an experimental study (from Pretrial Services Annual Journal, P 118-140, 1979, by D Alan Henry - See NCJ-69868). United States.

Stratton, J.G. (1975). Effects of crisis intervention counseling on predelinquent and misdemeanor juvenile offenders. Juvenile Justice, 26(4), 7-18.