Citation

Nejelski P. Crime Delinq. 1976; 22(4): 393-410.

Copyright

(Copyright © 1976, SAGE Publishing)

DOI

10.1177/001112877602200401

PMID

unavailable

Abstract

Diversion is inherent in the juvenile justice system and necessary to keep it from collapsing. It is defined as "the channeling of cases to noncourt institutions, in instances where these cases would ordinarily have received an adjudicatory (or fact finding) hearing by a court." It should be distinguished from preventive efforts which contain no possibility that the juvenile's behavior would result in a court hearing. A good test of diversion, therefore, is whether the number of juvenile court adjudications is reduced as a result of a new program. Four diversion projects are described, and their common characteris tics are noted-the use of paraprofessionals from the community, a reliance on crisis intervention, the central role of arbitrators and administrators rather than judges, the trend to avoid stigma, a concen tration on status offenses and minor delinquency, and a lack of evaluation. A proposed balance sheet set forth to weigh the value of diversion discusses the clients of these programs and their treatment, fairness and the power of the state, the available resources, and evaluations .of these programs. Diversion projects are dangerous to the extent that they may destroy the necessary balance between social welfare and due process. The court still has an important role to play by reviewing cases for abuse of discretion, by creating special masters as ombudsmen to determine what is happen ing in the system, and by increasing the research capabilities available to the judicial branch. Finally, the article notes that diversion may be only a halfway measure which takes the pressure off the system to eliminate status offenses and, instead, creates an equally coercive social control system with less visibility and accountability.

Language: en