Final Evaluation of the Juvenile Intake, Screening and Diversion Grant Project Operated by the Suffolk County (NY) Department of Probation

• NCJ Number: 77511
• Author(s): J J Golbin; F Straus; W Bufano
• Date Published: 1979
• Length: 41 pages
• Sponsoring Agency: US Dept of Justice
• Corporate Author: Suffolk County Probation Dept
• Sale Source: National Institute of Justice/
• Publication Type: Program/Project Evaluation
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America
• Note: Project Report no 3.

Annotation

This evaluation of a juvenile diversion program developed by the Suffolk County, N.Y. Department of Probation with LEAA funds focuses on the project's impact on the local juvenile justice system from May 1977 through January 1979.

Abstract

A summary of the program's activities shows that it substantially decreased the average elapsed time between arrest and referral for adjustment services and between arrest and petition to the court. The total successful diversion rate for the grant period was calculated as 56.8 percent, compared to 44.3 percent in 1976. The juvenile diversion unit also reduced paperwork by 53.5 percent in 1978 and 56.8 percent over the full grant period. Program objectives and progress in meeting these goals are outlined. In addition to efforts cited in the introductory summary, the diversion unit developed effective screening criteria and improved cooperation between police and probation services. Statistical data are presented on cases processed, elapsed time between arrest and referral, and time required to petition a case to court from the diversion unit. Factors causing delays in processing cases to court are explored. Cases which could not be adjusted successfully by diversion and which were referred to court are analyzed. Reasons for court petitions include denial of guilt, awareness that court backlogs could result in charges being dismissed, serious family problems, inability to reach agreement on restitution, and failure to appear for adjustment interviews. A descriptive profile of the 803 cases processed by the diversion unit between May and December 1977 covers age, sex, race, education level, family structure, religion, substance abuse, time of offense, charge, and place of residence. These cases are then compared with national statistics on the adjudicated population and the multiple recidivist population. A concluding discussion of the evaluation's findings addresses the benefits of diversion, problems caused by multiple recidivists, the need for restitution programs, and personnel policies. Statistical tables and 13 references are provided.