TC programs could also benefit from an in-depth program analysis in that specific TC practices
generate negative effects (Stickle et al., 2008). For instance, “process data indicated that more than 10% of
TC offenders went through detention center tours as a TC sanction [think Scared Straight]…[which] have
shown to be not only ineffective in deterring crime, but potentially the cause of further juvenile
delinquency” (Stickle et al., 2008). Stickle believes that programs like these could be the causes of the
“negative findings” and strongly recommends further research be conducted on TC (Stickle et al., 2008).
The Adolescent Diversion Project (ADP) conducted by Michigan State University and the
Ingham County Juvenile Court in Michigan conducted two studies, in 1976 and 2004 for juveniles with
a distribution of 83-84% male participants and 16-17% female participants with a mean age of 14.2 (in a
13-15 age bracket) (See Appendix R)(Davidson et al., 2005). Both studies were conducted with one-year
follow ups (in 1977 and 2005, respectively), with over 60% of participants committing property-related
felony offenses (Davidson et al., 2005). The only notable differences between the studies was the
distribution of race, where only 26% of the 1976 study participants were considered "youth of color” and
91% of 2004 study participants were African American youth (Davidson et al., 2005). There is also a
notable difference in the cost estimations for the program versus the alternative (commitment) between
the two studies due to inflation from the time gap between studies. The cost in 2004 for the ADP
program was $1,020 per youth, compared to $13,466 for commitment (Davidson et al., 2005). Both
studies employed three social learning theories: social control and bonding [focusing on family bonding],
social learning [based on the belief that delinquency is learned], and social interactionist [focusing on
changing the label of the child from “delinquent” to more positive labels] (Davidson et al., 2005).
Each study lasted eighteen weeks, with a twelve-week “active” phase followed by a six-week
“follow up” phase. Participants were assigned to three conditions: the ADP program, probation, or
commitment and conditions were maintained between treatment and control groups (Davidson et al.,
2005). The sample in 1976 contained 228 participants and the 2004 study contained 395 participants.
Both samples within the study saw a substantial decrease in recidivism rates of 12% (Davidson et al.,
2005).
In a Missouri longitudinal study (from 1985-2007) conducted by Sawyer and Borduin,
multisystemic therapy (MST), an evidence-based diversion therapy program, was compared to
individualized therapy (IT) through a randomized clinical trial and follow-up serving serious, violent and
chronic juvenile offenders (See Appendices N and O) (Sawyer and Borduin, 2011). Although the sample
size was small (84 participants were assigned to IT and 92 participants were assigned to MST for a total
of 176 participants), this is somewhat common for a longitudinal study and the study was randomized
(Sawyer and Borduin, 2011). Despite the sample size, the results are applicable to a wider population,
since MST is similar to many wrap-around diversion services and individual therapy (IT) is more closely
related to services offered within a commitment program (Sawyer and Borduin, 2011). Controlling for
various factors, the recidivism rates were reported as 54.8% for IT participants and only 34.8% for youth
assigned to the MST condition across varying offense types and all levels of offenses (misdemeanors,
non-violent felonies, and violent felonies) (Sawyer and Borduin, 2011). More specifically, non-violent
felonies saw 51.2% for IT participants and 34.8% for MST assignees (Sawyer and Borduin, 2011).
It is worth noting that the recidivism rates for non-violent felonies in general were astoundingly
lower than that of misdemeanors (at 65.5% for IT misdemeanor participants and 60.9% for MST
misdemeanor participants) and were more representative of overall recidivism trends (Sawyer and
Borduin, 2011).
Through House Bill 13-1254, the Colorado legislature established four restorative justice juvenile
diversion pilot programs in four of Colorado’s judicial districts in 2013 (O’Neil, 2015). The purpose of this
initiative was to assess the effectiveness of restorative justice in cost reduction through cost savings and
avoidance (O’Neil, 2015). Using a survey, O’Neil gathered preliminary data on costs from District Attorney
(DA) staff screening for the programs until the juvenile was discharged from the program and found costs
per juvenile ranging from $503 to $1,251 with one rural outlier (2015). O’Neil was not able to fully
encompass avoided costs in society, law enforcement, and the JJS due to recidivism (O’Neil, 2015).
44