a diversion program for juvenile offenders: the experience of ingham county, michigan

A Diversion Program for Juvenile Offenders: The Experience of Ingham County, Michigan

By MICHELLE BAUER, GILDA BORDEAUX, JOHN COLE, WILLIAM S. DAVIDSON, ARNOLDO MARTINEZ, CHRISTINA MITCHELL and DOLLY SINGLETON

Authors' note: The authors wish to ex- press their appreciation to Judge Robert Drake and Judge Donald Owens, Mr. Warren Ritter, Director of Court Services, and Arnoldo Martinez, Administrator of Legal Proceedings f o r their continuing support in the project described here. The project described in this report was cov- ered in part by a grant f rom the Center f o r Studies of Crime and Delinquency of the National Institute of Mental Health, Grant #MH29160. Requests f o r reprints should be addressed to William S. Davidson 11,

Authors' addresses: William S . Davidson, 11, PhD Director Adolescent Diversion Project Michigan State University Alpha Building, Suite 105 416 North Homer Street Lansing, Michigan 48912

(Contact co-authors through Dr. Davidson)

Department of Psychology, Michigan State University, East Lansing, M I 48824, The order of authors was determined al- phabetically to connote equal participation in the project described herein.

The recent history of programming, policy making, and research concerning the juvenile justice system has been character- ized by heated controversy and discon- tent.' A myriad of problems have been identified by practitioners and theoreti- cians alike, resulting in a wide spectrum of suggested solutions.2 The controversy has been intensified by the ongoing political and fiscal debate about alternative avenues for approaching the delinquency problem. Central topics have included observations of the general ineffectiveness of the current operation of the juvenile justice system,' debates over the degree of procedural for- mality desirable in the juvenile courts$ the increasing use of institutionalization as an intervention mode with identified delin-

August, 19801 Juvenile & Family Court Journal 53

BAUER, BORDEAUX, COLE, DAVIDSON, MARTINEZ, MITCHELL and SINGLETON

quents, and arguments over whether or not status offenders should be included in the purview of the juvenile court.’

As a result of these and other debates, a variety of suggestions has been put forth. Most prominent among them have been recommendations for community based preventive programs,h particularly those using nonprofessionals and volunteers,7 al- terations in legislation related to juvenile courts,# and diverting youth away from the juvenile justice system whenever possible.9

The call for the increased use of community based programs resulted in part from critics of traditional correctional programs who question the effectiveness, efficiency, and focus of institutional treatment programs. Obviously, the general trend in social service fields in recent years towards community based programs may have influenced such recommendations. While a dearth of evidence concerning the effectiveness of community based alternatives exists, the consensus has been that community based programs are a t least no worse than institutional alternatives.10 In short, a final verdict on this issue has not been reached.

The use of nonprofessionals and volunteers as adjunct probation staff, case aides, activity coordinators, and direct service providers has become a significant na- tionwide movement.” The primary ration- ales for the use of volunteers lie in two areas. The first is the realization that sufficient resources may never be available to provide reasonable numbers of profes- sionals in the context of the juvenile justice system. The second is that even if such professional personnel were available and given specific training, traditional case- work in psychotherapeutic methods a re not likely to have significant impact on the delinquency problem.l2 To date, some programs using volunteers with delinquent youth have received positive evaluations.13 Others have produced outcomes far less promising.l4 Again, a definitive conclusion in this area cannot be reached. However,

the approach has strong rational support and particular fiscal appeal.

Suggestions for diverting youth from the juvenile justice system are hardly new. The creation of the original juvenile court could be construed as a programmatic at- tempt a t diversion from the adult criminal system. Whether through status offender legislation or alternative programming, the recommendations for diversion resulted from the argument that functioning of the juvenile justice system had become so injurious that alternatives for social control and rehabilitation needed to be explored.15

The current emphasis on diversion is typically traced to suggestions of the Pres- ident’s Commission on Law Enforcement and the Administration of Justice. One direct result was a n initiative for youth service bureaus. The bureaus were to provide alternatives to adult processing and to be responsible for coordinating and generating the required resources and services for troubled youth in community settings. Even though such efforts have been underway for nearly a decade, adequate evaluations of diversion programs are rare in- deed. Those that exist present a mixed picture of both positive and negative results. 16

In short, the field of delinquency programming is currently experiencing a n un- paralleled search for alternative strategies. Although there is no lack of enthusiastic supporters for each of the above mentioned approaches, there is little basis for strong belief in the relative efficacy of con- temporary approaches when compared to one another or when compared to more traditional strategies. It is out of this set of concerns that the project described in this article was conceived and implemented. In addition, the project t o be described here represents a joint effort of a group from Michigan State University interested in program development and evaluation research and the administration and staff of the Ingham County Juvenile Court in

54 Juvenile & Family Court Journal/ August, 1980

DIVERSION PROGRAM FOR JUVENILE OFFENDERS

Lansing, Michigan. As such, we feel it represents a unique approach to the crises in- herent in the juvenile justice system today. The overall program combines the ingre- dients of cooperative programming, careful research, and the construction of a n innovative alternative to the juvenile justice system.

Working together, the Project and Ing- ham County Court staff delineated the following goals for the project: ( 1 ) to provide a viable diversionary option to the Court a t the level of intake, (2) to provide effective services to referred youth, (3) to keep youth from further penetration into the juvenile justice system, (4) to intensely evaluate the effectiveness of the Project and create a program model for ultimate implementation by the Court or some community based agency in the future, (5) to provide a realistic training experience for undergraduate students, (6) t o establish and maintain a working relationship between the Court and the University, and (7) to examine the impact of a diversionary policy on the Court’s operation.

Several additional comments are necessary to highlight the implications of the above stated goals and resulting program structure and philosophy. First, it was felt by both groups that the careful examina- tion of diversion alternatives provided a “promising direction.” It was further felt that the project should be truly diversion- a ry in nature. In other words, the project ought t o handle youth who would have otherwise been processed by the juvenile justice system rather than attempting to identify “potential delinquents.” Second, the program was committed from the be- ginning to a “hard-nosed evaluation.”This meant that the project operated on a classic experimental model in which some youth referred to the Project were not accepted but followed for evaluation purposes. Third, it was felt that the relationship between the Ingham County Court and the University provided a unique opportunity to develop a model situation. The expe-

rience of the authors indicates that while universities and juvenile courts often operate in close proximity, they seldom under- take joint efforts. When they d o it is typically the case that the university “sends”its students t o the court for field placement or comes out of the ivory tower to collect some data only to retreat quickly.

The remainder of this article will describe in some detail the operation of this project during its first two years. First, the referral process and type of youth referred to the project will be described. Second, the training and supervision model of the project will be examined. Third, the general procedures involved in program operation will be described. Finally, preliminary results relating to recidivism of the youth referred and implications for this particular project and the juvenile justice system more generally will be discussed.

REFERRAL PROCESS In designing the referral process to the

diversion program, the Project staff and lngham County Court had to consider several critical points. First, it was seen as important that the project be active in generating referrals. In other words, the Proj- ect staff would be involved in the intake process of the juvenile court directly. Sec- ond, the constitutional safeguards guaran- teed the youth in juvenile court procedures should not be violated. As a result, it was decided to accomplish project referrals following preliminary inquiries/ hearings.

As indicated in Figure 1, referral oc- curred after the preliminary hearing or in- quiry in which the validity of the charges contained in the juvenile petition was determined, the youth had been presented the charges in question, the Court had re- viewed the youth’s constitutional rights, and the youth had presented a plea to the charges in question. After completion of the preliminary hearing, youth considered appropriate for the Diversion Project by a referee of the lngham County Court were



WARN A N D RELEASE

offered the option of finding out more about it. The referee briefly described the project and set up a n appointment for the youth and his/ her parents with the project staff. Project staff were available at the Intake Divison of the Ingham County J u - venile Court three half days per week to facilitate this process. Only youth who vol- untarily admitted to the charges were sub- sequently offered the Adolescent Diver- sion Project as an option a t the preliminary phase. Hence, all youth maintained their rights to full due process proceedings.

The specific referral criteria agreed to by the Project and Court staff specified that the project would accept any youth that the court would have otherwise taken action on, either formal or informal. It was felt important to examine the effectiveness of

DISPOSITIONAL DECISION BY LAW ENFORCEMENT DECISION

diversion for a wide range of youth. This is in contrast to many programs in which only a specific type of offender is considered (e.g., status offenders) or only the “easy cases” are accepted. Youth excluded from referral included those who would have otherwise been warned and released or youth already on probation. This was for the purpose of maintaining the truly diversionary nature of the project.

After the decision to refer was made by an Intake Referee, the Project staff con- ducted a n interview with the youth and at least one of the parents. The purpose of the intake interview was to describe in detail the program to the youth and his/ her parents and to assess their interest in partici- pating. This interview consisted of the following areas: ( 1 ) a description of the

-

Figure 1

IN FORMAL FORMAL HANDLING HANDLING - -

I NATURALLY OCCURRING ILLEGAL BEHAVIOR BY YOUTH IN INGHAM COUNTY, MICHIGAN

I

REFERRAL TO ADOLESCENT DIVERSION PROJECT

1 I OBSERVATION/APPREHENSlON BY

LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS I



philosophy and history of the project, (2) a description of the operation of the project and what would be expected should they be accepted into it, (3) a description of the voluntary nature of the project, (4) a description of the evaluation components of the project, (5) a description of what kinds of information would be asked for and a description of confidentiality procedures, (6) a description of the fact that a youth might not be accepted into the project and that those actually working in the project with student volunteers would be selected by lottery, and (7) their willingness, given the above, t o participate. To date, approximately four percent of the youth referred by the court intake staff declined participation.

Following the youth and parent decision to participate (i.e., either party has veto power), several additional steps were com- pleted. First, the youth and his/ her parents signed a participation agreement with the project which specified the expectations for project participation This was considered critical in order to insure both verbal- ly and in writing the voluntary nature of the project and the degree of commitment required. Second, the youth and his/her parents signed a release of information form. This was necessary since the project did not operate as a legal entity of the court and needed permission to access police, court, and school records. Finally, the youth and his/ her parents provided basic demographic information.

As mentioned in the introductory comments t o this article, there was a good deal of interplay between the Project’s operation as a research entity and as a service program. The point of referral was where one of these critical interactions took place. In order t o conduct a credible evaluation of the project’s effectiveness, the Project staff and Court staff agreed that it was necessary to compare the performance of the youth who were diverted with an equivalent group of youth who did not receive Project services. The most effective

means for making these comparisons was to randomly select referred youth for Proj- ect participation and as a result randomly reject some portion of the youth referred. At the conclusion of the intake interview with the project staff, this determination was made. Approximately three-fourths (75%) ofyouth referred to the project were accepted. The remainder were returned immediately to the referring referee for alternative disposition (usually scheduling a formal hearing, informal or consent probation, etc.). All youth, whether accepted or not, agreed to participate in the evaluation aspects of the project. This basically involved record checks over a three year period and periodic interviews with project staff. Again, it can be noted that this decision was reached immediately with prompt feedback to the court staff.

Youth who were accepted into the project in the manner described above were scheduled for the first meeting with their assigned student volunteer within approximately forty-eight hours. From Septem- ber, 1976 through June, 1978, 132 youth were referred to the project by the court. These 132 youth had the following characteristics: 110 were male, twenty-two were females; ninety-seven were white and twenty-five were black and ten were Chicano; the average youth was in the ninth grade with a range of fifth to twelfth grade; sixty- five percent of the youth came from broken homes; the average age was 14.3; the youth had an average of 1.4 petitions filed against them in the twelve months preceding referral t o the project; they tend to be referred for serious misdemeanors and nonserious felonies. The youth referred to the Project represent a cross section of the youth referred to the Court of lngham County. lngham County is a urban and rural county of 300,000 population.

RECRUITMENT OF STUDENT VOLUNTEERS

The recruitment of student volunteers was a critical aspect of the Project. Student volunteers working with the adolescents



referred to the Diversion Project were all undergraduates a t Michigan State Univer- sity. Students were recruited through mail- ings to social science majors and by making announcements in relevant classes. Previous work indicated that the most effective way to select student volunteers was to recruit a pool of students considerably larger than necessary.17 After that group had been recruited, it was then best to make it extremely difficult for the students t o actually be allowed to participate in the Project. In this way, the most highly moti- vated students were selected for the course. A common problem that we have observed with similar volunteer programs was the lack of commitment of the students t o the project on a long-term basis and the high dropout rate. The specifics of recruitment and selection procedures involved requir- ing interested students to call the project office after they received the mailed an- nouncement. Then they were required to attend a series of meetings (held in the evening with attendance mandatory) at which they were given a general orientation to the project, required to fill out a series of questionnaires, and asked to sign a contract stating their intention to participate in the project. Again, the intention was to make participation in the project a major commitment.

Students who participated in the project to date have the following characteristics: fifty-seven percent are psychology majors, thirty percent are criminal justice majors, thirteen percent in other social sciences; ninety-eight percent are white and two percent are black; the average age is twenty- one; the average grade point is 3.0. Most of the students were juniors and seniors and the vast majority had career interests in youth in general or in delinquency spe- cifically.

TRAINING OF STUDENTS

A critical ingredient of the program described here was the highly structured, practically oriented training which the stu-

dents received prior to working with a referred youth. In the experience of both the project staff and the court staff, a common concern with volunteer programs that re- late t o juvenile courts was the lack of “relevant training” that people have received. As a result, an eight week formal training session was designed with input from both the project and court staff. During the eight weeks of formal training, the students met in small groups of six with two supervisors for two and a half hours per week. The training was based on a structured program training manual which had been developed over the course of the project. The manual included outside readings, relevant test materials, homework assign- ments, and principles of practice for each of the eight units. Weekly class sessions consisted of written and oral mastery based exams. In addition, the training sessions consisted of guest speakers (court staff), discussion, demonstrations, and roleplays of the intervention techniques. Training focused on six major areas: ( 1 ) the operation of the juvenile justice system; (2) techniques of creating and maintaining useful working relationships with the youth and significant others; (3) techniques of behavioral intervention to im- prove problem areas for the youth in such areas as home, school, and employment; (4) techniques of generating resources to meet areas of unmet need for the youth; ( 5 ) techniques of monitoring the various interventions; and (6) methods of terminat- ing involvement with the youth. Modes of training were selected based upon previous work concerning successful interventions with adolescents.18

The same small groups continued to meet for two and one half hours weekly after the conclusion of training for the purpose of supervising cases. Each week, each student presented a description of his/ her activities, progress, problems, goals, and future directions with their assigned youth. This was followed by group discussion of the situation focused on pro-

58 Juvenile & Family Court Journal1 August, 1980


viding feedback, problem-solving, strategy selection, and specificaiton of plans for the forthcoming week.

INTERVENTION

Students were assigned to referred youth on a one-to-one basis by their supervisors. In other words, students worked with one and only one youth during their involvement with the project. Students and youth were matched on the basis of sex, race, and mutual interests. Each student spent six to eight hours (by report of the youth and parents, the actual time is closer to eight hours) per week with his/ her youth. The time and location of these meetings were usually a matter of mutual convenience, but the youth’s home was the most common meeting place. The student’s work with youth was based on an individualized goal attainment model of intervention. Namely, the student might get involved in a variety of areas of the youth’s life depend- ing on the changes which seemed indicated in the particular case. Common areas included family relationship, school performance, employment, and recreational activities. All youth received eighteen weeks of intervention.

While the program adhered to an individualized model of intervention, there was a good deal of similarity in the pattern followed in all cases. Initially, the volunteer concentrated on establishing a positive relationship with the youth, while assess- ing areas which both represented strength and weaknesses (areas of unmet need) or problems. Some common areas scrutin- ized included family relationships, school situations, employment possibilities, and recreational activities. The volunteer then began t o initiate change in areas which he/ she and the youth deemed important to alter. Fo r example, the volunteer, youth, and parents might enter into a behavioral contract concerning allowance and chores; or the volunteer and youth might have a discussion with the principal and a school counselor concerning class schedules or

cooperative education availability. Next, the volunteer would carefully monitor changes which he/ she had helped initiate. This was viewed as critical to the intervention process since many times initial intervention efforts did not produce desired changes and had to be altered. For example, a t the end of three weeks of a behavioral contract, all members involved in the contract might have met to assess how the intervention was working. Or a school principal might have been consulted re- garding the youth’s improved attendance as a result of a schedule change. The cycle of assessment, intervention, and monitoring was repeated during the eighteen week intervention as often as necessary. As the end of the assigned time period ap- proached, the volunteer planned for the termination of the case by insuring changes would be maintained after his/ her case involvement ended. Such techniques as in- struction of those involved, the chance to practice specific skills or to roleplay potential difficult situations which were utilized to accomplish this purpose. Of particular importance was seeing that the youth and/ or significant others had gained the rquired skills to handle difficult situations on their own.

As can be seen from this description of the intervention model, there are a number of unique characteristics. First, it is ob- vious that the intervention used in the diversion program was highly structured and intensive. This was seen as critical in producing a high intensity intervention. Sec- ond, the intervention model prescribed a series of steps, related to goal attainment, within a time constraint framework. This was also seen as a critical component of the project since it provided a structure for all parties involved to be goal oriented within a specific time framework. It provided a very distinct structure for the supervision of volunteers in that specific goals could be targeted for accomplishment by a given time period. It also provided a framework for the youth referred. Finally, the inter-



vention model used in the diversion project was action oriented. This is in contrast to many intrapsychic or cognitive approaches which are commonplace in delinquency treatment. Action oriented approaches were selected because nonprofessionals could be trained relatively quickly in their use, they have a history of effectiveness with delinquent groups, and they provide distinct outcomes as a base for supervision. 19

PROGRAM EFFECTIVENESS

The indicants of Program success to be reported in this section need to be viewed as preliminary in a n absolute sense. As mentioned in earlier sections of this paper, the major thrust of the Diversion Program was to complete a scientifically credible evaluation of its effectiveness. While this process will be ongoing over the next several years and detailed reports in the future can be obtained from the authors, there is sufficient evidence at this point t o provide indications of Program effects. In addition, there are numerous outcomes which could be included in this section. These include self report delinquency, personali- ty measures, process measures, self con- cept measure, peer ratings, etc. However, the results reported here will focus primari- ly on recidivism as an indicant of the Pro- gram’s effectiveness. While there are a variety of outcome criteria suggested for use in evaluating delinquency prevention programs, the most commonly used bench- mark is that of recidivism. Again, detailed statistical analyses of the recidivism data reported here have been accomplished and are available from the authors. For purposes of this paper, recidivism data will be presented in terms of the proportion of youth having had one or more contacts with the juvenile justice system at any time following referral t o the project. Recidi- vism data is available for all 132 youth who have been referred to the project to date. Table 1 presents these results for the first two years of program operation. As can be

seen from Table 1 , the project is highly successful in reducing recidivism in terms of further police contacts and court petitions, cutting the rate in half compared to alternative handling. From other data not reported here, the seriousness of the crimes for which petitions have been filed also represents nearly a fifty percent reduction. Additionally, these findings are supported by various self report measures, such as self report delinquency, questionnaires from parents and peers, and self ratings of change in such areas as home, school, employment, and recreational activities. T o date, the findings from the diversion project are extremely positive. While continuing efforts at evaluating the project with longer term followups and collecting data on additional youth currently involved in the project are underway, it can be said a t this juncture that the program has demonstrated consistently positive effects.

TABLE I ALL YOUTH - RECIDIVISM

DATA DURING PROJECT One or more N o

offenses offenses Experimental 7% 43% 50%

Comparison 16% 34% 50% youth

vouth

IMPLICATIONS AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS The results depicted above have two

clearcut implications. First, it appears that the operation of a Diversion Project in- volving keeping youth out of the Juvenile Court by having them work with highly trained and supervised student volunteers is producing extremely desirable results. This would indicate that the continued ex- ploration of specific types of diversion programs represents a viable dispositional alternative. Also, while the results are to date extremely positive there remains con-

60 Juvenile & Family Court Journal1 August, I980

DIVERSION PROGRAM FOR

siderable work in the area to be done. The results reported here are extremely different from those produced by other investi- gators evaluating similar projects.20 While this particular diversion project produces recidivism rates which are significantly lower than those exhibited by the comparison groups, the youth served by the project are still demonstrating recidivism rates of forty percent a t one year followup. Of additional concern is the fact that the comparison group, which receives usual juvenile court handling, is demonstrating recidivism rates of eighty percent by one year followup.

Second, there are many different ways to run a n alternative diversion program for youth. One common element which is var- ied across programs is that of the intensity of supervision and training of the volunteers working with the youth. Many programs have orientation meetings and then very infrequent meetings for which the workers gather and talk about their cases. Some subsets of the diversion project described here have demonstrated that there are both helpful and nonhelpful ways of running diversion programs. For example, people receiving relatively infrequent supervision were far less satisfied and their youth far more likely to recidivate than those who were closely supervised and trained in the model described in this project. In considering the creation of a voluntary diversionary program, it is critical t o consider the effectiveness of the specific mode of operating the project.

At a more general level, there are a number of concerns which this project raises. Of primary importance is the fact that the project described here has shown that University-Court relationships need not consist merely of student placements or the utilization of university faculty as consultants t o the court. I t is possible and highly useful t o both organizations to enter into joint planning and programming to more effectively employ resources on a cooperative basis. In many ways, the proj-

JUVENILE OFFENDERS

ect described here provides a model for university-court relationships which in our experience has been extremely satisfying to both parties. The Project has been able to meet its goals of providing activities of use to the University (research, training, etc.) and to the juvenile justice system (alternative programming, program evaluation, and expansion of resources without additional fiscal outlays).

Obviously the debate concerning the effectiveness of diversionary alternatives has not been decided by the project reported here. In the opinion of the authors, it is safe to conclude that under certain model con- ditions, diversion programs can be run effectively. Such components as the intensity of training and supervision of the volunteers can seriously affect the success of the program. In addition, the establishment of truly cooperative relationships may be critical to the effectiveness of the program. T o what extent the results reported here can be generalized to all diversion programs or all volunteer in court programs is extremely unclear.

Of most importance is the fact that the program described here provides an action oriented model for the development of alternative programs in the juvenile justice system. The program includes the elements of cooperative university-court effort, scientifically credible research, innovative programming, and extremely positive outcomes. It is our opinion that this approach to alternative programming for delinquents provides a promising avenue for the future.

FOOTNOTES ' B . Krisberg & J . Austin The children of Ishmael.

Palo Alto: Mayfield Press, 1978. !M. Gold Delinqueni behavior in an American ciiy.

Belmont, Cal.: Brooks-Cole, 1970: M. Klein & R . Carter Off of the srreeis: Diversion in the juvenile jusiice sysiem. New York: Wiley, 1976.

'R. Martinson What works? - Questions and answers about prison reform. The Public Inieresr, 1974, 35, 22-54; R. Wagner The system listens bur does not hear. Criminology, 1978, 15. 431-441.

'H.T. Rubin. The juvenile court's search for identity and responsibility. Crime and Delinquency, 1977, 23, 1-13.

August, 19801 Juvenile & Family Court Journal 6 1


5P. Nejelski. Diversion ofjuvenile offenses in the criminal justice system. In Criminal Justice Mono- graph: New Approaches to Diversion and Treat- ment of Juvenile Offenders, U.S. Dept. of Justice, June, 1973, 83-90; B. Bullington, J . Sprouls, D. Katkin, & M. Phillips. A critique of diversionary juvenile justice. Crime and Delinquency, 1978,24,

01. Golddenberg. Build me a mountain. Cambridge: M.I.T. Press, 1971.

7G. Rosenbaum, J . Grissell, T. Kaschtial, R . Knox,& D.Z. Leenhouts. Community participation in probation: A tale of two cities. Proceedings of Ameri- can Psychological Convention, 1969, 4, 863-864.

NEE. Schur. Radical nonintervention. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall, 1973.

9E.M. Lemert. Instead of court: Diversion injuvenile justice. Washington: U.S. Government Printing, 1971.

IoT.B. Palmer. The youth authority's community treatment project. Federal Probation, 1974.38, 3- 13; P. Lerman. Community treatment and social control. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1975.

59-64.

1IC.L. Kaufman. Community service volunteers: A British approach to delinquency prevention. Fed- eral Probation. 1973, 37, 35-41.

12H. Levin. Volunteers in social welfare: The chal- lenge of their future. Social Work, 1969, 14, 85-95.

13J.A. Morris. First offender: A volunteer program foryouih in trouble with the law. New York: Funk & Wagnall, 1970; W.S. Davidson, E. Seidman, J. Rappaport, P. Berck, N. Rapp, W. Rhodes, & J. Herring. Diversion program for juvenile offenders. Social Work Research and Abstracts, 1977, 14, 313-338.

'4G. Berger & M. Gold. Experiment injuvenilecourt. Ann Arbor: Institute of social research, 1976.

'SLernert, op. cit. 16KKlein & Carter, op. cit. 17Davidson et al., op. cit. 181 bid. I9J.S. Stumphauser (Ed.) Behavior therapy with de-

20Klein & Carter, op. cit. linquenrs. Springfield: Thomas, 1973.


a diversion program for juvenile offenders: the experience of ingham county, michigan

Documents