Evaluation Review

 

Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click Here for More Information

Click here to sign up for SAGE Journal Email Alerts today!

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Lipsey, M. W.
Right arrow Articles by Berger, D. E.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Lipsey, M. W.
Right arrow Articles by Berger, D. E.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
Evaluation Review, Vol. 5, No. 3, 283-306 (1981)
DOI: 10.1177/0193841X8100500301

Evaluation of a Juvenile Diversion Program

Using Multiple Lines of Evidence

Mark W. Lipsey

Claremont Graduate School

David S. Cordray

Northwestern University

Dale E. Berger

Claremont Graduate School

The evaluation of a juvenile diversion program was approached through the development of multiple lines of evidence bearing on each of the two major program goals: providing a community-based alternative for arrested juveniles who otherwise would have been referred to the juvenile justice system and reducing juvenile delinquency. Convergent results from various measures, research designs, and data stratifications indicated that the program had little success in decreasing referrals to the juvenile justice system but produced a positive delinquency reduction effect (concentrated among less serious offenders). These results are discussed in terms of (1) their significance for the diversion program and (2) the nature of the multiple methodology that produced them.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Research on Social Work PracticeHome page
M. M. Carney and F. Buttell
Reducing Juvenile Recidivism: Evaluating the Wraparound Services Model
Research on Social Work Practice, September 1, 2003; 13(5): 551 - 568.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Eval RevHome page
J. C. Cappelleri, W. M.K. Trochim, T.D. Stanley, and C. S. Reichardt
Random Measurement Error Does Not Bias the Treatment Effect Estimate in the Regression-Discontinuity Design: I. The Case of No Interaction
Eval Rev, August 1, 1991; 15(4): 395 - 419.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Crime DelinquencyHome page
W. H. Barton and J. A. Butts
Viable Options: Intensive Supervision Programs for Juvenile Delinquents
Crime Delinquency, April 1, 1990; 36(2): 238 - 256.
[Abstract]

Home page
 Journal of Research in Crime and DelinquencyHome page
J. T. WHITEHEAD and S. P. LAB
A Meta-Analysis of Juvenile Correctional Treatment
Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, August 1, 1989; 26(3): 276 - 295.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Crime DelinquencyHome page
S. P. Lab and J. T. Whitehead
An Analysis of Juvenile Correctional Treatment
Crime Delinquency, January 1, 1988; 34(1): 60 - 83.
[Abstract]

Home page
 Eval RevHome page
L. J. Severy and J. M. Whitaker
Juvenile Diversion: An Experimental Analysis of Effectiveness
Eval Rev, December 1, 1982; 6(6): 753 - 774.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 EDUCATIONAL RESEARCHERHome page
R. F. BORUCH and D. S. CORDRAY
Reactions to Criticism of the Holtzman Report
Educational Researcher, December 1, 1981; 10(10): 10 - 12.
[PDF]