Two theoretical perspectives, labeling and deterrence, lie at the heart of the current
controversy regarding status offenders. These perspectives predict discrepant effects
from juvenile court and community-based processing on subsequent behavior.
Using data collected during an LEAA-funded evaluation of Connecticut's
Deinstitutionalization of Status Offenders Project, this paper compares the effects of
diversion programs with those of juvenile court processing on subsequent delin
quency. The results indicate that it makes no difference, with respect to official re
cidivism, whether status offenders experience juvenile court processing or a diver
sion program. Thus, there is no support for one program over the other on the basis
of either deterrent or negative labeling effects.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Andrews, F.M., et al. 1973Multiple Classification Analysis. Ann Arbor, Mich.: Institute for Social Research.
2.
Auerbach Service Bureau1977The Legal Rights of Children. Children, the Family and the State under Connecticut Law. Hartford: Auerbach Service Bureau for Connecticut Organizations.
3.
Bailey, W.1966 "Correctional Outcome: An Evaluation of 100 Reports . Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology & Police Science57 (2): 153-160.
4.
Berg, I., et al. 1978 "The Effect of Two Randomly Allocated Court Procedures on Truancy." British Journal of Criminology18 (3): 232-244.
5.
Blomberg, T.G.1980 "Widening the Net: An Anomaly in the Evaluation of Diversion Programs." In Handbook of Criminal Justice Evaluation, M. W. Klein and K. S. Teilmann, eds. Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage. Pp. 572-592.
6.
Cameron, M.O.1964The Booster and the Snitch: Department Store Shoplifting . New York: Free Press of Glencoe .
7.
Erikson, K.1962 "Notes on the Sociology of Deviance." Social Problems9 (Spring): 307-314.
8.
Hirschi, T.1975 "Labelling Theory and Juvenile Delinquency: An Assessment of the Evidence." In The Labelling of Deviance: Evaluating a Perspective, W. R. Gove, ed. New York: John Wiley. Pp. 181-203.
9.
Kim, J., and F. Kohout1975 "Analysis of Variance and Covariance: Subprograms Anova and Oneway." In SPSS: Statistical Package for the Social Sciences , 2d ed., Norman H. Nie, et al., eds. New York: McGraw-Hill. Pp. 398-433.
10.
Klein, M.1981 " A Judicious Slap on the Wrist: Thoughts on Early Sanctions for Juvenile Offenders ." In New Directions in the Rehabilitation of Criminal Offenders , S. Martin, L. B. Sechrest, and R. Redner, eds. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. Pp. 376-393.
11.
Klein, M., et al. 1977Diversion as Operationalization of Labeling Theory. Los Angeles: University of Southern California Social Science Research Institute.
12.
Lemert, E.1958 "The Behavior of the Systematic Check Forger." Social Problems (Fall): 141-149.
13.
Logan, C.1972 "Evaluation Research in Crime and Delinquency: A Reappraisal ." Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology & Police Science63 (3): 378-387.
14.
Logan, C., J. Bacewicz, and S. Rausch1978An Evaluation of Connecticut's Deinstitutionalization of Status Offenders Program. Storrs: University of Connecticut.
15.
Mahoney, A.R.1974 "The Effect of Labeling Upon Youths in the Juvenile Justice System: A Review of the Evidence." Law & Society Review8 (4): 583-614.
16.
Martinson, R.1974 "What Works?-Questions and Answers about Prison Reform ." The Public Interest (Spring): 22-54.
17.
Matza, D.1964Delinquency and Drift. New York : John Wiley.
18.
McCord, J.1980 "Myths and Realities about Criminal Sanctions." Paper presented at the American Society of Criminology Convention , San Francisco, November.
19.
McEachern, A., et al. 1968 "The Juvenile Probation System: Simulation for Research and Decision-Making." American Behavioral Scientist11 (3): 1-45.
20.
Platt, A.1977The Child Savers: The Invention of Delinquency, 2d edChicago: University of Chicago Press.
21.
Schur, E.M.1973Radical Nonintervention: Rethinking the Delinquency Problem . Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall .
22.
Spergel, I.A., F.G. Reamer, and J.P. Lynch1981 "Deinstitutionalization of Status Offenders: Individual Outcome and System Effects." Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency18 (1): 4-33.
23.
Teilmann, K., and J. Peterson1980 "What Works for Whom: The Uses of Deinstitutionalization ." In National Evaluation of the Deinstitutionalization of Status Offenders Programs: Executive Summary, S. Kobrin and M. W. Klein, eds. Los Angeles: University of Southern California Social Science Research Institute. Chapter XVI, Pp. 1-85.
24.
Thomas, C.W.1976 "Are Status Offenders Really So Different? A Comparative and Longitudinal Assessment."Crime & Delinquency22 (4): 438-455.
25.
Thorsell, B., and L. Klemke1972 "The Labeling Process: Reinforcement or Deterrent ." Law & Society Review6 (February): 393-403.
26.
Tittle, C.R.1975 "Deterrents or Labeling?" Social Forces53 (3): 399-410.
27.
1975 a "Labelling and Crime: An Empirical Evaluation." The Labelling of Deviance: Evaluating a Perspective, W. R. Gove, ed. New York: John Wiley . Pp. 157-179.
28.
Tittle, C.R., and C.H. Logan1973 "Sanctions and Deviance: Evidence and Remaining Questions ." Law & Society Review7 (3): 371-392.
