RELEVANT
FOCUSED
READY

Examining the Effectiveness of Youth Diversion Programming
Shannon Seiler

Introduction
The implementation of the Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA), in 2003,
drastically altered the way youth crime is dealt with in Canada
(Department of Justice, 2016). As a result of this Act, community
based programs, or diversionary measures, are gaining in popularity.

Discussion
An analysis of the YCJA, academic literature and interview responses
indicated that youth diversion programming is only effective if the
youth accepts accountability for the offence. This accountability is
demonstrated to the community through the successful completion of
a diversion program.

An analysis of youth court statistics from 2014/2015 found that 26%
of all cases were referred to a diversionary measure (Miladinovic,
2016). The significant number of cases that are referred to diversion
programs formed the rationale for this research. This research took a
two part approach. First, the elements of diversion programing was
examined. Secondly, diversion programming was examined to
determine if they are effective in reducing recidivism rates among
young offenders.

Moreover, diversion programming should be collaborative, have peer
mentoring and be viewed from a positive perspective from the police.

Background

Both the academic literature and interview responses support the
finding that youth diversion programming is effective at reducing
recidivism rates among youth.

The YCJA applies to youth, aged 12-18, who are alleged to have
committed criminal offences (Department of Justice, 2016). Both the
Preamble and Declaration of Principle state that youth should be
referred to community programming and agencies to hold the youth
accountable for their actions and prevent further reoffending
(Department of Justice, 2016). Community agencies can provide
diversion programming for the young offender.

Methods
The research took a qualitative approach; containing both primary
and secondary research. A literature review was conducted through
the Justice Institute of British Columbia (JIBC) Library database,
EBSOhost, to gain an understanding of the present themes and trends
in the field of youth diversion programming. Three separate search
terms were analyzed “youth diversion” resulted in 1605 hits;
“mentoring and youth crime” resulted in 347 hits; and “youth
restorative justice participants resulted in 138 hits.
The primary research came from a semi-structured interview with a
Lower Mainland Youth Diversion Coordinator. Ten questions were
asked, based on the findings from the literature review. As a result of
the interview, several key elements of youth diversion programming
were identified.

Limitations include a lack of Canadian content, challenges in an
agreed upon definition of youth diversion and the small sample sizes
used for this research study.

Conclusions or Recommendations

Further research is required on the effectiveness of youth diversion
programming from a Canadian perspective. The majority of sources
examined for this research were American content. The United
States has a unique and different Youth Justice System than Canada;
consequently, one cannot assume the positive results on youth
diversion programming in the United States would be replicated in
Canada.
Additionally, an analysis of youth reoffending rates who participated
in diversion programming would be beneficial. Statistics Canada only
released numerical indicators on the number of youth who are
referred to the diversion program. If statistics were provided on the
number of youth who did not reoffend after participating in the
program; it would provide greater credibility to diversion programs.
Ultimately, this research paper has completed a two part analysis. In
order to determine if youth diversion programs are effective in
reducing youth crime, one must analyze the elements of the diversion
program. Successful elements of diversion programming include: a
community centered collaborative approach, mentoring, youth
accountability and responsibility and police acceptance of diversion
programming.

Prior to seeking any primary research, ethics approval was obtained
from the Research Ethics Board at JIBC. Moreover, the interviewee
was promised anonymity and signed an Informed Consent Form.

Results/Findings
This research answered two questions relating to the effectiveness of
youth diversion programming.
What are the essential elements of youth diversion programming?
Three themes resulted when the youth diversion literature was
examined. The first theme stated that in order for youth diversion to
be effective, it must be a collaborative process containing numerous
elements (Wong, Bouchard, Gravel, Bouchard & Morselli, 2016;
Rogers, 2011). The second theme identified mentoring as a beneficial
component of youth diversion (Miller, Barnes, Miller & McKinnon).
The third theme stressed accountability from the offender and the
police must see the value of diversion programming (Marinos &
Innocente, 2008). The interview responses corroborated many of
these findings.
Does youth diversion programming reduce recidivism rates?
The research analyzed found that when youth diversion programming
contains the elements listed above, it is effective in reducing
recidivism rates among youth. Wilson and Hoge (2013) suggest,
“diversion is significantly more effective than the criminal justice
system in reducing recidivism rates” (p.512).
Similarly, research by Seroczynski, Evans, Jobst, Horvath and Carozza
(2016) found youth participation in a diversion program reduces the
chances for recidivism. Their research found that mentoring played a
significant role in diversion programming success rates (Seroczynski et
al., 2016).

References
Department of Justice Canada. (2016). The Youth Criminal Justice Act: Summary
and background. Retrieved from http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/cj-jp/yjjj/tools-outils/pdf/back-hist.pdf
Marinos, V., & Innocente, N. (2008). Factors influencing police attitudes towards
extrajudicial measures under the Youth Criminal Justice Act. Canadian
Journal of Criminology & Criminal Justice, 50(4), 469-489.
Miladinovic, Z. (2016). Youth Court Statistics in Canada, 2014/2015 (Report No. 85002-X), Retrieved from Statistics Canada website:
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/2016001/article/14656-eng.pdf
Miller, J., Barnes, J., Miller, H., & McKinnon, L. (2013). Exploring the link between
mentoring program structure & success rates: Results from a national
survey. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 38(3), 439-456.
doi:10.1007/s12103-012-9188-9
Rogers, R. (2011). Evaluating community-based interventions for young people:
measuring the impact of informal mentoring. Journal of Poverty & Social
Justice, 19(2), 159-168.
Seroczynski, A. D., Evans, W. N., Jobst A. D., Horvath, L., & Carozza, G. (2016).
Reading for life and adolescent re-arrest: Evaluating a unique juvenile
diversion program. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 35(1), 1-50.
Wilson, A. H., & Hoge, R. D. (2013). The effect of youth diversion programs on
recidivism: A meta-analytic review. Criminal Justice and Behaviour, 40(5),
497-518 .
Wong, J. S., Bouchard, J., Gravel, J., Bouchard, M., & Morselli, C. (2016). Can at-risk
youth be diverted from crime? A meta-analysis of restorative diversion
programs. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 43(10), 1310-1329.
doi:10.1177/0093854816640835

Bachelor of Law Enforcement Studies

Justice Institute of British Columbia