Diversion

Diversion programs are programs aimed at diverting low-risk youth with minor law violations from the juvenile system who would otherwise have charges filed or be adjudicated. The county attorney grants diversion for youth after considering the youth’s age, the nature of the offense, the youth’s history and future risk, and the recommendation of the referring agency. When a youth is granted diversion, the diversion officer should tailor a program for the youth based on the youth’s specific needs and areas he/she needs to focus on. If diversion is completed successfully, the youth’s charges are either dismissed or not filed in court.

Visit the Nebraska Crime Commission's Diversion page and more resources by clicking here and selecting "Juvenile Diversion."

evaluating diversion programs

As part of our yearly evaluations for Community-based Juvenile Services Aid funded programs in fiscal year 2025, the JJI, in partnership with the NCC, developed evaluation matrices to categorize important outcomes for each program type evaluated. The following categories describe the important program outcome indicators for diversion programs. These categories can be used to assess the standing of a program in terms of whether it is successfully applying best practices and meeting expectations or common goals for such programs.

Click here for the Diversion Evaluation Matrix PDF

EVALUATION FRAMEWORK

Any program assessment must start by reviewing what data is available on processes and outcomes. Incomplete data or small sample sizes (i.e. few client cases) increase the risk of error in analysis. Shreffler and Huecker (2023) describe what Type I and II errors are – with high risks for error we might fail to identify a positive impact that’s occurring or falsely state the program was effective when it wasn’t. Small sample sizes run the risk of an outlier (one or two cases with unique, or very low/high values in an outcome) skewing the results.

A major goal of the Community-based Juvenile Services Aid (CBA) and Juveniles Services Commission Grant (JS) funding is to provide community-based services for juveniles who come in contact with the juvenile justice system and prevent youth from moving deeper into the system. CBA/JS funded programs are evaluated on how effective they are at preventing future system involvement (FSI) after youth are discharged from the program. FSI is evaluated in two ways – 1) comparing FSI between successful cases and unsuccessful cases and 2) overall FSI for all youth served. Evaluating these metrics gives a program the overall picture of FSI for the youth they come into contact with and helps programs more deeply understand how successful completion or discharge from their program impacts FSI of youth.

For higher risk youth (those already involved in the justice system; i.e., ATD, diversion, and truancy diversion programs), FSI cut point percentages are raised higher to account for evidence that prior system involvement increases risk for continued involvement. These higher cut points are based on recidivism rates for Nebraskan youth on probation reported in the annual statistical reports for 2020 to 2023 (range of 15.7% to 19.7% of youth recidivated) (AOCP, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023). It is important to note that recidivism rates identified through meta-analyses of diversion program evaluations across the U.S. and other countries tend to report higher average recidivism rates (e.g., an average of around 30% of diverted youth recidivated across 73 diversion programs according to Wilson & Hoge’s 2012 meta-analysis), but Nebraska-specific statistics tend to fall lower.

The following is a brief review of some of the existing literature related to diversion programs to further explain the importance of evaluating diversion program outcomes in rating program effectiveness.

BRIEF LITERATURE REVIEW

Research consistently shows that diverting low-risk youth away from formal system processing leads to better long-term outcomes and reduces reoffending, especially among first-time and low-risk youth (Cauffman et al., 2021; Petrosino et al., 2010). A meta-analysis by Wilson and Hoge (2013a) found that both informal and formal diversion programs were more effective in reducing future system involvement compared to traditional court processing. However, diversion programs vary widely in their design, implementation, and evaluation. The OJJDP (2017) noted six main features that vary across diversion programs:

Points of contact or entry into the juvenile justice system
Setting
Structure
Target population

· Types of intervention

· Formal vs. informal processing

The level of variability in diversion programs makes it difficult to evaluate their overall effectiveness (Pappas & Dent, 2023; Schwalbe et al., 2012). Despite this variability, several best practices have emerged from research findings.

A central goal of diversion is to address each youth’s unique needs. The Risk-Needs-Responsivity (RNR) framework (Bonta & Williams, 2007) emphasizes tailoring interventions to a youth’s risk level and criminogenic needs. Studies show that youth receiving services aligned with their individual needs experience reductions in risk factors and reduced risk of future system involvement (Baglivio et al., 2018; Vieira et al., 2009; Vitopoulos et al., 2012). Wylie and colleagues (2019), for example, found that youth whose needs went unmet in diversion were significantly more likely to reoffend after 12 months compared to those who received appropriate services.

Program completion is another critical factor. Wilson and Hoge (2013b) found that youth who failed to complete diversion were at substantially higher risk of reoffending, and in many jurisdictions, failure leads directly to formal system involvement. This highlights the importance of monitoring not only whether youth are compliant, but also whether program requirements are realistic and achievable. Research suggests that excessive or irrelevant conditions undermine success. For example, NeMoyer and colleagues (2020) found that youth with more required case plan terms were less likely to complete diversion successfully. Similarly, Harris and Wylie (2022) reported that mandatory drug testing did not predict successful completion or reduce reoffending and for youth with substance use needs, testing was actually associated with lower completion rates.

Taken together, this body of research suggests that diversion is most effective when it is individualized, developmentally appropriate, and minimally punitive. By prioritizing interventions that directly address a youth’s specific needs while avoiding unnecessary rules or requirements practitioners can improve program completion, enhance youth well-being, and reduce future system involvement.

*For additional resources or to access articles referenced above, contact the JJI at unojji@unomaha.edu.

additional resources

Quarterly reporting

Diversion Code Book

Diversion Case Plan Guide

RESOURCES FOR DIVERSION

The Nebraska Crime Commission (2025) recently published a Nebraska Youth Diversion Model Program Guide with guiding principles and best practices.

The OJJDP publishes literature reviews on what works for juvenile delinquency prevention and intervention, including diversion programs (2017). This review describes the features of diversion programs, recent considerations for diversion programs, and outcome evidence.

The Sentencing Project (2024) published a report describing the growing movement in American towards diversion practices in youth justice as well as best practices.