Social Workers in Diversion Assignment | Online Assignment
Please Cite everything. limited paraphrasing and only citing the first line. This is the final paper. I didn’t get anybody to respond to my survey. I would assume that they are either not work or to busy to fill it out.
Social Workers in Diversion
Barbara Qualle
UWRF-Senior Integrative Seminar
Abstract
Overpopulation in prisons and the increased expenditure of the criminal justice system due to the high rates of incarcerations in the United States is getting worse. Locking people up is doing more harm than good. In this regard, implementing social work in diversion programs would eliminate the need for the justice system to imprison petty criminals and save on the costs they would have incurred in the incarceration process. The essay will review literature done about diversion and the current problems in the criminal justice system to find support and objections to diversion. Research questions seek to understand whether diversion is effective and if adding social workers in the program could make it more adequate. An evaluation of the program reveals that it is by far one of the best alternatives to solving the problem. The essay also gives a brief research methodology of how surveys will be carried to gather more information on the issue.
Keywords: Criminal Justice System, Social Workers, Diversion Programs
Table of Contents
Table of Contents
Social Workers in Diversion Programs. 6
Perceived Problems with Implementation. 12
History, Context, Recent and Current Activity. 14
State Hypothesis/Research Questions. 16
Introduction
The need to create a just society at affordable expenses has made the criminal justice system to develop diversion programs. A diversion program would require developing programs that would help facilitate rehabilitation of criminals with the aim of helping them remedy their behavior which would be instrumental in avoiding conviction and in some jurisdictions, hide a criminal record. Instead of using diversion programs to tap some of its benefits in the criminal justice system, prosecutors often pursue the harshest punishments possible such as incarceration as the first resort (Bellin, 2018). Harsher penalties do not necessarily make communities safer or reduce recidivism rates. Incarcerations overburden the prison system, detain a huge number of capable working people, give life-long criminal records even in non-violent and first-time offenders, slow down the acceptance rate of criminals into society, and increase the overall costs of operations in criminal justice (Schlesinger, 2018). To a great extent, diversion is instrumental in preventing the continuous cycling of offenders through the criminal justice system by tailoring services to their necessities (Lemert, 1981). A brief overview of the problem and a literature review of the importance of social work in diversion will shed more light on whether the issues in the criminal justice systems could be addressed to keep the community safer.
Literature Review
Background/ History
Problem Statement
Instead of the criminal justice system seeing diversion as a cost-effective measure in solving problems, they recognize the program as a blessing that should only be conferred to a few individuals in very rare situations (O’Brien, 2019). The United States has experienced an explosive growth of incarcerations than in any other country in the world (McCarthy, 2019). While some may see this a positive thing in keeping the community safer, the criminal justice system may be downsizing public safety. First, state and local budgets are overburdened as more people get geld in state prisons and local jails. According to Lofstrom and Raphael (2016), the criminal justice system should rethink ways of how they could reduce the increasing costs of incarcerations without jeopardizing public safety. Second, McCarthy (2019) highlights that the United States prison holds more than 2.2 million people, according to the Bureau of Justice. This means that 481 individuals out of 100,000 people are incarcerated almost each and every time, thereby causing overcrowding in the American prisons (Gifford, 2019).
Third, an individual who commits a crime is likely to face fines that could amount up to $100,000, serve a sentence of up to 20 years or more, pay restitution fines, and hold a criminal record for the rest of their life (McCarthy, 2019). Incarcerations, therefore, cost families and cause family problems such as lack of financing if the breadwinner is imprisoned. Fourth, the probation department in the criminal justice system limits the rights and freedom of individuals with a criminal record. People on probation are often not allowed to vote despite it being a fundamental human right, cannot possess firearms, and is limited in their movements and interactions depending on the crime they committed. Finally, incarcerations rip off the possibility of people redeeming themselves and work to provide for their families. Nearly 45.5% of those incarcerated in the United States are aged between 26-45 years due to drug-related cases. First degree offenses could have people imprisoned for up to 5 years while fifth-degree crimes could result in incarcerations of up to 6 months. Even though drug offenses such as possession are not violent, individuals pay heavily for their mistakes. In most instances, people who hold a criminal record will find it challenging to get work, proper housing, or even public assistance since their records will be popping up all the time.
Social Workers in Diversion Programs
Some of the solutions are straightforward, with the basic principle of offering long-term solutions to the already overburdened criminal justice system. If 10% of people eligible for community-based substance abuse programs were involved in diversion programs instead of going to prison, the criminal justice system would have saved approximately $4.8 billion (Kubic & Pendergrass, 2017). Diversion programs range from juvenile and mental health programs to community service, restitution, and counseling among others. The programs aim at reducing the rate of recidivism, enable people with a criminal past to be accepted back into society, reduce overcrowding in prisons, lower the costs of unnecessary imprisonment, and provide people with specialized care that would help them change their behaviors’. For instance, a first-time offender found in possession of drugs could do community service and enroll in an educational program where one would be assessed and found fit to go back to society. Social workers, in this case, could provide counseling services and advocacy by acting as their agents in conflict resolutions or when dealing with the justice system. Social workers could help families of the offenders by providing options of help while enabling them to pick up their pieces and aid their loved ones who are in trouble with the law (Van Ness, 2016). For instance, a social worker could help find childcare if their guardians or parents are involved in intensive community work or are paying restitution thereby being unable to raise their loved ones. Diversion programs are cost-effective and enhance positive behavioral changes that are difficult to do when in prison (Kubic & Pendergrass, 2017). Due to the overcrowded prison systems, it becomes harder for the criminal justice system to rehabilitate criminals effectively. Locking up criminals is not enough to keep communities safer. Providing proper rehabilitation tailored according to the individual needs of people is critical to help in reducing recidivism to those who have completed their sentences. In this regard, diversion programs should be considered as a positive tool that should be used quite often to provide long-term solutions to the problems facing the criminal justice system while making society safer by reducing the rate of repeated offenses.
Current Literature
Overpopulation in prisons and failure to take advantage of social workers in diversion programs affects everyone at different levels. Individuals will pay more taxes to cater to the growing government expenditure in incarceration (Schlesinger, 2018). Society will receive ex-offenders who cannot contribute to society since they did not get adequate rehabilitation due to the already restrained criminal justice system. In this regard, social work in diversion programs requires a maintenance of high ethical standards due to the interactions with the criminals. Social workers must be culturally sensitive without discriminating against anyone to ensure there is equality (Beckett, Maynard, & Jordan, 2017). They have a duty to advocate for the rights of the clients by preventing the criminal justice system from overstepping their mandate. They also have the responsibility of practicing sound ethical values (National Association of Social Workers, 1994) when working with the clients to aid in the behavior change of the offenders.
According to Hanna (2016), the problem of prison overpopulation and mass incarceration is reframed as a national problem that overburdens the economy due to the high costs of expenditure and the minimal effect incarcerations have on reducing recidivism rates. The problem is an idea that exists in society and one that is likely to cause future problems if it is not addressed adequately. The gap addressed in the issue shows the need to have more social workers participating in the diversion program to help curb the problems the justice system is facing. Social workers are the key messengers who facilitate the success of diversion programs (Grinnell, Gabor and Unrau, 2015). They are the driving force behind diversion since they provide counseling, advocacy, and other social justice services to the offenders.
The existence of the problem is a win for the prosecutors and a loss to both the criminal justice system and society at large. Prosecutors aim to see offenders locked up and not rehabilitated appropriately. Prosecutors have the conventional method of thinking where they believe that harsh punishment would deter crime irrespective of whether it is a first-time offense or not (Bellin, 2018). Despite them being part of the more extensive criminal justice system, they are ignorant of the burden they are placing to others. The criminal justice system is facing increased instances of incarcerations as the prisons are getting more and more crowded.
According to Cowell et al. (2015), diversion programs are costly despite them being beneficial to the criminal justice system. A study carried out on a diversion program of people with mental illness in San Antonio, Texas, revealed most of the information on costs incurred is considered confidential. However, Smith (2019) writes that cost estimations from startup to the implementation require $556,638.69 as a front investment while pre-booking diversion costs $370 per person where 90% of the remaining costs will be to cater to the services of social workers in community mental health agencies. Monitoring and screening account for nearly 80% of all activities in the diversion program (Cowell et al., 2015). Post-booking bond and docket diversion amount to $238 and $205 per person, respectively. Costs on court processes and decisions are incurred by the courts and not individuals.
Orrick and Vieraitis (2015) agree with Cowell that the recent economic crisis is adding to the burden of incarcerating more individuals. They mention that state policymakers are rethinking ways in which expenditures on correctional facilities could be redirected in a manner that would cut the overall state budgets. However, it is an issue that would require a balance between parliament, the criminal justice system, the needs of the offenders, and the safety of the community.
According to Welsh and Parish (2016), the three-strike law significantly supports the idea of having diversion programs. Even though the law increases the punishment of criminals with repeated offenses or who have committed serious crimes, it is lenient of first-time offenders. First-time offenders are not often punished severely as it is with their counterparts. This means that the criminal justice system is aware of its current situation of overpopulation and would implement the three-strike law to prevent unnecessary incarcerations to first-time and petty offenses.
Bodenhorn (2016) states that overcrowding in prisons is a pervasive problem that has deep historical roots. The criminal justice system has been constructing more prisons and even hiring the services of private prisons to solve the problem as their long-term strategy. Additionally, they allow early releases through pardons to provide short-term solutions to overcrowding in the prisons. Unfortunately, the author reveals that policy changes made to restrict early releases have, in turn, increased the costs of detention. It seems that in almost every turn, the United States government is determined to lock people up than consider alternatives that would not only keep society safer but also help the criminals to change their negative behaviors. Adding more prisons and seeking services of private prisons is not the best solution for reducing recidivism and the costs incurred in the criminal justice system. Instead, having more prisons is costly and adds to the already frustrated system. Construction of more prisons costs roughly $3.3 billion, while private correctional facilities account for $3.9 billion every year. Profits earned by private prisons are $374 million which means that the government is incurring more expenses.
According to Wagner and Rabuy (2017), the cost of imprisonment in the United States is rising, where both the government and families of the accused incur almost $182 billion every year. Their study found that nearly half of the money spent in the criminal justice system is spent on running the correctional facilities. Apart from paying suppliers who provide services and products to the facility, costs of feeding and attending to the medical needs of the inmates are higher. This means that the cost of taking care of those imprisoned will continue to increase since the number of those incarcerated is also rising. The authors even suggest that the costs of incarceration may be even higher than what is stated due to the presence of hidden costs that are associated with the entire process of imprisonment. Costs of operations include running the correctional facilities, paying public employees involved in the process such as prosecutors, maintaining the health of individuals, construction of facilities and infrastructure to cater for the growing population of inmates, and food expenses. On the other hand, there are costs involved in court and judicial proceedings, policing, forfeiture of civil assets, paying of bail fees, as well as expenses incurred by families.
A study done by Marqua-Harries, Stewart, and Padayachee (2019) found out that the current system of incarceration should change by rethinking other safer and effective alternatives. Many have associated incarceration with criminal justice with the perception that society is more reliable than when criminals are left to roam around (Sugie and Turney, 2017). South Africa has been considered to have high rates of crime, recidivism, and an overburdened criminal justice system (Moult, 2019). In the United States, the increased challenges in the criminal justice system call for immediate actions to help solve the problems. Patterson (2019) states that the criminal justice system should be reformed by adapting diversion programs such as community-owned interventions that infuse trauma-based care and restorative justice. The gap between intentions, policies, and implementation should be narrowed down. Incarcerations should not remain a penalty for crime in all instances. If the increase of prisons both public and private has not yet resolved the problem of overcrowding and recidivism, it means that the system is largely ineffective and failing. The criminal justice system is becoming more punitive, and the massive rate of deteriorating prisons is unfathomable as overcrowding persists. In this regard, diversion programs offer better solutions to the criminal who might not necessarily be imprisoned.
Regardless of the way they work or how society perceives them to be, prison systems are not working efficiently. Relying heavily on punishment through imprisonment only weakens society’s ethics, increases more financial costs, and makes the public less safe (Haney, 2015). For instance, a prison with an overpopulation of inmates is likely not to attend to the simple needs of the inmates such as providing an individual assessment of health and giving enough facilities and utilities. Overcrowding will also likely cause the easy spread of diseases, especially those that are communicable. Imprisoning non-serious offenders may worsen their behavior due to negative influence and peer pressure from other inmates (Abel, 2018). This means that prisons provide the space for criminals to interact, organize their gangs, and even cause death among inmates. Increased mortality and hostility in prisons increase hopelessness and uncertainties that further mar the system with faults and making them irrelevant. In this regard, the United States government should rethink its strategies of how they are providing safety to the community and reducing recidivism.
Communities should be encouraged as frontline responders to the current problem facing the system. This is because they best understand security issues affecting them and ways of solving the issues first-hand (Livingston, 2016). After all, released prisoners get back to society. Forming community connections through social work and rehabilitation of ex-offenders would help alleviate the problem of overpopulating prisons. The energy and desire of the community to restore security prompts them to be agile and effective in ensuring that offenders are rehabilitated properly. Therefore, they serve as the best agents in rolling out programs that support criminals to restore them and be accepted back to society. Social work in the community projects demonstrates a practice of civil policing and resolution of conflicts outside the criminal justice system (Livingston, 2016). Costs are reduced through sharing, and the burden of overpopulation and increased costs reduces altogether.
Perceived Problems with Implementation
According to McCausland et al., 2018, indigenous women form the most significant numbers in Australian women prisons, making up 2% of the convicted women population. The author further states that women in prison experience higher rates of violence, mental health disorders, and homelessness as opposed to men. Indigenous women in Australian prisons are also more likely to undergo mistreatment and inequality than their white counterparts. An evaluation of the diversionary programs further reveals that they still experience discrimination and receive limited focus since most of the programs have paternalistic management. The authors argue that the success of the diversion program appears calculated while considering narrow notions that rarely reflect the distinct challenges that women face. In this case, the effectiveness of the diversion is challenged with the justification that it does not necessarily focus on real problems but statistical numbers.
Despite diversion programs appearing to be helpful in the criminal justice system by reducing costs and overpopulation, critics argue that it may also cause some harm. Mears et al. (2016) state that diversion programs emerged in the 1970’s to prevent people from persisting in their life of crime. Their review suggests that even though there are some benefits associated with the program, there are some harmful effects. Diversion programs may not be stricter or harsher such that the prison system would fail to deter bad behavior. People may, therefore, not take the program with the required necessity. If the criminal justice system is not as effective or competent enough in its implementation of diversion programs, then it would affect the efficiency of diversion programs and would be the foundation to the failure of such programs.
According to Johnson, Sebler, and Lauderdale (2017), the failures associated with incarcerations go far beyond the problem of rising costs to incorporate issues with disrupted family systems and high rates of recidivism. Intervention implemented to prevent ex-criminals from repeating their offense is difficult to evaluate for its effectiveness. While less serious offenders are going to prison, more hardcore criminals are leaving the system and getting back to society. As a result, the continuous cycle is making it hard for recidivism to be reduced. At the same time, the authors state that assessing the effectiveness of diversion programs especially those concerned with rehabilitation and community-based approaches outside the formal incarceration program is challenging and may always not be effective. The concept of social support is well understood in theory than it is when applied within the criminal justice system.
History, Context, Recent and Current Activity
The current situation in the criminal justice system sees diversion programs being used less frequentlySandøy, 2020).espite prison being overcrowded and substantially increasing costs. The concept of reducing unnecessary incarcerations through diversion programs is yet to be embraced wholeheartedly by prosecutors. What they fail to understand is that giving harsh treatment does not always resolve the problem. For instance, a study conducted by Travis, Western, and Redburn, (2014) shows that the increased number of incarcerations would not have a positive impact on a change of behavior in the offenders after they serve their jail term. In fact, locking people up may create other issues such as hardcore behaviors and mental ailments (Toch, Adams and Greene, 1987). Prisoners are not given a chance to redeem themselves appropriately or have themselves assessed or any possibilities of mental illnesses (Haney, 2015). Their behavior may worsen while in prison and end up repeating the same criminal activity that had initially brought them to prison. In this regard, the idea of diversion programs is to try and come up with effective solutions for the offenders and transform society while also ease the work of the criminal justice system.
Evaluation Criteria
The effectiveness of the social work in the diversion program would be evaluated for effectiveness by looking at whether the plan will achieve its set objectives. Its efficiency should also be considered by looking at whether the benefit is greater than the amount of effort and investment made. If there is a cheaper way to get the same results, the diversion program would not be the best program to solve the current problem. The benefits of implementing the program may even surpass the costs. However, costs should not be the only factor that determines efficiency since a good project may require higher costs. The program will also be evaluated based on whether the economic goals are achieved adequately. There should also be a balance between the needs of all stakeholders. At the same time, taxpayers should feel the benefit of reduced crime in society. the program would also be appropriate since it involves both the private sector and the government.
Alternatives
Abel (2018) states that diversion’s alternatives include eliminating the role of parole and probation to reduce the overall costs of incarceration. Instead of probation, inmates could serve their full-time in jail without having to be given parole necessarily. At the same time, reducing inmates’ time after an assessment of behavior and granting more presidential pardons would lessen the burden of the overpopulated prison system. Reducing the time inmates spent in prison would allow other inmates to get adequate space and facilities.
Selection of Criteria
Diversions are cheaper, effective, adequate, appropriate, and equitable than any other plan (Kubic & Pendergrass, 2017). Based on the evaluation criteria above, paroles and reducing inmate time is not as effective as it is with diversion. Paroles and reduction of time imprisonment do not provide adequate rehabilitation to criminals thereby increasing the risk of recidivism. They may also not be transparent as it is solely done by the government without involvement from the private sector.
Projection of Outcomes
The diversion program is likely to reduce the recidivism rate and encourage positive behavior changes (Schlesinger, 2018). Therefore, society would become safer, and the criminal justice system will not have overpopulated prisons and high costs of operation. The cost of investing in social work and diversion would be traded off with the benefit of having reformed criminals. I was once a victim of an offense but would prefer getting restitution and an apology letter from the offender instead of having him imprisoned for a petty crime. The offender was placed in a community work and education program where he was able to receive counseling to enable him to make better decisions in life.
State Hypothesis/Research Questions
From the above review, a few research questions popped up. First, is diversion a solution to end current problems facing the criminal justice system? The research question was developed after reviewing studies that encourage and discourage diversion programs based on their effectiveness. There were mixed reactions to the effectiveness of the program in solving problems associated with the criminal justice system. Second, should social work be enhanced in diversion programs to curb shortfalls in the marginalization of women and rehabilitation of criminals? The second question was based on the criticism that the effectiveness of the program is not reflective of the real issues on the ground but focuses on statistics that have narrow interpretations. In popular view, increasing the use of social workers would allow the evaluation of the programs to be more realistic and reflective of what is taking place in society.
Research Methodology
Having reviewed the literature on restorative justice and diversion programs, this chapter discusses the study’s research methodology.
Research Design
The purpose of the study is to identify the role of social work in the diversion program in reducing the problems facing the criminal justice system with respect to costs, reduction of recidivism rates, depopulation of prisons, and rehabilitation of criminals who are mostly first-time offenders. The qualitative study design will be carried out through interviews. Surveys will be done by interviewing different people in the justice department on their thoughts about what clients of the diversion need or could use from social workers. The questions will be structured as both closed and open-ended formats to allow the interviewees to share their opinions further. The simple language will be used to eliminate misunderstandings and give the wrong responses. The interviews will be recorded and recorded for further analysis.
Participants
The study will only limit its eligibility criteria to persons who work within the criminal justice department. This means they could be judges, lawyers, police officers, or even politicians who have knowledge about the implementation of diversion programs in the system. People from all walks of life, races, ethnicities, and the position held. The sample size will be less than 20 individuals where the participants will be non-proportionally divided based on the number of departments within the criminal justice system. For instance, some participants will be randomly selected from the prosecution office, defense attorneys, prison warders, counselors, and even policymakers. Most importantly, the interviewees will be informed of the confidentiality of the process and that I will seek consent and approval from the UWRF IRB.
Measures
Nominal data will be used to scale the information gathered. According to (Rees, 2018), nominal data gives fixed classification to subjects such as age and gender and does not include a range such as a level of education. For instance, the information could be grouped according to how both male, other, and females answered their questions. Descriptive data would be ranged on a scale of 0-5. For example, on a scale of 0-5, participants will be asked to rate the effectiveness of diversion programs in the criminal justice system. In this case, a higher score will indicate effectiveness while a lower one will mean that the program is not reliable for practice within the criminal justice system. The following were the questions for interviews;
- What is your background and level of education?
- What is your experience with the Diversion program?
- What are your perceptions about diversion programs?
- Does your diversion program have any goals?
- What are your impressions about the diversion program in particular?
- Do you find any positive attributes in the program?
- How do you find it coordinating the program?
- Do you find any negative attributes on the program?
- Do you believe that social workers involved in the Diversion program would or is a benefit to the clients?
- Given the opportunity to make changes to your diversion program, what would you change, if any, and why would you make them?
- What would you like to add to this interview, if any?
On the other hand, they will be asked whether social workers should be enhanced in the diversion programs. Zero would mean that they are irrelevant and insignificant to the process while a higher score would indicate that they are critical in the diversion programs. Since the study uses a descriptive research design, scales will be used to measure different answers.
Data Collection
Data will be gathered through face-to-face interviews with professionals working within the criminal justice system. The collection of data will incorporate technology where the interview questions will be in a portable tablet PC to reduce paperwork and save on time. Questions will be made comprehensible to the interviewees such that it will not interfere or have any adverse impact on their social life. The entire process of data collection will take two months since different professionals have varying work schedules, which will have to respect. Data from the tablet will then be gathered and organized correctly for analysis.
References
Abel, A. M. (2018). Prison Reform in Arizona: An Analysis of Approaches to Alleviate Overcrowding in Arizona Prisons.
Beckett, C., Maynard, A., & Jordan, P. (2017). Values and ethics in social work. Sage.
Bellin, J. (2018). Reassessing prosecutorial power through the lens of mass incarceration. Michigan Law Review, 116, 835.
Bodenhorn, H. (2016). Prison crowding, recidivism, and early release in early Rhode Island. Explorations in Economic History, 59, 55-74.
Cowell, A. J., Hinde, J. M., Broner, N., & Aldridge, A. P. (2015). The cost of implementing a jail diversion program for people with mental illness in San Antonio, Texas. Evaluation and program planning, 48, 57-62.
Gifford, B. (2019). Prison Crime and the Economics of Incarceration. Stan. L. Rev., 71, 71.
Grinnell, R. M., Gabor, P. A., & Unrau, Y. A. (Eds.). (2015). Program evaluation for social workers: Foundations of evidence-based programs. Oxford University Press, USA.
Haney, C. (2015). Prison overcrowding. American Psychological Association.
Hanna, P. (2016). Human Cattle: Prison Overpopulation and the Political Economy of Mass Incarceration. Themis: Research Journal of Justice Studies and Forensic Science, 4(1), 3.
Johnson, T., Selber, K., & Lauderdale, M. (2017). Developing quality services for offenders and families: An innovative partnership. In Children with Parents in Prison (pp. 127-148). Routledge.
Kubic, W. M. & Pendergrass, T. (2017). Diversion Programs Are Cheaper and More Effective Than Incarceration. Prosecutors Should Embrace Them. ACLU. Retrieved from https://www.aclu.org/blog/smart-justice/diversion-programs-are-cheaper-and-more-effective-incarceration-prosecutors
Lemert, E. M. (1981). Diversion in juvenile justice: What hath been wrought. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 18(1), 34-46.
Livingston, J. D. (2016). Criminal justice responses to people with mental illnesses. Criminal Justice in Canada: A Reader, 199-210.
Lofstrom, M., & Raphael, S. (2016). Prison downsizing and public safety: Evidence from California. Criminology & Pub. Pol’y, 15, 349.
Marqua-Harries, L., Stewart, G., & Padayachee, V. (2019). Towards transforming a system. Re-thinking incarceration for youth (and beyond). SA Crime Quarterly, (68), 33-40.
McCausland, R. (2015). Measurement, Management, and Marginalisation: Evaluation and the Diversion of Indigenous Women from Prison (Doctoral dissertation, PhD Thesis. School of Social Sciences, UNSW, March).
McMcarthy, N. (2019). The World’s Most Overcrowded Prison Systems [Infographic]. Forbes. Retrieved from https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2018/01/26/the-worlds-most-overcrowded-prison-systems-infographic/#7f96ae0c1372
Mears, D. P., Kuch, J. J., Lindsey, A. M., Siennick, S. E., Pesta, G. B., Greenwald, M. A., & Blomberg, T. G. (2016). Juvenile court and contemporary diversion: Helpful, harmful, or both?. Criminology & Public Policy, 15(3), 953-981.
Moult, K. (2019). The state of the nation’s crime. South African Crime Quarterly, (68), 3-5.
National Association of Social Workers, Washington, Dc. (1994). Code of ethics of the National Association of Social Workers. NASW Distribution Center.
O’Brien, K. D. (2019). Understanding extra-judicial responses to young people’s offending; out of court disposals and ‘diversion’in social context.
Orrick, E. A., & Vieraitis, L. M. (2015). The cost of incarceration in Texas: Estimating the benefits of reducing the prison population. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 40(2), 399-415.
Patterson, G. T. (2019). Social work practice in the criminal justice system. Routledge.
Rees, D. G. (2018). Essential statistics. Chapman and Hall/CRC.
Sandøy, T. A. (2020). Alternative (To) Punishment: Assessing Punishment Experiences in Youth Diversion Programmes. The British Journal of Criminology.
Schlesinger, T. (2018). Decriminalizing racialized youth through juvenile diversion. The Future of Children, 28(1), 59-82.
Schlesinger, T. (2018). Decriminalizing racialized youth through juvenile diversion. The Future of Children, 28(1), 59-82.
Smith, R. (2019). Diversion, Rights and Social Justice. Youth Justice, 1473225420902845.
Sugie, N. F., & Turney, K. (2017). Beyond incarceration: Criminal justice contact and mental health. American Sociological Review, 82(4), 719-743.
Toch, H., Adams, K., & Greene, R. (1987). Ethnicity, disruptiveness, and emotional disorder among prison inmates. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 14(1), 93-109.
Travis, J., Western, B., & Redburn, F. S. (2014). The growth of incarceration in the United States: Exploring causes and consequences.
Van Ness, D. W. (2016). An overview of restorative justice around the world.
Wagner, P., & Rabuy, B. (2017). Following the money of mass incarceration. Prison Policy Initiative.
Welsh, W. N., & Harris, P. W. (2016). Criminal justice policy and planning: Planned change. Routledge.
