Treatment of Juvenile Offenders: Diversion and Formal Processing

  • Peter C. Kratcoski


In this chapter, various means used to process juvenile offenders are considered. The juvenile court was created with the specific philosophy of serving as a parent substitute for those children in need of supervision and parental care. The underlying approach to the processing of juvenile offenders centers on the concept of minimizing the penetration of juvenile offenders into the juvenile justice system. Community-based diversion programs such as police diversion, teen youth courts, school resource officer programs, and specialized treatment programs for juveniles with problems related to substance abuse, sex offenses, and family violence have been created. Counseling programs for those juveniles housed in residential facilities are also considered.


Diversion Juvenile delinquency Status offenses Police juvenile diversion Teen courts School resource officer Specialized treatment programs Juvenile court Juvenile drug courts Psychological counseling Community-based residential facilities 


  1. Butts, J., & Roman, J. (2004). Juvenile drug courts. Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press.Google Scholar
  2. DeVoe, J. F., & Bauer, I. (2011). Student victimization in U.S. schools: Results from the 2009 school crime supplement to the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCES 2012–314). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Educational Statistics, U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  3. Finn, P. (2006). School resource officer programs: Finding the funding, reaping the benefits. FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, 75(8), 1–7.Google Scholar
  4. Girouard, C. (2012). School resource officer training program (pp. 1–62). Hoover, AL: National Association of School Resource Officers. Retrieved July 4, 2016 from Scholar
  5. Global Youth Justice Advocacy Organization. (2016). World’s most replicated juvenile justice program works (pp. 1–6). Retrieved August 16, 2016 from
  6. Harris, T., & Bezuidenhout, C. (2010). A psychocriminological investigation into the risk factors contributing to youth sex offending. Child Abuse Research: A South African Journal, 11(10), 28–42.Google Scholar
  7. Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act. (1974). Public Law 93–425, Section 223 (a) (23). Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974, as amended (Public Law 93–414) section 223 (a) (23).Google Scholar
  8. Kratcoski, P., Ammar, N., & Dahlgren, D. (2004). Police diversion of delinquent youths: An assessment of programs. In P. Kratcoski (Ed.), Correctional counseling and treatment (5th ed., pp. 156–184). Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press, Inc..Google Scholar
  9. Lundrigan, P. (2002). Elements of a treatment program for youth who sexually abuse. In P. Kratcoski (Ed.), Correctional counseling and treatment (5th ed., pp. 29–39, 197–212). Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press, Haworth Press.Google Scholar
  10. OJJDP Newsletter. (2016). Administrator Listenbee outlines OJJDP’ support for tribal youth at national council on juvenile and family court judges conference. Retrieved May 8, 2016 from
  11. Pitocco, K. (2011). ORAS (Ohio risk assessment system) purpose and benefits. Cincinnati, OH: University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research.Google Scholar
  12. Snyder, H., & Sickmund, M. (1999). Juvenile offenders and victims: National report. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.Google Scholar
  13. Van Ness, S. (1983). Rape as instrumental violence: A perspective for therapy, research and corrections. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences, San Antonio, TX, pp. 1–14.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Peter C. Kratcoski
    • 1
  1. 1.Kent State UniversityKentUSA

Personalised recommendations