A systematic review with a meta-analysis evaluated 28 studies involving 19,301 young individuals in 57 experiments and found that, overall, the effect of multiple redirection programs on recidivism was not significant. Of the five types of programs identified, including case management, individual treatment, family treatment, juvenile court, and restorative justice, only family treatment led to a statistically significant reduction in recidivism [1].
A new meta-analysis, including 45 redirection evaluation studies with 14,573 young individuals, mostly in Anglo-Saxon countries, in a total of 73 programs, indicates that redirection programs, whether cautionary or with intervention, are significantly more effective to reduce recidivism than the traditional justice system [2].
However, those disparate results among the meta-analyses can be explained, at least in part, by the differences observed in the inclusion criteria used in each review, as well as by the difference in the number of studies included in each meta-analysis. The second meta-analysis included more programs and had a larger sample size than the other two.
A third systematic review examined the impact of juvenile processing by the justice system and whether redirection from the juvenile justice system reduced subsequent delinquency [3]. The study included more than 7,300 young individuals in 29 experiments reported over a 35-year period. Based on the evidence presented, formal prosecution of juveniles appears not to control crime. In fact, it would actually appear to increase crime, both in prevalence, incidence, and severity, among other measures.
Considering this piece of evidence as a whole, this type of intervention was classified as “promising” in terms of reducing juvenile recidivism.