https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3503-7319
![Sample our Social Sciences journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/110822/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Social-Sciences.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
Evaluations of juvenile and criminal legal system programs typically focus on outcomes related to program impacts, or effectiveness. However, implementation outcomes – which relate to the processes underlying program execution – are equally as critical to determining program success. Adding to the burgeoning interest in applying implementation science principles to legal system interventions, the current study examined implementation outcomes of the Philadelphia Police School Diversion Program – a school-based, alternative-to-arrest program that has already demonstrated promising effectiveness outcomes. Through qualitative analysis of semi-structured interviews with 11 school and police stakeholders and quantitative analysis of police data for 2,047 school-based arrests in Philadelphia that occurred during the first five years of program operation, we explored outcomes related to Diversion Program adoption, appropriateness, acceptability, fidelity, penetration/reach, and sustainability, as well as stakeholder thoughts about program expansion and replication. Results revealed several important components of program implementation that contributed to its widespread adoption and sustained operations.
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank the police and school stakeholders who generously spent time sharing their insights and perspectives as part of this research study. Additionally, the authors would like to recognize Police Commissioner Kevin Bethel, former Police Commissioner Charles Ramsey, former Commissioner Richard Ross, Jr., and former Commissioner Danielle M. Outlaw for their work in developing, authorizing, implementing, championing, and continuing the Philadelphia Police School Diversion Program. The authors would also like to recognize former School District of Philadelphia Superintendent William Hite Jr., current Superintendent Tony Watlington, Chief of Student Support Services Karyn T. Lynch, Deputy Chief Rachel Holzman, and former Deputy Chief Jody Greenblatt for their support of the program across Philadelphia schools. We also recognize former Philadelphia Department of Human Services Commissioners Anne Marie Ambrose, Vanessa Garrett Harley, and Jessica Shapiro, and current Commissioner Kimberly Ali, and former Deputy Mayor Cynthia Figueroa, for their support of the program’s creation, implementation, and sustainability. Finally, we offer appreciation to our research partners, Theodore Wills at the School District of Philadelphia, George Kikuchi and Kevin Thomas at the Philadelphia Police Department, and Damon Trent and David Bruce at the Philadelphia Department of Human Services.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Supplementary material
Supplemental data for this article can be accessed online at https://doi.org/10.1080/0735648X.2024.2355241
Notes
1. The list of eligible offenses includes possession of a non-firearm weapon on school property, criminal trespass, disorderly conduct, possession of marijuana, failure to disperse, and obstruction of highways or other passageways (Philadelphia Police Department Citation2016). Additionally, because 10 years old serves as the minimum age for arrest in Pennsylvania, only youth 10 years of age or older can be diverted through the Diversion Program.
2. In Philadelphia, the school district employs school safety officers, who are not sworn officers and, therefore, do not have the power to arrest. If there were a question of whether a student or students should be arrested, school safety officers would need to call the Philadelphia Police Department, and the same Diversion Program requirements and procedures would apply.
3. The Diversion Program only prohibits police from arresting diversion-eligible students for diversion-eligible offenses. School personnel are not governed by the program and can respond to diverted students’ behaviors as they see fit, including with traditional forms of discipline (e.g., warning, suspension).
4. Importantly, although the initiative is called a diversion ‘program,’ it is predominantly a change in police department policy that clearly delineates when youth should be diverted from arrest for behaviors occurring on school grounds. A secondary component of the program involves DHS staff contacting the families of diverted youth to arrange a home visit and provide referrals to free, voluntary, community-based services that are also available to any adolescent in Philadelphia. The current study largely focuses on the PPD policy change at the center of the Diversion Program; future research should more closely examine implementation and other outcomes related to the service referral component of this initiative.
5. Since its launch, the Diversion Program has been in place across all Philadelphia schools. Given the nature of their roles, the district administrators interviewed for this study were responsible for all 331 SDP schools. Other interviewed SDP personnel (i.e., school safety officers, principals) served at four different schools, including at least one elementary, one middle, and one high school. Additionally, PPD school police officers respond to incidents in any school within their assigned district, and the PPD staff dedicated to the Diversion Program field calls from officers across all Philadelphia schools. Consistent with the goals of qualitative research, our sample was not selected to be representative of all stakeholders, but to ensure we elicited feedback from various groups with relevant opinions on the program and its implementation until reaching thematic saturation.
6. This value does not match the estimated 2,500 school-based arrests that occurred in Philadelphia schools during this time period because the PPD removed cases with missing or incorrect internal identification numbers from the dataset shared with researchers.
7. At the time these data were collected, Philadelphia schools allowed students to be enrolled in school until the end of the school year during which they turned 21 years of age. The inclusion of 22 as the maximum age in the sample is likely the result of rounding – the student in question was likely just short of their 22nd birthday when they were diverted.
8. This value does not match the estimated 2,036 instances of diversions that reportedly occurred in Philadelphia schools in the first five years of Diversion Program operation. This discrepancy stems, in part, from use of a matching algorithm – when it failed to properly match a youth’s name to a prepopulated Study ID, that youth was not included in the final dataset. Additionally, only youth diverted in SDP schools (i.e., not charter, parochial, or private schools) were included.
9. Per Diversion Program policy, police officers must divert youth who meet all eligibility criteria. However, officers also have discretion to divert youth for other non-serious offenses (e.g., vandalism). Therefore, we did not examine the frequency with which diverted youth did not, in fact, meet all diversion eligibility criteria as a measure of program fidelity.
10. Of note, schools maintain decision-making power related to exclusionary discipline for diverted students. Therefore, although diversion-eligible youth will not be arrested under Diversion Program policies, schools might still choose to suspend or request a disciplinary transfer hearing for any diverted student.
11. With few exceptions, SDP schools were fully remote from March 2020 through August 2021.
Additional information
Funding
Notes on contributors
Amanda NeMoyer
Amanda NeMoyer, JD, PhD, is an Assistant Research Professor in the Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences and the Director of Research in the Juvenile Justice Research and Reform Lab at Drexel University. With training in both psychology and law, Dr. NeMoyer partners with community members and public agencies to evaluate current juvenile legal system practices and identify potential areas for reform. In particular, her research has focused on alternatives to detention and incarceration for legally involved youth, including diversion and probation initiatives.
Angela Pollard
Angela Pollard, MS, is a doctoral student in Clinical, Counseling and School Psychology at the University of California Santa Barbara. Her primary research interests include the implementation of effective school- and community-based supports for transition age youth and youth who are at risk of legal system involvement. She is also committed to creating safe and engaging school environments for students who hold marginalized identities.
TuQuynh Le
TuQuynh Le, MPH, MS, is a data scientist with Philadelphia’s Performance Management and Technology Division focusing specifically on Juvenile Justice. Her work aims to accurately capture current Juvenile Justice system outcomes and surface opportunities to dismantle institutional and systemic inequality and improve outcomes for justice-involved youth.
Rena Kreimer
Rena Kreimer, MSW, is the Deputy Director of Drexel University’s Juvenile Justice Research and Reform Lab. She has dedicated her career to facilitating communication between diverse stakeholders and research partners to integrate empirical findings with policy and practice; leveraging grant funding to support change-making research, implementation, and evaluation projects; and providing technical assistance to jurisdictions engaging in data-informed juvenile justice initiatives.
Matthew Lattanzio
Matthew Lattanzio is a senior crime analyst at the Philadelphia Police Department. His work relates to several topics in the field of law enforcement, with a primary focus on data analysis and evaluation. He often is responsible for fulfilling data requests for Philadelphia Police partner agencies and organizations.
Naomi E. Goldstein
Naomi Goldstein, PhD, is Professor of Psychological and Brain Sciences, Co-Director of the JD/PhD Program in Law and Psychology, and Director of the Juvenile Justice Research and Reform Lab at Drexel University. She collaborates with community stakeholders to use social science research to improve juvenile justice policy and practice. She uses research to guide large-scale system change, leads implementation projects to disseminate justice reforms, and evaluates effects of new programs and policies on youth and communities.