Pennsylvania hearing spotlights diversion, restorative programs while experts warn against one-size mandates

A joint House Children and Youth and Judiciary Committee hearing on juvenile justice focused on House Bill 144, a bill to expand juvenile diversion, with system leaders, researchers and providers testifying about evidence, practice and implementation gaps.

The Juvenile Court Judges Commission’s executive director, Bob Tomasini, told lawmakers the commission supports “using diversion whenever appropriate with decisions that are based on each youth’s unique circumstances,” but cautioned against statutory mandates that remove individualized judicial discretion. Tomasini said, “We are concerned about raising the minimum age of jurisdiction from 10 to 13. We are concerned to mandate diversion without considering risk levels or the individual circumstances that each case brings.”

Why it matters: multiple witnesses told the committees that properly designed diversion reduces future arrests, keeps young people out of the formal system and can save public dollars. Dr. Brian Lovins, a criminologist, summarized research showing pre‑charge diversion correlates with about 1.7 times fewer future arrests and that low‑risk youth diverted out of the system can have 2.4 times fewer arrests than similar youth who were adjudicated. He highlighted state examples (Ohio, Texas, Kentucky) that redirected resources to local programs and reported substantial reductions in felony adjudications and costs.

What the panels said: Donald F. Corey, chief juvenile probation officer in Chester County and president of the Pennsylvania Council of Chief Juvenile Probation Officers, said diversion must be risk‑informed and tied to services. “Our mission is to not mess them up. We want them diverted,” Corey said, and outlined local school‑based diversion programs and competency‑focused community service projects as ways to repair harm and build skills. Hana Victoria Mason of the Youth Art and Self Empowerment Project described Healing Futures, a Philadelphia restorative diversion program: her evaluation of the program’s first two years found participants and victims reported high satisfaction and that only 1 of the first 30 participants was later rearrested.

Implementation and capacity concerns: Tomasini and other system leaders repeated that capacity—not policy alone—is driving some harms. Tomasini noted that placement options had contracted after the pandemic, producing staffing shortages and service gaps; he said the statewide placement wait list fell from over 170 youth in 2023 to 18 at the time of testimony but warned that provider shortages remain. Panelists urged lawmakers to pair statutory changes with funding and supports for community services, training and family engagement.

What the bill does and outstanding questions: HB144 would promote diversion practices; testimony urged the committee to preserve risk assessment and judicial discretion, expand restorative options and ensure frontline training and funding follow any statutory changes. Multiple witnesses recommended basing changes on the most current data and continued engagement with practitioners.

The hearing did not include a committee vote on HB144. Lawmakers asked for follow‑up on implementation details and funding pathways to expand diversion statewide.