Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 30, 2024 Tue
Time: 1:19 am
Time: 1:19 am
Results for diversion programs
18 results foundAuthor: Wilks, Kim Title: Effective Approaches for Reducing Prostitution in Texas: Proactive and Cost-Efficient Strategies to Help People Leave the Streets Summary: The diversion of individuals with low-level, nonviolent offenses from the criminal justice system has not only been shown to improve public safety; it has also resulted in significant cost savings for state prison systems. Diversion programs have proven especially successful in re-directing individuals with mental illness and addictilon issues away from incarceration and toward much needed treatment services. Individuals who engage in sex work are far more likely to suffer from mental illness, drug and alcohol addiction, and past trauma than both the general population and many other individuals entering the criminal justice system. The proven effectiveness of diversion programs when applied to similar popular ons compels us to believe that an increase in the number of prostituion diversion programs in Texas will positively impact public health and public safety while simultaneously saving taxpayer dollars. Texas incarcerates sex workers at a higher rate than most other states, and it is the only state in the nation to charge individuals engaging in prostitution with a felony. This punitive approach has not significantly deterred individuals from prostitution or decreased the number of prostituion arrests. Instead, Texas’ policies have resulted in high costs associated with policing, prosecuting, and incarcerating these individuals, and they have created collateral consequences for the arrested individuals themselves and the communities where prostitution occurs. Indeed, individuals face lifelong barriers associated with conviction, including limited access to housing and employment, while communities struggle to address populations that are under-employed or homeless, and draining local budgets. Prostitution diversion programs throughout the country, including one in Dallas, have a proven track record of success in offering individuals a safe exit from prostitution. Based on an examination and consideration of these successful models, the Texas Criminal Justice Coalition urges legislators to consider expanding such programs throughout the state. Details: Austin, TX: Texas Criminal Justice Coalition, 2013. 20p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 9, 2013 at: http://www.texascjc.org/sites/default/files/uploads/TCJC%20Effective%20Approaches%20Reducing%20Prostitution%20(2013).pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.texascjc.org/sites/default/files/uploads/TCJC%20Effective%20Approaches%20Reducing%20Prostitution%20(2013).pdf Shelf Number: 128695 Keywords: Costs of Criminal JusticeDiversion ProgramsProstitutesProstitution (Texas, U.S.)Sex Workers |
Author: Gormley, Caitlin Title: Mapping of Active Criminal Justice Diversion Schemes for Those with Mental Health Problems in Scotland Summary: The Scottish Association for Mental Health commissioned the Scottish Centre for Crime and Justice Research to conduct a mapping exercise to identify the numbers and types of diversion schemes for people with mental health issues currently in operation throughout Scotland. This research defines "diversionary practice" in reference to formal and informal processes of assessing and identifying the needs of an accused person and diverting them from the criminal justice pathway as early as possible. Research Design All Criminal Justice Social Work service departments of the 32 Local Authorities; the 8 regional managers of Community Justice Authorities; the 14 NHS Health Boards; Police Scotland; the Scottish Prison Service; Community Mental Health Nursing Teams; and various third sector organisations were contacted by email, letter and phone-calls, where appropriate, seeking their participation in the research, they were then sent a questionnaire to complete. The questionnaire was comprised of twenty-one open- and closed-ended questions designed to uncover as much information as possible about existing diversionary schemes and practices for people with mental health issues. To achieve this, the questions were grouped under four headings: About the Scheme; Functionality; Operation of the Scheme; and Post-Intervention. The results were then exported to a spreadsheet and collated for further thematic analysis. Responses were grouped by the stage of the criminal justice system the service diverts persons with mental health problems in order to respond to specific elements of the research question. Key Findings Of the 38 responses to the questionnaire, 26 active diversion schemes were identified while 12 agencies stated that they do not operate formal or informal diversionary practices. The aims of the responding schemes can be listed in terms of general themes: reducing reoffending; preventing harm; reducing number of remands to prison; and, ensuring that appropriate care is provided. The majority of diversion schemes who responded to this study are delivered by statutory services through "Fiscal Diversion" as an alternative to prosecution. Only two responding schemes reported that they focus specifically on divertees with mental health problems. Both of these schemes are funded by the NHS and receive referrals from the Procurator Fiscal service. Police reporting procedures have a great impact on decisions made by the Procurator Fiscal which have, in turn, accounted for 17 of the 26 schemes who responded positively to this study. There are many differences among the schemes particularly in relation to the uptake of diversion schemes as well as regional and organisational differences. Although there is a wide range of activities available across the diversion schemes, there appears to be a gap in the delivery of schemes which address offending behaviour and poor mental health together. Details: Glasgow: Scottish Centre for Crime and Justice Research, University of Glasgow, 2013. 25p. Source: Internet Resource: Report No. 05/13: Accessed July 19, 2014 at: http://www.sccjr.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Mapping-of-Active-Diversion-Schemes-Report.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.sccjr.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Mapping-of-Active-Diversion-Schemes-Report.pdf Shelf Number: 132715 Keywords: Diversion ProgramsMental HealthMentally Ill Offenders (Scotland) |
Author: Neyroud, Peter Title: Operation Turning Point: Interim report on a randomised trial in Birmingham, UK Summary: Operation Turning Point is a randomised controlled trial based in Birmingham, UK. The trial has been designed to compare the relative effectiveness and cost benefit of police prosecuting low harm offenders with a treatment, a "turning point contract", which combines a deferred prosecution with a set of conditions agreed with the offender, which are intended to support desistance. The 2 groups - control (prosecuted) and treatment (Turning Point) are allocated by random assignment by the Cambridge Gateway. The trial will be evaluated by comparing the control and treatment groups against their outcomes for prevalence and seriousness of offending and the cost-benefit of the two interventions. The trial, which has been implemented in stages, commencing in November 2011, is intended to run in the four Birmingham Local Policing Areas until Summer 2013. The research is part of a wider programme focused on reducing crime harm supported by the Monument Trust. This paper presents an interim report, describing the setting up of the trial and some emerging findings from the research. Details: Cambridge, UK: Institute of Criminology, University of Cambridge, 2013. 68p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 28, 2014 at: http://www.crim.cam.ac.uk/events/conferences/ebp/2013/slides/Operation_turningpoint_ebp2013.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.crim.cam.ac.uk/events/conferences/ebp/2013/slides/Operation_turningpoint_ebp2013.pdf Shelf Number: 129908 Keywords: Cost-Benefit AnalysisDeferred ProsecutionDiversion ProgramsProsecution (U.K.) |
Author: Gorton, Joe Title: Evaluation of the Black Hawk County Mental Health Jail Diversion Programs Summary: This study presents an evaluation of the First Judicial District Department of Correctional Services mental health jail diversion program. The analysis examines both program efficacy and cost-benefits. The evaluation is based on analyses of both quantitative and qualitative data. Quantitative data were collected from probation/parole and jail records of 482 offenders who participated in the program from 2007 through 2011. Qualitative data was derived from in-depth interviews of criminal justice officials and social service providers who are directly involved with the program. - Two-thirds of the inmates diverted into the mental health program were white males most of whom were younger than 30 years old. Women were under represented in the study population, however, they were significantly more likely to be placed in the diversion program. - For two-thirds of the diverted sample, the primary mental health diagnoses was a mood disorder (e.g., bi-polar, depressive, anxiety, etc.). Approximately one-fourth of the sample had a primary diagnoses of psychotic disorder. Schizophrenia, paranoid type was the most common psychotic condition. - Based on their LSI-R scores, 67.6 percent most of the diverted inmates were either a medium-high risk or high risk. For non-diverted inmates 61.9 percent were either medium-high risk or high risk. - Inmates with psychotic disorders were more likely to be diverted than offenders with less severe mental health problems. - Comparisons of arrest data for two years prior to being booked into jail and for two years of post-diversion indicate that the diversion program helps to reduce the likelihood of criminal recidivism. - Diverted inmates with a primary diagnosis of a psychotic disorder were significantly less likely to be arrested than diverted inmates who did not have a psychotic disorder. - The totality of quantitative findings indicate that Black Hawk County's mental health diversion program is effective at reducing criminal recidivism among mentally ill inmates - We estimate that diverted inmates served 15 fewer days in jail than non-diverted inmates. - The total estimate for annual cost savings produced by the mental health jail diversion program is $237,509. The annual net fiscal benefit of the program (without cost estimates for prosecutions, prison confinement , and taxpayer funded victimization programs) is estimated at $137,509. Details: Cedar Falls, IA: University of Northern Iowa, Department of Sociology, Anthropology, and Criminology, 2014. 33p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 27, 2014 at: http://firstdcs.com/reports/2014.BHC%20MH%20Jail%20Diversion%20Program.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://firstdcs.com/reports/2014.BHC%20MH%20Jail%20Diversion%20Program.pdf Shelf Number: 133460 Keywords: Cost-Benefit AnalysisDiversion ProgramsJailsMental Health ProgramsMentally Ill Offenders (Iowa) |
Author: Millsteed, Melanie Title: Ten Years of the South Australian Police Drug Diversion Initiative: Data Analysis Report Summary: The beginning of September 2011 marked ten years of PDDI operation, and presents a timely opportunity to analyse the data collected by the Drug Diversion Line over the whole ten year period. This briefing paper provides a summary of this data analysis. Its objectives are to determine: - The number and profile of individuals diverted under the PDDI; - Whether the number and/or profile of those diverted has changed over time, and if so, how it has changed; - The proportion of diverted individuals that comply with their diversion, and the profile of individuals that are less likely to comply; and, - The level of recidivism, time between first and subsequent diversions, and the profile of those that are more likely to re-offend within the context of the PDDI. In order to analyse trends over time, the data analysis sometimes splits the data into the following three equal time periods: - 1 September 2001 to 31 December 2004 - 1 January 2005 to 30 April 2008 - 1 May 2008 to 31 August 2011 Details: Adelaide: South Australian Attorney-General's Department, Office of Crime Statistics and Research, 2012. 39p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed December 8, 2014 at: http://www.ocsar.sa.gov.au/docs/evaluation_reports/TenYears-PDDI.pdf Year: 2012 Country: Australia URL: http://www.ocsar.sa.gov.au/docs/evaluation_reports/TenYears-PDDI.pdf Shelf Number: 134265 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationDiversion ProgramsDrug Offenders (South Australia)Recidivism |
Author: Boulger, Jordan Title: Performance incentive funding for prison diversion: An implementation study of the DuPage County Adult Redeploy Illinois Program. Summary: Adult Redeploy Illinois (ARI) was designed as a response to the high numbers of non-violent offenders incarcerated in Illinois' prisons at great cost to the state. Participating ARI counties divert non-violent offenders from prison and into community corrections programs. These programs are less expensive than prison and designed to be more effective at reducing recidivism. They are required to reduce the number of individuals sent to IDOC from an eligible target population during the grant period - typically 12 months - by at least 25 percent. This evaluation of DuPage County ARI explored both planning and implementation of ARI programming during its pilot phase starting January 1, 2011 and concluding in June 30, 2012. Data collection had four main components: interviews with ARI program staff and stakeholders, interviews with ARI clients, analysis of ARI administrative data, and analysis of clients' criminal history record information. Key findings from the evaluation of the DuPage County ARI drug court program include: Program outcomes - DuPage County's ARI program exceeded its 25 percent prison admission reduction goal. The program successfully diverted 127 non-violent individuals from IDOC, far surpassing its goal of 35. - Of the 37 clients who were closed (or terminated) from the ARI program, 46 percent successfully completed the program (n=17), while 27 percent had been re-sentenced to IDOC (n=10). - Of the 106 ARI clients in the sample, 18 percent were arrested while participating in the program (n=19). Of them, 8 percent were arrested for a felony arrest and 3 percent were arrested for a violent crime. - Program administrators implemented with fidelity eight of 10 Intensive Probation Supervision (IPS) components, but could work toward more fully implementing two components - (1) creating minimum and maximum length of participation and (2) setting contact levels with higher levels initially to lower levels in final stages. Client characteristics - ARI clients in DuPage County were mostly male, white, unmarried, and unemployed with a high school diploma, and living with friends or family. - Based on criminal histories, risk assessment instruments, and previous probation non-compliance, DuPage County targeted individuals at high risk for recidivism for participation in the program. - Almost half of the ARI clients were sentenced for a Class 4 felony. Many clients (40 percent) were convicted of a drug offense and 24 percent were convicted of a property offense. - Slightly more than half of ARI clients were determined to be at high risk for recidivism based on the Level of Service Inventory Revised (LSI-R), a validated instrument that assesses the risk (53 percent). - DuPage County ARI clients averaged six prior arrests, with 86 percent of clients arrested for a felony offense and 14 percent previously incarcerated. - According to nine interviewed clients, they met with their probation officer face-to-face an average of two times each month lasting an average of 38 minutes per client. - Of five interviewed clients who received rewards for following the rules of the program, all found them to be good motivators to do well in the program. The average number of rewards each person received was six. Details: Chicago: Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority, 2015. 74p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 25, 2015 at: http://www.icjia.state.il.us/public/pdf/ResearchReports/ARI_DUPAGE_030315.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://www.icjia.state.il.us/public/pdf/ResearchReports/ARI_DUPAGE_030315.pdf Shelf Number: 135014 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationCommunity Based CorrectionDiversion ProgramsRecidivism |
Author: Closing the Gap Clearinghouse Title: Diverting Indigenous offenders from the criminal justice system Summary: What we know - Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are vastly over-represented in the Australian juvenile and criminal justice systems. - Incarceration comes at a high cost through exposure to harsh prison environment, marginalisation, poor health outcomes and impact upon employment opportunities. - A person's contact with or progression through the justice systems can be reduced through diversion programs. - Indigenous Australians have lower participation and completion rates of diversion programs, particularly those who access mainstream programs. What works - Positive outcomes found for diversion programs include reduced drug and substance use, and improved social functioning. - There is some evidence that diversion programs reduce reoffending, but the evidence is not strong. - Diversion programs of between 12 and 18 months have better outcomes than those of very short or extended durations. - On-the-job work experience and other forms of support, such as mentoring, help reduce reoffending and promote reintegration into the community. - Culturally appropriate treatment initiatives and rehabilitation boost the participation in and completion of a diversionary program. - Programs that address the concerns of Indigenous defendants by involving Indigenous Elders or facilitators in delivery work better. What doesn't work - Programs with strict eligibility criteria are not effective as repeat offenders are often unable to take advantage of relevant and helpful programs. - Unrealistic participation requirements that affect an offender's ability to complete a program could encourage their continued involvement with the criminal justice system. - Diverting offenders to protracted programs when their crimes were minor in nature can be counterproductive. The nature and length of a diversion program should be in proportion to the severity of the offence and any risk of reoffence. In some cases, a jail sentence of lesser duration may have been preferred to the program ordered. - Focussing on illicit drugs often misses the target. Alcohol, and not substance abuse, is the major underlying problem for Indigenous offenders, but it is not addressed by most of the mainstream drug diversion programs. - A lack of committed funding can limit the reach and functioning of a diversionary program, particularly in rural and remote Australia. What we don't know - Process rather than outcomes is often the focus for measuring success of a program and it is therefore difficult to determine the effectiveness of many diversionary programs. - There is little by way of in-depth data and objective evaluations to determine the medium and long-term effectiveness of Australian diversionary programs. - Outcomes for Indigenous participants of mainstream programs are not always measured or reported separately. Consequently, the suitability of these programs for Indigenous clients has not been fully verified. - It is unclear whether some diversionary programs lead to net-widening - that is, they may increase rather than lessen the involvement of defendants with the justice system. Details: Canberra: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare & Melbourne: Australian Institute of Family Studies, 2013. 29p. Source: Internet Resource: Resource sheet no. 24: Accessed April 29, 2015 at: http://www.aihw.gov.au/uploadedFiles/ClosingTheGap/Content/Publications/2013/ctgc-rs24.pdf Year: 2013 Country: Australia URL: http://www.aihw.gov.au/uploadedFiles/ClosingTheGap/Content/Publications/2013/ctgc-rs24.pdf Shelf Number: 135411 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationDiversion ProgramsIndigenous OffendersIndigenous Peoples (Australia)Minority GroupsTreatment Programs |
Author: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration Title: Municipal Courts: An Effective Tool for Diverting People with Mental and Substance Use Disorders from the Criminal Justice System Summary: The Sequential Intercept Model (SIM) is a tool that enables communities to create coherent strategies to divert people with mental and substance use disorders from the criminal justice system. The mapping process associated with SIM . focuses on five discrete points of potential intervention, or "intercepts" (Munetz & Griffin, 2006): 1: Law enforcement; 2: Initial detention/first court appearance; 3: Jails/courts; 4: Reentry from detention into the community; and 5: Community corrections, probation, and parole. Much has been written about four of these intercepts. For example, the Crisis Intervention Team model has been disseminated broadly as a strategy to improve law enforcement interventions at Intercept 1. Mental health courts, drug courts, and other treatment courts have become an increasingly common part of the judicial landscape and define much of the conversation at Intercept 3. Reentry from jail or prison, Intercept 4, has become a core topic in general discussions regarding correctional policies at the federal, state, and local levels. SAMHSA's SSI/SSDI Outreach, Access and Recovery) (Dennis & Abreu, 2010) ease reentry on release from jail or prison. And while many communities lack much in the way of resources at Intercept 5, a literature has emerged that discusses specialized probation as a strategy to ensure longer community tenure (Skeem & Manchak, 2008). While each intercept presents opportunities for diversion, Intercept 2 may hold the most unexplored potential. This is because it is at Intercept 2 (initial detention and first court appearance) that the vast majority of individuals who come into contact with the criminal justice system appear. Many of these individuals have a mental illness and co-occurring substance use disorders; these are the individuals whom communities often try to divert. However, for a variety of reasons discussed below, this intercept is often overlooked. The purpose of this document is to turn community attention to the possibilities that Intercept 2, especially when the first appearance is at a municipal court, presents for diversion. The optimal diversion strategies that are most often overlooked and involve municipal courts are at first appearance (Intercept 2). Details: Rockville, MD: SAMHSA, 2015. 20p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 7, 2016 at: http://store.samhsa.gov/shin/content//SMA15-4929/SMA15-4929.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://store.samhsa.gov/shin/content//SMA15-4929/SMA15-4929.pdf Shelf Number: 138598 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationDiversion ProgramsDrug OffendersMentally Ill OffendersSubstance Abuse |
Author: LeCroy & Milligan Associates, Inc. Title: Northern Arizona Regional Behavioral Health Services (NARBHA) Jail Diversion Project Summary: In November 2005, NARBHA contracted with LeCroy & Milligan Associates, Inc. to conduct an evaluation of their Jail Diversion Project. The purpose of the evaluation was to provide information about how well the project is functioning and meeting its goals. During this past year, the evaluation team assisted NARBHA to develop evaluation capacity among the sites, identify important program implementation and outcome indicators, and develop an effective and realistic plan to incorporate consistent measures across all programs. This work provides the framework within which process and outcome evaluations can be conducted. While it had been anticipated that funding for the evaluation would continue for at least one more fiscal year, that did not come to fruition. Because some counties had not implemented their programs as of September 2006, when this report was written, and because some counties had only recently started their programs, evaluation data available for this report were very limited. Only Navajo County, which started its program in January 2006, had submitted data for their participants. The evaluation team also conducted a site visit in Navajo County in July 2006 during which a participant focus group and staff interviews were completed. The team also observed a mental health court team staffing and a court session. The findings from these efforts are presented later in this report. The evaluation team felt that other programs, such as the Mohave County mental health court, had not been in operation long enough to warrant site visits because programs often undergo significant changes during the early months of implementation as staff determine which procedures work best. The team did conduct telephone interviews in September 2006 with each county to gather information on program development and implementation progress. This information is presented in the Program Development and Implementation section. The evaluation team understood that the first project year would present program start-up challenges for the counties. For this reason, the team selected a limited number of evaluation goals related to program implementation and evaluation capacity to focus on during the first year. The purpose of the first phase of evaluation was to: Conduct a review of the mental health court literature to help determine appropriate process and outcome measures Develop a global data collection system, with input from program staff, that is applicable across sites for uniform data collection Describe each program and the target populations Identify key challenges and barriers to program implementation Describe major accomplishments Develop a comprehensive program logic model Each of these goals was met, to the extent possible, given the delayed start up of some of the programs. The remainder of this report is organized into the following sections: Literature review: Presents a summary of the latest thinking and research findings related to mental health courts. Program Development and Implementation: Provides information about each program's development and implementation progress. This sections also present findings from the evaluative efforts conducting with the Navajo County mental health court. Database and Forms: Describes the ACCESS database and data collection forms developed by the evaluation team working in concert with program staff. Summary and Recommendations Details: Tucson, AZ: LeCroy & Milligan Associates, 2006. 29p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 12, 2016 at: http://www.lecroymilligan.com/data/resources/narbha-final-report-final.pdf Year: 2006 Country: United States URL: http://www.lecroymilligan.com/data/resources/narbha-final-report-final.pdf Shelf Number: 145421 Keywords: Diversion ProgramsMental Health CourtsMental Health ProgramsMentally Ill OffendersProblem Solving Courts |
Author: Lore Joplin Consulting Title: Multnomah County Feasibility Assessment: Mental Health Jail Diversion Project Summary: This report was prepared in response to a Multnomah County Board of Commissioners fiscal year 2015 budget note to investigate the need and feasibility of enhancing diversion opportunities for people in county jails who have a mental illness. The budget note was proposed by Commissioner Judy Shiprack following a trip taken by a small group of county stakeholders to visit and observe the nationally recognized jail diversion program in Bexar County, Texas. Nationally, an estimated 15 to 17 percent of people booked into jail have active symptoms of serious mental illness, such as schizophrenia, major depression, and bipolar disorder. This is three times the proportion among the general public. People in jail who have mental illness typically also have high rates of substance abuse disorders (up to 80 percent, according to some estimates3), they often are poor and/or homeless, and many have been repeatedly sexually and physically abused.4 They commonly have chronic physical health problems that will shorten their lifespan (by 13 to 30 years).5 Although people with serious mental illness often are stereotyped as aggressive, their criminality typically is limited to low-level nuisance crimes. When their behavior does include violent crimes, it is usually related not to their mental illness but to other factors, such as substance abuse.6 Once in jail, people who have a serious mental illness are vulnerable to intimidation and assault. Because the jail environment tends to exacerbate symptoms of mental illness, inmates with mental illness may act out or break jail rules, thus prolonging their incarceration.7 They also have high rates of recidivism—more than 70 percent in some jurisdictions.8 Clearly, diverting more of these individuals from jail to community-based services has the potential to cut criminal justice system costs, reduce recidivism, and provide more effective mental health treatment for offenders. It also would represent a more humane response to individuals in jail who have a mental health disorder. This report is intended to help Multnomah County better understand the population of people with mental illness in its jails and what opportunities there might be to divert more of them to community-based services. It explores topics such as how many people with mental illness there are in jail locally, what they are like, the reasons they are there, the strengths and weaknesses of the current jail diversion system, and the challenges of estimating the costs associated with detention and diversion. The report also presents recommendations that incorporate stakeholder input. Information in this report comes from four sources: a literature review, interviews with 23 local stakeholders, records on individuals in county jails who have a mental health disorder, and the results of a prioritization process completed by a stakeholder group. A range of stakeholders participated in the project, including elected officials, representatives of the local medical and social service systems, and employees of many departments and divisions of Multnomah County. Details: no data: Lore Jopling Consulting, 2015. 111p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 21, 2016 at: https://multco.us/file/38259/download Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: https://multco.us/file/38259/download Shelf Number: 147900 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationDiversion ProgramsJail InmatesJailsMentally Ill Offenders |
Author: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of the Inspector General, Audit Division Title: Audit of the Department's Use of Pretrial Diversion and Diversion-Based Court Programs as Alternatives to Incarceration Summary: The Smart on Crime initiative, announced by the Department of Justice (Department) in August 2013, highlighted five principles to reform the federal criminal justice system by, among other things, ensuring just punishments for low-level, non-violent offenders. Smart on Crime encouraged federal prosecutors in appropriate cases involving non-violent offenders to consider alternatives to incarceration such as pretrial diversion and diversion-based court programs where appropriate. Pretrial diversion and diversion-based court programs are alternatives to prosecution or incarceration that enable certain low-level and non-violent offenders to be diverted from traditional criminal justice proceedings, with the result being that the offender may receive no conviction or be sentenced to a lesser or no term of incarceration. Officials of the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys (EOUSA) told us that, while the Smart on Crime initiative contemplates greater use of diversion programs nationally, it does not mandate that each U.S. Attorney's Office (USAO) increase the use of diversion regardless of other priorities or local circumstances. Additionally, the Department's FY 2014-2018 Strategic Plan calls for the expansion of diversion programs as a way to reform and strengthen the federal criminal justice system and address prison overcrowding. The leadership of the Department has acknowledged that the level of federal prison spending is unsustainable. For fiscal year (FY) 2016, the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) budget was $7.5 billion and accounted for 26 percent of the Department's discretionary budget, figures that have risen markedly in the past 15 years. As of September 2015, the BOP operated at 26 percent over capacity and is projected to remain overcrowded through FY 2016 and beyond. Traditional pretrial diversion is initiated at the discretion of the USAOs. It generally involves a decision to defer prosecution in order to allow an offender the opportunity to successfully complete a period of supervision by the Probation or Pretrial Services offices of the U.S. Courts with the agreement that, if successful, the USAO will not prosecute the offender and any pending criminal charges will be dismissed.1 Subject to the criteria in the U.S. Attorney’s Manual, each USAO determines for itself which offenders are eligible for diversion. Diversion-based court programs, by contrast, are generally run by the U.S. Courts in partnership with the USAOs and Probation and Pretrial Services. These The Smart on Crime initiative, announced by the Department of Justice (Department) in August 2013, highlighted five principles to reform the federal criminal justice system by, among other things, ensuring just punishments for low-level, non-violent offenders. Smart on Crime encouraged federal prosecutors in appropriate cases involving non-violent offenders to consider alternatives to incarceration such as pretrial diversion and diversion-based court programs where appropriate. Pretrial diversion and diversion-based court programs are alternatives to prosecution or incarceration that enable certain low-level and non-violent offenders to be diverted from traditional criminal justice proceedings, with the result being that the offender may receive no conviction or be sentenced to a lesser or no term of incarceration. Officials of the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys (EOUSA) told us that, while the Smart on Crime initiative contemplates greater use of diversion programs nationally, it does not mandate that each U.S. Attorney's Office (USAO) increase the use of diversion regardless of other priorities or local circumstances. Additionally, the Department's FY 2014-2018 Strategic Plan calls for the expansion of diversion programs as a way to reform and strengthen the federal criminal justice system and address prison overcrowding. The leadership of the Department has acknowledged that the level of federal prison spending is unsustainable. For fiscal year (FY) 2016, the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) budget was $7.5 billion and accounted for 26 percent of the Department's discretionary budget, figures that have risen markedly in the past 15 years. As of September 2015, the BOP operated at 26 percent over capacity and is projected to remain overcrowded through FY 2016 and beyond. Traditional pretrial diversion is initiated at the discretion of the USAOs. It generally involves a decision to defer prosecution in order to allow an offender the opportunity to successfully complete a period of supervision by the Probation or Pretrial Services offices of the U.S. Courts with the agreement that, if successful, the USAO will not prosecute the offender and any pending criminal charges will be dismissed. Subject to the criteria in the U.S. Attorney's Manual, each USAO determines for itself which offenders are eligible for diversion. Diversion-based court programs, by contrast, are generally run by the U.S. Courts in partnership with the USAOs and Probation and Pretrial Services. These programs typically address criminal charges filed against low-level, non-violent offenders through supervision, drug testing, and treatment services. Diversion-based court programs can target a range of offenses, though they often focus on specific offenses such as drug crimes or particular categories of offenders. While some diversion-based court programs result in a full dismissal of charges, others may result in a conviction with a sentence of probation or little incarceration. The Office of the Inspector General (OIG) initiated this audit to evaluate the (1) design and implementation of federal pretrial diversion and diversion-based court programs, (2) variances in the usage of the programs among the USAOs, and (3) cost savings associated with successful program participants. We found that, since the announcement of the Smart on Crime initiative, the Department has taken some steps to address its historically limited use of pretrial diversion and diversion-based court programs. Between August 2013 and March 2014, EOUSA distributed informational materials designed to inform the USAOs about diversionary court programs and provided training and workshops on alternatives to incarceration. EOUSA also conducts an annual survey of the USAOs' diversion programs. We attempted to obtain from EOUSA the total number of offenders who were placed into a pretrial diversion program as well as the number of unsuccessful participants, which we believe are crucial metrics needed to evaluate the program’s effectiveness. However, we were told that neither EOUSA nor the USAOs track this information. As a result, the Department cannot fully measure the success of its pretrial diversion program. We were able to obtain from EOUSA the number of offenders who successfully completed a pretrial diversion program from FY 2012 through FY 2014 for all 94 USAOs, which was 1,520 offenders. In order to assess whether additional offenders were potentially suitable for pretrial diversion, we determined the number of federal defendants convicted of low-level, non-violent offenses based on U.S. Sentencing Commission statistics. In undertaking this analysis, we applied the same criteria used by the Department’s National Institute of Justice (NIJ) in its 1994 report identifying the universe of federal low-level, non-violent drug offenders, namely: (1) a category I criminal history, (2) zero criminal history points, (3) no weapons offense conviction, (4) no aggravated role adjustment, and (5) no prior arrest for a crime of violence or controlled substance.3 We further restricted this universe by only including offenders who fell within Zone A of the U.S. Sentencing Commission sentencing table and therefore were eligible for a probationary sentence with no conditions of confinement. We also excluded those offenders sentenced under the guideline for unlawfully entering or remaining in the United States because, as a practical matter, offenders illegally in this country are rarely considered for alternative dispositions. Applying all of these criteria, we identified 7,106 offenders during the 3-year period of our review as potentially suitable for pretrial diversion. Of this total, 1,520 offenders successfully completed a pretrial diversion program. We were unable to assess whether the remaining 5,586 potentially suitable offenders would have met the particular USAO's eligibility requirements for its pretrial diversion program or would have been deemed suitable candidates for supervision by Probation and Pretrial Services. We also found, based on the data available to us, that the use of pretrial diversion appeared to be substantially less in some USAOs than in others. Forty-four USAOs (just under one-half of all USAOs), had between zero and five successful pretrial diversion participants. With regard to diversion-based court programs, the vast majority of federal judicial districts (78 out of 94) had no program as of August 2015. Unlike for pretrial diversion, the Department had not established criteria that the USAOs must consider for determining admission into a diversion-based court program. We attempted to obtain from EOUSA the number of offenders who participated in a federal diversion-based court program in past years, but were told the information was not available. As with our analysis of potentially suitable pretrial diversion offenders, we identified those offenders potentially suitable for a diversion-based court program from an analysis of U.S. Sentencing Commission statistics using the criteria from the 1994 NIJ report, but included offenders who fell within either Zone A or Zone B of the U.S. Sentencing Commission sentencing table. Again excluding offenders sentenced for unlawfully entering or remaining in the United States, we determined that 12,468 offenders sentenced from FY 2012 through FY 2014 were potentially suitable for diversion-based court programs. However, as with traditional pretrial diversion, we were unable to assess whether these potentially suitable offenders would have met the entrance and eligibility requirements of diversion-based court programs in their individual sentencing jurisdictions. We found the Department had not evaluated the effectiveness of the USAOs' pretrial diversion programs or its efforts to pursue their use. An evaluation would assess the Department’s progress toward accomplishing the goals established in the Department’s Strategic Plan and its Smart on Crime initiative. The Department also has not evaluated the potential for pretrial diversion programs to reduce prosecution or incarceration costs, and we were unable to obtain data that would have allowed us to do so. Given this absence of data, we instead estimated the incarceration costs that the Department spent on offenders we identified as potentially suitable for pretrial diversion. We determined that of the 7,106 offenders who completed or who were potentially suitable to complete a pretrial diversion program, 4,530 received no prison sentence while 2,576 received some sentence of incarceration. Based on the amount of prison time these 2,576 offenders received, we estimated that from FY 2012 through FY 2014 the Department expended $26,313,168, or $10,215 per offender. These estimates do not take into account the additional costs to the Department to prosecute these cases or to the U.S. Courts to handle them. Nor does this amount include the costs of the pretrial diversion program itself. We believe the Department should consider how it can assess going forward whether prosecuting offenders meeting these criteria are consistent with two of the Smart on Crime initiative principles, namely that prosecutors should pursue the most serious cases that implicate clear, substantial federal interests, and that prosecutors should pursue alternatives to incarceration for low-level, non-violent crimes. For diversion-based court programs, we were able to estimate incarceration costs avoided by a sample of successful participants in three judicial districts. Based on these estimates, we found that the potential for cost savings may be substantial. In the example with the largest sample size, our analysis of court records from the Central District of Illinois identified an estimated potential cost savings from $7,721,258 to $9,665,811 for 49 judgmentally selected successful program participants, or an average of $157,577 to $197,261 per offender. We also found that the Department has not studied the effect pretrial diversion and diversion-based court programs may have on recidivism. We reviewed the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s National Crime Information Center (NCIC) records for the 39 participants who had completed the Central District of Illinois diversion-based court program between November 2002 and February 2011 and found that 9 of these individuals (23 percent) were convicted for a new offense, re-arrested, or had their supervision revoked within 2 years of their diversion-based court program graduation date.6 By comparison, the general recidivism rate for federal inmates has been estimated as high as 41 percent. We recognize that our sample size was small, and believe that a broader study by the Department of the effect of diversion-based court programs on recidivism is warranted to determine if these results are borne out on a more widespread and systemic basis. We make 3 recommendations to the Office of the Deputy Attorney General and 2 recommendations to EOUSA to strengthen the use of pretrial diversion and diversion-based court programs in order to meet the Department’s goals and ensure that alternatives to prosecution are available and utilized where appropriate. Details: Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of the Inspector General, 2016. 60p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed January 26, 2017 at: https://oig.justice.gov/reports/2016/a1619.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: https://oig.justice.gov/reports/2016/a1619.pdf Shelf Number: 145405 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationCosts of Criminal JusticeCriminal Justice ReformDiversion ProgramsPretrial Diversion |
Author: Youth Justice Board (New York City) Title: Homeless Not Hopless: A Report on Homeless Youth and the Justice System in New York City Summary: report presents the findings and recommendations of the Youth Justice Board, a youth leadership program that gives teenagers an opportunity to inform public debate about issues that affect them. During the 2016-17 school year, members examined the intersection between youth homelessness and the justice system in New York City in order to identify opportunities to better support homeless youth, reduce their interactions with the justice system, and prevent homelessness in the future. Recommendations in the report include policy changes to improve diversion programs and access to housing for homeless youth, and to increase support for LGBTQ youth in foster care. Details: New York: Center for Court Innovations, 2017. 60p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 29, 2017 at: http://www.courtinnovation.org/sites/default/files/documents/YJB_Report2017.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: http://www.courtinnovation.org/sites/default/files/documents/YJB_Report2017.pdf Shelf Number: 146470 Keywords: Diversion ProgramsHomeless Youth Homelessness Runaways Status Offenders |
Author: Kubiak, Sheryl Title: Statewide Jail Diversion Pilot Program Implementation Process Report April - September 2015 Summary: In 2014, the Mental Health Diversion Council (MHDC), through the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services (MDHHS), sought proposals for jail diversion initiatives statewide. The intent was to address the needs of mentally ill and developmentally disabled individuals, thus decreasing their involvement with the criminal justice system. Applicants were to propose interventions at one or more points along the Sequential Intercept Model framework. The overarching goal of the Diversion Council is to determine if these 'pilot' intervention strategies are successful, and if so, could they be replicated in other counties. Recognizing that communities would already have strengths and weaknesses in their jail diversion activities, the Diversion Council encouraged communities to utilize their resources to bolster gaps in diversion activities already underway within their community. This report is the first in a series of reports that assess the processes and outcomes of these pilot projects. As the first, this implementation report provides preliminary data and a summary of the commonalities and differences across the sites. It will serve as a companion to the forthcoming outcome reports (i.e. short term outcomes report in fall 2016; long term outcomes 2017). Each report builds upon the others. The goal of the implementation report is to facilitate an understanding of the unique characteristics of each program, while understanding the common challenges and successes with implementation of diversion programs across the state. Understanding the unique characteristics of each program allows us to more fully appreciate the forthcoming outcomes, as well as the differences between programs. Similarly, understanding common success and challenges across programs assists the Diversion Council in their efforts to create intervention opportunities statewide and to facilitate state-level policy change. Findings Regarding Implementation of Jail Diversion Services Seven of the eight sites engaged in jail-based services - all considered post-booking diversion programs. An absolute strength of the diversion pilots is the enhanced collaboration between CMH and local law enforcement/jails across counties. This is particularly true of jail services, when CMH was involved in providing within jail services in three counties for the first time. An objective measure of the prevalence of serious mental health issues among those booked into the jail was conducted by the evaluation team and compared to the number of individuals identified as having mental health problems through routine processes within the jail. The agreement/disagreement between these numbers provides a baseline for the jails, as well as a potential impetus to examine jail practices. The specific jail diversion model chosen by each county as well as how their programs are implemented has resulted in wide variability across the sites. Factors that will influence outcomes are as follows: Jail-based Service Factors: Because sites tailored their intervention plan to the unique circumstances of their community, differences across sites that may affect outcomes include: the intervention type (advocacy, treatment, and/or support services); identification and screening of mental health issues within the jail; coordination of care (i.e., Is jail-based care coordinated with a contracted provider or is it provided by the grantee?); and the amount of time mental health program personnel had to build trust with jail staff and administrators. - Community-level Factors: Outcomes will likely be affected by the supportive community environment and availability of resources. Therefore, counties with access to a full continuum of care, including psychiatric beds and similar medication formularies, will likely have better outcomes. Similarly, resources to engage in jail 'in-reach' as well as continual community outreach will likely be associated with better mental health outcomes - Measurement Factors. In assessing later outcomes, there are specific issues that surfaced regarding measurement during the implementation period. Similar to CIT, a common understanding of the definition of diversion would be helpful (note: the evaluation team has coined 'current' and 'future' diversion activities). In addition, as program models were altered during implementation, programs need to be defined more specifically (i.e., When and how does an individual successful complete the program? Duration of services? Aftercare?) to determine which service model is associated with positive outcomes. Perspectives of the Current Projects: Lessons Learned During Implementation The multiple approaches being implemented across the state offer a unique opportunity to assess the success and barriers of each approach and to think about lessons learned. - Importance of advisory council. Ensure that criminal justice and mental health treatment decision makers are at the table from the very beginning and meet on a regular basis. - Time to build rapport and trust between partners. Provide time during the initial stages of grant implementation for sites to build relationships and establish a stakeholder team. - Benefits of multi-year initiatives. Launch diversion initiatives as multi-year, not one-year grants. Allow for modification and provide some flexibility and guidance for changes to the model midstream. - Desire for enhanced learning and communication across sites. Provide regular cross-site learning opportunities and ongoing technical assistance. - Expand services to non-CMH enrolled individuals with mental health concerns. Consider ongoing strategies that allow for services to be expanded to individuals with mental health concerns who are not enrolled in community mental health services. Details: East Lansing: Michigan State University, 2015. 110p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 22, 2017 at: https://www.michigan.gov/documents/snyder/MSU_Implementation_Process_Report_FINAL_033016_526665_7.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: https://www.michigan.gov/documents/snyder/MSU_Implementation_Process_Report_FINAL_033016_526665_7.pdf Shelf Number: 146810 Keywords: Developmentally Disabled Persons Diversion ProgramsJail Diversion Mental Health Services Mentally Ill Persons |
Author: Picard-Fritsche, Sarah Title: Risk Assessment and Misdemeanor Validation in Cook County, Illinois A Validation of the Criminal Court Assessment Tool Summary: The Cook County State's Attorney's Office (SAO) is the second largest prosecutorial office in the nation and the largest in the state of Illinois. Over 100,000 misdemeanor cases are filed in the county each year, overwhelming jails, lower criminal courts, and pre-trial services agencies. However, since 2012, the SAO has routed more than 2,000 misdemeanor cases to its Misdemeanor Deferred Prosecution Program (MDPP), which is available to defendants whose cases are processed in select branch or district courts located throughout Cook County. Participating defendants agree to complete community or social service mandates in exchange for having their charges dismissed and, upon successful completion, the conviction expunged from their records. In 2014, the Alternative Prosecution Unit of the SAO applied for and received funding from the Bureau of Justice Assistance's Smart Prosecution Initiative to expand the Misdemeanor Deferred Prosecution Program to include two additional courts, the Markham courthouse in the suburban 6th district and the 34th Branch court on the northeast side of Chicago. While serving the same misdemeanor target population, the expanded model, which became known as the Misdemeanor Deferred Prosecution Enhancement Program (MDPEP), was modified to include the use of a risk-need assessment tool that would support the referral of MDPEP participants to appropriate levels of supervision and treatment. By comparison, the older diversion model, implemented in other courts in 2012, did not employ an evidence-based recidivism risk-needs assessment and referred all participants to one of two intervention tracks. After considering several risk-need assessment tools, MDPEP project staff adopted the Criminal Court Assessment Tool (C-CAT), a relatively brief 30-item tool that was originally developed in 2014 on a sample of 964 defendants appearing in misdemeanor diversion programs in New York City. The C-CAT is uniquely suited to the MDPEP population, as it is explicitly designed to be brief enough to be utilized in high-volume court settings; to be accurate for a purely misdemeanor population; and to assist practitioners in identifying treatable needs that are either directly linked to recidivism or relevant for successful correctional intervention. A copy of the C-CAT adopted by Cook County is included in Appendix A of this report. Details: New York: Center for Court Innovation, 2018. 27p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 13, 2018 at: https://www.courtinnovation.org/sites/default/files/media/documents/2018-06/cook_county_ccat_validation.pdf Year: 2018 Country: United States URL: https://www.courtinnovation.org/sites/default/files/media/documents/2018-06/cook_county_ccat_validation.pdf Shelf Number: 152932 Keywords: Criminal Court Deferred Prosecution Diversion ProgramsEvidence-Based Practices Misdemeanors Risk-Need Assessment |
Author: Yale Law School, Global Health Justice Partnership Title: Diversion from Justice; A Rights-Based Analysis of Local Summary: The past decade has seen a national rise in the promotion and establishment of "diversion" programs as alternatives to traditional criminal justice system pathways and processes. While the landscape of diversionary programming is rapidly evolving and dramatically varied, most programs are united by a rhetorical aim to move individuals who commit lower-level offenses away from incarceration and re-penalization and towards "rehabilitative" services. Most recently, this "divert and rehabilitate" logic has been applied to prostitution-related criminal charges, leading to the proliferation of what we aggregately refer to in this Working Paper as "prostitution diversion programs," or PDPs. While progressive at face value, PDPs lack the evidence base and public accountability mechanisms to support their claims of doing good in the lives of people selling sex. In many cases, PDPs simultaneously position the sellers of sex as "victims," but in fact embed their treatment in the criminal justice systems, thus seamlessly collapsing of all sex work into a sorely misguided trafficking frame while retaining coercive control of people in the sex sector. At the same time, the PDP approach avoids the harder and more important inquiries into why buying and selling sex ought to be criminal at all (absent other crimes), and why and if courts are appropriate bodies for assessing service needs and compelling therapeutic treatments. Diversion from Justice: A Rights-Based Analysis of Local "Prostitution Diversion Programs" and their Impacts on People in the Sex Sector in the United States, by the Global Health Justice Partnership of the Yale Law School and School of Public Health, in cooperation with the Sex Workers Project of the Urban Justice Center-NYC, takes as its starting point a skepticism of criminal justice system involvement in the management and provision of social services, particularly when the communities forced into its gates – in this case, those engaged in the sex sector or presumed to be - are deeply marginalized and disempowered by the same state touting its beneficence. Our distrust is also linked to an overarching concern that the criminal law has shown little evidence of positive impact in the lives of sex workers, and that genuine progress in criminal justice reform is not possible without the complete decriminalization of sex work and associated activities. Prostitution diversion programs present numerous challenges, both for sex workers stuck in the web of the criminal justice system and for researchers seeking to understand their implications in a systematic way. This Working Paper represents one of the most thorough attempts to date to make an account of the hyper-local, opaque, and poorly understood national trend toward prostitution diversion through building a provisional taxonomy for categorization as well as a justice-informed framework for evaluation. The report is structured as follows: - The Introduction (Section I) to this Working Paper situates PDPs in their broader political and social contexts, briefly outlining their historical evolution and beginning to trouble the ideological foundations upon which contemporary programs are laid. The Introduction makes clear the need for the present report: while the number of PDPs - and therefore the reach of the criminal justice system - continues to expand, there is an alarming dearth of information on their actual impacts on the health, rights, and dignity of defendant/participants. - Section II of the report assembles a national mapping and taxonomic scheme of PDPs operating at the time of primary research in 2016, systematically categorizing the different practices, frameworks, and structures that comprise municipal PDPs across the U.S. This section sequentially lays out how PDPs operate on a logistical level, from program development and entry, to participation and service requirements, to exit processes. This cataloging of programmatic elements throws into sharp relief the ways in which the term "PDP" masks what is actually an enormous diversity of very local, jurisdiction-driven processes that share little overlap in their operations. The lack of standardization and highly context-specific arrangements make these programs difficult to monitor, and therefore difficult to hold accountable with regards to potential injustices or harms to rights - or even to their own stated goals. - Section III of the report proposes a rubric by which PDPs can be evaluated against their own goals, as well as against basic tenants of social justice that most purport to uphold. Our analytical review of PDPs and criminal legal provision of social services reveals that these programs often fail to uphold the human rights and dignity of defendant/participants given their intrinsically coercive design and implementation; that they do not consistently provide available, accessible, acceptable, and quality health and social services to sex workers, nor do they have the intentions and resources to meet the structural needs of sex workers; that they adjudicate in ad hoc and unreviewable ways that further entrench sex workers in court and criminal justice systems; and that they are not implemented in ways that are transparent, sustainable, and accountable to those most affected. To highlight some of the most egregious examples, we encountered programs that sought to monitor and control personal relationships, both intimate and familial, of defendant/participants; one where defendant/participants were required to perform unpaid labor (sell beer in sports stadiums) in exchange for the social service (in this case, housing); and another in which the PDP-affiliated service organization disguised their fundamentalist and religiously-charged rescue model in rhetoric of "freeing" women, but the materials make clear that freedom is defined by the organization's understanding of the life God wanted for them. - Finally, Section IV of the report offers concluding remarks and a set of recommendations for PDP reform, emphasizing the need for sustained research into localized practices, as well as internal reviews of each program with an eye towards radically minimizing the scope of criminal justice involvement. While the major inconsistencies across PDPs in the U.S. muddies any attempt at evaluating PDPs as a family of interventions, their shared positioning (as structural alternatives) within the criminal justice system triggers alarms regarding court overreach and compromised rights and well-being of sex workers, underscoring the need to shift power towards community-based and - led systems of accessing services. This Working Paper, with its national scoping and analysis, should be read in conjunction with another similarly framed GHJP/SWP report entitled Un-Meetable Promises: Rhetoric and Reality in New York City's Human Trafficking Intervention Courts, on the prostitution "diversion" courts in New York City known as "Human Trafficking Intervention Courts" (HTICs). Many of the analyses and concerns raised in the national survey are echoed and expanded in our analysis of practices in a single city setting. This complementary report can be found on the Yale GHJP website at: https://law.yale.edu/ghjp Details: New Haven, CT: Yale Law School and Yale School of Public Health, 2018. 79p. Source: Internet Resource: Working Paper: Accessed November 27, 2018 at: https://law.yale.edu/system/files/area/center/ghjp/documents/diversion_from_justice_pdp_report_ghjp_2018rev.pdf Year: 2018 Country: United States URL: https://law.yale.edu/system/files/area/center/ghjp/documents/diversion_from_justice_pdp_report_ghjp_2018rev.pdf Shelf Number: 153848 Keywords: Diversion ProgramsProstitutesProstitutionProstitution Diversion ProgramsSex Workers |
Author: Center for Health and Justice at TASC Title: No Entry: A Survey of Prosecutorial Diversion in Illinois Summary: "No Entry: A Survey of Prosecutorial Diversion in Illinois," presents information collected on program authorization, oversight, target populations, goals, structure, services, outcomes, and evaluation. It offers observations and recommendations intended to guide criminal justice practitioners and other stakeholders in the development, implementation, expansion, replication, and improvement of diversion programs. As criminal justice reform efforts take hold across the country, diversion programs and initiatives operating at the front end of the justice system represent one of the most promising reform strategies. In these interventions, criminal justice system practitioners work in partnership with stakeholders to deflect and redirect eligible individuals out of the system and into community-based services. They stand in contrast to decades of public policies and practices that have resulted in record incarceration rates, unsustainable costs, and long-lasting collateral consequences harming generations of families and communities. In some programs and initiatives, diversion from the system can occur without even the logging of an arrest. In others, prosecution or sentencing is deferred while participants engage in supervised programming, and charges are dropped when it is completed successfully. By intervening early, caseloads and jail days can be reduced, criminal records can be prevented, and access to services that put men and women on the path to health and stability can be accelerated. Diversion can prevent the costs and harmful collateral consequences-to the justice system, the community, and the individual-of repeated arrests, convictions, and incarcerations. A variety of diversion models and approaches have been implemented, and some have been researched and evaluated with regard to effectiveness and impact. Local jurisdictions seeking to apply effective interventions that meet their needs to improve outcomes and spend resources wisely are increasingly incorporating risk-need-responsitivity principles designed to identify the needs of individuals that, if effectively addressed, would reduce re-offending. As jurisdictions take steps to address recidivism and the nexus between drug use, mental illness, and criminal behavior, and as the body of knowledge on these programs continues to expand, practitioners are becoming more versed in a variety of critical issues that have surfaced in national conversations and must be considered locally. Building on its 2013 report, No Entry: A National Survey of Criminal Justice Diversion Programs and Initiatives, and in recognition of the many diversion programs that have emerged under the strong and innovative leadership of local prosecutors, TASC's Center for Health and Justice (CHJ) set out to explore more deeply the landscape of prosecutorial diversion in Illinois, and specifically that which affords adults an opportunity to be accountable for their behavior without the imposition of a criminal conviction on public record. To that end, between May and December 2015, project staff conducted a survey among prosecutors of diversion programs, practices, and initiatives operating in counties across the state, with an aim of informing program development, implementation of best and innovative practices, collaboration and knowledge exchange, and policy change designed to generate cost savings and achieve public health and safety goals. The project focused on prosecutors because of their unique position to convene partnerships and build collaborative solutions to local criminal justice problems, and because of their flexibility to influence and implement policies and strategies appropriate for the populations and crime patterns of their jurisdictions. A number of observations emerged from the survey analysis: 1. Programs define their goals not only through treatment and justice lenses, but also through individual and system lenses. 2. Most programs limit eligibility based on justice criteria - namely, offense or criminal history - and many are limited to first-time offenses. 3. Jurisdictions take advantage of available statutory options, and collaborate across agencies to develop programs. 4. Jurisdictions explore diversion alternatives throughout the justice system continuum, and the prosecutorial stage offers many opportunities for intercept. 5. Most programs access clinical services, and many access other supportive services. However, many were not able to reportthe use of evidence-based practices. 6. Programs use a variety of funding mechanisms, and many rely on local budgets and participant fees. 7. While many programs report outcomes, in most cases those outcomes do not rise to a statistical measure that can be analyzed or compared on level footing with other programs. Eight recommendations emerged from this analysis that are intended to guide criminal justice system practitioners and other stakeholders in the development, implementation, expansion, replication, and improvement of diversion programs. The recommendations are also intended to inform and motivate policymaker discussions and decisions, as diversion programs continue to proliferate and drive the next wave of criminal justice reform. 1. Incorporate research findings and evidence-based practices into diversion programs. 2. Apply resources to individuals and programs with potential to achieve the greatest impact. 3. Incorporate community-based behavioral health and social services into diversion programs, as appropriate, especially substance use and mental health services. 4. Leverage all available resources for community-based behavioral health and social services, and strongly advocate to protect and expand them. 5. Adopt standardized program goals, outcome and performance measures, and terminology. 6. Adopt standardized data collection and analysis models and mechanisms. 7. Develop a web-based, searchable directory of diversion programs in Illinois. 8. Develop opportunities for cross-system education,training, and technical assistance available to jurisdictions for the purpose of establishing, expanding, and improving prosecutorial diversion programs. The amplification of diversion as a viable and useful justice practice suggests new promise to transform encumbered systems and bring a culture of restoration to lives, families, and communities that have been eroded by justice system involvement. As a growing field, there are many opportunities for improvement in diversion practices-in how programs are designed, implemented, and evaluated; in how data are collected and shared; and in ensuring that community services are available and accessible for those who need them, and as soon as they need them. These recommendations offer a pathway toward realizing that new promise. Details: Chicago: Author, 2017. 30p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 25, 2019 at: http://www2.centerforhealthandjustice.org/sites/www2.centerforhealthandjustice.org/files/publications/IL-ProsecutorialDiversionSurvey-2017.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: http://www2.centerforhealthandjustice.org/sites/www2.centerforhealthandjustice.org/files/publications/IL-ProsecutorialDiversionSurvey-2017.pdf Shelf Number: 155516 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationCommunity-Based CorrectionsCriminal Justice ReformDiversion ProgramsProsecutorial DiversionProsecutors |
Author: Crest Advisory Title: Ending the inertia: a plan to transform outcomes for women offenders Summary: For more than a decade politicians have agreed on the need to improve outcomes for vulnerable women in the criminal justice system. However, this consensus has not lead to the policy change required to help women offenders. Too many remain caught up in a system which fails to identify their needs or circumstances and so fails to punish or to rehabilitate them effectively. With widespread agreement that reform is long overdue, this project has sought to identify the practical steps that will help to end the cycle of re-offending by women offenders. Working with Police and Crime Commissioners (PCCs), prisons, probation and health services, the police, and charities in Avon and Somerset and the West Midlands, we have developed blueprints for how these agencies can remove barriers to change and advance their own strategies for women offenders. Our work has focused on understanding why women are offending, which factors affect their engagement with services, what support is available to meet their needs and what would have the greatest impact on outcomes for them. We have concluded that political will and consensus around the problems/solutions are not enough to drive change. Instead, the following issues must be addressed: Centralisation: in such a centralised system, how do you design flexible, place-based services to address the specific and complex needs of a small percentage of the overall offender population? Fragmentation: a siloed justice system prevents a whole system approach; e.g. the move to on the day (fast delivery) pre-sentence reports processes cases quickly but prevents a proper assessment of the complex needs of women offenders Criminal-justice centric: the criminal justice system cannot on its own tackle the wider social needs which drive offending. Mainstream services in local government, the NHS and the voluntary sector are vital to We have identified a number of concrete, practical steps for PCCs, mayors, justice agencies and policy makers that can and should be taken to develop a more joined up, preventative approach: Know your local system: have a clear picture of local drivers of offending and services available to provide support. Mapping women's pathways through the justice system and the current state of local provision is a first step to understanding who is in the system and identifying the pressure points and anomalies within it. Have a local strategy: what works in Devon won't necessarily work in Derbyshire and a strategy for women offenders needs to be rooted in the specific circumstances of an area. Building a strategy around the specifics and circumstances of a locality binds stakeholders towards a common set of goals and priorities Take a whole system approach: if the goal is effective local alternatives to a formal criminal justice pathway, what is the best way to deliver this in your area? This might be through investment in new and existing women's centres, or co-locating services (e.g. with children's services or probation) or via an outreach model with women visited at home by key workers. Finally the fiscal context cannot be ignored. The L4.5 million funding from the Female Offender Strategy is woefully short of what is required to meet demand. Locally it is vital to build a strong financial case for change to pool existing resources around shared objectives, if no further resources are forthcoming. Details: London: Author, 2019. 80p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 6, 2019 at: https://static.wixstatic.com/ugd/b9cf6c_096f5e0d085747e7beb46b6c313e375c.pdf Year: 2019 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://static.wixstatic.com/ugd/b9cf6c_096f5e0d085747e7beb46b6c313e375c.pdf Shelf Number: 156210 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationDiversion ProgramsFemale OffendersGender-Specific ProgramsWomen Offenders |
Author: Davis, Robert C. Title: A synthesis of literature on the effectiveness of community orders Summary: This report presents the findings of a review of the literature on the effectiveness of community orders in reducing re-offending. The National Audit Office (NAO) has begun research on a range of measures used by the government to divert offenders from prison and into community-based treatment and interventions. The NAO commissioned RAND Europe to conduct this review to identify and synthesize international research about the effectiveness of community orders in reducing re-offending. In this report, we review research on ten of the common requirements contained in community orders. Through examining reviews, systematic reviews and meta-analyses we draw conclusions about the state of research in the areas of unpaid work, mental health treatment, education/skills training, drug treatment, anger management, alcohol treatment, programmes for perpetrators of domestic abuse, regular probation, intensive probation and cognitive/behavioural programming. We also assess the strength of the evidence on whether each of these requirements affects the likelihood of re-offending. We find that the quality of research on the effectiveness of community-based interventions for offenders is extremely variable. However, in two areas - cognitive/behavioural programming and drug treatment - rigorous research exists that points to a reduction in the odds of re-offending. In four other areas - programmes for domestic abuse perpetrators, unpaid work, education and basic skills training and intensive probation - existing studies have not suggested that the programmes have a positive effect on recidivism. Finally, in four areas - anger management, probation, and alcohol and mental health treatment - the question of impact on re-offending remains unsettled. This review highlights the need for more rigorous research - especially randomized trials - into the requirements that constitute community orders. This report will be of particular interest to the NAO and relevant government departments, such as the Ministry of Justice and National Probation Service. It is also relevant for policy makers as well as a wider audience concerned with the challenge of designing and implementing effective and efficient interventions to divert offenders from prison and into the community. Details: Santa Monica, CA: RAND Europe, 2008. 65p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 14, 2019 at: https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/technical_reports/2008/RAND_TR518.pdf Year: 2008 Country: International URL: https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/technical_reports/2008/RAND_TR518.pdf Shelf Number: 113270 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationCommunity OrdersCommunity-Based CorrectionsCommunity-Based TreatmentDiversion Programs |