Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: November 22, 2024 Fri
Time: 11:53 am
Time: 11:53 am
Results for diversion
33 results foundAuthor: Clark, John W. Title: Pretrial Diversion and the Law: A Sampling of Four Decades of Appellate Court Rulings Summary: The document follows the diversion process, beginning with the legal issues that have arisen regarding eligibility determination and admission, then moves on to enrollment in the diversion program, the terms that are made part of the diversion agreement, dismissal of charges upon successful completion of diversion, dealing with non-compliance with diversion terms, and the use of diversion information outside of the diversion setting. Details: Washington, DC: PJI, Pretrial Justice Institute, 2007 Source: Year: 2007 Country: United States URL: Shelf Number: 115196 Keywords: Appellate CourtDiversion |
Author: Bradford, Deborah Title: An Evaluation of the NSW Court Liaison Services Summary: This report focuses on the court diversion services provided in New South Wales for the purpose of assessing and diverting mentally unwell individuals from the criminal justice system into treatment. Details: Sydney: NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, 2009 Source: Year: 2009 Country: Australia URL: Shelf Number: 115819 Keywords: CourtsDiversion |
Author: Wong, Katrina Title: Bail Me Out: NSW Young Offenders and Bail Summary: There is a significant gap in policy development with respect to the provision of appropriate assistance to young people on bail. There is no policy or residential service model funded by the Australian Government that supports young people's adherence to their bail conditions in a community setting. There is also significant inconsistency between the evidence base for diverting young people from the justice system and the practices of policing and monitoring this group of young people. The findings from this study identified significant areas of concern that warrant further research on which policy and practice in the juvenile justice system, could be based. Details: Marrickville, New South Wales, Australia: Youth Justice Coalition, 2009 Source: http://www.yjconline.net/BailMeOut.pdf Year: 2009 Country: Australia URL: http://www.yjconline.net/BailMeOut.pdf Shelf Number: 116658 Keywords: BailDiversionJuvenile Justice Systems |
Author: Virginia. State Crime Commission Title: HJR 113 (2008) Final Report: Study of Virginia's Juvenile Justice System: To the Governor and the General Assembly of Virginia Summary: From the executive summary: "during the 2006 Session of the Virginia General Assembly, Delegate Brian Moran introduced House Joint Resolution 136 (HJR 136), which directed the Virginia State Crime Commission to study the Virginia juvenile justice system over a two-year period. Specifically, the Commission was to examine recidivism, disproportionate minority contact within the juvenile justice system, quality of and access to legal counsel, accountability in the courts, and diversion. The Commission was also tasked with analyzing Title 16.1 of the Code of Virginia to determine the adequacy and effectiveness of current statutes and procedures relating to juvenile delinquency. Because of the detailed information that was produced during the first two years of the study, an additional year was needed to fully examine the newly-identified issues in conjunction with the current matters cited in the initial resolution." Details: Richmond, Commonwealth of Virginia, 2009 Source: Year: 2009 Country: United States URL: Shelf Number: 116673 Keywords: DiversionJuvenile DelinquencyJuvenile Justice SystemRecidivism |
Author: New Mexico. Governor Richardson's Task Force on Prison Reform Title: Increasing Public Safety in New Mexico Before, During and After Incarceration: New Directions for Reform in New Mexico Corrections Summary: From the executive summary: "This report examines the current corrections system in New Mexico. It proposes a comprehensive reform package to increase public safety, control prison population, and decrease recidivism rates. It also proposes a system to divert offenders, consistent with public safety, and in appropriate circumstances, from prison into treatment and other alternatives to incarceration. The Task Force recommends a more concerted effort to coordinate state resources and a shoring-up of infrastructures to treat endemic substance abuse and other behavioral health problems among offenders and ex-offenders. Additionally, the Task Force recommends the creation of new employment, education, and other opportunities for ex-offenders in order to facilitate successful reentry and transition back into the community. Details: Santa Fe, NM: 2008. 59p., app. Source: Year: 2008 Country: United States URL: Shelf Number: 116545 Keywords: DiversionPrisonersRecidivismReentry |
Author: Criminal Justice Joint Inspection Title: A joint inspection on work prior to sentence with offenders with mental disorders. Summary: This inspection focused on cases involving offenders who have been identified prior to sentence as having a mental disorder, and how these cases have been handled in practice. The inspectors found neither criminal justice nor health professionals were in favor of diverting an increased number of offenders from prosecution. Most felt that the majority should be combined with rather than instead of court action. However, in the minority of cases who were suitable for diversion, there did appear to be scope for greater efficiency by diverting these earlier in the process, before they got to the court stage. Most of the areas visited would also benefit from a better quality and more timely psychiatric report service once at the court stage. More generally, it was clear that treatment did help some current offenders to stop offending, so sustained access to treatment continues to be very important. Details: Manchester: HM Inspectorate of Probation, 2009, 56p. Source: Internet Source Year: 2009 Country: United Kingdom URL: Shelf Number: 117573 Keywords: DiversionMental HealthMentally Ill OffendersSentencing |
Author: Maryland Judiciary Research Consortium Title: Process Evaluation of Harford County Mental Health Diversion Program Summary: The Maryland Judiciary, Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC), under a grant awarded by Governor’s Office of Crime Control and Prevention (GOCCP) partnered with the University of Maryland, Institute for Governmental Service and Research (IGSR), and Morgan State University, School of Community Health and Policy, to conduct a process evaluation of the Harford County Mental Health Diversion Program (MHDP) located in District Court in Bel Air, Maryland. To assist in providing context for this report, Appendix A includes a summary of the literature concerning court-based mental health interventions. The report includes findings regarding how the Harford County MHDP was originally designed to operate and how the program has been implemented. Information on the MHDP was gathered through: face-to-face individual interviews with the MHDP team comprising 10 members, including six from the criminal justice system and four treatment providers; data on program participants compiled by the Harford County State’s Attorney’s Office; and a review of program documents, which include written policies and procedures, minutes from planning meetings, and grant proposals. Details: Baltimore: Maryland Judiciary, Administrative Office of the Courts, 2010. 88p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 21, 2010 at: http://www.courts.state.md.us/opsc/mhc/pdfs/evalutations/harfordmhdpprocessevaluation3-9-10.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://www.courts.state.md.us/opsc/mhc/pdfs/evalutations/harfordmhdpprocessevaluation3-9-10.pdf Shelf Number: 119842 Keywords: DiversionMental Health CourtsMentally Ill Offenders |
Author: Lulham, Rohan Title: The Magistrates Early Referral Into Treatment Program: Impact of Program Participation on Re-Offending by Defendants with a Drug Use Problem Summary: This bulletin reports on the evaluation of re-offending outcomes for the Magistrates Early Referral Into Treatment (MERIT) drug diversion program in New South Wales, Australia. MERIT provides defendants in NSW Local Courts with the option of undertaking formal drug treatment while on bail. Re-offending outcomes for a cohort of 2,396 defendants who participated in the MERIT program were compared with a comparison group of defendants who did not participate in the MERIT program but who broadly met the eligibility criteria. To estimate the impact of the program we used a treatment effects model with correction for selection bias. Acceptance into the MERIT program, regardless of completion, was found to significantly reduce the number of defendants committing any theft re-offence by an estimated four percentage points. Acceptance and completion of the MERIT program significantly reduced the number of defendants committing any type of offence by an estimated 12 percentage points, and any theft re-offence by four percentage points. This evaluation provides strong support that participation in the MERIT program reduces defendants’ propensity to commit theft offences and, for those who complete the program, substantially reduces their propensity to commit any type of re-offence. Details: Sydney: NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, 2009. 19p. Source: Internet Resource: Crime and Justice Bulletin, No. 131: Accessed October 9, 2010 at: http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/bocsar/ll_bocsar.nsf/vwFiles/cjb131.pdf/$file/cjb131.pdf Year: 2009 Country: Australia URL: http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/bocsar/ll_bocsar.nsf/vwFiles/cjb131.pdf/$file/cjb131.pdf Shelf Number: 119897 Keywords: DiversionDrug Abuse and CrimeDrug Abuse TreatmentDrug OffendersRe-OffendingRecidivismTheft |
Author: Bradford, Ben Title: Diversion from Prosecution to Social Work in Scotland: A Snapshot of Current Patterns and an Examination of Practice in Three CJAs Summary: This report was commissioned by the Scottish Government as a result of concerns raised by the diversion working group of the Pre-Disposal Programme Implementation Board. The numbers of cases diverted from prosecution have fallen in recent years (2006 onwards) and it was felt there was a need to investigate the issue further. To facilitate this, the Scottish Government requested that the Scottish Centre for Crime and Justice Research (SCCJR) undertake a small-scale research study on the use of social work related diversion schemes by Procurators Fiscal in Scotland. This report presents the findings of this study. Details: Edinburgh: Scottish Centre for Crime and Justice Research, 2011. 45p. Source: Internet Resource: Research Report No. 01/2011: Accessed February 19, 2011 at: http://www.sccjr.ac.uk/documents/Diversion%20from%20prosecution.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.sccjr.ac.uk/documents/Diversion%20from%20prosecution.pdf Shelf Number: 120690 Keywords: DiversionProsecution (Scotland)Social Work |
Author: Bartels, Lorana Title: Diversion Programs for Indigenous Women Summary: This paper presents a brief overview of the key diversion programs for Indigenous women currently in operation in Australia, with reference to relevant developments in New Zealand and Canada. It was prepared against the background of recent research on Indigenous women’s offending patterns and their over-representation in the criminal justice system, which included the following key findings: • analysis of data from New South Wales, the Northern Territory and South Australia indicated that Indigenous women are between nine and 16 times more likely to offend than their non-Indigenous counterparts; this is a much greater over-representation than for men (8–10 times more likely); • Indigenous women generally serve shorter sentences than their non-Indigenous counterparts, which suggests that Indigenous women are being imprisoned for more minor offences, especially public order offences; and • Indigenous women are more likely than non-Indigenous women to be on remand. According to the most recent data by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS 2010), there were, on average, 663 full-time adult female Indigenous prisoners in Australia in the June 2010 quarter, comprising 30 percent of the full-time adult female prison population. By way of comparison, there were 6,984 adult male Indigenous prisoners, comprising 26 percent of the adult male prison population. Although the numbers of Indigenous women in prison are clearly much smaller than for their male counterparts, they are over-represented to a greater extent. The imprisonment rate for adult Indigenous women was 394 per 100,000, having risen by 14 percent from 346 in 2006, compared with 25 for the general adult female population. The rates for the Indigenous male and general male populations in the June 2010 quarter were 4,337 and 321 respectively (ABS 2010). Indigenous women are therefore 16 times more likely to be imprisoned than the general adult female population, compared with 14 times for Indigenous men. It appears that very little has been written—and indeed done — on diversion in relation to Indigenous status and women; most of the literature focuses on one aspect or the other. For example, an examination published by the Australian Institute of Criminology (AIC) on the impact of pre-court diversion in the Northern Territory on juvenile offending provided a breakdown by gender and Indigenous status, but no breakdown on the basis of both. In addition, where such programs exist, there is little evidence of their effectiveness and a lack of comprehensive independent evaluation. More must be done, therefore, to disseminate information about the programs currently in place and wherever possible, to evaluate such programs. Notwithstanding the dearth of evaluative evidence demonstrating the efficacy of the diversion programs, the emerging evidence base, coupled with the overwhelming — and steadily rising —over-representation of Indigenous women in the prison population indicates there is a need for further development and funding of programs that can assist in diverting more Indigenous women from the prison system specifically and the criminal justice system more generally. Details: Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology, 2010. 12p. Source: Internet Resource: Research in Practice Report, No. 13: Accessed March 14, 2011 at: http://www.aic.gov.au/documents/E/C/7/%7BEC7ECE38-209C-4FAA-876A-246D2F6A5DCF%7Drip13.pdf Year: 2010 Country: Australia URL: http://www.aic.gov.au/documents/E/C/7/%7BEC7ECE38-209C-4FAA-876A-246D2F6A5DCF%7Drip13.pdf Shelf Number: 121003 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationDiversionFemale Offenders (Australia)Female PrisonersIndigenous Peoples |
Author: DeGusti, Berenice Title: The Impact of the Youth Criminal Justice Act on Case Flow in Alberta and System Response in Calgary Summary: The purpose of this study is to examine how the implementation of the YCJA has affected the flow of cases through the youth justice system, and the impact of the new legislation on workload for frontline staff in the youth justice system (i.e., police officers, probation officers). To achieve this goal, two main research activities were undertaken. First, CRILF examined the flow of cases processed through the youth justice system in Alberta from 2001 through 2006. This examination provides information on whether the youth system is adhering to the principles of diversion, fair sentencing and the reduction of incarceration mandated in the YCJA. Second, focus groups with police officers were conducted to identify the use of extrajudicial measures that would not be captured in the youth crime and correctional statistics and the effect of the new legislation on their work and workload. Focus groups were also conducted with probation officers to obtain information on changes in their workload patterns and their opinions on the success of rehabilitation and reintegration since the implementation of the YCJA. Participants of the focus groups were further asked to assess the current legislation’s effectiveness in achievi ng its objectives and to provide suggestions for improvement to the current youth criminal justice system. The objectives of this report are to: (1) Examine the flow of cases through the youth criminal justice system to understand the impact of the YCJA; and (2) Understand changes in the occupational practices and workload of police officers and probation officers working with offending youth as a result of the new legislation. Details: Calgary, Alberta: Canadian Research Institute for Law and the Family, 2008. 96p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 16, 2011 at: http://people.ucalgary.ca/~crilf/publications/Final_Case_Flow_and_Focus_Group_Report-September2008v3.pdf Year: 2008 Country: Canada URL: http://people.ucalgary.ca/~crilf/publications/Final_Case_Flow_and_Focus_Group_Report-September2008v3.pdf Shelf Number: 121030 Keywords: Alternative to IncarcerationCase Flow ManagementCriminal Justice SystemDiversionJuvenile Offenders (Alberta, Canada) |
Author: Povitsky, Wendy Title: An Evaluation Partnership Project to Enhance the State of Maryland's Capacity to Evaluate Juvenile Justice Programs: Final Report Summary: During 2004, the University of Maryland Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice began a project aimed at providing a model for evaluation of juvenile justice diversion projects in Maryland. The project, funded by the Justice Research and Statistics Association’s Juvenile Justice Advisory Council solicitation, was intended to demonstrate the advantages of using a systematic, collaborative, and coordinated approach to the evaluation of one type of diversion project funded through the Maryland State Advisory Board’s Youth Strategies Grant (YSG) Competition: Teen Courts (TCs). This project applied a model of researcher-practitioner collaboration (Program Development Evaluation, PDE) to develop a framework for evaluation in collaboration with the project and county-level practitioners involved in managing the TCs as well as the state-level administrators charged with overseeing the grants. The evaluation involves (1) a process evaluation to determine whether the TCs met the standards they had created for themselves; and (2) an outcome evaluation utilizing a randomized design to determine the effectiveness of TCs in reducing future recidivism. The PDE process allowed the TC coordinators and Local Management Board representatives to be directly involved in developing both parts of the evaluation. This report summarizes the preliminary findings of the process evaluation. Despite challenges encountered during this evaluation, the broader aims of this evaluation partnership project were met. The PDE method was successfully used to involve researchers and practitioners in a collaborative process resulting in a clear plan for the evaluation of a juvenile justice diversion project in Maryland. The advantages of using a systematic, collaborative, and coordinated approach to evaluate one type of diversion program funded through the YSG Competition have been demonstrated. Details: College Park, MD: Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice, University of Maryland, College Park, 2005. 101p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 29, 2011 at: http://www.jrsa.org/pubs/juv-justice/reports/maryland-evaluation_partnership.pdf Year: 2005 Country: United States URL: http://www.jrsa.org/pubs/juv-justice/reports/maryland-evaluation_partnership.pdf Shelf Number: 121151 Keywords: DiversionJustice Justice SystemsJuvenile Justice (Maryland)Juvenile OffendersTeen Courts |
Author: O'Reilly, Justine Title: New Zealand Police Pre-Charge Warnings Alternative Resolutions: Evaluation Report Summary: The evaluation of the Alternative Resolutions - Pre-Charge Warning initiative trial contributed to the decision by Police to implement the initiative nationally in September. Three Auckland Districts trialled pre-charge warnings from November 2009 to May 2010. The aim of pre-charge warnings is to develop better alternatives to hold offenders to account for less serious offending without having to use the courts. Under this process, Police can arrest a person, take them to a station for processing and then issue a warning as an alternative to charging and prosecution. Pre-charge warnings can be used for people 17 years of age and over, low level or minor offences and those offences with a maximum penalty of six months imprisonment. Those involved in family violence offences or methamphetamine offences are ineligible for pre-charge warnings. Among other things, the evaluation aimed to assess the extent to which pre-charge warnings achieved the intended outcomes for Police, and look at take up across the Auckland region. The key findings from the evaluation were: •an overall reduction of 9% in charges proceeding to court in the Auckland region •a positive response from operational police •a generally positive response from victims • reduced file preparation resulting in a time-saving for Police. The majority of offences (31,647) were still prosecuted while 3,137 charges were resolved by way of a pre-charge warning. The most common offences resolved by a pre-charge warning were Disorder (26%), Breach of Liquor Ban (21%) and Shoplifting (9%) Some areas for improvement have been identified and will assist the ongoing development of the Alternative Resolutions initiative. Details: Wellington, NZ: New Zealand Police, 2010. 85p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 15, 2011 at: https://www.police.govt.nz/sites/default/files/2010-12-09_alternative_resolutions_report_final__elec_isbn_.pdf Year: 2010 Country: New Zealand URL: https://www.police.govt.nz/sites/default/files/2010-12-09_alternative_resolutions_report_final__elec_isbn_.pdf Shelf Number: 121368 Keywords: Alternatives to ProsecutionDiversionMisdemeanorsPolice DiscretionPre-Charge Warnings (New Zealand)Prosecution |
Author: Northern Ireland. Department of Justice Title: A Review of the Youth Justice System in Northern Ireland Summary: This Review was launched in 2010 by the Minister of Justice, David Ford, in furtherance of the Hillsborough Castle Agreement. Undertaken by an independent team of three people, its terms of reference were to critically assess the current arrangements for responding to youth crime and make recommendations for how these might be improved within the wider context of, among other things, international obligations, best practice and a fi nancially uncertain future. The Review Team consulted a wide range of stakeholders, including children and young people and members of the communities where they lived. Off ending by children tends to be less serious than adults; as with the pattern in other jurisdictions, common off ences include criminal damage, theft and common assault. Around 10,000 young people come into contact with the criminal justice system at some level during the course of a typical year. Like other developed countries, Northern Ireland has a separate justice system for children, from age 10 to 17 inclusive, underpinned by statutory aims to prevent off ending, protect the public and secure the welfare of the child. Details: Belfast: Northern Ireland Department of Justice, 2011. 128p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed January 13, 2012 at: http://www.drugsandalcohol.ie/16000/1/report-of-the-review-of-the-youth-justice-system-in-ni%5B1%5D.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.drugsandalcohol.ie/16000/1/report-of-the-review-of-the-youth-justice-system-in-ni%5B1%5D.pdf Shelf Number: 123610 Keywords: Childrens RightsDiversionJuvenile CourtsJuvenile Justice Systems (Northern Ireland)Juvenile OffendersYoung Offenders |
Author: Jolliffe, Darrick Title: Re-offending Analysis of Women Offenders Referred to Together Women (TW) and the Scope to Divert from Custody Summary: Together Women was a community-based holistic intervention aimed at socially excluded women who were ‘offenders’ (with a recent or past criminal conviction) or ‘at risk’ of offending, although neither category was prescriptively defined. Issues about data monitoring, the definitions of needs and outcomes which were highlighted in previous reports continued to hamper a robust evaluation of TW meaning only a limited quantitative assessment of the impact of TW could be undertaken. The results suggested that there was no difference in the prevalence or frequency of proven re-offending among women referred to TW and comparable women who were supported by the Probation Service. These findings should be interpreted cautiously given the limited number of TW service users identified (as a proportion of those referred), the limited number of TW service users recorded as having received support from TW, and the reliance on criminal records data to equate the TW and comparison group. Interviews with sentencers, particularly magistrates, suggested that while most considered TW to be a useful supplement to the range of non-custodial options, its availability rarely influenced the decision to divert from custody. There was some evidence that this could change if TW was used as a specified activity on a community order. However, some sentencers thought this would undermine the essential TW ethos of empowering women to take control of their lives. Details: London: Ministry of Justice, 2011. 54p. Source: Internet Resource: Ministry of Justice Research Series 11/11: Accessed January 18, 2012 at: http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/publications/research-and-analysis/moj-research/women-offenders-referred-together-women.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/publications/research-and-analysis/moj-research/women-offenders-referred-together-women.pdf Shelf Number: 123655 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationCommunity Based CorrectionsDiversionFemale Offenders (U.K.)RecidivismRehabilitation |
Author: LeCroy & Milligan Associates, Inc. Title: Juvenile Drug Court Program Evaluation Final Report Summary: The Arizona Governor’s Office of Children, Youth, and Families, through the Governor’s Division of Substance Abuse Prevention, hired LeCroy & Milligan Associates, Inc. in November 1999 to evaluate several juvenile and family drug court and diversion programs that were being implemented in Arizona. The Arizona Parents Commission on Drug Education and Prevention provided partial funding for the programs through grants managed by the Governor’s Division of Substance Abuse Prevention. Three prior evaluation reports addressed evaluability assessment findings and evaluation capacity building efforts. The process and outcome evaluation findings are presented in a series of three final reports—one each for juvenile drug courts, family drug courts, and diversion programs. This report, the first in the series, presents findings only for the juvenile drug court programs. The findings for the diversion programs and the family drug court programs are presented in two separate final reports. Details: Tucson, AZ: LeCroy & Milligan Associates, Inc., 2003. 66p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed on January 22, 2012 at http://www.lecroymilligan.com/JDC%20final%20report%202003w%20cover.PDF Year: 2003 Country: United States URL: http://www.lecroymilligan.com/JDC%20final%20report%202003w%20cover.PDF Shelf Number: 123720 Keywords: DiversionDrug Courts (Arizona)Drug Treatment ProgramsJuvenile OffendersRecidivismSubstance Abuse |
Author: Attorney-General's Department, Australian Government Title: National Youth Policing Model Summary: On 2 July 2010, Minister for Home Affairs, Brendan O’Connor, welcomed agreement from all Australian police ministers to reduce, prevent and respond to youth violence and anti‑social behaviour through a National Youth Policing Model. The Model will support and enhance effective programs already in place through six high-priority strategies for youth policing. Under the Model, jurisdictions will have the flexibility to adapt responses to youth policing issues to suit local environments. The National Youth Policing Model supports the National Strategy for Young Australians, which identified youth violence and anti-social behaviour as key issues of concern for young people. Details: Australia: Attorney-General's Department, 2010. 56p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed on January 28, 2012 at http://www.ag.gov.au/www/agd/rwpattach.nsf/VAP/(966BB47E522E848021A38A20280E2386)~National+Youth+Policing+Model.PDF/$file/National+Youth+Policing+Model.PDF Year: 2010 Country: Australia URL: http://www.ag.gov.au/www/agd/rwpattach.nsf/VAP/(966BB47E522E848021A38A20280E2386)~National+Youth+Policing+Model.PDF/$file/National+Youth+Policing+Model.PDF Shelf Number: 123856 Keywords: Anti-Social BehaviorDiversionJuvenile OffendersNuisance Behaviors and DisorderSubstance AbuseYouth Violence (Australia) |
Author: Youth Justice Board. Center for Court Innovation. Title: Strong Families, Safe Communities - Recommendations to Improve New York City's Alternative to Detention Programs Summary: In 2006, New York City introduced a new initiative to decrease the number of youth who are placed in detention while their cases are being heard in family court. The initiative includes the creation of Alternative to Detention (ATD) programs in each borough. These programs allow some young people who have been arrested to remain at home before their disposition hearings in family court while they receive relevant services and curfew monitoring. At the core of ATD programs is the concept of giving young people a chance—that is, giving them opportunities to succeed outside the confines of detention. The Youth Justice Board believes that communitybased ATD programs are critical to improving outcomes for young people involved in the juvenile justice system. Over five months, the Youth Justice Board conducted interviews with over 30 stakeholders involved in the ATD initiative. The Board visited four ATD programs and conducted three focus groups with young people involved in the juvenile justice system to learn about the experiences and perspectives of youth. Details: New York: Center for Court Innovation, Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 17, 2012 at http://www.courtinnovation.org/sites/default/files/YJBreportfinal_20091.pdf Year: 0 Country: United States URL: http://www.courtinnovation.org/sites/default/files/YJBreportfinal_20091.pdf Shelf Number: 122752 Keywords: Administrative Detention, JuvenilesAlternatives to IncarcerationDiversionJuvenile DetentionJuvenile Offenders |
Author: Immarigeon, Russ Title: Diversion Works: How Connecticut Can Downsize Prisons, Improve Public Safety and Save Money with a Comprehensive Mental Health and Substance Abuse Approach Summary: After leading the nation in prison population reduction in 2003, Connecticut's prison population reached record high levels this year, with more than 19,800 men and women behind bars. A recent prison population forecast by the Connecticut Statistical Analysis Center indicates that, unless measures are quickly taken to bring prison population levels back under control, taxpayers are likely to be burdened with excessive and rising costs to pay for capacity expansion. This report outlines how Connecticut can save money and increase public safety through diverting people with mental health and substance abuse issues away from prison. Details: New York: Drug Policy Alliance, 2008. 19p. Source: A Better Way Foundation Report, Commissioned by the Drug Policy Alliance: Internet Resource: Accessed February 18, 2012 at http://www.drugpolicy.org/docUploads/DiversionWorks.pdf Year: 2008 Country: United States URL: http://www.drugpolicy.org/docUploads/DiversionWorks.pdf Shelf Number: 124180 Keywords: Corrections (Connecticut)DiversionDrug OffendersMentally Ill OffendersPublic Safety |
Author: Chicago Appleseed Fund for Justice Title: Strategies to Enhance and Coordinate Cook County Diversion Programs Summary: This document proposes strategies for Cook County to employ a smarter, more effective, cost efficient system of administering justice for the people. These are neither radical ideas nor unrealistic aspirations. Every recommendation is based on the documented successes of other jurisdictions in grappling with the issues that we address: how do we make our criminal justice system more efficient, decrease government costs, and improve the quality of life for the citizens of Cook County? Improving the criminal justice system in Cook County is not as difficult as it may appear. Making the system more efficient need not come at the cost of decreasing services or reducing public safety. To the contrary, the strategies proposed will decrease crime rates while increasing cost savings. There is plenty of opportunity for diversion. This is because Cook County expends tremendous resources sending people to jail on charges that are later dismissed. Other offenders are put on probation and released after spending time in jail. The County does not benefit from paying the jail costs in these cases, and jailing these people does not make the County safer. Nonviolent cases and cases with a low likelihood of successful prosecution present ideal opportunities for diversion. In 2010, the Cook County Jail admitted 78,534 individuals, seventy percent of whom – 55,000 people – were held on the basis of nonviolent charges. Also in 2010, 12,446 Cook County prisoners were released because the charges against them were dismissed entirely. On average, these detainees spent 25 days in jail before release. The County estimates the total cost of operating the jail to be $229,449,000 per year. This breaks down to a cost of about $142.60 per inmate per day. Even if we just improve the system so that we jail 10% fewer of the defendants whose cases are ultimately dismissed, we save the County over $4,000,000 a year. And we think that Cook County can do better than a 10% improvement. Not diverting is no longer an option. Our institutions and justice personnel are stretched beyond their limits. In order to allow them to address the most serious and strongest cases, we must divert nonviolent and weak cases. To reduce reliance upon incarceration safely and cost-effectively, we offer the following strategies, divided into three categories: 1. Centralize & Coordinate Diversion Court Efforts We suggest that the existing diversion courts, also known as specialty courts, remain in place. The County should convene a blue ribbon task force, a coalition, to help create a diversion system and centralize these diversion efforts in two dedicated courtrooms in the Criminal Division. Judges and staff would focus on the issues that overburden the criminal justice system: people suffering from addiction and mental health problems. These courts would also handle cases of many first time offenders who are suitable to be diverted from the traditional court system. 2. Improve Access Points We recommend three key stages after arrest where defendants may be identified for formal diversion programs and recommended for release from jail: Stationhouse Felony Drug Review, Enhanced Pretrial Services, and Bond Court. These stages are opportunities to improve the administration of justice and create savings. We propose strategies for limiting involvement in the criminal justice system through optimizing efficiency at each stage. 3. Collect Data on Performance and Use It Perhaps the most common sense strategy is that the County should be collecting data on program performance and using that data to monitor and evaluate progress. Currently, data is collected piecemeal, and often only by the people responsible for program management: not surprisingly, each program reports excellent performance. We suggest that the County create an independent data collection group to ensure that the County is using methods that objectively analyze performance. The real question is: if we are not using objectively collected data to gauge performance now, do we even know how we are doing? Details: Chicago: Chicago Appleseed Fund for Justice, 2012. 36p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 8, 2012 at: http://chicagoappleseed.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/chicago-appleseed-diversion-strategies-for-cook-county1.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://chicagoappleseed.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/chicago-appleseed-diversion-strategies-for-cook-county1.pdf Shelf Number: 125906 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration (Chicago)Costs of Criminal JusticeCriminal Justice ReformCriminal Justice SystemsDiversion |
Author: New South Wales Law Reform Commission Title: People with Cognitive and Mental Health Impairments in the Criminal Justice System. Diversion Summary: There is evidence of over-representation of people with cognitive and mental health impairments at all stages of the criminal system justice system. For example: A 2002 survey of police officers in Sydney found that police reported spending an average of 10% of their time with “mentally disturbed people”. Some reported spending up to 60% of their time. A 2007 BOCSAR study at two NSW local courts found that 55% of defendants surveyed suffered from one or more psychiatric disorders. There was apparent over-representation in all categories of mental health impairment, when compared with the general rate in NSW. A 2009 study of 60 defendants appearing before four local courts in Greater Sydney found that people with cognitive impairments were over-represented in those courts. A 2003 study of NSW prisoners found that 74% of inmates experienced at least one psychiatric disorder in the 12 months prior to being interviewed. For example, 9% of prisoners were identified as having psychosis, whereas the representation in the general population is 0.42%. Arrest or imprisonment of people with impairments without providing access to services that address needs related to offending behaviour may not provide the best outcome for that person or the community, and is unlikely to be effective in reducing future offending. Yet the rate of impairments in prison is high, and use of Local Court diversionary provisions is very low – only amounting to about 1.5% of finalisations. Why are people with cognitive and mental health impairment over-represented in the criminal justice system? The reasons for over-representation of people with cognitive and mental health impairments in the criminal justice system are complex and multi-factored. A person may have complex needs and face multiple sources of disadvantage, thereby increasing their likelihood of coming into contact with the criminal justice system. For example, a 2010 BOCSAR study suggested that rates of reoffending are “substantially elevated” among those with a mental health impairment only where it occurs alongside a substance disorder. Yet, factors such as mental health impairment and substance abuse issues may be amenable to treatment or other intervention. Addressing an impairment or other need could help reduce future offending. How can diversion help? Diversion provides opportunities for police and courts to respond more effectively to people with cognitive and mental health impairments. For example, instead of charging a person, it may be better for police or the courts to refer someone who has committed a trivial offence and has an impairment to services that address offending behaviour. Studies have shown: Reductions in reoffending associated with diversionary programs that identify people with mental health impairments and refer them to treatment or other support. Reductions in reoffending, cost savings and mental health improvements associated with diversionary approaches that case manage and support people with complex needs. Reductions in the nature and extent of reoffending for participants in specialist lists or court programs for people with mental health impairments. We have drawn from the characteristics of such programs, and the legislative mechanisms that support them, in developing a response that best addresses the concerns of the community and the needs of the individuals. The benefits of diversion have been identified in NSW 2021 – A plan to make NSW number one, which includes goals such as preventing and reducing reoffending, and keeping people healthy. These goals are accompanied by targets such as increasing completion rates for key treatment and intervention programs, and diverting people with mental health impairments out of the criminal justice system and into services. Why is diversion not being used more extensively now? Unless people with cognitive and mental health impairments are first identified and assessed, the criminal justice system cannot respond appropriately to them. Yet, the burden of identification and management of people with cognitive and mental health impairments in the criminal justice system often falls on people who do not have the required skills or expertise. The existing Statewide Community and Court Liaison Service, which assists in identifying and assessing people with mental health impairments and referring them to mental health services, is only available in 20 of the 148 Local Court locations in NSW, and there is no equivalent service for cognitive impairment. Even where particular impairments are identified, those who work in the criminal justice system are not likely to be expert in linking them to the complex service systems in the community that may break the cycle of offending. So while courts have power to divert under s 32, those powers may not be used, or may not be effective, because the right services have not been identified. A pilot program, Court Referral of Eligible Defendants into Treatment (CREDIT), is addressing these issues, but it only operates in two NSW Local Courts. Similarly, community service providers may not be familiar with criminal justice system processes and the expectations of courts. The current system for reporting non-compliance with court ordered treatment plans or orders under s 32 is ineffective. An important factor in successful diversion appears to lie in the provision of a “bridge” between the criminal justice system and the service sectors. “Bridges” are often provided by specialist case workers attached to courts, who can translate the needs of the criminal justice system to the service sector and the needs of the service sector to the court. In summary, there is a need to improve our identification of people with impairments, link them with the right services that will focus on dealing with their offending behaviour, and provide a framework to keep them engaged with those services. Details: Sydney: New South Wales Law Reform Commission, 2012. 426p. Source: Internet Resource: Report 135: Accessed February 21, 2013 at: http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/lrc/ll_lrc.nsf/pages/LRC_cref120 Year: 2012 Country: Australia URL: http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/lrc/ll_lrc.nsf/pages/LRC_cref120 Shelf Number: 127683 Keywords: Cognitive ImpairmentsDiversionMental Health ServicesMentally Ill Offenders (Australia) |
Author: Rempel, Michael Title: The Adolescent Diversion Program: A First Year Evaluation of Alternatives to Conventional Case Processing for Defendants Ages 16 and 17 in New York Summary: New York is currently one of only two states in the country that defines 16- and 17-year-old defendants as criminally responsible adults. Other states handle these defendants in their juvenile justice systems, which are oriented to the best interests of the child. By comparison, New York places 16- and 17-year-olds in the same jails and courtrooms as much older adults; forecloses pretrial diversion options that would otherwise exist in the juvenile justice system; and produces case outcomes that potentially involve adult jail and prison sentences and lifetime collateral consequences in the event of a criminal conviction. Among 16- and 17-year-old defendants statewide in 2010, only 9% were in fact sentenced to jail or prison, and only 5% received a permanent criminal record; yet, these percentages involve more than 3,500 cases. All told, nearly 50,000 16- and 17-year-olds are annually prosecuted in New York’s adult criminal justice system. In the fall of 2011 New York State Chief Judge Jonathan Lippman called on state policymakers to pass legislation that would foster a more developmentally appropriate approach to 16- and 17- year-old defendants. Judge Lippman’s proposal calls for a pre-filing diversion mechanism, mirroring one now in place in the state’s juvenile justice system, which would enable some 16- and 17-year-old defendants to avoid formal prosecution. The legislation is also expected to establish policies linking more 16- and 17-year-olds to age-appropriate services and ensuring that those who complete their assigned services will not receive a criminal record. On January 17, 2012, Judge Lippman also established a pilot Adolescent Diversion Program (ADP) in nine counties, including the five boroughs of New York City, the suburban counties of Nassau and Westchester, and the upstate counties of Erie and Onondaga (housing the respective mid-sized cities of Buffalo and Syracuse). The program established specialized court parts that handle 16- and 17-year-old defendants. Participating defendants receive a clinical assessment; age-appropriate services; rigorous compliance monitoring; and non-criminal case outcomes should they complete assigned services. Accordingly, the ADP initiative seeks to spread a rehabilitative, developmentally appropriate philosophy and approach to late adolescent criminal behavior; to reduce the use of conventional criminal penalties; and to achieve these benefits without jeopardizing public safety. With funding from the New York Community Trust, the Center for Court Innovation evaluated the early operations and effects of the ADP initiative. The analysis was largely quantitative, focusing on ADP participants in all nine pilot counties whose criminal cases began in the first six months of operations (January 17, 2012 through June 30, 2012). For six of the nine counties, where case volume was sufficient to support more rigorous analysis, an impact study compared outcomes between ADP participants and a statistically matched comparison group, whose cases began one year prior to implementation (January 17, 2011 through June 30, 2011). This report is a snapshot of a work in progress; while we expect the results from this study to remain relevant to the population, we plan to conduct further research as the initiative becomes more established and more data is available. Details: New York: Center for Court Innovation, 2013. 59p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 11, 2013 at: http://www.courtinnovation.org/sites/default/files/documents/ADP_Report_Final.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.courtinnovation.org/sites/default/files/documents/ADP_Report_Final.pdf Shelf Number: 129374 Keywords: DiversionJuvenile Case ProcessingJuvenile CourtsJuvenile Offenders (New York City, U.S.) |
Author: Center for Health and Justice at TASC Title: No Entry: A National Survey of Criminal Justice Diversion Programs and Initiatives Summary: Across the United States, criminal justice systems are managing record numbers of people with rates of substance use and mental health disorders that are exponentially higher than those of the general public. In recent years, a confluence of factors has created fertile ground for broad-based improvements to criminal justice policy and practice, including overburdened courts, crowded jails and prisons, strained government budgets, advances in the science of drug use intervention and recovery, shifting public sentiment about drug policy, awareness of the negative and residual impacts of justice involvement on families and communities, and a preponderance of research on the effectiveness and cost efficiency of alternatives to incarceration. Now more than ever, and often with strong public support, legislators, prosecutors, judges, court administrators, corrections and probation officials, and the jurisdictions they serve are responding with community-based diversion alternatives, often incorporating substance use and mental health service or program components. Policy responses such as "justice reinvestment" have offered approaches that eschew tough-on-crime policies in favor of the deliberate and data-driven application of resources to solutions that will generate the greatest return to communities and taxpayers in terms of cost savings, public safety, longterm health and personal stability for justice-involved populations, and overall community improvement. It is among these efforts and in this environment that this national survey of diversion programs has been developed. This project set out to explore the landscape of diversion from criminal justice involvement, aiming to collect and present information about programs across the country that offer diversion as an alternative to traditional justice case processing. The effort was undertaken with the knowledge that a robust assortment of alternative options exists but may be absent from or underrepresented in national conversations, and therefore not available or obvious for consideration by other jurisdictions. Details: Chicago: Center for Health and Justice at TASC, 2013. 38p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 28, 2014 at: http://www2.centerforhealthandjustice.org/sites/www2.centerforhealthandjustice.org/files/publications/CHJ%20Diversion%20Report_web.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www2.centerforhealthandjustice.org/sites/www2.centerforhealthandjustice.org/files/publications/CHJ%20Diversion%20Report_web.pdf Shelf Number: 132002 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationCriminal Justice PolicyDiversion |
Author: Baker, Tom Title: Alcohol and other drug treatment and diversion from the Australian criminal justice system 2012-13 Summary: In the 10 years to 2012-13, the number of treatment episodes provided to clients diverted from the criminal justice system into alcohol and other drug (AOD) treatment for drug or drug-related offences more than doubled, while treatment episodes for other clients increased only marginally. This bulletin assesses the nature of diversion clients referred to AOD treatment services, how they compare with non-diversion clients receiving AOD treatment, and the treatment they receive. About 1 in 4 clients had been diverted from the criminal justice system Nationally, there were 24,069 clients who had been diverted into AOD treatment, comprising 24% of all clients. Diversion clients were younger and more likely to be male than non-diversion clients, and less likely to be Indigenous Among diversion clients: - 25% were aged 10-19 compared with 11% for non-diversion clients - 80% were male compared with 67% of non-diversion clients - 12% were Indigenous compared with 15% for non-diversion clients. Among diversion clients, about 1 in 7 also received non-diversion treatment during 2012-13 While there are client data for just 1 collection year, about 1 in 7 (3,640) diversion clients also received non-diversion episodes during 2012-13 (4% of total clients). Diversion treatment episodes were about twice as likely to involve cannabis as the principal drug of concern compared with episodes for non-diversion clients Diversion episodes were most likely to be for cannabis (43% compared with 20% for non-diversion episodes). This was followed by alcohol (21% compared with 46%), amphetamines (18% compared with 13%) and heroin (7% compared with 8%). Police diversion episodes had less intensive treatment types compared with court diversion episodes Police diversion episodes were far less likely than court diversion episodes to involve counselling (21% compared with 54%) and support and case management only (1% compared with 15%) as main treatment types, and much more likely to involve information and education only (46% compared with 20%) and assessment only (31% compared with 5%). Details: Canberra: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, 2014. 24p. Source: Internet Resource: Bulletin 125: Accessed October 15, 2014 at: Year: 2014 Country: Australia URL: Shelf Number: 133954 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationDiversion Drug Abuse and AddictionDrug Offender TreatmentDrug Offenders (Australia)Substance Abuse Treatment |
Author: American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California Title: A Way Forward: Diverting People with Mental Illness from Inhumane and Expensive Jails into Community-Based Treatment that Works Summary: Jails have become warehouses for people with mental illness. Nationwide, nearly half a million inmates with mental illness are in local jails, and an estimated 10-25% have a serious mental illness, such as schizophrenia. In Los Angeles County alone, at least 3,200 inmates with a diagnosed severe mental illness crowd the jails on a typical day, which constitutes about 17% of the jail population. These numbers capture only the number of inmates with a diagnosed severe mental illness: the actual number may well be higher. Former Los Angeles County Sheriff Lee Baca has called L.A.'s jail system "the nation's largest mental hospital." The war on drugs and other law enforcement policies have resulted in mass incarceration of low-level drug and other non-violent offenders, many of whom are arrested for behaviors related to a mental illness. In L.A., roughly 1,100 inmates with mental illness are behind bars on an average night for charges or convictions for nonviolent offenses. And many of the behaviors that lead to such charges are rooted in mental illness. According to the Vera Institute of Justice, drug offenses make up the largest portion of charges for this inmate population, nearly 27%. "Mental illness frequently becomes de facto criminalized when those affected by it use illegal drugs, sometimes as a form of self-medication, or engage in behaviors that draw attention and police response." After drug crimes, status offenses, administrative offenses, and parole violations are the most common charges or convictions for which people with mental illness are held in L.A.'s jails. For those with mental illness, incarceration causes needless suffering and even death. Not only does the lack of adequate care in jails and prisons exacerbate the symptoms of mental illness, but also overcrowding and other conditions of confinement make it harder to successfully treat prisoners with mental illness. Prisoners with mental illness are far more likely to suffer sexual and physical abuse at the hands of jail staff or other inmates than are inmates who do not have a mental illness. The Los Angeles County jails have been rife with such abuse for decades. Incarceration can also imperil the very lives of those with mental illness: suicide is the leading cause of death in jails, and inmates with mental illness commit suicide at much higher rates than people with mental illness living in the community.13 Indeed, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) recently sent a letter to Los Angeles County stating that it had found that the County was violating the constitutional rights of inmates with mental illness, noting the ten suicides by inmates in 2013, and finding that the Sheriff's Department and Department of Mental Health had failed to take adequate steps to "protect prisoners from serious harm and risk of harm at the Jails due to inadequate suicide prevention practices.' Upon release, inmates with mental illness find it even more difficult to get a job and find housing than before their incarceration because they now have a criminal record. And families suffer when their loved ones are imprisoned. Widespread incarceration of people with mental illness harms not only them and their families but also wastes precious taxpayer resources. It costs far more to incarcerate inmates with mental illness than those without mental illness, and it is far less costly to supervise them in community settings than in jail. Many communities are beginning to address the warehousing of people with mental illness in jails through collaborations between the criminal justice system and the public mental health system that "divert" people with mental illness from incarceration. Effective diversion programs ensure that people with mental illness who are arrested or end up in jail are connected to effective community-based treatment programs. Diversion can occur at any stage of the criminal process, including pre-arrest, pre-and post-booking, pre-trial, and pre-sentencing. The key to success is relying on treatment services, including Assertive Community Treatment (ACT) and supportive housing, with demonstrated success in reducing recidivism (re-offending), improving mental health outcomes, and lowering costs. Diversion programs not only improve public safety and public health, but they are also consistent with the purpose of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and with the landmark decision in Olmstead v. L.C., 527 U.S. 581 (1999), in which the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed that the ADA prohibits the needless institutionalization of people with mental disabilities. The DOJ has been actively promoting community-based services, especially ACT and supportive housing, as a means of preventing the needless institutionalization of people with mental illness in jails. Details: Los Angeles: ACLU of Southern California, 2014. 20p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 20, 2015 at: https://www.aclusocal.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/JAILS-REPORT.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: https://www.aclusocal.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/JAILS-REPORT.pdf Shelf Number: 135721 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationCommunity-Based CorrectionsDiversionJail InmatesJailsMentally Ill Offenders |
Author: Talbot, Jenny Title: Relative Justice: the experiences and views of family members of people with particular needs in contact with criminal justice and liaison and diversion services Summary: The Bradley Report (Department of Health, 2009) recommended the introduction of liaison and diversion services in police custody suites and criminal courts, and this recommendation is being taken forward. An initial investment to support the development of liaison and diversion services was made in 2011, and in January 2014 the government announced that NHS England would begin to roll out services, across England, in police custody suites and criminal courts. An initial ten trial sites began in April 2014, and these were followed by 16 more sites in April 2015 - providing 53% population coverage across England. A service specification and operating model describe how services should be delivered (NHS England 2014a and 2014b). The expectation is to achieve national coverage by 2017, subject to the submission of the business case to HM Treasury in autumn 2015, and their approval. Liaison and diversion is a process whereby people of all ages with mental health problems, learning disabilities, substance misuse problems or other vulnerabilities are identified and assessed as early as possible as they pass through the criminal justice system. Following screening and assessment, individuals are given access to appropriate services including, but not limited to, mental health and learning disability services, social care, and substance misuse treatment. Information from liaison and diversion assessments is shared appropriately with relevant agencies so that informed decisions can be made, for example, about charging, case management, sentencing and diversion. Diversion may occur within the youth and criminal justice system or away from it, for example, into treatment and care (NHS England 2014b). To help inform the model for liaison and diversion services, NHS England commissioned the Offender Health Collaborative2 (OHC) to undertake 'a national service user consultation on the operating model', and a report was published early 2015. The OHC, in turn, invited the Prison Reform Trust (PRT) to undertake a consultation involving family members and carers3 of people with particular needs in contact with criminal justice services, and with liaison and diversion services, in particular. POPS (Partners of Prisoners and Families Support Group) worked in partnership with PRT to recruit family members, and to help organise and run the consultation. It was agreed that four focus groups would be held, involving between 24 and 48 family members, and that two focus groups would be held in the north of England and two in the south. The purpose of these focus groups, and of this report, is to inform the development of liaison and diversion services prior to national roll out in 2017. This report is for those who are concerned with the families of people with particular needs in contact with criminal justice services, and for policy makers and commissioners of liaison and diversion, and wider health and social care services, in particular. The names of family members' relatives, which appear in quotes throughout this report, have been changed to protect their anonymity. Details: London: Prison Reform Trust and POPS, 2015. 52p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 30, 2015 at: http://www.prisonreformtrust.org.uk/Portals/0/Documents/relative%20justice.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.prisonreformtrust.org.uk/Portals/0/Documents/relative%20justice.pdf Shelf Number: 136898 Keywords: DiversionFamilies of PrisonersFamily InterventionsFamily ServicesLiaison Services |
Author: Neill, Katharine A. Title: Second Chances: The Economic and Social Benefits of Explanding Drug Diversion Programs in Harris County Summary: In recent years, the United States has experienced a sea change in drug policy. Along with the four states that have legalized recreational use of marijuana (Alaska, Colorado, Oregon, and Washington), many others have relaxed criminal penalties for nonviolent drug possession offenses. The federal government has taken similar steps, with the U.S. Department of Justice moving away from the steep mandatory minimum sentences that arose during the peak of the drug war, and the president himself commuting the sentences of individuals convicted of nonviolent drug offenses. The wave of drug reform has touched even the most conservative states in the country, including Texas. Though none ultimately would become law, a number of bills introduced during the state's 2015 legislative session would have reduced or even eliminated the criminal penalties associated with some drug offenses. As reform efforts have continued across Texas, the Harris County District Attorney's Office implemented its First Chance Intervention Program, which allows a defendant arrested for possession of two ounces or less of marijuana to be diverted from the criminal justice system if the arrest is his or her first offense. This report reviews the broader issues with current approaches to drug enforcement that have facilitated calls for reform, then demonstrates the need for drug policy reform in Harris County (Houston's home) prior to implementation of the First Chance Intervention Program (FCIP). Next, the report evaluates the FCIP and suggests ways in which policy outcomes can be improved through the program's expansion. Finally, the report concludes with a number of recommendations for Harris County going forward. Details: Houston, TX: Rice University, Baker Institute for Public Policy and Texas Criminal Justice Coalition, 2015. 21p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 2, 2015 at: http://bakerinstitute.org/media/files/files/993306dd/DRUG-HarrisCountyDrugPolicy-092915.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://bakerinstitute.org/media/files/files/993306dd/DRUG-HarrisCountyDrugPolicy-092915.pdf Shelf Number: 136939 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationDiversionDrug EnforcementDrug OffendersDrug PolicyDrug ReformDrug Treatment Programs |
Author: New Mexico Sentencing Commission Title: Assessment Of The Second Judicial District Court Pretrial Services Office Summary: According to the American Probation and Parole Association and the Pretrial Justice Institute, in perhaps no more than 15% (460) of the nation's 3,065 counties, judicial officers are aided by pretrial services programs in the balancing act between the presumption of innocence and public safety (APPA, 2010). At midyear 2011, about 6 in 10 jail inmates were not convicted, but were in jail awaiting court action on a current charge - a rate unchanged since 2005 (Minton, 2012). U.S. jails over the past two decades have become largely occupied by individuals awaiting trial, with only a minority of inmates serving out convictions. Before the mid-1990s, jail populations historically were evenly split between pretrial and sentenced prisoners. Since 1996, however, pretrial inmates have grown in numbers and at a faster rate than sentenced inmates, even though crime rates have been falling (Bechtel, et al, 2012). During the 2012 regular session of the New Mexico State Legislative session, the Legislature passed House Joint Memorial 20 (HJM 20) "Bernalillo Case Management Pilot Project." HJM 20 lists a series of conditions justifying the passage of the memorial; a shortage of incarceration options; $30 million to house felony arrestees; the Bernalillo County Metropolitan Detention Center (MDC) has exceeded its design capacity for years; opportunities to alleviate burdens on county jails, but the opportunities were too difficult to implement; and the old Bernalillo County Detention Center could be renovated into a treatment center. HJM 20 resolves that the Bernalillo County Commissioners create a pilot project that will streamline case management, evaluate and expand treatment and diversion programs, create an alternative incarceration facility, as well as start new mental health and substance abuse treatment options, alternative incarceration, transitional living, and reintegration programs. The major stakeholders of the Bernalillo County criminal justice system should be represented in the pilot project. Additionally, HJM20 requests the NM Sentencing Commission (NMSC) collect jail population data, research case management practices, and evaluate the viability and effectiveness of the proposed pilot project. In response to HJM 20, NMSC entered into a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with Bernalillo County. The scope of work was, "evaluate the effectiveness of the expanded pretrial services program operated by the [Second Judicial District Court (SJDC)] - [also evaluate] new or expanded treatment programs and diversionary programs [if time and budget allow]." Details: Albuquerque, NM: New Mexico Sentencing Commission, 2014. 84p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 11, 2015 at: http://nmsc.unm.edu/reports/2014/assessment-of-the-second-judicial-district-court-pretrial-services-office.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://nmsc.unm.edu/reports/2014/assessment-of-the-second-judicial-district-court-pretrial-services-office.pdf Shelf Number: 137239 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationCase ManagementDiversionJail InmatesMental Health ServicesPretrial ServicesSubstance Abuse TreatmentTreatment Programs |
Author: Chicago Appleseed Fund for Justice Title: A report on Chicago's felony courts Summary: At Chicago's Criminal Courts Building at 26th Street and California Avenue, the sheer volume of felony cases has overwhelmed the judges, the prosecutors, and the public defenders. The jail houses nearly 10,000 inmates awaiting trial. It is estimated that at least 20% and perhaps as many as 50% of these inmates suffer from untreated mental illness. The courtrooms hear more than 28,000 cases per year, half of which are non-violent, drug-related charges. Each judge at 26th Street has on average 275 pending cases at any one time. The adult probation department seeks to handle more than 23,000 felony offenders at any one time. Many improvements have been made as the courts struggle to adapt to the realities of operating beyond capacity, but patchwork adaptations are not good enough. This report is a result of unprecedented collaboration among leaders with a commitment to reform. Presiding Judge Paul Biebel, State's Attorney Richard Devine, and Public Defender Edwin Burnette opened their offices to this study and provided both advice and data. An advisory committee of local experts served to identify issues and review findings. Ultimately, the public gets the criminal justice system that it chooses. The choices are made in elections and in decisions on legislation, enforcement priorities, and taxes. The resulting system may not be chosen consciously, but it is chosen nonetheless. Because we disapprove of conduct that we consider immoral, our instinct is to punish it. This may be the case even if the conduct does not directly touch our own lives. But we often do not consider the costs of imposing punishment. Some money is well-spent - the incapacitation of harmful offenders is necessary to the maintenance of an orderly society. Every person put in jail, however, requires that money be spent for police, prosecutors, judges, public defenders, and jailers, and money to house and feed the offender. T1he public, therefore, needs to decide how much the incapacitation is worth. Punishment is purchased at a price, often a high one. Public policy decisions involve tough choices: we want safety, moral rectitude and, at the same time, low taxes, but in criminal justice, as in so much else, we cannot have all we want. We may hope, however, to make informed choices, based on fact. It is our objective here to provide recommendations based on facts and on the informed observations of those most familiar with the criminal justice system. The costs we should take into account are not limited to the expense of operating the criminal justice system; citizens and institutions outside the system bear much of the burden. Imprisonment removes workers from the labor force - in many cases, not just during the period of their imprisonment but permanently. Dealing with drug offenders on a "revolving door" basis, processing their cases but failing to rehabilitate them, produces ruined lives and neighborhoods infested with drug dealers. Misallocation of scarce law enforcement resources imposes costs on the business community because of lost productivity and increased security and healthcare costs, and it imposes costs on the working poor because of lost wages and because the poor are likely to be victims of crime. We can continue to devote our resources to the processing of minor drug cases, with little effect on the markets for drugs, or we can provide more resources aimed at drug and mental health rehabilitation and treatment - and target the criminal justice system on serious crime. If the problems described in this report are not addressed, Cook County's criminal justice system will continue to be unmanageable, costly, and inefficient. It will be a system that fails to do justice fairly and effectively. This report offers recommendations for achieving justice through accountability, independence, diversion, and rehabilitation. Accountability and independence require funding, political insulation, and legislative restraint. Diversion and rehabilitation keep defendants away from the criminal justice system entirely and stop the proverbial "revolving door" of justice through treatment services. There is almost universal acknowledgment among the major players at 26th Street that the Cook County criminal justice system needs significant improvement. Moreover, public opinion data suggest that the majority of the public supports restorative justice. For nonviolent offenders, there is considerable support for "intermediate sanctions" and for "restorative justice." There is not, however, a consensus on what can be done to improve the system. The gap between support for action and necessary action looms large. This study, along with the collaboration of the system's major stakeholders, is a step toward reform and change that is long overdue in Cook County. Details: Chicago: Chicago Appleseed Fund for Justice, 2007. 124p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 29, 2016 at: http://chicagoappleseed.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/criminal_justice_full_report.pdf Year: 2007 Country: United States URL: http://chicagoappleseed.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/criminal_justice_full_report.pdf Shelf Number: 107838 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationCriminal CourtsDiversionFelony OffendersMentally Ill OffendersPublic Defenders |
Author: Smith, Jason Title: Restoring Kids, Transforming Communities: Enhancing Michigan's Approach to Juvenile Diversion Summary: Using qualitative and quantitative data, the Michigan Council on Crime and Delinquency (MCCD) sought to understand better how early diversion practices in Michigan align with nationally recognized best practices. The scope of this report includes diversion programs initiated before juvenile court adjudication and excludes programs that divert adjudicated youth from deeper system involvement, such as mental health and drug courts and detention diversion programs. Throughout 2016, MCCD conducted openended, voluntary surveys and interviews with diversion providers in 69 of Michigan's 83 counties, spanning 123 diversion programs. MCCD staff also interviewed local and state law enforcement, prosecutors, judges, employees from the Michigan Departments of Education (MDE) and Health and Human Services (MDHHS), Michigan State Court Administrative Office (SCAO), and the governor-appointed Michigan Committee on Juvenile Justice (MCJJ). The report's primary sources of quantitative data include the Michigan State Police's (MSP) youth arrest data and SCAO's Caseload Reports, which provide information related to delinquency case proceedings statewide. Both sources provide "one-year snapshots" documented within annual reports as well as multi-year trends. There are some limitations to the data. Local, county-based juvenile courts maintain information for delinquency cases and self-report to the SCAO annually; however, due to local variability in data tracking, the aggregate data noted in the report should be considered an estimation. The SCAO Caseload Report data only reflects the number of cases diverted from the formal adjudicative process after the filing of a juvenile court petition-the total number of cases diverted "pre-petition" is unknown. The SCAO does not provide information for the types of offenses diverted versus formally processed, nor does it indicate the referral source for delinquency case petitions (e.g. schools, police, parents). The MSP youth arrest data excludes status offenses which may significantly increase the number of cases referred to juvenile court. The qualitative data gathered through interviews reflect only individual perspectives, not agency positions. The recommendations in this report solely reflect MCCD's position as determined by our understanding of the collected data and interviews. Details: Lansing, MI: Michigan Council on Crime and Delinquency, 2017. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed December 5, 2017 at: https://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/03cb01_2673303a139441de914ef30e8dee39df.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: https://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/03cb01_2673303a139441de914ef30e8dee39df.pdf Shelf Number: 148716 Keywords: DiversionJuvenile Diversion Juvenile Justice Reform Juvenile Justice Systems |
Author: Blanco, Melissa Title: How Effective Are Virginia's Juvenile Division Programs? A Quantitative and Qualitative Assessment for the Virginia State Crime Commission Summary: Virginia has a vested interest in promoting state and local policies that prevent and reduce juvenile delinquency. In particular, policies should be aimed at rehabilitating juvenile offenders with the goal of decreasing recidivism rates across the Commonwealth. One possible way to accomplish lower recidivism rates is through the use of diversion programs. Diversion programs offer alternatives to the traditional forms of secure detention, such as treatment programs, restorative justice services, and community service opportunities. These programs can be mandated by a judge, or they can be assigned in lieu of the juvenile undergoing court proceedings. This study will focus on the diversion programs assigned by Intake Officers before the juvenile enters the traditional criminal justice system. The Virginia State Crime Commission has been directed by the General Assembly of Virginia to conduct a comprehensive, two-year study of Virginia's juvenile justice system. One element of this study calls for an examination of juvenile diversion programs across the state, their impact on rates of recidivism, and their cost-effectiveness. In accordance with this mandate, the Center for Public Policy Research at The College of William & Mary has conducted a survey of juvenile Intake Officers across the Commonwealth (including Parole and Probation Officers who complete intake duties), the purpose of which was to understand how diversion is implemented in each Court Services Unit (CSU), which diversion programs appear to be most effective at reducing recidivism, and why some programs seem to be more effective than others. The scope of this project covers the entire Commonwealth of Virginia, which includes 35 CSUs. The CSUs perform intake, investigations, probation, and parole services for juveniles, and each CSU has anywhere between 3 and 24 Intake Officers and as many or more programs offering diversion services for juveniles. The largest component of this study consists of the formulation and distribution of a web-based survey of Intake Officers, which was anonymous to ensure the reception of candid responses. The survey was formulated to serve four key purposes. The first purpose of the survey was to identify the procedure followed by Intake Officers for deciding which juveniles to divert and to what program he or she should be diverted. The second purpose of the survey is to ascertain which programs or which types of programs Intake Officers feel are most effective. The third purpose is to determine if Intake Officers have any method for assessing the progress of the juvenile after he or she has begun participating in his or her assigned diversion program. Finally, the fourth purpose of the survey is to identify any impediments to the juvenile's successful completion of the diversion program. The twenty-question survey was distributed in November 2007 to 177 Intake Officers across the Commonwealth in 30 of 35 CSUs. Responses were collected from 51 of those individuals(28%), representing 15 of the 30 CSUs included in the sample. A mixture of rural and urban CSUs is represented across the disparate regions of the state. A significant limitation, however, is the lack of representation from two large urban areas of the state, Richmond and Norfolk. More than half of Intake Officers surveyed believe that juveniles should be allowed to be diverted more than once, depending on the circumstances. However, 4 of the 14 CSUs (28.6%) represented have policies that prohibit this, and respondents from five other CSUs (35.7%) presented conflicting interpretations of their CSU's policy. Only about one third of respondents utilize some type of standard assessment at intake for making decisions about diversion for a juvenile. Discretion of Intake Officers appears to be an important element in the diversion process with respect to the determination of whether diversion is appropriate for a juvenile, whether it is permissible for a second offense, and in consideration of the type of offense and any mitigating circumstances. Most Intake Officers take a wide range of factors into consideration when deciding whether to divert a juvenile rather than send him or her through court proceedings. Eighty percent or more consider the number and type of prior offenses in the juvenile's record, the juvenile's current offense, the age of the juvenile, the recommendation of the arresting officer, the type of diversion programs available in the CSU, and the juvenile's family or home situation. Similarly, Intake Officers also consider a number of different factors when deciding which program to divert a juvenile to, citing everything from the juvenile's current offense, to the personality or demeanor of the juvenile, to the availability of transportation for the juvenile to and from the program site. It is clear from the responses received for these two questions that the discretion of the Intake Officers plays a major role in determining whether juveniles are diverted and to what program. Intake Officers were also asked if their CSU implements a family-centered approach to diversion, and most (88%) indicated that they do. Many of the Intake Officers provided comments suggesting that parents are strongly encouraged to take part in at least some part of the diversion and that more ways in which parents could become involved in the diversion process would be welcome in their CSU. Most Intake Officers (78%) indicated that their CSU does perform some kind of assessment of the juvenile's progress after he or she has begun participating in a diversion program. There is a wide spread of responses concerning how often CSUs perform this assessment, ranging from every other week to sporadically, with none doing so everyday. A majority of CSUs continue to assess the juvenile's progress until the juvenile has completed the diversion program requirements. Many CSUs perform their assessment of the juvenile's progress by contacting the juvenile's family, contacting the program director, or meeting the juvenile in-person. Very few do so by observing the juvenile's participation through in-person visits to the diversion program site. Forty percent of Intake Officers reported that their CSU assesses the effectiveness of the diversion programs they utilize, while another 40% said their CSU did not assess diversion program effectiveness. However, these results are potentially misleading. Further analysis reveals that Intake Officers from the same CSU often differed in their answer to this question. Of the eleven CSUs represented, Intake Officers from six of them gave conflicting answers. It appears that Intake Officers may not be aware of their CSU's policy on assessing effectiveness, a situation which should be addressed. The vast majority of Intake Officers' responses indicate that a lack of cooperation from the family (73.2%) and from the juvenile (65.9%) stands in the way of successful diversion outcomes. Furthermore, many of the responses cited too little funding provided by the state (48.8%), too few diversion programs offered in the CSU (46.3%), and an insufficient range of diversion program types (41.5%). Finally, a small number (4.9%) said lack of transportation posed an obstacle to successful diversion. Intake Officers expressed a desire for increased funding for diversion programs, particularly to increase diversion staff and expand the number and type of diversion programs offered in each CSU. They also expressed a desire for uniform criteria for diversion eligibility, as current policy differs from CSU to CSU. For example, a juvenile in one CSU may be eligible for a diversion opportunity, while a juvenile with a similar criminal history may be ineligible for a diversion opportunity in another CSU. After completing this study and reviewing the results, several recommendations for reforming the methods of diversion in Virginia's juvenile justice system became apparent. First, we recommend that the state provide CSUs with resources to collect data on juveniles who have been diverted and the outcomes of the programs to which juveniles are diverted. Second, we recommend that CSUs improve the clarity and uniformity of their diversion policy. Third, we recommend the implementation of a standardized intake assessment with statewide criteria. Results of the survey are valuable and instructive for understanding diversion implementation and its effectiveness in Virginia, but the conclusions do present some limitations. First, only perceived effectiveness was assessed through the perspectives of Intake Officers given that actual data on diverted juveniles was not available to us at the time of this study. Second, less than half of the 35 CSUs in the Commonwealth were represented; ideally we would have achieved representation from all. Third, the narrow definition of recidivism as "re-conviction" may lead to over-stating the effectiveness of diversion programs. Finally, the difficulty in obtaining figures for the costs of diversion program implementation in light of their disparate funding sources precluded a cost-effectiveness analysis within the three-month time constraint for this research endeavor. The Intake Officer Survey has laid the groundwork for future work that could provide additional evidence on how effective diversion programs are at reducing recidivism rates. Specifically, two bodies of work are needed: (1) a quantitative analysis of Virginia's Department of Juvenile Justice data, which would compare recidivism rates between juveniles who were diverted before being adjudicated with juveniles who entered the traditional criminal justice system; and (2) an assessment on how cost-effective diversion programs are in comparison to the traditional adjudication process. Details: Williamsburg, VA : Thomas Jefferson Program in Public Policy, The College of William & Mary, 2007. 64p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 6, 2018 at: https://www.wm.edu/as/publicpolicy/documents/prs/crime.pdf Year: 2007 Country: United States URL: https://www.wm.edu/as/publicpolicy/documents/prs/crime.pdf Shelf Number: 150490 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationDiversionJuvenile DelinquencyJuvenile Diversion ProgramsJuvenile Justice systemsRecidivism |
Author: Niedzwiecki, Emily Title: Massachusetts Juvenile Diversion Assessment Study Summary: On behalf of the Massachusetts Juvenile Justice Advisory Committee (JJAC), in collaboration with the Executive Office of Public Safety and Security (EOPSS), ICF International (ICF) conducted an assessment of District Attorneys' (DAs') offices' pretrial juvenile diversion practices across the Commonwealth. Findings from this assessment are intended to provide a snapshot of DAs' juvenile diversion practices in Massachusetts and make recommendations regarding the enhancement and wider use of promising diversion practices. The purpose of the assessment is also to provide DAs, their staff, and other juvenile justice stakeholders with a better understanding of the state of practice in order to make informed decisions regarding their diversion programs. Methodology In order to gain a better understanding of DAs' pretrial juvenile diversion practices, this assessment included three primary tasks: (1) Background Review, (2) Literature Review, and (3) Key Informant Interviews. This assessment is largely descriptive in nature and is meant to provide an initial look at DA-based pretrial juvenile diversion in Massachusetts. To inform the development of the interview protocol and reduce burden on interview participants, researchers first conducted a background review of public data sources to collect information on jurisdictional characteristics (e.g., population demographics, youth demographics), crime statistics, juvenile court statistics, school statistics, youth initiatives, and existing diversion programming within the community. In conjunction with the background review, the research team conducted a literature review that addressed juvenile justice trends in the United States, juvenile diversion philosophies, model diversion programs and strategies, and background information on juvenile justice in Massachusetts. Finally, the research team conducted semi-structured telephone interviews with staff within each of the 11 DAs' offices who were most knowledgeable regarding juvenile diversion programs and practices within their office. The interviews were designed to collect detailed information on diversion programs and practices, including: key program elements (e.g., target population, eligibility criteria, and decision-making and referral protocols); services provided as part of the diversion program; perceived challenges and limitations; and offices' data collection practices. Over a two-month period, the research team conducted interviews with 14 participants, representing all 11 DAs' offices, which generally included DAs, Assistant District Attorneys (ADAs), diversion program staff, juvenile unit staff and attorneys, and other special programs staff. Details: Fairfax, VA: ICF International, 2015. 92p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 6, 2018 at: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/58ea378e414fb5fae5ba06c7/t/593709d2197aeac077e3f2f9/1496779220634/MADiversion_FinalReport_2015+01+14-FINAL.PDF Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/58ea378e414fb5fae5ba06c7/t/593709d2197aeac077e3f2f9/1496779220634/MADiversion_FinalReport_2015+01+14-FINAL.PDF Shelf Number: 150491 Keywords: DiversionJuvenile Diversion ProgramsPretrial DiversionRecidivismRestorative Justice |
Author: White, Elise Title: Up and Out: Toward an Evidence-Based Response to Misdemeanors Summary: If not jail, then what? Jurisdictions across the country continue to grapple with this question, particularly in response to low-level criminal offending. In the absence of meaningful, legally-proportionate alternatives, many jurisdictions default to the use of short-term incarceration, which brings with it significant financial cost as well as negative outcomes for individuals and communities. Up & Out offers an alternative. It is a brief, non-custodial intervention designed for defendants with misdemeanor cases - i.e., a defendant population with serious treatment needs that cannot be sentenced to intensive long-term interventions (e.g., drug treatment) for reasons of proportionality. The Up & Out project unfolded in two phases. Phase 1 began with the creation and validation of a risk-needs assessment for defendants with misdemeanor cases in New York City, designed to determine key criminogenic needs of the misdemeanor target population (Picard-Fritsche et al. 2018). Based on preliminary Phase 1 findings, Phase 2 involved developing the Up & Out curriculum; piloting the brief intervention in two New York City sites; and conducting a process and impact evaluation of the pilot. The current report summarizes findings from Phase 2. Details: New York: Center for Court Innovation, 2018. 44p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 13, 2018 at: https://www.courtinnovation.org/sites/default/files/media/document/2018/upout_misdemeanors.pdf Year: 2018 Country: United States URL: https://www.courtinnovation.org/sites/default/files/media/document/2018/upout_misdemeanors.pdf Shelf Number: 152931 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationDiversionEvidence-Based PracticesMisdemeanorsProcedural JusticeRisk-Needs Assessment |