Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 30, 2024 Tue
Time: 3:43 am
Time: 3:43 am
Results for judicial diversion
1 results foundAuthor: Waller, Mark S. Title: Testing the Cost Savings of Judicial Diversion. Final Report Summary: Adopted in 1973 and named after then-Governor Nelson Rockefeller, the Rockefeller drug laws required lengthy prison sentences for felony-level drug sale and possession offenses. When punitive drug enforcement strategies peaked in late 1980s and early 1990s, as many as 10,000 drug offenders in New York were sentenced to state prison each year (10,785 in 1990). Reform legislation, adopted in April 2009, included several “judicial diversion” provisions that went into effect six months later, giving judges the discretion to link offenders charged with drug- or property-related felonies to treatment, primarily through New York’s existing network of drug courts. Drug courts seek to halt the revolving door of addiction and arrest by linking addicted offenders to drug treatment and rigorous judicial monitoring. Drug courts bring together judges, prosecutors, defense attorneys, treatment providers and court staff in a collaborative effort to enforce compliance with court orders. Drug courts also use classic behavioral modifi cation strategies (swift and certain sanctions and incentives) that are designed to motivate substance abusers to maintain a drug-free and crime-free life. Key Findings Researchers at NPC Research and the Center for Court Innovation compared the change in treatment participation in the year before the reform took effect and the year after using publicly available case-level data in all 62 counties. For the cost-benefi t analysis, the researchers extrapolated to the entire state results obtained through an in-depth comparison of costs associated with court-ordered treatment and conventional case processing in 10 representative counties. Key fi ndings include: — Court-ordered treatment enrollment increased by 77 percent in the year after October 7, 2009, when the judicial diversion provisions of drug law reform went into effect. — Changes in treatment enrollment varied widely by region and county, indicating that the precise impact of Rockefeller drug law reform depends heavily on local culture and practice. For instance, enrollment increased by more than 200 percent in 13 of New York’s 62 counties and by 1 to 200 percent in 25 counties; enrollment remained the same in 6 and decreased in 18 counties. — The greatest increase in treatment enrollment took place in the suburbs of New York City, which saw a 728 percent increase—mostly stemming from a change from seven to 326 treatment participants in Nassau County and from 30 to 215 participants in Suffolk County. — Offenders sent to treatment consumed signifi cantly fewer criminal justice resources than similar offenders processed the year before judicial diversion went into effect. In particular, offenders sent to treatment spent signifi cantly fewer days than the comparison group on probation or jail sentences stemming from the initial criminal case and—due to reductions in re-offending over a three-year follow-up period—also spent fewer days serving prison sentences that stemmed from future criminal cases. — Those felony-level offenders who enrolled in treatment due to judicial diversion were a higher-risk/higher-need population (e.g., longer and more serious drug use history and more prior arrests and convictions) than the offenders who were enrolled in treatment previously. This trend puts New York State more closely in line with national research demonstrating that high-risk/high-need offenders are particularly suitable for intensive interventions such as drug courts. — Judicial diversion in New York will yield a projected net benefi t of $5,144 per offender over fi ve years, resulting in cost-benefi t ratio of 1 to 2. That is, for every taxpayer dollar invested in the program, there will be a $2 return in the form of criminal justice resources saved after 5 years. When victimization costs are included—representing the cost to crime victims whenever there is a property or violent crime—the net benefi t is $13,284 per offender, and the cost-benefi t ratio increases to a return of $3.56 per dollar spent. (Judicial diversion produces substantial victimization savings by reducing the quantity of new property crimes and crimes against persons.) As Testing the Cost Savings of Judicial Diversion documents, sending cases to treatment in lieu of incarceration or probation can free up signifi cant criminal justice resources. But only subsequent policymaker decisions can determine whether actual savings will be realized. Among other things, realizing cost savings depends on continuing to send a high volume of felony-level defendants to treatment. Details: New York: Center for Court Innovation; Portland, OR: NPC Research, 2013. 84p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 25, 2013 at: http://www.courtinnovation.org/sites/default/files/documents/NY_Judicial%20Diversion_Cost%20Study.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.courtinnovation.org/sites/default/files/documents/NY_Judicial%20Diversion_Cost%20Study.pdf Shelf Number: 129152 Keywords: Cost-Benefit AnalysisDrug Offender Treatment ProgramsDrug OffendersJudicial DiversionRockefeller Drug Laws (New York, U.S.)Sentencing |