Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: November 22, 2024 Fri
Time: 11:54 am
Time: 11:54 am
Results for pretrial diversion
8 results foundAuthor: Kennedy, Spurgeon Title: Outcome and Performance Measures for Pretrial Diversion Field Summary: This publication outlines suggested outcome and performance measures and critical operational data for pretrial diversion programs. Its goals are to present clearly defined and easily calculable measures that pretrial diversion programs can use to gauge progress in achieving their mission and strategic goals, improve business decisions, and illustrate pretrial diversion's value in an evidence-based criminal justice system. The suggested measures are compatible with established national pretrial diversion standards and appropriate for any program established as a voluntary option to traditional criminal case processing and with a mission to: Reduce the likelihood of future arrests through appropriate interventions based on thorough assessments and intervention plans tailored to an individual participant's risks and needs; and/or Conserve/redirect criminal justice resources to more serious crimes and those that warrant prosecution by providing a meaningful response to participant conduct. Each measurement description includes a definition, data needed to track the metric, and a sample calculation. Also included are appendices of recommended procedures on setting measurement targets and establishing meaningful quality assurance and quality control" (p. vi). Sections of this publication cover: the Evidence Based Decision Making Framework (EBDM); introduction; data quality; outcome measures - success rate, safety rule, and post-program success rate; performance measures - screening, placement, compliance, response, provision, and satisfaction; and critical operational data - referrals, time to diversion program placement, time in diversion, time in programming, and exits. Details: Washington, DC: National Association of Pretrial Service Agencies, 2015. 29p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 13, 2015 at: https://s3.amazonaws.com/static.nicic.gov/Library/029722.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: Shelf Number: 136011 Keywords: Evidence Based PracticesPretrial DiversionPretrial Services |
Author: Murphy, Kate Title: Overincarceration Of People With Mental Illness. Pretrial Diversion Across the Country and the Next Steps for Texas to Improve its Efforts and Increase Utilization Summary: Key Points - - The state should delegate its responsibility to provide mental health services to local governments that are already making decisions about how to address people with mental illness in local jails. - The lack of coordination between the state and local governments has impeded local governments' ability to resolve the problems associated with people with mental illness who cycle through local jails. - Local governments should continue to reallocate funding to expand effective, efficient community-based mental health services that may prevent or could be an alternative to incarceration. Details: Austin, TX: Texas Public Policy Foundation, 2015. 24p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 20, 2015 at: http://www.texaspolicy.com/library/doclib/Overincarceration-of-People-with-Mental-Illness.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://www.texaspolicy.com/library/doclib/Overincarceration-of-People-with-Mental-Illness.pdf Shelf Number: 136118 Keywords: Alternative to IncarcerationMental Health ServicesMentally Ill OffendersPretrial Diversion |
Author: Pierce-Danford, Kristy Title: Creating an Effective Pretrial Program: A Toolkit for Practitioners Summary: These are times of significant change for county jails and justice systems. Public Safety Realignment, the 2011 law that shifted management of people convicted of certain nonviolent, non-serious, non-sex offenses from state prisons and parole to county jails and probation, has had a major impact. More individuals are being sentenced to county jail instead of state prison, including people who violate conditions of their parole. Some county jails face limited capacity or strained resources. Combined with ongoing county budget challenges, more than ever, local leaders need effective strategies to safely manage their justice populations and reduce costs at the same time. On average, more than 60 percent of those in local jails in California are awaiting trial. They are being detained "pretrial" while their case goes through criminal proceedings. There are models of pretrial diversion and supervision programs that can effectively manage these individuals in a community setting. Reducing the number of pretrial detainees in jails or the length of their stay can conserve considerable resources and allow the jail to meet other public safety needs. In a post-Realignment California, assessing pretrial program options is both an opportunity and a necessity. Fortunately, pretrial program models have evolved considerably in recent decades, and there is evidence to show that they can be more successful than the money bail system at ensuring public safety and court appearance. There are many evidence-based options available to communities seeking to implement or strengthen pretrial programs. There is not one "correct" model for pretrial programs, and they can be successfully administered through the courts, probation departments, sheriff departments, county administration, independent agencies or any combination of these. Many counties are now exploring such programs, asking critical questions about whom among those awaiting trial needs to be in jail and who can be managed successfully in the community. This toolkit offers guidance to county officials on how to develop and operate these programs at the local level, building upon available literature on effective pretrial policies and practices. Specifically, officials will find: - Key information about the legal framework and national standards for pretrial programs; - How to implement a pretrial risk assessment; - Pretrial diversion and supervision advice; - How to assess your current system; and - Recommendations on using data to measure and enhance pretrial programs. Details: Oakland, CA: Californians for Safety and Justice, 2013. 32p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 23, 2016 at: http://libcloud.s3.amazonaws.com/211/9f/a/223/CSJ_pretrial_toolkit.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://libcloud.s3.amazonaws.com/211/9f/a/223/CSJ_pretrial_toolkit.pdf Shelf Number: 137944 Keywords: BailJailsPretrial DetentionPretrial DiversionPretrial InterventionsPretrial ReleasePretrial SupervisionRisk Assessment |
Author: Schafer, N.E. Title: Evaluation of the Alaska Pre-Trial Intervention Program Summary: The statewide Pretrial Intervention (PTI) Program of the Alaska Department of Law, begun in 1981, received referrals of accused felons and misdemeanants charged with property crimes or misdemeanor personal crimes. Using data from 1983 to 1986, this study examines extralegal and legal characteristics of PTI clients; analyzies program conditions, compliance, and dispositions; and analyzes achievement of program goals. Criminal histories for 2 to 5 years after intake were used to assess recidivism and recidivist characteristics. Results indicate that PTI operated successfully on a variety of measures throughout its existence. It met intake goals, was available to a broad spectrum of citizens in both urban and rural areas of the state, and two-thirds of clients admitted to the program had no record of subsequent law violations. The program admitted only prosecutable offenders and did not result in netwidening. The program provided alternatives to more severe sanctions for nearly 1,900 Alaskans of all ages, races, and socioeconomic status whose offenses were not violent or of a serious or threatening nature. PTI clients ranged in age from 17 to 66 and included both males and females. Theft, drug burglary/trespass, assault, and minor consuming were the most frequently charged offenses. Of clients, 36.8 percent were felons, and 36.3 percent had prior convictions. During the evaluation period, clients completed 65,302 hours of community service; paid $435,081 in victim restitution; and participated in needed treatment programs, including alcohol, psychological, domestic violence, and career counseling. Details: Anchorage: Alaska Justice Statistical Analysis Unit, 2008. 72p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 5, 2016 at: http://justice.uaa.alaska.edu/research/1980/8718.pretrial/8718.01.pretrial.pdf Year: 1988 Country: United States URL: http://justice.uaa.alaska.edu/research/1980/8718.pretrial/8718.01.pretrial.pdf Shelf Number: 138110 Keywords: Pretrial DiversionPretrial Intervention |
Author: U.S. Government Accountability Office Title: Federal Prisons System: Justice Has Used Alternatives to Incarceration, but Could Better Measure Program Outcomes Summary: Since 1980, the federal prison population increased from about 25,000 to almost 200,000, as of March 2016. In part to help reduce the size and related costs of the federal prison population, DOJ has taken steps to slow its growth by pursuing alternatives to incarceration at various stages of the criminal justice process for nonviolent, low-level offenders. Senate Report 113-78 included a provision for GAO to review DOJ's management of the federal prison population. This report (1) describes factors criminal justice stakeholders consider when using incarceration alternatives at or before sentencing and identifies the extent to which those alternatives are used, (2) describes factors BOP considers when using incarceration alternatives for inmates and the extent of their use, and (3) assesses the extent DOJ has measured the cost implications and outcomes of using the alternatives. GAO analyzed DOJ and federal judiciary branch data and documents from fiscal years 2009 through 2015, and interviewed DOJ and judiciary officials at headquarters and in 11 selected nongeneralizable judicial districts about the use of alternatives. GAO selected districts to provide geographic diversity and a mix of districts using and not using the alternatives. What GAO Recommends GAO recommends that DOJ enhance its tracking of data on use of pretrial diversions and that DOJ and BOP obtain outcome data and develop measures for the alternatives used. DOJ concurred Details: Washington, DC: GAO, 2016. 61p. Source: Internet Resource: GA)-16-516: Accessed September 27, 2016 at: http://www.gao.gov/assets/680/677983.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: http://www.gao.gov/assets/680/677983.pdf Shelf Number: 147910 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationFederal PrisonsPretrial DiversionRecidivism |
Author: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of the Inspector General, Audit Division Title: Audit of the Department's Use of Pretrial Diversion and Diversion-Based Court Programs as Alternatives to Incarceration Summary: The Smart on Crime initiative, announced by the Department of Justice (Department) in August 2013, highlighted five principles to reform the federal criminal justice system by, among other things, ensuring just punishments for low-level, non-violent offenders. Smart on Crime encouraged federal prosecutors in appropriate cases involving non-violent offenders to consider alternatives to incarceration such as pretrial diversion and diversion-based court programs where appropriate. Pretrial diversion and diversion-based court programs are alternatives to prosecution or incarceration that enable certain low-level and non-violent offenders to be diverted from traditional criminal justice proceedings, with the result being that the offender may receive no conviction or be sentenced to a lesser or no term of incarceration. Officials of the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys (EOUSA) told us that, while the Smart on Crime initiative contemplates greater use of diversion programs nationally, it does not mandate that each U.S. Attorney's Office (USAO) increase the use of diversion regardless of other priorities or local circumstances. Additionally, the Department's FY 2014-2018 Strategic Plan calls for the expansion of diversion programs as a way to reform and strengthen the federal criminal justice system and address prison overcrowding. The leadership of the Department has acknowledged that the level of federal prison spending is unsustainable. For fiscal year (FY) 2016, the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) budget was $7.5 billion and accounted for 26 percent of the Department's discretionary budget, figures that have risen markedly in the past 15 years. As of September 2015, the BOP operated at 26 percent over capacity and is projected to remain overcrowded through FY 2016 and beyond. Traditional pretrial diversion is initiated at the discretion of the USAOs. It generally involves a decision to defer prosecution in order to allow an offender the opportunity to successfully complete a period of supervision by the Probation or Pretrial Services offices of the U.S. Courts with the agreement that, if successful, the USAO will not prosecute the offender and any pending criminal charges will be dismissed.1 Subject to the criteria in the U.S. Attorney’s Manual, each USAO determines for itself which offenders are eligible for diversion. Diversion-based court programs, by contrast, are generally run by the U.S. Courts in partnership with the USAOs and Probation and Pretrial Services. These The Smart on Crime initiative, announced by the Department of Justice (Department) in August 2013, highlighted five principles to reform the federal criminal justice system by, among other things, ensuring just punishments for low-level, non-violent offenders. Smart on Crime encouraged federal prosecutors in appropriate cases involving non-violent offenders to consider alternatives to incarceration such as pretrial diversion and diversion-based court programs where appropriate. Pretrial diversion and diversion-based court programs are alternatives to prosecution or incarceration that enable certain low-level and non-violent offenders to be diverted from traditional criminal justice proceedings, with the result being that the offender may receive no conviction or be sentenced to a lesser or no term of incarceration. Officials of the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys (EOUSA) told us that, while the Smart on Crime initiative contemplates greater use of diversion programs nationally, it does not mandate that each U.S. Attorney's Office (USAO) increase the use of diversion regardless of other priorities or local circumstances. Additionally, the Department's FY 2014-2018 Strategic Plan calls for the expansion of diversion programs as a way to reform and strengthen the federal criminal justice system and address prison overcrowding. The leadership of the Department has acknowledged that the level of federal prison spending is unsustainable. For fiscal year (FY) 2016, the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) budget was $7.5 billion and accounted for 26 percent of the Department's discretionary budget, figures that have risen markedly in the past 15 years. As of September 2015, the BOP operated at 26 percent over capacity and is projected to remain overcrowded through FY 2016 and beyond. Traditional pretrial diversion is initiated at the discretion of the USAOs. It generally involves a decision to defer prosecution in order to allow an offender the opportunity to successfully complete a period of supervision by the Probation or Pretrial Services offices of the U.S. Courts with the agreement that, if successful, the USAO will not prosecute the offender and any pending criminal charges will be dismissed. Subject to the criteria in the U.S. Attorney's Manual, each USAO determines for itself which offenders are eligible for diversion. Diversion-based court programs, by contrast, are generally run by the U.S. Courts in partnership with the USAOs and Probation and Pretrial Services. These programs typically address criminal charges filed against low-level, non-violent offenders through supervision, drug testing, and treatment services. Diversion-based court programs can target a range of offenses, though they often focus on specific offenses such as drug crimes or particular categories of offenders. While some diversion-based court programs result in a full dismissal of charges, others may result in a conviction with a sentence of probation or little incarceration. The Office of the Inspector General (OIG) initiated this audit to evaluate the (1) design and implementation of federal pretrial diversion and diversion-based court programs, (2) variances in the usage of the programs among the USAOs, and (3) cost savings associated with successful program participants. We found that, since the announcement of the Smart on Crime initiative, the Department has taken some steps to address its historically limited use of pretrial diversion and diversion-based court programs. Between August 2013 and March 2014, EOUSA distributed informational materials designed to inform the USAOs about diversionary court programs and provided training and workshops on alternatives to incarceration. EOUSA also conducts an annual survey of the USAOs' diversion programs. We attempted to obtain from EOUSA the total number of offenders who were placed into a pretrial diversion program as well as the number of unsuccessful participants, which we believe are crucial metrics needed to evaluate the program’s effectiveness. However, we were told that neither EOUSA nor the USAOs track this information. As a result, the Department cannot fully measure the success of its pretrial diversion program. We were able to obtain from EOUSA the number of offenders who successfully completed a pretrial diversion program from FY 2012 through FY 2014 for all 94 USAOs, which was 1,520 offenders. In order to assess whether additional offenders were potentially suitable for pretrial diversion, we determined the number of federal defendants convicted of low-level, non-violent offenses based on U.S. Sentencing Commission statistics. In undertaking this analysis, we applied the same criteria used by the Department’s National Institute of Justice (NIJ) in its 1994 report identifying the universe of federal low-level, non-violent drug offenders, namely: (1) a category I criminal history, (2) zero criminal history points, (3) no weapons offense conviction, (4) no aggravated role adjustment, and (5) no prior arrest for a crime of violence or controlled substance.3 We further restricted this universe by only including offenders who fell within Zone A of the U.S. Sentencing Commission sentencing table and therefore were eligible for a probationary sentence with no conditions of confinement. We also excluded those offenders sentenced under the guideline for unlawfully entering or remaining in the United States because, as a practical matter, offenders illegally in this country are rarely considered for alternative dispositions. Applying all of these criteria, we identified 7,106 offenders during the 3-year period of our review as potentially suitable for pretrial diversion. Of this total, 1,520 offenders successfully completed a pretrial diversion program. We were unable to assess whether the remaining 5,586 potentially suitable offenders would have met the particular USAO's eligibility requirements for its pretrial diversion program or would have been deemed suitable candidates for supervision by Probation and Pretrial Services. We also found, based on the data available to us, that the use of pretrial diversion appeared to be substantially less in some USAOs than in others. Forty-four USAOs (just under one-half of all USAOs), had between zero and five successful pretrial diversion participants. With regard to diversion-based court programs, the vast majority of federal judicial districts (78 out of 94) had no program as of August 2015. Unlike for pretrial diversion, the Department had not established criteria that the USAOs must consider for determining admission into a diversion-based court program. We attempted to obtain from EOUSA the number of offenders who participated in a federal diversion-based court program in past years, but were told the information was not available. As with our analysis of potentially suitable pretrial diversion offenders, we identified those offenders potentially suitable for a diversion-based court program from an analysis of U.S. Sentencing Commission statistics using the criteria from the 1994 NIJ report, but included offenders who fell within either Zone A or Zone B of the U.S. Sentencing Commission sentencing table. Again excluding offenders sentenced for unlawfully entering or remaining in the United States, we determined that 12,468 offenders sentenced from FY 2012 through FY 2014 were potentially suitable for diversion-based court programs. However, as with traditional pretrial diversion, we were unable to assess whether these potentially suitable offenders would have met the entrance and eligibility requirements of diversion-based court programs in their individual sentencing jurisdictions. We found the Department had not evaluated the effectiveness of the USAOs' pretrial diversion programs or its efforts to pursue their use. An evaluation would assess the Department’s progress toward accomplishing the goals established in the Department’s Strategic Plan and its Smart on Crime initiative. The Department also has not evaluated the potential for pretrial diversion programs to reduce prosecution or incarceration costs, and we were unable to obtain data that would have allowed us to do so. Given this absence of data, we instead estimated the incarceration costs that the Department spent on offenders we identified as potentially suitable for pretrial diversion. We determined that of the 7,106 offenders who completed or who were potentially suitable to complete a pretrial diversion program, 4,530 received no prison sentence while 2,576 received some sentence of incarceration. Based on the amount of prison time these 2,576 offenders received, we estimated that from FY 2012 through FY 2014 the Department expended $26,313,168, or $10,215 per offender. These estimates do not take into account the additional costs to the Department to prosecute these cases or to the U.S. Courts to handle them. Nor does this amount include the costs of the pretrial diversion program itself. We believe the Department should consider how it can assess going forward whether prosecuting offenders meeting these criteria are consistent with two of the Smart on Crime initiative principles, namely that prosecutors should pursue the most serious cases that implicate clear, substantial federal interests, and that prosecutors should pursue alternatives to incarceration for low-level, non-violent crimes. For diversion-based court programs, we were able to estimate incarceration costs avoided by a sample of successful participants in three judicial districts. Based on these estimates, we found that the potential for cost savings may be substantial. In the example with the largest sample size, our analysis of court records from the Central District of Illinois identified an estimated potential cost savings from $7,721,258 to $9,665,811 for 49 judgmentally selected successful program participants, or an average of $157,577 to $197,261 per offender. We also found that the Department has not studied the effect pretrial diversion and diversion-based court programs may have on recidivism. We reviewed the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s National Crime Information Center (NCIC) records for the 39 participants who had completed the Central District of Illinois diversion-based court program between November 2002 and February 2011 and found that 9 of these individuals (23 percent) were convicted for a new offense, re-arrested, or had their supervision revoked within 2 years of their diversion-based court program graduation date.6 By comparison, the general recidivism rate for federal inmates has been estimated as high as 41 percent. We recognize that our sample size was small, and believe that a broader study by the Department of the effect of diversion-based court programs on recidivism is warranted to determine if these results are borne out on a more widespread and systemic basis. We make 3 recommendations to the Office of the Deputy Attorney General and 2 recommendations to EOUSA to strengthen the use of pretrial diversion and diversion-based court programs in order to meet the Department’s goals and ensure that alternatives to prosecution are available and utilized where appropriate. Details: Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of the Inspector General, 2016. 60p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed January 26, 2017 at: https://oig.justice.gov/reports/2016/a1619.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: https://oig.justice.gov/reports/2016/a1619.pdf Shelf Number: 145405 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationCosts of Criminal JusticeCriminal Justice ReformDiversion ProgramsPretrial Diversion |
Author: U.S. National Institute of Corrections Title: A Framework for Pretrial Justice: Essential Elements of an Effective Pretrial System and Agency Summary: This document highlights the commitment of the National Institute of Corrections (NIC) to define and support evidence-based practices that improve decision-making at the pretrial stage of our criminal justice system, enhancing the safety of America's communities and fostering the fair administration of pretrial release and detention. With the release of A Framework for Pretrial Justice: Essential Elements of an Effective Pretrial System and Agency, NIC and its Pretrial Executive Network helps inform the discussion on bail reform and pretrial justice by presenting and defining the fundamentals of an effective pretrial system and the essential elements of a high functioning pretrial services agency. This publication presents and describes these essential elements - as well as the components of an evidence-based framework for improving pretrial outcomes nationwide. Bail determination is one of the most important decisions in criminal justice. Courts that make evidence-based decisions set the following as goals: (1) Protecting community safety; (2) Ensuring a defendant's return to court; (3) Basing release and detention decisions on an individual defendant's risk and the community's norms for liberty; [and] (4) Providing judicial officers with clear, legal options for appropriate pretrial release and detention decisions. A Framework for Pretrial Justice: Essential Elements of an Effective Pretrial System and Agency should serve as a guide for jurisdictions interested in improving their current pretrial systems. By presenting a framework of evidence-based and best practices, NIC supports the equally important concepts of pretrial justice and enhanced public safety in all of America's courts. Details: Washington, DC; NIC, 2017. 67p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 14, 2017 at: https://s3.amazonaws.com/static.nicic.gov/Library/032831.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: https://s3.amazonaws.com/static.nicic.gov/Library/032831.pdf Shelf Number: 146178 Keywords: Evidence-Based PracticesPretrial DetentionPretrial DiversionPretrial JusticePretrial ReleaseRisk Needs Assessment |
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 |