Pretrial Diversion Programs

1 Pretrial Diversion Programs Research Summary Prepared by: Catherine Camilletti, CSR, Incorporated 2107 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 1000. Arlington, VA 20001. Under Contract No. GS-10F-0114L, Order No. 2008-F_08151. October 25, 2010. Contents Abstract ..1. Definition and Goals ..1. Components of Diversion Programs ..1. Types of Diversion Programs ..2. Other Benefits of Pretrial Diversion Programs ..3. Unanswered Questions About Pretrial Diversion Programs ..3. Summary ..4. References ..5. i Research Summary: Pretrial Diversion Programs Abstract (NAPSA, 2010). By targeting the underlying root causes of criminal activity, Pretrial Pretrial Diversion Programs are voluntary Diversion Programs ultimately aim to reduce alternatives to traditional criminal justice offenders' recidivism (Ulrich, 2002).

2 Processing. Research demonstrates that these Eligibility requirements for Pretrial Diversion Programs can have positive outcomes for Programs can differ depending on the offenders with alcohol, substance abuse, mental jurisdiction in which they are run, but most health, or co-occurring disorders (NAPSA, have at least one requirement centered on the 2010). Although researchers have assessed following: (a) prior criminal history, (b) current individual components of these Programs , there charge, (c) substance abuse history, (d) mental has been little work to examine the health history, (e) victim approval, effectiveness of Pretrial Diversion Programs as (f) restitution repayment, and (g) arresting a whole (NAPSA, 2010).

3 Officer approval (NAPSA, 2009). Definition and Goals A study of nationwide Pretrial Diversion Pretrial Diversion /intervention is a voluntary Programs found that most offenders in them option which provides alternative criminal case had been charged with nonviolent felony processing for a defendant charged with a offenses (Ulrich, 2002). The most common types crime that ideally, upon successful completion of these offenses were fraud, larceny/theft of an individualized program plan, results in a (Ulrich, 2002), and drug-related offenses dismissal of the charge(s). (NAPSA, 2008, p. 6) (Zlatic, Wilkerson, and McAllister, 2010).

4 These alternative Programs use established The most recent major review of Pretrial criteria to determine which defendants are Diversion Programs was completed in 1982 for eligible to participate in the program. For the Pretrial Services Resource Center (see example, the New York City Diversion program Kirby and Pryor, 1982). More recent studies includes only first-time offenders with have examined the effectiveness of some nonviolent misdemeanor offenses and components of Diversion Programs , others have inadequate employment. Diversion Programs examined different types of Diversion also are characterized by standardized Programs , but none have examined the supervision ( , drug testing) and service effectiveness of Diversion Programs as a whole delivery, including counseling and drug (NAPSA, 2010; Lattimore et al.)

5 , 2003; Cowell, treatment (NAPSA, 2010). The third shared Broner, and Dupont, 2004; Mire, Forsyth, and characteristic of Pretrial Diversion Programs is Hanser, 2007). Additionally, the more recent that completion of the program results in the review of Pretrial Diversion Programs by dismissal of criminal charges (NAPSA, 2010). NAPSA (2009) was offered to re-introduce'. Pretrial Diversion to the broader [criminal The goal of these Programs is to reduce crime justice] field (NAPSA, 2009, p. 5). by discovering the underlying factors that lead to an individual's criminal behavior (NAPSA, Components of Diversion Programs 2010).

6 Because these types of Programs Pretrial Diversion Programs have several typically target nonviolent offenders, they aim components. Most use risk assessments to to eliminate underlying factors such as mental determine whether offenders are eligible for illness or substance abuse that may drive an the program, while others use standardized individual's criminal behavior. Thus, many of eligibility criteria such that an offender and his these Programs target offenders who are better or her charge must fit certain requirements served through community restitution (NAPSA, 2010). Many also use assessments to Programs rather than criminal sanctions 1.

7 Research Summary: Pretrial Diversion Programs determine the needs of offenders and identify whether these symptoms are appropriate treatment/service plans. present in the offenders they encounter in the field. When an offender is identified Most Pretrial Diversion Programs also include with symptoms of a serious mental illness, some type of supervision that accompanies criminal justice personnel are able to divert treatment services (NAPSA, 2010). that individual to a treatment center rather Additionally, most require some sort of victim than booking him or her, which terminates restitution, community service, and counseling.

8 That individual's involvement with the Depending on an offender's needs, Programs criminal justice system (Mire, Forsyth, and also may include drug treatment or counseling, Hanser, 2007). urinalysis, and programming for several types of traffic offenses. Prebooking Diversion Programs may be the most beneficial type of Pretrial Diversion Types of Diversion Programs Programs , but there are some barriers to There are several types of Pretrial Diversion their implementation. First, a jurisdiction's Programs . These include statewide Diversion criminal justice personnel need to be highly Programs , prebooking Programs , postbooking trained.

9 And jurisdictions that implement Programs , and post-plea Programs (NAPSA, these Programs have a greater liability. If 2010; Lattimore et al., 2003; Cowell, Broner, frontline officers misdiagnose an offender and Dupont, 2004; Mire, Forsyth, and Hanser, and this leads to an injury, the officers'. 2007). These Programs are very similar, but department may be open to a lawsuit (Mire, each has different requirements. Forsyth, and Hanser, 2007). 1. Statewide Pretrial Diversion Programs 3. Postbooking Diversion Programs These These Programs are managed and funded are the most prevalent type of Pretrial by the state's Administrative Office of the Diversion program (Cowell, Broner, and Courts, the state probation department, Dupont, 2004).

10 Like prebooking Diversion community corrections agencies, or Programs , postbooking Programs also are nonprofit organizations (NAPSA, 2010). aimed at diverting offenders with mental Many have community service or victim illness or co-occurring disorders from the restitution components. Interestingly, most criminal justice system (Lattimore et al., statewide Pretrial Diversion Programs are 2003). These Programs involve assessment not available in all of a state's jurisdictions and screening of offenders after they have (NAPSA, 2010). In Kentucky, for example, been charged with an offense and typically these Programs are available in only 43 of require negotiations between Diversion staff the 120 counties (Kentucky Department of and criminal justice personnel.)