Source: http://www.shopliftingprevention.org/promising-practices-in-pretrial-diversion/
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 20:00:55+00:00

Document:
This publication was supported by Grant No. 2006-F0279-WI-DD, awarded by the Bureau of Justice Assistance.The Bureau of Justice Assistance is a component of the Office of Justice Programs, which also includes the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the National Institute of Justice, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, and the Office for Victims of Crime. Points of view and opinions in this document are those of the author and do not necessarily represent official positions or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
continued support for the “eld of pretrial diversion.
who contributed signi”cantly to the development of this document.
Mary Pat Maher, Daniel Peterca.
Reviewed by: NAPSA Board of Directors, Peter Kiers, President.
Contributors: John Bellassai, Karen Galloway, Ann Hubbard, Carol Oeller, Julie Sayler.
• The challenges and opportunities facing diversion practitioners.
Assistance (BJA) to support jurisdictions implementing or considering problem-solving initiatives.
can reduce crime, promote better victim services, and enhance public trust in the justice system.
interventions and sanctions for criminal behavior and to help reduce future criminality.
Services Resource Center. NCJ 121909.
Clients Who Entered the Program in 2001. Minneapolis, MN: Council on Crime and Justice. Henry, D. A. and Kennedy, S. (1997).
“Crime and Punishment in America”, at pp. 1726-27. http://law.jrank.org/pages/1726/Pretrial-Diversion-Impact-on-recidivism.
Law Library of American Law and Legal Information, Vol. 3, “Crime and Punishment in America,” at pp. 1727-28. http://law.
4 National Association of Pretrial Services Agencies. (2008). Performance Standards and Goals for Pretrial Diversion/Intervention.
from discussion. Jail diversion refers to two types of initiatives which are similar to pretrial diversion.
diversion promising practice of o$ering alternatives to adjudication throughout the pretrial stage.
judgment and sentences based on the o$ense committed.
programs remain under regular case adjudication, these are not considered true pretrial diversion.
Contemporary Criminal Justice.%Volume:19 Issue:1, February): 2003%%pp 30-64.
Prosecutors. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, NCJ 099464.
defendant does not complete diversion. National District Attorneys Association. (1991). National Prosecution Standards. 44.5 (e).
(Arlington, VA: National District Attorneys Association).
Practitioners are just beginning to identify and catalogue promising practices in the pretrial diversion “eld.
features and practices commonly mandated by state legislatures and court rules.
most litigation and which, therefore, might demand promising practices to be developed in response.
• Selected questions and responses from NAPSA’s 2004-2008 survey of pretrial diversion practitioners.
respondents could indicate practices either critical or promising to program success.
focused on what these practitioners believed are the field’s current best practices.
intended to elicit opinions from a wider range of pretrial practitioners.
for a list of these programs).
Pretrial Diversion Programs and Practices. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Assistance.
• A bibliography of published titles relating to pretrial diversion.
identify research on policies and practices similar to those in the pretrial diversion field.
• Program-specific monitoring statistics, gathered internally.
policy, the experience of pretrial diversion practitioners, and empirical data about individual programs.
and the challenges and opportunities facing diversion practitioners.
nationwide.11 In 1968, the U.S. Department of Labor’s Manpower Administration and the U.S.
diversion programs in 45 states, the District of Columbia, and the U.S. Virgin Islands.
“eld is diverse in program design and practice and open to broad points of view on “what works” and why.
pretrial diversion programs should include, albeit allowing for considerable local variation.
Adult Defendants from Traditional Criminal Justice Processing. www.napsa.org/publications/diversionhistory.pdf.
10 !e Citizen’s Probation Authority exists today under the Genesee County Pretrial Services Agency.
Society. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing O#ce.
97.. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing O#ce.
13 Bellassai, J.P. (1978). “Pretrial Diversion: !e First Decade in Retrospect,” Pretrial Services Annual Journal. pp. 13-16.
Washington, D.C.: Pretrial Services Resource Center.
county-based, with median annual budgets of about $160,000 and median sta$ sizes of around six.
programs had yearly budgets of less than $100,000 and 40 percent had sta$s of two persons or less.
and 35 percent in 2000 or later.
16 Kentucky Department of Public Advocacy. (2009). “e Advocate, Volume 31, No. 1.
2008. Trenton, NJ: New Jersey Administrative O#ce of the Courts.
Carolina’s statewide pretrial diversion programs are located administratively under county prosecutors.
Programs in South Carolina supplement public funding with program fees for diversion services.
Pretrial Diversion around the World: Other countries have added pretrial diversion to their justice systems.
18 Administrative O#ce of Pennsylvania Courts. (2008). 2007 Caseload Statistics of the Uni#ed Judicial System of Pennsylvania.
Philadelphia, PA: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
20 Telephone correspondence with Operation de Novo Director, James T. Brown, June 9, 2009.
Study of Existing Legislation. Geneva: World Health Organization.
24 Leroy, B. (1991). “e Community of Twelve and the Drug Demand. Comparative Study of Legislations and Judicial Practice.
Luxembourg: Commission of the European Community.
to eligible defendants from the point of the #ling of formal charges through #nal adjudication.
Treatment: Findings at the Brooklyn Treatment Court, 1996-2000,” Drug Courts In Operation: Current Research . pp. 91-93.
short-term jail placements, providing written or verbal warnings, and requiring additional counseling.
median minimum time of three months and median maximum time of 12 months.
Community: An Integrated Approach. San Diego, CA: San Diego Association of Governments.
From Behavioral Research,” National Drug Court Institute Review. Volume 2, %Issue 1. pp. 1-31.
legislatures rather than prosecutors to outline the rules and requirements for pretrial diversion.
doctrine arising from legislatures de”ning the scope and features of pretrial diversion.
decisions or legislative standards violates separations of powers.
circuits center on the use of diversion program information in other legal proceedings.
32 National District Attorney’s Association. (1991). p. 138.
33 National Association of Pretrial Services Agencies. (2008).
regarding the use of pretrial diversion information in subsequent court proceedings or in other settings….
35 State v. Leonardis, 363 A.sd 321 (1976). See also State v. Hemmersly, 650 S.W.2d 352 (Tennessee, 1983).
36 See Clayton v. Lacy, 589 N.W. 2d 529 (Nebraska, 1999) and Cleveland v. State, 417 So. 2d 653 (Florida, 1982).
37 Clark. (2008). p. VIII-1.
completion varied greatly, from one year to “ve years.
determine the scope and worth of this type of programming to the criminal justice community.
evaluations as guides, the authors found nine practices that rank as the best in pretrial diversion today.
the “eld has to o$er.
Promising Practice #3: Speci”c due process protections incorporated into programming.
multiple points of case processing.
appropriate and least restrictive levels of supervision and services needed.
developed with the participant’s input.
Promising Practice #7: Graduated sanctions short of termination as responses to participant behavior.
Promising Practice #8: Maximum possible privacy protections for participants and program records.
Promising Practice #9: Independent program evaluations.
and key stakeholders to assure program continuity and consistency.
consistency in treatment of each defendant who participates.
criteria and in the processing of diversion participants.
overall success and viability of programs.
requirements and build local support and continuity.
pretrial diversion “eld as a whole.
Pretrial diversion is a legal option that, if accepted, will result in a dismissal or return to full prosecution.
the ability to consult counsel, a defendant may not be truly informed of the consequences of such waivers.
consult with counsel before making the decision to apply for diversion.
a copy of the general program requirements including program duration and possible outcomes.
3-3.8. p. 69. Washington, D.C.: American Bar Association.
40 Ibid., Standard 4-6.1(a): . p. 203.
decisions. Most recent state statutes have incorporated representation as a standard practice.
check program eligibility criteria and other program requirements, as well as to contact the program.
41 National District Attorneys Association. (1991). Standard 44.8: . p.137.
Promising Practices #3: Specific due process protections are incorporated into programming.
laws and legal proceedings—has been a central focus in diversion standards, case law, and programming.
placements (Standard 7.2), and the defendant’s right to challenge a termination action (Standard 7.3).
answered that defendants also could appeal a decision to terminate pretrial diversion participation.
42 National District Attorney’s Association. (1991). Standard 44.8. p.137.
decision makers be impartial in regards to the matter before them. Snyder v. Massachusetts, 291 U.S. 97, 105 (1934).
v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965).
at multiple points of case processing.
which program eligibility can be conditioned upon present charge and prior o$enses.
criteria in their statutes with regard to diversion.
at which diversion may be o$ered and encourage the broadest application of eligibility criteria.
encompass all potential participants who are amenable to the pretrial diversion/intervention option.
of People with Serious Mental Illness” Psychiatric Services, Vol. 57, No. 4. p. 544.
of responsibility, and residence in the jurisdiction.
lockup, extending to arraignment court and second appearance.
Components. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice. Bureau of Justice Assistance. p. 5.
appropriate and least restrictive levels of supervision and the types of services needed.
level and type of supervision and services needed to reduce that risk.
chosen assessment instrument with their own population before implementing its use.
or shortly after program enrollment. Standard 5.1 speci”cally addresses this practice.
Institute. Most participants indicated their programs used such an instrument.
49 See, for example, Van Nostrand, M. (2007). Legal and Evidence Based Practices: Application of Legal Principles, Laws and Research.
prison. Paper presented at the 103rd Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, New York, NY. Brizer, D.
research and future prospects,” Psychiatric Quarterly, 64(3), 245-271. Wolfe, R. (2007). Expanding the Use of Problem Solving.
Washington, D.C.: Center for Court Innovation. p. 3.
multiple cost-savings and system e#ciencies.
Dade County Drug Court Program divert drug-dependent defendants charged with serious felonies.
Each uses established, validated clinical assessment tools with all their clients.
Intervention. Washington, D.C.: National Institute of Corrections. p. 4.
case upon successful completion or unsuccessful termination.
ability to provide culturally competent and gender-speci#c programming for participants.
ability and/or any other protected class . . .
supplementing the standard diversion contract entered into at enrollment time.
requirements that address the needs/risk assessment outcome is ensuring that conditions are not excessive.
restrictive and closely related to the core purposes of the program and to the defendant’s rehabilitation.
guidelines for consistency and quality assurance.
that a rearrest while in program should not be cause for automatic program dismissal.
53 See supra note 30.
the maximum privacy provided by law to all facets of pretrial diversion.
Standards enunciate the parameters of a promising practice in this area.
have his/her record sealed or expunged.
con#dential and may not be released without the participant’s prior written consent.
diverted case or in any subsequent civil, criminal or administrative proceeding.
be limited only to information which is veri#ed and necessary.
As would be expected, there is much reported appellate-level litigation on these various privacy issues.
protection. However, these mandates do not apply once an arrest is posted openly on the Internet.
forms for download and completion.
participants who have completed the program.
and pretrial services all stress the importance of deriving promising practices from empirical “ndings.
programs and “ndings from di$erent evaluations across programs di#cult.
Standards echo the earlier version in its emphasis of the value of independent evaluation.
28 percent had commissioned an independent program evaluation.
a pretrial diversion program with a recent independent evaluation (2003).
of potential use to other criminal justice practitioners.
Emerging Practice #1: Written policies and procedures backed by a formal mission statement.
provide sta$ written policies and procedures that link on-the-job performance with visioning statements.
operational policies and procedures which support e!ective programming. . .
75 percent of respondents had mission statements and close to 85 percent had written program goals.
statements, goals, and written procedures.
and Orliko$, J. E. (2002). “e high-performance board Principles of nonpro#t organization governance. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
organizational achievement. New York, NY: Jossey-Bass Inc. Publishers, Inc.
relevant and accurate information to better ensure accurate decision making.
diversion-related data requirements into the larger agency’s data system.
57 NAPSA. (2008). Standard 5.5.
and provide timely feedback on client progress.
Several pretrial diversion programs monitor the quality and timeliness of such outside services.
traditional prosecutor’s o#ce to pretrial services agencies, probation departments, and private agencies.
a signi”cant volume of case law on pretrial diversion re&ects the “eld’s continued relevance and growth.
especially concerns regarding participant due process.
similarities in goals and structure between pretrial diversion and these initiatives.
sponsoring agencies, funding sources, and available resources, they share many practices and goals.
preserves court and jail time while e$ectively intervening with a criminal justice population.
respond to the people who are entering their criminal justice system.
courts, with emphasis on program practices and interventions that are considered successful.
positive outcomes for the system and the defendant.
Programs. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Assistance, NCJ 199773.
appearance to appropriate pretrial diversion programs and problem-solving initiatives.
decreasing crime and increasing the public’s trust in the justice system.
59 Ibid at p. 1.
Working Group (Working Group) and the monograph contractor, Willow Spring Consultants, Inc.
needing revision or not contributing to program goals and objectives.
approaches to supervision and service provision.
programs in New York State.
San Francisco Pretrial Diversion Project, Inc.
of Pennsylvania. Philadelphia, PA: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
Allison, M. & Kaye, J. (1997). Strategic planning for nonpro#t organizations: A practical guide and workbook.
New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.
(3rd Edition). Standard 3-3.8. p. 69. Washington, D.C.: American Bar Association.
An Evaluation of Five Programs.” In Criminal Justice & Behavior, Vol. 26, Issue 2, at pp. 168-195.
pp. 13-16. Washington, D.C.: Pretrial Services Resource Center.
103rd Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, August 11, New York, NY.
Rehabilitation Supervision Program.” Criminal Justice and Behavior, Volume:27, Issue: 3, pp. 312-329.
Brizer, D. (1989). “Introduction: Overview of current approaches to the prediction of violence.” In D.
sustaining organizational achievement. New York, NY: Jossey-Bass Inc. Publishers, Inc.
San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG), Criminal Justice Research Division.
Organizations. Newbury Park: Sage Publications.
Court Rulings. Washington, D.C.: Pretrial Justice Institute.
Cormier, R. B. (1997). “Yes, SIR! A stable risk prediction tool.” Forum on Corrections Research, 9(1):, 3-7.
Principles of E!ective Intervention. Washington, D.C.: National Institute of Corrections.
M. Tonry (Eds.), Prediction and Classi#cation (pp. 21-51). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
and Outcome Evaluation. Washington, D.C.: Pretrial Services Resource Center.
Demonstration in Birmingham, Alabama: Final Report. Washington, D.C.: !e Urban Institute.
Graduated Sanctions.” Journal of Drug Issues, Volume: 31%Issue:1 pp. 207-232.
Kentucky Department of Public Advocacy. (2009). “e Advocate, Volume 31, No. 1.
DC: Pretrial Services Resource Center, NCJ 121909.
Justice Involvement,” Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice%Volume:19%Issue:1.
Judicial Practice. Luxembourg: Commission of the European Community.
violence: Recent research and future prospects,” Psychiatric Quarterly, 64(3), 245-271.
sites: Comparison at intake and 6 months later,” Drug and Alcohol Dependence, Volume 99, Issues 1-3. pp.
Behavioral Research,” National Drug Court Institute Review,%Volume:2%%Issue:1. pp. 1-31.
Jacksonville, FL and Tacoma, WA,” Journal of Drug Issues, Volume:36%Issue:1. pp. 97-118.
National Advisory Commission on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals. (1973). Report on Corrections.
Standard 3.1, pp. 73-97. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing O#ce.
Courts: “e Key Components. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Assistance.
Intervention and Treatment.” Australian Institute of Criminology Technical and Background Paper, No. 24.
for Prosecutors. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice National Institute of Justice. NCJ 099464.
governance. San Francisco, CA:., Jossey-Bass.
Persons: A Comparative Study of Existing Legislation. Geneva: World Health Organization.
Crime in a Free Society. Washington, D.C.: U.S. General Printing O#ce.
San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) Criminal Justice Research Division. (1995).
Clients Who Entered the Program in 2001. Minneapolis, MN: Council on Crime and Justice.
Trends and News, Business Law, Volume:2 Issue:2).
Society Foundation for South Africa.
Research. Washington, D.C.: National Institute of Corrections.
Cameron Policy & Research Consultants.
Wolfe, R. (2007). Expanding the Use of Problem Solving. Washington, D.C.: Center for Court Innovation.
Clayton v. Lacy, 589 N.W. 2d 529 (Nebraska, 1999).
Cleveland v. State, 417 So. 2d 653 (Florida, 1982).
Snyder v. Massachusetts, 291 U.S. 97, 105 (1934).
State v. Leonardis, 363 A.sd 321 (1976).
State v. Hemmersly, 650 S.W.2d 352 (Tennessee, 1983).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 

v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.