Source: http://www.shopliftingprevention.org/diversion-intervention-standards/
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 20:29:40+00:00

Document:
contributed thoughtful insight into its content.
BJA for recognizing the need and in supporting its fulfillment.
Commentary apart from the Introduction. Both are now included in the new Part I.
cases and that those cases can be successfully diverted out of the system into traditional programs.
which identifies the most appropriate and effective types and intensities of intervention strategies.
diversion/intervention programming and problem solving courts.
Standards and Goals for Pretrial Release and Diversion, (1978) p. 21.
addition of problem solving courts, which had impacted how programs worked.
entirely new Standards to address some of these challenges and to minimize the allied consequences.
highly effective system which manages limited resources and defendants successfully.
The work of revising such documents is never easy, nor is it always a harmonious process.
planning and implementation of the most appropriate intervention.
and implemented. The second highlight is the incorporation of evidence based practices and language.
they reflect a movement toward grounding the Standards in proven, effective practices.
effective array of responses to the challenges of today’s dynamic community justice environment.
Standards and Goals for Pretrial Release and Diversion, (1995) p. 13.
results in a dismissal of the charge(s).
conservation of court and criminal justice resources.
and designate an entity to oversee and/or administer diversion services.
of the filing of formal charges through final adjudication.
program should be voluntary and made with written, informed consent.
and/or program fees or inability to perform community service.
requirements including program duration and possible outcomes.
equitable and related to the goals of the diversion placement.
informed consent after an opportunity to meet with counsel.
diversion/intervention program should be established.
denial should be provided to the defendant in writing.
designed to respond only to the crime charged.
should be matched to the level of risk of future criminal behavior.
competent and gender specific programming for participants.
should be reduced to a written agreement.
dismissal of the charge(s) upon successful completion of program requirements.
participant should have his/her criminal record sealed or expunged.
elect to return to traditional criminal justice processing without prejudice.
in writing and afforded an opportunity to challenge that decision.
occur only after weighing all factors.
the participant’s prior written consent.
which is verified and necessary.
are used in any report.
operational policies and procedures which support effective programming.
appropriate resources necessary to accomplish its mission.
selected for positions based on skill and experience.
provide staff with opportunities to enhance skills.
requests for funding to promote sustainability.
address data sharing and information protection.
fallen outside the more stringent definitions of the past.
courts, the court or the judge has the primary role with both the defendant and the case.
definition of such programming to respond to the changes and challenges in the field.
responses which fall under this umbrella of alternative dispositional programming.
traditional case processing thereby freeing court resources for more serious cases.
presenting problems and in reducing the likelihood of future arrests.
contribute responsibly to his family and community.
Sentencing Project (Washington, D.C. 2005).
designate an entity to oversee and/or administer diversion services.
world of internet and open records, a criminal conviction can carry a substantial burden.
community approach to developing and implementing diversion eligibility criteria.
formal charges through final adjudication.
prosecuted, they also should not be funneled into the diversion/intervention process.
timely victim restoration and conserves court resources.
Morse v Municipal Court, 13 Cal.3d 149 (1974).
make an informed, voluntary choice to enter the pretrial diversion/intervention process.
making an informed and voluntary waiver of such important rights.
should be voluntary and made with written, informed consent.
signed by the defendant, which supports his/her understanding and consent.
more beneficial to him or her than the diversion option.
defense counsel before making such a decision.
system and an assessment of the possible sentence that could be imposed if convicted.
enrollment, it can not be the only factor for exclusion.
otherwise subjected to discrimination for eligibility purposes.
People of California v Cisneros, 100 Cal.; Rptr.2nd 784 (2000).
regular basis and widely distributed to all interested parties.
promote broad-based local support for a diversion/intervention program.
in local or state laws and in local criminal justice policies and procedures.
should be an active, ongoing process on the part of the program.
applicable in the case in question.
control over the charging process.
the fair application of agreed upon diversion eligibility guidelines.
among all the interested parties.
program fees or inability to perform community service.
pay restitution or program fees so long as such payment is not a condition of eligibility.
make alternatives available when participation is precluded due to ability to pay the fees.
based solely on inability to pay fees violates the fundamental principle of fairness.
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v Melnyk, 548 A.2d 266 (1988).
Mueller and Evans v Indiana, 837 N.E. 2d 198 (2005).
program duration and possible outcomes.
option and the various alternatives to diversion/intervention before making any decision.
inform the potential participant, ideally in the presence of counsel, about the program.
barriers to actual person-to-person representations by the program are insurmountable.
waived her right to an attorney and the admission of guilt would not be suppressed.
and related to the goals of the diversion placement.
over conditioning are counterproductive to participant success.
after an opportunity to meet with counsel.
prosecution in its own right.
Ludd v The State of Texas, 2005 Tex App. Lexis 2233.
(Washington, D.C. 2007) p. 21.
State v. Catlin, 215 N.J. Super. 471 (1987).
State v. Smith, 92, N.J. 143 (1983).
participant is returned to court for prosecution.
not wish to do so for reasons of his/her own.
routine time limits for pretrial diversion be the shortest feasible to accomplish those goals.
and dismissal of charges is warranted?
See Standard 5.3, infra, and Commentary.
written reasons should be given to all interested criminal justice parties for the variation.
determine if the extension remains relevant.
provided to the defendant in writing.
review of that decision is essential.
reasons for the denial should be provided to the defendant, counsel, prosecutor and court.
In Hopper v. State 546 N.E. 2) 106 (Ind. Appl. Dist., 1989) Aff’d. 603 N.E., 2d. 910 (Ind. App.
arbitrary exercise or abuse of a program’s discretion.
for the fair operation of the law.
motions hearing before a judicial officer.
release supervision case and release the defendant on his/her own recognizance.
the voluntary nature of diversion.
State v. Strychnewicz, 68 N.J. 285, 344 A. 2d 319 (1975).
State v. Barath, 169 N.J.Super. 181 (Law Div. 1979).
respond only to the crime charged.
her to the attention of the system, the probability of future arrests is minimized.
to cope with the conduct that led to the participant’s arrest.
The terminology used in this chapter is of particular importance.
“Intervention plan” is being recommended as opposed to treatment plan or counseling plan.
participation in a diversion/intervention program is unproductive.
Criminal Justice Quarterly, Vol. 2, No. 4 (Fall, 1974).
planning for a realistic and successful intervention.
conditions are spelled out clearly and is completed at the beginning of the program.
can greatly enhance a participant’s opportunity for success.
intensity to the level of risk.
recommended that intervention plans include referrals for long-range service delivery.
participant’s needs and to reflect the least restrictive means to accomplish the goals.
to a hearing where evidence as to their ability to pay can be presented.
State v. Jimenez, III N.M. 782, 810 P.2d 801 (1991).
State v. Devatt 173 N.J.Super 188, 413 A. 2d. 973 (1980).
through the treatment program with monitoring by the diversion/intervention program.
which include attention to early trauma and its effects.
services and as well as those of the community.
Mental Health Planning, (Washington, D.C. 2004).
withdraw from the program and return for prosecution without prejudice.
Sess. (1978) at 80 (statement of Pretrial Services Resource Center Director Madeleine L. Crohn).
This requirement for a pre-termination hearing is recommended elsewhere in these Standards.
supra, and 7.3, infra, and accompanying commentary.
charge(s) upon successful completion of program requirements.
should be accompanied by a dismissal with prejudice of the diverted criminal charge(s).
successful participant a disposition that falls short of dismissal with prejudice.
which has advanced the same rationale as expressed here.
decision-makers involved, have an obligation to see that the agreed upon bargain is kept.
were met and that the intervention plan was addressed satisfactorily.
confidential aspects of the report is discussed in Part VIII of these Standards.
successful pretrial diversion to, in effect, wipe the slate clean as to these charges”.
, 183 S.W. 3d 204 (2006).
have enacted sunshine laws which make most criminal justice records public information.
completion of a pretrial diversion.
State of Florida v Dempsey, 916 So.2d 856 (2005).
criminal justice processing without prejudice.
voluntary nature of the diversionary process.
endeavor that may not work with each participant.
decision to the participant, defense counsel, prosecutor and/or court.
to unsatisfactory or non-compliance should be informed of such, as should defense counsel.
is critical to the effectiveness of the program.
might improve the potential for success for this defendant.
the decision to resume the criminal justice process.
the traditional criminal justice proceedings.
writing and afforded an opportunity to challenge that decision.
34 and in Gagnon v.
officer, which need not be a judicial officer.
Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 (1972) (parole revocation requires due process hearing).
Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778 (1973) (probation revocation requires due process).
whether or not to terminate should occur only after weighing all factors.
review of the circumstances can a realistic decision be made regarding termination.
defendant’s program progress is considered in the decision making process.
interested criminal justice entities who are involved with processing the new charge.
State v. Marino, 674 P.2d 171 (Washington, 1984).
confidential and should not be released without the participant’s prior written consent.
certain information to outside parties such as defense counsel, the prosecutor, and the court.
are his or her rights to access diversion/intervention records.
treatment must conform to the federal guidelines under Federal Rule 42 C.F.R., Part 2.
conveyed to the participant prior to any initial discussion or assessment.
parties without the (potential) participant’s prior written consent.
subsequent civil, criminal or administrative proceeding.
the participant may have been elicited.
criminal justice personnel which guarantees confidentiality of such information.
will not be as sensitive to public policy considerations which support such a position.
See Standards 4.5, and 7.3, supra, and accompanying commentary.
Therefore, a broader guarantee is recommended, similar to that embodied in Guidelines No.
introduction of the information would be contrary to the participant’s interests.
broad spectrum of criminal, civil, and/or administrative officers.
suggestions to mitigate some of the impact.
People v. Rodriquez, (N.Y. Sup. Ct., App. Div., 1975).
were embodied in statutes; instead, both were based on local agency policy only.
heart of maintaining a responsible, arrest free life.
potential participants prior to enrollment.
See Standards 6.2 and 7.2, supra, and accompanying notes and commentary.
court as to type and content of the reports to be submitted for dismissal recommendations.
no identifying characteristics of individual participants are used in any report.
groups that may need to gain access to participant records are researchers and auditors.
provided may be utilized for research and auditing purposes.
programs feel uneasy about sharing defendants’ records with or without personal identifiers.
Statistics for a 2003 publication, 2002 Compendium of State Privacy and Security Legislation.
goals should be clearly conveyed to both staff and participants.
directed toward the realization of that mission.
knows, understands, and supports the program’s mission and goals.
resources to help achieve the goals that are set.
representatives of the community served by the program.
followed and properly communicated to appropriate parties of the criminal justice system.
engage private foundations in supporting the work that they do.
policies in place for the consistent handling of participants who cannot pay.
justice organizations in a collaborative approach to criminal case processing.
suggestions about the impact and effectiveness of their work.
communication, mutual understanding and identification of gaps in services.
providing forms and instructions in the defendant’s native language, if possible.
The composition of program staff should be diverse and reflect the community served.
with opportunities to enhance skills.
diversion/intervention programs with a strong foundation for building quality services.
an excellent guideline for sound principles and effective program planning.
for staff, NAPSA is now offering certification for both pretrial diversion and release staff.
increase in their overall understanding of the pretrial field.
monitoring are hallmarks of good overall management.
need for continued or additional funding when reporting to governmental bodies.
presentation, compliance monitoring, case management and program evaluation.
and the National Institute of Corrections, (Washington, D.C. 2007).
be able to provide the data for both program outcome and process evaluations.
to incorporate new policies with regard to data sharing and information protection.
their system and understand any potential risks to confidentiality and privacy.
evaluations and audits to determine effectiveness in its performance and practices.
different types of undertakings: monitoring, specialized research and evaluation.
describes program practices and an “outcomes” or impact component that measures success.
program is being operated in a way consistent with its stated goals and purposes.
internal changes should be made in program practices to better achieve stated goals.
support and monies for a comprehensive evaluation of program efforts.
more serious crimes and thus encourage diversion of the widest number of defendants.
value through rigorous evaluation can enhance their sustainability.
on individual certification and to obtain publications.

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

 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.