DOCSLIB.ORG

An Outcomes Study of Juvenile Diversion Programs On

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

AN OUTCOMES STUDY OF JUVENILE DIVERSION PROGRAMS ON NON-SERIOUS DELINQUENT AND STATUS OFFENDERS by MELODY J. STEWART Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements For the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Dissertation Adviser: Dr. Victor K. Groza Mandel School of Applied Social Sciences CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY August, 2008 CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF GRADUATE STUDIES We hereby approve the dissertation of Melody J. Stewart, candidate for the Ph.D. degree*. (signed) Victor K. Groza, Ph.D. (chair of the committee) Kathleen J. Farkas, Ph.D. David B. Miller, Ph.D. Emilia N. McGucken, Ph.D. (date) May 21, 2008 * We also certify that written approval has been obtained for any proprietary material contained therein ii Copyright © 2008 by Melody J. Stewart All rights reserved iii Table of Contents Page List of Tables ………………………………………………………………….. 4 List of Figures …………………………………………………………………. 6 Acknowledgements and Dedication ………………………………………… 7 Abstract ………………………………………………………………………… 10 Chapter 1. Introduction ……………………………………………………. 12 Overview of Problem …………………………………. 13 Overview of Juvenile Diversion Programs …………. 17 Cuyahoga County Juvenile Diversion Programs …. 22 2. Theoretical Perspectives …………………………………….. 26 Labeling Theory ………………………………………. 26 Restorative Justice …………………………………… 28 Outcomes of Diversion Programs ………………….. 32 Effectiveness of Diversion Programs ………………. 35 Summary and Research Questions ………………… 39 3. Methodology …………………………………………………… 43 Research Design ……………………………………… 44 Sample and Selection Criteria ………………………. 45 Data Collection ………………………………………... 49 1 Protection of Human Subjects ……………………….. 52 Measurement – Variables and Operationalization … 53 Variable Definitions and Coding ……………………… 57 Definition of Key Terminology ………………………… 60 4. Findings …………………………………………………………. 63 Demographic Characteristics …………………………. 63 Legal Characteristics …………………………………... 65 Sample Demographic and Legal Comparisons …….. 66 Program Disposition by Demographic and Legal Characteristics ………………………………………….. 70 The Reintegrative Program …………………………… 75 The Typical Program ………………………………….. 78 Comparison of Diversion Programs …………………. 81 Research Questions and Hypotheses ………………. 86 Programmatic Components and Sanctions ………… 99 Exploratory Research …………………………………. 102 5. Discussion and Conclusion …………………………………… 108 Discussion ……………………………………………… 108 Conclusion ……………………………………………… 114 Implications for Policy, Practice, and Research …… 117 Limitations of Study …………………………………… 120 Appendices …………………………………………………………………….. 125 2 Appendix A …………………………………………….. 125 Appendix B …………………………………………….. 126 Appendix C …………………………………………….. 129 Appendix D …………………………………………….. 132 Appendix E ……………………………………………... 134 Appendix F ……………………………………………… 136 Appendix G ……………………………………………... 138 Endnotes ………………………………………………………………………... 139 References ……………………………………………………………………… 140 3 List of Tables Tables Page Table 1. Number of Participants by Diversion Program ……………………… 48 Table 2. Offense Levels and Measurement Codes ………………………….. 54 Table 3. Program Construct Variables and Corresponding Program Components and Sanctions ………………………………………….. 56 Table 4. Percentage of Youth in Each Program Assigned Construct Components/Sanctions.……………………………………………….. 57 Table 5. Sample Demographic Characteristics ………………………………. 64 Table 6. Legal Characteristics of Sample …………………………………….. 65 Table 7. Comparisons of Gender by Other Demographics ………………… 67 Table 8. Comparisons of Offense Type by Demographics ………………… 68 Table 9. Offense Level Means by Demographics …………………………… 69 Table 10. Summary of Program Disposition by Demographic and Legal Characteristics ………………………………………………………. 71 Table 11. Comparison of Program Disposition Using Chi Square on Discrete Data ………………………………………………………………….. 72 Table 12. Summary of Recidivism by Demographic and Legal Characteristics ……………………………………………………… 73 Table 13. Re-offense Levels and Measurement Codes …………………… 74 Table 14. Summary of Offense Escalation by Demographic and Legal Characteristics ……………………………………………………… 75 Table 15. Characteristics of Reintegrative CDP Subgroup ………………. 76 Table 16. Characteristics of Reintegrative CDP by Year …………………. 77 Table 17. Characteristics of Typical CDP by Subgroup …………………... 79 4 Table 18. Characteristics of Typical CDP by Year ………………………… 80 Table 19. Demographic Characteristics of Sample by Program ………… 82 Table 20. Summary of Legal Characteristics of Sample by Program …... 83 Table 21. Offenses Committed by Program ……………………………….. 85 Table 22. Chi Square Analysis of Program Completion by CDP ……….... 87 Table 23. Summary of Logistic Regression Analysis for Variables Predicting Program Completion ………………………………….. 88 Table 24. Summary of Recidivism by Diversion Program ………………… 89 Table 25. Summary of Logistic Regression Analysis for Variables Predicting Recidivism ……………………………………………… 90 Table 26. Analysis of Variance for Days to Re-offense and Diversion Program …………………………………………………. 92 Table 27. Summary of Regression Analysis for Days to Reoffending by Demographic and Legal Characteristics ………………………… 93 Table 28. Summary of Offense Escalation by Diversion Program ………. 94 Table 29. Summary of Logistic Regression Analysis for Variables Predicting Offense Escalation ……………………………………. 95 Table 30. Characteristics of Sample by Offense Type ……………………. 97 Table 31. Logistic Regression Analysis for Programmatic Components Predicting Program Completion …………………………………. 99 Table 32. Logistic Regression Analysis for Programmatic Components Predicting Recidivism …………………………………………….. 100 Table 33. Logistic Regression Analysis for Programmatic Components Predicting Offense Escalation …………………………………… 101 Table 34. Juvenile Responses to Questionnaire ………………………….. 103 Table 35. Parent/Guardian Responses to Questionnaire ……………….. 105 5 List of Figures Figures Page Figure 1 …………………………………………………………………. 32 6 Acknowledgements and Dedication There are many people to thank for their support and encouragement over the years as I completed this doctoral program. First is the chair of my dissertation committee, Dr. Victor Groza, who took me by the hand and would not let got until this dissertation was completed. His patience and guidance meant more to me than I could ever acknowledge on this page, so I just hope he knows how truly grateful I am. To the members of my committee – Dr. Kathleen Farkas, Dr. David Miller, and Dr. Emilia McGucken – thank you for your willingness to serve on my dissertation committee and for your unwavering patience and support over the years. Dr. Mark Singer, thank you for your vision and your hard work on the Mandel Leadership Fellows Program and to the Mandel family for their belief in the worth of the program. I am honored to be graduating as a Mandel Fellow. While I’m acknowledging doctors, I would be remiss if I did not thank a special group of Ph.D.s. First are the members of my cohort for their support and friendship since day one of our doctoral journey. Through all of the papers and projects, career changes and family sorrows, e-mails and get-togethers, we have formed a wonderful bond. If I had to do this all over again (and thank God I don’t) there is not another group of individuals with whom I’d rather travel this road. Dr. Kay Benjamin and Dr. Karen Popovich, thank you for knowing what I needed in order to get going and keep going on the dissertation trail. Your friendship, help, and guidance proved crucial. 7 I greatly appreciate the cooperation and the assistance of those who work with the Cuyahoga County Community Diversion Programs, particularly Heather Corcoran, Nancy Stroman, and Doug Stolarski. I could not have completed this research project without each of you. Thank you, not only for your help with the project, but for your commitment to the children of our county. To the faculty and staff of MSASS, thank you for all of your work and your assistance, especially Helen Menke, doctoral program D.A. And to my friends and family who are sick of hearing me say, “I can’t. I have to work on the you know what” – ask me now. Finally, I dedicate the completion of this dissertation and completion of the program to the memory of three women who played very important roles in my doctoral journey. Arol Shack, beloved member of the MSASS family, recruited me to this program. Her help, support, kindness, encouragement, and caring ways were a mainstay of the Ph.D. program. It is only fitting that I acknowledge her in this dedication. Elizabeth B. Lambright, who was 96 years old when she died, was my personal cheerleader and a source of inspiration to me. I was a doctoral student when we met and a doctoral student when she died. She spent the last years of her life taking great pride in my accomplishments. I regret that she is not here for this one, so I dedicate this work to her memory as well. Last, but certainly not least, anything and everything “good” that I do or that I am I owe to my mother, Ruth E. Stewart. She was, and still is, unquestionably my greatest source of inspiration. To coin a phrase from a current U.S. presidential candidate, “It’s in my DNA. It’s who I am”. My mother was my certainty in a very 8 uncertain world. So, as with all that I accomplish, I dedicate this dissertation and this degree to the loving memory of my mother. 9 An Outcomes Study of Juvenile Diversion Programs on Non-Serious Delinquent and Status Offenders Abstract by MELODY J. STEWART This study uses a retrospective cohort design to explore the impact of juvenile diversion programs on non-serious delinquent and status offenders.
Recommended publications
  • Judicial Control of Prosecutorial Discretion in Pretrial Diversion Programs

    Judicial Control of Prosecutorial Discretion in Pretrial Diversion Programs

    Buffalo Law Review Volume 31 Number 3 Article 8 10-1-1982 Judicial Control of Prosecutorial Discretion in Pretrial Diversion Programs William Helmer Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.buffalo.edu/buffalolawreview Part of the Criminal Procedure Commons, and the Judges Commons Recommended Citation William Helmer, Judicial Control of Prosecutorial Discretion in Pretrial Diversion Programs, 31 Buff. L. Rev. 909 (1982). Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.buffalo.edu/buffalolawreview/vol31/iss3/8 This Comment is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at Digital Commons @ University at Buffalo School of Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Buffalo Law Review by an authorized editor of Digital Commons @ University at Buffalo School of Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. JUDICIAL CONTROL OF PROSECUTORIAL DISCRETION IN PRETRIAL DIVERSION PROGRAMS INTRODUCTION A program of pretrial diversion removes certain eligible sus- pects from the traditional criminal justice process and places them in programs that are designed to accomplish a basic goal of the criminal justice system, the "correctional reform and social restora- tion of offenders." 1 Diversion does not guarantee a noncriminal disposition of a suspect's case, because the suspect is required to meet specific conditions before the prosecutor foregoes the right to bring the case to trial.2 To protect this right, the prosecutor usu- ally insists on a waiver of the suspect's constitutional right to a speedy trial and statutory right to invoke the statute of limita- tions.3 Some prosecutors fully protect themselves by requiring a guilty plea or an admission of guilt before diversion.
  • How Effective Are Virginia's Juvenile Diversion Programs?

    How Effective Are Virginia's Juvenile Diversion Programs?

    THE THOMAS JEFFERSON PROGRAM IN PUBLIC POLICY THE COLLEGE OF WILLIAM & MARY How Effective Are Virginia’s Juvenile Diversion Programs? A Quantitative and Qualitative Assessment for the Virginia State Crime Commission Melissa Blanco, Diana Miller, Geoffrey Peck December 2007 Formatted: Virginia Juvenile Intake Officer Survey Left: 1", Right: 1" Table of Contents Table of Contents i Executive Summary ii 1: Introduction 1-1 2: Literature Review 2-1 3: Methods 3-1 4: Results and Analysis 4-1 Intake Process and Methods Used for Decisions about Diversion Methods Used to Assess a Juvenile’s Progress Once Diverted Effective Diversion Programs Concluding Remarks 5: Conclusions 5-1 References Appendices Appendix A: Juvenile Diversion Programs across Virginia Appendix B: 2007 Virginia Juvenile Intake Officer Survey Questions and Responses Appendix C: Survey Endorsement Letter from VSCC Director Thomas Jefferson Program in Public Policy | The College of William & Mary Page i Virginia Juvenile Intake Officer Survey Executive Summary Virginia has a vested interest in promoting state and local policies that prevent and reduce juvenile delinquency. In particular, policies should be aimed at rehabilitating juvenile offenders with the goal of decreasing recidivism rates across the Commonwealth. One possible way to accomplish lower recidivism rates is through the use of diversion programs. Diversion programs offer alternatives to the traditional forms of secure detention, such as treatment programs, restorative justice services, and community service opportunities. These programs can be mandated by a judge, or they can be assigned in lieu of the juvenile undergoing court proceedings. This study will focus on the diversion programs assigned by Intake Officers before the juvenile enters the traditional criminal justice system.
  • 53 Rolling, Trying to Grab on with My Spike Claws

    53 Rolling, Trying to Grab on with My Spike Claws

    AN APPLE PAPERBACK SCHOLASTIC INC. New York Toronto London Auckland Sydney Mexico City New Delhi Hong Kong For Scott Bremner And for Michael and Jake <They're going after the elementary school,> Tobias said. <They're going after everything,> I answered. <Why are they doing this? It makes no sense,> Tobias said. <It's not just brutal; it's stu- pid. Pointless destruction.> The nearest Bug fighter swooped low and slow. It fired its Dracon beams and the two-story gym exploded into charred stucco and twisted steel beams. It drifted almost casually above the tired old low-slung classrooms and fired again, dragging the beam end-to-end along the buildings. <They're sending a message,> I said. <Mess with us and this is what we do.> 1 We had destroyed the Yeerk pool. The Yeerk More Bug fighters than I'd ever seen in one pool was now the world's biggest sinkhole. It place. Maybe fifty of the things. They blasted looked like a crater. It was a crater, with half the schools; they blasted businesses; they blasted mall in ruins on one slope, jumbled bits of homes and churches. The shock waves would fast-food restaurants, streetlights, ripped up reach us, echoes of destruction. Pillars of smoke concrete, cars, skinny trees, all tumbled rose high in the air. Fires, some blazing and roar- together at the bottom. The water of the Yeerk ing, others smoldering sullenly, created thermal pool, looking like molten lead, soaked up updrafts that were bread and butter to three through the dirt.
  • Reading for Life and Adolescent Re-Arrest: Evaluating a Unique Juvenile Diversion Program

    Reading for Life and Adolescent Re-Arrest: Evaluating a Unique Juvenile Diversion Program

    Reading For Life and Adolescent Re-Arrest: Evaluating a Unique Juvenile Diversion Program A. D. Seroczynski (Center for Children and Families, University of Notre Dame) William N. Evans (Wilson Sheehan Lab for Economic Opportunities, University of Notre Dame and NBER) Amy D. Jobst (Reading for Life, Inc.) Luke Horvath (Wilson Sheehan Lab for Economic Opportunities, University of Notre Dame) Giuliana Carozza (Wilson Sheehan Lab for Economic Opportunities, University of Notre Dame) July 15, 2015 Abstract We present results of an evaluation of Reading for Life (RFL), a diversion program for non-violent juvenile offenders in a medium-sized Midwestern county. The unique program uses philosophical virtue theory, works of literature, and small mentoring groups to foster moral development in juvenile offenders. Participants were randomly assigned to RFL treatment or a comparison program of community service. The RFL program generated large and statistically significant drops in future arrests. The program was particularly successful at reducing the recidivism of more serious offenses for those groups with the highest propensity for future offenses. Acknowledgements: This research was supported by grants from the Templeton Foundation and the University of Chicago’s Arête Initiative, the Florence V. Carroll Charitable Trust, the Stanley A. and Flora P. Clark Memorial Community Trust Foundation, the Muessel-Ellison Memorial Trust Foundation, the John, Anna and Martha Jane Fields Trust Foundation, the Wilson Sheehan Lab for Economic Opportunities, and the Fellow Irish Social Hub. The authors would like to thank the staff of the St. Joseph County Juvenile Justice Center’s Probation Department for their support of this project. Specifically, we would like to acknowledge the assistance of Bill Bruinsma, Ph.D., former Director, Thomas N.
  • PRETRIAL DIVERSION PROGRAM District Attorney's Office Cobb

    PRETRIAL DIVERSION PROGRAM District Attorney's Office Cobb

    PRETRIAL DIVERSION PROGRAM District Attorney’s Office Cobb Judicial Circuit NOTICE Applications for acceptance into Pretrial Diversion must be made pursuant to the instructions below, and should be directed to the Diversion Coordinator. An administrative fee of $200.00 will be assessed and must be paid by certified check, money order, or attorney’s escrow check made payable to the Cobb County Clerk of Superior Court. Any applicable payment for restitution or appointed attorney’s fees must be made by the same methods, payable to the Cobb County Clerk of Superior Court. Participants not charged with drug-related offenses may still be required to submit to drug screens during the program (more random screens will be required for participants charged with drug- related offenses). The cost of each screen is $25 or $35 depending on the type of screen required. Participants will be required to present a picture ID at the time of screening. Drug screening for this program generally will take place at the Cobb County Drug Treatment Court lab. Participants must be willing and able to appear at this lab in the courthouse complex whenever instructed to do so, subject to the requirements described above. Participants residing outside of the metro Atlanta area may request written permission to test at a certified drug testing lab near their residences. However, such accommodation must be agreed to by the participant and the Pretrial Diversion Coordinator before or at orientation. Participants are expected to pay all program fees, attorney fees, and restitution at the program orientation. However, upon good cause shown, the program administrative fee of $200.00 may be paid in installments over the course of the program.
  • Jail Diversion Practice Guidelines (P.7.10.3.10)

    Jail Diversion Practice Guidelines (P.7.10.3.10)

    Medicaid Managed Specialty Supports and Services Concurrent 1915(b)/(c) Waiver Program FY 19: Attachment P 7.10.3.1 Adult Jail Diversion Policy Practice Guideline February 2005 I. Statement of Purpose There is a general consensus with the principle that the needs of the community and society at large are better served if persons with serious mental illness, serious emotional disturbance or developmental disability who commit crimes are provided effective and humane treatment in the mental health system rather than be incarcerated by the criminal justice system. It is recognized that many people with serious mental illness have a co-occurring substance disorder. This practice guideline reflects a commitment to this principle and conveys Michigan Department of Health and Human Services (MDHHS) jail diversion policy and resources for Community Mental Health Services Programs (CMHSPs). The guideline is provided as required under the authority of the Michigan Mental Health Code, PA 258 of 1974, Sec. 330.1207 - Diversion from jail incarceration (Add. 1995, Act 290, Effective March 28, 1996). Section 207 of the Code states: “Each community mental health service program shall provide services designed to divert persons with serious mental illness, serious emotional disturbance, or developmental disability from possible jail incarceration when appropriate. These services shall be consistent with policy established by the department.” The guideline outlines CMHSP responsibilities for providing jail diversion programs to prevent incarceration of individuals with serious mental illness or developmental disability who come into contact with the criminal justice system. A separate practice guideline will address Juvenile Diversion of children with serious emotional disturbance.
  • NATURAL DISASTERS: Protecting the Public's Health

    NATURAL DISASTERS: Protecting the Public's Health

    Scientific Publication No. 575 NATURAL DISASTERS Protecting the Public’s Health Pan American Health Organization NATURAL DISASTERS: Protecting the Public’s Health Scientific Publication No. 575 Pan American Health Organization Pan American Sanitary Bureau, Regional Office of the World Health Organization 525 Twenty-third Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20037, USA ii NATURAL DISASTERS: Protecting the Public’s Health Also published in Spanish with the title: Los desastres naturales y la protección de la salud ISBN 92 75 31575 2 PAHO Library Cataloguing in Publication Data Pan American Health Organization Natural disasters: Protecting the public’s health. Washington, D.C. : PAHO, ©2000. xi, 119 p.—(Scientific Publication, 575) ISBN 92 75 11575 3 I. Title II. (Series) 1. NATURAL DISASTERS 2. HEALTH EFFECT OF DISASTERS 3. DISASTERS PLANNING — organization and administration 4. EMERGENCIES IN DISASTERS — organization and administration 5. INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION NLM HV553 The Pan American Health Organization welcomes requests for permission to reproduce or translate its publications, in part or in full. Applications and inquiries should be addressed to the Publications Program, Pan American Health Organization, Washington, D.C., U.S.A., which will be glad to provide the latest information on any changes made to the text, plans for new editions, and reprints and translations already available. ©Pan American Health Organization, 2000 Publications of the Pan American Health Organization enjoy copyright protection in ac- cordance with the provisions of Protocol 2 of the Universal Copyright Convention. All rights are reserved. The designations employed and the presentation of the material in this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Secretariat of the Pan American Health Organization concerning the status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries.
  • Topicalindexpg277-282.Pdf (4.870Mb)

    Topicalindexpg277-282.Pdf (4.870Mb)

    lndex 277 tionate minority confinement juvenile court records, 181; and (DMC), 166; and Guardian ad Litem Missouri judges as presidents of, Standards, 212; and moratorium on 147; and permanency planning task juvenile justice legislation, 177; and forces, 208; and publication of Mis­ 1994 juvenile justice legislation, 162; souri children's commission and praise of positive peer culture, reports, 220; and status offense 201; and Standards For Operation of jurisdiction, 168, 169 a Juvenile Detention Facility, 163; National Council on Crime and and status offense jurisdiction, 168 Delinquency, 165, 206,207,216 Missouri Juvenile Justice Information National Criminal Information Center System (MO]]lS), 216 (NCIC),217 Missouri Juvenile Officers Ass'n, 201 National Defense Council, Missouri Missouri Law Enforcement Assistance Women's Committee of, 66 Council (MLEAC); and representation National Juvenile Detention Ass'n, 198 by counsel after Gault, 156; and criti­ National Juvenile Law Center, 201 cism of juvenile care, 199-200, 204-05; National Probation Association, 74, and criticism of Missouri's commit­ 102, 108, 209 ment to rehabilitating children, 162; National Woman Suffrage Association, 8 establishment of, 175 National Woman Suffrage Convention, 8 Missouri Society For the Prevention of Native American children, 169- 70 Cruelty to Animals, 21 Neglect; as category of juvenile court Missouri territorial legislation; appren­ jurisdiction, 1; jurisdiction of ticeship laws, 23; poor laws, 22- 24; Missouri juvenile courts, 50-51 reception statute, 4 New Deal, 22, 43,135 Missouri Reform School For Boys (See New England Home for Little Boonville boys' training school) Wanderers, 29 Missouri Uniform Law Enforcement New York Charities Aid Association, 69 System (MULES), 217 New York City, mass poverty in 1850s, Morehouse, Gov.
  • Commission Information on Solicitors' Authority Over Pretrial Diversion

    Commission Information on Solicitors' Authority Over Pretrial Diversion

    SOLICITORS’ AUTHORITY OVER PRETRIAL DIVERSION The South Carolina Constitution provides that “the legislative, executive, and judicial powers of the government shall be forever separate and distinct from each other, and no person or persons exercising the functions of one of said departments shall assume or discharge the duties of any other.”1 In other words, “the legislative department makes the laws; the executive department carries the laws into effect; and the judicial department interprets and declares the laws.”2 Creation of Pretrial Diversion Programs A pretrial diversion program is a program offered by a Circuit Solicitor’s Office that diverts defendants, generally first-time offenders3, from the traditional criminal prosecution process into a program involving supervision and services which, upon successful completion, results in a dismissal of the charge(s). While the establishment of formal pretrial diversion programs is within the legislative function, the creation of informal (non-statutorily required) pretrial diversion programs is within the executive function of prosecutors. The administrative operation of diversion programs is discretionary pursuant to the executive power of prosecutors. The South Carolina General Assembly has enacted statutes creating formal pretrial diversion programs, including eligibility requirements and participation limitations. These programs include the pretrial intervention program (PTI)4, traffic education program (TEP)5, alcohol education program (AEP)6, and workless check units7. South Carolina’s Solicitors have exercised their prosecutorial discretion to create additional pretrial diversion programs, such as truancy intervention, juvenile diversion, the Seventh Judicial Circuit Solicitor’s Domestic Violence SIP Program, and other programs.8 Diversion Decision Prosecutorial discretion is exclusive to the executive branch, and the decision whether to prosecute, what charge(s) to bring, and how to resolve the charge(s) is left solely to the discretion of the prosecutor, a member of the executive branch.
  • Pre Prosecution Diversion Program Domestic Violance Information Packet

    Pre Prosecution Diversion Program Domestic Violance Information Packet

    Office of the District AttorneEyl e-v enth Judicial District, Division One - San Juan County, New Mexico 335 S. Miller Ave. Farmington, NM 87401-4205 Phone: 505-599-9810 Fax: 505-599-9822 Pre Prosecution Diversion Program Domestic Violance Information Packet The following are included in this information packet. For additional information please contact the PPD staff. 1. District Attorney’s Guidelines for the Pre Prosecution Diversion Program 2. List of documents required to initiate the PPD application process 3. Waiver of Six Month Trial Rule. magistrate court 4. Booking Order. magistrate court 5. Application Cover Sheet 6. Written Statement, Guidelines and Form 7. Terms and Conditions 8. Release of Information 9. Social History 10. PPD Contract sample Office of the District Attorney - Eleventh JSuadni cJiuaaln D Cisoturinctty, ,D Niveiwsi oMne Oxinceo - 335 S. Miller Ave. ; Farmington, NM 87401-4205 Phone: 505-599-9810 Fax: 505-599-9822 Robert (Rick) P. Tedrow, District Attorney Pre Prosecution Diversion Program Domestic Violence Program Guidelines Pre Prosecution Diversion Act NMSA 1978, §§ 31-16A-1– 31-16A-8 The Pre Prosecution Diversion Program (PPD) is an alternative to prosecution offered to selected adult first offenders charged with certain nonviolent felony crimes. The PPD program began in San Juan County in 1976 and has been in continuous operation since that time. In 2004, with the availability of federal monies, PPD was expanded to include selected offenders charged with certain drug related crimes. This program, the Drug Pre Prosecution Diversion Program (DPPD), has the same guidelines and requirements as the PPD program. Continuation of DPPD is dependent upon continued funding.
  • Deinstitutionalization of Status Offenders (DSO) Facts and Resources

    Deinstitutionalization of Status Offenders (DSO) Facts and Resources

    Deinstitutionalization of Status Offenders (DSO) Facts and Resources Who are status offenders? youth’s probation or release – this number undoubtedly increases.iv Every day across the United States and its territories, thousands of children and teens One‐day Residential Placement Population Count are placed in locked confinement because for Status Offenses, United States, Feb. 22, 2006 they have been charged with “status Placement Status offenses.” Status offenses are acts that are Total Committed Detained Diverted not deemed criminal when committed by Offense 4,717 3,635 836 240 adults, but carry juvenile court sanctions for Runaway 894 574 230 85 youth because of their legal status as Truancy 863 709 135 18 minors. Commonly charged status offenses Incorrigibility 1,917 1,586 250 81 include truancy, running away, curfew Curfew viol. 96 68 18 10 violations and behaviors that are Alcohol 524 396 102 26 considered ungovernable and/or Other 423 302 101 20 incorrigible or beyond the control of one’s parents. The actions associated with status offenses Although national data on juvenile status are seldom isolated incidences and instead offenses are limited, the most recent are often manifestations of underlying statistics illustrate areas where changes in personal, familial, community and systemic policy and practice are needed. Court issues, as well as other unmet and petitioned status offense cases increased by unaddressed needs. While certain factors i almost 30% between 1995 and 2007. In reverberate through all categories of status 2007 alone, an estimated 150,700 status offenses, others are particular to a certain offense cases were petitioned in juvenile offense.
  • Second Chances: the Economic and Social Benefits of Expanding Drug Diversion Programs in Harris County

    Second Chances: the Economic and Social Benefits of Expanding Drug Diversion Programs in Harris County

    SECOND CHANCES: THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL BENEFITS OF EXPANDING DRUG DIVERSION PROGRAMS IN HARRIS COUNTY Katharine A. Neill, Ph.D. Alfred C. Glassell, III Postdoctoral Fellow in Drug Policy Jay Jenkins, J.D. Harris County Project Attorney, Texas Criminal Justice Coalition September 2015 Expanding Drug Diversion Programs in Harris County © 2015 by the James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy of Rice University This material may be quoted or reproduced without prior permission, provided appropriate credit is given to the author and the James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy. Wherever feasible, papers are reviewed by outside experts before they are released. However, the research and views expressed in this paper are those of the individual researcher(s) and do not necessarily represent the views of the James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy. Katharine A. Neill, Ph.D. Jay Jenkins, J.D. “Second Chances: The Economic and Social Benefits of Expanding Drug Diversion Programs in Harris County” 2 Expanding Drug Diversion Programs in Harris County Introduction In recent years, the United States has experienced a sea change in drug policy. Along with the four states that have legalized recreational use of marijuana (Alaska, Colorado, Oregon, and Washington), many others have relaxed criminal penalties for nonviolent drug possession offenses. The federal government has taken similar steps, with the U.S. Department of Justice moving away from the steep mandatory minimum sentences that arose during the peak of the drug war, and the president himself commuting the sentences of individuals convicted of nonviolent drug offenses. The wave of drug reform has touched even the most conservative states in the country, including Texas.