DOCSLIB.ORG

A National Review of Police-Led Diversion Programs

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
A National Review of Police-Led Diversion Programs This project was supported by grant number 2012-CK-WX-K014 awarded by the Offce of Community Oriented Policing Services, U.S. Department of Justice. The opinions contained herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent the offcial position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. References to specifc agencies, companies, products, or services should not be considered an endorsement by the author(s) or the U.S. Department of Justice. Rather, the references are illustrations to supplement discussion of the issues. The Internet references cited in this publication were valid as of the date of publication. Given that URLs and websites are in constant fux, the author(s) cannot vouch for their current validity. Recommended citation: Tallon, Jennifer A., Melissa Labriola, and Joseph Spadafore. 2018. Creating Off-Ramps: A National Review of Police-Led Diversion Programs. New York: Center for Court Innovation. Published 2018 CONTENTS Acknowledgements v Executive Summary vii Phase One: A national survey of police-led diversion programs . vii Phase Two: Case studies of eight promising programs . ix Introduction 1 Prior research on police-led diversion . .2 About this study . 4 Part One: 7 A National Survey Of Police-Led Diversion Programs 7 Chapter 1—Phase One Research Design: Surveys 9 Survey overview. 9 Survey sampling plan . .9 Survey content . 10 Data collection . 10 Analysis plan .. ......................................... 12 Defning diversion programs. 13 List of responding agencies . 14 Chapter 2—Phase One Survey Results: Diversion History, Structure, Screening, and Eligibility 15 Prevalence of police-led diversion . 15 History and structure . 16 Screening and eligibility determination. 17 Chapter 3—Phase One Survey Results: Program Participation and Legal Outcomes 21 Program participation structure . 21 Program participant needs . 21 Participant supervision ...................................... 23 Legal outcomes of diversion programs . 24 | iii Part Two: 25 Case Studies of Eight Promising Programs 25 Chapter 4—Phase Two Research Design: Case Studies 27 Sampling frame . 27 Data collection .......................................... 27 Analysis plan ........................................... 28 Model/site summary information . 28 Specialized Police Response to mental health crisis. 29 Juvenile diversion programs. 29 Drug Market Intervention (DMI) . 29 Chapter 5—Case Studies: Specialized Police Response Programs to Mental Health Crisis 33 Case Study 1: Houston (Texas) Police Department’s Mental Health Division . 33 Case Study 2: Madison (Wisconsin) Police Department’s Mental Health Offcers/Liaisons Program . 40 Case Study 3—Arlington County (Virginia) Police Department’s CIT . 47 Summary . 49 Chapter 6—Case Studies: Juvenile Diversion 51 Case Study 4: Philadelphia School Diversion Program . 51 Case Study 5: Durham County (North Carolina) Misdemeanor Diversion Program. 54 Case Study 6—Redwood City (California) Juvenile Diversion Program . 60 Summary . 64 Chapter 7—Case Studies: Drug Market Intervention (DMI) 65 Case Study 7: Austin, Texas Drug Market Intervention Program at 12th and Chicon . 65 Case Study 8—Atlanta, Georgia: English Avenue Drug Market Intervention . 69 Summary . 75 References 77 Appendix A List of Responding Agencies 81 Appendix B Survey Instrument 103 Appendix C Interview Protocol 111 Acronyms 120 About the Center for Court Innovation 121 iv | CREATING OFF-RAMPS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We are deeply grateful to our grant manager h Durham County Misdemeanor Diversion at the Offce of Community Oriented Policing Program—Kelly C. Andrews and Gudrun Services, Vonda Matthews, for her guidance and Parmer, Durham County (North Carolina) continued assistance throughout the project. We Criminal Justice Resource Center also thank Stephanie Poland, Project Director from National Opinion Research Center at the h Houston (Texas) Police Department’s University of Chicago, for her help in overseeing Mental Health Division—Captain Wendy E. survey data collection. Baimbridge, Offcer Rebecca Skillern, and Senior Offce Frank Webb, Houston Although anonymity prevents us from reporting Police Department the names of every individual that took part in interviews, this project would not have been h Madison (Wisconsin) Police Department’s possible without the hard work and dedication Mental Health Unit—Captain Kristen Roman of the participating agencies and their respective h Philadelphia School Diversion Program— partners. We are especially grateful for the Kevin J. Bethel, former Deputy Commissioner assistance of the following people in coordinating of Patrol Operations for the Philadelphia site visits: (Pennsylvania) Police Department h Arlington County (Virginia) Police h Redwood City Police Department’s Juvenile Department’s Crisis Intervention Team Diversion Program—Juvenile Specialist Program—Captain Adrienne Quigley, Manuel Velarde, Redwood City (California) Arlington County Police Department Police Department h Atlanta English Avenue Drug Market At the Center for Court Innovation, we thank Intervention Program—Assistant U.S. Greg Berman and Michael Rempel for their Attorney Laurel Boatright, U.S. Attorney’s comments on an earlier version of the fnal report. Offce for the Northern District of Georgia We are similarly grateful to our colleague, Julius h Austin 12th & Chicon Drug Market Lang, who provided assistance in contacting law Intervention Program—Assistant District enforcement representatives. Attorney Jason S. English, Travis County For correspondence, please contact Jennifer District Attorney’s Offce; Sergeant Robert A. Tallon, Center for Court Innovation, 520 Jones, Austin (Texas) Police Department; and Eighth Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10018 Reverend Sherwynn Patton, Life Anew ([email protected]). | v EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In recent years there has been growing interest This report presents the results from a in pretrial justice reform in the United States, comprehensive descriptive study of police-led including the infusion of evidence-based diversion in the United States, including programs practices into bail and release decisions, targeting individuals with mental illness, juveniles, decriminalization of non-serious offenses, and and low-level or frst-time adult defendants. the expansion of pretrial diversion programs The purpose of this study, funded by the U.S. for misdemeanants, drug-involved defendants, Department of Justice’s Offce of Community and mentally ill defendants (Pretrial Justice Oriented Policing Services (COPS Offce), is to Institute 2011). The use of early pretrial diversion produce a portrait of these programs, exploring is particularly appealing as a response to why they were created, how they work, and how misdemeanor crime, given the potential to they vary. This study is not an impact evaluation; conserve scarce resources and refocus attention we did not test whether specifc types of on more serious cases, while also reducing the programs or programs in particular sites reduce exposure of defendants facing low-level charges collateral consequences, reduce recidivism, or to the traditional justice system. achieve other quantifable outcomes. Currently, pretrial diversion programs fall into The study proceeded in two phases. First, we two main categories: pre-booking diversion, identifed common themes and critical issues led by police, and post-booking diversion, infuencing the development and implementation typically led by prosecutors or courts (Camiletti of police-led diversion programs and used this 2010). While less common than diversion at the information to construct a national survey. The post-booking prosecutorial stage, police-led survey was sent to a representative sample of diversion nonetheless represents an important law enforcement agencies across the country. development with several distinct advantages. Second, we conducted site visits to eight In particular, because these programs keep agencies in seven states, including in-depth individuals out of court in the frst place, they interviews with a wide range of professionals who may be particularly benefcial to the system in work in or with the diversion program. conserving resources and to the defendant in mitigating the collateral consequences of system Phase One: A national survey of involvement, including exposure to a conviction police-led diversion programs or incarceration. Methodology Police-led diversion programs in the United States typically fall into one of three categories: The sampling frame consisted of municipal and (1) diversion of mentally ill defendants (e.g., Crisis county law enforcement agencies throughout the Intervention Team (“CIT”) programs), (2) diversion country (identifed through the National Public of juveniles, or (3) diversion of frst-time or low-level Safety Information Bureau’s National Directory of adult defendants. Previous research and evaluation Law Enforcement Agencies). Each segment of work is mostly available for the CIT model and the sampling frame was stratifed by agency size, select programs focusing on low-level defendants. measured by the number of offcers employed. Agencies with fewer than three offcers were | vii removed from the sampling frame. The remaining h Decision to divert: This decision is primarily sampling frame consisted of 10,792 municipal made by the arresting (41 percent) and and 3,036 county agencies, 13,828 in total. supervising (40 percent) offcers. Additionally, From this frame, 2,135 agencies were randomly instances of collaborative
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • Accelerated Felony Diversion Program
    OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY Third Judicial District Of Kansas Michael F. Kagay, District Attorney Shawnee County Courthouse Fax: (785) 251-4909 200 SE 7th Street, Suite 214 Family Law Fax: (785) 251-4966 Topeka, Kansas 66603 Web: www.snco.us Phone: (785) 251-4330 General E-mail: [email protected] ACCELERATED FELONY DIVERSION PROGRAM OVERVIEW In an effort to expand the availability of diversion for certain low-level felonies, the District Attorney’s Office, in cooperation with the District Court, has created the Accelerated Felony Diversion Program. The purpose of the program is to immediately identify cases that would likely be eligible for diversion and create a stream-lined process for those defendants that wish to pursue that option. Through the efficiency created in this process, the District Attorney is able to reduce the cost that is passed on to each defendant and also reduce the number of court settings needed. CRITERIA FOR SELECTION The District Attorney’s Office is solely responsible for selecting which cases are eligible for the Diversion Docket. However, the selection process for the Diversion Docket does not ultimately determine which cases will be granted diversion. Some cases selected for the Diversion Docket may be denied diversion. Likewise, cases not selected for the Diversion Docket may still apply for and be granted diversion. Cases the District Attorney is looking to identify include the following: 1. Defendant is charged only with low level non-person felonies (and any included misdemeanors). 2. Defendant is not currently on post-conviction supervision for a felony case. 3. Defendant is presumptive probation.1 4.
    [Show full text]
  • Constituitonal Problems of Diversion of Juvenile Delinquents Andrew W
    Notre Dame Law Review Volume 51 | Issue 1 Article 4 10-1-1975 Constituitonal Problems of Diversion of Juvenile Delinquents Andrew W. Maron Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.nd.edu/ndlr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Andrew W. Maron, Constituitonal Problems of Diversion of Juvenile Delinquents, 51 Notre Dame L. Rev. 22 (1975). Available at: http://scholarship.law.nd.edu/ndlr/vol51/iss1/4 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by NDLScholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in Notre Dame Law Review by an authorized administrator of NDLScholarship. For more information, please contact [email protected]. CONSTITUTIONAL PROBLEMS OF DIVERSION OF JUVENILE DELINQUENTS Andrew W. Maron* I. Introduction Juvenile delinquency is unquestionably one of America's serious problems. Federal, state, and local governments as well as the academic community and many private individuals have struggled with little success against rising juvenile crime. The total number of juveniles arrested in 1973 for all offenses was 1,717,366, or more than one-fourth of the total persons apprehended in the United States.' Between 1960 and 1973, the number of juveniles arrested in- creased 144 percent2 while the population of the United States increased only 16 percent.3 Since the end of the 19th century, the primary answer to the nation's juvenile delinquency problem has been the juvenile court system. This system was criticized in the 1960's for failing to provide constitutional protections to juveniles that were afforded to adults. The criticism culminated with the United States Supreme Court decisions of Kent v.
    [Show full text]