1932
0
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Annual Review of Criminology
  4. Volume 4, 2021
  5. Article

Annual Review of Criminology

Volume 4, 2021

Models of Prosecutor-Led Diversion Programs in the United States and Beyond

Abstract

Diversion programs allow criminal justice actors to send defendants out of the court system, compelling them instead to attend treatment programs, participate in educational opportunities, and/or perform community service. These programs exist for both adult and juvenile offenders. Although some diversion programs are administered within the court system, prosecutors design and operate a substantial number of these programs themselves. Because the prosecutor does not need to obtain input from judges or other actors in these programs, they carry higher risks of performance problems, such as net widening and unequal application of program criteria. Furthermore, because of the local focus of most prosecutors’ offices in the United States, their diversion programs differ from place to place. The published program evaluations are too often site-specific, offering few general insights about this category of programs. The fragmented literature about prosecutor-led diversion programs should expand the metrics of success for these programs and monitor the effects of the prosecutor-dominated governance structure.

Keyword(s): cost-savings, diversion, net widening, pretrial services, recidivism
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-criminol-061020-022236
2021-01-13
2024-04-19
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/criminol/4/1/annurev-criminol-061020-022236.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-criminol-061020-022236&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Albonetti CA, Hepburn JR. 1996. Prosecutorial discretion to defer criminalization: the effects of defendant's ascribed and achieved status characteristics. J. Quant. Criminol. 12:163–81
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Alexander M. 2010. The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness New York: The New Press
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Amar AR. 2006. America's Constitution: A Biography New York: Random House, 1st ed..
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Arlen J. 2016. Prosecuting beyond the rule of law: corporate mandates imposed through deferred prosecution agreements. J. Leg. Anal. 8:1191–34
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Barkow RE. 2019. Prisoners of Politics: Breaking the Cycle of Mass Incarceration Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Bazelon E. 2019. Charged: The New Movement to Transform American Prosecution and End Mass Incarceration New York: Random House
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Beardslee J, Miltimore S, Fine A, Frick PJ, Steinberg L, Cauffman E 2019. Under the radar or under arrest: How is adolescent boys’ first contact with the juvenile justice system related to future offending and arrests. Law Hum. Behav. 43:4342–57
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Berman DA, Bibas S. 2006. Making sentencing sensible. Ohio State J. Crim. Law 4:37–72
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Blomberg TG, Heald GR, Ezell M 1986. Diversion and net widening: a cost-savings assessment. Eval. Rev. 10:145–64
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Boccaccini MT, Christy A, Poythress N, Kershaw D 2005. Rediversion in two postbooking jail diversion programs in Florida. Psychiatr. Serv. 56:7835–39
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Brakel SJ. 1971. Diversion from the criminal process: informal discretion, motivation, and formalization. Denver Law J 48:211–36
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Broner N, Lattimore PK, Cowell AJ, Schlenger WE 2004. Effects of diversion on adults with co-occurring mental illness and substance use: outcomes from a national multi-site study. Behav. Sci. Law 22:4519–41
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Broner N, Mayrl DW, Landsberg G 2005. Outcomes of mandated and nonmandated New York City jail diversion for offenders with alcohol, drug, and mental disorders. Prison J 85:118–49
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Bronitt S. 2018. Deferred prosecution agreements: negotiating punishment before conviction?. The Evolving Role of the Public Prosecutor: Challenges and Innovations P Stenning, V Colvin 45–59 New York: Routledge
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Butts J. 2016. Critical diversion. Criminol. Public Policy 15:3983–89
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Cent. Health Justice. 2013. No entry: a national survey of criminal justice diversion programs and initiatives Rep., Treat. Altern. Safe Communities Chicago: https://www.centerforhealthandjustice.org/tascblog/Images/documents/Publications/CHJ%20Diversion%20Report_web.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Choi JJ, Gualtieri B, Travis J, Goldberg A 2019. Prosecutors and frequent utilizers: How can prosecutors better address the needs of people who frequently interact with the criminal justice and other social systems? Rep., Inst. Innov. Prosec New York: https://www.prosecution.org/executive-session-papers
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Chung MC, Cumella S, Wensley J, Easthope Y 1999. A follow-up study of mentally disordered offenders after a court diversion scheme: six-month and one-year comparison. Med. Sci. Law 39:131–37
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Cochran JC, Mears DP. 2015. Race, ethnic, and gender divides in juvenile court sanctioning and rehabilitative intervention. J. Res. Crime Delinquency 52:2181–212
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Collins S, Lonczak H, Clifasefi S 2017. Seattle's Law Enforcement Assisted Diversion (LEAD): program effects on recidivism outcomes. Eval. Progr. Plan. 64:49–56
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Cowell AJ, Broner N, Dupont R 2004. The cost-effectiveness of criminal justice diversion programs for people with serious mental illness co-occurring with substance abuse: four case studies. J. Contemp. Crim. Justice 20:3292–314
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Dev. Serv. Group. 2017. Diversion from formal juvenile court processing: literature review Rep., Off. Juv. Justice Delinquency Prev Washington, DC: https://www.ojjdp.gov/mpg/litreviews/Diversion_Programs.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Dewan S, Lehren AW. 2016. After a crime, the price of a second chance. New York Times Dec. 12. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/12/us/crime-criminal-justice-reform-diversion.html
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Dorf MC, Fagan JA. 2003. Problem-solving courts: from innovation to institutionalization. Am. Crim. Law Rev. 40:1501–11
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Dunford FW. 1977. Police diversion: an illusion. Criminology 15:3335–52
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Dynia P, Sung H-E. 2000. The safety and effectiveness of diverting felony drug offenders to residential treatment as measured by recidivism. Crim. Justice Policy Rev. 11:4299–311
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Ellis T, Kyo A. 2017. Reassessing juvenile justice in Japan: net widening or diversion. Asia-Pacific J 15:95030
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Feeley MM. 1983. Court Reform on Trial: Why Simple Solutions Fail New York: Basic Books
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Feeley MM. 2002. Entrepreneurs of punishment: the legacy of privatization. Punishm. Soc. 4:3321–44
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Feld BC. 1999. Bad Kids: Race and the Transformation of the Juvenile Court New York: Oxford Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Fulkerson A, Keena LD, O'Brien E 2013. Understanding success and nonsuccess in the drug court. Int. J. Offender Ther. Comp. Criminol. 57:101297–316
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Georget. Law J. 1972. Addict diversion: an alternative approach for the criminal justice system. Georget. Law J. 60:3667
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Gorelick JS. 1975. Pretrial diversion: the threat of expanding social control. Harv. Civ. Rights-Civ. Lib. Law Rev. 10:1180
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Hickert AO, Boyle SW, Tollefson DR 2009. Factors that predict drug court completion and drop out: findings from an evaluation of Salt Lake County's adult felony drug court. J. Soc. Serv. Res. 35:2149–62
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Huck JL, Morris CS. 2017. Jail diversion and recidivism: a case study of a municipal court diversion program. Crim. Justice Policy Rev. 28:9866–78
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Inst. Justice Res. Dev. 2020. Prosecutors, researchers, and advocates convene to advance equity in the criminal justice system Rep., Inst. Justice Res. Dev Tallahassee, FL: https://ijrd.csw.fsu.edu/sites/g/files/upcbnu1766/files/Publications/Medianote_Prosecution_research_network.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Jehle J-M. 2009. Criminal Justice in Germany: Facts and Figures Berlin: Fed. Minist. Justice, 5th ed..
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Jehle J-M, Wade M. 2006. Coping with Overloaded Criminal Justice Systems: The Rise of Prosecutorial Power Across Europe Berlin: Springer-Verlag
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Johnson DT. 2001. The Japanese Way of Justice: Prosecuting Crime in Japan New York: Oxford Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Johnson KC, Davis RC, Labriola M, Rempel M, Reich WA 2019. An overview of prosecutor-led diversion programs: a new incarnation of an old idea. Justice Syst. J. 41:163–78
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Kennedy S, Brown J, Darbey B, Gatti A, Klute T et al. 2009. Promising practices in pretrial diversion Rep. 026098, Natl. Inst. Correct Washington, DC: https://nicic.gov/promising-practices-pretrial-diversion
  42. Kennedy S, Klute T. 2015. Measuring for results: outcome and performance measures for pretrial diversion field Rep. 029722, Natl. Inst. Correct Washington, DC: https://nicic.gov/measuring-results-outcome-and-performance-measures-pretrial-diversion-field
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Klein MW. 1976. Issues and realities in police diversion programs. Crime Delinquency 22:4421–27
     [Google Scholar]
  44. Klein MW. 1979. Deinstitutionalization and diversion of juvenile offenders: a litany of impediments. Crime Justice 1:145–201
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Kohler-Hausmann I. 2018. Misdemeanorland: Criminal Courts and Social Control in an Age of Broken Windows Policing Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  46. Lange S, Rehm J, Popova S 2011. The effectiveness of criminal justice diversion initiatives in North America: a systematic literature review. Int. J. Forensic Ment. Health 10:3200–14
     [Google Scholar]
  47. Latessa EJ, Listwan SJ, Koetzle D 2015. What Works (and Doesn't) in Reducing Recidivism Abingdon, UK: Routledge, 1st ed..
     [Google Scholar]
  48. Laub JH, Sampson RJ. 2001. Understanding desistance from crime. Crime Justice 28:1–69
     [Google Scholar]
  49. Lepage C, May JD. 2017. The Anchorage, Alaska municipal pretrial diversion program: an initial assessment. Alaska Law Rev 34:11–26
     [Google Scholar]
  50. Leroy B. 1992. The European community of twelve and the drug demand. Excerpt of a comparative study of legislations and judicial practice. Drug Alcohol Depend 29:3269–81
     [Google Scholar]
  51. Love MC, Roberts J, Logan WA 2018. Collateral Consequences of Criminal Conviction: Law, Policy and Practice New York: Thomson Reuters
     [Google Scholar]
  52. Lowry M, Kerodal A. 2019. Prosecutor-led diversion: a national survey Rep., Cent. Court Innov New York: https://www.courtinnovation.org/sites/default/files/media/document/2019/prosecutor-led_diversion.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Luna E, Wade M. 2010. Prosecutors as judges. Wash. Lee Law Rev. 67:41413–532
     [Google Scholar]
  54. McGilloway S, Donnelly M. 2004. Mental illness in the UK criminal justice system: a police liaison scheme for mentally disordered offenders in Belfast. J. Ment. Health 13:3263–75
     [Google Scholar]
  55. Mears DP, Kuch JJ, Lindsey AM, Siennick SE, Pesta GB et al. 2016. Juvenile court and contemporary diversion. Criminol. Public Policy 15:3953–81
     [Google Scholar]
  56. Miller FW. 1969. Prosecution: The Decision to Charge a Suspect with a Crime Boston: Little, Brown
     [Google Scholar]
  57. Naples M, Steadman HJ. 2003. Can persons with co-occurring disorders and violent charges be successfully diverted. Int. J. Forensic Ment. Health 2:2137–43
     [Google Scholar]
  58. Natl. Assoc. Pretr. Serv. Agencies. 2009. Pretrial diversion in the 21st century: a national survey of pretrial diversion programs and practices Rep., Natl. Assoc. Pretr. Serv. Agencies Washington, DC: https://netforumpro.com/public/temp/ClientImages/NAPSA/18262ec2-a77b-410c-ad9b-c6e8f74ddd5b.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Natl. Dist. Attys. Assoc. 2009. National Prosecution Standards Arlington, VA: Natl. Dist. Attys. Assoc.
  60. Natl. Res. Counc. 2014. The Growth of Incarceration in the United States: Exploring Causes and Consequences Washington, DC: Natl. Acad. Press https://doi.org/10.17226/18613
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  61. Nimmer RT. 1974. Diversion: The Search for Alternative Forms of Prosecution Getzville, NY: William S. Hein & Co.
     [Google Scholar]
  62. Noble D. 2020. Executive summary of the Institute for Innovation in Prosecution (IIP) diversion roundtable. Crim. Law Pract. 5:275–106 https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5c4fbee5697a9849dae88a23/t/5e33476efa48526ac2df1c63/1580418929059/Monograph+Pages+UPDATED.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  63. Perry SW, Banks D. 2011. Prosecutors in state courts, 2007: statistical tables Bur. Justice Stat. Rep. NCJ 234211, Off. Justice Progr Washington, DC: https://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=1749
    [Google Scholar]
  64. Piza EL, Szkola J, Blount-Hill KL 2020. How can embedded criminologists, police pracademics, and crime analysts help increase police-led program evaluations? A survey of authors cited in the evidence-based policing matrix. Polic. J. Policy Pract. https://doi.org/10.1093/police/paaa019
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  65. Porter L, Arif AE, Curran WJ 1986. The Law and the Treatment of Drug- and Alcohol-Dependent Persons: A Comparative Study of Existing Legislation Geneva: World Health Organization https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/39269/9241560932_eng.pdf
  66. Pres. Comm. Law Enforc. Adm. Justice. 1967. The Challenge of Crime in a Free Society: A Report by the President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice Washington: US Govt. Print. Off
     [Google Scholar]
  67. Rempel M, Labriola M, Hunt P, Davis RC, Reich WA, Cherney S 2018. NIJ's multisite evaluation of prosecutor-led diversion programs Rep., Cent. Court Innov New York: https://www.courtinnovation.org/sites/default/files/media/document/2017/Pretrial_Diversion_Overview_ProvRel.pdf
  68. Sanborn J, Salerno AW. 2005. The Juvenile Justice System Los Angeles: Roxbury Publ.
  69. Schlesinger T. 2013. Racial disparities in pretrial diversion: an analysis of outcomes among men charged with felonies and processed in state courts. Race Justice 3:3210–38
     [Google Scholar]
  70. Schlesinger T. 2018. Decriminalizing racialized youth through juvenile diversion. Future Child 28:159–82
     [Google Scholar]
  71. Schwalbe CS, Gearing RE, MacKenzie MJ, Brewer KB, Ibrahim R 2012. A meta-analysis of experimental studies of diversion programs for juvenile offenders. Clin. Psychol. Rev. 32:126–33
     [Google Scholar]
  72. Spivack P, Raman S. 2008. Regulating the “New Regulators”: current trends in deferred prosecution agreements. Am. Crim. Law Rev. 45:1159–94
     [Google Scholar]
  73. Spooner C, Mattick RP, Hall W 2001. An overview of diversion strategies for Australian drug-related offenders. Drug Alcohol Rev 20:3281–94
     [Google Scholar]
  74. State v. Leonardis 71 N.J. 85 1976.)
  75. Subramanian R, Shames A. 2013. Sentencing and prison practices in Germany and the Netherlands: implications for the United States Rep., Vera Inst. Justice New York: https://www.vera.org/downloads/Publications/sentencing-and-prison-practices-in-germany-and-the-netherlands-implications-for-the-united-states/legacy_downloads/european-american-prison-report-v3.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  76. Travis J, Stewart C, Goldberg A 2019. Prosecutors, democracy, and justice: holding prosecutors accountable Rep., Inst. Innov. Prosec New York: https://www.prosecution.org/executive-session-papers
    [Google Scholar]
  77. Turner S, Longshore D, Wenzel S, Deschenes E, Greenwood P et al. 2002. A decade of drug treatment court research. Substance Use Misuse 37:12–131489–527
     [Google Scholar]
  78. Ulrich TE. 2002. Pretrial Diversion in the Federal Court System. Fed. Probat. 66:330–37
     [Google Scholar]
  79. United States v. Armstrong 517 U.S. 456 1996.)
  80. van de Bunt H, van Gelder J-L 2012. The Dutch prosecution service. Crime Justice 41:1117–40
     [Google Scholar]
  81. Wilson HA, Hoge RD. 2013. The effect of youth diversion programs on recidivism: a meta-analytic review. Crim. Justice Behav. 40:5497–518
     [Google Scholar]
  82. Wong JS, Bouchard J, Gravel J, Bouchard M, Morselli C 2016. Can at-risk youth be diverted from crime?: a meta-analysis of restorative diversion programs. Crim. Justice Behav. 43:101310–29
     [Google Scholar]
  83. Wood C. 2003. Diversion in South Africa: a review of policy and practice, 1990–2003 Rep., Inst. Secur. Stud., Pretoria S. Afr: https://issafrica.org/research/papers/diversion-in-south-africa-a-review-of-policy-and-practice-1990-2003
    [Google Scholar]
  84. Wright RF. 2020. Community prosecution and building trust across a racial divide. Oxford Handbook of Prosecutors and Prosecution New York: Oxford Univ. Press In press
    [Google Scholar]
  85. Yale Law J. 1974. Pretrial diversion from the criminal process. Yale Law J 83:4827–54
     [Google Scholar]
  86. Zimring FE. 2005. American Juvenile Justice New York: Oxford Univ. Press, 2nd.. ed.
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-criminol-061020-022236
Loading
  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error