NCJ Number
85047
Date Published
1980
Length
279 pages
Annotation
This case study of a pretrial diversion program -- the San Pablo Adult Diversion Project (SPAD) in California -- describes how local law enforcement agencies responded to and redefined diversion according to their own organizational interests and the results of their actions.
Abstract
Diversion was a concept of social change that local criminal justice agencies did not originally formulate or fully accept. It was conceptualized by academics, promoted by the Federal Government, and purchased by local agencies who redefined it according to their own interests. The study followed project defendants for a 36-month period to test SPAD's effect on recidivism, costs, and social control. SPAD had no impact in reducing recidivism. SPAD proved much more expensive than traditional processing and failed to curb the level of criminal justice intervention. This occurred because local officials interpreted diversion as a means for increasing control over misdemeanor defendants, thus selecting defendants for the program unlikely to be severely sanctioned by the courts. Locating diversion at the pretrial stage and within the lower courts diminishes the potential for reducing crime, costs, and social control. Pretrial diversion placed the value of intervention/control ahead of a determination of guilt or innocence. Similar diversion distortions are presented. The study indicates that the success of failure of reform is tied to a hierarchy of social values. Understanding these values is a starting point for analyses. Footnotes, data tables, and over 100 references are provided. (Author abstract modified)