National Conference on Alternatives to Incarceration, Boston, Massachusetts - Reels 3 and 4

• NCJ Number: 84040
• Author(s): R Hughes; F Jasmine; G Bollinger; J Calhoun; G Zaloom; J Irwin; P Falan; C Land; A Dorn
• Date Published: Unknown
• Length: 0 pages
• Sponsoring Agency: National Council of Churches
• Publication Format: Film
• Publication Type: Program/Project Evaluation
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America
• Note: *This document is currently unavailable from NCJRS. 2 videotapes, total running time 2 hours, 10 minutes, black and white, 1/2 inch. For the complete conference proceedings, see NCJ-84038-84046.

Annotation

Both Massachusetts and New Jersey have established pretrial diversion programs. State corrections officials from these and other States outline the implementation issues involved in and objections to diversion programming. Members of the Hudson County, N.J. diversion program describe its services, counseling techniques, and discuss how localities can establish their own diversion programs. The New Jersey Supreme Court Justice also comments on the need to establish and expand alternative programming.

Abstract

Massachusetts diversion programs have helped clients obtain jobs and have enabled courts to view each offender as an individual. Program evaluation is an essential component of any diversion program. New Jersey's pretrial diversion program operates under court rule, not legislation as in Massachusetts. Most diversion clients in New Jersey would have been placed on probation; their places are now taken by more serious offenders who would have been incarcerated. Hudson County's diversion program receives 1,500 applications each year for admittance but rejects those offenders charged with very serious or very minor offenses, as well as the mentally disturbed. Each client is assessed at intake, and referral agencies are contracted. Counselors ensure that clients understand their responsibilities as part of the client-program contract. Clients can have their criminal records expunged if they successfully complete the program. To establish a diversion program, planners must obtain local support (from prosecutors, judges, and the community) and should plan to evaluate the program before 6 months have passed to assess client suitability for the program. In Hudson County, about 50 percent of the applicants are rejected for lack of cooperation. Some officials oppose diversion programming because it discriminates against the poor and minorities, ascribes guilt to offenders who might otherwise not be convicted in a traditional system, and removes pressure from the criminal justice system to reform (i.e., by relabeling jails as community treatment centers). Another speaker points out the pros and cons of restitution programs and outlines its use since the 12th century. The New Jersey Chief Justice suggests that registries of all resources available to rehabilitate offenders be compiled for judicial use during sentencing.