National Conference on Pretrial Release and Diversion - Third Plenary Session - Institutionalization

• NCJ Number: 81633
• Author(s): G Zaloom; J Rhodes; S Ullah; C Welch; B Beaudin
• Date Published: Unknown
• Length: 0 pages
• Grant Number(s): 76-ED-99-0031
• Sponsoring Agency: US Dept of Justice
• Publication Format: Film
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America
• Note: *This document is currently unavailable from NCJRS. Videotape, 55 minutes, color, 1 inch - Conference held May 10-13, 1977, Arlington, Virginia.

Annotation

This videotaped panel discussion reveals the experiences of pretrial and diversion program workers in seeking program acceptance and institutionalization (funding at the local level) in their respective jurisdictions.

Abstract

The panelists represent California, Florida, Pennsylvania, and the District of Columbia. It is emphasized that one must have correct and sufficient documentation before appealing for institutionalization, and it is advisable to pool cost-effectiveness data from similar organizations. The thrust of the California effort is to effect reallocation of existing resources at the State level by identifying and coordinating all the State and Federal monies earmarked for a certain cause. This approach is called single switch funding. The California strategy also advocates that providers of services come from the public sector. The Florida pretrial and diversion system, which originated as an LEAA pilot grant program, had the early support of the media and policymakers and maintained good relationships with all levels of law enforcement and justice throughout program development. Among the factors contributing to program success were the prosecutor's sponsorship and the dissemination of information to both the criminal justice community and the public. No spectacular offense was committed by a diverted program participant, and this helped raise the public's image of pretrial diversion. In Pennsylvania, on the other hand, pretrial reform legislation has failed to pass in spite of a widespread lobbying and drafting effort. This failure is attributed in part to the system's dependence on jail as a means of exercising coercion, to the profits made by corrupt officials and others through abuse of the current bail system, and to the hysteria some believe characterizes the law and order issue among politicians and the public. The D.C. effort was a successful effort that represented a particular challenge because it involved the entire U.S. Congress. A program operator undertaking a lobbying effort must identify the power base and the most potent incentives to move it and follow these up systematically and relentlessly. For the final conference report, see NCJ 51935.