Research on District Attorneys' Pretrial Diversion Programs: A Proposal for a Comprehensive Multi-Method Study, Vermont, Illinois, and Wisconsin, 2012-2016 (ICPSR 37084)

Version Date: Jan 30, 2023

Cite this study |

Principal Investigator(s):
Michael Rempel, Center for Court Innovation (U.S.)

https://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR37084.v1

Version V1

Slide tabs to view more

Summary

With state courts facing record-breaking caseloads and tightening budgets, jurisdictions around the country have begun to seek alternatives to traditional case processing as early as possible in the criminal justice process. One existing alternative is prosecutor-led diversion, a model which allows jurisdictions to reroute low-level offenders from traditional case-processing at the front-end of the justice process, in many cases prior to formal charge or arraignment. Although prosecutor-led diversion programs (PDPs) have been a part of the American legal landscape for several decades, there is little to no descriptive literature of the model and only sporadic impact evaluations of specific programs. In response, the Center for Court Innovation, the RAND Corporation, and the Association of Prosecuting Attorneys conducted a national, multi-method study with the following goals: (1) to synthesize existing knowledge of PDPs, (2) to produce a rich understanding of existing programs through in-depth case studies of programs in 11 sites nationwide, including program goals, target populations, and policies, and (3) to test PDP effectiveness in reducing recidivism, incarceration, psychosocial problems, and costs to the society and the economy through a prospective impact evaluation of 5 programs at 3 sites. Phase 1 consisted of in-depth interviews with key stakeholders at the 11 sites. Phase 2 consisted of focus groups with program participants, and an impact study of the effects of PDPs on case disposition, use of jail, re-arrest, and cost effectiveness.

This collection includes data from the Phase 2 impact study. Five programs from 3 of the 11 sites (Cook County, Illinois, Chittenden County, Vermont, and Milwaukee County, Wisconsin) were selected for quasi-experimental impact evaluations. For each program, the research team obtained a de-identified dataset containing demographics, criminal histories, and instant case outcomes.

Citation

Rempel, Michael. Research on District Attorneys’ Pretrial Diversion Programs: A Proposal for a Comprehensive Multi-Method Study, Vermont, Illinois, and Wisconsin, 2012-2016. Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor], 2023-01-30. https://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR37084.v1

Export Citation:

  • RIS (generic format for RefWorks, EndNote, etc.)
  • EndNote

Funding

United States Department of Justice. Office of Justice Programs. National Institute of Justice (2012-IJ-CX-0036)

Subject Terms

Geographic Coverage

Smallest Geographic Unit

Police jurisdiction

Restrictions

Access to these data is restricted. Users interested in obtaining these data must complete a Restricted Data Use Agreement, specify the reasons for the request, and obtain IRB approval or notice of exemption for their research.

Distributor(s)

Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research
Hide

Time Period(s)

2012 -- 2016

Date of Collection

2012-10-01 -- 2016-09-30
Hide

Study Purpose

To improve upon the limited state of research knowledge, the research team conducted a multisite evaluation of 16 carefully selected diversion programs that were expressly created or led by prosecutors in 11 jurisdictions across the country. Through the multisite study, the research team sought to answer the following 6 research questions:

  1. Program Goals: For the prosecutors who created diversion programs, which overarching goals were more or less prominent in motivating their establishment?
  2. Diversion Policies: What is the current state of prosecutor-led diversion, based on the eligible target populations and diversion policies now in place across the country? To what extent do existing programs incorporate evidence-based practices?
  3. Impact on Case Outcomes: Do prosecutor-led diversion programs reduce conviction and incarceration rates for participating defendants?
  4. Impact on Recidivism: Do prosecutor-led diversion programs reduce recidivism?
  5. Impact on Cost: Do prosecutor-led diversion programs produce efficiencies for prosecutor's offices or other criminal justice agencies by routing defendants away from traditional court adjudication and, thereby, avoiding traditional court costs?
  6. Lessons for Prosecutors: For prosecutors seeking innovative approaches that challenge business-as-usual, what are the strengths of existing diversion approaches, and what are some of the identifiable challenges or shortcomings?

Study Design

The research team intentionally sought well-established (not brand new), high-volume diversion programs in large urban sites. In general, the research team sought to find programs with variability in: (1) timing of pretrial diversion: pre-filing, or prior to the filing of a court case, and post-filing, or after court appearances have begun; (2) eligible charges: misdemeanor and felony programs; and both programs targeting a specific type of charge (e.g., drug cases) and programs open to multiple charges; and (3) geographic region: final sites included a geographically diverse sample consisting of 2 prosecutor's offices in the Northeast, 1 in the South, 3 in the Midwest, and 5 in the West.

In Phase 1 of this study, the research team conducted in-depth case studies of 16 diversion programs in the 11 sites. In Phase 2, 5 of these programs from 3 of the 11 sites were selected for rigorous, quasi-experimental impact evaluations, and an overlapping 4 programs from 3 sites participated in quasi-experimental cost evaluations. Focus groups with program participants were also conducted in Phase 2.

For each of the 5 programs in the Phase 2 impact study, the research team obtained a de-identified dataset including demographics, criminal histories, and instant case outcomes for a sample of participants and comparison defendants that fell within the confines of a pre-specified sampling frame (e.g., arrest dates, arrest charge, and severity). After assembling and cleaning the data from each sample, the research team identified each individual's instant case as either the arrest that triggered entry into the diversion program or, for comparison defendants, the first arrest within the specified time frame. The final disposition was then recorded for this case, and prior arrests and re-arrests (and their associated charges and severity) were then identified and summed.

Sample

Three sites (Cook County, IL, Chittenden County, VT, and Milwaukee County, WI) were selected for quasi-experimental impact evaluations on the basis of the research team's evaluability assessments from the Phase 1 case study site visits, which queried staff interest and willingness to participate; data content and quality; and overall logistical feasibility of conducting such an analysis. The research team also purposively sought higher volume programs with a comparatively robust and well-established model (pointing to Cook and Milwaukee counties), while also favoring the inclusion of Chittenden County, which was the only relatively small jurisdiction in the original sample of 11 sites.

Five programs were included at the selected sites: 2 in Milwaukee County (both Diversion and Deferred Prosecution); the sole program in Chittenden County (Rapid Intervention Community Court); and 2 programs in Cook County (Misdemeanor Deferred Prosecution Program and Drug School). The Cook County Drug School sample was split into misdemeanor and felony sub-samples, which were analyzed separately.

Time Method

Cross-sectional

Universe

Adult participants in prosecutor-led pretrial diversion programs across the United States, and a matched sample of control defendants.

Unit(s) of Observation

Individual

Data Source

Criminal history data were obtained from official records.

Data Type(s)

Mode of Data Collection

Response Rates

Not applicable.

Presence of Common Scales

None

Hide

Original Release Date

2023-01-30

Version History

2023-01-30 ICPSR data undergo a confidentiality review and are altered when necessary to limit the risk of disclosure. ICPSR also routinely creates ready-to-go data files along with setups in the major statistical software formats as well as standard codebooks to accompany the data. In addition to these procedures, ICPSR performed the following processing steps for this data collection:

  • Checked for undocumented or out-of-range codes.

Hide

Weight

Not applicable.

Hide

Notes

  • The public-use data files in this collection are available for access by the general public. Access does not require affiliation with an ICPSR member institution.

  • One or more files in this data collection have special restrictions. Restricted data files are not available for direct download from the website; click on the Restricted Data button to learn more.