Limiting system involvement

Instead of their case being referred or petitioned to court, officials in the justice system – law enforcement, prosecutors, or intake officers—can issue a warning, refer the youth to community-based services, or require the youth to participate in programs intended to repair the harm caused by their actions, by deciding to warn and release, refer to services, or a community led program.

If a case is petitioned to court, court officials can order closure before it reaches adjudication and can issue a warning, refer the youth to community-based services, or require the youth to participate in programs intended to repair the harm caused by their actions, by deciding to warn and release, refer to services, or a community led program.

If a youth has needs that require effective case management from probation staff, limiting system involvement can still be done by not giving youth violations of probation that will lengthen their stay or lead to revocation of their probation. Instead of longer terms of supervision, youth can complete small goals and get out of the system.

If your department is not involved in intake decision making, you’re likely to only meet youth once their opportunity for diversion has passed. However, your work with the youth can still limit their system involvement if you use the least restrictive response possible. This means not giving youth violations of probation that will lengthen their stay or lead to revocation of their probation. Instead of longer terms of supervision, youth can complete small goals and get out of the system. This mindset can help with responding to youth on probation in a way that will lead to positive and equitable outcomes.

Most often, youth who come to the attention of the justice system are engaging in normal adolescent behavior and should be diverted from the system.

‍

It is important to understand that diversion occurs on a continuum and there are several strategies for diverting youth from the justice system. Instead of thinking about it as “let the youth go or officially process them,” there are some in-between options that will make diversion more effective. For example, instead of their case being referred or petitioned to court, officials in the justice system—law enforcement, prosecutors, or intake officers—can issue a warning, refer the youth to community-based services, or require the youth to participate in programs intended to repair the harm caused by their actions. The goal is to intervene only as much as necessary, so only use services and case management for those youth that need it and make sure to only refer them to services that are necessary for positive behavior change. For every youth there should be a different approach on the continuum in order to meet their needs. Agreements should be documented between law enforcement, the DA, and the court as to what offenses are always divertible.

When deciding which offenses should be considered for diversion, it would be beneficial to youth and to you to address the incident that brought them to the court, not their charge. For example, in some cases, youth can be charged with a violent crime even if there was no real violence involved, such as purse snatching. Considering these youth as violent isn’t an accurate portrayal of the youth’s behavior and may lead to harsher penalties that further entrench the youth into the system and cost the department more money, risking the availability of services for youth that need them.

General rules for diversion[2]

• Failure in diversion should not result in placement or detention.
• Diversion protocols should avoid requiring regular scheduled meetings of the youth and a probation officer.
• Non compliance with diversion should not result in court-imposed consequences except in serious cases.

If your department has a role in intake decision making, the Annie E.Casey Foundation published guidance.

Always divert[3]

• Youth who is coming to the attention of the court for the first time for an offense that is neither serious nor violent
• Youth who come to the attention of the court for misdemeanors, unless there is a pattern of chronic reoffending or a significant threat to the saftey within the community.
• Youth who come to the attention of the court for their first-nonviolent felony offense

Rarely divert[4]

• Youth who come to the attention of the court for serious violent crimes with premeditation
• Youth who come to the attention of the court for subsequent offenses that are violent and felonious regardless of circumstances

Usually divert[5]

Consider:

• Premeditation
• Role in the offense
• Their strengths
• Assets and supports
• Acceptance of responsibility
• Previous diversion agreements
• and/or the assessed risk for subsequent offending

The above rules of diversion should apply to all youth. Every youth has different circumstances so be very careful that diversion is an option that is applied equitably. Data show that diversion is more often used for white youth even when factors used to inform decisions are similar[6] for youth of color. This leads to more youth of color on probation, in detention, and suffering from collateral consequences. In order to ensure that your department’s use of diversion is equitable, collect data that focuses on whether or not a case received diversion, whether diversion was completed or revoked, and demographics of the youth. This will not only uncover disparate outcomes, but it can be the catalyst in deciding to change the way you decide which cases receive diversion.
‍