wuswgnmm Lm @1151le um 1111 I] L— »' LIBRARY Michianmtc University . This is to certify that the thesis entitled AN EVALUATION OF DEFERRED PROSECUTION IN MICHIGAN presented by Donna Mercedes Losurdo has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for M.Si degree in Jriminaflustice Major professor Date /0/?/7 g / / 0-7 639 OVF DUE FINES ARE 25¢ PER DA: Bil-1R ITEM Return to book drop to remove this checkout from your recurs. 58983—3". S’! M ‘ 12:8 gags? M§3§2 W FEB 1 41939 " lwflmom M m‘”‘-§Zé?€~ h“OSAOifi © Copyright by DONNA MERCEDES LOSURDO l979 AN EVALUATION OF DEFERRED PROSECUTION IN MICHIGAN By Donna Mercedes Losurdo A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE School of Criminal Justice 1979 ABSTRACT AN EVALUATION OF DEFERRED PROSECUTION IN MICHIGAN By Donna Mercedes Losurdo Deferred prosecution represents one type of formalized diver- sion strategy utilized by the criminal justice system. While diversion has long been used informally, it is only recently that the potential benefits of formalized diversion have been recognized. The purpose of the study was to provide a comparative analy- sis of five deferred prosecution programs implemented in Michigan, focusing on the operational and procedural differences between pro- grams and differences in program results. In particular, the study examined the recidivism of both referred as well as accepted clients. While the study could not establish proof that the programs are responsible for the low recidivism rates observed in program participants, there may be evidence that the results are a reflec- tion of the screening procedures used by deferred prosecution pro- grams and that the critical stage may be at the point of referral to the program. DEDICATION to my family ii TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES LIST OF FIGURES . Chapter I. II. III. INTRODUCTION The Problem . Reform . . . . Deferred Prosecution. The Program Program Model . . The Need for Evaluation . EVALUATION DESIGN . Purpose of the Study . Evaluation Approach . Objectives of the Evaluation Methodology . Data Analysis DATA ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS . Section I: Project Descriptions . Ingham County Pre- Trial Diversion Program Jackson County Citizens' Probation Authority Calhoun County Citizens' Probation Authority Berrien County Deferred Prosecution Authority . Wayne County Pre-Trial Diversion Program Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . Section II: Examination of Referred and Accepted Client Populations . Rates of Acceptance . . Demographic Characteristics . Background Characteristics Case and Client Legal Characteristics Summary Page . viii Chapter IV. V. FOOTNOT APPENDI BIBLIOG Section III: Comparison of Diagnostic and Treat- ment Services Provided . . Diagnosis of Treatment Needs Diagnostic Tools Used . . Number and Types of Treatment Services Provided Summary . . Section IV: Examination of. Project Outcomes . Basis for Program Rejection of Case Length of Client Involvement in Project . Type of Client Termination . Summary . . . . . . . Section V: Client Recidivism . . . Recidivism Since Program Referral . Recidivism Since Program Termination . Client Characteristics and Recidivism Summary CONCLUSIONS . IMPLICATIONS ES . CES RAPHY . iv 83 86 I45 Table 2A. 28. 2C. 2D. 2E. 3A. 3B. 3C. 3D. 30. LIST OF TABLES Rates of Acceptance/Rejection by Project . Demographic Characteristics of Aggregate Referred and Accepted Client Populations . . . . Demographic Characteristics of Wayne County's Referred and Accepted Client Population . . . . . . Demographic Characteristics of Ingham County's Referred and Accepted Client Populations . Demographic Characteristics of Jackson County's Referred and Accepted Client Populations . Demographic Characteristics of Calhoun County's Referred and Accepted Client Populations . Demographic Characteristics of Berrien County's Referred and Accepted Client Populations . Background Characteristics of Aggregate Referred and Accepted Client Populations . . . . Background Characteristics of Wayne County's Referred and Accepted Client Populations . . Background Characteristics of Ingham County's Referred and Accepted Client Populations . . . . . . Background Characteristics of Jackson County's Referred and Accepted Client Populations . Background Characteristics of Calhoun County's Referred and Accepted Client Populations . Background Characteristics of Berrien County's Referred and Accepted Client Populations . Offenses of Referred Population by Project Page 87 88 89 9O 91 92 93 94 97 100 103 106 109 112 Table Page 5. Offenses of Accepted Population by Project . . . . 113 6A. Number of Prior Offenses of Referred Population by Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114 68. Number of Prior Offenses of Accepted Population by Project. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114 7. Types of Prior Offenses of Referred Population . . . 115 8. Types of Prior Offenses of Accepted Population . . . 116 9A. Previous Time in Jail of Referred Population by Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117 98. Previous Time in Jail of Accepted Population by Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117 lOA. Probation History of Referred Population by Project . 118 108. Probation History of Accepted Population by Project . 118 11A. Delinquent History of Referred Population by Project . 119 118. Delinquent History of Accepted Client Population by Project . . . . 119 12A. Legal Status of Referred Population by Project . . . 120 128. Legal Status of Accepted Population by Project . . . 120 13A. Warrant Status of Referred Population by Project . . 121 138. Warrant Status of Accepted Population by Project . . 121 14. Diagnosis of Client Treatment Needs by Project . . . 122 15. Diagnostic Tools Used in Treatment Diagnosis by Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123 16. Number and Type of Services Provided Terminated Clients by Project . . . . . . . . . . . . 124 17. Reasons for Prosecutor Rejection of Case by Project . 125 18. Length of Client Involvement in Program by Project . 126 vi Table Page 19. Type of Client Termination by Project . . . . . . 127 20. Length of Time Since Program Referral . . . . . . 128 21. Number of Arrests Since Program Referral . . . . . 129 22. Number of Convictions Since Program Referral . . . 129 23. Intake Decision by Recidivism (Arrests) . . . . . 130 24. Intake Decisions by Recidivism (Convictions) . . . 131 25. Recidivism of Successfully Terminated Clients as Com- pared to Those Referred and Rejected or Those Unsuc- cessfully Terminated (Arrests) . . . . . . . . 132 26. Recidivism of Successfully Terminated Clients as Com- pared to Those Referred and Rejected or Those Unsuc- cessfully Terminated (Convictions) . . . . . . . 133 27. Types of Offenses Charged Against Accepted/Rejected Clients Since Program Referral by Project . . . 134 28. Length of Time Since Program Termination by Project . 135 29. Number of Arrests Since Program Termination by Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136 30. Number of Clients Convicted Since Program Termination by Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136 31. Type of Program Termination by Recidivism (Arrests) . 137 32. Type of Program Termination by Recidivism (Convic- tions) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138 33. Age by Recidivism (Arrests) . . . . . . . . . 139 34. Age by Recidivism (Convictions) . . . . . . . . 140 35. Sex by Recidivism (Arrests) . . . . . . . . . 141 36. Sex by Recidivism (Convictions) . . . . . . . . 142 37. Race by Recidivism (Arrests) . . . . . . . . . 143 38. Race by Recidivism (Convictions) . . . . . . . 144 vii Figure 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. LIST OF FIGURES Number of Cases by Project for Which Intake and Exit Data was Collected . . Number of Cases for Which Recidivism Data was Collected . Overview of Project Characteristics Relationship Between Project Acceptance Rates and Target Populations . . . . . . . Relationship Between the Percentage of a Project's Referred Population Comprised of Females and Project Target Population Percentage of Accepted Population Comprised of Larcenies . . . . . . . Number of Prior Offenses of Accepted Population Legal Status of Referred Clients at the Time of Their Referral by Project . . . Percentage of Accepted Clients Diagnosed as Needing Treatment in Each of the Six Listed Treatment Areas . Percentage of Terminated Clients Who Participated From 10-12 Months by Project Percentage of Successful Client Terminations by Project Frequency of Recidivism of Referred Clients Percentage of Referred Population Which Recidivated by Project . . . . . Percentage of Accepted and Rejected Referrals Which Recidivated . . . . . . . viii Page 15 17 32 36 37 42 44 46 49 53 54 58 59 60 Figure 15. 16. 17. 18. Percentage of Clients Successfully Terminated and Those Either Unsuccessfully Terminated or Rejected at Referral Which Recidivated Percentage of Clients Terminated Over One Year Frequency of Recidivism of Terminated Clients . Percentage of Successfully and Unsuccessfully Terminated Clients Which Recidivated . ix Page 61 64 65 66 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION The Problem The criminal justice system has been subject to intense scrutiny in recent years. Attention and criticism has focused upon the numerous and far-reaching problems encountered in the administration of justice which serve to hinder, if not prevent the system from achieving its goals. The problems which charac- terize today's criminal justice system are procedural as well as operational, adversely affecting not only the system's effi- ciency, effectiveness and productivity but also its ability to provide equal protection for both the accused and society. Although the Michigan criminal justice system has witnessed a reduction in the rates of reported crime for 1977, the deleterious effect of rising annual crime rates in previous years upon system operation have remained, as have the procedural problems also associated with the administration of justice. Even though the crime rate has decreased, there is little evidence that the efficiency, effectiveness and productivity of the system has been improved, or that the assurance of equal protection has been provided the accused individual or society. Examples of this occur- rence can be found throughout the justice system. Prosecutor's caseloads have grown to unmanageable sizes, preventing both the efficient and effective prosecution of criminal cases.1 Moreover, the limited number of dispositional alternatives available to the prosecutor has contributed to this situation: Prosecutors deal with many offenders who clearly need some kind of treatment or supervision but for whom the full force of criminal sanctions is excessive; yet they usually gack alternatives other than charging or dis- miss1ng. ‘TConsequently, the influx of relatively minor offenses into the system has impeded the effective prosecution of more serious cases.3 In addition, the prosecutor's unworkable caseload has mandated the use of plea bargaining as a means of disposing of cases, to the extent that the present criminal justice system has become dependent upon the negotiated plea.4 The courts have also been confronted with processing a prodigious number of cases with limited available resources.5 The result has been overcrowded dockets and increasing backlogs.‘TThe delay in the processing of criminal cases is thought to be the most pressing problem facing the criminal justice system.6 Aside from the legal ramifications, delay not only has obvious serious conse- quences on system efficiency, but, also on the system's ability to rehabilitate the offender and protect the public from further crime. It has been stated that often, as a result of the delays in proces- sing, rehabilitation is started too late in the process to be effective: Rehabilitation is most effective when begun as close as possible to the criminal activity which necessitates the treatment. It is least effective when postponed so long that the wrongdoer is scarcely able to relate the treat- ment to his wrongful act. As long as these inordinate delays persist, the rehabilitation of guilty individuals will be impeded.8 X'The opportunity for rehabilitation is further diminished when one considers the caseloads confronting probation officers and the reality that probation officers must spend valuable time meeting with individuals requiring minimum attention and supervision.9‘i‘ln Michigan, the average probation counseling time is approximately lO-15 minutes 10 In addition, an examination of recidivism per case per month. would tend to support the statement that rehabilitation attempts have not been successful. Thus far, the discussion has primarily focused on the vari- ous operational and procedural problems facing the criminal justice system and their effect upon both the accused individual and society. However, there is another consideration - more theoretical in nature which may also influence the system's ability to achieve its goals of deterrence, rehabilitation and the protection of society regard- less of the aforementioned problems - that is, the emergence of labelling theory. According to labelling theory, the stigma asso- ciated with official processing and a criminal conviction might d.]] limit the social and economic opportunities for the accuse In addition: The labelling perspective adopted the viewpoint that the individuals who imposed the criminal label perpetrated the probelms they outwardly sought to ameliorate and laid the groundwork for the defendant's development of a deviant identity. Law enforcement, court and correctional officers were identified as co- conspirators in the production and continuation of criminal behavior.12 In sum, the aforementioned operational and procedural short- comings and theoretical concerns have provoked questioning as to the system's ability to achieve its goals and have necessitated the implementation of both "conceptual and programmatic changes in the traditional processes of the system." 8211111 One such change has been in diversion. Although diversion has long been employed both informally and formally at all stages of the criminal justice system, it is only recently that the potential benefits of formalized diversion have been recognized. Formalization has affected diversion in two ways. First, it has changed the con- text in which decisions to divert are made. Criminal justice offi- cials historically have exercised virtually unstructured, unconfined and unchecked discretionary power in the dispositioning of indivi- 13 duals. The growing awareness of the need for "certainty, consistency and an absence of arbitrariness" in criminal justice decision-making has prompted formalization.14 Secondly, formalization has changed what diversion offers the accused individual, the criminal justice system and the community. Previously, the objective of diversion was to, "conserve official criminal justice resources for those requiring close supervision and control, removing from the sanction of the court, defendants who may not require a full criminal ch'sposition."15 Diversion in this context merely provided for the removal of certain offenders from processing. The diverted individual who was in need of treatment, received none and society was given neither relief for the crime committed nor the assurance regarding the likelihood of the individual's recidivism. It is clear that this form of diversion did not represent a systemic and integrated approach to goal achievement but rather an expedient means of deal- ing with the problem of burgeoning caseloads. The formalization of diversion was in response to the need for an intermediate dispositional alternative between outright dis- missal and traditional formal processing, which was more in accord- ance with the goals of the system and the needs of accused indivi- duals. The term "diversion" now meant that although the individual remained under the purview of the criminal justice system, he was not subject to traditional formal processing and the stigma which often resulted, but was exposed to various "treatment" alternatives in the community. This combination of screening out low-risk offenders from formal processing while providing them with the necessary treatment intervention directly addressed the needs of the criminal justice system as well as those of the accused individual. Diversion in this sense, not only allowed for a more effective allocation of limited existing resources by removing from the system those individuals not in need of a full criminal prose- cution, but also broadened the resources and methods that could be used to deal with offenders.16 Moreover, it allowed for a distinction to be made between the "law violator" and the criminal. The "law violator" was seen as the first time or occasional offender who had not developed a pattern of criminal behavior and for whom "full force of the criminal sanctions" would be considered exces- sive. Diversion thereby offered a more rational and humane treat- ment of the law violator than that of the criminal justice system which was designed to deal with criminals.17 It should be recognized however, that the issue of the amount and the kind of attention offenders warrant divides support for the program along ideological lines. The premises upon which formalized diversion is based are not universally accepted but are representative of a liberalizing influence in the field of criminal justice. The first premise states that since offenders differ in the seriousness of the offenses they commit, the extent of their prior criminal involvement and their probability of recidivism, they also differ in the amount and kind of attention, that they warrant from the criminal justice system to guarantee the public's protec- tion from future criminal behavior. The second premise states that those offenders who do not warrant the full force of the criminal sanctions should not receive it. Acceptance of formalized diversion is therefore dependent upon support of these two premises. Deferred Prosecution: The Program Diversion as a "formal reform concept" has been operation- alized into a wide variety of programs. Programs have been devel- oped which differ in areas such as the following: -- point or stage at which diversion occurs —- whether the diversionary status was conditional or unconditional -- particular category of offenders the program has selected to divert -- types of services the program offers -- program's use of agencies outside of the criminal justice system Deferred prosecution represents one type of formalized diversion strategy. It is designed to interrupt the legal process at the prosecutorial level by diverting individuals prior to trial, generally at the pre-arraignment level. In a deferred prosecution program, the diversionary status is conditional; prosecution is not terminated, i.e., the case is not dropped, but rather is tentatively delayed for a period of time pending program participation. The determination of whether prosecutorial proceedings are resumed is contingent upon successful program completion. The program's target population is non-patterned, non- violent offenders whose criminal action is of a situational or impulsive nature, frequently reflecting a problem in the indivi- dual's life situation. Deferred prosecution isan1attempt to deal with the problem immediately after criminal involvement, instead of months later, after trial. The objectives of deferred prosecution are multi-level, applying to the accused individual, the criminal justice system and the community. In general, they are as follows: 1. Provide the prosecutor with a viable alternative to criminal proceedings; 2. Minimize the defendant's penetration into the criminal justice system; '3. Integrate the client into society by increasing the prospects of rehabilitation through more timely inter- vention; Reduce court and probation caseloads; prosecution workloads; and the costs associated with these activities; Eliminate criminal behavior while in the diversion program and reduce recidivism subsequent to release; Improve the efficiency of the criminal justice system; Reduce community loss from crime; and, Allow for appropriate utilization of community resources. oowow 0'1 4:- Program Model The methods which are used to achieve these objectives differ from one deferred prosecution program to another. However, although they may vary structurally, program-wise and policy-wise, they are procedurally similar. Referrals to the program are based on a pre- determined set of guidelines. These referral guidelines are an important aSpect of the program since they represent basic program policy by designating the program's specific target population. The deferred prosecution staff interviews the individual and completes an intake evaluation. The completed evaluation, a recommendation for acceptance or rejection, and a treatment plan are submitted by the program staff to the prosecutor for him to utilize in making the decision as to whether to offer deferred prosecution to the accused. If the individual is offered the option of deferred prosecution, he is under no obligation to accept. Participation in the program is totally voluntary. If the individual decides to participate, the prosecutor must then explain the program in detail, focusing on the legal rights the accused will be waiving if accepted into the program. It is, therefore, necessary that the participant understands his rights, and advisable that the participant execute a written waiver. The prosecutor also may explain the operational components of the pro- gram, emphasizing the duration of the program and that prosecution will be resumed upon involvement in additional criminal behavior and/ or unsatisfactory participation in the treatment program. Upon completion of the deferred time period, if the indi- vidual has not been involved in any additional crime and has abided by the terms stated in the treatment plan, the individual may be released and his record expunged. This discretionary decision is determined by the prosecuting attorney who again may rely upon the recommendation of the deferred prosecution staff. An asset of the program is that it places some guidelines on the prosecutor's dis- cretion with the existence of pre-determined criteria and established policies which are utilized in various determinations such as who to refer and when the diversionary status should be revoked. Deferred prosecution programs have been designed to provide both treatment and supervision services. There are two program models which most deferred prosecution programs are patterned after. The first utilizes professional program staff in both the treat- ment and supervision of clients. The second type incorporates the concept of the Citizen's Probation Authority, which as first implemented in Genesee County, Michigan “11965 recognizes the role of the community (as the title suggests) in the correctional process. In this type of program, although professional staff is also used, 10 community volunteers aid in supervising a client's development and also involve themselves with their clients on a social and personal basis. In addition, both types of programs are characterized by their extensive use of various existing treatment programs in the community. The Need for Evaluation The development of deferred prosecution programs has been in response to various operational, procedural and theoretical con- cerns which are currently facing the criminal justice system. Viewed as an intermediate alternative between outright dismissal and traditional formal processing, deferred prosecution offers the flexibility necessary to address various problems confronting the system. While deferred prosecution has come to be accepted as a legitimate exercise of prosecutorial discretion, there now exists the need to provide prosecutors, program officials and other criminal justice personnel with information - information which can be used to improve program performance and impact. There is, however, a paucity of evaluation findings on the performance and outcomes of the various programs which have been implemented. Three factors have contributed to this situation. First, the implementation of deferred prosecution programs is a recent deVelopment in criminal justice. Second, while many programs have been developed, deferred prosecution is, nonetheless, a new concept implemented in only a small percentage of prosecutor offices 11 and courts. Finally, few of those programs which have been imple- mented have included an evaluation component in the program, keeping for the most part only summary statistics on basic program outcomes. In view of this situation, the overall objective of the study was to provide various criminal justice actors with informa- tion on the program which can be used not only to improve program performance, but also to address the problems presently confronting the criminal justice system. CHAPTER II EVALUATION DESIGN Purpose of the Study The purpose of the study was to provide a comparative analysis of various types of deferred prosecution programs, focusing on operational and procedural differences between programs as well as differences in program outcomes. Three factors influenced the selection of this evaluation approach. First, although it is postulated that deferred prosecution programs hold many potential benefits for the criminal justice system, the community and the individual offender, there exists a paucity of information on demonstrated program effectiveness. Fur- ther, the issue of client recidivism for deferred prosecution pro- grams remains unexplored as an outcome measure. Decision-makers must be provided with detailed analysis of program processes as well as program outcomes in order to begin to identify what aspects of the program are responsible for the observed results. Furthermore, because prosecutorial discretion forms the cornerstone of deferred prosecution, although programs may have the same objectives, the methods and procedures which have been employed to achieve these objectives have varied. Consequently, because the concept of deferred prosecution has been operationalized into a wide 12 13 variety of programs, more information on the comparative effective- ness of different types of programs is needed. Evaluation Approach The evaluation was designed to examine the various types of deferred prosecution programs which have been implemented in Michigan. While many evaluations involve only a single project, this study was designed to compare five projects using the same measures. The design should allow decision-makers to identify particular program methods or services which may be producing posi- tive program results. The case study method of research was employed for several reasons to examine the five programs included in the study.18 First, the comparative and exploratory nature of the study required a detailed examination of various program processes, interactions and outcomes. Secondly, although legal and ethical concerns prevented the use of a more rigorous methodological research design, a case study can provide decision-makers with more descriptive information on program operation and performance while highlighting several areas deserving of further attention and research. Thus, for an intensive investigation and comparison of programs, bringing to light several areas for future research and providing extensive baseline data for future evaluation purposes, the case study method was utilized. 14 Objectives of the Evaluation The specific objectives of the evaluation were as follows: 1. Facilitate cross-program comparisons by providing a detailed description of each project included in the study, focusing upon program capabilities and the policies and procedures utilized in the day to day operation of the programs. 2. Compare the referral and acceptance processes of the programs involved, examining both the characteristics of referred and accepted client populations as well as the time lapses between various stages of the referral process. 3. Analyze and compare the diagnostic and treatment/ supervision services which the programs provided. 4. Examine selected program outcomes, focusing upon the characteristics of terminated client population. 5. Determine the frequency, extent and seriousness of recidivism of those clients referred to and accepted into deferred prosecution programs. Methodology_ There were three major data collection efforts involved in the study: (1) documentation of processes and procedures; (2) individual client/case data; and (3) client recidivism data. "Capability" data, i.e., information regarding a program's particular policies, procedures and operational characteristics were collected at the beginning of the study and again near the end to record any changes which might have occurred. Data were collected through the use of site visits and personal interviews conducted by Michigan Office of Criminal Justice Programs (OCJP) evaluation staff. The second area involved the collection of data on individual clients and cases. The five projects included in the study were 15 reqUested to collect data on all individuals processed by the pro- gram. An "Intake" instrument was used to collect information on all those individuals referred to the program and included those individuals who were referred and accepted into the program as well as those referred and subsequently rejected. In addition, an "Exit" instrument collected further information on those individuals who were accepted and participated in the program. Client identifica- tion numbers were used in the collection of both intake and exit data to protect client confidentiality. The collection of case data began in September, 1976 and continued for 11 months until July, 1977 yielding information on a cross-project total of 1,479 cases. Figure 1 illustrates the breakdown by project of the number of cases for which "Intake" and where applicable, "Exit" data were collected. Igtgkg_ Exit Wayne 272 73 Ingham 266 58 Jackson 233 52 Calhoun 360 233 Berrien __§4§ 397 TOTAL (Aggregate) 1,479 723 Figure l.--Number of Cases by Project for Which Intake and Exit Data Were Collected. 16 Differences between intake and exit data are a result of clients not having completed the program at the time the exit data were collected. The differences between programs in terms of the number of cases for which exit data were collected is due to varying project participation lengths. The third major area of data collection dealt with client recidivism. While previous evaluation efforts have used re-arrests as a measure of recidivism, "arrests" are at best an indicator of the client's subsequent contact with the criminal justice system and not a true reflection of whether a subsequent offense was indeed committed. It is now widely recognized that the use of convictions as a basis for measurement is a truer indicator of recidivism. However, convictions used alone does not clearly reflect subsequent contact with the criminal justice system. As a result, this study utilized two definitions of recidivism - recidivism defined as a subsequent arrest and recidivism defined as a subsequent conviction. In this way, both a client's subsequent contact with the criminal justice system as well as the subsequent offenses committed could be examined. The recidivism data were obtained from the Michigan State Police Computerized Criminal History (CCH) System by each of the five projects (with the exception of Berrien) identifying referred clients for which "intake" and "exit" data had previously been collected and directly submitting the names of those clients to the Michigan State Police to insure confidentiality. Berrien County 17 utilized a slightly different procedure, taking a sample of 100 accepted and 100 rejected clients originally referred. By collecting recidivism data on individuals referred to deferred prosecution programs, i.e., on those rejected as well as those accepted into the program, differences in the nature and frequency of clients accepted and rejected as well as successfully and unsuccessfully completing the program could be examined. More- over, because recidivism data were obtained on only those clients for whom previous case data had been collected, recidivism findings could be examined with respect to a wide range of client character- istics. Figure 2 indicates the number of cases by project for which recidivism data were collected. Differences in the numbers of cases for which individual client data and recidivism data were collected are due to missing data. Wayne 252 Ingham 226 Jackson 167 Calhoun 196 Berrien 198 TOTAL (Aggregate) 1,039 Figure 2.--Number of Cases for Which Recidivism Data Were Collected. 18 Data Analysis Analysis of the data was performed on two levels - ”Aggregate" and "Project." "Aggregate" pertained to analysis of the findings from the five projects included in the study considered together, while "Project” analysis examined the findings of each of the five projects separately. Statistical techniques utilized in the analysis of the data included frequency distributions, cross- tabulations, percentile comparisons and other generally used analyt- ical techniques. CHAPTER III DATA ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS The analysis of the data will be presented in five sections. Each section will contain the findings which correspond to each of the five objectives. The five sections are: Section I Project Descriptions Section II Examination of Referred and Accepted Client Populations Section III Comparison of Diagnostic and Treatment Services Provided Clients Section IV Examination of Selected Project Outcomes Section V - Client Recidivism Tables referenced in this chapter are located in Appendix A (Tables 1—38). Section I: Project Descriptions One of the most important components of any evaluation is the description of the program under investigation. Moreover, when the nature of the evaluation involves a comparative analysis of several different projects, the importance of providing accurate project descriptions becomes highlighted. 19 2O . In order to provide an accurate description of the five proj- ects included in the study, each project will be examined across various areas of program organization and operation. While a procedural overview of deferred prosecution programs was previously presented, the particular policies utilized by each project will now be addressed. Because all of the projects have undergone many sub- stantive changes since their implementation, the descriptions will apply to the projects at the time the evaluation was conducted. Each of the five projects will be examined with respect to the following areas: Project Overview Target Population Project Duration Organization and Structure Delivery of Services Revocations Ingham County Pre—Trial Diversion Program Project Overview. Ingham County's Pre-Trial Diversion Project is designed to divert individuals from criminal processing prior to warrant authorization. Referrals to the project are made by the prosecutor's screening unit on the basis of established referral criteria. During the first two years of the project, 23,394 cases were screened by the prosecutor's office, 470 individuals were referred 21 to the project, and 252 individuals were accepted. (See pages 26-27 for a cross-program analysis of acceptance rates.) Target ngulation. The project refers and accepts both non- patterned misdemeanor and felony offenders. At the time the evalua- tion was conducted, however, the project was handling primarily felony offenders. Project Duration. The length of time which individuals must participate in the project is determined by established project policy and varies according to the type of offense committed. Felony offenders are deferred for one year while misdemeanants are deferred for six months. Extensions on the one year/six month pro- bation periods may be granted if the additional time is necessary to meet any specific requirements of the probation contact. Project Organization and Structure. The project operates as a separate division within the prosecutor's office. Project staff consists of a director, two caseworkers, an intake investigator and two clericals. Volunteers and interns are also used in a primarily investigative capacity. The project director is directly responsible to the prosecutor and supervises all program personnel in addition to maintaining a limited caseload. The duties of the caseworker are to provide counseling and supervision to clients. The intake investigator is responsible for conducting background investigations and determining whether the offender meets the established referral 22 criteria. Project policy is determined by the prosecutor with input from the project director. Delivery of Services. The project utilizes both in-house and referral methods of providing treatment and supervision services to clients. All in-house services are provided by project staff. Various treatment resources in the community are also used to address client treatment needs. In monitoring clients, the project utilizes both supervised and unsupervised probation. Revocations. Clients may be terminated from the project because of a technical violation or a new arrest. Although in the majority of cases involving a new arrest the client will be revoked, the specific circumstances surrounding the arrest are taken into consideration. If the client's diversionary status is revoked, the warrant pertaining to the original offense for which the indi- vidual was referred is issued. Jackson County Citizens' Probation Authority Project Overview. Jackson County's Citizens Probation Authority receives referrals from the prosecutor's office prior to warrant authorization. Referrals are made on the basis of estab- lished criteria. During the initial three years of the project, 1,146 individuals were referred to the project and 765 individuals were accepted. 23 Target Population. The project was designed to refer and accept non-patterned misdemeanor and to a lesser extent first-time felony offenders. (The project is presently limited to misdemeanor offenders.) Project Duration. The project does not utilize any formal criteria in determining the length of project participation. The amount of time clients are to participate is determined by the case- worker on an individual basis depending on various offense and offender characteristics. The length of time which clients are deferred ranges from 2-12 months. Although extensions may be granted, a client is rarely in the project over a year. Project Organization and Structure. There are four compo- nents to the project: project staff, volunteer probation workers, the prosecutor and the Citizens Advisory Board. Program staff consists of a director, an investigator- probation officer, a volunteer coordinator and two clericals. The director supervises the staff, maintains a limited caseload and reports to the prosecutor and the Citizens Advisory Board. In March, 1977 the project director left. To date the position has not been filled and the investigator-probation officer has assumed many of the director's duties. The duties of the investigator-probation officer are primarily intake investigation and counseling. The volunteer coordinator is responsible for the recruitment, hiring, assignment and supervision of volunteers. 24 A major component of Jackson County's project is the use of volunteers from the community. The volunteer "probation workers" serve as supportive contacts with clients during their diversionary period. Jackson County also utilizes a Citizens Advisory Board which is comprised of 15 members of the community and acts along with the prosecutor in an overall policymaking and review capacity. Delivery of Services. The primary provider of treatment and supervision services is project staff while the volunteer probation workers provide support services to the clients. In addition, the project utilizes various existing community resources on a referral basis. Although all clients are assigned to a caseworker upon acceptance to the project, not all clients are assigned to a volunteer. The project does not distinguish between supervised and unsupervised probation with all clients being placed on supervised probation for the length of the project. Revocations. A client's diversionary status may be revoked on the basis of a technical violation or a new arrest. As a general rule, clients will be terminated for any new arrests. Calhoun County Citizens' Probation Authority Project Overview. Calhoun County's Citizens Probation Authority was in operation for three years at which time the project was terminated due to county budget constraints. 25 During the three years of this project, 1,267 individuals were referred to the project and 719 individuals were accepted. Target Population. The project was designed to refer non- patterned and non-violent misdemeanor and felony offenders to the project prior to trial. Project Duration. All individuals accepted into the project were required to participate for one year. The project did, however, terminate clients before completion of the one year period if it was felt the client had made significant progress. Project Organization and Structure. Calhoun County's pro- ect consisted of four components: project staff, community volun- teers, a Citizens Advisory Board and the prosecutor. Project staff consisted of a director, an assistant direc- tor, one caseworker and a secretary. The director reported directly to the prosecutor and the Citizens Advisory Board and supervised all staff personnel in addition to maintaining a caseload. The assistant director and caseworker served as co-coordinators of the volunteer program in addition to maintaining caseloads. Additional project personnel included approximately 30 volunteers from the community. Volunteers were selected by project staff and required to attend a training course before their assign- ment to clients. 26 The program's Citizens Advisory Board consisted of 26 members who participated with the prosecutor in the development of project policy. Delivery of Services. The project utilized both in-house and referral methods of providing services to clients. In-house services were provided by project staff and in some cases by volun- teers. Revocations. Revocations were made either on the basis of a technical violation or as a result of a new arrest. Berrien County Deferred Prosecution Authority Project Overview. Berrien County's Deferred Prosecution Authority is designed to accept referrals from the prosecutor's office from the time the warrant is requested up to the time of the preliminary examination. During the initial three years of the project, 16,756 cases were screened by the prosecutor's office, 869 individuals were referred to the project, and 481 individuals were accepted. Target Population. Berrien County's project is designed to refer felony and misdemeanor offenders on the basis of established referral criteria requiring that the individual be a first or non- patterned offender charged with a non-violent offense. 27 Project Duration. There are no formal criteria utilized in determining the length of time an individual participates in the project. The length of participation ranges from a few months to over a year depending upon the particular circumstances of the case. Extensions on the original probation period are made if the additional time is necessary to complete the terms of the contract. Two common reasons for probation extensions are large amounts of resti- tution to be paid and the termination stipulation that the client exhibit a crime and drug-free behavior during project involvement. Project Organization and Structure. The project is comprised of four components: project staff, volunteer probation officers, the prosecutor, and a Citizens Advisory Board. Project staff includes a director, a case intake worker and a secretary. The director is responsible to the Citizens Advisory Board and the prosecutor supervises the remainder of the staff and the volunteers. Both the director and the caseworker are involved in the intake process in addition to maintaining a caseload. The volunteer probation officers supervise and also involve themselves with the probationer on a social and personal basis. In the majority of cases, the volunteers already know the probationer on a personal basis. The Citizens Advisory Board is comprised of 20 members of the community, who serve in the establishment of project policy along with the prosecutor. The board also plays a major role in 28 the client selection process with a committee reviewing the probation contract of each client. Delivery of Services. Berrien County's project also utilizes both in-house and referral methods of providing services. In addition, it is the only project included in the study which utilizes a polygraph in the selection and termination of clients. As part of the selection process, individuals are requested to record all crimes which they have committed. After the receipt of this document, a polygraph test is administered to verify its complete- ness. Anotherpolygraphis administered upon termination from the project to determine if the client has exhibited both a crime and drug-free behavior throughout the probationary period. If they have not, they are either prosecuted or the project is extended. Revocation. The project may revoke clients for a technical violation or as a result of a new arrest. The decision to revoke is the responsibility of the caseworker and the director. Once a case has been revoked, the warrant on the original offense is issued. Wayne County Pre-Trial Diversion Program Project Overview. Wayne County's Pre-Trial Diversion proj- ect is the largest of the projects in the study. Unlike the other projects, it is administered by the probation department and utilizes a multiple referral and dispositional approach. It is designed to divert elibible offenders at both the pre- and post- 29 arraignment level. Prosecutors, defense attorneys, and judges may all refer offenders to the project at any time prior to trial. Final decisions concerning acceptance into the project are made by the prosecutor in pre-arraignment cases and by the judge after arraign- ment. After a case is accepted, the defendant is given a contract of conditions which he must sign and adhere to while enrolled in the project. During the initial three years of the project, 31,024 cases were screened by the prosecutor's office, 4,090 individuals were referred to the project and 1,562 individuals were accepted. Target Population. The project has established formal criteria regulating referrals to the project. The criteria auto- matically excludes violent criminal cases, rape or robbery cases and patterned offenders. Other cases are evaluated for acceptance on their merits. At the time the study was conducted, the project was accepting primarily felony offenders. Project Duration. All individuals accepted into the project are deferred for a one year period. Extensions on the one year probation period are granted primarily in cases involving the repay- ment of large sums of restitution or where the client is enrolled in a treatment program which runs more than one year. Project Organization and Structure. Structurally, the project is divided into three components: prosecutor, defense and probation. The prosecutor component consists of two assistant 3O prosecutors who perform the preliminary screen function. They receive referrals from the court, police, and regular assistant prosecutors. Eligible individuals are then referred to the probation component of the project for investigation. This component is comprised of one probation officer supervisor, nine probation officers and one capias officer. The duty of the supervisor is to insure that daily opera- tions conform to project policy. The probation officers are responsi- ble for interviewing, screening, counseling and referring clients. Probation officers receive training in human effectiveness and sub- stance abuse in addition to in-service training. The average case- load for probation officers is 55. Volunteers are also used to assist the probation officers with their caseload duties. The function of the capias officer is to investigate all criminal records of persons considered by the project, conduct additional investigations, and to arrest absconders. The defense component is comprised of one defense attorney who represents all persons who were referred to the project at arraignment who have not retained counsel. The project director supervises all three components and is directly responsible to the chief probation officer of the proba— tion department. An advisory board was also established which is comprised of approximately 20 judges, 2 chief prosecutors, the Detroit-Wayne County criminal justice coordinator and the chief probation officer. The purpose of the advisory board is to establish major project policy. 31 Delivery of Services. Clients receive needed services both on an in-house and referral basis, with all in-house services being provided by project staff. The project also uses both supervised and unsupervised probation in the monitoring of clients. The decision to place a client on unsupervised probation is left to the discretion of the individual probation officer. Revocations. Because all diversion cases are considered pending cases, with a warrant having been issued and arraigned and counsel appointed, revocation of a diversion case requires a hearing. The prosecutor must file a motion to revoke the diversionary status and the motion must be ruled on by the judge who placed them in the project. Although a client may be terminated for a technical viola- tion, revocations are primarily based on new arrests. Summar The five deferred prosecution projects included in the study exhibit certain similarities and differences across various areas of program organization and operation. The point at which the client is diverted differs from project to project. Ingham, Jackson and Calhoun's projects are designed to divert prior to warrant authorization. Berrien and Wayne's projects allow for a possible deeper penetration into the criminal justice system prior to referral than the other programs. 32 .muwumwcmuumcozu powwoco we 3mp>cm>o--.m mg=m_u copuocw com» _ ca 8: mm_co_wc use -smxm xcmcwe__ 0: mm» mmx mm» mm» m we» was?“ wow 8: mcocowamcm_e -wca cu cowca cmwccmm mmwco_mc cco :o_uo~_co:u:o o: mm» mm» mm» mm» c max cow» _ mcocmmEmum_E acmccez cu cowca cao:_mu .moe ~_ - N mmwco_mc acme soc» mmmcoc -xm cameo. ou :o_uo~_cocu:c o: mm» mm» mm» mmx m mm» mms_u umm o: mcocmmEmum_s “emcee: o» co_cq comxooa mcocome -ocmwsimos c mm_:opmc co_uo~wco;u=m mm» mm» mm» o: o: o mm» mmwcopmeic» _ ap_cmswca “emcee: ou co_ca Eocmc~ mm_:o_mw acmacmvacco mos mm» mm» mm» 0: mp mm» cam» — xpwcoswca umoa use men mean: :o_uonoca pmccmewc mmzozicfi ccoom mommu:=_o> mNPm mco_m acmEm>Po>:_ covuopsaoo :o_mcm>_o ummw>cmozmca mmu_>cmm xcomw>u< co mm: ccoum -cmuxu Eocmoco ummcep co ucvoo \ummp>cma:m we xcm>wpmo .mcm~wuwu 33 . There are also differences in terms of project target popu- lation. At the time the study was conducted, Jackson's project handled primarily misdemeanors, Calhoun and Berrien dealt with both misdemeanors and felonies and Wayne and Ingham focused primarily upon felonies. The length of time individuals were required to participate in the project also varied across projects. The programs in Wayne, Ingham and Calhoun all have established times which dictate how long clients must participate in the project. Jackson and Berrien make the determinations on a case by case basis. While all projects reported granting extensions on the original period of diversion, the levels of use varied from project to project. Projects also differed in terms of size of staff and the projects use of volunteers. Those projects having a smaller staff - Berrien, Calhoun and Jackson - all used volunteers as part of their program, while the larger staffed projects - Wayne and Ingham - did not. While all five projects utilized both in-house and referral methods of providing treatment services, only Wayne and Ingham used both supervised and unsupervised probation in the monitoring of clients. Finally, all but one project - Ingham - have established Citizens' Advisory Boards to assist the prosecutor and project staff in developing project policy. 34 Section II: Examination of Referred and Accepted Client Population This section will provide a description of the types of clients referred to and accepted into the five deferred prosecution projects included in the study. The major areas under examination include: rates of acceptance, demographic client characteristics, background characteristics, as well as case and client legal charac- teristics. Rates of Acceptance The overall acceptance rate of individuals referred to deferred prosecution programs was 64%, ranging from 41% in Wayne County to 96% in Berrien County. (See Appendix A, Table 1.) The wide range in acceptance rates can in part be explained by how pro- jects defined a referral and the particular screening procedures they used. All projects except Berrien defined a referral at the point the project first received the case from the prosecutor. All cases were then screened by the projects to determine if they met the acceptance criteria and the decision was then made to accept or reject. Berrien's project, however, utilized a two-phase program screening procedure. Once the case was sent down from the prose- cutor's office, the case was first screened to determine whether the case did indeed meet the project's acceptance criteria. If it did, the project considered the case a "referral" and began the second phase of screening, to determine if the individual wanted to parti- cipate in the program. 35 Therefore, the 96% acceptance rate in Berrien illustrates that once their case met the acceptance criteria, few individuals (only 4%) decided not to participate in the project. The rejection figures for the other four projects illustrate the percentages of cases received from the prosecutor's office which either did not meet the criteria for acceptance to the project or did not wish to participate in the project even though they met the acceptance criteria. An inverse relationship was observed between project target populations and acceptance rates. (See Figure 4.) Those projects dealing with a more serious client target population (i.e., primarily felonies) had lower acceptance rates than those projects handling a less serious client population (i.e., primarily misdemeanors). Moreover, the data indicates that the more serious a project's tar- get population, the less the probability of acceptance into the project. Berrien's data were not included because of their use of a different definition of what constituted a referral. (See Section I for a discussion of project target population.) Demographic Characteristics Included in the discussions of the demographic characteris- tics of clients referred to and accepted into deferred prosecution projects is an examination of the following variables: sex, age, race, marital status. (See also Tables 2A-E for findings related to demographic characteristics of accepted and rejected client populations.) 36 100 90 13 80 68“ QJ it '5; 70 60% 8 6O 3 50 457 +, ° 41% 5 4O 8 ‘3 3O 20 10 Jackson- Calhoun- Ingham- Wayne- primarily misdemeanors primarily primarily misdemeanors and felonies felonies felonies Figure 4.--Re1ationship Between Project Acceptance Rates and Target Populations. §§53 The composition of the aggregate referred and accepted populations was primarily male with males representing 60% of the aggregate referred population and 64% of the accepted population. (See Table 2.) However, examination of individual project data reveals that this trend does not apply on the individual project level. (See Table 2A-E.) The composition of accepted population ranged from only 51% male in Jackson and Calhoun counties to a predominately male clientele in Wayne (91% male) and Ingham (85% male). In addition, Figure 5 indicates that those projects accept- ing a more serious client population (i.e., primarily felony offenders) also tend to have the highest percentage of males referred 37 and accepted into the project. This finding may reflect that males tend to commit more serious offenses than females. 100 90 80 7O 6O 50 45% 43; 4O 39% 3O 20 17% 10 IL A. Jackson- Calhoun- Berrien- lngham- Wayne— primarily misdemeanors misdemeanors primarily primarily misdemeanors and and felonies felonies felonies felonies Figure 5.--Re1ationship Between the Percentage of a Project's Referred Population Comprised of Females and Project Target Population. ‘Rgge, The race of those clients referred and accepted into deferred prosecution projects was primarily white, with 69% of those referred and 74% of those accepted being white. (See Table 2.) The only project which did not follow this trend was Wayne County which had a primarily black client population (71% referred population, 68% accepted was black). (See Table 2A-E.) This observation is directly related to the characteristics of the 38 county which the project operates in. Since most of Wayne's popula- tion is black, it is not unusual that the Wayne's project client population is also primarily black. Age, The highest percentage of individuals referred to and accepted into the projects on both aggregate and project levels were between the ages of 17 and 21 years of age. Table 2 illustrates that 57% of all individuals referred to the projects were in this age bracket and 79% were between 17 and 30 years of age. Looking across projects we find that Wayne, Ingham and Berrien are dealing with a younger client population with 90%, 86%, and 80% under the age of 30 respectively. Jackson and Calhoun have a slightly older client population with 71% and 75% of their population under 30. (See Tables 2A-E.) One of the basic criteria guiding the acceptance of indivi- duals into deferred prosecution projects requires that the individual be either a first or nonpatterned offender. Since the projects are dealing with a young client population, it may be hypothesized that younger offenders are less likely to have developed a pattern of criminal behavior and consequently, are more likely to be referred and accepted to deferred prosecution projects. Marital Status. As would be expected, given the age of project populations, the marital status of referred and accepted clients was primarily single (62% referred, 61% accepted). (See Tables 2A-E.) 39 Background Characteristics The following variables will be examined: current residence, education, student status, employment status, primary income source, occupational level, average weekly net income, number of legal dependents and psychological treatment (1 year prior to referral). Current Residence. Each of the five projects included in the study handled primarily county residents. Table 3 illustrates that 91% of all those referred to the various projects resided within the county at the time of their referral. The percentage of out-county residents handled by the projects ranged from 0% in Calhoun to 19% in Ingham. (See Tables 3A-E.) The differences between projects can be explained by the particular policies adopted by the projects. While Calhoun and Jackson projects followed closely the policy that project participants were to be county residents, Ingham, Berrien and Wayne did not consider residence as a basis for project rejection but required that clients be able to keep project appointments. Education. Of the total number of individuals referred across all five projects, only 42% had completed high school. (See Table 3.) This ranged from a low of only 27% having completed high school in Wayne to a high of 51% in Calhoun. (See Tables 3A-E.) Part of the differences between projects may be attributed to the age of the project's client population. Since Wayne is dealing with a younger client population than most of the projects (65% between 40 17-21 years) one would expect a lower percentage to have completed high school. Employment Status. Deferred prosecution projects have to a large extent been handling clients who were unemployed at the time of their referral to the project. Table 3 indicates that only 47% of the aggregate client population was employed either full or part time at referral. (See Tables 3A-E for individual project data.) Primary Income Source. This variable identified the client's primary income source one year prior to project referral. Tables 3 and 3A-E illustrate that the two largest categories across all projects was "own employment" (34%) and "family" (33%). The frequency of "family" as a primary income source relates to the age of the population that the projects are dealing with. (See Page 38 for a description of the age of project populations.) Occupational Level. A very high percentage (69%) of indivi- duals referred either had no prior employment or were classified as unskilled. (See Table 3.) Most projects had between 70 and 80 percent of their population either unskilled or with no previous employment. Although Calhoun's figure was 58%, the project was handling an older client population than most of the other projects included in the study which perhaps explains the difference. (See Tables 3A-E.) 41 Average Weekly Net Income. Also included in Table 3 is a breakdown of the average weekly net income of referred and accepted clients. Over half (55%) of the aggregate client population received a net income of under $50 per week. This statistic is not surprising given the age and occupational level of the referred popu- lation. (See Pages 38 and 40 for a description of the age and occupational level of project populations.) Psytholggical Treatment. Clients referred to and accepted into projects for the most part had no prior psychological history. Table 3 illustrates that 85% of those referred had had no prior psychological treatment as compared with 94% of those accepted. (See Tables 3A-E for individual project data.) Case and Client Legal Characteristics This section will examine various legal characteristics of those cases/clients referred to deferred prosecution projects. Included will be a discussion of the following characteristics: offense type, number of prior offenses, type of prior offenses, previous time in jail, probation history, delinquent history, legal status and warrant status. Offenso_1ype. Table 4 examines the types of offenses which were referred to the project from the prosecutor. As would be expected, "Crimes Against Property" represents the largest category of offenses referred (88%). Larcenies comprised 54% of all property 42 crimes, burglaries 11% and stolen property offenses 8%. There were some variations between projects with Jackson and Calhoun having a higher referral of larcenies (78% and 73% respectively) as compared to Ingham and Wayne, in which only 28% and 23% of their respective referral populations were composed of larcenies. Table 5 examines the types of offenses which were accepted into deferred prosecution projects. Once again, the largest single category was property crimes (88%), with larcenies constituting 61%. Less than 1% of all cases accepted were "Crimes Against Persons." In addition, the projects differed in the mixture of their accepted client population. 100 90 8O 7O 60 50 4O 30 20 10 Wayne Ingham Jackson Calhoun Berrien E] Larcenies Q All other offenses Figure 6.--Percentage of Accepted Population Comprised of Larcenies. 43 As Figure 6 illustrates, Jackson, Calhoun and Berrien client populations primarily consist of larceny offenders, while in Ingham and Wayne the larger percentage of their population consists of non- larceny offenders. Examination of Tables 4 and 5 indicate that Ingham and Wayne both refer and accept a wider distribution of offense types than the other projects. Number of Prior Offenses. The data indicate that the projects are dealing, as intended, with primarily first or non- patterned offenders. Tables 6A and 68 illustrate that 86% of the aggregate referred population and 90% of the aggregate accepted population had no prior offenses while the percentage of the popula- tion having either no prior offenses or one prior offense was 96% for those referred and 97% of those accepted. As Figure 7 illus- trates, individual project figures ranged from 88% in Ingham to 100% of Calhoun's accepted population having no priors or only one prior offense. The difference between projects can be explained by the procedures followed by projects in data collection. While Ingham included traffic offenses in their determination of prior offenses, the other projects did not record traffic offenses with any degree of consistency. Since 21% of the total number of prior offenses in Ingham were traffic offenses (see Tables 7 and 8), we might safely conclude that their percentage of clients with none or only one prior offense is higher than the recorded 88%. 44 100 90 80 7o 60 so 40 3o 20 10 5% 3% 0% 1% Wayne Ingham Jackson Calhoun Berrien E] No priors or only one prior offense E More than one prior offense Figure 7.--Number of Prior Offenses of Accepted Population. Types of Prior Offenses. Tables 7 and 8 provide a descrip- tion of the types of prior offenses which were committed by indivi- duals referred and accepted into deferred prosecution projects. A very low percentage of those having prior offenses had previously committed a "crime against persons" (only 4.2%). The largest cate- gory on the aggregate data was property crimes (40%). Previous Time in Jail. Most referred and accepted clients have had no previous time in jail. The data reveal that 96% of the referred and 98% of the accepted population fall in this category. Looking across projects, there is very little variation, with the percentage of the referred population having some previous time in 45 jail ranging from 0% in Jackson to 6% in Wayne. (See Tables 9A and 9B.) Probation History. The percentages of aggregate referred and accepted clients who had not previously been placed on some form of probation were 93% and 96% respectively. Once again, there was little variation among the projects. (See Tables 10A and 10B.) Delinquent History. Tables 11A and 118 reveal that 87% of the referred and 92% of the accepted client populations had never been adjudicated delinquent. Of the 8% of clients accepted having been adjudicated, only 4% had been verified. Leggl Status. Tables 12A and 128 examined the legal status of individuals referred and accepted into the projects at the time of their referral. The data indicate that the majority of clients is on some form of pre-trial release with 58% of the aggregate referred population having been released on recognizance, 18% on bond and 9% on citation at the time of their referral to the project. A cross-project examination reveals some differences between counties in the types of pre-trial release methods which are utilized (see Figure 8). Calhoun had the highest percentage of clients who were released on recognizance at the time of their referral (78%) while Ingham had the lowest percentage (28%). In addition, a much higher percentage of Wayne and Berrien's referred population were out on 46 bond at the time of their referral than witnessed in the other projects. Finally, although citations are used to a much lesser extent than the other pre-trial release methods, a substantial number of clients in Jackson are out on citation at the time of their referral to the program. 100 80 11 62 65 60 so m1 F 52 s I 45 r 40 l 3 35 28 ; _ 1 23 2° ' :7 11 I 10 I ::: 7 7 3 o g 4 ~~l 4 5 0 0 m _ 7 . mu .7 _ _ 1 Wayne Ingham Jackson Calhoun Berrien D Released on Recognizance E On Citation E Out on Bond m Other Figure 8.--Legal Status of Referred Clients at the Time of Their Referral by Project. Warrant Status. Deferred prosecution projects have been designed to divert individuals from the formal criminal justice sys- tem at various stages of processing. Table 13A provides a descrip- tion of the status of the warrant (i.e., either not prepared, prepared, or prepared and arraigned) at the point where the client was referred to the project. In 89% of all cases accepted into the project, the warrant was not prepared. A cross-project examination, 47 however, yields some differences between programs. In particular, a substantial percentage (28%) of Wayne's accepted population had been prepared and arraigned at the time of their referral as compared to 3% in Ingham, 1% in Jackson, and 2% in Calhoun. (Berrien's data are not available.) The differences can be explained by the point or stage at which the particular project is designed to divert the client. Since Wayne's project is designed to divert individuals up to the time of trial, it is not surprising that such a large percent- age of their clients have been arraigned on the warrant. The other projects are designed to divert prior to arraignment and this situa- tion is reflected in the data. Summary There were several similarities and differences observed between projects in terms of the characteristics of their referred and accepted client populations. First, a relationship was noted between a program's target population and its acceptance rate of referrals. Those projects dealing with a more serious target population (i.e., primarily felony offenders) accepted a lower percentage of their referred population than did projects dealing with a less serious client population (i.e., primarily misdemeanor offenders). Examination of basic client demographic characteristics indicated that deferred prosecution projects are dealing with a primarily white, male pepulation between the ages of l7-21. How- ever, there were some project variations. A higher percentage of 48 Jackson, Calhoun and Berrien Counties'referred and accepted popula- tion were female, and a much higher percentage of Wayne County's client population were black. The study also found that the majority of individuals referred and accepted to deferred prosecution projects were first-time prop- erty offenders, most of whom were charged with larcenies. The composition of project populations varied with Wayne and Ingham Counties exhibiting a lower percentage of their populations consist- ing of larceny offenders. While the majority of the referred client population was on some form of pre-trial release at the time of their referral to the project, there were differences between counties in the types of pre-trial release methods which were utilized. Wayne County utilized bond to a greater extent than the other projects while in Jackson County, citations were the primary pre—trial release type recorded. Section III: Comparison of Diagnostic and Treatment Services Provided Deferred prosecution projects are designed to offer various diagnostic and treatment services to clients. This section will examine the following areas with respect to this issue: diagnosis of client treatment needs, diagnostic tools used, number and types of treatment services provided. Diggnosis of Treatment Needs accepted into the projects. Table 14 describes the treatment diagnosis of clients The six treatment areas listed were: education, vocational, drug/alcohol, family, psychological and finan- cial. As Figure 9 illustrates, the area most often diagnosed as a problem was financial with 52% of all those accepted into the proj- ects diagnosed with a financial problem. 100 90 8O 7O 60 50 4O 30 20 10 48% 49%, 24% 40% 30% 52% Education Vocational Drug/ Alcohol Family Psychological Financial Figure 9.--Percentage of Accepted Clients Diagnosed as Needing Treat- ment in Each of the Six Listed Treatment Areas. Close behind 'financial' was 'education' and 'vocational' with 48% and 49% of their respective populations having been diag- nosed with problems of that nature, followed by 'family' (40%), 'psychological' (30%) and 'drug/alcohol' (24%). 50 There were some variations between projects. Jackson diag- nosed a large percentage of their accepted population with family (75%), psychological (63%), and financial (64%), while Calhoun diag- nosed a much lower percentage of their population as having these problems (10%, 16% and 19% respectively). Berrien defined a low percentage of their clients (12%) as having psychological problems and a much higher percentage (63%) as having financial problems. Diggnostic Tools Used The most widely used tools which were used in the diagnosis of clients were personal interviews and questionnaires. Interviews were used in 48% of the cases and questionnaires in 33%. There were some variations between projects with Wayne using interviews to a larger degree than the other projects. In addition, Wayne and Berrien did not use questionnaires as extensively as the other proj- ects. (See Table 15.) Number andtIypes of Treatment Services Provided Table 16 provides a description of the number and types of services which were provided clients. The Table indicates 26% of all clients involved in the project received educational treatment, 26% received vocational/employment treatment services, and 10% received drug/alcohol treatment. While the projects agreed that many individuals involved in the project do not require any special- ized treatment services, some projects mentioned the need for more community agencies in various localities. 51 Summar A diagnosis of the treatment needs of those referred to deferred prosecution projects indicated that a large percentage of referrals were diagnosed as having either financial, vocational or educational-related problems. Personal interviews and questionnaires were primarily used in the diagnosis ofcflients"treatment needs. Of the types of treatment services recorded as having been provided, educational and vocational services were the most frequent responses. Section IV: Examination of Project Outcomes Included in this section is a discussion of the reasons why cases were rejected from the project, the length of time accepted clients participated in the program and the project termination out- comes. Basis for Program Rejection of Case Table 17 shows the reasons for which referred cases were rejected from the project. The two most frequent responses were that the individual displayed a pattern of criminal behavior (28%) and that the client was uncooperative (26%). Because Berrien used a different definition of what constituted a referral, they did not record either the seriousness of the offense, a pattern of criminal behavior or the refusal of moral responsibility for the crime as reasons for rejection. (See Section II for a discussion of Berrien's referral procedures.) 52 Length of Client Involvement in Project Table 18 provides a description of the length of time ter- minated clients had participated in the project. In the aggregate population, 40% of the clients had participated in the project from lO-12 months and only 7.5% had participated for over a year. However, as Figure 10 indicates, there were variations between projects. Wayne and Ingham had a much higher percentage of their populations (93% and 59% respectively) having been in the project from 10-12 months, while clients in Jackson, Calhoun and Berrien tended to participate for shorter periods of time. These findings are not sur- prising considering the policies which the projects had concerning the length of project participation. Both Wayne and Ingham had established formal guidelines which required accepted clients to participate in the project for one year, while Jackson and Berrien determined the length of project participation on a case by case basis assigning varying participation periods up to a year. Although clients accepted into Calhoun's project were assigned to the project for one year, the project terminated clients prior to that point if it felt the client had made significant progress. (See Section I for a more detailed description of policies regarding program duration.) Type of Client Termination Table 19 indicates that 90% of all clients participating in the five deferred prosecution projects included in the study 53 100 93% 9O 8O 7O 50 59% 50 40 30 20 18% 10 5% O I I Wayne Ingham Jackson Calhoun Berrien 31% Figure 10.--Percentage of Terminated Clients Who Participated From 10-12 Months by Project. successfully completed the program. As Figure 11 indicates, there was some variation between projects with the percentage of the popu- lation terminating successfully ranging from 72% in Ingham to 98% in Berrien. Although conclusive evidence is not available, the differ- ences observed between projects may be a function of the project's willingness to grant extensions and their tolerance of client viola- tions. Summar Section III examined several basic outcomes related to deferred prosecution projects. First, the findings indicated that the two most frequent reasons for rejecting individuals from the project were that the referred individual displayed a pattern of criminal behavior or was uncooperative. 54 100 98% 90 88% 88% 90% 80 7o 60 so 40 30 20 10 72% Wayne Ingham Jackson Calhoun Berrien Figure ll.--Percentage of Successful Client Terminations by Project. There were also differences observed between projects in the length of time accepted clients participated in the program. While all accepted clients in Wayne and Ingham were required by project policy to participate for 12 months, clients in Jackson, Calhoun and Berrien tended to participate for shorter more varied periods of time. Findings also indicated that the majority of clients parti- cipating in deferred prosecution projects are terminated successfully. While differences were observed among projects in the percentage of clients successfully completing the projects, it is felt that the differences can primarily be explained by differences in project policies related to the granting of extensions and technical violations. 55 Section V: Client Recidivism The objective of this section is the determination of the frequency, extent and seriousness of client recidivism. The analysis was divided into three areas: 1. Recidivism Since Program Referral 2. Recidivism Since Program Termination 3. Client Characteristics and Recidivism The first section - "Recidivism Since Program Referral," focused on data which were collected for all individuals originally referred to the five deferred prosecution projects included in the study, measuring any arrests or convictions which occurred, starting from the date they were referred to the projects. In addition, since all those originally referred to the five projects were screened on the same criteria, such an approach not only allowed for an examina- tion of the recidivism of those referred and accepted into deferred prosecution programs, but also provided recidivism data on an inter- esting comparison group - those referred to deferred prosecution programs and subsequently rejected. It should be noted, however, that the only basis for comparing the two groups (those accepted and rejected) is that they were similar in the type of offense for which they were referred and an initial screening defined them as non-patterned offenders. The second section - "Recidivism Since Program Termination," pertained to only those individuals who had been accepted into one 56 of_the five projects and examined only those arrests and convictions which occurred after termination from the program. The final section explored the occurrence of recidivism across various basic client characteristics. The issue of what factors influence whether an individual commits a subsequent offense is far beyond the scope of this study. The purpose was merely to provide a general description of those who did and did not recidivate. Recidivism Since Program Referral An examination of the recidivism of all individuals origin- ally referred to the five deferred prosecution projects included in the study, and a comparison of those subsequently accepted or rejected is presented in this section. Included is a discussion of the following areas: length of time since project referral, fre— quency of recidivism, comparison of recidivism of clients success- fully terminated and those either referred and rejected or accepted and unsuccessfully terminated, and the seriousness of recidivism. Length of Time Since Project Referral. An important factor in the measurement of recidivism is the period of time in which the occurrence of recidivism was measured. Table 20 provides a break- down of the time which had elapsed from the point at which indivi- duals were referred to the point at which recidivism data were collected. The findings indicate that for approximately 50% of those included in the sample, it had been over two years since their 57 referral to the project. There was some variation between projects in the percentage of their population for which it had been over three years since program referral. Berrien exhibited a much higher percentage of its population in that category than the other projects. This was due to the fact that Berrien collected data from its files on some of its previous cases as well as on its current caseload, while the other projects collected data only on current cases. Frequenoy of Recidivism. The data indicates that the major- ity of those referred to deferred prosecution programs, regardless of whether they were subsequently accepted or rejected, did not recidivate. As Tables 21 and 22 illustrate, 73% of those referred did not have a subsequent arrest and 85% did not have a subsequent conviction. Only 17% had one subsequent arrest and 10% a subsequent conviction since referral to the program. Figure 12 illustrates the frequency of recidivism of referred clients. As illustrated in Figure 13, there was some project varia- tion in the percentage of referred clients which had subsequent arrests. The range was anywhere from 43% in Ingham having recidi- vated to 14% in Jackson. However, there was less variation between projects in the percentage of referrals which had a conviction sub- sequent to project referral, ranging from 19% in Ingham to 6% in Jackson. While the figures indicate the percentage of a program's population which recidivated, the data also touches upon interesting differences between counties in terms of arrest and conviction rates, 58 _ % % 9O 85% 80 73% 80 7° ARRESTS 7° CONVICTIONS 60 60 50 50 40 40 3O 30 20 17% 20 10 10% 1o 10% 5% 0 0 E_l Did Not One Over Did Not One Over One Recidivate Arrest One Arrest Recidivate Conviction Conviction Figure 12.--Frequency of Recidivism of Referred Clients. which in part may explain the observed differences between programs. For example, the high arrest/low conviction rates in Ingham may be explained by "quickdraw" arrests made by the police and not a higher rate of recidivism. Comparison of Recidivism in Accepted/Rejected Clients. An examination of recidivism in accepted and rejected referrals indi- cate that a significant relationship exists between whether a referral was accepted or rejected from a deferred prosecution program and whether or not they recidivated. Table 23 illustrates that those who were accepted into the five projects were less likely to have been arrested (only 17% recidivated) than those who had been rejected (41% recidivated). This relationship was found to be statistically significant at less than the .005 level. As indicated 59 % . 50 43% ARR T 40 ES 5 29% 30 24% 20% 2° 14% 10 O Ingham Berrien Wayne Calhoun Jackson % a CONVICTIONS 20 194 18% 17% O 10 ' 10% 6% O _ Ingham Berrien Wayne Calhoun Jackson Figure 13.--Percentage of Referred Population Which Recidivated. in Table 24, the same pattern was also observed regarding convictions, with those referrals having been rejected more likely to be convicted of an offense subsequent to their referral to the program than those accepted into the program. The difference in the number of subse- -quent convictions between those accepted and rejected was also statistically significant at less than the .005 level for the aggre- gate population. Figure 14 illustrates the percentage of accepted and rejected referrals which recidivated. The difference in recidivism rates which was observed between those accepted and rejected is predictable to some degree given the 6O demographic characteristics of the two groups. Clients accepted into the program were less serious offenders and more likely to be first offenders who had committed a property crime than those rejected who tended to have prior offenses and have committed a "crime against persons." % % '00 ARRESTS '00 CONVICTIONS 80 80 so 60 4o 40 27% 20 20 7% o 0 Iii} 11 E3 - Accepted [3 - Rejected Figure l4.--Percentage of Accepted and Rejected Referrals Which Recidivated. Comparison of Recidivism and Case Outcome. The study also addressed the issue of whether clients successfully completing deferred prosecution programs were less likely to recidivate than those either having been rejected from the program at referral or those having been accepted but terminated unsuccessfully. The data 61 revealed that a relationship did exist between the two groups at a statistically significant level (.005) using both arrests and con- victions as the basis of measurement. (See Tables 25 and 26.) Figure 15 illustrates the differences in recidivism between the two groups. % % 100 100 ARRESTS CONVICTIONS 80 60 4O 20 0 W a - Clients successfully terminated [j - Clients either rejected at referral or unsuccessfully terminated Figure 15.--Percentage of Clients Successfully Terminated and Those Either Unsuccessfully Terminated or Rejected at Referral Which Recidivated. Seriousness of Recidivism. The types of offenses charged against those referred to deferred prosecution programs who subse- quently recidivated are presented in Table 27. The largest major category of offenses committed was "Crimes Against Property" with 62 91% of the aggregate recidivist population having an offense in this category. The most frequent single offense type charged was larceny (22% of the aggregate recidivist population). It is interesting to note that the largest major category of offenses of individuals orig- inally referred to the five projects was also "Crimes Against Prop- erty" with larcenies comprising the largest single category of offen- ses. (See Section II for a discussion of the types of offenses committed by the referred population.) There was some variation between projects in the seriousness of the recidivism, i.e., the types of offenses charged. Wayne exhibited a more serious recidivism with a higher percentage of "Crimes Against Persons" having been charged against referred clients. However, given the metropolitan characteristics of the county the project was operating in, this finding is not surprising. Recidivism Since Program Termination While the previous section examined the recidivism of those originally referred to deferred prosecution programs, this section examines the post-program recidivism of only those clients accepted and subsequently terminated from the program. The analysis will focus on the time since program termina- tion, frequency of recidivism, comparison of recidivism in success- ful/unsuccessful clients. 63 Time Since Termination. This section provides an overview of the period of time in which the occurrence of recidivism was measured, i.e., at the point recidivism was measured, the length of time which clients had been terminated. Table 28 indicates that over half (55%) of the aggregate population had been terminated for over one year at the time recidivism data were collected. There were major variations between projects. As illustrated in Figure 16, the percentage of clients having been terminated over one year ranged from 8% in Wayne to 96% in Calhoun. The variation can be explained by the fact that the length of time since termination is a function of the date the clients were accepted into the program and the length of program participation. Since "intake" data on clients accepted into deferred prosecution programs were collected from September 1976 until June 1977, and the length of program participation varied from a few months to over a year, one can begin to see where the differences between projects occur. For example, if data were collected on a client accepted in October of 1976 who was in the program for one year, at the time recidivism data were collected in August of 1979, the client would have been terminated for less than one year. However, in a project where program participation was only a few months, a client accepted in October 1976 and terminated in January 1977 would have been terminated for over a year. The differ- ences between projects are, therefore, a result of the varying 64 periods clients were required to participate in the program and the date they were accepted. % 100 96% 90 80 7° 64% so 59% 50 47% 4O 30 20 10 8% Wayne Ingham Jackson Calhoun Berrien Figure l6.--Percentage of Clients Terminated Over One Year. Freguency of Recidivism. Perhaps the single most frequent question asked regarding the outcome of deferred prosecution pro- grams is the percentage of clients accepted into deferred prosecution programs which do not recidivate subsequent to termination from the program. Tables 29 and 30 indicate that a very high percentage (90%) of clients involved in deferred prosecution programs are not sub- sequently arrested and an even greater percentage (96%) are not subsequently convicted. In addition, 7% of those accepted had one 65 subsequent arrest and 3% had one subsequent conviction. Figure 17 illustrates the frequency of recidivism of clients having been terminated from the program. % 100 90 8O 7O 6O 50 40 3O 20 10 90% ARRESTS 7% 3% 1—7 None 1 2 or More 100 90 8O 7O 60 50 4O 30 20 10 96% CONVICTIONS None 1 2 or More Figure l7.--Frequency of Recidivism of Terminated Clients. Comparison of Recidivism in Clients Successfully and Unsuc- cessfully Terminated. Table 31 and 32 examine differences in the recidivism of clients successfully and unsuccessfully completing the five deferred prosecution projects included in the study. The data indicate that while only 7% of those successfully completing the projects have a subsequent arrest and 2% have a subsequent 66 conviction, 37% of those unsuccessfully terminated have a subsequent arrest and 19% a subsequent conviction. Furthermore, this relationship between the type of termina- tion and the probability of recidivism was statistically significant at less than the .005 level for both arrests and convictions. The difference in percentages of successful and unsuccessful terminated clients recidivating is illustrated in Figure 18. % % 100 100 ARRESTS CONVICTIONS 8O 6O 4O 20 19% 2% E3 - Successful Terminations [j - Unsuccessful Terminations Figure 18.--Percentage of Successfully and Unsuccessfully Terminated Clients Which Recidivated. Client Characteristics and Recidivism The following section examines the relationship between various basic client characteristics and recidivism. As previously noted, 67 its purpose was to provide a general description of individuals which recidivated. Recidivism is measured from the point of refer— ral to the program. Age by Recidivism. As indicated in Table 33 and 34, a relationship was observed between the age of clients at the time of their referral to the projects and the occurrence of recidivism. The study found that as the age increased, the recidivism decreased. This relationship was statistically significant for both recidivism defined as arrest and a conviction at less than the .005 level. Sex bthecidivism. A significant relationship was also observed in Tables 35 and 36 between sex and the occurrence of reci- divism with the females in the sample exhibiting a lower rate of recidivism than males. This relationship was also found to be statistically significant for recidivism defined as both an arrest and conviction at less than the .005 level for the aggregate data. Race by Recidivism. There was no relationship observed between the race of referred clients and the probability of recidi- vism. (See Tables 37 and 38.) Summar This section addressed the issue of recidivism from several perspectives. First, the recividism of all clients originally referred to deferred prosecution programs was examined and was measured from the point of referral to the program. In addition, 68 an examination of recidivism of accepted clients was measured from the point of their termination from the program. Moreover, two definitions of recidivism were utilized: recidivism as defined by a subsequent arrest and as a subsequent conviction. The study found that the majority of those referred to deferred prosecution programs, regardless of whether they were sub- sequently accepted or rejected, did not recidivate, i.e., they were not subsequently arrested or convicted. Likewise, the majority of clients who were accepted into deferred prosecution programs did not recidivate upon termination from the program. An examination of recidivism in accepted and rejected refer- rals indicated that a significant relationship exists between whether a referral was accepted or rejected and the probability of recidivism. Those accepted into the program had lower rates of recidivism than those rejected. A significant relationship was also observed between the type of termination (i.e., either successful or unsuccessful) of clients participating in deferred prosecution programs and the probability of recidivism. Those terminating suc- cessfully had lower rates of recidivism than those unsuccessful terminations. In addition, a relationship was observed between the age of clients at the time of their referral and the probability of reci- divism. Younger clients had a significantly higher incidence of recidivism than older clients. The study also indicated that females exhibited a significantly lower rate of recidivism than males. CHAPTER IV CONCLUSIONS A detailed examination of deferred prosecution programs - their processes, clients and outcomes have thus far been presented. This chapter will highlight the major conclusions of the study and the findings which support them. Deferred prosecution projects were designed to divert a particular category of offender - the non-patterned, non-violent offender, from traditional processing within the criminal justice system. An obvious question is whether deferred prosecution proj- ects have indeed been focusing their attention and resources upon this designated target population. The study found that deferred prosecution projects have been dealing, as intended, with a non- patterned, non-violent offender population, with the clear majority of their clients being first-time property offenders. The program's determination of whether a referred individual is a patterned offender is based on the information which is available to the project at the time the decision to accept or reject from the proj- ect is made. This information is collected from formal records on previous criminal history or obtained through interviews with the individual. The project's decision to accept or reject is, there— fore, based on known information of a client's criminal behavior 69 70 and the difference between the known and actual prior criminal his- tory of a referral cannot be determined by the project. Therefore, in view of this observation, deferred prosecution projects are dealing with the types of offenders they said they would, based on the information available to them. An area related to the subject of program target population is the methods used by deferred prosecution projects to select clients for project participation. The study found that the five deferred prosecution projects included in the study were utilizing successful screening procedures in the intake selection process. Several findings supported this observation. First, the differences in the number and types of prior offenses of the referred as compared to the accepted program populations reflect that programs were identifying and "weeding out" those referrals not meeting the criteria for acceptance. That is, the more serious violators were being screened out of the program. The finding that programs were not automatically accepting clients referred to the program is indicative of their use of a two-level screening procedure, with cases first being referred on the basis of initial screening criteria, followed by a more intensive investi- gation and screening to determine program acceptance. The study also found that (1) a high percentage of clients participating in deferred prosecution programs were successfully completing the program; and (2) of those referred to deferred prosecution programs, those who were accepted into the program had 71 a much lower incidence of recidivism than those who were rejected from the program. Due to the particular evaluation design utilized by the study (i.e., a case study) a causal relationship between the program and the findings cannot be determined. As a result, it cannot be concluded that deferred prosecution programs are responsi- ble for the high percentage of clients successfully completing the program or the low incidence of recidivism observed in clients. There is no scientific method to establish proof of causality other than to establish an experimental design, randomly assigning some cases to the program while others are assigned to a "no-action" program and the groups are pre- and post-tested. While concepts such as "due process" and "equal protection" serve as safeguards of individual rights, they also serve as natural barriers for the criminal justice researcher, discouraging the use of experimental designs. Although it cannot be proven from the study that the program is responsible for the low recidivism rates observed in program participants, there may be evidence that the results are a reflection of the screening procedures used by deferred prosecution programs. Furthermore, the findings on recidivism indicate that the critical point may be at the point of referral to the program. Consequently, the finding that only a small percentage of individuals participating in the programs recidivate may be attributed to the fact that pro- grams are screening referrals, selecting only those clients who are more likely to successfully complete the program and less likely to recidivate. 72 To state that deferred prosecution programs are screening and selecting those individuals who are more likely to be "success- ful" does not obviate the need for such a program. On the contrary, such a statement supports the claim that deferred prosecution is a viable dispositional alternative to traditional processing through the criminal justice system because they have been successful, as measured by recidivism rates, in identifying offenders who do not require the full force of the criminal sanctions to guarantee the public's protection from future criminal behavior. Whether one supports this claim, however, depends on accept- ance of the premises upon which deferred prosecution is based: First, that the amount and kind of punitive and/or rehabilitative attention required from the criminal justice system varies from offender to offender and secondly, that those offenders warranting less punitive attention from the criminal justice system should be provided with less severe alternatives. Those who accept these premises view deferred prosecution as a way of identifying and handling this category of offenders for whom traditional processing is felt to be both unnecessary and inappropriate, providing them with an alternative which is less punitive and more commensurate with the attention they warrant, or rather do not warrant, from the system. However, those holding a more punishment-oriented correctional approach will not share these views. 73 Another conclusion pertains to a comparative analysis of the five deferred prosecution projects included in the study. While the projects were, for the most part, procedurally similar in terms of how and when a case was referred, there were major variations between projects in the operational aspects of the program. These differ- ences between projects were most visible in the areas of service delivery, including whether the program utilized volunteers and the length of time clients were required to participate in the program. However, while each of the projects utilized different approaches in their design, there seemed to be little variation in program out- comes. For example, those programs utilizing volunteers did not have a higher percentage of their population terminating success- fully or lower rates of recidivism than those programs which did not use volunteers. Although conclusive evidence is lacking, this observation would tend to support the statement that project out- comes were a result of the types of clients who participated in the program and thereby a function of the screening and selection pro- cesses utilized by deferred prosecution programs, and not of the particular methods, procedures or services which were provided by the different projects. However, it cannot be conclusively deter- mined from the study whether it was indeed the screening procedures used or the project itself which was responsible for the observed results. Finally, based on the finding that deferred prosecution projects have been successfully implemented in several communities, 74 the study demonstrated that the concept of deferred prosecution is transferable, i.e., that a select group of non-violent, non- patterned offenders can be identified and provided with a viable alternative to traditional processing in the criminal justice system. Moreover, not only did the study demonstrate the transfer- ability of the concept of deferred prosecution, but also its flexi- bility by the variety of programs which have been successfully implemented. Although the major premises underlying any deferred prosecution program are the same, the concept has been operational- ized into a wide variety of projects. To illustrate, while deferred prosecution programs were intended for a particular category of non-violent, non-patterned offenders, each project included in the study focused on a slightly different target population. In addition, although the purpose of deferred prosecution was to pro- vide a viable alternative to traditional processing through the criminal justice system, each of the five projects differed in the types of programs or services which they provided or made available to their clients. The operational differences between projects can be viewed as a result of the differences in the communities in which the projects were implemented and the particular philosophies or attitudes of each program's decision-makers. Summar The major conclusions relating to the five projects included in the study are as follows: 75 Deferred prosecution programs have been dealing as intended with a non-patterned, non-violent offender population. Projects have been utilizing successful screening procedures in their intake selection process, select- ing those individuals less likely to recidivate. Deferred prosecution is a viable dispositional alter- native to traditional processing through the criminal justice system. Conclusive evidence is lacking to determine whether the observed project results are a function of the types of clients accepted into deferred prosecution programs, the types services provided clients or of the interaction between them. The concept of deferred prosecution is transferable to a wide variety of communities offering the type of flexibility necessary to design programs which address the specific needs of a community. CHAPTER V IMPLICATIONS The findings and conclusions which have been presented in this study carry several important conceptual and programmatic implications for both the criminal justice system and the community. The following four (4) major implications have been identified and will be discussed in detail below. 1. The comparative approach utilized by the study allows existing programs, as well as communities interested in the development of a deferred prosecution program, the opportunity to utilize the information produced by the study to examine and compare the various types of programs which have been implemented and their related results. Additional research is necessary to determine to what extent program outcomes are a result of the screening procedures utilized, the particular services provided by the program, or of the interaction between them. Deferred prosecution should be viewed as part of a total prosecutor management system and not as a separate option available to the prosecutor. 76 77 4. The various legal implications involved in deferred prosecution programs should not be overlooked by communities interested in developing programs of their own. 5. Additional research is necessary to determine program utilization patterns and their effect upon the criminal justice system. 6. The key to improving the quality of justice lies in the improved identification and classification of offenders and the development of programs designed to directly address their needs and the needs of the criminal justice system. The first implication pertains to the various uses of the evaluation by the five projects included in the study as well as by other existing deferred prosecution programs. Due to the comparative nature of the findings, program decision-makers, confronted with various issues related to program development and improvement can examine not only the results of their own project's processes and outcomes, but the results of other projects as well. In addition, for the five projects which were examined, the data can be used as a baseline against which the effects of subsequent program changes can be measured. Furthermore, communities interested in the development and implementation of a deferred prosecution program can examine and compare various types of programs which have already been implemented and their related results, in order to select the 78 type of program which best addresses the needs of their particular community. The second implication addresses the need for additional research. Although the study produced information on a wide range of characteristics, processes and outcomes related to deferred prosecution programs, it cannot be determined from the study whether or not it was the program which produced the observed results. More- over, the extent to which program outcomes were a function of certain aspects of the program such as the screening and selection process can also not be determined from the study. Consequently, while the study found that those individuals participating in deferred prose- cution projects had a lower rate of recidivism than those not accepted into the program, it is not known whether the program is responsible for the lower recidivism rates or whether the program selected individuals who were less likely to recidivate. Addi- tional research is therefore needed to determine to what extent program outcomes were a result of the screening and selection process (i.e., the types of individuals selected to participate in the program), the particular services provided by the projects, or of the interaction between them. Thirdly, a deferred prosecution program should be viewed as part of a total prosecutor management system, rather than as a separate option available to the prosecutor. There are several factors which support this statement. First, because a deferred prosecution program represents the formalization and structuring of 79 prosecutorial discretion it serves as a vehicle for the implementation of a prosecutor's policies. Second, deferred prosecution is based on the premise that not all cases warrant the same amount of attention from the system. Implicit in the concept of deferred prosecution, therefore, is the recognition of the need for case prioritization. Given the number, types and characteristics of cases flowing through the system it makes sense from a management perspective to make distinctions between cases in terms of their priority. While deferred prosecution focuses on those offenders warranting less attention from the system, another program - priority prosecution, also recognizes the need for case prioritiza- tion, yet focuses on those cases deserving of more attention. Both deferred prosecution and priority prosecution should be considered important parts of any prosecutor management system. Moreover, because deferred prosecution represents the formal- ization of what many prosecutors presently do on an informal basis and because of its demonstrated transferability and flexibility, those communities which cannot fully implement a deferred prosecu- tion program, can incorporate certain aspects such as case screening and prioritization in order to improve case management. There are also various legal implications surrounding deferred prosecution programs such as the issue of whether participation in the program can be viewed as totally voluntary. The distinction must be made however, between programs which require a "formal admission of guilt" and those requiring a less restrictive method 80 such as requiring moral responsibility for the act, i.e., a "moral plea of guilty." In those programs where acceptance is contingent upon a formal guilty plea, there is some question as to whether participa- tion can be considered voluntary. Essentially, a potential participant in a project requiring a formal admission of guilt would have to waive his right to plead not guilty, or his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, as well as his rights to a trial by jury and to a con- frontation of witnesses before he would be allowed entrance to the program . . . conditioning entrance into a pre-trial intervention program upon a plea of guilty could be the type of subtle coercion or promise of immunity which the Constitution may render suspect. In a significant sense, it is not voluntary, for the plea must be made to gain entrance into a program which, potentially at least, promises dismis- sal of charges and thus immunity from further prose- cution.19 However, there is less of an issue involved in programs requiring the individual to accept moral responsibility for the offense, for although the individual would not be able to "maintain his innocence," he/she would not be forced to waive their Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. Although the five programs included in the study did not require a formal admission of guilt, communities interested in devel- oping their own programs should not overlook the legal implications involved. Another implication of deferred prosecution programs con- cerns program utilization patterns and their effect upon the total criminal justice system. Because deferred prosecution was designed 81 as‘a dispositional alternative available to the prosecutor between outright dismissal and traditional processing through the criminal justice system, it is not known whether the prosecutor referred to the program those who otherwise would have been dismissed, thereby expanding the purview of the system, or whether the program was used primarily by the prosecutor to refer those who would have been processed through the traditional system. Clearly, additional research should be conducted to determine the patterns of program utilization and their subsequent effect upon the criminal justice system. Finally, in the past, the criminal justice system has had limited alternatives available to process individuals accused of crimes. Those accused were either arrested or not arrested, prosecuted or not prosecuted. While differences between offenders and offenses were recognized in terms of the types of correctional alternatives which were most appropriate, these distinctions were made only after processing through the traditional system. However, rising crime rates and burgeoning caseloads forced criminal justice decision-makers to examine more closely the procedures used by the system in dealing with offenders. It was recognized that distinc— tions could be made in terms of how cases were processed as well as the manner in which they were ultimately disposed. Consequently, deferred prosecution was designed as both a procedural and disposi- tional alternative for a select category of offenders for whom 82 traditional processing through the criminal justice system seemed neither necessary or appropriate. Perhaps it is in this way, through the improved identifica- tion and classification of offenders and the development of programs designed to better meet their needs that the criminal justice system can better achieve its goals and improve the quality of justice. FOOTNOTES 83 11. 12. 13. FOOTNOTES Paul H. Johnson, Pretrial Intervention: The Administration of Discretion, Criminal Justice Monograph Volune 7, No. 1 (m.p., 1976), p. 1. President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice, The Challenge of Crime in a Free Society, (Washington D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1967), p. 134. Johnson, Pretrial Intervention, p. l. Lewis 11. Katz, Lawrence Litwin, Richard Bamberger, Justice is the Crime: Pretrial Delay in Felony Cases (Cleveland: Case Western Reserve University Press, 1972), pp. 193-215. Roberta Rovner-Pieczenik, Pretrial Intervention Strategies: An Evaluation of Policy:Related Research and Policymaker Perceptions (Washington, D.C.: American Bar Association, 1974), p. 4. Whitney N. Seymour, Why Justice Fails (New York: William Morrow and Co., 1973), pp. 79-80. Katz, Justice is the Crime, p. 55. Ibid., p. 55. Johnson, Pretrial Intervention, p. 1. William Hart, "Profile/Michigan," Corrections Magazine 2, (September, 1976), p. 66. William B. Henschel and Kenneth A. Skrien, "Operation DC Novo," Diversion From the Criminal Justice System (Washington, D.C.: American Bar Association, 1973), p. 5. Rovner-Pieczenik, Pretrial Intervention Strategies, p. 3. Kenneth Culp Davis, Discretionary Justice, A Preliminary Inquiry (Urbana, Illinois: UniverSity of Illinois Press, 1976), PP, 37ff. 84 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 85 , Norman Abrams, "Internal Policy: Guiding the Exercise of Prosecutorial Discretion," 19 UCLA Law Review 3 (1971). Joan Mullen, The Dilemma of Diversion (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1974), p. 6. National Advisory Commission on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals, Task Force Report on Courts (Washington, D.C.: Govern- ment Printing Office, 1973), p. 28. State of Michigan, "Deferred Prosecution and Criminal Justice: A Case Study of the Genesee County Citizens' Probation Authority,” Office of Criminal Justice Programs, 1972), p. 10. A case study research design is described as an in-depth investigation of a social phenomenon in Stephen Isaac and William B. Michael, Handbook in Research and Evaluation (San Diego: Edits Publishers, 1971), p. 20. National Pre-trial Intervention Service Center, Legal Issues and Characteristics of Pre-trial Intervention Programs (Washington D.C., April 1974), pp. 44-45. APPENDICES 86 Table 1. Rates of Acceptance/Rejection by Project -——1 i ' 1., , 2 : L*Referred l*Accepted Z Accepted—L:_Relected 1 1 1 ' 1 L ”RX?“ 272 112 41. 4: 58.8 j 5 : i ; Inenao 266 t 120 45 4 54.9 .r 1 1 g 1 . l l 9 Jackson , 233 l 159 68. ; 31.8 1 1 T '1 Calhoun 1 360 l 216 60. i 40.0 . 1 r - fl J Berrien 348 1 334 96 1 4.0 1 1 l l I 1,479 1 941 63. 36.4 1 87 88 Table 2. Demographic Characteristics of Aggregate Referred and Accepted Client Populations REFERRED ACCEPTED N=1479 x: 941 Variable 4 Z W Z §§§ Male 975 68.7 595 63.9 Female 444 3;;§_ egg, 3gp; TOTAL 1419 100.0 931 100.0 Missing Observations 60 4.1 10 1.1 Egg Black 401 28.8 231 25.0 Caucasian 957 68.7 682 73.6 Spanish American 25 1.8 9 1.0 Indian 4 0.3 2 0.2 Oriental __6 _(l._4 __2_ __o._g TOTAL 1393 100.0 926 100.0 Missing Observations 186 12,6 15 1.6 $22 Under 17 17 1.4 13 1.4 17-21 711 56.9 516 57.7 22-29 280 22.4 185 20.7 30-39 101 8.1 72 8.0 40.49 55 4.4 38 4.2 50-65 57 4.6 50 5.6 Over 65 _22_ _2;§_ _3}_ _2;4 TOTAL 1250 100.1 895 100.0 Missing Observations 229 15,5 46 4.9 RARITAL STATUS Single 799 61.9 570 60.9 Married 317 24.6 242 25.8 Separated 72 5.6 45 4.8 Divorced 75 5.8 56 6.0 Widowed 19 1.5 17 1.8 Cohabitating 8 _Q;§ 6 0.6 TOTAL 1290 100.0 ‘33; 99.9 Missing Obsejvatioag 139 9'4 5 0'5 89 Table 2A. Demographic Characteristics of Wayne County's Referred and Accepted Client Population REFERRED ACCEPTED 5.272 3:112 Variable # 2 4 A Male 234 92.1 100 91.7 Female _2_Q_ __7-_9_ _9 _8_._3 TOTAL 254 100.0 109 100.0 Missing Observations 18 6.6 3 2.7 RACE Black 185 71.4 75 68.2 Caucasian 67 25.9 32 29.1 Spanish American 6 2.3 3 2.7 Indian O O 0 0 Oriental __l __;4 __Q __9_ TOTAL 259 100.0 110 100.0 Missing Observations 13 4.8 2 1.8 to; Under 17 1 .4 0 0 17-21 148 61.7 70 65.4 22-29 66 27.6 22 20.6 30-39 13 5.4 9 8.4 40—49 6 2.5 3 2.8 50—55 3 1.2 2 1.9 Over 65 _3 _1_g __3L ___._9_ TOTAL 240 100.0 107 100.0 Missing Observations 32 11.8 5 4.5 MARITAL STATUS Single 188 76.1 82 75.9 Married 29 11.8 13 12.0 Separated 23 9.3 8 7.4 Divorced 6 2.4 4 3.7 Widowed 1 '4 1 '9 Cohabitating 0 __9_ __J2 __£L_ TOTAL 247 100.0 108 100.0 Missing Observation: 25 9'2 4 3'6 90 Table 28. Demographic Characteristics of Ingham County's Referred and Accepted Client Populations REFERRED ACCEPTED N! 266 N- 120 Variable # 2 fl " SEX Male 215 83.3 102 85.0 Female __4_:_3_ M .1_8 M TOTAL 258 100.0 120 100.0 Missing Observations 3 1.1 0 0 M Black 38 16.0 15 12.5 Caucasian 188 79.3 102 85.0 Spanish American 9 3.8 .8 Indian 2 .8 2 1.7 Oriental __0 _0_ __Q __0_ TOTAL 237 100.0 120 100.0 Missing Observations 29 10.9 0 0 £91; Under 17 1 .5 1 .9 17-21 133 63.0 73 67.0 22-29 47 22.3 24 22.0 30-39 18 8.5 8 7.3 1.0.49 8 3.8 2 1.9 50—65 2 .9 .9 Over 65 __2_ .9 __Q ___0_ TOTAL 211 99.9 109 100.0 Missing Observations 55 20,7 11 9.2 MARITAL SIXTLS Single 133 66.5 83 69.7 Married 44 22.0 23 19.3 Separated 8 4.0 4 3.4 Divorced 12 6.0 6 5.0 Widowed 0 0 0 0 Cohabitating __2_ _LE __3_ __2_.__5_ TOTAL 200 100.0 119 100.0 Missing Observarirm: 66 24.8 J- 0‘8“ 91 Table 2C. Demographic Characteristics of Jackson County’s neferred and Accepted Client Populations Missing Observations REFERRED ACCEPTED Variable vNi 233? #N' 159% Male 123 55.2 81 51.3 Female 199 ££;§ 77 48.7 TOTKL 223 100.0 158 100.0 Missing Observations 10 4.3 l 0.6 gig; Black 39 17,7 28 17.7 Caucasian 178 80.9 128 81.0 Spanish Amerizan 1 ,5 1 ,6 Indian 1 .5 0 0 Oriental __1 __.__5_ _l_. __._6 TOTAL 220 100.0 158 99.9 Missing Observations 13 5.6 1 0.6 59; Under 17 4 2.4 3 2.0 17—21 82 49.4 77 51.3 22-29 31 18.7 27 18.0 30-39 22 13.3 19 12.7 40-49 15 9.0 14 9.3 50—65 8 4.8 8 5.3 Over 65 __4 __2_.4 ___2_ ___1_._3 TOTAL 166 100.0 150 99 -9 Missing Observations 67 28.8 9 5.7 MARITAL STATE Single 98 55.7 89 56.0 Married 51 29.0 47 29.6 Separated 10 5.7 7 4.4 Divorced 16 9.1 15 9.4 Widowed l .5 1 .6 Cohabitating __Q __2_ __Q ___0_ TOTAL 176 100.0 159 100.0 57 24.5 _0 0 Table 2D. 92 Demographic Characteristics of Calhoun County's Referred and Accepted Client Population REFERRED ACCEPTED Variable flN.'369; fiNEZlbiL SEX Male 194 57.1 109 51.2 Female 1§§_ 42;2 194, 48;; TOTAL 340 100.0 213 100.0 Missing Observations 20 5.6 3 1 4 RAEE Black 59 17.5 35 16.4 Caucasian 269 79.8 175 82.2 Spanish American 7 2.1 2 9 Indian 0 0 0 0 Oriental .__2_ __Q _l .42 Tcrfig 337 100.0 213 100.0 Missing Observations 23 6.4 3 1.4 fl Under 17 7 2.3 5 2 4 17-21 150 50.0 103 49.5 22-29 68 22.7 46 22.1 30.39 32 10.7 22 10.6 1.0.1.9 13 4.3 8 3.9 50-65 19 6.3 15 7.2 Over 65 __1_1 3.7 __9_ __4__3 TOTAL 300 100.0 208 100.0 Missing Observations 60 16.7 8 3.7 MARITAL STATUS Single 167 52.4 111 51.4 Married 112 35.1 81 37.5 Separated 11 3.4 7 3.2 Divorced 19 5.9 10 4.6 Widowed 7 2.2 6 2.8 Cohabitating __2_ _1;Q __1_ ._Q;§ TOTAL 319 100.0 216 100.0 Missing QPSQFV3tigns 41 llgfi fl. 0 93 Table 25. Demographic Characteristics of Berrien County's Referred and Accepted Client Populations REFERRED ACCEPTED n-, 348 s- 334 Variable # z 0 Z SEX Male 209 60.8 203 61.3 Female 135 39.2 128 38.7 TOTAL 344 100.0 331 100.0 Missing Observations 4 1.1 3 0.9 RACE Black 80 23.5 78 23.9 Caucasian 255 75.0 245 74.9 Spanish American 2 .6 2 .6 Indian 1 .3 0 0 Oriental 2 .6 2 .6 TOTAL 340 100.0 327 100.0 Missing Observations 8 2.2 7 2.1 AGE Under 17 4 102 l. 1.2 17-21 198 59.6 193 59.9 22-29 68 19.5 66 20.5 30-39 16 4.8 14 4.3 40-49 13 3.9 11 3.4 50-65 25 7.5 24 7.5 Over 65 9 2.7 9 2.8 TOTAL 333 99.9 322 99.9 Missing Observations 15 4.3 12 3.6 iAFITAL STxTLS Single 213 61.2 205 61.2. Married 81 23.3 78 23.4 Separated 20 5.7 19 5.7 Divorced 22 6.3 2 6.3 Widowed 10 2,9 9 2.7 2 0.6 Cohabitating _2_ __._§ _— TOTAL 348 100.0 334 100.0 . Missing Observar‘t - O 0 0 0 ~ 1...: a 94 f Table 3. Background Characteristics of Aggregate Referred and Accepted Client Populations REFERRED ACCEPTED N- 1479 N- 941 # Z 0 2 CURRENT RESIDENCE III-County 1228 91.0 813 92.8 Adjacent County 65 4.8 47 5 4 Other 56 4.2 16 1.8 TOTAL 1349 100.0 876 100.0 Missing Observations 130 8.8 65 6.9 LIVING ARRANGEMENTS Alone 119 7.4 92 7 9 Spouse 315 19.7 242 20.9 Children 279 17.5 204 17.6 Parents 590 36.9 431 37.2 Relatives 125 7.8 72 6.2 Friends 123 7.7 83 7.2 Institution 22 1.4 15 1 3 Siblings 26 1.6 20 1.7 TOTAL 1599 100.0 1159 100.0 Missing Observations UNK UNK UNK UNK EDUCATION No High School 207 16.9 139 15.1 Some High School 500 40.9 364 39.5 Completed High School 374 30.6 299 32.5 Some College 103 8.4 83 9.0 Completed College 26 2.1 24 2.6 Graduate Work 14 1.1 12 1.3 TOTAL 1224 100.0 921 100.0 Missing Observations 218 14.7 20 2.1 STUDENT STATUS Not Enrolled 927 74.3 678 72.1 Enrolled/Full Time 264 21.2 224 23.8 Enrolled/Part Time 54 4.3 38 4.0 TOTAL 1245 100.0 (940) 99 9 240 16.2 1 0.9 Missing Observations *Percentages based on the totals of reported variable totals due to missing data. **Un1ess otherwise specified, data represents the clients status at the time the the intake interview was conducted data for each variable. Differences in 95 Table 3 Page 2 REFERRED ACCEPTED N-1479 u. 941 # Z 4 Z EMPLOYMENT STATUS (30 Days Prior to Referral) No Prior Employment 455 37.0 334 36.4 Pull-Time 377 30.6 286 31 2 Part-Time 205 16.7 149 16.3 Unemployed - Laid Off 118 9.6 87 9.5 Unemployed - Disability 24 1.9 17 1.9 Unemployed - Fired 17 1.4 14 1.5 Unemployed - QUit 35 2.8 29 . 3.2 TOTAL 1231 100.0 916 100.0 .Missing Observations 248 16.8 25 2.7 PRIMARY INCOME SOURCE (1 Year Prior to Referral) Own Employment 435 33.6 330 36.3 Spouse 100 7.7 89 9.8 Family 421 32.5 323 35.5 Compensation/Rene:its/Retirement 91 7.0 47 5.2 Public Assistance 144 11.1 95 10.5 Other 24 1.9 12 1.3 None 80 6.2 12 1.4 TOTAL 1295 100.0 909 100.0 Missing Observations 164 11.1 32 3.4 OCCUPATIONAL LEVEL (Most Recent Employment) No Prior Employment 313 25.7 247 27.2 Unskilled 545 44.7 394 43.4 Semi-Skilled 164 13.4 117 12.9 Skilled 69 5.7 50 5.5 Clerical-Sales 64 5.2 46 5.1 Technical 17 1.4 15 1.6 Managerial 12 0.9 8 0.9 Professional 36 3.0 31 3.4 TOTAL 1220 100.0 908 100.0 Missing Observations 259 17 5 33 3'5 AVERAGE WEEKLY NET INCOME (1 Year Prior to Referral) Unemployed 313 34.5 214 33.8 $1-$50 185 20.4 117 18.) 551-5100 169 18.6 126 19.9 5101-5150 99 10.9 72 11-5 $151-$200 67 7.4 41. 6.9 $201-$300 54 6.0 47 7-4 $301-$500 16 1.8 11 1.7 $500-$999 4 0.4 3 0.5 TOTAL 907 100.0 634 100.1 Missing Observations 572 38 7 307 32.6 96 Table 3 Page 3 REFERRED ACCEPTED N - 1479 N u 941 0 Z I 2 5 LEGAL DEPENDEXTS 0 794 62.4 584 62.6 1-2 314 24.7 231 24.8 3-5 148 11.6 106 11.4 6-8 16 1.3 12 1.3 TOTAL 1,272 100.0 933 100.1 Missing Observations 207 14.0 8 0.8 PSTCHOLOCLCAL TREATMEXT (1 Year Prior to Referral) None 993 84.9 820 93.6 Outpatient 142 12.2 34 3.9 Hospitalized __3_‘i__.2-9 .22—2.5 TOTAL 1,169 100.0 876 100.0 Missing Observations 310 21.0 65 6.9 97 j Table 3A. Background Characteristics of Wayne County's Referred and Accepted Client Populations REFERRED ACCEPTED NI 272 N- 112 # Z # 2 CURRENT RESIDENCE In'C~dntY 208 85.6 83 88.3 Adjacent County 10 4.1 5 5.3 Other 25—40v3 H4 TOTAL 243 100.0 94 100.0 Missing Observations 29 10.7 18 16.1 LIVING ARRANGEIEIJTS Alone 10 3.3 6 4.6 Spouse 33 11.0 12 9.3 Children 32 10.7 13 10.1 Parents 152 50.8 67 51.9 Relatives 39 13.0 14 10.8 Friends 28 9.4 15 11.6 Institution 0 0 0 0 Siblings 5 1.7 .2____1,5 TOTAL 299 99.9 129 100.1 Missing Observations UNR UNR UNK UNK EDUCATION No High School 67 26.6 24 22.2 Some High School 117 46.4 51 47.2 Completed High School 55 21.8 27 25.0 Some College 11 4.4 5 4.6 Completed College 2 .8 1 .9 Graduate Work Q . . __O _Q___.Q TOTAL 252 100.0 108 99.9 Missing Observations 20 7.4 4 3.6 STUDENT STATUS Not Enrolled 212 83.1 88 80.7 Enrolled/Full Time 31 12.2 19 17.4 Enrolled/Part Time 12 4.7 JL___11B TOTAL 255 100.0 109 99.9 Missing Observations 17 6.3 3 2.8 *Percentages based on the LCtJlS of reported data :or each variable. Differences in variable totals due to missing data. **Unlcss otnerwise specified, JJLJ represents the clients status at the time the the intake interview was conducted 9E3 Table 3A Page 2 REFERRED ACCEPTED N=272 N' 112 0 Z # 2 EMPLOYMENT STATUS (30 Days Prior to Referral) No Prior Employment 112 44.1 50 45.0 Full-Time 73 28.7 34 30.6 Part-Time 39 15.4 14 12.6 Unemployed - Laid Off 17 6.7 12 10,8 Unemployed - Disability 4 1.6 0 0 Unemployed - Fired 2 .7 0 0 Unemployed - Quit 2_____2‘8 _1____.L9 TOTAL 254 100.0 111 - 99.9 Missing Observations 18 6.6 1 0.9 PRIMARY INCOME SOURCE (1 Year Prior to Referral) Own Employsent 86 33.1 41 37.3 Spouse 5 1.9 2 1.8 Family 98 37.7 48 43.6 Compensation/Sena:its/Retirement 23 8,8 6 5.5 Public Assistance 30 11.5 12 10.9 Other 8 3.1 0 0.0 None 10,—3.8 _l—J TOTAL 260 99.9 110 100.0 Missing Observations 12 4.4 2 1.8 OCCUPATIONAL LEVEL (Most Recent Employment) No Prior Employment 69 26.9 27.0 Unskilled 130 50.8 59 53.2 Semi-Skilled 33 12.9 13 11.7 Skilled 15 5.9 7 6.3 Clerical-Sales 6' 2.3 1 .9 Technical 1 .4 0 0 Managerial 1 .4 0 0 Professional 1______.4 .J_____;9 TOTAL 256 100.0 111 100.0 Missing Observations 16 5.9 1 0.9 .-\\'L'R1\Ui'_’ WEEKLY Ni-fl' IIICOMI'. (I Year Prior to Referral) Unemployed 110 “6'0 51 50.5 $1-550 30 12-6 7 6.9 551-5100 40 16-Z 15 14.9 5101-5153 25 10-3 10 9.9 $151-$200 25 10'5 12 11.3 $201-$300 7 2.9 6 5.9 $301-$500 1 0~4 1 1.0 $500-$999 l,____9;fi 11__.___0 TOTAL 239 100.0 102 100.1 Missing Observations 33 12.1 10 3-9 99 Table 3A Page 3 REFERRED ACCEPTED N ' 272 N - 112 0 Z i 1 1’ LEGAL DEPEIIDEICTS 0 182 68.7 80 71.4 1—2 57 21.5 21 18.8 3-5 22 8.3 9 8.0 6-6 i 105 2 1'8 TOTAL 265 100.0 112 100.0 Missing Observations 7 2.6 0 0 PSYCHOLOGICAL TREATKEXT (1 Year Prior to Referral) None 185 75.8 100 93.4 Outpatient 54 22.1 5 4.7 Hospitalized 5_ 2.1 2 1.9 TOTAL 244 100.0 107 100.0 Missing Observations 28 10.3 5 4 5 100 ) Table 38. Background Characteristics of Ingham County's Referred and Accepted Client Populations REFERRED ACCEPTED N- 266 N- 120 0 z 7 2 CURRENT RESIDENCE 165 82.9 72 80.9 ln-County 18 9. 14 15.7 Adjacent County 16 8.0 3 3.4 Other ____ _— TOTAL 199 100.0 89 100.0 Missing Observations LIVING ARRANGEMENTS Alone 14 4.6 7 3.8 Spouse 43 14.2 25 13.6 Children 47 15.6 26 14.1 Parents 96 31.8 66 35.9 Relatives 37 12.3 24 13.0 Friends 44 14.6 25 13.6 Institution 9 3.0 2 1.1 Siblings 12 4.0 9_____519 TOTAL 302 100.1 184 100.0 Missing Observations UNK UNk 36 30.0 EDUCATION No High School 21 11.5 9 7.8 Some High School 85 46.7 49 42.6 Completed High School 51 28.0 38 33.0 Some College 17 9.3 13 11.3 Completed College 5 2.8 3 2.6 Graduate Work 3 1.7 3_____2.b TOTAL 182 100.0 115 99.9 Missing Observations 84 31.6 5 4.2 STUDENT STATUS Not Enrolled 129 68.6 79 66.4 Enrolled/Pull Time 47 25.0 30 25.2 Enrolled/Part Time 12 6.4 lQ__. _B.é TOTAL 188 100.0 119 100.0 Missing Observations 78 29.3 1 0.8 *Perccntages based on the totals of reportec data for each variable. Differences in variable totals due to missing data. **Unless otherwise specified. data represents the clients status at the time the the intake interview was conducted 101 Table 38 Page 2 REFEREE!) ACCEPTED Nu266 N°120 # Z a Z EMPLOYMEXT STATUS (30 Days Prior to Referral) No Prior Employment 69 36.3 36 30.3 Full-Time 63 33.2 39 32.8 Part-Time 36 18.9 26 21.8 Unemployed - Laid Off 8 4.2 5 4.2 Unemployed - Disability 0, 0 0 O Unemployed - Fired 8 4.2 7 5.9 Unemployed - Quit 6 3.2 6 5.0 TOTAL 190 100.0 119 100.0 Missing Observations 76 28.6 1 0.8 PRIMARY IXCOME SOURCE (1 Year Prior to Referraf) Own Employment 57 26.5 35 29.7 Spouse 6 2.8 6 5.1 Family 81 37.7 58 49.1 Compensation/Bene:its/Retirement 15 7.0 7 5.9 Public Assistance 22 10.2 10 8.5 Other 4 1.9 2 1.7 Some 30 14.0 0 0 TOTAL 215 100.1 118 100.0 Missing ObServations 51 19.2 2 1.7 O JCPATIWSAL CVEL (Most Retent Employment) Ho Prior Employment 29 15.5 14 11.7 Unskilled 110 58.8 73 60.8 Send-Skilled 20 10.7 16 13.3 Skilled 10 5.3 6 5.0 Clerical-Sales 6 3.2 3 2.5 Technical 5 2.7 4 3.3 Managerial 3 1.6 2 1.7 Professional TOT 4__ 2.1 2 1.7 TOTAL 187 99.9 120 100.0 Missing Observations 79 29.7 0 0 Al'liftilll 'rCCZ'lL'z' .‘(ELT ILJCWC. (I Year Prior :3 Referral) Unemployed 44 24.6 24 22.4 $l-SSU 55 30.7 24 22.4 551-5100 37 20.7 31 29.0 5101-5153 15 8.4 11 10.3 $151-$230 8 4.5 4 3.7 $201-$390 13 7.3 10 9.3 $301-$500 7 3.9 3 2.8 $500-$999 - - - - TOTAL 179 100.0 107 100.0 Missing Observations 82 31.4 13 10.8 1(32 Table 38 Page 3 REFERRED ACCEPTED N ‘ 265 N - 120 # LEGAL DEPEXDENTS O 127 66.1 80 67.2 1—2 38 19.8 24 20.2 3-5 26 13.5 14 11.8 6’8 1 05 1 .8 TOTAL 192 99.9 119 100.0 Missing Observations 74 27.8 1 .8 PSYCHOLOGICAL TREATMENT (1 Year Prior to Referral) None 138 87.3 94 93.1 Outpatient 17 10.8 6 5.9 Hospitalized __1____L.9 _1_____J..O TOTAL 158 100.0 101 100.0 108 40.6 19 15.8 Missing Observations 103 Table 3C. Background Characteristics of Jackson County's Referred and Accepted Client Populations REFERRED ACCEPTED N- 233 “'159 :1 z {I Z CURREST RESIDENCE In-Couaty 216 97.3 155 98.1 Adjacent County 5 2.3 3 1.9 Other I I4 Q 0 TOTAL 222 100.0 158 100.0 Missing Observations 11 4.7 1 0.6 LIVING ARRANGEMENTS Alone 24 10.3 21 9.9 Spouse 54 23.2 50 23.5 Children 59 25.3 55 25.8 Parents 67 28.8 60 28.2 RelatiVes 8 3.4 6 2.8 Friends 16 6.9 16 7.5 Institution 5 2.1 5 2.3 Siblings Q, 0 _Q______p TOTAL 233 100.0 213 100.0 Missing Observations UNR UNK UNK UNK EDUCATION No High School 26 15.5 26 16.5 Some High School 62 36.9 58 36.7 Completed High School 62 36.9 57 36.1 Some College 13 7.7 12 7.6 Completed College 1 .6 1 .6 Graduate Work 9‘ 2 A 5 2.5 TOTAL 168 100.0 158 100.0 Missing Observations 65 27,9 1 0.6 STUDENT STATUS 30: Enrolled 132 78.1 12:. 78.0 Enrolled/Full Time 33 19,5 32 20.1 Enrolled/Part Time 9 9 4 3 1,9 Missing Observations 64 27.5 0 0 *Percentages based on the totals of reported data for each variable. Differences in variable totals due to missing data. **Hnless otherwise Specified, data represents the clients status at the time the tne intake interview was conducted 104 Table 3C Page 2 REFERRED ACCEPTED N- 233 NE 159 # Z 0 2 EMPLOYMENT STATES (30 Days Prior to Referral) No Prior Employment 81 48.2 77 48.7 Full-Time 48 28.6 46 29.1 Part—Time 31 18.5 27 17.1 Unemployed - Laid Off 4 2.4 4 2.5 Unemployed - Disability 3 1.8 3 1.9 Unemployed — Fired 0 0 0 O Lnemployed — Quit 1______‘j _1_____‘6 TOTAL 168 100.0 158 ‘ 99 9 Missing Observations 65 27.9 1 O. PRIMJRY INCOME SOURCE (1 Year Prior to Referral) Own Employment 50 28.7 46 29.3 Spouse 21 12.1 20 12.7 Family 52 29.9 47 29.9 Compensation/beneiits/Retirement 20 11.5 20 12.7 Public Assistance 19 10.9 19 12.1 Other 5 2.8 5 3.2 Liane 2 9.0 _fl__D TOTAL 174 99.9 157 99.9 Missing Observations 59 25.3 2 1.3 OCCUPATIONAL LEVEL (Most Recent Employment) 50 Prior Employment 65 38.9 63 40.1 L‘nskilled 57 34 .1 50 31.9 Semi-Skilled 14 8.4 14 8.9 Skilled 5 3.0 4 2.5 Clerical-Sales 13 7.8 13 8.3 Technical 6 3 6 6 3.8 Managerial 1 6 1 .6 Professional 6 3.6 _6____3_B TOTAL 167 100.0 157 100.0 Missing Observations 66 28. 2 1.3 AVERAGE HEEKLY NET INC)ME (1 Year Prior to Referril) UnemplOyed 63 39.9 58 39.2 51-350 24 15.2 22 [“9 551-5100 26 16°5 25 16.9 $101-$150 18 11-4 18 12.2 $151-$200 11 7-0 9 6.1 $201-$300 11 7-0 11 7.4 $301-$500 4 2-5 a 2.7 $500-$999 1 0-6 1 o 7 TOTAL 158 100 . 1 148 100 . 1 XiSSing Observations 75 32-2 11 6.9 1(35 Table 3C Page 3 REFERRED ACCEPTED N-233 ".159 7 Z i 1 # LEGAL DEPENDEST 0 91 54.2 85 54.5 1'2 52 30.9 49 31.4 3’5 23 13.7 20 12.8 6‘8 2 1.2 2 1.3 TOTAL 168 100.0 156 100 0 Missing Observations 65 27_g 3 1_9 PSYCHOLOGICAL TREATffixT (1 Year Prior to Referral) None 137 85.1 129 85.4 Outpatient 11 6.8 9 6.0 Hospitalized 13 8.1 13 8.6 TOTAL 161 100.0 151 100.0 Missing Observations 72 30.9 8 5.0 106 Table 3D. Background Characteristics of Calhoun County's Referred and Accepted Client'Populations REFERRED ACCEPTED N- 360 N'216 # 2 fl 2 CURRENT RESIDENCE In—County 338 96.6 213 100.0 Adjacent County 5 1.4 0 0 Other L—Q-ro -9——0 TOTAL 350 100.0 213- 100.0 Missing Observations 10 2.8 3 1.4 LIVING ARRAHGEMENTS Alone 27 6.9 17 6.1 SPRUSE 102 26.1 78 28.1 Children 91 23.3 63 22.7 Parents 119 30.4 88 31.7 Relatives 25 6.4 12 4.3 Friends 18 4.6 11 4.0 Institution 0 0 O 0 Siblings 9____—2.3 -9————3r2 TOTAL 391 100.0 278 100.1 Missing Observations UVR UVK UNK UNR EDCCATION x0 High School 40 13.6 30 14.3 Some High School 104 35.4 71 33.8 Completed High School 108 36.7 78 37.1 Some College 31 10.5 22 10.5 Completed College 7 2.4 7 3.3 Graduate Work 4_____1.A _2____1,o TOTAL 294 100.0 210 100.0 Missing Observations 66 18.3 6 2.8 ST'DEXT STATUS Jot Enrolled 225 77.6 161 76 3 Enrolled/Full Time 54 18.6 42 19.9 Enrolled/Part Time 1L_____328 _s____3,3 TOTAL 290 100.0 211 100.0 Missing Observations 70 19.4 5 2.3 *Percentages based on the totals of reported data for each variable. variable totals due to missing data. Differences in **aness otherwise specified. JJLJ represents the c.1ents ‘LJCUS at the time the the intake interVIew was C‘nduitvd 107 Table 3D Page 2 REFERRED ACCEPTED N'360 N'Zl6 0 Z 0 2 EMPLOYMENT STATUS (30 Days Prior to Referral) No Prior Employment 63 22.2 46 22 2 Full-Time 84 29.6 62 30 0 Part-Time 42 14 8 28 13 S Unemployed - Laid Off 76 26.8 54 26.1 Unemployed - Disability 6 2.1 4 1.9 Unemployed - Fired 3 1.0 3 1.4 Unemployed - Quit 10.....3.5 LO————4~8 TOTAL 284 100.0 207 99 9 Missing Observations 76 26.8 9 4.2 PRlflsfiY INCOME SOURCE (1 Year Prior to Referral) Own Employment 98 32.7 68 33.3 Spouse 37 12.3 32 15.7 Family 82 27.3 65 31.9 Compensation/bene:its/Retirement 14 4,7 10 4.9 Public Assistance 44 14.7 26 12.7 Other 2 .6 1 .5 None 23.—___l.1 4L-———;v0 TOTAL 300 100.0 204 100.0 Missing Observations 60 16,7 12 5.6 OCCUPATIONAL LEVEL (Most Recent Employment) No Prior Employment 42 14.9 34 16 6 Unskilled 121 43.1 90 43 9 Semi-Skilled 43 15.3 25 12 2 Skilled 26 9.2 21 10 2 Clerical-Sales 32 11,4 22 10.7 Technical 2 0.7 2 1.0 Managerial 3 1,1 2 1.0 Professional 12_____4,3 4L___4,& TOTAL 281 100.0 205 100 0 Missing Observations 79 21.9 11 5,1 AYERLSE IIZXLY NIT IXCOf: (1 Year Prior to Referral) Unmn‘r‘iufed 83 45.6 70 50 0 51-830 29 15.9 18 12 9 551-5100 28 15.4 22 15.7 $101-$150 19 10.4 13 9.3 5151- 200 13 7.1 9 6.4 5201-3300 8 4.4 6 4.3 $301-$500 1 0.6 1 .7 $500-$999 1 0.6 %—————-4- ‘ )r,o TOTAL 182 It) 140 100.0 MiSSLng Observations 178 49 4 76 35.2 108 Table 3D Page 3 REFERRED ACCEPTED N - 360 N - 216 I Z I x 9 LEGAL DEPESDENTS 0 164 54.7 117 54.9 1-2 93 31.0 65 30.5 3‘3 37 12.3 27 12.7 6‘8 6__.2.0 _L__l...9 TOTAL 300 100.0 213 100.0 Missing Observations 60 20,0 3 1.4 PSYCHOLOGICAL TREATTEXT (1 Year Prior to Referral) None 229 81.2 200 97.1 Outpatient 44 15.6 3 1.5 Hospitalized SL____312 _3____l.5 TOTAL 282 100.0 206 100.1 78 21.7 10 4.6 Missing Observations 109 Table 3E. Background Characteristics of Berrien County's Referred and Accepted Client Populations REFERRED ACCEPTED N- 348 N- 334 0 Z 5 2 CURRENT RESIDESCE ln-County 301 89.9 290 90.1 Adjacent County 27 8.0 25 7.8 Other 7 2.1 7 2.2 TOTAL 335 100 . 0 322 100 . 1 Missing Observations 13 3.7 12 3.6 LIVING ARRAI-JCEKENTS Alone 44 11.8 41 12.2 Spouse 83 22.2 77 23.0 Children 50 13.4 47 14.0 Parents 156 41.7 150 44.8 Relatives 16 4.3 16 4.8 Friends 17 4.5 16 4.8 Institution 8 2.1 8 2.4 Siblings 0 0 ' ' TOTAL 374 100.0 335 100.0 Missing Observations UNK UNK UNK UNK EDUCATION No H-gh School 53 16.2 49 15.4 Some High School 132 40.2 128 40.3 Completed High School 98 29.9 96 30.2 Some College 31 9.5 31 9.7 Completed College 11 3.4 11 3.5 Graduate work 3 .9 3 .9 TOTAL 328 100.0 318 100.0 Missing Observations 20 5-7 16 4.3 STUDENT STATUS So: Enroll:d 229 66.8 218 66.1 Enrolled/Full Time 99 28.9 97 29.4 Enrolled/Part Time 15 4.4 15 4.5 TOTAL 343 100.1 330 100.0 Missing Observations 5 1.4 4 1.2 *Percentages based on the totals of reported data for each variable. Differences due to missing data. **Hn1ess otherwise specified, data represents the clients status at the time the the intake interview was conducted 110 Table 3E Page 2 \ REFERRED ACCEPTED N- 348 Nu 334 *fi N "t N EMPLOYMENT STATUS (30 Days Prior to Referral) No Prior Employment 130 38.8 125 38 9 Full-Time 109 32.5 105 32 7 Part-Time 57 17.0 54 16.8 Unemployed - Laid Off 13 3.9 12 3.7 Unemployed - Disability 11 3.3 10 3.1 Unemployed - Fired 4 1.2 9 1.2 Unemployed - Quit 11 3.3 11 3.4 TOTAL 335 100.0 321- 100.0 Missing Observations 13 3-7 13 3-9 PRIMARY INCOME SOURCE (1 Year Prior to Referral) Own Employment 144 41.6 140 43.8 Spouse 31 9.0 29 9.1 Family 108 31.2 105 32.8 Compensation/Benelits/Retirement 19 5.5 4 1.3 Public Assistance 29 8.4 28 8.8 Other 5 1.4 4 1.3 None 10 2.9 10 3.1 TOTAL 346 100.0 320 100.2 Missing Observations 2 0.6 14 4.2 OCCUPATIONAL LEVEL (Most Recent Employment) No Prior Employment 108 32.8 106 33.7 Unskilled 127 38.6 122 38.7 Semi-Skilled 54 16.4 49 15.6 Skilled 13 4.0 12 3.8 Clerical-Sales 7 2.1 7 2.2 Technical 3 0.9 3 1.0 Managerial 4 1.2 3 1.0 Professional 13 4.0 13 4.1 TOTAL 329 100.0 315 100.0 Missing Observations 19 5.5 19 5.7 AVERAGE WEEKLY NET INCOME (1 Year Prior to Referral) Unemployed 13 8.7 11 8.0 $l-$50 47 31.5 46 33.6 551-5100 38 25.5 33 24.1 $101-$130 22 14.8 20 14.6 $151-$200 10 6.7 10 7.3 5201-3300 15 10.1 14 10.2 $301-$500 3 2.0 2 1.5 $500-$999 1 0.7 1 0.7 TOTAL 149 100.0 137 100.0 Missing Observations 198 57.1 197 59.0 111 Table 3E Page 3 REFERRED ACCEPTED N - 348 N I 334 I 9 Z 4 LEGAL DEPENDENTS 0 230 66.3 222 66.7 1-2 74 21.3 72 21.6 3-5 40 11.5 36 10.8 6—8 3 .9 3 0.9 TOTAL 347 100.0 333 100.0 Mitsing Observations 1 0.3 1 0.3 PSYCHOLOGICAL TREATMENT (1 Year Prior to Referral) Kone 304 93.8 297 95.5 Outpatient 16 4.9 11 3.5 Mospitalized 4 1.2 __J_____J.0 TOTAL 324 99.9 311 100.0 Missin: Observations 24 6.9 23 6.9 Table 4. 112 Offenses of Referred Population by Projecr ACGREfIhTé‘. mm; 1301201 Jncxsox CALHOUN BERRIEL; u- N. 271 x= zoo s- 233 u- 360 u- 348 # Z 9 Z 0 Z 4 Z 9 Z 5 1 Crimes Against Persons Sexual Assault 1 0.l ' ' ' ' l 0.4 ’ - - - Robbery 6 0.4. 3 0.9 - - l 0.4 2 - - Assault 21 l. 1 l2 .7 4 1;§_ 4 l.6 l_ :_ .L 23' TTgW TE' 273’ T‘ l.5' 3' ETT 3 - - ,Crimes Against ! ‘ IProperty l g Arson 5 0.3' l 0.3 3 l.l l 0.4 - - - - Burglary I73 l0.9' 8l 24.9 30 ll.0‘ 5 2.0 26 7. 3l 8.5. Larceny 853 53.9 73 22.5 75 27.6.l92 77.7 272 2.9 241 66.0. Stolen Vehicle 47 3.0 27 8.3 l5 5.5' 2 0.8 2 0. l 0.3 Forgery 39 2.5 l5 4.6 l5 5.5 2 0.8 5 l. ‘ 2 0.5: Fraud 98 6.2 l4 4.3 SI l8.7 ll 4.4 l2 3. l0 2.7? Embezzlement 14 0.9: l 0.3 6 2.2 3 l.2 2 0. 2 0.5: Stolen Property lZS 7.9' 56 l7.2 33 l2.l 4 l.6 8 2.l 24 6.6: Damage Property j_43 2.7? _§_ 2.5 11_ 4.0 _l_ 0-8._15 3. __§_ 2.2 g 1397 8373'276 34.9 23 37.7 222 89.7 341 91.2 3l9 87.3 Horals/Decency 1 Crimes ! Drugs 59 3.7 ‘13 4.0 4 l.s - 4 l.6 8 2.l 30 8.2I Sex Offenses 4 0.2 ‘ 2 0.6 i - ' l 0.4 ' - l 0.3' Family Offenses l3 0.8' 5 l.5 2 0.7 l 0.4 3 0. 2 0.5 Gambling 3 0.2! - - - - l 0.4 l 0.3 l 0.3 Liquor lo 0.6; - - 2 0.7 l 0.4 2 o.q s 1.4 Drunkenness _l_8_ l.l l _l_ 0.3 )3 3.7 _l_l_ L6 3_ 0.8 _-_ :___J l 7 373' 2l 674'7l8 6.6 l2 4.8‘ l7 RT? 39 l0.7 Public Order Crimes lobStrUCtifiglice 4 0.2 l 0.3 2 0.7 l 0.4 - - - - Flight/Escape 2 0.] - - - - - - l 0.3 l 0.3 Weapon l2 0.7 7 2.1 - - 2 0.8 - - 3 0.8 Public Peace l0 0.6 3 0.9 - - 3 1.2 2 0.5 2 0.5 Traffic l9 l.2 l 0.3 9 3.3 l 0.4 7 l.9 l 0.3 Invasion of Pri- 2 0.l - - r - ' ' 2 0.5 ' ' Tax Revenue .1 ELL 1 9_-_3_ ; ‘ :. ;_ ; :__ ; ;_ 50 3.0 l3 3.9 ll 476' 7 2.8 12 3.2 7 1.9 lOTAL l582 l00.0 325 l00.0 72 l00.0 247 100.0 373 l00.0 36S l00.0 l'l3 Table 5. Offenses of Accepted Population by Project AUGRLOATE WAYNE INOHAM JACKSON CALHOUN BERRIEN # Z d X 4 2 4 I f z 0 Z r_ 'Crimes Against Persons Sexual Assault l O.l - - - - l 0.6 - - - - Robbery 2 0.2 - r - - l 0.6 l 0.5 ' - Assault 6 9_._6_ 3 2.4 _l_ 0.8 2 ' l.2 :_ f__ ; I. 9 0.92 3 274’ l 078': F “27' l 0.5 - - Crimes Against Property 5 Arson - - - - - - - - 2 - - - ‘ Burglary 96 9.73 3] 24.8 l3 l0.6 5 2.9 l6 7.4 3l 8.8 i Larceny 607 6l.4; 29 23.2 36 29.5 136 79.0 I73 80.] 233 66.0 i Stolen Vehicle 22 2.2; II 8.8 7 5.7 l 0.6 2 0.9 l 0.3 Forgery l6 l.6' 4 3.2 5 4.l 2 l.2 3 [.4 2 0.6 l Fraud 36 3.63 2 1.6 2l 17.2 I 0.6 3 1.1. 9 2.5 : Embezzlement 7 0.7‘ - - 2 1.6 2 l.2 l 0.5 2 0.6 l Stolen Property 69 7.0 g 23 l8.4 IS l2.3 3 l.7 4 l.9 24 6.8 Damage Property l 1.9 a 2.4 15 4.l I 0.6 2 0. 8 2. ! {F75 33.1 '1031' 8'21'5 IKE Bsfil Ts‘l' 8775 204' 917% 3T'0' 872% korals/Decency Crimes l Drugs 44 4.4 : 7 5.6 . 3 2.4 a 4 2.3 3 1.4 27 7.6 2 Sex Offenses 4 0.4 2 1.6 - - l 0.6 - - l 0.3 ' Family Offenses 9 0.9 3 2.4 l 0.8 l 0.6 2 0.9 2 9.6 Gambling l 0.l - - - - - - - - l 0.3 Liquor 9 0.9 - - 2 l.6 l 0.6 l 0.5 5 l.4 Drunkenness 8 O__§_ ; ; 4 . i a - - - ;___ 75 7.5 l2 9.6 l0 .2 ll . F 2'76 33 10.2 Public Order Crimes °b5"“°“l38llce 2 0.2 l 0.8 l 0.8 - - - . - - - Flight/Escape 2 0.2 - - - - - - I 0.5 l 0.3 Weapon 9 0.9 3 2.4 - - 2 l.2 l 0.5 3 0.9 Public Peace 9 0.9 l 0.8 - - 3 l.7 3 l.4 2 0.6 Traffic 9 0.9 l 0.8 6 4.9 l 0.6 - - l 0.3 Invasion of Csé- - - - - - - - - - - - - Tax Revenue y l_ Q_l l 0.8 I. :__ ~ -__ :_ ; :_ :___ 32 3.2 7 ET? 7 5.7 E 3.5 s 2.4 7 2.0 TOTAL 383 l00.0 l25 100.0 l22 l00.0 I72 l00.0 2l6 l00.0 353 l00.0 i 114 Table 5A- Number of Prior Offenses of Referred Population by Project AGGREGATE wavxu INGRAM JACKSON CALHOUN BERRIEN N'1679 “'271 N-266 N-233 N-360 u-36s a z 7 z a z 7 z a x 7 z o 1131 86.2 208 81.2 156 73.3 157 88.7 286 88.5 326 96.2 1 126 9.6 28 10.9 31 16.8 16 7.9 36 11.2 17 6.9 2 37 2.8 13 5.1 16 7.6 5 2.8 1 0.3 2 0.6 3 12 0.9 6 1.6 6 2.9 1 0.6 - r 1 0.3 6 6 0.5 3 1.2 3 1.6 - - - - .- - TOTAL 1312 100 0 256 100.0 210 100.0 177 100.0 323 100.0 366 100.0 Missing 4 Observations 167 11.3 15 5. 56 21.1 56 26.0 37 10.3 2 0.6 Tableréb. Number of Prior Offenses of Accepted Population by Project AUCRE GATE HAYNE INGRAM JACKSON CALHOUN BMEN N- 961 N' 112 N- 120 u- 159 u- u- » z 9 z a z a z 9 219 o 3341 0 838 90.3 97 89.0 86 76.8 162 89.3 199 92.6 316 96.3 1 65 7.0 7 6.6 13 11.6 13 8.2 16 7.6 16 6.8 2 18 1.9 6 3.7 9 8.0 3 1.9 - - 2 0.6 it 3 7 0.8 1 0.9 6 3.6 1 0.6 NA 1 0.3 * t t 6_ - - - - - - NA NA NA TOTAL 928 100 0 109, 100.0 112 100.0 159 100 0 215 100-0 333 100 0 Missing Observations 13 1.4 3 2.7 8 6.7 - - 1 0. .1 1240- * "NA" indicates that no cases were referred to the program 1 If the total number of prior offenses of a client was unknown, the case was recorded as missing. Table 7. 115 Types of Prior Offenses of Referred Population i l l I l l i l Am. 'cm 14.-.119: IXGHAY. JACKSOA CHEW— N- 260* N= 78 N- 93 Na 27 N= 38 N- 24 0 Z 0 Z 0 Z # Z # Z 4 4 Crimes Against ! Persons i Robbery 3 1.3 2 2.8 - - — - 1 2.8 - l Assault 1_7 L1 1_1 15-3 1 L2 1 _3-_7 1 2.8 ; ; l 20 8.4 13 18.1 4 4.9 l 3.7 2 5.6 - - 2 Crimes Against 1 Property ‘ Arson 3 1.3 1 1.4 2 2.5 - - - - - - Burglary 28 11.7 12 16.7 7 8.6 l 3.7 4 11.1 4 16.7 Larceny 55 22.9 '14 19.4 14 17.3 9 33.3 6 16.7 12 50.0 Stolen Vehicle 5 2.1 l 1.4 4 4.9 - — - - - - Forgery 2 0.8 j 2 2.8 - - — - - - - — Fraud 6 2.5 ' 2 2.8 3 3.7 — - - - 1 4.2 Embezzlement 2 0.8 — - - - - 1 3.7 - - 1 4.2 Stolen Prop. 4 1.7 3 4.2 - - - - 1 2.8 - - Damaged Prop. 3 1.3 2 2.8 1 1.2 ; - Z - ; — 108 45.0 37 51.4 31 38.3 11 40.7 11 30.6 18 75.0 Morals/Decency Crimes Drugs 16 6.7 2 2.8 7 8.6 1 3.7 6 16.7 — - Sex Offenses 2 0.8 l 1.4 - - 1 3.7 - - - — Family Offensesl3 5.4 6 8.3 5 6.2 - - 2 5.6 - - Gambling 2 0.8 - - - - - - 1 2.8 1 4.2 Liquor 6 2.5 - - 2 2.5 l 3.7 2 5.6 1 4.2 Drunkenness 19 7.9 l 1.4 g 9.9 1' 25.9 3 8.3 2 - 58 24.2 10 13.9 22 27.2 10 37.0 14 38.9 2 8.4 Public Order Crimes Obstructing Police 7 2.9 4 5.6 2 2.5 - - - - 4.2 Flight/Escape 2 0.8 1 1.4 — - - - 1 2.8 — - Weapon 5 2.1 2 2.8 2 2.5 1 3.7 - - - - Public Peace 10 4.2 3 4.2 3 3.7 2 7.4 1 2.8 1 4.2 Traffic 22 12.5 3 2.8 11 21.0 2 7.4 1 19.4 3 8.4 54 22.5 12 16.7 24 29.6 5 18.5 9 25.0 4 16.7 TOTAL 40 100.0 72 100.0 81 100.0 27 100.0 36 100.0 24 100.0 Missing 20 7.7 6 7.7 12 12.9 0 0 2 5.3 - - *This figure represents the otal number of prior ofienses which were commit ed by individuals eferred to lhe program-wnot the num er of indideuals havin prior offenses. 116 Table 8. Types of Prior Offenses of Accepted Population AGGREGATE HAYS; INGRAM JACKSON CALHOUN BEKRIEX N. 122 N: 18 N" 43 N' 22 N" 16 N‘ 23 0 Z # 2 fl 2 0 2 0 Z 4 2 Crimes Against Persons Robbery - - - - NA NA NA Assault 2_ 4.2 §_ 17.6 _1. 2.4 1 4.8 ‘1 :_ NA 5 4.2 3 17.6 1 2.4 1 4.8 - — NA . Crimes Against Property Arson - - - - - - NA NA NA Burglary 11 9.2 , l 5.9 2 4.8 l 4.8 3 18.7 4 17.4 Larceny 29 24.4 I 4 23.5 6 14.3 6 28.6 2 12.5 11 47.8 Stolen Vehicle 2 1.7 ' - - 2 4.8 NA NA NA Forgery - - - - NA NA NA NA Embezzlement 1 0.8 NA NA - - NA 1 4.3 Stolen Property. 2 l 7 2 11.8 NA NA - - NA Damage Property _-_ - _: - __-_ ‘ N_A EA EA 47 39.5 7 41.2 11 26.3 7 33.4 5 31.2 17 73.8 Morals/Decency Crimes Drugs 9 7.6 - - 5 11.9 1 4.8 3 18.7 NA Sex Offenses 2 1.7 1 5.9 NA 1 4.8 NA NA Family Offenses 7 5.9 3 17.6 2 4.8 NA 2 12.5 NA Gambling 1 0.8 NA NA NA - l 4.3 Liquor 5 4.2 NA 2 4.8 l 4.8 l 6.3 1 4.3 Drunkenness 12_ 10.9 _3. - _1 16.7 _6 28.6 .2. - ‘ NA. __ 7 31.1 4 23.5 16 38.2 9 43.0 6 37.5 2 8.6 Public Order Crimes Obstructing Police 3 2.5 1 5.9 1 2.4 NA NA - 1 4.3 Plight/Escape l 0.8 - - NA NA 1 6.3 NA Public Peace 6 5.0 1 5.9 l 2.4 2 9.5 2 9.5 l 4.3 Traffic 12_ 16.0 '1 5.9 ‘12 28.6 ‘_1 4.8 “_3 18.7 _3_ 8;; ‘ 30 25.0 3 17.7 14 33.4 4 19.1 6 34.5 4 l7 3 TOTAL 119 100.0 17 100.0 62 100.0 21 100.0 16 100.0 23 100.0 Missing 3 2.5 l 5.6 1 2.3 l 4.5 O 0 0 0 l'l7 Table 9A. Previous Time in Jail of Referred Population by Project ACCRECATL WAYNE INGRAM JACKSON CALHOUN BERRIEN N-l479 N-272 N-266 N=233 N-36O N-348 fl 2 fl 2 fl 2 4 2 fl 1 # Z None 1095 96.4 229 .93-5 172 94.0- 159 100.0 276 96.2 259 98.9 Less than 5 Days 36 3.2 14 5.7 11 5.0 - - 8 2.8 3 1.1 Less than 6 Nos 4 0.3 2 0.8 - - - - 2 0,7 - - 6 Has - 1 Year - - - - - - - _ _ - - - l - 2 Years 1 0.1 - - - - - _ 1 0.3 - - TOTAL 1136 100.0 245 100.0 183 100.0 159 100.0 287 100.0 262 100.0 $155131. ousmn.‘.\110.:s 343 23-2 27 9-9 83 31.2 74 31.8 73 20.3 86 24.L Table 98. Previous Time in Jail of Accepted Pepulation by Project A555,; U53; were 136114;: JACKSON CALHOUN BERRIEN N= 941 N=112 N-lZO N=159 N-216 N' 334 7 3 4 2 fl 2 # 2 fl 2 i Z None 821 97.6 101 96.2 114 95.0 153 100.0 206 96.7 247 98-3 Less tnan 5 Days 18 2.1 4 3.8 6 5.0 NA 5 2.3 3 1.2 Less than 6 Mos 2 0.2 - - NA NA - 2 1.0 NA 6 Nos - 1 Year - q NA NA NA NA - NA 1 - 2 Years _ - NA NA NA _ - q NA 79: L 841 99-9 11051_100-0.1120 100.0 153 100.0 213 100.0 250 100-0 “1533.5 OBSkP'C‘TLJNS 100 10.6 7 6.7 - - 6 3.8 3 1.4 84 25.1 "NA"-not applicable-no cases were referred to the program l'l8 Table 10A Probation History of Referred Population by Project* AGGREGATE WAYNE INGllAM JACKSON CALHOUN N-1131 N=272 N=266 N-233 N-360 Z # Z 3 Z 0 2 fl 2 None 820 '92 5 225 89-3 169 92.3 159 99.6 267 91.6 Less than 6 Nos 37 4.2 15 5.9 6 3.3 - - 16 5.5 6 M05 - 1 Year 21. 12.4 5 2.0 8 4,4 1 0,6 7 2.4 5 l - 2 Years 7 '0.8 5. 2.0 - _l 7 r 2 0.7 Over 2 Years 2 .0.2 2 0.8 - r' 7 r - . - TOT\L IHEL 100.0 352 100.0 183 100.0 160 100.0 292 100.0 MISSING OBSERVATIONS 244 21-6 20 7.3 33 31,2 73 31,3 68 18.9 Table 108 Probation History of Accepted Population by Project* AGGREGATE WAYNE INCiL-‘Ql JACKSON CALHOUN" N860? N-llZ N-lZO N=lS9 N-216 7 2 3 2 fl 3 # Z 0 2 “one 572 595 7 106 96.5 110 91.7 156 100.0 206 95.3 Less than 6 Mos 16 ' 3217 3 2.7 5 4.2 =- — 4 8 3.7 6 Nos - 1 Year 8 .11. 2 1.8 5 4.2 - - l 0.5 l - 2 Years 2 50; 1 .9 NA - NA 1 0.5 Over 2 Years - ‘ - - - NA , NA . NA . TOTAL 598 .100-0l 110 99.9 120 100.1 154 100.0 204 100.0 31551.6: . _~. .2 . 12 5.6 ONSER’ATIUZJS 9 1'5 2 1‘8 5 3 1 "NA" - not applicable - no cases were referred to the program *Berrien data not available Table 11A Delinquent History of Referred Population by Project l'l9 AGGREGATE WAYNE INGHAM JACKSON CALHOUN 3592159 N-1679 N-272 N-266 N-233 N-360 N-368 6 z 7 z 2 z a z 0 z I 2 Not Adjudicated 1069 37.1195 79.3 145 79.2 150 93.7 263 89.8 316 92.7 Adjudicated 53 6.3 16 5.7 15 8.2 3 1.9 16 4.8 17 5.0 (Verified) Adjudicated 101 3.3 37 15,0 23 12.6 7 4.4 13 4.4 8 2.3 (Not Verified) J TOTAL 1223, 100. 266 100.01183 100.0 160 100.0 293 100.0 361 100 0 KISSING OBSERVATIONS 610 27.7 26 9.6 83 31.2 73 31.3 67 18.6 7 2.0 Table 113 Delinquent History of Accepted Client Population by Project “GREG-q; ’ wAyzce INGHAM JACKSON CALHOUN BE mu EN N: 961 N=112 N-lZO N-159 N-216 N- 336 2 z t z a z 6 z a z 6 2 Net Adjudicated 833 91.! 95 90.5 97 86.3 142 96.7 196 93.8 f03 92.7 Ad'udicated . {Verificd) 33 4° 3 2.9 8 7.0 3 2.0 8 3.8 16 6.9 Adjudicated 35 3.9 7 6.7 10 8.7 5 3.3 5 2.6 8 2.6 (Not Verified) 10:11 906 100.0 105 100.1 115 100.0 150 1100.0 209 10010 327 100 0 211551266 3 j 7 2 1 OBSERVATIONS 35 - 7 6.2 5 6.2 9_ 55.7 7 13.2 ‘ Table 12A.Legal Status of 12C) Referred Population by Project AGGREGATE WAYNE 1NGNAN JACKSON CALHOUN BERRIEN N=1679 N=272 N-266 N-233 N=360 n-368 # 2 6 z 6 z # z # z 7 z In Custody 52 3.8 6 1.5 35 16.6 1 ‘0.6 1 0.3 11 3.2 Bond . 263 17.8 119 66.9 23 9.6 7 6.0 15 6.6 79 23.0 RdC°8§123RC¢ 796 58.6 138 52.1 67 27.9 106 60.1 265 77.5 222 66.7 Citation 124 9.1 - e - - 61 35.3 38 11.1 25 7.3 Awaiting Charge 115 8.6 6 1.5 85 35.6 1 z 22 6.6 .6 1.2 Other 33 2.6 - - 30 12.5 - — 1 0.3 2 0.6 TOTAL 1363 9919 255 100 n 960 1nn n 172,glgn:g, 3ADCAJnn n 343 100.0 MISSING OBSERVATIUJS 116 7.8 7 2.6 26 9.8 60 25.8 18 5.0 5 11.6 Table 123 Legal Status of Accepted Population by Project ACCR£UATE wA'NE INGRAM JACKSON CALHOUN BERRIEN Nc 941 N-112 N-lZO N-lS9 N-216 N- 334 # z # z 7 z 7 2 6 z 7 z in Custody 30 3.2 - ' 20 16.8 1 0.6 1 0.3 8 2.4 bond 168 15.9 63 39.1 12 10.1 6 3.8 11 5.1 76 23.1 Recognizancc 585 62.8 66 58.2 37 31.1 98 61.6 171 79.5 215 65.3 Citation 102 10.9 - - — b 56 36.0 23 10.7 25 7.6 Auditing Charge 49 5,3 3 2.7 36 28.6 NA - 9 6.2 3 0.9 Other 18 1.9 NA _ 16 13.4 1 NA - _ _ 2 0.6 r :11 .932 100-0 110 100.0 119 100.0 159 100.0 215 100.0 329 100~0 N155LN [ 0651,16r:~ . ! 9 0.9 2 1.8 1 0.8 - - 1 0.5 5 1.5 "NA"-not applicable, no cases were referred to the program 121 Table 13A warrant Status of Referred Population by Project* ’4 AGGREGATE HAYNE INGRAM JACKSON CALHOUN i N- 1131 N-272 N8266 N=233 N-36O - 6 2 6 2 # 2 7 2 6 z t “0‘ Prepared 80° 79-2 177 71.4 221 87.6 153 90.5 :269 73.2 Prepared .125 12.4 2 0.8 23 9.1 16 8.3 86 25.3 Prepared & ,85 8.6 69- 27.8 9 3-6 2 1-2 5 1-5 Arraigned TOTAL lQIQ, 100.0 248 100.0 253 100.0 169 100.0 340 100.0 MISSING OBSERVATIONS 121 10.1 24 8.8 13 4.9 64 27.5 .30 5.6 Table 138 Warrant Status of Accepted Population by Project* AGGREGATE HAYSE INGRAM JACKSON CALHOUN u- 607 N=112 N-120 N-159 N-216 __ 7 Z 6 2 fl 2 fl 2 # Z I do: Prepared .2%1 QQ-7 78 71.6 112 96.1 166 92.3 197 91.6 Prepared - 27 '6:5 1 0.9 3 2.5 10 6.6 13 6.0 Prepared a 61 6.8 30 27.5 6 3.6 2 1.3 5 2.3 Arraigned 10111 599 100 o 109 100.0 119 l00.0:156 100.0 215 99.9 MLSSLSQ ‘ OBSERVATIOSS 8 1-3 3 2.7 1 0.8; 3 1.9 1 0.5 *Berrien data not available _A._. 122 Table 14. Diagnosis of Client Treatment Needs by Project AGGREGATE WAYSE INCHAM JACKSON CALHOUN] BEKRICN N‘941 N=112 N=120 N'159 N‘216 N-334 # 2 fl 2 fl 2 # 2 0 2 fl 2 EDUCATION Not a problem 303 52.2 43 52.4 28 40.6 53 46.9 75 66.4 104 51.0 Primary problem 167 28.7 33 40.2 30 43.5 35 31.0 31 27.4 38 18.6 Secondary problem 111 19.1 I 6 7.3 11 15.9 25 22.1 7 6.2 _62 30.4 Total 581 100.0 82 99.9 69 100.0 113 100.0 113 100.0 204 100.0 Missing 360 38.3 30 26 8 51 42.5 46 28.9 103 47.7 130 38.9 VOCATIONAL- EMPLOYMENT Not a problem 322 50.8 . 58 51.8 42 44.7 53 43.8 77 60.6 92 46.7 Primary problem 202 31.9 f 31 27.7 45 47.9 52 43.0 43 33.9 31 15.7 ,Secondary problem 119 17.3 3__§_ 5.4._l 7.4 16 13.2 7 5.5 _13 37.6 ! Total 634 100.0 . 95 99. i94 100.0 121 100.0 127 100.0 197 100.0 Missing 307 32.6 17 15.2 26 21.7 38 23.9 89 41 2 137 41.0 DRUG-ALCOHOL Not a problem 400 75.9 44 69.8 39 52.7 75 73.5 85 94.4 157 79.3 Primary problem 94 17.8 14 22.2 27 36.5 17 16.7 3 3.3 33 16.7 Secondary problem 33 6.3 5 7.9 _8 10.8 10 9.8 2 2.2 __8 4.0 Total 527 100.0 63 99.9 74 100.0 102 100.0 90 99.9 198 100.0 Missing 414 44 0 49 43.8 46 38.3 57 35.8 126 58.3 136 40.7 FAMILY-MARITAL Not a problem 323 60.1 40 63.5 39 52.7 30 25.4 85 89.5 129 69.0 Primary problem 118 22.0 17 27.0 22 29.7 57 48.3 4 4.2 18 9.6 Secondary problem _26 17.9 _6 9.5 1}_ 17.6 _31 26.3 _6. 6.3 _49 21.4 Total 537 100.0 63 100.0 74 100.0 118 100.0 95 100.0 187 100.0 Missing 404 42.9 49 43 8 38 33.9 41 25.8 121 56 0 147 44.0 PSYCHOLOGICAL- PSYCHIATRIC Not a problem 366 70.2 43 65.2 36 62.1 42 36.8 83 83.8 162 88.0 Primary problem 101 19.4 19 28.8 14 24.1 41 36.0 13 17.2 14 7.6 Secondary problem _54 10.4 __4_ 6.1 8 13.8 31 27.2 3 3.0 8 4.4 Total 521 100.0 66 100.1 58 100.0 114 100.0 99 100.0 184 100.0 Missing 420 44.6 46 41.1 54 48.2 45 28.3 117 54.2 150 44 9 FINANCIAL Not a problem 274 47.7 39 5 . 39 44.3 41 35.7 82 81.2 73 37.1 Primary problem 228 39.7 28 3 29 33.0 52 45.2 16 15.8 103 ' 52.3 2 7 7.8 Secondary problem _13 12.7 .__Z 9.5 30 22.7 22 19.1 __2_ 3.0 _21 10.7 Total 575 100.1 74 100.0 88 100.0 115 100.0 101 100.0 197 100.1 Missing 366 38.9 38 33 9 24 21.4 44 27.7 115 53.2 137 41.0 1223 Table 15, Diagnostic Tools Used in Treatment Diagnosis by Project AGGREGATE WAYNE INGHAM JACKSON CALHOUN BERRIEN u- 1679 N- 272 u- 266 n-233 n- 360 n- 343 7 z 6 z 6 z a z z z Professionally Administered 182 7.3 3 0.9 16 3.6 - - 3 0.5 162 18.5 Test Personal. 1188 67.8 242 73.1 180 66.1 163 -52.6 285 51.2 318 36.3 Interv1ews QuestiOnnaires 820 33.0 78 23.6 165 60.6 163 66.0 220 39.5 216 26.6 Physical Exams 15 0.6 1 0.3 6 1.5 0.3 2 0.6 5 0.6 Other ' 5Pe°ify 182 7.3 1.5 3 0.7 0.3 3 0.5 170 19.6 Diazn°sls "°‘ 97 3.9 0.6 60 9.8 1.0 66 7.9 8 0.9 Performed TOTAL 2686 99.9 331 100 o 608 99.9 311 100.0 557 100.0 877 100 1 Missing Observations UNK UNK UNK UNK UNK UNK 1Because multiple diagrostic tools could have been used, the number of missing otservations is unknown. 124 Table 16. Number and Type of Services Provided Terminated Clients by Project* ‘ TOTAL WAYNE INGHAM CALHOUN BERRIEN N- 607 N- 112 N- 120 N' 159 N- 216 Education 158* 26.0 28 25.0 29 24.2 3 1.9 95 44.0 Vocational - ‘ Employment 155 25.5 38 33.9 31 25.8 9 ‘ 5.7 73 33.8 Drug-Alcohol 59 9.7 15 13.4 14 11.7 2 1.3 28 13.0 Family-Marital 38 6.3 - - 24 20.0 7 4.4 4 1.9 Psychological - Psychiatric 36 5.9 3 2.7 12 10.0 16 10.1 5 2.3 Financial 15 2.5 1 0.9 5 4.2 2 1.3 7 3.2 Dental-Medical 5 0.8 - - 2 1.7 2 1.3 1 0.5 Legal 4 0.7 - - 1 0.8 9 - 1 0.5 TOTAL 470 100.0 85 100.0 118 100.0 41 100.0 214 100.1 *Jackson data is not available 125 Table 17. ‘Reasons for Prosecutor Rejection of Case by Project AGGREGATE WAYNE 1 INGRAM JACKSON CALHOUN BERRIEN N' 538 N- 110 N-166 N- 76 N144 n- 16 " z 9 7‘ i 1 . z I z a z Seriousness of Offense 25 6.4 10 8.0 5 6.7 2 3.0 8 9.5 - .- Pattern of Crimi- nal Behavior 110 28.4 30 24.0 34 32.1 19 . 28.8 27 32.1 - - Refused Moral - Responsibility 57 14.7 6 4.8 16 15.1 13 19.7 22 26.2 - - Refused to Make [institution 6 1.5 - " " " 1 1.5 l. ‘08 1 14.3 Not a County Resident 33 8.5 3 2.4 7 6.6 13 19.7 9 10.7 1 14.3 NOP Cooperative 102 26.3 43 34.4 33 31.1 17 25.8 8 9.5 1 14.3 Required Service ' Not Available 41. 10.6 20 16.0 11 10.4 1 1.5 6 7.1 3 42.8 TOTAL 388 100.0 125 100.0 106 100.0 66 100.0 84 99.9 7 100.0 Missing Observations2 UNK UNK UNK UNK UNK UNK 1 but were not accepted. This figure represents the number of individuals who were referred to the program Because multiple reasons could have beer recorded as the basis for rejection, the number of missing observations is unknown. 1265 Table 18. Length of Client Involvement in PrOgram by Project AGGRLCATE warn; INGEZN JACKSON CALHOUN BERRIEN N- 615 Ne 122 N- 105 N- 152 n- 137 n- 99 fl 2 7 2 fl 3 fl 2 9 Z I Z 0 to 3 Months 47 7.6 1 0.8 16 ,13.3 14 9.2 10 7.3 8 8.1 6 to 6 Months 151 24.5 2 1.6 6 5.7 61 40.1 65 67.6 17 17.2 7 to 9 Months 123 20.0 2 1.6 8 7.6 22 16.5 55 60.1 36 36.6 10 to 12 Months 248 60.3 116 93.6 62 59.0 67 30.9 7 5.1 18 18.2 Over 12 months 66 7.5 3 2.5 15 16.3 8 5.3 - - '20 20.2, TOTAL 615 100.0 122 100.0 105 100.0 152 100 0 137 100-0 99 99-9 1 This figure represents the total number of clients reported as having terminated. 127 Table 19. Type of Client Termination by Project AGGREGATfZ wA‘x'NE NGHAM JACKSON CALHOUN BERRIEN N. 955 , N. 126 Ne 120 N- 159 n- 216 N- 334 6 6 z 6 z 6 z 6 2 6 z Successfulz 769 90.0 111 88.1 '78 71.6 136 88.2 126 89.9 302 98.4 Unsuccessfu13 83 10.0 15 11.9 31 28.6 18 11.8 16 10.1 5 1.6 TOTAL 832 100.0 126 100.0 109100.0 152 100.0 138 100.0 307 100.0 Not Applicable 4 123 12.9 - - 11 9.2 7 0.6 78 36.1 27 0.8 1This figure represents the number of clients which were accepted into the A successful termination is defined as a case which was either dropoec by prosecutor or dismissed by the court subsequent to satisfactory program involvement. program the A termination was considered unsuccessful if a client wltldrew from the program. committed a new offerse of a technical violation or failed to make restitution payments. 4This figure represents the number of clients who had either not yet terminated from the program or for whom data aas reported as missing. the figure indicates those that were closed due to project termination. In Calhoun County 12E3 Table 20. Length of Time Since Program Referral ACCRLCATII Kis'x’l‘li: INC-HA}! JACKSCH CALHOUN BERRIEZ‘I N=1039 N=252 N=226 N=l67 N-196 N-l98 6 2 6 2 6 z 6 _‘g'.__; 6 z 6 z I 6 . O-li years ISO 14.5 lb 5.6 70 31.0 ll , 6.6 S 2.5 50 25.2 li'Z years 369 35.1é148 59.0 58 25.73 95 56.9 48 29.5 IS 7.6 Z'Zi years 374 36.0‘ 88 35.1 67 29.6 50 29.9 I37 69.9 32 16.2 .21'3 years 47 4.5: I 0.3 3| 13.7 - - 6 3.] 9 4.5 zover 3 years 103 9.9. - - r - II 6.6 - - 92 ' 46.5 ' TOTAL 1038 100.0;251 100.0 226 100.0 167 100.0 196 100.0 198 100.0 ; missing I 0.1: I 0.6 - - - - - - - - 1129 Table 21. Number of Arrests Since Program Referral AGGR‘L‘CA rt HAYNL‘ 1116115131 JACKSON CALHJ1':.' ' 11m. 1 .-.:. 1 Na 1039 Ne 252 N=226 N=167 N=196 I .=198 i 6 z 6 z 6 z 6 2 6 z 6 ,, | 1 None 761 73.3. 191 76.1 128 56.6 166 86.2 157 80.1 161 71.23 1 176 17.0 63 17.1 56 26.8. 19 11.6 23 11. 35 17.7, 2 68 6.6l 9 3.6 29 12.8 6 2.6 9 6. 17 8.6' 3 or more 33 3.2; 8 3.2 13 5.7 - r 7 3 S 2 5' TOTAL 1038 100.0; 251 100.0 226 100.0 167 100.0 196 100.6 19 100.03 missing I 0"; l 0.4 - - - - - - l - - I 1 I '1 I 1 i i Table 22. Number of Convictions Since Program Referral 681311.171". 1'1; HAYNL‘ INCHAM JACKSON CA 1-1.1.1: T 1st 2; 317:.— 1 N=1039 Ne 252 1 N- 226 N= 167 N=196 l 198 ' 6 z 6 ;; r .2. 6 .2 .; 6 -- l i None 768 85.2, 192 81.7 129 80.8 166 96.1 157 88.7. 166 83.0. 1 92 10.2 25 10.6 25 15.6: 8 5.2 13 7.3: 21 11.9; 2 33 3.7 13 5.5 6 3.81 1 0.7 6 3.6, 7 6.0. 3 or more --E: 0.9 __2_ 2.1. -_;: - __:; ' ‘ —_l- 0.6: __3. 1.2: TOTAL 1039 100.0; 235 100.0l 160 100.0. 153 100.0 177 100.0; 176 100 01 missing 138 13.3; 17 6.8i 66 29.2| 16 8.6 19 9.7' 22 11.1i 8 I 130 Table 23. Intake Decision by Recidivism (Arrests) 1 010 NOT . _ 1 AGGREGATE 1 mljcwuzéru 1:;CU11VA'I‘ZLU Tom. 1 imcmm : 517 82.9 107 17.1 626 1 “mu-D ; 263 58.8 170 61.2 613 x2 - 71.99 df - 1 p.<.005 010 >101 I NAY .1 E Ric I 011'».er Kit? I DIVATZED roux. : Accgpnm 106 82.5 22 17.5 126 ‘ REJECT'L'.) 87 69.6 38 30.6 125 I x2 - 5.08 df -1 p<.025 010 NOT INGHAEW Ric 1011.1? aficwnmzzo Tom . Acca :20 78 71.5 31 28.5 109 j amen-.3 so 62.7 67 57.3 , 117 x2 - 17.93 df - 1 114.005 1 011.1 NOT JACKSOJ 3 Ricxmmzns RECIDIVATzED TOLu. ACCEPTID 131 86.2 21 13.8 152 REJECTED 13 86.7‘ 2 13.3 15 X2 - 0.11 df - I not significant DID x01 1 . I CALHOUJ RiCIDIVAzTE 1 Ricmlvnzw TOTAL ; [warms 118 85.5? 20 16.5 i 138 ; [111-Jun.» -' 39 67.2g 19 32.8 ! 58 i x2 - 7.66 df =1 p<.01 _010 >101 ' _fl 1 BERRIEJ Ricmivazm R1;01011'Arz£3 1 TOTAL .‘ ACCEPTED 86 86.9 i 13 13.1 99 F REJECTED _26 55 .l 66 66 . 9 98 I x2 - 22.65 df -1 p(.005 '13] Table 26. Intake Decision by Recidivism (Convictions) 010 NOT . RECID'VATE RECIDIVAIED T , AGbREGATE # ‘ 2 fl 2 arm. ACCEPTED 519 92.8 60 7.2 559 1 - REJEC‘I‘ED f 268 72.7 93 27.3 361 x2 - 66.67 df - 1 P<.005 010 NOT WAY u- RECIDIVATE RECIDIVATED TOTAL - ”L a z 1 z ACCEPTED 105 93.7 7 6.3 112 REJECIED 87 70.7 36 29.3 123 i 117 - 19.26 df - 1 P<.005 010 NOT . 1 RECIDIVATE RECIDIVATED TOTAL 1 ACCE?I:0 78 88.6 10 11.6 88 axsccrso 51 70.8 21 29.1 1 72 E x2 - 6.93 df - 1 p<.01 [ 010 NOT 1 RLCIDIV‘TE RECIDIVATED . JACKSOJ '1 TOTU' . 1 4 1 z , ; i ACCEPTED ‘ 131 96.2 8 5.8 139 ‘ i REJECTED ' 13 92.8 1 7.2 16 ‘ X2 - .15 df - 1 Not Significant 1 010 801 . . . RECIDIVATE 3 RECIDIVATED TOTAL ACCEPTED I 118 91.5 i 11 9.6 i 129 ! l : RLJECILO j» 39 81.3 I 9 18.7 1 68 ! x2-2.69 112-1 P(.l 10 901 .- ,2 RECLDI'fIE RECIPIVA”ED TOTAL BE- RR 1 Elli i, “z :t J 1’0: ACCEPTED 87 95.6#j 6 6.6 91 v 1 1 aancrro . 58 69.0 i 26 31.0 86 5 x2 - 19.86 «12 - 1 P( .005 Table 25. 1132 Recidivism of Successfully Terminated Clients As Compared to Those Referred and Rejected or Those Unsuccessfully Terminated (Arrestsl ,_ - DID NOT I .. - .. mzcxmvm‘t 111-.(11111VATUO TO'ru. . T I SUCCESSFUL 1 681 88.6 63 11.6 566 1 ALL OTHERS 2 280 56.8 1 _213 63.2 693 3' x2 - 130.80 df - 1 N .005 013 NOT 1 + - thwzmr‘ ? HE'IL‘TVATED Tow. ‘ IlAY1lt {i z L Vb ‘2; 1 SUCCESSFUL 95 85.6 16 16.6 111 _. z ' . ALL OTHERS I 96 68.6 ._.‘:9. 31.6 '1 160 x2 - 8.93 df - 1 P<.005 01:) NOT 1 - . . . RECIDIVA’Z‘E.‘ 112.1:1O11'A'1‘19 ' T112; INthifl . 4v 1 1 ! L 6 I. ’r z I SUCCESSFUL 65 86.6 12 15.6 I 77 ALL OTHERS i 63 62.3 86 57.7 f 169 x2 - 36.99 df - 1 F<.005 ' DID NOT '- I . macxmwm 11.1; 21:)‘VAT'ZD ' T.- JACKSJJ i {I “xi at l 1‘ ' To d- , 1 SUCCESSFUL ' 120 89.5 16 10.5 136 j l ‘: ALI. OTHERS 26 72.7 9 27.3 3 33 3 ‘ xI - 6.97 df - 1 P(.025 010 SOT . 1 . . RIICID’VATE RLJCIT 19.me - TOTAL CALHOUJ # ‘ 6 fl J z 1 . SUCCESSFUL 3115 92.7 9 7.3 i 126 I . ALL OTHERS ‘ 62 58.3 30 61.7 72 ~ 112 - 31.71 df - 1 P(.005 -- 1 - RECIUI‘JATE Y :34ch 2.: TOTAL SUCCESSFUL 86 86.9 1 13 13.1 i 99 j 1 ' 1 1 ALL OTHERS 55 55.6 A 66 66.6 1 99 x2 - 22.17 df - 1 2<.005 1133 Table 26. Recidivism of Successfully Terminated Clients As Compared To Those Referred and Rejected or Those Unsuccessfully Terminated (Convictions) . I DI J 2‘01 _-.I .- ~ - R1 CID] \ \H'. KLL' HIIVATED TOTAL AGGP‘GAIt I” 6 z i A SUCCESSFUL . 482 96. 6 17 3.4 499 ALL OTHERS ; 286 71.3 115 28. 7 601 3 Y - 111.66 df - 1 P(.005 DID NOT : . AAYIIE 9.:CIDl'v'.~\/.TE . Ri‘JIL‘l‘JATgm TOTAL I B SUCCESSFUL 95 96.0 4 4.0 99 _j . ALL OTHERS 97 71.3 ".3? 28.7 136 .i i2 - 21.66 df - 1 P< .005 010 NOT .. , RECID'. v . RICX‘ITATKD TOIA' INUHI’ 0 T. u | x L I C SUCCESSFUL 65 96.2 5 5.8 69 ' 0 - ; -’ ALL OTHERS , 66 71.1 26 28.9 J, 90 x2 - 10.56 df - 1 P(.005 h 010 2401’ I __- JACKS 0.4 I :U’}( 131 \AXH: K;Ll.)l\'1\17i3i) I 1.0-LU. . ; "I D SUCCESSFUL ' 120 97.6 3 2.6 123 E ' 1 ALL OTHERS 26 80.0 6 20.0 30 I x2 - 10.66 df - 1 P<.005 019 NOT . i -_ - mzcmlvns F RL-LCIJI‘JATED , "£07.11. CALHJUA ” z . u z . E SUCCESSFUL 115 98.3 !' 2 1.7 i 117 - o I '-_. ‘ ALL OTHERS ' 62 70.0 I 18 30.0 60 xr- 28.91 df - 1 P< .005 010 SOT 7 1 ~ -: RECIDIVATE ' SLCTUITATED . TOTAL BLRRIBJ ‘6 Z '1 1.- 3 F SUCCESSFUL 87 95.6 ; 6 6.6 7 91 ALL OTHERS . 59 69.6 E, 26 30.6 1 85 X2 - 19.51 df - 1 r<.005 Table 27. Types of Offenses Charged Against Accepted/Rejected Clients Since_Prggram Referral by Project AUCKLLCM 1; 6.7.11.1. 15mm: JACKSUJ‘ (LI-.1233: :.' 1513th .3; "'469 S=105 5‘173 N'3l N=65 N-95 0 L n 2" fl 2 u 2 W Z 0 Crimes Against Persons Homocide 2 0.4 2 1.9 - - - - - — - - Kidnapping 2 0.4 l 1.0 1 0.6 - - - — - - Sexual Assault 4 0.8 l 1.0 1 0.6 - - l 1.5 l 1.0 Robbery 13 2.8 9 8.6 4 2.3 - — - — - _ .Assualt ‘22 4.7 _l 6.7 ._2 2.9 _fi_' .12.9‘ 2_ 3.1 _4_ 4.2 43 9.1 20 19.2 11 6.4 4 ‘12.9 3 4.6 5 5.2 Crimes Against Property Arson 2 0.4 - - - - 2 6.4 - - - - Burglary 70 14.9 14 13.5 34 19.6 2 6.4 5 7.7 15 15.8 Larcency 104 22.2 18 17.3 36 20.8 7 22.6 24 36.9 19 20.0 Stolen Vehicle 12 2.5 7 6.7 4 2.3 - - - - 1 1.0 Forgery 26 5.5 5 4.8 11 6.4 2 6.4 6 9.2 2 2.1 Fraud 20 4.3 1 1.0 13 7.5 - - 2 3.1 4 4.2 Embezzlement - - — - - - — — - - - - Stolen Property 37 7.9 15 14.4 17 9.8 - - 3 4.6 2 2.1 Damage Property 13_. 2.5 . l 1.0 6 3.5 - - l 1.5 4 4.2 283 60.2 61 58.7 212 69.9 13 41.8 41 63.0 47 49.4 Morals/Decency Crimes Drugs 32 6.8 3 2.9 7 4.0 5 16.1 4 6.1 13 13.7 Family Offenses 4 9,8 l. 1.0 1 0.6 1 3.2 1 1.5 - - Liquor 8 1.7 - - l 0.6 — - 2. 3.1 5 5.3 Drunkenness 6 1 . 3 _l__ __1_.__Q _l__ _9_.__§ __2_ 6 . 4 _2__ 3 . l - - 50 10.6 5 4.9 10 5.8 8 .25.? 9 13.8 18 19.0 Public Order _ Obstructing Police 8 1.7 - - 3 1-7 - - 1 1-5 4 4-2 Flight/Escape 14 3.0 4 3.9 2 1.2 - - . 4 6.1 4 4.2 t1 3 d 1 ‘ . 5 5.3 aggggggssnfieggslgtggE 21 4.5 2 1.9 9 5.2 .2 4 i i 1 1 0 Heapon - 9 1.9 - 5 5.8L 1 0.6 - — 1 . I . 9.18116 Peace 7 - 1.5 - — . 2 1.2 L 2 6.41 1 1.5, 2. 2.1 Traffic 36 7.2 7 _6.7 16 8.1 3 9.7 _l__ 1.5 _9__ __9_.;_ '»93 19.8 19 18.3- 31 18.0 6 19.3 12 18.2- 25 26.3« TOTAL 469 99.7 105 101.1 173 100.1 31 99.7 65 99.6 95 99.9 * This figure represents the total number of charges 134 1135 Table 28. Length of Time Since Program Termination By Project 1.11.6111. 11.11111. 1:' -1. .‘1 | 1.1191312 .' 011.1131“; 35,11,113; ] x: 625’ 1.126 1- 109 3-138 x=loo . -"° ' Z 1....9JJ -'r' .". . 0 to 6 Months H3 18.3 37 30.1 241 22.91 3] 20.11 ' " 2] 21.2| 7 to 12 Heaths I66 27.0 76 61.8 M 13.3 50 32.9 6 11.11 20 20.2: 13 to 2’4 Months 278 115.] l0 8.] 62 59.0 60 39.5 l3] 95.6 IS 15.2; over 24 Months 59 9.6 - - S 4.8 II 7.2 - - 43 43.fi _1 “'-—‘ l 1 I 10111 616 3100.0 123 100.0 105 100.0; 152 100.0 137 100.01 99 qugg Table 29. 136 Number of Arrests Since Program Termination by Project AGGREGATE NAYXE INGRAM JACKSON CALHOUN BERRIC1 1 N3625 N-126 N-109 N-152 N-l38 N=100 ' a z 11 z 11 z 11 7. 1 7. :1 z 1 556 90.0 111 88.1 85 78.0 142 93.4 128 96.2 90 90.9! None 1 1 42 6.8 11 8.7 IS 13.8] 9 5.9 3 2.2 4 4.0 1 2 or More 20 3.2 '1 3.2 9 8.2 1 .6.6 2 1.5 s 5,0 TOTAL 618 100.0 126 100.0 109 100.0 152 99.9 133 99.9 99 99.91 MISSING 6 1.0 - - - - - - 5 3.6 l 1.0 Table 30. Number of Clients Convicted Since Program Termination by Project AGGREGATE WAYNE INGRAM JACKSON CALHOEK BERhILX ' N-625 N=126 u-109 11-152 N-l38 x=1o~3 ' 9 Z 0 Z 3 2 fl 2 0 Z a ’ ; Hone 557 96.0 112 94.9 85 94.41 142 93.4 128 96.2 90 96.8 l 1 17 2.9 4 3.4 5 5.6 4 6.6 3 2.3 1 1.1 2 or More 5 1-0 2 1-7 ' ' ' ' 2 1.5 2 2.1 TOTAL 580 99.9 118 100.0. 90 100.0 146 100.0 133 100.0‘ 93 100.0 MISSING ‘05 7.2 8 6.3 19 17.4 6 3-9 5 3.61 7 7.0 137 Table 31. Type of Program Termination by Recidivism (Arrests) f 010 301 . _ '- 1 AGGREGATE 3111;;1011'1216 11211111111210 101,11, 1 SUCCESSFUL 1 506 92-7 - 40 7.2 546 .. _ UNSl-‘CCESSFUL : '49 62.8 29 37.2 78 f x2 -'58.84 df . 1 p< .005 1110 x01 5 HAY. 1E 11:01 01111211; 1:11:01 111 1.211150 mm. SUCCESSFUL 99 89.2 12 10.8 111 1 UNSUCCFSSPUL 12 80-0 3 20.0 15 x2 - 0.36 df - I not significant , 010 .1101 . 111611.431 R;C1DIVAzTh. atcmlvnztu 1011.12. 1 1 SUCCESSFUL 70 89.7 8 10.3 78 I UNSL‘CCESSFUL IS 48.4 16 51.6 31 ' x2 - 19.75 df -1 p<.005 1 010 .1101 JACKSOJ gRiCIDlVAzTL' 11136101101115!) 110111 1 SUCCESSFUL 3 128 95.5 6 4.5 131. I UNSL'CCESSPUL 14 77.8 4 22.2 I8 i x2 - 5.119 df - I p<.025 010 101 CAme R:CIDl\-'AZTE xicmrvmzso P 101.11. SUCCESSFUL 119 96.0 r' 5 4.0 1 124 . 1 T 7 ~ UtiSL’CCESSFUL ' 8 57.1 ' 6_ 42.9 ' 14 x2 - 20.82 df - 1 p<.005 010 2101‘ “— 1' " BERRIEJ R:;CLDL\'AZIE 11:1'101'.1.1.1;.:.1 ; 101.11. SUCCESSFUL JO 95.7 _if 4 4.3 i 91. __i UNSL’CCESSFUI. 1 100.0 S. - - I l . chi square not computed 138 Table 32. Type of Program Termination By Recidivism (Convictions) 010 NOT RECLDIVATE REC1D1V\TED TUTXL AGGREGATE .1 2 g ‘ z ‘ SUCCESSFUL 506 97.9 11 2.1 517 I - i _ UNSUCCESSFUL 51 80.9 12 19.1 63, j x2 - 37.88 df - 1 p.< .005 010 x01 - g - R2CIDIVATE RECIDIVATED TUTAL , _SUCCESSFUL 99 95-‘ h 3-9 103 1 UNSUCCESSFUL '3 36-7 2 '3-3 '5 5 X2 - 0.86 df - I not significant 010 nor ,. RECIDIVATE RECLULVAIEU TOTAL : 111011.11 , z. ,, 7. 3 SUCCESSFUL 7° 89-7 8 '0-2 78 1 i UNSUCCESSFUL '5 83-3 3 '6'7 1, '3 ! X2 . 0.12 df - i not significant ['010 NOT A. CIDIVATL RECIDIVATED TOTAL ti 1 JACADOI‘ I a z "- z -—1. SUCCESSFUL ' '28 98.5 2 l.5 I30 UNSCCCESSFUL 14 87.5 2 12.4 16 1 x2 - 2.96 df -1 p<.10 01» x01 1 1 . RECIDIVATE ' RECIDIVATED . TOTAL CALHOLM ,, z . ,, z i i StCCESSFKL 1'19 '00-0 ' l I'9 ‘7 4‘1 r UNSFCCESSFUL 7 9 6‘1-3 !_~_§ 35-7 i“ _n_1 x2 .. 34.84 df = l p<.oos l 010 NO? ._*' ; ‘- ~ -- KLCLDLVA”E 1;v13'VArxn ' YUT'L BE RR 1 E11 1 :1 2‘ ‘_ £ 7; 1 i SUCCESSFUL 1 9° 96-3 . 3 3-2 = 93 ..L_ 1 i UNSUCCESSFUL 1 ' ' ;_¥ ' ' 1; ' __ chi square not computed A. INGRAM AGGREGATE DID NOT RECIDIVATE I 341 157 66.5 75.8 7 . -29.42 DID NOT RECIDIVATE 0 Table 33. CIDIVATED # 172 50 26 33.5 24.2 21. flf'S TOTAL 513 207 P(.005 IDIVATED TOTAL P‘<.1 -9.0 df-S E. CALHOUN DID NOT RECIDIVATE RECIDIVATED TOTAL 9 z 2 z 17 20 57 90.5 9 9.5 63 21 24 28 82.3 6 17.7 . 34 25 29 17 68.02 8 32.oE»25 30 39 22 91.7! 2 9.317 24 40 49 10 90.9E 1 9.1 11 so + 19 95.01 1 5.0 20 x2-8.65 df-S P< .1 1139 Age By Recidivism (Arrests) 8. WAYNE 010 NOT ] RECIDIVATE RECIDIVATED TOTAL; 9 z 4 2 1 17 - 20 88 68.7 40 31.3Lglzggj 21 - 24 55 84.6 10 15.411 65 1 25 - 29 . 26 78.8 21.21 33 j 30 - 39 11 84.6 15.41 13 1 40 - 49 7 87.5 12.5!» 8 1 '50 + 3 100.0 1 -- -- 3 j 112-8.5 df-S P < .1 0. JACKSON DID NOT RECIDIVATE 2 81.0 2. 64 24 # 15 2 7.7 IDIVATED UTAL 9.0- 7 26 -8.06 df-S P < .15 F. BERRIEN 010 NOT _ RECIDIVATE RECIDIVATED TOTAL 9 z 9 z 17 — 20 77 68.7 35 31.3 112 21 - 24 23 63.9 13 36.1 g 36 25'- 29 12 75.0 4 25.041 16 #J 30 - 39 4 57.1 3 42.9 5 7 1 40 - 49 10 90.9 1 9.1 L711 *1 50 + 12 92.3 1 7.7 1 13 } x2-6.88 df-S Not Significant 1440 Table 34. Age By Recidivism (Convictions) 4. AGGREGATE a. w41x2 DID NOT DID NOT ; RECIDIVATE RECIDIVATED '10141. RECIDIVATE CIDIVATED 10141 4 2 ~ 17 - 20 345 80.4 84 19.6 429 88 74.6 25.4 8 21 - 24 159 84.1 30 15.9 189 55 87.3 I 63 25 - 29 95 88.8 12 11.2 107 27 87. 3o - 39 69 94.5 4 5.5 73 40 - 49 46 95.8 2 4.2 48 .. 50 + 45 97.8 1 2.2 46 _- x2-24.03 df - 5 P .0002 x2-8.93 df-S P .1 c. INGRAM 0. 340x503 DID NOT RECIDIVATE " IDIVATED TOTAL DID NOT RECIDIVATE RECIDIVATEO OTAL 1'; ‘I x2-8. 33 df-S p ,1 112-4.009 df-S Not Significant E. CALHOUN F. BLRRIEN DID NOT DID NOT RECIDIVATE RECIDIVATED 10140 RECIDIVATE RECIDIVATED 10141 7 z a z a z 4 z 17 - 20 57 83.8 11 16.2 68 - 17 - 20 80 __81.6 18. 18.4 98 21 - 24 28 87.5 4 12.5 32 21 - 24 25 75.7 8 24.3, 33 35 - 29 17 85.0 3 15.0 20 25'- 29 12 85.7 2 14.3 14__j 30 - 39 22 91.7 i 2 8.3 1 24 30 - 39 4 80.0 1 20.0 ; 5 ' 40 - 49 10 100.0 f -- -- Q 10 40 - 49 10 90.9 1 9.1 i411 ? 50 + 19 100.0[- -- l 19 50 + 1 12 100 0 -- - l 12 3 X -5.7 df-S Not Significant X2-4.32 df-S Not Significant ‘14] Table 35. Sex By Recidivism (Arrests) 1 D10 «'01 -_ AG GRE 13 ATL’ 1 afiunnuzm 1:1;CIDIVATfD 10141. HALE ‘ 524 68.8 4237 21.2 761 “"8“ I 236 85.8 J9 142 ._275__._a x2 . 28.87 df - 1 p .005 010 N01 1- RECIDIVATE RECIDT‘JATrli) TOTAL NAYJE a z 9 z 1 "ALE .19 ._24.9 .159 25.1 __235___J __EEHAEE 14 93.3 1 1 6.7 15 E x2 - 1.71 df - 1 p - 0.1 010 301 N I NGHM 11101011'4z1n méc1011'41zau 10141. MALE 11] 56.6 85 43.4 196 . FEMALE 17 85.0 13 15.0 20 1 X2 I 0.03 df . not significant r“610 NOT J ACKSOJ . aicwumzm 111;..‘101V41f0 10141. MALE :15 82.4 16 11.6 1_91 114411 9 69 90.8 7 9.2 A_1§ x2 - 1.79 df - 1 p - 0.1 010 NOT 3 ‘ e CALHOUN agcmrmz'rs ; RECIDIVATon 10141. 1 M41: 86 75.4 1 28 24.6 114 FEMALE 71 87:6 _1 10 12:4 81....1 x2 - 3.75 df - 1 p - .05 010 301 . . _ BE RR I EA RECIDIVAJE 11111011 41280 10141. __4411 76 60.3 ' so 3911_, 126 3 “HALE 65 90.3 J 3.7 12 ‘ x2 - 18.62 df - 1 p .005 142 Table 36. Sex By Recidivism (Convictions) 010 401 AG GREGATE 11130101114111: 41301111141710 10141. HALE 530 82.7 III 17.3 641 FEMALE 1 237 91.5 22 8.5' 259 x2 - 10.71 df - 1 p - .001 ' DID 301 NAYJE. a§c151vigz R§CIDIVAEED 10141 HALE 177 80.8 42 19.2 2l9 FEMALE 14 93.3 I 6.7 IS x2 - 0.74 df - 1 not significant 010 301 ; INGHAM 1158101114211; 8101011412121) 10141. MALE 112 81.1 26 18.9 138 FEMALE 17 77.3 S 22.7 22 x2 - 0.01 df - 1 not significant 010 NOT . JACKSOJ 11101131151111; 11301011141220 10141. 1 441': i 75 96.1 3 3.9 78 FEMALE ‘ 69 92.0 6 8.0 75 x2 - 0.55 df - i not significant 010 NOT 1 1 CALJkJUd R§CID1V§EE R§CIDIVAEED 10141 1 MALE 86 86.9 1 13 13.1 99 1 FEMALE 71 91.0 7 9.0 78 1 X2 = 0.39 df - I not significant 010 NOT BERRIEII kgcwxvim 5 Rgcmwnfo 101.11. . MALE 80 74.8 ' 27 25.2 107 ' FEMALE 66 95.6 3 4.4 69 2 X ' 11.5 df - l p .005 1113 Table 37. Race 89 Recidivism (Arrests) DH) N‘Jl’ AGGREGAIL 10:;11111'121'1. 1:11: 1111.11.11.11 1014:. max 243 72 .7 91 29.3 334 CAUCASIAN 500 73-6 I79 26.4 679 01111211 ‘8 75-0 6 25.0 24 X2 - l2 df - 2 Not Significant DID 101 .491“;- 1131;111:1211; 4:11:111'411.) 10141. BL‘cx 136 75.1 45 24.9 181 “110451451 52 30-0 l3 20.0 65 01821 3 60.0 2 40.0 5 X2 - "3 df - 2 Not Significant 010 301 1516113114 8:1 101114711. 1111101141281) 1012.1. BLACK 20 52.6 18 47.4 38 “110451451 '02 57 . 3 76 42 .7 178 OTHER 6 60.0 4 40.0 10 1 X2 - 0.3 df - 2 Not Significant DI'J SUI" 1 JACKSCJ Itgcw.‘ 11:11: 213.1:1 511.1121) 101.11 mm; 26 92.8 2 7.2 28 CAUCASIAN ”6 84.7 21 15.3 137 OTHER 2 100.0 - - 2 X2 - l.6 df - 2 Not Significant 010 .1101 C ALE 1. O U. 1 35101131111 R;CIDI\‘ATzL‘E) '1'01‘41. 81.481: 21 65.6 I I 34 .4 32 CAUC.‘.SIA.\' '3' 32-‘1 1 23 17.6 159 0111211 5 10°37 ' S x2 =- 5-9 df - 2 P-'.05 7M 191 w 1 , . “ BERRMJ 111;c1.511.1:1 1 12:1 1.111'..11;1.:1 101:... BLACK 40 6|.5 15 38.5 65 CAUCASIAN 99 70.2 42 29.8‘ 14] OTHER 2 100.0 - 2 x2 - 0:9 df - 2 Not Significant 144 Table 38. Race by Recidivism (Convictions) Did SOT KLCIU1V\T£ # Z 248 84. KVCIUIVAAIU :2 s “1'." ';' I'U. :4’. ' AbbfituAit ll 1 86 l . 14.6 18 100.0 18 x2 - 3.44 df - 2 Not Significant UIJ Xvi RECIDIY1T¢ “itLDIVAIED TUIAL NAYULS 80. 8 .2 i00.0 - l.“7 df - 2 Not Significant i h l 14. 010 N01 , g RICiDlVATL VFCIULT\ffiH {DIAL 2| . 12. 102 . 2 6 00.0 - i X2 - 2.55 df - 2 Sat Significant DID jOT RLCIDJVATK .2 RLCIDIVATCU TOTAL :' 7 O JACKSJJ B 20 116 2 l00.0 X - 0.22 df - 2 Not Significant 010 s01 CALi 101]. 1 112:1: 10115131; 11.-.01 1111.111?» 1111.11. zmcx 21 91.3 L 2 8.7 23 CAUCASIAN |3| ' 87.9 if 18 12.1 149 OTM£R 5 100.0 i - - 1 5 X2 - 0.88 df - 2 not significant Din {UT W RECIDIVATE ; 1111512A1uu J ' ' - u ’ 'o T0 [3 A. BLRRISJ a 10] 2 86.0 81. 100.0 - 0.53 14. df . 2 Not Significant BIBLIOGRAPHY 145 BIBLIOGRAPHY Abrams, Norman. "Internal Policy: Guiding the Exercise of Prosecu- torial Discretion." UCLA Law Review, l9 (l97l). Davis, Kenneth Culp. Discretionary Justice, A Preliminary Inquiry. Urbana, Illinois: University of Illinois Press, l976. Hart, William. "Profile/Michigan." Corrections Magazine, September l976, p. 66. Henschel, William B. and Skrien, Kenneth A. "Operation De Novo." Diversion From the Criminal Justice System. Washington, D.C.: American Bar Association, l973. Isaac, Stephen and Michael, William B. Handbook in Research and Evaluation. San Diego: Edits Publishers, l97l. Johnson, Paul H. Pretrial Intervention: The Administration of Discretion. Criminal Justice Monograph Vol. 7, n.p. l976. President's Commission on Law Endorcement and Administration of Justice. The Challenge of Crime in a Free Society. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, l967. Katz, Lewislt.,Litwin, Lawrence and Bamberger, Richard. Justice is the Crime: Pre-trial Delay in Felony Cases. Cleveland: Case Western Reserve University Press, l972. Mullen, Joan. The Dilemma of Diversion. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1973. National Advisory Commission on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals. Task Force Report on Courts. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, l973. National Pre—trial Intervention Service Center. Legal Issues and Characteristics of Pre-trial Intervention Programs. Washington, D.C.: American Bar Association, 1974. Rovner-Pieczenik, Roberta. Pre-trial Intervention Strategies: An Evaluation of Policy-Related Research and Policymaker Perceptions. *WaShington, D.C.: American Bar Association, l974. l46 l47 Seymour, Whitney N. Why Justice Fails. New York: William Morrow and Co., l973. State of Michigan. "Deferred Prosecution and Criminal Justice: A Case Study of the Genesee County Citizens' Probation Authority." Office of Criminal Justice Programs, 1972.