Impact of Virtual Diversion Programs Stresses Need for Receptivity Among Prosecutors.

• Author: Kunkel, Tara

An examination of the response to virtual, judicially led diversion programs by prosecutors, other court practitioners and participants has demonstrated varied viewpoints. As the COVID-19 pandemic led to massive shutdowns early in 2020, court and diversion programs and their participants were not immune. Virtual services became prevalent that summer which required new policies, training, equipment, and software for district attorneys and their fellow practitioners. As courts and their programs continue to conduct a great deal of business online even as of spring 2021, Rulo Strategies, in collaboration with the National Center for State Courts (NCSC) and Wayne State University, set out to investigate the effects of this move with a national survey of both participants and practitioners.

Judicially led diversion program practitioners who responded include prosecutors, defense attorneys, judges/magistrates, court coordinator/administrator, law enforcement/probation/parole officers, treatment providers, case managers, and more. As prosecutors play an integral role in directing those in need into treatment, they become stakeholders in successful recoveries. Getting the perspective of program practitioners gives insight into how well the process is working for the members of the public who use the programs.

The research team asked practitioners about programmatic or policy changes that were made in their court programs in response to the COVID-19 pandemic at some point since March 2020, and if these changes continued to remain in effect at the time of responding to the survey at the end of 2020. The most common programmatic changes were related to lowering the use of jail as a sanction and reducing requirements that would potentially conflict with social distancing practices. For example, 81.5% of programs reported reducing jail sanctions. More than half of the court programs stopped issuing sanctions for technical violations for both positive drug/alcohol screens and other forms of supervision non-compliance. A significant number also suspended requirements to attend peer or mutual support groups (30.4%). Finally, a small portion of courts have been reducing their requirements for program completion and those that normally collect fees have been waiving them.

The study also found that courts in suburban and urban areas were more likely to waive or suspend program fees than those in rural or mixed geographic areas. Additionally, urban courts were...