The Anchorage, Alaska Municipal Pretrial Diversion Program: an Initial Assessment

• Jurisdiction: Alaska,United States
• Publication year: 2017
• Citation: Vol. 34

§ 34 Alaska L. Rev. 1. THE ANCHORAGE, ALASKA MUNICIPAL PRETRIAL DIVERSION PROGRAM: AN INITIAL ASSESSMENT

Alaska Law Review
Volume 34, No. 1, June 2017
Cited: 34 Alaska L. Rev. 1

THE ANCHORAGE, ALASKA MUNICIPAL PRETRIAL DIVERSION PROGRAM: AN INITIAL ASSESSMENT

CORY R. LEPAGE and JEFF D. MAY ^{[*] [**]}

ABSTRACT

Pretrial diversion programs have the potential to prevent future criminal behavior through intervention and community based services. This may be particularly true for specific populations of offenders such as those with mental illness, substance abuse disorder, and those with co-occuring disorders. Pretrial diversion programs take low-level offenders out of the jail population, both reducing system overpopulation and costs of incarceration. The programs also provide speedy case processing for minor crimes resulting in savings to the court system and personnel. Pretrial diversion can help an offender avoid a criminal conviction and potentially avoid future criminal violations. Results indicate that most Anchorage pretrial defendants comply with and complete the pretrial conditions in a very short time period, an additional savings in case processing time. This research details the initial assessment of the Anchorage Municipal Prosecutor Pretrial Diversion program. This assessment examines system savings in time and money, as well as policy implications for the justice system that may assist other jurisdictions as they consider implementing a pretrial diversion program.

INTRODUCTION

Alaska is in severe financial distress, and figuring out how to effectively and efficiently administer the justice system with less funding presents a myriad of difficult decisions. Shrinking oil production on Alaska's North Slope, combined with plummeting oil prices, have made for "a state budget crater of crisis proportions." ^[1] This practicum highlights the results of a recent assessment of the Municipality of Anchorage's pretrial diversion program as an example of a small but hopeful cost-savings option for Alaskan communities. Financial crises oust us from comfort zones, force careful examination and prioritization, and necessitate adaptation. One change worth careful consideration is increased use of pretrial diversion alternatives. This practicum details the results of a recent effort to assess Anchorage's pretrial diversion program and its potential for resource savings. Anchorage's program is modest, in that it only addresses a handful of non-violent violations and does not take on the laudable goals of treatment of offenders or the restoration of specific victims. Yet as our findings indicate, the program is a wise fiscal strategy that spares valuable justice system resources and helps citizens avoid the collateral consequences of a conviction on one's record.

Funding Alaska's justice system is a costly endeavor. Expenditures for the major justice agencies such as the Department of Corrections, Department of Public Safety, Department of Law, Alaska Court System, Public Defender Agency, and Office of Public Advocacy make up about 9% of Alaska's total state agency spending. ^[2] As state revenues were plentiful from 2000-2010, Alaska's justice system expenditures grew in lock step with growth in the total state operating budget. ^[3] Part of the growing justice expenses resulted from more certain prosecution and increasingly punitive sentencing policies. This caused inmate populations to rise. The combined jail and prison population has grown 27% over the past decade, fueling increased corrections spending by 60% in twenty years. ^[4] It is not just correctional costs that have risen. Between fiscal year (FY) 2000 and FY 2010, Alaska's Department of Law and Public Defender Agency operating budgets more than doubled as well. ^[5]

In 2014, the Alaska Legislature created a thirteen-member Alaska Criminal Justice Commission (ACJC) tasked with evaluating system practices and making recommendations to improve criminal laws and practices with an eye toward public safety, offender rehabilitation, victim restitution, and overall cost reduction. ^[6] Because of the budget situation, cost reduction has occupied center stage in all relevant discussions. Once the ACJC assembled, it fashioned workgroups to review specific stages in the criminal process, and continues to engage in deep exploration and discussion about policies and practices in Alaska and their impacts on the above goals. Early in 2015, the ACJC saw the need and advisability of joining with PEW Charitable Trust's Public Safety Performance Project. The State partnered with researchers from PEW and entered a justice reinvestment initiative wherein the State has agreed to follow the research findings by taking funds from less effective policies and programs and reinvesting those funds into more promising endeavors. ^[7] In December 2015, the ACJC provided a comprehensive set of policy recommendations to the Alaska Legislature. ^[8] Major reforms that were proposed include using evidence-based pretrial practices, prioritizing prison and jail space for serious and violent offenders, strengthening community supervision programs, ensuring oversight and accountability, and expanding crime victims' rights. ^[9] Senate Bill 91 followed on the heels of the ACJC's recommendations. ^[10] This Bill seeks sweeping changes and incorporates many, but not all, of the ACJC's recommendations. Governor Walker signed the Bill into law on July 11, 2016. ^[11]

Alaska is not alone in its challenge to provide a workable justice system amidst shrinking budgets. Growing corrections populations, larger court dockets, and more former prisoners returning to their communities have forced numerous jurisdictions to become "laboratories for innovative programs and collaborative problem-solving approaches." ^[12] Growing research shows these alternative approaches can reduce crime, promote better victim services, and increase public trust and faith in the justice system. ^[13] And many of these approaches rely on the well-established concept of pretrial diversion. ^[14] Pretrial diversion programs divert certain defendants away from traditional criminal justice proceedings into other case resolution alternatives such as community treatment programs. Most pretrial diversion programs are designed to address factors contributing to criminal behavior, provide a source of restitution to specific victims or the community, reduce costly prosecution and drains on court resources, and free defendants from the collateral effects of having convictions on their records. ^[15]

In this practicum, we focus on pretrial diversion by providing some general characteristics of pretrial diversion programs in the United States, recounting the history and extremely limited use of pretrial diversion in Alaska, and then presenting the findings from a recent assessment of the Municipality of Anchorage's pretrial diversion program. We conclude by highlighting the success of the program, discussing some limitations regarding the evaluation, and sharing some considerations for future development of pretrial diversion programs in Alaska.

I. HISTORY OF PRETRIAL DIVERSION

Pretrial diversion programs vary in name and structure but share several common characteristics. These programs often seek to modify behavior and include drug and alcohol treatment, psychological counseling, behavioral management sessions, vocational training, community service, and required restitution payments. Programs typically use established eligibility criteria based upon the offender's characteristics and his or her perceived treatment needs (gleaned from assessment tools), as well as the type of crime committed. Diversion can occur at various stages in the life of a case, but as its name denotes, diversion occurs prior to conviction. Finally, prosecution is held in abeyance, and successfully completing the terms of the diversionary program usually results in dismissal of the charges. ^[16] Pretrial diversion is an attractive alternative because it provides powerful incentives to defendants, focuses on conditions driving criminal behavior, and diverts people out of an over-taxed case processing system.

A. Pretrial Diversion in the United States

According to the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) as of May 13, 2015, forty-four states statutorily provide some form of pretrial diversion alternatives. ^[17] Thirty-seven states have programs created to address the needs of specific defendant populations, such as substance abuse or mental illness. ^[18] These programs often utilize treatment or therapeutic court processes and programs that divert defendants away from court into community-based programs. ^[19] Twenty-six states have statutory authorization for general population diversion. ^[20] These programs address the general needs of all defendants and typically have some eligibility criteria, such as diverting only first-time offenders and misdemeanor offenses. ^[21]

Pretrial diversion programs grew, particularly in the 1970s, and by March 1977, about 248 intervention/diversion type projects operated in thirty-seven states. ^[22] States began passing laws to explicitly allow pretrial diversion programs, and several professional pretrial associations were organized, such as the National Association of Pretrial Services Agencies (NAPSA) and the Pretrial Justice Institute (PJI). ^[23] As NAPSA created pretrial diversion standards, hundreds of programs sprung up across the country...