OBJECTIVE: This study examined the decision-making process related to enrollment in jail diversion programs for people with mental illness. The examination explored the activities of diversion programs and courts related to determinations of whether individuals were appropriate for diversion: activities included jail screenings, clinical and criminal justice assessments, psychiatric evaluations, and court reviews of diversion plans. Factors associated with program recommendation decisions and court acceptance decisions were also examined. METHODS: The study included data from a multisite, federally funded jail diversion initiative. Conditional logistic regression models were employed to determine which factors influenced both program and court decision making. RESULTS: A total of 34,832 activities resulted in a program decision regarding diversion eligibility (N=32,917) or a court decision regarding acceptance of the diversion plan (N=1,915). Compared with the national arrestee population, those referred for diversion had a greater proportion of women, whites, and older persons and a lower proportion of persons with felony and violence charges. Regression analyses indicated that women and persons with nonviolent and nonfelony charges were more likely to be recommended for diversion by programs. These decisions were also influenced by interactions between legal and nonlegal factors. Individuals with nonfelony offenses were more likely to be accepted by the courts. CONCLUSIONS: One major finding is the large number of front-end activities required to enroll a small number of jail diversion participants. A second finding is that disproportionate representation occurs early in the decision-making process. Both formal and informal factors influenced decision making. Overall the results suggest that jail diversion programs should examine their decision-making processes to ensure that all appropriate individuals are included in jail diversion.
OBJECTIVE: This study examined the decision-making process related to enrollment in jail diversion programs for people with mental illness. The examination explored the activities of diversion programs and courts related to determinations of whether individuals were appropriate for diversion: activities included jail screenings, clinical and criminal justice assessments, psychiatric evaluations, and court reviews of diversion plans. Factors associated with program recommendation decisions and court acceptance decisions were also examined. METHODS: The study included data from a multisite, federally funded jail diversion initiative. Conditional logistic regression models were employed to determine which factors influenced both program and court decision making. RESULTS: A total of 34,832 activities resulted in a program decision regarding diversion eligibility (N=32,917) or a court decision regarding acceptance of the diversion plan (N=1,915). Compared with the national arrestee population, those referred for diversion had a greater proportion of women, whites, and older persons and a lower proportion of persons with felony and violence charges. Regression analyses indicated that women and persons with nonviolent and nonfelony charges were more likely to be recommended for diversion by programs. These decisions were also influenced by interactions between legal and nonlegal factors. Individuals with nonfelony offenses were more likely to be accepted by the courts. CONCLUSIONS: One major finding is the large number of front-end activities required to enroll a small number of jail diversion participants. A second finding is that disproportionate representation occurs early in the decision-making process. Both formal and informal factors influenced decision making. Overall the results suggest that jail diversion programs should examine their decision-making processes to ensure that all appropriate individuals are included in jail diversion.