The effectiveness of deferred prosecution for driving while intoxicated.

Salzberg, Philip M.; Klingberg, Carl L.

doi:10.15288/jsa.1983.44.299

Cited by 25 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Second, the alcoholism treatment offered to this group may not have been effective. 30 What constituted "alcoholism treatment" was not defined in this study making it difficult to know if the lack of benefit was due to a poor treatment, lack of motivation by those referred, or some other factor.…”

Section: Deferred Prosecution Programsmentioning

confidence: 94%

Jail diversion: a practical primer

Scott

2020

CNS Spectr.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The United States has the highest incarceration rate in the world. With a substantial number of inmates diagnosed with mental illness, substance use, or both, various diversion strategies have been developed to help decrease and avoid criminalization of individuals with mental illness. This article focuses primarily on the first three Sequential Intercept Model intercept points as related to jail diversion and reviews types of diversion programs, research outcomes for diversion programs, and important components that contribute to successful diversion.

show abstract

Section: Deferred Prosecution Programsmentioning

confidence: 94%

Jail diversion: a practical primer

Scott

2020

CNS Spectr.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The study found that there was little to no reduction of postdeferral alcohol-related traffic violations for those who participated in the deferred prosecution program. However, the types of drivers selected for the program were more likely to be older, male, and had more serious alcohol related violation records along with more non-alcohol related violation records than those who were not selected for the program (Salzberg & Klingberg, 1983). Inconclusive literature as well as the need to provide support to other jurisdictions developing deferred prosecution programs, highlights the need for further research to evaluate deferred prosecution programs.…”

Section: Other Studies Included the Vanderburgh County Indiana Pre-trmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Recently, deferred prosecution and court diversion programs have increased in popularity. These discretionary programs have largely been established to reduce the likelihood of a defendant's future involvement with the criminal justice system and to offer defendants an alternative to traditional criminal conviction and punishment (Salzberg, 1983). One study tracked the recidivism of former participants of a Post-Arrest Diversion Program (PAD) for first time non-violent misdemeanor juvenile offenders in Miami-Dade County (Dembo et al, 2008).…”

Section: Deferred Prosecution Programsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Little evidence has found that deferred prosecution programs increase rates of recidivism, but some research shows that some programs show mixed results. In a study of a deferred prosecution program for DWI offenders in Washington, researchers compared the recidivism rates of individuals accepted in the program to the recidivism rates of individuals not accepted in the program (Salzberg & Klingberg, 1983). The study found that there was little to no reduction of postdeferral alcohol-related traffic violations for those who participated in the deferred prosecution program.…”

Section: Other Studies Included the Vanderburgh County Indiana Pre-trmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The impact of the Cook County state’s attorney’s office deferred prosecution program

Orwat

Stemen

George

et al. 2019

Journal of Offender Rehabilitation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research SummaryThis paper analyzes the impact of the Cook County State's Attorney's Office Deferred Prosecution Program (DPP) on participation outcome patterns and compares recidivism rates between a sample of DPP participants (695) and a comparison group (991) of defendants found guilty through traditional adjudication from February 28, 2011 and December 5, 2012 with recidivism rates through June 6, 2014. Binary logistic and cox proportional regressions were utilized to evaluate the program. No statistically significant difference in re-arrest rates was found for a sample of DPP participants and a comparison group of defendants found guilty through traditional adjudication. However, DPP did have a statistically significant effect on re-arrest rates for women charged with theft; in such cases, DPP reduced the likelihood of re-arrest by roughly 76%. Policy ImplicationsDPP has the potential to reduce the future collateral consequences of a criminal conviction for individuals who complete the program. Although DPP seems to have limited impact of re-arrest rates overall, the program may be revised to target certain types of defendants.

show abstract

“…Furthermore, a federally funded program in New Haven (CT) did not fare well in rigorous research that found it was more expensive than post-conviction probation (Freed et al, 1973). In a study of a deferred prosecution program for DWI offenders in the state of Washington, Salzberg and Klingberg (1983) found little to no reduction of post-deferral alcohol-related traffic violations for those who participated in a diversionary deferred prosecution program.…”

Section: Early Diversion Programsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Multisite Evaluation of Prosecutor-Led Pretrial Diversion: Effects on Conviction, Incarceration, and Recidivism

Davis

Reich

Rempel

et al. 2021

Criminal Justice Policy Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recent years have witnessed a resurgence of interest in prosecutor-led pretrial diversion programs, yet up-to-date research on the effectiveness of these programs is lacking. Participants in four prosecutor-led diversion programs, Cook County, IL (separate analyses for misdemeanor and felony participants), Milwaukee County, WI (two distinct programs varying in participant risk level and treatment intensity), and Chittenden County, VT, were propensity-score matched to comparison defendants (total n = 5,040). All programs yielded a significant decrease in instant case conviction (mean odds ratio = .12) and use of jail sentences (mean odds ratio = .33). There was also a trend toward reduced re-arrest at 2 years (mean odds ratio = .79). Three of four diversion programs significantly delayed onset of first re-arrest. Taken together, results support the effectiveness of a diverse set of prosecutor-led pretrial diversion programs that varied in charge severity, participant risk level, and program duration and intensity.

show abstract

The effectiveness of deferred prosecution for driving while intoxicated.

Cited by 25 publications

References 0 publications

Jail diversion: a practical primer

Jail diversion: a practical primer

The impact of the Cook County state’s attorney’s office deferred prosecution program

A Multisite Evaluation of Prosecutor-Led Pretrial Diversion: Effects on Conviction, Incarceration, and Recidivism

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About