Sample Solution

uring the intake process, DJS must also determine whether a young person can safely return home with a parent or caregiver while his or her case is pending, and if so, whether certain conditions are necessary to ensure public safety while the young person awaits resolution of his or her case. In only the most serious cases, the intake officer may deem that secure detention is necessary to ensure public safety. Conditions, supervision, and community-based programs used as alternatives to secure detention represent a special type of diversion, which is addressed in the next section of this assessment report.

CCLP identified three significant barriers to diversion at DJS Intake. First, stakeholder interviews revealed that there is a need to strengthen DJS diversion policies, protocols and decision-making criteria at intake. Stakeholders noted that aspects of DJS’s current diversion policy are unclear and do not incorporate a clear and strong presumption for diversion in appropriate cases. The ambiguity in these policies can result in a significant level of subjectivity among intake officers, including a reluctance to divert cases in the absence of clear guidelines. Additionally, the absence of clear policies or guidelines may mean that some intake officers are engaging in practices that are narrowing diversion opportunities. For example, although DJS rescinded a policy that required youth to admit to an offense in order to be eligible for diversion some time ago, several stakeholders expressed concern that DJS intake officers still impose this requirement on young people that they are considering for diversion.