Sample Solution

handling the referral: 1) refuse authorization to file the petition for a lack of legal sufficiency or some other factor; 2) propose an informal adjustment of the complaint, which may include “informal case processing” by DJS and referral to programs such as Restorative Response, Teen Court, or Mountain Manor; or 3) authorize the petition and forward the case to the State’s Attorney’s Office for further processing. For the purposes of this assessment, CCLP regards both refusal to authorize the filing of a petition and informal adjustment as diversionary processes that end or limit involvement with the youth justice system.

During 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 exam