Sample Solution

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 For example, although DJS rescinded a policy that required youth to admit to an offense in order to be eligible for diversion some time ago, several stakeholders expressed concern that DJS intake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.

Second, several stakeholders identified the requirement for victim consent for an informal adjustment as a barrier to diversion at the point of intake. While it is certainly important to respect a victim’s right to be heard regarding a potential diversion decision, stakeholders expressed concern that some intake officers are not as invested in creating diversion opportunities for young people and are not skilled at conveying the documented benefits of diversion for the youth, the victim, and the broader community from a public safety perspective. DJS has acknowledged these barriers and is currently working to remedy them in several ways. For example, DJS is in the process of developing a new clear, objective diversion policy and a quality assurance process for diversion decisions. DJS is also exploring better training for intake staff and the addition of a new family and peer support specialist for Baltimore City. Among other duties, this staff person would be responsible for outreach to victims in support of diversion efforts