HD35 - The Community Diversion Incentive Program of the Virginia Department of Corrections

  • Published: 1985
  • Author: Joint Legislative Audit and Review Commission
  • Enabling Authority: Appropriation Act - Item (Regular Session, 1984)

Executive Summary:
The Community Diversion Incentive (CDl) program was created in 1980 to "provide the judicial system with sentencing alternatives for certain nonviolent offenders who may require less than institutional custody but more than probation supervision." CDI is a State-supervised, locally administered program. Since 1980 over 3,000 felon and misdemeanant offenders have been diverted through 23 local CDI agencies.

Appropriated nearly $7.3 million for the 1984-86 biennium, CDI provides opportunities for eligible offenders to be supervised within the community and to receive services that are intended to help them maintain a crime-free lifestyle. All divertees are required to perform unpaid community service work to make restitution for the crimes they have committed. Many are ordered to make financial restitution. Most are also encouraged to find and maintain employment.

The program appears to be meeting or working toward its statutorily designated objectives. Shortcomings exist, however, regarding the planning, management, and monitoring of the program. Unplanned and uncoordinated growth in the program caused a tremendous increase in the size of CDI in FY 1984. Consequently, funding is tight during FY 1985. The Department of Corrections (DOC) does not always provide detailed and specific guidance in important areas such as budgeting and statistical reporting, and local agency submissions in these areas are often unclear or incomplete. Significantly increased attention should be focused on monitoring and evaluating the overall program and local agencies' performance.

It is most likely that rapid growth of the program, coupled with changes in legislation, diversion criteria, personnel, organizational placement, and standards have contributed to the problems observed in the program. Major changes or the creation of new local agencies should therefore be deferred until the program is able to address existing management deficiencies. These deficiencies should be addressed prior to the 1986-88 biennium.

Achievement of Statutory Objectives (pp. 19-40)

Indications at this time are that the Virginia CDI program is meeting or working toward its statutorily designated objectives. Analyses indicate that CDI: (a) appears to divert offenders from incarceration in a majority of cases, (b) saves the State money, (c) provides increased opportunities for offenders to make restitution, (d) increases local flexibility and involvement in crime response, and (e) allows local agencies to structure programs with a rehabilitative orientation. Available preliminary data also suggests that few successfully terminated State felons have committed repeat offenses since their termination or "graduation" from the program.

Three problems affect the program's achievement of statutory objectives, however. First, even though CDI was specifically created as an alternative to incarceration, judges sometimes refer offenders to CDI for evaluation prior to sentencing. The existence of the sentence prior to referral serves as a check that the judge intended to incarcerate the individual. Second, DOC has not comprehensively assessed the CDI population to determine if there are certain types of offenders which are not suited to diversion and tend to terminate unsuccessfully. Unsuccessful terminations represent a greater burden to the correctional system than do incarcerated offenders because they represent a double expense. After CDI funds are expended on the attempted diversion, jail or prison costs are incurred to incarcerate the individual. And third, DOC does not track repeat offenses of CDI "graduates" to assess the program's rehabilitative nature.

Recommendation 1: The Director of DOC should take two steps to help ensure that offenders have sentences of incarceration prior to referral to the program. First, Section A.19 of the CDI program standards should be modified to clearly indicate that local programs shall not accept a referred offender without a sentence of incarceration. The standard could be modified as follows:

A.19. No Community Corrections Program shall accept a client who has not received a sentence of incarceration. No Community Corrections Program funds shall be expended for any purpose, including consultation, case management, and evaluation, on a client who has not received a sentence to incarceration. [Italicized typed represents new language.]

Second, all program staff should take steps to ensure that judges are fully aware of this requirement.

Recommendation 2: To strengthen the cost-saving nature of the program and ensure diversion of appropriate types of offenders, the Director of DOC should undertake an intensive assessment of the CDI population. This assessment should identify: (1) proportions of the divertee population which appear to have been inappropriately diverted, (2) proportions of the divertee population with prior and current convictions for violent offenses, (3) types of offenders that successfully and unsuccessfully terminate, and (4) reasons for these outcomes. The assessment should be specifically oriented toward determining types of offenders that should and should not be diverted.

DOC should then modify its model eligibility requirements to specifically eliminate types of offenders that appear to be unsuited for CDI participation. At a minimum, the eligibility requirements should be modified to prohibit the diversion of any offender with a current conviction for a serious violent offense such as rape. All findings should be communicated to local agencies to assist them with their diversion decisions and encourage higher successful termination rates.

Recommendation 3: The Director of DOC should (1) require the CDI unit to assess repeat offenses annually, and (2) publish results in the Felons and Recidivists report. These results should be compared to recidivism rates for incarcerated and probation groups to assess CDI's success in reducing repeat offenses.

Organizational Structure (pp. 41-60)

The Department of Corrections is the principal State actor in the CDI program, while 23 local CDI agencies and their boards carry out the program at the local level. Five DOC regional specialists oversee the program from the field. This structure reflects a conscious effort to enhance local flexibility and involvement in crime response by decentralizing responsibility for operations and giving localities the authority to structure programs to meet particular local needs. Although local agency organizational structures vary significantly, the overall organizational structure appears to be working.

Recommendation 4: DOC should maintain the current CDI organizational structure for the present.

Several areas related to organizational structure and responsibilities warrant attention, however. First, while the State/local nature of the ,program enhances local participation, State oversight can be inhibited by local CDI agencies that are reluctant to cooperate or do not understand the State's responsibility and authority to monitor the use of funding. it provides. JLARC experienced difficulty obtaining information from several local agencies.

Recommendation 5. In all future grant proposals from local CDI agencies, the Director of DOC should require a statement of agreement to cooperate with and provide data for State oversight activities required by the Governor, General Assembly, or DOC.

Second, although the CDI manager is responsible for program' operations, this position has not been assigned broad coordinative and planning duties. Although some managers have undertaken broad responsibilities in the past, not all have. For example, a CDI master plan has never been developed.

Recommendation 6: The Director of DOC should modify the CDI manager's job description to include broad coordinative and planning responsibilities in addition to the operational responsibilities which are currently specified. These should include responsibility for master planning, ensuring that program operations and growth are in accordance with the master plan, anticipating legislative and executive needs for information and ensuring that information is available to meet these needs in a timely and accurate manner, and coordinating with other correctional components.

Third, it appears that regional specialist workloads vary. Compared to other regions, the Southeast specialist has many fewer cases and agencies to oversee.

Recommendation 7: The Director of DOC should require the CDI manager to assess regional specialist workloads to determine if inequities exist. If inequities are found, the manager should take steps to reduce them.

Fourth, there appears to be an inconsistency between local Community Corrections Resources Board responsibilities as designated in statute and the CDI Act. The CDI Act is clearly established to provide a sentencing alternative for offenders sentenced to incarceration. § 53.1-185, however, currently directs boards to provide mechanisms for linking all offenders with service needs to appropriate services. This broad responsibility is inconsistent with the overall intent of the CDI Act and could lead to confusion on the part of local boards regarding the types of programs they may operate.

Recommendation 8: The General Assembly may wish to amend § 53.1-185(4) of the Code as follows: "Provide a mechanism whereby all diverted offenders with needs for services will be linked to appropriate services."

Program Planning and Management (pp. 81-82)

DOC has not taken sufficient steps to provide for strong CDI program planning and management. A master plan has never been developed to serve' as a guide for program direction and growth. The addition of misdemeanants in 1982 and 11 new CDI agencies in FY 1984 appears to be overburdening the program's fiscal and management information system resources. Program policies and procedures sometimes do not provide adequate guidance to local agencies, and State-level monitoring has not ensured adequate compliance with existing standards.

Recommendation 9: The Director of DOC should direct the CDI manager to begin developing a CDI master plan. The plan should contain the following at a minimum:

• a comprehensive program description which provides information on program structure, responsibilities, clients, services and other areas;

• short- and long-term goals and objectives of the program. Goals and objectives should be stated in specific terms to enable assessment of goal achievement;

• specific strategies for achieving goals and objectives; and

• expectations regarding funding levels. Because the program has been expanding, expenditure figures from one year may not be applicable to the next. It would be useful to set out basic program funding needs and the different levels of operation that would be possible with additional funding increments.

Because CDI is implemented as a joint effort involving two levels of government, it is essential that effective communications be maintained. Strengthened communications between some State and local CDI staff and among local agencies themselves would generally serve to strengthen the program. Coordinated development of policy by CDI and Probation and Parole in two areas would further strengthen CDI.

Recommendation 10: To enhance communications and understanding among local agencies, the Director of DOC should instruct all regional specialists to hold regular group meetings with their local coordinators. In addition, notes or reports on these meetings, as well as all Statewide CDI meetings and workshops, should be disseminated to local agencies.

Recommendation 11: The Director of DOC should direct the CDI manager and the Probation and Parole manager to jointly develop and document policies and guidelines regarding interaction between CDI and Probation and Parole. Guidelines should specify when active probation supervision of CDI cases is to be waived, and circumstances under which it may be desirable. (In most instances, however, it should be waived.) The guidelines should also address the extent to which probation officers and CDI coordinators and case managers should communicate regarding CDI cases.

Recommendation 12: The Director of DOC should instruct the CDI manager and the Probation and Parole manager to (1) assess the current payment of the probation supervision fee by CDI divertees, and (2) develop a uniform policy for CDI divertees. Once a policy is developed, specific guidelines regarding payment should be developed and included in the probation manual and the CDI standards to ensure that all divertees are subject to the same basic requirement. The Director should also seek an amendment to § 53.1-150 of the Code to specify if CDI divertees are required to payor are exempted from paying the $15 monthly fee while in CDI.

Regarding program oversight and monitoring, serious problems exist with the accuracy and completeness of data in the CDI management information system as well as with the overall management of the system. As of September 1984, the system was missing about 800 client cases - 25 percent of the program's total caseload. Analysis of a sample of cases in the system showed that only 27 of the 76 cases in the sample were without errors. The existence of serious problems in several local agencies also indicates that regional specialists should spend greater portions of their time monitoring and evaluating local agencies.

Recommendation 13: The Director of DOC should designate validation and supplementation of the CDI management information system as a high priority for central and regional office CDI staff. Data contained in the system should be accurate and complete by July 1, 1985.

Recommendation 14: The Director of DOC should assess the current allocation of time by regional specialists to various activities. The specialist job description should then be updated to require that a greater portion of time be spent on local agency monitoring and evaluation. In addition, a regional specialists' handbook should be developed which sets out guidelines and requirements for monitoring and other activities to be undertaken by the specialists.

Client Services (pp. 83-104)

A major thrust and distinguishing feature of the CDI program has been to provide services to offenders who need more than probation yet less than incarceration. These services include, but are not limited to: (1) client case management, (2) intensive supervision, (3) counseling, (4) psychological testing and evaluation, (5) psychological treatment, (6) inpatient drug "and alcohol treatment, (7) outpatient drug and alcohol treatment, (8) basic education, (9) vocational training, (10) emergency housing services, and (11) residential care services. A number of items in this area also warrant DOC attention.

Actions by the DOC central office could help local agencies procure services in two areas. Psychological evaluations are procured by all local agencies, and are viewed by local boards and coordinators as very helpful in assessing offender needs. These evaluations are usually very expensive, between $200 and $400, and can consume a large portion of a local agency's budget. Residential beds for clients needing them are also expensive and often difficult to obtain.

Recommendation 15: The Director of DOC should (a) develop a screening procedure that could be used by local agencies to assess whether a psychological evaluation should be performed on individual offenders referred for diversion, and (b) direct regional specialists to explore establishing group contracts to procure evaluations as is being done in the East Central region. Local agencies should also continue on their own to explore ways in which to provide psychological evaluations at a lower cost.

Recommendation 16: The Director of DOC should negotiate with the Department of Mental Health and Mental Retardation to make Community Service Board indigent beds available to eligible CDI clients. These beds should be available within the $30/day limitation allowed by CDI.

Several local coordinators cited problems encountered by their programs in providing drug and alcohol treatment to clients with dull normal or lower intelligence scores. Other coordinators mentioned other groups that appear to be difficult to manage or that. tend to unsuccessfully terminate the program.

Recommendation 17: The Director of DOC should take steps to assess special characteristic groups within the diverted population. Using the client specific data in the CDI management information system, the Director of DOC should assess the CDI offender population and identify those divertees which characterize special population groups such as emotionally disturbed, mentally retarded, dull normal intelligence, serious substance abusers, offenders with extensive juvenile records, and others. Once these groups are identified, DOC should assess: (a) how successfully they participate in CDI, (b) what factors contributed to successful participation or termination, (c) if repeat offenses have been committed, (d) if these groups are appropriate for CDI placement, and (e) if special treatments or procedures should be designed to meet the particular needs of these groups. These findings should be communicated to local agencies to assist them with their diversion and treatment decisions.

Four local CDI agencies operate residential facilities, and a proposal to develop a six-bed residential facility for females in the Richmond area is being developed. Methods of funding as well as budget documents for the four existing facilities vary between the facilities and make it difficult to assess and monitor the costs and staffing of each facility.

Recommendation 18: The Director of DOC should take three actions concerning funding of CDI residential facilities. First, a consistent method for funding these facilities should be developed and implemented. Second, DOC should develop a standard budget format for residential facilities that clearly details uses of CDI funds. In instances where a residential facility has multiple funding sources, DOC should require that the budget clearly articulate the amount of funding from each source and the number of beds financed by each source. All agencies operating residential facilities should be required to use this format. Third, DOC should assess the funding of CDI beds at the Blue Ridge Diversionary Program residential facility.

Recommendation 19: The Director of DOC should assess the cost effectiveness of the existing eight-bed residential facility currently in operation. The decision on developing a six-bed residential center for females in the Richmond area should not be made until DOC has completed this assessment. Until this assessment is complete, DOC should continue to work with local agencies to procure residential services for female clients needing them.

Regarding the adequacy of services, local coordinators indicate that the range and type of services offered by the program appear to be appropriate. Some agencies, however, have not been completely successful in complying with intensive supervision requirements. A review of a sample of case files indicated that only 46 of 105 files were 100 percent compliant with intensive supervision requirements.

Recommendation 20: The Director of DOC should strictly enforce the requirement for intensive supervision.

Because CDI serves a distinct group of offenders with sentences to incarceration, it does not appear to duplicate or overlap services of other community corrections programs. To prevent fragmentation and future overlap and duplication, however, there appears to be a need to plan for coordinated growth and development of all community-based correctional efforts in which the State is involved.

Recommendation 21: The General Assembly may wish to establish, by resolution, a temporary commission to assess the current state of community-based corrections in Virginia. The commission could also generate goals and objectives for community-based corrections efforts in which the' State is involved and provide guidance for the development of a master plan for community-based corrections. DOC would then be responsible for completing this master plan, which should be considered by the Governor and General Assembly when making policy and funding decisions in this area.

Conclusion and Future Options (pp. 105-114)

Indications at this time are that the CDI program is meeting or working toward its statutorily designated objectives. Shortcomings exist, however, regarding the planning, management, and monitoring of the program.

Major changes or the creation of new local agencies should therefore be deferred through the remaining portion of this biennium until these planning and management deficiencies have been addressed and a CDI master plan has been developed.

During the development of the master plan, consideration should also be given to three policy areas that could significantly affect the future direction of the program:

• expansion of CDI into a statewide program offering services to eligible offenders from every local jurisdiction,

• continued inclusion of jail divertees in the program, and

• restructuring CDI in the future to address future program goals and effect efficiency and coordination gains.

Decisions in these areas should influence funding, organizational, and operational objectives and strategies in the master plan.

A number of options are available to the State in each of these policy areas. At this time, it appears that benefits could accrue by expansion of CDI into high commitment areas of the State (beginning in the 1986-88 biennium) and continued inclusion of divertees from jails in the program.

Recommendation 22: Concurrent with correction of existing program deficiencies, planning should continue for program expansion through the targeting of high commitment areas in the 1986-88 biennium.

Recommendation 23: The General Assembly may wish to consider appropriating additional funding to CDI to ensure adequate supervision of jail divertees. Once local agencies develop their projected number of diversions for FY 1986, DOC should calculate the additional amount that may be necessary for their supervision. This figure could be used as the basis for a CDI budget amendment request in FY 1986.

Recommendation 24: The Director of DOC should give consideration to alternative organizational structures as a CDI master plan is developed. Efforts should be concentrated on a structure which maintains local involvement but minimizes fragmentation of community-based corrections efforts.