Overview
The Bristol County District Attorney’s Office (BCDA) has not established specific program performance metrics, goals, and objectives or set up a process to identify, collect, and evaluate relevant information about its Juvenile Diversion Program. As a result, BCDA’s ability to measure the success of the program and determine whether any changes to it are necessary is limited.
Authoritative Guidance / Best Practices
Although there are no specific laws or requirements for data collection and evaluation for the Juvenile Diversion Program, there are state and national publications that encourage data collection as a way to ensure that diversion programs achieve their intended purpose. For example, Models for Change is a multistate initiative focused on promoting the advancement of juvenile justice reform, funded by the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation. Models for Change has its own juvenile diversion workgroup that has prepared a Juvenile Diversion Guidebook, which states,
To ensure the diversion program is meeting its objectives and goals, a record-keeping and data collection system should be in place to assist in providing periodic evaluations.
Additionally, ICF International, a global consulting firm, has received grant funds to conduct an assessment study of pretrial juvenile diversion practices within District Attorneys’ Offices throughout Massachusetts. Section 4.1.2 of ICF International’s Massachusetts Juvenile Diversion Assessment Study, published in January 2015, states,
In order to ensure that diversion programs are meeting their stated goals and objectives, it is critical for DAs’ offices to implement a standard record keeping and data collection system. This will allow offices to assess the need for program adjustments over time; identify whether program goals and objectives are being met, for whom, and why; and provide justification for additional resources and supports.
Therefore, collecting data to use in measuring program performance can be considered a best practice.
Reasons for Issues
BCDA officials stated that in their opinion, each juvenile who is diverted from formal processing through the juvenile justice system is a success and therefore no other measures are needed. Furthermore, they believe there are so many facets of each juvenile diversion case that there is no way to group them in order to make a fair comparison.
Recommendation
BCDA should identify the relevant data that could be used to assess the success of its Juvenile Diversion Program, establish a formal process to collect and evaluate this information, and use it to make any necessary program enhancements and support requests to the Legislature for program-specific funding.
Auditee’s Response
The Bristol County District Attorney disagrees with the auditor that the MacArthur Foundation guidebook and ICF report are authoritative guidance. In the year that the Auditor spent in our office, no one from the Auditor’s staff suggested that the Auditor was using either as a basis for best practice. As the Auditor states in the report neither of these documents plays any role in Massachusetts law. The Auditor cites no source of authority for her claim that they are. Moreover, even a cursory examination of the Guidebook would show that it is inapplicable to diversion in Bristol County. The District Attorney does not have a juvenile diversion program like the elaborate model contemplated in the MacArthur Foundation models for change (the MacArthur guidebook is the standard used for a program in the ICF report). Juvenile diversion in Bristol County is premised on the exercise of prosecutorial discretion designed to treat every first or low level offender as an individual who should have the opportunity to be diverted from the criminal justice system. Each Bristol County juvenile is treated for who they are and not based on what others have done. In doing so, they are each evaluated on their own specific circumstances and given the opportunity to learn from their own mistakes. Their access to diversion is not limited by the performance of other children who are in entirely different circumstances. This approach is no different than the District Attorney’s mandate to handle every criminal defendant based on all of the facts and circumstances related to the defendant’s criminal case. Absent the type of program contemplated in the Guidebook, there is no rationale for the data collection suggested by the auditor’s report. When the Auditor’s representative was asked why we should collect this type of information, she could not provide an explanation that had any relevance to our particular program. Juvenile diversion in Bristol County is about individualized justice for each juvenile.
Auditor’s Reply
We acknowledge, as BCDA states in its response, that it took longer than anticipated for the Office of the State Auditor (OSA) to complete this audit. This was because of the audit constraints imposed by BCDA during the audit, as described in the Audit Constraints section of this report.
During our audit, OSA did discuss with BCDA officials our concerns about how its Juvenile Diversion Program was administered, particularly in the area of data collection. Further, our report acknowledges that there are no specific laws or requirements for data collection and evaluation for BCDA’s Juvenile Diversion Program. However, there are state and national publications that encourage data collection as a way to ensure that diversion programs achieve their intended purpose. Although we only cite two such publications in our report, there are other publications that describe the importance of implementing a standard recordkeeping and data-collection system to, among other things, effectively assess any changes to the program that may be necessary, determine to what extent program goals are achieved, justify why the program should be funded, and identify potential barriers to participants’ completion of the program. Therefore, in OSA’s opinion, collecting data to use in measuring program performance can be considered a best practice.
The complexity of the program model that is used to administer this type of program is not relevant to the decision to collect, analyze, and use program data for the purposes stated above. Regardless of the program model, in OSA’s opinion, collecting and analyzing data to assess program outcomes and outputs are essential elements of proper program administration.
We did not analyze how BCDA decides which juvenile offenders can participate in this program, but agree with BCDA’s position that all first-time and/or low-level offenders should be assessed based on their specific circumstances and, if possible, given the opportunity to be diverted from the criminal justice system. However, we do not agree with BCDA that there is no rationale for the data collection and evaluation we suggest. We again recommend that BCDA identify the relevant data that could be used to assess the success of its Juvenile Diversion Program, establish a formal process to collect and evaluate this information, and use it to make any necessary program enhancements and support requests to the Legislature for program-specific funding.
| Date published: | October 1, 2018 |
|---|