Overview
Currently, the Plymouth County District Attorney’s Office (PCDA) collects Diversion Program case data, both for juveniles (under 17 years old) and for young adults (17–23 years old), that it could use to measure the results of the program and determine whether any changes to the program are necessary. However, PCDA is not evaluating these data; it is only using the data as a record of participation and completion of the program-specific requirements.
Consequently, PCDA cannot determine whether this program effectively and efficiently provides a tangible benefit to the community it serves. Had PCDA evaluated these Diversion Program data, it could have used them to consider potential improvements to the program and to support requests to the Legislature for program-specific funding.
Authoritative Guidance
Although there are no specific laws or requirements for data collection and evaluation for the 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’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.
Data collection and analysis allow program managers to assess the need for program adjustments over time and determine whether programs are meeting their intended purposes. Therefore, collecting and evaluating data for measuring the performance of diversion programs can be considered a best practice.
Additionally, there is support for using the same processes for young adult diversion that are used for juvenile diversion. For instance, the Justice Policy Institute’s report Improving Approaches to Serving Young Adults in the Justice System states,
The evidence that adolescence extends well beyond 18 could, theoretically, be applied to the justice system to reduce long-term negative consequences for young people and take advantage of a significant opportunity to give young adults the best chance to succeed.
Reasons for Noncompliance
PCDA officials told us that they had not considered the benefits of evaluating the Diversion Program information that PCDA collects to measure the results of the program.
Recommendation
PCDA should consider ways to evaluate the Diversion Program data it currently collects to help identify areas where program improvements may be needed and to support requests to the Legislature for program-specific funding.
Auditee’s Response
The Plymouth County Diversion Program does collect case and program data for each diversion candidate entered into the Program. We have recently created and implemented juvenile and adult intake forms, which will be filled out by each diversion candidate. This will further give the Program more information and data about the individuals entering the Program. Each court will collect and maintain individual data forms/sheets for the cases out of their jurisdiction, and quarterly breakdowns will be provided to the diversion director. This will help the director see what is happening in each court, what programs are being used, who is being diverted, and what is and is not working for each individual court. At the end of each year, a DAMION database search will also be performed by the Program to help identify any repeat offenders, and also to confirm all data is being collected correctly by the diversion officers. Having quarterly court breakdowns and yearly reviews of all data collected through our PCDA database by the diversion director and main office supervisor will help in identifying specific and proper program changes that need to be made. It will also assist us in tailoring better programs and requirements for each specific court, if needed. . . .
Although there are no specific laws or requirements for data collection and evaluation for the Diversion Program, we accept the recommendation that encourages data collection and review, which may lead to improvements in overall outcomes. . . . We will be implementing any and all of [the Auditor’s] suggestions.
"Although there are no specific laws or requirements for data collection and evaluation for the Diversion Program, we accept the recommendation that encourages data collection and review, which may lead to improvements in overall outcomes..."
Regarding our “Audit Constraints” disclosure, PCDA stated,
Based on G.L. c. 119 § 60A, the statute protecting certain juvenile records from disclosure, the protected information sought involved a privacy interest that was not ours to waive by signing the agreement. The statute specifically states that the juvenile records "shall be withheld from public inspection except with consent of a justice of such court. . . ." G.L. c. 119 § 60A. In addition, the authority upon which the State Auditor acts, G.L. c. 11 § 12, does not contain any specific language creating an exception for the disclosure of juvenile records. . . .
In regards to the disclosure of specific names and case information regarding the diversion of adults, this information is protected under [Criminal Offender Record Information (CORI)] G.L c. 6 § 167. The Office of the State Auditor is not [CORI] cleared, so this information is protected from disclosure. Further, this is also a privacy interest that is held by the offender, which we cannot waive.
Auditor’s Reply
Based on its response, PCDA is taking measures to address our concerns in this area.
In its response, PCDA argues that Section 167 of Chapter 6 of the General Laws restricts the disclosure of adult diversion information and Section 60A of Chapter 119 of the General Laws restricts the disclosure of juvenile records. However, OSA’s enabling statute, Section 12 of Chapter 11 of the General Laws, grants it broad access to these types of records:
The department of the state auditor shall audit the accounts, programs, activities and functions directly related to . . . accounts of all departments, offices, commissions, institutions and activities of the commonwealth, including those of districts and authorities created by the general court and including those of the income tax division of the department of revenue and, for such purposes, the authorized officers and employees of the department of the state auditor shall have access to such accounts at reasonable times and the department may require the production of books, documents, vouchers and other records relating to any matter within the scope of an audit conducted under this section . . . except tax returns.
Because tax returns are the only exception to OSA’s access to data and information during an audit, this legislation grants OSA access to the adult and juvenile diversion records that PCDA did not provide.
| Date published: | October 11, 2018 |
|---|