Search

Objective: Patterns of rediversion in two postbooking jail diversion programs in Florida were examined to better understand the extent to which diversion programs served repeating clients. Rediversion occurs when a former or current diversion program participant is booked into jail on a new charge and diverted once again through the same diversion program., Methods: Data from 18 months of consecutive entries into the Hillsborough County jail diversion program (N = 336) and Broward County mental health court (N = 800) were examined., Results: Similar rediversion patterns were observed for the two diversion programs. About one-fifth of those who were diverted during the 18-month study period were rediverted at least once. Nearly half of those who experienced rediversion did so within 90 days of their initial diversion. Although fewer than 6 percent were rediverted two or more times, these individuals accounted for a disproportionately large number of overall diversions and were rediverted more quickly than those with only one rediversion., Conclusions: The diversion programs examined here appear to be experiencing a level of repeating clients similar to that observed in other pathways for accessing mental health treatment.

States differ widely in their delivery of pretrial forensic evaluation services, in terms of organizational structure and training requirements of forensic examiners. It was hypothesized that defendants adjudicated incompetent to proceed in states using community-based, private-practitioner systems would show less impairment on a competence assessment measure, the MacArthur Competence Assessment Tool-Criminal Adjudication (MacCAT-CA), than defendants adjudicated incompetent in states using traditional, inpatient systems. It also was hypothesized that mean MacCAT-CA scores for incompetent defendants from states requiring forensic training/certification would be lower than for defendants from states lacking such requirements. Results indicated significant differences across the four types of service delivery systems examined. However, planned comparisons revealed no differences between a state using a traditional, inpatient model and a state employing a community-based, private-practitioner model. Analyses examining the effects of mandatory forensic training failed to support the hypothesis that training requirements result in the adoption of higher thresholds for determining incompetence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]