Deferring felony prosecution: a process evaluation of an innovative Cook County State’s Attorney’s Office program
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/JCRPP-01-2017-0003 |
| Pages | 261-273 |
| Date | 04 December 2017 |
| Published date | 04 December 2017 |
| Author | Jennifer Cossyleon,John Orwat,Christine George,Don Stemen,Whitney Key |
| Subject Matter | Health & social care,Criminology & forensic psychology |
Deferring felony prosecution: a process
evaluation of an innovative Cook County
State’s Attorney’s Office program
Jennifer Cossyleon, John Orwat, Christine George, Don Stemen and Whitney Key
Abstract
Purpose –The Cook County State Atto rneys’Deferred Prosec ution Program (DPP) is a pr e-trial
diversionary program that accepts first-time, non-violent defendants charged with a felony crime.
The purpose of this paper is to document the development, implementation, and program patterns
of the DPP to better understand the program’s scope and reach in diverting defendants from traditional
criminal prosecution.
Design/methodology/approach –The approach to evaluating Cook County’s DPP is primarily qualitative.
Throughinterviews with programadministrators and currentand former participants,the authors documentthe
process of creatingand implementing suchDPP that aims to avoid a felony convictionaltogether. The authors
provide program participant patterns to shed light on the program’sscope and reach in diverting defendants
from traditional felony prosecution.
Findings –Using data from staff, administrators, and program participants, the authors found that the DPP
was developed and implemented through supportive leadership who instilled a culture of collaboration and
buy-in. Expanding the program could include increasing the capacity of DPP to include additional participants
or having a DPP incorporated into each branch court, instead of the centralized system under which it
currently operates. Increasing the capacity and scope of the program could both further decrease criminal
court caseloads and most importantly avoid a higher number of stigmatizing felony convictions for first-time
non-violent defendants.
Practical implications –DPPs are cost effective and can be easily implemented within existing systems.
Collaboration and buy-in from all stakeholders are crucial tothe program’s success. DPP offers opportunities
for expansion. Increasing the capacity and scope of the program could both further decrease criminal court
caseloads and most importantly avoid a higher number of stigmatizing felony convictions for first-time
non-violent felony defendants.
Originality/value –The main goals of DPP were two-fold. The first was to minimize the level of resources
allocated for non-violent offenders in the criminal justice system by diverting such defendants out of the
criminal justice system early in the process and reducing the recidivism rates of program participants.
The second aimed to provide an option for eligible defendants to avoid a felony conviction, thereby avoiding
the collateral consequences associating with a felony conviction.
Keywords Offenders,Sentencing, Crime prevention and reduction, Courts, Custody, Alternative to custody
Paper type Research paper
As criminal justice system expenditures and incarceration rates continued to surge through the
late 1990s and early 2000s, policy makers and criminal justice system administrators
encountered growing fiscal constraints and social scrutiny that challenged the systematic use of
incarceration as a response to low-level defendants. By 2010, over 2.3 million people were
incarcerated in prisons or jails in the USA (Guerino et al., 2011), costing local, state, and federal
governments roughly $75 billion per year (Schmitt et al., 2010). Non-violent offenders comprised
nearly two-thirds of the incarcerated population (2010). At the state level, policy makers
responded by repealing mandatory prison sentences for low-level offenses or by modifying
sentencing guidelines to increase the use of non-incarcerative sentences for such offenses
(Wool and Stemen, 2004). Many local jurisdictions, however, reacted to these trends in a
markedly different way, by strengthening existing drug court and deferred prosecution programs
Received 18 January 2017
Revised 26 February 2017
Accepted 26 February 2017
Jennifer Cossyleon is based at
the Department of Sociology,
Loyola University Chicago,
Chicago, Illinois, USA.
John Orwat is an Associate
Professor at the School of Social
Work, Loyola University
Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, USA.
Christine George is based at
CURL, LoyolaUniversity
Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, USA.
DonStemenisanAssociate
Professorat the Department of
Criminal Justice and
Criminology, Loyola University
Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, USA.
Whitney Key is based at School
of Social Work, Loyola
University Chicago, Chicago,
Illinois, USA.
DOI 10.1108/JCRPP-01-2017-0003 VOL. 3 NO. 4 2017, pp.261-273, © Emerald Publishing Limited, ISSN 2056-3841
j
JOURNAL OF CRIMINOLOGICAL RESEARCH, POLICY AND PRACTICE
j
PAGE261
To continue reading
Request your trial