Community justice centers and researcher describe low recidivism, per-case savings and restorative outcomes

Researchers and practitioners told the Judiciary Committee on Feb. 14 that diversion programs substantially reduce recidivism for first-time offenders and cost less per case than traditional court processing, and they described how local restorative conferences work in practice.

Robin Joy, director of research for the Crime Research Group, summarized prior cost-benefit and recidivism studies and said the recidivism result for first-time offenders who completed diversion was "less than half a percent." Joy told the committee that in her 2019 diversion study the recidivism rate for comparable first-time offenders who went through the traditional criminal justice process was higher (she cited a figure closer to 5 or 6 percent in back-and-forth remarks), and she called the diversion recidivism outcome "awesome." Joy also described the study's time logs: diversion case worker time per case in 2019 ranged from about 11 hours for assaults, 6.7 hours for domestic cases, about 5 hours for trespass, roughly 4.5 hours for drug cases, and about 4.3 hours for fraud/theft. Joy said the average cost per diversion case in 2019 dollars ranged roughly from $76 to $216, compared with about $1,500 for the traditional criminal justice processing the study measured.

Joy cautioned that recidivism is only one measurement of program success and flagged data and equity concerns for pre-charge diversion. She said the Act 40 interactive reports and DOC referral data are useful but incomplete for pre-charge work because much pre-charge activity is not yet fully captured in state systems. Joy raised two risks for pre-charge expansion: possible "creep" that extends diversion to people who otherwise would not have been charged, and the potential for bias in referral patterns if guardrails and consistent data collection are not in place.

Local providers described how restorative practice operates and the importance of timing and victim outreach. Becky Penberthy, adult restorative services manager at the Burlington Community Justice Center, gave a detailed case example in which a person who had been intoxicated was found sleeping on a family's couch. Penberthy said she received the referral the day after the March 15 incident and held the intake 11 days later; she described the victims as "probably of the top 10 angriest people I'd ever talked to in my whole life" and said the victims' chief need was contact and information. Penberthy said she insisted the responsible person return in person for a restorative conference rather than use video conferencing, and that the conference led the parties to "see each other as humans and to acknowledge that they're now in relationship." Penberthy told the committee she later checked and "he's doing really well. He's retained his licensed position, which would have been impacted had he been charged and convicted of a crime." Penberthy emphasized speed: "it works better when it's faster," she said, and described timelier outreach to victims as a key part of program effectiveness.

Rob Michalak, chair of the Williston Community Justice Center executive board, provided local program statistics. He said the Williston center resolved 228 pre-charge cases in the prior fiscal year and that, when combining restorative contracts and needs-navigation referrals, the center counted about 401 resolved cases overall. Michalak said the Williston center's FY2024 budget totaled about $229,000 (he described roughly $144,000 from a DOC grant and about $85,000 from service towns) and that the center recorded 1,281 volunteer hours from 35 volunteers. Michalak calculated that, with the year's budget and 401 resolved cases, the cost per resolved case at the center equated to about $571.

Both Michalak and Penberthy described strong qualitative outcomes: Michalak said the Williston center's executive director reports a completion or success rate above 95 percent; Penberthy described victims' and responsible parties' emotional responses and said restorative conferences frequently produce reparative commitments that participants complete.

Ending: Researchers and providers asked the committee to consider data collection and equity safeguards if the state expands pre-charge diversion. The AGO pointed the committee to Act 40 reports and invited providers to submit redacted affidavits and example agreements for committee review; providers agreed to share those documents with committee staff.