Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Diversion Programs topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Neighbors, defenders and prosecutors debate neighborhood wellness court pilot as early data show mixed uptake
Summary
Councilmembers pressed witnesses on the neighborhood wellness court pilot, asking for legal analysis and data. Defender Association and managing staff described early counts—72 arrests/67 unique people, eight declined the program and four completions to date, two moving on to Riverview Wellness Village.
Councilmembers sought updates and legal clarity on the neighborhood wellness court pilot and on related diversion programs that operate at different stages in police and court processing.
What the numbers show: Andrew Pappas, managing director of pretrial programs for the Defender Association, reported operational counts to the Committee. “To date, there have been 72 unique arrests made for neighborhood wellness court,” Pappas said, clarifying the difference between arrest counts and unique individuals: “There have been 67 unique individuals who were arrested. ... There have been 8 individuals who rejected Wellness Court. 2 of them entered guilty pleas. 6 of them went to trial. Of the ones that went to trial, 4 were found guilty. There have been 4 cases to date that were marked as successful completions of wellness court. 1 was for a housing referral. 3 were for treatment. Of the 3 that were successful completions for treatment, 2 of those individuals made it to Riverview Wellness Village.”
Process and roles: Council members asked for the legal analysis that led to the pilot’s current design and whether the law department and judges had reviewed the court’s manual and procedures. The city solicitor’s office said it had advised the administration and that certain legal analyses had been conveyed confidentially; the solicitor offered to provide additional materials in writing or in the appropriate forum.
PAD vs. AMP: Witnesses explained the distinction between diversion pathways. Police‑assisted diversion (PAD) referrals typically do not result in an arrest and are handled by Philadelphia Police Department diversion officers and community providers. AMP (Accelerated Misdemeanor Program) applies to people already arrested and in court. District Attorney Larry Krasner said his office sees and participates in AMP cases and supports a range of diversion opportunities; he noted PAD referrals are usually handled by police prior to formal charging and that DA staff do not typically see PAD cases unless an arrest occurs.
Concerns and judicial review: Several councilmembers raised judicial, constitutional and operational concerns about the pilot; they said some judges paused or reviewed the program and requested a manual. City officials said the manual had been submitted to the courts and that additional training had been provided to police and field staff working on the pilot.
Ending: Councilmembers asked for written materials, the manual reviewed by the courts, and outcome metrics on completions, recidivism and placement outcomes. Defenders and court administrators said they would deliver detailed counts and follow‑up analyses.
