Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the DIDD Diversion topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Sentencing commission accepts recommendations on DIDD diversion program; victim advocate records dissent
Summary
The commission accepted the mental health committee’s recommendations on an intellectual and developmental disabilities diversion program (Resolution 2026-02) and will forward them to the Legislature; the motion passed with one recorded nay from state victim advocate Natasha Pierre amid debate over eligible offenses, data collection burdens, and uncertain fiscal impact.
The Connecticut Sentencing Commission on June 17 voted to accept the mental health committee’s recommendations for an intellectual and developmental disabilities diversion program (resolution 2026-02) and to forward the resolution and a committee discussion memo to the Legislature. The motion carried, and the record shows one dissenting vote from state victim advocate Natasha Pierre.
Judge Courtney Chaplin, cochair of the mental health committee, summarized discussions held on May 4 and May 19 and said the packet contains 15 related resolutions and an attached memo that will explain committee concerns. Chaplin described several areas of debate: whether outpatient restoration should apply to individuals with co-occurring intellectual disability and psychiatric disabilities; which offenses should be excluded (discussion included whether A- and B-level felonies, felony murder, or certain sexual-abuse offenses should be categorically ineligible); and how to preserve victim input and consistency across diversionary programs.
Chaplin also discussed limits on how many times someone may use the proposed program. Some members proposed mirroring the supervised diversionary program’s two-use limit; others proposed a potential compromise allowing up to three uses in limited circumstances, modeled on other treatment- or education-based programs. Chaplin emphasized the recommendation was intended to harmonize data collection rather than impose new burdensome collection requirements on agencies: “The intention is to just improve data collection, not to create new methods of data collection that would be cumbersome to certain agencies.”
On fiscal impact, Chaplin said estimates are uncertain because agencies encounter eligible individuals at different points and Medicaid coverage may offset some state costs. Attorney Lisa D’Angelo asked that the committee memo be attached to the resolution so legislators can see the committee’s concerns and the considered compromises; the commission confirmed the memo will accompany the resolution.
Judge Chaplin moved the motion to accept the recommendations and forward Resolution 2026-02 to the appropriate legislative body; Professor Anna Van Cleave seconded. The motion carried with a recorded nay by Natasha Pierre. The resolution, the committee memo, and the related slides will be included in the packet sent to legislators for their consideration.
