Resident Perspectives on a Pre-booking Diversion Program

IF 2.3 Q3 SUBSTANCE ABUSE
Evan McClelland, Ruth T. Shefner, Josephine Johnson, Evan D. Anderson
{"title":"Resident Perspectives on a Pre-booking Diversion Program","authors":"Evan McClelland, Ruth T. Shefner, Josephine Johnson, Evan D. Anderson","doi":"10.1177/00914509241246083","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Numerous cities are experimenting with pre-booking diversion programs that allow police officers to divert community members to supportive services in instances that would otherwise result in arrest and prosecution. These programs aim to decrease harmful involvement with the criminal justice system while reducing crime and public disorder. Although previous research has explored the experiences of people receiving diversion referrals and of police officers initiating them, none have examined the perspectives of community members who can offer crucial insights into planning, evaluation, and implementation barriers. We administered a survey to 293 people living in four police districts where the Philadelphia Police Department operates a pre-booking diversion program. The survey explored residents’ perspectives on the program as well as their broader views on associated issues like decriminalization of substance use, sex work, and minor theft. Bivariate χ2 tests and multivariate logistic regression examined differences in responses between subgroups. Perspectives were diverse and varied based on demographic attributes of the respondents as well as on district-level attributes, like crime patterns. Most surveyed community members perceived pre-booking diversion to be a valuable tool for improving the experiences and outcomes of policing. However, residents living in areas with more crime and with more public disorder held significantly less positive perspectives. Their skepticism may reflect the possibility that pre-booking diversion and similar reforms are necessary but not sufficient to transforming individual health and public safety in some areas.","PeriodicalId":35813,"journal":{"name":"Contemporary Drug Problems","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Contemporary Drug Problems","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00914509241246083","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"SUBSTANCE ABUSE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Numerous cities are experimenting with pre-booking diversion programs that allow police officers to divert community members to supportive services in instances that would otherwise result in arrest and prosecution. These programs aim to decrease harmful involvement with the criminal justice system while reducing crime and public disorder. Although previous research has explored the experiences of people receiving diversion referrals and of police officers initiating them, none have examined the perspectives of community members who can offer crucial insights into planning, evaluation, and implementation barriers. We administered a survey to 293 people living in four police districts where the Philadelphia Police Department operates a pre-booking diversion program. The survey explored residents’ perspectives on the program as well as their broader views on associated issues like decriminalization of substance use, sex work, and minor theft. Bivariate χ2 tests and multivariate logistic regression examined differences in responses between subgroups. Perspectives were diverse and varied based on demographic attributes of the respondents as well as on district-level attributes, like crime patterns. Most surveyed community members perceived pre-booking diversion to be a valuable tool for improving the experiences and outcomes of policing. However, residents living in areas with more crime and with more public disorder held significantly less positive perspectives. Their skepticism may reflect the possibility that pre-booking diversion and similar reforms are necessary but not sufficient to transforming individual health and public safety in some areas.
居民对预约前分流计划的看法
许多城市都在尝试实施预约前分流计划,允许警察将原本会导致逮捕和起诉的社区成员分流到支持性服务机构。这些计划旨在减少与刑事司法系统的有害接触,同时减少犯罪和公共秩序混乱。虽然之前的研究已经探讨了接受转送者和发起转送的警官的经历,但没有研究社区成员的观点,而社区成员可以为规划、评估和实施障碍提供至关重要的见解。我们对费城警察局实施预约前分流计划的四个警区的 293 名居民进行了调查。调查探究了居民对该计划的看法,以及他们对药物使用非刑罪化、性工作和未成年人盗窃等相关问题的广泛观点。双变量 χ2 检验和多变量逻辑回归检验了不同亚群之间的回答差异。根据受访者的人口统计学属性以及地区层面的属性(如犯罪模式),他们的观点多种多样。大多数接受调查的社区成员认为,预约前分流是改善警务经验和成果的重要工具。然而,生活在犯罪率较高和公共秩序较乱地区的居民对这一观点的积极性明显较低。他们的怀疑态度可能反映出,在某些地区,预约前分流和类似改革是必要的,但不足以改变个人健康和公共安全。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Contemporary Drug Problems
Contemporary Drug Problems Social Sciences-Law
CiteScore
3.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
23
期刊介绍: Contemporary Drug Problems is a scholarly journal that publishes peer-reviewed social science research on alcohol and other psychoactive drugs, licit and illicit. The journal’s orientation is multidisciplinary and international; it is open to any research paper that contributes to social, cultural, historical or epidemiological knowledge and theory concerning drug use and related problems. While Contemporary Drug Problems publishes all types of social science research on alcohol and other drugs, it recognizes that innovative or challenging research can sometimes struggle to find a suitable outlet. The journal therefore particularly welcomes original studies for which publication options are limited, including historical research, qualitative studies, and policy and legal analyses. In terms of readership, Contemporary Drug Problems serves a burgeoning constituency of social researchers as well as policy makers and practitioners working in health, welfare, social services, public policy, criminal justice and law enforcement.
文献相关原料
公司名称 产品信息 采购帮参考价格
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信