CRIMINAL JUSTICE BEYOND CONVICTION RATES

Diversion Reduces Crime

When crime reduction in New York City during the 1990s was attributed to
Mayor Rudolph Giuliani's tough-on-crime, "zero tolerance" policies, he was
hailed as an effective leader. But when San Francisco recorded equally
impressive gains in the past eight years using diametrically opposite
approaches, there was virtually no recognition or acknowledgement. The
notion that crime could be reduced by sending fewer people to prison and
increasing prevention services runs counter to prevailing crime control
theology.

That message is now further buried in the banter of election-year politics,
where the district attorney's campaign has again been marginalized to
debates over prosecution and conviction rates ("San Francisco ranks last in
convictions," The Chronicle, Oct. 17), while the more important story is
ignored.

Eight years ago, San Franciscans challenged prevailing assumptions about
law enforcement and public safety when they elected Terence Hallinan as
district attorney. An unabashed opponent of the state's death penalty and
"three strikes" law, Hallinan ushered in a new era in the prosecution and
treatment of criminal offenders. Fulfilling a campaign promise, he launched
new initiatives that included increased diversion options for drug
offenders and nonviolent low-level offenders -- freeing resources to expand
early intervention and specialized prosecution of domestic violence, elder
abuse, child abuse and other violent offenses.

The new array of programs placed San Francisco squarely at odds with
California's fervently conservative criminal-justice establishment and in
the forefront of progressive reform. Diversion is a discretionary policy
that allows the district attorney to defer or suspend prosecution if the
offender agrees to certain conditions -- such as completing a treatment
program. In most California counties, district attorneys use diversion
sparingly, favoring their more traditional emphasis on prosecution,
conviction and incarceration. Diversions constituted only 1.5 percent of
all statewide dispositions in 2000. In San Francisco, however, 18 percent
of all felony dispositions that year --

nearly 1,400 cases -- were resolved through diversion. San Francisco's
diversions exceeded the combined total for Los Angeles, Contra Costa,
Fresno, Orange, San Diego, Sacramento, Santa Clara, Sonoma, Marin, San
Bernardino and San Mateo counties.

With statistics showing recidivism rates of 60 percent to 70 percent among
offenders sent to prison or jail, San Francisco's more sensible approach
clearly yields the greatest public benefit. By diverting large numbers of
low-level offenders, San Francisco sharply reduced its prosecution levels
and reduced recidivism rates. For example, San Francisco's drug diversion
program registered a repeat-offense rate of 12 percent, while the
first-offender prostitution program had a 3 percent recidivism rate. In
most jurisdictions, thousands of low-level or nonviolent offenders are
incarcerated each year and then simply cycled back into the community with
little effort made to ensure against their return.

Diversion and treatment programs are also fiscally responsible. The average
adult diversion program costs less than $1,200 a person, while
incarceration costs can exceed $40,000 for one offender. The 1,400 felony
cases Hallinan sent to diversion last year cost about $1.7 million. Had the
offenders been sent to jail, the cost would total more than $20 million. In
an era of shrinking public resources, reducing excessive incarceration is
smart crime policy.

When Hallinan was first elected, many of his conservative opponents in the
criminal justice community smugly predicted that San Francisco would now
become a haven of criminal activity. Instead, San Francisco registered the
most dramatic and consistent crime-rate reductions in the state. Between
1995, the year Hallinan was elected, and 2001, the overall California Crime
Index (which measures the felony crime rate) fell 36 percent statewide; but
in San Francisco it fell 52 percent -- more than any other county. In
violent crime,

the gains were even greater: San Francisco showed a 60 percent reduction,
compared to the statewide average of 37 percent.

Progressive criminal justice reforms instituted in San Francisco during
Hallinan's tenure as district attorney reflect a sound, reasonable and
compassionate alternative to the arrest, conviction and incarceration
ideology that drives most California prosecutors. San Francisco, with
Terence Hallinan as district attorney, has shown that offender treatment
and rehabilitation are a superior path toward a safer society.

Daniel Macallair is the executive director of the Center on Juvenile and
Criminal Justice and lecturer in the Criminal Justice Department at San
Francisco State University.