Chrld Abuse & N&T& Printed in the U.S.A.
Vol. 15, pp. 587-592, All rights reserved.
0145s2134/91 $3.00 + .ca Copyright 0 1991 Pergamon Press plc
I991
BRIEF
COMMUNICATION
INTRAFAMILIAL CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE TREATMENT: PROSECUTION FOLLOWING EXPULSION LORIE A. FRIDELL School of Criminology, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL Key Words-Incest,
Pretrial diversion, Prosecution, Treatment.
INTRODUCTION IN THE DEBATE over the relative efficacies of pretrial and postadjudication diversion of intrafamilial child sexual abuse offenders (see e.g., American Bar Association, 1982; Bulkley, 1982; Burgess, Holmstrom, & McCausland, 1978; Fisse, 1984; Giarretto, 1976; MacFarlane & Bulkley, 1982), concern is expressed regarding whether the state will be successful in prosecuting defendants who fail to comply with the diversion agreement. The American Bar Association’s National Legal Resource Center for Child Advocacy and Protection surveyed prosecuting attorneys throughout the United States regarding prosecutorial practices and policies as they relate to child sexual abuse cases (American Bar Association, 198 1). Two-thirds of the responding jurisdictions report they do not utilize pretrial diversion. One of the reasons cited for nonutilization was concern over the state’s inability to go forward with prosecution in cases where the offender is terminated from treatment for noncompliance with the terms of diversion. One respondent reasoned that an offender failing in a program is probably trying to convince the victim and nonoffending spouse that he is being treated harshly or unfairly. If he successfully gains their sympathy, the child and nonoffending spouse may refuse to testify against him in subsequent criminal justice proceedings. Even without effort on the part of the offender, potential witnesses may become aligned with the abuser-ironically, because of the ability of the treatment program to bring the family closer. The possible effect again is the loss of witness testimony in efforts to resume prosecution. Also, as with any criminal case, a delay in prosecution (such as that effected by a diversion This research was funded by the National Institute ofJustice Grant No. 84-IJ-CX-0070. ily reflect the views and policies of the grantor agency.
The contents do not necessar-
Received for publication April 6, 1989; final revision received October 2, 1989; accepted October 3, 1989. Requests for reprints should be sent to Lorie A. Fridell, School of Criminology, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL 32306. 587
588
Lorie A. Fridell
agreement) can adversely affect evidence: Memories fade and other evidence may lose its potency. An additional issue relevant to resumption of prosecution is addressed by the National Association of Pretrial Services Agencies (1978). In their commentary on performance, standards, and goals for pretrial release and diversion, representatives of this Association maintain that “(diversion) participant(s) should be returned to ordinary criminal justice processing without prejudice” (p. 96). This standard reflects concern that prosecutors and judges may treat an unsuccessfully terminated diversion referral more harshly because of his/her failure within the program. Addressing these two issues, this research will assess the extent to which prosecution is successfully resumed against defendants terminated from the Sacramento County Child Sexual Abuse Treatment Program (CSATP) for noncompliance, and determine whether the final dispositions of these cases correspond with the outcomes of similar cases which were not diverted.
METHOD The Sacramento County Child Sexual Abuse Treatment Program receives referrals to treatment from the Sexual Assault and Child Abuse Unit (SACA) of the Sacramento County District Attorney’s Office. If the SACA supervising deputy, the CSATP staff, and child protective services personnel approve of the diversion alternative for the offender, a contract is drawn up between the District Attorney’s Office and the defendant. An offender will be considered by SACA for diversion if the following are true: ( 1) the offender and victim(s) are within the same family (or “extended” family, i.e., a child of a close neighbor who regularly frequents the offender’s residence); (2) the offender has no excessive record of criminal behavior; (3) the offender has no record of violence; (4) the offender is not psychotic and has no other mental or emotional disorder which would contravene his ability to fully participate in the diversion program; and (5) the offender. . .candidly acknowledges his full responsibility for the sexual misconduct with the victim(s) (Sacramento County Diversion Guidelines). A section of the contract provides for the defendant’s acknowledgment of his responsibility for the sexual acts alleged by the victim(s) and stipulates that the offending party, the victim(s), and other members of the immediate family will actively participate in the CSATP weekly counseling sessions for a period of up to five years. The contract also requires that, during the period the agreement is in effect, the defendant will (1) not commit any child sexual abuse offenses, (2) not reside in the family residence until authorized to do so by CSATP staff, (3) refrain from visiting the victim except as authorized by CSATP staff, (4) be involved in private, individual counseling, and (5) pay all fees (based on individual income) assessed by the treatment program. Both the defendant and his attorney sign the contract. The defendant must have his signature notarized by a notary public. Violation of the terms of the contract can result in expulsion from the treatment program and the resumption of criminal prosecution. If the defendant successfully fulfilis his contractual obligations, the District Attorney’s Office will not institute criminal proceedings for any of the sexual activity with the victim(s) designated in the contract which occurred prior to the date of the formal agreement. Seventeen diversion clients were referred back to the District Attorney’s Office by the CSATP for resumption of prosecution. These defendants .were compared to a group of 63 persons prosecuted by the District Attorney’s Office for crimes related to intrafamilial child
Intrafamilial child sexual abuse treatment
589
sexual abuse. These two groups are subsamples of two larger samples used in a comprehensive research project. These are described below. Data were collected from 221 client files of the Sexual Assault and Child Abuse (SACA) Unit of the Sacramento District Attorney’s Office. All offenders (or defendants) were adults (i.e., over the age of 18) who allegedly had committed a sexual abuse offense with a minor who was either a relative of the adult or a non-relative member of the offender’s household. The sexual abuse consisted of some form of actual physical contact between perpetrator and victim, though many cases also involved noncontact abuse (e.g., exhibitionism, voyeurism, and sexual propositioning). At least some of the abuses occurred while the victim was under the age of 18. The offenders were either related to the victim by blood or marriage, court-appointed legal guardians of the victim, or unrelated residents of the victim’s household. This latter group consists primarily of girlfriends or boyfriends of the victims’ custodial parents. Data were collected during May and June of 1985 from the files of two groups of intrafamilial child sexual abuse defendants: (1) the population of defendants selected by SACA as appropriate for diversion referral, and (2) a sample of defendants charged with abuse who were not diverted. The nondiverted sample consisted of 10 1 child sexual abuse cases referred to the SACA unit in which prosecution against the defendant was pursued. SACA cases were eligible for selection into this group (referred to heretoforth as nondiverted defendants) if they involved the sexual abuse of a minor relative or household member of the defendant.
RESULTS Of the 17 cases returned to the DA for prosecution, 13 had been disposed of by the criminal justice system by the coding period. Four of the remaining cases were pending disposition. One of these cases involved a defendant who had disappeared following expulsion from the CSATP. A warrant had been issued following his disappearance, but no arrest had been made by the coding period (20 months hence). The other three cases were in various stages of processing. The final dispositions of the 13 closed cases are reported below. The charges against the offender who had left the country with his family were dropped. It had been communicated to DA personnel that even if they were to successfully extradite the defendant, his daughter (the victim) would refuse to cooperate with prosecution. All of the remaining 12 defendants pled guilty to criminal charges. At arraignments in lower court, ten pled guilty or nolo contendere to felony charges and one pled guilty to misdemeanor charges. A defendant who originally pled not guilty in lower court was held to answer following a preliminary hearing wherein the victim (the defendant’s stepdaughter) testified as to the abuse. The defendant subsequently pled guilty to one of four felony counts. Sentences The defendant who pled guilty to misdemeanor charges was originally charged with four felony counts. Due in large part to the victim’s “flat refusal to testify,” a guilty plea was accepted by the DA for misdemeanor charges. The defendant was sentenced to three years of probation with seven months of jail a condition thereof. Of the 11 defendants convicted of felony counts, 8 received sentences of probation for 4 or 5 years. Seven of these sentences included jail terms ranging from 2 to 12 months, with a mean
590
Lorie A. Fridell TabIe 1. Sentences for Expelled Clients Who Were Convicted Misdemeanor Conviction Probation Only Probation with Jail State Prison
Felony Conviction
I
1 7
N/A*
3
0
Total &%)
(9 I?%)
Total 1 (8.3%) 8 (66.7%) 3 (25.0%) 12 f 100.0%)
* N/A = Not applicable.
term of 6.7 months. The rem~ni~g three defendant were sentenced to prison for terms of three, five, and ten years (see Table 1). These sentences are comparable to the sentences received by convicted defendants who were not diverted. Seventy-three defendants in the nondive~ed sample were convicted of misdemeanor or felony charges. To enable appropriate comparison, ten nondiverted cases were excluded because, in addition to facing child sexual abuse charges, these defendants were facing other criminal charges. The two groups were compared across various sentencing-related variables-such as the number of victims and the existence of prior criminal recordsand found to be equivalent. (The two groups were compared with regard to the following variables: number of felony charges filed, total number of charges filed, prior convictions, prior jail sentences, prior prison sentences, number of victims involved, seriousness of abuse, and whether or not force was used or threatened during the abuse.) Of the 63 defendants in the nondiverted sample which were convicted, 7 ( 11.1%) were convicted of misdemeanors and 56 (88.9%) were convicted of felonies. (All defendants processed through the SACA Unit were originally charged with felony offenses.) All of those convicted of misdemeanors were placed on probation with jail time a condition thereof. The sentences for the felony convictions are summarized in Tables 2 and 3. Of the 56 (46.4%) persons in the nondiverted sample who were convicted of felonies, 26 were placed on probation for 3 to 6 years (mean = 4.4 years). Twenty-two of these persons were sentenced to one to twenty months in jail as a condition of probation (mean = 7.1 months). Thirty (53.6%) of the 56 were sentenced to prison for an average of 8.1 years. Table 4 compares the expelled and nondiverted groups with regard to whether the conviction was for a felony or a misdemeanor, and the sentence imposed. Of the persons expelled from treatment who were subsequently convicted, 9 1.7% (11 of 12) were convicted of a felony. This corresponds closely with the 88.9% figure (56 of 63) for the nondiverted sample (x2 = 0.00, df= 1, p = n.s.). The second entry in Table 4 compares the two groups with regard to the sentences imposed. Both misdemeanor and felony ~s~ositions are included. Nine (75.0) of the defendants returned to the DA by the treatment program received probation sentences, compared to 33 (52.4%) of the nondiverted subjects. Conversely, 3 (25.0) of the expelled defendants and 30 (47.6%) of the nondiverted defendants were sentenced to prison. The differences between the groups are not statistically significant (chi-square = 2.09, df= 1, p = n.s.>. Table 2. Felony Sentences of Nondiverted Subjects Probation Only Probation with Jai1 Prison
4 (7.1%) 22 (39.3%) 30 (53.6%)
Total
56 ( 100.0%)
591
Intrafamilial child sexual abuse treatment Table 3. Sentence Lengths for Nondiverted Subjects
Years of Probation Months in Jail Years in Prison
Range
Mean
Number
Missing
3-6 l-20 2-21
4.4 7.1 8.1
25 22 29
0
I I
DISCUSSION Of the 17 cases returned to the DA for prosecution, 13 had been disposed of by the criminal justice system by the coding period. The charges against the man who left the country with his family were dropped. The remaining 12 persons pled guilty or nolo contendere to misdemeanor or felony charges; one preliminary hearing was held. Four of the defendants were sentenced to prison and the remaining eight received sentences of probation. All but one of the defendants sentenced to probation received jail time. The case dispositions of the expelled diversion clients were compared with the dispositions of convicted intrafamilial child sexual abuse offenders who were not diverted. There was no significant difference between the two groups with regard to the proportion of felony versus misdemeanor convictions and the type of sentence imposed. As indicated above, one diversion client disappeared following expulsion from the CSATP; another left the country with his family. These circumstances reflect one of the risks of community-based interventions: In releasing defendants, the possibility exists that they will flee the venue. This problem is relevant to the misgivings expressed by prosecuting attorneys when surveyed by the American Bar Association’s Legal Resource Center for Child Advocacy and Protection. As noted above, respondents to this survey specifically expressed concern about whether prosecution would be effective against defendants expelled from treatment. In Sacramento County, convictions were obtained for all of the 12 defendants prosecuted following expulsion. Moreover, the outcomes of the cases were comparable to the outcomes of intrafamilial child sexual abuse cases processed directly through the criminal justice system without initial diversion referral. Like proportions of defendants in the diverted and nondiverted groups were convicted of felonies (versus misdemeanors). Similarly, no difference between the groups was found with regard to sentences imposed. These results indicate that the Sacramento District Attorney is indeed able to secure convictions against persons initially diverted to treatment, and to obtain sentences comparable to other nondiverted offenders. Furthermore, the comparability of outcomes indicates that the expelled diversion clients are not being treated more harshly within the system as a result of their failure in treatment. In accordance with the standards advocated by the National Association of Pretrial Services Agencies, it appears these persons are in fact being “returned to
Table 4. Comparison Outcome Type of Conviction Misdemeanor Felony Sentence Probation Prison * Yates’ correction used.
of Nondiverted and Expelled Conviction and Sentence Nondiverted
Clients Across
Type of
Exuelled
Overall
Sie.
11.1% 88.9%
8.3% 91.7%
10.7% 89.3%
n.s.*
52.4% 41.6%
75.0% 25.0%
56.0% 44.0%
n.s.
592
Lorie A. Fridell
ordinary criminal justice processing without prejudice” Services Agencies, 1978, p. 96).
(National Association of Pretrial
REFERENCES American Bar Association. (I 982). Child sexual abuse and the law. Washington, DC: American Bar Association, National Legal Resource Center for Child Advocacy and Protection. Bulkley, J. (1981). Recommendations for improving legal intervention in intrafamilial child sexual abuse cases. Washington, DC: American Bar Association, National Resource Center for Child Advocacy and Protection. Burgess, A. W., Holmstrom, L. L., & McCausland, M. P. (1978). Divided loyalty in incest cases. In A. W. Burgess, A. N. Groth, L. L. Holmstrom, & S. M. Sgroi (Eds.), Sexual assault of children and adolescenfs (pp. 115-126). Lexington, MA: Lexington Books. Fisse, B. (1984). Incest: A critique of the English criminal law revision committee’s fifteenth report: 1984. Render in law. Adelaide, Australia: University of Adelaide. Giarretto, H. (1976). The treatment of incest: A psychosocial approach. Children Today, 5, 2-5, 34-35. MacFarlane, K., & Bulkley, J. (1982). Treating child sexual abuse: An overview of current program models. Journal of Social Work and Human Sexuality, 1,69-9 I. National Association of Pretrial Services Agencies ( 1978). Performance standards and goals.for pretrial release and diversion: Pretrial diversion. Washington, D.C.: Author.
Vol. 15, pp. 587-592, All rights reserved.
0145s2134/91 $3.00 + .ca Copyright 0 1991 Pergamon Press plc
I991
BRIEF
COMMUNICATION
INTRAFAMILIAL CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE TREATMENT: PROSECUTION FOLLOWING EXPULSION LORIE A. FRIDELL School of Criminology, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL Key Words-Incest,
Pretrial diversion, Prosecution, Treatment.
INTRODUCTION IN THE DEBATE over the relative efficacies of pretrial and postadjudication diversion of intrafamilial child sexual abuse offenders (see e.g., American Bar Association, 1982; Bulkley, 1982; Burgess, Holmstrom, & McCausland, 1978; Fisse, 1984; Giarretto, 1976; MacFarlane & Bulkley, 1982), concern is expressed regarding whether the state will be successful in prosecuting defendants who fail to comply with the diversion agreement. The American Bar Association’s National Legal Resource Center for Child Advocacy and Protection surveyed prosecuting attorneys throughout the United States regarding prosecutorial practices and policies as they relate to child sexual abuse cases (American Bar Association, 198 1). Two-thirds of the responding jurisdictions report they do not utilize pretrial diversion. One of the reasons cited for nonutilization was concern over the state’s inability to go forward with prosecution in cases where the offender is terminated from treatment for noncompliance with the terms of diversion. One respondent reasoned that an offender failing in a program is probably trying to convince the victim and nonoffending spouse that he is being treated harshly or unfairly. If he successfully gains their sympathy, the child and nonoffending spouse may refuse to testify against him in subsequent criminal justice proceedings. Even without effort on the part of the offender, potential witnesses may become aligned with the abuser-ironically, because of the ability of the treatment program to bring the family closer. The possible effect again is the loss of witness testimony in efforts to resume prosecution. Also, as with any criminal case, a delay in prosecution (such as that effected by a diversion This research was funded by the National Institute ofJustice Grant No. 84-IJ-CX-0070. ily reflect the views and policies of the grantor agency.
The contents do not necessar-
Received for publication April 6, 1989; final revision received October 2, 1989; accepted October 3, 1989. Requests for reprints should be sent to Lorie A. Fridell, School of Criminology, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL 32306. 587
588
Lorie A. Fridell
agreement) can adversely affect evidence: Memories fade and other evidence may lose its potency. An additional issue relevant to resumption of prosecution is addressed by the National Association of Pretrial Services Agencies (1978). In their commentary on performance, standards, and goals for pretrial release and diversion, representatives of this Association maintain that “(diversion) participant(s) should be returned to ordinary criminal justice processing without prejudice” (p. 96). This standard reflects concern that prosecutors and judges may treat an unsuccessfully terminated diversion referral more harshly because of his/her failure within the program. Addressing these two issues, this research will assess the extent to which prosecution is successfully resumed against defendants terminated from the Sacramento County Child Sexual Abuse Treatment Program (CSATP) for noncompliance, and determine whether the final dispositions of these cases correspond with the outcomes of similar cases which were not diverted.
METHOD The Sacramento County Child Sexual Abuse Treatment Program receives referrals to treatment from the Sexual Assault and Child Abuse Unit (SACA) of the Sacramento County District Attorney’s Office. If the SACA supervising deputy, the CSATP staff, and child protective services personnel approve of the diversion alternative for the offender, a contract is drawn up between the District Attorney’s Office and the defendant. An offender will be considered by SACA for diversion if the following are true: ( 1) the offender and victim(s) are within the same family (or “extended” family, i.e., a child of a close neighbor who regularly frequents the offender’s residence); (2) the offender has no excessive record of criminal behavior; (3) the offender has no record of violence; (4) the offender is not psychotic and has no other mental or emotional disorder which would contravene his ability to fully participate in the diversion program; and (5) the offender. . .candidly acknowledges his full responsibility for the sexual misconduct with the victim(s) (Sacramento County Diversion Guidelines). A section of the contract provides for the defendant’s acknowledgment of his responsibility for the sexual acts alleged by the victim(s) and stipulates that the offending party, the victim(s), and other members of the immediate family will actively participate in the CSATP weekly counseling sessions for a period of up to five years. The contract also requires that, during the period the agreement is in effect, the defendant will (1) not commit any child sexual abuse offenses, (2) not reside in the family residence until authorized to do so by CSATP staff, (3) refrain from visiting the victim except as authorized by CSATP staff, (4) be involved in private, individual counseling, and (5) pay all fees (based on individual income) assessed by the treatment program. Both the defendant and his attorney sign the contract. The defendant must have his signature notarized by a notary public. Violation of the terms of the contract can result in expulsion from the treatment program and the resumption of criminal prosecution. If the defendant successfully fulfilis his contractual obligations, the District Attorney’s Office will not institute criminal proceedings for any of the sexual activity with the victim(s) designated in the contract which occurred prior to the date of the formal agreement. Seventeen diversion clients were referred back to the District Attorney’s Office by the CSATP for resumption of prosecution. These defendants .were compared to a group of 63 persons prosecuted by the District Attorney’s Office for crimes related to intrafamilial child
Intrafamilial child sexual abuse treatment
589
sexual abuse. These two groups are subsamples of two larger samples used in a comprehensive research project. These are described below. Data were collected from 221 client files of the Sexual Assault and Child Abuse (SACA) Unit of the Sacramento District Attorney’s Office. All offenders (or defendants) were adults (i.e., over the age of 18) who allegedly had committed a sexual abuse offense with a minor who was either a relative of the adult or a non-relative member of the offender’s household. The sexual abuse consisted of some form of actual physical contact between perpetrator and victim, though many cases also involved noncontact abuse (e.g., exhibitionism, voyeurism, and sexual propositioning). At least some of the abuses occurred while the victim was under the age of 18. The offenders were either related to the victim by blood or marriage, court-appointed legal guardians of the victim, or unrelated residents of the victim’s household. This latter group consists primarily of girlfriends or boyfriends of the victims’ custodial parents. Data were collected during May and June of 1985 from the files of two groups of intrafamilial child sexual abuse defendants: (1) the population of defendants selected by SACA as appropriate for diversion referral, and (2) a sample of defendants charged with abuse who were not diverted. The nondiverted sample consisted of 10 1 child sexual abuse cases referred to the SACA unit in which prosecution against the defendant was pursued. SACA cases were eligible for selection into this group (referred to heretoforth as nondiverted defendants) if they involved the sexual abuse of a minor relative or household member of the defendant.
RESULTS Of the 17 cases returned to the DA for prosecution, 13 had been disposed of by the criminal justice system by the coding period. Four of the remaining cases were pending disposition. One of these cases involved a defendant who had disappeared following expulsion from the CSATP. A warrant had been issued following his disappearance, but no arrest had been made by the coding period (20 months hence). The other three cases were in various stages of processing. The final dispositions of the 13 closed cases are reported below. The charges against the offender who had left the country with his family were dropped. It had been communicated to DA personnel that even if they were to successfully extradite the defendant, his daughter (the victim) would refuse to cooperate with prosecution. All of the remaining 12 defendants pled guilty to criminal charges. At arraignments in lower court, ten pled guilty or nolo contendere to felony charges and one pled guilty to misdemeanor charges. A defendant who originally pled not guilty in lower court was held to answer following a preliminary hearing wherein the victim (the defendant’s stepdaughter) testified as to the abuse. The defendant subsequently pled guilty to one of four felony counts. Sentences The defendant who pled guilty to misdemeanor charges was originally charged with four felony counts. Due in large part to the victim’s “flat refusal to testify,” a guilty plea was accepted by the DA for misdemeanor charges. The defendant was sentenced to three years of probation with seven months of jail a condition thereof. Of the 11 defendants convicted of felony counts, 8 received sentences of probation for 4 or 5 years. Seven of these sentences included jail terms ranging from 2 to 12 months, with a mean
590
Lorie A. Fridell TabIe 1. Sentences for Expelled Clients Who Were Convicted Misdemeanor Conviction Probation Only Probation with Jail State Prison
Felony Conviction
I
1 7
N/A*
3
0
Total &%)
(9 I?%)
Total 1 (8.3%) 8 (66.7%) 3 (25.0%) 12 f 100.0%)
* N/A = Not applicable.
term of 6.7 months. The rem~ni~g three defendant were sentenced to prison for terms of three, five, and ten years (see Table 1). These sentences are comparable to the sentences received by convicted defendants who were not diverted. Seventy-three defendants in the nondive~ed sample were convicted of misdemeanor or felony charges. To enable appropriate comparison, ten nondiverted cases were excluded because, in addition to facing child sexual abuse charges, these defendants were facing other criminal charges. The two groups were compared across various sentencing-related variables-such as the number of victims and the existence of prior criminal recordsand found to be equivalent. (The two groups were compared with regard to the following variables: number of felony charges filed, total number of charges filed, prior convictions, prior jail sentences, prior prison sentences, number of victims involved, seriousness of abuse, and whether or not force was used or threatened during the abuse.) Of the 63 defendants in the nondiverted sample which were convicted, 7 ( 11.1%) were convicted of misdemeanors and 56 (88.9%) were convicted of felonies. (All defendants processed through the SACA Unit were originally charged with felony offenses.) All of those convicted of misdemeanors were placed on probation with jail time a condition thereof. The sentences for the felony convictions are summarized in Tables 2 and 3. Of the 56 (46.4%) persons in the nondiverted sample who were convicted of felonies, 26 were placed on probation for 3 to 6 years (mean = 4.4 years). Twenty-two of these persons were sentenced to one to twenty months in jail as a condition of probation (mean = 7.1 months). Thirty (53.6%) of the 56 were sentenced to prison for an average of 8.1 years. Table 4 compares the expelled and nondiverted groups with regard to whether the conviction was for a felony or a misdemeanor, and the sentence imposed. Of the persons expelled from treatment who were subsequently convicted, 9 1.7% (11 of 12) were convicted of a felony. This corresponds closely with the 88.9% figure (56 of 63) for the nondiverted sample (x2 = 0.00, df= 1, p = n.s.). The second entry in Table 4 compares the two groups with regard to the sentences imposed. Both misdemeanor and felony ~s~ositions are included. Nine (75.0) of the defendants returned to the DA by the treatment program received probation sentences, compared to 33 (52.4%) of the nondiverted subjects. Conversely, 3 (25.0) of the expelled defendants and 30 (47.6%) of the nondiverted defendants were sentenced to prison. The differences between the groups are not statistically significant (chi-square = 2.09, df= 1, p = n.s.>. Table 2. Felony Sentences of Nondiverted Subjects Probation Only Probation with Jai1 Prison
4 (7.1%) 22 (39.3%) 30 (53.6%)
Total
56 ( 100.0%)
591
Intrafamilial child sexual abuse treatment Table 3. Sentence Lengths for Nondiverted Subjects
Years of Probation Months in Jail Years in Prison
Range
Mean
Number
Missing
3-6 l-20 2-21
4.4 7.1 8.1
25 22 29
0
I I
DISCUSSION Of the 17 cases returned to the DA for prosecution, 13 had been disposed of by the criminal justice system by the coding period. The charges against the man who left the country with his family were dropped. The remaining 12 persons pled guilty or nolo contendere to misdemeanor or felony charges; one preliminary hearing was held. Four of the defendants were sentenced to prison and the remaining eight received sentences of probation. All but one of the defendants sentenced to probation received jail time. The case dispositions of the expelled diversion clients were compared with the dispositions of convicted intrafamilial child sexual abuse offenders who were not diverted. There was no significant difference between the two groups with regard to the proportion of felony versus misdemeanor convictions and the type of sentence imposed. As indicated above, one diversion client disappeared following expulsion from the CSATP; another left the country with his family. These circumstances reflect one of the risks of community-based interventions: In releasing defendants, the possibility exists that they will flee the venue. This problem is relevant to the misgivings expressed by prosecuting attorneys when surveyed by the American Bar Association’s Legal Resource Center for Child Advocacy and Protection. As noted above, respondents to this survey specifically expressed concern about whether prosecution would be effective against defendants expelled from treatment. In Sacramento County, convictions were obtained for all of the 12 defendants prosecuted following expulsion. Moreover, the outcomes of the cases were comparable to the outcomes of intrafamilial child sexual abuse cases processed directly through the criminal justice system without initial diversion referral. Like proportions of defendants in the diverted and nondiverted groups were convicted of felonies (versus misdemeanors). Similarly, no difference between the groups was found with regard to sentences imposed. These results indicate that the Sacramento District Attorney is indeed able to secure convictions against persons initially diverted to treatment, and to obtain sentences comparable to other nondiverted offenders. Furthermore, the comparability of outcomes indicates that the expelled diversion clients are not being treated more harshly within the system as a result of their failure in treatment. In accordance with the standards advocated by the National Association of Pretrial Services Agencies, it appears these persons are in fact being “returned to
Table 4. Comparison Outcome Type of Conviction Misdemeanor Felony Sentence Probation Prison * Yates’ correction used.
of Nondiverted and Expelled Conviction and Sentence Nondiverted
Clients Across
Type of
Exuelled
Overall
Sie.
11.1% 88.9%
8.3% 91.7%
10.7% 89.3%
n.s.*
52.4% 41.6%
75.0% 25.0%
56.0% 44.0%
n.s.
592
Lorie A. Fridell
ordinary criminal justice processing without prejudice” Services Agencies, 1978, p. 96).
(National Association of Pretrial
REFERENCES American Bar Association. (I 982). Child sexual abuse and the law. Washington, DC: American Bar Association, National Legal Resource Center for Child Advocacy and Protection. Bulkley, J. (1981). Recommendations for improving legal intervention in intrafamilial child sexual abuse cases. Washington, DC: American Bar Association, National Resource Center for Child Advocacy and Protection. Burgess, A. W., Holmstrom, L. L., & McCausland, M. P. (1978). Divided loyalty in incest cases. In A. W. Burgess, A. N. Groth, L. L. Holmstrom, & S. M. Sgroi (Eds.), Sexual assault of children and adolescenfs (pp. 115-126). Lexington, MA: Lexington Books. Fisse, B. (1984). Incest: A critique of the English criminal law revision committee’s fifteenth report: 1984. Render in law. Adelaide, Australia: University of Adelaide. Giarretto, H. (1976). The treatment of incest: A psychosocial approach. Children Today, 5, 2-5, 34-35. MacFarlane, K., & Bulkley, J. (1982). Treating child sexual abuse: An overview of current program models. Journal of Social Work and Human Sexuality, 1,69-9 I. National Association of Pretrial Services Agencies ( 1978). Performance standards and goals.for pretrial release and diversion: Pretrial diversion. Washington, D.C.: Author.
