Today, state auditors released an audit of the state’s Department of Criminal Justice’s (DCJ) prosecutor-led diversion programs for family violence offenders. The audit found numerous concerns with DCJ’s diversion process, finding department officials to have improperly documented and followed diverted cases, and to have frequently diverted offenders to improper programming.

“Our audit found the Division of Criminal Justice did not comply with statutory requirements for family violence treatment referrals and had significant deficiencies in its eProsecutor case management system,” read the audit. “We also noted DCJ lacked consistent documentation practices for tracking offender compliance with treatment programs.” 

The deficiencies noted by the auditors were not only limited to DCJ. The auditors also found that the Family Domestic Violence Criminal Justice Response and Enhancement Advisory Council (the Council) has been approving domestic violence treatment programs on behalf of the state, without the statutory authority to do so. The Council also does not have any written policy to guide this approval process, nor any guidelines which providers must follow.

The auditors studied DCJ’s prosecutor-led diversion practices from the years of 2021-2023. The audit defined diversion programs as treatment programs which allow “offenders to engage in activities such as community service, counseling sessions, and domestic violence treatment.” After completion of these programs, prosecutors issue nolles, which is a formal statement declaring that the prosecutor will no longer pursue the case.

Typically, when issuing a nolle in diverted family violence cases, prosecutors are supposed to first refer the cases to the Judicial Branch’s Family Services division. To nolle a case without that referral, prosecutors are required to state their reasoning in open court. Furthermore, DCJ is required to provide a reason in eProsecutor, the department’s case management system, as to why cases are nolled. The auditors found that DCJ frequently did neither.

The auditors reviewed case files and transcripts for fifteen of approximately 5,000 family violence cases provided to them by DCJ, and found that in five of them, prosecutors failed to disclose the reason for their nolle in open court. Additionally, in seven of these cases, prosecutors referred the accused to a non-approved domestic violence treatment program. In only three cases were accused offenders diverted to an approved program.

While the auditors only reviewed case files for 15 family violence cases, they reviewed all 10,165 cases in eProsecutor that were nolled over the audit period, and found that almost half of the nolled cases, 5,000 of them, were improperly documented in the system. DCJ failed to record the reason as to why these cases were nolled, making it impossible to see how many were nolled for the purpose of prosecutor-led diversion.

“DCJ did not have a policy to ensure adherence to this state statute during the audited period,” read the audit. “DCJ also could not determine how many nolled cases received domestic violence treatment based on the electronic record. In addition, eProsecutor could not report the number of cases referred to community domestic violence treatment providers, whether the treatment was completed, and which family violence treatment providers were outside of the Judicial Branch programs.”

The auditors noted that this “reduces accountability and consistency in offender treatment and prosecutorial practices, potentially compromising victim safety and effective offender rehabilitation.” DCJ officials agreed with the finding and said the agency updated its system in May 2024 so that prosecutors are now required to note their compliance with state law and confirm that the nolle was entered on the record.

The auditors also found that DCJ failed to properly track and ensure that offenders referred to diversion programs actually completed them, and does not have proper controls to ensure that offenders are referred to legitimate programs.

“DCJ lacked consistent documentation practices for tracking the compliance of family violence offender treatment programs,” read the audit. “DCJ lacks procedures to ensure community treatment providers report and communicate offender treatment compliance, concerns, and completion.”

The auditors reviewed 15 family violence cases in which offenders were diverted to providers not contracted by the Judicial Branch’s Court Support Services Division, and found that in ten of these cases, there was no documentation to prove the offenders completed their treatment.

Typically, in prosecutor-led diversion cases, offenders themselves are made to find their own treatment programs, and inform the prosecutor via a letter. Prosecutors told the auditors that “these letters are sometimes light in content, do not have enough details to confirm the offender’s treatment and often do not appear reputable.” The audit noted that in such instances, prosecutors would usually call the program to determine their validity.

“Prosecutors also indicated DCJ has not standardized the process for submitting completion letters, resulting in various forms of documentation,” read the audit. “The absence of systematic documentation reduces the assurance offenders are completing necessary rehabilitative programs. This inconsistency limits the division’s ability to hold offenders accountable, potentially affecting public safety and undermining the intended outcomes of treatment programs.”

The auditors found that prosecutors often signed off on treatment programs that are insufficient for the crime the offender was charged with. The auditors determined that this was due both to insufficient availability for more specific programming and a lack of programmatic knowledge among prosecutors.

“DCJ case data and interviews with prosecutors and stakeholders revealed that prosecutors often opted for general counseling or anger management programs to resolve domestic violence offenses that do not align with the Connecticut Domestic Violence Offender Program Standards,” read the audit. “Aside from apparently violating the domestic violence standards, stakeholders expressed concern about using anger management or substance use treatment in lieu of domestic violence treatment.”

The auditors also found that the Council’s approval process for providers was insufficient and inconsistent. The auditors contacted Council-approved providers and found that the Council’s approval process “varied.”

“One provider told us that the council did not interview them,” read the audit. “Two other providers believed that the council interviewed them because their programs deviated from the standards. Council members acknowledged they did not interview all applicants.”

Furthermore, the auditors found the Council lacked quality assurance measures, failed to thoroughly search for availability amongst new providers, and failed to properly vet pre-approved providers when the time came to reapprove them.

“Program participants could be receiving treatment that does not meet the Domestic Violence Offender Program Standards,” read the audit. “Inappropriate counseling may have detrimental effects on the client, which could contribute to continuing harmful behaviors. For criminally involved individuals who receive treatment as a condition of their sentence, their treatment may not be meeting the goals of the criminal justice system.”

Ultimately, the audit made six recommendations for improvements, four of which are for DCJ to implement and two of which are for the Council. DCJ released a statement in response to the audit, in which it addressed several of the findings.

In the statement, DCJ said that it has updated its case management policy and created and approved a treatment program compliance form to ensure that diverted offenders are sent to state approved programs and that proof of their compliance with these programs is standardized. Additionally, the department claims that it “continues to offer regular training to employees on domestic violence-related issues, including the availability and appropriateness of different types of treatment providers.”

“The Division of Criminal Justice is committed to collaborating with community stakeholders and maintaining its active role on the Domestic Violence Criminal Justice Response and Enhancement Advisory Council to discuss and assess issues related to family violence cases, including assessing treatment provider gaps and further developing a wider network of approved domestic violence treatment providers,” concluded the statement.

Editors Note: This article was updated to include the DCJ statement in the last two paragraphs

Republish This Story

Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.