Navigating Anticipatory Anxiety: Identifying Key Factors and Strategies in the Development of Gun Diversion Programs

Background: Diversion programs are increasingly being implemented in the criminal legal system; however, most programs exclude individuals with a charge deemed “violent,” or any gun-related offenses. One notable exception is the recent emergence of Prosecutor-led Gun Diversion Programs (PLGDP’s), which offer diversion from prosecution for eligible individuals with a gun-related charge (typically illegal possession) and provide an opportunity to engage in community-based services. PLGDP’s represent a departure from treating all gun-related charges with a uniform prosecution/punishment approach; as such, PLGDP development represents a case study of how criminal legal actors can move away from entrenched carceral logics and toward more responsive approaches. This paper presents a multisite qualitative analysis of the context in which PLGDP’s are initially conceived, developed, and implemented.

Methods: We conducted qualitative interviews with 24 PLGDP professionals across five sites that have recently developed PLGDPs. Interview participants included prosecutor staff (lead prosecutors, administrators, and line prosecutors) defense attorneys, consultants, and PLGDP service providers. Interviews focused on PLGDP development processes, and thematic analyses were employed to identify themes related to contextual factors and strategies utilized in the context of PLGDP development.

Results: Qualitative analyses resulted in two themes related to the context of PLGDP development: Motivations, including avoiding the over-criminalization of young Black men and interrupting trajectories toward gun violence; and Politics, including local/state laws and the perceived need for buy-in from various system actors. PLGDP professionals described what we term “anticipatory anxiety” in navigating their motivations for PLGDP development with the local political context. A central theme of Differentiation emerged as an essential process in PLGDP development and implementation. Differentiation includes a recognition that not all gun-related offenses are the same in terms of type, intensity, and potential threat to community safety. Differentiation, then, introduces the possibility that some charges/people could be considered for diversion, and factors relevant to differentiation were mobilized in determining PLGDP eligibility based on objective criteria (i.e. exclusionary past/current charges) while subjective criteria included assessments of potential participant behavior (i.e. attitudes toward arresting officer, perceived willingness to change, level of contrition). As PLGDP professionals employed differentiation, they described initial, more conservative approaches to diversion as well as aspirational approaches that they hope to implement as their PLGDPs gain acceptance. In other words, they articulated a differentiation between initial and long-term approaches to gun diversion.

Conclusions/Implications: The PLGDP development process is complex and fraught with potential pushback both within and outside of the criminal legal system. This paper highlights ways in which some prosecutors’ offices navigate these tensions in order to expand diversion programs to include charges and people previously excluded. By identifying key contextual factors and strategies employed in PLGDP development, this study provides insights into how the criminal legal system can move away from incarceration and punishment-based approaches for a growing array of charges, while also attempting to provide more responsive services to address issues of community safety and gun violence.