AUDITORS’ REPORT

PERFORMANCE AUDIT
Division of Criminal
Justice’s Prosecutor-Led
Diversion Practices for
Family Violence Offenders
CALENDAR YEARS ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2021, 2022, AND 2023

STATE OF CONNECTICUT
Auditors of Public Accounts

JOHN C. GERAGOSIAN CRAIG A. MINER

State Auditor State Auditor
 CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................................................................... 3

A B B R E V I A T I O N S ............................................................................................................................................... 4

S T A T E A U D I T O R S ’ F I N D I N G S A N D R E C O M M E N D A T I O N S .................................................. 5
The Division of Criminal Justice did not Comply with Nolle Requirements for Family Violence Cases . 7

The Division of Criminal Justice’s Case Management System Reporting was Deficient......................... 10

The Division of Criminal Justice did not Consistently Document Completion of Treatment for Domestic
Violence Offenders ............................................................................................................................................. 14

The Division of Criminal Justice’s Prosecutorial-led Diversion of Domestic Violence Offenders to Non-
approved Community Providers Does Not Adhere to State Standards .................................................... 17

The Approval Process for Community Treatment Providers is Insufficient................................................ 20

The Domestic Violence Advisory Council Appears to be Acting Beyond its Legal Authority ................ 22
O B J E C T I V E S , S C O P E , A N D M E T H O D O L O G Y ............................................................................ 25

P R O G R A M B A C K G R O U N D ...................................................................................................................... 26
 STATE OF CONNECTICUT

AUDITORS OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

STATE CAPITOL
JOHN C. GERAGOSIAN 210 CAPITOL AVENUE CRAIG A. MINER
HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT 06106-1559

July 9, 2025

INTRODUCTION

We are pleased to submit this audit of the Division of Criminal Justice’s Prosecutor-Led Diversion
Practices for Family Violence Offenders for the calendar years ended December 31, 2021, 2022, and
2023. Our audit identified internal control deficiencies; instances of noncompliance with laws,
regulations, or policies; and a need for improvement in practices and procedures that warrant
management's attention.

The Auditors of Public Accounts wish to express our appreciation for the courtesies and cooperation
extended to our representatives by the personnel of the Division of Criminal Justice during the course
of our examination.

The Auditors of Public Accounts also would like to acknowledge the auditors who contributed to this
report:

Lallane Guiao-Seng
Xholina Nano
Scott Simoneau

Scott Simoneau
Principal Performance Auditor

Approved:

John C. Geragosian Craig A Miner

State Auditor State Auditor

Division of Criminal Justice’s Prosecutor-Led Diversion Practices for Family Violence Offenders 2021, 2022, and 2023 3
 ABBREVIATIONS
ABBREVIATION DEFINITION
CCADV Connecticut Coalition Against Domestic Violence
CT Connecticut
DCJ Division of Criminal Justice
FRC Family Relations Counselor
FVEP Family Violence Education Program
GA Geographic Area
CSSD Judicial Branch Court Support Services Division
JD Judicial District
LGBTQ Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgendered, and Queer/Questioning

Division of Criminal Justice’s Prosecutor-Led Diversion Practices for Family Violence Offenders 2021, 2022, and 2023 4
 STATE AUDITORS’ FINDINGS
AND RECOMMENDATIONS
About Family Violence in Connecticut

Over the last few decades, Connecticut has made significant strides in addressing family violence through
the passage of comprehensive laws, structured diversion programs, and robust offender treatment
standards. Connecticut law defines family violence as an incident between family or household members
that results in physical injury or creates imminent fear of physical harm. Importantly, family violence is not
a distinct criminal offense, but a legal designation applied to certain crimes. Family violence offenses
include assault, kidnapping, sexual assault, and breach of peace when committed within a familial or
household relationship. Family violence crimes range in severity from a misdemeanor to a felony charge
depending on the facts of the case. Domestic violence, a subset of family violence, involves intimate
partner abuse with unique emotional and physiological dynamics. In 2023, Connecticut police
departments reported over 16,000 family violence incidents, which represented approximately one-third
of criminal court cases.

Prosecutors play a pivotal role in reviewing criminal cases prior to advancing to trial, offering plea deals,
or recommending diversion programs. Prosecutors also have the discretion to utilize prosecutor-led
diversion when processing a criminal complaint. This approach allows offenders to engage in activities
such as community service, counseling sessions, and domestic violence treatment. Upon the offender
providing adequate proof of their completion of required activities, the prosecutor can then enter a nolle
prosequi (nolle) of the charges. A nolle is a formal entry by the prosecutor declaring their unwillingness
to prosecute a case, or intention not to further prosecute a case. In prosecutor-led diversions, the offender
typically is responsible for finding a community domestic violence treatment provider.

To ensure consistency and quality, Connecticut has statutory standards for community-based domestic
violence treatment interventions. The Domestic Violence Criminal Justice Response and Enhancement
Advisory Council oversees community program standards and maintains a list of approved providers.
Despite the council’s outreach efforts, it has approved only eight agencies and 14 individuals as
community domestic violence treatment providers, which has limited available service. If an offender is
to receive a nolle for a family violence charge and it involves the offender’s participation in counseling or
a treatment program outside of that provided by the Judicial Branch, the law requires that the treatment
must comply with standards set by the council.

Why this Audit is Important

Domestic and family violence affects the victim, families, coworkers, and community. It causes diminished
psychological and physical health, decreases the quality of life, and results in reduced productivity.

The purpose of this audit was to examine the Division of Criminal Justice’s (DCJ) practices regarding
prosecutor-led referrals to community treatment providers in family violence cases and evaluate whether
administrative controls sufficiently ensure such practices comply with statutory requirements and best
practices. We also examined the role of the Domestic Violence Criminal Justice Response and
Enhancement Advisory Council.

Division of Criminal Justice’s Prosecutor-Led Diversion Practices for Family Violence Offenders 2021, 2022, and 2023 5
Results in Brief

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.
We also noted DCJ lacked consistent documentation practices for tracking offender compliance with
treatment programs. In addition, we found the Family Domestic Violence Criminal Justice Response and
Enhancement Advisory Council does not appear to have the statutory authority to approve community
domestic violence treatment providers.

Our evaluation of the Division of Criminal Justice’s Prosecutor-Led Diversion Practices for Family Violence
Offenders disclosed the following recommendations.

Division of Criminal Justice’s Prosecutor-Led Diversion Practices for Family Violence Offenders 2021, 2022, and 2023 6
 Finding 1

The Division of Criminal Justice did not Comply

with Nolle Requirements for Family Violence Cases

Background Family violence continues to be a pervasive public health problem

concerning the public, advocates, and lawmakers. Connecticut’s
intervention practices for family violence arrests have relied on
diversionary programs largely managed by the Judicial Branch’s
Court Support Services Division (CSSD). However, the Office of the
Chief State’s Attorney may offer a prosecution-led diversion option
for domestic violence offenders. These offenders typically find their
treatment providers for this diversion. There were limited efforts to
standardize these community-based interventions until 2015.

In 2015, the legislature adopted the Domestic Violence Offender

Program Standards Advisory Council’s standards through statute,
mandating adherence to specific protocols when handling family
violence cases referred for prosecution. These standards
emphasized structured, evidence-based practices to ensure victim
safety and offender accountability.

Criteria Section 54-56o of the General Statutes prohibits the prosecuting

authority from entering a nolle prosequi 1 for any family violence
charge not referred to the Judicial Branch’s Family Services 2 without
stating the reason(s) in open court. If the reason(s) involves the
offender’s participation in counseling or a treatment program, the
prosecutor must comply with standards set by the Domestic
Violence Offender Program Standards Advisory Council under
Section 46b-38l of the General Statutes.

Division of Criminal Justice’s prosecution standards (4-3.6) requires

prosecutors to record the reason for the prosecutorial led diversion
in the division’s case management system. DCJ should retain a
record of such diversionary program participation as permitted by
law.

Whenever prosecutors dismiss criminal charges by way of a nolle or

its equivalent, prosecution standards (6-5.2) require them to enter
the basis for the nolle in the DCJ case management system.

1
Nolle prosequi is a formal entry by the prosecutor which declares an unwillingness to prosecute a case,
or an intention not to prosecute a case further.
2
Family Services conducts comprehensive assessments of individuals arrested for family violence crimes
and prepares written reports that identify and summarize each client’s needs. Family Services also has
contracts with several organizations that offer programs to defendants that address family violence. These
include the Family Violence Education Program, Explore and Evolve.

Division of Criminal Justice’s Prosecutor-Led Diversion Practices for Family Violence Offenders 2021, 2022, and 2023 7
 Condition The Division of Criminal Justice (DCJ) did not comply with Section
54-56o of the General Statutes and did not meet prosecutorial
standards for recording related data into its eProsecutor case
management system.

In our review of court transcripts, case files, and audio files we found
that in 33% of disposed family violence cases (five of the 15 audio
recordings), prosecutors did not state the reasons for the nolles in
open court. Of the 15 physical family violence case files reviewed,
which required the offender’s treatment meet certain standards, we
found:

• 47% (seven cases) were referred to nonapproved

domestic violence offender treatment and may have
received other ancillary treatment such as counseling,
mental health, and substance abuse.

• 33% (five cases) lacked treatment provider information.

• 20% (three cases) received treatment from an approved

domestic violence offender treatment provider, or its
equivalent.

We also noted DCJ did not comply with the prosecutorial standards
to record diversion program participation in eProsecutor, including:

• Approximately 5,000 of 10,165 (49%) nolled

dispositional events for 2021 through 2023 that had no
electronic data to explain the reason for the nolle; and

• Of the cases with a recorded reason for nolle, DCJ did

not record electronic data for family violence treatment
or counseling as its reason.

DCJ did not have a policy to ensure adherence to this state statute
during the audited period. 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.

Context DCJ provided us with a list of approximately 5,000 family violence

cases that were not referred to Family Services and were nolled
between July 2022 through December 2023 to test for compliance
with the statutory requirement that before a prosecuting authority
enters a nolle for any family violence charge not referred to the
Judicial Branch’s Family Services, the prosecutor must state the
reason(s) in open court. We decided to limit our selection to cases
from one calendar year and randomly chose 15 cases from a total of

Division of Criminal Justice’s Prosecutor-Led Diversion Practices for Family Violence Offenders 2021, 2022, and 2023 8
 3,157 cases the courts disposed of in 2023. We worked with Court
Transcript Services to get audio records of the sample group.

DCJ provided us with a list of over 10,000 family violence cases that
the courts did not refer to CSSD Family Services and were nolled
between 2021 through 2023. However, only 2,700 cases had a
reason for nolle and notes in the memo field in eProsecutor. We
further narrowed down the cases to 2,380 by filtering the memo field
for cases with some indication the offender participated in
counseling, domestic violence treatment, diversion programing,
sought a private provider, or other type of treatment. We
judgmentally selected and reviewed case files for 15 of these
domestic violence cases and whose records were physically
available.

Effect Failure to comply with statutory requirements reduces accountability

and consistency in offender treatment and prosecutorial practices,
potentially compromising victim safety, and effective offender
rehabilitation.

Cause DCJ implemented the eProsecutor case management system fiscal

year 2021 and did not originally intend to track statutory compliance
through the system.

Recommendation The Division of Criminal Justice should develop internal controls and
updates to eProsecutor to:

a.) Document and monitor compliance with Section 54-56o of

the General Statutes.

b.) Ensure compliance with prosecutorial standards requiring

the recording of certain information in eProsecutor.

Agency Response “The Division agrees with this finding. The DCJ agrees that in the 15
family violence transcripts reviewed by the auditors, 5 of the cases
were missing treatment provider information. DCJ provided the
auditors with a list of almost 3,157 family violence cases disposed in
2023. The auditors correctly acknowledge that the 15 selected court
transcripts they reviewed are not a representative sample of the
entire universe of 2023 family violence cases. The reviewed sample,
while small, does show that provider information is not being
retained in every file and some nolles are not noted on the record as
required.

In May of 2024, DCJ updated its eProsecutor Case Management

System policy related to the eProsecutor worksheet used to collect
certain statutorily required data. Prosecutors now must note their
compliance with CGS §54-56o and confirm that the nolle was
entered on the record. The Division also provides continuing

Division of Criminal Justice’s Prosecutor-Led Diversion Practices for Family Violence Offenders 2021, 2022, and 2023 9
 education in this area to prosecutors who specialize in family
violence prosecution and to newly hired Deputy Assistant State’s
Attorneys. In 2024 alone, this issue has been a significant topic on
three occasions in Domestic Violence related training and
reinforced during weeks long continuing education for newly hired
prosecutors.

The DCJ will also work through its Operations Committee to

formulate more specific DV data retention policies as part of its
eProsecutor worksheet. The Division will include a specific data
point on state standard compliant counseling to assure prosecutors
contemplate this requirement when formulating a disposition which
may include a nolle.

These improvements will be enforced by review at the State’s

Attorney and Supervisory Assistant State’s Attorney levels. They may
also be monitored by random audit if provided with additional
personnel. Currently the Division has very few full-time positions
funded for data entry or quality assurance. The Division has
consistently requested additional personnel to execute this critical
function. DCJ has not received any additional state funding for this
purpose. The Division did retain a significant number of part-time
data entry personnel to assist with data collection using Federal
ARPA funds. The impending loss of this funding on January 1, 2025,
will unfortunately require DCJ to terminate these critical
employees.”

Finding 2
The Division of Criminal Justice’s Case
Management System Reporting was Deficient

Background In 2019, Public Act 19-59 established certain data reporting

requirements to bring Connecticut in line with best practices in other
states. In response, DCJ established new data collection software
and policies regarding reporting requirements leveraging existing
court data.

In January 2021, DCJ rolled out the eProsecutor electronic case

management system. eProsecutor enabled prosecutors to shift from
paper to electronic storage of information and produced data for
analysis. Data collected includes detailed victim and offender
information.

Criteria Section 51-286j of the General Statutes requires DCJ to collect and
report disaggregated, case level offender data to the Office of Policy

Division of Criminal Justice’s Prosecutor-Led Diversion Practices for Family Violence Offenders 2021, 2022, and 2023 10
 and Management. OPM must prepare an annual report for the
Criminal Justice Commission. The reported data includes
information related to case dispositions (e.g. nolles), reason for
diversion, victim contact, and other offender information.

DCJ’s prosecution standards (6-5.2) require prosecutors to enter the

basis for a nolle prosequi in the division’s electronic case
management system.

DCJ’s prosecution standards (2-1.2) acknowledge the importance of

capturing, tracking, analyzing, and sharing statewide criminal justice
system data. The standards require prosecutors to comply with all
policies and procedures related to the division’s electronic case
management system.

Data-driven practices are an important component of the fair

administration of justice. This aligns with national prosecutorial best
practices, which support clear user policies with documented
guidelines for data entry to ensure uniform practices across all court
locations.

Condition Our audit found significant deficiencies in eProsecutor and related

information systems that affect the reliability and completeness of
case data.

Incomplete Entry of Statutorily Required Data

Exhibit 1 shows DCJ staff only entered 14% of criminal cases into
eProsecutor in its first year (2021), which increased to 85% by 2023.
DCJ informed us it gradually implemented the eProsecutor system
and reported on progress in dashboards. Despite progress, DCJ did
not include a substantial number of cases, limiting compliance with
Section 51-286j.

Exhibit 1. Statewide Data Entry Rates

(Calander Year 2021 - 2024)
100%
85% 86%
90%
74% 77%
80%
70%
Entry Rate (%)

60%
50%
40%
30% 24%
13% 14% 16%
20%
10%
0%
January July January July January July January July
2021 2021 2022 2022 2023 2023 2024 2024
Date

Division of Criminal Justice’s Prosecutor-Led Diversion Practices for Family Violence Offenders 2021, 2022, and 2023 11
 Reasons for Nolle Lacked Sufficient Clarity for Analysis

The available definitions of offender diversion options in

eProsecutor are not informative, making it difficult to interpret
aggregated reports regarding the reasons a prosecutor entered a
nolle. The system’s dropdown menu for nolle reasons used
ambiguous terms like “prosecutorial discretion,” “other,” and
“counseling,” which accounted for 55% of the approximately 5,000
cases we reviewed with a reason for a nolle. This results in
prosecutors and management making inconsistent and subjective
interpretations.

Lack of Electronic Data Requirements and Validation Gaps

Compromised Analysis

eProsecutor lacked validation measures to ensure completeness,

allowing prosecutors to use non-standardized methods such as
uploading scanned documents without populating structured data
fields. There were also no validation measures for the data fields to
check for errors and no required fields to ensure completeness.

DCJ staff informed us if a prosecutor does not select a nolle reason

or document a memo, it does not mean this information is not
available. Prosecutors may have written the information in the case
file but could have been trying to save time by uploading a scanned
version of the case notes. Since eProsecutor accepts all modes of
data entry the end user is ultimately responsible for putting the
correct values in the fields.

We found DCJ had not produced standardized user policies or

guidance for using eProsecutor for domestic violence cases during
the audited period. Geographic area courts did not clearly and
consistently communicate to employees about proper eProsecutor
usage. Interviews revealed that some staff did not have a complete
understanding of the system's capabilities.

DCJ has a Dual Data Management Process

Prosecutors are using paper case files and transferring certain data
to the eProsecutor. This is because other agencies sending DCJ
information do not provide it in electronic form. The Judicial Branch
does not mandate electronic filing in criminal cases, and only four of
170 police departments send their reports electronically via the
statewide Connecticut Information Sharing System. DCJ intends to
work with other agencies to accomplish more efficient practices
using eProsecutor.

Context We formed our findings based on DCJ case data and staff
interviews. DCJ provided us with dashboard data entry rates for
2021 through 2024, and dispositional data illustrating reasons for
nolles and dispositional data for 2021 through 2023 for 10,165
nolled cases the courts did not refer to Family Services. We used

Division of Criminal Justice’s Prosecutor-Led Diversion Practices for Family Violence Offenders 2021, 2022, and 2023 12
 approximately 5,000 of those cases with a reason for nolle selected
for our analysis. We reviewed available user guides and training
materials for eProsecutor.

Effect These deficiencies impede DCJ’s ability to produce comprehensive

and reliable data, undermining public trust, accountability, and
informed decision making. The lack of standardized data entry
practices and terminology limits the division’s ability to perform
detailed analysis of prosecutorial operations and case flow.

Cause DCJ and other agencies have not facilitated the sharing of electronic
information among the statewide information network that connects
various criminal justice agencies. This limits the extent to which DCJ
can efficiently and effectively receive and record electronic case
information.

DCJ management did not prioritize the development and

implementation of comprehensive data quality assurance protocols
and prosecutors relied on individual record keeping. The division is
continuing its implementation of eProsecutor. In addition, the
organizational structure, with significant independence among
decentralized state’s attorneys, contributed to inconsistent adoption
and data entry practices.

Recommendation The Division of Criminal Justice should:

a.) Establish comprehensive data validation protocols to ensure

the accuracy and reliability of the data in eProsecutor;

b.) Implement standardized terminology and required data

fields to enhance consistency and eliminate subjective
interpretation in case data; and

c.) Ensure all prosecutors consistently follow the established

system standards.

Agency Response “The Division agrees in part with this finding. The DCJ agrees that
reporting of certain statutorily required data was deficient,
particularly at the beginning of the reporting period. The
eProsecutor system referred to in the audit began development in
2018. In 2019, the legislature, with cooperation and support from
DCJ, passed Public Act 19-59 which required DCJ to maintain and
share certain disaggregated criminal justice data with the Office of
Policy and Management. Previously, this data was only maintained
in the tens of thousands of paper files maintained by DCJ. DCJ uses
the eProsecutor system, primarily created as a tool to support the
sharing of information among and between prosecutors statewide,
as the vehicle for this mandated data retention.

Division of Criminal Justice’s Prosecutor-Led Diversion Practices for Family Violence Offenders 2021, 2022, and 2023 13
 The DCJ began the rollout of eProsecutor at the beginning of the
audit’s reporting period. Data retention obviously was far below
current levels due to the procedure implementation issues inherent
in the introduction of an entirely new record keeping process. The
COVID 19 pandemic limited DCJ’s ability to train current staff to use
the system, closed courthouses and prevented DCJ from adding
additional staff.

DCJ has worked tirelessly, within available staffing and funding

limitations, to improve its data collection accuracy and productivity.
The collection metrics have steadily improved from a low of 13% in
2021 to a high of 86% in January 2024. This improvement was
achieved in large measure due to an influx of temporary data entry
employees in G.A. locations. Unfortunately, these employees will be
terminated in the near future due to the loss of Federal ARPA
funding.

It is important to note that currently the DCJ maintains records in

both paper and electronic form. This has effectively doubled the
work of DCJ staff in the near term and for the foreseeable future. The
eProsecutor system was designed to receive criminal justice
information from our partner agencies in electronic form and relieve
DCJ personnel of this function. The extreme limitations of the CISS
system that feeds eProsecutor currently makes those efficiencies
impossible. DCJ has endeavored to capture all data required by P.A.
19-59 and provide access to it by OPM. DCJ does not currently have
the capability to capture in electronic form all the information
currently residing in paper files. DCJ recognizes that capturing the
data mandated by CGS 54-56o in eProsecutor is a best practice and
will implement procedures as outlined in DCJ Response to Finding
#1 in order to improve compliance.”

Finding 3
The Division of Criminal Justice did not
Consistently Document Completion of Treatment
for Domestic Violence Offenders

Background Diversion from the criminal justice system to community-based

programs represents a viable alternative for less-serious offenders.
Ensuring offenders complete court-mandated or prosecutorial-
recommended treatment is crucial for effective case management
and public safety. The Judicial Branch Court Support Services
Division contracted providers submit monthly client reports to
Family Services and Family Services communicates any compliance

Division of Criminal Justice’s Prosecutor-Led Diversion Practices for Family Violence Offenders 2021, 2022, and 2023 14
 concerns to the courts. Best practices in these cases emphasize
monitoring treatment progress and verifying completion to hold
offenders accountable and reduce recidivism. This means the
offender must follow through on their treatment plan, attend all
necessary sessions, and comply with any other conditions.

Criteria Connecticut Domestic Violence Offender Program Standards

specify that treatment programs must address abusive behavior
patterns with intimate relationships and include documented follow-
up to verify program completion.

DCJ’s prosecutor standards (Standard 4-3.4) states that prosecutors

should seek to corroborate that the accused has fulfilled any
conditions appropriately attached to the diversion of the case prior
to entering a nolle prosequi of any charges on the record.

Condition DCJ lacked consistent documentation practices for tracking the

compliance of family violence offender treatment programs.

DCJ lacks procedures to ensure community treatment providers

report and communicate offender treatment compliance, concerns,
and completion. While the Judicial Branch’s Court Support Services
Division’s (CSSD) contracted providers submit regular reports to
Family Services, there is no protocol for obtaining such reports from
non-CSSD community treatment providers.

Our review of 15 non-CSSD family violence case files revealed

limited documentation of treatment provider details, types of
services rendered, and completion status, hindering effective
tracking and analysis. In 15 family violence cases nolled between
2021 and 2023, 10 cases (66%), did not contain clear documentation
that the offender completed their treatment.

Prosecutors informed us that in instances in which there is no

Judicial Branch Family Relations involvement, any provider the
offender sought outside of the Judicial Branch would have to submit
a letter that includes the provider’s information, purpose of the
treatment, and conclusion. They noted these letters are sometimes
light in content, do not have enough details to confirm the offender’s
treatment, and often do not appear reputable. In these instances,
they informed us that the prosecutor usually calls the facility to
determine its legitimacy.

Prosecutors also indicated DCJ has not standardized the process for
submitting completion letters, resulting in various forms of
documentation.

Context We formed our findings based on case data and interviews with
Division of Criminal Justice employees. We interviewed the state’s
attorneys and court staff about the use and operation of the system.

Division of Criminal Justice’s Prosecutor-Led Diversion Practices for Family Violence Offenders 2021, 2022, and 2023 15
 DCJ provided us with a list of over 10,000 family violence cases the
courts did not refer to Family Services and were nolled between
2021 and 2023. We narrowed the list by selecting cases with some
form of treatment noted either in the reason for nolle and/or memo
field. What remained were 2,707 cases, which we further narrowed
down to about 2,380 if there was some indication the offender
participated in counseling, domestic violence treatment, diversion
program, private provider, or other therapeutic treatment. We
judgmentally selected and reviewed manual case files on 15
domestic violence cases whose records were physically available.

Effect 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.

Cause DCJ has relied on discretionary practices by individual prosecutors

which has led to inconsistent adherence to documentation
standards.

Recommendation The Division of Criminal Justice should:

a.) Develop and implement a protocol for monitoring and

documenting treatment completion for providers not
contracted by the Judicial Branch.

b.) Standardize the requirement for providers to submit

completion reports and ensure prosecutors record them in
eProsecutor. In cases in which the courts dispose of cases
before the completion of treatment, DCJ should ensure
eProsecutor includes a status report indicating compliance
to date with treatment requirements.

Agency Response “The Division agrees with this finding. The Division has no authority
to monitor or track compliance with defendants’ private treatment
providers. Unlike CSSD, DCJ has no contract with non-CSSD
community treatment providers. Further complicating this issue is
the fact that defendants have certain statutory privileges and
protections relating to their personal health information and the
treatment and therapeutic interventions they may receive.

The Division will develop and implement protocols, as set forth in

Finding #4, to monitor and document treatment completion for
providers not contracted by the Judicial Branch. One way to
accomplish this would be to create a standardized form for
defendants to use to document non-CSSD community treatment.
Another option would be to create a waiver form for defendants who
engage in treatment with non-CSSD community treatment providers
to fill out that would permit DCJ personnel to communicate with the

Division of Criminal Justice’s Prosecutor-Led Diversion Practices for Family Violence Offenders 2021, 2022, and 2023 16
 providers about the treatment defendants receive in connection
with a pending criminal matter. In line with the substantial
improvements DCJ already has made in collecting other statutorily
required data points using the eProsecutor system, DCJ will make
appropriate adjustments to its internal policies and procedures to
ensure that documentation relating to non-CSSD treatment
received in connection with a case involving family violence charges
is uploaded and retained in the Division’s electronic case filing
system.”

Finding 4

The Division of Criminal Justice’s Prosecutorial-led

Diversion of Domestic Violence Offenders to Non-
approved Community Providers Does Not Adhere
to State Standards

Background Effective treatment requires adherence to standards that address

the unique dynamics of intimate partner violence, focusing on
power and control issues rather than solely on mental health or
substance abuse. Concurrently, prosecutors assess the strength of
the case and legal grounds for further prosecution. Prosecutors may
accept the offender’s participation in treatment programs
recommended by public defenders or private attorneys as a factor
in resolving cases. The completion of such programs can impact
case outcomes, including nolles. Although prosecutors do not
directly refer offenders to treatment, they are responsible for
ensuring any programs meet relevant standards.

Criteria Connecticut Domestic Violence Offender Program Standards

outline that domestic violence treatment must address the specific
patterns of abusive behavior used to exert power and control in
intimate relationships. The standards highlight that while
contributing factors such as substance abuse may exacerbate
violence, they are not the primary cause. Programs must align with
the state standards for prosecutors to accept as valid.

In accordance with DCJ’s prosecution standards (Standard 2-11.1),

prosecutors should be knowledgeable about different community-
based programs to which courts may refer offenders as a prosecutor
led or court based pre-trial diversionary disposition.

Division of Criminal Justice’s Prosecutor-Led Diversion Practices for Family Violence Offenders 2021, 2022, and 2023 17
 Condition There appears to be insufficient availability of approved treatment
programs for domestic violence offenders. We also found
prosecutors are not always knowledgeable about available
treatment programs.

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.

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.

Treatment providers stated that: (1) anger management does not

speak to relationship dynamics, especially with children or partners,
(2) offenders can have post-traumatic stress disorder that drives
violence or substance use can facilitate violence, but if the offender
does not address the underlying issues, domestic violence issues
can arise, and (3) the nature of domestic violence is a belief system
built around power and control.

Interviews with prosecutors also highlighted inconsistency in

practices and understanding of treatment programs that comply
with the domestic violence offender program standards. DCJ staff
indicated there were a limited number of approved providers
statewide and most were primarily located in Hartford, New Haven,
and Bridgeport. However, one approved provider in New Haven
told us she was underutilized and had treatment slots available.
Multiple providers stated that referrals to their programs have
declined, and participants find them through informal means.

Context We interviewed state’s attorneys and treatment providers, court

staff, and stakeholder groups about the use and availability of
community treatment providers. We also examined DCJ
dispositional data for approximately 5,000 family violence cases not
referred to Family Services illustrating reasons for nolles for calendar
years 2021 through 2023 to understand the various treatment
options used by offenders.

Effect Prosecutors’ lack of knowledge and limited availability of approved

treatment providers may undermine the goals of reducing
recidivism and preventing future violence.

Cause DCJ did not adequately inform all prosecutors about the availability
of approved providers. As of October 2024, there were only 14
individuals, and eight agencies approved as domestic violence
treatment providers in Connecticut. There is also a valid question
whether prosecutors should be required to address all offender
treatment needs in criminal case resolutions and if the efficient

Division of Criminal Justice’s Prosecutor-Led Diversion Practices for Family Violence Offenders 2021, 2022, and 2023 18
 administration of justice necessitates DCJ assuming this
responsibility.

Recommendation The Division of Criminal Justices should:

a.) Consider assessing practices to ensure prosecutors

recommend and offenders receive appropriate family
violence treatment, to the extent practical.

b.) Ensure that prosecutors are sufficiently informed about the

availability and appropriateness of different types of
treatment providers.

c.) Collaborate with community stakeholders, including the

Domestic Violence Criminal Justice Response and
Enhancement Advisory Council to assess treatment provider
gaps and further develop a wider network of approved
domestic violence treatment providers.

Agency Response “The DCJ agrees with this finding. The Division of Criminal Justice
has no statutory authority to recommend one treatment provider
over another in criminal family violence prosecutions. These
individuals have already been provided multiple attempts at state
sanctioned family violence counseling through programs such as
FVEP, EVOLVE and EXPLORE. The majority of defendants referred
for further prosecution by the CSSD Family Relations staff are
represented by the Division of Public Defender Services. Public
Defender Social Workers seek out treatment options for their clients
and refer them for treatment. One way to increase the use of state-
approved providers would be for the Division of Public Defender
Services to refer clients only to state-approved providers. Private
attorneys representing their clients may also be required to only
seek out similar treatment. The lack of approved treatment providers
in large portions of the state limits the options afforded to
defendants in those areas. Large portions of the state are family
violence treatment deserts for low income offenders who lack the
means to travel long distances for approved treatment. Prosecutors
in those areas are left with the difficult choice of not incorporating
any counseling or treatment into a case resolution or accepting
some treatment that does not fully comport with state requirements.

Prosecutors choose to nolle family violence matters for a host of

reasons beyond successful counseling. The strength of the
evidence, legal questions, a defendant’s criminal record, and the
victim’s level of cooperation regarding prosecution all may play a
part in addition to the counseling a defendant receives. These
factors in tandem play a role in the individualized decision-making
of the prosecutor in each unique case. This impacts DCJ’s ability to
precisely define terms or decisions in individual cases. This limitation
was also recognized in P.A. 19-59’s requirement that DCJ only
provide disaggregated case level data.”

Division of Criminal Justice’s Prosecutor-Led Diversion Practices for Family Violence Offenders 2021, 2022, and 2023 19
 Finding 5
The Approval Process for Community Treatment
Providers is Insufficient

Criteria Regulating treatment providers is crucial to ensure the highest

quality of care. Best business practices indicate that licensing or
permitting processes include verifying that the applicants meet all
requirements for initial application and subsequent renewals. This
could include reviewing and verifying the applicant’s submitted
information, inspecting their facilities, and investigating their
background to ensure that they are still meeting the standards.

Moreover, the entity overseeing the application process should track

applications and ensure it promptly processes them. It should also
have policies and procedures to maintain a record of the
applications and submitted supporting documents, the screening
process followed and its results, the licenses or permits held, and
other relevant information. It should also have a systematic process
for monitoring approved regulated agencies’ activities to ensure
that they continue to follow applicable requirements.

The domestic violence standards promulgated under Section 46b-

38a of the General Statues outline treatment program content,
delivery, and procedures. They also contain elements of quality
assurance for treatment programs. This includes monitoring and
tracking program modification impacts and outcomes as well as
“provide an in-person, structured process by which direct service
staff can reflect on their practice, improve their skills, address
training and educational needs, gain perspective on the offender
tactics and dynamics, and ensure compliance with program
standards.” In addition, the standards require external observations
of treatment providers to monitor counselor performance and
ensure quality care. They should also ensure that staff complete 12
hours of continuing professional education credits every year.

Condition The Family Domestic Violence Criminal Justice Response and

Enhancement Advisory Council has assumed and performed the
domestic violence treatment provider approval process. Our review
revealed deficiencies in the process. Specifically, we found:

• The council had no written policies and procedures for the

approval process for the applicants or council to follow.
Instead, there are simplified instructions on the approved
provider application form. The application forms are located
on the Connecticut Coalition Against Domestic Violence
(CCADV) website. CCADV is not a state agency and has

Division of Criminal Justice’s Prosecutor-Led Diversion Practices for Family Violence Offenders 2021, 2022, and 2023 20
 maintained this information since the council promulgated
the standards in 2015. The council could not provide data
on the length of the approval.

• The council did not consistently vet treatment providers or

of their information. The council’s practice for interviewing
applicants varied. We interviewed several providers. One
provider told us that the council did not interview them. 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.

• The council did not perform quality assurance measures to

ensure that approved providers continue to follow the
standards. The council did not observe treatment providers
and determine if there curriculum continues to be
appropriate. In addition, the council does not check the
continuing education and training requirements for
approved providers and their staff. Program providers
mentioned that they would like more council involvement to
better assist them in ensuring their programs are consistent
with the latest research on domestic violence treatment.

• The council has not consistently or thoroughly checked for

the reapproval of approved providers or availability of new
providers. Some providers we interviewed told us that the
council contacted them to ascertain if their contact
information was current and they were still in business.
However, the council did not verify that their programs
continued to comply with the standards. The council also
mentioned that in 2023, it tried to contact program
providers to determine if their contact information was
accurate and if they were still in operation. These renewal
efforts have been incomplete and inconsistent.

Context We reviewed various application documents and instructions

available to become an approved provider. We interviewed
treatment providers to document their experience in becoming an
approved provider and council members about their practices and
process for approving providers. As of 2024, there are eight
agencies and 14 individual approved providers.

Effect Program participants could be receiving treatment that does not

meet the Domestic Violence Offender Program Standards.
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.

Division of Criminal Justice’s Prosecutor-Led Diversion Practices for Family Violence Offenders 2021, 2022, and 2023 21
 Cause There is no formal legal oversight structure for the implementation
of Section 46b-38j of the General Statutes. The Family Domestic
Violence Criminal Justice Response and Enhancement Advisory
Council and its precursor have tried to fill a gap in developing a
process to approve domestic violence treatment providers. The
council members are volunteers, and the council lacks adequate
resources to perform this oversight.

Recommendation The Family Domestic Violence Criminal Justice Response and

Enhancement Advisory Council should advocate for legislation to
establish a specific approval process and oversight mechanisms for
community domestic violence treatment providers.

Council Response “We agree with this finding and the recommendations. We believe
the limitations of this process, currently, are due to lack of resources
and funding to properly execute.”

Finding 6

The Domestic Violence Advisory Council Appears

to be Acting Beyond its Legal Authority

Background Section 54-56o of the General Statutes requires that in order to enter
a nolle prosequi for any charge of family violence in exchange for
treatment, a prosecutor must ensure that the treatment complies
with the standards promulgated by the Domestic Violence Offender
Program Standards Advisory Council.

Similarly, under Section 46b-38c(g)(3) of the General Statutes if the

judicial branch contracts with service providers to provide domestic
violence offender treatment programs for offenders referred by the
court, such treatment programs shall comply with the domestic
violence offender program standards promulgated by the Domestic
Violence Offender Program Standards Advisory Council.

Criteria Section 46b-38l(a) of the General Statutes, now repealed,

established the Domestic Violence Offender Program Standards
Advisory Council and promulgated the domestic violence offender
program standards first presented to the Criminal Justice Policy
Advisory Committee on September 25, 2014. Section 46b-38j (3) of
the General Statutes, enacted in 2023, transferred the authority to
the newly formed Family Domestic Violence Criminal Justice
Response and Enhancement Advisory Council to review and make
necessary updates to those standards.

Division of Criminal Justice’s Prosecutor-Led Diversion Practices for Family Violence Offenders 2021, 2022, and 2023 22
 The legislature must expressly authorize the exercise of regulatory
authority, such as permitting or licensing. It typically grants such
authority through enabling legislation. The entity may then develop
regulations that outline the criteria, policies, procedures, and
standards for issuing such permits or licenses.

Condition We found that the Family Domestic Violence Criminal Justice

Response and Enhancement Advisory Council does not appear to
have the statutory authority to approve community domestic
violence treatment providers.

Currently, a non-governmental website provides applications to

become an approved provider. A completed application must be
signed and notarized..

An individual applying to become an approved provider must:

• Be licensed by the Department of Public Health or

supervised by a licensed person.

• Have at least a bachelor’s degree in social science, human

services, or a related field; and

• Complete at least 40 hours of training on domestic violence

and offender services.

An agency applying for approval must:

• Employ both supervisory and direct service staff that meet

the minimum education, experience, and training
qualifications.

• Provide regular and ongoing professional supervision.

• Offer a minimum of 12 continuing education credits or

training to staff.

The required documents are submitted to the council for review.

After the council reviews the application, it informs the applicant of
its approval or rejection in writing.

The current statute grants the advisory council authority to review

and update the domestic violence offender program standards, as
needed. However, it does not appear to expressly enable the council
to act as a permitting authority. Moreover, the written standards
themselves do not indicate and/or designate the advisory council as
the acting authority on the standards. Further, some council
members acknowledged they may have been approving programs
without express statutory authority.

Other states with statutory domestic violence program standards

approach authorization in different ways. In Maine, the Department

Division of Criminal Justice’s Prosecutor-Led Diversion Practices for Family Violence Offenders 2021, 2022, and 2023 23
 of Corrections has the statutory authority to “review and certify
programs that meet the (domestic violence treatment) standards.” In
Indiana, a private agency, the Indiana Coalition Against Domestic
Violence, certifies the domestic violence intervention programs. In
Virginia, which has voluntary domestic violence standards, there are
statutory provisions granting a committee authority to act on
program accreditation.

Context We examined the General Statutes and the statutory history of the
law that created and governed the council. We interviewed council
members about the council’s actions and their opinions regarding
the extent of the council’s statutory authority.

Effect The advisory council’s actions may not be permitted or legally valid.
There is no legal mechanism to approve community domestic
violence treatment providers and ensure they meet their statutory
treatment requirements. Without appropriate authorization, the
state’s attorneys do not have a mechanism to ensure domestic
violence treatment providers are meeting the Domestic Violence
Offender Program Standards.

Cause Interviews with council members suggest they believed a state

agency would have taken years to develop regulations, while the
requirement to become an approved provider went into effect
shortly after June 30, 2015. Council members believed they were
filling the need for a permitting process. They also noted that they
requested state agencies to post the standards on their websites,
but the agencies refused.

Recommendation The Family Domestic Violence Criminal Justice Response and

Enhancement Advisory Council should advocate for legislation to
grant the council or an appropriate state agency the authority to
review and approve community domestic violence treatment
providers.

Council Response “We agree in part with this finding, and we agree with the
recommendations. It was never the intent of the council to be an
entity that would have permitting, licensing and monitoring
authority. We currently do not do this. The intent of the standards
and the council is to ensure that behavior modification treatments
are being provided to offenders of family violence crimes utilizing
best practices instead of anger management (which is not an
appropriate treatment though often used by prosecutors).”

Division of Criminal Justice’s Prosecutor-Led Diversion Practices for Family Violence Offenders 2021, 2022, and 2023 24
 OBJECTIVES, SCOPE, AND
METHODOLOGY
We have audited certain operations of the Division of Criminal Justice’s Prosecutor-Led Diversion
Practices for Family Violence Offenders. The scope of our audit included, but was not necessarily limited
to, the calendar years ended December 31, 2021, 2022, and 2023. The objectives of our audit were to:

1. Examine the Division of Criminal Justice’s practices regarding prosecutor-led community

provider referrals in domestic violence cases, and;

2. Evaluate whether administrative controls sufficiently ensure such practices comply with statutory
requirements and best practices.

Our methodology included reviewing written policies and procedures, financial records, meeting
minutes, and other pertinent documents. We interviewed various DCJ personnel and certain external
parties. We also tested selected transactions. This testing was not designed to project to a population
unless specifically stated.

We obtained an understanding of internal controls we deemed significant within the context of the audit
objectives and assessed whether such controls have been properly designed and placed in operation.
We tested certain of those controls to obtain evidence regarding the effectiveness of their design and
operation. We also obtained an understanding of legal provisions significant within the context of the
audit objectives, and we assessed the risk that illegal acts, including fraud, and violations of contracts,
grant agreements, or other legal provisions could occur. Based on that risk assessment, we designed and
performed procedures to provide reasonable assurance of detecting instances of noncompliance
significant to those provisions.

We conducted this performance audit in accordance with generally accepted government auditing
standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate
evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions
based on our audit objectives.

The accompanying program background is presented for informational purposes. We obtained this
information from various available sources including, but not limited to, interviews, documents, and data
provided by DCJ’s management and state information systems. It was not subject to the procedures
applied in our audit of the program. For the areas audited, we identified:

1. Deficiencies in internal controls;

2. Apparent noncompliance with laws, regulations, contracts and grant agreements, policies, or
procedures; and

3. A need for improvement in management practices and procedures that we deemed to be

reportable.

The State Auditors’ Findings and Recommendations section of this report presents findings arising from
our audit of the Division of Criminal Justice’s Prosecutor-Led Diversion Practices for Family Violence
Offenders.

Division of Criminal Justice’s Prosecutor-Led Diversion Practices for Family Violence Offenders 2021, 2022, and 2023 25
 PROGRAM BACKGROUND
Over the last few decades, Connecticut has made significant strides in addressing family violence through
comprehensive laws, structured diversion programs, and robust offender standards. However, challenges
remain in ensuring statewide consistency, expanding access to certified providers, and transparently
documenting prosecutorial decisions. This audit report evaluates certain aspects of Connecticut’s
statutory and operational framework addressing family violence, with a particular focus on prosecutorial
referral practices for family violence treatment. Related practices including family violence case
processing, pre-trial diversionary programs, and offender intervention standards also inform the audit.
Our audit provides a comprehensive review of the state’s attorney’s approach to referring offenders for
family violence treatment, identifying areas of strength and opportunities for improvement, as well as
providing contextual information to further inform our findings.

Legal Definitions and Framework

Connecticut law defines family violence as an incident between family or household members that results
in physical injury or creates imminent fear of physical harm. However, the law excludes verbal abuse or
arguments unless accompanied by a likelihood of violence. Importantly, family violence is not a distinct
criminal offense, but a legal designation applied to certain crimes. Family violence offenses include
assault, kidnapping, sexual assault, and breach of peace when committed within a familial or household
relationship. Family violence crimes range in severity from a misdemeanor to a felony charge depending
on the facts of the case.

While family violence encompasses a broad range of relationships, domestic violence specifically refers
to situations involving intimate partner abuse. The law describes an intimate partner as a romantic or
sexual partner and includes spouses, boyfriends, girlfriends, people who have dated, or people who were
seeing each other. Domestic violence often involves patterns of coercive behaviors intended to control
or undermine the victim's autonomy and freedom. This distinction underscores the additional
psychological and emotional dimensions of domestic violence that require tailored interventions and
protections. Although criminal charges related to domestic violence fall under the legal rubric of family
violence, the distinction between family violence and domestic violence is critical for those working on
these cases.

Prevalence of Family Violence in Connecticut

Although Exhibit 2 shows reported family violence incidents have declined since fiscal year 2019, it is still
a significant issue in Connecticut, representing a substantial portion of criminal court cases. Nearly one-
third of all criminal court cases in the state are family violence cases. In 2023, according to the Connecticut
Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection, authorities reported over 16,000 family
violence incidents, involving approximately 26,400 offenses.

Division of Criminal Justice’s Prosecutor-Led Diversion Practices for Family Violence Offenders 2021, 2022, and 2023 26
 Exhibit 2. Reported Family Violence Incidents
Have Declined FY 2019-2023
16,700
16,600
16,500
16,400
16,300
Incidents (#)

16,200
16,100
16,000
15,900
15,800
15,700
15,600
2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Fiscal Year

Similarly, the percent of intimate partner arrests has declined slightly as a proportion of total family
violence arrests (Exhibit 3). Nonetheless, intimate partner-related arrests made up the majority of
incidents, representing 76 percent of all family violence arrests in fiscal year 2023. This reflects the
pervasive nature of abuse within romantic relationships. Victimization rates differ across demographic
groups, with women accounting for 67 percent of all victims. Additionally, a weapon was involved in 60
percent of family violence incidents. These statistics highlight the severity of family violence and the need
for robust interventions to protect victims and appropriately and effectively address offender behavior.

Exhibit 3. Intimate Partner Arrest Incidents as Percent of Total

Family Violence Arrest Incidents have Slighlty Declined
FY 2019-2023
78.50%
78.00%
77.50%
77.00%
Incidents (%)

76.50%
76.00%
75.50%
75.00%
74.50%
74.00%
2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Fiscal Year

The Role of the Division of Criminal Justice

The Division of Criminal Justice state’s attorneys are responsible for investigating and prosecuting all
criminal matters, including family violence cases, in Connecticut. DCJ operates in 13 Judicial Districts (JD)
and 17 Geographic Area (GA) courts, each serving specific regions. Judicial Districts hear the most

Division of Criminal Justice’s Prosecutor-Led Diversion Practices for Family Violence Offenders 2021, 2022, and 2023 27
serious cases. Geographic Area courts, which handle misdemeanors and lesser felony matters, hear most
family violence matters. A district state’s attorney, who serves as chief prosecutor, oversees each Judicial
District. A supervisory assistant state’s attorney who reports to the state’s attorney oversees each GA
These offices differ significantly in their resources and capacity. The number of prosecutors in each court
varies, with larger GAs typically having more resources and personnel.

While each district is responsible for prosecuting family violence cases within its jurisdiction, the approach
to handling these cases can differ across GAs. Larger, urban districts may have specialized domestic
violence units that focus on family violence cases, while smaller, rural districts may have fewer resources
and rely on general staff to handle these cases. The level of specialization and resources available can
affect the strategies used by prosecutors, including whether they offer diversion programs. Some districts
may have dedicated family violence dockets to streamline the processing of these cases although not
many courts utilize them.

Prosecutors play a pivotal role in managing family violence cases. Prosecutorial discretion plays a central
role in the handling of these cases. They have the authority to review the facts of a case and decide
whether to maintain, reduce, or drop charges. They also decide whether to offer a plea deal, recommend
bail, how to investigate a case, and assess whether an offender should be offered the opportunity to
participate in a diversion program. In cases involving family violence, this discretion can be an effective
tool to tailor responses to the circumstances of each case, facilitating offender rehabilitation while
ensuring victim safety.

Case Processing of Family Violence Matters

Below is an overview of the processing of family violence cases from arrest to disposition. We summarized
the process and tailored it to describe essentially two tracks for a family violence offender. One track leads
to diversion for the offender through the Judicial Branch’s programs by working with court contracted
providers and/or receiving pre-trial monitoring. This normally occurs first and serves as the primary
diversion track for first time or less serious offenders. Successful completion normally results in Judicial
Branch Family Services’ recommendation for dismissal by the court or the prosecution dropping the
charges. The second track leads to prosecution or prosecution-led diversion through the State’s
Attorney’s office. The offender can be on this track once Family Services determines their participation is
no longer appropriate. The prosecution-led diversion is the subject of this audit.

Mandatory Family Violence Arrests and Assessment

Connecticut law mandates police officers arrest individuals when there is probable cause to believe family
violence has occurred. At the time of arrest, the police classify the charges as family violence-related in
their reports. Under Connecticut law and rules of practice, court clerks receive arrest reports and/or arrest
warrants first and create a paper criminal file, assign a docket number, and enter the case into the criminal
docket for all family violence matters. Once filed, these cases proceed directly to the criminal docket
without initial prosecutorial screening. The court must arraign a person arrested for a family violence
crime on the next sitting day, regardless of whether the court released the person through bail.

The Judicial Branch’s Court Support Services Division’s Family Services reviews all family violence-related
cases. The division’s family relations counselors (FRC) conduct a pre-arraignment risk assessment to
evaluate the likelihood of future violence and determine whether there is a need for protective orders.
The counselor’s written reports identify each offender’s needs for the court. They provide the court with
recommendations on protective orders, pretrial supervision, and referral to pre-trial diversion programs
such as the Family Violence Education Program (FVEP). These recommendations aim to balance the
offender’s rehabilitation needs with the safety of victims and the broader community. The counselors can
decline to accept a case for referral based on factors such as previous family violence arrest or the severity

Division of Criminal Justice’s Prosecutor-Led Diversion Practices for Family Violence Offenders 2021, 2022, and 2023 28
of the current offense. They forward the case to the State’s Attorney for further prosecution when they
decline to accept a case.

Exhibit 4 reveals a significant portion of domestic violence cases in Connecticut courts are not eligible to
receive a full assessment through CSSD for many different reasons, leaving over 10,000 individuals
without immediate intervention services each year. Family relations counselors referred approximately
45% of intakes annually back to prosecutors.

Exhibit 4. CSSD Domestic Violence Case Processing Outcomes (2021 through 2023)

2021 2022 2023

Intakes 24,641 24,268 24,385
Intakes Leading to Assessment 13,200 13,219 13,562
Assessment Completed Leading to Intervention 9,006 8,583 9,329

Judicial Branch Diversionary Program Eligibility

Diversionary programs are a critical component of Connecticut’s response to family violence. The
recommendation to allow participation in a pre-trial diversion program is based on the offender’s
eligibility, which is determined by factors like the severity of the offense, prior criminal history, and
previous participation in the program.

The Family Violence Education Program serves as an entry point for certain first-time offenders. The
program offers counseling and education to address the root cause of abusive behavior. Successful
completion of the program and other special conditions can result in reduced charges, a nolle, or case
dismissals, provided the offender does not commit another offense.

For higher risk or repeat offenders, post-conviction Judicial Branch programs, like Explore and Evolve
programs, provide more intensive interventions. Explore is a 26-week program targeting moderate-risk
offenders, while Evolve spans 52 weeks and focuses on high-risk individuals. These programs emphasize
behavioral accountability and the development of skills for maintaining nonviolent relationships.

Prosecution and Prosecutor-led Diversions

For cases Family Services deems ineligible for further intervention or monitoring, it will refer the case to
prosecutors who will continue to pursue it and advise the offender to seek legal counsel through the
Public Defender’s Office or a private firm. A prosecutor will further review the case by determining what
admissible evidence they can prove beyond a reasonable doubt, assessing risk factors, getting victim
statements, reviewing the family relations counselor’s report, and assessing other pertinent information.
The prosecutors prepare an offer to resolve the case and review it with the victim before presenting it to
the offender or defense attorney. At this point, prosecutors may offer a plea to the charge. Prosecutors
can also utilize prosecutor-led diversion. These diversions are based upon an exercise of the prosecutor’s
discretion. The offender may engage in activities such as community service, attending counseling
sessions, or domestic violence treatment. Upon providing adequate proof of performance, the
prosecutor can then enter a nolle prosequi of the charges. In prosecutor-led diversions, the offender
typically is responsible for finding a community domestic violence treatment provider.

Documentation Requirements for Family Violence Nolles

While Connecticut’s CSSD diversion programs generally rely on court-contracted providers, there are
cases, such as prosecution-led diversions, in which offenders seek treatment outside the court contracted

Division of Criminal Justice’s Prosecutor-Led Diversion Practices for Family Violence Offenders 2021, 2022, and 2023 29
network. Provided the program meets state standards and are appropriate for the offender’s needs,
prosecutors may include this as part of their reason for nolle. Prosecutors should be familiar with the
programs that meet established state standards. A state statute prohibits prosecutors from entering a
nolle on any charge of a family violence crime unless the prosecuting authority states in open court its
reason and, if the reasons include consideration of the offender's participation in a counseling or
treatment program, such counseling or treatment must comply with the Domestic Violence Program
Standards.

Disposition Trends in Family Violence Cases

Between 2021 and 2023, Connecticut courts disposed of 75,265 criminal family violence cases according
to DCJ data. Of these cases, 56 percent were nolled, 27 percent resulted in convictions, and 17 percent
were dismissed. Prosecutors may nolle cases for several reasons, including offenders’ completion of the
formal Family Violence Education Program. In some cases, minor coexisting non-domestic violence
charges are not eligible for dismissal and are therefore nolled at the same time. DCJ provided data
showing most of the nolled cases included referrals to judicial programs. DCJ told us the official paper
files of these cases should better document the reasons for the nolle. However, our findings noted that
parallel electronic documentation of the reasons for nolles that were referred to the State’s Attorneys
often lacked specificity.

Domestic Violence Offender Program Standards

As of 2020, 43 states, including Connecticut, had statutory standards for community-based domestic
violence interventions. Connecticut is one of 19 states with formalized standards in statute or
administrative code. Seventeen states require certification and had an associated enforcement strategy.
In the remaining seven states, standards are suggested best practices without a mandate to follow them.
In these states, no entity is tasked with incentivizing or enforcing their use.

Program standards outline treatment principles and certain program requirements including program
structure and duration, education or training requirements for staff, periodic program reviews or audits,
evidence-based interventions, and data to measure effectiveness. The goal of the Domestic Violence
Offender Program Standards is to ensure domestic violence interventions used as a basis for a disposition
of a criminal case adhere to best practices found in similar Judicial Branch programs (i.e., Explore and
Evolve) and others across the country. The legislature designed the standards to promote consistency
and quality to better hold the offenders accountable, reduce recidivism, and increase victim safety.

Program standards provide an opportunity to evolve and integrate principles of effective intervention for
domestic violence offender programs. The standards define domestic violence offender services (i.e.
batterer intervention) as a “psycho-educational program operating in an individual or, ideally, group
format with trained facilitators focused on those who perpetrate intimate partner violence serving as one
component of a coordinated community response to domestic abuse where the main goals are to
address the ongoing safety needs of victims, hold abusive individuals accountable for their choice to
engage in abusive and/or controlling behavior, and facilitate the development of skills and beliefs to
support a non-violent lifestyle and promote healthy relationships. “

State Advisory Council on Domestic Violence Program Standards

In 2015, legislators established a Domestic Violence Offender Program Standards Advisory Council,
adopted offender program standards into statute, and addressed prosecutors entering nolles in family
violence cases. The legislature tasked a 16-member advisory council to promulgate, review, update and
amend the domestic violence offender program standards. The council was co-chaired by individuals
from the Connecticut Coalition Against Domestic Violence (CCADV) and Judicial Branch Court Support
Services Division.

Division of Criminal Justice’s Prosecutor-Led Diversion Practices for Family Violence Offenders 2021, 2022, and 2023 30
The CCADV website houses the Domestic Violence Offender Program Standards. The council discussed
alternatives, but this appeared to be the best solution, especially as it related to ongoing commitment of
resources. In 2019, the advisory council updated the standards and included an option for a deviation
because some programs may demonstrate effectiveness but have components that do not comport with
all the current Domestic Violence Offender Program Standards.

In 2023, the legislature merged the former council with the Family Violence Model Policy Governing
Council to eliminate the siloes between stakeholders. Public Act 23-136 established the Domestic
Violence Criminal Justice Response and Enhancement Advisory Council and expanded the scope of its
responsibilities and purpose. The council formed a subcommittee responsible for making
recommendations to periodically update the existing standards.

The council established standards for the development and delivery of services primarily for men involved
in heterosexual relationships who have acted abusively toward a partner or spouse and are not meant to
be generalized in whole to other offenders or types of services for family violence offenses. As the
domestic violence standards note, there is little research or best practice model for effective, validated
programs for intimate partner violence by female and lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgendered, and
queer/questioning (LGBTQ) offenders.

Council Approval and Provider Reviews

State legislation establishes a framework for having approved domestic violence offender program
community providers. The advisory council assumed the role of approving providers. In its efforts, it
produced application forms and eligibility requirements for agencies and individuals. The council
updated a protocol regarding the approval of new providers in 2022. This resulted in a more formal
process for acceptance and the issuance of certificates that agencies could display or possess for future
reference or inquiries. Once the council receives an application, it is emailed to all council members for
review and response. The application is approved or rejected by a majority vote of the full advisory
council.

The council updated the current Domestic Violence Program Standards Provider list (both agency and
individual) for existing providers. The council added several new providers to the approved list in 2022.
This was the first time the council updated the list of providers.

As of 2024, there are eight agencies, and 14 individuals who are approved providers located primarily
within or around the major urban centers of Hartford, New Haven, and Bridgeport. We disclosed our
concerns about the council’s activities in related findings. The legislation and standards emphasize that
since approved domestic violence offender programs operate outside of Judicial Branch funding and
oversight, they need to be accountable in a manner consistent with victim safety, security, and self-
determination. They must also consider the effective and prompt service delivery designed to eliminate
an offender’s violent and abusive behavior.

Offenders charged with family violence crimes may only use approved providers. Each provider must
adhere to a formal provider agreement, which must be reviewed, signed, and notarized.

Division of Criminal Justice’s Prosecutor-Led Diversion Practices for Family Violence Offenders 2021, 2022, and 2023 31