{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.014973262032085561, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.541958041958042, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Sex Discrimination in the Workplace

ability to connect with treatment, such as transportation, housing, substance use, social supports, case management, and the like. A defendant who may be unable to address all of these other factors may struggle to participate fully in the court diversion program. The salient point then becomes understanding how those factors influence “successful” completion of diversion programming and allow for eligibility of dismissal of charges. The diversion bill does not mandate explicitly the provisions for programming needed to adequately address factors that may contribute to or exacerbate mental illness or pose barriers to treatment. These provisions are necessary to ensure that all defendants are given equal opportunities to be successful. The most concerning dilemma for providers is understanding the burden of responsibility for “satisfactory” completion of treatment. A defendant may lack the resources to resolve treatment barriers adequately and these resources may not be addressed through the court diversion program (which they often are not). Such cases present the question of whether the defendant is responsible for an unsatisfactory treatment program or the system is responsible for failing to provide necessary resources to ensure success. An ethics dilemma emerges in which the clinician responsible for reporting to the court must either determine success by factoring in individual barriers or must use the same standard of successful treatment for all defendants, regardless of circumstance. In this case, the court highlights the cost-savings of providing treatment to defendants versus incarcerating them, but the statute lacks language that guarantees adequate resources to address all components of a defendant’s mental illness. It merely specifies that treatment can be court funded or privately funded.