Clients Using Diversion Services

BounceBack Bracket Diversion Clients

Over the years, Bracket’s clients have enjoyed the highest success rates and the fewest problems for their constituents. Jurisdictions large and small, in every part of the country trust their programs to Bracket. Want a reference? We can recommend every one of our clients because we know they will all recommend us. Give us a call, we probably have existing clients about your size and with programs similar to yours. 

In the meantime, here are some case studies that could help direct you to a current client with needs similar to yours.

Case Study – San Diego, California

Bonnie Dumanis

The highest standards…

In 2005, Bonnie Dumanis decided to restart what had become a moribund bad check diversion program. A few years prior to Bonnie taking office, the county had dismissed their outsourcing vendor and the prosecutor’s bad check program had disappeared. When Bonnie’s office issued an RFP to prospective vendors, ar first, BounceBack* declined to bid on the requested specifications. (The RFP had been developed from the only model the county was familiar with – the one they had previously gotten rid of.) But BounceBack offered its model and won the contract. Eight years later, San Diego is one of our exemplary clients. It’s still a great match. Contact us to find out why BounceBack refused to submit a proposal for the original RFP.  

*In 2005, BounceBack had not yet expanded to include Bracket. Our name was simply BounceBack.

Case Study – Edwards County, IL


Large or Small…

Edwards County is situated in the southeastern portion of Illinois. The county has been through some changes. When it was created in the early 1800’s Edwards County took up 40% the state. However, by 1824 some major subdivisions reduced the county to less than one half of one percent of the state’s geography – comparatively small. The total population is also proportionately small – fewer than 7,000 residents out of the state’s total population of 12.5 million.

With those demographics, Edwards County is never going to have a high volume of bad check writers and most companies overlook (or actively avoid) such jurisdictions in favor of their larger cousins that can generate significantly larger profits. But at BounceBack Bracket, profit is not the only business goal.

So, in late 2011, when Michael Valentine, the State’s Attorney in Edwards County contacted BounceBack Bracket seeking way to outsource the administration of his bad check diversion program, we said, “Of course, we’re happy to help….” Since that date, BounceBack Bracket has been a part of a very successful program.

Clearly, Edwards County could never fully support BounceBack Bracket by itself. The profit margin for a county of 7,000 is razor thin. But thin or not, Edwards County receives the same high level of service as all our clients. Since Mike Valentine’s Check Enforcement Program began we have made several refinements so his staff could be relieved of the time-consuming and resource-sapping activities associated with managing diversion program.

Case Study - Hampton, VA


Linda Curtis has always been out front on things.

Recognized as one of Virginia’s leading Commonwealth’s Attorneys, Curtis was often the prosecutor that others looked to when a legal question arose. When a controversial issue was being discussed or a prosecutor’s standards and practices were challenged, Linda Curtis was involved and informed. When a new, idea came along, she was one of the first to research it and determine its value.

BounceBack Bracket approached Linda (and various other prosecutors in Virginia) with the idea of administering her bad check diversion program. She spent a good deal of time studying all the components of the idea, potential problems and benefits of such a venture and how it would impact her office. Her conclusion was that all the factors were positive.

Linda’s jurisdiction, the City of Hampton, was one of the first to initiate a BounceBack Check Enforcement Program. Soon, other prosecutors in Virginia had modeled their programs after hers. For more than 10 years, BounceBack has been the standard in the state of Virginia and Virginia has exhibited some of the most successful bad check diversion programs in the country. But Hampton’s prosecutor didn’t stop there.

When BounceBack introduced its Bracket division in 2010, Linda Curtis was one of the first prosecutors to adopt it for her jurisdiction, starting with shoplifting offenders. Even though Virginia’s Commonwealth’s Attorneys are not mandated to handle misdemeanor offenders, the benefits to her community were obvious to her. And Linda’s decision paid off – by the end of 2012, 765 offenders had successfully completed their diversion program or are actively in the process.

“I believe in giving people a second chance – especially young offenders,” said Curtis, “Diversion programs do that. People who can turn their lives around are given a chance, and the help, to do it. Diversion programs take a burden off of my office and help offenders succeed at the same time.” Clearly, it has worked in Hampton, Virginia. The success rate for offenders who chose to complete a diversion program is excellent. The “revolving door” for misdemeanor offenders has been slowed dramatically.

In 2012, Linda retired from her post as Commonwealth’s Attorney, leaving a legacy that any prosecutor would be proud of. The torch was passed to Anton Bell who has already expanded the diversion programs. It seems he agrees that BounceBack Bracket programs are a real benefit for his jurisdiction and is willing to take a leadership position on that point.

Case Study - Bristol County, MA


“I want to do a head-to-head competition.”

That was how Paul Walsh determined which vendor he would hire to help his office with their bad check diversion program. It is the only such study we are aware of in which two companies vied for a jurisdiction’s program at the same time.

Prosecutor Walsh assigned one third of his jurisdiction to BounceBack, one third to our competition and he left one third “open” so that the bad check in that portion of the county were handled with the resources within his office. His study was blind in the sense that no information about the two vendors was shared. Check writers of course did not know one vendor from another since neither company’s information is included in the administration of a prosecutor’s program.

Walsh ran the parallel programs for approximately a year to see which performed better. He compared all the key indicators such as restitution rates but he also looked at levels of service – measured by the problems that were encountered but his office and the victims his office was helping.

We are happy to say that after the year-long competition, BounceBack was the prosecutor’s choice.

Walsh concluded it was an easy decision, “BounceBack’s restitution rates were substantially higher and we found their staff was much more responsive to our needs and especially the need of the smaller, local merchants in Bristol County. My First Assistant was in charge of the project and he felt that, with BounceBack, he could trust that everything would get done – on time and properly.”

Bristol County is still a client, receiving the same high level of service and results.