Latest News

The Gun Accountability Program (GAP) is a newly implemented diversion program that provides a deferred prosecution pathway for individuals charged with Class 4 Unlawful Possession of a Weapon (UPW) or Class 4 Aggravated Unlawful Possession of a Weapon (AUPW). Participation is limited to individuals who have no prior felony or violent offense and no prior participation in a diversion program. See further eligibility requirements here. 

The GAP is intended to provide eligible defendants with a pathway to lawful firearm ownership and prevent future arrests. Through the GAP, participants are given the opportunity to apply for a Firearm Owner’s Identification (FOID) card and are taught about firearm safety and lawful gun ownership. Public Act 104-0398 recognizes that diversion programs may provide greater benefits to individuals and their communities than incarceration. 

The Process 

Assistant State’s Attorneys (ASAs) screen eligible cases at First Appearance Court (FAC) and consult with arrest officers regarding diversion. If the ASAs decide a defendant is eligible, the State can offer the GAP at the Preliminary Hearing or in a felony courtroom. From there, the defendant can either agree, signing a GAP Agreement and Preliminary Hearing waiver, or deny and continue with their Preliminary Hearing. If the defendant agrees to participate in the GAP, their case is transferred to a centralized GAP court with the designated GAP judge. 

The GAP requires defendants to regularly appear before their judge and to be in contact with their Pretrial Services officer. Participants are also required to complete a Train Smart certified firearms and education course. After they successfully finish the course, participants receive a certificate of completion. 

Court-watching 

Amendments to Public Act 104-0398, effective January 1st, 2026, included FOID eligibility upon the completion of a diversion program, paving the way for the GAP to be implemented. Given the program’s recent implementation in 2026, there is limited publicly available information about what the GAP looks like in practice. To better understand the program, Chicago Appleseed organized court-watching efforts focused on GAP proceedings. Appleseed’s Court Observation and Education Program (COEP) trains community members to observe and collect data from court proceedings. For the GAP, we currently have 8 court-watchers.

What We Are Seeing

As part of a focus group, former Director of Research Austin Segal spoke with two GAP court-watchers about their observations of the program. At the time of the focus group, one round of court-watching was complete in addition to part of a second round. Therefore, these observations reflect the program’s initial implementation rather than its long-term operation. 

The Proceedings and The Judge

The court-watchers observed a process that was both supportive and focused on participant compliance. The judge took time to explain the GAP and answer questions, while also emphasizing that participants were expected to take the requirements seriously. Overall, the proceedings were “speedy” and “streamlined”. 

The proceedings reflected the fact that GAP is a new program, with both participants and court actors still becoming familiar with the process. The proceedings began with the judge providing a group explanation of the program, followed by individual proceedings in which defendants exchanged names and phone numbers with their assigned pretrial service officers. Individual proceedings generally lasted three to five minutes. One court-watcher described how the judge approached these early proceedings:

“[The judge], you know, was recognizing that this was a new program, and so even the few people who had private attorneys, you know, we didn’t exactly know the protocol yet. So she explained so much in advance, and she asked everybody the same questions to make sure that they understood and that she was covering everything.” (court-watcher 1)

The court-watchers also noted that the judge was receptive when defendants had questions about the new process:

“I think especially in the initial rounds, you know, people had questions. You know, it was their first one. They wanted to be sure to get it right. You know, and and again, she was always really thorough about that and appreciated the questions.” (court-watcher 2)

These observations suggest that early GAP proceedings involved more than simply applying an established procedure. The court was active in explaining and establishing program expectations and allowing all parties to become familiar with the new program. 

At the same time, the court-watchers observed a strong emphasis on participant compliance. When participants were late, there was a strong effort to call them and help them appear. The judge’s approach appears to be an effort to balance accountability with an emphasis on helping participants complete the program. Neither court-watcher reported any additional conditions being imposed on participants beyond required attendance or requiring an in person appearance. However, both court-watchers reported instances in which the judge “scolded” or “admonished” participants regarding their attendance. Participants experienced some issues appearing late or being present on zoom, and the judge emphasized that following court instructions and appearing on time were necessary to the seriousness and success of the program.

“We’re all anxious for its success. You know you’re part of that, and your being here on time when I’m giving the instructions and demonstrating that kind of compliance is important to all of our success. You know, but it was a little, you know, a little scoldy. You know, like this is serious.” (court-watcher 2)

The tone reported during these moments may point to tensions between participants and the program and could identify areas for improvement as the GAP continues to develop. Overall, court-watchers saw the judge’s efforts as respectful and intended to support participants and increase their likelihood of successfully completing the program.

“There seemed like a lot more respect, a lot more, a little bit more leeway. You know, really wanting to bring people along. I’ve seen that kind of respect in some of the you know pre-detention hearings too, but this was, you know, elevated.” (court-watcher 2)

Undefined Information 

As stated before, these observations come from the first and second rounds of a brand new diversion program. While we have collected multiple observations, it may be too early to tell if they reflect the real outcomes and impact of the program. In the focus group conversation, one court-watcher expressed concern that the current observations capture only a small portion of the program’s implementation and more observations would give more accurate and nuanced insights to the GAP.

There are still significant questions about how the GAP will operate and what outcomes it will produce. For example, defendants asked about when they could obtain a FOID card, obtain a concealed carry license, or have their firearm returned. According to court-watcher 1, the judge did not yet have clear answers but showed initiative to obtain the information the participants were asking for. Other basic aspects of the program, including its length and what constitutes a successful completion, have yet to be determined. The court-watchers reported that the court’s approach appeared to be adjusting as the program developed:

“They were just basically saying we’re kind of building this plane while we’re flying it. We really want to see what’s going to work out. We can’t tell you whether it’ll be nine or 12 months. You know, we’re just trying to see how it works out.” (court-watcher 2)

From our observations, participants in the GAP have scheduled hearings with the judge every three months. However, the court did not directly state participant’s requirements outside of these dates. This flexibility of requirements and timeline may allow the court to identify and respond to issues as they arise. However, if the participants are unclear about the program’s requirements, the lack of clarity could create a barrier to a successful completion or undermine the participants’ trust in the court. 

Community Impact

Through their experience, court-watchers were able to witness the early applications of the GAP, developing their own understanding of the program and its potential. In our focus group, we learned more about these insights on the GAP as a method of reducing and preventing felony convictions. Court-watchers expressed that the program’s aim of diversion gives purpose and direction without the impact that a criminal record would have on a person’s life. They recognized the potential benefit of allowing participants to regain FOID eligibility, which could reduce recidivism by helping participants avoid future gun possession convictions. Other court-watchers recognized the potential drawbacks of the program, noting that its strict eligibility requirements may ultimately affect a much smaller number of people who are actually impacted by policing and the court system. One court-watcher recognized that the program is more reactive than proactive, as it makes sure an individual applies for their FOID card only after they have been stopped. The courtwater noted that GAP does not address, for instance, the traffic stops that disproportionately impact Black youth in South and West side communities. Chicago Appleseed recognizes the importance of both interpretations. The GAP has the potential to make a positive and sustainable impact on participants and, in turn, contribute to reducing the number of felony convictions in gun possession cases. However, the GAP and other diversion programs do not, by themselves, address the root causes of why individuals and communities feel the need to carry firearms or why there is a disproportionate rate at which Black and Brown people are arrested. We hope to recognize the potential of the GAP while continuing to advocate for policies that address the deeper issues within the court and police systems.