A Process Evaluation of San Francisco’s Law Enforcement Assisted Diversion Program

In 2016, San Francisco (SF) implemented the Law Enforcement Assisted Diversion (LEAD) program, a harm reduction–based pre-booking diversion system for people who violate drug laws and/or are engaged in sex work. LEAD is set apart from existing diversion programs, as it uses police as point of entry. Prior LEAD studies indicate some success in reducing recidivism and improving life outcomes. However, less is known about program implementation, including barriers and facilitators. Relying on policy documents, interviews, and focus groups, this study describes the LEAD SF’s development, operations, adaptations, and challenges. It also identifies the unique context of LEAD SF that led to implementation barriers and facilitators. Results show that SF experienced success in collaboration, relationship building, and client connections to services but experienced challenges in securing and maintaining police officer buy-in and keeping clear and open lines of communication regarding LEAD goals, objectives, policies, and procedures. This led to the termination of LEAD SF in 2020.

Juvenile Diversion and the Family: How Youth and Parents Experience Diversion Programming

Despite extensive research into juvenile justice interventions, there is a limited focus on family engagement, including parent–child experiences in these various programs. Even less research explores how families, specifically youth and parents, are affected by diversion from the traditional juvenile justice system. The current study fills this gap by drawing from in-depth interviews with 19 parents and 19 youths participating in a juvenile pretrial diversion program in Southern California. This research highlights how a diversion program can influence how families understand the justice system and law-related behaviors. The themes discussed include how diversion programs shape parent–child bonds, how parents navigate negative indictments of youth and themselves for participating in diversion, and the influence of external challenges and social forces shaping youth and parent experiences. Findings support the theoretical contributions from social bond and labeling theory. Implications and future research will also be discussed.

Effects of Computerized Social Skills Instruction for At-Risk Adolescents

This study reports the effects of an interactive multimedia computer program for teaching social skills to youths with social-adjustment problems. Twelve youths (aged 11–17) were referred by the county diversion program or school guidance counselors. Seven were formally classified as having disabilities and had active Individualized Education Programs. A multiple-probe across-behaviors design was used, with each of the baselines demonstrating a youth’s role-playing performance of one of three social skills. Three other measures were also collected: (a) time spent; (b) skill-knowledge scores; and (d) satisfaction ratings. Role-play results indicated that the students with and without disabilities successfully learned and performed the steps of the skills, and they generalized their use of the social skills to novel situations. Written test results indicated the students’ knowledge of the social skills was significantly higher after the instruction than during pretesting. Importantly, the students endorsed the program, with most ratings at the “extremely satisfied” level.

Diversion Programs for Individuals Who Use Substances: A Review of the Literature

Diversion programs connect individuals to treatment instead of criminal sanctions and are used more frequently to address substance use. This systematic scoping review included 31 published empirical studies to examine evaluations of diversion programs that address substance use and misuse. We assessed the program characteristics and implementation settings, as well as the outcomes measured and study methods used. We identified five prevalent study outcomes categories: (a) Service utilization (program retention and completion), (b) Recidivism/criminality, (c) Substance use, (d) Psychosocial functioning, and (e) Other outcomes (e.g., trauma, quality of life, and housing). Findings demonstrated limited but promising evidence for improvements in recidivism, substance use, and psychosocial outcomes. The limited evidence may be partly due to heterogeneity in diversion program implementation, study designs used, and differences among subpopulations. Most studies examined postbooking diversion programs; therefore, further examination of alternative approaches such as prebooking diversion programs is needed to fully understand diversion program impacts.

Pre-arrest diversion to addiction treatment by law enforcement: protocol for the community-level policing initiative to reduce addiction-related harm, including crime

Background Despite evidence that treatment reduces addiction-related harms, including crime and overdose, only a minority of addiction-affected individuals receive it. Linking individuals who committed an addiction-related crime to addiction treatment could improve outcomes. Methods The aim of this city-wide, pre-arrest diversion program, Madison Addiction Recovery Initiative (MARI) is to reduce crime and improve health (i.e., reduce the overdose deaths) among adults who committed a minor, non-violent, drug use-related offense by offering them a referral to treatment in lieu of arrest and prosecution of criminal charges. This manuscript outlines the protocol and methods for the MARI program development and implementation. MARI requires its participants to engage in the recommended treatment, without reoffending, during the six-month program, after which the initial criminal charges are “voided” by the law enforcement agency. The project, implemented in a mid-size U.S. city, has involved numerous partners, including law enforcement, criminal justice, public health, and academia. It includes training of the police officer workforce and collaboration with clinical partners for treatment need assessment, treatment placement, and peer support. Program evaluation includes formative, process, outcome (participant-level) and exploratory impact (community-level) assessments. For outcome evaluation, we will compare crime (primary outcome), overdose-related offenses, and incarceration-related data 12 months before and 12 months after the index crime between participants who completed (Group 1), started but not completed (Group 2), and were offered but did not start (Group 3) the program, and adults who would have been eligible should MARI existed (Historical Comparison, Group 4). Clinical characteristics will be compared at baseline between Groups 1–2, and pre-post the program within Group 1. Participant baseline data will be assessed as potential covariates. Surveys of police officers and program completers, and community-level indicators of crime and overdose pre- versus post-program will provide additional data on the program impact. Discussion By offering addiction treatment in lieu of arrest and prosecution of criminal charges, this pre-arrest diversion program has the potential to disrupt the cycle of crime, reduce the likelihood of future offenses, and promote public health and safety.