Program Profile: Early Intervention Diversion Program (EIDP) (Los Angeles, Calif.)

The program is an alternative to formal processing in the juvenile justice system. The overall goal is to reduce the number of youths entering the juvenile justice system, while also reducing recidivism. The program is rated Promising. Youths in the treatment group who participated in the diversion program had statistically significantly fewer rearrests, compared with youths in the comparison group who did not participate in the intervention.

A Promising rating implies that implementing the program may result in the intended outcome(s).

Program Goals

The Early Intervention Diversion Program (EIDP) is a diversion program run by the Los Angeles County (Calif.) Probation Department that provides an alternative to formal processing in the juvenile justice system for juveniles after they have committed their first offense. By providing intensive case management and coordinated services to youths and their families, the overall goal of EIDP is to reduce the number of youths entering the juvenile justice system, while also reducing recidivism.

Target Population

EIDP targets nondetained youths (ages 12 to 17) with first-time offenses who are enrolled in middle school, junior high, or high school and who fall under Welfare and Institutions Code (WIC) Sections 652 and 653.5 of the California Code. Youths who fall under WIC section 602 are also eligible, but the program is generally limited to youths with first-time offenses.

Program Components

Individuals who participate in EIDP are those who were diverted from system processing through informal probation diversion. This type of probation occurs either 1) when prebooking diversion (i.e., initial contact with law enforcement) failed, 2) the agency does not have a prebooking diversion program, or 3) the youth was arrested for multiple misdemeanor or status offenses. Individuals who qualify for informal probation are supervised for 6 months and are encouraged to participate in EIDP.

The EIDP begins with an in-home psychosocial assessment conducted by an individual from the Department of Mental Health. The assessment is conducted to identify mental health and substance use needs, physical health issues, learning disabilities, or other family-related issues. This assessment concludes with a meeting (between the youth, their family members, and a multidisciplinary team) to develop a case plan that outlines specific goals and services. The case plan then becomes a formal agreement that is signed by both the youth and their family members.

With the case plan in place, the case manager (the Deputy Probation Officer) connects the youth and their family to services. The Deputy Probation Officer continues to interact with the youth and their family to ensure they are working toward their outlined goals and determine whether any additional services are needed.

To successfully complete the program, participants must engage in services and work toward their goals by the end of the informal probation period. If successful, the individuals have their cases closed. Those who do not successfully complete the program may have their cases referred to the district attorney or have their informal probation period extended for an additional 3 months. After the 3 months, if the individual is still unsuccessful, their case is referred to the district attorney if it meets the requirements for referral.

Study

Mercado, Kaufman, and Espinoza (2019) used a quasi-experimental design to evaluate the effectiveness of the Early Intervention Diversion Program (EIDP). The study examined outcomes for education, mental health, and recidivism for youths who received the EIDP (the treatment group), compared with youths who did not participate in EIDP (the comparison group). The CrimeSolutions review of this study focused only on the program’s impact on recidivism, because data on the education and mental health outcomes were not collected for the comparison group.

To evaluate the impact of the EIDP on recidivism, arrest data were obtained from the Probation Case Management System and mined by the Probation’s Information Services Bureau. The data consisted of all first-time arrests, the dates of the arrests, and the types and levels of offense. Additionally, the researchers received scores from the Los Angeles Risk and Resilience Checkup (LARRC), which helped in generating a comparison group that was comparable with the treatment group.

To be included in the study analysis the following criteria must have been met: 1) an individual’s first arrest must have occurred between January 2017 and April 2019, 2) the case was not automatically transferred to the District Attorney, 3) the case was unsealed, and 4) at least 6 months of follow-up observational data were available. Propensity score matching was then used to identify a comparison group that closely resembled the treatment group on the following characteristics: gender, ethnicity, age at first arrest, risk level, and scores on the LARRC assessment. This resulted in a sample of 182 cases included in the analysis: 91 treatment cases and 91 comparison cases.

The treatment group and comparison group were predominately male—58 percent and 55 percent, respectively. In terms of ethnicity, nearly 72.5 percent of the treatment group was Hispanic. The remaining youths were 13.2 percent Black, 7.7 percent white, and 6.6 percent Asian. The comparison group had a similar ethnic makeup, with 71.4 percent Hispanic, 17.6 percent Black, 6.6 percent white, and 4.4 percent Asian. Average age of first arrest in the treatment and comparison group was 15.7 and 15.6, respectively. Though there were some slight differences in risk level between the two groups—with an average risk of 1.36 in the treatment group and 1.41 in the comparison group—these differences are minimal and indicate that both groups have low risk levels. The study authors did not specify whether there were any statistically significant differences between the groups on baseline characteristics.

To determine whether the treatment and comparison group had different rearrest rates, Welch t -rests (independent sample t -tests) were conducted. Though the study examined outcomes across various time periods, the CrimeSolutions review of this study focused on the difference in rearrest rates for the treatment and comparison groups within 6 months. The study did not conduct subgroup analyses.

These sources were used in the development of the program profile:

Following are CrimeSolutions-rated programs that are related to this practice:

Juvenile Diversion Programs

An intervention strategy that redirects youths away from formal processing in the juvenile justice system, while still holding them accountable for their actions. The practice is rated Promising for reducing recidivism rates of juveniles who participated in diversion programming compared with juveniles who were formally processed in the justice system.

Evidence Ratings for Outcomes

Crime & Delinquency - Multiple crime/offense types

Why might a practice's outcome ratings differ from the ratings of specific programs encompassed by that practice?