Assessment of the Detention Diversion Advocacy Project, Final Report

• NCJ Number: 174086
• Author(s): R G Shelden
• Date Published: 1997
• Length: 52 pages
• Sale Source: University of Nevada, Las Vegas
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America

Annotation

This evaluation compared a random sample of 271 cases referred to the Detention Diversion Advocacy Project (DDAP) in San Francisco with a control group of 271 young people placed in detention who were not referred to the DDAP.

Abstract

The young people were followed for approximately 3 years. Independent variables used for the comparison included age of referral, race, gender, risk scores, recidivism, previous referrals, previous placements, subsequent referrals, subsequent violent offenses, subsequent placements, and subsequent sustained petitions. Correlations were conducted using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences. Findings revealed the overall recidivism rate of the DDAP group was 34 percent, compared to a rate of 60 percent for the control group. Risk scores for the DDAP group were significantly more likely to be greater than the control group (86 percent versus 59 percent). Although no racial differences between the two groups were observed, significant gender differences were found; girls constituted 16 percent of the DDAP group and 23 percent of the control group. Whereas 39 percent of the control group had three or more prior referrals, only 20 percent of the DDAP group did. About 16 percent of the control group had at least one prior placement, but only 27 percent of the control group did. Half of the control group had two or more subsequent referrals, while only 14 percent of the DDAP group did. About 25 percent of the control group came back to court on a violent crime charge, while only 9 percent of the DDAP group did. When using subsequent petitions as a measure of recidivism instead of subsequent referrals, the DDAP group had a lower overall recidivism rate than the control group. Risk scores were significantly related to previous referrals and the nature of previous offenses, but risk scores did not predict subsequent violent referrals, subsequent petitions to court, or subsequent placements. For the DDAP group, the strongest predictor of recidivism was poverty. Policy implications of the findings are discussed, and recommendations are offered to build on the DDAP's success. 42 references and 9 tables