Program Profile: Detention Diversion Advocacy Program (DDAP)

This is a program that aims to divert youths charged with serious offenses from detention, with an overall goal of reducing recidivism. The program is rated Promising. Comparison group participants were more likely than treatment group participants to recidivate and to recidivate for a felony charge. Comparison group participants had a higher average number than treatment group participants of referrals and felony referrals. All differences were statistically significant.

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

Program Goals

The Detention Diversion Advocacy Program (DDAP) is a juvenile diversion program, operated by the Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice (CJCJ), based in San Francisco, Calif. DDAP aims to divert juveniles charged with serious offenses that are either currently in detention or likely to be held in detention. By diverting youths from traditional processing in the juvenile justice system, DDAP participants remain in the community and have access to community-based care. The overall goal of DDAP is to reduce recidivism of diverted youth.

Target Population

DDAP serves youths with serious charges and those who are at a high risk of reoffending. By targeting high-risk youth, DDAP aims to reduce the potential of net-widening (which is the risk of extending the reach of the juvenile justice system to low-risk clients who might have otherwise not been caught up in the justice system) [DeNike, 2021].

Program Components

To identify potential DDAP clients, CJCJ works primarily with defense attorneys to identify youths charged with serious offenses and who are currently detained or likely to be detained pending adjudication (probation officers can make referrals but priority is given to defense attorneys, for referrals from probation officers may be lower-risk individuals).

Once a potential client is identified, they are interviewed by a DDAP expeditor who determines whether the program would be a good fit. If the client is determined to be a good fit (i.e., if the youth appears to need help to truly succeed), and the client agrees to participate, they are accepted into the program. The client and the DDAP case manager then work together to develop a release plan that builds on a youth’s strengths and addresses their needs. Services provided to the youth may include tutoring, counseling, and/or family support. The plan is then presented in court. If the judge approves, the youth is released to DDAP supervision. The judge often approves the plan. However, in cases when the judge denies, DDAP continues to work with the defense attorney to eventually have the youth released.

Following release to DDAP supervision, clients and DDAP case managers communicate at least once a day, and often multiple times a day. DDAP caseload consist of 6-12 clients per case manager. During this period, case mangers work with the youth to ensure they are receiving case management support that fosters their strengths and addresses their needs.

Study 1

DeNike (2021) used a quasi-experimental design to estimate the impacts of the Detention Diversion Advocacy Program (DDAP) on measures of recidivism. Data were provided by DDAP, the San Francisco Probation Department, and the Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice (CJCJ). The dataset included DDAP and non–DDAP system-involved youth, between 2017 and 2020. To create a comparison group of similarly situated youth, non–DDAP system-involved youths were matched to DDAP youths on the following characteristics: 1) first serious or felony charge, 2) age at first juvenile justice system referral, and 3) gender. To make a fair comparison between the DDAP youth and comparison group youth, a non-intervention point-in-time was added to the analysis to correspond with the intervention period for DDAP.

The DDAP treatment group (n = 76) was 75 percent male, with an average age of 14.9 at first arrest. The non–DDAP comparison group (n = 76) was also 75 percent male, with an average age of 14.8 at first arrest. No other demographic information was provided on the study sample.

There were four primary outcomes of interest: 1) binary recidivism, 2) binary felony recidivism, 3) number of post-intervention/non-intervention referrals, and 4) number of post-intervention/non-intervention felony referrals. Binary recidivism was defined as whether youth received any additional justice system referrals after the intervention/non-intervention period. Binary felony recidivism was defined as whether youth received any additional felony justice system referrals after the intervention/non-intervention period. Because this measure was binary, individuals without subsequent referrals were assigned a 0, while individuals with subsequent referrals were assigned a 1. Number of post-intervention/non-intervention referrals was defined as a count of the number of justice system referrals that youth received after the intervention/non-intervention period. Finally, the number of post-intervention/non-intervention felony referrals was defined as a count of the number of felony referrals that youth received after the intervention/non-intervention period.

Two different analytical strategies were used to assess the data across the four outcomes. To determine the effectiveness of DDAP on binary recidivism and binary felony recidivism, chi-squared analyses were conducted. To determine the effectiveness of DDAP on the number of post-intervention/non-intervention referrals and number of post-intervention/non-intervention felony referrals, t-tests were used. The study did not conduct subgroup analyses.

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

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?