Law Enforcement Assisted Diversion (LEAD) External Evaluation Report to the California State Legislature Submitted to Board of State and Community Corrections By Aili Malm, Ph.D. Dina Perrone, Ph.D. Erica Magaña, MS School of Criminology, Criminal Justice and Emergency Management California State University Long Beach 1250 Bellflower Boulevard Long Beach, CA 90840-4603 (562) 985-0438 January 1, 2020 Page | 1 Table of Contents Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................. 5 Executive Summary ............................................................................................................ 6 1. Introduction .................................................................................................................. 10 Law Enforcement Assisted Diversion (LEAD) ........................................................................ 10 External evaluation in California .............................................................................................. 11 Process evaluation ................................................................................................................. 12 Outcome and costing evaluation ........................................................................................... 12 2. Los Angeles County LEAD ......................................................................................... 14 3. Process Evaluation: Los Angeles County .................................................................... 17 Semi-structured focus groups and interviews ........................................................................... 17 LEAD LAC document data ...................................................................................................... 19 LEAD LAC client surveys ........................................................................................................ 19 The sample ............................................................................................................................ 20 Data analysis ............................................................................................................................. 22 LEAD Seattle vs. LEAD LAC .................................................................................................. 23 Goals ..................................................................................................................................... 23 LEAD core principles ........................................................................................................... 24 LEAD client eligibility and exclusion criteria ...................................................................... 25 LEAD referral process .......................................................................................................... 28 LEAD LAC implementation successes and challenges ............................................................ 30 Successes............................................................................................................................... 30 LEAD LAC challenges ......................................................................................................... 40 4. Outcome and Costing Evaluation: Los Angeles County .............................................. 54 Method ...................................................................................................................................... 54 Evaluation design .................................................................................................................. 54 Measures ............................................................................................................................... 54 5. LEAD San Francisco .................................................................................................... 55 6. Process Evaluation: San Francisco ............................................................................... 58 Semi-structured focus groups and interviews ........................................................................... 58 LEAD SF document data .......................................................................................................... 59 LEAD SF client surveys ........................................................................................................... 60 Data analysis ......................................................................................................................... 64 LEAD Seattle vs. LEAD SF ..................................................................................................... 64 LEAD core principles ............................................................................................................... 65 LEAD client eligibility and exclusion criteria .......................................................................... 66 LEAD referral process .............................................................................................................. 68 LEAD SF successes and challenges ......................................................................................... 72 Successes............................................................................................................................... 73 Challenges ............................................................................................................................. 85 Summary of findings............................................................................................................... 113 7. Outcome and Costing Evaluation: San Francisco ...................................................... 115 Method .................................................................................................................................... 115 Evaluation design ................................................................................................................ 115 Page | 2 Measures ............................................................................................................................. 115 Participants .......................................................................................................................... 116 Group allocation.................................................................................................................. 116 Primary analyses ................................................................................................................. 117 Results ..................................................................................................................................... 117 LEAD effects on criminal justice and legal system utilization........................................... 117 LEAD effects on criminal justice system costs .................................................................. 119 Discussion ............................................................................................................................... 120 Limitations .............................................................................................................................. 121 8. Conclusion .................................................................................................................. 122 Summary of advice for future LEAD sites from LEAD LAC and LEAD SF ........................ 122 9. References .................................................................................................................. 124 10. Technical Appendix .................................................................................................. 126 Process Evaluation (Los Angeles County) ............................................................................. 126 Outcome and Cost Evaluation (Los Angeles County) ............................................................ 133 Process Evaluation (San Francisco) ........................................................................................ 135 Outcome and Costing Evaluation (San Francisco) ................................................................. 147 11. List of Acronyms ...................................................................................................... 151 Page | 3 Table of Figures and Tables Tables Table 1-1: List of outcome variables and their department sources .......................................................... 13 Table 3-1: LEAD LAC focus groups .............................................................................................................. 18 Table 3-2: LEAD LAC interviews .................................................................................................................. 18 Table 3-3:LEAD LAC client survey sample ................................................................................................... 20 Table 3-4: LEAD LAC and LEAD Seattle eligibility and exclusion criteria ..................................................... 26 Table 3-5: LEAD LAC quarterly reported challenges ................................................................................... 32 Table 3-6: Officer procedural justice (n=67) ............................................................................................... 36 Table 3-7: LEAD LAC key themes ................................................................................................................. 42 Table 6-1: LEAD SF focus groups (n=20) ....................................................................................................