The program, incorporating reduced caseload size and intensive service provision, does not accept convicts normally eligible for probation, non-probatable cases, transfer cases from other counties, or extremely dangerous offenders; shock probationers are included. Seven evaluations, covering an eight-year period and studying 372 diverted cases (the comparison group totaled 376), used goal attainment, cost-benefit analysis, and impact to assess the program. The activity objectives were measured through records of contacts, direct services, and collateral services provided by probation officers. Outcome indicators included continued criminal behavior, social adjustment, and employment, while impact indicators included commitment rates and cost estimates. Among their conclusions, researchers found that the IDU group reported more involvement with the criminal justice system than the comparison group; the IDU group had higher needs for vocational training, employment, education, drug and alcohol services, financial services, and mental health services; the IDU clients received significantly more contacts; the IDU group reported a higher rate of revoked probations than the comparison group although other recidivism data were similar; the IDU significantly reduced the county's commitment rate and saved over $2.6 million; the IDU showed an increase of 17.6 percent increase in employment compared to 3.7 percent for the comparison group. Increasing the number of client contacts and the IDU program referral rate to keep pace with the county's rising commitment rate, continuing to stress employment, and keeping community safety a high priority are recommended. 18 tables, 8 endnotes.