Introduction:
Are diversion programs effective tools for mitigating crime and promoting justice? The efficacy of all types of diversion is based on proper population selection, offender cooperation and engagement, and the availability of resources and oversight. Diversion is intended to prevent low-level offenders from being drawn deeper into the criminal justice system. This can prevent exposure to an already stressed and overloaded court system and to a criminal record, both of which can be barriers to future career and social opportunities.
These programs require local offices with staff who will process people by reviewing their cases, referring them to counseling, and forming a plan for offenders to atone for their actions. This can include writing an apologetic reflection essay to their victim, donating to an appropriate charitable cause, or another method of compensating for their offense. This requires funding, as court diversion programs are non-profit entities. The efficacy of these programs must be established to justify funding, and oversight must ensure they operate ethically and effectively.
Types of Diversion Programs:
Diversion programs include:
- Pre-arrest diversion, aka Jail deflection.
- Post-arrest diversion, aka court diversion, aka Restorative Justice.
- Youth diversion.
- Specialty courts, e.g., drug court and mental health court.
Intended Benefits of Diversion Programs:
- Cost-effectiveness of diversion relative to incarceration.
- Enhanced public safety by identifying people who can be processed and discharged, vs. harder offenders who need more in-depth intervention.
- Lower-level non-violent offenses will be diverted from court or deflected from jail, lowering the burden on these strained and overloaded systems.
- Savings from preventing jail overcrowding and associated costs, and wasteful ER visits.
- Court diversion can mean a less crowded court calendar, freeing time for courts to tend to higher priority cases and individuals who are a threat to the community.
- Improved long-term outcomes for offenders, e.g., gainful employment, and no re-offense.
- Court diversion is a screening process for early detection of young people with addiction or behavioral problems.
- An opportunity for the public to see law enforcement in a different aspect when disturbed youth, the mentally ill, or substance abusers, instead of being arrested and incarcerated even briefly, are brought to a treatment facility for mental health or substance abuse treatment, or assistance with housing.
Outcome Studies on Diversion Programs:
Research on the outcomes of diversion programs is mixed and varies by program type and the criteria used to define good outcomes. The outcomes that are sought are described in the prior section. Overall, the research on the effectiveness of various diversion programs is inconclusive. This is due to the different types of diversion programs, the population served, the definition of successful outcomes, and the program evaluation methods. Here is a summary of some research conducted over the past five years, including results that are uncertain or inconsistent.
- The Vermont Association of Court Diversion & Pretrial Services reports that 20% of misdemeanor offenses are resolved through court diversion, but that does not examine recidivism or lowered costs.
- Police Chief Magazine noted that 60% of police officers support jail deflection programs, and that jail deflection improves community and law enforcement relations.
- Diversion programs for low-level drug offenders have been shown to lower costs in the criminal justice system, with a moderate increase in health care costs.
- Specialty courts, e.g., drug courts or mental health courts, are not delivering the hoped-for outcomes of reduced recidivism and balancing public safety with compassion for the mentally ill or addicted.
- Jail deflection programs for the mentally ill have not reduced the number of mentally ill people who are incarcerated.
- Jail diversion (aka Deflection) programs for the mentally ill have been noted to decrease the length of incarceration, which will reduce short-term costs. Still, the recidivism rate remains unchanged, so long-term costs may not be reduced.
Limitations of Diversion Programs:
I developed a court diversion program called TASP (Teen Alcohol Safety Program) intended for Minors in Possession of Alcohol. I later worked at the other end of the program, receiving referrals from local court diversion programs. I had many people come through court diversion as a receptive referral source that did not require ongoing counseling, but brief education on alcohol safety. Their use of alcohol was age expected, and they did not have any indicators of dependence. Other times, I would see people who were clearly dependent on alcohol, and their lives were already becoming unmanageable. They fit the criteria for extensive counseling, up to inpatient rehabilitation.
The following are my own observations as both a program developer and, later, a referral source for court diversion programs. These observations are based on 25 years of practice, with over 500 subjects, across both a public mental health clinic and private practice. I observed consistent patterns described below:
Population mismatch is the central problem. Diversion programs tend to apply a standardized process to a population that is anything but uniform. Vulnerable first-time offenders may self-correct before they enter the program; they neither clinically nor behaviorally share much with a habitual offender cycling through the system for the fourth time. Over-intervening with the former wastes resources and can actually be counterproductive, introducing a low-risk individual to system contact they didn’t need. Under-intervening with the latter produces no deterrent effect; experienced repeat offenders often regard diversion as a lesser consequence they have learned to navigate.
Victim impact is an underweighted consideration. The literature has historically focused on offender outcomes, but victim experience matters both ethically and for public confidence in the system. When victims perceive that an offender has avoided meaningful accountability through diversion, the result is not just individual frustration; it is systemic erosion of willingness to report crimes. Zane and Mears (2023) address this tension directly, noting the need to balance mitigation and consequentialism in diversion eligibility decisions.
Provider reimbursement structures create access barriers. In my personal career, I have stopped taking court diversion cases due to extensive and unreimbursed case management requirements, including report writing. Diversion programs do have value as a screening process to identify high-risk individuals early, such as phone calls and emails to the court diversion. These hours are non-billable to third-party payors, e.g., health insurance companies. They must be billed directly to the patient. If the patient has state or federal health coverage, billing directly to the patient is not allowed. Court diversion cases become an income loss for individual providers in private practice, creating a genuine access gap.
Funding sustainability depends on honest evaluation. Diversion programs are non-profit entities dependent on municipal and governmental funding. Rigorous program evaluation is, therefore, both necessary and politically complicated; the programs that commission evaluations face the risk of findings that threaten their funding. This tension can discourage honest self-assessment. Funders and program administrators alike benefit from establishing independent evaluation protocols that are built into program design from the outset, rather than added after the fact.
Recommendations:
For clinicians and program staff working within or alongside diversion systems, the following priorities are supported by both the research and field experience:
- Build communication infrastructure: Information exchange between case managers and stakeholders must be clearly documented and made accessible. Court diversion cases are typically complex and involve interactions among the court diversion case manager, the patient/client, the provider, and probation.
- Prioritize the right equipment and talent: If objective testing, such as Urine Toxicology Screens, is required, a physician who is willing to do the testing is needed.
- Invest in population screening: Risk stratification at intake is the single highest-leverage intervention. Low-risk, first-time offenders and high-risk habitual offenders require fundamentally different responses, and conflating them produces poor outcomes for both.
- Advocate for evaluation independence: In my own experience, some people don’t want to see their program evaluated, because if the evaluation reveals that the program is ineffective, funding will be lost. Their program shut down. However, programs that embrace rigorous outcome evaluation, even when findings are uncomfortable, can build pipelines for sustainable funding. Practitioners can support this by maintaining consistent outcome data at the case level.
- Raise reimbursement as a policy issue: While this will add to program costs, it will have the potential to increase provider willingness to take court diversion cases and improve the quality of care.
Conclusion:
Are diversion programs effective in 2026? The evidence supports a conditional yes, conditional on who is being diverted, how well the program is designed, and whether the infrastructure for coordination and oversight is actually in place.
For low-risk, first-time, non-violent offenders, diversion offers a well-supported alternative to prosecution that reduces system costs and avoids the long-term damage of a criminal record. For individuals with serious mental illness or entrenched substance use disorders, current programs are not delivering the outcomes that justified their expansion, and practitioners should be honest about that gap when speaking with funders and policymakers.
The potential of diversion is real. Realizing it requires moving beyond the assumption that routing someone away from court is, by itself, a sufficient intervention. It is a starting point. What follows? The quality of the screening, the appropriateness of the programming, the reliability of the coordination, and the rigor of the evaluation determine whether that starting point leads somewhere worth going.
