Diversion programs and incarceration alternatives
Last Revised: January 2, 2026
Strategy overview
Reducing exposure to the criminal legal system: Criminal justice diversion programs and incarceration alternatives aim to reduce the likelihood of incarceration by minimizing the contact individuals have with various aspects of the criminal justice system. Diversion can occur before an individual enters the system, oftentimes at the point of engagement with law enforcement, or later on in the process, generally at prosecutorial direction. Alternatives to incarceration provide a range of options post-plea and post-sentencing in collaboration with judges and prosecutors. These approaches, including supervision (i.e., probation), seek to reduce recidivism, generate cost savings for law enforcement and the courts, and enable residents to remain in their community while receiving support services instead of entering a prison or jail.
Serving a broad population: Diversion programs can operate in various models, target different populations, and seek a range of outcomes. There is no one size fits all model, and programs can be tailored to target young people, adults, individuals with drug or alcohol addiction, first-time offenders, and those with prior involvement in the justice system. Generally, eligibility for diversion is restricted to those charged with nonviolent crimes.
Providing off-ramps: Many diversions occur before an individual is charged and faces trial, and usually do not require a plea. During an initial engagement with police, a diversion effort may involve partnering with a mental health clinic or substance abuse services rather than booking an individual into jail. At the moment of charging, a diversion program led by a court or prosecutor, may include access to education, job training, and/or restorative justice programs.
Increasing deflection: The discretionary non-filing of charges against individuals, known as deflection, is intended to prevent engagement with the justice system altogether. This involves an agreement between a prosecutor’s office and law enforcement to not file charges for certain types of crimes, stipulating that a person must instead engage in a program, such as restorative justice or anger-management therapy.
Connecting individuals to services: After charges have been filed, some criminal justice systems provide additional pathways away from incarceration, focused on rehabilitation services. These include what are known as problem-solving courts (for substance use, mental health issues, and domestic violence) and day reporting centers (DRCs) that require daily attendance to address the underlying issues that contribute to criminal behavior. These approaches, which often require a guilty plea and include intense supervision, connect participants to multidisciplinary services such as counseling and community-based programs, including education and job training.
Promoting Restorative Justice programs: In some instances, restorative justice practices may be utilized as a complement to diversion or incarceration alternatives. Restorative justice is a philosophy and framework that shifts away from punishing the offender to the offender taking ownership and accountability for their actions and the harm they caused. These programs bring together all parties affected by the wrongdoing to address their needs, accept blame and responsibility for an offense, and work toward healing. Other goals include repairing the harm done to victims and reintegrating those who carry out offenses into the community.
Multiple rigorous evaluations found that diversion programs and incarceration alternatives were associated with statistically significant decreases in recidivism and other positive outcomes.
A 2023 analysis of a criminal justice diversion program found that diversion programs can significantly reduce recidivism rates by 24.7 percent within a year. The study also found that participants who disengage from diversion programs are far more likely to be rearrested within a year.
A 2022 quasi-experimental evaluation of a youth diversion program in Chicago, IL found that youths who completed the program demonstrated increased strengths and reduced needs for support. Youths who successfully completed the program had a significantly lower recidivism rate within one year.
A 2019 quasi-experimental evaluation of a pre-arraignment diversion program in New York City found that participants were less likely to be rearrested, less likely to be rearrested for a felony, and had fewer convictions on re-arrests.
A 2018 research synthesis of five diversion programs found that four of the five programs examined reduced the rates of re-arrest within two-years for participants, and for those re-arrested, delayed the time to re-arrest, when comparing diversion participants and comparison groups.
A 2018 research review of police-led diversion programs from across the United States analyzed the most common populations served, practices, and outcomes of diversion programs.
A 2013 quasi-experimental evaluation of several diversion programs in New York State found that participants were less likely to be re-arrested within six months on felony charges and violent felony offenses. Additionally, the diversion program benefited the highest-risk cases, with a 7 percent decrease in re-arrest rates for high-risk youth participants.
Before making investments in this strategy, city and county leaders should ensure it addresses local needs.
The Urban Institute and Mathematica have developed indicator frameworks to help local leaders assess conditions related to upward mobility, identify barriers, and guide investments to address these challenges. These indicator frameworks can serve as a starting point for self-assessment, not as a comprehensive evaluation, and should be complemented by other forms of local knowledge.
The Urban Institute's Upward Mobility Framework identifies a set of key local conditions that shape communities’ ability to advance upward mobility and racial equity. Local leaders can use the Upward Mobility Framework to better understand the factors that improve upward mobility and prioritize areas of focus. Data reports for cities and counties can be created here.
Several indicators in the Upward Mobility Framework may be improved with investments in high-quality programs. To measure these indicators and determine if investments in this strategy could help, examine the following:
Safety from trauma: The number of deaths due to injury per 100,000 people. These data are available from the National Center for Health Statistics’ Mortality File and the CDC’s WONDER database.
Safety from crime: Reported property crimes per 100,000 people and reported violent crimes per 100,000 people. These data are available from the Federal Bureau of Investigations’ Uniform Crime Reporting Program.
Just policing: Number of juveniles arrested per 100,000. High rates of juvenile arrests provide a strong indicator of overall system involvement and over-policing. These data are available from the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Crime Data Explorer.
Mathematica's Education-to-Workforce (E-W) Indicator Framework helps local leaders identify the data that matter most in helping students and young adults succeed. Local leaders can use the E-W framework to better understand education and workforce conditions in their communities and to identify strategies that can improve outcomes in these areas.
Several indicators in the E-W Framework may be improved with investments in high-quality programs. To measure these indicators and determine if investments in this strategy could help, examine the following:
- Childhood experiences: Percentage of individuals with fewer than three ACEs.
- Equitable discipline practices: Differences in the rates at which students from key demographic subgroups ever experience different forms of school discipline (office referrals, suspensions, expulsions, restraint, and exclusion) relative to those students’ representation in their school population as a whole.
- Neighborhood juvenile arrests: Rate of juvenile arrests by city or county (number of arrests per 100,000 residents).
Ensure programs are age-appropriate: Effective diversion and alternative incarceration programs should be designed for specific age groups, particularly young people. Programs that benefit from age-appropriate design include police-led programs (such as caution and warning initiatives) service coordination programs focused on case management and wraparound services, counseling or skill-building programs, and restorative justice programs. Designing programs to be appropriate for a particular group typically requires a high degree of engagement with partners outside the criminal justice system, such as families, schools, community groups, faith-based organizations, and social service agencies.
Designate a Diversion Coordinator: Successful programs often appoint a diversion coordinator or advisory group to oversee programs and help centralize operations among the multiple parties involved in criminal justice proceedings. The coordinator’s role can include reviewing decisions and working with stakeholders to establish eligibility requirements, rules, and guidelines across diversion programs. To reduce bias and ensure fairness, a coordinator can collect and analyze data on suspected bias and implement policies that minimize subjectivity in diversion decisions.
Establish a network of preferred providers: Ensure the consistent delivery of wraparound services by establishing a network of providers that have a deep understanding of diversion program policies, requirements from the legal system, and take a pro-social, community-based problem-solving approach. Evaluate and assess preferred providers and offer technical assistance and training to them on an ongoing basis to maintain reliability and compliance.
Prioritize cultural competency: Contract and partner with local social service agencies and organizations that know and understand their communities and create programs that reflect the demographic makeup, languages, and sensitivities of residents living in a jurisdiction.
Consider the financial costs of diversion: The financial fees associated with diversion programming, including court and program costs, fines, and other penalties, can be onerous for lower-income residents and people of color, who are disproportionately represented in the criminal justice system. In some instances, those convicted of misdemeanors are liable to reimburse or “make whole” the people harmed by their crime. The financial burden can be eased by offering payment plans, providing free assistance, and utilizing a sliding scale for fees based on income.
Use local conditions to develop eligibility criteria: Eligibility for diversion and alternative incarceration programs should be informed by local demographics, crime trends, and past policing practices in a jurisdiction. This will enable a better understanding of the types of crimes that occur, how the police and justice system respond, and how diversion programs might be deployed.
Address community concerns: Proponents of diversion programs may face pushback from residents, prosecutors, and others about the impact on public safety in the community. Establish communications with community organizations and the justice system to discuss the effectiveness of such programs, the perception of offenders being “let off easy,” and how diversion can address the root causes of crime and deter future offenses.
Law enforcement: Diversion programs require trust and collaboration between multiple justice system actors, including law enforcement. In programs such as Law Enforcement Assisted Diversion (LEAD), police play a frontline role by identifying individuals who could benefit from diversion instead of making an arrest. Police must be trained to make such decisions at the point of contact with an individual. Diversion can include a warning, a civil citation, or a referral to a community-based option, such as a restorative justice program.
Prosecutors: Once an arrest is made, prosecutors make the initial decision to divert a case instead of filing formal charges. Prosecutors also often lead the development of diversion programs, manage cases, and dismiss charges upon completion of rehabilitation programs.
Judiciary: The judiciary ensures accountability in diversion programs, monitors the progress of individuals and the challenges they face, and oversees the process of redirecting individuals away from the traditional criminal justice system. Judges determine eligibility for diversion, set the conditions for participation, and potentially dismiss charges or reduce sentences once the program has been completed. Judges work with prosecutors, case managers, and treatment providers to establish specific requirements for diversion programs such as treatment plans and court appearances.
Defense bar: The defense bar, including defense attorneys and the public defender’s office, plays a vital role in advocating for their clients’ eligibility for diversion and navigating the process to avoid a formal criminal conviction. The defense bar often negotiates with prosecutors and judges and guides the client through the process to ensure their rights are protected.
Community organizations, social service providers, and criminal justice advocates: In most communities, local organizations, including faith-based groups and social service providers, tend to offer a range of services related to diversion. These include treatment, therapy, support for housing, education, and employment opportunities. Research- and advocacy-oriented organizations may gather data on program outcomes, provide technical assistance, and train local organizations to deliver evidence-based programming.
Build a deep base of support: A robust, vocal coalition can enable stronger diversion programming and help build broader support for alternatives to incarceration, which can face ideological opposition from certain policymakers and/or residents. Work with community leaders and a range of organizations and representative groups to inform them about the process and benefits of diversion programs. Program leaders should seek backing from mayors, county executives, and directors of court services in a jurisdiction to allocate resources. They should engage with parents and young people to inform them about programs, which often require parental consent. And they should engage with community organizations to allay any fears that diversion programs might risk public safety or create a lack of accountability for criminal behavior.
Invest in robust outcome tracking and communicate successes: Diversion programs are a relatively new practice; oftentimes, residents are not familiar with the significant impact of initiatives. Therefore, it is crucial to invest in strong program evaluation and outcome tracking capacity and community-informed metrics in multiple areas, including public safety, cost savings, and program effectiveness (e.g., recidivism rates, stable employment, etc.). This information can be used internally to refine and strengthen programming and create a culture of continuous improvement; externally, it can be used to build support for diversion programs.
Consider holistic screening and assessment processes: Diversion programs are typically designed for individuals with a specific risk and needs profile, and while some experts support conducting screenings and assessments with standardized tools, others suggest that these could be biased. For individualized assessments, evaluations should seek to holistically understand an individual's strengths, weaknesses, and progress towards certain goals.
Participation and impact: Tracking participation and completion rates is critical to measuring diversion program impact. Additional analysis could include tracking the number of people diverted, changes in their health outcomes and overall well-being, progress toward goals, changes in their substance use, social skills, and mental health.
Recidivism: The recidivism rate, which measures both the percentage of individuals rearrested and the likelihood or tendency of individuals to re-offend, provides broad insights into the effectiveness of the criminal justice system, rehabilitation services, diversion efforts, and alternative incarceration programs.
Public Safety: Measuring the crime rate and crime trends (e.g., violent crime, property crime) over time offers insights into overall safety in a jurisdiction and the impact of diversion programs. Public perceptions of safety, trust, satisfaction with law enforcement, and crime reduction are also relevant to diversion programs.
Cost-effectiveness: A key factor for securing community and policymaker buy-in for diversion programs is their potential cost savings compared to traditional carceral approaches. Compare the costs associated with diversion program participation (fees, staff salaries, community resources, service providers, etc.) with court costs such as legal representation and incarceration.
Resources
Evidence-based examples
|
|
Outcome Area |
This ranking reflects how these approaches are scored in one of the major government- or philanthropy-led clearinghouse resources. For more: https://catalog.results4americ... |
|---|---|---|
|
Seeks to advance behavior change among incarcerated individuals and those on probation
|
Stable and healthy families High-quality employment |
|
|
Incarceration alternative requiring supervision, drug treatment and testing, and sanctions for drug offenders
|
Stable and healthy families Supportive neighborhoods |
|
|
Incarceration alternative including substance abuse testing, judicial monitoring, and support services to parents of children in the child welfare system
|
Stable and healthy families Supportive neighborhoods |
|
|
Clinic- or school-based short-term intervention program for youth who have been referred by juvenile justice, mental health, school, or child welfare systems
|
Stable and healthy families |
|
|
The Misdemeanor Diversion Program (MDP) is a 90-day diversion program which intends to reduce unnecessary arrests and jail time.
|
Supportive neighborhoods |
|
|
Intensive intervention for serious juvenile offenders in which a small team of therapists work with youth offenders and their families regularly
|
Elementary and middle school success High school graduation Stable and healthy families |
|
|
An intervention for girls of middle school and high school age who demonstrate risk factors for juvenile justice system involvement.
|
Stable and healthy families High school graduation |
|
|
Pre-Arraignment Representation and Review provides earlier legal representation to individuals arrested on criminal charges.
|
Stable and healthy families Supportive neighborhoods |
|
|
Pretrial supervised release programs serve as a legal alternative to cash bail.
|
Supportive neighborhoods |
|
|
Alternative justice approach using mediation, peacemaking circles, and family group conferences
|
Elementary and middle school success High school graduation Supportive neighborhoods |
Evidence varies across specific models |
|
Text message reminder program to improve appearance rates at court hearings.
|
Supportive neighborhoods |
|
Contributors
Meghan Nayak
Meghan Nayak is the Associate Director of the Vera Institute of Justice’s Reshaping Prosecution initiative, working with prosecutors across the country to end mass incarceration, address racial disparities, and make their offices more accountable. She built and launched the Motion for Justice project, which provides technical assistance to prosecutors and community partners seeking to center racial equity in prosecutors’ work. Over the past four years, MFJ has worked with 18 prosecutors across the country to launch 23 diversion programs with local community-based organizations. The project has provided over one million dollars in sub-grants to community organizations to support this important work.
Before joining Vera, Ms. Nayak was litigation counsel and a member of the research and policy team at Fair and Just Prosecution, supporting prosecutorial leaders committed to enhancing transparency and accountability. She also served seven years as a staff attorney at the New Jersey Office of the Public Defender in Ocean County, New Jersey, in both juvenile and adult courts.
Ms. Nayak holds a BA in Sociology and French Literature and Language from New York University, an MSc in Criminology from the University of Pennsylvania, and a JD from Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law.
Maria Almonte
Maria Almonte is currently the senior director of Court Reform Programs at the Center for Justice Innovation. She provides support and supervision to programs in Manhattan, the Bronx, Westchester County, and Syracuse. Before that, she was the project director for Bronx Community Solutions, a program that provides the courts with pre-trial diversion and increased sentencing options for cases in the Bronx.
Ms. Almonte-Weston has been with the Center for Justice Innovation for over 26 years, where she first started providing health education and counseling services to a variety of sexually exploited individuals coming through the Midtown Community Justice Center (formerly the Midtown Community Court).
While at the Midtown Community Justice Center, Ms. Almonte-Weston collaborated with the NYPD to offer Street Outreach Services to the homeless population living in the West Midtown area. Ms. Almonte-Weston received her Masters Degree from Hunter School of Social Work which has enabled her to integrate those clinical skills within a non-clinical environment like the criminal justice system.
Jennifer Kilpatrick
Jennifer Kilpatrick is a lawyer, proven leader, and an expert on advancing criminal justice practices. As a consultant, she provides technical support to multiple jurisdictions and agencies throughout the United States in areas of data driven practices, indigent defense, court processing, and diversion. She is a consultant with Justice System Partners for the Safety and Justice Challenge and CUNY's Institute for State and Local Government.
She was previously Colorado's first Director of Conviction Integrity and Equity where she co-led the creation of the largest prosecutorial data project in the United States, modernized the DA’s approach to addressing bail, supported the implementation of new sealing legislation, worked with local stakeholders to improve the systemic response to failures to appear, and redesigned the DA’s alternatives to prosecution programming, including diversion. Before her work at the DA's Office, Jenn was in private practice and worked at the Colorado State Public Defender.