Diversion programs offer an effective alternative to prosecution, aiming to connect people with resources, limit their system contact, and avoid convictions and the collateral consequences of incarceration. By reducing recidivism and increasing public safety, diversion programs can achieve better individual outcomes than traditional prosecution. To meet their intended goals, diversion programs should be implemented in ways that center equity, accessibility, and the needs of participants.

One pillar of effective and equitable prosecutor-led diversion is the elimination of fees. Fees create financial barriers that limit access, increase the risk of noncompletion, and place participants at greater risk of incarceration.

This brief examines three jurisdictions where prosecutors have eliminated or significantly reduced diversion fees: Ramsey County, Minnesota; Kaua`i County, Hawai`i; and Fairfax County, Virginia. These examples offer practical lessons in overcoming legal, political, and budgetary hurdles and show that equitable, fee-free or very low-cost diversion is achievable.

Diversion Programs: Key Takeaways

Diversion programs offer alternatives to incarceration by connecting people to services and, in turn, promoting public safety. But participant fees can deepen inequities, shifting financial burdens onto the people the programs aim to help. These costs undermine diversion’s intent: limiting system contact, reducing recidivism, and enhancing public safety.

Publication Highlights

  • In Kaua`i County, Hawai`i, leaders recognize people who need diversion are often least able to pay for it. Eliminating fees preserves access and prevents families from having to sacrifice basic needs.
  • In Ramsey County, Minnesota, diversion programs continued to require restitution for victims and survivors of crime to maintain accountability but rejected fees that served only to generate revenue.
  • Even with strong local support for diversion, Fairfax County, Virginia, officials emphasized the need for a dedicated, recurring diversion budget to safeguard programs against shifting political and funding landscapes.

Key Facts

  • Diversion fees may be as low as $20 or as high as $4,100.
  • Fees do not prevent further system involvement. In a survey of system-impacted Alabama residents, 42 percent reported committing new crimes to obtain money to pay diversion fees.

Read the full article about implementing diversion programs without debt at Vera Institute of Justice.