Diversion: Where Do We Go From Here?

Abstract

This conclusion provides a brief synopsis of the research articles presented in this special edition of The Journal of Contemporary Justice. The research findings clearly demonstrate that when the objective of diversion is sought by diversion-based programs where the criminal justice and health care systems intersect, processes and services frequently break down. As this collection of articles highlights, our collective understanding of diversion is siloed by academic discipline; thus, the broader picture of diversion remains muddled. It remains muddled because the reporting of diversion is scattered across disciplinary journals where a more robust understanding of diversion becomes unwieldy if not impossible for researchers and practitioners alike without sifting through multiple books, journals, manuscripts, and websites. Therefore, diversion will continue to elude efficacy without the coordination and cooperation of numerous disciplines spanning both the criminal justice and health care systems diversion. As this collection of articles strongly suggests, there is a need to create a transdisciplinary understanding of diversion as well as publication outlets so best practices can be developed and shared in one place.

Keywords

diversion mental health criminal justice interdisciplinary

Diversion is about real people and real situations that affect individual lives. Yet it exists within complex intersections between criminal justice and health care agencies that vary by jurisdiction. It affects not only the individual being diverted but also the law enforcement and mental health agencies’ practitioners and professionals involved in and across both systems. Diversion necessitates connections between many different agencies, yet the exchange of inmates, clients, patients, and/or information within and between agencies often remains localized and unstandardized. Thus, the areas of intersection between these systems are where processes and services frequently break down, causing frustration for providers and consequences for the client. Despite the proliferation of diversion programs, they are not without their challenges. A major challenge is the expense to implement and operate. Some jurisdictions may experience political opposition to diversion in lieu of incarceration. Another challenge is diversion programs being difficult to coordinate between the criminal justice system and the health care system with their separate authority structures and competing interests and organizational costs.

Despite these challenges, diversion programs are an important step in addressing the overrepresentation of individuals with mental illness in the criminal justice system. Overrepresentation is due to a number of factors, including the lack of access to mental health care, the criminalization of mental illness, and the stigma associated with mental illness. By providing justice-involved individuals with mental illness community-based treatment and services, diversion programs can help to show that individuals with mental illness are not criminals and that they can be successful members of society.

In addition, diversion is notoriously hard to define because the United States does not have one streamlined criminal justice system nor does it have a unified health care system. Thus, there are thousands of agencies in many different jurisdictions all adapting, implementing, and performing diversion. Similarly, the agencies are disparate, discrete, and disjointed as are the criminal justice and health care systems. There are a variety of diversion programs available; each designed around their local conditions, the specific needs of the local jurisdictions, and the individual circumstances of the situation. Some diversion programs are pre-arrest or pretrial programs (i.e., designed to keep individuals with mental illness out of jail before either charges are filed or conviction for a crime). Other diversion programs are post-conviction diversion programs, which means they are designed to help individuals with mental illness who have already been convicted of a crime re-enter the community. Diversion programs can take a variety of forms, but they all share the goal of providing mental health treatment and support to justice-involved individuals with mental illness.

In addition to the aforementioned challenges, there are a number of other factors that need consideration to ensure the success of diversion programs. These include (a) political will to provide adequate funding and resources, (b) the strength of the collaborations between the criminal justice system and the mental health system in the local jurisdictions, and (c) extent of cross-trained providers (law enforcement, patrol, probation, parole and health care emergency medical services (EMS), Emergency Department physicians and nurses, and counselors) who understand appropriate services for justice-involved individuals with mental illness.

Without the coordination and cooperation of numerous disciplines spanning the criminal justice and health care systems, diversion alludes efficacy. As this collection of articles highlights, our collective understanding of diversion is siloed by discipline; thus, the broader picture remains muddled. The reporting of diversion is scattered across disciplinary journals and a robust understanding of diversion is impossible without sifting through multiple books, journals, manuscripts, and websites. There is a need to create a transdisciplinary understanding and publication outlets so best practices can be developed and shared in one place.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author Biographies

Robert E. Forbis Jr., PhD, is a visiting assistant professor at Western Oregon University, Department of Politics, Policy, and Administration. His research focuses on environmental, energy, climate, sustainability, arctic, social justice, and indigenous politics, law, policy, and governance.

Lisaann S. Gittner, PhD, is an associate professor at Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center, School of Population and Public Health. She uses big data to model factors contributing to healthy places. She is funded by NSF (#1238338) to model the etiology of lifestyle diseases, healthy spaces, and adverse social conditions. Previously, she was funded to build diversion collaboratives to reduce incidence of individuals with mental health issues in detention centers in rural areas by DoJ (MO-BX-0031 and MO-BX-0030).

Jeff A. Dennis, PhD, is an associate professor at Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center, School of Population and Public Health. His research examines social determinants of health and public mental health. Previously, he was funded to build diversion collaboratives and first responder mental health training in rural areas by DoJ (MO-BX-0031 and MO-BX-0030).

Jerry M. Stott, MPA, is a doctoral candidate in the Department of Political Science at the University of Utah. His research focuses on environmental law, environmental justice, public lands policy, sustainability, and social equity in public administration.

Jordan T. Giese, MPA, is a doctoral candidate in the Department of Political Science at the University of Utah. His research focuses on nuclear waste sites in the west, native sovereignty, militarism, and environmental justice.