Skip to main content Accessibility help

Jail diversion: a practical primer

  • Charles L. Scott (a1)


The United States has the highest incarceration rate in the world. With a substantial number of inmates diagnosed with mental illness, substance use, or both, various diversion strategies have been developed to help decrease and avoid criminalization of individuals with mental illness. This article focuses primarily on the first three Sequential Intercept Model intercept points as related to jail diversion and reviews types of diversion programs, research outcomes for diversion programs, and important components that contribute to successful diversion.


Corresponding author

*Address correspondence to: Charles L. Scott, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, UCDMC, 2230 Stockton Boulevard, Sacramento, California 95817, USA. (Email:


Hide All
1.Walmsley, R. World prison population list. World Prison Brief. 12th ed. Institute for Criminal Policy Research; 2018. London, UK. Accessed August 10, 2019.
2.Hoge, SK, Buchanan, AW, Kovasznay, MB, Roskes, EJ. Outpatient services for the mentally ill involved in the criminal justice system. American Psychiatric Association Task Force Report: Washington, DC; 2009: 115.
3.Bronson, J, Stroop, J.Drug Use, Dependence, and Abuse Among State Prisoners and Jail Inmates, 2007-2009. NCJ 250546. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics; 2017.
4.Pinals, DA. Forensic services, public mental health policy, and financing: charting the course ahead. J Am Acad Psychiatry Law. 2014:42(1):719.
5.Dewa, CS, Loong, D, Grujillo, A, Bonato, S. Evidence for the effectiveness of police-based pre-booking diversion programs in decriminalizing mental illness: a systematic literature review. PLoS ONE. 2018;13(6):e0199368.
6.Winick, B, Wexler, DB. Judging in a Therapeutic Key: Therapeutic Jurisprudence and the Court. Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press; 2003
7.Munetz, MR, Griffin, PA. Use of the sequential intercept model as an approach to decriminalization of people with serious mental illness. Psychiatr Serv. 2006;57(4):544549.
8.Livingston, JD. Contact between police and people with mental disorders: a review of rates. Psychiatr Serv. 2016;67 (8):850857.
9.Fisher, WH, Roy-Bujnowski, KM, Grudzinskas, A, Clayfield, JC, Banks, SM, Wolff, N. Patterns and prevalence of arrest in a statewide cohort of mental health care consumers. Psychiatr Serv. 2006;56(11):16231628.
10.Fuller, DA, Kamb, HR, Biasotti, M, Snook, J. Overlooked in the undercounted. The role of mental illness in fatal law enforcement encounters. Treatment Advocacy Center. Accessed August 23, 2019.
11.Reuland, M, Schwarzfeld, M, Draper, L. Law Enforcement Responses to People with Mental Illnesses: A Guide to Research-Informed Policy and Practice. New York, NY: Council of State Governments Justice Center; 2012.
12.Wood, JD, Watson, AC. Improving police interventions during mental health-related encounters: past, present and future. Policing Soc. 2017;27:289299.
13.Dupont, R, Cochran, MJ, Pillsbury, S. Crisis intervention team core elements. The University of Memphis, School of Urban Affairs and Public Policy, Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice, CIT Center, 1-20; 2007.
14.Crisis Intervention Training: National Curriculum. University of Memphis, CIT Center. Accessed August 19, 2019.
15.Cuddeback, GS, Kurtz, RA, Wilson, AB, VanDeinse, T, Burgin, SE. Segmented versus traditional Crisis Intervention Team training. J Am Acad Psychiatry Law. 2016;44(3):338-43.
16.Watson, AC, Ottati, VC, Morabito, M, Draine, J, Kerr, AN, Angel, B. Outcomes of police contacts with persons with mental illness: the impact of CIT. Adm Policy Ment Health. 2010:37:302317.
17.Compton, MT, Bahor, M, Watson, AC, Oliva, JR. A comprehensive review of extant research on Crisis Intervention Team (CIT) programs. J Am Acad Psychiatry Law. 2008:36(1):4755.
18.Compton, MT, Bakeman, R, Broussard, B, D’Orio, B, Watson, AC. Police officers’ volunteering for (rather than being assigned to) Crisis Intervention Team (CIT) training: evidence for a beneficial self-selection effect. Behav Sci Law. 2017:35(6-6):470479.
19.Strassle, CG. CIT in small municipalities: officer level outcomes. Behav Sci Law. 2019:37(4):342352.
20.Watson, AC, Ottati, VC, Morabito, M, Draine, J, Kerr, AN, Angel, B. Outcomes of police contacts with persons with mental illness: the impact of CIT . Adm Policy Ment Health. 2010:37:302317.
21.Steadman, HJ, Morrissette, D. Police responses to persons with mental illness: going beyond CIT training. Psych Serv. 2016:67(10):10541056.
22.Compton, MT, Halpern, B, Broussard, B, et al. A potential new form of jail diversion and reconnection to mental health services: 1. Stakeholders’ views on acceptability. Behav Sci Law . 2017:35:480491.
23.Puntis, S, Perfect, D, Kirubarajan, A, et al. A systematic review of co-responder models of police mental health ‘street’ triage. BMC Psychiatry. 2018:18(1):111.
24.Meehan, T, Brack, J, Mansfield, Y, Stedman, T. Do police-mental health co-responder programmes reduce emergency department presentations or simply delay the inevitable? Australas Psychiatry. 2019:27(1):1820.
25.Scott, RL. Evaluation of a mobile crisis program: effectiveness, efficiency, and consumer satisfaction. Psychiatr Serv. 2000:51(9):11531156.
26.Steadman, HJ, Stainbrook, KA, Griffin, P, Draine, J, Dupont, R, Horey, C. A specialized crisis response site as a core element of police-based diversion programs. Psychiatr Serv. 2001:52(2):219222.
27.Sirotich, F.The criminal justice outcomes of jail diversion programs for persons with mental illness; a review of the evidence. J Am Acad Psych Law. 2009;37(4):461472.
28.Shafer, MS, Arthur, B, Franczak, MJ. An analysis of post-booking jail diversion programming for persons with co-occurring disorders. Behav Sci Law. 2004;22:771–85.
29.Gill, KJ, Murphy, AA. Jail diversion for persons with serious mental illness coordinated by a prosecutor’s office. BioMed Research Int. 2017;2017:7.
30.Salzberg, PM, Klingberg, CL. The effectiveness of deferred prosecution for driving while intoxicated. J Stud Alcohol. 1983:44(2):299306.
31.Washington State Institute for Public Policy. Deferred prosecution of DUI cases in Washington State: evaluating the impact on recidivism, August 2008. Accessed August 21, 2019.
32.Fulkerson, A, Keena, LD, O’Brien, E. Understanding success and nonsuccess in the drug court. Int J Offender Therapy Compar Criminol. 2012;57(10):12971316.
33.Harrell, A, Roman, J. Reducing drug use and crime among offenders: the impact of graduated sanctions. J Drug Issues. 2001;31:207232.
34.Lindquist, CH, Krebs, C, Lattimore, PK. Sanctions and rewards in drug court programs: implementation, perceived efficacy, and decision making. J Drug Issues. 2006;36:119145.
35.Fulkerson, A. Drug treatment versus probation: an examination of comparative recidivism rates. Southwest J Crim Justice . 2012;8:3045.
36.Goldkamp, JD, Irons-Guynn, C. Emerging Judicial Strategies for the Mentally Ill in the Criminal Caseload: Mental Health Courts in Fort Laurderdale, Seattle, San Bernardino, and Anchorage. Washington, DC: Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Assistance Monograph; 2000. Pub no. NCJ 182504.
37.McNeil, DE, Binder, RL. Effectiveness of a mental health court in reducing criminal recidivism and violence. Am J Psychiatry. 2007;164:1895–1403.
38.Lowder, EM, Rade, CB, Desmarais, SL. Effectiveness of mental health courts in reducing recidivism: a meta-analysis. Psychiatr Serv. 2018;69(1):1522.
39.Redlich, AD, Steadman, HJ, Monahan, K, Petrila, J, Griffin, PA. The second generation of mental health courts. Psychol Public Policy Law. 2005;11(4):527538.
40.Yuan, Y, Capriotti, MR. The impact of mental health court: a Sacramento case study. Behav Sci Law. 2019;37:452467.
41.Pinals, DA, Gaba, A, Clary, KM, Barber, J, Reiss, J, Smelson, D. Implementation of MISSION-Criminal Justice in a treatment court: preliminary outcomes among individuals with co-occurring disorders. Psychiatr Serv. 2019;70(11):10441048.
42.Bazelon, D. Forward. In Insanity Inside Out. Donaldson K. Crown, University of Michigan; 1976: xi.


Jail diversion: a practical primer

  • Charles L. Scott (a1)


Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed.