Author: Matt Davis

One in four women experience domestic violence in their lifetime. But three in four women who have been, or are, incarcerated have experienced it. Despite these disparately high rates among incarcerated women, jails too often lack organized domestic violence-specific services for women. Very few jails have programs to address women’s needs related to abuse and trauma. It is time to change that because more research shows providing such services is a good idea. They can help increase the success of reentry services and improve well-being. And that is an important part of efforts to reduce jail populations across the country.

Peer-support groups are the focus of a new report co-authored by survivors. It is a project of the National Center for Victims of Crime with support from the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation’s Safety and Justice Challenge. Along with our panel of experts with lived experience, we convened a listening session to discuss how to create domestic violence peer-support groups in jails. The experts from this working group identified five principles to guide the development of domestic violence peer-support groups for women who are incarcerated. This is not an exhaustive list, but a starting point for engagement and implementation in institutions. We are hopeful that communities will want to partner with us to embed these principles.

Principle 1: The jail intake process should screen for whether a woman is a domestic violence survivor.

The intake process for women who are incarcerated should include an assessment to detect past domestic violence victimization, and jails should utilize gender-responsive assessment tools for this. Still, women who are incarcerated may not be ready to fully disclose their histories of domestic violence victimization when they arrive at a facility. Jails, therefore, should offer continuous opportunities for women to disclose information about their past.

Principle 2: Implement comprehensive and easily accessible compensation to peer domestic violence guides for their work. 

It is vital that women serving as domestic violence peer guides are compensated, financially or otherwise, for their service. Women should be compensated regardless of whether they serve as peer guides during or after their incarceration. Furthermore, work as a domestic violence peer guide while incarcerated, at a minimum, should constitute an internship with a partnering domestic violence program and qualify as requisite experience for a paid position with the organization upon release. Building relationships with external domestic violence organizations can also help institutions strengthen their policies around working with women who are survivors of domestic violence.

Principle 3: Supportive partnership and collaboration between peer guides and external domestic violence programs is needed. 

In addition to bringing domestic violence programming into jails, community-based domestic violence providers should train incarcerated victims and survivors to serve as peer guides. Community-based domestic violence programs should hire formerly incarcerated domestic violence survivors to work with domestic violence peer-support groups in jails and ensure that peer-support specialists receive just compensation. This duality of lived experience is necessary for peer guides to fully understand the traumas that have occurred before, during, and even after incarceration, and allows the guides to provide stronger and more relevant support for domestic violence victims who are incarcerated.

Principle 4: Ensure access to holistic care to treat the whole person.

Domestic violence peer-support programs in jails should engage holistically with incarcerated victims and survivors. Trauma is an emotional response to an intense event that threatens or causes harm. It is often the result of an overwhelming amount of stress that exceeds one’s ability to cope with the emotions involved with that experience. Educating incarcerated victims and survivors about trauma can help women realize that they are recovering from a serious stressor and learn more about their own stress responses and coping strategies, allowing them to build a sense of control over those responses. Trauma education can also minimize self-blame and build community among victims and survivors through a better understanding of their shared experiences. 

Principle 5: Correctional officers (CO) who transport women to and oversee domestic violence peer-support groups should be trauma-informed and trained on the dynamics of domestic violence.

The majority of individuals who interface with the criminal justice system, including jails, have been exposed to traumatic events, like domestic violence. However, institutional confinement, like jail, is not intended to house victims and often does not acknowledge or recognize that individuals involved in the criminal justice system are often victims before they committed their offense. Instead, incarceration is another traumatic event. Being locked in a cell is one of the most horrific, stressful experiences a person can endure. The act of locking another human being in a cell is also traumatic and potentially dangerous to the correctional staff. Incarcerated people and correctional staff alike are traumatized, forcing them to react to the world around them from a position of fear, making them more likely to respond with aggression. The trauma shared by staff and people who are incarcerated exists in a constant feedback loop in which no one feels safe.

Given the prevalence of preexisting victimization and ongoing trauma, especially in women who are incarcerated, jails need to embrace a trauma-informed approach and culture. A key part of creating this kind of environment is providing ongoing training to ensure that correctional officers understand the impact and prevalence of trauma and its pervasive effects on the brain and body, as well as the specific dynamics of domestic violence. Doing so can help to break the cycle of trauma for both women who are incarcerated and the staff who work with them.

The report would not have been possible without the expertise of our co-authors, Tanisha Murden and Rylinda Rhodes. We would like to thank them for sharing their knowledge, ideas, and experiences, as well as helping us create a more healing space for all survivors. We hope communities will find the recommendations in the report useful and explore implementing them in their policies. Just because someone is incarcerated does not mean they are not also victims of crime. In the case of domestic violence survivors, often the very actions that resulted in someone’s incarceration could have stemmed from self-defense or another means of escaping an abusive situation. It is incumbent on us, as a society, to support victims of crime in all circumstances.

Failure to appear in court is often a disproportionate driver of jail populations. It is important to understand it better and to reframe it, as part of the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation’s Safety and Justice Challenge (SJC)—which is reducing jail populations across America.

Justice System Partners (JSP), a technical assistance provider to the Safety and Justice Challenge, recently conducted an in-depth study about why people do not get to court as scheduled in Lake County, Illinois. Leadership there know even one night in jail can be disastrous for some people. It can lead to a host of negative consequences including loss of employment. But they saw bench warrants for missing court were also driving their jail population at a disparate rate. That is why they wanted to know more about why people miss court.

JSP interviewed 50 people, most of whom were in custody for a bench warrant, not a new crime, at the time. The focus of the interviews was about barriers individuals face when trying to get to court as scheduled. The interview also asked about which services or supports might help and if automated court notification systems and virtual court proceedings help people get to court easier.

Some of the key findings and recommendations were:

Acknowledge Major Barriers to Court Appearance 

Participants described three major barriers to getting to court. They were: life responsibilities and challenges; logistical and technical concerns; and past experiences and emotional reactions. Over a third of the people interviewed described navigating more than one major barrier at the time of their court recorded absence. 60 percent of participants described life responsibilities and challenges as a primary barrier to getting to court as scheduled. This includes managing mental health challenges; serving as a primary care giver; working; simultaneously navigating custody and divorce cases; and securing shelter or navigating homelessness. Over a quarter of individuals (28 percent) reported that attending their court hearing would put their basic needs, like food or shelter, at risk.

Reframe the Term “Failure to Appear”

A key takeaway of the report is the importance of reframing the language of the missed court hearing. People are trying to get to court. Individuals described navigating multiple obligations, competing demands, and barriers too challenging to overcome. Some individuals described the need to prioritize basic needs, like food and shelter, over their court obligations. The report recommends shifting the term from “failure to appear” to terms such as “recorded court absence” or “not getting to court as scheduled.”

Use Intermediary Steps to Avoid Cascading Impacts of Bench Warrants

When individuals return to jail from a bench warrant after not getting to court as scheduled, it can have a cascading impact on their life. Courts should consider alternatives to warrants for missing court hearings. For people who do not have the material resources to get to court, the threat of a bench warrant and returning to jail may not be compelling. It is simply not effective. Courts should consider an intermediary step before issuing a bench warrant. This could include strategies that do not prompt an arrest, and instead encourage attendance, such as relying on the notification system or issuing cite-in-lieu or summons.

Help People Meet Court Obligations

We must critically challenge the desire to punish individuals who are often experiencing cumulative disadvantage and navigating poverty. Helping people who repeatedly miss court to meet their court obligations will require a radical shift in traditional case processing. It is time we consider that many individuals navigating the court cannot prioritize court over other personal obligations. Helping individuals with limited resources meet the obligations of their case will require developing policies that treat court as one of many important obligations in their life. It also means investing in better awareness of notification systems. 90 percent of individuals were not aware of either the county’s Public Defender or Pretrial Services court reminder notification systems. Of the people who were not aware of the system, more than 90 percent said they would opt into the system if offered to do so again.

Offer Grace and Flexibility

The rigidity of court rules about tardiness and day-of-attendance penalizes individuals who are willing to get to court but lack the resources to do so. In some cases, the perceived rules related to lateness encourage individuals to reluctantly choose not to come to court. Courts could prioritize an individual’s schedule or, at least, offer more flexibility when scheduling court hearings. Courts could also set up a grace period for tardiness by moving individuals to the end of the docket to give them more time to arrive. Courts could create an overflow docket or “make up” docket at the end of the week for individuals who were unable to attend earlier in the week.

Challenge Perceptions And Norms About In-Person vs. Virtual Hearings

Participants perceived judges as more willing to extend grace to individuals who appear in-person rather than virtually. As a result, individuals risk missing court altogether by trying to prioritize appearing in-person, even though a virtual hearing might have been available and easier to attend. Judges must reckon with the implicit biases they may have for individuals who use virtual court to navigate their case. Courts should reevaluate existing culture prioritizing in-person hearings and propose alternative options which encourage flexibility. Courts should also consider the necessity of attendance and prioritize and minimize the number of hearings an individual must attend.

Reconsider the Goal of the Court

We must reconsider the goal of the court: to enforce attendance or to help people responsibly resolve their case. Courts are effectively asking an already taxed and emotionally drained person to navigate another large, taxing, and emotionally draining system without financial or emotional assistance. The consequence for navigating the system incorrectly is returning to jail, an accelerant to continued and chronic disadvantage.

Enhance Equity

Missing court is rarely a willful event or an attempt to evade justice. Enhancing equity in the pretrial process will require courts to reimagine the process for the population of people who continuously miss court. Importantly, enhancing equity will require courts to critically challenge the desire to punish individuals who are navigating poverty while also navigating their case.

If they go to jail at all, most people in America only do so once. But in communities across the country, there is often a small group of people who account for a large number of jail admissions. They also account for a large portion of total jail expenditures. A new two-year research project sought to better understand this population in three communities and makes policy recommendations from which others can learn. The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation funded the study as part of their Safety and Justice Challenge, which seeks to reduce jail populations.

How Did the Researchers Work and What Did They Find?

The study incorporated quantitative and qualitative methods. Researchers drilled into at least eight years’-worth of data from each of three communities to identify and describe the population of people with frequent jail contact. They also conducted interviews with 27 practitioners across a range of service sectors and 23 people with lived experience. Finally, they used both the quantitative and qualitative data to examine the strategies used by each community participating in the study to reduce jail contact.

The research found people with frequent bookings accounted for about one-half of all the bookings that occurred during the study period. Across communities participating in the study, people with frequent jail contact account for a majority of bookings, but account for a minority of the people booked. People of color and people with behavioral health needs are overrepresented. The study’s findings also emphasize complex interrelationships between race and ethnicity, gender, and behavioral health needs. They point to potential disconnects between the perceived and actual characteristics of people with frequent jail contact.

Different communities used different strategies to aid people with frequent jail contact but most did not have strategies intended for that exclusive purpose. Rather, they implemented strategies intended to aid everyone. All participating communities selected diversion strategies for people with behavioral health conditions as their primary intervention for the study’s focus. And the study found that behavioral health diversion strategies may improve outcomes for people with frequent jail contact. More broadly, the study findings underscore the importance of comprehensive community-based resources to support the success of behavioral health diversion programs. Findings also show the need for strategies that cross many systems and levels of policy and practice.

Policy Recommendations

Based upon the study findings, the researchers have nine policy recommendations:

1. Create a Data Sharing Ecosystem

To meet the complex needs of people with frequent jail contact—especially individuals with behavioral health challenges—criminal legal and behavioral health systems need a common data sharing language and platform. Ideally, the common language and platform would extend to other systems as well, such as social and emergency services.

2. Establish Formal, Jurisdiction-Specific Definitions

Jurisdictions should develop formal definitions or criteria to support the consistent operationalization and identification of people with frequent jail contact. These definitions should drive the development and implementation of related policies.

3. Use Validated Behavioral Health Screening Tools

Consistent with the standards for health services in jails and prisons, universal screening using validated screening tools should take place during the intake process at each door into and away from the criminal legal system.

4. Implement Psychiatric Advanced Directives

Psychiatric advance directives are intended to enable self-determined treatment, and effective and clear communication from a past and competent self, for individuals who are at risk of losing decisional capacity at some point in the future.

5. Facilitate Jail In-Reach Programs

Trust and engagement are key to successful reentry for people with frequent jail contact. Jail in-reach programs allow practitioners to meet with people in the jail before release, assess their needs when back in the community, develop a plan to meet those needs, identify how community providers can assist, and provide coordinated support as people transition into the community.

6. Increase Peer Support Programs

Peer support programs should be a key feature of policies designed to reduce frequent jail contact. While the focus is typically on lived experience with behavioral health systems, people with lived experience of the criminal legal system, specifically, share a common understanding of the challenges and resources necessary for successful reentry.

7. Improve Access to Housing

Affordable housing is scarce in most communities. Providing safe, sustainable, and supportive housing for people involved in the criminal legal system with behavioral health conditions can be a challenge, but it is critical to reducing frequent jail contact.

8. Increase Utilization of Community-Based Services

When possible, people should be given the necessary supports in navigating the continuum of care. In addition to warm handoffs from one service provider or program to another, other examples include a shared video chat with a new provider or engaging peer support services during transitions.

9. Center and Evaluate Efforts for Racial Equity 

Evaluations suggest that efforts to reduce frequent jail contact have had limited success in improving racial equity in this population, likely due to multiple, intersecting factors. Communities should work to mitigate systemic racism through the operations of their criminal legal and behavioral health services for people with frequent jail contact and examine the success of these efforts through formal evaluations.

A new study–“At The Intersection of Probation and Jail Reduction Efforts”–is a building block in understanding how probation, jail, and housing challenges intersect, and how providing transitional housing support can help reduce jail incarceration.

Probation populations have been a major driver of prison and jail incarceration in the United States through arrests for new crimes and technical violations, contributing substantially to mass incarceration. One recent national analysis found that a third of all people in jail were on probation at the time of arrest; 27 percent of the people in jail were there due to technical violations of probation. There are also substantial racial and ethnic disparities in probation sentences and outcomes.

Housing instability is also a major issue for people on probation and a serious factor in criminal-legal involvement, though there is limited research on this topic. One 2018 report found that formerly incarcerated people are nearly ten times more likely to experience homelessness than the general public. The increased risk of criminal-legal involvement, especially incarceration, can be particularly salient among people serving probation, who are required to report and maintain a valid address as a probation condition. Failing to do so can result in jail incarceration.

Our study came about as part of a national effort to lower jail populations. Pima County, Arizona has made reforms to address probation-related drivers of jail incarceration as a community participating in the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation’s Safety and Justice Challenge (SJC). The SJC aims to safely reduce jail populations and eliminate racial inequities in incarceration.

Analysis conducted by Pima County found that, in 2016, over 500 people who had two or more bookings in the county jail in the prior year also lacked a permanent housing address. The county’s various subsequent reforms addressing probation-related drivers of jail included strengthening transitional housing support for people on probation to address the pervasive housing challenges.

The Urban Institute partnered with the Adult Probation Department (APD) in Pima County to study probation-related pathways to jail incarceration and system-level trends in jail incarceration for people on probation. The study also looks at the effects of providing transitional housing support to people on probation, particularly in terms of jail use. Urban analyzed administrative data on people in jail and on probation, conducted interviews and reviewed probation case files for this study. The final research report is accompanied by a research brief focusing on the transitional housing work.

Looking at the Probation Population and Pathways To Jail

The study found that on average, probation sentences in Pima County were between three and four years long. Compared to the county’s overall population, the Hispanic and Black populations were overrepresented among people on probation. Hispanic people accounted for 39 percent of the county population but 43 percent of the probation population, and Black people accounted for 4 percent of the county population but 13 percent of the probation population. Roughly 10 percent of all jail bookings in Pima County were due to probation violations, representing an overall low portion of admissions to jail. However, average length of stay in jail for people with probation violations was 66 days, which is nearly three times as long as that for the pretrial population (25 days) and five times as long as that for the sentenced population (13 days).

Through the study, the research team identified the major ways that people on probation were ending up in jail. First, they can be detained in jail before their probation violation disposition. Second, people on probation can be held in jail as a formal non-revocation sanction, like for example a short-term stay for a failed drug test. Finally, in cases of more serious violations, people on probation can have their probation terminated and be sent to jail for probation revocations or coterminous sentences. The main probation violations resulting in jail stays are commitment of serious, new offenses and/or absconding.

The Effects of Transitional Housing

Between January 2020 and June 2022, 331 people serving probation in Pima County received financial assistance to access transitional housing. The Adult Probation Department prioritized people with higher risk of violating probation and more critical housing needs when making decisions around funding for transitional housing. Accordingly, people who received financial support to access transitional housing were more likely to be charged with a felony at the time of original sentencing, classified as higher risk based on criminogenic risk scores, generally had more formal violation petitions filed against them, were on the Intensive Probation Supervision caseload, and have sentences that entail both incarceration and probation terms.

Based on an analysis of administrative data, the research team found that the odds of jail incarceration upon violating probation conditions were not significantly different for people who received Adult Probation Department funding for transitional housing from those who did not. Yet, it is important to note that these null effects can be due to the small number of people served and limited data available on people who received transitional housing support, given that the program is in its early stages of implementation. Additionally, interviewed stakeholders perceived transitional housing support for people on probation to be a crucial stabilizing force and meaningful to their well-being. For example, they claimed that it helps with securing employment, attending programs such as those related to substance use or financial literacy, opening a bank account, and securing more permanent housing. Based on this multi-faceted definition, multiple housing providers posited a success rate of around 70 percent for their residents who were on probation. Transitional housing can be crucial in providing people immediate (albeit temporary) stability, instilling accountability, and reducing the likelihood of absconding among people experiencing housing instability.

Transitional housing can be a crucial part of a multifaceted approach to providing stability to people serving probation, but it may be insufficient in and of itself. A person receiving transitional housing support while serving probation said: “If I don’t have a place to live, then [probation authorities] would send me back to prison while I was on probation. Your probation officer has to have a place to visit you. Also, [housing provides] protection from the weather. If there was more help, then there would be more success. This should come from APD. The housing providers’ job is to maintain the house and that is already difficult enough for them. APD should be required to help them find jobs; It’s not just about housing, it’s about employment and helping them integrate back into society.”

What’s Next?

If the goal is to reduce incarceration nationally, it is imperative that communities like Pima County continue to build on its efforts to reduce its overall jail population and further constrict the pathways from probation to jail. While its efforts have already reaped significant results – in terms of a smaller overall probation population in recent years, and only a small proportion of the probation population having jail-related outcomes – jail is still one of the main response options for people on probation, particularly individuals experiencing housing challenges or struggling with mental health or substance use issues. This jail use should be further reduced as part of broader efforts to deal with housing, mental health and substance use issues through non-punitive, non-carceral and more rehabilitative means. The county should also address broader, more structural issues such as the dearth of affordable and accessible housing and treatment facilities.

The county’s various jail population reductions, particularly its housing programs, are therefore a step in the right direction. Even though the quantitative assessment did not provide statistically significant evidence of improved outcomes, the qualitative findings show that stakeholders perceived the transitional housing support to be extremely meaningful to the wellbeing of beneficiaries, and it is important to continue developing interventions to tackle this important topic. Moving forward, Pima County and other communities can use this analysis to not only examine but also reduce their jail populations, limit the pathways from probation to jail and strengthen housing support as part of their push towards improved public safety. As the transitional housing program expands, and more data is collected and made available, an impact assessment of the program could provide more robust estimates on its efficacy on probation outcomes.

The last several years have ushered in a seismic shift to Los Angeles County’s criminal justice landscape. Home to the world’s largest jail system, LA County achieved an unprecedented 25 percent decline in its jail population–the largest in the nation during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic. While the overall number of people in jail decreased, the percentage of people of color and people with mental health needs behind bars in LA increased. This changing composition mirrored a national trend and illustrated a key lesson: without a parallel effort to promote racial equity and provide safe, community-based care for people who need it, reducing jail populations may actually worsen disparities.

To address this, LA County—a grantee in the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation’s Safety and Justice Challenge—announced a new vision of “Care First, Jails Last” and deepened its investment in community-based support for vulnerable populations and alternatives to incarceration. LA County also launched the Justice, Care, and Opportunities Department to consolidate most of these efforts under one roof.

As members of the Center for Justice Innovation (The Center) team, we are technical assistance partners in the Safety and Justice Challenge and worked with LA County to expand their alternatives to incarceration with particular emphasis on equity. Inspired by the learnings from this work—and grounded in our long history of launching and operating diversion programs—our West Coast Initiatives team authored a new report. The report offers concrete insights to inform the development of equitable diversion programming around the country. For practitioners seeking to create diversion programs, this document offers advice on designing early alternatives to incarceration, leveraging data to identify and connect with target populations, and working towards racially equitable outcomes.

We collaborated with LA County to launch two initiatives—the Rapid Diversion Program, which is court-based, and the Prefiling Diversion Program, which is based in law enforcement stations. Both programs aim to reduce the use of jail by connecting participants to safe, appropriate, and community-based care.

While successful diversion programs can safely reduce the use of incarceration, special care must be taken to ensure that these programs are carried out in an equitable way. We hope the insights of the report can provide guidance for developing diversion initiatives that bridge the gap between legal systems and communities while caring for vulnerable populations.

The first section of the report offers tips for developing the essential components of an early diversion program. Recommendations include:

• Create infrastructure to divert people at the early stages of a case.
• When determining eligibility criteria, prioritize the client profile over charges. When creating diversion programs, justice partners typically determine charge types to include and exclude in programs. Instead, we suggest program partners determine the profile of people they want to serve—for example, mental health, people with three or more arrests/system contacts, young people, race and ethnic groups that are disproportionately represented, etc.—and let that guide program development.
• Make charge-based exclusions (sex offenses) presumptively instead of categorically ineligible. This means that instead of having categorical exclusions based on what people may be charged with, presume people are eligible for programs and, when someone is facing a presumptively ineligible charge, allow for discussion on a case-by-case basis.
• Even within the same municipality, recognize that each diversion site may operate differently and have a distinct culture.
• Seek out cross-sector collaborations and expertise in the program planning phase.

The opportunity to provide community-based care to people with unmet social service needs can happen at stages that far precede a criminal conviction—any time before a criminal case is adjudicated, and indeed, even before criminal charges are filed. For example, LA’s Prefiling and Rapid Diversion Programs utilize police stations and courts as potential off-ramps from the traditional legal system path.

Both programs pursue a common objective: to expand early interventions for people with unmet needs rather than continued detention or release without any supportive resources. To accomplish this, LA located behavioral health care professionals in the jails and courthouse. For Prefiling Diversion, this meant physically converting unused breathalyzer rooms and offices into spaces for care by placing service navigators in the station. Service navigators find programs and help people enroll in them and understand how to get connected to the program (i.e. when and where to go for intake, whom to call for questions). The Rapid Diversion Program embedded pairs of service navigators and clinicians in courthouses.

Four roles can improve the diversion infrastructure:

• Mental Health Clinician—screens candidates for behavioral health conditions and appropriate level of services for the behavioral health program someone will need.
• Service Navigator—identifies healthcare and social service needs, finds local programs and providers, and connects participants to these organizations and services.
• Case Manager—supports participants one-on-one. Often the main point of contact for program participants, case managers provide referrals for continuing needs, such as education, employment resources, benefits, and housing, and help participants stay engaged in the program.
• Driver—takes participants to their agreed upon destinations, oftentimes directly from the police station or courthouse to appointments, referred services, and future court dates. This is especially important for jurisdictions where transportation equity is a challenge. Although the driver’s primary role is to transport program participants, the driver frequently interacts with program participants and serves as an additional level of support.

Building these roles into any diversion program—and locating these professionals at the booking station or courthouse where possible—can help ensure that people with specialized knowledge connect participants to resources in a coordinated way. Interactions with program staff are also supportive touchpoints, which is made possible by hiring staff who understand the needs of participants and want to help. This includes people with lived experiences (including families impacted by the criminal justice system), previous program graduates, and people with clinical backgrounds. Remaining intentional about including and staffing each role, especially case managers and drivers who interact with participants frequently—can make even the mandatory components of diversion programs motivational.

The second section of the report includes recommendations for using data to promote equitable practices for diversion. The report stresses the need for prioritizing data collection as a critical tool in ensuring equity. Data analysis can help to identify underlying needs and shape the design process prior to program launch. After launch, a consistent flow of data among partners is necessary to sustain the program and gives planners the ability to adjust the program as needed.

Recommendations include:

• Use relevant and detailed data at the planning stage to ensure equity and effectiveness of programming.
• Review program performance data on an ongoing basis to ensure the right people are being served.
• Make data planning a team effort.
• Clarify roles and responsibilities around data management.

When launching a program meant to achieve equity, program planners should learn how to meet the needs of the desired population. Instead of looking at the types of charges to divert, examine who is being charged and any trends that can inform the demographic to serve (e.g. people who are unhoused but arrested for quality of life offenses, or people arrested on a drug offense but who are excluded based on prior drug convictions). Having a better understanding of common issues—not just charges—that people face can radically shape programming.

In addition to using data on the front end of design, the report recommends reviewing program performance data on an ongoing basis to ensure program efficacy and equity. Recurring reviews should include program staff who can speak to participants’ growth in the programs, especially to help the program collaborators understand ways to improve and sustain the program so it continues to have its intended impact.

Many partners in Los Angeles County make the Prefiling and Rapid Diversion Programs possible, including the LA County’s Justice Care, and Opportunities Department,the Offices of the Los Angeles County Public Defender and Alternate Defender, the Los Angeles City Attorney’s Office, and Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office, the Department of Mental Health, Project 180, and Exodus Recovery, Inc.