To provide grounds for reform, jurisdictions used data to strengthen their case: Ramsey used fiscal analysis to show low collection rates, and Kaua’i cited research from Hawaii showing fees are ineffective.
Diversion programs offer an early off-ramp from the criminal legal system, providing accountability while reducing recidivism and enhancing public safety. However, the imposition of diversion program costs and fees undermines the goal of diversion and incentivizes revenue generation over public safety. Participants may be charged program fees that range from a one-time fee of $20 to $4,100, depending on the program–only 21 states require providers to consider an individual’s ability to pay those fees. The authors argue that fees do not increase accountability or prevent recidivism. Instead, they may increase crime as a survival strategy and create barriers that disproportionately affect Black, Latinx, Indigenous, and low-income communities. This research brief shares lessons learned from three jurisdictions where prosecutors eliminated or significantly reduced diversion fees: Ramsey County, Minnesota; Kaua`i County, Hawai`i; and Fairfax County, Virginia. Key takeaways include the need for sustainable, diversified funding, engaging in community partnerships to deliver services, identifying and framing fees as an inequitable barrier to diversion, and securing buy-in from county boards, managers, or state legislatures that control budgets.
You can read the full text here.
Key Findings:
- Ramsey County, Minnesota, eliminated fees for participants in diversion programs by adopting “strategies that cut costs, streamlined operations, and generated new revenue.”
-
-
- Before reforms, participants were assessed the following fees: daily monitoring fees, probation fees, chemical health assessments, and other fees.
- To decrease the impact on the budget, Ramsey County reduced the number of people on probation by offering early discharge to low-risk clients, saving the county $793,000.
- The county generated new revenue from voluntary payments in lieu of property taxes by tax-exempt institutions and renegotiating jail housing contracts .
-
- Kaua`i County, Hawai`i, eliminated fees for participants by funding its programs from grants—$1,000,000 in U.S. Department of Justice Bureau of Justice Administration
- (BJA) funding and $550,000 in BJA mental health grant (in partnership with Vera) .
-
-
- The county used legislative findings on the ineffectiveness and inefficietness of juvenile fines and fees to support fee elimination.
-
- Fairfax County, Virginia, assesses a one-time court fee for its diversion program, as mandated by state statute, but all services and supervision are free of charge to participants.
-
- Fairfax County’s Office of the Commonwealth’s Attorney (OCA) first invested directly from its own office budget to fund diversion efforts. Then it received an additional $250,000 in federal funding earmarked for diversion programs over three years.
Recommendations to establish cost-free diversion programs:
- Prohibit nonpayment from being used to deny entry into diversion programs or prosecution of charges.
- Provide alternatives to payment policies, such as sliding scale payment plans.
- Increase transparency by making fee waivers and reductions publicly available to all potential participants.