Equity Considerations in Mental Health Diversion in California
ResearchPosted on rand.org Jun 18, 2025Published in: Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, Volume 63, Issue 3 (2024), Pages 131-150. doi: 10.1080/10509674.2024.2320442
ResearchPosted on rand.org Jun 18, 2025Published in: Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, Volume 63, Issue 3 (2024), Pages 131-150. doi: 10.1080/10509674.2024.2320442
Mental health diversion under California Assembly Bill (AB) 1810 created a pretrial pathway for individuals to enroll in community-based treatment as an alternative to incarceration if they have a mental illness that played a significant role in the crime for which they were charged. Mental health diversion may be a promising approach to addressing racial disparities in incarceration. This qualitative, community-partnered study examines how racial equity was considered in the design and implementation of mental health diversion under AB 1810 in nine counties across California. We explored five main themes: involvement of community stakeholders; cultural competence of providers; availability of diversion across counties; efforts to monitor demographics; and diversion as an opportunity to address racial disparities in the criminal legal system. We found that, although many legal professionals are optimistic about the capacity of mental health diversion to address racial disparities in incarceration, there have been limited efforts to monitor the demographics of diversion participants, differing understandings of cultural competency, limited community involvement in the design of mental health diversion, and limitations to the availability of services for individuals enrolled in diversion programs.
This publication is part of the RAND external publication series. Many RAND studies are published in peer-reviewed scholarly journals, as chapters in commercial books, or as documents published by other organizations.
RAND is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.