Funding Approaches Report

Starting in 2021, the National District Attorneys Association (NDAA) and the Urban Institute surveyed prosecutors’ offices across the country about any prosecutor-led diversion programs they currently run. The results of the survey are available at diversion.ndaa.org and displayed as a national map of prosecutor-led diversion programs. Since the survey closed, prosecutors’ offices have continued to submit information about their programs to the map through the Mapping Prosecutor-led Diversion website.

As of September 30, 2023, responding offices had submitted information on 496 programs. Prosecutors reported that their diversion programs are funded in a variety of ways, and some reported that their programs had no financial impact on their offices. The most often recorded response (22 percent) indicated that prosecutors’ offices covered the programmatic costs of the diversion. The next most cited funding source reported was fines or fees, with 16 percent of programs indicating this.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Diversion programs cost time and resources to operate, and it is a common challenge to find the resources necessary to run these programs. Prosecutors’ offices have developed a variety of approaches to fund their programs, each with trade-offs.

For example, offices can search for grant opportunities, apply, and manage them. However, these activities take staff time and expertise. Further, grants themselves are time-bound and may expire, ending financial support. Additionally, moving staff or funding from one activity in an office to another will free up resources for the diversion program, but at the cost of reducing funding or staff time for other activities.

Partnering with external organizations that have their own funding—such as partnering with a social service agency that has funding through healthcare financing—can pay for services for the program. However, the prosecutor’s office would be dependent on that other organization securing and maintaining those funds. Lastly, though many collect fines and fees to fund their diversion programs, a 2019 report noted that those who are justice-involved are disproportionately people with low incomes, and billions of dollars in fines and fees go unpaid because people can’t afford to pay them. Because income level is closely tied to race and ethnicity, they also have serious implications for outcomes for people of color affected by the legal system. The time and resources used to collect fines and fees could be used instead on activities that protect the public.

Prosecutors should optimize their funding approach for their diversion programs by understanding their funding needs and meeting those needs with sources that are the best match given known trade-offs. Some options for funding your program could include:

• Incorporate external stakeholders, such as service providers who are already funded, to play a role in the program.
• Look for philanthropic or government grant funding that supports diversion programs or allows offices to redistribute costs to cover diversion participation.
• Reallocate the budget within offices to better use existing resources.
• Minimize reliance on fines and fees, especially when the population that would take part in the program is economically disadvantaged.