Police stations, courts, jails and clinics across America are changing how they handle mental illness and substance use. New research is driving that shift. Evidence-based criminal justice practices, such as diversion schemes and supportive housing, now replace punishment with treatment in many areas. Professor Faye Taxman leads that work at George Mason University’s Schar School of Policy and Government. She has spent years studying which approaches actually work. Her findings give local leaders a real roadmap for cutting reoffending and helping people recover. But most evidence-based criminal justice interventions only start after police make an arrest. That raises an uncomfortable question. What happens before that point?

What counts as evidence-based criminal justice practices

Not every good idea counts as evidence based. Professor Taxman says a policy earns that label once enough research supports it. Criminologists usually look for around ten separate studies showing a real, positive effect. Weaker evidence still counts, but researchers call it evidence informed instead. Clinical guidance backs those approaches, even without a deep research base yet. This distinction matters. It stops people confusing good intentions with proven results. Professor Taxman’s team used it to map 28 criminal justice and community based practices. They plotted these across the sequential intercept model, a framework that tracks people through policing, courts, jails and community supervision.

Diversion, deflection and mental health courts

Two evidence-based criminal justice interventions sit right at the start of that journey. Deflection removes someone from the system altogether, often before police make an arrest. Diversion works differently. It steps in after an arrest, but sends someone to treatment instead of prosecution. Both rely on one idea: clinical support beats a criminal record.

Mental health courts follow the same logic. These evidence-based criminal justice practices bring together a judge, a coordinator and regular drug testing. The All Rise initiative lists ten key characteristics for these courts, including mental health screening and access to medication management. The results are promising. Mental health courts produce a small to moderate drop in reoffending. People also engage more with treatment when courts build it into the process itself.

In a national study, Professor Taxman’s team found something striking. Only 27 to 42 percent of counties offered any one of these approaches. Counties with expanded Medicaid eligibility consistently offered more of them, especially for substance use treatment.

Housing, work and support beyond the courtroom

Stable housing changes outcomes fast. Communities that offer housing without demanding sobriety first cut homelessness and hospital visits. People also have less contact with the justice system over time. Integrated programmes take a similar approach. They treat mental illness and substance use together, rather than through separate services. Early results show less depression and anxiety among clients. Researchers still need more data on longer term outcomes like relapse. That is why this approach still sits in the evidence informed camp, not fully evidence based yet.

Supported employment produces some of the clearest results of all. It gets people into jobs faster, pays higher wages and keeps them in work longer. These evidence-based criminal justice interventions also add practical support, like help with workplace stress and everyday skills. Recovery and stability outside the courtroom matter just as much as anything that happens inside it.

Peer navigators, crisis lines and the power of trust

Some newer evidence-based criminal justice interventions rely less on clinics and more on human connection. Co-responder teams pair police officers with social workers. They respond to crisis calls together. This approach cuts the use of force, frees up officer time and reduces hospital admissions.

Peer navigators bring a different strength. These are people with lived experience of recovery. They follow up with someone after a crisis and help them stay connected to care. Professor Taxman says this role has already proven itself in mental health services. It is now spreading into the justice system too.

Crisis call centres offer another way in. The national 988 line has boosted their reach in recent years. None of this works without trust, though. Researchers call it the therapeutic alliance: the basic trust between a client and the staff who supervise them. Studies consistently find that people do better when they believe the system treats them fairly. That principle now sits at the heart of evidence-based supervision.

Where evidence-based criminal justice interventions stop short

Here is the part often missing from the conversation. These evidence-based criminal justice practices respond to drug and alcohol use that has already taken hold. In most cases, they also respond to an arrest that has already happened. Diversion, mental health courts, co-responder teams and critical time interventions all step in after the fact. They limit damage. That damage limitation matters, but it is not the whole answer.

Almost none of these practices touch demand reduction or primary prevention. Very few stop people developing harmful drug and alcohol habits in the first place. Evidence-based criminal justice interventions already achieve a great deal once someone enters the system. The same rigour, applied earlier in schools, workplaces and communities, could keep far more people out of it altogether. Fewer people would ever need a diversion programme, a mental health court or a peer navigator.

Recovery must stay the priority

This research is strongest where it keeps recovery at the centre, not just risk management. Family support, medication management and coordinated care all point the same way. So does peer support from people who have lived through addiction themselves. Together, they help people exit drug and alcohol use for good, rather than just managing them within the system.

None of these individual programmes work alone, though. Professor Taxman is clear about that. They depend on standardised screening, better referral pathways and expanded Medicaid coverage. They also need performance measures. These should track whether people are actually getting better, not just whether a programme exists on paper.

Why evidence-based criminal justice practices need to go further

The evidence is increasingly hard to ignore. Evidence-based criminal justice practices save money. They cut reoffending and give people a genuine route into recovery. But policymakers face a bigger challenge now. They need to push that same evidence base earlier, long before an arrest ever happens. Recovery and prevention should work as two halves of the same solution. It should not wait until someone is already in handcuffs.

Source: addictionpolicy