CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 110Criminal Justice and Corrections AnalysisCrime Patterns and InterventionsCriminal Justice and Penology

Diversion in the Criminal Justice System

Mueller-Smith, Michael, T. Schnepel, Kevin·2021·The Review of Economic Studies
DOI 10.1093/restud/rdaa030
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

This article provides the first causal estimates on the popular, cost-saving practice of diversion in the criminal justice system, an intervention that provides offenders with a second chance to avoid a criminal record. We exploit two natural experiments in Harris County, Texas where first-time felony defendants faced abrupt changes in the probability of diversion. Using administrative data and regression discontinuity methods, we find robust evidence across both experiments that diversion cuts reoffending rates in half and grows quarterly employment rates by nearly 50% over 10 years. The change in trajectory persists even 20 years out and is concentrated among young black men. An investigation of mechanisms strongly suggests that stigma associated with a felony conviction plays a key role in generating these results. Other possible mechanisms including changes in incarceration, other universal adjustments in policy or practice, and differences in criminal processing are ruled out empirically.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/restud/rdaa030

Cites

10 of 10 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Augustine et al. (2021) and Mueller-Smith and Schnepel (2020) find evidence that diversion programs reduce recidivism.

    “Augustine et al. (2021) exploit quasi-random assignment to judges and Mueller-Smith and Schnepel (2020) leverage natural experiments associated with shifts in diversion policy.Both studies find evidence that diversion programs reduce recidivism.”

    From Can Restorative Justice Conferencing Reduce Recidivism? Evidence From the Make-it-Right Program (2021) · cites this paper as Mueller-Smith and Schnepel (2020)

  • Previous studies found that among adults, a felony conviction can increase recidivism and negatively impact labor market outcomes.

    “Previous studies found that among adults, a felony conviction can increase recidivism and negatively impact labor market outcomes (e.g., Mueller-Smith and Schnepel, 2020;Augustine et al., 2021).”

    From Can Restorative Justice Conferencing Reduce Recidivism? Evidence From the Make-it-Right Program (2021) · cites this paper as Mueller-Smith and Schnepel, 2020

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Mueller-Smith, M., & T. Schnepel, K.
Affiliations
  • University of Michigan
  • Simon Fraser University
Venue
The Review of Economic Studies
Publisher
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Published
2020-07-24
Volume
88
Issue
2
Pages
883-936
ISSN
  • 0034-6527 (ISSN-L)
  • 1467-937X
DOI
10.1093/restud/rdaa030
OpenAlex
W3034267417
Cited by
110
References
10
Citations by year
2026: 20 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 22 · 2023: 24 · 2022: 19 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 1
FWCI
17.39
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
academic.oup.com/journals/pages/open_access/funder_policies/chorus/standard_publication_model (vor)
Locations
  • The Review of Economic Studies (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Criminal Justice and Corrections Analysis
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Crime Patterns and Interventions
  • Social Sciences › Law › Criminal Justice and Penology
Keywords
criminal justice diversion, reoffending rates, employment effects, felony conviction, stigma, Black men, incarceration, Harris County, Texas

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review