Across the country—especially here in California—mental health diversion programs have become an important part of the conversation about criminal justice reform. These programs were created with a noble goal: to connect people suffering from serious mental illness with treatment rather than simply cycling them through a jail system that was not designed to provide adequate care.
At their best, diversion programs reflect something we ought to support: compassion, therapeutic understanding, and a recognition that many individuals who encounter the criminal justice system are struggling with untreated or poorly treated mental health conditions.
However, empathy without accountability is not treatment. When diversion programs lose sight of that balance, they risk failing both the public and the very individuals they were designed to help.
As a therapist who works closely with trauma, behavioral health challenges, and high-stress professions—including first responders and their families—I have seen firsthand how mental health struggles can influence behavior and decision-making. Therapy requires empathy and patience, but it also requires honesty about the role personal responsibility plays in recovery.
In clinical practice, healing does not begin by eliminating consequences. It begins by helping individuals understand the relationship between their choices, experiences, and the impact and repercussions of those choices on others.
Accountability is not punishment—it is a critical component of treatment.
Mental health diversion was intended to support that process by allowing individuals with genuine mental illness to receive structured care while still acknowledging the seriousness of their actions. When implemented correctly, diversion programs can improve outcomes, reduce behavioral relapse, and connect people to services they desperately need.
Research supports this approach. Programs that combine treatment with structured oversight—such as mental health courts—have been shown to reduce repeat offenses and improve long-term stability when compared with incarceration alone.
Ultimately, however, these programs only work when they are applied thoughtfully.
When diversion is applied as a universal remedy rather than a tailored intervention, or when legal frameworks pathologize behavior that does not meet diagnostic criteria, the resulting instability impacts more than just the individual.
First, it erodes public trust. Communities begin to see diversion not as treatment but as a loophole—one that allows individuals to avoid accountability entirely. Second, and perhaps more damaging, it stigmatizes people who genuinely live with mental illness.
For decades, mental health clinicians have worked to dismantle the harmful myth that people with mental illness are inherently dangerous. In reality, research consistently shows that individuals with serious mental illness are far more likely to be victims of violence than perpetrators.
Yet when criminal behavior is repeatedly excused under the broad umbrella of “mental health,” the public narrative shifts in ways that harm those who truly need support. Mental illness should never be weaponized as a legal shield for individuals with antisocial patterns. Doing so undermines the integrity of diversion programs and damages the credibility of mental health treatment itself.
The solution is not to abandon diversion; it is to strengthen it.
Diversion programs should rely on rigorous clinical assessment/evaluation, precise diagnostic thresholds, and structured treatment plans that facilitate ongoing therapeutic investment to ensure individuals remain engaged in care. It is paramount that judges, prosecutors, clinicians, and policymakers work together to maintain safeguards that protect both public safety and the therapeutic integrity of these programs.
Treatment and accountability can coexist. In fact, they must.
In therapy, one of the most transformative moments occurs when a client recognizes two truths at the same time: they may have experienced real trauma or mental health challenges, and they are still responsible for how they respond to those experiences.
That realization is not punitive. It is empowering.
It empowers individuals to attain functional autonomy by processing core psychological challenges and establishing the therapeutic boundaries necessary for long-term prosocial conduct.
Diversion frameworks ought to be anchored in trauma-informed care and evidence-based parameters, ensuring the process is intentionally designed to facilitate optimal psychosocial functioning.
When diversion programs maintain this balance, they protect the individuals who need treatment, preserve public trust, and ensure that mental health care remains what it was always meant to be—a path toward healing, not a loophole in the justice system.
To achieve these goals, I hope the California Legislature takes a serious and thoughtful look at how mental health diversion is currently being applied and makes the appropriate changes in the coming weeks and beyond. Strengthening these programs will help ensure they truly serve those in need while preserving accountability and public confidence in the system.
Tianna C. Herrera, LMFT, LPCC, is a dual-licensed therapist specializing in the mental health and fortitude of first responders, military members, veterans, and their families.
Copyright © 2026, Folsom Times, a digital product of All Town Media LLC. All rights reserved. No portion of this publication may be reproduced, distributed, or transmitted in any form or by any means, without the prior written permission of the publisher.
