While America’s justice system burns through $80 billion annually on incarceration, many think tanks and policy advocates remain stubbornly focused on reentry programs as their primary reform solution. This focus on post-prison reentry programs overlooks the critical structural problems earlier in the system. Due to racial disparities in the justice system, African Americans and Hispanics are incarcerated at significantly higher rates than white Americans. If these racial groups were incarcerated at the same rate as white Americans, our nation’s prison and jail populations would decrease by nearly 40%. The First Step Act‘s federal sentencing reforms, while important, barely scratch the surface of these systemic inequities. By the time someone walks through those prison gates, they have already missed out on dozens of opportunities for more effective, less costly interventions. The greater opportunity lies in rewinding the process entirely—focusing on diversion programs and front-end reforms that prevent people from ever entering prison walls in the first place.
This tunnel vision on reentry programs reflects the lingering shadow of tough-on-crime politics that dominated the criminal justice landscape for decades. That era’s political doctrine—championed by figures like George Wallace and Richard Nixon, amplified during Reagan’s presidency, and perpetuated through the 1994 crime bill under Bill Clinton—treated harsh punishment and mass incarceration as the key answers to crime. While many tough-on-crime advocates have softened their rhetoric, this punitive legacy still shapes their reform agenda, leading them to resist addressing the front-end practices that feed an unnecessarily draconian system.
Research consistently shows that imprisonment, by itself, is a weak deterrent, with higher incarceration rates having little impact on reducing crime. More alarmingly, states and neighborhoods with concentrated incarceration actually experience increased crime rates. The National Institute of Justice has found that the certainty of being caught, not severity of punishment, is what deters crime. Inside the prisons themselves, overcrowded, unsanitary, and dangerous conditions undermine any chance of rehabilitation, with facilities failing to provide effective treatment, employment training, or educational opportunities. This reality exposes the fundamental flaw in assuming prisons serve as rehabilitative institutions.
The front-end of our justice system—where critical decisions by police, prosecutors, and judges shape lives—remains one of the most urgent yet neglected areas for reform. Police use of stop-and-frisk tactics disproportionately targets minorities, while 90% to 95% of all criminal cases end with plea bargains, revealing prosecutors’ outsized power in determining fates. Public defenders offices face crushing caseloads, with 73% exceeding recommended maximum limits. Judges contribute to these inequities by imposing harsher sentences, with Black men receiving 13.4% longer federal sentences than similarly situated white men, even after controlling for prior criminal history. Such deep structural problems persist regardless of crime rates, demanding reforms that target the system’s foundation rather than just its exit points.
Our research across 100 U.S. cities reveals a clear pattern: Socioeconomic factors drive both crime rates and justice system involvement. Income inequality and lower academic achievement within communities strongly predict higher rates of violent crime. We found that justice system contact is more prevalent in communities struggling with mental health challenges, food insecurity, and economic hardship. These findings call for a fundamental shift—meaningful reform must tackle root causes rather than relying on the familiar focus on reentry.
Front-end reforms offer solutions that prevent justice system involvement before it starts—a stark contrast to reentry’s focus on damage control. Diversion programs, which redirect individuals from arrest, prosecution, and imprisonment, demonstrate remarkable success across multiple intervention points. Crisis response teams provide alternatives to police intervention for mental health emergencies. Pre-arrest diversion programs connect low-level defendants with resources rather than punishment. Prosecutor-led interventions prevent the lasting stigma of criminal records. Even after arrest, pretrial diversion programs offer supervised alternatives to incarceration through deferred adjudication. Many successful diversion models incorporate workforce development components, such as San Francisco’s Interrupt, Predict, and Organize (IPO) program that combines case management with job readiness training and subsidized employment opportunities for at-risk youth. Similarly, Indianapolis’s HIRE program partners with local employers to provide paid apprenticeships, vocational training, and job placement services for individuals diverted from prosecution for nonviolent offenses, resulting in employment rates three times higher than traditional prosecution. These employment-focused diversion programs not only reduce recidivism but also address the underlying economic instability that often contributes to justice system involvement. Each of these approaches tackles problems at their onset, rather than waiting until prison gates close.
The data on diversion programs reveals outcomes that reentry programs simply cannot match. Studies consistently show these front-end interventions reduce recidivism while substantially increasing employment success compared to traditional prosecution. The economic case is equally compelling: Expanding diversion programs could save taxpayers billions in criminal justice costs, with investments in drug treatment yielding particularly strong returns in reduced crime and health care expenses. These results demonstrate how early intervention prevents both human and financial costs that no amount of reentry programming can undo.
These are not just theoretical solutions—they are proven reforms already working in jurisdictions across America. Houston’s Crisis Call Diversion program has successfully diverted thousands of mental health calls from law enforcement to health care responders, reducing both arrests and costs. In Milwaukee, the Justice Reinvestment Initiative has cut recidivism rates by addressing cases before they reach prosecution. Seattle’s Law Enforcement Assisted Diversion (LEAD) program has demonstrated how pre-booking diversion can reduce both repeat offenses and criminal justice costs. These success stories show how front-end reforms deliver immediate and measurable benefits to both public safety and fiscal responsibility.
Research consistently shows how imprisonment shatters community foundations, creating damage that ripples across generations. Once the justice system takes control of an individual, its impact cascades through families and neighborhoods in ways that become increasingly difficult to reverse. Children lose parents, families lose providers, and communities lose mentors—disruptions that can reshape an entire neighborhood’s social fabric. These devastating effects concentrate in already marginalized communities, creating cycles of poor social, economic, and educational outcomes that persist long after sentences are served.
As policymakers continue to debate criminal justice reform, an unprecedented situation highlights the system’s fundamental inequities: The United States has its first felony-convicted president. Americans have watched this case unfold, knowing they would probably face radically different treatment from the justice system if charged with comparable crimes. This stark disparity in justice administration—from initial charges through trial and beyond—exposes why focusing solely on reentry misses the point. True reform must ensure equal justice at every step, from the first interaction with law enforcement through successful community reintegration.
Critics might argue these comprehensive reforms are too ambitious or politically challenging, but the evidence for front-end reform transcends political ideology. It aligns with conservative values of fiscal responsibility and government efficiency while addressing progressive priorities of equity-centered justice. When jurisdictions implement these reforms, they consistently demonstrate that preventing justice system involvement is more cost-effective than managing its consequences. For example, in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, comprehensive front-end reforms implemented by the end of 2013 aimed to safely release and supervise 15% more pretrial detainees in the community rather than in jail. This initiative was expected to generate over $1,000,000 in savings. Another compelling case is Okaloosa County, Florida, where the Pretrial Release Program saved taxpayers over $27 million in cost avoidance. This was achieved by eliminating the need for new jail construction and additional staff, resulting from a decreased jail population. This is not about political philosophy; it is about following the data in the direction of solutions that work.
The path forward demands we move beyond reentry to address the full spectrum of justice system failures. This means implementing robust accountability measures across all system actors, from police and prosecutors to public defenders and judges. We need national standards for hiring and training, data-driven oversight of prosecution practices, and transparent monitoring of judicial decision-making. Most critically, we must invest in prevention: strengthening community resources, properly funding public defenders, and developing alternative response systems for mental health and substance use crises. These are not optional reforms. They are essential steps toward dismantling a system that remains allergic to any semblance of a Hippocratic Oath.
Reentry programs serve a purpose, but they cannot solve problems that begin in the community, escalate through prosecution and sentencing, and compound during incarceration. True reform requires a comprehensive approach that prevents justice system involvement in the first place and creates meaningful alternatives to incarceration. The evidence is clear: Only by confronting these fundamental challenges—from socioeconomic conditions to systemic biases in enforcement and prosecution—can we build a justice system that actually serves and protects all Americans.