The Diversion And Rehabilitation Transformation Act of 2025 (DART Act) amends the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to allow Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program (JAG) funds to support state and local efforts that expand pre-arrest diversion and rehabilitation. It also authorizes specialty courts and judicial intervention programs, including restorative justice, as eligible activities.
The bill creates a National Diversion and Rehabilitation Clearinghouse to collect and disseminate evidence-based practices, provide technical assistance, and promote trauma-informed approaches, with funding authorized through 2031.
At a Glance
What It Does
The Act expands JAG eligibility to include diversion and rehabilitation programs, including those implemented at pre-arrest and pre-trial stages, and adds specialty courts and restorative justice programs as eligible activities.
Who It Affects
States and local governments that administer JAG grants, law enforcement agencies, trial courts operating specialty courts, and community-based providers delivering diversion and rehabilitation services.
Why It Matters
By widening funding to root-cause interventions and trauma-informed practices, the bill aims to reduce crime and recidivism while avoiding the punitive cycle of incarceration.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill modifies federal grant rules to allow money from the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program to fund diversion and rehabilitation efforts, not just traditional corrections. It specifies that these programs can be used at any point in the criminal justice process, including before arrest, and it explicitly includes specialty courts and restorative-justice approaches.
To support implementation and knowledge-sharing, the act creates a National Diversion and Rehabilitation Clearinghouse that will collect research, offer technical assistance, train providers, and promote best practices. The clearinghouse will also help JAG recipients that use funds for diversion and rehabilitation.
Finally, the bill defines key terms such as what constitutes a diversion and rehabilitation program, trauma-informed practice, and evidence-based practice, and it authorizes federal appropriations through 2031.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill expands JAG eligibility to include diversion and rehabilitation programs.
Pre-arrest diversion and pre-trial interventions become eligible uses of JAG funds.
Specialty courts and restorative justice programs are added to eligible activities.
A National Diversion and Rehabilitation Clearinghouse will disseminate research and provide technical assistance.
Appropriations are authorized for 2026–2031 to support these changes.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
This Act may be cited as the Diversion And Rehabilitation Transformation Act of 2025 (the DART Act of 2025).
Findings
Congress identifies drug addiction, mental health disorders, and poverty as factors contributing to crime. It notes that traditional incarceration often worsens collateral consequences and that diversion and rehabilitation can reduce long-term crime and promote public safety. The section also highlights the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program (JAG) as a crucial funding mechanism and points to the success of diversion programs in jurisdictions such as St. Louis County, Missouri. Finally, it underscores the value of trauma-informed and evidence-based practices in these programs.
Purposes
The Act aims to reduce crime and recidivism by expanding pre-arrest diversion, court-based intervention, and post-release rehabilitation at the state and local levels. It seeks a more effective and equitable criminal justice system, reduced collateral consequences, and broader adoption of trauma-informed practices. It also intends to leverage the JAG program to support these efforts and prioritize mental health services, peer support, and restorative justice.
Expansion of program purpose areas under the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program
Section 501(a)(1) of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 is amended to include "diversion, rehabilitation programs" alongside corrections programs and to authorize implementation at any phase of the criminal justice process (including pre-arrest and pre-trial). The section also adds a new subparagraph allowing specialty courts and judicial intervention programs, including restorative justice, focusing on victim involvement or community-based resolutions.
National Diversion and Rehabilitation Clearinghouse
The Attorney General is authorized to establish a Clearinghouse to centralize information on evidence-based diversion and rehabilitation practices. It will collect and disseminate research, provide technical assistance to states, local governments, and non-profits, develop training materials, identify and promote trauma-informed and restorative justice best practices, and assist JAG grant recipients using funds for diversion and rehabilitation.
Definitions
Key terms are defined to guide implementation: (1) "diversion and rehabilitation program" means an initiative that diverts individuals from standard criminal justice processing and reduces their involvement in the system over time; (2) "trauma-informed practice" means approaches that recognize trauma’s impact and create safe, supportive environments; (3) "evidence-based practice" means programs demonstrated to be effective with fidelity, theory backed by empirical support, measurable incarceration-reduction outcomes, and replication potential, including randomized or equivalent controlled studies.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Justice across all five countries.
Explore Justice in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- State and local governments administering JAG funds benefit from expanded authority to fund diversion and rehabilitation programs, enabling more comprehensive crime-reduction strategies.
- Law enforcement agencies benefit by having additional tools and funding to divert individuals away from the traditional criminal justice path and toward treatment and support services.
- Courts operating specialty or judicial intervention programs (e.g., drug courts, mental health courts) benefit from funds and guidance to implement restorative justice and related interventions.
- Trauma-informed behavioral health providers and community-based organizations gain access to funds and a clearinghouse that helps standardize practices and improve outcomes.
- Victim service organizations involved in restorative justice programs benefit from structured processes and research-backed approaches to addressing harm and accountability.
Who Bears the Cost
- Federal government (Attorney General) bears the cost of establishing and operating the Clearinghouse and related administration.
- State and local governments incur administrative costs to administer expanded JAG funding streams and to implement new diversion and rehabilitation activities.
- Law enforcement agencies may incur training and operational costs to incorporate diversion and pre-arrest programs.
- Courts and specialty courts may incur operating costs related to program administration and evaluation.
- Service providers delivering treatment and rehabilitation services bear costs related to scaled-up service delivery and fidelity to evidence-based practices.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is balancing broad federal support for diversion and rehabilitation with the need to maintain rigorous standards and accountability: expanding access to funding while ensuring that programs are truly evidence-based, trauma-informed, and effective at reducing incarceration without introducing new or unintended risks.
The bill expands the eligible uses of JAG funds and creates a national Clearinghouse, but it relies on Congress to appropriate the necessary funds through 2031. That flexibility raises questions about program fidelity across jurisdictions and the capacity of the Clearinghouse to standardize implementation.
While the definitions set clear criteria for what counts as an evidence-based, trauma-informed program, actual adoption will depend on local capacity, contractor performance, and ongoing evaluation. Potential tensions include the risk of net-widening if pre-arrest diversion is not carefully targeted, the need for rigorous data collection to demonstrate real reductions in incarceration, and ensuring timely reporting and compliance across a diverse set of jurisdictions.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.