Broad categories of pretrial diversion programs are (1) deferred prosecution, which delays prosecution while selected defendants complete specified conditions, such as treatment for drug use, job placement, or counseling; (2) dispute settlement, which involves voluntary participation by complainant and respondent in a dispute settlement process mediated or arbitrated by a hearing officer or panel; and (3) unconditional diversion, which is a voluntary program that contains no threat of subsequent court proceedings. The benefits promised from diversion are reduced recidivism, the avoidance of stigmatizing offenders, and reduction in court workload. Critics of diversion argue that it has not proven its ability to reduce recidivism, has generally involved low-risk persons, and rather than reducing the number of persons handled by the criminal justice system, has tended to expand the social control net to include persons who would not have formerly been processed at all. In attempting to avoid the identified pitfalls of diversion, program planners (1) should obtain information on court functioning and the potential target groups, so as to determine the nature and extent of the need for diversion in their community; (2) clarify the overall goal of the project and develop specific objectives; (3) assess the resource alternatives for the program and the attitudes of the staff of the alternative programs; (4) gain the support of criminal justice personnel; (5) see that the diversion intervention is not more restrictive than if the accused had been processed normally by the courts; and (6) see that potential divertees are made aware of the consequences of the decision to participate in diversion and of the failure to meet the diversion conditions. Further, attention should be given to realistic expectations for the program and the protection of the legal rights of participants. Ten notes and 21 recommended readings are provided.