The article concludes that increasingly sophisticated studies (especially those using direct experimental designs) indicate that diversion cannot be assumed to have a positive impact. Viewed from the perspective of recent literature on the other types of 'alternatives,' diversion research suggests that there are endemic conditions in the adjudicatory process that make it difficult for various alternatives to achieve the goals reformers and program operators intended. Further research on how decision making takes place in courts is called for in order to understand better the potential consequences of introducing new resources into complex systems of negotiated decisions. (Author abstract)