The use of diversionary outcomes with youth justice service involvement
The report provides an overview on how youth justice services (‘YJSs’) are supporting children across England and Wales to prevent offending through the use of diversionary outcomes – this is the first time that this data has been published. The report highlights four key pathways of diversionary outcomes including, community resolution and tailored YJS support following no further action decisions.
Details
Diversionary outcomes with YJS involvement are interventions intended to address a child’s behaviour without the use of formal criminal justice processes such as cautions or court sentences.
The statistics show that there were approximately 13,500 diversionary outcomes with the involvement of YJS in England and Wales during between January and December 2025. The report examines the regional distribution, demographic characteristics and offence types of children receiving diversionary outcomes. The report highlights significant regional differences in the proportion of diversionary outcomes with YJS involvement. It also found that diversionary outcomes were proportionately more common among girls, children aged 10–14, and white children than cautions or court sentences.
Key Findings
• Diversionary outcomes with YJS involvement accounted for 43% of all youth justice outcomes nationally.
• Community Resolutions accounted for almost half (45%) of all diversionary outcomes, followed by NFA (Outcome 22) Deferred Prosecution/Caution outcomes (36%).
• The report highlights significant regional variation with diversionary outcomes representing 63% of all outcomes in Wales compared to 17% in London.
• White children (53%) were almost twice as likely to receive a diversion outcome compared to Black children (27%).
• Girls (65%) were more likely than boys (35%) to receive a diversionary outcome rather than a caution or sentence.
• Children aged 10 to 14 (66%) were more likely to receive diversionary outcomes than cautions or sentence, whereas children aged 15 to 17 whereas children aged 15 to 17 were more likely to receive cautions or court sentences (61%).
• Violence against the person was the most common offence type leading to diversionary outcomes, accounting for 33% of offences leading to diversion.
• In London, drug offences accounted for 49% of offences leading to diversionary outcomes, compared to 12% nationally.
The report notes that further analysis is needed to better understand the factors contributing to the differences in outcomes between ethnic groups, as the statistics do not account for the differences in offence types and may reflect regional differences in the use of diversionary outcomes involving YJSs.
Commentary
The report is significant because it provides the first picture of the scale of diversionary outcomes with the involvement of YJSs. The findings reinforce the importance of diversion as a means of delivering the primary aims of the youth justice system. Diversion can help to avoid unnecessary criminalisation by intervening early and diverting children into relevant services that build on their strengths and address unmet needs.
The higher levels of diversionary outcomes for younger children and girls may suggest that some groups are benefiting more readily from interventions. Further, the differences in ethnic groups receiving diversionary outcomes also raises important questions about the access to diversionary outcomes. Youth justice practitioners who are representing children should be alert to whether diversions has been adequately considered on a case-by-case basis, and be prepared to challenge decision making where a child has been progressed to formal criminal justice processes without clear justification.
The significant regional differences identified in the report also suggests that access to diversionary outcomes may depend heavily on where the child lives rather than solely on a child’s circumstances. Practitioners may wish to use these statistics in discussions with police, prosecutors and local partners to advocate for greater consistency and to ensure that children are able to access diversionary interventions wherever appropriate.
As further data becomes available, there is likely to be increased scrutiny of whether diversion is being used fairly across different demographics and regional areas. Recording and advocacy are therefore remain important in ensuring that diversionary opportunities are available and applied equally or all children.