The Youth Justice Board (YJB) published this evidence pack in July 2026 to synthesise the best available research and data on targeted prevention and diversion within the youth justice system in England and Wales. It reviews how children are identified, referred, assessed and connected to support outside the formal criminal justice system.
Details
The evidence pack draws on the Youth Endowment Fund (YEF) Toolkit, national youth justice statistics, and recent inspection findings to assess the state of prevention and diversion practice across England and Wales. It identifies significant benefits but also persistent inequalities and inconsistencies in delivery.
- Diversion means resolving a linked offence without prosecution. The YEF Toolkit indicates informal pre-court diversion can reduce reoffending by around 30%, and formal pre-court diversion may reduce violence by 25% and reoffending by 14%. However, the evidence base remains limited and is predominantly drawn from US studies (page 2).
- In the year ending December 2025, 43% of cases involving youth justice services were resolved without a formal court outcome, of these diversionary outcomes, 45% were community resolutions (i.e. an apology, reparation or community based intervention) and 36% were recorded as outcome 22 (being deferred prosecution or deferred cautions) (page 14).
- The National Police Chief’s Council has confirmed that diversionary outcomes now sit within ‘resolved’ police recorded outcomes, reinforcing diversion as a legitimate outcome, while youth cautions sit within ‘solved’ police recorded outcomes (page 2 and 10).
- The newly introduced outcome 23 (deferred prosecution) allows a prosecution decision to be deferred while the child completes an agreed diversionary intervention. If the child successfully completes the intervention no further action is taken, while if they fail to engage, the prosecution proceeds (page 7).
- Racial disparities exist with white children (53%) being nearly twice as likely as black children (27%) to receive a diversionary outcome. Geographic variation is also stark, ranging from 63% in Wales to 17% in London (pages 14 -15).
- Practice remains inconsistent across areas, creating a ‘lottery in diversion decisions’ due to delays in referral, weak joint working between police and youth justice services, limited support service availability, and poor monitoring (page 3).
- National guidance recognises victim engagement is part of effective diversion, however, engagement varies considerably, with challenges around inconsistent contact, limited restorative provision, and unclear responsibility (page 6).
- The YJB’s new Prevention and Diversion Assessment Tool is helping practitioners deliver more strengths-based, child-friendly assessments, though implementation has varied across areas (pages 9 and 10).
Commentary
This evidence pack is an important resource for practitioners. While it confirms the benefits of diversion, it also lays bare the ‘postcode lottery’ that children face, where the same child may be diverted in one area and prosecuted in another. Black and minority ethnic children face systemic and cultural barriers to diversion, including over-policing, negative police interactions, and advice to give ‘no comment’ interviews that restrict access to diversionary options. Practitioners should familiarise themselves with the new outcome 23 (deferred prosecution), which removes the admission requirement and may open diversion to children previously excluded, particularly those with communication needs or low trust in authorities. The evidence pack also highlights that children with special educational needs and disabilities, and those with communication difficulties are at risk of being misunderstood, as behaviour linked to their neurodevelopmental needs may be interpreted as an unwillingness to engage. Practitioners should review their current caseloads for children who may benefit from diversionary outcomes and proactively raise these cases with the police and crown prosecution service where appropriate. The YJLC’s Out of Court Disposals Legal Guide (June 2025) provides further guidance on the legal framework for out-of-court resolutions.