The use of diversionary outcomes with youth justice service involvement – 2025, England and Wales
On 18 June 2026, the Youth Justice Board published the first ever national data on the use of diversionary outcomes involving youth justice services (“YJS”) in England and Wales. The report covers the year ending December 2025 and provides details on how diversion is used in youth cases in the criminal justice system.
Details
The data shows that around 13,500 diversionary outcomes with YJS involvement were given in 2025, accounting for 43% of all YJS outcomes. Community Resolutions were the most used tool (45%), followed by No Formal Action Outcome 22 for deferred caution/prosecution (36%). Violence against the person was the most common offence type linked to diversion, making up a third (33%) of offences.
However, the data reveals significant disparities in the use of diversionary outcomes:
- Ethnicity: White children are twice as likely to receive a diversionary outcome compared to Black children (53% vs 27%). Whilst geography accounts for some of this disparity, it cannot solely be explained by where children live or the offences they are accused of.
- Geography: Diversion rates ranged from 63% in Wales to just 17% in London. The types of diversionary outcomes used also varied considerably across regions.
- Age and gender: Younger children (aged 10–14) and girls were more likely to receive diversion, while older children (15–17) and boys were more likely to receive a formal caution or court sentence.
Commentary
This report highlights that diversion is now a central part of youth justice practice. This is a positive step, because research consistently shows that formal criminal justice intervention can increase the likelihood of reoffending in children. However, the disparities in how and where diversion is used are concerning. The report suggests access to diversion can depend on where a child is located, their ethnicity or their age and gender.
For practitioners, this data has several practical implications. First, where a child is in an area with low diversion rates, practitioners should proactively advocate for diversionary outcomes, emphasising the importance of a 'Child First' approach and the government's recent youth justice white paper, which places early intervention into the national policy agenda. Second, practitioners should be aware that some diversionary routes depend on a child accepting responsibility for an offence, and that emerging evidence suggests levels of trust in authorities can shape how children respond in those situations. This is important to bear in mind when representing Black, Brown and Racialised children, who often have lower levels of trust and also experience lower diversion rates. Third, practitioners should familiarise themselves with the Prevention and Diversion Assessment Tool. This tool is designed to ensure decisions are based on an objective assessment of a child's strengths and unmet needs. The newly launched Basecamp: Diversion and Youth Justice Policing platform is another useful resource for standardising approaches and sharing best practice between police forces and YJSs.