New data reveals diversion’s impact on crime

In recent years, youth justice services (YJSs) across England and Wales have made significant strides in reshaping the approach to youth offending. This transformation focuses on early, constructive interventions that help prevent children from entering the justice system, rather than exacerbating their issues through formal sanctions. Phil Bowen, the Interim Chair of the Youth Justice Board, emphasises the significance of new data that paints a clearer picture of these efforts. He states that the report, released on 28 May, titled ‘The use of diversionary outcomes with youth justice service involvement – 2025 England and Wales’, presents a milestone in understanding diversionary practices.

The statistics suggest that diversion strategies are now fundamental to the criminal justice landscape. In 2025, it is anticipated that approximately 13,500 outcomes involving youth justice services will be diversionary, representing 43% of all outcomes. Importantly, this figure does not encompass all diversion efforts, including those implemented solely by police forces or local partnerships. The data indicates that diversion is not merely a temporary measure; it is now a vital part of the approach to youth offending.

Research has consistently illustrated that formal criminal justice interventions can lead to increased reoffending, particularly among children. Bowen explains that effective diversion strategies reduce this risk, benefiting the public and the justice system as a whole. Citing the Youth Endowment Fund's findings, he notes that early and proportionate diversion is among the most successful methods for reducing crime and protecting communities.

Despite the positive trends, Bowen highlights that the data reveals significant variations in diversion rates across regions. For instance, while the East Midlands sees 56% of diversionary outcomes, London only achieves 17%, with Wales leading at an impressive 63%. These discrepancies, shaped by local policies and operational models, pose challenges for equitable access to diversion services. To bridge these gaps, continued collaboration among YJSs, police forces, and government bodies is essential.

Moreover, disparities exist within demographic groups regarding access to diversion. The data shows that white children are more likely to receive diversionary outcomes compared to their black counterparts, a finding that echoes concerns raised in David Lammy’s review nearly a decade ago. Bowen stresses that the system must either justify these differences or implement reforms to ensure fairness in decision-making processes.

Moving forward, the Youth Justice Board aims to build on the existing framework, enhancing the evidence base and supporting further improvements. The recent launch of initiatives like Basecamp, which fosters collaboration between police and YJSs, and the implementation of the Prevention and Diversion Assessment Tool (PDAT), are strong steps towards ensuring that interventions are fair and based on the individual needs of children. This commitment is reinforced by the government’s youth justice white paper, which embeds early intervention into national policy.

Ultimately, Bowen concludes that while the journey is ongoing, the focus on diversion represents a substantial shift towards a preventative and effective approach to public safety, thereby making strides in reducing harm and fostering safer communities.