Formal pre-court diversion

What is it?

Formal pre-court diversion aims to divert children away from prosecution and court, with the aim of preventing reoffending. They can be issued by the police after an arrest or following a voluntary interview, before any formal charges are made. They are typically used to support children who admit to committing a less serious offence.

Formal pre-court diversion usually takes place in the following circumstances: a crime has occurred, and the child admits that they are guilty of committing the crime. The police, often jointly with the youth justice service, take a decision not to progress the case because it is a less serious offence or it is assessed to not be in the public interest to charge the child. The police can use formal pre-court diversion schemes as an alternative to charging the child and taking the case to court. Formal pre-court diversion schemes in England and Wales are called ‘formal out-of-court resolutions’, and include:

• Youth caution: These are issued by the police when a child admits to committing an offence, there is sufficient evidence that conviction would be a realistic prospect, but prosecution is not in the public interest. There is no statutory requirement for the child to receive assessments or interventions.

• Youth conditional caution: This involves an initial screening and eligibility assessment, then the child and their parents or carers enter a legally binding contract that sets out mandatory conditions, such as engaging in a behavioural intervention. If the child does not adhere to the conditions, then the police can decide to prosecute.

Decisions about formal diversion for children should consider their individual needs whilst consulting the Child Gravity Matrix, and taking into account the views of victims. It is good practice for police to consult with the youth justice service about all formal out-of-court decisions, and it is required for youth conditional cautions. The youth justice service should also seek opportunities to use restorative justice approaches as part of or alongside the formal resolution.

Where diversionary, educational or support interventions are provided, this is coordinated by the youth justice service, who may also deliver the intervention or who may refer delivery on to local voluntary and community sector providers, children’s services, schools, and mental health services.  

Interventions that may be delivered alongside a youth caution or as part of a youth conditional caution may include social and emotional learning, mental health support, speech and language therapy, family counselling, educational sessions, job skills training, or positive activities such as sports programmes or art and creative programmes. These programmes usually last between three and six months.

Diverting children away from being taken to court might reduce crime and violence by avoiding the stigma and labelling effect of being prosecuted and experiencing court proceedings. These experiences can negatively impact their education, future employment, life aspirations and opportunities. Instead, formal out-of-court resolutions can provide support through positive skills development or address needs such as substance misuse or low school engagement.  

We have also summarised the evidence available on informal pre-court diversion including no further action, and community resolutions. One of the main differences between formal and informal pre-court diversion is whether the outcome is disclosed on a criminal record check. Only youth conditional cautions are disclosed on the standard DBS check, and they remain on the record for three months after they are issued. All other out-of-court resolutions may show on an enhanced DBS check, but this varies depending on the reason for the record check. 

Is it effective?

The research suggests that, on average, the impact of formal pre-court diversion on preventing violence is likely to be moderate.

The review also found that formal pre-court diversion is likely to have a moderate impact on crime. The research estimates that, on average, it may reduce reoffending by 14%.

The evidence suggests that formal pre-court diversion may reduce violence by 25% and reduce reoffending by 14%.

Formal pre-court diversion schemes that include provision of support for drug and alcohol use, family support, school engagement, or programmes to improve self-esteem showed the largest crime reduction effects, but the evidence is weak.

How secure is the evidence?

We have low confidence in our estimate of the average impact of formal pre-court diversion on violence.

We gave this rating because the estimate is based on only five studies that are of moderate quality.

We have moderate confidence in our estimate of the average impact of formal pre-court diversion on reoffending. We gave this rating because it is based on 35 studies, most of which are moderate quality, but only three were rated high quality.

The studies that produced the impact ratings on violence and reoffending assessed the effectiveness of these approaches for 95,629 children and young people.

Most of the studies were conducted in North America and Australia and only three are from the UK.

Who does it work for?

The review did not find any good quality UK studies that explored the impact of formal pre-court diversion on equality, diversity, inclusion, or equity.

Thirteen high and moderate quality studies, from the US and Australia, reported findings relating to gender, ethnicity, socio-economic status, and care experience.

Gender

Eleven studies found no differences in violence or offending outcomes for boys and girls, but some research found that girls were more likely to be offered formal pre-court diversion or to have cases dismissed compared to boys.  

Ethnicity

In England and Wales Black and minority ethnic children were 9% less likely to receive pre-court diversion than White children, after accounting for the type of offence committed. 

Socioeconomic status

Six studies showed that socioeconomic status had no impact on the effectiveness of formal pre-court diversion for reducing crime and violence. However, children and young people in areas with lower rates of poverty are more likely to be offered formal pre-court diversion compared to those living in areas with higher rates of poverty.

Care experience

A US-based study found that girls and young women in care who engaged in formal pre-court diversion showed reductions in the amount of time spent missing from home.

How can you implement it well?

Twenty-two studies provided evidence related to implementation, 15 were from the US and seven were from the UK. 

Make diversion equitable and accessible

Children with additional support needs, disabilities, or mental health difficulties are less likely to complete formal out-of-court resolutions, often because programmes are not adapted to their needs. Financial difficulties can also be a barrier, for example, children may struggle to afford travel expenses to sessions, which may lead to children dropping out of the intervention. Lack of cultural responsiveness can further limit access and engagement, particularly for children from minority ethnic backgrounds. This can be addressed by recruiting staff from diverse backgrounds, offering materials in different languages or providing translation services.

Provide timely and tailored support
Where children are diverted to educational or supportive interventions such as counselling, these should be delivered as soon as possible, normally within four weeks, and should be evidence-based, high quality interventions. Where possible, children should be involved in shaping their own support, ensuring interventions are personally meaningful, because they are more likely to engage fully.  

Consider assigning a dedicated diversion lead

Effective formal pre-court diversion schemes rely on strong leadership. Youth justice services should consider appointing a dedicated diversion lead to coordinate delivery, manage operational challenges, foster relationships across agencies, and maintain focus on agreed priorities.

Train and supervise practitioners

All professionals involved in the use of formal pre-court diversion should receive training and on-going professional development to sustain motivation to use these resolutions and to drive timely and high-quality interventions. This includes police officers, defence solicitors and Crown Prosecution Service staff that make referrals and inform decisions, and youth justice staff that provide case management and support.

Monitor delivery and outcomes effectively
Policing and youth justice services should share data weekly to maintain continuity in communication, provide effective case management and to hold agencies to account for timely delivery. Sustainable use of formal out-of-court resolutions depends on permanent diversion teams and reliable data systems that can cope with staff changes and shifting priorities.

How much does it cost?

On average, the cost of formal pre-court diversion is likely to be moderate.

Cost estimates from current UK formal pre-court diversion suggest an average cost of £1,426 per child. Costs to youth justice services usually involve case management, programme coordination, staff training, service delivery, and investments in equipment and IT systems needed to record and share data.

Costs to the police are low, including handling the initial assessment, informing decision-making on outcomes, and making referrals to youth justice services or other agencies delivering support. Costs to youth justice services are moderate, including provision of case management, supporting assessments and referrals, delivery of education or supportive interventions, and any follow-up or monitoring. The highest costs are incurred when intensive support such as therapy is provided as part of the diversionary activities, typically delivered by health services or voluntary and community sector organisations.  

Topic summary

• For children who admit guilt for less serious offences, the police and youth justice services can offer formal pre-court diversion, called ‘out-of-court resolutions’, to avoid children experiencing court and further criminal justice processing.
• Formal pre-court diversion is estimated to have a moderate impact on reducing violence. The research suggests that these schemes may reduce violence by 25% and reoffending by 14%. However, we have low confidence in this estimate without further high-quality evidence. We have moderate confidence in our estimate of the impact on reoffending.
• Formal pre-court diversion schemes that include provision of support for drug and alcohol use, family relationships, school engagement and self-esteem show stronger reductions in violence and crime.
• On average the cost of formal pre-court diversion is moderate, but these costs vary greatly depending on the interventions provided.

Take away messages

• Put in place a clear process for issuing and monitoring formal pre-court diversion.
• Read and act upon the YEF Diversion Practice Guidance  to support implementation.  
• Make referrals to support services, such as youth justice, as quickly as possible. 
• Conduct an audit of the interventions and support available for children when they are arrested. Identify gaps in service provision and work with local authorities and commissioners to fill those gaps.  
• Provide effective interventions as part of formal pre-court diversion, such as social and emotional skills development, therapies, restorative justice, and mentoring.  

YEF guidance, projects and evaluations

Diversion Practice Guidance

A practice and systems guidance on how to deliver diversion effectively for children and young people. It focuses on what happens to children at the early stages of the youth justice system when they first encounter the police, and includes both formal and informal out-of-court resolutions.

Diversion Systems Guidance

The report summarises evidence of what works, the experiences of practitioners and young people, and provides a set of seven recommendations to improve practices, policies and systems.

Re-Frame

Re-Frame is a diversion programme for 10–17-year-olds in police custody who have been found in possession of class B or C controlled drugs, that aims to reduce substance use and offending. 

Divert Plus

The Divert Plus programme aims to prevent 10–17-year-olds who have been arrested for violence from offending and reoffending. It aims to provide an initial conversation to young people at the key moment after arrest, before offering a range of interventions including speech and language therapy, mentoring, and discussion of out-of-court resolutions options.

External links

Centre for Justice Innovation resources
The Centre for Justice Innovations have produced a series of highly practical resources on youth diversion. They include:

• Valuing youth diversion: A toolkit for practitioners
• Exploring the Responsiveness of Youth Diversion to Children with SEND
• Children and young people’s voices on youth diversion and disparity

Youth Justice Board’s Prevention and Diversion Assessment Tool

The Youth Justice Board assessment tool that must be used for all children that receive diversion and out-of-court interventions.

Youth Justice Board Resource Hub

An extensive collection on the latest guidance, legislation, evidence and, best practice resources to support youth justice professionals.

Child Gravity Matrix

A triage tool to assist decision makers in relation to children and young people to assess the severity of a child’s offence. It promotes fair, consistent responses and encourages early intervention and diversion where appropriate.

Case Management Guidance

A manual produced by the Youth Justice Board for youth justice service practitioners and manager on what is expected at each stage of a child’s journey through the justice system.

Exploring racial disparity in diversion from the youth justice system

A study funded by Nuffield Foundation that examines the nature and extent of racial disproportionality at the gateway to the youth justice system.

Downloads