Informal pre-court diversion

What is it?

Informal pre-court diversion aims to divert children away from formal criminal justice processing, avoiding a formal conviction and a criminal record at point of delivery. These are typically used for children that have been involved in less serious offences and have no prior record of offending.

These interventions are usually delivered in the following circumstances: a crime has occurred, and there is sufficient evidence to prove a child’s involvement. 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 informal pre-court diversion schemes, called ‘informal out-of-court resolutions’ in England and Wales, as an alternative to charging the child and taking the case to court.

Informal out-of-court resolutions (OoCRs) include:

• No further action (NFA): The child does not have to accept responsibility for the crime, and these do not result in a criminal record but may appear in enhanced DBS checks. These include:
  • Outcome 20 (NFA) – used where action resulting from a crime has been undertaken by an agency or body other than the police, and the victim is made aware of the action being taken.
  • Outcome 21 (NFA) – used when further investigation, which could provide sufficient evidence for charge, is not in the public interest.
  • Outcome 22 (NFA) – used when diversionary, educational or intervention activity has been undertaken, and it is not in the public interest to take any further action.
• Community resolution (police outcome 8): the child accepts responsibility for a crime and may complete an activity that aims to compensate for the offence, such as apologising to victims directly or through writing a letter, engaging in community service, replacing stolen items, or repairing damaged property.  
• Deferred caution / prosecution (may result in police outcome 22): the police can choose to put a caution or prosecution on hold whilst the child engages in a diversionary activity, such as an educational or supportive intervention. Engagement in the activity is voluntary, but if the child chooses not to participate, they can receive a formal resolution, such as a youth caution that will be marked on a criminal record.

Decisions about informal pre-court diversion for children should consider their individual needs whilst consulting the Child Gravity Matrix and taking into account the views of victims. For some informal diversionary decisions, for example first time Community Resolutions, the police can make these decisions as a single agency. For other outcomes, consultation with the youth justice service is recommended. The youth justice service should also seek opportunities to use restorative justice approaches as part of or alongside the informal 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 or as part of ‘no further action’ or deferred caution / prosecution 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 two and six months.

Diverting children away from being charged and taken to court might reduce crime and violence by avoiding the stigma and labelling effect of having a criminal record, which can negatively impact their education, future employment, life aspirations and opportunities. Instead, informal pre-court diversion can offer support through positive skills development or address needs such as substance misuse or low school engagement.

We have also summarised the evidence available on formal pre-court diversion, specifically on youth cautions and conditional cautions. One of the main differences between informal and formal 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 estimates that, on average, the impact of informal pre-court diversion on preventing violence is likely to be high.

We used measures of offending to estimate impact on violence because the studies available report on all crime and do not provide violence specific outcomes.

The research estimates that informal pre-court diversion may reduce reoffending by 30%.  

How secure is the evidence?

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

We gave this rating because whilst it is based on nine studies, four of these are low quality.

The studies that produce the impact rating assessed the effectiveness of this approach for 5,846 children and young people.

One study was conducted in England, and the remaining eight studies were undertaken in the United States.

Who does it work for?

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

Gender

One high quality study from the US found that informal pre-court diversion achieved a greater impact for boys than girls. The programme was mostly staffed by men, and the authors suggest that this may have improved boys’ engagement with the programme compared to girls.  

Ethnicity

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

How can you implement it well?

Fourteen studies provided evidence related to implementation, of which six were from the UK, one from Norway and seven were from the United States.

Clearly define aims, eligibility criteria, and referral procedures

Police and youth justice partners should agree local guidelines and train police officers to apply them fairly and consistently. Clear rules and transparent processes can help to ensure that children are not excluded too early, and that referrals are timely and reliable.

Ensure participation is voluntary

All staff involved in managing and delivering informal pre-court diversion must clearly communicate that participation is voluntary and make the consequences of non-engagement clear. Children are more likely to engage when they feel they have a genuine choice about what happens to them. An appropriate adult must be present when an informal out-of-court resolution is offered, to help the child to understand what is happening. An appropriate adult can be a parent, guardian, social worker, relative, or any responsible person over 18 who is not a police officer or employed by the police.

Deliver high quality, tailored interventions

Where children are diverted to educational or supportive interventions such as counselling, these should be evidence-based, high quality interventions, such as social and emotional skills development, therapies, restorative justice, and mentoring.  Where possible, children should be involved in shaping their own support, ensuring interventions are personally meaningful, because they are more likely to engage fully.

Provide training and reminders about the impact of out-of-court resolutions

Research shows that some police officers may view this approach as a ‘soft option’. Provision of regular training for police officers on how to interact with children and their families, managing casework, and awareness of mental health conditions and referral pathways, may facilitate use of informal diversion approaches. Receiving timely feedback on the impact of informal out-of-court resolutions for children motivates police officers to refer more children to the scheme.

Promote multi-agency collaboration

Implementing joint decision-making panels, working groups, using shared resources, and co-locating relevant staff may help to integrate those involved in delivering informal diversion approaches. Strong working relationships between the police, youth justice, Crown Prosecution Service, children’s services, education, and staff delivering diversionary interventions is vital to ensuring that informal diversion approaches are identified and used. In addition, support from school staff for informal diversion approaches can help to navigate relationships with parents, who may be more willing to engage in a school setting rather than have police officers in their homes.  

How much does it cost?

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

Cost estimates from current UK informal pre-court diversion schemes suggest an average cost of £1,170 per child. However, costs vary considerably. They range from the cost of a few days of police and youth justice time spent completing an assessment and arranging a no further action outcome, through to delivery of several months of counselling support.  

Costs to the police are low, including handling the initial assessment, informing decision-making on outcomes, and making referrals to youth justice or other agencies delivering support. Costs to youth justice 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

• Informal pre-court diversion can be used for children and young people that have been involved in less serious offending and have no prior record of offences. It avoids putting children through formal criminal justice processing that can result in a criminal record and other negative consequences.
• Informal pre-court diversion is estimated to have a high impact on reducing violence, reducing offending by 30%. However, we have low confidence in this estimate without further high-quality evidence. 
• Strong working relationships between the police, youth justice services, and agencies delivering diversionary interventions is important, to enable swift assessments and referrals, and delivery of high-quality and appropriate interventions.  
• On average the cost of informal 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 informal 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 informal pre-court diversion such as social and emotional skills development, therapies, restorative justice, and mentoring.  

YEF guidance, projects and evaluations

Diversion Practice Guidance

This guidance focuses on what happens to children at the early stages of the youth justice system when they first encounter the police. This includes both schemes that divert children using informal and formal out-of-court resolutions.

Diversion Systems Guidance

This guidance 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.

External links

Centre for Justice Innovation resources
The Centre for Justice Innovation 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.

National Police Chief’s Council (NPCC) guidance on Community Resolutions

Guidelines produced by the NPCC Out-of-Court Disposal Lead.

Downloads