Rethinking Diversity, Equality and Inclusion (DEI)
By Parady and Jaimee
You might have heard the term before - but what is formal pre-court diversion and why does it matter? Formal pre-court diversion is a way to steer children and young people away from the formal youth justice system when they’ve committed a minor offence. Instead of going to court, they’re offered things like youth cautions or youth conditional cautions. The goal is to give them a chance to learn from their mistakes and build a better path forward without the long-term consequences of a criminal record.
So, what’s the evidence?
In our recent review, we explored the effectiveness of formal pre-court diversion programmes as a strategy to prevent violence, crime and offending involving children and young people.
We looked at five studies to see how formal pre-court diversion programmes impacts violence amongst children and young people and found that it may reduce this by 25%. That’s promising, but with only a handful of studies, confidence in the result is low. We then looked at 35 studies focused on crime and offending and found that it reduces crime by 14%, with moderate confidence in the findings. So, formal pre-court diversion is showing promise in helping children and young people stay on track, whilst also avoiding a criminal record.
What about Diversity, Equality and Inclusion?
In our review, only 13 out of 36 studies examined how personal characteristics influence the effectiveness of formal pre-court diversion programmes. This included gender, ethnicity, Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND), socioeconomic status, place of residence, care experience and intersectionality. However, none of the studies examined neurodiversity or educational context, leaving questions about how formal pre-court diversion programmes work for neurodivergent children and young people and those with varied school experiences. This lack of attention to key diversity, equality and inclusion factors suggests a significant evidence gap that could be masking disparities in programme effectiveness.
Ethnicity does seem to play a role - but it’s only part of the story. When we grouped studies together to explore whether programme effectiveness varied by ethnicity, formal pre-court diversion was more likely to be effective at reducing crime and offending in studies where participants were majority white or had some diversity (15–49% Black and Global Majority children and young people). But when the samples were more diverse (50% or more Black and Global Majority children and young people) the impact was smaller and not statistically significant. And while ethnicity alone doesn’t consistently explain the differences in outcomes (especially when other factors like gender and inclusion criteria are considered), the lack of clarity points to a deeper issue: the evidence base isn’t yet strong or inclusive enough to tell us how these programmes serve all communities equitably.
Even though some programmes aim to be fair, some still showed signs of unfair treatment, with structural bias and racial stereotyping in how they’re delivered. Some studies suggest that Black and Global Majority children and young people were more likely than their white peers to receive tougher, more punitive sanctions. This is consistent with recent research in England and Wales which found Black and Global Majority children and young people were 9% less likely to receive pre-court diversion than white children and young people.
While gender didn’t consistently affect outcomes, girls were more likely to be offered formal pre-court diversion or have their cases dismissed altogether. So, while the end results may look the same, girls may be getting more chances to avoid deeper justice system involvement in the first place. Similarly, socioeconomic status didn’t affect outcomes directly, but it did affect access. Children and young people in higher income areas with lower poverty rates were more likely to be offered formal pre-court diversion programmes.
If some children and young people are missing out on access to support just because of where they live or who they are, we have to ask - how equal is the system really, and what needs to change to make it fair for everyone? Because if we want equity, these opportunities need to be available to all. Structural inequality, implicit bias, and racial stereotyping are still influencing decisions at key points in the justice process. Black and Global Majority children and young people are being treated differently, not because of what they’ve done, but because of who they are. That kind of unfairness doesn’t just block access - it undermines trust and perpetuates cycles of disadvantage. Gendered assumptions may also be shaping who gets access. Are boys being seen as “riskier” or “less suitable”? Are mixed-gender programmes failing to meet the needs of all participants? These are the kinds of questions we need to be asking if we’re serious about building a system that works for everyone.
Unfortunately, there’s almost no high-quality evidence on how these programmes work for neurodivergent children and young people, those who are care experienced, and those with SEND. And yet, these are often the groups most at risk of being misunderstood, excluded, or pushed further into the system: 87% of children and young people cautioned or sentenced for a serious violence offence, are recorded as having SEND (DfE & MoJ, 2022); and 60% of children and young people who had been cautioned or sentenced for a serious violence offence who were also recorded as a care experienced child or young person, were recorded as so before their first serious violence offence (DfE & MoJ, 2022).
What needs to happen next?
If we’re serious about diversity, equality and inclusion, we need to:
- Make access transparent and consistent: too often, who gets access to the intervention depends on local discretion or unclear criteria. Clear, consistent guidelines can help reduce bias and make sure decisions aren’t influenced by stereotypes or assumptions.
- Embed cultural responsiveness from the ground up: programmes must reflect the lived experiences of the children and young people they serve. That means recruiting diverse staff, co-designing with communities, and actively challenging bias in decision-making.
- Make inclusion measurable and accountable: inclusion can’t be a vague aspiration. Programmes should track who’s accessing services, who’s completing them, and who’s being left behind. Disaggregated data by ethnicity, care experience, gender, SEND status, and socioeconomic background should be standard - and used to drive improvement.
- Invest in research that centres equity: we need to know more on how formal pre-court diversion works for diverse groups in the UK. We also need robust research that actively explores how and why outcomes differ and what can be done to close those gaps. This means funding studies that explore SEND, intersectionality, systemic bias, and long-term outcomes.
Final thoughts
Formal pre-court diversion can be a powerful tool, but it needs to be built to serve every child and young person. All children and young people deserve to have access to programmes that help and it’s on us, as professionals, commissioners, and researchers, to make sure they get it.
Read our Formal Pre-court Diversion Toolkit Technical Report
Read the Youth Endowment Fund’s Formal Pre-court Diversion Toolkit
If you have any questions, please contact Dr Jaimee S. Mallion.
Department for Education and Ministry of Justice. (2022) Education, children’s social care and offending. Descriptive Statistics.