by Parady and Jaimee
Informal pre-court diversion offers an alternative to formal justice processes. It’s a way for police, and sometimes youth justice services, to respond when a child or young person has been involved in a low-level offence. This approach is typically used when there’s no previous offending history. If there’s enough evidence but the offence isn’t serious, they can choose to resolve things informally, avoiding court and a criminal record. The goal is to help children and young people learn from their actions, make things right, and move forward without long-term consequences – avoiding the stigmatisation of being in contact with the criminal justice system.
So, what’s the evidence?
In our recent review, we explored the effectiveness of informal pre-court diversion programmes as a strategy to prevent violence, crime and offending amongst children and young people. We reviewed 11 studies covering 5,846 children and young people, conducting a meta-analysis of 42 outcomes across 9 studies.
We found that informal pre-court diversion reduces crime and offending by 30%, particularly when used with first-time entrants and for minor offences only. However, our confidence in the result is low, because only one study was high quality, whilst the rest were moderate to low quality. When it comes to violence, the evidence just isn’t there. None of the studies specifically reported on the impact of the approach on reducing violence involving children and young people.
What about Diversity, Equality and Inclusion (DEI)?
Formal vs informal pre-court diversion: A DEI crossroad
When we grouped studies together to explore ethnicity as a potential moderator of programme effectiveness, we found that informal pre-court diversion had larger effects in diverse/balanced samples (50% or more Black and Global Majority children and young people), than samples with some diversity (between 15-49% of children and young people are Black and Global Majority).
These findings differ from our previous research on formal pre-court diversion (Mallion et al., 2025), where we found that this was more likely to be effective at reducing crime and offending in studies that were majority white or had some diversity, whilst there were smaller non-significant effects on crime and offending outcomes for diverse samples. This may be because informal pre-court diversion enables more culturally responsive practices and inclusive implementation strategies, whilst formal pre-court diversion can reproduce systemic biases, such as Black and Global Majority children and young people being more likely than their white counterparts to receive hasher outcomes (e.g., Gaby & Magnus, 2023).
This raises critical questions:
- Is this a sign of positive discretion, where informal pathways are used to protect Black and Global Majority children and young people from formal sanctions?
- Can this be consistently applied and available to all children and young people?
This divergence between informal and formal pre-court diversion findings highlights the need for joined-up analysis.
Why gender-responsiveness matters
When we grouped studies together to explore gender as a potential moderator of programme effectiveness, the strongest effects were seen in studies with majority female participants. This highlights the need for gender-responsive practices in informal pre-court diversion approaches. The wider evidence base supports this. Girls who offend are more likely than boys to experience severe mental health challenges; higher rates of abuse and neglect; and greater substance use issues (Day et al., 2015; Hartsell & Novak, 2022). It’s therefore crucial to respond with care rather than control.
The missing data: who’s not in the picture?
Personal characteristics like socioeconomic status, neurodiversity or SEND aren’t just background details, they’re central to understanding how children and young people experience the justice system. This absence isn’t just a research gap - it’s a policy blind spot. Here’s what we know from broader evidence:
- Children and young people from low-income households are disproportionately represented in the youth justice system. According to the Youth Justice Board for England and Wales (2024), over 70% of children in custody were from the 40% most deprived areas in England. This leaves questions about whether informal pre-court diversion reaches economically disadvantaged children and young people.
- Neurodivergent children and young people face significant challenges in navigating justice processes including difficulties with understanding legal language and responding appropriately during interviews, which can lead to unfair outcomes such as false admissions (HM Inspectorate of Probation, 2021). This suggests that neurodivergent children and young people are less likely to benefit from informal pre-court diversion due to communication barriers and lack of tailored support.
- Disabled children and young people and those with special educational needs are significantly overrepresented in the youth justice system. Evidence suggests that 70 - 90% of children and young people in the justice system have some form of SEND (Centre for Justice Innovation, 2024). Without data on SEND in informal pre-court diversion programmes, we can’t assess whether this group is being diverted or further marginalised.
The lack of data on personal characteristics means we don’t know if informal pre-court diversion is truly inclusive. And without intersectional analysis we risk missing how these identities overlap which compounds disadvantage. Embedding equity from the outset isn’t just good practice, it’s a necessary step toward a fairer youth justice system.
What needs to happen next?
If we’re serious about diversity, equality and inclusion, we need to:
- Mandate comprehensive data collection: on ethnicity, gender, socioeconomic status, SEND, care status, neurodiversity, education, and place of residence. Without this, equity cannot be measured or improved.
- Audit access and outcomes: by demographic group to identify disparities and inform targeted interventions, applying an intersectional lens. This includes tracking who is offered informal pre-court diversion, who completes it, and what happens next.
- Develop equity-focused guidance: for police and youth justice professionals on when and how to offer informal pre-court diversion, ensuring decisions are transparent, consistent, and inclusive.
- Prioritise high-quality research: to explore how informal pre-court diversion affects different demographic groups, and whether these interventions reduce or inadvertently reinforce systemic disparities, in terms of ethnicity, socio-economic status, SEND, education, care-experience, place of residence, neurodiversity and intersectionality of children and young people. Particularly within the UK context.
Final thoughts
Informal pre-court diversion offers a vital opportunity to reduce crime and offending involving children and young people, and to avoid the formal justice system. But without equity at its core, it risks becoming a selective privilege rather than a universal right.
Read our Informal Pre-court Diversion Toolkit Technical Report
Read the Youth Endowment Fund’s Informal Pre-court Diversion Toolkit
Read our evidence review on youth diversion programmes
If you have any questions, please contact Dr Jaimee S. Mallion.
References
Centre for Justice Innovation. (2024). How is youth diversion working for children with special educational needs and disabilities? https://justiceinnovation.org/sites/default/files/media/document/2024/s…;
Day, J. C., Zahn, M. A., & Tichavsky, L. P. (2015). What Works for Whom? The Effects of Gender Responsive Programming on Girls and Boys in Secure Detention. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 52(1), 93–129. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022427814538033
Gaby, S., & Magnus, A. M. (2023). Teen Courts as Alternative Justice? Teens’ Carceral Habitus and the Reproduction of Social Inequality. Critical Criminology, 32(1), 41–59. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10612-023-09729-1
HM Inspectorate of Probation. (2021). Neurodiversity – A whole-child approach for youth justice. https://www.russellwebster.com/neurodiversity-a-whole-child-approach-fo…;
Mallion, J. S., Hedges, S., Keenan, C., Idrees, I., Allen, K., Murphy, L., Hanratty, J., Nugent, R., Dunne, C., Lyons, F., Coady, C., Towers, J. (2025). Formal approaches to pre-court diversion. Youth Endowment Fund.
Youth Justice Board for England and Wales. (2024). Youth justice statistics: 2022 to 2023 (accessible version). GOV.UK. https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/youth-justice-statistics-2022-…;