The effectiveness of diverting children from the criminal justice system: meeting needs, ensuring safety, and preventing reoffending

An inspection by HM Inspectorate of Probation and HM Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services

Foreword (Back to top)

Youth out-of-court disposals (OoCDs) are alternatives to formal prosecution for children and are designed to divert them away from the criminal justice system by addressing their behaviour early and offering support to prevent further offending.

We last inspected this topic in 2018. Since then, there has been a substantial and sustained increase in the use of OoCDs for children, alongside a notable shift in the types of disposals being issued. The profile of children receiving OoCDs has also changed. Many now present with more complex needs and have had repeated contact with services such as the police and children’s social care. However, the system has not kept pace with these changes, and many children require a more tailored and intensive approach than is currently being delivered.

Evidence of the impact and cost effectiveness of OoCDs remains limited. National data is lacking, and there is little understanding of the number issued, how they are used, or how effective different approaches are. This gap remains despite our 2018 recommendation to include youth community resolutions in reoffending statistics and to evaluate their impact.

In the absence of a clear and consistent national framework, local areas have adopted varied approaches to diverting children from the criminal justice system, resulting in a ‘postcode lottery’ and raising concerns about fairness and public confidence.

Policing practices require greater consistency and oversight. An increasing number of children, including those involved in serious or repeat offending, were being dealt with informally, often by police alone. Where decisions were made jointly with youth justice services, roles and responsibilities were often unclear. The reasons behind decisions were not always recorded, making it difficult to understand how some outcomes were reached, and whether they were appropriate.

Effective diversion relies on strong partnerships, but many services are under strain due to limited resources and rising demand. As a result, it is harder to qualify for support, waiting lists are longer, and getting help in good time is more difficult. We found that many children struggled to get the support they needed, including education and mental health, and these needs often went unmet by the end of the OoCD process. Without coordinated and timely intervention, we found that children on the edge of the justice system were more likely to face further problems and become more deeply involved in offending.

Youth justice partnership boards did not have a clear understanding of the overall volume of OoCDs in their area or the effectiveness of interventions involving the youth justice service and other partners. The short-term and uncertain nature of some funding also makes it difficult for agencies to plan for the future.

Our case inspections highlighted the need for greater emphasis on safeguarding – both of the child and the public. Victims’ voices, especially those of child victims, must also be better heard and respected. Despite these challenges, there is much to build on. We observed committed staff using creative and effective approaches to engage children and families.

While there is widespread agreement on the importance of avoiding unnecessary criminalisation and promoting child-centred justice, we found that the current system is fragmented and inconsistent. This report highlights the pressing need for stronger governance, clearer guidance, and more consistent practice in the use of OoCDs for children. Our recommendations, if implemented, are intended to achieve these aims.

Martin Jones CBE	Michelle Skeer OBE QPM
HM Chief Inspector of Probation	HM Inspector of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services

Contextual facts (Back to top)

13,868	The number of children cautioned or sentenced in 2024. This is virtually unchanged from 2023 but down 67 per cent from 2014.
21.7%	The proven reoffending rate over 12 months for children receiving youth cautions and youth conditional cautions (year ending June 2023).
58.5 %	The proven reoffending rate over 12 months for children receiving a youth rehabilitation order (YRO) (year ending June 2023).
Not known	The number of children receiving an Outcome 8, 20, 21, 22 since 2012.
Not known	The rate of reoffending of children who have received an Outcome 8, 20, 21, 22 since 2012.
Not known	Number of children who received an informal disposal for the first time since 2012.
8,278	The number of first-time entrants to the criminal justice system in the year ending December 2023. This is down 3 per cent from the previous year and 65 per cent from 2013. First-time entrant figures do not include children who have received community resolutions or Outcome 20, 21, and 22.
65%	Drop in first-time entrants between 2013 and 2023.

8,278	The number of first-time entrants to the criminal justice system in the year ending December 2023. This is down 3 per cent from the previous year and 65 per cent from 2013. First-time entrant figures do not include children who have received community resolutions or Outcome 20, 21, and 22.
65%	Drop in first-time entrants between 2013 and 2023.

The graph below shows the reduction in the number of children entering the formal youth justice system[1] over a ten-year period.

---

What is a youth out-of-court disposal? (Back to top)

In England and Wales, youth out-of-court disposals. are alternatives to formal prosecution for children (under 18) who commit criminal offences. These are designed to divert young people away from the criminal justice system while still addressing their behaviour and providing support.

In this report we have used the term OoCD instead of Out-of-Court Resolution. In 2023, the NPCC updated this terminology in the adult framework. At the time of our inspection, this change had not yet been applied to the children’s framework.

Common types of youth out-of-court disposals

• An informal agreement between the police, the child, and sometimes the victim.
• The child must admit or accept responsibility for offending behaviour.
• Often used for low-level offences.

Community resolution (CR)

Youth caution

• A formal warning given by the police.
• Requires the young person to admit the offence.
• Recorded on the Police National Computer but not a criminal conviction.

Youth conditional caution (YCC)

• A formal caution with conditions attached (e.g., attending a programme, making reparations).
• Requires an admission of guilt.
• Non-compliance can lead to prosecution.

Outcome 22 – no further action (NFA)

• Used when the police decide not to pursue a formal charge or caution.
• No admission of guilt or acceptance of responsibility is needed.
• The child may be referred to the youth justice service (YJS) for joint decision-making.

Outcome 22 – deferred youth caution

• A final decision to issue a youth caution, delayed to allow the child to complete specified conditions (e.g., intervention work, reparative actions).
• If the young person successfully completes the conditions, the caution may not be formally recorded.
• Requires an admission of guilt.
• Non-compliance may lead to the caution being formally issued or alternative action taken (e.g., prosecution).

Outcome 22 – deferred prosecution

• Prosecution is paused while the child undertakes agreed activities for a specified period.
• No admission of guilt is needed but the case must meet the evidential standard for charge.
•  If conditions are successfully met, the charges can be dropped or remain dormant.
• If the agreed conditions are breached, the prosecution can resume, and the individual can be charged.

Outcome 20 – action undertaken by another body or agency

• The case is passed to another body or agency to progress (e.g., mental health service).
• Victim (or person acting on their behalf) is made aware of the process.
• Considered by the police to be no further action. 

Outcome 21 – not in the public interest – police decision

• Further investigation to support formal action being taken is not in the public interest.
• Considered by the police to be no further action. 

---

Executive summary (Back to top)

Inspection methodology

The fieldwork for this inspection involved visiting eight youth justice services (YJS) within six police force areas. HM Inspectorate of Probation inspected a total of 98 cases: 88 involving children who had received a youth community resolution or Outcome 22, and 10 involving other types of disposals.

We assessed the quality of decision-making in an additional 66 cases where the children received a youth caution (YC) or a youth conditional caution (YCC). We made some comparisons between the work delivered under Outcome 22 and community resolutions and found the differences to be negligible.

HM Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services inspected the quality of disposal decisions made by police officers. The police crime outcome types that we focused on were:

• Outcome 8: a community resolution (with or without formal restorative justice) applied in accordance with policing guidance.
• Outcome 20: further action resulting from the crime report is undertaken by another body or agency other than the police, subject to the victim (or person acting on their behalf) being made aware of the action being taken.
• Outcome 21: further investigation resulting from the crime report that could provide evidence sufficient to support formal action being taken against the suspect is not in the public interest – police decision.
• Outcome 22: diversionary, educational or intervention activity, resulting from the crime report, has been undertaken and it is not in the public interest to take any further action.

We held a range of meetings and focus groups with staff delivering OoCDs, their managers, and senior leaders at a national level. We commissioned User Voice to conduct surveys and interviews with 50 children, and inspectors spoke with 31 parents or carers, gathering their perspectives on the services they received. These were not necessarily the children or parents or carers whose cases we inspected. A report from User Voice will be published alongside this report.

More information about our inspection methodology can be found in Annex 2.

Governance and leadership

We found a broad consensus on the importance of avoiding the unnecessary criminalisation of children, with national and local commitments to child-centred justice. The overall approach to OoCDs was, however, fragmented and hindered by inadequate data, oversight, and strategic direction.

Inconsistent police recording of crime outcome types, limited tracking, and the inability to disaggregate data specific to children undermined efforts to monitor trends, assess reoffending, and evaluate the impact and cost effectiveness of interventions. This undermines public confidence and limits the quality and consistency of support available to children.

The YJB first-time entrants (FTE) key performance indicator, a measure of children’s entry to the justice system, no longer reflected the reality of a system where most cases were managed through OoCDs. A more meaningful and comprehensive measure was needed.

Most existing research had focused on the negative impacts of formal youth justice system involvement on children, rather than identifying the key elements of successful diversion.

We found wide variation in the use of tools such as the National Police Chiefs’ Council (NPCC) child gravity matrix and disposal options like deferred prosecutions. This had created a ‘postcode lottery’ in decision-making and fostered perceptions of unfairness. We also found some confusion about how different police crime outcome types affected what may be disclosed later, for example to employers – which can have a significant impact on children’s life chances.

At the local level, youth justice partnership boards did not have a clear understanding of the overall volume of OoCDs or the effectiveness of interventions involving the YJS and other partners. Some services faced capacity challenges, and while Turnaround funding was welcomed and generally used effectively, the short-term and uncertain nature of some funding streams made it difficult to develop sustainable, long-term strategies.

Addressing these challenges requires stronger national frameworks, clearer guidance, improved data systems, and more effective multi-agency collaboration to ensure children have access to the right support at the right time.

Policing and decision-making

A significant number of children, including those involved in serious offences, were being dealt with informally, often by police alone and without YJS involvement. We saw cases where children were wrongly told they had to complete interventions or face prosecution, which was both inaccurate and potentially coercive. Where decisions were made in conjunction with the YJS, procedures were not always followed to ensure the most suitable disposal, and decision rationales were often unclear, leading to a lack of transparency.

Police officers did not routinely use the NPCC child gravity matrix and associated guidance, even in cases involving serious offences such as violent or sexual crimes. We found occasional tensions between the police and partner agencies over final disposal decisions, particularly in more serious cases such as those involving knives.

Patterns of repeat offending were not always considered when making police-only and joint decisions about OoCDs involving children. This oversight could result in the same child receiving multiple disposals without appropriate escalation or timely intervention.

In some instances, Outcome 20 and Outcome 21 were used inappropriately for serious offences, which undermined the concerning nature of the crimes and the need for appropriate responses. The widespread and largely unmonitored use of Outcome 20, including in school settings, raised concerns about whether children and communities were kept safe and victims supported. Without clear national data and oversight, the full scale and impact of these practices remained unknown.

Partnerships and services

Although support under OoCDs tended to be shorter than the statutory orders these children might previously have received, the complexity of their needs, circumstances, and, in some cases, the risks they posed to others, remained unchanged. Given the brevity of OoCDs, swift access to services and sustained support was vital.

Access to education and intervention for emotional health and wellbeing were the biggest challenges and often remained unmet at the end of the OoCD. Support frequently arrived too late, ended prematurely, or lacked proper exit and onward planning, leaving many children without the continuity of care and help they needed. Integration with services such as children’s social care was essential. Without coordinated and timely intervention, children on the edge of the justice system remained at significant risk of further escalation.

Victims’ services need to improve to ensure effective engagement processes, uphold the Victims’ Code, and amplify victims’ voices, especially those of child victims, whose age and maturity must be carefully considered.

Interventions were not always jointly planned, delivered, reviewed or sustained. Even when services were available, referrals were not always made or could be declined for unclear reasons, and there was limited analysis of engagement or referral patterns. Addressing these gaps could significantly improve the outcomes for children.

The quality of youth justice casework

YJS staff demonstrated strong skills in engagement, with their support highly valued by children and parents or carers. Many of the children had significant safety and welfare needs, often facing multiple challenges that increased the risk of reoffending if left unaddressed.

In many cases, there needed to be greater emphasis on safety, for both the child and others, in all aspects of practice. Interventions tended to focus narrowly on the offence rather than addressing the underlying risks and safeguarding concerns, which were closely linked to reoffending. A growing number of children displayed escalating, concerning behaviours requiring more intensive, tailored support.

Given this complexity, the system must adapt to provide structured, needs-led interventions that address the root causes of offending and are beneficial for children, including through support delivered outside the justice system where appropriate.

---

Recommendations (Back to top)

The Home Office should:

1. amend crime outcome types to clearly distinguish between Outcome 22 (no further action), deferred youth cautions, and deferred prosecutions. Also, consider whether deferred youth cautions and deferred prosecutions should be formally recognised as positive police outcomes
2. ensure that out-of-court disposals data for children is separated from that for adults.

Ministry of Justice should:

3. work with the Home Office and Youth Justice Board to review the relevance, suitability, and effectiveness of the first-time entrants key performance indicators, and implement new reporting processes for all out-of-court disposals. This includes tracking Outcomes 20 and 21
4. include all out-of-court disposals where interventions are delivered to children, including community resolutions and Outcome 22, in criminal justice system reoffending statistics.

The Home Office and Ministry of Justice should:

5. remove youth cautions from the out-of-court disposal framework, and explore the feasibility of introducing statutory deferred prosecution schemes and statutory provision for community resolutions.

The Home Office, Ministry of Justice, and the Youth Justice Board should:

6. evaluate the data on outcomes delivered to children to understand the effectiveness of out-of-court disposals in reducing reoffending.

The National Police Chiefs’ Council should:

7. amend the NPCC child gravity matrix guidance so that any divergence of more than one score must be authorised by an officer of at least the rank of police inspector
8. amend the NPCC Community Resolutions Guidance to include standardised wording for community resolution forms, to ensure consistency and to prohibit the use of coercive wording.
9. work with the Youth Justice Board and Home Office to develop guidance in relation to the use of Outcome 20 and 21. This should include referral to youth justice services when appropriate (in accordance with the NPCC child gravity matrix guidance).

The National Police Chiefs’ Council, College of Policing, and Youth Justice Board should:

10. amend the NPCC Community Resolutions Guidance, the College of Policing Authorised  Professional Practice for prosecution and case management, and the YJB case management guidance to reflect that community resolutions are issued only when the child has accepted responsibility or where there is evidence that would provide a realistic prospect of conviction.

Chief constables should:

11. improve how out-of-court disposals are managed by:

• working with YJSs to establish formal data-sharing arrangements to ensure timely and consistent access to information on all types of out-of-court disposal
• ensuring decisions about the use of crime Outcomes 20 and 21 are consistent and appropriate and reflect revised NPCC guidance
• ensuring that police always use the NPCC child gravity matrix guidance when making decisions relating to outcomes for children and that the rationales for those decisions are always recorded.
• ensuring that joint decisions with the youth justice service about out-of-court disposals are made at the appropriate level of seniority.
• ensuring that children’s legal rights are met before issuing a community resolution; this includes the need to caution and make sure that an appropriate adult is present
• ensuring that safeguarding referrals are made when appropriate.

The Youth Justice Board should:

12. ensure that current data collection mechanisms support future evaluation of the effectiveness of out-of-court disposals in outcomes for children, reoffending rates, potential net-widening, and their cost-effectiveness
13. work proactively with youth justice partnership boards to help them build a clear understanding of all out-of-court disposals used locally, evaluate their impact, and ensure their effectiveness 
14. work together with partners to establish an evidence base about which interventions and disposals are most effective in reducing reoffending and delivering positive outcomes for children.

Youth justice partnership boards should:

15. In line with the case management guidance:

• collate data on all out-of-court disposals, including from partner agencies, to analyse and monitor use, to ensure appropriate application, identify trends, and assess for net-widening
• ensure all partners take a collaborative approach to out-of-court disposal decision-making and intervention delivery, supporting joint work and effective exit planning.

Youth justice service managers should:

16. consider the complexity and nature of the risk and safety concerns for each child, and match these with the skillset and experience of staff when allocating work
17. improve the quality of assessment, planning, and service delivery so that they focus equally on supporting the child and keeping them and other people safe
18. ensure that children and their parents or carers understand the requirements of the out-of-court disposal and the aims of their intervention plan.

---

1. Introduction (Back to top)

1.1. Why this thematic (Back to top)

In 2018, HM Inspectorate of Probation, with HM Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services (HMICFRS), conducted an inspection into the delivery of OoCDs (HM Inspectorate of Probation, 2018). The resulting report made 11 recommendations, emphasising the need for greater focus on victims and a comprehensive evaluation of the use and effectiveness of OoCDs.

Since then, the use of OoCDs has increased significantly and now accounts for most casework in many youth justice services (YJS). Aggregated data from core youth inspections conducted by HM Inspectorate of Probation between 2021 and 2024 indicated that most aspects of OoCD practice were rated as ‘Good’, with efforts to promote desistance identified as a particular strength. However, the findings also highlighted significant differences in how OoCDs were handled across areas, raising concerns about whether children were receiving fair and equal outcomes.

This thematic inspection provides an evaluation of the evolving use of OoCDs, alongside the implementation of new guidance, including the updated Youth Justice Board case management guidance for England and Wales (YJB, 2024), and the National Police Chiefs’ Council child gravity matrix (NPCC, 2025).

The overarching aim has been to promote a better understanding of OoCDs across England and Wales, and clarity and consistency in processes and practices.

---

1.2. Background (Back to top)

Legislation

The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 placed an emphasis on preventing offending, particularly among children. It introduced a legal duty for local authorities, police, health services, and other public bodies to make crime prevention a shared responsibility across services. One of its key measures was the creation of youth offending teams (YOTs), which brought together professionals from different sectors to work collaboratively in tackling youth crime and preventing reoffending.

The act marked a significant shift toward a multi-agency, preventative approach to crime, embedding responsibility for crime reduction into the everyday work of public services and encouraging early, community-based responses rather than relying solely on punishment.

Youth Justice Blueprint for Wales

The Youth Justice Blueprint for Wales was established in 2018–19 by the Welsh Government, HM Prison and Probation Service, and Youth Justice Board Cymru. It places a strong emphasis on out-of-court disposals and diversion to prevent the criminalisation of children. It promotes early intervention and targeted prevention by addressing underlying factors such as trauma, adverse childhood experiences (ACEs), and unmet welfare needs. The approach prioritises keeping children out of the formal justice system wherever possible, using restorative, trauma-informed, and multi-agency methods to resolve issues without prosecution. By strengthening the use of pre-court interventions and ensuring consistency across Wales, the Blueprint aims to support better outcomes for children.

Bureau (youth diversion panel)

Bureau is a Welsh scheme for children who admit low-level offences. First developed in Swansea, in conjunction with South Wales police, it is rooted in a ‘Child First’ ethos, now used across Wales and parts of England.

Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012

The Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (LASPO) significantly changed the framework for OoCDs for children in England and Wales. It replaced the previous system of police reprimands and final warnings with youth cautions (YCs) and youth conditional cautions (YCCs).

The changes introduced by LASPO aimed to simplify and standardise how minor offences committed by children were handled, focusing more on rehabilitation and restorative justice. The goal was to reduce the unnecessary criminalisation of children, decrease reliance on courts for low-level offences, and give police and YJS more flexible tools for early intervention.

Community resolutions – informal, non-statutory police measures which were initially used for low-level, first-time offences – were not part of LASPO; they are guided by police discretion rather than legal requirements.

The code of practice for victims of crime in England and Wales

The ‘Victims’ Code’ outlines the rights and support available to victims of crime, ensuring they are treated with dignity and respect in the criminal justice process.

Under the code of practice, victims have the right to clear communication, proper recording of their crime report, and updates on investigations. Victims have the right be asked for their views and for these to be considered when a disposal decision is made. Where this is not possible, the reasoning must be explained to victims. They can access support services and make a victim personal statement about the crime’s impact.

Victims should be kept informed about the trial, outcomes, and custody release decisions. Special measures can be provided for vulnerable victims during court proceedings, and victims should be informed about restorative justice options. If their rights are not met, they can make a complaint.

The NPCC child gravity matrix

In 2023, the National Police Chiefs’ Council (NPCC) published the child gravity matrix (CGM). This replaced the 2013 ACPO youth offender case disposal gravity factor matrix.

The revised matrix expanded gravity scores from a 1–4 range to 1–5. A score of 1 applies to cases suitable for no further action, while a score of 5 typically leads to a charge. Scores 2, 3, and 4 correspond to informal out-of-court disposals, YCs, and YCCs respectively. Outcome 22 should be used for offences that are gravity 2-4. The revised matrix also allowed for more discretion in the final disposal decision.

The child gravity matrix was updated with the most recent version in 2025. These revisions included:

• a revised scoring system to assess aggravating and mitigating factors
• updating the guidance to include all OoCDs
• updated offence categories to reflect current crime trends and legislative changes
• improved guidance aimed at promoting fairness and consistency in decision-making.

The matrix aims to provide consistency in the use of OoCDs across police force areas. It helps officers determine the most appropriate outcomes or disposals for children who commit offences.

National standards for children in the youth justice system (YJB, 2019)

The YJB national standards, last updated in 2019, emphasise a child-centred, early intervention approach to out-of-court disposals, aiming to prevent the unnecessary involvement of children in the criminal justice system: ‘All action should be taken to promote diversion into more suitable child-focused systems, and the promotion of positive constructive behaviour.’(National Standards, 2019)

Standard 1, out-of-court disposals, emphasises early diversion from crime through multi-agency collaboration, clear separation between diversion and formal disposals, and child-focused, proportionate responses. A joint police-YJS protocol must guide decision-making, with quality assurance in place and a focus on reducing disproportionality. YJSs must carry out thorough, timely assessments to inform intervention plans that support pro-social behaviour. Children and their families should be involved in all stages.

The standards promote a ‘Child First’ approach, focusing on the child’s wellbeing and development, with an emphasis on positive behavioural change.

YJB case management guidance and assessment tool

The YJB’s case management guidance on OoCDs was first published in 2019 with an update in 2022. The guidance covers key areas such as decision-making, collaboration between the police and YJS, victim involvement, and procedures for reviewing decisions. A further update in January 2024 placed greater emphasis on promoting consistency in OoCD delivery and ensuring that approaches are fair and tailored to the individual needs of children. It sets out clear, standardised decision-making processes that take each child’s circumstances into account. The guidance also encourages the use of diversionary measures as alternatives to formal court proceedings, with the aim of reducing reoffending and supporting children’s rehabilitation.

In April 2024, the YJB released the national prevention and diversion assessment tool (PDAT), accompanied by guidance and quality assurance documents. National training was delivered to support its implementation, and the tool was deployed across all YJSs in England and Wales.

Relevant issues

Racial disproportionality

Over the past decade, the number of children in the formal youth justice system fell by 67 per cent, yet the proportion of Black children rose. By 2024, they made up 11 per cent of those cautioned or sentenced, up from 9 per cent in 2014. The Lammy Review into treatment of, and outcomes for Black, Asian, and minority ethnic individuals in the criminal justice system (2017) cited mistrust of police among Black and minority ethnic youth, making them less likely to admit guilt – required for most OoCDs. Outcome 22 was introduced to bypass this barrier, allowing intervention without admission of guilt. There has been no national evaluation to assess if Black and minority ethnic children have benefited from the use of Outcome 22.

Concerns about potential net widening

Longstanding concerns have been raised that the use of OoCDs might lead to ‘net widening’, potentially drawing into the criminal justice system more children who would not have been considered serious enough for formal processing, thereby increasing the risk of stigmatisation (Centre for Justice Innovation, 2024).

Research and findings[2]

There was limited up-to-date research on the effectiveness or cost-effectiveness of the differing types of OoCD, including which types might work best with which children, taking into account children’s differing histories and circumstances. However, the available evidence broadly indicated that diverting children from the formal youth justice system for low-level offences was effective in reducing reoffending. Although the precise mechanisms were not fully understood, evidence pointed to a labelling effect, where involvement with the justice system increased surveillance and reinforced antisocial identities and behaviours. For instance, the Edinburgh Study of Youth Transitions (McAra and McVie, 2007) found that children known to the justice system were slower to desist from offending than those who were not.

Other evidence showed that diversion programmes – especially voluntary ones like community resolutions – worked best when children were sufficiently engaged and motivated to take part. Marshall (HM Inspectorate of Probation, 2023a) stressed that a young person’s willingness to get involved was key to making these approaches successful. However, the report also raised concerns about those who received several community resolutions without any positive changes in behaviour, showing that these measures may not work well if the young person is not truly motivated and engaged.

National key performance indicators

The national first-time entrants (FTE) key performance indicator (KPI) in the youth justice system measures the number of children who receive their first formal criminal justice outcome. This outcome can be a caution, a conditional caution, or a court sentence. The KPI helps track the number of children entering the youth justice system for the first time.

Although the YJB collected OoCD data from YJSs, its completeness and reliability remained unclear, preventing publication to date. As a result, little was known nationally about who received OoCDs, their impact on reoffending, or any disproportionality across different groups or local areas.

This inspection sought to answer the following questions:

1. Do governance and leadership arrangements drive high-quality services that achieve positive outcomes for children receiving OoCDs, while promoting their safety and the safety of others?

2. Do well-defined policies, processes, and effective multi-agency partnerships support timely and appropriate diversion of children from the formal justice system, with actions to achieve positive change and keep children and the community safe?

3. Do policies, processes, and practice consistently consider national guidance such as the NPCC child gravity matrix, YJB case management guidance, Outcome 22, and community resolution guidance?

4. Are staff empowered to deliver high-quality, personalised, and responsive services to achieve positive change and keep children and the community safe?

5. Do effective relationships and arrangements with partner agencies ensure access to responsive services and interventions that drive positive change and keep children and communities safe in the delivery of out-of-court disposals?

6. Do partnership arrangements promote and facilitate effective service delivery for all children diverted from the criminal justice system?

7. Is timely and relevant information available and shared effectively to support a high-quality, personalised, and responsive approach for children receiving an OoCD, including support for their safeguarding and wellbeing, and the safeguarding of others?

8. Is service delivery well-informed and personalised, and effective in analysing how to achieve positive change and keep children and other people safe?

Scope of the inspection

The inspection covered the work of the police in their direct delivery of OoCDs to children, police safeguarding practices, information sharing with YJSs, and the police contribution to decision-making in cases referred to the YJS for consultation and input. It also examined the effectiveness of information sharing with the YJS to inform assessments and ongoing work.

We considered how the police, YJS, and other partners worked together to understand the circumstances of the children, the context of their offending, their personal histories, their vulnerabilities, and any risk their behaviours posed to other people, including those who had been direct victims of their offending.

We assessed the effectiveness of how partners worked together to understand and meet the needs of children, as well as how the work of their individual agencies contributed to supporting the diversion of children from the formal youth justice system. Additionally, we examined how well ongoing support, where it was needed, was coordinated between services to sustain efforts aimed at reducing the risk of reoffending.

We inspected the assessing, planning, and delivery of interventions, and the outcomes achieved. We also separately considered cases where the decision was made to impose a YC or YCC, although we did not inspect the quality of casework in these cases, as the delivery of these interventions was governed by a statutory framework.

Our inspection samples were limited to OoCDs, so we were unable to compare them with court disposals to assess any disparities in outcomes for similar offences.

The methodology for this inspection differed from that used in the inspection of out-of-court disposal cases in our Youth Core Inspection Programme (2018-2024). For this inspection, we had prior knowledge of children’s history of contact with the police and accessed social care records. We assessed outcomes for the children and the progress they had made during and after the intervention period.

Report outline

Chapter	Content
2. Governance and leadership	This chapter examines how national and local strategic leadership, along with empowered staff and managers, contribute to delivering high-quality services for children receiving OoCDs. It also explores how data is used to evaluate service effectiveness and the overall diversion approach.
3. Policing and decision-making	This chapter examines key considerations in the recording and resolution of crime by the police. It examines how crimes are recorded and the range of crime outcome types used. Incidents in schools, victim engagement, and safeguarding notifications are also addressed.
4. Joint decision-making	This chapter examines joint decision-making processes, how the YJS informs those decisions, and their effectiveness in reaching the right disposal outcome.
5. Partnerships and services	This chapter examines the effectiveness of partnership working, including access to both specialist and mainstream services, as well as the availability of support for exit planning and ongoing help for children.
6. The quality of youth justice casework	This chapter explores how youth justice practice supports desistance, promotes children’s safety and wellbeing, addresses risk management, and considers the needs of victims.

---

2. Governance and leadership (Back to top)

2.1 National leadership and policy context (Back to top)

The increasing use of OoCDs reflected a broader shift toward a more child-centred, welfare-oriented approach to justice. Since the previous joint inspection in 2018, OoCDs have been applied across a wider range of offences and disposal types. This largely organic growth had been driven by a strong national commitment to divert children from formal criminal proceedings where appropriate – a position unanimously supported by the national leaders consulted during this inspection.

Although policies and guidance had increasingly supported diversion, including for more serious offences, this shift had occurred without a comprehensive national framework. National leads raised concerns about the lack of clear structure guiding the development and use of OoCDs. As one participant noted:

“There is no obvious national policy driving the use of OoCDs. It’s more of a grassroots approach in policing, particularly in the use of Outcome 22. There’s no national framework, no structure. There is no accountability, no monitoring, and very little data to support it.”

In the absence of a statutory framework, concerns had grown among some that OoCDs risked becoming a ‘quasi-judicial process’ lacking transparency and accountability.

The Home Office and Ministry of Justice had allowed local police forces flexibility within national OoCD guidance to tailor responses to local community needs. While this approach was intended to enhance efficiency and effectiveness, it had led to significant variation and limited standardisation across regions. The resulting lack of a ‘level playing field’ had raised concerns about fairness, accountability, and public confidence.

We found widespread agreement among government departments and stakeholders on the need for clearer national direction, structured oversight, and consistent data collection to ensure OoCDs were applied fairly and effectively.

Data challenges and limitations in national oversight

Unlike statutory interventions, monitored by the YJB, there was no clear picture of the outcomes for children receiving other types of OoCDs, despite these children now comprising the majority of youth justice work in many areas.

At the time of our inspection, Home Office recording of OoCDs did not differentiate between children and adults, other than for YCs and YCCs. As a result, there was no effective way to examine or track the specific use of OoCDs for children at a national level. The increasing use of various crime outcome types (see Chapter 3) added complexity, as they were used differently and to varying degrees across the country, depending on local decisions about which outcome types to apply and how.

The absence of robust data undermines trust in the system and limits the ability to evaluate its true impact. It raised concerns about potential under-reporting and misrepresentation of youth offending. Since these cases are processed outside the formal justice system, they risked becoming statistically invisible.

Magistrates raised concerns about inconsistent use of OoCDs across and within police areas, finding the range of options complex. Some advocated for earlier court involvement in certain cases given the short duration and voluntary nature of OoCDs. There was also a call for greater trust in youth court sentencers to adopt a child-centred approach to sentencing.

A Magistrates’ Association representative recalled a recent case and told us:

“There is a loss of confidence when a child ends up in court for a knife offence and then you find out they have had 22 previous OoCDs and then they go to custody.”

In 2023, the Ministry of Justice introduced new key performance indicators and reporting requirements for YJS, partly to strengthen national oversight of OoCD use. These were operationalised by the YJB. KPI 6, on out-of-court resolutions, measures the proportion of children receiving out-of-court disposals and their completion rates. Those managed solely by the police are not counted.

The first dataset was published in June 2025, after fieldwork on this inspection had concluded. Although the data is not yet suitable for analysis or decision-making, this represents a step forward in capturing data for children managed by the YJS.

Reports were expected to be available for analysis in 2026/27, but it remained unclear whether they would include details such as the number of OoCDs received by individual children.

A long-standing joint inspectorate recommendation to include community resolutions in criminal justice system reoffending statistics (HM Inspectorate of Probation, 2018) had not been enacted. Since then, this had become increasingly significant, as the use of community resolutions and other out-of-court disposals had grown and now represented the majority of YJS casework in many areas.

Limited data on OoCDs made it difficult for some stakeholders to fully support the approach, raising concerns about whether the focus remained on children’s best interests or had shifted, towards easing system pressures.

Most research tended to highlight the harms of criminal justice involvement rather than identify effective diversionary practice in England and Wales. The Home Office, in partnership with the Youth Endowment Fund (YEF) and the NPCC, was undertaking a large-scale research project to improve the national understanding of how OoCDs were used for children and to enhance the quality of related data, including the use of crime outcome types.

Youth cautions

We found some inspected YJSs did not use YCs as a disposal option because no interventions can be given with this disposal. In those areas, Outcome 22 NFA was usually used instead. We also found that in some areas, YCs had been given by the police without referring the case to the YJS for an assessment and joint decision about the most appropriate disposal.

It is generally believed to be better to provide interventions alongside OoCDs as this is considered more likely to address the reasons for the offending and reduce the chance of reoffending. While this principle underpins the adult two-tier caution framework introduced by the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, it had not been applied to children.

We believe that a new statutory framework is needed for OoCDs for children. This framework should include provisions to make sure that interventions are part of OoCDs where appropriate, so that decisions about disposals can be deferred until interventions have been delivered and successfully completed.

Given the inconsistency and practices surrounding the delivery of community resolutions (as detailed further in the report), we believe consideration should also be given to including them within a revised statutory framework.

Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks

The desire to avoid children receiving criminal records emerged as a key theme and was a major factor behind the growing use of OoCDs, even for more serious offences, diverting children from the formal justice system to prevent court appearances and criminal records, which could significantly impact their future. There was some confusion about the significance of the various police crime outcome types used to close crimes and a perception that some were more likely to lead to future disclosure than others in terms of future disclosure. However, according to the Youth Justice Legal Centre guide published in June 2025 this is not the case. The guide states that:

‘No informal OOCDs, such as community resolutions and Outcomes 20, 21 and 22, come under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974, so they are never considered “spent” or “unspent”. Informal OOCDs will never be automatically disclosed in DBS checks.

Youth cautions will not be automatically disclosed in DBS checks (basic, standard or enhanced). They are immediately filtered from DBS checks when they are administered. They also become immediately “spent” once they are administered. The recipient would never have to declare them to an employer as part of their application, unless they are applying for an occupation that is an exception under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (Exceptions) Order 1975. YCCs become spent and filtered after 3 months from the date they are administered, or when the conditions of the caution are met. After this, they will not be automatically disclosed.’

Although not automatically disclosed, the police have the discretion to include non-conviction information, such as formal and informal OoCDs, on enhanced DBS checks. In all cases, disclosure is permitted only if the information is relevant, necessary to disclose, and proportionate, considering both the protection of the public and the rights of the individual.

We consulted directly with the DBS to understand the rate of disclosure. Data on applications was not broken down by age, so it was not possible to identify the exact number of cases involving children. However, we were told that over a period of 12 months, 4.2 million requests for enhanced DBS checks were made, of which three million were referred to police forces for consideration, and 4,500 actual disclosures made. This equated to approximately 0.1 per cent for both children and adults.

National policing strategy

The NPCC has a national strategy for OoCDs aiming to standardise and enhance their use across England and Wales. However, since the strategy is guidance-based rather than mandatory, its implementation is left to individual police forces. This had led to inconsistent OoCD practices nationwide, making it challenging to maintain uniform standards or gain a comprehensive understanding of their national use.

The NPCC views the use of Outcome 22 as aligning with Child First principles, which emphasise informal intervention over criminalisation. But the inconsistent introduction of Outcome 22 has resulted in uneven outcomes for children.

Our inspection found no evidence of an effective deferred prosecution scheme. There needs to be a greater understanding of the implications of wider use of deferred prosecution schemes and how they fit into the OoCD framework. We discuss this further in this report.

Safeguarding children who come to police attention is paramount to the NPCC. The expectation is that this is done through referrals, when appropriate, to children’s social care. However, we found that this did not happen consistently in practice, both for children who had offended and their often-vulnerable victims. In our sample, 42 per cent of victims were children, yet safeguarding referrals were not routinely made for either victims or children suspected of committing an offence.

The NPCC, agreed that although diversion was often the preferred approach, charging a child was sometimes necessary.

Responsibility for OoCD decisions ultimately rests with the police. The YJS is responsible for providing expert advice on the child’s background and circumstances to help ensure the disposal was suitable. In some cases, the CPS might also be involved to offer guidance or approve specific disposals. Despite decision-making responsibility lying with the police, the NPCC was frequently approached by forces seeking clarification on decision-making responsibilities. This raised concerns about how well the national guidance was understood and whether references to ‘joint decision-making’ could be causing local confusion and tensions (see Chapter 4).

The NPCC was focused on achieving the right outcomes for the child. The NPCC emphasised that the quality, structure, and impact of the interventions for children must be considered. The nature of the offence alone should not determine whether an OoCD was the most appropriate response.

The NPCC and the YJB reported a positive working relationship. However, the departure of an embedded police superintendent from the YJB a few years ago created a gap. Although the NPCC continued to engage with the YJB, this level of involvement did not provide the same benefits as having an embedded presence.

National oversight and governance of youth justice service delivery

The YJB is responsible for overseeing the youth justice system in England and Wales. It advises the secretary of state for justice, monitors the performance of the system, promotes best practices, and advocates for children. The YJB promotes a ‘Child First’ approach, which prioritises the welfare and development of children in understanding and addressing their offending behaviour.

The YJB had a detailed understanding of statutory youth justice delivery, informed by data submitted by the YJS and the Police National Computer. Data collected under KPI 6 on out-of-court resolutions should help to broaden this understanding.

Inconsistencies in approaches to OoCDs had been a concern for some time, with YJSs using different assessment tools. To address this and enhance data collection, the YJB introduced the prevention, diversion, and assessment tool (PDAT) in 2024, accompanied by national guidance and training to support its implementation.

The YJB had introduced a new oversight model that categorised YJSs into performance-based quadrants, with YJB representatives attending quarterly youth justice partnership board meetings to provide support and monitor local service performance.

The YJB case management guidance advises that case closure and exit planning should ensure children do not remain open to services unnecessarily, and that where needs remain, appropriate support, whether within or beyond the YJS, continues to be provided. In practice, interventions were typically limited to 12 weeks, and often less. The shorter timeframe for OoCDs might reflect a broader emphasis on minimising contact with the youth justice system wherever possible, in line with the ‘Child First’ approach. This risked shifting the focus from what a child’s case required to what could be achieved within that limit.

The first-time entrant indicator had helped encourage diversion away from the criminal justice system, reducing ‘net widening’ – the unnecessary criminalisation of those involved in low-level offences where statutory interventions add limited value. However, our inspection raised concerns that net widening may still be occurring, but with children being dealt with in different ways. The understanding of this is limited by incomplete data on the use of some OoCDs.

Local partnership boards should oversee all OoCD use, including those issued solely by police. However, YJSs were not always informed of all OoCDs issued, especially those closed with police Outcome types 20 and 21. While collaboration and data sharing between YJSs and police were developing, further progress was needed to ensure consistently effective oversight.

---

2.2. Local youth justice governance, leadership, and staffing (Back to top)

Governance and strategic direction of youth justice services

The youth justice partnership board was responsible for setting the strategic direction for the delivery of youth justice services, including OoCDs:

‘Youth justice management boards and partnerships have an important role in ensuring that Child First, trauma-informed principles and other child-focused approaches are embedded strategically and operationally.’ YJB, Governance and Leadership Guidance (YJB, 2021)

Every board had a clear vision for children based on ‘Child First’ principles, with a strong focus on diversion and early intervention to address offending behaviour and prevent entry into the formal justice system. This commitment was reflected in youth justice plans, which were developed with input from strategic partners and aligned with local priorities.

Some boards were well established and cohesive, while others were in the early stages of development. In one area, nearly all board members had attended only two meetings. In some areas, challenges related to staffing and resourcing had hindered the development of high-functioning boards, limiting their ability to provide effective oversight.

In the best examples, partners worked together to identify gaps in understanding the profile of children receiving OoCDs and the barriers to their effective use. In Dorset, challenges in tracking reoffending after children turned 18 were raised with the board. The police were tasked with retrieving this data and provided it, enabling the partnership to better assess the effectiveness of its approach to reducing reoffending.

Funding and resourcing arrangements

Funding arrangements varied significantly across the services inspected. All reported that short-term and late-allocated funding posed significant barriers to long-term planning.

The Turnaround Programme, led by the Ministry of Justice, provided time-limited funding to most local authorities for early intervention services aimed at children at risk of offending and entering the formal justice system. All inspected areas received Turnaround funding, which was used effectively to enhance services such as mentoring, education support, and positive activities; its one-year extension was welcomed.

Most inspected areas received funding from their Police and Crime Commissioners, boosting YJS budgets and resources, though support varied by region based on priorities, budgets, and local youth justice strategies.

Some services struggled to meet rising demand, particularly as OoCD use grew and children required more intensive support. In one area, high caseloads made it difficult to take on new cases without closing existing ones.

One leader acknowledged the challenges of delivering effective OoCD work within existing resources:

“There has been no change in YJS resourcing or funding in the past 10 years. This raises the potential for a disconnect between national expectations of service delivery and what is realistically achievable.”

The use of data and information to analyse effectiveness

While boards recognised key issues affecting children, such as gaps in education and emotional wellbeing, they often lacked a full understanding of their backgrounds and offending histories.

Reoffending data was sometimes analysed but often unreliable or lacking detail. There was little evidence of data collection on police-issued disposals like community resolutions and Outcomes 20 and 21, hindering evaluation of their use and effectiveness.

Many areas relied on the FTE rate to judge the success of youth diversion efforts. But this measure was not a reliable indicator of reduced reoffending or improved outcomes for children.

To understand whether these children were benefiting equitably from diversion, greater scrutiny was needed of those who were charged, including whether they had been appropriately considered for OoCDs and, if not, why.

There was limited analysis of specific cohorts, such as children from Black and minority ethnic backgrounds. The underrepresentation of this group of children in the OoCD cohort could be either positive or negative; context is crucial, and we found it to be lacking.

The rising number of girls accessing services was recognised, and several areas had developed tailored support to meet their needs. While there was growing awareness, further focus on the social and community factors driving their involvement, particularly in violent behaviour, would enhance the ability of services to respond more effectively.

YJS leadership and management

Youth justice managers showed a strong understanding of children’s needs and the changing nature of the youth justice caseload. They built effective local partnerships and actively advocated for children, with several excellent examples noted of securing access to services such as educational support and speech and language provision.

Clear, well-functioning pathways into both mainstream and specialist services are vital for effective diversion and should be regularly reviewed, with issues escalated to the board when necessary. We saw limited evidence of this happening, partly because the issues were not widely understood. Better evaluation of referral rates, service uptake, and delivery was needed to inform improvements.

Youth justice staff working with children receiving OoCDs consistently demonstrated compassion and strong engagement skills, particularly with children often seen as ‘challenging’. Most staff reported receiving appropriate training and spoke positively about their managers.

However, not all staff fully understood the complexity of their roles, particularly around keeping children and the community safe, and these gaps were not always identified through staff supervision. As a result, training was not consistently embedded into practice, highlighting the need for more targeted support and oversight.

Quality assurance processes did not consistently influence practice. Overall, we found that management oversight was effective in only a third of the inspected cases (ranging between services from 14 per cent to 67 per cent).

This point was highlighted by an inspector:

”Management oversight does not provide sufficient guidance to the practitioner regarding the child’s safety and wellbeing, or in understanding the risks the child may pose to others. This is particularly concerning given the frequency and volume of police information received linking the child to behaviours involving weapon carrying and antisocial behaviour in the community.”

Many practitioners needed clearer support, particularly around assessing risk, safety, and wellbeing, but were sometimes advised to focus primarily on the offence, missing other important factors.

Allocation of work and caseloads

In some services, cases were divided between teams – one focused on early help and diversion, and another on statutory work. These teams often operated under different pay structures and qualification requirements, with statutory teams typically assigned more formal cases. This division could create a perception that statutory cases were inherently more complex or high risk. However, this was increasingly not the case and should not be assumed.

Staff caseloads varied significantly. Some reported very low caseloads, while others ranged between 18 and 20 cases. While staff generally did not report feeling overwhelmed, we observed that many children were seen less frequently than their assessed level of concern warranted.

---

2.3. Conclusions and implications (Back to top)

There was national and local commitment to avoiding the unnecessary criminalisation of children, with a clear focus on child-centred justice. However, the use of OoCDs was fragmented and inconsistent. Inconsistent crime outcome type recording, limited tracking, and the lack of disaggregated data for children hindered efforts to monitor trends, assess reoffending, and evaluate effectiveness. The first-time entrants key performance indicator, while historically useful, no longer reflected the reality of a system where most cases were managed through a wider range of OoCDs, highlighting the need for a more meaningful and comprehensive measure.

Without a clear national framework, varied local approaches to diversion raised concerns about fairness and public confidence. Meanwhile, an increasing number of children, including those involved in serious offences, were being dealt with informally, often by police alone and without YJS involvement. Despite longstanding recommendations, key data such as on community resolutions remained unpublished, and there was limited evidence on what makes diversion effective.

At the local level, youth justice partnership boards were responsible for overseeing OoCDs, but did not always have sufficient capacity to do so effectively. While Turnaround funding was welcomed and used well, some areas continued to face challenges in managing growing demand and developing sustainable long-term plans.  

Unless OoCDs are effective and targeted they can represent a missed opportunity to prevent escalation into the criminal justice system either as a child or an adult. Tackling this requires stronger national frameworks, clearer guidance, better data systems, and more effective multi-agency collaboration to ensure children receive the right support at the right time.

---

3. Policing and decision-making (Back to top)

3.1. How the police record crime (Back to top)

The public report incidents to the police, who assess whether a crime has been committed. If so, the crime must be recorded. Following the recording of a crime, the police investigate and finalise it with a specific crime outcome type. This is done in accordance with the Home Office Counting Rules for Recorded Crime in England and Wales and a shortened version of the rules called the ‘Home Office Crime Recording Rules for frontline officers and staff’. These two sets of rules tell police forces how they should record crime. In this report, we refer to these sets of rules collectively as the Home Office crime-recording rules (HOCRR).

When deciding the most appropriate disposal for children who have committed an offence, the National Police Chiefs’ Council child gravity matrix (NPCC CGM) should be used. This is described as: ‘a triage tool to support decision-making for officers, to assist in deciding the most appropriate outcome or disposal for those children and young people under the age of 18 years who offend.’ 

In the 179 police-only decision cases we looked at as part of our inspection, there was evidence that the NPCC CGM had only been used in 35 cases. 

Crime outcome types 

HMICFRS inspectors examined four crime outcome types, which we describe later in this chapter. They were:  

• Outcome 8 
• Outcome 20 
• Outcome 21 
• Outcome 22. 

The joint inspection team visited eight local YJSs operating within six police forces. For the eight local YJS areas, we asked each of the six forces to provide data on the number of recorded crimes, over the previous three financial years, where a child was considered a suspect.* These are shown below:

Outcome	2021/22	2022/23	2023/24
8	2418	2950	3547
20	1391	1263	1213
21	1396	1417	1040
22	783	1023	965
Total	5988	6653	6765

*Not all forces we inspected were able to break down data to local youth justice services for the three-year period so force data has been included where relevant.

Figure P1

The table shows that between 2021 and 2024, the total number of crimes that the six forces had closed with these crime outcome types had risen from 5,988 to 6,765. As previously highlighted, the Home Office and Ministry of Justice were unable to provide specific data on these crime outcome types as the data collection (other than youth cautions) does not differentiate between adults and children. None of the forces we inspected routinely gathered or shared information on OoCDs with the local YJS. This meant that the lack of disaggregated data prevented any meaningful analysis of the national or local picture.

During our inspection, we found the forces had different systems and processes to make sure that crime outcome types had been correctly applied.  This meant we could not be sure that the crime outcome types applied were always accurate and consistent between forces.

Outcome 8 – community resolutions (CRs) 

The HOCRR defines Outcome 8 as: ‘Community Resolution: A Community Resolution (with or without formal Restorative Justice) has been applied in accordance with College of Policing guidance.’ 

In 2022, the NPCC guidance on the use of CRs was updated within the Community Resolution document (NPCC CR). This is non-statutory guidance. This guidance helps the police to make decisions about how to deal proportionately with lower-level crime. It is aimed at children and adults who have committed a crime for the first time, although forces do have discretion where there is a history of previous offending.  

CRs can be an ‘informal agreement’ between the parties involved: ‘They aim to reduce the likelihood of reoffending by encouraging the child to face up to the impact of their behaviour and to take responsibility for making good any harm caused.’ 

Types of low-level offending are included within the guidance. In the NPCC CGM there are five levels of escalation, and the guidance states that crimes scoring level 2 or 3 are most suitable to be dealt with through CR. The NPCC CR guidance states that CRs can only be given when a person has either admitted their guilt or accepted responsibility for an offence.  

The College of Policing’s Authorised Professional Practice (APP) for prosecution and case management also states that: ‘The most appropriate offences to warrant a community resolution are likely to be low-level criminal damage, low-value theft, minor assaults (without injury) and anti-social behaviour.’ 

We asked the inspected forces to provide us with the numbers of CRs given to children in the three calendar years up to 31 October 2024. The table above (Figure P1) shows that, although there were variations between forces, the overall numbers of CRs given to children had increased significantly over the period 2021/2022 to 2023/2024.  

Under the NPCC CR guidance, the police are required to inform the YJS when a CR is issued to a child within 24 hours, using a system commonly called PENY (police electronic notification to YJS).  We found the police did not always do this. We asked inspected forces to identify which of the CRs had been dealt with solely by the police, and which had involved the YJS. We were concerned that only one of the forces was able to give us this information. 

We also found that unless the child was open to the YJS, little if any action was taken by them when notified of the CR.  This meant that the local partnership was often unaware of the number of CRs given to children and the effectiveness of them in reducing reoffending.   

During our case file reviews, we found that some CRs were dealt with solely by the police. Other cases were referred to the YJS and joint decisions made by partners. If the police close a crime after a CR has been given it should be finalised as Outcome 8. The Home Office and the police view CRs as a positive outcome, in the same way as a youth caution or conditional caution. All other OoCDs are not viewed as positive outcomes.  

During our inspection, we found that in one force, police were encouraged to use CRs as much as possible and actively discouraged from using Outcome 22. We were told by the YJS in this area, that this created tensions between the force and partners.

We were told by a police lead that, despite providing CR training to their officers and raising awareness, guidance was often not followed.  

In five of the six forces we inspected, the responsibility for deciding whether a CR was appropriate to be given to a child was left to individual officers and their supervisors. However, in one force (Dorset) we saw a central decision-making team for these types of cases. This provided a more consistent, fair, and effective approach to decision-making. It also considered the interests of the child because the person making the decision was better trained and more aware of the other background factors.  

Most forces that we inspected had systems to check that crime outcome types had been correctly allocated to crimes. However, this was often after the case had been concluded, which meant that it could not always be changed if incorrect. One force had reviewed their own CRs: 5,057 CRs had been issued to adults and children over a six-month period; the force had identified that 2,761 had not been completed or recorded correctly. This meant that the local picture may have been inaccurate.  

In another force, we were told that the team responsible for making sure that crimes had been finalised correctly had found errors. Despite this, they failed to keep proper records of any amendments made or how many times this had happened or why, so the force could not learn from its mistakes.

We also found that the police did not routinely inform the YJS when they issued CRs to children. The YJB case management guidance says: ‘Police should notify the YJS of all Community Resolutions issued to a child within 24 hours. Depending on local arrangements, where the YJS has not been involved in the decision making, it is best practice for the YJSs to screen the children involved and offer voluntary support where appropriate.’  

The forces we inspected provided the total number of crimes for which children had received a CR in the year ending 31 October 2024.* These are shown below:

Crime category	Number	%
Violence	1282	41
Theft	774	25
Drugs	367	12
Other (incl. sexual and firearms)	672	22

*Individual cases provided for each youth justice service.

Case audit analysis 

We reviewed 87 CR cases. We found that 41 of the children had previously offended. Of these 41 children, 27 had three or more crimes attributed to them. We were concerned that none of these cases had been referred to the YJS in line with the guidance. Our casefile assessments found that the YJS had only been informed in 34 of the 87 CR cases that we looked at. None of the forces we inspected had an automated system for notifying the YJS, as recommended in the NPCC CR guidance. 

We found multiple cases where several OoCDs were given to children without an offer of support: 

Case example

The victim, a boy, had been assaulted in school by a fellow male pupil. Police investigated the offence, and the boy was given a community resolution by police without referral to the YJS. This was despite the child receiving three other community resolutions for violent assaults, and having been investigated for other offences committed between 2021 and 2024, including violent offences, arson, harassment, and assaulting an emergency worker. The police had not made the YJS aware of the child or any of these incidents.

Interventions 

The NPCC CR guidance makes it clear that CRs are ‘non-statutory, the interventions agreed cannot be legally enforced or escalated to a higher disposal.’ 

The College of Policing APP for prosecution and case management does not contain any information about this. But the YJB CMG says that: ‘Interventions may be offered to the child; however, these are entirely voluntary and cannot be enforced if not completed.’ 

We were concerned to find that three of the six forces we inspected had CR forms that contained warnings about the implications of not completing the agreed actions. We found an example of one such warning signed by a child: 

‘The victim/other party has intimated that he/she is willing to have this matter dealt with informally (or police believe it appropriate) and provide you with an opportunity to make recompense for your actions. This is voluntary and if you agree and complete the process plus no further evidence comes to light, you will not be subject to any further police investigation – failing to complete the agreed actions will result in legal action being taken against you.’  

This practice may be misleading. It contradicted the voluntary nature of the actions and implied that legal action could be taken for failure to complete the intervention rather than prosecute for the original offence. 

During our inspection, we found that five of the six forces had a CR form that the child was asked to sign, which contained an acceptance of responsibility and/or an admission of the offence, and detailed the conditions or interventions that they agreed to complete. We found that there was no consistency in the content of the forms. There was no guidance to police for what information the form should contain, or if the child should be given a copy. None of the inspected forces had systems and processes to make sure the interventions had been completed. Some police leaders we spoke to stated that, in general, taking further action against a child was very unlikely. 

---

3.2. Acceptance of responsibility and admission of guilt  (Back to top)

The NPCC CR guidance stated that these could be used in cases where there was an acceptance of responsibility or an admission of guilt. 

The guidance contained an explanation of what acceptance of responsibility meant: 

‘This is not defined within legislation. However, for the purposes of this guidance it is suggested that an acceptance of responsibility is different to, and should not be treated as, a PACE [Police and Criminal Evidence Act] compliant formal admission in interview. There must be evidence, written or otherwise recorded, that the suspect either accepts the facts of the case and their responsibility for them or that they accept their actions contributed to the offence.’ 

The NPCC guidance did not define an admission of guilt. 

The College of Policing APP for prosecution and case management stated under ‘Operational considerations’: ‘Admission of guilt – the offender must accept responsibility for the offence.’  

Then, further in the APP under ‘administrative considerations’:’ Confirm that the offender accepts responsibility for the offence.’

The YJB case management guidance also contained information about what was meant by an acceptance of responsibility. However, we raised concerns with the YJB about some elements of this – the risk being that children could be given a CR for something that they were either not directly responsible for, or when they would have a defence in law for their actions. We contacted the YJB about this and were pleased to see that the YJB case management guidance has been amended to be clearer about the acceptance of responsibility.   

We found there was confusion between what constituted an acceptance of responsibility and an admission of guilt. 

---

3.3. Crime outcome types (Back to top)

Crime outcome type 20 

Crime outcome type 20 is defined in the HOCRR as: 

‘Action undertaken by another body or agency. Further action resulting from the crime report will be undertaken by another body or agency subject to the victim (or person acting on their behalf) being made aware of the action to be taken). It is not necessary for that further action to amount to criminal processes.’ 

Outcome 20 should be used in cases where there had been little police investigation and no formal police action, but where the case was passed to another body or agency to progress when necessary. This was considered by the police to be a ‘no further action’. 

The NPCC has not produced specific operational guidance about the use of Outcome 20, but its child gravity matrix guidance suggested it should be used for crimes that score 1 or 2 on the matrix and recommended that decisions should be made jointly with the YJS.  

In the 21 cases we looked at during our inspection, there was no evidence that the NPCC child gravity matrix was used by police. During our inspection, we found that none of the OoCD decision-makers in the forces we inspected made joint decisions about crimes closed under Outcome 20. 

Two forces we inspected had decided not to finalise crimes using Outcome 20 at all. The differences in the way Outcome 20 is applied make it difficult to conduct any meaningful analysis.  

We asked each force we inspected to provide us with a list of all the crimes given an Outcome 20 where a child had been considered a suspect in the 12 months to 31 October 2024.*

Crime category	Number	%
Sexual	357	30
Violence	504	42
Sexual imagery	304	23
Other	48	5

*Individual cases provided for each youth justice service.

We found that forces inspected did not have systems and processes for understanding the volume and type of offences closed as Outcome 20. Of concern, we found within the case sample, rape and weapon offences. These were serious crimes that would score high on the NPCC CGM, making them ineligible to be closed as an Outcome 20.  

When viewed in isolation, some crimes closed by the police using Outcome 20 may seem minor. However, such cases could form part of a pattern of behaviour that may be more concerning. We found that the police were unable to identify such patterns readily, and unlikely to share information of these crimes with the YJS. Equally concerning, we found that forces did not have systems and processes for understanding the volume and type of offences closed with this crime outcome type. These included children who had committed, and were victims, of both sexual and violence-based offences.

Case example

A schoolboy forced the female victim, a fellow student, to place her hand on his penis, then told her to meet him for sex or he would beat her up. The victim reported this to the school, who in turn informed the police. The boy had a history of both violence and sexual behaviour, which had been investigated with no further action being taken. On this occasion, it was left to the school to deal with. After this offence, the child was further investigated for sexual assaults on both female and male children, rape of a girl and assault, all of which resulted in no further action by police.  The police only informed the YJS when the child was arrested on suspicion of rape. The YJS had no knowledge of the child or his history prior to this.

During our inspection, we found that Outcome 20 had been used to close some crimes that had been reported by schools. The police had decided the schools themselves or local authority children social care departments were best placed to deal with the child. These decisions were often made by police officers working in multi-agency safeguarding hubs or school officers. But worryingly, none of the officers we spoke to were aware of, or used, the NPCC CGM to help them make decisions about whether this was appropriate.  

One Home Office official told us they were concerned that some forces might be using this crime outcome type as a “file and forget” way of closing crimes.

During our inspection we found that forces did not have sufficient understanding of what action, if any, other agencies or bodies had taken.

Crime outcome type 21 

In January 2016, the Home Office introduced Outcome 21, defined in the HOCRR as: 

‘Not in the public interest – suspect identified. Further investigation, resulting from the crime report, which could provide evidence sufficient to support formal action being taken against the named suspect, is not in the public interest – police decision.’  

Outcome 21 should be used in cases where little investigation and no formal action has been taken. This meant a child’s interaction with the police should in most cases be minimal, unless there were associated safeguarding concerns. Outcome 21 is considered a ‘no further action’. 

The HOCRR states that: 

‘Before deciding that no investigation will be undertaken in relation to a notifiable offence with a named suspect, police must have due regard to the public interest test considerations set out in the Code for Crown Prosecutors.’ 

In November 2016, the College of Policing produced guidance on police action in response to youth-produced sexual imagery (‘sexting’). This detailed that: ‘Outcome 21 may be considered the most appropriate resolution in youth produced sexual imagery cases where the making and sharing is considered non-abusive and there is no evidence of exploitation, grooming, profit motive, malicious intent (e.g. extensive or inappropriate sharing, e.g. uploading onto a pornographic website) or it being persistent behaviour.’ 

The College of Policing have updated this to include police guidance on how to investigate cases involving the taking or sharing of nude and semi-nude images by children. 

The counting rules further state: ‘Outcome 21 is also used operationally as an indication to Disclosure and Barring staff, that care should be taken before routinely disclosing the information. It will not, therefore, normally be appropriate in relation to “serious” offences such as domestic abuse, hate crime, child abuse or any indictable only matter; nor to any offence, e.g. dishonesty, where the nature of the offending may be relevant to future employment with children and/or vulnerable adults.’  

The NPCC had not produced specific guidance on Outcome 21. There was some information contained within the NPCC Outcome 22 guidance (2022) and the NPCC CGM. There was also information on the use of Outcome 21 within the YJB case management tool. These indicated that Outcome 21 was most suitable for crimes which had been scored 1 or 2 on the NPCC CGM, that was, the least serious offences. It also recommended that the police and YJSs made joint decisions in such cases.  

During our inspection we found that, despite the above NPCC CGM guidance about joint decision-making, none of the Outcome 21 cases were referred into the YJS for a joint decision to be made.

We asked each force we inspected to provide us with a list of all the crimes given an Outcome 21 where a child had been considered as a suspect in the 12 months to 31 October 2024:

Crime category	Number	%
Sexual	122	14
Violence	159	18
Sexual imagery	438	51
Other	145	17

Concerningly, the list included some rape and sexual penetration cases, and serious violence offences. 

We reviewed 27 crime investigations that the police had closed with Outcome 21. The offence categories included sexual offences (contact and non-contact), assaults, theft, stalking, and criminal damage. Of these, 11 children had previously offended and nine had gone on to reoffend. These are serious crimes that would normally score highly on the NPCC CGM. So these crimes should not normally be closed as an Outcome 21.

The police failed to inform the YJS in all but three of the cases.

Case example

A girl befriended a boy over Snapchat and attended his home address. She fell asleep and awoke to find the boy lying next to her, kissing and sucking on her neck. This was reported to police and recorded as a sexual touching offence. The crime was not investigated; the police closed the crime as Outcome 21 as ‘there was no value in interviewing offender’. This was despite the police recording two previous sexual offence complaints against the child made by different female victims, which were also closed with no further action.

As with crimes closed by the police using Outcome 20, some crimes closed under Outcome 21 may appear minor but form part of a pattern of concerning behaviour. These included children who had committed, and were victims, of both sexual and violence-based offences. 

Crime outcome type 22 

Outcome 22 is defined in the HOCRR as: ‘Diversionary, educational or intervention activity, resulting from the crime report, has been undertaken and it is not in the public interest to take any further action.’  

But the HOCRR did not contain any guidance about how this crime outcome type should be used.  

The NPCC had produced guidance about Outcome 22, which states that: ‘This crime outcome type was introduced in recognition of the fact that much good diversionary work was being done by the police which did not fall into another OoCD or other crime outcome types.’  

Crimes closed with Outcome 22 were not viewed as a positive outcome by police. During our inspection, we were told by police leads and YJS staff that this prevented the wider use of Outcome 22.  

The NPCC child gravity matrix advised that decisions about Outcome 22 cases should be made jointly with the YJS. It also states: ‘The final outcome score should be decided once the appropriate offence is identified, the evidence available is reviewed and considered, and due consideration has been given to all aggravating, mitigating and vulnerability factors. It is important to remember that the NPCC CGM is to be used as a guide only and each case should be looked at on an individual basis and in accordance with DPP Guidance on Charging 6th ed. (The Director’s Guidance) DG6 and advice in this document.’ 

The NPCC CGM further stated that the decision-maker should provide a clear rationale for all decisions made, and this should be fully recorded on case files and/or crime reports. 

The NPCC Outcome 22 guidance reiterated that all decision-making should be: 

• clearly documented; and 
• include a clear rationale as to why an officer believes this to be a more effective outcome than a formal OoCD or charge. 

During our inspection, we reviewed crimes closed as Outcome 22 that had been finalised by the police without any involvement of a YJS. We found that forces used Outcome 22 to cover different circumstances. These were:

• crimes where there might not have been sufficient evidence to proceed but an assessment had been made that a child would be benefit from interventions (and the child had agreed to complete them) 
• crimes where there might have been sufficient evidence to proceed with another type of outcome, but a decision had been made not to take this approach  
• crimes where the force and the YJS had introduced a deferred caution scheme  
• crimes where the force and the YJS had introduced another form of diversion scheme, such as a deferred prosecution scheme.  

All these were shown as Outcome 22. This meant that the police could not identify from crime data which of the above four circumstances applied. The absence of data limited the ability for any understanding or analysis. We also could not find any nationally published data about the types of diversionary activity associated with Outcome 22 cases.  

Deferred caution and deferred prosecutions 

There was no national guidance about how deferred caution or deferred prosecution schemes should operate.  

During our inspection, the CPS told us that: 

“Outcome 22 or deferred prosecutions don’t exist as a thing in law. It’s entirely a discretionary thing. It’s sort of police common law powers to take no action on an offence. And so, we wouldn’t advise on deferred prosecution … we don’t think that’s part of the CPS role and function.” 

During our inspection, we were told that three forces operated some form of deferred caution scheme or deferred prosecution scheme. None were able to provide us with detailed policies and agreements about how the schemes worked. In one force, although we were told that no deferred caution scheme was in operation, a YJS in the same force area told us that it was using deferred cautions. This was without the knowledge of the force lead for OoCDs. 

As discussed above, there was no published national information about the use of Outcome 22 involving children, and none of the forces we inspected routinely gathered and published this information.  

Where cases are referred into the YJS for joint decision-making, the YJS collects information on Outcome 22.  

Our findings indicated that despite guidance from the NPCC, Outcome 22 was still not consistently applied by all forces. In five of the six forces we inspected, the numbers of crimes given Outcome 22 involving children had increased over the past three years. In one force, the chief constable had decided to restrict the use of this crime outcome type, so the numbers had reduced in that area.  

The forces we inspected were asked to identify which of the Outcome 22 crimes they had recorded had been dealt with solely by the police, and which had been referred to a YJS for a joint decision. Only two forces were able to break down the information in this way.  

One force inspected that used Outcome 22 without involving the YJS had introduced ‘workbook’-based interventions. These were for police officers to use when dealing with children. The YJS in the force area had not been part of either the development or the delivery of the workbooks. It would have been better had the workbook been developed jointly with the YJS.   

We were not assured that the police delivering the interventions had the skills and training to deliver these effectively, nor that there were proper assessments of the child’s capacity to understand and benefit from the process.  

The police did not always view Outcome 22 as a positive outcome, and fieldwork evidence suggested that in some forces this was creating a barrier to its greater use.

We believe there are certain circumstances where crimes closed with Outcome 22 should be considered as a positive outcome, including where there is: 

• evidence that shows the child has committed the offence 
• an indication that the victim has been consulted 
• a rationale about how the public interest is served  
• a rationale for why it is in the best interests of the accused child; and 
• a rationale for how the interventions would prevent the child reoffending. 

For Outcome 22 to be considered a positive outcome, there needs to be clearly defined systems and processes to take formal action when interventions are not completed. These must be robustly monitored to ensure compliance.

Where there is insufficient evidence to show the child has committed the offence, we do not recommend treating Outcome 22 as a positive outcome. It could disincentivise the police from properly investigating crimes. However, it should not prevent police forces and partners providing interventions to these children who are willing to accept them.  

Some YJS case managers noted that using Outcome 22 for deferred youth cautions or deferred prosecutions could be particularly effective because it introduced consequences for non-engagement. This structure, they suggested, could encourage participation – especially among children who are initially reluctant to engage.  

Incidents occurring in schools 

A flowchart in the Home Office Crime Recording Rules for frontline officers and staff (HOCRR) contains the Crime Recording (Schools Protocol)[3]. This explains the circumstances when an incident that occurs on school premises should be recorded. The purpose of the protocol is to give guidance to police forces on when minor incidents on school premises do not need to be formally recorded.

The Schools Protocol contains a list of ‘serious incidents’ that the police should always record. These include violent offences, but only those causing grievous bodily harm (or wounding) with intent to cause that injury. It does not cover actual bodily harm. 

During our inspection, we were told by a Home Office official: 

“We’ll make sure that the schools’ protocol is fit for purpose. And definitely make sure that serious crime isn’t included in schools’ protocol because that’s not what it’s intended for … serious crime just can’t be in there.” 

The Home Office had recently reissued guidance to crime registrars reiterating that the Schools’ Protocol should always be followed. In our police officer and staff focus groups, we found inconsistencies in their knowledge and understanding of the Schools’ Protocol. Some crime registrars we spoke to, despite knowing about the Schools’ Protocol, told us that it was their expectation that all crimes were recorded. 

The NPCC lead for child-centred policing had produced guidance for schools and colleges, which advised staff who become aware a crime may have happened and when they should call the police:  ‘‘Where a crime is reported to the police, it will be recorded as a crime and an investigation will commence.’ 

This statement could be misleading and seemed to contradict the Schools Protocol. Allowing schools to deal with minor incidents without police involvement is important. But we were concerned that the recording of crimes that had taken place in schools was inconsistent. 

Cautioning of child suspects 

The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE), and the accompanying PACE codes of practice (the codes), set out the legal framework for how the police should treat people suspected of crimes. Paragraph 10.1 of Code C states that: ‘A person whom there are grounds to suspect of an offence … must be cautioned before any questions about an offence, or further questions if the answers provide the grounds for suspicion, are put to them if either the suspect’s answers or silence, (i.e. failure or refusal to answer or answer satisfactorily) may be given in evidence to a court in a prosecution.’ 

Paragraph 11.1A of Code C states: ‘An interview is the questioning of a person regarding their involvement or suspected involvement in a criminal offence or offences which, under paragraph 10.1, must be carried out under caution.’ 

When the police investigate a crime, it is likely there will be a need to ask questions of the person suspected of it. Neither the NPCC CR guidance nor the College of Policing APP contained any information about when this questioning would become an interview and when a caution would be required under the codes of practice. Although not explicit in the guidance, the CoP would expect officers to comply with PACE and the code of practice when dealing with suspects.

We found during our inspection, that just two of the six forces had a policy that the child had to be cautioned before being asked to sign a CR form. In the other four forces, it was not explicitly expected that a caution was required. The NPCC told us that when the police are investigating an offence, it expects PACE to be complied with. The NPCC CR guidance is clear that chief constables should be satisfied that CRs are used appropriately. But the NPCC also told us that it intended to review its CR guidance, to include clearer ‘signposting’ about the need to caution in appropriate circumstances.  

This is important, because the caution enshrines a fundamental legal principle that a person can remain silent, with no adverse inferences being drawn from it. 

Appropriate adults 

The NPCC CR guidance stated that when a child was asked to accept responsibility, or admit guilt, for the offence, and when they were asked to agree to participate in CR, this must be done in the presence of an appropriate adult. However, the College of Policing APP for prosecution and case management did not mention the need for appropriate adults to be involved in the CR process for children.  

PACE and the accompanying codes of practice provide legal safeguards for children being questioned about an offence. The codes also detail a further requirement for children to have an appropriate adult present, except in certain circumstances, when being interviewed. We were not confident that appropriate adults were present in all cases when the police first spoke to children who they suspected had committed an offence. During our case file reviews we found this information was not routinely recorded on the investigation record. Appropriate adults should also be present when a child is asked to accept responsibility or admit guilt, and then when they are asked to agree to participate in the CR agreement. 

We were concerned to find that one force policy stated that: ‘the process (of giving the CR) does not have to be delayed for parent or carer (although best practice would include contact via telephone to explain the process).’ 

---

3.4. Victim engagement and safeguarding (Back to top)

Victim engagement

The NPCC CR guidance stated that where a victim had been identified, they should be consulted, and their views recorded.

The College of Policing APP for prosecution and case management stated that: ‘the victim(s) should be consulted, and agreement sought. A community resolution can proceed without victim consent, but the supervisor must agree to the decision and the rationale should be recorded.’  

In our case reviews, we found that out of 160 cases where a victim should have been consulted, this had happened in 118 cases. But due to poor recording, there were an additional 23 where we were unable to determine from the investigation record whether the consultation had occurred. 

Safeguarding

When the police deal with a child for an OoCD, whether suspect or victim, they should consider submitting safeguarding notifications to the force safeguarding team. The NPCC did not provide any specific guidance to officers on the need to submit child safeguarding notifications when dealing with OoCDs.  

The College of Policing’s APP for prosecution and case management also did not mention the need to consider child safeguarding notifications when dealing with OoCDs. We examined the OoCD policies for the forces inspected. Only one of the six forces had an OoCD policy that stated that officers should make safeguarding notifications when dealing with children who had identified safeguarding needs. But all the forces told us that they had child safeguarding policies that made it clear that the police should submit notifications for children where there were safeguarding concerns. 

Our case reviews found safeguarding notifications were only submitted for children given an OoCD in under 50 per cent of the cases. And for child victims, where a safeguarding notification should have been submitted, we found that this had also only been done in 50 per cent of the cases. The lack of submission of safeguarding notifications was concerning. We could not be sure that children involved in OoCDs were being properly safeguarded.

Information sharing

Guidance on information-sharing arrangements was contained in a document published jointly by the YJB and NPCC in December 2023, ‘The role of the youth justice service police officer’. This document included an expectation that YJS police officers would share information about children who come to the notice of the police when appropriate.  

The forces we inspected had different processes to identify whether a child who was open to the YJS had come to the notice of the police. We were told that YJS police officers would search the force custody systems every day to identify children arrested. They would check those open to their own YJS and share this information. This was an inefficient way of working because it was time consuming and could have been automated. Only one force could place a ‘flag’ on the police record management system to identify children who had come to notice.  

In one force, the YJS police officer told us that they did not share any information about children until the child had been arrested or given an OoCD. This was concerning. One of the cases we reviewed in this force was a child who had received an Outcome 22 following a referral into the YJS for a joint decision. The child had been a suspect in four prior offences. This information had not been shared, meaning the decision-makers were unaware of the child’s previous behaviour. 

Our case reviews identified that 12 children who received an OoCD by the police without a referral to the YJS were already open to the YJS. Of these 12 children, the police had informed the YJS on only four occasions that the child had received the OoCD. In our joint inspections of youth justice services, we have consistently made recommendations about information sharing. Good information-sharing arrangements between the police and the YJS form the basis for effective working to reduce reoffending and keep children and others safe. 

---

3.5. Conclusions and implications  (Back to top)

Some OoCDs were issued inappropriately – for example, in cases where a child had previously received multiple OOCDs, or where the severity of the offence warranted a different response. Frontline police officers and staff were either unaware of existing guidance or failed to consider it properly when making decisions.  

We were concerned that some community resolutions had been given to children without sufficient consideration of their legal rights and entitlements.

The available data on all types of OoCDs and their outcomes was limited and primarily focused on youth cautions and youth conditional cautions. This narrow scope needed to be reviewed and expanded.

Police officers often overlooked repeat offending when making OoCD decisions involving children. This could lead to the same child receiving multiple disposals without appropriate escalation or intervention. Additionally, there was inconsistency in referring children to the YJS when such referrals were warranted.  

Police officers did not routinely use the NPCC CGM and associated guidance, especially in cases involving serious offences, such as violent or sexual crimes.

In some instances, Outcome 20 and Outcome 21 were used inappropriately for serious offences involving children, which undermined both the seriousness of the crimes and the need for appropriate responses.

Safeguarding needs of both child suspects and child victims were not always met due to inconsistent police referrals to relevant support services.

There was also a need for improved scrutiny by the police to ensure that children comply with the interventions imposed as conditions of an OoCD. 

---

4. Joint decision-making (Back to top)

4.1. Responsibilities (Back to top)

Responsibility for determining disposal outcomes ultimately rests with the police.

Guidance recommends YJS consultation for disposals under Outcomes 20, 21 and 22. Consultation is also advised for YCs and becomes mandatory for second or subsequent YCs, as well as for all  YCCs. Consultation was not required for the first community resolution (Outcome 8) but is recommended for subsequent ones.

Where police officers issue community resolutions to children ‘on the spot’, it is outlined in national guidance, and typically reflected in local policies, that they should notify the YJS within 24 hours. This ensures that support can be considered and provided where necessary. However, we found that this did not happen routinely. As a result, some children received multiple community resolutions without any contact with the YJS, missing key opportunities for early support or intervention. For some, contact with the police continued and escalated before they were eventually referred to the YJS at a later stage.

In our sample, referrals for consideration of an OoCD were typically made by the police; a small number of cases involved children who had initially appeared at court but were subsequently diverted back to assess their suitability for an OoCD. It was concerning to see some children unnecessarily going to court. However, it was encouraging that YJS teams were working with court staff to redirect them for assessment of out-of-court options.

---

4.2. Decision-making processes (Back to top)

All services had a joint working policy in place outlining the decision-making process, and the roles and responsibilities involved. However, the quality of these policies varied, and we noted examples of documentation that was out of date or inaccurate.

Decision-making processes varied considerably across areas. In most cases, multi-agency panels[4] were in place, with significant variation in their composition and size. These panels were typically chaired by a YJS manager and included a police representative, although the officer’s rank varied. In some instances, they were less senior than the panel chair, potentially creating an imbalance. Panel members also commonly included practitioners from victim support, substance misuse, mental health, and speech and language services, usually professionals with established links to the YJS. Early help services were frequently present, and in some services third-sector and commissioned services attended. However, there were notable gaps in attendance from children’s social care.  YJS education workers generally attended, and in the best – though rare examples, a representative from the child’s school or education placement was also present.

Some panels, observed during the inspection, used a voting system where all members voted on the disposal outcome. We had concerns about this approach, particularly the lack of clear accountability. We found there were sometimes tensions between the police and partners over final disposal decisions, particularly for more serious offences such as those involving knives. The main source of the tension was the difference between the OoCD indicated by the NPCC CGM outcome score, and the OoCD that some partners thought was most appropriate.

Although disposal decisions ultimately rest with the police, in some cases the police representative was outvoted without escalation to a more senior police officer. This was at odds with the YJB case management guidance. We believe that the NPCC CGM should be amended to include the need for police inspectors to authorise any divergence of more than one score to the initial NPCC CGM score. This should ensure a clear and consistent escalation process and allow for senior police leaders to understand and decide on cases where differences of opinion occur.

The use of voting raised further issues, as some panel members lacked training on OoCDs and did not fully understand the differences between disposal types.

We agreed with the multi-agency panel’s disposal decision in just under two-thirds of cases across all services. We saw examples of panels working well – for instance, in Walsall, we agreed with the disposal decision in three-quarters of cases. In Dorset, where no large multi-agency panel was in place, we agreed in a similar number of cases, and the OoCD interventions delivered to children still involved appropriate input from partner agencies. This suggested that both models could be effective when implemented well, and that strong multi-agency working depended on multiple factors, not solely on the presence of a multi-agency disposal decision-making panel.

Out of 30 cases where there was disagreement between decision-makers on the disposal decision, only seven showed evidence of escalation to senior management for resolution.

Children and their parents or carers were generally informed promptly once a disposal decision was made, and work with the child typically began soon afterwards. However, we found that they were not always clear about the nature of the disposal issued, and some were unsure whether the interventions were mandatory or voluntary.

Some children reported fully understanding what they were signing when they agreed their OoCD. Others, however, signed the documentation simply to bring the process to an end, without fully understanding the implications. When asked whether an appropriate adult was present when they signed their disposal paperwork, many children were unsure how to answer.

In some areas, children were required to attend a police station to receive their disposal. This appeared unnecessary and inconsistent with a child-centred approach.

We also identified confusion among some staff on community resolution guidance. We observed, and were told about, instances where children were informed that they had to comply with the interventions or risk progression through the youth justice system. This was inaccurate and could be considered coercive.

Below is an example of effective decision-making in Dorset:

Good practice example

In Dorset, the police had implemented a process whereby police officers did not issue any community resolutions involving a child without referring to a dedicated police sergeant who performed a filtering function. The sergeant would review each case using the NPCC child gravity matrix, to assess the seriousness of the offence, available evidence, any history of offending, the child’s personal circumstances, and any welfare concerns. After consultation with the YJS and early help, the sergeant would direct non-complex cases that were suitable for a CR to a dedicated police team for delivery of the disposal. For repeat and more serious offences, the child was subject to a YJS assessment and a final agreement of the disposal decision. All decisions and rationale were recorded using a C413 form, which was shared across relevant services. This ensured transparency and accountability, with clear records, including victim impact statements and early restorative justice considerations. Dorset had been highly successful in conducting face-to-face restorative conferences. Victims who participated reported high levels of satisfaction, with many expressing a sense of closure, especially when they had been able to engage directly with the child involved.

Information provided by the YJS to inform decision-making

YJSs contributed to decision-making in almost every case by completing their assessments before final disposal decisions were made and, in most areas, by submitting a report to a decision-making panel. In all but one area, the process involved the allocated practitioner making a provisional disposal recommendation.

At the time of the inspection, all services were using the YJB prevention, diversion, and assessment tool (PDAT), which was generally completed prior to decision-making.

Children and their parents or carers were actively involved in the assessment process, giving their perspectives of the offence and its underlying causes. This early engagement helped ensure their views were meaningfully considered by decision-makers, and it was encouraging to see such active participation.

During the inspection, YJS police officers reviewed police systems and records, identifying 62 children in our sample who had received at least one previous OoCD. However, this history was not always known to the YJS, shared with decision-makers, or recorded in meeting minutes.

Where the information provided to support decision-making fell short of expectations, it often lacked depth and analysis. In some cases, this led to missed safeguarding concerns and risk factors, and assessments that failed to accurately reflect the child’s circumstances.

There was not always a consistent understanding about what information should be included in reports provided to decision-makers. In many cases, there was an imbalance between the child’s perspective on their circumstances and offending behaviour, and other key information – such as involvement with the police or other services, including education and children’s social care – which was not always verified or cross-checked.

Below is an example of poor practice that demonstrated this point:

Poor practice example

The child had 26 previous contacts with the police, but this was not known to YJS. There were safeguarding notifications on the children’s social care database that the case manager could have accessed but had not. In one of these it stated the child had been permanently excluded from school. Additional concerns such as domestic abuse, drug dealing, and long-term alcohol abuse were also missed. The account of the ‘presenting offence’ was purely descriptive, lacking analysis or context.

YCCs generally included well thought-out and appropriate conditions. However, the planned interventions for community resolutions and ‘deferred prosecution’ cases were often less clearly defined. For example, it was not always evident what work would be carried out or in what sequence. This made it difficult to determine whether the intended actions were being delivered in around a third of these cases.

In some cases, greater attention needed to be given to the child’s willingness and motivation to engage with a voluntary intervention – a key factor in assessing the suitability and likely impact of an OoCD.

Decision-making and rationale recording

The NPCC child gravity matrix (CGM) was designed to support effective decision-making and promote consistency across different areas. We found evidence of its use in three-quarters of cases.

In some areas, poor recording made it difficult to assess whether the CGM had been applied with the intended flexibility. Where records were available, flexibility was evident in most cases. However, in others, the rationale behind decisions was unclear – such as why one disposal was chosen over another, what factors were considered, or why CGM scores changed, sometimes significantly. This lack of transparency made it hard to judge whether the disposals were appropriate. Notably, in cases where the risk to others was high or very high, the rationale was less likely to be clearly documented.

Based on the information recorded in the case files and the evidence provided, we agreed with the disposal decision in just under two-thirds of cases. In cases where the risk to others was high, we agreed with the decision in six out of 15 cases. In some instances, children had previously received OoCDs but there was no evidence of a clearly differentiated response, despite further offending, which suggested that a different approach was needed.

In a few cases, the involvement of the YJS appeared unnecessary, particularly in instances of low-level offending where the child’s significant welfare needs could have been addressed more appropriately by agencies already involved through existing support plans. Rather than coordinating interventions through known professionals, YJS staff were introduced solely to deliver one or two sessions.

In some cases, it was unclear how the required work could be delivered voluntarily within the OoCD timeframe – and ultimately, in some instances, it was not.

The following example underscores the importance of effective decision-making when selecting the most appropriate disposal:

Poor practice example

A search warrant was issued to search a child’s home due to concerns about them accessing child abuse images. During the search, 2,700 category A-C child abuse images and videos of extreme content accessed through the dark web were found on multiple devices. The police referred the case to the YJS without consultation with the CPS, as this was ‘an either way’ offence. The YJS completed an assessment, and a planning meeting took place between children’s social care, the YJS, and a service that delivered harmful sexual behaviour interventions. Despite being quality assured, the assessment underestimated the child’s risk of harm to others and incorrectly concluded a low risk of further offending. No specialist assessment for harmful sexual behaviour was undertaken to inform this judgement. A three-month YCC was agreed, with voluntary interventions planned to address harmful sexual behaviour. While the child engaged with some elements of the intervention, they declined to participate in the voluntary component specifically designed to address the harmful sexual behaviour. This intervention should have been included as an enforceable condition of the YCC. As a result, the risk of harm to other children was not fully understood or adequately addressed.

Youth justice scrutiny panels

Youth justice scrutiny panels are multi-agency groups that independently reviewed how police and partner agencies used OoCDs for children, ensuring they were applied fairly and consistently. Panels included youth justice services, probation, magistrates, and the CPS. While the Home Office, NPCC and YJB provided national guidance, implementation rested with local areas.

In most areas, the police provided a list of relevant cases from which the panel chair selected a sample. In the areas we visited, scrutiny arrangements varied. One area had no processes but was working on plans to secure an independent chair. In most other areas, the Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner (OPCC) chaired the meetings, or they had an independent chair.

Scrutiny meetings focused on both adults and children, with the emphasis on children varying by area. In one area, children were discussed only three times a year, while in others, the number of cases was split at each meeting, with half focusing on children and half on adults. One area took a themed approach, selecting cases at random across age groups, with a risk that no children’s cases would be discussed at all.

The panels aimed to assess the appropriateness of disposal decisions and whether correct procedures, such as the child gravity matrix, were followed. However, little was known about outcomes beyond the decision point, which some chairs identified as a gap.

During fieldwork, magistrates and CPS representatives participating in OoCD scrutiny panels were reported as the groups most likely to express doubts about the suitability of disposal decisions.

In Dorset, there was a constructive effort to review previously discussed cases to assess whether the children had reoffended, with comparisons made to reoffending rates among those who received statutory court orders. Although the number of cases was relatively small, limiting the scope for robust statistical analysis, the initiative laid a valuable foundation for future evaluation.

Where scrutiny panels were implemented effectively, they could make a valuable contribution as part of a broader framework of checks and balances.

---

4.3. Conclusions and implications (Back to top)

Multi-agency collaboration was widely recognised as the best way to meet children’s needs and divert them from the justice system. Multi-agency decision-making panels were common and supported information sharing, though inconsistencies in composition, training, and accountability were noted. Children and their parents or carers were not always clear about the nature of the disposal issued, and some were unsure whether the interventions were mandatory or voluntary.

No single model was reliable in ensuring the most suitable disposal, with strong multi-agency collaboration and clear communication found to be more important than the structure itself.

---

5. Partnerships and services (Back to top)

5.1. Partnership work to address the needs of children (Back to top)

YJSs typically included co-located specialist services and had established links with mainstream, specialist, and third-sector providers to support the delivery of tailored interventions.

The presenting needs of the children

Many children had complex histories, including prior involvement with children’s social care and repeated police contact. In some cases, children’s difficulties had already escalated by the time they received support.

Accurate information was not always recorded on case files, but where it was, we found that across our sample of 164 cases, just over a fifth of the children were care-experienced, and just over two-thirds had current or previous involvement with children’s social care.

One-fifth had a disability and in 105 cases, there was evidence that neurodiversity was a factor; for 82 children, this related to ADHD, and for 44, the challenges were related to autism or autism spectrum disorder, and for some it was both. Fifty-six children already had a formal diagnosis, most before they received their OoCD, and a further 30 had an assessment in progress. The YJS had been instrumental in initiating the assessment in some cases.

The table at Annex 3 shows the progress children made during their OoCD, based on the underlying needs linked to their offending that had been identified during assessment.

All but 12 of the 96 children in the sample had ongoing needs at the end of their intervention, highlighting the importance of good exit planning. Of the 84 cases where an exit plan was required, only 32 children had one in place, meaning that for most children the support offered ended abruptly.

In most cases, unmet welfare needs and early life trauma were identified as significant contributing factors to concerns about offending, the child’s safety and wellbeing, and, in some instances, the risk their behaviour might pose to others. Almost a quarter of the children whose cases we inspected had reoffended either during or in the months following the end of their OoCD.

Our findings

Education

A significant number of children were either not receiving their legal entitlement to education or were not in suitable provision. Although YJS staff were often actively working to improve these situations, it remained a considerable challenge, with limited or no progress for some children by the time their OoCD ended.

Almost a quarter of the children (38 out of 164) had an education, health, and care plan (EHCP). Among those aged 16 and under, 34 out of 136 were not in education, and a similar number were in education but not receiving their full legal entitlement. Of the 28 children aged 17 or over, nine were in education.

Most services had processes to access education databases, enabling them to check school enrolment and attendance rates. However, even when children were enrolled in school or college, engagement between the YJS and education providers was often limited. This meant that discussions about the child’s progress, behaviour, and support needs, particularly where there was a risk of placement breakdown, were often missed.

Where education providers were actively involved, it added significant value. In some cases, the YJS worked with schools and children to identify a staff member who could act as a point of contact after the case was closed. This was sometimes built into the exit plan to support the child’s transition and promote stability in their education.

Not all YJSs had a dedicated education worker, and although there were links to inclusion teams, some children were on the verge of permanent exclusion from school, which was not always addressed proactively.

When children have unmet educational needs, it is important, and in line with the diversionary approach, that support is available and accessible through local authority education services outside the youth justice system. Pathways to this help and support, such as through special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) services, should be clear and easy to navigate. This is especially important given the well-established links between SEND and the challenges children face in remaining in education or accessing suitable provision. We observed strong advocacy from both YJS and education staff in some cases, leading to positive outcomes, often due to the persistence of individual YJS workers.

We were told that some children remained involved with the YJS longer than necessary because their educational needs had not been addressed during the disposal period. This approach may conflict with the principles of diversion, particularly when the child’s educational needs outweigh their offending behaviour, and should be addressed through other appropriate channels.

The below good practice example from Kent shows how additional support was used to help children access education.

Good practice example

YJS analysis showed that many children faced ongoing challenges with education, often being out of school or training. In response, the leadership team used Turnaround funding to bring in specialist staff focused on improving access to suitable education. These staff worked closely with children, families, and schools to find the right placements and support attendance. This targeted help kept education front and centre – and in many cases, led to better outcomes for children.

Work with children’s social care

Most of the children in our sample had current or past involvement with statutory children’s social care services. For many, this reflected significant concerns about their welfare. This background was widely seen as important for understanding the children and their offending, and it often played a role in decisions to divert them from the criminal justice system to avoid compounding the challenges they already faced.

However, statutory children’s social care services were rarely actively involved in disposal decision-making. As a result, opportunities to align plans and deliver interventions that could support the child were often missed.

Good joint working often relied on individual staff going the extra mile, rather than clear systems for sharing information and planning together. This sometimes led to gaps in communication and plans that did not fully align, making it harder to keep children safe.

Despite these challenges, there were positive examples where roles and responsibilities between YJSs and social care were clearly defined and delivered in a coordinated way. This approach was in the best interests of children, as it prevented them from being asked the same questions by different professionals and reassured them that services were working together on their behalf. Notable examples included joint Section 47 child protection assessments and collaborative work on child exploitation.

In some cases, it was perceived that children’s social care stepped back once the YJS became involved, leading to case closures. Thresholds for social care intervention also posed challenges, with some staff reporting difficulties in escalating safeguarding concerns.

YJS usually had access to children’s social care databases, which allowed them to see information about the child’s background and history. This helped to inform assessments and promoted a better understanding of the child. We noted good examples of this, as well as direct contact with social workers to discuss the case. Where this had not happened the quality of practice was poorer.

In some cases, the YJS was able to incorporate early help services into exit plans, leading to smoother and more effective transitions.

All areas had provisions to support children where there were concerns about harmful sexual behaviour. However, several children in our sample had such concerns that were neither addressed nor discussed with them, often because they had not received their disposal for that behaviour.

In one case involving three allegations of sexual assault from three separate victims, the police had closed the case because none of the victims wished to proceed. Despite this, there was no consideration about whether it was appropriate to deliver any harmful sexual behaviour work.

In Tameside, a sexual health provider was located within the same building as the YJS. This provided opportunities to engage children by offering practical advice and support, followed by further work on relationships and healthy sexual boundaries.

Although links to child exploitation multi-agency meetings were generally in place, they were not consistently utilised – usually because the exploitation needs of children had not been properly identified.

In the Northumberland Adolescent Service, the exploitation team was co-located with the YJS. The team monitored statistics related to serious youth violence and exploitation, and staff could request an exploitation consultation. These consultations supported safety planning, mapping, and the disruption of exploitation.

Health

All recognised the importance of addressing children’s health needs and understood the links between welfare, health, and offending.

However, many children concluded their interventions without their health needs being fully addressed or, in some cases, addressed at all. These missed chances mattered as early support could have made a big difference to children’s long-term outcomes.

Children across all services had access to substance misuse support and mental health services, typically through child and adolescent mental health services (CAMHS). While access was generally swift, the level of engagement varied. In many cases, children chose not to take up support, and because it was voluntary and therapeutic, no further attempts were made. Building trust takes time, but short OoCD interventions often did not allow for that.

In some instances, specialist staff provided advice to case-holding workers, who then attempted to deliver interventions themselves. This approach was inconsistent and often ineffective, resulting in limited progress, particularly in areas such as emotional wellbeing.

Speech and language therapy was a notable strength, with most services having in-house provision and delivering thoughtful, skilled interventions. Speech and language practitioners helped initiate EHCPs and create communication passports that could be used in schools to broaden the support for children. YJS staff, however, did not always use these assessments to inform their work, missing opportunities to tailor interventions more effectively.

Access to specialist services, particularly for neurodivergence, was often limited by high thresholds and long waiting times. Children with neurodiversity concerns often had unmet needs by the end of their intervention, leaving them without the help and continuity of care they needed. This highlighted a systemic issue: while short-term interventions could initiate support, they rarely ensured sustained access to the services children needed most.

The below good practice was noted in Wigan:

Good practice example

As part of Greater Manchester’s health and justice strategy, a Positive Health Pathway Service was set up to fast-track access to health services for children with high needs, including those in the YJS. Referrals could be made by professionals or directly by the YJS to a dedicated team of practitioners and peer support workers. They identified unmet health needs and quickly connected children to services like CAMHS and dental care. The YJS made frequent use of the service, which supported timely intervention and access to mainstream care, reinforcing the diversion model.

Police

YJS staff generally had good relationships with the police officers embedded in their teams. The officers were accessible, supportive, and understood the child-centred approach. These officers worked closely with YJS staff and other agencies to assess each child’s individual circumstances and determine the most appropriate response. All but one service had co-located police colleagues.

Most services had systems in place to share relevant intelligence to inform assessments. However, the quality and depth of information gathered, particularly around offending and antisocial behaviour, was sometimes lacking, leading to gaps in understanding. In one area, the police intelligence shared with case managers only covered the previous 12 months, which meant the full extent of the child’s history was not always understood. We also noted some discrepancies between police and YJS records regarding the number of previous OoCDs a child had received.

Across the wider police force, police safeguarding referrals were made in just over two-thirds of cases. However, only 56 per cent of these were recorded on children’s social care databases, indicating a significant gap in follow-through.

Probation

Although the Probation Service is a YJS statutory partner, it does not play a direct role in OoCDs, as children receiving these interventions do not transition into probation supervision. However, some young adults who received OoCDs may later come under probation oversight as adults, and because most OoCDs are not recorded on the Police National Computer, probation officers may lack crucial background information for their assessments (HM Inspectorate of Probation, 2024).

We identified several cases where children had family members known to the Probation Service, including individuals currently under supervision or due for release from prison. In some of these instances, safeguarding concerns were evident, yet appropriate checks had not been carried out – despite the potential risks posed to children through their family networks and associations. Practitioners were not sure if such checks fell within their remit.

Positive activities and links to the third sector

It is well established that helping children move away from an ‘offending identity’ involves access to activities, services, and support that nurture their interests and build strengths and protective factors. Unfortunately, many children did not access available positive activities. In almost half of the cases in our sample, where a lack of positive activities was linked to offending and other concerns, no progress was made.

The below good practice examples were noted:     

Good practice examples

In Tameside, Turnaround funding supported two YJS engagement workers who connected children with community projects and youth services. This improved transitions out of the YJS, strengthened ties with third-sector partners, and expanded access to positive activities—benefiting nearly all children in our sample. Youth services also reported stronger collaboration with the YJS over 12 months. In Swansea, support workers had developed music and mountain biking activities led by skilled practitioners who engaged children effectively. These sessions provided opportunities to build trust and offer positive male role models. The projects were well attended and effectively utilised. In Walsall, the YJS had commissioned services tailored to the specific needs of the children it supported. It considered factors such as gender (with a ‘Girls Glow’ group), ethnicity, and lived experiences. One of the standout examples of the offer in Walsall was a martial arts programme commissioned specifically for YJS children. This programme offered targeted support, opportunities to transition into wider services post-intervention, and opportunities to become peer mentors.

---

5.2. Services to support victims (Back to top)

All inspected services offered support to victims, either through directly employed staff dedicated to victim work or via commissioned services. Police officers were generally successful in obtaining initial consent for the YJS to contact victims to gather their views and to explore restorative justice options.

Practices varied across services: some routinely engaged with victims and considered their views in the decision-making process, while in others, this occurred infrequently.

In the cases we reviewed for decision-making and casework quality, there were 123 victims, 53 of them children. Of these, 93 had agreed at the time of the offence to be contacted by the YJS. Before disposal decisions were made, 61 of those victims were contacted for their views, which were used to inform decisions in 50 cases.

Restorative approaches across services commonly included letters of apology, shuttle mediation, and face-to-face meetings. Restorative justice had been properly considered in just under half of the relevant cases. Some areas stood out for their high number of restorative meetings between children and victims, offering powerful examples of impact.

However, many victims were not meaningfully involved, and barriers to their participation were neither routinely identified nor addressed. We found little analysis of who engaged, at what stage and how satisfied they were, making it difficult to ensure compliance with the Victims’ Code.

Even if a victim chose not to engage with the YJS, their safety must still be considered, with clear plans and suitable actions put in place. In one case where there had been no consideration of the victim, the worker told us that victims were “not their business”, as the responsibility lay with another team.

Although a significant number of victims in our sample were children, they were not routinely considered as a distinct group with specific vulnerabilities. Some were repeat victims and may be less likely to engage with services due to peer influences and other unique factors, which should be considered.

Victims’ needs were well considered in Wigan, as shown below:

Good practice example

In all reviewed cases, attempts were made to contact victims, and where successful, their views were fully incorporated into disposal decisions. Where initial consent was not available, the YJS police officer followed up to obtain it. The children’s Victim Group provided valuable additional support, with advocacy efforts leading to positive outcomes.  YJS staff, including dedicated managers and three specialist victim support workers, delivered group sessions including the peer-led ‘Group with No Name,’ which supported children affected by violent assault.

---

5.3. Conclusions and implications (Back to top)

Although support under OoCDs tended to be shorter than the statutory orders these children might previously have received, the complexity of their needs, circumstances, and, in some cases, the risks their behaviour posed to others, remained unchanged. Given the brevity of OoCDs, swift access to services and sustained support was vital.

For diversion to be effective, partner agencies must share a strategic vision and be prepared to respond quickly in practice. While early joint decision-making occurred, interventions were not always jointly planned, delivered, reviewed or sustained.

Integration with services like children’s social care was essential, as without early, coordinated intervention, children at the edge of the youth justice system risked escalation. Better and smoother pathways for educational support and emotional health and wellbeing services were needed. Many children were identified as having longstanding needs in these areas, but help often arrived too late or ended prematurely, leaving children without ongoing support. Continued support after OoCDs ended was critical to preventing reoffending and promoting long-term positive outcomes, yet this remained inconsistent.

Victims’ services must improve to ensure effective engagement processes, uphold the Victims’ Code, and amplify victims’ voices, especially those of child victims, whose age and maturity must be carefully considered.

---

6. The quality of youth justice casework (Back to top)

6.1. Assessment (Back to top)

Supporting desistance and preventing further offending

Inspectors examined whether factors contributing to the child’s offending, and those that could prevent reoffending, were adequately addressed. We also considered whether protective factors, such as supportive relationships and personal interests, had been identified.

We found a consistent focus on understanding each child’s personal circumstances, family environment, and social context. The views of children and their parents or carers were usually sought, and structured self-assessments had been completed in two-thirds of cases.

In a third of cases, information about previous offending or antisocial behaviour was missing, limiting the ability to assess reoffending risks or identify emerging patterns. Assessments frequently centred on the current offence, resulting in a narrow view of future risks and necessary interventions.

Strengths and protective factors were routinely identified, and home visits, conducted in nearly all cases, offering valuable insight into daily life. However, gaps remained in education data, and diversity factors were not fully considered in a third of cases. Important aspects such as learning styles, communication needs, gender, and ethnicity were often missed, leaving structural barriers unaddressed.

Factors influencing desistance were complex, with family and peer relationships most prominent, followed by emotional wellbeing. Other concerns included education, employment, substance misuse, lifestyle, and neurodiversity.

The assessment of desistance was the strongest area of casework, meeting standards in three-quarters of cases – and in some services, every case. This was demonstrated in the following example of good practice in Solihull:

Good practice example

The assessment was informed by thorough information gathering from a range of sources, including valuable input from the child’s school, which provided insight into their behaviour and presentation in that setting. The case manager engaged effectively with both parents, despite them living separately, which further strengthened the assessment. The inclusion of self-assessment questionnaires also added depth to the analysis. The assessment thoughtfully explored all relevant factors linked to the child’s offending behaviour, considering both risk factors and protective influences. These included peer pressure and a strong sense of loyalty to friends, which were identified as potential drivers of offending. There was also a balanced and sensitive recognition of underlying needs related to neurodiversity, which had been identified for further exploration.

Assessing the safety and wellbeing of the child

Overall, the children were highly vulnerable. Inspectors found only four who could reasonably be considered at low risk, significantly fewer than the 22 children assessed as such by services.

Overall, children’s safety and wellbeing needs were fully understood in only 56 per cent of cases. While information was often gathered to assess children’s safety and wellbeing, its significance, especially to offending, was frequently missed or inconsistently applied.

A significant number of children had experienced trauma and adverse childhood experiences, including witnessing domestic violence, neglect, abuse, and, in many cases, discrimination and bullying. In addition, they were now in contact with the police, raising concerns about both their immediate safety and long-term prospects. These experiences and their impact on children’s development had not always received adequate attention.

Exploitation concerns were present in 42 of 96 cases but were acknowledged and addressed appropriately in fewer than half, leaving some children at continued risk.

The following example demonstrated a lack of curiosity about the child’s lived experience:

Poor practice example

Kieran was found in possession of cannabis. The YJS was unaware of his previous out-of-court disposal or past referral to a substance misuse service. He lived with his father, who had serious mental and physical health issues, and had experienced significant adversity, including familial substance misuse, bereavement, and housing instability. He had previously been on a child in need plan and maintained contact with relatives still affected by substance misuse. Despite this, no concerns were raised about his wellbeing. His cannabis use was treated in isolation, without exploring underlying causes. Intervention focused narrowly on cannabis education, with his vulnerabilities dismissed as “historic”, showing limited understanding of their ongoing impact. His identity as a mixed-heritage male was overlooked, with the case manager stating he “looks white,” and failing to consider race, heritage, or cultural identity.

When this work was done well, practitioners had identified signs that a child might have been at risk of abuse or harm, engaged with the child to understand their perspective, and considered their vulnerabilities and past experiences. They had also gathered information from relevant agencies to build a complete picture and determine the best approach to keeping the child safe.

Assessing how to keep other people safe

Overall, just over a third of assessments gave sufficient attention to behaviours that could be harmful to others. Too often, not enough was done to fully understand or clearly explain the risks the child might pose to others. Risk was underestimated in 26 cases and not assessed at all in six of the 96 children with safety and wellbeing concerns.

Services were not always aware of prior contact with the police, and when they were, it was not consistently reflected. Even in services with co-located police officers, relevant police intelligence was sometimes unavailable, undermining a full understanding of factors that may pose a risk to others.

Victims who consented to contact were meaningfully engaged in only half of the cases. In the rest, contact was either not made, delayed, or the victim’s input was not fully considered. Linked to this, restorative justice was only considered in 29 of 50 relevant cases.

When a victim statement was available, it frequently became the main focus of the assessment, rather than one element within a broader evaluation of risk factors. Conversely, in the absence of a statement, there was sometimes an assumption that no further action was needed to protect others.

When this work was done well, practitioners had fully considered the child’s actions, triggers, and any history of harm. Both actual and potential victims were considered. This then informed decisions about the best way forward, in collaboration with professionals and support networks.

Overall, however, there was a limited understanding of how to manage and reduce concerns and what was needed to achieve safety. Notably, risk assessments were more effective for children identified as a low-risk of harm to others but became less reliable as the level of risk increased.

The following case example demonstrated a lack of professional curiosity about the risk of harm to others:

Poor practice example

The assessment concluded there were no prior behaviours of concern. However, the child had been named as a suspect in seven previous incidents – five of which were unknown to the case manager due to a lack of police information sharing. One victim, also a child, was targeted in two separate offences, yet the impact and risk of further victimisation were not considered. Additionally, intelligence indicated the child had been seen running with a machete, but this, too, was not explored, either because it was unknown at the time or deemed irrelevant.

---

6.2. Planning (Back to top)

Understanding and preventing further offending

Planning to address the issues linked to a child’s offending was effective in half of the cases we inspected. Often, planning did not reflect the underlying issues identified during assessment or set out how these would be addressed. Instead, planning frequently focused on what could be delivered within the available timeframe, which sometimes led to a process-driven approach.

In general, plans were not co-produced with children, even though they were included in the assessment process and there was a strong emphasis on capturing the ‘voice of the child’ across all services. Similarly, parents and carers were not routinely involved in planning, despite their vital role in supporting the child’s engagement, particularly given the young age of many of the children.

Planning did not routinely set out how potential barriers to engagement would be addressed, despite the importance of considering these from the outset to support participation in the intervention. Where learning needs or neurodiversity were identified during assessment, planning often focused solely on arranging further assessments, with insufficient consideration of how to adapt the intervention.

Although assessments often identified strengths and protective factors, these were not consistently reflected in planning. As a result, opportunities to support change and community integration, especially for children needing help beyond short disposals, could be missed.

In cases where multiple professionals were involved, we would expect to see collaborative planning with services such as education and social care. The more professionals who were involved, the greater the need for clarity to avoid confusing or overwhelming the child, and to prevent duplication of efforts. While we saw some strong examples of coordinated work across agencies, this was not consistent.

Planning to support the wellbeing of the child

While there was a broad understanding across services of the children’s vulnerability, planning often failed to address specific concerns or outline how these would be effectively managed. The quality of planning to support children’s safety and wellbeing was sufficient in only half of the cases. Plans often lacked depth and did not fully address the complex issues identified in assessments, especially the root causes behind the child’s behaviour.

To support children’s safety and wellbeing, agencies must clearly understand their roles and work together to ensure the child feels safe and supported. Effective joint planning was seen in 57 per cent of cases.

This example demonstrates how poor planning and coordination failed to prioritise the safety and wellbeing of a highly vulnerable child:

Poor practice example

The child had been a victim of rape. Although a strategy discussion was held, the resulting plan failed to acknowledge the child as a victim or outline the support required. There was no follow-up review to ensure the child’s ongoing safety. Following the initial strategy meeting, coordination between services was limited, leaving significant gaps in protective measures. The bail conditions imposed on the alleged perpetrator were not recorded within YJS systems. Further, there was little evidence that the psychological and emotional impact of the rape on the child’s self-identity, mental health, and emotional wellbeing had been adequately considered. A key opportunity was missed to involve CAMHS in the intervention planning, despite their support being vital to the case. The YJS practitioner had not established direct communication with the independent sexual violence advisor (ISVA), to share relevant information or to assess the child’s safety. Further, the early help plan and the support provided to the family were neither understood by the YJS practitioner nor documented within YJS systems.

When this work was done well, practitioners had made clear plans to keep the child safe. They identified any risks and agreed on specific steps to reduce them. They worked closely with other professionals to make sure everyone understood their role and the timescales involved. The plan was regularly checked to make sure it was still working, and both the child and their parent or carer were kept fully informed.

Planning to keep other people safe

Helping a child move away from offending can also help to keep other people and communities safer. Focusing on their strengths and support systems can slowly change how children see themselves and help them understand what is needed to achieve safety.

The greater the risk, the more important it was to have the right plan in place – and to make sure the child understood it, knew what it was trying to achieve, and was supported to see its benefits.

We found that planning to keep other people safe was effective in only 33 of the 90 relevant cases. Where risk concerns were greater, the gaps in planning were more evident and this was largely consistent across services.

When done well, practitioners worked with professionals and support networks to set clear actions, regularly review progress, and adapt plans to remain effective. Strong planning also ensured the child and their parent or carer understood the plan and its purpose.

In cases that fell short, planning often failed to consider the needs and wishes of victims, missed opportunities to explore restorative justice approaches, and lacked sufficient focus on interventions to address harmful behaviours. There was also limited work to help children understand the underlying factors driving their actions, for example, violent behaviour, which was a common feature in these cases.

Other agencies were involved in planning to protect others in only 22 of the 56 cases where this was required. This was often due to poor coordination or barriers to inter-agency collaboration that were not appropriately escalated. In higher-risk cases, plans were less likely to be reviewed and adapted to overcome the challenges hindering progress.

---

6.3. Delivery (Back to top)

Delivery of interventions to prevent further offending

Most of the inspected cases involved children who had received disposals with voluntary interventions. This required a sensitive and skilled approach, particularly when addressing issues related to offending, concerning behaviours, and safeguarding. When the process felt overwhelming, there was a risk that children could disengage. Building trust was therefore essential, and it often took time to establish an effective, child-centred approach. In some cases, much of the intervention period was focused on relationship-building, especially where children were anxious about engaging with professionals.

Staff demonstrated genuine care and commitment to the children they supported. They built strong, trusting relationships with the children and their families, and this was valued by parents and carers.

YJS staff were expected to build relationships, apply trauma-informed practices, engage with families, meet children’s needs, and address offending behaviour within a short timeframe, which could be challenging. We found that this was achieved in two-thirds of cases, and the work delivered to address the child’s offending was of a sufficient standard.

Many cases were complex, and the quality of interventions often depended on how well services worked together. In many cases, the agencies that should have been involved were not, which affected both the delivery of interventions and exit planning. Of the 84 cases with ongoing needs, only 32 had meaningful exit plans, raising concerns about how well children’s long-term progress and desistance were being supported.

We also noted a tendency to focus narrowly on the specific offence that led to the disposal, rather than adopting a broader approach that fully considered the child’s diverse needs and what was required to keep them and others safe.

Children were not always seen frequently enough to make progress. While not all required intensive intervention, many did – but there was no clear, need-based approach to determining appointment frequency. In at least one service, all children were seen fortnightly regardless of need and concern. Overall, 40 per cent of children attended fewer than five appointments, while 34 per cent attended up to 10, including sessions with both YJS staff and partner agencies.

Where barriers to engagement, such as neurodiversity or learning difficulties, were identified, it was often unclear how interventions had been adapted in response. This raised concerns about whether children with additional needs were being adequately supported to engage in their interventions.

Progress was reviewed in just over two-thirds of cases, but when reviews indicated a need to adapt the intervention plan, changes were made in fewer than half of those cases. In some cases, children continued to be seen for several months after the end of their intervention, but the goals of this continued work were not always clearly defined or shared with the child and their parent or carer.

However, where work was delivered effectively, we could see the meaningful difference it could make to the child, as seen in the following example from Tameside:

Good practice example

Joshua made steady progress during his time with the service, supported by a constructive working relationship between himself, his grandmother, and the practitioner. This relationship provided a strong foundation for Joshua to begin engaging in conversations about his anger and the underlying emotions contributing to his offending behaviour. With the practitioner’s help, Joshua accessed an educational psychology assessment, leading to an EHCP and a specialist school placement that provided much-needed stability. Once he started at the school his worker visited Joshua there, helping him settle and feel supported. Toward the end of his order, Joshua joined a local football project, something he had shown an interest in for some time, offering a positive outlet and sustaining his engagement.

Delivery of services to support the wellbeing of the child

Overall, the interventions aimed at addressing the safety and wellbeing of the child were sufficient in 56 of the 92 relevant cases, though there was variation across services.

In just over two-thirds of cases, services were working together effectively to address issues affecting the child’s safety and wellbeing.

The relationship that YJS workers formed with the children they worked with meant the children had someone to talk to and could discuss their concerns and worries. Where concerns were more serious, more specialist support was required. Children were offered services such as CAMHS and substance misuse support, but many declined, and this was not revisited to encourage further engagement. Accessing such support could be daunting for a child. However, when concerns were identified, there should have been a sustained effort to motivate the child to engage, even if it took time.

The delivery of interventions was reviewed and amended in only 20 out of the 50 cases where this was required. This meant that opportunities were missed to assess whether the plan to address safety and wellbeing was effective, whether the child was engaging or if any changes were needed.

The following case example illustrates how a lack of shared understanding of safeguarding responsibilities may have contributed to a vulnerable child being left at risk:

Poor practice example

Lyla received a community resolution for assaulting another school pupil. The assault appeared to stem from misplaced loyalty to a friend, who subsequently began to bully Lyla. As part of the intervention, Lyla engaged in four sessions focused on peer relationships, the impact of social media, and the importance of participating in positive activities. During this period, a close family member was released from prison after serving a sentence for a serious sexual assault against a child. This individual returned to live in the family home, where Lyla lived with her younger siblings. There was no evidence of any discussion with children’s social care regarding the safeguarding concerns this situation raised. No contact was made with probation services, who were likely to be managing the family member post-release, to clarify licence conditions or risk management plans. There was also no evidence on the children’s social care system of concerns about Lyla’s recent experience of sexual exploitation. This indicated significant gaps in information sharing and a lack of shared understanding regarding Lyla’s vulnerability.

Delivery of services to support and achieve safety for others

Overall, work to support the safety of others was sufficient in 49 out of 88 cases where concerns had been identified, with variation across services. The management of low-risk cases was more effective than that of higher-risk cases. Although the input from other agencies was limited across all risk levels, this had less impact when the potential risk to others was lower.

In just over half of the cases involving an identifiable or potential victim, there was sufficient evidence that the risk of harm had been effectively managed.

There was a lack of ongoing review to ensure that risk issues were being adequately addressed, including when new offences had been committed or new intelligence was received, indicating significant concerns. Even when reviews did take place and identified a need to adapt the intervention, the necessary changes were implemented sufficiently in only 11 out of 35 cases.

While discussions around adverse childhood experiences and trauma were taking place across services, they often failed to address the potential risk a child might pose to others adequately. Recognising that children process trauma in different ways, some internalising it, others externalising it, was essential to understanding how risk could manifest and to be alert to it.

This distinction was critical to ensure that concerning behaviours were neither overlooked nor minimised, and that children were supported in ways that helped them feel emotionally contained. Creating this sense of containment was vital; it provided a safe space for children to begin expressing and making sense of what they were experiencing.

A sensitive, direct, and honest approach was required but this was not yet consistently embedded in practice.

Knife offences

Eighteen children in our overall sample had received an OoCD for a weapons offence, all of which involved knives.

In 11 cases, the disposal was a YCC; in five cases, it was a YC. Two cases received a lower disposal due to identified extenuating circumstances. For example, one involved a 12-year-old child with learning disabilities who had taken a gardening knife into school. We agreed with the disposal in this instance, as there was clear evidence to support the decision and appropriate support was in place for the child.

In one inspected area, for any knife-related offence, it was initially assumed that a YCC would be the likely disposal, with such cases being directly allocated to a statutory worker to carry out the initial assessment and deliver the intervention. In another service, the police force had adopted a policy of automatically issuing a YCC for any knife offence prior to the completion of an assessment by the YJS. Since this change, a small number of cases had been referred back to the police by the YJS due to assessed extenuating circumstances relating to the children. In these instances, a lower-tier disposal was subsequently agreed.

Concerns about knife crime were noted in 29 additional cases, either as a current broader issue or a past concern. However, this did not necessarily influence the disposal decision, as it was not always considered relevant – even though, in some cases, it should have been.

Concerns about knife crime were identified in 15 of the lower-tier cases (non YCC or YC). However, discussions about its implications, associated concerns, and the actions needed to ensure safety did not feature consistently in the work delivered.

Diversity considerations

Girls

The number of girls receiving OoCDs was higher than anticipated across all services, making up 27 per cent (45 cases) of our overall sample. We reviewed 25 cases in which a disposal other than a YCC or YC was delivered to girls.

According to YJB national data, the average proportion of girls in the formal youth justice system had remained at around 14 per cent in England and Wales and had been stable for some time. On formal outcomes, most of the services we inspected consistently reported a caseload of females that aligned with the national average. Therefore, the high number of girls we observed receiving OoCDs could not be easily explained by the diversion of girls from the formal system. Instead, it appeared that while the number of girls in the formal system was unchanged, there had been a significant increase in the number coming into contact with the wider youth justice system. This shift in profile for girls receiving OoCDs is not currently captured in national data, but it was noted across most of the services we inspected. Although it was recognised, there was limited understanding of the underlying causes. This made it difficult to assess whether this trend was a positive development, indicating that girls were now being offered timely support, or a cause for concern.

Girls in our sample appeared to face additional vulnerabilities compared to their male peers. They were nearly twice as likely to have experienced care, and half of them had committed their offence before the age of 14. Girls were also more likely to have unmet diversity-related needs, often linked to their gender. In education, they were less likely to be in mainstream schooling and more likely to have an EHCP. Notably, 73 per cent of girls had committed a violent offence, compared to 39 per cent of boys.

There was an inconsistent focus on the gendered factors influencing girls’ behaviour, such as trauma, exploitation, and coercion – within a wider context of ongoing societal concerns about misogyny and violence against women and girls. Our findings highlighted the importance of adopting a gender-sensitive approach at both operational and strategic levels when working with girls, addressing their unique experiences and needs as they navigated the criminal justice system.

The following positive example was noted in Swansea:

Good practice example

The worker took time to understand the girl’s experiences, including how being female and growing up in a difficult family environment had affected her self-esteem. She recognised that some of the girl’s angry outbursts were signs of emotional distress, not just behaviour to be managed. The worker met with her twice a week to build trust and help her access the right support, including a girls’ group run by the youth justice service. The girl responded well and benefited from the safe space and support the group offered.

Children from minority ethnic minority backgrounds

Due to small sample sizes across diverse ethnic groups – including ‘other’ white, mixed heritage, Gypsy Roma Traveller, Black Caribbean, Black other, and Black African – we have reported our findings as a group. This was not ideal and masked important differences, but it was necessary given the sample composition.

Diversity factors and structural factors were considered explicitly in only five of the 13 relevant assessments or plans for children from minority ethnic backgrounds. Positively, their plans were twice as likely to be reviewed and revised compared to those of their peers – an encouraging finding, given the evidence that children from some backgrounds often struggle to access the help and support they need, contributing to their overrepresentation in the criminal justice system. We also noted better alignment of plans to support desistance across agencies and a slightly stronger focus on exit planning for this group of children.

Parents and carers of all children from Black and minority ethnic backgrounds were involved in the assessment process in every case. Inspectors assessed that children from these backgrounds were less likely to reoffend, largely due to the effectiveness of appropriate and well-received interventions.

The following example from Kent highlighted the importance of understanding the child’s cultural background, heritage, and values to support effective engagement:

Good practice example

Liam self-identified as a Gypsy and was proud of his identity. At the time he received the OoCD he was electively home educated after experiencing a difficult time in mainstream education, where he described feeling discriminated against due to his cultural background. The worker demonstrated curiosity and interest, engaging meaningfully to understand Liam’s experiences, cultural identity, lifestyle, and experiences of discrimination. A Turnaround worker was allocated to focus on Liam’s educational needs. Together, they supported Liam to return to education and Liam attended regularly. The Turnaround worker also secured a grant that allowed Liam to go fishing with his dad and extended family – an activity that helped him strengthen family bonds, build confidence, and focus on his positive qualities.

Neurodiversity and disability

Structural barriers facing children with disabilities or neurodiversity needs were often not adequately considered in the delivery of interventions, even when these needs had been identified. For example, barriers linked to having ADHD were considered appropriately in only 20 out of 35 relevant cases. It was particularly concerning that, for children with ADHD, autism or other disabilities, parents or carers were not routinely involved in planning to support the child’s engagement. While there was a strong overall focus on speech, language, and communication across most services, this emphasis did not appear to consistently extend to other areas of neurodiversity, representing a missed opportunity to tailor support more effectively.

What the children told us

Almost all the 50 children we spoke with had had a positive experience with their OoCD. They all had good relationships with their YJS workers, describing them as non-judgmental, caring, and good listeners. More than 90 per cent of the children felt they got the support they needed, although they often described this support as “fun” activities, with meetings seen more as “chats” rather than structured sessions or interventions.

Many children said the biggest benefit of the OoCD was feeling they had been given a second chance and had avoided a criminal record. Most believed the experience would help them avoid reoffending.

While four in five children understood their out-of-court disposal, some showed confusion or inconsistency in their understanding, with older children tending to understand the process better than younger ones.

Many children also pointed out the need to adjust interventions for neurodiverse individuals. They suggested improving support for neurodivergent children, ensuring more consistency in relationships with YJS workers, and offering continued support after the OoCD process ended, especially for those who needed more help.

Feedback from parents and carers

Inspectors spoke with 31 parents or carers to get their perspective on the services they and their child received. The fact that their children avoided going to court was cited as the main benefit of the OoCD. Some parents told us they did not fully understand what they agreed to when they accepted the disposal, and not all realised it was voluntary. However, overall feedback was overwhelmingly positive. They felt that YJS workers were skilled and capable, and they were highly satisfied with the support provided. Twenty-one of the 31 parents or carers we spoke to felt that their child definitely or probably would not offend again in the future because of the support they received.

Below are some reflections from parents describing the positive support they received from the YJS:

“The worker has been great, she really has been trying to help my child and has gone above and beyond. These were bad circumstances, but good things came out.”

“At the beginning he did not get much support but when the YJS got involved he received the support. CAMHS took a long time to come through but now he has the right support … it just took some time to happen and YJS helped get the support.”

---

6.4. Conclusions and implications (Back to top)

YJS staff demonstrated strong skills in engaging children, and their support was valued by children and parents or carers. However, there needed to be greater emphasis on safety, for both the child and others, in all aspects of practice. Current interventions tended to focus narrowly on the offence rather than addressing the underlying risks and safeguarding concerns, which were closely linked to reoffending.

The profile of children receiving OoCDs had become broader and more complex, reflecting a shift towards their use for more serious offences. Many of these children had significant safety and welfare needs, often facing multiple challenges that increased the risk of reoffending if left unaddressed. For some, welfare concerns took precedence over offending behaviour. However, a growing number of children displayed escalating concerning behaviours requiring more intensive, tailored support.

Given this complexity, the system must adapt to provide structured, needs-led interventions that go beyond securing engagement and instead address the root causes of offending, through support delivered outside the justice system where appropriate. Achieving this requires a coordinated response, driven strategically and implemented consistently across all levels of practice.

---

References and bibliography (Back to top)

Atherton, S. (2015). ‘Community courts to address youth offending: A lost opportunity’, British Journal of Community Justice, 13(2), pp.111-123.

Bramley, R., Hall, M., Ely, C. and Robin-D’Cruz, C. (2019). ‘Youth Diversion evidence and practice: Minimising Labelling’. Centre for Justice Innovation. Available at:  Youth diversion evidence and practice briefing: minimising labelling | Centre for Justice Innovation. (Accessed 17 February 2020).

Case, S. and Browning, A. (2021). ‘Child-First Justice: the research evidence-base’. Available at: Child First Justice: the research evidence-base [Full report] (Accessed 21 June 2021).

Case, S. Creaney, S. Deakin, J. and Haines, K. (2015). ‘Youth justice: Past, Present and future’, British Journal of Community Justice, 13(2), pp.99-110.

Case, S. and Haines, K. (2015). ‘Children first, offenders second: The centrality of engagement in positive youth justice’, The Howard Journal, 54 (2), pp.157-175.

Centre for Justice Innovation. (2021). ‘Disparities in youth diversion – an evidence review’. Available at: Disparities in youth diversion – an evidence review | Centre for Justice Innovation. (Accessed 21 July 2024).

Centre for Justice Innovation. (2022). ‘Children and young people’s voices on youth diversion and disparity’. Available at: Children and young people’s voices on youth diversion and disparity (Accessed 21 July 2024).

Centre for Justice Innovation. (2023). ‘Exploring the Responsiveness of Youth Diversion to Children with SEND’. Available at: SEND and youth diversion.pdf.  (Accessed 21 July 2024).

Centre for Justice Innovation. (2024). ‘Valuing Youth Diversion: A toolkit for practitioners’. Available at: Valuing youth diversion: A toolkit for practitioners (6th Edition) (Accessed 21 July 2024).

Clinks. (2022). ‘Effective point-of-arrest diversion for children and young people’. Available at: clinks_el_diversion_for_children_and_young_people_0.pdf. (Accessed 21 July 2024).

Council of Europe. (2008). ‘Recommendation CM/Rec(2008)11 of the Committee of Ministers to member states on the European Rules for juvenile offenders subject to sanctions or measures’. Available at: 

Recommendation CM/Rec(2008)11 of the Committee of Ministers to member states on the European Rules for juvenile offenders subject to sanctions or measures | Refworld. (Accessed 21 June 2021).

Gray, P. and Smith, R. (2019). ‘Governance Through Diversion in Neoliberal Times and the Possibilities for Transformative Social Justice’, Critical Criminology, 27, pp.575–590.

Haines, K., Case, S., Davies, K. and Charles, A. (2013) ‘The Swansea Bureau: A model of diversion from the Youth Justice System’, International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice, 41(2), pp.167-187.

Haines, K. and Charles, A. (2010). ‘The Swansea Bureau: Children first, offending second. Report to Swansea Youth Offending Service’. Available at:  The Swansea Bureau. (Accessed 12 March 2019).

HM Inspectorate of Probation. (2021). ‘The quality of delivery of out-of-court disposals in youth justice’. Available at: The quality of delivery of out-of-court disposals in youth justice – HM Inspectorate of Probation. (Accessed 26 July 2024).

HM Inspectorate of Probation. (2023a). ‘The implementation and delivery of community resolutions: the role of youth offending services’. Available at: The implementation and delivery of community resolutions: the role of youth offending services – HM Inspectorate of Probation. (Accessed 26 July 2024).

HM Inspectorate of Probation. (2023b). ‘Annual report: Inspection of youth offending services’. Available at: https://hmiprobation.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/document/2023-annual-report-inspections-of-youth-justice-services/.

HM Inspectorate of Probation. (2024). ‘A thematic inspection on the quality of services delivered to young adults in probation’. London: HM Prison and Probation Service and Ministry of Justice. Available at: 2023 Annual report: inspections of youth justice services – HM Inspectorate of Probation.  

HM Inspectorate of Probation and HM Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services. (2018). ‘Out-of-court disposal work in youth offending teams’. London: Criminal Justice Joint Inspectorates. Available at: https://assets-hmicfrs.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/uploads/out-of-court-disposal-work-in-youth-offending-teams.pdf.

HM Inspectorate of Probation. (2024). ‘The quality of services delivered to young adults in the Probation Service’. Manchester: HM Inspectorate of Probation. Available at: The quality of services delivered to young adults in the Probation Service – HM Inspectorate of Probation.  

Keenan, C., Strange, L., Neyroud, P. and Corr, M-L. (2024). ‘An evidence review on youth diversion programmes’. London: National Children’s Bureau and Youth Endowment Fund. Available at: NCB-YEF-Diversion-Evidence-Review-for-Publication.pdf.  (Accessed: 20 August 2025).

Kelly, L. and Armitage, V. (2015). ‘Diverse Diversions: Youth Justice Reform, Localized Practices, and a “New Interventionist Diversion”?’, Youth Justice Journal, 15(2), pp.177-133.

Lammy, D. (2017). ‘The Lammy Review: An independent review into the treatment of, and outcomes for, Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic individuals in the Criminal Justice system’. London: Lammy Review: The Lammy Review.

Little, S. (2014). ‘Effectiveness of formal police cautioning for reducing system re-contact’. Unpublished PhD Thesis. Griffith University, Australia.

Manning, M. (2015). ‘“Enhanced Triage”; an Integrated Decision Making Model’. Ipswich: University Campus Suffolk.

McAra, L. & McVie, S. (2007). ‘Youth Justice? The Impact of System Contact on Patterns of Desistance from Offending’, European Journal of Criminology, 4(3), pp.315-34.

Ministry of Justice. (2013). ‘Code of Practice for Youth Conditional Cautions’. London: Ministry of Justice. Available at:

Code of practice for youth conditional cautions – GOV.UK. (Accessed 11 March 2019).

Neyroud, P. (2018). ‘Out-of-court Disposals managed by the Police: a review of the evidence’. London. National Police Chiefs’ Council. Available at: out-of-court-disposals-managed-by-the-police–a-review-of-the-evidence.pdf. (Accessed 11 July 2024).

Petrosino, A., Turpin-Petrosino, C. and Guckenburg, S. (2010). ‘Formal system processing of juveniles: Effects on delinquency’, Campbell Systematic Reviews, 1, pp.3-80.

Schwalbe, C. S., Gearing, R. E., MacKenzie, M. J., Brewer, K. B. and Ibrahim, R. (2012). ‘A meta-analysis of experimental studies of diversion programs for juvenile offenders’, Clinical Psychology Review, 32, pp.26-33.

Smith, R. (2014). ‘Re-inventing Diversion’, DPP Guidance on Charging 6th, 14(2), pp109-121.

Smith, R. (2021). ‘Diversion, Rights and Social Justice’. Youth Justice, 21(1), pp18-32.

Soppitt, S. and Irving, A. (2014) ‘Triage: line or nets? Early intervention and the youth justice system’, Safer Communities, 13(4), pp.147-160.

United Kingdom Children’s Commissioners. (2015). ‘Report of the UK Children’s

Commissioners. UN Committee on the Rights of the Child. Examination of the Fifth

Periodic Report of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland’.

Available at: out-of-court-disposals-managed-by-the-police–a-review-of-the-evidence.pdf . (Accessed 18 February 2020).

Wilson, H. A. and Hoge, R. D. (2012). ‘The effect of youth diversion programs on recidivism: A meta-analytic review’, Criminal Justice and Behavior, 40, pp.497-518.

Youth Endowment Fund. (2025). Diversions from the criminal justice system in London. London: Youth Endowment Fund. Available at: Diversions from the criminal justice system in London | Youth Endowment Fund.  (Accessed: 14 July 2025).

Youth Justice Board. (2013). ‘Youth Cautions: Guide for police and youth offending services’. London: Youth Justice Board. Available at:

Case management guidance – How to use out-of-court disposals – Guidance – GOV.UK. (Accessed 11 March 2019).

Youth Justice Board. (2024a). ‘How to use out-of-court disposals’. London: Youth Justice Board. Available at:

Case management guidance – How to use out-of-court disposals – Guidance – GOV.UK. (Accessed 10 July 2024).

Youth Justice Board. (2024b). ‘Youth Justice Statistics: 2022 to 2023’. London: Youth Justice Board. Available at:

Youth justice statistics: 2022 to 2023 – GOV.UK  (Accessed 10 July 2024)

Youth Justice Board for England and Wales, 2023. The role of the YOT/YJS Police Officer. Available at: The role of the YOT/YJS Police Officer – GOV.UK

Youth Justice Legal Centre (YJLC). (no date). ‘Out of Court Disposals’. Available at: Out of Court Disposals.  (Accessed 20 June 2025).

Further references and suggested reading can be found by following these links: Diversion – HM Inspectorate of Probation and Out-of-court disposals – HM Inspectorate of Probation

---

Annexe 1 Glossary (Back to top)

Allocation	The process by which a decision is made about whether an offender will be supervised by the NPS or a CRC.
Appropriate Adult	An adult who supports and safeguards the rights and welfare of a child during police procedures, such as interviews or searches, ensuring they understand what is happening and are treated fairly.
Care-Experienced	Someone who has been in the care of the local authority at any point in their life, such as in foster care, residential care, or kinship care.
Case Manager	The practitioner who holds lead responsibility for managing the case of a child under YJS supervision.
Child First approach	An approach to youth justice that prioritises the rights, needs, and wellbeing of the child over their offending behaviour. It focuses on support, development, and prevention rather than punishment.
Child protection	Work to make sure that that all reasonable action has been taken to keep to a minimum the risk of a child coming to harm.
Child in need	A child who requires extra support to stay healthy, safe, and develop properly. This may be because of disability, illness, neglect, or family difficulties. Social care services work with the child and their family to provide help and support – such as arranging services, protecting the child from harm, and making sure their basic needs are met.
Community resolution	Used to resolve offences where there is informal agreement, often also involving the victim, about how the offence should be resolved.
Desistance	The cessation of offending and other antisocial behaviour.
DBS	Disclosure and Barring Service A government service in the UK that helps employers check a person’s criminal record before they work with children or vulnerable adults. It helps make sure that people who might be a risk are not allowed to work in certain roles.
ETE	Education, training, and employment: work to improve an individual’s learning, and to increase their employment prospects.
First-time entrants	A first-time entrant is a child who receives a statutory criminal justice outcome – such as a youth caution, youth conditional caution, or conviction – for the first time. Tracking the rate of these first-time entrants serves as a key performance indicator (KPI) to evaluate the effectiveness of prevention and early intervention programmes in reducing youth involvement in the criminal justice system.
Intervention	The work undertaken directly with the child intended to change their behaviour.
Intervention plan	The programme of work drawn up by the case manager in collaboration with the child outlining what will be done to support desistance.
Joint Decision-Making Panel	A group of professionals from different agencies who work together to review and decide on appropriate out-of-court responses for children.
Legal Aid Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act (LASPO) 2012	A wide-ranging piece of legislation making reforms to the criminal justice system. These included creation of youth cautions and youth conditional cautions, to replace the previous statutory out-of-court disposals for children.
National Standards for Youth Justice	Issued by the Youth Justice Board, outlining the minimum contact levels and timescales for key tasks in the YOT’s delivery of court orders.
Net widening	Refers to the unintended consequence of increasing the number of children who come into contact with the criminal justice system through the use of OoCDs, rather than the intended aim of diverting them away from it.
NPCC Child Gravity Matrix	A classification tool by the National Police Chiefs’ Council that ranks common offences involving children on a scale from 1 (low gravity) to 5 (high gravity) based on offence seriousness. It supports decision-making by assessing offence gravity alongside evidence and other factors. Can be found at: The NPCC Child Gravity Matrix updated for 2025
Office of Police and Crime Commissioners (OPCC)	A local government office in England and Wales responsible for ensuring efficient and effective policing.
Partners	Partners include statutory and non-statutory organisations, working with the participant/offender through a partnership agreement.
Police and Crime Commissioners	The Police and Crime Commissioner is a locally elected representative responsible, among other responsibilities, for securing efficient and effective policing of a police area. They are required to produce a periodic local police and crime plan.
Police National Computer (PNC)	A UK-wide database used by police and other agencies to access information on criminal records, wanted persons, vehicles, and more. Managed by the Home Office.
Restorative justice conference	Offenders come face-to-face with their victims and directly hear the impact of their actions. Victims have a chance to tell offenders how they have been affected. Offenders gain empathy and understanding for those they have harmed and the opportunity to make amends
Victims’ Code (Victims’ Code of Practice	A set of legal rights for victims of crime in England and Wales, outlining the support and services they are entitled to from criminal justice agencies.
Youth Endowment Fund (YEF)	A charitable organisation that funds and evaluates initiatives aimed at preventing youth violence and supporting early intervention for young people at risk.
YJS police officer	The police, along with other statutory partners, are required to second staff into the YOT. The main purpose of the seconded police officer is to use their specialist skills, and warranted responsibilities, to support the work of the YJS. Further information can be found at: The role of the YOT/YJS Police Officer – GOV.UK

---

Annexe 2: Methodology (Back to top)

HM Inspectorate of Probation and HMICFRS visited eight fieldwork sites to assess the work of eight youth justice partnerships and six police forces.

HM Inspectorate of Probation inspected the following case samples:

1. The quality of casework in 98 cases open to the YJS to assess the quality of casework.
2. Dip sample of decision-making in 66 cases where a child received a youth caution or youth conditional caution.

Both inspectorates interviewed a cross-section of staff and managers in line with the focus of this inspection. Inspectorates conducted joint interviews with strategic and national leaders.

Individual inspectorates focused on the following aspects of organisational delivery:

HM Inspectorate of Probation:

• The effectiveness of policies and processes within youth justice and partner agencies.
• The quality of YJS decision-making processes and practice.
• The effectiveness of the work delivered to support victims.
• Communication between partner agencies to inform decision-making, assessment, and the delivery of OoCDs.
• The knowledge, experience, and training of YJS staff in relation to OoCDs.
• Access to support and services for children who receive OoCDs.
• The collection and analysis of partnership data to evaluate and improve service delivery for all children.
• Experiences of children who receive OoCDs.

HM Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services focused on the:

• Effectiveness of national and local police leadership for delivery of OoCDs.
• Effectiveness and application of OoCD policies and processes within policing.
• Effectiveness of partnerships and information sharing.
• Application of the NPCC youth gravity matrix and CPS guidance in decision-making.
• Police case management of all OoCD cases, including those that go through the YJS OoCD panel.
• Quality of information recorded on police systems.
• Knowledge, experience, and training of police staff in relation to OoCDs.

Breakdown of inspected cases	Number of cases
Outcome 22 with interventions (NFA)	17
Outcome 22 – Deferred youth caution (DYC) with identified interventions	5
Outcome 22 – Deferred prosecution	22
Community resolution (CR) without identified interventions	5
Community resolution (CR) with identified interventions	39
Other	10
Total	98

---

Annexe 3: Progress made (Back to top)

The charts below show the progress children made during their OoCD, based on the underlying needs linked to their offending that had been identified during assessment:

Where a need was identified, sufficient progress was made in relation to the following areas:
a) Substance misuse	number	per cent
Yes	9	18%
Partially	10	20%
No	30	61%
Not applicable	49	–
b) Learning/Education, training, and employment (ETE)	number	per cent
Yes	24	32%
Partially	25	34%
No	25	34%
Not applicable	24	–
c) Living arrangements	number	per cent
Yes	9	22%
Partially	14	34%
No	18	44%
Not applicable	57	–
d) Emotional wellbeing	number	per cent
Yes	12	15%
Partially	22	27%
No	47	58%
Not applicable	17	–
e) Speech, language, and communication	number	per cent
Yes	17	29%
Partially	21	36%
No	21	36%
Not applicable	39	–
f) Positive and constructive activities	number	per cent
Yes	18	28%
Partially	15	23%
No	31	48%
Not applicable	34	–
g) Neurodiversity	number	per cent
Yes	7	11%
Partially	23	37%
No	32	52%
Not applicable	36	–
h) Family relationships	number	per cent
Yes	5	8%
Partially	25	40%
No	33	52%
Not applicable	35	–
i) Peer relationships	number	per cent
Yes	11	17%
Partially	28	42%
No	27	41%
Not applicable	32	–
j) Attitudes	number	per cent
Yes	12	23%
Partially	18	35%
No	22	42%
Not applicable	46	–

---

Acknowledgements and footnotes (Back to top)

This inspection was led by Maria Jerram and Ian Elliott, supported by a team of inspectors and operations, research, communications, and corporate staff. The manager responsible for this inspection programme was Helen Davies. We would like to thank all those who participated in any way in this inspection. Without their help and cooperation, the inspection would not have been possible. Please note that throughout the report the names in the practice examples have been changed to protect the individual’s identity.

[1] Court disposals, youth conditional caution, and youth caution.

[2] Further references and suggested reading can be found by following these links: Diversion – HM Inspectorate of Probation and Out-of-court disposals – HM Inspectorate of Probation.

[3] General Rules

[4] In Wales this process is known as Bureau.