The latest data published by the Youth Justice Board of England and Wales show that preventive diversion measures have become an effective tool for reducing recidivism among young people and improving community safety. Far from being an experimental programme, this approach to addressing juvenile delinquency is part of the regular operation of the services of the juvenile justice system and its institutional partners.

Preventive diversion measures consist of intervening early when a minor commits an offence, avoiding, whenever possible, their entry into the formal criminal system. Instead of prioritising punishment, efforts are made to identify the causes that have led to criminal behaviour—such as family problems, school absenteeism, mental health difficulties, or social exclusion—and to offer educational, restorative, and supportive responses. The goal is not to evade responsibilities, but to prevent the young person from reoffending and to reduce the risk of becoming involved in more serious acts.
Data for the year 2025 indicate that approximately 13,500 actions managed by the juvenile justice system services were resolved through preventive diversion mechanisms, representing 43% of the total cases in which these services intervened. The study’s authors point out, however, that this figure is still higher in practice, as it does not include the deviations managed exclusively by police forces or other local services.
Various international studies agree that formal criminal intervention on minors, especially when it occurs in the early stages, can increase the likelihood of reoffending. In contrast, well-structured preventive diversion programmes yield better results both in reducing new crimes and in decreasing the pressure on police, judicial, and penitentiary resources. This evidence reinforces the idea that an effective security policy is not based solely on punitive response, but also on prevention and early intervention.
The report also highlights that the system of preventive diversion measures is already functioning on a large scale. If current levels are maintained, nearly 50,000 young people will be served through these mechanisms over the next three years. This volume demonstrates that preventive diversion measures are now a central piece of public security policies and the juvenile criminal system, supported by collaboration among social services, police, local administrations, the educational system, and third sector entities.
Despite the positive results, the data also highlight significant differences between territories. While in Wales 63% of resolutions are preventive in nature, in London this percentage drops to 17%. These variations are partly due to differences in policing models, the characteristics of crimes, or local policies, but
they also reflect a lack of uniformity that can create inequalities in access to these opportunities.
The report also analyses the differences according to the ethnic origin of minors. White youths are significantly more likely to benefit from preventive diversion than Black youths (53% compared to 27%). Although part of this difference can be explained by territorial factors, the authors acknowledge that this is not sufficient to justify it. For this reason, the principle formulated years ago by David Lammy is recalled: when there are inequalities in the justice system, they must be explainable with objective data or reforms must be promoted to correct them.
To advance towards greater equity, the Youth Justice Board is promoting various initiatives aimed at improving the quality of professional decisions. Among them, a shared work platform between police and youth justice services stands out to disseminate best practices, as well as a standardised assessment tool that helps professionals evaluate the needs, strengths, and risks of each minor using objective criteria, reducing the impact of potential subjective biases.
The document concludes that preventive diversion measures constitute an investment in public safety. Intervening before problems escalate allows for reducing recidivism, better protecting victims, facilitating the reintegration of young people, and optimising public resources. Furthermore, the recent white paper on the youth criminal justice system from the British Government consolidates this strategic orientation, placing prevention and early intervention as central axes of future public policies.
Ultimately, the experience of England and Wales shows that security does not depend solely on the ability to sanction, but also on the ability to prevent. Betting on evidence-based interventions, coordinated among different institutions and focused on the needs of young people, allows for more effective crime reduction and the building of safer communities.
_____
Aquest apunt en català / Esta entrada en español / Post en français







