The previous chapter examined the potential of a Children First, Offenders Second (CFOS) approach to working with children subject to statutory orders in the youth justice system (YJS). In this context, putting children first in the YJS means abandoning the reductionist and disengaging management of risk and practice performance perpetuated by the Scaled Approach assessment and intervention framework and evidenced (to a lesser degree) by the revised AssetPlus framework; replacing this approach with a participation-led model that seeks meaningful engagement with and between children and practitioners, while also working in partnership with policy makers and researchers using a Reflective Friend Research model.

This chapter explores the principles, practices and progression of division from formal contact with the YJS. We begin with discussion of the diversionary principles of minimum necessary intervention, which is premised on the argument that contact with the formal YJS is iatrogenic and criminalising for children, particularly where this contact is excessive, disproportionate and inappropriate. From there, we explore the zenith of youth justice diversion practice, the 1980s ‘decade of diversion’, which was animated by the widespread use of cautioning, welfare-focused Intermediate Treatment intervention programmes led by social workers outside the formal YJS and Juvenile Liaison Bureaux situated within the formal system. What follows is a critical overview of the emergence of interventionist diversion following the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, which was characterised by a raft of pre-court interventions underpinned by risk management and restorative justice – each with the main objective of reducing first-time entrants into the YJS. We go on to explore how a diversion emphasis has been reignited since 2010 by the UK coalition government, most notably through revised out-of-court disposal processes. We subject these developments to critical scrutiny and discuss whether they have been founded on children-first principles or managerialist, pragmatic and economic concerns. The chapter concludes with a detailed examination of the potential for a progressive and principled CFOS approach to diversion, founded on child-appropriate and inclusionary interventions decided upon through evidence-based partnership between practitioners, children and families, working alongside policy makers and researchers.

Diversion from the formal youth justice system

Diversionary measures have attained a ‘strong-hold in Western youth justice systems’ (Richards 2014: 124).