Comparing Diversion Systems: UK vs. US — What Can We Learn?

Diversion programmes have become a cornerstone of modern justice reform on both sides of the Atlantic. In the United Kingdom and the United States, policymakers and justice practitioners are increasingly focused on reducing reoffending, reserving court resources for the most serious cases, and delivering proportionate outcomes for low-level offences. While the underlying goals are similar, the structure, governance, and implementation of diversion systems differ in meaningful ways.

Examining these differences offers valuable insight into how data, technology, and policy design can strengthen diversion outcomes in both jurisdictions.

Shared Objectives, Different Frameworks

At a high level, UK and US diversion systems are aligned in purpose. Both aim to:

• Reduce unnecessary criminalisation

• Promote accountability and rehabilitation

• Alleviate pressure on courts and custodial systems

• Improve long-term public safety outcomes

However, the pathways to achieving these goals reflect each country’s legal framework, governance model, and operational culture.

Diversion in the UK: OoCR as a Nationally Guided Framework

In the UK, diversion largely operates through Out of Court Resolutions (OoCR), including community resolutions, conditional cautions, and diversionary conditions. These outcomes are primarily police-led, with increasing emphasis on consistency, proportionality, and victim confidence.

Key characteristics of the UK approach include:

• National guidance with local delivery

The Ministry of Justice and College of Policing provide frameworks and codes of practise, while individual forces retain discretion in programme design and implementation.

• Early intervention focus

OoCR is often applied at the earliest stage of the justice process, aiming to resolve cases quickly and prevent escalation.

• Growing emphasis on data and scrutiny

Recent reforms have increased expectations around recording, auditing, and reporting OoCR decisions to ensure fairness and accountability.

While this model promotes flexibility and speed, it also places pressure on forces to maintain consistent standards and robust oversight across regions.

Diversion in the US: Prosecutor-Led and Programme-Driven

In the United States, diversion programmes are typically led by prosecutors and courts rather than police, and they operate within a highly decentralised justice system. Programmes may include pre-trial diversion, deferred prosecution, speciality courts, and alternative sentencing options.

Common features of the US approach include:

• Strong prosecutorial control

District Attorneys often define eligibility criteria, programme conditions, and completion requirements.

• Highly structured programmes

Many diversion initiatives involve formal enrolment, mandated courses, compliance monitoring, and completion certification.

• Extensive performance measurement

US agencies frequently track metrics such as completion rates, recidivism, cost savings, and demographic outcomes to justify funding and policy decisions.

This structure supports detailed outcome analysis but can introduce complexity and administrative burden if systems are not well integrated.

What the UK Can Learn from the US

The US experience highlights the value of systematic performance measurement and programme transparency. In particular:

• Outcome-driven evaluation

Tracking long-term outcomes, such as reoffending rates and programme completion, strengthens confidence in diversion as a public safety tool.

• Standardised reporting

Clear metrics allow agencies to compare programmes, identify best practise, and demonstrate value to funders and oversight bodies.

• Technology-enabled oversight

Purpose-built platforms reduce manual administration and support real-time visibility into participant progress.

As UK OoCR frameworks continue to mature, adopting more structured reporting and analytics can help forces demonstrate consistency and effectiveness without sacrificing local flexibility.

The Common Denominator: Data and Reporting

Despite structural differences, both systems increasingly rely on data to guide decision-making. Effective diversion, whether UK OoCR or US prosecutor-led programmes, depends on the ability to answer fundamental questions:

• Who is being diverted, and for what offences?

• Are participants completing requirements?

• Do outcomes differ by programme type or demographic group?

• Is diversion reducing reoffending and system costs?

Without reliable reporting and analytics, these questions remain difficult to answer, limiting policy confidence and programme sustainability.

The comparison between UK and US diversion systems underscores a shared truth: diversion works best when it is measurable, transparent, and supported by the right infrastructure. While legal frameworks and operational models differ, both jurisdictions are moving toward data-driven justice that prioritises outcomes over process.

Contact Diversion Manager

Diversion Manager supports your force with our fully functional platform configurable to accommodate Out of Court Resolution programmes with advanced workflow, communication, reporting, and integration with your case management system. Contact us today if you’d like to set a meeting to learn more about Diversion Manager or to schedule a demo.