New analysis indicates that police-led drug diversion schemes, which guide individuals away from the criminal justice system and into support services, are substantially more successful in reducing reoffending than traditional prosecution methods. A comprehensive four-year study, encompassing more than 62,000 criminal incidents across 13 English police forces, found that individuals whose cases were handled through these decriminalisation-style schemes were approximately one-third less likely to reoffend compared to similar individuals prosecuted for drug possession offences.
The research, led by Professor Alex Stevens, acting director of the University of Sheffield’s Centre for Criminological Research, provides robust evidence supporting the wider adoption of these schemes. While some police forces, including Durham, the West Midlands, and Thames Valley, have formal diversion programmes in place, many others continue to favour a more conventional law-and-order approach to illegal drug use, even though simple possession offences rarely lead to imprisonment today. Professor Stevens stated that the evidence is now compelling enough for all police forces to confidently implement and expand diversion schemes for those caught with drugs.
Funded by the Cabinet Office’s evaluation accelerator fund, this first-of-its-kind study collected quantitative data over four years, focusing on a cohort of individuals contacted by police forces between October 2021 and September 2022. The researchers are now working with the National Police Chiefs’ Council (NPCC) and the College of Policing to facilitate the countrywide adoption of police-led drug diversion. Commander Alison Heydari, the NPCC lead for out-of-court resolutions, highlighted the study's findings as a testament to diversion's effectiveness, aligning with the 'national OOCR strategy' to offer appropriate alternatives to prosecution and address outcome disparities.
Despite the proven benefits, the study also revealed that diversion schemes are underused. Even in forces with established programmes, only a minority of eligible cases are diverted, with officers often opting not to divert offenders who qualify. Professor Stevens suggested that greater use of diversion could reduce police costs and alleviate pressure on the courts. Achieving this, he noted, would require clear leadership, proper training, and a cultural shift at the street level. Jason Kew, a former DCI at Thames Valley Police instrumental in developing their pre-arrest drug diversion scheme, further suggested that forces could develop specialist pathways for women, leading to fewer women in custody and stronger communities.
The report also highlighted concerning disparities in the application of these schemes. It found that individuals in the most deprived neighbourhoods experienced the heaviest policing and were least likely to be diverted. Furthermore, Black people were less likely to be diverted than White people for similar offences. Professor Kojo Koram from Loughborough University's law school noted that statistics consistently show Black and minority ethnic individuals are punished at a much higher rate than White people across all stages of the drug policing process, despite similar rates of drug use. While diversion schemes represent a crucial first step away from criminalisation and towards addressing overcrowded prisons, Professor Koram suggested they remain a relatively modest policy initiative compared to full decriminalisation and legal regulation.