Strengths-based support is the real antidote to knife crime

By Steph Roberts-Bibby, Chief Executive Officer, Youth Justice Board for England and Wales

For anyone looking closely at serious violence, it soon becomes clear that long before a child holds a knife, a complex chain of adult and institutional failures has taken place.

If we are genuinely committed to eradicating knife crime across London's boroughs and beyond, we must look beyond reactive enforcement and tackle the root causes that leave children vulnerable to exploitation and at risk of being harmed. We must embrace the evidence base, recognise the potential in all children and provide joined-up tailored support long before a crisis occurs.

Vulnerability and knife crime – a detailed picture

Recent analysis published by the Ministry of Justice¹ detailing the education and social care backgrounds of children who enter the justice system reinforces what practitioners across youth justice, education, health, social care and the police have long known. Children cautioned or sentenced for offences are among the most vulnerable in our society. They are children living with unaddressed needs, histories of school exclusion, persistent absenteeism, unidentified neurodivergence, and early contact with children’s social care.

The numbers from the Ministry of Justice analysis paint a picture of systemic disconnect.

65% of children cautioned or sentenced for a knife offence had received Special Educational Needs (SEN) support at some point in their schooling, compared with 38% of the general pupil population. While 4% of the overall pupil population hold an Education, Health and Care (EHC) plan for complex needs, that figure jumps to 22% for children cautioned or sentenced for knife offences. This is more than five times the rate of their peers. Among children with SEN who were cautioned or sentenced for knife offences, a staggering 70% were identified with Social, Emotional, and Mental Health (SEMH) compared to 23% across the general SEN pupil population.

These statistics do not show that special educational needs cause crime. Rather, they demonstrate that unmet needs create vulnerability. 

When we examine the journey of a neurodivergent child who enters the justice system, we consistently find common, preventable barriers. Neurodivergent traits may go unrecognised during early primary school years. Frustration or processing delays may therefore be mistaken for defiance or aggression. The system often responds with punitive measures such as suspensions and ultimately exclusion. This can lead to isolation and greater susceptibility to peer pressure, grooming, and criminal exploitation.

When we exclude a child from mainstream education, we sever their access to safe structures, positive adult role models, and prosocial peer groups. We push them to the margins, creating a vacuum that criminal networks and exploiters are all too eager to fill.

From stigma to strengths

As Professor Amanda Kirby highlighted in her landmark report Neurodiversity - A Whole-Child Approach for Youth Justice², at least one in three people moving through the justice system is neurodivergent. This is double the rate in the general population.

To break this cycle, we must move away from a rigid, one-size-fits-all approach. A child’s neurodivergence should be understood and accommodated. At the Youth Justice Board, our guiding principle is the Child First decision-making framework . 

This evidence-based strategy means seeing the child first and recognising their unique developmental stage, experiences, and potential. It guides practitioners to build on the child’s individual talents, interests, and positive relationships rather than focusing solely on risk or deficit. By helping them construct a positive self-image and a meaningful path forward, the child can move away from labels that lock them into a criminal trajectory. 

In the YJB’s case management guidance⁴, we advocate that support plans must be developed with the child, not just for them. Interventions should directly link to a child’s future aspirations - whether in creative arts, sports, vocational trades, or technology. When a child sees a viable, positive future for themselves, the appeal or perceived necessity of carrying a weapon drastically diminishes.

In that guidance, we also advise practitioners on how to adapt their work for a child with mental health needs. This is because evidence suggests that trauma-informed and relationship-based approaches help to build trust and engagement. They encourage children to talk about the issues that are concerning them and help them cope with their anxieties - as well as ensuring they get the right level of professional support. This is very important because The Youth Endowment Fund⁵ has identified that a significant factor behind serious violence is Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACE). We recognise that many children involved in violence are sometimes victims themselves. This requires a nuanced response that addresses both children’s needs and their actions.

The importance of early intervention

Minimising formal justice system contact wherever possible is crucial, which means making good use of early intervention and diversion. HM Inspectorate of Probation⁶ has called for greater national consistency in how diversion is used, and we will continue to work with our partners to support this. This includes our work with the Metropolitan Police to extend its Deferred Prosecution Scheme to selected knife possession offences. 

Government guidance published in 2026 now expects all police forces to make deferred prosecution available for selected child knife possession cases where it is appropriate and prosecution or a Youth Conditional Caution would not be suitable. Since April 2026, these cases are recorded nationally under the new Outcome 23.

This individualised approach is also reflected in the National Police Chiefs’ Council’s (NPCC) Child Gravity Matrix, which guides police decision-making for children and has been developed in coordination with the YJB. For knife possession offences, it specifically asks decision-makers to consider whether the child was influenced by bullying, peer pressure, coercion, manipulation or exploitation. More broadly, the Matrix identifies factors including neurodiversity, speech, language and communication needs, and vulnerability to exploitation as relevant when deciding the appropriate response. These factors do not remove a child's responsibility for their actions, but they help ensure that decisions take proper account of the child's circumstances, needs and level of culpability.

Education sits at the heart of serious violence prevention. Schools must be equipped and resourced to adopt inclusive models and address bullying. Treating neurodivergence or SEMH needs with disciplinary exclusions exacerbates the very vulnerabilities that may lead to knife crime. Early identification of needs, accessible classroom materials, sensory-friendly spaces, and staff trained in neurodivergence are some of the ways that children can be prevented from falling through the cracks.

The Youth Endowment Fund⁷  recently published new analysis showing that children who were bullied between the ages of 8 and 12 were one and a half times more likely to carry a weapon at age 15 than those not involved in bullying — even after accounting for family and neighbourhood factors. Children who bully others showed stronger associations with later violence, especially those involved in repeated or physical bullying. This reinforces the value of evidence based anti bullying approaches in schools and early identification of children who may need targeted support.

Working towards joined-up solutions

Youth justice services cannot work in isolation. Local authorities, health providers, police, and grass-roots community organisations must share data and insights earlier. By spotting persistent absence or emotional distress early, agencies can intervene together before a child experiences exploitation or harm.

It is simply unacceptable that a child is more likely to be criminalised because their brain works differently. Thanks to incredible multi-agency partnership work that aligns with these principles we have seen real progress in recent years, including historical reductions in first-time entrants and fewer children in custody. But, to ensure a truly equitable system, these evidence-based learnings must also be fully embedded across education, social care, health, and policing. A sector-wide culture of professional curiosity and responsibility will support frontline practitioners to challenge, escalate and tenaciously persist where concerns remain. This is the best route to achieve safer outcomes for children, victims and communities.

References:

[1] Patterns of education, social care and youth offending - GOV.UK published 14 May 2026
[2] Neurodiversity – a whole-child approach for youth justice (Professor Amanda Kirby, HM Inspectorate of Probation 2021).
[3] A guide to Child First (Youth Justice Board, 2022)
[4] Case management guidance - Guidance - GOV.UK
[5] Youth Endowment Fund: Adverse and positive childhood experiences and their associations with children’s involvement in violence: analyses of data from the Millennium Cohort Study.
[6] 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
[7] The association between bullying and violent crime  | Youth Endowment Fund
‍