Download Valuing youth diversion - Making the case

Overview
Key Messages
Research Evidence
The Economic Case
[Local Scheme]
Cost Avoidance
Key Messages
• Most young people engage in risky or illegal
behaviour at some point.
• For some, risky behaviour leads to contact with the
police.
• But the vast majority of these young people will not
go on to become escalating or prolific offenders.
Key Messages
• A first offence is not a
reliable signal of a
future criminal career.
• Most young people
grow out of crime.
Research Evidence
• Formal justice system processing makes young
people more likely to commit crime again.
• Youth diversion generates a range of positive
outcomes for matched groups compared to formal
criminal justice processing.
Research Evidence
• These findings have held
up in the UK and
internationally.
• Justice system
processing for the
wrong population is
counter-productive.
The Economic Case
• Youth diversion is more cost effective than standard
system processing:
– “Immediate” cost avoidance
– Reductions in reoffending
– Earlier access to supports for health, mental health, and
other social service needs
The Economic Case
• Formal justice system processing is an expensive
investment, often with poor returns:
– £3,620: Estimated average cost of a first time entrant (under 18) to the
criminal justice system in the first year following the offence
– £22,995: Estimated average cost of a first time entrant (under 18) to the
criminal justice system, nine years following the offenceports for health,
mental health, and other social service ne
– £113,000,000: Estimated savings if one in ten young offenders were diverted
toward effective support
[Local Scheme]
[Scheme Name]
•
•
•
•
[History]
[Structure]
[Eligibility Criteria]
[Protocol]
[Scheme Name]
• [Scheme] worked with [n] young people in the last
12 months;
• Our engagement rate was [%];
• In the past year, we have worked with the following
partners: […]
[Scheme Name]
• [Case Study]
Cost Avoidance
• Cost avoidance tool assumptions
– Police
– YOT
– Counterfactual
• Unit cost estimates
–
–
–
–
Arrest
Caution
Court
YOT
Scheme referrals
Engaged
Programme Cost
120
100
£65,000
Assumptions
Police Burden
YOT Burden
15%
5%
Counterfactual Split
Caution
Court
97%
3%
Cost Avoidance
Cost Avoidance Estimates
Estimated Costs Avoided
Police
£ 40,366
Disposal
Caution
£ 32,592
Court
£ 16,146
YOT
£ 11,213
TOTAL
£ 100,317
£60,000
£50,000
£40,000
£30,000
£20,000
Break-even point
Cost per diversion
Net benefit
65
£
650
£ 35,317
£10,000
£Police Costs
OOCD/Caution Costs
Court Costs
YOT Costs
Wrap-up
Youth diversion generates a range of positive outcomes;
It’s an approach backed by research evidence;
And it’s cost effective.
[Local scheme] avoided [n] cases in the last year;
We believe this made a valuable impact locally.