Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
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.