The following slides are intended to serve as a template for your use with communicating the value of youth diversion. The information is drawn from “Valuing youth diversion: Making the case” available at http://www.justiceinnovation.org. We encourage you to customise this with information specific to your scheme and audience.

Overview Setting the scene Research evidence The economic case [Local scheme] Cost avoidance Provide an overview of the presentation. This is what the presentation will cover: Setting the scene; A summary of the research evidence; The economic case; The operation of [local scheme]; and Our estimate of our local cost avoidance impact.

Setting the scene 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. Begin by orientating the audience, highlighting a few contextual points to set the scene. Most young people engage in risky or illegal behaviour at some point. Most young people are not apprehended following every poor decision. But for some, risky behaviour leads to contact with the police. The vast majority of these young people will not go on to become escalating or prolific offenders.

Setting the scene A first offence is not a reliable signal of a future criminal career. Most young people grow out of crime. Contd A first offence is not a reliable signal of a future criminal career. Most young people grow out of crime. The “age-crime curve” illustrates how incidence of crime decreases as young people mature. Graphic source: Bottoms, Anthony (2006). Crime Prevention for Youth at Risk: Some Theoretical Considerations. Resource Materials Series No. 68.

Research evidence- formal processing Formal justice system processing makes young people more likely to commit crime again. Formal justice system processing for the wrong population is counter-productive. Next, explain the evidence against formal processing. Formal justice system processing for young people involved in low-level and first time offending makes them more likely to commit crime again. The ‘short, sharp shock’ of prosecution causes more crime, not less. An international meta-analysis (a study of multiple outcome studies) shows that prosecution of young people appears to not have a crime control effect, and across all measures appears to increase offending. (Petrosino A, Turpin-Petrosino C, Guckenberg S (2010). Formal System Processing of Juveniles: Effects on Delinquency. Campbell Systematic Reviews). These findings have held up internationally and in the UK (see our toolkit for a wealth of studies to support this). Justice system processing for the wrong population is counter-productive – increasing the probability of further offending, and weakening the system’s capacity to effectively respond to the much smaller number of young people who may actually pose a threat to public safety.

Formal processing- the costs 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 offence £113,000,000: Estimated savings if one in ten young offenders were diverted toward effective support Now set out the costs associated with formal processing. £3,620: Unit Cost Database v1.4, New Economy via National Audit Office (2011). The cost of a cohort of young offenders to the criminal justice system: Technical paper. (Uprated for inflation at 2015/16 prices.) £22,995: National Audit Office (2011). The cost of a cohort of young offenders to the criminal justice system: Technical paper. (Uprated for inflation at 2015/16 prices.) £113,000,000: Audit Commission (2009). Tired of hanging around.

Research evidence- youth diversion Youth diversion generates a range of positive outcomes for matched groups compared to formal criminal justice processing. Having explained why formal processing for this cohort of low-level often first-time offenders is counterproductive, explain why youth diversion is an effective alternative. This is where youth diversion comes in. Youth diversion generates a range of positive outcomes for matched groups compared to formal criminal justice processing. The findings from the meta-analysis found that young people who were prosecuted had higher re-offending rates than those who were diverted, even after controlling for differences between these populations. We consistently find in the evidence that when similar groups of young people, comparable in demographics, offences and offending histories, are matched, and one group processed and one group diverted, the diversion groups do better. These quotes from UK sources, sum up the broad evidence base. (Sources: McAra L, McVie S (2014). Maximum Diversion Minimum Intervention: An Evidence Base for Kilbrandon. Scottish Justice Matters, 2(3), 21-22; Kemp V, Sorsby A, Liddle M, Merrington S (2002). Assessing responses to youth offending in Northamptonshire. Nacro Research briefing 2; House of Commons Justice Committee (2013). Youth Justice: Seventh Report of Session 2012-13).

Youth diversion- the cost savings 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 Now set out the cost saving evidence for youth diversion. Happily, in addition to being the evidenced-based thing to do, youth diversion also makes economic sense. There are at least three ways in which diversion can produce economic benefits: “Immediate” cost avoidance: Averting formal justice system contact (an out of court disposal or a court appearance) avoids some of the costs associated with this processing, including police, prosecution and court time. Reducing reoffending: Youth diversion has been shown to produce better long-term outcomes than standard justice system processing. Earlier access to supports: [Where applicable] Our scheme includes an assessment and the option of making earlier referrals to address unmet service needs, including [examples]

[Local Scheme] Now transition to talking about your specific scheme.

[Scheme Name] [History] [Structure] [Eligibility Criteria] [Protocol] Set out the history, structure, eligibility criteria, and protocol of your scheme.

[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: […] Set out some headline details about your scheme performance over the past year.

[Scheme Name] [Case Study] Provide a short, anonymised narrative case study to illustrate recent work.

Cost Avoidance Cost avoidance tool assumptions Police YOT Counterfactual Unit cost estimates Arrest Caution Court Scheme referrals 120 Engaged 100 Programme Cost £65,000 Assumptions Police Burden 15% YOT Burden 5% Counterfactual Split Caution 97% Court 3% Now monetise the cost avoidance contribution your scheme makes. This is an example output make sure to replace it with your own! To better understand the some of the impact our scheme has locally, we used a cost-avoidance model. This allowed us to estimate cost avoidance through avoiding formal processing over the past year. These assumptions are based on professional estimation of how the operation of the scheme impacts the workload of our partners. Here are the assumptions on which are findings are based: For engaged cases, the scheme reduced police burden by an estimated [%] – through referring cases to us, officers were able to avoid work associated with progressing the case. We estimate that that the scheme lowered the YOT’s burden by [%], because engaged referrals required relatively less staff time. And we estimate a counterfactual – what would have happened without the scheme. This is that the majority of engaged young people, [%], would have received an out of court disposal. The rest, [%], would have gone to court. The tool applies these assumptions to national unit cost estimates [or local estimates where available] For an arrest For a caution For court And for YOT work

Cost Avoidance Next explain the outputs. This is an example output make sure to replace it with your own! We estimate the scheme’s work with young people over the last year led to approximately [£40,000] in costs avoided by the police. The scheme successfully engaged young people who avoided formal criminal disposals and their associated costs. In total, we estimate that the scheme averted approximately [£100,000] in avoided justice system processing costs. Taking into account the cost of running the scheme, we estimate it produced a net benefit of around [£35,000] over the last year

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. To conclude, summarise the key messages. Wrapping up: Youth diversion generates a range of positive outcomes; It’s an approach backed by decades of research; And it makes economic sense. [Local scheme] worked with [n] young people; As you’ve seen, we estimate that this has had a significant positive impact locally.