1. 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
We encourage you to customise this with information specific to your scheme and audience.

2. Overview Key Messages Research Evidence The Economic Case
[Local Scheme]
Cost Avoidance
Here is what the presentation will cover:
A set of key messages about youth diversion;
A summary of the research evidence;
The economic case;
The operation of [local scheme]; and
Our estimate of our local cost avoidance impact

3. 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.
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.

4. Key Messages
A first offence is not a reliable signal of a future criminal career.
Most young people grow out of crime.
Graphic source: Bottoms, Anthony (2006). Crime Prevention for Youth at Risk: Some Theoretical Considerations. Resource Materials Series No. 68.
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.

5. 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.
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.
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.

6. Research Evidence
These findings have held up in the UK and internationally.
Justice system processing for the wrong population is counter-productive.
Petrosino A, Turpin-Petrosino C, Guckenberg S (2010). Formal System Processing of Juveniles: Effects on Delinquency. Campbell Systematic Reviews.
McAra L, McVie S (2014). Maximum Diversion Minimum Intervention: An Evidence Base for Kilbrandon. Scottish Justice Matters, 2(3),
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

7. 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
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. [We will look at this more specifically a bit later.]
Reducing reoffending: Youth diversion has been showen 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]

8. 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
£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.

9. [Local Scheme]
Transitioning to our scheme specifically

10. [Scheme Name] [History] [Structure] [Eligibility Criteria] [Protocol]
Insert details

11. [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: […]
Insert details

12. [Scheme Name] [Case Study]
Short, anonymised narrative case study chose to illustrate recent work

13. Cost Avoidance Cost avoidance tool assumptions Unit cost estimates
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%
[Example output - Replace 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

14. Cost Avoidance
[Example output - Replace with your own; review “Communicating Results” in guidance document]
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

15. 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.
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.