Campaigners advocating for greater recognition of neurodiversity in the criminal justice system say routine screening of prisoners and tailored rehabilitation could lower crime and produce large economic savings. The proposal has been advanced by a Birkenhead-based welfare business that works with neurodiverse people and disabilities.
Claims and evidence cited by campaigners
Roger Broadbent, co-founder of the organisation behind the campaign, has drawn on official inspection material and independent research to argue that a substantial proportion of people in custody are neurodiverse and that targeted measures would reduce reoffending.
“Neurodiverse teenagers from low-income backgrounds are a magnet for criminal networks. They are more likely to have lower self-confidence, which makes them easier to groom and coerce into criminal activity. Once they become part of a criminal system, they’re more likely to stay within it unless they are given support to steer them away from it,”
Broadbent also told organisers he believed support while in prison could prevent repeat offending, saying on average "70% of them will continue to reoffend until they reach maturity" unless given help on release.
Numbers cited
The campaign references a government inspection report and third-party research when setting out its scale and rationale:
- ~50% — the proportion of the prison population described as neurodiverse in the Criminal Justice Joint Inspection (CJJI) report, according to the campaigners.
- 80% — the proportion of children in the criminal justice system identified as neurodivergent or as having special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) in research by The Michael Sieff Foundation.
- 70% — the campaigners' assertion for the rate at which young neurodiverse people will reoffend until maturity unless supported.
- 10% and £17 billion — the projected reduction in overall crime and annual economic savings the campaign argues would flow from the introduction of practical support measures.
| Measure | Figure cited |
|---|---|
| Prison population neurodiversity (CJJI) | 50% |
| Children in justice who are neurodivergent/SEND | 80% |
| Average alleged reoffending among young neurodiverse people | 70% |
| Projected crime reduction from interventions | 10% |
| Projected annual economic saving | £17 billion |
Proposed approach
The campaign sets out a pragmatic pathway intended to be cost-effective and operationally straightforward. It proposes that all people entering custody should be screened for a wide range of neurodivergent characteristics and that policy should mandate structured pathways to reduce the risk of reoffending.
Measures recommended include bespoke skills development during sentences, with a focus on practical digital and financial literacy on release. Broadbent says the approach would ensure neurodiverse individuals left custody with basic IT skills, a bank account and an email address — practical steps argued to reduce vulnerability to criminal exploitation.
Engagement with international forums
Broadbent is due to set out these arguments at an international summit later this year. He will appear at the Neurodiversity Summit at Stanford University in September, where he is scheduled to advise attendees on systemic changes within custodial settings that, he says, could cut crime rates.
Campaigners stress that many neurodiverse people have not received formal diagnoses and say official estimates may understate the scale of need. They argue that recognising neurodiversity as a factor in offending patterns would allow authorities to design interventions that protect vulnerable people and potentially reduce pressure on the prison system.
Officials and ministers have not been quoted in the campaign material released so far. Any consideration of the proposals would fall to national bodies responsible for prisons and offender rehabilitation, who have in the past emphasised the importance of evidence-based approaches and the practical constraints of implementing system-wide screening and pathways.
The debate intersects with wider policy questions about diagnosis, education, safeguarding and the resources available for probation and prison-based learning. Campaigners say the costs of early intervention would be repaid by lower reoffending and reduced demand on public services, but independent assessment and piloting would be required to test the claims and measure outcomes.
