National scaling

Combining detailed reference data with local socio-economic information reveal how the size, shape, and needs of the revolving door cohort vary across England.

Person in denim jacket and infinity scarf looking directly at camera

Predicting interventions with the greatest impact

This approach allows predictions for different local authorities, highlighting where interventions could have the greatest impact. The analysis shows this cohort accounts for around 5% of the £23 billion the UK spends on reoffending, likely an underestimate.

Scaling the cohort across England

To identify prolific offender cohorts across England, open-source crime, deprivation and risk factor data was compared with Xantura’s detailed reference Kent dataset, which included both structured and unstructured data on crimes and related unmet needs. The analysis aimed to understand how socio-economic factors, such as deprivation, education, health, income, and substance misuse to understand crime levels in different local authorities.

Using a regression model, multiplying factors were generated for each local authority and crime type (including shoplifting, violent crime, criminal damage and drug offences), alongside a population scaling factor. This produced accurate predictions of cohort size and shape nationally, with model accuracy ranging between 0.66 and 0.74.

To align with the cost methodology, cohorts were grouped by crime type, defining the “revolving door” group as individuals who committed five or more offences over two years. This allowed for a realistic reflection of total offending, recognising that individuals may appear in multiple offence groups. The cost modelling was then applied at local authority level—using Medway, Maidstone, Canterbury and Thanet in Kent as reference points—to produce both upper and lower bounds of cohort size and cost benefit.

The reference cohort sizes and the multiplier factors are used in the calculation:

Output Cohort Size

Reference Cohort Size

Socio-Economic Multiplier

Population Scale Factor

Understanding the calculations

An example of how the model works is shown in the table below, using Canterbury (the upper bound of opportunity) and Birmingham (the largest output cohort) to illustrate the inputs and outputs for a single authority.

Offence

Shoplifting

Violence with Injury

Drug Offences

Criminal Damage

# Repeat Offenders Canterbury (Reference)

Socio-Economic Multiplier

0.590

1.264

1.091

1.183

Population Scale Factor Canterbury <> Birmingham

7.273

Total # Repeat Offenders Birmingham (Output)

399

533

175

Table 2: Showing how the cohorts are calculated for a singular county, in this example, Birmingham.

Graph: This graph shows the 10 largest prolific offender cohort in local authorities across England.

Inevitably, the size of the revolving door cohort in many areas is strongly linked to population, but it is also shaped by wider socio-economic factors. By combining these insights, we can estimate the cost of the cohort in each police force area and identify where the most prolific groups of offenders are likely to be found.

The projections also help to surface outliers – areas where cohort size is significantly higher or lower than population alone would suggest. These exceptions prompt a deeper look at local context and system response, offering valuable clues about what drives demand and where targeted interventions could make the biggest difference.

The cost of the revolving door cohort

A methodology was used to estimate the social and economic costs of crime linked to the revolving door cohort, capturing both the cost across a typical user journey and the national impact. This highlights the strain on public services as well as the personal toll of persistent offending and reoffending.

Cost methodology

This quantitative analysis uses a consistent methodology from a Home Office cost report, breaking down the unit costs of crime into three categories:

Costs in anticipation
of crime

Costs as a consequence
of crime

Costs in response
to crime

All offences of the same type are assumed to have the same social and economic impact, whether first-time or repeat offences. Costs have been updated for inflation to April 2025. To calculate the total cost of crime for any group within the revolving door cohort, both the number of offenders and the number of offences are taken into account, producing a clear estimate of the societal impact.

Economic & Social
Cost of Crime Type

Number of offenders within crime cohort

Average numbers of offences committed per annum

Total cost of crime (Split by anticipation, consequence and response)

Individual User Journey: Costs and Insights

This anonymised user journey follows a 56-year-old man, illustrating both the personal and systemic impact of the revolving door. His story reflects how early vulnerability, fragmented support, and repeated interactions with the justice system can accumulate into significant social and economic costs

Timeline showing costs of youth custody, prison sentences, and legal interventions

Early vulnerability: First arrested at age 10 for criminal damage, escalating to armed robbery by 14. By 15, he had appeared in court five times.‍
Fragmented support: Short-lived interventions included a youth liaison officer and brief psychological support. He was excluded from mainstream education and placed in alternative provision attached to probation services.‍
Custodial history: Entered local authority care for three months at an estimated cost of £450,000, then multiple youth detention periods, including a four-year sentence for GBH. Later, he served three further prison terms between 30 and 45 months.
‍Late intervention: ADHD and Borderline Personality Disorder were only diagnosed and treated in 2010.‍
Supported accommodation: Provided between 2017–2019 at a cost of at least £60,000 over two years.
‍Lifetime public cost: Conservative estimate exceeds £1.4 million.

Every court appearance, custodial sentence, and breach represents a missed opportunity to address underlying needs. This individual’s journey is not unique – it mirrors national patterns seen across the revolving door cohort. The case underscores the value of early, targeted, place-based interventions and joined-up data, showing how timely support can prevent escalation, reduce reoffending, and deliver both economic and human benefits.

Estimating the national socio-economic cost of reoffending

To understand the national impact of the revolving door cohort, a scaling methodology was applied to estimate both the size of the cohort and the volume of offences they commit across four key crime types:

Violence with Injury (ABH, GBH, and Assault Against an Emergency Worker)
Shoplifting
Drug Offences
Criminal Damage

These categories were chosen for their prevalence in the reference cohort and the robustness of the data. The analysis focuses on individuals who have committed these offences, aggregating cohort sizes across four local authorities and using the average to scale the estimates nationally.

Cohort sizes across four local authorities

While other offence types are also common in the revolving door population, focusing on these four allows for a conservative national estimate based on the available reference data. Using the scaling methodology, the size and scale of the national cohort for each key crime type are outlined below:

Size and scale of the national cohort for each key crime type

These projections estimate that the revolving door cohort includes at least 44,000 individuals responsible for over 180,000 crimes in the past year alone. Applying the cost methodology to these four key offence types suggests they generate over £1.18 billion in social and economic costs annually. This includes £246 million in direct costs to the criminal justice and health systems - covering NHS staff, policing, courts, and prisons - as well as wider societal costs such as healthcare, victim support, lost productivity, and community disruption.

Breakdown of cost by offence type

Breakdown of CJS & NHS costs (response costs) by offence type

Response costs of crime by Agency

Cost impact

The revolving door cohort currently accounts for around 5% of the £23 billion the UK spends on reoffending each year - but this is likely a significant underestimate. Accounting for unrecorded crimes, additional offence types, and hidden activity such as repeated shoplifting (which can occur up to 16 times before being recorded), the true cost could be up to £4 billion higher. This means the cohort could represent as much as 23% of the total national cost of reoffending, highlighting the scale of the hidden burden on public services.

The implications are profound. This cohort places repeated strain on police, courts, probation, health, and housing services, while the human impact is equally significant. Many individuals face compounding vulnerabilities, including homelessness, mental health issues, substance misuse, and trauma. Each return to custody or court represents a missed opportunity for early intervention. Proactively identifying and supporting this group could relieve pressure on the system while delivering meaningful outcomes for individuals and communities, demonstrating both the challenge and the potential for transformation.

Black and white directional sign pointing to four cardinal directions

Useful links

Lived experiences

Findings from 20 in-depth interviews with people who have lived through the revolving door of crisis and crime.

Learn more

Smiling middle-aged man in black jacket, black and white portrait

Quantitative findings

Advanced analysis reveals the patterns, unmet needs, and risks driving the revolving door cohort, showing how data can inform smarter, preventative interventions.

Learn more

Young person in striped shirt looking directly at camera in black and white

User journeys

Research revealed clear patterns in the lives of people caught in the revolving door of crime, reflected both in the 20 interviews and in service data.

Learn more

Download the full report

Read more about the research process, key findings, and expert recommendations.

Download the findings

Read the recommendations

Person in beanie sitting on Newton's "Preventing the Revolving Door" report