A new report published by the thinktank Civitas claims that increasing the length of prison sentences for burglary and fraud reduces offending. But this simple analysis hides a much more complicated problem. According to the Civitas research, increasing the average sentence for burglary by one month would reduce offending by about 0.5%. In our experience at Nacro, all that prison does in these cases is to delay the next offence from taking place. A slightly longer sentence just means a slightly longer delay in reoffending. We already know from other research that short-term prison sentences don't reduce reoffending, particularly for serious repeat offenders. We also know that the length of custodial sentences has been increasing significantly over the past decade with no causal link to a reduction in reoffending. It concerns me that the findings from this research are being used by some to advocate longer sentences in order to reduce crime. At Nacro, we believe much more can be done to radically reduce crime and make communities safer; to do this, we must get to the root of offending behaviour and stop people reoffending. We don't argue this to be controversial or because we are on the side of the criminal. We argue this because our sole focus as a charity is to reduce crime and reduce the number of victims of crime. If prison were the answer to high reoffending rates, particularly for acquisitive crime, we would argue for more prisons. But the evidence clearly points us in