Proven Re-offending Statistics Quarterly Bulletin  
January to December 2009, England and Wales 
 
Ministry of Justice Statistics bulletin 

## Contents

 
Page 
 
Introduction  
4 Executive Summary 
 
7 
 
15 
Chapter 1 - Overall proven re-offending rates 
22 
Chapter 2 - Adult proven re-offending rates 
26 
Chapter 3 - Juvenile proven re-offending rates 
30 
Chapter 4 - Proven re-offending by index disposal (sentence type), Prison and Probation Trust 
39 
List of quarterly tables 
42 
Annex A: How the measure has changed and the effect of these changes 
57 
Appendix A: Glossary of terms Explanatory notes 
64 
. 

## Introduction

The Proven Re-offending Statistics Quarterly bulletin is a new Ministry of Justice publication which provides key statistics on proven re-offending in England and Wales. It gives proven re-offending figures for offenders, who were released from custody, received a non-custodial conviction at court, received a caution, reprimand, warning or tested positive for opiates or cocaine between January and December 2009.  Proven re-offending is defined as any offence committed in a one year follow-up period and receiving a court conviction, caution, reprimand or warning in the one year follow up or a further six months waiting period. This is referred to as a proven re-offence. This report merges 6 previous measures of re-offending which were split across many publications into a single coherent overview of proven reoffending for the first time. It is a significant step forward for measuring reoffending as for the first time users can: 

 get figures for the total number of proven re-offenders in an area and 
the total number of offences they commit in a year; 
 see re-offending rates for adults, juveniles, drug misusing and prolific 
offenders measures on a consistent basis both nationally and locally; 
 measure individual prison and probation level re-offending on a 
consistent basis. 
 This report presents the proportion of offenders who re-offend (proven reoffending rate) and the number of proven re-offences those offenders commit by age group, gender, ethnicity, criminal history, offence type, serious proven re-offending, prolific and priority offenders and drug misusing offenders. Also included are proven re-offending rates for different types of sentence and by individual prison, probation trust and youth offending team. Latest figures for 2009 are provided with comparisons to 2008, results are also compared to 2000 to highlight long-term trends; 2000 is the earliest reoffending data that exists on a comparable basis. The accompanying 
'Definitions and Measurement' document gives more information. www.justice.gov.uk/publications/statistics-and-data/reoffending/provenreoffending-quarterly.htm Measuring proven re-offending There is no agreed international standard for measuring and reporting reoffending. An offender's journey through the justice system can be a complex one; offenders can appear on numerous occasions. Measuring true re-offending is difficult. Official records are taken from either the police or courts, but they will underestimate the true level of re-offending because only a proportion of crime is detected and not all crimes are recorded on one central system. Other methods of measuring re-offending, such as self report studies, are likely to be unreliable. Therefore this report aims to measure proven re-offending. 

Since re-offending is now measured on a consistent basis across all groups it is possible to tailor analysis of re-offending to meet specific requirements.  
This report and the accompanying 'Early Estimates of proven re-offending' www.justice.gov.uk/publications/statistics-and-data/reoffending/provenreoffending-quarterly.htm present measures on three different levels to meet users needs: 

 The headline measure - this is the main measure of re-offending and is 
presented for different demographic groups and by offence. To provide 
this **overview of proven re-offending**, offenders are tracked and their proven re-offending behaviour is recorded, taking the **first event**1 in 
the **relevant period** as the start point and subsequent events as 
proven re-offences.  
 
 A headline measure where the first event is related to criminal justice 
and offender management - this provides a realistic and relevant view 
of proven re-offending by disposal (sentence type), prison and probation trust. Offenders are tracked and their proven re-offending 
behaviour is recorded **within** each disposal (caution, court order, 
discharge from prison, etc) or operational unit (prison or probation 
trust) taking the first event **within** each as the start point and 
subsequent events as re-offences.  
 
 Early estimates of re-offending - these use shorter follow-up and 
waiting periods but otherwise measure re-offending in exactly the same way as the headline measure. This is intended to provide offender 
managers feedback on the proven re-offending trends of offenders they 
are working with in time for them to adjust or build on offender management operational policy.  
 For a more detailed explanation, please see the accompanying 'Definitions and Measurement' document at www.justice.gov.uk/publications/statisticsand-data/reoffending/proven-reoffending-quarterly.htm Differences in data compared to previous publications This new measure has been developed in response to public consultation (see below). It is a single measure of proven re-offending which reflects the need to provide a complete picture of re-offending which is easily understood by all. The new framework creates far more flexibility to break the data down into offender groups of interest. As such, this measure is substantially different from the previous National Statistics on adult re-convictions and juvenile re-offending. These differences are mainly due to: 

 the inclusion of a wider range of offenders  
 measuring re-offending based on offenders identified across a whole year 
rather than only one quarter of a year 
 measuring proven re-offending for all offenders rather than just reconvictions for adults 
 For more detail and a summary of the differences between the results please refer to Annex A Consultation This report has been developed in response to a consultation in late 2010 and early 2011 by the Ministry of Justice on "Improvements to Ministry of Justice Statistics". The main points from the consultation that affect this publication can be found in Annex A. Users The contents of the report will be of interest to government policy makers, the agencies responsible for offender management at both national and local levels, providers, practitioners and others who want to understand more about proven re-offending. 

In particular there are two Ministry of Justice impact indicators2 which will be monitored using results from this report; 

 adult and juvenile re-offending - the percentage of adult and juvenile 
offenders who re-offend, measured quarterly by local authority 
 the percentage of adults released from custody who re-offend measured 
annually, by prison Government policy makers also use these statistics to develop, monitor and 
evaluate key elements of its policies including those on payments by results, legal aid, sentencing guidelines and drug and alcohol policies. Offender management agencies use these statistics to gain a local understanding of the criminal justice system, understand performance and to highlight best practice. Key agencies include; the National Offender Management Service, Youth Justice Board, private and voluntary sector 
providers of prison and probation services and local authorities. 
 
As proven re-offending is related to the characteristics of offenders, the actual 
rate of proven re-offending will depend, in part, on the characteristics of 
2 www.justice.gov.uk/publications/corporate-reports/moj/index.htm This is a new bulletin produced in response to a consultation. The MOJ has addressed the main issues from the consultation. We have separately announced plans for further analysis on proven re-offending rates using a two year follow up period and to develop a measure of re-offending while on license under probation supervision for publication in May 2012. 

 
If you have any feedback, questions or requests for further information about this statistical bulletin, please direct them to the appropriate contact given at the end of this report. 

Executive Summary This report provides key statistics on proven re-offending in England and Wales. It gives proven re-offending figures for offenders who were released from custody, received a non-custodial conviction at court, received a caution, reprimand, warning or tested positive for opiates or cocaine between January and December 2009.  Proven re-offending is defined as any offence committed in a one year follow-up period and receiving a court conviction, caution, reprimand or warning in the one year follow up. Following this one year period, a further 6 months is allowed for cases to progress through the courts. 

Between January and December 2009, there were just under 700,0003 
offenders who were cautioned4, convicted (excluding immediate custodial sentences) or released from custody5. Just over 180,000 of these offenders committed a proven re-offence within a year. This gives a one-year proven reoffending rate of 26.3 per cent. These re-offenders committed an average of 2.79 offences each - around 510,000 offences in total - 79 per cent were committed by adults and 21 per cent were committed by juveniles. 

- 
Just over half of these offences were committed by offenders with 11 or 
more previous offences.  
- 
0.7 per cent (around 3,400) were serious violent/sexual proven reoffences. 
Recent Changes Between 2008 and 2009, the proven re-offending rate decreased slightly from 26.9 per cent to 26.3 per cent. This trend held across most sub-groups looked at. Between 2008 and 2009, the average number of proven re-offences per reoffender decreased by 3.3 per cent from 2.89 to 2.79.  
quarterly.htm This means that numbers of offenders in this bulletin will be different from the numbers published in the Offender Management Caseload Statistics www.justice.gov.uk/publications/statistics-and-data/prisons-and-probation/oms-quarterly.htm. 

and Criminal Justice Systems statistics  www.justice.gov.uk/publications/statistics-anddata/criminal-justice/criminal-justice-statistics.htm 
4 Includes reprimands and warnings for juveniles 
5 Also includes those who tested positive for opiates or cocaine 

Percentage 
change 2008 
to 20091
Percentage 
change 2000 
to 20091
2000
2008
2009
All Offenders
Proportion of offenders who re-offend (%) Average number of re-offences per re-offender
Proportion of offenders who re-offend - Adjusted to baseline2 (%) (predicted 
Average number of re-offences per offender (frequency rate) Number of re-offences Number of re-offenders
Number of offenders in cohort
27.9
26.9
26.3
-1.6pp ↓
-0.6pp ↓
3.37
2.89
2.79
-17.3% ↓
-3.3% ↓
25.5
26.9
27.1
-
-
0.94
0.78
0.73
-21.9% ↓
-5.6% ↓
579,770
571,469
511,668
-11.7% ↓
-10.5% ↓
171,935
197,958
183,382
6.7% ↑
-7.4% ↓
617,024
735,527
697,362
13.0% ↑
-5.2% ↓
Proportion of offenders who re-offend (%) Average number of re-offences per re-offender
Proportion of offenders who re-offend - Adjusted to baseline2 (%) (predicted 
Number of re-offences Average number of re-offences per offender (frequency rate)
Number of re-offenders
Number of offenders in cohort
Adult offenders
26.2
25.4
24.9
-1.2pp ↓
-0.5pp ↓
3.39
2.93
2.80
-17.4% ↓
-4.4% ↓
23.6
25.4
25.7
-
-
0.89
0.75
0.70
-21.3% ↓
-6.3% ↓
423,989
439,539
402,409
-5.1% ↓
-8.4% ↓
125,023
150,067
143,715
15.0% ↑
-4.2% ↓
477,698
589,948
576,255
20.6% ↑
-2.3% ↓
Proportion of offenders who re-offend (%)
Average number of re-offences per re-offender
Proportion of offenders who re-offend - Adjusted to baseline2 (%) (predicted 
Average number of re-offences per offender (frequency rate)
Number of re-offences
Number of re-offenders
Number of offenders in cohort
Juvenile offenders
33.7
32.9
32.8
-0.9pp ↓
-0.1pp ↓
3.32
2.75
2.75
-17.1% ↓
0.0% →
32.0
32.9
33.5
-
-
1.12
0.91
0.90
-19.3% ↓
-0.4% ↓
155,781
131,930
109,259
-29.9% ↓
-17.2% ↓
46,912
47,891
39,667
-15.4% ↓
-17.2% ↓
139,326
145,579
121,107
-13.1% ↓
-16.8% ↓

1. pp = percentage point and percentage changes may not add up due to rounding of raw figures 2. See the definitions and measurement paper for an explanation on how to use and interpret the predicted rate.

## Longer Term Changes In The Longer Term, Between 2000 And 2009, The Proven Re-Offending Rate Fell Overall From 27.9 Per Cent To 26.3 Per Cent. The Rate:

- 
fell a similar amount for both adults and juveniles 
- 
fell for offenders commencing court orders, for offenders discharged 
from prison, for those given reprimands, warnings and first tier 
penalties6, but rose for cautions, fines, discharges and youth 
community penalties. 
- 
fell for offenders aged 15 to 29 and rose for all other age groups. 
- 
fell more for adult women (-2.5 percentage points) than adult men (-0.8 
percentage points). 
 Between 2000 and 2009 the average number of proven re-offences per reoffender fell from 3.37 to 2.79, a fall of 17.3%.  
                                                 

 Re-offending by age In 2009, as in previous years, 15 to 17 year olds had the highest proven reoffending rate at 34.3 per cent (Table 3). The proven re-offending rate falls with increasing age (after 15-17) as shown in Figure 1. Between 2000 and 2009, the proven re-offending rate rose for 10-14 year olds and for those aged 30 or more, but fell for offenders aged 15 to 29. The largest decreases in the average number of re-offences per re-offender were among those aged in the 21-24 age group (of around 25 per cent).  
 

 Previous offences Offenders with a large number of previous offences have a higher rate of proven re-offending and this is true for both adults and juveniles. Compared to 2000 the largest decrease in the proven re-offending rate was among offenders who had 7 or more previous offences (-3.8 percentage points): 
 

 Adult offenders with 11 or more previous offences represented just 
over a quarter (27.8 per cent) of adult offenders in 2009 but committed 
almost two thirds of all adult proven re-offences.  
 
 For juveniles, there were 5,800 offenders with 11 or more previous 
offences and they had a proven re-offending rate of 76.8 per cent. This group make up only 4.8 per cent of juvenile offenders in 2009 but 
committed almost a fifth of all juvenile proven re-offences. 
 Re-offending by Index offence The offence that leads to a offender being included in the relevant year is called the index offence. In 2009, as in most previous years, domestic burglary had the highest proven re-offending rate at 48.1 per cent (Table 5c) with sexual (child) offences the lowest at 9.8 per cent. The largest decrease between 2000 and 2009 in the proven re-offending rate was for soliciting and prostitution, a decrease of 18.6 percentage points while other motoring offences had the second largest decrease of 9.7 percentage points. Adult proven re-offending In 2009, there were around 580,000 adult offenders3. Just over 140,000 of these offenders were proven to have committed a re-offence within a year. This gives a one year proven re-offending rate of 24.9 per cent. The average number of proven re-offences committed by these re-offenders was 2.80. Since 2008, there has been a slight decrease in the proven re-offending rate of 0.5 percentage points from 25.4 per cent. Overall there was a 1.2 percentage point decrease in the proven re-offending rate between 2000 and 2009 (from 26.2 to 24.9 per cent). However compared to 2000 the offenders in 2009 had characteristics which meant they were more likely to re-offend. This means that after controlling for offender characteristics the decrease was larger at 3.4 percentage points. 


 
 

## Proven Re-Offending Rates For Offenders Discharged From Prison Or Commencing A Court Order In 2009, There Were Around 200,000 Adult Offenders3 Who Were Discharged From Prison Or Commenced A Court Order. Just Over 72,000 Of These Offenders Were Proven To Have Committed A Proven Re-Offence Within A Year. This Gives A One Year Proven Re-Offending Rate Of 36.2 Per Cent. The Average Number Of Proven Re-Offences Committed By These Re-Offenders Was 3.27. Overall There Was A 4.7 Percentage Point Decrease (From 40.9 To 36.2) In The Proven Re-Offending Rate Between 2000 And 2009 And A 20.8 Per Cent Decrease (From 4.13 To 3.27) In The Average Number Of Proven Re-Offences Per Re-Offender.

 
Prisoner's proven re-offending In 2009, around 64,000 adult offenders3 were discharged from custody. Just under 30,000 of these (46.8 per cent) were proven to have committed a proven re-offence within a year. These offenders committed around 120,000 proven re-offences, an average of 4.03 each. Almost 55 per cent of adult offenders discharged from custody were released from sentences of less than 12 months. These offenders had a one year proven re-offending rate of 56.8 per cent an increase of 2.6 percentage points from 2000 (54.3 per cent) Proven re-offending of adults starting court orders  
 
In 2009, just under 110,000 adult offenders3 started a community order. 

Around 39,000 of these (35.6 per cent) committed a proven re-offence within a year. These proven re-offenders committed just under 123,000 proven reoffences, an average of 3.15 proven re-offences each. Similarly, of the 37,000 adult offenders starting a suspended sentence order, 31.0 per cent committed a proven re-offence within a year, committing an average of 2.86 proven reoffences each. Juvenile proven re-offending In 2009, there were just 120,000 juvenile offenders. Just under 40,000 of these offenders were proven to have committed a proven re-offence within a year. This gives a one year proven re-offending rate of 32.8 per cent. The average number of proven re-offences committed by these re-offenders was 
2.75.  
 
Since 2008, there has been a very slight decrease in the proven re-offending rate of 0.1 percentage points from 32.9 per cent. Overall there was a 0.9 percentage point decrease in the proven re-offending rate between 2000 and 2009 (from 33.7 to 32.8 per cent). Compared to 2000 the characteristics of the offenders meant that they were more likely to reoffend in 2009 therefore after controlling for offender characteristics this was a decrease of 2.5 percentage points. Prolific and Priority Offenders (PPO)  
 
Around 8,000 offenders (adult and juvenile) were on the PPO scheme at some point during 2009. Of these just over 6,000 committed a proven reoffence within a year (75.1 per cent). These offenders represented 1.2 
percent of all offenders but were responsible for 5.6 per cent of all proven reoffences committed. The proportion of PPO offenders who committed a proven re-offence decreased by 2.1 percentage points between 2008 and 2009. This compares to a decrease of 1.9 percentage points since the scheme began in 2005. Drug Misusing Offenders (DMO) 
 
Around 53,000 adult offenders were identified as drug misusers at some point during 2009. Of these just over 29,000 committed a proven re-offence within a year (54.7 per cent). These offenders represented 9.2 percent of all adult offenders but were responsible for 27.8 per cent of all proven re-offences committed. 

 
The proportion of drug-misusing offenders who committed a proven re-offence fell slightly between 2008 and 2009 (1.7 percentage points).  Looking longer term there was a decrease of 10.6 percentage points between 2005 and 2009, although most of this change occurred between 2005 and 2006 when there was a large expansion in the drug intervention programme. Iain Bell Chief Statistician 
 
Chapter 1 - Overall proven re-offending rates One of the key changes from previous publications is that we can now present overall proven re-offending rates for offenders aged 10 years and over. Adult and juvenile re-offending rates are presented in subsequent sections. 

Between January and December 20097, there were just under 700,000 
offenders1 who were cautioned8, convicted (excluding immediate custodial sentences) or released from custody. Just over 180,000 of these offenders were proven to have committed a proven re-offence within a year. This gives a one-year proven re-offending rate of 26.3 per cent. These re-offenders committed an average of 2.79 offences each (around 510,000 offences in total) (Table 1). 

Overall, the one year proven re-offending rate fell by 1.6 percentage points from 27.9 per cent in 2000 to 26.3 per cent in 2009. Between 2008 and 2009 
the re-offending rate fell slightly by 0.6 percentage points from 26.9. An adjusted proven re-offending rate based on the 2008 cohort has been developed to control for changes in the composition of the relevant year group which could affect the estimates. It can be applied back to 2000 to measure progress between 2000 and 2009 in the proven re-offending rate after controlling for changes in offender characteristics.9 Compared to 2000 the offenders in 2009 had characteristics which meant they were more likely to re-offend. This means that after controlling for offender characteristics the decrease in the overall one year proven reoffending rate was larger at 3.2 percentage points. Between 2000 and 2009, the overall number of offenders rose by 13 percent, from just under 620,000 in 2000 to just under 700,000 in 2009, while the number of proven re-offences fell by 11.7 per cent, from around 580,000 in 
2000 to just above 510,000 in 2009. The rise in the number of offenders was primarily driven by an increase among adult offenders with an index offence of non-serious violence which has more than doubled from just under 66,000 in 2000 to around 140,000 in 2009, and among offenders who received a caution with an increase of nearly 50 per cent from just over 140,000 in 2000 to just over 210,000 in 2009. The fall in the number of proven re-offences was mainly a result of a fall in the number of proven re-offences committed by juvenile offenders which fell by almost a third (30 per cent), compared to adult offenders, where the number of proven re-offences fell by 5.1 per cent. Between 2000 and 2009 the average number of proven re-offences per reoffender fell from 3.37 to 2.79. 

 

## Age

In 2009, as in previous years, 15 to 17 year olds had the highest proven reoffending rate at 34.3% (Table 3). The proven re-offending rate falls with increasing age (after 15-17) as shown in Figure 3.   
 
Between 2008 and 2009, there was a slight decrease in the proven reoffending rate for most age groups apart from those aged 15-17 or 45 and over, whose re-offending rates rose slightly.  Among those offenders who committed a proven re-offence the average number of proven re-offences fell for offenders aged 15-50 but rose for offenders aged 50 or more. Over the longer-term, between 2000 and 2009, the proven re-offending rate rose for 10-14 year olds and for those aged 30 or more, but fell offenders aged 15 to 29. The largest decreases in the average number of re-offences per re-offender were among those aged in the 21-24 age group (of around 25 per cent). 

Gender 
 
Among the offenders in 2009, 80 per cent (around 560,1003) were males and 
20 per cent (around 140,000) were females.  Just under 160,000 male offenders were proven to have committed a proven re-offence within a year - 
a proven re-offending rate of 28.3 per cent, which was higher than for females 
(18.3 percent or around 26,000 females). This difference was true for both adults (26.7 per cent compared with 17.3 per cent) and for juveniles (36.9 per cent compared to 21.6 per cent), and is similar to previous years. (Table 2) However, on average both male and female adult offenders commit a similar number of proven re-offences each within a year (2.82 and 2.70 on average). Male juveniles, on average, commit slightly more proven re-offences than female juveniles (2.84 compared to 2.38). Previous offences Offenders with a large number of previous offences have a higher rate of proven re-offending and this is true for both adults and juveniles. (Table 6) Compared to 2000 the largest decrease in the proven re-offending rate was among offenders with 7 to 10 previous offences and those with 11 or more previous offences (-3.8 percentage points): 

 46.5 per cent of adult offenders with 11 or more previous offences 
committed a proven re-offence within a year, compared with 8.7 per cent of those who had no previous offences.  Adult offenders with 11 or more previous offences represented just 
over a quarter (27.8 per cent) of offenders in 2009 but committed 
almost two thirds of all proven re-offences.  
 
 For juveniles, there were 5,800 offenders with 11 or more previous 
offences and they had a proven re-offending rate of 76.8 per cent. This group make up only 4.8 per cent of juvenile proven offenders in 2009 
but committed almost a fifth of all re-offences. 
 Trends in proven re-offending across the country Map 1 shows proven re-offending rates by Upper Tier Local Authority. This chart is not controlled for the characteristics of offenders and is designed for users to gain an understanding of what the level of proven re-offending is in their area and how it is changing over time. When comparing between Local Authorities, the differences may be due to: 

 different types of offenders; areas where the offenders have high numbers 
of previous offences are likely to have higher proven re-offending rates 
 police activity; areas with high police detection rates are likely to have 
higher proven re-offending rates  
 age profile of offenders in the area; areas with a younger population are 
likely to have higher proven re-offending rates. 
 When comparing proven re-offending over time within Local Authorities, any significant changes in these factors may affect the comparison. Very few local authorities have shown substantial change compared to the same period last year. The largest decrease was seen in York (4.3 
percentage points), the largest increase was in Darlington (4.5 percentage points). (Table 13) 

## Serious Proven Re-Offending Serious Violent/Sexual Re-Offences10 The Proportion Of Offenders Who Committed A Serious Violent/Sexual Proven Reoffence Is Very Small; Around 3,100 Out Of Just Under 700,000 Proven Offenders3 (0.4 Per Cent) Committed A Serious Re-Offence. Just Over 3,400 Serious Violent/Sexual Proven Re-Offences Were Committed. (Table 8) Serious Acquisitive Re-Offences11

 
The proportion of offenders who committed a serious acquisitive proven reoffence is small; out of just under 70,000 offenders3, around 18,000 (2.7 per cent) committed a serious acquisitive proven re-offence. Just over 27,000 serious acquisitive proven re-offences were committed. The proportion of juvenile offenders who committed a serious acquisitive reoffence was notably higher than for adult offenders (5.4 per cent (around 10,000) compared to 2.1 per cent (around 17,000)). Compared to 2000 the proportion of offenders who committed a serious acquisitive offence fell for both adults and juveniles. However, since 2008 
there has been a slight increase for juvenile offenders, although the proportion of offenders who committed a serious re-offence remains low. All serious re-offences The proportion of offenders who committed a serious proven re-offence is just under 22,000 out of just under 700,000 proven offenders3 (3.1 per cent) 
committed a serious re-offence. Just under 30,000 serious proven re-offences were committed. 

Chapter 2 - Adult proven re-offending  
 
This section provides proven re-offending rates for adults with a section for juveniles to follow. In 2009, there were around 580,000 adult offenders3. Just over 140,000 of these offenders were proven to have committed a proven reoffence within a year. This gives a one year proven re-offending rate of 24.9 
per cent. The average number of proven re-offences committed by these reoffenders was 2.80. (Table 1) 
 

 Changes between 2008 and 2009 Overall there was a 0.5 percentage point decrease (from 25.4 to 24.9) in the proven re-offending rate between 2008 and 2009 and a 4.4 per cent decrease 
(from 2.93 to 2.80) in the average number of proven re-offences per reoffender. Between 2008 and 2009 the proven re-offending rate remained broadly stable for most groups. The largest changes were seen in the following groups:  those with 11 or more previous offences, a fall of 1.3 percentage points. 

 offenders with an index offence of domestic burglary (-3.2 percentage points), soliciting and prostitution (+2.4 percentage points) and theft from vehicles (-3.6 percentage points) 

 offenders discharged from custody, a fall of 2.4 percentage points Changes between 2000 and 2009 Overall there was a 1.2 percentage point decrease (from 26.2 to 24.9) in the 
proven re-offending rate between 2000 and 2009 and a 17.4 per cent 
decrease (from 3.39 to 2.80) in the average number of proven re-offences per 
re-offender. Using the adjusted proven re-offending rate to control for changes in the composition of the relevant year group there was a reduction of 3.4 
percentage points in the proven re-offending rate12. The average number of proven re-offences per re-offender fell more steeply than the proportion who re-offended due to the large fall in proven reoffending among the most prolific offenders. Between 2000 and 2009, the following groups showed the largest changes in proven re-offending rates:  young adults aged 18-24, a fall of 2.9 percentage points 
 females, a fall of 2.5 percentage points  those with 11 or more previous offences, a fall of 3.4 percentage points. 
 offenders with an index offence of domestic burglary (-10.7 percentage 
points), taking and driving away (-11.2 percentage points), soliciting and 
prostitution (-18.5 percentage points) and other offences (+7.7 percentage 
points) 
 offenders commencing court orders, a fall of 3.4 percentage points  offenders discharged from custody, a fall of 2.6 percentage points  
 
Comparison with previous measure The new adult proven re-offending rate includes all people who were released from custody, received a non-custodial conviction at court, or received a caution13 in a full year not just those who started a community sentence or were released from prison in the first quarter of the year (as previously). The previous adult re-conviction measure shows that the one-year reconviction rate among those starting a community sentence or being released from custody was 39.3% in 2009 and had fallen by 0.8 percentage points since 2008 and 3.7 percentage points since 2000 .When controlling for changes in the offender mix this change from 2000 was 4.6 percentage points. Therefore although the proportion identified as re-offenders was higher in the old measure, the trends are similar between both measures. Comparisons between levels of re-offending among those discharged from prison or those starting Court Orders are also broadly similar between both measures. Please see Annex A for more details on the differences between the old measure and the new measure of re-offending. 

Index offence type Table 5a shows that among adults, the highest proportion of offenders who committed a proven re-offence had an index offence of theft from vehicles (a proven re-offending rate of 47.7 per cent), domestic burglary (47.4 per cent) and other burglary (48.1 per cent). The offences with the lowest proven reoffending rates were sexual (child) offences (9.3 per cent), drink driving (12.0 per cent) and fraud and forgery (14.0 per cent). (Table 5a) 
For certain index offences the proven re-offending rate has increased since 2000. The largest increase was for those with a first offence of 'other' - driven by the introduction of Anti-Social Behaviour Orders (ASBO) which when breached lead to a conviction. There were also rises in proven re-offending rates for those with an index offence of sexual offences, public order, theft from vehicles, drugs possession/small scale supply and criminal and malicious damage. 

Re-offence type Table 10 shows that for adult offenders the most common proven re-offence type was theft (23.0 per cent of all proven re-offences) and the second most common was non-serious violence (14.9 per cent).   
The proportion of all proven re-offences which were non-serious violence showed the largest overall increase compared to 2000 (6.6 percentage points from 8.2 to 14.9 of all proven re-offences). The proportion of proven offences which were other motoring offences showed the largest overall decrease since 2000 (9.4 percentage points). This is consistent with findings from the Criminal Justice System Statistics Quarterly. 

www.justice.gov.uk/publications/statistics-and-data/criminal-justice/index.htm In 2009, just under a third (29.3%) of proven re-offences were in the same offence category as the index offence. The categories with the largest proportion in the same category were theft (51.6 per cent), motoring offences (34.2 per cent), sexual offences (31.4 per cent) and public order (31.3 per cent). (Table 11) 
 
  
Chapter 3- Juvenile proven re-offending  
 
In 2009, there were just over 120,0003 juvenile offenders, of whom 32.8 per cent (around 40,000) committed a proven re-offence within one year. Those who committed a proven re-offence committed an average of 2.75 proven reoffences each, just under 110,000 proven re-offences in total. (Table 1) 
 

Changes between 2000 and 2009 Overall, there was a 0.9 percentage point decrease (from 33.7 to 32.8) in the proven juvenile re-offending rate between 2000 and 2009 and a 17.1 per cent decrease (from 3.32 to 2.75) in the average number of proven re-offences per re-offender. Between 2000 and 2009, the following groups saw the largest changes in proven re-offending rates: 
 
- 
Offenders aged 15-17, a fall of 2.1 percentage points 

- 
Juvenile Offenders with 11 or more previous offences (-5.4 percentage 
points) and 1-2 previous offences (-5.2 percentage points) 
- 
offenders with an index offence of  taking and driving away, motoring and 
drink driving all showed decreases of around 7 percentage points, whereas those offenders with an index offence of 'other' increased by 12.7 percentage points 
- 
offenders who had an first tier penalty index disposal  or were discharged 
from custody showed a decrease of around 6 percentage points whereas 
offenders commencing a youth community penalty showed an increase of 5 percentage points 
 Using the adjusted proven re-offending rate to control for changes in the composition of the relevant year group there was a reduction of 2.5 
percentage points in the proven re-offending rate14 between 2000 and 2009. 

Changes between 2008 and 2009 Compared to 2008 the level of juvenile proven re-offending has remained stable, 32.9 per cent compared to 32.8 per cent in 2009. The average number of proven re-offences per re-offender also remained stable at 2.75. However, the number of juvenile proven offenders has decreased by 16.8 per cent. This is in line with the pattern of first time entrants to the criminal justice system where the number of young people receiving their first reprimand, warning or conviction has also decreased. More information on first time entrants for both adults and juveniles can be found in the Criminal Justice System Statistics Quarterly at www.justice.gov.uk/publications/statistics-and-data/criminal-justice/index.htm 
 
The proven re-offending rate remained broadly stable for most juvenile groups between 2008 and 2009. 

                                                 
 
 Comparison with previous juvenile measure The new juvenile proven re-offending rate includes all people who were released from custody, convicted at court, or received a reprimand or warning in a full year not just those in the first quarter of the year (as previously). The previous juvenile re-offending measure showed that one year reoffending rates among those convicted, cautioned or discharged from prison in the first quarter of the year were 36.9% in 2009 and had fallen by 0.4 
percentage points since 2008 and 3.3 percentage points since 2000.  After controlling for changes in the offender mix this change on the previous measure was 4.0 percentage points since 2000. These figures are broadly similar to those based on the new measure.  Please see Annex A for more details on the differences between the old measure and the new measure of re-offending. 

Index offence type Among juveniles, the highest proportion of offenders who committed a proven re-offence had an index offence in the categories of absconding or bail offences (a proven re-offending rate of 64.7 per cent), domestic burglary (49.9 
per cent) and other (42.4 per cent). With the exception of sexual (child) offences, the proportion committing a proven re-offence was higher than 20 per cent for every index offence category. (Table 5b) Compared to 2000, there were a number of categories of index offence that showed an increase in the proportion who commit a re-offence. The largest increase was 'other' (12.7 per cent). As was the case for adult offenders, this increase is mainly the result of the introduction of Anti-Social Behaviour Orders (ASBO) which, when breached, lead to a conviction. 

 
Re-offence type For juveniles the most common proven re-offence was non-serious violence (20.2 per cent) and the second most common was theft (15.9 per cent). (Table 15) 
 
As was the case for adults, the proportion of proven re-offences which were non-serious violence showed the largest overall increase compared to 2000 (7.9 percentage points). In 2009, 22.0 per cent of proven re-offences were in the same offence category as the index offence. The categories with the largest proportion in the same category were theft (28.5 per cent) and non-serious violence (30.3 
per cent). 



Chapter 4- Proven re-offending by index disposal (sentence type), prison and Probation Trust As described in the Introduction, this section presents measures of reoffending related to criminal justice and offender management. To provide a realistic and relevant view of proven re-offending by disposal (sentence type) or prison or probation trust, offenders are tracked and their proven reoffending behaviour is recorded **within** each disposal (caution, court order, discharge from prison, etc) or operational unit (prison or probation trust) taking the first event **within** each as the start point and subsequent events as reoffences. 

Please see 'Definitions and Measurement' for more details. www.justice.gov.uk/publications/statistics-and-data/reoffending/provenreoffending-quarterly.htm Proven re-offending by index disposal (sentence type) The disposal (sentence type) that leads to an offender being included in the relevant year is called the index disposal. This can be an out of court disposal such as a caution15, court conviction (excluding immediate custodial sentences) or discharge from custody that occurs in the relevant period16. Reoffending rates by disposal (sentence type) should not be compared to assess the effectiveness of sentences, as there is no control for known differences in offender characteristics and the type of sentence given. The Compendium of Re-offending Statistics and Analysis 2011 compares like for like offenders which enables a more reliable comparison of proven re-offending rates between offenders receiving different sentences. The key results from the Compendium were: 

 those sentenced to 1 to 2 years in custody had lower re-offending 
rates than those given sentences of less than 12 months - the difference was 4.4 percentage points in 2008 
 custodial sentences of less than 12 months were less effective at 
reducing re-offending than both community orders and suspended 
sentence orders - between 5 and 9 percentage points in 2008. 
 www.justice.gov.uk/publications/statistics-and-data/reoffending/compendiumof-reoffending-statistics-and-analysis.htm 
 
Proven re-offending rates for offenders discharged from prison or commencing a court order The previous measure of adult re-convictions was based on offenders discharged from prison or commencing court orders under probation supervision, i.e. they were or had been in contact with offender management agencies in the relevant year. This section looks at this specific group of offenders. However these results will not be directly comparable with the previous measure. This is because the new measure is based on proven reoffending rather than re-conviction and uses a full year of offenders instead of the first quarter (see Annex A) 
In 2009, there were around 200,000 adult offenders3 who were discharged from prison or commenced a court order. Just over 72,000 of these offenders were proven to have committed a proven re-offence within a year. This gives a one year proven re-offending rate of 36.2 per cent. The average number of proven re-offences committed by these re-offenders was 3.27. 

Overall there was a 4.7 percentage point decrease (from 40.9 to 36.2) in the proven re-offending rate between 2000 and 2009 and a 20.9 per cent decrease (from 4.13 to 3.27) in the average number of proven re-offences per re-offender. 

## Prison Or Commencing A Court Order

| 2000                                                                    |    2002 |    2003 |   2004 |   2005 |   2006 |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------|---------|--------|--------|--------|
| 2007                                                                    | 2008    | 2009    |        |        |        |
| Proportion of offenders who re-offend (%)                               |         |         |        |        |        |
| 40.9                                                                    |   43    |   42.4  |  39.8  |  38.4  |  37.6  |
| Average number of re-offences per re-offender                           |         |         |        |        |        |
| 4.13                                                                    |    4.36 |    4.15 |   3.87 |   3.65 |   3.48 |
| Average number of re-offences per offender (frequency rate)             |         |         |        |        |        |
| 1.69                                                                    |    1.87 |    1.76 |   1.54 |   1.4  |   1.31 |
| Number of offenders in cohort                                           |         |         |        |        |        |
| 148,052 157,243 159,686 163,775 170,021 181,726 190,418 197,035 200,077 |         |         |        |        |        |

 Proven re-offending of adult offenders discharged (released) from prison The figures in this section relate to the proven re-offending of adult offenders released from prison overall. 

In 2009, around 64,000 adult offenders3 were discharged (released) from prison, of whom 46.8 per cent (just under 30,000) committed a proven reoffence within one year.  Those who committed a proven re-offence committed just over 120,000 proven re-offences in total, an average frequency of 4.03 proven re-offences each. (Table 18a and 19) Among offenders discharged from short sentences (less than 12 months), long term trends show that the proportion who committed a proven re-offence increased, but that the average number of offences committed by those reoffenders decreased : 

 the one year proven re-offending rate for this group was 56.8 per cent 
in 2009, an increase of 2.6 percentage points from 2000 (54.3 per cent) 
 the average number of proven re-offences committed per re-offender 
has decreased by 9.9 per cent from 4.99 in 2000 to 4.50 proven reoffences in 2009. 
 However, between 2008 and 2009 the one year proven re-offending rate has decreased by 2.6 percentage points from 59.4 per cent. 

 
Among offenders given any sentence of more than 12 months the proportion who committed a proven re-offence decreased by 7.4 percentage points compared to 2000. The average number of proven re-offences committed per re-offender also decreased and by a larger amount than for the short sentence prisoners (23.5 per cent compared with 9.9 per cent). Adult proven re-offending rates by individual prison Tables 22a and 22b show the number of adult offenders discharged (released) from each prison  and their respective proven re-offending rates for those serving sentences of less than 12 months and those serving sentences of 12 months or more. This takes the first discharge from within each prison as the start point for measuring re-offending and subsequent events as reoffences17.  
 
                                                 
Among prisons which discharged thirty or more offenders in 2009 re-offending rates varied considerably from 10.6 per cent to 87.1 per cent for offenders sentenced to under twelve months and 5.1 per cent to 70.6 per cent for offenders sentenced to more than twelve months. A large part of this variability reflects the mix of offenders who are held in different prisons and therefore comparisons between prisons should not be made using these raw re-offending rates. The Ministry of Justice has developed a model that aims to account for differences in the mix of prisoners to help explain if re-offending rates are affected by the specific prison they are discharged from or if the rate of reoffending reflects the mix of offenders.  For example, a group of prisoners with a high number of previous offences is more likely to re-offend than a group with a low number of previous offences. The model estimates an expected rate of re-offending taking into account the mix of offenders discharged from each prison. If the actual rate is significantly different from the expected rate than this could mean that there is something specific to the prison that is impacting prisoners' proven re-offending behavior. For details of the model please see the 'Definitions and Measurement' document www.justice.gov.uk/publications/statistics-anddata/reoffending/proven-reoffending-quarterly.htm Among prisons discharging prisoners serving sentences of less than 12 
months only three prisons showed significantly different re-offending rates than expected. Wellingborough and Ashkam Grange had lower (better) than expected re-offending rates while re-offending rates for Hindley were higher 
(worse). Among prisons discharging offenders serving sentences of 12 months or more, two prisons showed significantly lower (better) re-offending rates 
(Latchmere house and Askham Grange) than expected and only one (Warren Hill) showed higher (worse). 

 
Proven re-offending of adults starting court orders18 As described previously, the measure of re-offending for adults starting court orders takes the first commencement for each court order as the start point for measuring re-offending and subsequent events as re-offences19.  The figures in this section relate to the proven re-offending of all adult offenders starting court orders, while the following section looks at these figures for individual Probation Trusts. 

In 2009, just under 100,0003 adult offenders started a **community order**. Just under 39,000 of these (35.6 per cent) committed a proven re-offence within a year. These proven re-offenders committed around 123,000 proven reoffences, an average of 3.15 proven re-offences each. Similarly, of the 
37,0001 adult offenders starting a **suspended sentence order**, 31.0 per cent committed a proven re-offence within a year, committing an average of 2.86 further offences each. (Table 20 and 21) The Compendium of Re-offending Statistics and Analysis 2011 compares like for like offenders which enables a more reliable comparison of proven reoffending rates between offenders receiving different sentences.  The results showed that after controlling for differences between offenders, the proven reoffending rate of offenders given short term prison sentences (less than 12 
months) was 8.3 percentage points higher than for similar offenders given Community Orders and 8.8 percentage points higher than for similar offenders given Suspended Sentence Orders (in 2008). www.justice.gov.uk/publications/statistics-and-data/reoffending/compendiumof-reoffending-statistics-and-analysis.htm The proportion of offenders starting community orders who committed a proven re-offence within a year has decreased by 2.2 percentage points since their introduction in 2005. Offenders starting suspended sentence orders showed a larger decrease of 5.3 percentage points. There was some variation in the proven re-offending rates depending on the requirements attached to these orders; this reflects the differing characteristics of offenders receiving each combination of requirements. For both community orders and suspended sentence orders, proven re-offending was lowest among those with a standalone work requirement (25.4 per cent and 17.3 per cent respectively). There was a slight reduction in proven reoffending for most combinations of requirements. Although care should be taken with this comparison as it has yet to be controlled for different mixes of offenders. 

Proven re-offending rates by probation trust Offenders given a Court Order are managed by the probation service which comprises 35 Probation Trusts. Proven re-offending rates of these offenders are presented by Probation Trust in Table 24. This takes the first court order commencement from within each probation trust as the start point for measuring re-offending and subsequent events as proven re-offences. Re-offending rates varied considerably between probation trusts from 28.2 per cent to 43.7 per cent in 2009. A large part of this variability reflects the mix of offenders who are given a Court Order and therefore comparisons between probation trusts should not be made using these raw re-offending rates. 

 
For probation trusts an adjusted proven re-offending rate to control for differences in the composition of the offender group in each trust has been developed from the national model. 

Proven re-offending among juveniles by index disposal 
(sentence) 
 
Among juvenile proven offenders there have been overall reductions in the proportion who committed a proven re-offence for most disposals since 2000. The largest falls have been: 

 Offenders commencing first tier penalties20. There was a decrease of 
5.7 percentage points (from 50.9 per cent to 45.2 per cent).  This was driven by the decrease in the re-offending rates for youth referral 
orders (4.1 percentage points).There was also a slight decrease when 
comparing with the same period last year (0.4 percentage points). 
 Offenders discharged from custodial sentences. There was a decrease 
of 6.3 percentage points (from 76.8 per cent to 70.6 per cent). There was also a slight decrease when comparing the same period last year (1.6 percentage points). 
 
However, for community penalties21 compared to 2000, the proportion of juvenile offenders who committed a proven re-offence has increased by 5.0 
percentage points from 60.5 per cent to 65.6 per cent, although the average number of proven re-offences per proven re-offender has decreased by 19.4 per cent from 4.60 to 3.70 proven re-offences. (Table 18b) 
Proven re-offending rates by YOT Offenders between the ages of 10 and 17 who receive a pre-court disposal or court conviction are managed by Youth Action Teams (YOT). These are made up of representatives from the police, Probation Service, social services, health, education, drugs and alcohol misuse and housing officers. Proven reoffending data are presented by YOT in Table 1722. Re-offending rates varied considerably between YOTs from 21.4 per cent to 46.3 per cent in 2009. A large part of this variability reflects the mix of offenders in a given YOT and therefore comparisons between YOTs should not be made using these raw re-offending rates. Differences between the previously published measures of youth re-offending within Youth Action Teams and the current measure are discussed in Annex A. 

                                                 

Prolific and Priority Offenders (PPO)  
 
The Prolific and Priority Offenders (PPO) scheme targets those who pose the greatest threat to the safety and confidence of their local communities. It allows local partners to concentrate their joint efforts on those people identified locally as causing most harm to their communities23. (Table 16) 
Around 8,000 offenders24 were on the PPO scheme at some point during 
2009. Of these just over 6,000 committed a proven re-offence within a year (75.1 per cent), which is considerably higher than the national rate of 26.3 per cent. The average number of proven re-offences committed by these reoffenders was 4.65 compared to the national figure of 2.79. These differences reflect the profile of offenders who are selected to go onto the scheme. For example, PPO offenders have committed an average of 57.5 previous offences, compared to 10.3 previous offences among offenders in general. These offenders represented 1.2 percent of all offenders but were responsible for 5.6 per cent of all proven re-offences committed. The proportion of PPO offenders who committed a proven re-offence decreased (2.1 percentage points) between 2008 and 2009. Looking longer term there was a decrease of 1.9 percentage points since the scheme began in 2005. 

Drug Misusing Offenders  
 
Around 53,000 adult offenders were identified as drug misusers at some point during 2009. Of these just over 29,000 committed a proven re-offence within a year (54.7 per cent). These offenders represented 9.2 percent of all adult offenders but were responsible for 27.8 per cent of all proven re-offences committed. (Table 15) 
A higher proportion of drug-misusing offenders25 committed a proven reoffence than adult offenders in general (54.7 per cent compared to 24.9 per cent). The average number of proven re-offences committed by re-offenders was 3.84 for this group compared with 2.80 overall.  This difference reflects the profile of drug misusing offenders.  For example, drug-misusing offenders have committed an average of 35.7 previous offences, compared to 11.9 previous offences among adult offenders in general. The proportion of drug-misusing offenders who committed a proven re-offence fell slightly between 2008 and 2009 (1.7 percentage points).  Looking longer term there was a decrease of 10.6 percentage points between 2005 and 2009, although most of this change occurred between 2005 and 2006 when there was a large expansion in the drug intervention programme. The expansion of this programme led to a change in the characteristics of the drug misusing offender group (a lower average number of previous offences) which meant they were less likely to re-offend. 

## List Of Quarterly Tables Proven Re-Offending - Overview

 
Table 1 
Summary proven re-offending data, by adults and juveniles, 2000, 2002 - 2009  
 
Table 2   
Proven re-offending data, by gender, 2000, 2002 -2009  
 
Table 3   
Proven re-offending data, by age, 2000, 2002-2009  
 
Table 4a   
Adult proven re-offending data, by ethnicity, 2000, 2002-2009  
 
Table 4b   
Juvenile proven re-offending data, by ethnicity, 2000, 2002-2009  
 
Table 4c   
Adult and juvenile proven re-offending data, by ethnicity, 2000, 
2002-2009  
 
Table 5a   
Adult proven re-offending data, by index offence, 2000, 2002-
2009  
 
Table 5b   
Juvenile proven re-offending data, by index offence, 2000, 2002-
2009  
 
Table 5c   
Adult and juvenile proven re-offending data, by index offence, 
2000, 2002-2009  
 
Table 6a   
Adult proven re-offending data, by number of previous offences, 
2000, 2002-2009  
 
Table 6b   
Juvenile proven re-offending data, by number of previous 
offences, 2000, 2002-2009  
 
Table 6c   
Adult and juvenile proven re-offending data, by number of 
previous offences, 2000, 2002-2009  
 
Table 7a   
Adult proven re-offending data, by number of previous custodial 
sentences, 2000, 2002-2009  
 
Table 7b   
Juvenile proven re-offending data, by number of previous 
custodial sentences, 2000, 2002-2009  
 
Table 8 
Serious proven re-offending data, 2000, 2002-2009  
 
Table 9 
Number and proportion of proven re-offences by month of offence into the one-year follow-up period, 2000 to 2009  
 
Table 10 
Number and proportion of proven re-offences committed in the follow-up period, 2000 to 2009  
 
Table 11 
Proven re-offending by index offence group and re-offence 
group, 2009  
 
Table 12 
Proven re-offending by index disposal and first re-offence 
disposal, 2009  
Table 13 
Proven re-offending of adult and juvenile offenders by upper-tier 
local authority, 2005 to 2009 rolling quarters 
 
Table 14 
Proven re-offending of adult offenders by lower-tier local 
authority, 2005 to 2009 rolling quarters 
 
Table 15 
Proven re-offending of drug-misusing offenders by DAT, 2004 to 
2009  
 
Table 16 
Proven re-offending of Prolific and other Priority Offenders by 
upper tier local authority, 2005 to 2009  
 
Table 17 
Proven re-offending by Youth Offending Team: 2005 to 2009 
cohorts 

## Proven Re-Offending By Index Disposal, Prison And Probation Trust

 
Table 18a 
Adult proven re-offending data, by index disposal, 2000, 2002-
2009  
 
Table 18b 
Juvenile proven re-offending data, by index disposal, 2000, 2002-2009  
 
Table 19 
Adult proven re-offending data, by custodial sentence length, 
2000, 2002-2009  
 
Table 20 
Adult proven re-offending data, by the most frequently-used combinations of requirements for offenders starting Community Orders, 2005-2009 Table 21 
Adult proven re-offending data, by the most frequently-used combinations of requirements for offenders starting Suspended Sentence Orders, 2005-2009  
 
Table 22a 
Proven re-offending of adult offenders given sentences of less than 12 months by individual prison, first discharge from each 
prison, 2007 to 2009  
 
Table 22b 
Proven re-offending of adult offenders given sentences of 12 months or more by individual prison, first discharge from each 
prison, 2007 to 2009  

 

Proven re-offending of juvenile offenders by individual prison, first discharge from each prison, 2007 to 2009 

 
Table 24 
Adult proven re-offending by probation trusts based on first commencement from each trust, 2005 to 2009 

## Annex A How The Measure Of Proven Re-Offending Has Changed And The Effect Of These Changes Background

The Ministry of Justice launched a statistical consultation on improvements to the transparency and accessibility of our information in 2010 and a response to the consultation was published in March 201126. One aspect of the consultation was the measurement of proven re-offending. 

Prior to the consultation there were six different measures of proven reoffending:  

 national adult proven re-offending;  local adult proven re-offending;  national youth proven re-offending;  local youth proven re-offending;  Prolific and other Priority Offending (PPO); and  drug-misusing proven offending. 
The new approach to measuring proven re-offending integrates these approaches into a single framework. This allows users to:  

 form a clear picture of proven re-offending at national and local levels;  compare adult and youth results, and enable other work on transition 
between the youth and adult criminal justice systems;  
 understand how results for different offender groups (such as those 
managed by the prison and probation services, those under the PPO 
schemes, drug-misusing offenders, first time entrants, etc) fit in to the 
overall picture on proven re-offending; and  
 continue to be able to analyse proven re-offending behaviour of 
particular types of offender. 

## Comparing Trends In Re-Offending

Table A1 shows the proportion of offenders with a proven re-offence/reconviction using the new measure of re-offending and the previous measures of adult re-conviction and juvenile re-offending. Re-offending rates are lower using the new measure than using the previous measure. The differences are as follows: 

 For adult and juvenile offenders the new measure is based on all 
offenders released from custody, receiving a non-custodial conviction 
                                                 
at court, a caution, reprimand, warning or tested positive for opiates or cocaine over a 12 month period, but the previous measures only included offenders released from custody or commencing a court order in the first three months of the year. Using a 3 month sample overrepresents prolific offenders in comparison to a full year's worth of data.   

 For adults the new measure counts all offenders including those who 
received a caution, fine or discharge, where the previous adult measure only included those who commenced a court order or were 
discharged from custody. 
 For adult offenders, the new measure is a measure of proven reoffending (which counts offences proven through a court conviction or 
a caution) whereas the previous measure is a measure of re-conviction (which only counts offences proven through a court conviction). 
As a result, re-offending rates are 14.4 percentage points lower for adults and rates for juveniles are 4.1 percentage points lower using the new measure. However, the re-offending rates are similar for adults given a court order or who received a custodial sentence, including those given a sentence of less than 12 months. Rates are between 1.0 and 2.6 percentage points lower using the new measure.   
 

|                                                    |   New measure  |   Previous measure(s) |
|----------------------------------------------------|----------------|-----------------------|
| Adults                                             |           24.9 |                  39.3 |
| Juveniles                                          |           32.8 |                  36.9 |
| Adults given a court order                         |           34.5 |                  35.5 |
| Adults given a custodial sentence                  |           46.8 |                  48.5 |
| Adults given a custodial sentence of less than 12m |           56.8 |                  59.4 |
|                                                    |                |                       |

 Figure A1 shows re-offending rates for adult offenders between 2000 and 2009 using the new and previous measure.  
 
In 2009 24.9 per cent of adult offenders have a proven re-offence within twelve months using the new measure compared to 39.3 per cent reconvicted using the previous measure. However, trends for adult offenders are similar using the two measures. The proportion of offenders with a proven re-offence/re-conviction rose between 2000 and 2002, fell between 2002 and 2006, rose between 2006 and 2008, and fell between 2008 and 2009 using both measures. 

 
The overall reduction in re-offending is smaller using the new measure (1.2 percentage points between 2000 and 2009 and 0.5 percentage points between 2008 and 2009) than using the previous measure (3.7 percentage points between 2000 and 2009 and 0.8 percentage points between 2008 and 2009).  
 
In 2009, 32.8 per cent of young offenders re-offended within twelve months using the new measure compared to 36.9 per cent using the previous measure. The reduction in re-offending is smaller using the new measure (0.9 percentage points between 2000 and 2009 and 0.1 percentage points between 2008 and 2009) than using the previous measure (3.3 percentage points between 2000 and 2009 and 0.4 percentage points between 2008 and 2009). Overall, the trends are broadly similar. 

 
Trends in proven re-offending/re-conviction rates for adult custodial offenders are similar using the new and previous measures. The proportion of offenders given a custodial sentence of less than 12 months who re-offended rose between 2000 and 2009 using both measures (by 2.6 percentage points using the new measure and 1.4 percentage points using the previous measure). The proportion of offenders given any custodial sentence who re-offended fell between 2000 and 2009 using both measures (by 2.6 percentage points using the new measure and 2.9 percentage points using the previous measure). 

## The Change In Methodology

 The following sections provide a detail regarding the change in methodology between the methods in measuring re-offending and how those changes impact on the data. The table below provides a comparison of the previous methodologies with the new approach. 

Comparison of previous and new measures of proven re-offending 
Previous measures of re-offending 
New measure of   
re-offending 
 
National adult 
re-conviction 
Local adult reoffending 
National youth reoffending 
The cohort 
Offenders aged 18+ discharged from custody or commencing court orders under probation supervision 
between January 
to March 
Offenders aged 18+ on the probation caseload at the end of each calendar 
quarter 
Offenders aged 10- 17 discharged from custody, receiving a court conviction or receiving a caution/reprimand or final warning between 
January and March 
The follow up period to measure reoffending 
12 months for offences to occur and a further 6 months for offences to be proved 
3 months for offences to occur and a further 3 months for offences to be proved 
12 months for offences to occur and a further 6 months for offences to be proved 
Local youth reoffending 
Prolific and other Priority Offending (PPO) 
Drug misusing offending 
Offenders aged 10-17 discharged from custody, receiving a court conviction or receiving a 
caution/reprimand or final warning 
between January and March 
All offenders identified as being on the PPO scheme as at 1 April 
All Class A drug offenders identified through positive drug tests on arrest, OASyS or drug 
requirement as 
part of a court order, CJIT identification, or identification on prison release between January and March 
All offenders who received a caution/reprimand or warning, were convicted at court (other than custody), were discharged 
from custody, or 
tested positive for cocaine or opiates on arrest over a 12 month period. 
12 months for offences to occur and a further 3 months for offences to be proved 
12 months for offences to occur and a further 3 months for offences to be proved 
12 months for offences to occur and a further 3 months for offences to be proved 
12 months for offences to occur and a further 6 months for offences to be proved 
The headline 
measure 
Frequency of reoffending (the number of proven 
re-offences per 100 offenders) 
Proportion of offenders reoffending, 
compared to the rate that would be expected based on the offender characteristics 
Frequency of reoffending (the number of proven reoffences per 100 offenders) 
What counts as a proven reoffence 
Offences committed within the follow up 
period which 
were proved by a court conviction either within the follow up period or in a further six months 
Offences committed within the 
follow up 
period which were proved by a court conviction or caution either within the follow up period or in a further three months 
Offences committed within the follow up period which were 
proved by a court 
conviction or reprimand or final warning either within the follow up period or in a further six months 
Frequency of reoffending (the number of proven 
re-offences per 100 offenders) 
Number of further offences compared to number in 
previous year, against the reduction that would be expected given time on the PPO scheme 
Number of further offences compared to 
what would be expected based on their previous offending history 
Proportion of offenders reoffending 
We also include information on the frequency of reoffending and information on the predicted rate based on offender characteristics 
Offences committed within the follow up 
period which 
were proved by a court conviction or reprimand or final warning either within the follow up period or in a further three months 
Offences committed within the follow up period 
which were proved 
by a court conviction or caution either within the follow up period or in a further three months. Breach offences that lead to substantive recorded convictions are included 
Offences committed within the follow 
up period which 
were proved by a court conviction either within the follow up period or in a further three months 
Offences committed within the follow up period which were 
proved by a court 
conviction or caution/reprimand or warning either within the follow up period or in a further six months 
 
Use of a 
predicted rate 
A predicted rate of re-offending 
was included for the proportion of offenders expected to reoffend based on their characteristics 
A predicted rate of re-offending 
was included for the proportion of offenders expected to reoffend based on their characteristics 
A predicted rate of re-offending was 
included for the proportion of offenders expected to re-offend based on their characteristics 
No predicted rate 
Evidence on the 
link between time 
on the PPO scheme and expected reductions in further offending were used to assess reductions in number of offences compared to the previous year
A predicted rate of re-offending 
was included for the proportion of offenders expected to reoffend based on their previous criminal history 
A predicted rate of re-offending is 
included for the proportion of offenders expected to re-offend based on their characteristics 
 
Logistic regression is used 
Response surface methodology was used 
Logistic regression was used 
Logistic regression was used 
Logistic regression was used 
Data source 
Police National Computer 
Police National Computer 
Police National Computer 
Youth Offending Teams data 
Police National Computer 
Police National Computer 
Police National Computer 
Geographic breakdown 
None 
Region, 
Probation area, Local Authority 
None 
Youth Offending 
Team level 
Police Force and Local Authority level 
Drug Action team and Local Authority level 
Upper and lower tier local authority areas for all offenders. Other breakdowns for specific categories of offender. 

 

## The Effect Of The Changes Adults Differences In Methodology Are Reflected In Different Results. Table A3 Shows The Impact On Reported Rates Of Adult Re-Conviction/Re-Offending.  The Table Breaks Down The Changes Between The Previous Measure And The New Measure To Identify The Different Effects Of The Changes In Methodology.

Previous1 measure: reconvictions (prison and 
probation offenders only), 
first quarter of the year
Previous measure: reconvictions (prison and 
probation offenders only), 
whole year
New measure: reoffending (prison and 
probation offenders only), 
whole year
New measure: proven reoffending (all offenders), 
whole year
Proportion 
2000
43.0
40.0
40.9
26.2
2002
45.5
42.0
43.0
27.6
2003
45.4
41.5
42.4
26.9
2004
42.9
38.6
39.8
25.5
2005
41.2
36.6
38.4
24.9
2006
38.6
35.6
37.6
24.6
2007
39.0
35.9
37.9
24.8
2008
40.1
36.1
37.9
25.4
2009
39.3
34.7
36.2
24.9
Frequency (average per offender)
2000
1.85
1.66
1.69
0.89
2002
2.13
1.84
1.87
0.99
2003
2.05
1.73
1.76
0.93
2004
1.81
1.51
1.54
0.83
2005
1.66
1.36
1.40
0.77
2006
1.44
1.26
1.31
0.73
2007
1.47
1.27
1.32
0.73
2008
1.55
1.27
1.31
0.75
2009
1.41
1.15
1.18
0.70
Frequency of re-offenders (average per re-offender)
2000
4.30
4.15
4.13
3.39
2002
4.68
4.39
4.36
3.59
2003
4.52
4.18
4.15
3.44
2004
4.23
3.91
3.87
3.27
2005
4.03
3.70
3.65
3.10
2006
3.73
3.54
3.48
2.95
2007
3.78
3.53
3.48
2.94
2008
3.88
3.51
3.46
2.93
2009
3.57
3.31
3.27
2.80
Number of offenders
2000
42,734
148,052
148,052
477,698
2002
43,247
157,243
157,243
495,664
2003
44,095
159,686
159,686
520,660
2004
46,532
163,775
163,775
512,600
2005
43,429
170,021
170,021
532,045
2006
50,281
181,726
181,726
571,458
2007
50,085
190,418
190,418
595,020
2008
53,718
197,035
197,035
589,948
2009
56,616
200,077
200,077
576,255

1. Based on the national adult re-convictions publication (March 2011) Among adult offenders in 2009, the previous national measure (the first column) shows that 39.3 per cent of adult offenders were re-convicted within a year based on a sample of 56,616 offenders. The second column shows the re-conviction rates from the previous measure looking at offenders who were released from custody or commenced a court order but at any point during the year. The inclusion of offenders from a full twelve month period means the results are calculated using the full proven offender population rather than a sample - this 
 
ensures we do not over-represent prolific offenders in the cohort, which is a problem in using a January to March sample as in the previous adult re-conviction measure. This leads to a lower proportion of re-convicted offenders (between three and five percentage points, eg 34.7 per cent compared to 39.3 per cent in 2009). The change to a full year also increases the number of offenders, to 200,077 in 200927. 

 
The third column shows the proven re-offending rates from the new measure but still based only on those offenders who were released from custody or commenced a court order at any point during the year. Proven re-offending includes offences which result in a caution in addition to those resulting in a conviction at court. The proportion of offenders who were proven to re-offend is between 1 and 2 percentage points higher than for those who were re-convicted (36.2 per cent compared to 34.7 per cent in 2009). There is little difference at this stage because we are still only considering offenders who already have a prison or a court order. The fourth column shows the re-offending rates from the new measure looking at all adult offenders who received a caution, a conviction at court, discharged from custody, or tested positive for cocaine or opiates. The inclusion of these offenders increases the numbers considerably.  In 2009, the previous adult measure tracks the re-offending behaviour of 
56,616 offenders; the new measure tracks 576,255 offenders. The inclusion of offenders who received less severe disposals and are generally less prolific in nature reduces the proportion who re-offend by around 11 to 16 percentage points (36.2 per cent compared to 24.9 per cent in 2009). 

Change over time Compared to the previous measure, the reduction over time in the proportion of offenders who re-offend is much lower using the new measure. Using the previous measure, between 2000 and 2009 the proportion of offenders who were re-convicted fell 3.7 percentage points (from 43.0 per cent to 39.3 per cent). Using the new measure, the proportion of offenders who committed a proven re-offence fell 1.2 percentage points (from 
26.2 per cent to 24.9 per cent).  
 
Juveniles The only change between the previous measure and the new measure of re-offending among young people is the move from a one quarter sample to including all young offenders over the period of a year. 

Previous measure1             
proven re-offending
New measure proven reoffending 
Proportion 
2000
40.2
33.7
2002
38.5
33.4
2003
39.0
34.3
2004
38.6
33.6
2005
38.4
33.6
2006
38.7
33.9
2007
37.5
32.5
2008
37.3
32.9
2009
36.9
32.8
Frequency (average per offender)
2000
1.51
1.12
2002
1.42
1.10
2003
1.42
1.09
2004
1.32
1.03
2005
1.25
0.98
2006
1.23
0.97
2007
1.16
0.90
2008
1.14
0.91
2009
1.10
0.90
Frequency of re-offenders (average per re-offender)
2000
3.77
3.32
2002
3.69
3.29
2003
3.63
3.19
2004
3.43
3.06
2005
3.26
2.91
2006
3.18
2.86
2007
3.08
2.77
2008
3.06
2.75
2009
2.99
2.75
Number of offenders
2000
41,176
139,326
2002
40,753
136,401
2003
40,297
138,379
2004
44,153
149,452
2005
45,337
163,545
2006
48,938
171,061
2007
52,544
171,454
2008
44,837
145,579
2009
37,472
121,107

1. Based on the national juvenile re-offending publication (March 2011) publication
 
As for adults, using the whole year reduces the proportion of offenders who re-offended because we do not over-represent prolific offenders in the cohort, which is a problem in using a January to March sample. Table A4 shows the reduction is between four and seven percentage points. For 2009 with the previous measure, 36.9 per cent commit a proven re-offence within one year; with the new measure, 32.8 per cent do so.  The new measure, which is based on offenders from a 12 month period, includes over three times as many offenders as the existing measure. Change over time Compared to the previous measure, the reduction in the proportion of offenders who reoffend between 2000 and 2009 is much lower using the new measure. Using the previous measure, between 2000 and 2009, the proportion of offenders who were proven to re-offend fell 3.3 percentage points (from 40.2 per cent to 36.9 per cent). 

Using the new measure, the proportion of offenders who committed a proven re-offence fell 0.9 percentage points (from 33.7 per cent to 32.8 per cent).  
 
Drug-misusing offenders Published results for drug-misusing offenders on the previous measure covered 2008 and 2009; results using the new measure cover from 2004 onwards.  
The previous measure: 

 Includes offenders who have been identified in the first quarter of the year, 
whereas the new measure includes offenders from any point during the year, 
 Includes all drug-misusing offenders irrespective of the date of proven offence, 
whereas the new measure includes identified drug-misusing offenders who have received a caution, been convicted at court, been discharged from custody, or tested positive for cocaine or opiates on arrest during a twelve month period. 
 Counts re-offences that were proven through a court conviction, whereas the new 
measure counts re-offences that were proven by a court conviction or caution.  
 As for adult and juvenile offenders, using the whole year to identify offenders reduces the proportion of offenders who re-offend, because we do not over-represent prolific offenders in the cohort, which is a problem in using a January to March sample. Table A5 shows the impact on reported rates of re-offending/re-conviction by drug-misusing offenders.  
 

Previous measure1 proven reconviction
New measure of proven reoffending 
Proportion 
2004
67.3
2005
65.3
2006
58.6
2007
57.2
2008
61.0
56.4
2009
57.0
54.7
Frequency (average per offender)
2004
3.20
2005
2.94
2006
2.37
2007
2.34
2008
2.6
2.29
2009
2.2
2.10
Frequency of re-offenders (average per re-offender)
2004
4.75
2005
4.51
2006
4.03
2007
4.09
2008
4.3
4.06
2009
3.9
3.84
Number of offenders
2004
20,652
2005
29,112
2006
44,597
2007
54,474
2008
20,934
59,039
2009
20,109
53,109

 

Table A5 shows that the proportion of offenders who commit a proven re-offence is between two and five percentage points lower using the new measure (57.0 per cent using the previous measure compared to 54.7 per cent using the new measure). The new measure, which follows offenders over a 12 month period, includes between two and three times as many offenders as the existing measure. 

Prolific and other Priority Offenders (PPO)  
Published results for PPOs on the previous measure presented the frequency of proven re-offending for all PPOs; results using the new measure cover the proportion of offenders proven to re-offend, and the frequency of proven re-offending for all offenders and for reoffenders from 2005 onwards. The previous measure:  

 Includes offenders who have been identified in the first quarter of the year, whereas 
the new measure includes offenders from any point during the year. However, 
PPOs are generally on the PPO programme for a sustained period of time so this only has a moderate impact on numbers of offenders included.  
 Includes all identified PPOs, whereas the new measure includes identified PPOs 
who have tested positive for cocaine or opiates, received a caution, been convicted at court, or been discharged from custody during a twelve-month period.  
 Counts re-offences that are proven through a court conviction or caution and also 
includes breach offences that lead to substantive recorded convictions. The new measure only includes re-offences proven through a court conviction or caution. 

## Table A6 Shows The Impact On Reported Rates Of Proven Re-Offending By Prolific And Other Priority Offenders And On Numbers Of Offenders Included In The Measure. Table A6: Re-Offending Data For Prolific And Other Priority Offenders

1
Previous  measure  proven reoffending
New measure of proven reoffending 
Proportion 
2005
77.0
2006
75.7
2007
75.8
2008
77.2
2009
56.0
75.1
Frequency (average per offender)
2005
4.01
2006
3.83
2007
3.80
2008
2.6
3.80
2009
2.4
3.49
Frequency of re-offenders (average per re-offender)
2005
5.21
2006
5.06
2007
5.01
2008
4.93
2009
4.3
4.65
Number of offenders
2005
8,555
2006
8,239
2007
8,309
2008
10,771
8,607
2009
10,635
8,156
1. Based on the national Prolific and other Priority Offenders publication (March 2010)

 
 
The average number of proven re-offences committed by PPOs in 2009 is lower for the previous measure than for the new measure in 2008 (2.4 re-offences per offender using the previous measure, but 3.49 using the new). The previous measure includes PPOs who have not been proven guilty of an offence or been discharged from custody in the twelve month period when the re-offending cohort is formed. This type of offender is likely to have a lower level of re-offending. These differences may help to explain  

 why the frequency of re-offending is lower for the previous measure than for the 
new measure in 2009 (2.4 re-offences per offender using the previous measure, but 
3.49 using the new), and 
 why the previous measure includes nearly 2,500 more PPOs in 2009 than does the 
new measure.    

## Local Adult Re-Offending The Most Similar Results For The New Measure Of Re-Offending And The Existing Local Measure Of Adult Re-Offending Are The Early Estimates Of Re-Offending Of Offenders Given A Court Order. Like The Existing Measure Of Local Adult Re-Offending, The Early Estimates Of Offenders Given A Court Order:

 measure re-offending over three months,  only measures offenders under probation supervision,  provides results by probation trust,  compares actual re-offending rates with an predicted re-offending rate. 
 There remain significant differences between the early estimates and the existing local adult measure of re-offending, including 

 The existing local adult measure includes offenders on license - the early 
estimates include offenders commencing court orders only. 
 The existing local adult measure uses a 'snapshot' approach. This means 
offenders are counted if they are on the caseload at certain times in the year. Offenders who are on the caseload for a short period of time may not get counted with the existing measure. The early estimates count every offender who 
commences a court order. 
 Because the existing local adult measure uses a 'snapshot' approach some 
offenders may get counted up to four times if they are on the caseload for over 
twelve months. The early estimates count every offender once. 
 The existing local adult measure measures the re-offending of offenders at any 
point during the court order - the early estimates measure re-offending in the first three months after an offender commenced a court order. 
 The predicted score for the existing local adult measure was derived from analysis 
of 2007 re-offending data - the prediction for the early estimates was derived from 
analysis of 2008 re-offending data.  
 These differences explain why the re-offending rate is higher with the early estimates of reoffending by offenders commencing a court order than with the existing measure of local adult re-offending:  

 offenders on license have lower rates of re-offending than those commencing a 
court order, and 
 offenders serving a court order have lower rates of re-offending the longer they are 
on that court order.  
 
However, the prediction for the early estimates has been tailored specifically to the relevant group of offenders. 

Local youth re-offending  
The previous measure of youth re-offending used data that Youth Offending Teams (YOT) 
collected themselves from their local police and courts. The measure was used as management information and was never published or put into the public domain. The new measure uses data from the Police National Computer (PNC). Internal analysis and discussion with stakeholders has highlighted a number of differences between the two data-sources: 

 The PNC includes a number of offenders who have received a reprimand or final 
warning which do not always appear on the YOT systems. As a result, there are 
more youth offenders and a higher overall youth re-offending rate using the new measure than using the previous local youth re-offending measure.  
 The PNC includes more comprehensive data on re-offending as adults by offenders 
who originally offended as youths.  
 Using PNC data reduces the data-collection burden on YOT and local police forces.  PNC data measures re-offending on recordable offences and YOT data measures 
re-offending on all offences. Offences which are not recordable include speeding 
offences, parking offences and other minor motoring offences. As a result, YOT 
data is more comprehensive for motoring re-offences.  
 The new measure allocates offenders to a locality using their home address data 
from the PNC; the previous local youth measure allocated offenders using offender 
management data. As a result, Looked After Children (LAC) who are in foster care, or in a children's home, or in a boarding school or live with another adult known to children's services, maybe allocated to a different YOT under the previous youth measure than the new measure.  
 For their re-offending to be included in the new measure, administrative data on 
young people in custody and secure accommodation has to be matched to the PNC. Some cases are not successfully matched. This process was not required for these offenders to be included in the previous local youth measure. As a result, 
YOT data can be more comprehensive regarding custodial offenders or those in secure accommodation.  
 Using PNC data provides an external measure of youth re-offending, which makes 
it an appropriate data-source to support any future policies which tie local funding to re-offending performance.  
 Using PNC data allows local youth re-offending to be measured on the same basis 
as national youth re-offending and adult re-offending, permitting adult and youth reoffending to be measured on a like-for-like basis and a more comprehensive picture of re-offending to be formed.  
 Work is underway to fully quantify the extent of these differences.   
 
   
 

## Appendix A: Glossary Of Terms Re-Offending Terms

Cohort  - this is the group of individuals whose re-offending is measured.  
 
Index offence - the index offence is the proven offence that leads to an offender being included in the cohort. 

Index disposal - the index disposal of the offender is the type of sentence the offender received for their index offence. 

Start point (also known as the index date) - this is the set point in time from when reoffences are measured. 

Follow up period - this is the length of time proven re-offending is measured over.  
 
Waiting period - this is the additional time beyond the follow up period to allow for offences committed towards the end of the follow up period to be proved by a court conviction, caution, reprimand or final warning. 

Adjusted baseline - proven re-offending is related to the characteristics of offenders which means that any overall rate of proven re-offending will depend, in part, on the characteristics of offenders coming into the system (just as the examination pass rate of a school will be related to the characteristics of its pupils).  We use a modelling technique to produce a baseline figure adjusted to match the characteristics of the cohort we are comparing. For more details see the chapter on Statistical modelling and coefficients (p x) 
Reconviction - where an offender is convicted at court for an offence committed within a set follow up period and convicted within either the follow up period or waiting period 
 
Proven re-offence - where an offender is convicted at court or receives some other form of criminal justice sanction for an offence committed within a set follow up period and disposed of within either the follow up period or waiting period. 

## Cohort Defined Used In The Proven Re-Offending Statistic Quarterly Bulletin In England And Wales Publication

The proven re-offending cohort consists of all offenders discharged from custody, otherwise sanctioned at court, receiving a caution, reprimand or warning or tested positive for opiates or cocaine in each year.  This cohort's criminal history is collated and criminal behaviour is tracked over the following one year. Any offence committed in this one-year period which is proven by a court conviction or out-of-court disposal (either in the one-year period, or in a further six months waiting period) counts as a proven re-offence. The latest available publication is the Proven Re-offending statistic quarterly bulletin in England and Wales: results from the 2009 cohort; Ministry of Justice, October 2011.  

## Cohort Defined Used In The Local Measure Of Re-Offending Quarterly Bulletin Publication

The local adult re-offending measure takes a snapshot of all offenders, aged 18 or over, who are under probation supervision at the end of a quarter, and combines four such snapshots together.  
This cohort's criminal history is collated and criminal behaviour is tracked over the following three months. Any offence committed in this three month period which is proven by a court conviction or out-of-court disposal (either in the three month period, or in a further three months waiting period) counts as a proven re-offence. The latest available publication is the Local Adult Re-offending: 1 April 2010 - 31 March 2011 England and Wales; Ministry of Justice, August 2011. http://www.justice.gov.uk/publications/statistics-and-data/reoffending/local-adultreoffending.htm 

## Cohort Defined Used In The Adult Re-Convictions In England And Wales Publication

The adult re-conviction cohort consists of adults discharged from custody or commencing a court order under probation supervision in the first quarter of each year. This cohort's criminal history is collated and criminal behaviour is tracked over the following one year. Any offence committed in this one-year period which is proven by a court conviction (either in the one-year period, or in a further six months waiting period) counts as a reconviction.  
The latest available publication is the Adult re-convictions: results from the 2009 cohort; 
Ministry of Justice, March 2011. http://www.justice.gov.uk/publications/statistics-and-data/reoffending/adults.htm 

## Cohort Definition Used In The Reoffending Of Juveniles In England And Wales Publication

The juvenile reoffending cohort is formed of juvenile offenders discharged from custody, otherwise sanctioned at court, or receiving a reprimand or warning in January to March of each year. This cohort's criminal history is collated and criminal behaviour is tracked over the following one year. Any offence committed in this one-year period which is proven by a court conviction or out-of-court disposal (either in the one-year period, or in a further six months waiting period) counts as proven reoffending. The latest available publication is the Reoffending of juveniles: results from the 2009 
cohort; Ministry of Justice, March 2011.  
www.justice.gov.uk/publications/statistics-and-data/reoffending/juveniles.htm Disposals (Sentences) 

## Fine

A financial penalty imposed following conviction.  

## Court Orders

Court orders include community sentences, community orders and suspended sentence orders supervised by the Probation Service. They do not include any pre or post release supervision.  

## Criminal Justice Act 2003 (Cja03)

For offences committed on or after 4 April 2005, the new community order replaced all existing community sentences for adults. The Act also introduced a new suspended sentence order for offences which pass the custody threshold. It also changed the release 
 
arrangements for prisoners. See Appendix A of Offender Management Caseload Statistics96 for more information.  

## Community Order

For offences committed on or after 4 April 2005, the new community order introduced under the CJA 2003 replaced all existing community sentences for those aged 18 years and over. This term refers to all court orders except suspended sentence orders and deferred sentences which may have a custodial component to the sentence. The court must add at least one (but could potentially comprise of all 12) requirements depending on the offences and the offender. The requirements are:  

 unpaid work (formerly community service/community punishment) - a requirement 
to complete between 40 and 300 hours' unpaid work;  
 
 activity - for example, to attend basic skills classes;  
 
 programme - there are several designed to reduce the prospects of reoffending;  
 
 prohibited activity - a requirement not do so something that is likely to lead to 
further offender or nuisance;  
 
 curfew - which is electronically monitored;  
 
 exclusion - this is not used frequently as there is no reliable electronic monitoring 
yet available;  
 
 residence - requirement to reside only where approved by probation officer;  
 
 mental health treatment (requires offender's consent);  
 
 drug rehabilitation (requires offender's consent);  
 
 alcohol treatment (requires offender's consent);  
 
 supervision - meetings with probation officer to address needs/offending behaviour; 
and,  
 
 attendance centre - three hours of activity, between a minimum of 12 hours and a 
maximum of 36 in total.  
 Typically, the more serious the offence and the more extensive the offender's needs, the more requirements there will be. Most orders will comprise one or two requirements but there are packages of several requirements available where required. The court tailors the order as appropriate and is guided by the Probation Service through a pre-sentence report.  

## Suspended Sentence Order (Sso)

The Criminal Justice Act 2003 introduced a new suspended sentence order which is made up of the same requirements as a community order and, in the absence of breach is served wholly in the community supervised by the Probation Service. It consists of an 
'operational period' (the time for which the custodial sentence is suspended) and a 'supervision period' (the time during which any requirements take effect). Both may be 
 
between six months and two years and the 'supervision period' cannot be longer than the 
'operational period', although it may be shorter. Failure to comply with the requirements of the order or commission of another offence will almost certainly result in a custodial sentence.  
 

## Pre Cja03 Court Orders - Community Sentences:

Community punishment order (CPO): the offender is required to undertake unpaid 
community work. 
Community rehabilitation order (CRO): a community sentence which may have 
additional requirements such as residence, probation centre attendance or treatment for drug, alcohol or mental health problems. 
Community punishment and rehabilitation order (CPRO): a community sentence 
consisting of probation supervision alongside community punishment, with additional conditions like those of a community rehabilitation order. 
Drug treatment and testing order (DTTO): a community sentence targeted at offenders 
with drug misuse problems. 
Custody - the offender is awarded a sentence to be served in prison or YOI (Youth Offenders Institute). If the offender was given a sentence of 12 months or over, or was aged under 22 on release, the offender is supervised by the Probation Service on release. It is important to note that the sentence length awarded will be longer than the time served. For more information please refer to Appendix A of the Offender Management Caseload Statistics.  

## Prison Categories

Category B and Category C prisons hold sentenced prisoners of their respective categories, including life sentenced prisoners. The regime focuses on programmes that address offending behaviour and provide education, vocational training and purposeful work for prisoners who will normally spend several years in one prison.  
 
High Security Prisons hold Category A and B prisoners. Category A prisoners are managed by a process of dispersal, and these prisons also hold a proportion of Category B prisoners for whom they provide a similar regime to a Category B prison. The Category B prisoners held in a High Security Prison are not necessarily any more dangerous or difficult to manage than those in category B prisons. 

Female prisons. As the name implies, they hold women prisoners. Because of the smaller numbers, they are not divided into the same number of categories although there are variations in security levels. 

Local prisons serve the courts in the area. Historically their main function was to hold unconvicted and unsentenced prisoners and, once a prisoner had been sentenced, to allocate them on to a Category B, C or D prison as appropriate to serve their sentence. However, pressure on places means that many shorter term prisoners serve their entire sentence in a local prison, while longer term prisoners also complete some offending behaviour and training programmes there before moving on to lower security conditions. 

All local prisons operate to category B security standards. 

 
Open prisons have much lower levels of physical security and only hold Category D 
prisoners. Many prisoners in open prisons will be allowed to go out of the prison on a daily basis to take part in voluntary or paid work in the community in preparation for their approaching release. 

## Prisoner Categories

These categories are based on a combination of the type of crime committed, the length of sentence, the likelihood of escape, and the danger to the public if they did escape. The four categories are:  
Category A prisoners are those whose escape would be highly dangerous to the public or national security Category B prisoners are those who do not require maximum security, but for whom escape needs to be made very difficult Category C prisoners are those who cannot be trusted in open conditions but who are unlikely to try to escape Category D prisoners are those who can be reasonably trusted not to try to escape, and are given the privilege of an open prison. 

## Short Sentences - Under Twelve Months

Those sentenced to **under twelve months** (made under the Criminal Justice Act 1991) 
spend the first half of their sentence in prison and are then released and considered 'at risk' for the remaining period. This means they are under no positive obligations and do not report to the probation service but, if they commit a further imprisonable offence during the at risk period, they can be made to serve the remainder of the sentence in addition to the punishment for the new offence. The exception to this is those aged 18 to 20 who have a minimum of three months' supervision on release.  

## Sentences Of 12 Months Or Over

The Criminal Justice Act 2003 created a distinction between standard determinate sentences and **public protection sentences**. Offenders sentenced to a standard determinate sentence serve the first half in prison and the second half in the community on licence. 

## Reprimand Or Warnings

A reprimand is a formal verbal warning given by a police officer to a juvenile offender who admits they are guilty for a minor first offence. A final warning is similar to a reprimand, but can be used for either the first or second offence, and includes an assessment of the juvenile to determine the causes of their offending behaviour and a programme of activities is designed to address them. 

## First-Tier Penalties

Discharge - a juvenile offender is given an absolute discharge when they admit guilt, or are found guilty, with no further action taken. An offender given a conditional discharge also receives no immediate punishment, but is given a set period, during which if they commit a further offence, they can be brought back to court and re-sentenced.  

Fine - the size of the fine depends on the offence committed and the offender's financial 
circumstances. In the case of juveniles under 16, the fine is the responsibility of the 
offender's parent or carer. 
Referral order - this is given to juveniles pleading guilty and for whom it is their first time 
at court (unless the offence is so serious it merits a custodial sentence or it is of a 
relatively minor nature). The offender is required to attend a Youth Offender Panel to 
agree a contract, aimed to repair the harm caused by the offence and address the 
causes of the offending behaviour. 
Reparation order - the offender is required to repair the harm caused by their offence 
either directly to the victim or indirectly to the community. 

## Miscellaneous Terms National Probation Service

The National Probation Service generally deals with those aged 18 years and over. (Those under 18 are mostly dealt with by Youth Offending Teams, answering to the Youth Justice Board.) They are responsible for supervising offenders who are given community sentences and suspended sentence orders by the courts, as well as offenders given custodial sentences, both pre and post their release.  

## Police National Computer

The Police National Computer (PNC) is the police's administrative IT system used by all police forces in England and Wales and managed by the National Policing Improvement Agency. As with any large scale recording system the PNC is subject to possible errors with data entry and processing. The Ministry of Justice maintains a database based on weekly extracts of selected data from the PNC in order to compile statistics and conduct research on reoffending and criminal histories. The PNC largely covers recordable offences - these are all indictable and triable-either-way offences plus many of the more serious summary offences. All figures derived from the Ministry of Justice's PNC database, and in particular those for the most recent months, are likely to be revised as more information is recorded by the police.  

## Recordable Offences

Recordable offences are those that the police are required to record on the Police National Computer. They include all offences for which a custodial sentence can be given plus a range of other offences defined as recordable in legislation. They exclude a range of less serious summary offences, for example television licence evasion, driving without insurance, speeding and vehicle tax offences.  
Indictable and summary offences - Summary offences are triable only by a magistrates' 
court. This group includes motoring offences, common assault and criminal damage up to 
£5,000. More serious offences are classed either as **triable either way** (these can be tried either at the Crown Court or at a magistrates' court and include criminal damage where the value is £5,000 or greater, theft and burglary) or **indictable** (the most serious offences that must be tried at the Crown Court. These 'indictable-only' offences include murder, manslaughter, rape and robbery).  
 Offence Group - A split of offences into twelve separate groups. A more detailed split of the ten indictable offence groups (violence against the person, sexual offences, burglary, robbery, theft and handling and stolen goods, fraud and forgery, criminal damage, drug offences, other indictable offences (excluding motoring), indictable motoring) and the two summary offence groups (summary non-motoring and summary motoring offence types). 

 
 Explanatory notes The United Kingdom Statistics Authority has designated these statistics as National Statistics, in accordance with the Statistics and Registration Service Act 2007 and signifying compliance with the Code of Practice for Official Statistics. Designation can be broadly interpreted to mean that the statistics: - meet identified user needs; - are well explained and readily accessible; - are produced according to sound methods, and - are managed impartially and objectively in the public interest. Once statistics have been designated as National Statistics it is a statutory requirement that the Code of Practice shall continue to be observed. The statistics in this bulletin relate to re-offending data in England and Wales. This is the first set of quarterly re-offending statistics to be published by the Ministry of Justice, subsuming a number of previous publications including: Adult re-convictions, juvenile reoffending, drug misusing offenders and prolific and priority offenders. 

Symbols used  

 
..  
not available 
0 
nil or less than half the final digit shown 
- 
not applicable 
* 
One or both of the comparison figures are less than 50 
(p) 
Provisional data 


## Contact Points

Press enquiries should be directed to the Ministry of Justice press office: 
Tel: 020 3334 3536 
 
Other enquiries about these statistics should be directed to: 
 
Iain Bell Ministry of Justice Justice Statistics Analytical Services 7th Floor 
102 Petty France London SW1H 9AJ Tel: 020 3334 3737 
 
General enquiries about the statistical work of the Ministry of Justice can be e-mailed to: 
statistics.enquiries@justice.gsi.gov.uk 
 
General information about the official statistics system of the UK is available from www.statistics.gov.uk 
© Crown copyright Produced by the Ministry of Justice Alternative formats are available on request from statistics.enquiries@justice.gsi.gov.uk