Proven Re-offending Statistics Quarterly Bulletin, April 2011 to March 2012
Source: data.gov.uk (2018-05-25)

Proven Re-offending statistics. Key statistics on proven reoffending in England and Wales. It gives proven reoffending figures for offenders who were released from custody, received a non-custodial conviction at court, or received a caution or reprimand.

Proven Re-offending Statistics 
Quarterly Bulletin 
April 2011 to March 2012, 
England and Wales 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Ministry of Justice 
Statistics Bulletin 
 
 
 
30 January 2014 

 
 
 
2
Contents 
Introduction ......................................................................................................3 
 
Executive summary..........................................................................................7 
 
Adult and juvenile offenders...........................................................................10 
Gender...........................................................................................................12 
Age ................................................................................................................13 
Disposal (sentence) type ...............................................................................14 
Adult offenders discharged from prison or commencing a court order .......14 
Adult offenders discharged from prison......................................................14 
Juvenile offenders released from custody ..................................................15 
Adult offenders commencing a court order.................................................15 
Comparing the effectiveness of sentences ....................................................15 
Adult offenders by individual prison ...............................................................17 
Adult offenders by probation trust ..................................................................17 
Index offence .................................................................................................18 
Previous offences ..........................................................................................19 
 
List of quarterly tables....................................................................................20 
 
Annex A Interim re-conviction figures for Peterborough and Doncaster 
Payment by Results pilots..............................................................................22 
 
Annex B Glossary of terms ............................................................................32 
 
Explanatory notes ..........................................................................................41 
 
Contact points................................................................................................42 
 

 
 
 
3
Introduction 
The Proven Re-offending Statistics Quarterly Bulletin provides key statistics 
on proven re-offending in England and Wales. It gives proven re-offending 
figures for adult and juvenile offenders, who were released from custody, 
received a non-custodial conviction at court, received a caution, reprimand or 
warning, or tested positive for opiates or cocaine between April 2011 and 
March 2012. A proven re-offence is defined as any offence committed in a 
one year follow-up period that leads to a court conviction, caution, reprimand 
or warning in the one year follow-up or within a further six month waiting 
period to allow the offence to be proven in court. 
 
This quarterly bulletin presents the proportion of offenders who re-offend 
(proven re-offending rate) and the number of proven re-offences those 
offenders commit by age group, gender, criminal history and offence type. 
Also included are proven re-offending rates for serious proven re-offending, 
different types of sentence, and for individual prisons and probation trusts. 
Other breakdowns that were previously available in the quarterly bulletin, such 
as proven re-offending for local authorities, youth offending teams, drug-
misusing offenders and prolific and other priority offenders, will be now 
available only for the calendar year based cohort (January to December) 
which is published in October. Further information on this change is available 
in Annex C of the Proven Re-offending Statistics Bulletin, January to 
December 2011, at the link below: 
 
www.gov.uk/government/publications/proven-re-offending-quarterly-january-
to-december-2011 
 
Latest figures are provided with comparisons to April 2010 to March 2011 and 
the year 2000 in order to highlight long-term trends; 2000 is the earliest year 
for which proven re-offending data exist on a comparable basis. The full set of 
results is provided separately in Excel tables at: 
 
www.gov.uk/government/collections/proven-reoffending-statistics 
 
The accompanying ‘Definitions and Measurement’ document, which is 
available at the same link, provides more detailed information. 
 
Users interested in the latest findings from the Peterborough and Doncaster 
Payment by Results pilots can find the latest interim re-conviction figures in 
Annex A. 

 
 
 
4
                                                
Measuring proven re-offending 
 
There is no agreed international standard for measuring and reporting re-
offending. An offender’s journey through the criminal justice system can be a 
complex one; offenders can appear on numerous occasions. 
 
Measuring true re-offending is complex. 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 reported and/or detected and not all 
crimes are recorded on one central system. Furthermore, other methods for 
measuring re-offending, such as self-report studies, which do not identify the 
offender, are likely to be unreliable. Therefore, this report aims to estimate 
proven re-offending for a specified group of offenders using data mainly from 
the Police National Computer. 
 
Since this report measures re-offending on a consistent basis across all 
groups, it is possible to tailor analysis of re-offending to meet specific 
requirements. This quarterly bulletin and the accompanying ‘Early estimates 
of proven re-offending’ present measures on four different levels to meet 
users’ needs: 
 
 The headline measure – this is the overall 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 
event1 in the relevant period as the start point and subsequent events 
as proven re-offences. Users should refer to tables 1 to 11 and 13 to 
17 for the headline measure2. 
 
 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. Users should refer to tables 12 and 
18 to 25 for this headline measure2. 
 
 Early estimates of proven 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 provides an earlier indication 
of proven re-offending trends so offender managers can adjust or build 
on offender management operational policy. This table is published as 
management information for probation trusts alongside the 
accompanying proven re-offending tables. 
 
 
1 An event is one of the following: a release from custody, convicted at court with a non-custodial 
sentence, received a caution, reprimand, warning or tested positive for opiates or cocaine. 
2 Tables 4, 7, 9 to 17, 20, 21 and 25 are published annually in October. 

 
 
 
5
 
 A re-conviction measure for use by payment by results – this is the 
measure used in the prison pilots where court convictions are more 
closely associated with costs to the criminal justice system. For more 
details, please refer to Annex A. 
 
For a more detailed explanation, please see the accompanying ‘Definitions 
and Measurement’ document at: 
 
www.gov.uk/government/collections/proven-reoffending-statistics 
 
Consultation 
 
This quarterly bulletin was developed in response to a consultation in late 
2010 and early 2011 by the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) on “Improvements to 
Ministry of Justice Statistics”. 
 
Users 
 
The contents of this bulletin 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 MoJ impact indicators3 which will be monitored 
using results from this bulletin: 
 
 Adult and juvenile re-offending – the percentage of adult and juvenile 
offenders who re-offend. 
 
 The percentage of adults released from custody who re-offend. 
 
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, 
the 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 
offenders coming into the system. This actual rate provides users with 
sufficient information on what the level of re-offending is (e.g. in their local 
area) and how it is changing over time. Some of the tables in this bulletin also 
present an adjusted proven re-offending rate to control for differences in the 
composition of the offender group which can be used by those who want to 
                                                 
3 www.gov.uk/government/publications?departments%5B%5D=ministry-of-justice 

 
 
 
6
understand how changes in types of offenders coming through the justice 
system drive re-offending rates. 
 
This bulletin is published alongside four inter-related bulletins: 
 
 
Offender Management Statistics Quarterly Bulletin, July to 
September 2013, England and Wales: provides key statistics relating 
to offenders who are in prison or under Probation Service supervision. 
It covers flows into these services (receptions into prison or probation 
starts) and flows out (discharges from prison or probation terminations) 
as well as the caseload of both services at specific points in time. It 
also includes information on returns to custody following recall. 
 
 
Safety in Custody Statistics Quarterly update to September 2013, 
England and Wales: provides statistics on death, self harm and 
assault incidents whilst in prison custody. 
 
 
Youth Justice Statistics 2012/13, England and Wales: this cross-
cutting publication brings together statistics from across the Youth 
Justice System, many of which have already been published 
separately. 
 
 
Experimental statistics from the 2013 MoJ/DWP/HMRC data share: 
Linking data on offenders from MoJ with benefit, employment and 
income data from DWP and HMRC. 
 
Taken together, these publications present users with a more coherent 
overview of offender management, re-offending among adults and young 
people, the youth justice system and the safety of offenders whilst in prison 
custody. 
 
Additional analyses on proven re-offending that are not covered by this 
bulletin are presented in the ‘Compendium of re-offending statistics and 
analysis’. The 2013 edition of this publication, which was published by the 
MoJ on 11 July 2013, includes a comprehensive analysis on the impact of 
sentencing on proven re-offending for adult offenders. 
 
www.gov.uk/government/publications/2013-compendium-of-re-offending-
statistics-and-analysis 
 
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. 

 
 
 
7
                                                
Executive summary 
This report provides key statistics on proven re-offending in England and 
Wales. It gives proven re-offending figures for adult and juvenile offenders4 
who were released from custody, received a non-custodial conviction at court, 
received a caution, reprimand or warning, or tested positive for opiates or 
cocaine between April 2011 and March 2012. A proven re-offence is defined 
as any offence committed in a one year follow-up period that leads to a court 
conviction, caution, reprimand or warning in the one year follow-up. Following 
this one year follow-up, a further six month waiting period is allowed for the 
offence to be proven in court. 
 
Overall - adult and juvenile offenders 
Between April 2011 and March 2012, around 600,000 adult and juvenile 
offenders4 were cautioned5, convicted (excluding immediate custodial 
sentences) or released from custody6. Around 160,000 of these offenders 
committed a proven re-offence within a year. This gives an overall proven re-
offending rate of 26.5%, representing a small drop of 0.3 percentage points 
compared to the previous 12 months and a slight fall of 1.4 percentage points 
since 2000. Since 2000, the overall proven re-offending rate for adult and 
juvenile offenders has remained fairly stable, fluctuating between around 26% 
and 29% (Table 1). 
 
In total, around 460,000 proven re-offences were committed over the one year 
follow-up period, with those that re-offended committing, on average, 2.9 re-
offences each (both adults and juveniles) (Table 1). 
 
Unsurprisingly, offenders with 11 or more previous offences have a higher re-
offending rate than those with no previous offences – 47.5% compared to 
10.8% in the most recent figures and the same pattern can be seen for 
previous years (Table 6c). 
 
Serious re-offences: less than 1% of all proven re-offences committed over 
the one year follow-up period were serious violent or sexual offences with 
very little change since 2000 (Table 8). 
 
 
4 A certain proportion of offenders who could not be matched to the Police National Computer (PNC) are 
excluded from the offender cohort. Therefore, this number does not represent all proven offenders. 
Please refer to the ‘Definitions and Measurement’ document for more detail at 
www.gov.uk/government/collections/proven-reoffending-statistics. This means that the number of 
offenders in this bulletin will be different from the numbers published in the Offender Management 
Quarterly Statistics Bulletin available at www.gov.uk/government/collections/offender-management-
statistics-quarterly and the Criminal Justice Statistics report available at 
www.gov.uk/government/collections/criminal-justice-statistics-quarterly. 
5 Includes reprimands and warnings for juveniles. 
6 Also includes those who tested positive for opiates or cocaine. 

 
 
 
8
                                                
Adult offenders 
Around 530,000 adult offenders were cautioned, convicted or released from 
custody between April 2011 and March 2012 and around 130,000 of them 
committed a re-offence. This gives a proven re-offending rate of 25.3%. 
Compared to the previous 12 months, the rate has not changed, but, since 
2000, it has seen a slight fall of 0.9 percentage points. Proven re-offending 
rates for adult offenders have remained fairly flat since 2000 fluctuating 
between around 25% and 28% (Table 1). 
 
Adult offenders released from custody 
The proven re-offending rate for adult offenders released from custody 
between April 2011 and March 2012 was 45.8%, a fall of 1.5 percentage 
points compared to the previous 12 months and a fall of 3.6 percentage points 
since 2000. Adults who served sentences of less than 12 months, re-offended 
at a rate of 57.7% compared to 34.4% for those who served sentences of 12 
months or more7. Since 2005, the overall rate for those released from custody 
has remained relatively stable at around 46% to 49%. The trends for those 
released from short and long sentences have both also remained broadly flat 
since 2005 and are consistent with the overall trend. The rate for those 
released from short sentences has been consistently higher compared to 
those released from longer sentences (Table 19a). 
 
Adult offenders starting a court order 
The proven re-offending rate for adult offenders starting a court order 
(Community Order or Suspended Sentence Order) was 34.0%, a small drop 
of 0.2 percentage points compared to the previous 12 months and down 3.9 
percentage points since 2000 (Table 18a). 
 
Juvenile offenders 
Around 71,000 juvenile offenders were cautioned, convicted or released from 
custody between April 2011 and March 2012 and around 25,000 of them 
committed a re-offence. This gives a proven re-offending rate of 35.5%, down 
0.3 percentage points from the previous 12 months. While the rate has seen 
an overall increase of 1.8 percentage points since 2000, the cohort has 
changed considerably over this time; it has almost halved in size due to a 
substantial decrease in the number of first time entrants to the criminal justice 
system and, as such, is comprised of offenders whose characteristics mean 
that they are more likely to re-offend than those in the 2000 cohort. A first time 
entrant is an offender who has received their first reprimand, warning, caution 
or conviction for an offence (Table 1). 
 
Juvenile offenders released from custody 
The proven re-offending rate for juvenile offenders released from custody 
between April 2011 and March 2012 was 69.3%. This represents a fall of 3.3 
percentage points compared to the previous 12 months and a fall of 7.5 
percentage points since 2000 (Table 19b). 
 
7 Excludes indeterminate sentences for public protection and life sentence prisoners. 

Table E1: Overview – latest 12 month period compared to the previous 
12 month period and 2000 
 
2000
12 months 
ending 
March
2011
12 months 
ending 
March
2012
All offenders
Proportion of offenders who re-offend (%)
27.9
26.8
26.5
-1.4pp ↓
-0.3pp ↓
Average number of re-offences per re-offender
3.37
2.88
2.90
-13.9% ↓
0.8% ↑
Proportion of offenders who re-offend - Adjusted to baseline2 (%)
25.5
27.1
27.4
-
-
Average number of re-offences per offender
0.94
0.77
0.77
-18.1% ↓
-0.3% ↓
Number of re-offences
579,770
495,162
463,093
-20.1% ↓
-6.5% ↓
Number of re-offenders
171,935
171,949
159,528
-7.2% ↓
-7.2% ↓
Number of offenders in cohort
617,024
641,742
601,924
-2.4% ↓
-6.2% ↓
Adult offenders
Proportion of offenders who re-offend (%)
26.2
25.4
25.3
-0.9pp ↓
0.0pp ↔
Average number of re-offences per re-offender
3.39
2.88
2.91
-14.3% ↓
0.9% ↑
Proportion of offenders who re-offend - Adjusted to baseline2 (%)
23.6
25.9
26.3
-
-
Average number of re-offences per offender
0.89
0.73
0.74
-17.1% ↓
0.7% ↑
Number of re-offences
423,989
404,228
390,946
-7.8% ↓
-3.3% ↓
Number of re-offenders
125,023
140,314
134,519
7.6% ↑
-4.1% ↓
Number of offenders in cohort
477,698
553,385
531,420
11.2% ↑
-4.0% ↓
Juvenile offenders
Proportion of offenders who re-offend (%)
33.7
35.8
35.5
1.8pp ↑
-0.3pp ↓
Average number of re-offences per re-offender
3.32
2.87
2.88
-13.1% ↓
0.4% ↑
Proportion of offenders who re-offend - Adjusted to baseline2 (%)
32.0
35.2
35.5
-
-
Average number of re-offences per offender
1.12
1.03
1.02
-8.5% ↓
-0.6% ↓
Number of re-offences
155,781
90,934
72,147
-53.7% ↓
-20.7% ↓
Number of re-offenders
46,912
31,635
25,009
-46.7% ↓
-20.9% ↓
Number of offenders in cohort
139,326
88,357
70,504
-49.4% ↓
-20.2% ↓
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 baseline rate
Percentage
change
2000 to
12 months ending
March 20121
Percentage
change
12 months ending
March 2011 to
12 months ending
March 20121 
 
 
 
 
9

 
 
 
10
Overall - adult and juvenile offenders (Table 1) 
 
 
Adult offenders accounted for 88% (around 530,000) of the April 2011 to 
March 2012 offender cohort, and juvenile offenders, 12% (around 71,000). 
 
Around 130,000 of all adult offenders were proven to have committed a re-
offence within a year. This gives a proven re-offending rate of 25.3% which 
represents no change compared to the previous 12 months. Since 2000, there 
has been little change in this rate, as illustrated in Figure 1. Over this time it 
has ranged from 25% to 28%. 
 
The proven re-offending rate for juvenile offenders is higher, but in the last 12 
months it has decreased slightly from 35.8% in the 12 months ending March 
2011 to 35.5% in the 12 months ending March 2012, a drop mainly driven by 
a decrease in the rate for 15 to 17 year olds. Since 2000, the rate has 
remained fairly flat at around 32% to 36%. 
 
While the rate has seen an increase since 2000, the total number of juvenile 
offenders in the cohort has fallen by 49%. 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 thus 
leaving behind a more prolific group of offenders who are more likely to re-
offend. More information on first time entrants for both adults and juveniles 
can be found in the ‘Criminal Justice Statistics Quarterly Bulletin’ at: 
 
www.gov.uk/government/collections/criminal-justice-statistics-quarterly 

Figure 1: Proportion of adult and juvenile offenders in England and 
Wales who commit a proven re-offence, 2000, 2002 to 12 months ending 
March 20121,2 
 
1. Data are not available for 2001 due to a problem with archived data on Court Orders
2. For 2006 to 2012, data are for the 12 months ending March
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
Cohort
Proportion of offenders who re-offend (%)
Adult
Juvenile
All
 
 
 
 
11

Gender (Table 2) 
 
 
In the April 2011 to March 2012 cohort, 81% were male and 19% were female 
– a gender split that has changed little over the years since 2000. Male 
offenders from the April 2011 to March 2012 cohort, re-offended at a higher 
rate of 28.3% compared to female offenders who re-offended at a rate of 
18.7%, and, as shown in Figure 2, both rates have remained broadly stable 
since 2000. Between 2000 and the 12 months ending March 2012, the proven 
re-offending rate for male offenders decreased by 1.2 percentage points, and, 
over the same period, the rate for female offenders saw a slightly larger 
decrease of 1.7 percentage points. 
 
 
Figure 2: Proportion of adult and juvenile offenders in England and 
Wales who commit a proven re-offence, by gender, 2000, 2002 to 12 
months ending March 20121,2 
 
1. Data are not available for 2001 due to a problem with archived data on Court Orders
2. For 2006 to 2012, data are for the 12 months ending March
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
Cohort
Proportion of offenders who re-offend (%)
Male
Female
 
 
 
 
12

Age (Table 3) 
 
 
Since 2000, the proven re-offending rate for offenders aged 15 to 17 has been 
consistently higher than the rates for offenders in other age groups. In the 12 
months ending March 2012, the rate for offenders in this age group decreased 
for the first time in four years – it fell from 36.7% (the highest level since 2000) 
in the previous 12 months to 35.8%. At 34.5%, rates for 10 to 14 year olds 
from the April 2011 to March 2012 cohort are the second highest and, along 
with the rates for those aged 35 and over, have reached their highest levels 
since 2000. 
 
Compared to 2000, the proven re-offending rate for offenders in the cohort for 
April 2011 to March 2012 rose for 10 to 14 year olds and for those aged 30 
and over, but fell for offenders aged 15 to 29. 
 
Figure 3 shows that the proven re-offending rate for those aged 18 and over 
generally falls with increasing age. 
 
 
Figure 3: Proportion of adult and juvenile offenders in England and 
Wales who commit a proven re-offence, by age, 2000, 2010 and 12 
months ending March 20121,2 
 
1. For 2011 and 2012, data are for the 12 months ending March
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
10 to 14
15 to 17
18 to 20
21 to 24
25 to 29
30 to 34
35 to 39
40 to 44
45 to 49
50+
Age
Proportion of offenders who re-offend (%)
2000
2011
2012
 
 
 
 
13

 
 
 
14
Disposal (sentence) type 
 
 
Adult offenders discharged from prison or commencing a court order 
(Table 18a) 
 
 
Between April 2011 and March 2012, around 190,000 adult offenders were 
discharged from prison or commenced a court order. Around 67,000 of these 
offenders were proven to have committed a re-offence within a year. This 
gives a proven re-offending rate of 35.6%. 
 
Since 2005, the rate has remained fairly flat at around 36% to 38%. 
 
 
Adult offenders discharged from prison (Table 19a) 
 
 
Between April 2011 and March 2012, around 60,000 adult offenders were 
discharged from prison and around 28,000 of these (45.8%) were proven to 
have committed a re-offence within a year. While the rate has decreased by 
3.6 percentage points since 2000, it has remained fairly stable since 2005. 
 
Around half of the adult offenders discharged from prison between April 2011 
and March 2012 were released from a custodial sentence of less than 12 
months. These offenders had a proven re-offending rate of 57.7% compared 
to 34.4% for those who served sentences of 12 months or more. 
 
Since 2005, the overall rate for those released from custody has remained 
broadly stable and the rate for those released from short sentences has been 
consistently higher compared to those released from long sentences, as 
shown in Figure 4. 

Figure 4: Proportion of adult offenders discharged from prison who 
commit a proven re-offence, by custodial sentence length, 2000, 2002 to 
12 months ending March 20121,2 
 
1. Data are not available for 2001 due to a problem with archived data on Court Orders
2. For 2006 to 2012, data are for the 12 months ending March
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
Cohort
Proportion of offenders who re-offend (%)
All lengths
Less than 12 months
12 months to less then 4 years
12 months or more
4 years to 10 years
More than 10 years
 
 
 
Juvenile offenders released from custody (Table 19b) 
 
 
Between April 2011 and March 2012, around 2,000 juvenile offenders were 
released from custody and around 1,400 of these (69.3%) were proven to 
have committed a re-offence within a year. This represents a fall of 3.3 
percentage points compared to the previous 12 months and fall of 7.5 
percentage points since 2000. 
 
 
Adult offenders commencing a court order (Table 18a) 
 
 
Between April 2011 and March 2012, around 140,000 adult offenders started 
a court order and around 47,000 of these (34.0%) committed a proven re-
offence within a year. 
 
 
Comparing the effectiveness of sentences 
 
 
Proven re-offending rates by index 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 ‘2013 Compendium of Re-offending Statistics and Analysis’ compares 
like for like offenders which enables a more reliable comparison of proven re-
offending rates between offenders receiving different sentences. 
 
 
 
 
15

 
 
 
16
The findings from the Compendium show that offenders sentenced to less 
than 12 months in custody had a higher proven re-offending rate than similar, 
matched offenders receiving: 
 
 a community order - 6.4 percentage points for 2010; 
 
 a suspended sentence order - 8.6 percentage points for 2010; 
 
 a ‘court order’ (either a community order or a suspended order) - 6.8 
percentage points for 2010. 
 
Non-custodial sentences were also compared: 
 
 Suspended sentence orders had a lower re-offending rate than 
community orders (3.2 percentage points for 2010); 
 
 Community orders had a higher re-offending rate than fines, though the 
difference was small (0.9 percentage points in 2010); 
 
 Conditional discharges had a lower re-offending rate than: Community 
orders (5.1 percentage points for 2010); and Fines (5.5 percentage 
points for 2010). 
 
www.gov.uk/government/publications/2013-compendium-of-re-offending-
statistics-and-analysis 

 
 
 
17
Adult offenders by individual prison (Tables 22a and b) 
 
 
Among prisons which discharged 30 or more offenders between April 2011 
and March 2012, proven re-offending rates varied considerably from 12.1% to 
80.0% for offenders with a sentence of less than 12 months and from 3.4% to 
64.9% for offenders with a sentence of 12 months or more. 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. 
 
To account for this variability in the mix of prisoners, a model has been 
developed to help explain if re-offending rates are affected by the specific 
prison they are discharged from or if the rate of re-offending 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. 
 
Less than 12 month sentences 
Among prisons discharging offenders serving sentences of less than 12 
months, four prisons (Ford, Leyhill, Standford Hill and Usk/Prescoed) had 
significantly lower proven re-offending rates than expected and two (Hindley 
and Wetherby) had significantly higher. 
 
12 month or more sentences 
Among prisons discharging offenders serving sentences of 12 months or 
more, four prisons had significantly lower proven re-offending rates 
(Canterbury, East Sutton Park, Grendon/Spring Hill and Latchmere House) 
than expected and none had significantly higher. 
 
 
Adult offenders by probation trust (Table 24) 
 
 
Offenders given a court order are managed by the Probation Service which 
comprises 35 probation trusts. Proven re-offending rates for 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. 
 
Proven re-offending rates varied considerably between probation trusts from 
26.7% to 43.1%. 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. Seven probation trusts showed 
significantly lower proven re-offending rates than expected. These were 
Gloucestershire, Hampshire, London, Northamptonshire, South Yorkshire, 

Staffordshire and West Midlands and York and North Yorkshire. None showed 
significantly higher proven re-offending rates than expected. 
 
 
 
Index offence (Table 5c) 
 
 
The offence that leads to an offender being included in the offender cohort is 
called the index offence. In the April 2011 to March 2012 cohort, offenders 
with an index offence of ‘Theft’ had the highest proven re-offending rate of 
40.0%. This was closely followed by those with an index offence of ‘Robbery’ 
with a rate of 37.5%. Those with the lowest rate (excluding the ‘Other’ 
category) had an index offence of ‘Fraud’ and re-offended at a rate of 11.4%. 
Additionally, with a fall of 10.3 percentage points, the ‘Fraud’ index offence 
category saw the largest decrease between 2000 and the 12 months ending 
March 2012. In contrast, the largest increase over the same period occurred 
for those with an index offence of ‘Public Order’. 
 
 
Figure 5: Proportion of adult and juvenile offenders in England and 
Wales who commit a proven re-offence, by index offence, 12 months 
ending March 2012 
 
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
Theft
Robbery
Positive Drug Test
Public Order
Miscellaneous
Crimes Against
Society
Criminal Damage
and Arson
Possession of
Weapons
Drug
Summary Non-
motoring
Violence Against the
Person
Sexual
Summary Motoring
Fraud
Other
Index offence
Proportion of offenders who offend (%)
All
Adult
Juvenile
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
18

Previous offences (Table 6a, b and c) 
 
 
Generally, 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. In the 
April 2011 to March 2012 cohort, the proven re-offending rates ranged from 
10.8% for offenders with no previous offences to 47.5% for offenders with 11 
or more previous offences. Between 2000 and the 12 months ending March 
2012, the largest decrease in the proven re-offending rate was among 
offenders with one or two previous offences. 
 
Adult offenders with 11 or more previous offences represented just under a 
third of all adult offenders in the April 2011 to March 2012 cohort, but 
committed two thirds of all adult proven re-offences. Juvenile offenders with 
11 or more previous offences had a proven re-offending rate of 76.1%. This 
group make up only 6% of all juvenile offenders, but committed a fifth (20%) 
of all juvenile proven re-offences. 
 
 
Figure 6: Proportion of adult and juvenile offenders in England and 
Wales who commit a proven re-offence, by previous offence band, 12 
months ending March 2012 
 
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
No previous offences
Between 1 and 2
Between 3 and 6
Between 7 and 10
11 or more
Previous offence band
Proportion of offenders who offend (%)
All
Adult
Juvenile
 
 
 
 
 
19

 
 
 
20
List of quarterly tables 
Proven re-offending – overview 
 
Table 1   
Summary proven re-offending data, by adults and juveniles 
2000, 2002 to March 2012 
 
Table 2   
Proven re-offending data, by gender, 2000, 2002 to March 2012 
 
Table 3   
Proven re-offending data, by age, 2000, 2002 to March 2012 
 
-----------------------Table 4 is published annually in October----------------------- 
 
Table 5a   
Adult proven re-offending data, by index offence (based on new 
ONS crime classifications), 2000, 2002 to March 2012 
 
Table 5b   
Juvenile proven re-offending data, by index offence (based on 
new ONS crime classifications), 2000, 2002 to March 2012 
 
Table 5c   
Adult and juvenile proven re-offending data, by index offence 
(based on new ONS crime classifications), 2000, 2002 to March 
2012 
 
Table 6a   
Adult proven re-offending data, by number of previous offences, 
2000, 2002 to March 2012 
 
Table 6b   
Juvenile proven re-offending data, by number of previous 
 offences, 2000, 2002 to March 2012 
 
Table 6c   
Adult and juvenile proven re-offending data, by number of 
previous offences, 2000, 2002 to March 2012 
 
-----------------------Table 7 is published annually in October----------------------- 
 
Table 8   
Serious proven re-offending data, 2000, 2002 to March 2012 
 
-----------------Tables 9 to17 are published annually in October----------------- 
 
Proven re-offending by index disposal, probation trust and prison 
 
Table 18a   Adult proven re-offending data, by index disposal, 2000, 2002 to 
March 2012 
 
Table 18b   Juvenile proven re-offending data, by index disposal, 2000, 2002 
to March 2012 
 
Table 19a   Adult proven re-offending data, by custodial sentence length, 
2000, 2002 to March 2012 

 
 
 
21
 
Table 19b   Juvenile proven re-offending data, by custodial sentence length, 
2000, 2002 to March 2012 
 
---------------Tables 20 and 21 are published annually in October--------------- 
 
Table 22a   Proven re-offending of adult offenders given sentences of less 
than 12 months, by individual prison, based on first discharge 
from each prison, 2007 to March 2012 
 
Table 22b   Proven re-offending of adult offenders given sentences of 12 
months or more, by individual prison, based on first discharge 
from each prison, 2007 to March 2012 
 
Table 23   
Juvenile proven re-offending data, by individual prison or secure 
accommodation, based on first discharge from each prison or 
secure accommodation, 2007 to March 2012 
 
Table 24   
Adult proven re-offending data by probation trust based on first 
commencement from each trust, 2005 to March 2012 
 
----------------------Table 25 is published annually in October---------------------- 

 
 
 
22
                                                
Annex A 
Interim re-conviction figures for Peterborough and 
Doncaster Payment by Results pilots 
 
Background 
 
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) published “Breaking the Cycle: Effective 
Punishment, Rehabilitation and Sentencing of Offenders” in December 2010. 
This Green Paper included a commitment for the MoJ to commission a series 
of initial ‘payment by results’ (PbR) pilot projects to test the principle that PbR 
can result in service improvements by delivering better outcomes for the 
public at the same or less cost. 
 
The MoJ currently has two prison based PbR pilots operating in HMP 
Peterborough and HMP Doncaster. The Peterborough pilot began on 9 
September 2010 and the Doncaster pilot on 1 October 2011. 
 
There are a number of differences in the design of the two pilots to enable 
different PbR approaches to be tested. These differences (as set out below in 
the methodology section and also in Table A1 of the Appendix) mean that the 
interim figures for the two pilots cannot be directly compared. 
 
The final results for both pilots will be based on a 12 month re-conviction 
measure which counts offences committed in the 12 months following release 
from prison, and resulting in conviction at court either in those 12 months or in 
a further 6 month period (allowing time for cases to progress through the 
courts). As a consequence of this necessary time lag, final results will not be 
available until summer 2014 (for cohort8 1 of both pilots, with final results for 
subsequent cohorts to follow in later years). 
 
However, given the high level of public interest in relation to the reforms set 
out in the MoJ publication “Transforming Rehabilitation – a strategy for 
reform”, the MoJ began publishing interim re-conviction figures for both of 
these pilots from June 2013. This was the earliest opportunity after MoJ 
statisticians judged the number of offenders being reported on to be large 
enough to provide robust interim figures. 
 
These figures are updated in this dedicated annex to each edition of the 
MoJ’s quarterly Proven Re-offending Statistics bulletin. 
 
8 A cohort is the group of offenders included in the pilot, and for whom the reduction in re-convictions will 
be measured. See Table A1 in the Appendix for more details on which offenders are included in the 
cohorts. 

 
 
 
23
                                                
Methodology 
 
Offenders enter the PbR pilots after their first eligible release from the prison 
within the cohort period. For Peterborough, cohort 1 closed at the end of the 
month in which the 1000th eligible offender was released. For the purposes of 
this statistical bulletin, cohort 1 is all eligible offenders released between 9 
September 2010 and 1 July 2012. For Doncaster, cohort 1 includes all eligible 
offenders released from 1 October 2011 to 30 September 2012. 
 
Both PbR prison pilots use a 12 month re-conviction measure which differs 
from the National Statistics proven re-offending measure. The key difference 
is that re-convictions only count offences for which the offender was convicted 
at court, whereas the National Statistics proven re-offending measure also 
includes out of court disposals (cautions). However, the time periods used for 
both measures are the same – offences committed within 12 months of 
release from prison and convicted at court (or cautioned for the proven re-
offending measure) either in those 12 months, or in a further 6 month period 
(allowing time for cases to progress through the courts). 
 
There are a number of differences in the design of the two pilots to enable 
different PbR approaches to be tested. The Peterborough pilot includes 
offenders released from custodial sentences of less than 12 months, whereas 
the Doncaster pilot includes all offenders released from custody regardless of 
sentence length. Although both pilots will be assessed using a 12 month re-
conviction measure, the exact measures used are different in the two pilots 
(see the next section, Final re-conviction measures, for more details). 
 
Additionally, there are a number of other differences between the pilots and 
the National Statistics proven re-offending measure in terms of which 
offenders are counted within the cohort. These differences were set out in the 
PbR contracts; see Table A1 in the Appendix for more details. 
 
 
Final (outcome) re-conviction measures for the prison pilots 
 
For Peterborough prison the outcome measure is the frequency of re-
conviction events9 (based on offences committed within 12 months of release 
from prison and convicted at court within those 12 months or a further 6 
month period). This is often referred to as a frequency measure. Success of 
each Peterborough cohort will be determined by comparison with a control 
group (of comparable offenders from across the country), and the results will 
be published separately. 
 
For Doncaster prison the outcome measure is the proportion of offenders 
who commit one or more offences in the 12 months following release from 
prison and are convicted at court in those 12 months or in a further 6 months. 
 
9 If an offender is re-convicted of multiple offences on one sentencing occasion, this counts as one re-
conviction event. 

 
 
 
24
This is often referred to as a binary measure. Success will be determined by 
comparison with the re-conviction rate in the baseline year of 2009. 
 
Interim re-conviction measures for the prison pilots 
 
In publishing these interim figures MoJ aims to give the most useful figures for 
as much of each cohort as possible at each point in time. 
 
Initially, this is done by providing figures based on periods half the length of 
those that will be used for the final results, for an increasing proportion of 
each cohort. These cover offences committed in the 6 months following 
release from prison, and resulting in conviction at court either in those 6 
months or in a further 3 month period (allowing time for cases to progress 
through the courts). 
 
Subsequently, when the data become available, we provide figures based on 
the full period used for the final results: covering offences committed in the 12 
months following release from prison, and resulting in conviction at court 
either in those 12 months or in a further 6 month period, again for an 
increasing proportion of the cohort. 
 
These figures are updated on a quarterly basis. See Table A3 in the Appendix 
for a timeline of the publication of these results. 
 
The figures for Peterborough in this bulletin are 12 month re-conviction 
figures. They cover offenders released in the first 19 months of the cohort 1 
period (the full cohort comprises 22 months). 
 
For Doncaster, the figures presented here show 12 month re-conviction rates 
for the first time. They cover offenders released in the first 6 months of the 
cohort 1 period (the full cohort comprises 12 months). 
 
Interpreting interim re-conviction figures 
 
The interim re-conviction figures presented in this statistical bulletin give an 
indication of progress in the pilots to date. However, care should be taken 
when interpreting these interim figures for the following reasons: 
 
 Figures for both pilots are based on incomplete cohorts; 
 For the Peterborough pilot, success will be determined based on 
comparison with a control group of comparable offenders from across 
the country, which is not available for these interim results; 
Users should therefore be aware that the figures presented provide our best 
assessment of change at this point in time. The final results will be available in 
summer 2014. 

 
 
 
25
                                                
Results 
 
Peterborough 
 
The interim figures presented in this statistical bulletin are 12 month re-
conviction figures for offenders released from Peterborough in the first 19 
months of the cohort 1 period (the full cohort comprises 22 months). For 
comparison, we have provided equivalent figures for the five years prior to the 
pilots10. 
 
Success of the Peterborough pilot will be measured against a control group of 
similar offenders released from other prisons, with the target met if the 
frequency of re-conviction events is 10% lower for the Peterborough cohort 
than for the control group. It is not possible to replicate that comparison for 
these interim figures. Instead, in order to provide some context for the 
Peterborough figures, we have provided equivalent national figures for the 
same periods. The national figures are based on other local11 prisons which 
exclude Peterborough and Doncaster. 
 
10 Figures for Sep09-Jun11 overlap with the pilot cohort 1 period itself; therefore they should not be used 
as a baseline for comparison. They have been included in the published figures for transparency. 
11 Since HMP Peterborough is a local prison, the underlying characteristics of the prison and its 
offenders will be more similar to those of local prisons. See Annex D for a definition of local prison. 

Table 1 and Figure 1: Peterborough (and national equivalent) interim re-
conviction figures using a partial (19 month) cohort and a 12 month re-
conviction period 
 
Discharge 
Period
No. of 
offenders
Re-conviction 
Rate
Frequency of re-
conviction events 
per 100 ofenders
No. of 
offenders
Re-conviction 
Rate
Frequency of re-
conviction events 
per 100 offenders
Sep05-Mar07
724
56.2%
143
29,358
56.5%
133
Sep06-Mar08
868
56.6%
154
29,373
57.0%
142
Sep07-Mar09
1,030
55.9%
153
32,329
56.9%
146
Sep08-Mar10
980
54.8%
163
32,756
55.3%
146
Sep09-Mar11
845
52.9%
151
30,525
55.8%
155
Sep10-Mar12
844
53.1%
148
29,798
55.7%
160
National
Peterborough
 
 
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
Sep05-Mar07
Sep06-Mar08
Sep07-Mar09
Sep08-Mar10
Sep09-Mar11
Sep10-Mar12
Cohort period
Frequency of re-conviction events per 100 
offenders
Peterborough 
National
 
 
Table 1 above shows that for offenders released from Peterborough between 
9 September 2010 and 31 March 2012 (the first 19 months of cohort 1), there 
were an average of 148 re-conviction events per 100 offenders. This 
compares to an average of 163 re-conviction events per 100 offenders 
released from Peterborough between September 2008 and March 2010; a fall 
of 9%. 
 
Nationally, the equivalent figures show a rise of 10% from 146 to 160 re-
conviction events per 100 offenders. 
 
These interim figures show a fall in the frequency of re-conviction events at 
Peterborough while nationally there has been a substantial rise which is our 
best assessment of change at this point in time (see the section Interpreting 
interim re-conviction figures). The final results will be available in summer 
2014. 
 
 
 
26

Doncaster 
 
The interim figures presented in this statistical bulletin are 12 month re-
conviction figures for offenders released from Doncaster in the first 6 months 
of the cohort 1 period (the full cohort comprises 12 months). For comparison, 
we have provided equivalent figures for the five years prior to the pilot and 
equivalent national figures for the same periods. The national figures are 
based on other local12 prisons which exclude Peterborough and Doncaster. 
 
Success of the Doncaster pilot will be measured against a baseline of 
calendar year 2009, with the target met if the re-conviction rate for cohort 1 is 
5 percentage points lower than it was in 2009. 
 
Table 2 and Figure 2: Doncaster (and national equivalent) interim 12-
month re-conviction figures for offenders released in the first 6 months 
of the cohort 1 period 
Discharge Period
No. of 
offenders
Re-conviction 
Rate
No. of 
offenders
Re-conviction 
Rate
Oct06-Mar07
739
59.7%
12,585
56.9%
Oct07-Mar08
636
63.7%
13,868
58.0%
Oct08-Mar09
669
60.1%
14,324
57.0%
Oct09-Mar10
718
57.7%
14,184
55.6%
Oct10-Mar11
675
53.8%
13,712
56.1%
Oct11-Mar12
719
53.8%
13,903
54.1%
Doncaster
National 
 
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Oct06-
Mar07
Oct07-
Mar08
Oct08-
Mar09
Oct09-
Mar10
Oct10-
Mar11
Oct11-
Mar12
Cohort Period
Re-conviction rate
Doncaster
National
 
                                                 
12 Since HMP Doncaster is a local prison, the underlying characteristics of the prison and its offenders 
will be more similar to those of local prisons. See Annex D for a definition of local prison. 
 
 
 
27

 
 
 
28
Table 2 above shows a 12 month re-conviction rate of 53.8% for offenders 
released from Doncaster between October 2011 and March 2012 (the first 6 
months of cohort 1). 
 
This compares to 60.1% for offenders released between October 2008 and 
March 2009 (a fall of 6.3 percentage points), and 57.7% for those released 
between October 2009 and March 2010 (a fall of 3.8 percentage points). We 
have compared to these figures as they are the closest comparable periods to 
the baseline period of calendar year 2009. 
 
Nationally the equivalent figures show a re-conviction rate of 54.1% for 
offenders released between October 2011 and March 2012. This represents a 
fall of 2.9 percentage points compared with offenders released between 
October 2008 and March 2009 (57.0%) and a fall of 1.5 percentage points 
compared with those released from October 2009 to March 2010 (55.6%). 
 
These interim figures show our best assessment of change at this point in 
time (see the section Interpreting interim re-conviction figures). The final 
results will be available in summer 2014. 

 
 
 
29
Appendix 
 
Table A1: Comparison of PbR re-conviction and National Statistics 
proven re-offending measures 
 
PbR prison pilot re-conviction measures 
 
National 
Statistics 
measure of 
proven re-
offending (for 
any prison) 
Peterborough (cohort 1) 
Doncaster (cohort 1) 
The cohort 
All offenders who 
were discharged 
from custody, 
over a 12 month 
period, 
regardless of 
sentence length. 
Excludes those in 
prison for breach 
Male offenders aged 18 or 
over discharged from 
Peterborough prison between 
9 September 2010 and 1 July 
2012 after serving sentences 
of less than 12 months. 
Differences from National 
Statistics: 
 
Excludes those who 
serve the whole of their 
custodial sentence on 
remand 
 
Excludes foreign national 
offenders recorded as 
having been deported on 
release from prison 
 
Includes those in prison 
for breach 
 
Male offenders aged 18 or 
over discharged from 
Doncaster prison between 1 
October 2011 and 30 
September 2012 regardless 
of sentence length. 
Differences from National 
Statistics: 
 
Excludes those who 
serve the whole of their 
custodial sentence on 
remand 
 
Excludes foreign 
national offenders 
recorded as having been 
deported on release 
from prison 
 
The period to 
measure re-
convictions/re-
offending 
12 months for 
offences to occur 
and a further 6 
months for 
offences to be 
proven (through 
conviction at 
court or a 
caution) 
12 months for offences to 
occur and a further 6 months 
for offences to be re-
convicted 
 
Note: excludes cautions 
12 months for offences to 
occur and a further 6 months 
for offences to be re-
convicted 
 
Note: excludes cautions 
The headline measure 
Proportion of 
offenders who 
commit one or 
more proven re-
offences 
 
Frequency of re-conviction 
events 
Proportion of offenders re-
convicted of one or more 
offences 
What counts 
 
Offences 
committed in the 
12 months 
following release 
from prison, and 
proven by 
conviction at 
court or a caution 
either in those 12 
months or in a 
further 6 months 
Any re-conviction event 
(sentencing occasion) 
relating to offences 
committed in the 12 months 
following release from prison, 
and resulting in conviction at 
court either in those 12 
months or in a further 6 
months 
 
Note: excludes cautions 
 
Offences committed in the 
12 months following release 
from prison, and resulting in 
conviction at court either in 
those 12 months or in a 
further 6 months 
 
Note: excludes cautions 

OGRS score data 
 
Re-offending is related to the characteristics of offenders, for example 
offenders with a large number of previous convictions are more likely to re-
offend than those with fewer previous convictions, and changes in re-
conviction rates over time can be related to changes in the mix of offenders 
being worked with rather than a real change in the level of their re-offending. 
 
The Offender Group Reconviction Scale (OGRS)13 is a predictor of re-
offending based on age, gender and criminal history, which are risk factors 
known to be associated with the likelihood of re-offending. OGRS scores 
range from 0 to 1, with a lower score representing a lower likelihood of re-
offending. The scores can be used to compare the relative likelihood of re-
offending either over time or between different groups of offenders, with a 
higher/lower rate meaning a group of offenders who are more/less likely to re-
offend. For example if Offender Group A have an average OGRS score of 
0.44, and Offender Group B have an average OGRS score of 0.58, this 
means that Offender Group A are less likely to re-offend. 
 
Tables A2a and A2b show the average OGRS scores for each of the offender 
groups that are measured in the tables above. These include offenders 
released from Peterborough and Doncaster prisons as well as those for the 
equivalent national groups of offenders. The figures are approximate because 
a small minority of offenders from each group are not included due to some 
data being unavailable. 
 
Table A2a: Peterborough (and national equivalent) OGRS scores for 
offenders released in the first 19 months of the cohort 1 period  
 
Discharge Period
Peterborough
National
Sep05-Mar07
0.50
0.53
Sep06-Mar08
0.50
0.53
Sep07-Mar09
0.50
0.52
Sep08-Mar10
0.50
0.52
Sep09-Mar11
0.48
0.52
Sep10-Mar12
0.49
0.52
Average OGRS score
 
 
                                                 
13 For more details on OGRS see Ministry of Justice Research Summary 7/09 OGRS 3: the revised 
Offender Group Reconviction Scale at: 
webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20110201125714/http:/www.justice.gov.uk/publications/offender-
assessment-system.htm 
 
 
 
30

Table A2b: Doncaster (and national equivalent) OGRS scores for 
offenders released in the first 6 months of the cohort 1 period 
 
Discharge Period
Doncaster
National
Oct06-Mar07
0.56
0.54
Oct07-Mar08
0.59
0.53
Oct08-Mar09
0.58
0.53
Oct09-Mar10
0.56
0.52
Oct10-Mar11
0.57
0.52
Oct11-Mar12
0.54
0.52
Average OGRS score
 
 
Table A3: Timeline for publication of interim re-conviction figures 
 
April 2014 
July 2014 
Peterborough 
12 month re-conviction 
figures for entire cohort 1 (a 
22 month cohort) 
 
Doncaster 
12 month re-conviction 
figures for 9 months of 
cohort 1 
12 month re-conviction 
results for entire cohort 1 
(a 12 month cohort) 
 
 
Table A4: Other information on the pilots 
 
Prison / Area 
Start date of 
pilot 
Length 
of pilot 
Number of 
eligible 
participants for 
Cohort 1  
Number of 
eligible 
participants to 
date for Cohort 2 
Peterborough 
Social Impact 
Bond (SIB)  
9 September 
2010 
Six years 
1,03414  
66015 
HMP Doncaster 
1 October 
2011 
Four 
years 
1,47216 
1,23017 
 
                                                 
14 Eligible participants from Cohort 1 from 9 September 2010 to 1 July 2012. 
15 Eligible participants from Cohort 2 from 2 July 2012 to 30 September 2013. 
16 Eligible participants from Cohort 1 from 1 October 2011 to 30 September 2012. 
17 Eligible participants from Cohort 2 from 1 October 2012 to 30 September 2013. This is the entire 
Doncaster pilot cohort 2 period, but the figure is provisional at this stage and subject to revision. 
 
 
 
31

 
 
 
32
Annex B 
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 re-offences 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 to 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. Please refer to the ‘Definitions and Measurement’ document for 
more detail at: www.gov.uk/government/collections/proven-reoffending-
statistics. 
 
Re-conviction – 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 used in the Proven Re-offending Statistics Quarterly Bulletin – 
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 

 
 
 
33
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. 
 
Cohort used in the Local Adult Re-offending Quarterly Bulletin – 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 July 2012 – 30 June 2013, 
England and Wales; Ministry of Justice, November 2013. 
 
www.gov.uk/government/collections/local-adult-reoffending 
 
Disposal (sentence type) 
 
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 Statistics 2009 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 add 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 re-
offending; 
 

 
 
 
34
 prohibited activity – a requirement not do so something that is likely to 
lead to further offence 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 – between a minimum of 12 hours and a maximum 
of 36 in total which includes three hours of activity. 
 
Typically, the more serious the offence and the more extensive the offender’s 
needs, the more requirements there will be. Most orders will comprise of 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 CJA 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. 
 

 
 
 
35
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 a 
Young Offenders Institute (YOI). If the offender is given a sentence of 12 
months or over, or is aged under 22 on release, the offender is supervised by 
the Probation Service on release. It is important to note that the sentence 
lengths and youth disposals awarded will be longer than the time served in 
custody. For more information please refer to Appendix A of Offender 
Management Caseload Statistics 2009. 
 
Short sentences (under 12 months) – those sentenced to under 12 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 month’s 
supervision on release. 
 
Sentences of 12 months or over – the CJA03 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. 
 
Youth disposal (sentence type) 
 
Reprimand or warning – 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. 
 

 
 
 
36
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. 
 
Youth Rehabilitation Order – a community sentence for juvenile offenders, 
which came into effect on 30 November 2009 as part of the Criminal Justice 
and Immigration Act 2008. It combines a number of sentences into one 
generic sentence and is the standard community sentence used for the 
majority of children and young people who offend. The following requirements 
can be attached to a Youth Rehabilitation Order (YRO): 
 
 activity requirement 
 
 curfew requirement 
 
 exclusion requirement 
 
 local authority residence requirement 
 
 education requirement 
 
 mental health treatment requirement 
 
 unpaid work requirement 
 
 drug testing requirement 
 
 intoxicating substance misuse requirement 
 
 supervision requirement 
 
 electronic monitoring requirement 
 
 prohibited activity requirement 
 
 drug treatment requirement 
 
 residence requirement 
 

 
 
 
37
 programme requirement 
 
 attendance centre requirement 
 
 intensive supervision and surveillance 
 
 intensive fostering 
 
The following community sentences are replaced by the YRO, but will 
continue to exist for those that committed an offence before 30 November 
2009. The YRO is only available for those that committed an offence on or 
after the 30 November 2009. 
 
 action plan order 
 
 curfew order 
 
 supervision order 
 
 supervision order and conditions 
 
 community punishment order 
 
 community punishment and rehabilitation order 
 
 attendance centre order 
 
 drug treatment and testing order 
 
 exclusion order 
 
 community rehabilitation order 
 
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. 
 

 
 
 
38
Female prisons, as the name implies, hold female 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 un-convicted and un-sentenced 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. 
 
Miscellaneous terms 
 
Drug-misusing offenders 
 
There are four ways a drug-misusing offender can be identified: 
 
 Individuals who have tested positive for heroin or crack/cocaine 
following an arrest or charge for ‘trigger’ offences (largely acquisitive 
crime offences) as part of the Drug Interventions Programme (DIP) are 
included as adult proven offenders. 
 

 
 
 
39
 Any offender that received an OASys assessment whilst on licence or 
on a community sentence and are either recorded as being subject to a 
current Drug Treatment and Testing Order (DTTO) or Drug 
Rehabilitation Requirement (DRR), or are assessed as having a 
criminogenic drug need. 
 Any offender identified as requiring further drug interventions by 
Counselling, Assessment, Referral, Advice, Throughcare (CARAT) 
teams in prison, and now being released into the community. 
 
 Any offender identified by local Criminal Justice Integrated Teams 
(CJITs) as requiring further intervention for their drug use and offending 
as part of DIP. 
 
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 MoJ maintains a database based on weekly 
extracts of selected data from the PNC in order to compile statistics and 
conduct research on re-offending 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 MoJ'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. 
 
Prolific and other priority offenders – the Prolific and other Priority 
Offenders Programme (PPO) aims to use a multi-agency approach to focus 
on a very small, but hard core group of prolific/persistent offenders who 
commit disproportionate amounts of crime and cause disproportionate harm 
to their local communities. The identification of a PPO is undertaken at a local 
level involving police, local authorities, prison and probation services and 
youth offending teams. The factors that influence the decision of whether an 
offender is included in the PPO programme are: 
 
 the nature and volume of crimes they commit; 
 
 the nature and volume of other harm they cause; and 
 
 the detrimental impact they have on their community. 
 
 
 

 
 
 
40
Recordable offences – recordable offences are those that the police are 
required to record on the PNC. 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-only (the most serious offences that 
must be tried at the Crown Court; these ‘indictable-only’ offences include 
murder, manslaughter, rape and robbery). The term indictable offences is 
used to refer to all triable-either-way and ‘indictable-only’ offences. 
 
Offence group (based on new ONS crime classifications) – offences 
classified into 13 separate offence categories using the new Office for 
National Statistics (ONS) crime classifications. For further information on the 
new classification, please refer to: www.ons.gov.uk/ons/guide-
method/method-quality/specific/crime-statistics-methodology/presentational-
changes-on-police-recorded-crime-in-england-and-wales.pdf. 

 
 
 
41
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. 
 
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 30 
(p) 
Provisional data 
 

 
 
 
42
Contact points 
Press enquiries should be directed to the Ministry of Justice press office: 
 
Tel: xx-xxxx-xxxx 
 
Email: xxx@xxx.xx 
 
Other enquiries about these statistics should be directed to: 
 
Mike Elkins 
Ministry of Justice 
Justice Statistics Analytical Services 
7th Floor 
102 Petty France 
London 
SW1H 9AJ 
Tel: xx-xxxx-xxxx 
 
General enquiries about the statistical work of the Ministry of Justice can be e-
mailed to: xxx@xxx.xx 
 
General information about the official statistics system of the United Kingdom 
is available from www.statistics.gov.uk. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
© Crown copyright 
Produced by the Ministry of Justice 
 
Alternative formats are available on request from 
xxx@xxx.xx