Proven Re-offending Statistics Quarterly Bulletin Apr 2009 - Mar 2010
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 2009 to March 2010,  
England and Wales 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Ministry of Justice 
Statistics bulletin 
 
 
 
26 January 2012 

Contents 
 
Page 
Introduction  
 
3 
Executive Summary  
 
7 
List of quarterly tables 
 
19 
Annex A: Payment by Results 
22 
 
Annex B: How the measure has changed and the effect of 
these changes 
 
24 
 
Annex C: Glossary of terms 
 
 
40 
Explanatory notes 
48 
. 
 
2

                                           
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 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 April 2009 and March 2010. 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 is the second quarterly bulletin in a new series. This series merges six 
previous measures of re-offending which were split across many publications 
into a single coherent overview of proven re-offending for the first time. It is a 
significant step forward for measuring re-offending 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 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, 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 are provided with comparisons to the previous twelve months, 
April 2008 to March 2009 and the year 2000 in order to highlight long-term 
trends; 2000 is the earliest re-offending 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/proven-
reoffending-quarterly.htm 
 
A full set of results is also provided at: 
www.justice.gov.uk/publications/statistics-and-data/reoffending/proven-
reoffending-quarterly.htm 
 
 
 
 
3

 
Measuring proven re-offending 
 
There is no agreed international standard for measuring and reporting re-
offending. 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 quarterly bulletin and the accompanying ‘Early estimates of proven re-
offending’ www.justice.gov.uk/publications/statistics-and-
data/reoffending/proven-reoffending-quarterly.htm present measures on four 
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 event1 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 with an earlier indication of proven re-offending trends so 
they can adjust or build on offender management operational policy.  
 
 A re-conviction measure for use by payment by results – this is the 
measure used in the prison pilots since court convictions are more 
closely associated with costs to the Criminal Justice System. For more 
details please refer to Annex A. 
 
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 
 
4

                                           
 
 
 
For a more detailed explanation, please see the accompanying ‘Definitions 
and Measurement’ document at www.justice.gov.uk/publications/statistics-
and-data/reoffending/proven-reoffending-quarterly.htm 
 
 
Consultation 
 
This quarterly bulletin has been 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”. The main points from the consultation that affect 
this publication can be found in Annex B. 
 
Users 
 
The contents of the 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 Ministry of Justice impact indicators2 which will be 
monitored using results from this bulletin;  
 
 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 
offenders coming into the system. This actual rate provides users with 
sufficient information on what the level of re-offending is (eg in their local 
area) and how it is changing over time. This bulletin also presents 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 understand how 
changes in types of offenders coming through the justice system drives re-
offending. 
                                                 
2 www.justice.gov.uk/publications/corporate-reports/moj/index.htm 
 
5

 
This is the second bulletin in a new series of publications produced in 
response to a consultation. The Ministry of Justice has addressed the main 
issues from the consultation. We have separately announced plans for further 
analysis on proven re-offending rates using a two and five year follow up 
period and to develop a measure of re-offending while on license under 
probation supervision for publication in July 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. 
 
 
 
6

                                           
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 April 
2009 and March 2010.  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 six months is allowed for cases to progress through the 
courts.  
 
In the 12 months ending March 2010, there were around 680,0003 offenders 
who were cautioned4, convicted (excluding immediate custodial sentences) or 
released from custody5. Just under 180,000 of these offenders 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 2.80 offences each - around 
500,000 offences in total – 79 per cent were committed by adults and 21 per 
cent were committed by juveniles. 
  
- 
53.3 per cent of these offences were committed by offenders with 11 or 
more previous offences. 
 
- 
0.7 per cent (around 3,300) were serious violent/sexual proven re-
offences. 
 
 
Recent Changes 
Compared to the previous twelve months’ cohort, the proven re-offending rate 
was slightly lower at 26.3 per cent compared to 26.8 per cent. This trend held 
across most sub-groups.  
 
Over the same time-period, the average number of proven re-offences per re-
offender decreased by 2.1 per cent from 2.86 to 2.80.  
                                                 
3 A certain proportion of offenders could not be matched to the Police National Computer 
(PNC) and are, therefore, not included. Therefore, this number does not represent ALL 
proven offenders. Please refer to the Definitions and Measurement document for more detail 
www.justice.gov.uk/publications/statistics-and-data/reoffending/proven-reoffending-
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-and-
data/criminal-justice/criminal-justice-statistics.htm 
4 Includes reprimands and warnings for juveniles 
5 Also includes those who tested positive for opiates or cocaine 
 
7

 
 
Table 1.1:  Overview – latest period compared to the previous year and 
2000 
2000
12 months 
ending Mar 
2009
12 months 
ending Mar 
2010
Percentage change 
2000 to 12 months 
ending Mar 20101
Percentage change 12 months 
ending March 2009 to 12 
months ending March 20101 
27.9
26.8
26.3
-1.6pp ↓
-0.6pp ↓
3.37
2.86
2.80
-17.1% ↓
-2.1% ↓
25.5
27.0
27.0
-
-
0.94
0.77
0.73
-21.8% ↓
-4.2% ↓
579,770
556,230
500,656
-13.6% ↓
-10.0% ↓
Number of re-offenders
171,935
194,695
179,040
4.1% ↑
-8.0% ↓
617,024
725,628
681,555
10.5% ↑
-6.1% ↓
Adult offenders
26.2
25.4
24.9
-1.3pp ↓
-0.5pp ↓
3.39
2.89
2.80
-17.5% ↓
-3.1% ↓
23.6
25.6
25.6
-
-
0.89
0.73
0.70
-21.6% ↓
-5.1% ↓
423,989
429,875
395,386
-6.7% ↓
-8.0% ↓
Number of re-offenders
125,023
148,839
141,254
13.0% ↑
-5.1% ↓
477,698
585,896
567,971
18.9% ↑
-3.1% ↓
Juvenile offenders
33.7
32.8
33.3
-0.4pp ↓
0.4pp ↑
3.32
2.76
2.79
-16.1% ↓
1.1% ↑
32.0
33.1
33.9
-
-
1.12
0.90
0.93
-17.1% ↓
2.5% ↑
155,781
126,355
105,270
-32.4% ↓
-16.7% ↓
Number of re-offenders
46,912
45,856
37,786
-19.5% ↓
-17.6% ↓
139,326
139,732
113,584
-18.5% ↓
-18.7% ↓
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.
Average number of re-offences per re-offender
Proportion of offenders who re-offend - Adjusted to baseline2 (%)
Proportion of offenders who re-offend - Adjusted to baseline2 (%)
Proportion of offenders who re-offend - Adjusted to baseline2 (%)
Proportion of offenders who re-offend (%)
Average number of re-offences per re-offender
Average number of re-offences per offender
Number of re-offences
Number of re-offences
Number of offenders
All Offenders
Proportion of offenders who re-offend (%)
Average number of re-offences per re-offender
Average number of re-offences per offender
Average number of re-offences per offender
Number of offenders
Proportion of offenders who re-offend (%)
Number of re-offences
Number of offenders
 
 
 
 
Longer term changes 
In the longer term for offenders included between 2000 and April 2009 to 
March 2010, the proven re-offending rate fell overall from 27.9 per cent to 
26.3 per cent. The rate: 
 
- 
fell over three times as much for adults than for juveniles 
- 
fell for offenders commencing court orders, for offenders discharged 
from prison, for offenders given a discharge, and for those given 
reprimands, warnings and first tier penalties6, but rose for offenders 
given cautions, fines and youth community penalties. 
- 
fell for offenders aged 15 to 29 and rose for all other age groups. 
- 
fell more for adult women (-2.6 percentage points) than adult men (-0.9 
percentage points). 
 
 
Between 2000 and April 2009 to March 2010 the average number of proven 
re-offences per re-offender fell from 3.37 to 2.80, a fall of 17.1 per cent.  
                                                 
6 This can include a discharge, fine, referral order, or reparation order. Please see Glossary 
for more information 
 
8

                                           
 
Figure E1:  Average number of proven re-offences per re-offender, 2000 
– 12 months ending March 2010  
1 Quarterly data only available from April 2005 onwards
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Apr 2005
to Mar
2006
Apr 2006
to Mar
2007
Apr 2007
to Mar
2008
Apr 2008
to Mar
2009
Apr 2009
to Mar
2010
Year1
Average number of proven re-offences 
per re-offender
No data for 2001
 
 
 
 
Re-offending by age 
 
Between April 2009 to March 2010, as in previous years, 15 to 17 year old 
proven offenders had the highest proven re-offending rate at 34.7 per cent 
(Table 3). The proven re-offending rate falls with increasing age (after 15-17) 
as shown in Figure E2.   
 
Compared to 2000 the latest 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 from 3.61 re-offences per re-
offender to 2.70 (a fall of around 25 per cent).  
 
 
9

 
Figure E2: Proportion of offenders who commit a proven re-offence, by 
age, 2000, 12 months ending March 2009 and 12 months ending March 
2010 
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
Proven re-offending rate (%)
2000
12 months ending March 2009
12 months ending March 2010
 
 
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 1 to 2 previous offences (-3.9 percentage points): 
 
 Adult offenders with 11 or more previous offences represented 27.9 per 
cent of adult offenders in April 2009 to March 2010 but committed 62.6 
per cent of all adult proven re-offences.  
 
 For juveniles, there were 5,600 offenders with 11 or more previous 
offences and they had a proven re-offending rate of 77.5 per cent. This 
group make up only 5.0 per cent of juvenile offenders but committed 
almost a fifth (18.3 per cent) of all juvenile proven re-offences. 
 
Re-offending by Index offence 
 
The offence that leads to an offender being included in the relevant year is 
called the index offence. In April 2009 to March 2010, as in most previous 
years, domestic burglary had the highest proven re-offending rate at 48.6 per 
cent (Table 5c) with sexual (child) offences the lowest at 9.8 per cent. The 
largest decrease between 2000 and April 2009 to March 2010 in the proven 
re-offending rate was for soliciting and prostitution, a decrease of 19.3 
percentage points while motoring offences had the second largest decrease 
of 10.3 percentage points.  
 
10

                                           
 
Figure E3:  Proportion of adult and juvenile proven offenders who 
commit a proven re-offence, by index offence type, 12 months ending 
March 2010 
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Sexual Child
Drink Driving
Fraud/Forgery
Drugs Import/Export/Supply
Violence-serious
Violence-non serious
Sexual
Other
Motoring Offence
Soliciting Prostitution
Criminal Malicious Damage
Drugs possession/Small Scale Supply
Public Order
Drug test positive
Taking and Driving Away
Handling
Theft
Robbery
Absconding Bail Offence
Theft of Vehicles
Other Burglary
Domestic Burglary
Proportion of offenders who re-offend
Juvenile
Adult
 
 
 
Adult proven re-offending 
 
In April 2009 to March 2010, there were around 570,000 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.  
 
Compared to the previous twelve months, there has been a decrease in the 
proven re-offending rate of 0.5 percentage points from 25.4 per cent. 
 
Overall there has been a 1.3 percentage point decrease in the proven re-
offending rate since 2000 (from 26.2 to 24.9 per cent). However, compared to 
2000 the offenders in April 2009 to March 2010 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. 
 
 
 
 
11

Figure E4:  Proportion of adult proven offenders who commit a proven 
re-offence and average number of proven re-offences, 2000 to 12 
months ending March 2010   
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Apr 2005
to Mar
2006
Apr 2006
to Mar
2007
Apr 2007
to Mar
2008
Apr 2008
to Mar
2009
Apr 2009
to Mar
2010
Year1
Proportion of offenders who re-offend 
 
1 Quarterly data only available from April 2005 onwards
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Apr 2005
to Mar
2006
Apr 2006
to Mar
2007
Apr 2007
to Mar
2008
Apr 2008
to Mar
2009
Apr 2009
to Mar
2010
Year1
Average number of proven re-offences per re-offender
No data for 2001
 
 
 
 
 
Proven re-offending rates for offenders discharged from prison or 
commencing a court order 
 
Between April 2009 and March 2010, there were 197,000 adult offenders3 
who were discharged from prison or commenced a court order. Just under 
71,000 of these offenders were proven to have committed a re-offence within 
a year. This gives a one year proven re-offending rate of 36.0 per cent. The 
average number of proven re-offences committed by these re-offenders was 
3.27.  
 
 
12

                                           
Overall there was a 4.9 percentage point decrease (from 40.9 to 36.0) in the 
proven re-offending rate between 2000 and the twelve months ending March 
2010 and a 20.9 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 
 
Between April 2009 and March 2010, around 61,000 adult offenders3 were 
discharged from custody. Just under 29,000 of these (46.9 per cent) were 
proven to have committed a re-offence within a year. These offenders 
committed around 115,000 proven re-offences, an average of 4.03 each. 
 
54.3 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 56.6 per cent, an increase of 2.3 percentage points from 
2000 (54.3 per cent).  
 
Figure E5:  Proportion of adult proven offenders who commit a proven 
re-offence, by index disposal custodial sentence length, 2000, 2002 – 12 
months ending March 2010 
1 Quarterly data only available from April 2005 onwards
More than 10 years
Less than 12m
Less than 12m
12m - 4y
12m - 4y
4 years to 10 years
4 years to 10 years
All lengths
All lengths
More than 10 years
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
2000
2002
2003
2004
2005
April 2005 to
March 2006
April 2006 to
March 2007
April 2007 to
March 2008
April 2008 to
March 2009
April 2009 to
March 2010
Year1
Proven re-offending rate (%)
 
 
 
 
Adult proven re-offending rates by individual prison  
 
Among prisons which discharged thirty or more offenders between April 2009 
and March 2010, re-offending rates varied considerably from 5.7 per cent to 
87.5 per cent for offenders with a sentence of less than twelve months and 
from 5.8 per cent to 68.2 per cent for offenders with a sentence of twelve 
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. 
 
13

 
Among prisons discharging prisoners serving sentences of less than 12 
months only three had re-offending rates that were significantly different from 
the expected rate. Sudbury and Askham Grange had lower than expected re-
offending rates while re-offending rates for Hindley were higher. 
 
Among prisons discharging offenders serving sentences of 12 months or 
more only, one prison had significantly lower re-offending rates (Usk/ 
Prescoed) than expected and one (Warren Hill) had higher. 
 
 
 
Proven re-offending of adults starting court orders  
 
Between April 2009 and March 2010, around 110,000 adult offenders3 started 
a community order. Around 38,000 of these (35.4 per cent) committed a 
proven re-offence within a year. These proven re-offenders committed just 
under 120,000 proven re-offences, an average of 3.16 proven re-offences 
each. Similarly, of the 38,000 adult offenders starting a suspended sentence 
order, 30.6 per cent committed a proven re-offence within a year, committing 
an average of 2.86 proven re-offences each.  
 
 
 
 
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 28.5 per 
cent to 43.5 per cent. 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 re-offending rates than expected. These were Cumbria, 
Gloucestershire, London, Staffordshire and West Midlands, Thames Valley, 
Warwickshire and West Yorkshire. None showed higher re-offending rates 
than expected. 
 
Re-offending 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 
 
14

                                           
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/compendium-
of-reoffending-statistics-and-analysis.htm 
 
Juvenile proven re-offending 
 
Between April 2009 and March 2010, there were around 110,000 juvenile 
offenders. Just under 38,000 of these offenders were proven to have 
committed a re-offence within a year. This gives a one year proven re-
offending rate of 33.3 per cent. The average number of proven re-offences 
committed by these re-offenders was 2.79.  
 
Compared to the previous twelve months, there was an increase in the proven 
re-offending rate of 0.4 percentage points from 32.8 per cent. 
 
However, the number of juvenile proven offenders has decreased by 18.5 per 
cent since 2000. 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 
 
Overall there was a 0.4 percentage point decrease in the proven re-offending 
rate of juveniles since 2000 (from 33.7 to 33.3 per cent). However, compared 
to 2000 the characteristics of juvenile offenders in the year ending March 
2010 meant that they were more likely to re-offend. Therefore, after controlling 
for offender characteristics the decrease was 2.3 percentage points. 
 
Among Youth Offending Teams (YOTs) re-offending rates varied considerably 
from 21.8 per cent to 48.7 per cent. A large part of this variability reflects the 
mix of offenders who are managed by different YOTs and therefore 
comparisons between YOTS should not be made using these raw re-
offending rates.  
 
More information on youth criminal statistics is available at: 
www.justice.gov.uk/publications/statistics-and-data/youth-justice/statistics.htm 
 
 
 
 
 
15

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. For local authorities with more than 100 offenders, the 
largest decrease was seen in Flintshire (3.2 percentage points) and the 
largest increase was in Monmouthshire (2.9 percentage points). (Table 13c) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
16

                                           
 
Map 1: Overall proven re-offending rates by upper tier local authority for 
adults and juveniles, 12 months ending March 2010  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
17

 
Prolific and Priority Offenders (PPO)  
 
The Prolific and other Priority Offender 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 a disproportionate amount of crime. 
Please refer to the Definitions and Measurement document for more detail: 
www.justice.gov.uk/publications/statistics-and-data/reoffending/proven-
reoffending-quarterly.htm 
Around 8,000 offenders (adult and juvenile) were on the PPO scheme at 
some point between April 2009 and March 20103. Of these just under 6,000 
committed a proven re-offence within a year (74.9 per cent). These offenders 
represented 1.2 per  cent of all offenders but were responsible for 5.6 per cent 
of all proven re-offences committed. 
 
Compared to the previous twelve months, the proportion of PPO offenders 
who committed a proven re-offence has decreased by 2.3 percentage points. 
This compares to an overall decrease of 2.1 percentage points since the 
scheme began in 2005.   
 
 
Drug Misusing Offenders (DMO) 
 
The Drug Interventions Programme (DIP) was introduced in April 2003 with 
the aim of developing and integrating measures for directing adult drug-
misusing offenders into drug treatment and reducing offending behaviour. 
There are a number of ways offenders can be identified as drug misusers. 
Please refer to the Definitions and Measurement document for more detail: 
www.justice.gov.uk/publications/statistics-and-data/reoffending/proven-
reoffending-quarterly.htm 
 
Around 49,000 adult offenders were identified as drug misusers at some point 
between April 2009 and March 2010. Of these just over 27,000 committed a 
proven re-offence within a year (55.1 per cent). These offenders represented 
8.7 percent of all adult offenders but were responsible for 26.8 per cent of all 
proven re-offences committed by adult offenders. 
 
Compared to the previous twelve months, the proportion of drug-misusing 
offenders who committed a proven re-offence fell slightly (0.5 percentage 
points).  Looking longer term there has been a decrease of 10.2 percentage 
points since 2005, 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 
 
 
18

                                           
List of quarterly tables 
 
Proven re-offending - overview 
 
Table 1 
Summary proven re-offending data, by adults and juveniles, 
2000 – year ending March 2010 
 
Table 2   
Proven re-offending data, by gender, 2000 – year ending March 
2010 
 
Table 3   
Proven re-offending data, by age, 2000 – year ending March 
2010 
 
Table 4a   
Adult proven re-offending data, by ethnicity, 2000 – year ending 
March 2010 
 
Table 4b   
Juvenile proven re-offending data, by ethnicity, 2000 – year 
ending March 2010 
 
Table 4c   
Adult and juvenile proven re-offending data, by ethnicity, 2000 – 
year ending March 2010 
 
Table 5a   
Adult proven re-offending data, by index offence, 2000 – year 
ending March 2010 
 
Table 5b   
Juvenile proven re-offending data, by index offence, 2000 – year 
ending March 2010 
 
Table 5c   
Adult and juvenile proven re-offending data, by index offence, 
2000 – year ending March 2010 
 
Table 6a   
Adult proven re-offending data, by number of previous offences, 
2000 – year ending March 2010 
 
Table 6b   
Juvenile proven re-offending data, by number of previous  
offences, 2000 – year ending March 2010 
 
Table 6c   
Adult and juvenile proven re-offending data, by number of 
previous offences, 2000 – year ending March 2010 
 
Table 7a   
Adult proven re-offending data, by number of previous custodial 
sentences, 2000 – year ending March 2010 
 
Table 7b   
Juvenile proven re-offending data, by number of previous 
custodial sentences, 2000 – year ending March 2010 
 
Table 8 
Serious proven re-offending data, 2000 – year ending March 
2010 
 
 
19

-----------------TABLES 9 -12 are published annually in October ----------------- 
 
Table 13 
Proven re-offending of adult and juvenile offenders by upper-tier 
local authority, 2005 to year ending March 2010 rolling quarters 
 
Table 14 
Proven re-offending of adult and juvenile offenders by lower-tier 
local authority, 2005 to year ending March 2010 rolling quarters 
 
Table 15 
Proven re-offending of drug-misusing offenders by DAT, 2004 to 
year ending March 2010  
 
Table 16 
Proven re-offending of Prolific and other Priority Offenders by 
upper tier local authority, 2005 to year ending March 2010 
 
Table 17 
Proven re-offending by Youth Offending Team: 2005 to year 
ending March 2010  
 
Proven re-offending by index disposal, prison and probation trust 
 
Table 18a 
Adult proven re-offending data, by index disposal, 2000 – year 
ending March 2010 
 
Table 18b 
Juvenile proven re-offending data, by index disposal, 2000 – 
year ending March 2010 
 
Table 19 
Adult proven re-offending data, by custodial sentence length, 
2000 – year ending March 2010 
 
Table 20 
Adult proven re-offending data, by the most frequently-used 
combinations of requirements for offenders starting Community 
Orders, 2005 – year ending March 2010 
 
Table 21 
Adult proven re-offending data, by the most frequently-used 
combinations of requirements for offenders starting Suspended 
Sentence Orders, 2005 – year ending March 2010 
 
Table 22a 
Proven re-offending of adult offenders given sentences of less 
than 12 months by individual prison, first discharge from each 
prison, 2007  – year ending March 2010 
 
Table 22b 
Proven re-offending of adult offenders given sentences of 12 
months or more by individual prison, first discharge from each 
prison, 2007  – year ending March 2010 
 
Table 23 
Proven re-offending of juvenile offenders by individual prison, 
first discharge from each prison, 2007  – year ending March 
2010 
 
 
20

                                           
Table 24 
Adult proven re-offending by probation trusts based on first 
commencement from each trust, 2005  – year ending March 
2010 
 
21

Annex A 
 
PAYMENT BY RESULTS 
 
Background 
 
The “Breaking the Cycle” Green Paper7 outlined the Ministry of Justice’s 
commitment to commission at least six ‘payment by results’ (PbR) projects 
covering a significant proportion of the offender population. 
 
The MOJ intends to test the principle that PbR can result in service 
improvements, delivering better outcomes for the public at the same or less 
cost. In order to achieve this, the MOJ will pilot ‘payment by results’ at a 
number of prisons and local areas to test the concept and measure the 
results. 
 
The statistical “outcome” that MOJ is interested in is whether the PbR pilots 
can drive a real reduction in the proportion of offenders who are reconvicted 
(the re-conviction rate) in the 12 months following release from prison or from 
commencing a Court Order.   
 
Prison Results 
 
The re-conviction rate used for the PbR pilot prisons presented below differs 
from the National Statistics measure. It measures the proportion of offenders 
who are convicted at court in the 12 months following release from prison with 
a further six months to allow for cases to progress through the courts. This is 
because, for PbR purposes, we want to measure a change in the proportion 
of offenders who are convicted at court (whilst excluding those who receive an 
out-of-court disposal only) as court convictions are more closely associated 
with costs to the Criminal Justice System. Offenders are counted in the cohort 
if they are discharged from the prison at any time during the cohort year.  The 
measure excludes those who serve the whole of their custodial sentence on 
remand as well as the usual National Statistics exclusions as explained in the 
definitions and measurement document8. 
 
Table A1 below will be included in the Proven Re-offending quarterly bulletin 
each quarter and will include, for each pilot prison or area that uses the re-
conviction rate as its outcome measure, the baseline re-conviction rate, the 
target re-conviction rate9 and the outcome re-conviction rate. The only prison 
pilot included in Table A1 at present is HMP Doncaster, but this will be 
updated on an ongoing basis as new pilots begin and outturn results become 
available. 
 
 
 
                                                 
7 www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/consultations/breaking-the-cycle.pdf 
8 www.justice.gov.uk/publications/statistics-and-data/reoffending/proven-reoffending-
quarterly.htm 
9 The rate at which the PbR outcome payment is first triggered at any given pilot site. 
 
22

                                           
Table A1: Payment by Results pilot prisons, baseline and target reconviction 
rates 
 
Prison / Area 
Start Date of 
pilot 
Baseline Re-
conviction Rate 
(Jan-Dec 2009) 
Target Re-
conviction Rate 
Outcome Re-
conviction Rate 
(Oct 2011-Sept 
2012) 
(Oct 2011-Sept 
2012) 
HMP Doncaster 
1st October 
2011 
58.2%
53.2% 
To be published in 
2014
 
Notes: 
1. There is a PbR pilot ongoing at HMP Peterborough (the Peterborough ‘Social Impact 
Bond’).  This pilot uses a different outcome measure (the frequency of re-conviction events) 
and its success is measured against a control group. The results will be published separately. 
2. There is a Justice Reinvestment PbR pilot across five London boroughs and Greater 
Manchester, which use a different outcome measure, namely a reduction in demand on the 
CJS. The results will be published separately. 
3. PbR pilots for offenders managed by the Probation Service are likely to begin in early 2013. 
When these are underway Table A1 will be updated to reflect these new PbR areas. 
 
23

Annex B 
 
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 201110. One aspect of the 
consultation was the measurement of proven re-offending.  
 
Prior to the consultation there were six different measures of proven re-
offending:  
 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 B1 shows the proportion of offenders with a proven re-offence/re-
conviction using the new measure of re-offending and the previous measures 
of adult re-conviction and juvenile re-offending. Comparisons we make use 
cohorts up to 2009. 
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 
                                                 
10 The response to the consultation is available here 
www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/consultations/improvements-moj-statistics-consultation-
response.pdf 
 
24

                                           
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 over-
represents 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 re-
offending (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.   
 
Table B1: Re-offending using the new and previous measures, 2009 
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 B1 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 re-
convicted 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.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
25

Figure B1: Adult re-conviction/re-offending by re-offending measure, 
2000-2009  
27.6%
26.9%
25.5%
24.9%
24.6%
24.8%
25.4%
24.9%
43.0%
45.4%
42.9%
41.2%
38.6%
39.0%
40.1%
39.3%
26.2%
45.5%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Year
Re-conviction/re-offending rates 
New Measure
Old measure
Data not available
 
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).  
Figure B2 shows re-offending rates for juvenile offenders between 2000 and 
2009 using the new and previous measure.  
 
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. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
26

                                           
 
Figure B2: Juvenile re-offending by re-offending measure, 2000-2009   
33.7%
33.4%
34.3%
33.6%
33.6%
33.9%
32.5%
32.9%
32.8%
40.2%
38.5%
39.0%
38.6%
38.4%
38.7%
37.5%
37.3%
36.9%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Year
Re-offending rates 
New Measure
Old measure
Data not available
 
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). 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
27

 
Figure B3: Adult re-conviction/re-offending of custodial offenders by re-
offending measure and sentence, 2000-2009  
54.3%
58.0%
49.4%
51.4%
56.8%
59.4%
46.8%
48.5%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
New measure <12m
Previous measure
<12m
New measure (all
sentence lengths)
Previous measure all
sentence lengths)
Disposal 
Re-offending/re-conviction rates
2000
2009
 
 
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. 
 
28

                                           
Table B2: Re-offending using the new and previous measures 
 
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 re-
offending 
National youth re-
offending 
Local youth re-
offending 
Prolific and other 
Priority Offending 
(PPO) 
Drug misusing 
offending 
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 
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. 
The follow up 
period to 
measure re-
offending 
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 
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 
 
29 

The headline 
measure 
Frequency of re-
offending (the 
number of proven 
re-offences per 
100 offenders) 
Proportion of 
offenders re-
offending, 
compared to 
the rate that 
would be 
expected 
based on the 
offender 
characteristics 
Frequency of re-
offending (the 
number of proven re-
offences per 100 
offenders) 
Frequency of re-
offending (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 re-
offending 
We also include 
information on the 
frequency of re-
offending and 
information on the 
predicted rate based 
on offender 
characteristics 
What counts as 
a proven re-
offence 
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 
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 
 
 
30 

                                           
 
31 
 
A predicted rate 
of re-offending 
was included for 
the proportion of 
offenders 
expected to re-
offend 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 
A predicted rate of 
re-offending was 
included for the 
proportion of 
offenders expected 
to re-offend based 
on their 
characteristics 
 
Use of a 
predicted rate 
Logistic 
regression was 
used 
Logistic 
regression was 
used 
Logistic regression 
was used 
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 re-
offend based on 
their previous 
criminal history 
Response 
surface 
methodology 
was used 
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 
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 B3 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. 
 
Table B3: Re-offending/re-convictions data for adult offenders  
Previous1 measure: re-
convictions (prison and 
probation offenders only), 
first quarter of the year
Previous measure: re-
convictions (prison and 
probation offenders only), 
whole year
New measure: re-
offending (prison and 
probation offenders only), 
whole year
New measure: proven re-
offending (all offenders), 
whole year
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
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
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
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)
Proportion 
Frequency (average per offender)
Frequency of re-offenders (average per re-offender)
Number of offenders
 
 
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 
 
32

 
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 200911. 
 
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.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
 
33
11 The previous measure includes offenders released from custody or who commenced a court order in the 
first three months of the year, shown in column 1. Column 2 includes offenders released from custody or 
who commenced a court order in the twelve month period. The number of offenders shown in column 2 is 
less than 4 times as many as in column 1. This is because some offenders commence a court order or are 
discharged from custody more than once in a year. These calculations only count each offender once e.g. 
offender Y is discharged from custody in the first quarter of the year, and discharged again in the second 
quarter but he is only counted as a single offender.  
 

 
 
Table B4: Re-offending data for juvenile offenders 
Previous measure1             
proven re-offending
New measure proven re-
offending 
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
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
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
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
Proportion 
Number of offenders
Frequency (average per offender)
Frequency of re-offenders (average per re-offender)
 
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 B4 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 re-
offend 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). 
 
34

 
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 B5 shows the 
impact on reported rates of re-offending/re-conviction by drug-misusing offenders.  
 
Table B5: Re-offending data for drug-misusing offenders 
 
Previous measure1 proven re-
conviction
New measure of proven re-
offending 
2004
67.3
2005
65.3
2006
58.6
2007
57.2
2008
61.0
56.4
2009
57.0
54.7
2004
3.20
2005
2.94
2006
2.37
2007
2.34
2008
2.6
2.29
2009
2.2
2.10
2004
4.75
2005
4.51
2006
4.03
2007
4.09
2008
4.3
4.06
2009
3.9
3.84
2004
20,652
2005
29,112
2006
44,597
2007
54,474
2008
20,934
59,039
2009
20,109
53,109
1. Based on the national drug-misusing offenders publication 
(December 2010)
Proportion 
Number of offenders
Frequency of re-offenders (average per re-offender)
Frequency (average per offender)
 
 
35
 

 
 
Table B5 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 re-
offenders 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 B6 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. 
 
36

 
 
Table B6: Re-offending data for Prolific and other Priority Offenders 
Previous  measure1 proven re-
offending
New measure of proven re-
offending 
2005
77.0
2006
75.7
2007
75.8
2008
77.2
2009
56.0
75.1
2005
4.01
2006
3.83
2007
3.80
2008
2.6
3.80
2009
2.4
3.49
2005
5.21
2006
5.06
2007
5.01
2008
4.93
2009
4.3
4.65
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)
Proportion 
Frequency (average per offender)
Frequency of re-offenders (average per re-offender)
Number of offenders
 
 
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, 
 
 
37
 

 
 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 re-
offending 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.  
 
38

 
 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 re-
offending 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.   
 
   
 
 
 
39
 

 
Annex C: 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 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.  
www.justice.gov.uk/publications/statistics-and-data/reoffending/proven-reoffending-
quarterly.htm 
 
 
40

 
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.  
www.justice.gov.uk/publications/statistics-and-data/reoffending/local-adult-reoffending.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 
 
 
41
 

 
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 
 
42

 
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.  
 
 
43
 

 
 
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 
 
44

 
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. 
 
 
45
 

 
 
 
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.  
  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 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.  
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. 
 
 
 
46

 
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).  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
47
 

 
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 re-
offending, 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 
 
 
48

 
 
 
 
49
Contact points 
 
Press enquiries should be directed to the Ministry of Justice press office: 
Tel: xx-xxxx-xxxx 
 
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: 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 UK 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