Proven Reoffending Statistics: definitions and measurement
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 Reoffending 
Statistics: Definitions and 
Measurement 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Published October 2016 

 
 
2 
Contents 
Contents ................................................................................................ 2 
Introduction .......................................................................................... 3 
Measurement ........................................................................................ 4 
Definitions for the measurement of proven reoffending ...................... 5 
Definitions for the measurement of interim proven reoffending for 
Community Rehabilitation Companies and the National Probation Service
 ............................................................................................................ 9 
Data quality ......................................................................................... 14 
Police National Computer data ......................................................... 14 
Prison data ........................................................................................ 15 
Probation data .................................................................................. 17 
Young offenders in secure accommodation ...................................... 17 
Data processing and analysis ........................................................... 18 
Matching offender records ................................................................ 18 
Counting rules ................................................................................... 19 
The extraction of the criminal histories .............................................. 19 
Level of subjectivity ........................................................................... 20 
Maturity and stability of the data system ........................................... 20 
Expertise of those who operate the system ...................................... 20 
Data on historical trends ................................................................... 21 
Appendix A: Glossary of terms ......................................................... 23 
Explanatory notes .............................................................................. 30 
Contact details .................................................................................... 31 
 
 
 
 

 
 
3 
Introduction 
This document supplements the quarterly Proven Reoffending Statistics 
bulletin by providing a comprehensive guide to the statistics. This document 
focuses on concepts and definitions published in Ministry of Justice 
statistics and the counting procedures used to produce them. It also 
provides explanations of data sources and quality. 
 
This bulletin is published alongside two inter-related bulletins: 
Offender Management Statistics Quarterly: provides key statistics 
relating to offenders who are in prison or under Probation Service 
supervision. 
 
Safety in Custody Statistics Quarterly: provides statistics on death, self-
harm and assault incidents whilst in prison custody. 
 
The publication in its current form is a result of a statistical consultation on 
improvements to the transparency and accessibility of our information 
launched in 2010 and a response to the consultation was published in 
March 2011. One aspect of the consultation was the measurement of 
proven reoffending. Responses supported the proposals to move to a single 
framework for measuring reoffending where adult and youth data can be 
provided at national and local levels on a consistent basis.  
 
From 30 July 2015 to 30 October 2015, a more recent consultation on 
changes to the proven reoffending statistical publication was launched. The 
key change that was proposed was to align the existing reoffending 
measure with those measures necessary for assessing progress against the 
rehabilitation reforms. 
 
This consultation outcome summarises the responses received to that 
consultation. Having considered the responses to the consultation, details of 
the post consultation position are: 
 
 
Proven reoffending measures will be published using the proposed 3 
month cohorts; 
 
The new publication will contain a chapter on Community 
Rehabilitation Companies (CRC) Payment by Results and National 
Probation Service (NPS) division proven reoffending performance 
measure; 
 
For assessing the likelihood of reoffending OGRS4/G will be used for 
adult cohorts and for juvenile cohorts the Youth Offender Group 
Reconviction Scale (YOGRS) will be used; 
 
From October 2016 we will provide interim Payment by Results. 
 
The existing adult and juvenile reoffending statistics will continue in their 
current form until the reoffending outcomes for the first Payment by Results 
cohort become available in October 2017. 

 
 
4 
Measurement 
The underlying principle of measuring reoffending (or recidivism, which is 
the most commonly used term internationally) is that someone who has 
received some form of criminal justice sanction (such as a conviction or a 
caution) goes on to commit another offence within a set time period. 
 
Measuring true reoffending is difficult. Official records are taken from either 
the police or courts, but they will underestimate the true level of reoffending 
because only a proportion of crime is detected and sanctioned and not all 
crimes and sanctions are recorded on one central system. Other methods of 
measuring reoffending, such as self report studies, are likely to also 
underestimate the rate. 
 
Following the Ministry of Justice Consultation on Improvements to Ministry 
of Justice Statistics, a proven reoffence is defined as any offence 
committed in a one year follow-up period that resulted in a court conviction, 
caution, reprimand or warning in the one year follow-up or a further six 
month waiting period (to allow time for cases to progress through the 
courts). The data source is the extract of the Police National Computer 
(PNC) held by the Ministry of Justice. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 
5 
Definitions for the measurement of proven reoffending 
Cohort 
This is the group of offenders for whom reoffending is measured. For the 
Proven Reoffending Statistics Quarterly Bulletin, this is defined as all 
offenders in any one year who received a caution, a final warning or 
reprimand (for juveniles prior to April 2013), a non-custodial conviction or 
who were released from custody. 
 
Offenders who were released from custody or secure accommodation 
(juveniles only) or commenced a court order are matched to the PNC 
database. A proportion of cases are lost in this process because they 
cannot be matched (see the section below titled “Matching offender records” 
for further details). Additionally, offenders who appear multiple times in the 
cohort are only included once (see the section below titled “Multiple offender 
entries” for further details). 
 
The group of offenders whose offending behaviour is proven is likely to be a 
sub-group of all active offenders. The Offending, Crime and Justice Survey 
(2003)1 estimated that around one in ten people in England and Wales aged 
between ten and 65 had committed an offence in the previous 12 months, 
which translates into approximately 3.8 million people. This compares to 
around 632,000 offenders in the 2002 cohort used to measure proven 
reoffending, underlining that the offenders whose proven reoffending 
behaviour is presented in the Proven Reoffending Statistics Quarterly 
Bulletin are a small and probably unrepresentative sample of the population 
of all active offenders. 
 
Index disposal (sentence type) 
The index disposal of the offender is the type of sentence the offender 
received for their index offence. For the Proven Reoffending Statistics 
Quarterly Bulletin, this is defined as custody, court order, other disposal 
resulting from a conviction at court, such as a fine or discharge, caution, 
reprimand or final warning (young offenders). 
 
Index offence 
The index offence is the proven offence that leads to an offender being 
included in the cohort. An offence is only counted as an index offence if it is: 
 
 recordable (see below); 
 
 committed in England and Wales; 
 
 prosecuted by the police; and 
 
                                            
1 The Offending, Crime and Justice Survey (2003) was a random probability survey of 
10,079 people aged from ten to 65 and asked people about their offending history. Like any 
such survey, its accuracy is dependent upon the level of honesty with which respondents 
completed the survey. 

 
 
6 
 not a breach offence. 
 
Start point (index date) 
This is the set point in time from when proven reoffences are measured. For 
the Proven Reoffending Statistics Quarterly Bulletin, this is defined as the 
date of prison release, the date of court conviction for non-custodial 
sentences, or the date of receipt for a caution, reprimand or final warning. 
 
Follow-up period 
This is the length of time over which proven reoffending is measured. For 
the Proven Reoffending Statistics Quarterly Bulletin, this is defined as 12 
months from the start point. 
 
Waiting period 
This is the additional time beyond the follow-up period to allow for offences 
which are committed towards the end of the follow-up period to be proven 
by a court, resulting in a conviction, caution, reprimand or final warning. For 
the Proven Reoffending Statistics Quarterly Bulletin, this is six months. 
 
Figure 1 below illustrates why different offences for an example offender are 
included or excluded in the proven reoffending measure. 
 
Figure 1: How events of reoffending are included in the measure? 
Events A to D all occur in the one year follow-up period, but events E and F 
are outside this period, so would not be counted. Events A to C are all 
counted because they were all proven within the one year follow-up period 
or the further six month waiting period. Event F, even though the offence 
took place in the 6 month waiting period, it would not be counted, as the 
event took place outside of the one year follow up period and conviction did 
not occur within either the one year follow-up period, or the further six month 
waiting period. The offender has, therefore, committed six proven offences 
during the one year follow-up period (two for event A, one for event B, three 
for event C). 
Proven reoffence 
Offences are counted as proven reoffences if they meet all of the following 
criteria: 
 

 
 
7 
 They are recordable. Not all offences are on the PNC and more 
recordable offences are entered than non-recordable offences. 
Analysis comparing offences proven at court with offences recorded 
on the PNC suggests the most cost common offences that are not 
recorded relates to motor vehicles, e.g. using a motor vehicle whilst 
uninsured against third party risks, speeding offences, keeping a 
vehicle on the highway without a driving licence or television licence 
evasion. 
 
 They were committed in England or Wales. 
 
 They are offences that were prosecuted by the police. PNC data are 
collected and input by the police and offences prosecuted by the 
police are likely to be recorded more comprehensively on the PNC 
than offences that are prosecuted by other organisations. For 
example, benefit fraud is prosecuted by the Department for Work and 
Pensions. Therefore, benefit fraud offences may be poorly 
represented on the PNC. 
 
 Offences are only counted if they are proven through caution, 
reprimands or final warnings (for juveniles) and court convictions. 
Offences that are not proven, or which meet with other responses 
from the Criminal Justice System, are not counted. The Offending, 
Crime and Justice Survey (2003) estimated that 6% of all offences 
resulted in any contact with the Criminal Justice System. 
 
 The offence is not a breach offence, i.e. breach of a court order, 
since we are only interested in new offences. 
 
Measures of proven reoffending 
Proven reoffending data are presented in the following ways: 
 
 The number of offenders. 
 
 The proportion of offenders who are proven reoffenders. 
 
 The average number of proven reoffences among reoffenders. 
 
 
 The proportion of proven offenders who committed a proven 
indictable reoffence. 
 
 
 

 
 
8 
Multiple offender entries 
Each offender is tracked over a fixed period of time and any proven offence 
committed in this period is counted as a proven reoffence. A multiple 
offender entry refers to an offender who, after entering the cohort in a given 
year, commits a reoffence and is either cautioned, discharged from prison or 
gets a non-custodial conviction in the same cohort year. This reoffence 
could also be included as a second entry for this offender into the cohort. 
 
Figure 2: Example of an offender with multiple offender entries 
 
 
 
 
 
To date, publications have avoided the double counting of these multiple 
offender entries (MOE) by only counting an individual once based on their 
first proven offence in the relevant time period. In the illustration above, the 
caution would be counted as the index disposal and the further two proven 
offences would be counted as reoffences. This avoids double counting of 
proven reoffences. 
 
In this publication the main tables (tables A1 to A6 and B1 to B4) in the 
report have been produced on the basis of the 'first proven offence in the 
relevant time period’, which led to an offender being included. This provides 
a picture of proven reoffending which is consistent with previous 
publications and tracks an offender, irrespective of the disposal they 
receive, to when they commit a proven reoffence. 
 
The measure of proven reoffending now covers all offenders in any one 
year instead of the first quarter of a calendar year as in previous proven 
reoffending publications. The result is many more offenders with multiple 
entries. 
 
In addition, including cautions to identify a proven offence means many 
offenders’ first offence will be associated with a caution since cautions 
account for around a third of adult offenders in one year. Table 1 shows the 
number of offenders in each cohort period by their number of entries. 
 
Table 1: Number of offenders and their respective number of entries for 
2000, 2002 to 2012 cohorts2 
 
                                            
2 Data are not available for 2001 due to a problem with archived data on Court Orders. 
Multiple
Offender Entries
2000
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
1
512,551
522,376
544,031
549,545
580,709
615,775
630,748
602,251
572,068
528,466
498,364
459,250
2x
75,311
77,813
81,651
78,827
80,968
86,866
90,870
87,427
83,235
78,430
74,314
66,028
3x
19,565
21,208
22,073
20,840
20,908
21,823
23,590
23,499
22,005
21,332
20,479
17,892
4x
6,195
6,689
7,074
6,833
6,720
6,768
7,605
7,882
7,319
7,396
7,115
6,289
5x
1,998
2,314
2,392
2,355
2,355
2,411
2,774
2,894
2,927
2,902
2,963
2,592
6 to 10x
1,240
1,510
1,689
1,641
1,505
1,509
1,964
2,332
2,303
2,361
2,500
2,292
Greater than 10x
164
155
129
131
119
115
114
160
202
193
190
178
Total MOEs
104,473
109,689
115,008
110,627
112,575
119,492
126,917
124,194
117,991
112,614
107,561
95,271
% of total cohort
16.9%
17.4%
17.5%
16.8%
16.2%
16.3%
16.8%
17.1%
17.1%
17.6%
17.8%
17.2%
Cohort
617,024
632,065
659,039
660,172
693,284
735,267
757,665
726,445
690,059
641,080
605,925
554,521
Offender 
Cautioned
Re-offence 1 
Offender starts a 
community 
sentence 
Re-offence 2 
Offender 
sentenced to 
3mnths in prison 
then released 
Re-offence 3 
1 year cohort period
Offender 
Cautioned
Offender 
Cautioned
Re-offence 1 
Offender starts a 
community 
sentence 
Re-offence 2 
Offender 
sentenced to 
3mnths in prison 
then released 
Offender 
sentenced to 
3mnths in prison 
then released 
Re-offence 3 
1 year cohort period

 
 
9 
 
The number of offenders with multiple entries has remained fairly constant 
over time - the proportion of the total that had multiple offender entries has 
remained at about 16 to 18% between 2000 and 2012. 
 
Proven reoffending by index disposal, probation trust and prison 
In order to measure proven reoffending on a consistent and representative 
basis by offender management groups, it is necessary to distinguish 
between the disposal (sentence) types that led to an offender being 
included. Doing this allows the cohort to be defined according to the relative 
start point of an offender’s interaction with the prison (released from 
custody) or probation services (court order commencement). 
 
Tables C1-C3 provide reoffending data by disposal (sentence) types. These 
are produced on the basis of an individual’s first disposal (sentence) in that 
category. In figure 2 above, the individual would appear once in the caution 
category, once in the community order category and once in the custody 
category. These tables will include an overall prison and probation proven 
reoffending rate which will be the figures we quote publicly.  
 
However, these figures should not be used when comparing proven 
reoffending rates across different disposals to compare effectiveness of 
sentences. Instead the Compendium of Reoffending Statistics and Analysis 
2013 publication should be referred to as this analysis controls for offender 
characteristics in order to give a more reliable estimate of the relative 
effectiveness of different disposals. 
 
The prison/youth secure accommodation/probation trust data tool provide 
reoffending rates by individual prison and former probation trust, and 
National Probation Service Division (NPS). These are produced on the 
basis of an individual’s first disposal from each specified prison or probation 
trust. If the individual offender is discharged from two different prisons in the 
year they will appear in both of the prison’s reoffending rates. The same 
applies for offenders commencing court orders in more than one probation 
trust within the year. This is to allow prisons and probation services to track 
their caseload of offenders. 
 
Definitions for the measurement of interim proven 
reoffending for Community Rehabilitation Companies and 
the National Probation Service 
The Transforming Rehabilitation reforms included opening up the probation 
service to a diverse range of rehabilitation providers from the private, 
voluntary and social sectors through 21 Community Rehabilitation 
Companies (CRCs) and creating a new public sector National Probation 
Service (NPS), to manage high risk offenders. 
A Payment by Results (PbR) approach was adopted for the 21 CRCs to 
develop and implement effective ways of rehabilitating offenders and 

 
 
10 
rewarding providers that devise and deliver the most effective rehabilitation 
programmes. 
 
Final reoffending results for the CRC PbR offender cohorts will be based on 
a one year proven reoffending measure. One year proven reoffending 
statistics for PbR will be published in October 2017. To address this interim 
gap in knowledge, the Ministry of Justice will publish interim reoffending 
results from October 2016. The interim reoffending results are based on a 
reoffending-to-date measure. This will allow CRCs’ progress to be 
assessed at the earliest opportunity. Equivalent interim figures for the NPS 
divisions will also be produced. These estimates will only give an indication 
of progress and, therefore, care should be taken when interpreting them. 
 
Cohort 
This is the group of offenders for whom reoffending is measured. For the 
Interim Proven Reoffending Statistics for CRCs and NPS Quarterly Bulletin 
this is defined as all adult offenders in any one quarter (January to March, 
April to June, July to September, October to December) who begin a 
community order, a suspended sentence order or who were released from 
custody. For CRC proven reoffending, this group represents the eligible 
cohort. 
 
Offenders who were released from custody or commenced a court order are 
matched to the PNC database. A proportion of cases are lost in this process 
because they cannot be matched. The process uses automated matching 
routines that look at offenders’ surnames, initials, dates of birth and gender, 
using direct name matching along with a variety of ‘sounds like’ algorithms. 
The matching algorithm also searches through PNC held information on 
alias names and dates of birth for offenders. Additionally, offenders who 
appear multiple times in the cohort are only included once (see the section 
below titled “Multiple offender entries” for further details). For CRC proven 
reoffending, eligible offenders that can be matched to the PNC database 
represent the measurable cohort. This is the group for whom reoffending 
can be measured. 
 
Offenders are only included in a CRC’s PbR cohort the first time they 
commence an eligible sentence (see below for exclusions) in the three 
month period. The same methodology will be used for each NPS division’s 
proven reoffending performance measure. 
 
 
 

 
 
11 
 
 
 
Start point (index date) 
This is the set point in time from when proven reoffences are measured. For 
the Interim Proven Reoffending Statistics for CRCs and NPS Quarterly 
Bulletin this is defined as the date of prison release or the date of sentence 
for court orders. 
 
Follow-up period 
This is the length of time over which proven reoffending is measured. For 
the Interim Proven Reoffending Statistics for CRCs and NPS Quarterly 
Bulletin instead of measuring reoffending with a defined follow-up and 
waiting period, this interim estimate would count any proven reoffending to 
date as recorded on the MoJ’s PNC data extract (see diagram below). 
Some offenders in the three month cohort will have a longer follow-up 
period in which to reoffend. 
 
 
 
An offender enters the cohort if they are released from custody or are sentenced to a community order or a 
suspended sentence order in the period October to December 2015. 
 
 
 
Probation – all offenders:
• released from a custodial sentence;
• who begin a community order; 
• who begin a suspended sentence  order; 
• Aged 18 or over
Exclusions
• Supervision default order
• Youth rehabilitation orders
• Other pre-CJA community sentences
• Unpaid work only
• Curfew only
• Electronic monitoring only
• Any combination of unpaid 
work/curfew/electronic monitoring only
• Standalone Suspended sentence orders
NPS
High risk 
offenders
CRCs
Low to medium 
risk offenders 
NPS division 
performance 
measure cohort
CRC Payment by 
results cohort

 
 
12 
Proven reoffence 
The same as for the headline proven re-offending figures presented in the 
Proven Re-offending Statistics Quarterly Bulletin. 
 
Measures of interim proven reoffending 
Interim proven reoffending data are presented in the following ways: 
 
 The number of eligible offenders. 
 
 The number of measurable offenders. 
 
 The proportion of measurable offenders who are proven reoffenders. 
 
 The average number of proven reoffences among reoffenders. 
 
 The offender group reconviction scale average score. 
 
Multiple offender entries 
Each individual offender is allocated to a quarterly cohort only once, based 
on their first eligible entry in a given quarter. For the final results, annual 
cohorts will be formed by combining the four quarterly cohorts of the 
relevant year. An individual offender can, therefore, appear up to four times 
within a single annual cohort (one from each quarter). 
 
Interim proven reoffending by CRCs and NPS divisions 
An offender can move within the three month cohort period and supervision 
can be transferred to another CRC provider. An offender can also be 
transferred from being supervised by a CRC to being supervised by an NPS 
division if a high risk offence is committed within the three months. If an 
offender is managed by more than one different CRC or NPS division within 
the same three month cohort period, reoffending is measured against the 
first CRC or NPS division the offender is allocated to. 
 
Offender Group Reconviction Scale 
For the final reoffending results, CRCs’ performance in reducing reoffending 
will be assessed against the baseline year of 2011. As proven reoffending is 
related to the characteristics of offenders, the actual rate of proven 
reoffending 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 reoffending is and how it is changing over time. 
 
In addition to the actual rate, the Offender Group Reconviction Scale 
version 4/G3 is used to control for some differences in offender 
characteristics across different offender groups. OGRS4/G is based on a 
well-established, peer-reviewed methodology for assessing and 
representing reoffending risk. 
                                            
3 For more details on the Offender Group Reconviction Scale see Chapter 8 of the publication at: 
www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/449357/research-analysis-
offender-assessment-system.pdf 

 
 
13 
OGRS4/G uses age, gender and criminal history to assess the reoffending 
risk of a given group of offenders by producing a score between 0 and 1. 
These scores can be used to compare the relative likelihood of reoffending 
either over time or between different groups of offenders, with a higher rate 
meaning a group of offenders who are more likely to reoffend. 
 
For the final reoffending results, the reoffending rate for each CRC will be 
adjusted by using OGRS4/G, to take account of the influence that 
differences in offender mix can have on binary rates. OGRS4/G adjusted 
rates will be used to determine final PbR outcomes. The frequency rate will 
not be adjusted. 
 
The OGRS4/G adjusted reoffending rate for a given CRC cohort will be 
calculated as the observed reoffending rate for that cohort plus any 
difference between the OGRS4/G score in that cohort and the 2011 CRC 
baseline cohort. This calculation standardises the mix of offenders in each 
cohort of a given CRC to the 2011 mix for that same CRC. 
 
It will not be possible to adjust the reoffending rate for interim results 
because OGRS4/G only offers a one and two year prediction of reoffending 
and interim results are based upon a reoffending-to-date measure. 
 

 
 
14 
Data quality 
The data required for measuring proven reoffending are based on a range 
of data sources (prison data, probation data, young offenders in secure 
accommodation, and criminal records from the Police National Computer) 
from a range of agencies (the National Offender Management Service, the 
Youth Justice Board, local authorities and the National Police Improvement 
Agency). These figures have been derived from administrative IT systems 
which, as with any large scale recording system, are subject to possible 
errors with data entry and processing. 
 
 
Police National Computer data 
Information regarding the proven reoffending behaviour of offenders has 
been compiled using the Ministry of Justice’s extract from the Police 
National Computer (PNC). The process involves matching offender details 
from the prison and probation data to the personal details recorded on the 
PNC. A proportion of cases cannot be matched and the figures presented in 
Table 2 below and are expressed as a percentage of the offenders that are 
matched. Like any large scale recording system, the PNC is subject to 
errors with data entry and recording. The PNC is regularly updated so that 
further analysis at a later date will generate revised figures. 
 
The quality of the information recorded on the PNC is generally assumed to 
be relatively high as it is an operational system on which the police depend, 
but analysis can reveal errors that are typical when handling administrative 
datasets of this scale. The extent of error or omitted records on the PNC is 
difficult to estimate because it is a unique data source. As a result, there is 
not always an obvious source of data to provide a baseline from which to 
assess data quality. For some types of results, however, comparisons can 
be made. For example, the trend in receptions into prison in each month is 
very similar using the PNC and prisons data (see below for details). 
Although the number of receptions recorded on the PNC is consistently 
slightly lower because prisons data include cases on remand whereas the 
PNC does not. Another example is the number of cases that are given a 
custodial sentence, broken down by offence type, which is similar using the 
PNC and the Court Proceedings Database with a match rate of 97%. 
 
A number of improvements are routinely carried out: 
 
 Updates to the coding and classification of offences and court 
disposals, including the reduction of uncoded offences, the reduction 
in the use of miscellaneous offence codes and the clarification of the 
coding of breach offences; 
 Updates to the methods used to identify the primary offence, where 
several offences are dealt with on the same occasion, and the 

 
 
15 
methods used to identify the primary disposal, where an offence 
attracts more than one court disposal; and 
 Removal of some duplication of records within the database resulting 
in improvements to the efficiency and reliability of the matching 
process. 
 
Prison data 
Prison establishments record details for individual inmates on the prison IT 
system (Prison-NOMIS or LIDS). The information recorded includes details 
such as date of birth, gender, religion, nationality, ethnic origin, custody 
type, offence, reception and discharge dates and, for sentenced prisoners, 
sentence length. The data from individual prison establishments then feeds 
through to a central computer database, called the Inmate Information 
System (IIS). 
 
In May 2009, the National Offender Management Service (NOMS) began 
the roll-out of a new case management system for prisons (Prison-NOMIS). 
During the phased roll-out, data collection issues emerged that affected the 
supply of data for statistical purposes from July 2009 to February 2010. 
Specifically, statistical information on sentence length and offence group is 
not available on any of our prison datasets for this period. 
 
In order to ensure the fullest possible set of data from July 2009 to February 
2010, sentence lengths were estimated for those prisoners received or 
discharged before the problems were resolved. At the point when the 
problems were resolved, a small number of prison establishments were still 
using the old LIDS case management system; data for prisoners received or 
discharged from these prisons was assumed to be unaffected. 
 
For those prisoners received or discharged from prisons operating Prison-
NOMIS, efforts were made to populate their record with the correct 
sentence length using other data extracts. For example, many prisoners 
discharged in January 2010 were originally received into prison prior to July 
2009, so their sentence length was taken from unaffected datasets before 
the problems began. Similarly, the majority of those received in early 2010 
were still in prison in March 2010 when the problems were resolved, so the 
sentence length from the corrected prison population data was used. 
 
Where it was not possible to populate a sentence length using other 
datasets, prisoners were allocated a sentence length band based on the 
number of days they spent in custody (taking account of early release 
schemes where relevant). 
 
As a check on the methodology, an alternative estimation process was 
designed and the number of discharges in each sentence length band for 
the second half of 2009 was compared using the two methods. 
 

 
 
16 
A number of estimation methods were considered and tested on the 2008 
data (prior to the data problems) to see which yielded estimates closest to 
the actual 2008 data. This identified the following method: 
 
1. Calculate data for the first half of the year as a proportion of the full 
calendar year, for each year from 2001 to 2008; separately for each 
sentence length band or offence group (the two key breakdowns to 
be estimated). 
 
2. Apply the average of these proportions to the January to June 2009 
data to estimate the 2009 annual totals; separately for each sentence 
length band or offence group. 
 
3. Scale the estimated numbers in each sentence length band or 
offence group to sum to the annual total recorded in the raw data 
(where the totals are known to be correct). 
 
The maximum difference between the two approaches was 2.6% in the 
band ‘12 months to less than 4 years’; for all other bands the difference was 
less than 1%. 
 
Indeterminate sentence prisoners 
In addition to the above, data on the discharge of prisoners on 
indeterminate sentences, i.e. prisoners given a life sentence or an 
Indeterminate sentence for Public Protection (IPP), is provided from the 
Public Protection Unit Database (PPUD). This holds data jointly owned by 
the Offender Management and Public Protection Group (OMPPG) in NOMS 
and the Parole Board. 
 
PPUD records details of all indeterminate sentence prisoners at the point of 
conviction, those engaged in the Generic Parole Process and prisoners 
(determinate and indeterminate) who have been recalled from licence. It 
also covers those who have received a restricted hospital order/direction 
from a Crown Court, and those remand and convicted prisoners who have 
been transferred from prison/detention centres to psychiatric hospital under 
the relevant sections of mental health legislation. 
 
All decisions taken by the NOMS casework sections and the Parole Board 
are recorded on the system. 
 
Personal information recorded includes (but is not limited to) name, date of 
birth, gender, identifying numbers, ethnicity, last known address, probation 
area and sentencing information. 
 
OMPPG and the Parole Board run monthly and ad hoc reports to cleanse 
data that are not otherwise identified by data validation routines built into the 
system. 
 
For the interim proven reoffending statistics, prison discharge data are 
sourced from the nDelius case management system (for further information 
about nDelius, please see the section on probation data below). 

 
 
17 
Probation data 
Since 2005, detailed information on the supervision of offenders (at the 
individual offender level) had been submitted by probation trusts on a 
monthly basis. These monthly ‘probation listings’ included information on 
offenders starting probation supervision. Between 2002 and 2005, this 
information was submitted quarterly, and prior to 2002 a different data 
collection system was in place, which meant that information on caseload 
had to be calculated based on the number of people starting supervision 
and the number of terminations. From June 2014, the Transforming 
Rehabilitation programme was launched, which changed the way offenders 
are managed in the community. Management of offenders serving their 
sentence in the community has been split into two groups, one consisting of 
high risk offenders who are managed by the National Probation Service 
(NPS) and another group consisting of low to medium risk offenders who 
are now managed by Community Rehabilitation Companies (CRCs). 
 
The quality of the information recorded on the probation data is generally 
assumed to be relatively high as it is a direct extract from an operational 
system upon which the probation service depends for managing offenders 
locally. The extract consists of a small number of key fields for which 
completion is mandatory. Data is received centrally via the nDelius case 
management system and is subject to another set of data validation 
processes. Trends from the data are consistent with comparable time series 
from the Courts Proceeding Database. Any large scale recording systems 
are subject to possible errors with data entry and processing, but there are 
no known issues regarding the probation commencements data. 
 
 
Young offenders in secure accommodation 
Information about secure training centres (STCs) and secure children’s 
homes (SCHs) comes from the Youth Justice Board's (YJB) eAsset 
database. Information about young people aged 17 and under and held in 
YOIs is supplied by the Prison Service and private YOIs. 
 
The YJB monthly custody report has traditionally used data from the Secure 
Accommodation Clearing House System (SACHS), this was the system 
used by the YJB to book young people into custody. To meet information 
management challenges of a growing department and whilst improving our 
processes, the YJB has migrated to the use of the new eAsset system since 
March 2012. 
 
As part of the work to implement the new system both SACHS and eAsset 
were run in parallel from 5th March to 1st July 2012. The YJB now has the 
ability to produce some reports from eAsset and has done work to quality 
assure the outputs against SACHS. While this work is ongoing and further 
reports are being developed we now believe the quality of data from this 
system is of a suitable level to publish as management information. 

 
 
18 
 
The quality of the information recorded on the eAsset database is generally 
assumed to be relatively high as it is a direct extract from an operational 
system which is used to place young people in custody. The extract uses a 
number of key fields for which completion is mandatory when booking a 
young person into custody. 
 
Data processing and analysis 
The data underpinning the results are considered by Ministry of Justice to 
be broadly robust. Considerable work has been carried out ensuring data 
quality, and the data have been used for research publications. Scrutiny of 
the data source continues in order to ensure the data remains reliable. 
 
The National Audit Office (NAO) identified risk factors in its review of the 
reporting of PSA targets (NAO, 2005). The remainder of this section 
addresses these. 
 
Matching offender records 
This process involves matching data on prison discharges and court order 
commencements to the PNC database. The process uses automated 
matching routines that look at offenders’ surnames, initials, and dates of 
birth, using direct name matching along with a variety of ‘sounds like’ 
algorithms. The matching algorithm also searches through PNC held 
information on alias names and dates of birth for offenders. However, not all 
offenders are matched and a thorough analysis of bias in the matching 
system has yet to be undertaken. Table 2 below shows that the overall 
matching rates between 2000 and 2012 have remained high. 
 
Table 2: Matching rates for the different data sources for 2000, 2002 to 
2012 cohorts1 
 
 
 
1. Data are not available for 2001 due to a problem with archived data on Court Orders. 
2. A new data collection method began in March 2012. 
 
2000
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
Prison
Prison discharges
87,083
87,338
85,920
86,970
84,897
83,725
87,340
95,824
94,114
93,137
89,773
91,009
Automatically matched to the PNC
80,572
81,211
80,121
81,125
79,398
78,285
81,874
90,021
88,745
87,845
84,950
86,333
Matched to an index date
73,810
75,121
73,327
73,390
71,246
68,185
69,741
76,668
74,189
65,278
67,512
71,059
Percentage matched to the PNC
92.5%
93.0%
93.3%
93.3%
93.5%
93.5%
93.7%
93.9%
94.3%
94.3%
94.6%
94.9%
Percentage matched to the PNC and index 
offences (not breach etc.)
84.8%
86.0%
85.3%
84.4%
83.9%
81.4%
79.9%
80.0%
78.8%
70.1%
75.2%
78.1%
Court Orders
Court order starts
136,023
154,621
158,750
164,831
163,681
176,346
187,386
189,643
191,784
186,417
179,206
165,959
Automatically matched to the PNC
123,540
142,838
148,257
154,075
158,416
172,906
184,740
187,253
190,128
185,112
178,026
164,937
Matched to an index date
105,685
115,108
119,446
122,927
130,307
148,072
159,279
163,519
167,378
164,579
159,533
147,681
Percentage matched to the PNC
90.8%
92.4%
93.4%
93.5%
96.8%
98.0%
98.6%
98.7%
99.1%
99.3%
99.3%
99.4%
Percentage matched to the PNC and index 
offences (not breach etc.)
77.7%
74.4%
75.2%
74.6%
79.6%
84.0%
85.0%
86.2%
87.3%
88.3%
89.0%
89.0%
YJB2
YJB discharges
-
1,337
1,612
1,521
1,551
1,564
1,553
1,647
1,626
1,770
891
836
Automatically matched to the PNC
-
1,226
1,502
1,425
1,448
1,464
1,463
1,537
1,564
1,682
852
801
Matched to an index date
-
680
818
785
800
769
780
845
817
916
647
607
Percentage matched to the PNC
-
91.7%
93.2%
93.7%
93.4%
93.6%
94.2%
93.3%
96.2%
95.0%
95.6%
95.8%
Percentage matched to the PNC and index 
offences (not breach etc.)
-
50.9%
50.7%
51.6%
51.6%
49.2%
50.2%
51.3%
50.2%
51.8%
72.6%
72.6%

 
 
19 
The total number of offenders matched to the PNC is substantially higher 
than the final figure for the cohorts – for example, in 2012 there were 
252,071 matched offenders, but a final cohort size of 219,347. The main 
reasons for these discrepancies are: 
 
 Conviction dates for the beginning of the community, suspended or 
custodial sentence do not match the conviction date within seven 
days of the criminal records from the PNC database; 
 The index offence was not dealt with by a Home Office police force – 
this ensures that only offences in England and Wales are counted; 
 Exclusion of all offenders where the index offence is a breach, since 
we are only interested in new offences; and 
 Exclusion of multiple offender entries (see section above titled 
“Multiple offender entries” for further details). 
 
Counting rules 
The counting rules for choosing which prison discharges to include offer a 
variety of choices. For instance, it makes little sense to include offenders 
deported on release or who have died. These counting rules were 
enumerated and discussed to ensure a more accurate and consistent count 
and are reviewed on an annual basis to ensure a consistent approach. 
 
Note that an offender is counted more than once when the offender was 
initially in the juvenile cohort, then in the adult cohort in the same cohort 
period. 
 
 
Complexity of data processing and analysis 
 
The data processing involved for measuring reoffending is complex. To 
analyse reoffending behaviour by previous offending or disposal history 
requires the extraction of criminal histories that can span a number of 
decades, and the subsequent matching of these histories against the 
probation caseload files and prison discharges in order to generate a 
dataset. 
 
The extraction of the criminal histories 
To quality assure the extraction of criminal histories, a small set of random 
samples of offenders was taken after the analysis to check, via a basic 
validation, that outputs of the SQL (Structured Query Language) program 
were accurate. The Ministry of Justice is confident that this process has 
been successful. 
 

 
 
20 
Level of subjectivity 
There is relatively little subjectivity in the system. Occasional judgements 
are required (e.g. where to classify an offence), but these will not 
significantly influence the results. 
 
Maturity and stability of the data system 
The system is well established having been used a number of times to 
produce reoffending statistics for publication. Nonetheless, vigilance 
continues to be exercised to ensure the validity of the results. 
 
Expertise of those who operate the system 
Prison and court order data-feeds are continually monitored and 
improvement work is regularly undertaken to improve the reliability and the 
accuracy of datasets. The internal processing of the results within the 
Ministry of Justice has been subject to dip sampling of criminal histories and 
the statistical model has been extensively tested. 
 
 
Interpreting trends in the proportion of offenders who 
commit a serious reoffence against the person 
 
Care should be taken when interpreting the severity rate for the following 
reasons: 
 
 Time through the Criminal Justice System – more serious 
offences are likely to take a longer time to progress through the 
Criminal Justice System than less serious offences. The proven 
reoffending statistics track proven reoffending behaviour for a year 
upon offenders entering the cohort, plus an additional six months for 
convictions to be updated on the system. There is a risk that this time 
scale is not long enough to capture the most serious offences. 
However, analysis suggests that the number of serious proven 
reoffences picked up by the measure remains comparatively stable 
year on year, ensuring performance is comparable over time. 
 Reporting variation – variation in reporting time between police 
force areas and courts may also have an impact on how many 
serious offences are captured during the one year follow-up period. 

 
 
21 
Data on historical trends 
The data used to measure proven reoffending is from the PNC. Police 
forces started to enter criminal records locally in 1995. In order to allow time 
for good practice among police forces in entering data onto the PNC to 
become embedded, PNC data was used to measure proven reoffending for 
the first time in 2000. Prior to the 2012, headline bulletin results were 
compared to 2000 to highlight long-term trends. From 2012, results are 
compared to 2002, and in the future the year of comparison will move 
forward by one year for each calendar year publication. Results prior to 
2000 cannot be compared to results from 2000 onwards for two main 
reasons: 
 
 Change in data source – reoffences are measured using data from 
the PNC (which covers recordable offences), whereas data from 
years before 2000 were measured using the offenders index (which 
covered a narrower range of offences). 
 Change in measurement – the concept being measured from 2000 
onwards in these reports is that of using the offence date to measure 
reoffences (a period of time is allowed for offences to be committed, 
and a further period allowed for these offences to be proved by 
caution, reprimand, final warning or court conviction), whereas the 
concept being measured prior to 2000 was that of using the 
conviction date to measure reconvictions (any conviction occurring in 
a set period of time, whether or not the offence occurred in that time 
period). 
 
However, the Compendium of Reoffending Statistics and Analysis 2010, 
published in November 2010, provides the most consistent statistical series 
possible between 1971 and 2006, adjusting for known methodological 
changes. For more information, please refer to Chapter 4.4 at the following 
link. 
 
Results for 2001 cannot be calculated for offenders on court orders because 
of a problem with archived data on court orders. 
 
Local breakdowns of the headline proven reoffending rates are available 
from 2005 onwards. Proven reoffending data are broken down by locality 
using the address and post-code information of the offender. Where this 
information is missing, the location of the processing police force is used 
instead. This is not a completely reliable indicator of the offender’s home 
address as offenders may offend in a different locality than where they 
reside. The completeness of this information has improved over time. In 
2000, this information was omitted for 29% of cases, which was considered 
too high to produce reliable results. By 2005, this was reduced to 16.5%, 
and there has been a continuing downward trend since then. 
 
 
 

 
 
22 
Confidentiality  
 
This statement sets out the arrangements in place for protecting persons’ 
confidential data when statistics are published or otherwise released into the 
public domain. Principle 5 of the Code of Practice for Official Statistics 
states that:  
 
Private information about individual persons (including bodies 
corporate) compiled in the production of official statistics is 
confidential and should be used for statistical purposes only.  
 
It also states that arrangements for confidentiality protection should be:  
 
sufficient to protect the privacy of individual information, but not so 
restrictive as to limit unduly the practical utility of official statistics.  
 
To comply with this and with the Data Protection Act of 1998, and to 
maintain the trust and co-operation of those who use reoffending statistics, 
the following provisions have been put in place.  
 
Private information collected by the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) is stored in line 
with MoJ data security policies. Electronic data are held on password 
protected networks. All new staff undergo MoJ security vetting before 
receiving access to data systems, and all staff undertake mandatory training 
on information responsibility annually.  
 
Three types of disclosure risk are considered in relation to reoffending 
statistics: general attribution, identification (including self-identification) and 
residual through combination of sources.  
 
Assessment of the risk of disclosure considers the following:  
 
 Level of aggregation (including geographic level) of the data  
 Size of the population  
 The likelihood of an attempt to identify  
 Consequences of disclosure  
 
As a result number of offenders, reoffenders, reoffences and previous 
offences based on five or fewer offenders are suppressed for individual 
prisons, probation areas and the following geographical areas; County, 
Upper Tier Local Authority, Lower Tier Local Authority and Youth Offending 
Team. This is to prevent the disclosure of individual information. 
 

 
 
23 
Appendix A: Glossary of terms 
Reoffending terms 
 
Cohort – this is the group of individuals whose reoffending 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 (index date) – this is the set point in time from when reoffences 
are measured. 
 
Follow-up period – this is the length of time proven reoffending 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. 
 
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 reoffence – 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 definition used in the Proven Reoffending Statistics Quarterly 
Bulletin – the proven reoffending cohort consists of all offenders discharged 
from custody, otherwise sanctioned at court, receiving a caution, reprimand 
or warning 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 reoffence.  
Cohort definition used in the Interim Proven Reoffending Statistics for 
CRCs and NPS Quarterly Bulletin – the payment by results proven 
reoffending cohort consists of all adult offenders in any one quarter (January 
to March, April to June, July to September, October to December) who 
begin a community order, a suspended sentence order or who were 
released from custody. This cohort’s criminal behaviour to date is tracked 
and collated. Any offence committed in this period which is proven by a 
court conviction or out-of-court disposal counts as a proven reoffence. 
 

 
 
24 
Cohort definition used in the Local Adult Reoffending Quarterly 
Bulletin – the local adult reoffending 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 reoffence. The latest available publication is available at this link.   
 
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 
reoffending; 
 
 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; 

 
 
25 
 
 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. 
 
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. 
 
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. 

 
 
26 
 
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. Reprimands and 
warnings for youths were abolished under Legal Aid Sentencing and 
Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 with effect from 8 April 2013 and 
replaced with youth cautions. 
 
Youth cautions – are a formal out-of-court disposal that can be used as an 
alternative to prosecution for young offenders (aged 10 to 17) in certain 
circumstances. A Youth Caution may be given for any offence where the 
young offender admits an offence, there is sufficient evidence for a realistic 
prospect of conviction but it is not in the public interest to prosecute.  
 
First-tier penalties 
 
Discharge – a juvenile offender is given an absolute discharge when they 
admit guilt, or are found guilty, with no further action taken. An offender 
given a conditional discharge also receives no immediate punishment, but is 
given a set period during which, if they commit a further offence, they can 
be brought back to court and re-sentenced. 
 
 Fine – the size of the fine depends on the offence committed and the 
offender’s financial circumstances. In the case of juveniles under 16, 
the fine is the responsibility of the offender’s parent or carer. 
 Referral order – this is given to juveniles pleading guilty and for 
whom it is their first time at court (unless the offence is so serious it 
merits a custodial sentence or it is of a relatively minor nature). The 
offender is required to attend a Youth Offender Panel to agree a 
contract, aimed to repair the harm caused by the offence and 
address the causes of the offending behaviour. 

 
 
27 
 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 
 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 

 
 
28 
 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. 
 
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. 
 
 
Miscellaneous terms 
 
National Probation Service – the National Probation Service generally 
deals with those aged 18 years and over. (Those under 18 are mostly dealt 
with by Youth Offending Teams, answering to the Youth Justice Board.) 
They are responsible for supervising offenders who are given community 
sentences and suspended sentence orders by the courts, as well as 
offenders given custodial sentences, both pre and post their release. 

 
 
29 
 
Police National Computer – the Police National Computer (PNC) is the 
police's administrative IT system used by all police forces in England and 
Wales and managed by the National Policing Improvement Agency. As with 
any large scale recording system the PNC is subject to possible errors with 
data entry and processing. The Ministry of Justice maintains a database 
based on weekly extracts of selected data from the PNC in order to compile 
statistics and conduct research on reoffending and criminal histories. The 
PNC largely covers recordable offences – these are all indictable and 
triable-either-way offences plus many of the more serious summary 
offences. All figures derived from the Ministry of Justice's PNC database, 
and in particular those for the most recent months, are likely to be revised 
as more information is recorded by the police. 
 
Recordable offences – recordable offences are those that the police are 
required to record on the 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. 
 
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. 
 
Indictable and summary offences – Proven reoffending statistics 
quarterly (published 28 July 2016) included a table (B1.1) on serious 
sexual/violent proven reoffences and serious acquisitive proven reoffences. 
Another way to classify the seriousness of an offence is to classify the 
offence as ‘summary’, ‘triable-either-way’ or ‘indictable-only’. Indictable-only 
offences cover the most serious offences that must be tried at the Crown 
Court; these ‘indictable-only’ offences include murder, manslaughter, rape 
and robbery. These are reported in table B1. Note that summary offences 
are triable only by a magistrates’ court. This group includes motoring 
offences, common assault and criminal damage up to £5,000. Triable-
either-way offences are more serious offences; 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. Summary and 
triable-either-way are not reported. 
Youth Offending Teams (YOTs) 
YOTs work with young people that get into trouble with the law and each 
one cover a certain number of local authorities. The YOTs have been 
updated in the proven reoffending publication published on the 28th July 
2016.  
 

 
 
30 
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 
 
 
 

 
 
31 
Contact details  
 
For queries, comments or further information, please contact: 
 
Nick Mavron 
Ministry of Justice 
Justice Statistics Analytical Services 
7th floor 
102 Petty France 
London 
SW1H 9AJ 
 
 
Email: xxx@xxx.xx 
 
Alternative formats are available on request from 
xxx@xxx.xx. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
© Crown copyright 2015 
 
This publication is licensed under the terms of the Open Government 
Licence v3.0 except where otherwise stated. To view this licence, visit 
nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3 or write to 
the Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, London TW9 
4DU, or email: xxx@xxx.xx.