Proven Reoffending Statistics Quarterly Bulletin, January 2014 to December 2014
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
Quarterly Bulletin
January to December 2014,
England and Wales
Ministry of Justice
Statistics Bulletin
27 October 2016

2

Contents
Contents ......................................................................................................... 2
Introduction ................................................................................................... 3
Key findings ................................................................................................... 4
Main report ..................................................................................................... 7
Overall - adult and juvenile offenders .................................................. 7
Males and Females ....... ..................................................................... 9
Age ................................. ................................................................... 10
Index offence ................. ................................................................... 11
Previous offences .......... ................................................................... 12
Index disposal ................ ................................................................... 13
Comparing the effectiveness of sentences ......................................... 18
Adult offenders by individual prison ................................................... 19
Adult offenders by probation area ...................................................... 19
Measuring proven reoffending ................................................................... 20
Annex A: Interim Proven Reoffending Statistics for the Community
Rehabilitation Companies and National Probation Service Quarterly Bulletin
(October to December 2015, England and Wales) .................................... 22
Methodology ................... ................................................................... 25
Interpreting the interim results ............................................................ 27
Interim results ................. ................................................................... 28
Appendix to Annex A ...... ................................................................... 31
Annex B: Proven reoffending rates for restricted patients ............................ 36
Annex C: Serious further offences................................................................ 39
Annex D: Sentencing Comparisons.............................................................. 41
Contact points ............................................................................................. 46

3

Introduction
This quarterly bulletin provides key statistics on Proven Reoffending for adult and
juvenile offenders who were released from custody, received a non-custodial
conviction at court, or received a caution in the period January to December 2014. It
presents the proportion of offenders who reoffend (proven reoffending rate) and the
number of proven reoffences by offender history, demographics, individual prisons,
probation trusts, local authorities and youth offending teams.

How is proven reoffending measured?
A proven reoffence is defined as any offence committed in a one year follow-up
period that leads to a court conviction, caution, reprimand or warning in the one year
follow-up or within a further six month waiting period to allow the offence to be
proven in court as shown in the diagram below.
01-Jan-14
30-Jun-14
31-Dec-14
30-Jun-15
31-Dec-15
30-Jun-16
Offender A
enters cohort
One year period in which
reoffences are measured
We report on the offences that
lead to a court conviction,
caution, reprimand or warning
within the year
OR within a further
six months to allow
the offence to be
proven in court

An offender enters cohort if they are released from custody, received a non-custodial conviction at court, received a
caution, or received a reprimand or warning in the period January to December 2013.

Latest figures are provided with comparisons to 2013, and 2004 in order to highlight
long-term trends. The full set of results is published separately in a set of Excel
tables which provide headline Proven Reoffending statistics, and data tools which
provide more detailed breakdowns.

Annex A includes interim proven reoffending statistics for the Community
Rehabilitation Companies and National Probation Service for the October to
December 2015 cohort. Also included in this bulletin are the one year proven
reoffending rates of restricted patients (Annex B), the number of Serious Further
Offences (Annex C), and Sentencing Comparisons (Annex D).

If you have any feedback, questions or requests for further information about
this bulletin, please direct them to xxx@xxx.xx.

4

Key findings
Overall - adult and juvenile offenders

In 2014 around 488,000 adult and juvenile offenders1 were cautioned2, received a
non-custodial conviction at court or released from custody. Around 125,000 of these
offenders committed a proven reoffence within a year.

This gives an overall proven reoffending rate of 25.6%; this rate has remained fairly
stable, fluctuating between around 26% and 27% since 2004. The 2014 reoffending
rate represents a small decrease of 0.9 percentage points compared to the previous
12 months and a fall of 1.7 percentage points since 2004.

Around 399,000 proven reoffences were committed over the one year follow-up
period, with those that reoffended committing, on average, 3.20 reoffences each.

The highest reoffending rate by age group is 39.5%, for offenders aged 10 to 14.
The number of offenders in this cohort has fallen by around 84% since 2004. The
reoffending rate for this age group overtook offenders aged 15 to 17 in 2013, who
previously had a consistently higher reoffending rate but are now second highest.

Less than 1% of all proven reoffences committed over the one year follow-up period
were indictable only3, a small fall from 2004.

Adult offenders

Adult offenders had a proven reoffending rate of 24.5%, representing a small
decrease of 0.9 percentage points compared to the previous 12 months and also a
fall of 0.9 percentage points since 2004. This rate has been fairly flat since 2004
fluctuating between 24.4% and 25.4%.

Around 352,000 proven reoffences were committed by adults over the one year
follow-up period. Those that reoffended committed on average 3.19 reoffences
each.

Unsurprisingly, adult offenders with 11 or more previous offences have a higher
reoffending rate than those with no previous offences – 45.2% compared to 7.5%.

1 A certain proportion of offenders who could not be matched to the Police National Computer (PNC) are
excluded from the offender cohort. Therefore, this number does not represent all proven offenders. This means
that the number of offenders in this bulletin will be different from the numbers published in Offender Management
Statistics Quarterly and Criminal Justice Statistics. Please refer to the ‘Definitions and Measurement’ document
for further information.
2 Includes reprimands and warnings for juveniles.
3 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.

5

In the 2014 cohort, adult offenders with an index offence of ‘Theft’ had the highest
proven reoffending rate of 42.5%. Those with the lowest rate had an index offence of
‘Fraud’ and reoffended at a rate of 9.8%.

6

Adult offenders starting a court order

The proven reoffending rate for adult offenders starting a court order (Community
sentence or Suspended Sentence Order) was 32.6%, a fall of 4.8 percentage points
since 2004, and a fall of 1.7 percentage points compared to the previous 12 months.

Adult offenders released from custody

The proven reoffending rate for adult offenders released from custody in 2014 was
45.5%. This represents a small fall of 0.3 percentage points compared to the
previous 12 months and a fall of 3.1 percentage points since 2004. Since 2004, the
overall rate for those released from custody has remained relatively stable at around
45% to 49%.

The rate for those released from short sentences has been consistently higher
compared to those released from longer sentences. Adults who served sentences of
less than 12 months reoffended at a rate of 60%, compared to 33.4% for those who
served determinate sentences of 12 months or more. The trends for those released
from short and long sentences have both remained broadly flat since 2005 and are
consistent with the overall trend.

Juvenile offenders

Around 38,000 juvenile offenders were cautioned, convicted or released from
custody in 2014 and around 14,000 of them committed a reoffence. This gives a
proven reoffending rate of 37.9%, which is the same as the previous 12 months and
an increase of 4.3 percentage points since 2004. However, the cohort has fallen by
around 75% since 2004.

Around 47,000 proven reoffences were committed by juveniles over the one year
follow-up period. Those that reoffended committed on average 3.27 reoffences
each. Juvenile offenders with 11 or more previous offences have a higher
reoffending rate than those with no previous offences –76.1% compared to 24.5%.

Juvenile offenders (disposal type)

The reoffending rate for juvenile offenders given a youth caution, reprimand or
warning was 31%, an increase of 1.3 percentage points from the previous year and
5.1 percentage points from 2004.

The proven reoffending rate for juvenile offenders released from custody in 2014
was 69.2%. This is a fall of 6.3 percentage points since 2004, but an increase of 2.7
percentage points compared to the previous 12 months.

7

Main report
Overall - adult and juvenile offenders (Table A1)

Adult offenders accounted for 92% (around 450,000) of the January to December
2014 offender cohort, and juvenile offenders accounted for 8% (around 38,000). A
certain proportion of offenders who could not be matched to the Police National
Computer (PNC) are excluded from the offender cohort. Therefore, this number
does not represent all proven offenders.

Figure 1: Proportion of adult and juvenile offenders in England and Wales who
commit a proven reoffence, 2004 to 2014
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
Proportion of offenders who reoffend (%)
Number of offenders in cohort ('000s)
Cohort
Adult offenders
Juvenile offenders
Adult proportion (%)
Juvenile proportion (%)

Around 110,000 of all adult offenders were proven to have committed a reoffence
within a year. This gives a proven reoffending rate of 24.5% which represents a
decrease of 0.9 percentage points compared to 2013. Since 2004, there has been
little change in this rate, as illustrated in Figure 1. Over this time it has remained
steady at around 25%.

The proven reoffending rate for juvenile offenders is higher, standing at 37.9% in
2014, the same as 2013. While the juvenile reoffending rate has seen an increase of
4.3 percentage points since 2004, the cohort has fallen by around 75%. The
average number of previous offences per juvenile offender was 2.52 in 2014 and
2.58 in 2004. In spite of the increase in the overall juvenile reoffending rate since

8

2004, the reoffending rate for juveniles released from custody has fallen over the
same period.

9

Males and Females (Table A2)

In the 2014 cohort, 81% were male and 19% were female – a split that has changed
little since 2004. Male offenders from the 2014 cohort reoffended at a higher rate of
27.1% compared to female offenders who reoffended at a rate of 18.7%. Both rates
have remained broadly stable since 2004 (Figure 2). Between 2004 and 2014, the
proven reoffending rate for male and female offenders decreased by 1.8 and 1.6
percentage points respectively.

Figure 2: Proportion of adult and juvenile offenders in England and Wales who
commit a proven reoffence, by sex, 2004 to 2014
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
Proportion of offenders who reoffend (%)
Number of offenders in cohort ('000s)
Cohort
Male offenders
Female offenders
Male proportion (%)
Female proportion (%)

A summary report was published in November 2014 by a range of agencies relating
to the experience of women in the criminal justice system. This report can be found
here.

10

Age (Table A3)

The highest reoffending rate by age group is 39.5%, for offenders aged 10 to 14.
This cohort has fallen by around 84% since 2004. The age group with the second
highest reoffending rate was for those offenders aged 15 to 17, at 37.5%

Figure 3 shows that the proven reoffending rate generally falls with increasing age.
Since 2004 the age distribution of reoffending has changed. Compared to 2004, the
proven reoffending rate has increased for 10 to 17 year olds and for those aged 30
and over, but has fallen for offenders aged 18 to 29.

Figure 3: Proportion of adult and juvenile offenders in England and Wales who
commit a proven reoffence, by age, 2004 and 2014
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
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+
Proportion of offenders who reoffend (%)
Age
2004
2014

11

Index offence (Table A4a, b)

The offence that leads to an offender being included in the offender cohort is called
the index offence. In the 2014 cohort, adult offenders with an index offence of ‘Theft’
had the highest proven reoffending rate of 42.5%. This was followed by those with
an index offence of ‘Robbery’ with a rate of 34.6%. Those with the lowest rate had
an index offence of ‘Fraud’ and reoffended at a rate of 9.8%. Additionally, with a fall
of 9.0 percentage points, the ‘Fraud’ index offence category saw the largest
decrease between 2004 and 2014. In contrast, the largest increase of 6.3
percentage points over the same period occurred for those with an index offence of
‘Public Order’ with a reoffending rate of 29.3%.

In the 2014 cohort, juvenile offenders with an index offence of ‘Theft’ also had the
highest proven reoffending rate of 43.3%. Those with the lowest rate had a ‘sexual’
index offence and reoffended at a rate of 13.3%. The ‘Summary motoring’ index
offence category, had the largest decrease between 2004 and 2014 with a fall of
10.7 percentage points to a reoffending rate of 30.4%. The largest increase of 11.7
percentage points over the same period occurred for those with an index offence of
‘Theft’ with a reoffending rate of 43.3%.

Figure 4: Proportion of adult and juvenile offenders in England and Wales who
commit a proven reoffence, by index offence, 2014
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Theft
Robbery
Public Order
Miscellaneous Crimes
Against Society
Possession of
Weapons
Criminal Damage and
Arson
Drug
Summary Non-
motoring
Violence Against the
Person
Sexual
Summary Motoring
Fraud
Proportion of offenders who reoffend (%)
Index offence
Adult
Juvenile

12

Previous offences (Table A5a, b)

Generally, offenders with a large number of previous offences have a higher rate of
proven reoffending than those with fewer previous offences and this is true for both
adults and juveniles. In the 2014 cohort, for adults, the proven reoffending rates
ranged from 7.5% for offenders with no previous offences to 45.2% for offenders
with 11 or more previous offences. For juveniles these figures were 24.5% and
76.1% respectively.

Between 2004 and 2014, the largest decrease in the proven reoffending rate for
adults was among offenders with 11 or more previous offences, at 3.9 percentage
points. For juveniles the largest decrease was for those who had committed
between seven and 10 previous offences (5.9 percentage points).

Adult offenders with 11 or more previous offences represented just under a third of
all adult offenders in the 2014 cohort, but committed over two thirds of all adult
proven reoffences. For juvenile offenders this group made up only 6% of all juvenile
offenders, but committed nearly a fifth (18%) of all juvenile proven reoffences.

Figure 5: Proportion of adult and juvenile offenders in England and Wales who
commit a proven reoffence, by number of previous offences, 2014
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
No previous offences
1 to 2 previous
offences
3 to 6 previous
offences
7 to 10 previous
offences
11 or more previous
offences
Proportion of offenders who reoffend (%)
Previous offence band
Adult
Juvenile

13

Index disposal (sentence) type (Table C1a, b)

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, or other disposal resulting from a conviction at
court, such as a fine or discharge, or caution.

Adult offenders released from custody or commencing a court order

Between January and December 2014, around 171,000 adult offenders were
released from custody or commenced a court order. Around 59,000 of these
offenders were proven to have committed a reoffence within a year. This gives a
proven reoffending rate of 34.5%, a fall of 5.3 percentage points since 2004.

Adult offenders commencing a court order

Between January and December 2014, around 124,000 adult offenders started a
court order and around 40,000 of these (32.6%) committed a proven reoffence
within a year. This represents a decrease of 1.7 percentage points compared to the
previous 12 months, and a fall of 4.8 percentage points since 2004.

The Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 introduced
Suspended Sentence Orders (SSOs) without requirements attached. Offenders
sentenced to such SSOs are not supervised by the Probation Service. There have
been increasing numbers of such orders given since they were introduced in
December 2012. The reoffending rate for these SSOs without requirements is
34.5%. The reoffending rate for SSOs with requirements is 29.9%.

These figures should not be compared to assess the effectiveness of different types
of SSOs, as there is no control for known differences in offender characteristics and
the type of sentence given. Please refer to the chapter ‘Comparing the effectiveness
of sentences’ on page 16 for more details.

Adult offenders released from custody (Table C2a)

Between January and December 2014, around 56,000 adult offenders were
released from custody and around 26,000 of these (45.5%) were proven to have
committed a reoffence within a year. The rate has decreased by 3.1 percentage
points since 2004, and has decreased slightly by 0.3 percentage points since the
same period 12 months ago.

Just under half (47%) of the adult offenders released from custody in 2014 were
released from a custodial sentence of less than 12 months. These offenders had a

14

proven reoffending rate of 60% compared to 33.4% for those who served sentences
of 12 months or more.

The rate for those released from short sentences has been consistently higher
compared to those released from long sentences, as shown in Figure 6. However,
the reoffending rate for those released from sentences of more than 10 years has
seen an increase over the last ten years, and now stands at 15.6%.

Figure 6: Proportion of adult offenders released from custody who commit a
proven reoffence, by custodial sentence length, 2004 to 2014
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
Proportion of offenders who reoffend (%)
Cohort
Less than 12 months
12 months to less then 4 years
4 years to 10 years
More than 10 years

Juvenile offenders given a reprimand, warning or youth caution (Table C1b)

The reoffending rate for juvenile offenders given a youth caution was 31%, an
increase of 1.3 percentage points from the previous year and 5.1 percentage points
since 2004. 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 juvenile offenders 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.

Juvenile offenders released from custody (Table C1b)

15

Between January and December 2014 around 1,100 juvenile offenders were
released from custody and around 800 of these (69.2%) were proven to have
committed a reoffence within a year. This represents a fall of 6.3 percentage points
since 2004, but an increase of 2.7 percentage points compared to the previous 12
months.

16

Figure 7: Proven adult reoffending - Offenders, reoffenders and proportion of
offenders who reoffend by index disposal and custodial sentence length, 2014

25%
All Adult Offenders:
450,000
31%
Absolute/Conditional
Discharge: 56,000
16%
Caution:
132,000
33%
Court Order:
124,000
45%
Custody: 56,000
34%
Custody or Court
Order: 171,000
28%
Fine: 133,000
47%
Other: 18,000
34%
Community Order:
82,000
33%
Determinate - 12
months or more:
30,000
60%
Determinate - Less
than 12 months:
26,000
11%
Indeterminate: 600
Suspended
Sentence Order -
with requirements:
37,000
30%
35%
Suspended
Sentence Order -
without
requirements:
5,000

Number of offenders in each disposal category do not sum to the total number of offenders. This is
due to a difference in methodology to provide a realistic and relevant view of proven reoffending by
disposal type.

Offenders
Proportion of
offenders who
re-offend
Legend

17

The first event within each disposal is taken as the start point. Therefore, some offenders will appear
in more than one disposal category. Please see the definitions and measurement paper for more
information.

Data are rounded to the nearest 1,000; except for indeterminate sentences which are rounded to the
nearest 100.

18

Comparing the effectiveness of sentences

Proven reoffending rates by index disposal (sentence type) should not be compared
to assess the effectiveness of sentences, as there is no control for known
differences in offender characteristics and the type of sentence given.

The ‘The impact of short custodial sentences, Community Orders and Suspended
Sentence Orders on reoffending’ compares like for like offenders which enables a
more reliable comparison of proven reoffending rates between offenders receiving
different sentences.

Short-term custody (less than 12 months in prison, without supervision on release)
for the 2008 to 2011 cohorts was consistently associated with higher rates of proven
reoffending than community orders and suspended sentence orders (‘court orders’).

Over a one year follow-up period, a higher proportion of people reoffended having
been sentenced to short term custody than other, similar people given:

 a community order, of 3 percentage points higher;

 a suspended sentence order, of 7 percentage points higher.

Short term custody was associated with up to one more reoffence per person on
average than both community and suspended sentence orders.

In the ‘2013 Compendium of Re-offending Statistics and Analysis’, suspended
sentence orders had a lower reoffending rate than matched offenders given
community orders (3.2 percentage points for 2010);

Other non-custodial sentences are compared in Annex D.

19

Adult offenders by individual prison (Prison/youth secure
accommodation/probation region data tool)

Among prisons that released 30 or more offenders in 2014, proven reoffending rates
varied considerably from 8.1% to 77.2% for offenders with a sentence of less than
12 months and from 2.2% to 58.9% for offenders with a sentence of 12 months or
more. A large part of this variability reflects the mix of offenders who are held in
different prisons and, therefore, comparisons between prisons should not be made
using these raw reoffending rates.

Adult offenders by probation area (Prison/youth secure
accommodation/probation region data tool)

This publication provides proven reoffending measures by region for offenders
starting a court order and managed by NPS or CRCs in the period from January
2014 to December 2014.

Proven reoffending rates for offenders starting a court order varied from 31.4% to
37.4% between the seven regions. A large part of this variability reflects the mix of
offenders who are given a court order and, therefore, comparisons between regions
should not be made using these raw reoffending rates.

20

Measuring proven reoffending
There is no agreed international standard for measuring and reporting reoffending.
An offender’s journey through the criminal justice system can be a complex one;
offenders can appear on numerous occasions.

Measuring true reoffending is complex. 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 reported and/or detected and not all crimes are
recorded on one central system. Furthermore, other methods for measuring
reoffending, such as self-report studies, which do not identify the offender, are likely
to be unreliable. Therefore, this report aims to estimate proven reoffending for a
specified group of offenders using data mainly from the Police National Computer.

Since this report measures reoffending on a consistent basis across all groups, it is
possible to tailor analysis of reoffending to meet specific requirements.

The headline measure
This is the overall measure of reoffending and is presented for different demographic
groups and by offence. To provide this overview of proven reoffending, offenders
are tracked and their proven reoffending behaviour is recorded, taking the first
event4 in the relevant period as the start point and subsequent events as proven
reoffences. Users should refer to tables A1 to A6, B1 to B4 and the proven
reoffending overview data tool for these statistics.

Index disposal
In this measure offenders are tracked and their proven reoffending behaviour is
recorded within each disposal (caution, court order, release from custody, etc.)
Users should refer to tables C1 to C3 for these statistics and the proven reoffending
by index disposal data tool for these statistics.

Prison/Probation Area
In this measure offenders are tracked and their proven reoffending behaviour is
recorded within each operational unit (prison or probation area) taking the first
event within each as the start point and subsequent events as reoffences.

Consultation

This quarterly bulletin was developed in response to a consultation in late 2010 and
early 2011 by the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) on “Improvements to Ministry of Justice
Statistics”.

4 An event is one of the following: a release from custody, convicted at court with a non-custodial sentence,
received a caution, reprimand or warning.

21

Users

The contents of this bulletin will be of interest to Government policy makers, the
agencies responsible for offender management at both national and local levels,
providers, practitioners and others who want to understand more about proven
reoffending.

In particular there are two MoJ impact indicators which will be monitored using
results from this bulletin:

 Adult and juvenile reoffending – the percentage of adult and juvenile
offenders who reoffend.

 The percentage of adults released from custody who reoffend.

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 and sentencing guidelines. Offender management agencies use these statistics
to gain a local understanding of the criminal justice system, understand performance
and to highlight best practice. Key agencies include: the National Offender
Management Service, the Youth Justice Board, private and voluntary sector
providers of prison and probation services and local authorities.

22

Annex A: Interim Proven Reoffending Statistics for the
Community Rehabilitation Companies and National
Probation Service Quarterly Bulletin (October to December
2015, England and Wales)

23

Introduction
The first set of statistics based on one year proven reoffending for adult offenders
being managed in the community in England and Wales by Community
Rehabilitation Companies (CRCs) under Payment by Results5 (PbR)
arrangements, and by the National Probation Service (NPS), will be published in
October 2017. This is the measure against which CRCs will be assessed for the
PbR element of the Transforming Rehabilitation reforms.

To address this interim gap in knowledge, the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) included
proposals in its July 2015 consultation on “Changes to the reoffending statistics
following the introduction of the Rehabilitation Programme”6 to provide early insights
into CRC and NPS performance in reducing reoffending. Respondents to the
consultation supported these proposals and opted for a reoffending-to-date-based
interim measure.

This annex was developed in response to the consultation and will provide interim
proven reoffending statistics for the following offender cohorts until final results for
these cohorts become available.

 PbR eligible7 offenders managed by CRCs; and

 Offenders managed by the NPS who meet the same eligibility criteria as
those in the CRC PbR cohorts.

This issue of the quarterly bulletin presents interim proven reoffending statistics for
the October to December 2015 offender cohorts8.

It is important to note that, while interim results help to address the
information gap until final results are published, they will only give a broad
indication of progress and, therefore, care should be taken when interpreting
them. The measure against which CRCs will be assessed for PbR will be
based on the final results published in October 2017, compared against a 2011
baseline9.

The programme of reforms that led to opening up probation services to private and
third sector rehabilitation providers through 21 CRCs, and the creation of the new

5 PbR is paid for the achievement of statistically significant reductions in reoffending against the
baseline year of 2011 as set out in Transforming Rehabilitation contracts with CRCs.
6 The consultation and response to consultation are available at:
www.gov.uk/government/consultations/changes-to-reoffending-statistics-following-the-introduction-of-
the-rehabilitation-programme
7 A full list of PbR eligible offenders is provided in the Definitions and Measurement document.
8 Note that while CRCs (under public ownership until February 2015) and the NPS began operating in
June 2014, a bedding-in period was allowed before assessing performance against targets.
9 The 2011 PbR baselines and associated methodology documents are available at:
www.gov.uk/government/collections/transforming-rehabilitation

24

public sector NPS, is further explained in the Background section in the Appendix at
the end of this annex; and a timetable for the publication of interim and final results
can be found in Table A2 of the Appendix.

Interim results will be provided in this dedicated annex to each edition of the MoJ’s
quarterly bulletin on Proven Reoffending Statistics.

The Definitions and Measurement document, published alongside this bulletin,
provides more detailed information about the interim measure.

If you have any feedback, questions or requests for further information about
this report, please direct them to xxx@xxx.xx.

25

Methodology
Final reoffending results
The final reoffending results for the CRC and NPS offender cohorts will be based on
a one year proven reoffending measure. One year proven reoffending is defined
as any offence committed in a one year follow-up period that leads to a court
conviction or caution in the one year follow-up period or within a further six month
waiting period to allow the offence to be proven in court as shown in the diagram
below.

The following two reoffending measures will be used to assess CRC and NPS
performance:

 the binary rate (proportion of offenders who reoffend); and

 the frequency rate (the average number of reoffences per reoffender).

The performance of each CRC in reducing reoffending, on both the binary and
frequency measures, will be assessed against a baseline year of 2011. Furthermore,
the binary rate for each CRC will be adjusted for changes in the case mix of
offenders being supervised, using the Offender Group Reconviction Scale, version
4/G10 (OGRS4/G), before performance is assessed against the baseline.

Interim reoffending results
The interim reoffending results will cover any proven reoffending-to-date as
recorded on the MoJ extract of the Police National Computer (PNC). Interim
statistics for the October to December 2015 offender cohorts will, therefore, include
any proven reoffences committed between 1 October 2015 and the 4 August 2016.
This will mean that some offenders in the three-month cohort will have had a longer
follow-up period in which to reoffend, e.g. an ‘offender start’ on the 1 October 2015
will have had up to 10 months to reoffend, whereas an ‘offender start’ on the 31

10 Further information on the Offender Group Reconviction Scale 4/G can be found in the Definitions
and Measurement document, and in the Offender Group Reconviction Scale
section in the Appendix.

26

December 2015 will have had up to seven months to reoffend as shown in the
diagram below.

While the binary rate for CRC final results will be adjusted using OGRS4/G, this will
not be possible for the interim results - OGRS4/G only offers a one and two year
prediction of reoffending and interim results are based upon a reoffending-to-date
measure. Average OGRS4/G scores have, however, been provided in Table A1 of
the Appendix for individual CRCs. Table A1 also includes the corresponding scores
from the baseline year of 2011 which will enable users of this report to assess
whether or not CRC cohorts are more or less likely to reoffend than offenders from
the baseline year.

27

Interpreting the interim results
Tables 1 and 2 should be interpreted with caution for two main reasons:

1. They are interim estimates which are based on provisional data and a
reoffending-to-date measure, rather than a measure with defined follow-
up and waiting periods. As a result, they are susceptible to availability of
data and are more volatile than the one year reoffending measure. The one
year proven reoffending measure (by which PbR will be assessed) allows 12
months for reoffending to occur, and then a further six months for cases to
progress through the courts, and an additional one month for police forces to
enter and validate the data.

2. These figures have not been adjusted for the mix of offenders in the
cohort. The final set of results for each cohort will be adjusted for changes in
the case mix of offenders being supervised (using OGRS4/G) before
performance is assessed against the 2011 baseline.

It is too early to assess whether CRCs are meeting their targets. These results are
intended to provide a broad indication of progress only.

What we can say
1. The interim results provide a broad indication of progress at this point in time.

2. These results do not necessarily reflect what the final results will show in
October 2017. (Interim results are based on a reoffending-to-date measure
and have not been OGRS4/G-adjusted. Final results will be based on a one
year reoffending measure and will be adjusted for changes in the case mix of
offenders being supervised (using OGRS) before performance is assessed
against the baseline year of 2011.)

3. The average OGRS4/G scores show that, in all but two cases (London CRC
and South Yorkshire CRC), each CRC is managing offenders that are less
likely to reoffend compared to the baseline year of 2011.

What we cannot say
1. CRC A is on target / not on target to achieve statistically significant reductions
in reoffending against the baseline year of 2011.

2. The interim results show that CRC A is performing better or worse than CRC
B. (Interim results have not been OGRS4/G-adjusted, therefore, comparisons
between different CRCs will not be possible.)

3. The interim results show that CRCs are performing better or worse than the
NPS. (Due to differences in the types of offender being managed between the
CRCs (low to medium risk offenders) and the NPS (high risk offenders),
comparisons between CRCs and the NPS should not be made.)

28

Interim results
Table 1: Interim proven reoffending results for the October to December 2015 payment by results cohorts, by Community
Rehabilitation Company (CRC)
CRC
name
Number of
offenders in
the eligible
cohort
Number of
offenders in
the
measurable
cohort
Number of
reoffenders
Number of
reoffences
Proportion
of
offenders
who
reoffend (%)
Average
number of
reoffences
per
reoffender
Bedfordshire, Northamptonshire, Cambridgeshire & Hertfordshire
1,315
1,269
406
1,649
32.0
4.06
Bristol, Gloucestershire, Somerset & Wiltshire
1,206
1,138
404
1,484
35.5
3.67
Cheshire & Greater Manchester
2,290
2,184
666
2,152
30.5
3.23
Cumbria & Lancashire
1,107
1,050
331
1,168
31.5
3.53
Derbyshire, Leicestershire, Nottinghamshire & Rutland
1,892
1,773
562
2,046
31.7
3.64
Dorset, Devon & Cornwall
881
849
276
907
32.5
3.29
Durham Tees Valley
875
852
365
1,843
42.8
5.05
Essex
726
688
218
798
31.7
3.66
Hampshire & Isle of Wight
763
743
239
869
32.2
3.64
Humberside, Lincolnshire & North Yorkshire
1,201
1,169
458
1,703
39.2
3.72
Kent, Surrey & Sussex
1,499
1,409
447
1,757
31.7
3.93
London
4,439
4,126
1,340
4,324
32.5
3.23
Merseyside
1,108
1,043
262
871
25.1
3.32
Norfolk & Suffolk
585
559
191
782
34.2
4.09
Northumbria
797
773
323
1,384
41.8
4.28
South Yorkshire
883
850
347
1,499
40.8
4.32
Staffordshire & West Midlands
2,773
2,625
850
3,282
32.4
3.86
Thames Valley
846
811
287
1,186
35.4
4.13
Wales
2,246
2,160
754
2,635
34.9
3.49
Warwickshire & West Mercia
723
692
243
965
35.1
3.97
West Yorkshire
1,420
1,331
453
1,659
34.0
3.66

Figure 1: Interim binary rates for the October to December 2015 payment by
results cohorts, by Community Rehabilitation Company (CRC)
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
40.0
45.0
BEDFORDSHIRE, NORTHAMPTONSHIRE, CAMBRIDGESHIRE & HERTFORDSHIRE
BRISTOL, GLOUCESTERSHIRE, SOMERSET & WILTSHIRE
CHESHIRE & GREATER MANCHESTER
CUMBRIA & LANCASHIRE
DERBYSHIRE, LEICESTERSHIRE, NOTTINGHAMSHIRE & RUTLAND
DORSET, DEVON & CORNWALL
DURHAM TEES VALLEY
ESSEX
HAMPSHIRE & ISLE OF WIGHT
HUMBERSIDE, LINCOLNSHIRE & NORTH YORKSHIRE
KENT, SURREY & SUSSEX
LONDON
MERSEYSIDE
NORFOLK & SUFFOLK
NORTHUMBRIA
SOUTH YORKSHIRE
STAFFORDSHIRE & WEST MIDLANDS
THAMES VALLEY
WALES
WARWICKSHIRE & WEST MERCIA
WEST YORKSHIRE
Proportion of offenders who reoffend

Figure 2: Interim frequency rates for the October to December 2015 payment
by results cohorts, by Community Rehabilitation Company (CRC)
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
BEDFORDSHIRE, NORTHAMPTONSHIRE, CAMBRIDGESHIRE & HERTFORDSHIRE
BRISTOL, GLOUCESTERSHIRE, SOMERSET & WILTSHIRE
CHESHIRE & GREATER MANCHESTER
CUMBRIA & LANCASHIRE
DERBYSHIRE, LEICESTERSHIRE, NOTTINGHAMSHIRE & RUTLAND
DORSET, DEVON & CORNWALL
DURHAM TEES VALLEY
ESSEX
HAMPSHIRE & ISLE OF WIGHT
HUMBERSIDE, LINCOLNSHIRE & NORTH YORKSHIRE
KENT, SURREY & SUSSEX
LONDON
MERSEYSIDE
NORFOLK & SUFFOLK
NORTHUMBRIA
SOUTH YORKSHIRE
STAFFORDSHIRE & WEST MIDLANDS
THAMES VALLEY
WALES
WARWICKSHIRE & WEST MERCIA
WEST YORKSHIRE
Average number of reoffences per reoffender

30

Table 2: Interim proven reoffending results for the October to December 2015
performance measure cohorts, by National Probation Service (NPS) division
NPS
division
Number of
offenders
Number of
reoffenders
Number of
reoffences
Proportion
of
offenders
who
reoffend
(%)
Average
number of
reoffences
per
reoffender
London
1,099
267
793
24.3
2.97
Midlands
1,343
363
1,124
27.0
3.10
North East
1,635
478
1,690
29.2
3.54
North West
1,616
424
1,314
26.2
3.10
South East and Eastern
1,217
274
910
22.5
3.32
South West and South Central
1,005
250
838
24.9
3.35
Wales
728
224
682
30.8
3.04

31
Appendix to Annex A
Background
In “Transforming Rehabilitation: A Strategy for Reform”11, published in 2013, the
Secretary of State for Justice set out plans to introduce a new system for the
management and rehabilitation of offenders in the community across England and
Wales.

The programme, which was fully implemented in February 2015, aims to bring down
reoffending rates while continuing to protect the public. The reforms included:

 opening up the market to a diverse range of rehabilitation providers from the
private, voluntary and social sectors (including public service mutuals) through 21
CRCs;

 using a ‘payment by results’ approach to develop and implement effective ways
of rehabilitating offenders and rewarding providers that devise and deliver the
most effective rehabilitation programmes;

 extending statutory rehabilitation to around 45,000 short sentenced offenders
released from prison every year, who have the highest reoffending rates and yet
previously received no supervision after release;

 reorganising our prisons to resettle offenders ‘through the gate’, with continuous
support from custody to community. This means the majority of prisoners will be
moved to a resettlement prison close to their community at least three months
before release; and

 creating a new public sector NPS to manage high risk offenders.

Until the implementation of these reforms, most of the probation services were
delivered by 35 Probation Trusts under contract to the National Offender
Management Service (NOMS) on behalf of the Secretary of State.

Through these reforms, 21 CRCs are now providing services in their Contract
Package Areas (CPAs). The CRCs are owned and run by successful bidders12 from
the 2014 competition and now deliver services under contract to NOMS.

The NPS is a delivery arm of NOMS and delivers services under a service level
agreement (SLA) within seven NPS divisions.

11 The Ministry of Justice paper “Transforming Rehabilitation: A Strategy for Reform” is available at:
www.gov.uk/government/publications/transforming-rehabilitation-a-strategy-for-reform
12 A list of the successful bidders is available at:
www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/389727/table-of-new-owners-
of-crcs.pdf

32
CRCs manage the majority of offenders in the community sentenced to Community
Orders (COs), Suspended Sentence Orders (SSOs) and those subject to licence
conditions or supervision requirements, and deliver rehabilitative support to
offenders. The NPS directly manage offenders who pose a high risk of serious harm
to the public (including those whose risk has escalated to high during the course of
their sentence) or those released from custody who have committed the most
serious offences. It has a key role at certain stages of the process for all offenders,
for example in advising the courts on sentencing, determining the allocation of
offenders and dealing with enforcement action, working closely with CRCs.

33

Offender Group Reconviction Scale
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 OGRS4/G score 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.

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.

In the final results, the binary 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.

34

Table A1: Average OGRS4/G scores for the October to December 2015
payment by results cohorts, by Community Rehabilitation Company (CRC)
CRC
name
Average OGRS4/G score
2011
baseline
year
October to
December 2015
cohort
Bedfordshire, Northamptonshire, Cambridgeshire & Hertfordshire
44.12
43.87
Bristol, Gloucestershire, Somerset & Wiltshire
49.10
47.64
Cheshire & Greater Manchester
47.67
44.49
Cumbria & Lancashire
48.73
47.58
Derbyshire, Leicestershire, Nottinghamshire & Rutland
46.86
45.43
Dorset, Devon & Cornwall
48.69
46.59
Durham Tees Valley
52.95
51.74
Essex
46.57
44.76
Hampshire & Isle of Wight
48.20
46.08
Humberside, Lincolnshire & North Yorkshire
49.45
48.28
Kent, Surrey & Sussex
46.43
44.69
London
43.86
44.01
Merseyside
47.08
40.08
Norfolk & Suffolk
48.56
43.36
Northumbria
53.51
52.75
South Yorkshire
50.78
51.19
Staffordshire & West Midlands
45.42
44.14
Thames Valley
47.82
45.66
Wales
48.79
45.60
Warwickshire & West Mercia
46.71
44.29
West Yorkshire
49.45
47.91

35

Table A2: Timetable for publication of interim and final results
Publication date Interim reoffending results
Quarterly cohort
One year reoffending
results
Quarterly cohort
October 2016
Oct15 to Dec15
-
January 2017
Jan16 to Mar16
-
April 2017
Apr16 to Jun16
-
July 2017
Jul16 to Sep16
-
October 2017
Oct16 to Dec16
Oct15 to Dec15
January 2018
Jan17 to Mar17
Jan16 to Mar16
April 2018
Apr17 to Jun17
Apr16 to Jun16
July 2018
Jul17 to Sep17
Jul16 to Sep16
October 2018
Oct17 to Dec17
Oct16 to Dec16

36
Annex B: Proven reoffending rates for restricted patients
Introduction

This annex presents statistics on the reoffending of restricted patients absolutely or
conditionally discharged from detention in high secure or other psychiatric
hospitals13. Statistics on the reoffending of restricted patients was last published in
the ‘Proven reoffending statistics bulletin January to December 201214.

An offender can become a restricted patient by one of two main routes. An offender
convicted for a serious offence may be ordered to receive hospital treatment instead
of a prison sentence. When making the hospital order, the Court has the option of
adding a restriction order for offenders posing a risk of serious harm to others.
“Restricted patients” are subject to risk management by the Secretary of State for
Justice. Alternatively, if the Court passes a prison sentence, it can simultaneously
direct the offender’s admission to hospital, or the offender can subsequently be
transferred to hospital by the Secretary of State. These prisoners are usually made
subject to restrictions. In addition, there are other groups of restricted patients, such
as offenders transferred from prison service establishments while unsentenced or
untried, or offenders who are unfit to plead or found not guilty by reason of insanity.

The term “restricted patients” in this bulletin refers to persons who have been
compulsorily admitted to hospital under Part V of the Mental Health Act 1959, Part III
of the Mental Health Act 1983, or the Criminal Procedure (Insanity) Act 1964 as
amended by the Criminal Procedure (Insanity and Unfitness to Plead) Act 1991, or
the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004 (whose provisions came into
force on 31 March 2005) and who are subject to a Restriction Order, Restriction
Direction or Limitation Direction.

Restricted patients are liable for detention in psychiatric hospitals. Three high secure
hospitals are available for those restricted patients who pose a grave and immediate
risk.

The term discharge refers to release into the community, by whatever means, with
or without conditions. Discharges can be ordered by either the Secretary of State or
the First-Tier Tribunal (Mental Health) for England or the Mental Health Tribunal for
Wales (which are independent bodies with discharge powers separate from those of
the Secretary of State).

13 There are three high security hospitals in England and Wales – Ashworth, Broadmoor and Rampton. ‘Other’
psychiatric hospitals refer to any other psychiatric hospitals in England and Wales which admit restricted patients
as well as other patients. These include ‘medium secure’ and ‘low secure’ hospitals.
14 Proven Reoffending Statistics, January to December 2012

37
Methodology

The methodology used to measure the reoffending of restricted patients is
consistent with that used in the main bulletin, using a one year follow-up period and
six month waiting period for cases to be proven in court. This means that a reoffence
will only count if it is committed within one year of discharge and results in a court
conviction, caution, reprimand or warning within 18 months of discharge. More
detailed information on the proven reoffending measure is provided in the
‘Definitions and Measurement’ document which is published alongside this bulletin
at the same link.

The figures in this bulletin cover restricted patients absolutely or conditionally
discharged from detention in hospital. The reoffending data for restricted patients
are based on information sourced from the MoJ’s extract of the Police National
Computer (PNC) and the Public Protection Unit Database (PPUD) owned by the
National Offender Management Service (NOMS).

Caution should be exercised when interpreting the figures, which only represent the
reoffending of restricted patients who can be matched to the PNC following their first
discharge from hospital between 2010 and 2014. Therefore, the figures do not
capture all restricted patients discharged into the community in a given year, or take
into account recalls.

Results (see excel tables for Annex B)

In the 12 months ending December 2014 (Table 1), 378 restricted patients15 were
absolutely or conditionally discharged from detention in hospital for the first time. Of
these, 14 committed a proven reoffence within a year of discharge. This gives an
overall proven reoffending rate of 3.7%, which represents a decrease of just over
two percentage points from 2013 and a decrease of 1.6 percentage points
compared to 2010. However, due to the small number of reoffenders, the
reoffending rate is prone to fluctuation. There is no clear trend in the reoffending rate
since 2010, ranging between 3.6% and 5.8%.

As shown in Table 2, males accounted for 89% of the total number of restricted
patients discharged in the 12 months ending December 2014, and females 11%. In
the 12 months ending December 2014, 4.2% of males reoffended compared to no
females. For males, this represents a drop of 1.6 percentage points since 2013 and
a decline of 1.1 percentage points since 2010. For females this represents a drop of
6.1 percentage points from 2013 and a decline of 5.4 percentage points since 2010.
However, due to the small number of females particularly, these numbers should be
interpreted with caution.

15 For the reasons explained in footnote 4, this number does not represent the total number of restricted patients
absolutely or conditionally discharged in 2014. In 2014, 483 restricted patients were discharged. Of these 378
were matched to the PNC. In 2010, 564 were discharged of which 398 were matched. In 2011, 593 were
discharged of which 416 were matched. In 2012, 467 were discharged of which 361 were matched. In 2013, 500
were discharged and 378 were matched to the PNC.

38

The volatility in the reoffending rates by age group (Table 3) is a consequence of the
small numbers involved. It is, therefore, difficult to discern a trend or pattern in the
reoffending rates of restricted patients by age group.

Restricted patients with a large number of previous offences (Table 4), generally,
have a higher rate of proven reoffending. In the 12 months ending December 2014,
the proven reoffending rates ranged from 1.5% for offenders with no previous
offences to 5.1% for offenders with 11 or more previous offences. Additionally, while
those with 11 or more previous offences represented 42% of all restricted patients,
they were responsible for committing 73% of all proven reoffences.

Table 5 shows that only two of the restricted patients discharged in the 12 months
ending December 2014 committed an indictable reoffence in the 12 months after
discharge. This is equivalent to an indictable proven reoffending rate of 0.53%.

39
Annex C: Serious further offences
Background

This note provides management information on the total number of Serious Further
Offences (SFOs) as collected from the SFO Review Process.

This is an update to the information that was published in the annual proven
reoffending publication, which was published on 29 October 2015 and covered the
period 2013/14.

www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/472524/prov
en-reoffending-2013.pdf

Since 1 December 2008, where an offender is charged with an offence listed in
Schedule 15a to the Criminal Justice Act 2003, alleged to have been committed
within the probation supervision period or within 28 working days of the supervision
period terminating, an SFO review will be triggered.

Mandatory SFO reviews are triggered in the following circumstances:

 any eligible offender who has been charged with one of the most serious
SFOs – murder, manslaughter, other offence causing death, rape, assault by
penetration or a sexual offence against a child under 13 years (including
attempted offences); and,

 any eligible offender who has been charged with another offence on the SFO
list and is or has been assessed as high/very high risk of serious harm during
their current supervision period or has not been subject to a risk assessment
during that period.

A review may be carried out on a discretionary basis in the following circumstances:

 Any eligible offender who has been charged with an offence, irrespective of
whether that offence is a qualifying offence, and the National Offender
Management Service (NOMS) and the supervising probation provider have
identified public interest reasons for conducting a review.

Users should refer to the ‘2012 Compendium of Reoffending Statistics and Analysis’
for further definitions of the terms used in this notice, and for commentary to help
interpret these.

Care must be taken when interpreting the figures in 2014/15 as a number of cases
where offenders have been charged with a qualifying SFO have not concluded their
course through the judicial system.

40
The table in this statistical notice provides the numbers of SFO notifications under
the Probation SFO Review Process which resulted in a conviction for a serious
further offence between 2009/10 and 2014/15.

The table reflects the number of offenders who received an SFO notification up to
2014/15 and who were subsequently convicted of an SFO, up to 04 October 2015.
Some offenders are eventually convicted of offences lesser than the offences with
which they were charged and which triggered the SFO notification.

Table 1: SFO notifications received under the NOMS SFO Review Process
which resulted in a conviction for England and Wales.
Type of Offence
2009/10
2010/11
2011/12
2012/13
2013/14

2014/153
Murder
59
50
67
50
59

42
Attempted Murder
18
12
13
16
15

14
Manslaughter
33
18
15
16
23

11
Rape /assault by penetration
75
103
76
90
80

90
Arson with Intent to endanger life
9
8
8
7
10

9
Kidnapping /Abduction/False imprisonment
19
2
14
16
19

21
Attempted Kidnapping/Abduction
0
0
0
0
0

0
Other serious sexual or violent offences1
95
67
60
74
69

65
All SFO convictions
308
260
253
269
275

252
Offences which did not meet the SFO criteria2
54
66
55
65
71

82
All Convictions
362
326
308
334
346

334

1. Any other serious violent or sexual offence which carries a maximum
custodial penalty of more than 10 years.

2. Offenders who had been charged with an offence which met the SFO criteria,
but were convicted of a less serious offence.

3. Provisional figures subject to change as outstanding cases are completed.

4. Users should note that SFO figures have been revised upwards following
further action to pursue outstanding cases with probation providers. This work
has now become part of regular reporting and therefore we expect to see
smaller differences going forward.

41
Annex D: Sentencing Comparisons
Introduction

The reoffending rates for sentences provided in the main section of this bulletin are
based on offenders with different demographic, offence and criminal history
characteristics. It is therefore unclear whether any difference in the reoffending rates
is due to the difference in sentence or differences in other characteristics between
the groups. This Annex E therefore provides sentencing comparisons after adjusting
for observable characteristics.
The analysis builds on that presented in the 2013 Compendium of Reoffending and
in the research paper ‘The reoffending impact of community orders and suspended
sentence orders, and of different offender requirements’ published in 2015. This is
done in two ways; firstly by updating the figures using more recent 2013 reoffending
data and a more robust matching methodology than used in the 2013 Compendium,
and secondly by adding several new comparisons.
Methodology

As with the two previous analyses, Propensity Score Matching (PSM) was used as
the method of creating matched offender groups for each sentencing comparison.
The PSM approach involves calculating the probability of receiving the ‘treatment’
sentence (a propensity score between 0 and 1) using factors associated with both
the likelihood of the offender being given this sentence and the probability that the
offender will reoffend. Offenders given the ‘treatment’ sentence are then matched to
offenders receiving the ‘comparison’ sentence on the basis of the propensity
scores16. After matching, the average treatment effect of receiving the ‘treatment’
sentence rather than the ‘comparison’ sentence is calculated as the difference in the
mean reoffending rates between the two sentences.

The PSM approach assumes a level of variation in sentencing decisions. This
assumption imposes its own limitations to how PSM should be used, since similar
cases should be given different sentences only where sentencing decisions are
marginal. Where cases are matched, the PSM approach assumes that the eventual
choice is, in effect, random – i.e. all of the non-random variation is controlled for.
However, it is possible that some unmeasured factor may be responsible for the
eventual decision.

Datasets featuring adult17 offenders in England and Wales in 2013 were constructed
for each sentence category to be compared using information taken from the Police

16 Numerous algorithms for generating a comparison group using propensity score matching are available; this
analysis used Epanechnikov Kernel matching on the propensity score with bandwidth 0.03. This algorithm
involves treatment observations being matched to as many comparison observations as possible with the latter
being weighted according to the proximity of their propensity scores to those of the treatment observations (the
closer the propensity scores the higher the weighting).
17 Adult offenders are defined as offenders aged 18 or over at the time of their sentence. This is also referred to
as the start point or the index date.

42
National Computer (PNC)18. The datasets contain offender, offence, criminal history
and reoffending information for each occasion when an adult offender received one
of the selected sentences. Offenders were included in each sentence dataset for as
many times as they had received the relevant sentence during the time period. So an
offender who received two community orders on separate sentencing occasions
during the period, for example, would have two records eligible for matching when
comparing community orders to another sentence.
Two outcome variables were used to measure reoffending; the one year proven
reoffending rate (a binary yes / no measure) and the (mean) number of proven
reoffences per offender.
The variables used to create the propensity scores are as listed below19:
Offender Demographics
 Age at date of sentence*
 Gender
 Ethnicity
Index Offence (this is the offence that led to the sentence):
 OGRS offence code (condensed 20 categories for the index offence, e.g.
robbery, violence, burglary and so on, as in the Offender Group Reconviction
Scale 3)
 Severity of index offence (ranked 1 to 3 with 1 being the most severe).
Offending History20 (prior to index offence)
 Number of previous offences* with breakdown by severity of offence and by
whether the conviction or caution was in the last year, not in the last year but
within the last five years, or was more than five years before the current
sentencing date
 Copas Rate21
 Number of previous custodial sentences*
 Number of previous court orders*

18 The Police National Computer is the administrative data system used by all police forces in England and
Wales. It is managed by the Home Office. The Ministry of Justice receive monthly extracts of data from the PNC.
19 These had statistically significant relationships at the 0.2 significance level with both the probability of receiving
the ‘treatment’ sentence and with reoffending for some or all of the sentencing comparisons. The 0.2 level of
statistical significance is consistent with guidance from the academic literature (e.g. Apel & Sweeten, 2010; Hahs-
Vaughn & Onwuegbuzie, 2006; Rosenbaum, 2002) and with previous Ministry of Justice sentencing comparison
analyses.
20 All offending history variables exclude Penalty Notices for Disorder.
21 The Copas Rate controls for the rate at which an offender has built up convictions. The higher it is, the more
likely the offender is to reoffend. The formula is as follows;









10

years
in
career

criminal

of
Length
1

cautions
or
s
appearance
court

of
Number
log

rate

copas
e

43
 Number of previous cautions*
 Age at first contact with the criminal justice system*
This comprises a wider range of variables than used in the 2013 Compendium of
reoffending. However, there may be other characteristics that influence both the
sentencing decision and the probability of reoffending, such as the offender’s plea. It
is therefore possible that some of the differences in the reoffending rates found in
this analysis reflect differences in the offenders and their offences that could not be
covered by the data used. This may be more of an issue for certain comparisons
than others, for example magistrates/judges may take into consideration an
offender’s income when deciding whether to give a fine, though income data was not
in the dataset.
In general, some extra caution is advised when interpreting comparisons featuring
fines. The PNC does not record all offences for which fines may be given in a court
such as TV license evasion or less serious motoring offences. Rather it only covers
fines for more serious offences, such as shoplifting, driving over the limit, being
drunk and disorderly and possession of cannabis. This means the findings should
not be considered in terms of all fines, but rather the more serious offences that
might lead to a fine.
When interpreting the results, it is important to consider which sentence is the
‘treatment’. For example, when comparing community orders with fines the analysis
shows what would have happened to those receiving a community order if they had
received a fine, not the other way around. This means that the analysis for this
comparison would be more focused on particular offences that might receive a
community order or a fine, rather than less serious offences warranting only a fine
and not a community order.

Matching quality

The impact estimates exclude treatment cases where there is no common support –
that is, which don’t have a similar propensity score to any comparison group cases.
All comparisons involve less than 0.2 per cent of the treatment group being lost in
the matching. The number of treatment cases on support and off support for these
comparisons is shown by Table 1.
Following the matching for each comparison, the closeness of the matched groups
on characteristics selected for the model was tested using standardised (mean)
differences22. These can be interpreted as follows:

22 The formula for the standardised (mean) difference is as follows, where the x represents the characteristic
selected (e.g. age) and s the standard deviation of that characteristic:


2

difference

ed
Standardis
2
2
s
s
x
x
control
treatment
control
treatment




As the propensity score matching algorithm used for this analysis involved a treatment observation being
matched to more than one comparison observation, the means and standard deviations were weighted.

44
• Standardised differences <=5% = groups are closely matched on that
particular offender or offence characteristic.
• Standardised differences of 5–10% = a reasonable match quality.
• Standardised differences >10% = a poor quality of matching which could
alter the interpretation of the final result.
In this analysis, 97 per cent of standardised differences were five per cent or lower.
All those over five per cent were associated with the OGRS offence code breakdown
in the comparisons of cautions versus other matched sentences. In total fourteen
were between five and ten per cent and just one over ten per cent (this being 11.8
per cent). No comparison involved more than four standardised differences being
more than five per cent. Together with the high common support, this suggests the
propensity score matching succeeded in creating well-balanced and representative
groups on the observed characteristics.

Results (Table 1)

The comparisons indicate that over a one-year follow-up period:
 Offenders sentenced to a community order reoffended at a one percentage point
higher rate (and committed 0.04 more reoffences on average) than similar,
matched offenders receiving police recorded fines. This contrasts with those
sentenced to a lower level community order who reoffended at a one and a half
percentage point lower rate (and committed 0.08 fewer reoffences on average)
than matched offenders receiving police recorded fines.
 Offenders sentenced to absolute or conditional discharges were 4.1 percentage
points less likely to reoffend than matched offenders receiving community orders,
1.6 percentage points less likely to reoffend than matched offenders receiving
lower level community orders, and 5.4 percentage points less likely to reoffend
than matched offenders receiving police recorded fines.
 As the vast majority of discharges were conditional rather than absolute, the
comparisons of conditional discharges with matched community orders, lower
level community orders and police recorded fines were very similar to those for all
discharges.
 Offenders given cautions were 1.4 percentage points more likely to reoffend than
matched offenders receiving discharges, 1.6 percentage points more likely to
reoffend than matched offenders receiving conditional discharges alone, and 0.8
percentage points less likely to reoffend than matched offenders receiving
community orders. There was no statistically significant difference between
offenders given cautions and matched lower level community orders.
The updated results for the three comparisons presented in the ‘2013 Compendium
of Reoffending Statistics and Analysis’ (community orders versus matched police

45
recorded fines and conditional discharges versus matched community orders and
versus matched police recorded fines) are very similar to those for 2009 and 2010.
Table 1: Proven reoffending outcomes for matched non-custodial sentences in
England and Wales, 2013
Treatment
Control
Treatment
Size, Matched
& Off support
Matched
Control
Size
Binary &
Frequency
(Treatment)
Binary &
Frequency
(Control)
Impact
estimate
Community
orders
Fines
93,972
150,474
39.0%
38.0%
1.0%pts***

128

1.48
1.44
0.04**
Low level com
orders
Fines
47,851
150,474
28.8%
30.3%
-1.5%pts***

4

0.90
0.98
-0.08***
All discharges
Community
orders
60,731
94,100
34.9%
39.1%
-4.1%pts***

4

1.30
1.51
-0.21***
All discharges
Low level com
orders
60,729
47,855
34.9%
36.5%
-1.6%pts***

6

1.30
1.35
-0.05***
All discharges
Fines
60,734
150,474
35.0%
40.4%
-5.4%pts***

1

1.30
1.59
-0.29***
Conditional
discharges
Community
orders
58,532
94,100
34.2%
38.6%
-4.4%pts***
1

1.21
1.45
-0.24***
Conditional
discharges
Low level com
orders
58,531
47,855
34.2%
36.0%
-1.8%pts***
2

1.21
1.29
-0.08***
Conditional
discharges
Fines
58,533
150,474
34.2%
39.7%
-5.5%pts***
0

1.21
1.50
-0.30***
Cautions
All discharges
154,807
60,735
17.8%
16.4%
1.4%pts***

0

0.44
0.4
0.04**
Cautions
Conditional
discharges
154,807
58,533
17.8%
16.2%
1.6%pts***

0

0.44
0.39
0.06***
Cautions
Community
orders
154,807
94,100
17.8%
18.6%
-0.8%pts***

0

0.44
0.49
-0.04**
Cautions
Low level com
orders
154,807
47,855
17.8%
17.4%
0.4%pts

0

0.44
0.43
0.01

Notes:
* = significant at 0.1 level, ** = significant at 0.05 level, *** = significant at 0.01 level
Low level com orders = Low level community orders

46
Contact points
Press enquiries should be directed to the Ministry of Justice press office:

Tel: xx-xxxx-xxxx

Email: xxx@xxx.xx

Other enquiries about these statistics should be directed to:

Nick Mavron
Ministry of Justice
Justice Statistics Analytical Services
7th Floor
102 Petty France
London
SW1H 9AJ

General enquiries about the statistical work of the Ministry of Justice can be e-
mailed to: xxx@xxx.xx

General information about the official statistics system of the United Kingdom is
available from http://statisticsauthority.gov.uk/about-the-authority/uk-statistical-
system

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.