Proven Reoffending Statistics Quarterly Bulletin - July 2010 to June 2011
Source: data.gov.uk (2018-05-25)

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

Proven Re-offending Statistics 
Quarterly Bulletin 
July 2010 to June 2011, 
England and Wales 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Ministry of Justice 
Statistics Bulletin 
 
 
 
25 April 2013 

Contents 
 
Contents .........................................................................................................2 
 
Introduction ......................................................................................................3 
 
Executive summary..........................................................................................7 
 
Annex A .........................................................................................................24 
 
Annex B .........................................................................................................27 
 
Annex C .........................................................................................................44 
 
Explanatory notes ..........................................................................................53 
 
Contact points................................................................................................54 
 
 
 
2

Introduction 
 
The Proven Re-offending Statistics Quarterly Bulletin provides key statistics 
on proven re-offending in England and Wales. It gives proven re-offending 
figures for offenders, who were released from custody, received a non-
custodial conviction at court, received a caution, reprimand, warning or tested 
positive for opiates or cocaine between July 2010 and June 2011. Proven re-
offending is defined as any offence committed in a one year follow-up period 
and receiving a court conviction, caution, reprimand or warning in the one 
year follow-up or within a further six month waiting period. This is referred to 
as a proven re-offence. 
 
This quarterly bulletin presents the proportion of offenders who re-offend 
(proven re-offending rate) and the number of proven re-offences those 
offenders commit by age group, gender, ethnicity, criminal history and offence 
type. Also included are proven re-offending rates for serious proven re-
offending, different types of offenders (e.g. adult, juvenile, drug-misusing and 
prolific and other priority offenders); different types of sentence; and for 
individual prisons, probation trusts and youth offending teams. 
 
Latest figures are provided with comparisons to July 2009 to June 2010 and 
the year 2000 in order to highlight long-term trends; 2000 is the earliest year 
for which proven re-offending data exist on a comparable basis. The full set of 
results is provided separately in Excel tables at: 
 
www.gov.uk/government/publications/proven-re-offending--2 
 
The accompanying ‘Definitions and Measurement’ document, which is 
available at the same link, provides more detailed information. 
 
3

Measuring proven re-offending 
 
There is no agreed international standard for measuring and reporting re-
offending. An offender’s journey through the criminal justice system can be a 
complex one; offenders can appear on numerous occasions. 
 
Measuring true re-offending is complex. Official records are taken from either 
the police or courts, but they will underestimate the true level of re-offending 
because only a proportion of crime is reported and/or detected and not all 
crimes are recorded on one central system. Furthermore, other methods for 
measuring re-offending, such as self report studies which do not identify the 
offender, are likely to be unreliable. Therefore, this report aims to measure 
proven re-offending. 
 
Since re-offending is now measured on a consistent basis across all groups, it 
is possible to tailor analysis of re-offending to meet specific requirements. This 
quarterly bulletin and the accompanying ‘Early estimates of proven re-
offending’ present measures on four different levels to meet users’ needs: 
 
 The headline measure – this is the main measure of re-offending and is 
presented for different demographic groups and by offence. To provide 
this overview of proven re-offending, offenders are tracked and their 
proven re-offending behaviour is recorded, taking the first event1 in the 
relevant period as the start point and subsequent events as proven re-
offences. 
 
 A headline measure where the first event is related to criminal justice 
and offender management – this provides a realistic and relevant view 
of proven re-offending by disposal (sentence type), prison and 
probation trust. Offenders are tracked and their proven re-offending 
behaviour is recorded within each disposal (caution, court order, 
discharge from prison, etc.) or operational unit (prison or probation 
trust) taking the first event within each as the start point and 
subsequent events as re-offences. 
 
 Early estimates of proven re-offending – these use shorter follow-up 
and waiting periods, but otherwise measure re-offending in exactly the 
same way as the headline measure. This is intended to provide 
offender managers with an earlier indication of proven re-offending 
trends so they can adjust or build on offender management operational 
policy. 
 
 A re-conviction measure for use by payment by results – this is the 
measure used in the prison pilots since court convictions are more 
closely associated with costs to the criminal justice system. For more 
details, please refer to Annex A. 
                                                 
1 An event is one of the following: a release from custody, convicted at court with a non-
custodial sentence, received a caution, reprimand, warning or tested positive for opiates or 
cocaine 
 
4

For a more detailed explanation, please see the accompanying ‘Definitions 
and Measurement’ document at: 
 
www.gov.uk/government/publications/proven-re-offending--2 
 
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”. The main points from the consultation that affect 
this publication can be found in Annex B. 
 
Users 
 
The contents of this bulletin will be of interest to Government policy makers, 
the agencies responsible for offender management at both national and local 
levels, providers, practitioners and others who want to understand more about 
proven re-offending. 
 
In particular there are two MoJ impact indicators2 which will be monitored 
using results from this bulletin: 
 
 Adult and juvenile re-offending – the percentage of adult and juvenile 
offenders who re-offend, measured quarterly by local authority. 
 
 The percentage of adults released from custody who re-offend, 
measured annually by prison. 
 
Government policy makers also use these statistics to develop, monitor and 
evaluate key elements of its policies including those on payments by results, 
legal aid, sentencing guidelines and drug and alcohol policies. Offender 
management agencies use these statistics to gain a local understanding of 
the criminal justice system, understand performance and to highlight best 
practice. Key agencies include: the National Offender Management Service, 
the Youth Justice Board, private and voluntary sector providers of prison and 
probation services and local authorities. 
 
As proven re-offending is related to the characteristics of offenders, the actual 
rate of proven re-offending will depend, in part, on the characteristics of 
offenders coming into the system. This actual rate provides users with 
sufficient information on what the level of re-offending is (e.g. in their local 
area) and how it is changing over time. This bulletin also presents an adjusted 
proven re-offending rate to control for differences in the composition of the 
offender group which can be used by those who want to understand how 
changes in types of offenders coming through the justice system drives re-
offending rates. 
 
 
                                                 
2 www.gov.uk/government/publications?departments%5B%5D=ministry-of-justice 
 
5

This bulletin is published alongside two inter-related bulletins:  
 
 
Offender Management Statistics Quarterly Bulletin, October to 
December 2012 and 2012 annual tables, England and Wales: 
provides key statistics relating to offenders who are in prison or under 
Probation Service supervision. It covers flows into these services 
(receptions into prison or probation starts) and flows out (discharges 
from prison or probation terminations) as well as the caseload of both 
services at specific points in time. It also includes information on 
returns to custody following recall. 
 
 
Safety in Custody Statistics Quarterly update to December 2012 
and 2012 annual tables, England and Wales: provides statistics on 
death, self harm and assault incidents whilst in prison custody. 
 
Taken together, these publications present users with a more coherent 
overview of offender management, re-offending among adults and young 
people and the safety of offenders whilst in prison custody. 
 
Additional analyses on proven re-offending that are not covered by this 
bulletin are presented in the ‘Compendium of re-offending statistics and 
analysis’. The 2012 Compendium was published by the MoJ on 12 July 2012 
and includes, for example, analyses on longer-term trends in re-offending; and 
the relative effectiveness of different juvenile sentences in reducing re-
offending. 
 
www.gov.uk/government/publications/compendium-of-reoffending-statistics-
and-analysis 
 
If you have any feedback, questions or requests for further information 
about this statistical bulletin, please direct them to the appropriate 
contact given at the end of this report. 
 
6

Executive summary 
 
This report provides key statistics on proven re-offending in England and 
Wales. It gives proven re-offending figures for offenders who were released 
from custody, received a non-custodial conviction at court, received a caution, 
reprimand, warning or tested positive for opiates or cocaine between July 
2010 and June 2011. Proven re-offending is defined as any offence 
committed in a one year follow-up period and receiving a court conviction, 
caution, reprimand or warning in the one year follow-up. Following this one 
year period, a further six month waiting period is allowed for cases to progress 
through the courts. 
 
Between July 2010 and June 2011, around 630,000 offenders3 were 
cautioned4, convicted (excluding immediate custodial sentences) or released 
from custody5. Around 170,000 of these offenders committed a proven re-
offence within a year. This gives a one year proven re-offending rate of 26.9 
per cent, which represents a rise of 0.5 percentage points compared to the 
previous 12 months and a fall of 1.0 percentage points since 2000 (Table 1). 
 
These re-offenders committed an average of 2.88 re-offences each. In total, 
this represents around 490,000 re-offences of which 82 per cent were 
committed by adults and 18 per cent were committed by juveniles (Table 1). 
 
 56.5 per cent (around 280,000) were committed by re-offenders with 11 
or more previous offences (Table 6c). 
 
 0.7 per cent (around 3,300) were serious violent/sexual proven re-
offences (Table 8). 
 
 5.1 per cent (around 25,000) were committed by re-offenders on the 
Prolific and other Priority Offender Programme (PPO) (Table 16). 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
3 A certain proportion of offenders who could not be matched to the Police National Computer 
(PNC) are excluded from the offender cohort. Therefore, this number does not represent all 
proven offenders. Please refer to the ‘Definitions and Measurement’ document for more detail 
at www.gov.uk/government/publications/proven-re-offending--2. This means that the number 
of offenders in this bulletin will be different from the numbers published in the Offender 
Management Quarterly Statistics Bulletin available at 
www.gov.uk/government/publications/offender-management-statistics-quarterly--2 and the 
Criminal Justice Statistics report available at www.gov.uk/government/publications/criminal-
justice-statistics--2 
4 Includes reprimands and warnings for juveniles 
5 Also includes those who tested positive for opiates or cocaine 
 
7

Key trends in proven re-offending 
 
Adult offenders 
 
Around 550,000 adult offenders3 were cautioned4, convicted or released from 
custody5 between July 2010 and June 2011. Around 140,000 of them 
committed a re-offence. This gives a proven re-offending rate of 25.5 per cent, 
which represents an increase of 0.6 percentage points compared to the 
previous 12 months and a fall of 0.7 percentage points since 2000 (Table 1). 
 
However, compared to 2000, the offenders in the 12 months ending June 
2011 had characteristics which meant they were more likely to re-offend. This 
means that, after controlling for offender characteristics, the decrease was 
larger at 3.1 percentage points (Table 1). 
 
The average number of re-offences per re-offender was 2.88, a rise of 2.4 per 
cent compared to the previous 12 months and a fall of 14.9 per cent 
compared to 2000 (Table 1). 
 
Looking at specific groups within the cohort: 
 
 The proven re-offending rate for those released from custody was 46.9 
per cent, a fall of 0.4 percentage points compared to the previous 12 
months and a fall of 2.5 percentage points since 2000. The average 
number of re-offences committed per re-offender for this group was 
4.19, an increase of 3.1 per cent compared to the previous 12 months 
and down 10.5 per cent since 2000 (Table 18a). 
 
 The proven re-offending rate for those starting a court order 
(Community Order or Suspended Sentence Order) was 34.2 per cent, 
a rise of 0.2 per cent compared to the previous 12 months and down 
3.7 percentage points since 2000. The average number of re-offences 
per re-offender was 3.21, up 2.6 per cent compared to the previous 12 
months and down 17.0 per cent since 2000 (Table 18a). 
 
 The proven re-offending rate for drug-misusing offenders (all offenders 
who are given drug orders as part of their sentence or test positive for 
opiates upon arrest) was 57.2 per cent, up 0.8 percentage points 
compared to the previous 12 months (Table 15). 
 
Juvenile offenders 
 
Around 83,000 juvenile offenders3 were cautioned4, convicted or released 
from custody5 between July 2010 and June 2011. Around 30,000 of them 
committed a re-offence. This gives a proven re-offending rate of 36.0 per cent. 
This represents an increase in the rate of 1.9 percentage points compared to 
the previous 12 months and a rise of 2.4 percentage points since 2000 (Table 
1). 
 
 
8

However, the cohort has changed considerably over the period since 2000; it 
is now 40 per cent smaller, and is comprised of offenders whose 
characteristics mean they are more likely to re-offend than those in the 2000 
cohort. In order to account for this, we can control for changes in offender 
characteristics to give a more consistent view of changes over time. After 
controlling for these changes, the proven re-offending rate has actually 
decreased by 1.0 percentage points since 2000 (Table 1). 
 
The average number of re-offences per re-offender was 2.88, an increase of 
2.2 per cent compared to the previous 12 months and down 13.2 per cent 
since 2000 (Table 1). 
 
Table E1: Overview – latest 12 month period compared to the previous 
12 month period and 2000 
 
2000
12 months 
ending June
2010
12 months 
ending June
2011
All offenders
Proportion of offenders who re-offend (%)
27.9
26.4
26.9
-1pp ↓
0.5pp ↑
Average number of re-offences per re-offender
3.37
2.82
2.88
-14.5% ↓
2.4% ↑
Proportion of offenders who re-offend - Adjusted to baseline2 (%)
25.5
27.0
27.2
-
-
Average number of re-offences per offender
0.94
0.74
0.78
-17.5% ↓
4.3% ↑
Number of re-offences
579,770
496,141
490,346
-15.4% ↓
-1.2% ↓
Number of re-offenders
171,935
176,053
169,991
-1.1% ↓
-3.4% ↓
Number of offenders in cohort
617,024
667,088
632,294
2.5% ↑
-5.2% ↓
Adult offenders
Proportion of offenders who re-offend (%)
26.2
24.9
25.5
-0.7pp ↓
0.6pp ↑
Average number of re-offences per re-offender
3.39
2.82
2.88
-14.9% ↓
2.4% ↑
Proportion of offenders who re-offend - Adjusted to baseline2 (%)
23.6
25.6
26.0
-
-
Average number of re-offences per offender
0.89
0.70
0.74
-17.1% ↓
4.6% ↑
Number of re-offences
423,989
394,685
403,726
-4.8% ↓
2.3% ↑
Number of re-offenders
125,023
140,065
139,941
11.9% ↑
-0.1% ↓
Number of offenders in cohort
477,698
561,561
548,911
14.9% ↑
-2.3% ↓
Juvenile offenders
Proportion of offenders who re-offend (%)
33.7
34.1
36.0
2.4pp ↑
1.9pp ↑
Average number of re-offences per re-offender
3.32
2.82
2.88
-13.2% ↓
2.2% ↑
Proportion of offenders who re-offend - Adjusted to baseline2 (%)
32.0
34.4
35.4
-
-
Average number of re-offences per offender
1.12
0.96
1.04
-7.1% ↓
8.1% ↑
Number of re-offences
155,781
101,456
86,620
-44.4% ↓
-14.6% ↓
Number of re-offenders
46,912
35,988
30,050
-35.9% ↓
-16.5% ↓
Number of offenders in cohort
139,326
105,527
83,383
-40.2% ↓
-21.0% ↓
1. pp = percentage point and percentage changes may not add up due to rounding of raw figures
2. See the definitions and measurement paper for an explanation on how to use and interpret the baseline rate
Percentage change
2000
to 12 months ending
June 20111
Percentage change
12 months ending June 2010
to 12 months ending
June 20111 
 
 
Groups with the biggest changes in the proven re-offending rate since 
2000 
 
Biggest reductions: 
 
 Adult females (a fall of 2.1 percentage points) (Table 2). 
 
 21 to 24 year olds (a fall of 2.4 percentage points) (Table 3). 
 
 Adults with 7 to 10 previous offences (a fall of 3.1 percentage points) 
(Table 6a). 
 
 Juveniles with 11 or more previous offences (a fall of 5.5 percentage 
points) (Table 6b). 
 
 Adults who received court orders (a fall 3.7 percentage points) (Table 
18a). 
 
 
9

 Juveniles who received first tier penalties (a fall of 6.4 percentage 
points) (Table 18b). 
 
 Adults who received custodial sentences of 12 months to less than 4 
years (a fall of 9.7 percentage points) (Table 19a). 
 
Biggest increases: 
 
 Juvenile females (a rise of 3.5 percentage points) (Table 2). 
 
 40 to 44 year olds (a rise of 4.9 percentage points) (Table 3). 
 
 Adults who received custodial sentences of less than 12 months (a rise 
of 3.9 percentage points) (Table 19a). 
 
10

All offenders 
 
Proven re-offending by age 
 
Between July 2010 and June 2011, as in previous years, 15 to 17 year olds 
had the highest proven re-offending rate at 36.8 per cent. The proven re-
offending rate falls with increasing age (after those aged 15 to 17) as shown in 
Figure E1 (Table 3). 
 
Compared to 2000, the proven re-offending rate for the 12 months ending 
June 2011 rose for 10 to 17 year olds and for those aged 30 and over, but fell 
for offenders aged 18 to 29 (Table 3). 
 
The largest decrease in the average number of re-offences per re-offender 
was among those aged 21 to 24, which fell from 3.61 in 2000 to 2.73 in the 12 
months ending June 2011 (a fall of 24.2 per cent) (Table 3). 
 
Figure E1: Proportion of offenders who commit a proven re-offence, by 
age, 2000, 12 months ending June 2010 and 12 months ending June 
2011 
 
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
10 to 14
15 to 17
18 to 20
21 to 24
25 to 29
30 to 34
35 to 39
40 to 44
45 to 49
50+
Age
Proportion of offenders who re-offend (%)
2000
Jul 2009 to Jun 2010
Jul 2010 to Jun 2011
 
 
Proven re-offending by criminal history 
 
Offenders with a large number of previous offences have a higher rate of 
proven re-offending and this is true for both adults and juveniles. The proven 
re-offending rates range from 11.3 per cent for offenders with no previous 
offences to 48.3 per cent for offenders with 11 or more previous offences. 
Compared to 2000, the largest decrease in the proven re-offending rate for 
the 12 months ending June 2011 was among offenders who had one to two 
previous offences (a fall of 4.6 percentage points) (Table 6c). 
 
 
11

Adult offenders with 11 or more previous offences represented 28.7 per cent 
of all adult offenders, but committed 64.0 per cent of all adult proven re-
offences in the 12 months ending June 2011 (Table 6a). 
 
For juveniles, there were around 4,800 offenders with 11 or more previous 
offences and they had a proven re-offending rate of 76.7 per cent. This group 
make up only 5.7 per cent of juvenile offenders, but committed almost a fifth 
(19.6 per cent) of all juvenile proven re-offences (around 17,000) (Table 6b). 
 
Proven re-offending by index offence 
 
The offence that leads to an offender being included in the relevant year is 
called the index offence. Between July 2010 and June 2011, as in most 
previous years, domestic burglary had the highest proven re-offending rate at 
49.8 per cent, and sexual (child) offences the lowest at 8.9 per cent. The 
largest decrease between 2000 and the 12 months ending June 2011 in the 
proven re-offending rate was for soliciting or prostitution with a decrease of 
17.4 percentage points, followed by other motoring offences with a decrease 
of 12.0 percentage points (Table 5c). 
 
Figure E2: Proportion of adult and juvenile offenders who commit a 
proven re-offence, by index offence, 12 months ending June 2011 
 
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Sexual (Child)
Drink Driving Offences
Fraud and Forgery
Sexual
Drugs (Import/Export/Production/Supply)
Violence-non serious
Violence-serious
Other
Other Motoring Offences
Soliciting or Prostitution
Criminal or Malicious Damage
Drugs (Possession/Small Scale Supply)
Public Order or Riot
Positive Drug Test
Taking and Driving Away and Related Offences
Robbery
Handling
Theft
Absconding or Bail Offences
Domestic Burglary
Other Burglary
Theft from Vehicles
Proportion of offenders who re-offend (%)
Adult
Juvenile
 
 
12

Adult proven re-offending 
 
Between July 2010 and June 2011, there were around 550,000 adult 
offenders3. Around 140,000 of these offenders were proven to have 
committed a re-offence within a year. This gives a one year proven re-
offending rate of 25.5 per cent, up slightly from the previous 12 months by 0.6 
percentage points (Table 1). 
 
These re-offenders committed an average of 2.88 re-offences, up from 2.82 in 
the previous 12 months (Table 1). 
 
Overall there has been a 0.7 percentage point decrease in the proven re-
offending rate since 2000 (from 26.2 to 25.5 per cent). However, compared to 
2000, the offenders in 2010 had characteristics which meant they were more 
likely to re-offend. This means that, after controlling for offender 
characteristics, the decrease was larger at 3.1 percentage points (Table 1). 
 
Figure E3: Proportion of adult offenders who commit a proven re-
offence, 2000, 2002 to 12 months ending June 20111 
 
1. Data are not available for 2001 due to a problem with archived data on Court Orders
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Jul 2005
to Jun
2006
Jul 2006
to Jun
2007
Jul 2007
to Jun
2008
Jul 2008
to Jun
2009
Jul 2009
to Jun
2010
Jul 2010
to Jun
2011
Year
Proportion of offenders who re-offend (%)
 
 
13

Figure E4: Average number of proven re-offences per adult re-offender, 
2000, 2002 to 12 months ending June 20111 
 
1. Data are not available for 2001 due to a problem with archived data on Court Orders
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Jul 2005
to Jun
2006
Jul 2006
to Jun
2007
Jul 2007
to Jun
2008
Jul 2008
to Jun
2009
Jul 2009
to Jun
2010
Jul 2010
to Jun
2011
Year
Average number of proven re-offences per re-
offender
No data for 2001
 
 
Proven re-offending rates for adult offenders discharged from prison or 
commencing a court order 
 
Between July 2010 and June 2011, around 190,000 adult offenders3 were 
discharged from prison or commenced a court order. Around 69,000 of these 
offenders were proven to have committed a re-offence within a year. This 
gives a one year proven re-offending rate of 36.0 per cent. The average 
number of proven re-offences committed by these re-offenders was 3.37. 
 
Overall there was a 4.9 percentage point decrease (from 40.9 to 36.0 per 
cent) in the proven re-offending rate between 2000 and the 12 months ending 
June 2011 and an 18.5 per cent decrease (from 4.13 to 3.37) in the average 
number of proven re-offences per re-offender. 
 
Proven re-offending rates for adult offenders discharged from prison 
 
Between July 2010 and June 2011, around 57,000 adult offenders3 were 
discharged from prison. Around 27,000 of these (46.9 per cent) were proven 
to have committed a re-offence within a year. These offenders committed 
around 110,000 proven re-offences, an average of 4.19 each (Table 18a). 
 
Just over half (52.1 per cent) of adult offenders discharged from prison were 
released from a sentence of less than 12 months. These offenders had a one 
year proven re-offending rate of 58.2 per cent, which represents an increase 
of 1.3 percentage points compared to the previous 12 months and an increase 
of 3.9 percentage points since 2000 (54.3 per cent) (Table 19a). 
 
 
14

Figure E5: Proportion of adult offenders discharged from prison who 
commit a proven re-offence, by custodial sentence length, 2000, 2002 to 
12 months ending June 20111 
 
1. Data are not available for 2001 due to a problem with archived data on Court Orders
Less than 12 months
Less than 12 months
12 months to less than 4 years
12 months to less than 4 years
4 years to 10 years
4 years to 10 years
More than 10 years
More than 10 years
All lengths
All lengths
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Jul 2005
to Jun
2006
Jul 2006
to Jun
2007
Jul 2007
to Jun
2008
Jul 2008
to Jun
2009
Jul 2009
to Jun
2010
Jul 2010
to Jun
2011
Year
Proportion of offenders who re-offend (%)
 
 
Proven re-offending rates for adult offenders by individual prison 
 
Among prisons which discharged 30 or more offenders between July 2010 
and June 2011, proven re-offending rates varied considerably from 17.8 to 
90.9 per cent for offenders with a sentence of less than 12 months and from 
1.8 to 63.3 per cent for offenders with a sentence of 12 months or more. A 
large part of this variability reflects the mix of offenders who are held in 
different prisons and, therefore, comparisons between prisons should not be 
made using these raw re-offending rates (Tables 22a and 22b). 
 
To account for this variability in the mix of prisoners, a model has been 
developed to help explain if re-offending rates are affected by the specific 
prison they are discharged from or if the rate of re-offending reflects the mix of 
offenders. For example, a group of prisoners with a high number of previous 
offences is more likely to re-offend than a group with a low number of previous 
offences. 
 
Among prisons discharging offenders serving sentences of less than 12 
months, one prison (Stafford) had significantly lower proven re-offending rates 
than expected and three (Ashfield, Feltham and Wetherby) had significantly 
higher (Table 22a). 
 
Among prisons discharging offenders serving sentences of 12 months or 
more, four prisons had significantly lower proven re-offending rates 
(Canterbury, Askham Grange, East Sutton Park and Kirklevington Grange) 
than expected and one (Werrington) had significantly higher (Table 22b). 
 
 
15

Proven re-offending for adult offenders commencing a court order 
 
Between July 2010 and June 2011, around 100,000 adult offenders3 started a 
community order. Around 37,000 of these (35.8 per cent) committed a proven 
re-offence within a year. These proven re-offenders committed around 
120,000 proven re-offences, an average of 3.28 each. Similarly, of the 39,000 
adult offenders starting a suspended sentence order, 30.1 per cent committed 
a proven re-offence within a year, with an average of 2.97 proven re-offences 
each (Tables 20 and 21). 
 
Proven re-offending rates for adult offenders by probation trust 
 
Offenders given a court order are managed by the Probation Service which 
comprises 35 probation trusts. Proven re-offending rates for these offenders 
are presented by probation trust in Table 24. This takes the first court order 
commencement from within each probation trust as the start point for 
measuring re-offending and subsequent events as proven re-offences. 
 
Proven re-offending rates varied considerably between probation trusts from 
28.0 per cent to 43.6 per cent. A large part of this variability reflects the mix of 
offenders who are given a court order and, therefore, comparisons between 
probation trusts should not be made using these raw re-offending rates (Table 
24). 
 
For probation trusts an adjusted proven re-offending rate to control for 
differences in the composition of the offender group in each trust has been 
developed from the national model. Six probation trusts showed significantly 
lower proven re-offending rates than expected. These were Gloucestershire, 
London, Northamptonshire, Staffordshire and West Midlands, Thames Valley 
and Warwickshire. Three (Greater Manchester, Lancashire and 
Nottinghamshire) showed significantly higher proven re-offending rates than 
expected (Table 24). 
 
Proven re-offending rates by index disposal (sentence type) should not be 
compared to assess the effectiveness of sentences, as there is no control for 
known differences in offender characteristics and the type of sentence given. 
The ‘2011 Compendium of Re-offending Statistics and Analysis’ compares 
like for like offenders which enables a more reliable comparison of proven re-
offending rates between offenders receiving different sentences. 
 
The key results from the Compendium were: 
 
 Those sentenced to one to two years in custody had lower re-offending 
rates than those given sentences of less than 12 months – the 
difference was 4.4 percentage points in 2008. 
 
 Custodial sentences of less than 12 months were less effective at 
reducing re-offending than both community orders and suspended 
sentence orders – between five and nine percentage points in 2008. 
 
 
16

www.gov.uk/government/publications/compendium-of-reoffending-statistics-
and-analysis 
 
 
Juvenile proven re-offending 
 
Between July 2010 and June 2011, there were around 83,000 juvenile 
offenders3. Around 30,000 of these offenders were proven to have committed 
a re-offence within a year. This gives a one year proven re-offending rate of 
36.0 per cent, an increase of 1.9 percentage points from 34.1 per cent in the 
previous 12 months (Table 1). 
 
These re-offenders committed an average of 2.88 re-offences, an increase 
from 2.82 in the previous 12 months (Table 1). 
 
However, the number of juvenile proven offenders has fallen by 40 per cent 
since 2000 (Table 1). This is in line with the pattern of first time entrants to the 
criminal justice system where the number of young people receiving their first 
reprimand, warning or conviction has also decreased. More information on 
first time entrants for both adults and juveniles can be found in the ‘Criminal 
Justice Statistics Quarterly Bulletin’ at: 
 
www.gov.uk/government/publications/criminal-justice-statistics--2 
 
Overall there has been a 2.4 percentage point increase in the proven re-
offending rate of juveniles since 2000 (from 33.7 to 36.0 per cent). However, 
compared to 2000, the characteristics of juvenile offenders in the 12 months 
ending June 2011 meant that they were more likely to re-offend. Therefore, 
after controlling for offender characteristics, the proven re-offending rate 
actually decreased by 1.0 percentage points (Table 1). 
 
Among Youth Offending Teams (YOTs), proven re-offending rates varied 
considerably from 26.6 to 49.8 per cent. A large part of this variability reflects 
the mix of offenders who are managed by different YOTs and, therefore, 
comparisons between YOTs should not be made using these raw re-offending 
rates (Table 17). 
 
More information on youth criminal statistics is available at: 
 
www.gov.uk/government/organisations/ministry-of-justice/series/youth-justice-
statistics 
 
17

Trends in proven re-offending across the country 
 
Map 1 shows proven re-offending rates by upper-tier local authority. This chart 
is not controlled for the characteristics of offenders and is designed for users 
to gain an understanding of what the level of proven re-offending is within their 
area and how it is changing over time. 
 
When comparing between local authorities, the differences may be due to: 
 
 Different types of offenders; areas where the offenders have high 
numbers of previous offences are likely to have higher proven re-
offending rates. 
 
 Police activity; areas with high police detection rates are likely to have 
higher proven re-offending rates. 
 
 Age profile of offenders in the area; areas with a younger population 
are likely to have higher proven re-offending rates. 
 
When comparing proven re-offending over time within local authorities, any 
significant changes in these factors may affect the comparison. 
 
Between July 2010 and June 2011, very few local authorities showed 
substantial change compared to the previous 12 months. For local authorities 
with 30 or more offenders, the largest decrease was seen in the City of 
London (down 9.9 percentage points) and the largest increase was in Bath 
and North East Somerset (up 3.2 percentage points) (Table 13c). 
 
18

Map E1: Overall proven re-offending rates by upper-tier local authority 
for adults and juveniles, 12 months ending June 2011 
 
 
 
 
19

Prolific and other priority offenders 
 
The Prolific and other Priority Offender Programme (PPO) aims to use a multi-
agency approach to focus on a very small, but hard-core group of 
prolific/persistent offenders who commit a disproportionate amount of crime. 
Please refer to the ‘Definitions and Measurement’ document for more detail: 
 
www.gov.uk/government/publications/proven-re-offending--2 
 
Around 7,000 offenders3 (adult and juvenile) were on the PPO scheme at 
some point between July 2010 and June 2011. Of these, around 5,300 
committed a proven re-offence within a year (76.3 per cent). These re-
offenders represented 0.8 per cent of all offenders, but were responsible for 
5.1 per cent of all proven re-offences committed (Table 16). 
 
Compared to the previous 12 months, the proportion of PPO offenders who 
committed a proven re-offence increased by 0.7 percentage points. This 
compares to an overall decrease of 0.7 percentage points since the scheme 
began in 2005 (Table 16). 
 
 
Drug-misusing offenders 
 
The Drug Interventions Programme (DIP) was introduced in April 2003 with 
the aim of developing and integrating measures for directing adult drug-
misusing offenders into drug treatment and reducing offending behaviour. 
There are a number of ways offenders can be identified as drug-misusers. 
Please refer to the ‘Definitions and Measurement’ document for more detail: 
 
www.gov.uk/government/publications/proven-re-offending--2 
 
Around 45,000 adult offenders3 were identified as drug-misusers at some 
point between July 2010 and June 2011. Of these, around 26,000 committed 
a proven re-offence within a year (57.2 per cent). These re-offenders 
represented 4.7 percent of all adult offenders, but were responsible for 25.9 
per cent of all proven re-offences committed by adult offenders (Table 15). 
 
Compared to the previous 12 months, the proportion of drug-misusing 
offenders who committed a proven re-offence has increased by 0.8 
percentage points. Since 2005, there has been a decrease of 8.1 percentage 
points, although most of this change occurred between 2005 and 2006 when 
there was a large expansion in the drug intervention programme (Table 15). 
 
20

List of quarterly tables 
 
Proven re-offending – overview 
 
Table 1   
Summary proven re-offending data, by adults and juveniles 
2000, 2002 to June 2011 
 
Table 2   
Proven re-offending data, by gender, 2000, 2002 to June 2011 
 
Table 3   
Proven re-offending data, by age, 2000, 2002 to June 2011 
 
Table 4a   
Adult proven re-offending data, by ethnicity, 2000, 2002 to June 
2011 
 
Table 4b   
Juvenile proven re-offending data, by ethnicity, 2000, 2002 to 
June 2011 
 
Table 4c   
Adult and juvenile proven re-offending data, by ethnicity, 2000, 
2002 to June 2011 
 
Table 5a   
Adult proven re-offending data, by index offence, 2000, 2002 to 
June 2011 
 
Table 5b   
Juvenile proven re-offending data, by index offence, 2000, 2002 
to June 2011 
 
Table 5c   
Adult and juvenile proven re-offending data, by index offence, 
2000, 2002 to June 2011 
 
Table 6a   
Adult proven re-offending data, by number of previous offences, 
2000, 2002 to June 2011 
 
Table 6b   
Juvenile proven re-offending data, by number of previous 
 offences, 2000, 2002 to June 2011 
 
Table 6c   
Adult and juvenile proven re-offending data, by number of 
previous offences, 2000, 2002 to June 2011 
 
Table 7a   
Adult proven re-offending data, by number of previous custodial 
sentences, 2000, 2002 to June 2011 
 
Table 7b   
Juvenile proven re-offending data, by number of previous 
 custodial sentences, 2000, 2002 to June 2011 
 
Table 8   
Serious proven re-offending data, 2000, 2002 to June 2011 
 
-----------------Tables 9 to12 are published annually in October---------------- 
 
Table 13a   Proven re-offending of adult offenders, by upper-tier local 
 authority, 2005 to June 2011 rolling quarters 
 
21

 
Table 13b   Proven re-offending of juvenile offenders, by upper-tier local 
authority, 2005 to June 2011 rolling quarters 
 
Table 13c   Proven re-offending of adult and juvenile offenders, by upper-tier 
local authority, 2005 to June 2011 rolling quarters 
 
Table 14a   Proven re-offending of adult offenders, by lower-tier local 
authority, 2005 to June 2011 rolling quarters 
 
Table 14b   Proven re-offending of juvenile offenders, by lower-tier local 
authority, 2005 to June 2011 rolling quarters 
 
Table 14c   Proven re-offending of adult and juvenile offenders, by lower-tier 
local authority, 2005 to June 2011 rolling quarters 
 
Table 15   
Proven re-offending of adult drug-misusing offenders, by Drug 
Action Team, 2004 to June 2011 rolling quarters 
 
Table 16   
Proven re-offending of adult and juvenile prolific and other 
priority offenders, by upper-tier local authority, 2005 to June 
2011 rolling quarters 
 
Table 17   
Juvenile proven re-offending data, by Youth Offending Team 
and upper-tier local authority, 2005 to June 2011 rolling quarters 
 
Proven re-offending by index disposal, probation trust and prison 
 
Table 18a   Adult proven re-offending data, by index disposal, 2000, 2002 to 
June 2011 
 
Table 18b   Juvenile proven re-offending data, by index disposal, 2000, 2002 
to June 2011 
 
Table 19a   Adult proven re-offending data, by custodial sentence length, 
2000, 2002 to June 2011 
 
Table 19b   Juvenile proven re-offending data, by custodial sentence length, 
2000, 2002 to June 2011 
 
Table 20   
Adult proven re-offending data, by most frequently-used 
combinations of requirements for offenders starting Community 
Orders, 2005 to June 2011 
 
Table 21   
Adult proven re-offending data, by most frequently-used 
combinations of requirements for offenders starting Suspended 
Sentence Orders, 2005 to June 2011 
 
 
22

Table 22a   Proven re-offending of adult offenders given sentences of less 
than 12 months, by individual prison, based on first discharge 
from each prison, 2007 to June 2011 
 
Table 22b   Proven re-offending of adult offenders given sentences of 12 
months or more, by individual prison, based on first discharge 
from each prison, 2007 to June 2011 
 
Table 23   
Juvenile proven re-offending data, by individual prison or secure 
accommodation, based on first discharge from each prison or 
secure accommodation, 2007 to June 2011 
 
Table 24   
Adult proven re-offending data by probation trust based on first 
commencement from each trust, 2005 to June 2011 
 
Table 25   
Proven re-offending data for adult offenders released from 
prison on licence, by probation trust, 2008 to June 2011 
 
23

Annex A 
Payment by results 
 
Background 
 
The “Breaking the Cycle” Green Paper6 included a commitment for the MoJ to 
commission a series of initial ‘payment by results’ (PbR) pilot projects to test 
the principle that PbR can result in service improvements by delivering better 
outcomes for the public at the same or less cost. In autumn 2012, Ministers 
decided to suspend introduction of a number of planned PbR pilots, while they 
considered the strategic direction for the use of PbR as part of the overall 
reform of probation and the wider system. Ten pilot projects are underway, 
testing a range of approaches and performance measures in different areas. 
For the pilots at Peterborough and Doncaster prisons, the outcome measure 
is defined as a real reduction in re-convictions among offenders during the 12 
months following release from prison. 
 
The Local Justice Reinvestment PbR pilots in operation across five London 
boroughs and Greater Manchester use a different outcome measure, namely 
a reduction in demand on the Criminal Justice System. The results for the first 
year of this pilot have been published separately at the following link: 
 
www.gov.uk/government/publications/justice-reinvestment-pilots-first-year-
results 
 
The MoJ published ‘Transforming Rehabilitation – a revolution in the way we 
manage offenders’ on 9 January 2013 at the following link. 
 
consult.justice.gov.uk/digital-communications/transforming-rehabilitation 
 
This consultation closed on 22 February and the MoJ will respond shortly. The 
proposals include plans to open up the market for delivery of rehabilitation 
services to a diverse range of providers, who will be incentivised to focus on 
reducing re-offending under PbR contracts. The pilot projects currently in 
operation continue to inform our plans to roll out PbR across the criminal 
justice system. 
 
Prison results 
 
The re-conviction measures used for the PbR pilot prisons presented below 
differ from the National Statistics re-offending measure. It counts offenders 
who are convicted at court in the 12 months following release from prison with 
a further six months to allow for cases to progress through the courts. It 
excludes those who receive an out-of-court disposal only. This is because, for 
these pilots, we want to measure a change in numbers of court convictions 
which are more closely associated with costs to the Criminal Justice System. 
                                                 
6 www.gov.uk/government/consultations/breaking-the-cycle-effective-punishment-
rehabilitation-and-sentencing-of-offenders--2 
 
24

Offenders are counted in the cohort after their first discharge from the prison 
at any time during the cohort period. The measure excludes those who serve 
the whole of their custodial sentence on remand as well as the usual National 
Statistics exclusions as explained in the ‘Definitions and Measurement’ 
document7. 
                                                 
7 www.gov.uk/government/publications/proven-re-offending--2 
 
25

Table A1 below is included in the Proven Re-offending Quarterly Bulletin each 
quarter and shows, for each of the pilot prisons, the baseline and target re-
conviction rate8. 
 
Table A1: Payment by results pilot prisons, baseline and target re-
conviction rates 
 
Prison / Area 
Start date of 
pilot 
Baseline re-
conviction rate 
(Jan to Dec 
2009) 
Target re-
conviction rate 
Outcome re-
conviction rate 
(Oct 2011 to Sept 
2012) 
(Oct 2011 to Sep 
2012) 
Peterborough 
Social Impact 
Bond (SIB)9 
9 September 
2010 
To be determined 
by comparison 
with control group 
To be determined 
by comparison 
with control group 
To be published in 
2014 
HMP 
Doncaster10 
1 October 
2011 
58.2% 
53.2% 
To be published in 
2014 
 
Number of eligible offenders in payment by results pilots 
 
As part of the Department's Business Plan (2011-2015), the MoJ is committed 
to publishing quarterly data on the number of pilot rehabilitation schemes 
established and the number of participants, subject to commercial 
confidentiality and UK Statistics Authority guidance. 
 
Table A2: Payment by results pilots commenced 
 
Prison / Area 
Start date of 
pilot 
Length of 
pilot 
Number of eligible 
participants for 
Cohort 1  
Number of eligible 
participants to date 
for Cohort 2 
Peterborough Social 
Impact Bond (SIB)9 
9 September 
2010 
Six years 
1,03411  
27312 
HMP Doncaster10 
1 October 
2011 
Four years 
1,50313 
37814 
 
                                                 
8 The rate at which the PbR outcome payment is first triggered at any given pilot site 
9 The Peterborough ‘Social Impact Bond’ uses a different outcome measure (the frequency of 
re-conviction events) and its success is measured against a control group. The results will be 
published separately 
10 For Doncaster prison the outcome measure is the proportion of offenders who are 
convicted at court in the 12 months following release from prison with a further six months to 
allow for cases to progress through the courts 
11 Eligible participants from Cohort 1 from 9 September 2010 to 1 July 2012 
12 Eligible participants from Cohort 2 from 2 July 2012 to 31 December 2012 
13 Eligible participants from Cohort 1 from 1 October 2011 to 30 September 2012 
14 Eligible participants from Cohort 2 from 1 October 2012 to 31 December 2012 
 
26

Annex B 
How the measure of proven re-offending has changed 
and the effect of these changes 
 
Background 
 
The MoJ launched a statistical consultation on improvements to the 
transparency and accessibility of our information in 2010 and a response to 
the consultation was published in March 201115. One aspect of the 
consultation was the measurement of proven re-offending. 
 
Prior to the consultation there were six different measures of proven re-
offending: 
 
 National adult proven re-offending; 
 
 Local adult proven re-offending; 
 
 National youth proven re-offending; 
 
 Local youth proven re-offending; 
 
 Prolific and other priority offending (PPO); and 
 
 Drug-misusing proven offending. 
 
The new approach to measuring proven re-offending integrates these 
approaches into a single framework. This allows users to: 
 
 form a clear picture of proven re-offending at national and local levels; 
 
 compare adult and youth results, and enable other work on transition 
between the youth and adult criminal justice systems; 
 
 understand how results for different offender groups (such as those 
managed by the prison and probation services, those under the PPO 
schemes, drug-misusing offenders, first time entrants, etc.) fit in to the 
overall picture on proven re-offending; and 
 
 continue to analyse proven re-offending behaviour for particular types 
of offender. 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
15 The response to the consultation is available here 
www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/consultations/improvements-moj-statistics-consultation-
response.pdf 
 
27

Comparing trends in re-offending 
 
Table B1 shows the proportion of offenders with a proven re-offence/re-
conviction using the new measure of re-offending and the previous measures 
of adult re-conviction and juvenile re-offending. Comparisons we make use 
cohorts up to 2009. 
 
Re-offending rates are lower using the new measure than using the previous 
measure. The differences are as follows: 
 
 For adult and juvenile offenders the new measure is based on all 
offenders released from custody, receiving a non-custodial conviction 
at court, a caution, reprimand, warning or tested positive for opiates or 
cocaine over a 12 month period, but the previous measures only 
included offenders released from custody or commencing a court order 
in the first three months of the year. Using a three month sample over-
represents prolific offenders in comparison to a full year’s worth of data. 
 
 For adults the new measure counts all offenders including those who 
received a caution, fine or discharge, where the previous adult 
measure only included those who commenced a court order or who 
were discharged from custody. 
 
 For adult offenders, the new measure is a measure of proven re-
offending (which counts offences proven through a court conviction or a 
caution) whereas the previous measure is a measure of re-conviction 
(which only counts offences proven through a court conviction). 
 
As a result, re-offending rates are 14.4 percentage points lower for adults and 
rates for juveniles are 4.1 percentage points lower using the new measure. 
 
However, the re-offending rates are similar for adults given a court order or 
who received a custodial sentence, including those given a sentence of less 
than 12 months. Rates are between 1.0 and 2.6 percentage points lower 
using the new measure. 
 
Table B1: Re-offending using the new and previous measures, 2009 
 
New measure 
Previous measure(s)
Adults
24.9
39.3
Juveniles
32.8
36.9
Adults given a court order
34.5
35.5
Adults given a custodial sentence
46.8
48.5
Adults given a custodial sentence of less than 12m
56.8
59.4
 
 
Figure B1 shows re-offending rates for adult offenders between 2000 and 
2009 using the new and previous measure. 
 
For 2009, 24.9 per cent of adult offenders have a proven re-offence within 12 
months using the new measure compared to 39.3 per cent using the previous 
 
28

re-conviction measure. However, trends for adult offenders are similar using 
the two measures. The proportion of offenders with a proven re-offence/re-
conviction rose between 2000 and 2002, fell between 2002 and 2006, rose 
between 2006 and 2008, and fell between 2008 and 2009 using both 
measures. 
 
Figure B1: Adult re-conviction/re-offending, by re-offending measure, 
2000, 2002 to 2009 
 
27.6%
26.9%
25.5%
24.9%
24.6%
24.8%
25.4%
24.9%
43.0%
45.4%
42.9%
41.2%
38.6%
39.0%
40.1%
39.3%
26.2%
45.5%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Year
Re-conviction/re-offending rates 
New Measure
Old measure
Data not available
 
The overall reduction in re-offending is smaller using the new measure (1.2 
percentage points between 2000 and 2009 and 0.5 percentage points 
between 2008 and 2009) than using the previous measure (3.7 percentage 
points between 2000 and 2009 and 0.8 percentage points between 2008 and 
2009). 
 
Figure B2 shows re-offending rates for juvenile offenders between 2000 and 
2009 using the new and previous measure. 
 
In 2009, 32.8 per cent of young offenders re-offended within 12 months using 
the new measure compared to 36.9 per cent using the previous measure. The 
reduction in re-offending is smaller using the new measure (0.9 percentage 
points between 2000 and 2009 and 0.1 percentage points between 2008 and 
2009) than using the previous measure (3.3 percentage points between 2000 
and 2009 and 0.4 percentage points between 2008 and 2009). Overall, the 
trends are broadly similar. 
 
 
29

Figure B2: Juvenile re-offending, by re-offending measure, 2000, 2002 to 
2009 
 
33.7%
33.4%
34.3%
33.6%
33.6%
33.9%
32.5%
32.9%
32.8%
40.2%
38.5%
39.0%
38.6%
38.4%
38.7%
37.5%
37.3%
36.9%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Year
Re-offending rates 
New Measure
Old measure
Data not available
 
Trends in proven re-offending/re-conviction rates for adult custodial offenders 
are similar using the new and previous measures. The proportion of offenders 
given a custodial sentence of less than 12 months who re-offended rose 
between 2000 and 2009 using both measures (by 2.6 percentage points using 
the new measure and 1.4 percentage points using the previous measure). 
The proportion of offenders given any custodial sentence who re-offended fell 
between 2000 and 2009 using both measures (by 2.6 percentage points using 
the new measure and 2.9 percentage points using the previous measure). 
 
30

Figure B3: Adult re-conviction/re-offending of custodial offenders, by re-
offending measure and sentence, 2000 and 2009 
 
54.3%
58.0%
49.4%
51.4%
56.8%
59.4%
46.8%
48.5%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
New measure <12m
Previous measure
<12m
New measure (all
sentence lengths)
Previous measure all
sentence lengths)
Disposal 
Re-offending/re-conviction rates
2000
2009
 
 
The change in methodology 
 
The following sections provide detail regarding the change in methodology 
between the methods in measuring re-offending and how those changes 
impact on the data. 
 
The table below provides a comparison of the previous methodologies with 
the new approach.
 
31

Table B2: Re-offending using the new and previous measures 
 
Comparison of previous and new measures of proven re-offending 
 
Previous measures of re-offending 
New measure of re-
offending 
 
National adult 
re-conviction 
Local adult re-
offending 
National youth re-
offending 
Local youth re-
offending 
Prolific and other 
Priority Offending 
(PPO) 
Drug-misusing 
offending 
The cohort 
Offenders aged 
18+ discharged 
from custody or 
commencing 
court orders 
under probation 
supervision 
between January 
to March 
Offenders 
aged 18+ on 
the probation 
caseload at the 
end of each 
calendar 
quarter 
Offenders aged 10-
17 discharged from 
custody, receiving a 
court conviction or 
receiving a 
caution/reprimand or 
final warning between 
January and March 
Offenders aged 
10-17 discharged 
from custody, 
receiving a court 
conviction or 
receiving a 
caution/reprimand 
or final warning 
between January 
and March 
All offenders 
identified as being 
on the PPO 
scheme as at 1 
April 
All Class A drug 
offenders 
identified 
through positive 
drug tests on 
arrest, OASyS 
or drug 
requirement as 
part of a court 
order, CJIT 
identification, or 
identification on 
prison release 
between 
January and 
March 
All offenders who 
received a 
caution/reprimand or 
warning, were 
convicted at court 
(other than custody), 
were discharged 
from custody, or 
tested positive for 
cocaine or opiates 
on arrest over a 12 
month period. 
The follow-up 
period to 
measure re-
offending 
12 months for 
offences to occur 
and a further 6 
months for 
offences to be 
proved 
3 months for 
offences to 
occur and a 
further 3 
months for 
offences to be 
proved 
12 months for 
offences to occur and 
a further 6 months for 
offences to be proved 
12 months for 
offences to occur 
and a further 3 
months for 
offences to be 
proved 
12 months for 
offences to occur 
and a further 3 
months for 
offences to be 
proved 
12 months for 
offences to 
occur and a 
further 3 
months for 
offences to be 
proved 
12 months for 
offences to occur 
and a further 6 
months for offences 
to be proved 
 
32 

The headline 
measure 
Frequency of re-
offending (the 
number of proven 
re-offences per 
100 offenders) 
Proportion of 
offenders re-
offending, 
compared to 
the rate that 
would be 
expected 
based on the 
offender 
characteristics 
Frequency of re-
offending (the 
number of proven re-
offences per 100 
offenders) 
Frequency of re-
offending (the 
number of proven 
re-offences per 
100 offenders) 
Number of further 
offences compared 
to number in 
previous year, 
against the 
reduction that 
would be expected 
given time on the 
PPO scheme 
Number of 
further offences 
compared to 
what would be 
expected based 
on their 
previous 
offending 
history 
Proportion of 
offenders re-
offending 
We also include 
information on the 
frequency of re-
offending and 
information on the 
predicted rate based 
on offender 
characteristics 
What counts as 
a proven re-
offence 
Offences 
committed within 
the follow-up 
period which 
were proved by a 
court conviction 
either within the 
follow-up period 
or in a further six 
months 
Offences 
committed 
within the 
follow-up 
period which 
were proved by 
a court 
conviction or 
caution either 
within the 
follow-up 
period or in a 
further three 
months 
Offences committed 
within the follow-up 
period which were 
proved by a court 
conviction or 
reprimand or final 
warning either within 
the follow-up period 
or in a further six 
months 
Offences 
committed within 
the follow-up 
period which 
were proved by a 
court conviction 
or reprimand or 
final warning 
either within the 
follow-up period 
or in a further 
three months 
Offences 
committed within 
the follow-up period 
which were proved 
by a court 
conviction or 
caution either 
within the follow-up 
period or in a 
further three 
months. Breach 
offences that lead 
to substantive 
recorded 
convictions are 
included 
Offences 
committed 
within the 
follow-up period 
which were 
proved by a 
court conviction 
either within the 
follow-up period 
or in a further 
three months 
Offences committed 
within the follow-up 
period which were 
proved by a court 
conviction or 
caution/reprimand or 
warning either within 
the follow-up period 
or in a further six 
months 
 
 
33 

 
34 
 
A predicted rate 
of re-offending 
was included for 
the proportion of 
offenders 
expected to re-
offend based on 
their 
characteristics 
A predicted rate 
of re-offending 
was included for 
the proportion of 
offenders 
expected to re-
offend based on 
their 
characteristics 
A predicted rate of 
re-offending was 
included for the 
proportion of 
offenders expected 
to re-offend based 
on their 
characteristics 
 
Use of a 
predicted rate 
Logistic 
regression was 
used 
Logistic 
regression was 
used 
Logistic regression 
was used 
No predicted rate 
Evidence on the 
link between time 
on the PPO 
scheme and 
expected 
reductions in 
further offending 
were used to 
assess reductions 
in number of 
offences compared 
to the previous year
A predicted rate 
of re-offending 
was included for 
the proportion 
of offenders 
expected to re-
offend based on 
their previous 
criminal history 
Response 
surface 
methodology 
was used 
A predicted rate of 
re-offending is 
included for the 
proportion of 
offenders expected 
to re-offend based 
on their 
characteristics 
Logistic regression is 
used 
Data source 
Police National 
Computer 
Police National 
Computer 
Police National 
Computer 
Youth Offending 
Teams data 
Police National 
Computer 
Police National 
Computer 
Police National 
Computer 
Geographic 
breakdown 
None 
Region, 
Probation area, 
Local Authority 
None 
Youth Offending 
Team level 
Police Force and 
Local Authority 
level 
Drug Action 
team and Local 
Authority level 
Upper and lower tier 
local authority areas 
for all offenders. 
Other breakdowns 
for specific 
categories of 
offender. 
 

 
The effect of the changes 
 
Adults 
 
Differences in methodology are reflected in different results. Table B3 shows 
the impact on reported rates of adult re-conviction/re-offending. The table 
breaks down the changes between the previous measure and the new 
measure to identify the different effects of the changes in methodology. 
 
Table B3: Re-offending/re-convictions data for adult offenders, 2000, 
2002 to 2009 
 
Previous1 measure: re-
convictions (prison and 
probation offenders only), 
first quarter of the year
Previous measure: re-
convictions (prison and 
probation offenders only), 
whole year
New measure: re-
offending (prison and 
probation offenders only), 
whole year
New measure: proven re-
offending (all offenders), 
whole year
2000
43.0
40.0
40.9
26.2
2002
45.5
42.0
43.0
27.6
2003
45.4
41.5
42.4
26.9
2004
42.9
38.6
39.8
25.5
2005
41.2
36.6
38.4
24.9
2006
38.6
35.6
37.6
24.6
2007
39.0
35.9
37.9
24.8
2008
40.1
36.1
37.9
25.4
2009
39.3
34.7
36.2
24.9
2000
1.85
1.66
1.69
0.89
2002
2.13
1.84
1.87
0.99
2003
2.05
1.73
1.76
0.93
2004
1.81
1.51
1.54
0.83
2005
1.66
1.36
1.40
0.77
2006
1.44
1.26
1.31
0.73
2007
1.47
1.27
1.32
0.73
2008
1.55
1.27
1.31
0.75
2009
1.41
1.15
1.18
0.70
2000
4.30
4.15
4.13
3.39
2002
4.68
4.39
4.36
3.59
2003
4.52
4.18
4.15
3.44
2004
4.23
3.91
3.87
3.27
2005
4.03
3.70
3.65
3.10
2006
3.73
3.54
3.48
2.95
2007
3.78
3.53
3.48
2.94
2008
3.88
3.51
3.46
2.93
2009
3.57
3.31
3.27
2.80
2000
42,734
148,052
148,052
477,698
2002
43,247
157,243
157,243
495,664
2003
44,095
159,686
159,686
520,660
2004
46,532
163,775
163,775
512,600
2005
43,429
170,021
170,021
532,045
2006
50,281
181,726
181,726
571,458
2007
50,085
190,418
190,418
595,020
2008
53,718
197,035
197,035
589,948
2009
56,616
200,077
200,077
576,255
1. Based on the national adult re-convictions publication (March 2011)
Proportion 
Frequency (average per offender)
Frequency of re-offenders (average per re-offender)
Number of offenders
 
 
Among adult offenders in 2009, the previous national measure (the first 
column) shows that 39.3 per cent of adult offenders were re-convicted within a 
year based on a sample of 56,616 offenders. 
 
 
 
35

 
The second column shows the re-conviction rates from the previous measure 
looking at offenders who were released from custody or commenced a court 
order, but at any point during the year. The inclusion of offenders from a full 
12 month period means the results are calculated using the full proven 
offender population rather than a sample – this ensures we do not over-
represent prolific offenders in the cohort, which is a problem in using a 
January to March sample as in the previous adult re-conviction measure. 
 
This leads to a lower proportion of re-convicted offenders (between three and 
five percentage points, e.g. 34.7 per cent compared to 39.3 per cent in 2009). 
The change to a full year also increases the number of offenders, to 200,077 
in 200916. 
 
The third column shows the proven re-offending rates from the new measure, 
but still based only on those offenders who were released from custody or 
commenced a court order at any point during the year. Proven re-offending 
includes offences which result in a caution in addition to those resulting in a 
conviction at court. The proportion of offenders who were proven to re-offend 
is between one and two percentage points higher than for those who were re-
convicted (36.2 per cent compared to 34.7 per cent in 2009). There is little 
difference at this stage because we are still only considering offenders who 
already have a prison or a court order. 
 
The fourth column shows the re-offending rates from the new measure 
looking at all adult offenders who received a caution, a conviction at court, 
discharged from custody, or tested positive for cocaine or opiates. The 
inclusion of these offenders increases the numbers considerably. In 2009, the 
previous adult measure tracks the re-offending behaviour of 56,616 offenders; 
the new measure tracks 576,255 offenders. The inclusion of offenders who 
received less severe disposals and are generally less prolific in nature 
reduces the proportion who re-offend by around 11 to 16 percentage points 
(36.2 per cent compared to 24.9 per cent in 2009). 
 
Change over time 
 
Compared to the previous measure, the reduction over time in the proportion 
of offenders who re-offend is much lower using the new measure. Using the 
previous measure, between 2000 and 2009, the proportion of offenders who 
were re-convicted fell 3.7 percentage points (from 43.0 to 39.3 per cent). 
Using the new measure, the proportion of offenders who committed a proven 
re-offence fell 1.2 percentage points (from 26.2 to 24.9 per cent). 
 
                                                 
16 The previous measure includes offenders released from custody or who commenced a 
court order in the first three months of the year, shown in column one. Column two includes 
offenders released from custody or who commenced a court order in the 12 month period. 
The number of offenders shown in column two is less than four times as many as in column 
one. This is because some offenders commence a court order or are discharged from custody 
more than once in a year. These calculations only count each offender once e.g. offender Y is 
discharged from custody in the first quarter of the year, and discharged again in the second 
quarter, but he is only counted as a single offender 
 
 
 
36

 
Juveniles 
 
The only change between the previous measure and the new measure of re-
offending among young people is the move from a one quarter sample to 
including all young offenders over the period of a year. 
 
Table B4: Re-offending data for juvenile offenders, 2000, 2002 to 2009 
 
Previous measure1             
proven re-offending
New measure proven re-
offending 
2000
40.2
33.7
2002
38.5
33.4
2003
39.0
34.3
2004
38.6
33.6
2005
38.4
33.6
2006
38.7
33.9
2007
37.5
32.5
2008
37.3
32.9
2009
36.9
32.8
2000
1.51
1.12
2002
1.42
1.10
2003
1.42
1.09
2004
1.32
1.03
2005
1.25
0.98
2006
1.23
0.97
2007
1.16
0.90
2008
1.14
0.91
2009
1.10
0.90
2000
3.77
3.32
2002
3.69
3.29
2003
3.63
3.19
2004
3.43
3.06
2005
3.26
2.91
2006
3.18
2.86
2007
3.08
2.77
2008
3.06
2.75
2009
2.99
2.75
2000
41,176
139,326
2002
40,753
136,401
2003
40,297
138,379
2004
44,153
149,452
2005
45,337
163,545
2006
48,938
171,061
2007
52,544
171,454
2008
44,837
145,579
2009
37,472
121,107
1. Based on the national juvenile re-offending publication (March 2011)
publication
Proportion 
Number of offenders
Frequency (average per offender)
Frequency of re-offenders (average per re-offender)
 
 
As for adults, using the whole year reduces the proportion of offenders who 
re-offended because we do not over-represent prolific offenders in the cohort, 
which is a problem in using a January to March sample. Table B4 shows the 
reduction is between four and seven percentage points.  
 
 
 
37

 
For 2009, with the previous measure, 36.9 per cent commit a proven re-
offence within one year; with the new measure, 32.8 per cent do so. The new 
measure, which is based on offenders from a 12 month period, includes over 
three times as many offenders as the existing measure. 
 
Change over time 
 
Compared to the previous measure, the reduction in the proportion of 
offenders who re-offend between 2000 and 2009 is much lower using the new 
measure. 
 
Using the previous measure, between 2000 and 2009, the proportion of 
offenders who were proven to re-offend fell 3.3 percentage points (from 40.2 
to 36.9 per cent). Using the new measure, the proportion of offenders who 
committed a proven re-offence fell 0.9 percentage points (from 33.7 to 32.8 
per cent). 
 
Drug-misusing offenders 
 
Published results for drug-misusing offenders on the previous measure 
covered 2008 and 2009; results using the new measure cover from 2004 
onwards. 
 
The previous measure: 
 
 Includes offenders who have been identified in the first quarter of the 
year, whereas the new measure includes offenders from any point 
during the year. 
 
 Includes all drug-misusing offenders irrespective of the date of proven 
offence, whereas the new measure includes identified drug-misusing 
offenders who have received a caution, been convicted at court, been 
discharged from custody, or tested positive for cocaine or opiates on 
arrest during a 12 month period. 
 
 Counts re-offences that were proven through a court conviction, 
whereas the new measure counts re-offences that were proven by a 
court conviction or caution. 
 
As for adult and juvenile offenders, using the whole year to identify offenders 
reduces the proportion of offenders who re-offend, because we do not over-
represent prolific offenders in the cohort, which is a problem in using a 
January to March sample. Table B5 shows the impact on reported rates of re-
offending/re-conviction by drug-misusing offenders. 
 
 
 
38

 
Table B5: Re-offending data for drug-misusing offenders, 2004 to 2009 
 
 
Previous measure1 proven re-
conviction
New measure of proven re-
offending 
2004
67.3
2005
65.3
2006
58.6
2007
57.2
2008
61.0
56.4
2009
57.0
54.7
2004
3.20
2005
2.94
2006
2.37
2007
2.34
2008
2.6
2.29
2009
2.2
2.10
2004
4.75
2005
4.51
2006
4.03
2007
4.09
2008
4.3
4.06
2009
3.9
3.84
2004
20,652
2005
29,112
2006
44,597
2007
54,474
2008
20,934
59,039
2009
20,109
53,109
1. Based on the national drug-misusing offenders publication 
(December 2010)
Proportion 
Number of offenders
Frequency of re-offenders (average per re-offender)
Frequency (average per offender)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table B5 shows that the proportion of offenders who commit a proven re-
offence is between two and five percentage points lower using the new 
measure (57.0 per cent using the previous measure compared to 54.7 per 
cent using the new measure). The new measure, which follows offenders over 
a 12 month period, includes between two and three times as many offenders 
as the existing measure. 
 
Prolific and other priority offenders 
 
Published results for prolific and other priority offenders (PPOs) on the 
previous measure presented the frequency of proven re-offending for all 
PPOs; results using the new measure cover the proportion of offenders 
proven to re-offend, and the frequency of proven re-offending for all offenders 
and for re-offenders from 2005 onwards. 
 
 
 
 
39

 
The previous measure: 
 
 Includes offenders who have been identified in the first quarter of the 
year, whereas the new measure includes offenders from any point 
during the year. However, PPOs are generally on the PPO programme 
for a sustained period of time so this only has a moderate impact on 
numbers of offenders included. 
 
 Includes all identified PPOs, whereas the new measure includes 
identified PPOs who have tested positive for cocaine or opiates, 
received a caution, been convicted at court, or been discharged from 
custody during a 12 month period. 
 
 Counts re-offences that are proven through a court conviction or 
caution and also includes breach offences that lead to substantive 
recorded convictions. The new measure only includes re-offences 
proven through a court conviction or caution. 
 
Table B6 shows the impact on reported rates of proven re-offending by PPOs 
and on numbers of offenders included in the measure. 
 
Table B6: Re-offending data for Prolific and other Priority Offenders, 
2005 to 2009 
 
Previous  measure1 proven re-
offending
New measure of proven re-
offending 
2005
77.0
2006
75.7
2007
75.8
2008
77.2
2009
56.0
75.1
2005
4.01
2006
3.83
2007
3.80
2008
2.6
3.80
2009
2.4
3.49
2005
5.21
2006
5.06
2007
5.01
2008
4.93
2009
4.3
4.65
2005
8,555
2006
8,239
2007
8,309
2008
10,771
8,607
2009
10,635
8,156
1. Based on the national Prolific and other Priority Offenders publication
(March 2010)
Proportion 
Frequency (average per offender)
Frequency of re-offenders (average per re-offender)
Number of offenders
 
 
 
 
 
40

 
The average number of proven re-offences committed by PPOs in 2009 is 
lower for the previous measure than for the new measure in 2008 (2.4 re-
offences per offender using the previous measure, but 3.49 using the new). 
 
The previous measure includes PPOs who have not been proven guilty of an 
offence or been discharged from custody in the 12 month period when the re-
offending cohort is formed. This type of offender is likely to have a lower level 
of re-offending. 
 
These differences may help to explain: 
 
 why the frequency of re-offending is lower for the previous measure 
than for the new measure in 2009 (2.4 re-offences per offender using 
the previous measure, but 3.49 using the new); and 
 
 why the previous measure includes nearly 2,500 more PPOs in 2009 
than does the new measure. 
 
Local adult re-offending 
 
The most similar results for the new measure of re-offending and the existing 
local measure of adult re-offending are the early estimates of re-offending of 
offenders given a court order. Like the existing measure of local adult re-
offending, the early estimates of offenders given a court order: 
 
 measure re-offending over three months; 
 
 only measures offenders under probation supervision; 
 
 provides results by probation trust; and 
 
 compares actual re-offending rates with a predicted re-offending rate. 
 
There remain significant differences between the early estimates and the 
existing local adult measure of re-offending, including: 
 
 The existing local adult measure includes offenders on licence – the 
early estimates include offenders commencing court orders only; 
 
 The existing local adult measure uses a ‘snapshot’ approach. This 
means offenders are counted if they are on the caseload at certain 
times in the year. Offenders who are on the caseload for a short period 
of time may not get counted with the existing measure. The early 
estimates count every offender who commences a court order; 
 
 Because the existing local adult measure uses a ‘snapshot’ approach 
some offenders may get counted up to four times if they are on the 
caseload for over 12 months. The early estimates count every offender 
once; 
 
 
 
 
41

 
 The existing local adult measure measures the re-offending of 
offenders at any point during the court order – the early estimates 
measure re-offending in the first three months after an offender 
commenced a court order; and 
 
 The predicted score for the existing local adult measure was derived 
from analysis of 2007 re-offending data and the prediction for the early 
estimates was derived from analysis of 2008 re-offending data. 
 
These differences explain why the re-offending rate is higher with the early 
estimates of re-offending by offenders commencing a court order than with 
the existing measure of local adult re-offending: 
 
 offenders on licence have lower rates of re-offending than those 
commencing a court order; and 
 
 offenders serving a court order have lower rates of re-offending the 
longer they are on that court order. 
 
However, the prediction for the early estimates has been tailored specifically 
to the relevant group of offenders. 
 
Local youth re-offending 
 
The previous measure of youth re-offending used data that Youth Offending 
Teams (YOT) collected themselves from their local police and courts. The 
measure was used as management information and was never published or 
put into the public domain. The new measure uses data from the Police 
National Computer (PNC). Internal analysis and discussion with stakeholders 
has highlighted a number of differences between the two data sources: 
 
 The PNC includes a number of offenders who have received a 
reprimand or final warning which do not always appear on the YOT 
systems. As a result, there are more youth offenders and a higher 
overall youth re-offending rate using the new measure than using the 
previous local youth re-offending measure. 
 
 The PNC includes more comprehensive data on re-offending as adults 
by offenders who originally offended as youths. 
 
 Using PNC data reduces the data-collection burden on YOT and local 
police forces. 
 
 PNC data measures re-offending on recordable offences and YOT data 
measures re-offending on all offences. Offences which are not 
recordable include speeding offences, parking offences and other 
minor motoring offences. As a result, YOT data is more comprehensive 
for motoring re-offences. 
 
 
 
 
42

 
 The new measure allocates offenders to a locality using their home 
address data from the PNC; the previous local youth measure 
allocated offenders using offender management data. As a result, 
Looked After Children (LAC) who are in foster care, or in a children’s 
home, or in a boarding school or live with another adult known to 
children’s services, maybe allocated to a different YOT under the 
previous youth measure than the new measure. 
 
 For their re-offending to be included in the new measure, administrative 
data on young people in custody and secure accommodation has to be 
matched to the PNC. Some cases are not successfully matched. This 
process was not required for these offenders to be included in the 
previous local youth measure. As a result, YOT data can be more 
comprehensive regarding custodial offenders or those in secure 
accommodation. 
 
 Using PNC data provides an external measure of youth re-offending, 
which makes it an appropriate data-source to support any future 
policies which tie local funding to re-offending performance. 
 
 Using PNC data allows local youth re-offending to be measured on the 
same basis as national youth re-offending and adult re-offending, 
permitting adult and youth re-offending to be measured on a like-for-
like basis and a more comprehensive picture of re-offending to be 
formed. 
 
Work is underway to fully quantify the extent of these differences. 
 
 
 
43

 
Annex C 
Glossary of terms 
 
Re-offending terms 
 
Cohort – this is the group of individuals whose re-offending is measured. 
 
Index offence – the index offence is the proven offence that leads to an 
offender being included in the cohort. 
 
Index disposal – the index disposal of the offender is the type of sentence 
the offender received for their index offence. 
 
Start point (also known as the index date) – this is the set point in time 
from when re-offences are measured. 
 
Follow-up period – this is the length of time proven re-offending is measured 
over. 
 
Waiting period – this is the additional time beyond the follow-up period to 
allow for offences committed towards the end of the follow-up period to be 
proved by a court conviction, caution, reprimand or final warning. 
 
Adjusted to baseline – proven re-offending is related to the characteristics of 
offenders which means that any overall rate of proven re-offending will 
depend, in part, on the characteristics of offenders coming into the system 
(just as the examination pass rate of a school will be related to the 
characteristics of its pupils). We use a modelling technique to produce a 
baseline figure adjusted to match the characteristics of the cohort we are 
comparing. Please refer to the ‘Definitions and Measurement’ document for 
more detail at www.gov.uk/government/publications/proven-re-offending--2. 
 
Re-conviction – where an offender is convicted at court for an offence 
committed within a set follow-up period and convicted within either the follow-
up period or waiting period. 
 
Proven re-offence – where an offender is convicted at court or receives 
some other form of criminal justice sanction for an offence committed within a 
set follow-up period and disposed of within either the follow-up period or 
waiting period. 
 
Cohort used in the Proven Re-offending Statistics Quarterly Bulletin – 
the proven re-offending cohort consists of all offenders discharged from 
custody, otherwise sanctioned at court, receiving a caution, reprimand or 
warning or tested positive for opiates or cocaine in each year. This cohort’s 
criminal history is collated and criminal behaviour is tracked over the following 
one year. Any offence committed in this one year period which is proven by a 
court conviction or out-of-court disposal (either in the one year period, or in a 
further six months waiting period) counts as a proven re-offence. 
 
 
 
44

 
 
Cohort used in the Local Adult Re-offending Quarterly Bulletin – the local 
adult re-offending measure takes a snapshot of all offenders, aged 18 or over, 
who are under probation supervision at the end of a quarter, and combines 
four such snapshots together. This cohort’s criminal history is collated and 
criminal behaviour is tracked over the following three months. Any offence 
committed in this three month period which is proven by a court conviction or 
out-of-court disposal (either in the three month period, or in a further three 
months waiting period) counts as a proven re-offence. The latest available 
publication is the Local Adult Re-offending: 1 October 2011 – 30 September 
2012, England and Wales; Ministry of Justice, February 2013. 
 
www.gov.uk/government/publications/local-adult-reoffending 
 
Disposal (sentence type) 
 
Fine – a financial penalty imposed following conviction. 
 
Court orders – court orders include community sentences, community orders 
and suspended sentence orders supervised by the Probation Service. They 
do not include any pre or post release supervision. 
 
Criminal Justice Act 2003 (CJA03) – for offences committed on or after 4 
April 2005, the new community order replaced all existing community 
sentences for adults. The Act also introduced a new suspended sentence 
order for offences which pass the custody threshold. It also changed the 
release arrangements for prisoners. See Appendix A of Offender 
Management Caseload Statistics 2009 for more information. 
 
Community order – for offences committed on or after 4 April 2005, the new 
community order introduced under the CJA 2003 replaced all existing 
community sentences for those aged 18 years and over. This term refers to all 
court orders except suspended sentence orders and deferred sentences 
which may have a custodial component to the sentence. The court must add 
at least one, but could potentially add all 12 requirements depending on the 
offences and the offender. The requirements are: 
 
 unpaid work (formerly community service/community punishment) – a 
requirement to complete between 40 and 300 hours’ unpaid work; 
 
 activity – for example, to attend basic skills classes; 
 
 programme – there are several designed to reduce the prospects of re-
offending; 
 
 prohibited activity – a requirement not do so something that is likely to 
lead to further offence or nuisance; 
 curfew – which is electronically monitored; 
 
 
 
 
45

 
 exclusion – this is not used frequently as there is no reliable electronic 
monitoring yet available; 
 
 residence – requirement to reside only where approved by probation 
officer; 
 
 mental health treatment (requires offender’s consent); 
 
 drug rehabilitation (requires offender’s consent); 
 
 alcohol treatment (requires offender’s consent); 
 
 supervision – meetings with probation officer to address 
needs/offending behaviour; and 
 
 attendance centre – between a minimum of 12 hours and a maximum 
of 36 in total which includes three hours of activity. 
 
Typically, the more serious the offence and the more extensive the offender’s 
needs, the more requirements there will be. Most orders will comprise of one 
or two requirements, but there are packages of several requirements available 
where required. The court tailors the order as appropriate and is guided by the 
Probation Service through a pre-sentence report. 
 
Suspended sentence order (SSO) – the CJA 2003 introduced a new 
suspended sentence order which is made up of the same requirements as a 
community order and, in the absence of breach is served wholly in the 
community supervised by the Probation Service. It consists of an ‘operational 
period’ (the time for which the custodial sentence is suspended) and a 
‘supervision period’ (the time during which any requirements take effect). Both 
may be between six months and two years and the ‘supervision period’ 
cannot be longer than the ‘operational period’, although it may be shorter. 
Failure to comply with the requirements of the order or commission of another 
offence will almost certainly result in a custodial sentence. 
 
Pre CJA03 Court Orders – Community sentences 
 
Community punishment order (CPO) – the offender is required to 
undertake unpaid community work. 
 
Community rehabilitation order (CRO) - a community sentence which may 
have additional requirements such as residence, probation centre attendance 
or treatment for drug, alcohol or mental health problems. 
 
Community punishment and rehabilitation order (CPRO) – a community 
sentence consisting of probation supervision alongside community 
punishment, with additional conditions like those of a community rehabilitation 
order. 
Drug treatment and testing order (DTTO) – a community sentence targeted 
at offenders with drug-misuse problems. 
 
 
 
46

 
 
Custody – the offender is awarded a sentence to be served in prison or a 
Young Offenders Institute (YOI). If the offender is given a sentence of 12 
months or over, or is aged under 22 on release, the offender is supervised by 
the Probation Service on release. It is important to note that the sentence 
lengths and youth disposals awarded will be longer than the time served in 
custody. For more information please refer to Appendix A of Offender 
Management Caseload Statistics 2009. 
 
Short sentences (under 12 months) – those sentenced to under 12 months 
(made under the Criminal Justice Act 1991) spend the first half of their 
sentence in prison and are then released and considered ‘at risk’ for the 
remaining period. This means they are under no positive obligations and do 
not report to the Probation Service, but if they commit a further imprisonable 
offence during the ‘at risk’ period, they can be made to serve the remainder of 
the sentence in addition to the punishment for the new offence. The exception 
to this is those aged 18 to 20 who have a minimum of three month’s 
supervision on release. 
 
Sentences of 12 months or over – the CJA03 created a distinction between 
standard determinate sentences and public protection sentences. Offenders 
sentenced to a standard determinate sentence serve the first half in prison 
and the second half in the community on licence. 
 
Youth disposal (sentence type) 
 
Reprimand or warning – a reprimand is a formal verbal warning given by a 
police officer to a juvenile offender who admits they are guilty for a minor first 
offence. A final warning is similar to a reprimand, but can be used for either 
the first or second offence, and includes an assessment of the juvenile to 
determine the causes of their offending behaviour and a programme of 
activities is designed to address them. 
 
First-tier penalties 
 
Discharge – a juvenile offender is given an absolute discharge when they 
admit guilt, or are found guilty, with no further action taken. An offender given 
a conditional discharge also receives no immediate punishment, but is given a 
set period during which, if they commit a further offence, they can be brought 
back to court and re-sentenced. 
 
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).  
 
 
 
47

 
The offender is required to attend a Youth Offender Panel to agree a contract, 
aimed to repair the harm caused by the offence and address the causes of 
the offending behaviour. 
 
Reparation order – the offender is required to repair the harm caused by 
their offence either directly to the victim or indirectly to the community. 
 
Youth Rehabilitation Order – a community sentence for juvenile offenders, 
which came into effect on 30 November 2009 as part of the Criminal Justice 
and Immigration Act 2008. It combines a number of sentences into one 
generic sentence and is the standard community sentence used for the 
majority of children and young people who offend. The following requirements 
can be attached to a Youth Rehabilitation Order (YRO): 
 
 activity requirement 
 
 curfew requirement 
 
 exclusion requirement 
 
 local authority residence requirement 
 
 education requirement 
 
 mental health treatment requirement 
 
 unpaid work requirement 
 
 drug testing requirement 
 
 intoxicating substance misuse requirement 
 
 supervision requirement 
 
 electronic monitoring requirement 
 
 prohibited activity requirement 
 
 drug treatment requirement 
 
 residence requirement 
 
 programme requirement 
 
 attendance centre requirement 
 
 intensive supervision and surveillance 
 
 intensive fostering 
 
 
 
48

 
 
The following community sentences are replaced by the YRO, but will 
continue to exist for those that committed an offence before 30 November 
2009. The YRO is only available for those that committed an offence on or 
after the 30 November 2009. 
 
 action plan order 
 
 curfew order 
 
 supervision order 
 
 supervision order and conditions 
 
 community punishment order 
 
 community punishment and rehabilitation order 
 
 attendance centre order 
 
 drug treatment and testing order 
 
 exclusion order 
 
 community rehabilitation order 
 
Prison categories 
 
Category B and category C prisons hold sentenced prisoners of their 
respective categories, including life sentenced prisoners. The regime focuses 
on programmes that address offending behaviour and provide education, 
vocational training and purposeful work for prisoners who will normally spend 
several years in one prison. 
 
High security prisons hold category A and B prisoners. Category A 
prisoners are managed by a process of dispersal, and these prisons also hold 
a proportion of category B prisoners for whom they provide a similar regime to 
a category B prison. The category B prisoners held in a High Security Prison 
are not necessarily any more dangerous or difficult to manage than those in 
category B prisons. 
 
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.  
 
 
 
49

 
However, pressure on places means that many shorter term prisoners serve 
their entire sentence in a local prison, while longer term prisoners also 
complete some offending behaviour and training programmes there before 
moving on to lower security conditions. All local prisons operate to category B 
security standards. 
 
Open prisons have much lower levels of physical security and only hold 
category D prisoners. Many prisoners in open prisons will be allowed to go out 
of the prison on a daily basis to take part in voluntary or paid work in the 
community in preparation for their approaching release. 
 
Prisoner categories 
 
These categories are based on a combination of the type of crime committed, 
the length of sentence, the likelihood of escape, and the danger to the public if 
they did escape. The four categories are: 
 
Category A prisoners are those whose escape would be highly dangerous to 
the public or national security. 
 
Category B prisoners are those who do not require maximum security, but for 
whom escape needs to be made very difficult. 
 
Category C prisoners are those who cannot be trusted in open conditions, but 
who are unlikely to try to escape. 
 
Category D prisoners are those who can be reasonably trusted not to try to 
escape and are given the privilege of an open prison. 
 
Miscellaneous terms 
 
Drug-misusing offenders 
 
There are four ways a drug-misusing offender can be identified: 
 
 Individuals who have tested positive for heroin or crack/cocaine 
following an arrest or charge for ‘trigger’ offences (largely acquisitive 
crime offences) as part of the Drug Interventions Programme (DIP) are 
included as adult proven offenders. 
 
 Any offender that received an OASys assessment whilst on licence or 
on a community sentence and are either recorded as being subject to a 
current Drug Treatment and Testing Order (DTTO) or Drug 
Rehabilitation Requirement (DRR), or are assessed as having a 
criminogenic drug need. 
 
 Any offender identified as requiring further drug interventions by 
Counselling, Assessment, Referral, Advice, Throughcare (CARAT) 
teams in prison, and now being released into the community. 
 
 
 
 
50

 
 Any offender identified by local Criminal Justice Integrated Teams 
(CJITs) as requiring further intervention for their drug use and offending 
as part of DIP. 
 
National Probation Service – the National Probation Service generally deals 
with those aged 18 years and over. (Those under 18 are mostly dealt with by 
Youth Offending Teams, answering to the Youth Justice Board.) They are 
responsible for supervising offenders who are given community sentences 
and suspended sentence orders by the courts, as well as offenders given 
custodial sentences, both pre and post their release. 
 
Police National Computer – the Police National Computer (PNC) is the 
police's administrative IT system used by all police forces in England and 
Wales and managed by the National Policing Improvement Agency. As with 
any large scale recording system the PNC is subject to possible errors with 
data entry and processing. The MoJ maintains a database based on weekly 
extracts of selected data from the PNC in order to compile statistics and 
conduct research on re-offending and criminal histories. The PNC largely 
covers recordable offences – these are all indictable and triable-either-way 
offences plus many of the more serious summary offences. All figures derived 
from the MoJ's PNC database, and in particular those for the most recent 
months, are likely to be revised as more information is recorded by the police. 
 
Prolific and other priority offenders – the Prolific and other Priority 
Offenders Programme (PPO) aims to use a multi-agency approach to focus 
on a very small, but hard core group of prolific/persistent offenders who 
commit disproportionate amounts of crime and cause disproportionate harm 
to their local communities. The identification of a PPO is undertaken at a local 
level involving police, local authorities, prison and probation services and 
youth offending teams. The factors that influence the decision of whether an 
offender is included in the PPO programme are: 
 
 the nature and volume of crimes they commit; 
 
 the nature and volume of other harm they cause; and 
 
 the detrimental impact they have on their community. 
 
Recordable offences – recordable offences are those that the police are 
required to record on the PNC. They include all offences for which a custodial 
sentence can be given plus a range of other offences defined as recordable in 
legislation. They exclude a range of less serious summary offences, for 
example television licence evasion, driving without insurance, speeding and 
vehicle tax offences. 
 
Indictable and summary offences – summary offences are triable only by a 
magistrates’ court. This group includes motoring offences, common assault 
and criminal damage up to £5,000. More serious offences are classed either 
as triable-either-way (these can be tried either at the Crown Court or at a 
magistrates’ court and include criminal damage where the value is £5,000 or 
 
 
 
51

 
greater, theft and burglary) or indictable-only (the most serious offences that 
must be tried at the Crown Court; these ‘indictable-only’ offences include 
murder, manslaughter, rape and robbery). The term indictable offences is 
used to refer to all triable-either-way and ‘indictable-only’ offences. 
 
Offence group – a split of offences into 21 separate groups. A more detailed 
split of the 10 indictable offence groups (violence against the person, sexual 
offences, burglary, robbery, theft and handling and stolen goods, fraud and 
forgery, criminal damage, drug offences, other indictable offences (excluding 
motoring), indictable motoring) and the two summary offence groups 
(summary non-motoring and summary motoring offence types). 
 
 
 
52

 
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 
 
 
 
 
53

 
 
 
 
54
Contact points 
 
Press enquiries should be directed to the Ministry of Justice press office: 
 
Tel: xx-xxxx-xxxx 
 
Other enquiries about these statistics should be directed to: 
 
Mike Elkins 
Ministry of Justice 
Justice Statistics Analytical Services 
7th Floor 
102 Petty France 
London 
SW1H 9AJ 
Tel: xx-xxxx-xxxx 
 
General enquiries about the statistical work of the Ministry of Justice can be e-
mailed to: xxx@xxx.xx 
 
General information about the official statistics system of the United Kingdom 
is available from www.statistics.gov.uk 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
© Crown copyright 
Produced by the Ministry of Justice Alternative formats are available on 
request from xxx@xxx.xx