Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 30, 2024 Tue
Time: 12:16 am
Time: 12:16 am
Results for reoffending
138 results foundAuthor: McNeill, Fergus Title: Towards Effective Practice in Offender Supervision Summary: This paper provides an overview of evidence and argument about reoffending and about the kinds of practices of offender supervision in the community that might by most effective in reducing it. This report focuses more specifically on the effectiveness of rehabilitative programs. The concern of this report is not so much the merits of particular programs or interventions but rather broader practices and processes of supervision in which they are, or should be, embedded. Details: Glasgow: Scottish Centre for Crime & Justice Research, 2009 Source: Report 01/09 University of Glasgow Year: 2009 Country: United Kingdom URL: Shelf Number: 115542 Keywords: Offender SupervisionRehabilitationReoffending |
Author: Great Britain. Ministry of Justice Title: Reoffending of Adults: Results from the 2006 Cohort: England and Wales Summary: This report contains results on reoffending - frequency, severity, acutal (yes/no) and predicted (yes/no) for adults aged 18 and over. The results cover adults released from custody or commencing a court order. All measures in this report summarize data obtained from the Police National Computer(PNC) on whether or not an offender is proven to have reoffended during a one-year follow up period, as well as how many times and the seriousness of the reoffences committed. Details: London: 2008 Source: Statistics Bulletin Year: 2008 Country: United Kingdom URL: Shelf Number: 115682 Keywords: ReoffendingRepeat Offenders |
Author: Di Tella, Rafael Title: Criminal Recidivism After Prison and Electronic Monitoring Summary: We study re-arrest rates for two groups: individuals formerly in prison and individuals formerly under electronic monitoring (EM). We find that the recidivism rate of former prisoners is 22% while that for those treated with electronic monitoring is 13% (40% lower). We convince ourselves that the estimates are causal using peculiarities of the Argentine setting. For example, we have almost as much information as the judges have when deciding on the allocation of EM; the program is rationed to only some offenders; and some institutional features (such as bad prison conditions) convert ideological differences across judges (to which detainees are randomly matched) into very large differences in the allocation of electronic monitoring. Details: Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research, 2009. 43p. Source: NBER Working Paper Series; Working Paper 15602 Year: 2009 Country: United States URL: Shelf Number: 118434 Keywords: Electronic MonitoringJudges, Decision-MakingRecidivismReoffending |
Author: Visher, Christy A. Title: Life after Prison: Tracking the Experiences of Male Prisoners Returning to Chicago, Cleveland, and Houston Summary: This research brief describes the experiences of 652 male prisoners in Illinois, Ohio, and Texas, who participated in the Urban Institute's longitudinal study of prisoner reentry, Returning Home: Understanding the Challenges of Prisoner Reentry. The men were surveyed shortly before release from prison and interviewed two times following their release -- at two and seven months after release. This research brief describes characteristics of the men and their reentry experiences - including program participation, housing, family relationship, substance use, employment, reoffending, and reincarceration. The brief also summarizes findings from previoius Returning Home reports regarding predictors of reintegration outcomes. Details: Washington, DC: Urban Institute, 2010. 6p. Source: Internet Resource; Research Brief, May 2010 Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: Shelf Number: 118741 Keywords: Employment of Ex-OffendersLongitudinal StudiesPrisoner ReentryReintegrationReoffending |
Author: Smith, Nadine Title: Comorbid Substance and Non-Substance Mental Health Disorders and Re-Offending Among NSW Prisoners Summary: This report examines whether released prisoners in New South Wales with mental health disorders are at increased risk of re-offending when compared with released prisoners without mental health disorders. Details: Sydney: NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, 2010. 16p. Source: Internet Resource; Crime and Justice Bulletin, No. 140 Year: 2010 Country: Australia URL: Shelf Number: 119142 Keywords: Mental Health (Australia)Mentally Ill OffendersPrisonersReoffendingSubstance Abuse |
Author: Mason, Ron Title: Analysis of the Tasmania Police Risk Assessment Screening Tool (RAST) Summary: Safe at Home involves a range of initiatives, expanded and new services that represent a significant change in the way the Tasmanian Government responds to family violence: family violence is treated as a crime rather than a private matter. Included in the Safe at Home Strategy was the implementation of a Risk Assessment Screening Tool (RAST) developed by Tasmania Police and the Department of Justice. The RAST is utilised by operational police at the attendance of family violence incidents to assist in assessing the risk of a victim experiencing future violence. In May 2008, Tasmania Police contracted the Tasmanian Institute of Law Enforcement Studies [TILES], of the University of Tasmania, to undertake a statistical analysis of the police Risk Assessment Screening Tool [RAST] to determine the validity and reliability of the RAST with respect to the Tasmanian population. The study concluded that, whilst the current scoring system employed has modest predictive utility (AUC .602), with an increased risk of misclassification in the medium and high categories, those characteristics identified through regression modelling provided a significantly greater level of accuracy (AUC .726). This reflects good predictive utility in that it is correct in predicting repeat offending in nearly 75% of cases (i.e. in approximately 3 out of 4 cases). It should be noted that this compares favourably with other risk assessment tools. With the primary purpose of the RAST being to predict the likelihood of re-offending, the Analysis found that the most useful risk factors on the RAST are those that reflect static variables. Static variables include age, gender, criminal history and education, and tend to be objective rather than subjective. Problems identified with the present RAST included structural issues whereby risk factors may have unintended deleterious and/or cumulative effects on the likelihood of re-offending. Consequent of these conclusions, it has been recommended that a new weighting system be considered with emphasis placed on those risk factors that have a cumulative effect on re-offending. The Analysis identified potential for improvements to the RAST that could increase its predictive utility from modest to good. Details: Hobart, Tasmania: Tasmanian Institute of Law Enforcement Studies, 2009. 68p. Source: Internet Resource Year: 2009 Country: Australia URL: Shelf Number: 119555 Keywords: Domestic Violence (Tasmania)Family ViolencePolicingReoffendingRisk Assessment |
Author: Zhang, Jessica Title: An Analysis of Repeat Imprisonment Trends in Australia Using Prisoner Census Data from 1994 to 2007 Summary: Reducing the number of prisoners who are repeatedly imprisoned is one of the goals of any correctional system. However, while a period of imprisonment may deter some people from re-offending, in others it may foster further criminal behaviour. This paper presents the results of a study based on a longitudinal dataset constructed from 14 successive Prisoner Censuses between 1994 and 2007 to follow, over time, two cohorts of people who were 'released' from prison (where 'release' is a proxy measure derived from the absence of a prisoner's record in a subsequent Prisoner Census). This paper expands on an earlier study by the Australian Bureau of Statistics by using logistic regression models to examine the factors associated with repeat imprisonment and assess whether or not the propensity for reimprisonment has increased over time. This paper also examines trends in criminal career development using descriptive methods, looking at patterns of specialisation, and of movements from one type of offence to another. The study finds that reimprisonment is strongly associated with being young, being Indigenous, or having been previously imprisoned (that is, being a prisoner who had already served time in prison). In all jurisdictions except Queensland, the rate of reimprisonment in recent years was higher than in the mid-1990s. Details: Canberra: Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2010. 64p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 28, 2010 at: http://www.ausstats.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/subscriber.nsf/0/26D48B9A4BE29D48CA25778C001F67D3/$File/1351055031_aug%202010.pdf Year: 2010 Country: Australia URL: http://www.ausstats.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/subscriber.nsf/0/26D48B9A4BE29D48CA25778C001F67D3/$File/1351055031_aug%202010.pdf Shelf Number: 119689 Keywords: Longitudinal StudiesPrisonersReoffendingRepeat Offenders |
Author: Great Britain. Home Office Title: Reducing Reoffending, Cutting Crime, Changing Lives: Guidance on New Duties for Community Safety Partnerships in England and Wales Summary: Community Safety Partnerships (CSPs) across England and Wales have become a critical part of the local delivery landscape. They are now in an ideal position to co-ordinate the actions of the police, local authorities, housing providers, health services and other key players, including youth services and third sector organisations, all of which have a significant role in helping successfully reduce reoffending and in keeping communities safe. These changes will help responsible authorities focus better on the key elements that keep communities safe. This is particularly important when over half of all crime is committed by those who have already been through the criminal justice system. It will enable a more strategic engagement between CSPs and other local partners, such as the third sector, Local Strategic Partnerships, Local Service Boards and Local Criminal Justice Boards, in planning and commissioning services for offenders. For the first time local partners will be collectively accountable for reducing reoffending. The critical link between crime reduction and reducing reoffending is clearly recognised in Public Service Agreement 23 ‘Make Communities Safer’. Extending the duties of CSPs will further strengthen this link and formalise the effective joint working that is already underway at a local level through Integrated Offender Management (IOM) and schemes such as Prolific and other Priority Offenders (PPO). These approaches demonstrate our shift in focus from offences to offenders and highlight how effective partnerships can help the prevention and detection of crime and the rehabilitation and resettlement of offenders once they have been punished appropriately. Success in reducing reoffending can only be achieved by local partners working beyond traditional organisational boundaries. This guidance provides suggested practice and case studies to support the legislative changes to CSPs and help partners embed the new duties within their everyday activities. More effective partnership working as a result of these changes will help to reduce crime and reoffending, protect the public and improve public confidence in the criminal justice system, the police and in other local partners, in a way that allows people to see and feel the difference in their local communities. Details: London: Home Office, 2010. 79p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 3, 2010 at: http://www.cambridgeshire.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/CD2F417E-271E-45D1-840A-BA0699A0C0FE/0/NationalSupportFrameworkReducingReoffending.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.cambridgeshire.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/CD2F417E-271E-45D1-840A-BA0699A0C0FE/0/NationalSupportFrameworkReducingReoffending.pdf Shelf Number: 119734 Keywords: Community Safety Partnerships (U.K.)PartnershipsProbationRehabilitationReoffending |
Author: Weatherburn, Don Title: The Effect of Prison on Adult Re-Offending Summary: The effect of prison on re-offending was examined by comparing time to re-conviction among 96 matched pairs of convicted burglars and 406 matched pairs of offenders convicted of non-aggravated assault. One member of each pair received a prison sentence, while the other received some form of non-custodial sanction. All offenders were matched on offence type, number of concurrent offences, prior prison experience, number of prior appearances in court and bail status at final appearance. Cox regression was used to control for age, age of first conviction, gender, race, plea, number of counts of the principal offence, legal representation and prior breach of a court order. In the case of non-aggravated assault an additional control was included: prior conviction for a violent offence. The study found that offenders who received a prison sentence were slightly more likely to re-offend than those who received a noncustodial penalty. The difference was just significant for non-aggravated assault but not significant for burglary. The study concluded that there is no evidence that prison deters offenders convicted of burglary or non-aggravated assault. There is some evidence that prison increases the risk of offending amongst offenders convicted of non-aggravated assault but further research with larger samples is needed to confirm the results. Details: Sydney: NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, 2010. 12p. Source: Internet Resource: Crime and Justice Bulletin, No. 143: http://www.bocsar.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/bocsar/ll_bocsar.nsf/vwFiles/CJB143.pdf/$file/CJB143.pdf Year: 2010 Country: Australia URL: http://www.bocsar.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/bocsar/ll_bocsar.nsf/vwFiles/CJB143.pdf/$file/CJB143.pdf Shelf Number: 119884 Keywords: PrisonRecidivismReoffending |
Author: Great Britain. Ministry of Justice Title: Compendium of Reoffending Statistics and Analysis Summary: The Compendium of reoffending statistics and analysis is a new publication designed to answer an array of statistical questions that are not covered in existing statistical publications on reoffending. The focus of the Compendium is to address commonly asked questions by the media and practitioners; it shows the relative effectiveness of different disposals given prior to or in court, reoffending figures by individual prisons, detailed breakdowns of published material, long-term time series on reoffending, and international comparisons. It also presents, for the first time, analysis of reconviction of prisoners from the Surveying Prisoner Crime Reduction. This survey allows detailed analysis of an offenders’ reconviction behaviour according to their early life experiences, pre-prison accommodation, education and employment, substance use and mental health needs. The key findings from this Compendium are outlined in the following seven sections: long-term trends in reconviction rates; effectiveness of different disposals and interventions; reoffending rates not previously reported; reconviction and prisoners’ lives and needs; adult and juvenile comparisons; international comparisons; and other reoffending analyses. Details: London: Ministry of Justice, 2010. 158p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 5, 2010 at: http://www.justice.gov.uk/compendium-of-reoffending-statistics-and-analysis.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.justice.gov.uk/compendium-of-reoffending-statistics-and-analysis.pdf Shelf Number: 120195 Keywords: Crime StatisticsOffendersRecidivism (England and Wales)Reoffending |
Author: Sadlier, Greg Title: Evaluation of the Impact of the HM Prison Service Enhanced Thinking Skills Programme on Reoffending Outcomes of the Surveying Prisoner Crime Reduction (SPCR) Sample Summary: This research examined the impact of the Enhanced Thinking Skills (ETS) programme on the one-year reconviction outcomes of 257 prison-based participants between 2006 and 2008. Radius propensity score matching was used to match a comparison group that had no statistically significant difference (at the means) to the treatment group on any matching characteristic. ETS was found to significantly reduce both the reconviction rate (six percentage points) and frequency (60 reoffences per 100 released prisoners) of general reoffending of participants. No statistically significant impact was found on the severe offences reconviction rate. Almost identical impacts were found for completers. A stronger reduction in reconviction was found for participants meeting the suitability criteria. Though the programme has been shown to be effective in practice, the findings suggest that a stricter application of the targeting criteria might have further enhanced the effectiveness of the programme. Details: London: Ministry of Justice, 2010. 56p. Source: Internet Resource: Ministry of Justice Research Series 19/10: Accessed November 5, 2010 at: http://www.justice.gov.uk/publications/docs/eval-enhanced-thinking-skills-prog.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.justice.gov.uk/publications/docs/eval-enhanced-thinking-skills-prog.pdf Shelf Number: 120196 Keywords: Correctional ProgramsPrisonersRecidivismRehabilitationReoffending |
Author: Kjellgren, Cecilia Title: Adolescent Sexual Offending: Prevalence, Risk Factors and Outcome Summary: The purpose of this thesis is to explore the prevalence of sexually offending behaviour among female and male adolescents in Sweden. One aim is to identify potential risk factors associated with sexually offending behaviour and a further aim to examine the outcome in early adulthood for a sample of sexually offending adolescent males. Three different samples were used for this thesis. A sample of Norwegian and Swedish female and male high school students (more than 9,000) participated in a population based study and responded to a number of items concerning sexual interests and behaviours, conduct problems, health, peer and parental variables. Five percent of male and one percent of female students reported sexually coercive behaviour defined as penetrative sexual behaviours and masturbation. Risk factors in particular associated with sexual coercion were identified by contrasting the sexually coercive youth with those who reported non-sexual conduct problems as well as with controls. A number of general risk factors as well as sexuality specific risk factors were identified among sexually coercive females as males. The male sample was used to further explore the link between being sexually abused and being sexually abusive. The association was confirmed also when controlling for other potential influencing factors. The second sample was used to examine the one-year incidence of all reports to Social Services in Sweden on sexually offending adolescents. The total incidence rate was .06% among the 12-17 year old male population. Comparing the findings of self-reports and cases reported to authorities it could be concluded that the underestimation of adolescent female and male sexual offending is substantial. A third sample of clinically assessed sexually offending male adolescents (M=15 years) was used for a follow up study. They were on average 21 years old by follow up, six years after assessment. One fifth reported sexually reoffending since the assessment. Risk assessments carried out in connection with the index offence were good in identifying those at high risk of sexually reoffending. One third of the males of the sample reported learning disabilities or neuropsychiatric disorders, and this was particularly prevalent among those who sexually reoffended. In addition more than half of the males had been convicted of a non-sexual crime by the time of follow up. Details: Lund, Sweden: Lunds University, 2009. 80p. Source: Internet Resource: Thesis: Accessed December 15, 2010 at: http://lup.lub.lu.se/luur/download?func=downloadFile&recordOId=1468451&fileOId=1468479 Year: 2009 Country: Sweden URL: http://lup.lub.lu.se/luur/download?func=downloadFile&recordOId=1468451&fileOId=1468479 Shelf Number: 120512 Keywords: Adolescents Sex OffendersRecidivismReoffendingSex Offenders (Sweden) |
Author: Nicholson, Chris Title: Rehabilitation Works: Ensuring Payment by Results Cuts Reoffending Summary: The U.K. prison population has increased to over 85,000 and spending on rehabilitation has reached record levels; yet reoffending rates remain stubbornly high in the UK. There is widespread agreement within the coalition government that the country is in need of a 'rehabilitation revolution'. However, rather than government deciding such initiatives centrally, the Ministry of Justice is proposing a much greater role for the private and voluntary sectors. Furthermore, it anticipates that for some groups of offenders providers of rehabilitation services should be paid only to the extent that they are successful in reducing reoffending – Payment by Results (PbR). Rehabilitation Works: ensuring Payment by Results cuts reoffending assesses the practicalities of implementing a PbR regime for reducing reoffending. How should the system be designed so as to avoid the risk of ‘parking and creaming’ of clients or offenders? And in what way can it be ensured that a diverse provider base is created, where SMEs and third sector organisations are not priced out of the bidding process? In order for a PbR model to be effective, there must be a diverse provider market and a commercial framework ensuring providers can generate a return whilst also offering the government value for money as a result of the policy. This paper recommends a phased introduction of outcome based payment mechanisms and stresses that the scheme will not be effective if offenders are treated as a single generic group. Details: London: Centre Forum, 2011. 53p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 4, 2011 at: http://www.centreforum.org/assets/pubs/payment-by-results.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.centreforum.org/assets/pubs/payment-by-results.pdf Shelf Number: 120916 Keywords: Offenders (U.K.)RecidivismRehabilitationReoffending |
Author: Pew Center on the States Title: State of Recidivism: The Revolving Door of America’s Prisons Summary: The dramatic growth of America’s prison population during the past three decades is by now a familiar story. In 2008, the Pew Center on the States reported that incarceration levels had risen to a point where one in 100 American adults was behind bars. A second Pew study the following year added another disturbing dimension to the picture, revealing that one in 31 adults in the United States was either incarcerated or on probation or parole. The costs associated with this growth also have been well documented. Total state spending on corrections is now about $52 billion, the bulk of which is spent on prisons. State spending on corrections quadrupled during the past two decades, making it the second fastest growing area of state budgets, trailing only Medicaid. While America’s imprisonment boom and its fiscal impacts have been widely debated, the public safety payoff from our expenditures on incarceration has undergone far less scrutiny. Now, however, as the nation’s slumping economy continues to force states to do more with less, policy makers are asking tougher questions about corrections outcomes. One key element of that analysis is measuring recidivism, or the rate at which offenders return to prison. Prisons, of course, are not solely responsible for recidivism results. Parole and probation agencies, along with social service providers and community organizations, play a critical role. Although preventing offenders from committing more crimes once released is only one goal of the overall correctional system, it is a crucial one, both in terms of preventing future victimization and ensuring that taxpayer dollars are spent effectively. This report seeks to elevate the public discussion about recidivism, prompting policy makers and the public to dig more deeply into the factors that impact rates of return to prison, and into effective strategies for reducing them. For years the most widely accepted sources of national recidivism statistics have been two studies produced by the U.S. Department of Justice’s Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). The most recent of those reports, which tracked offenders released from state prison in 1994, concluded that a little more than half of released offenders (51.8 percent) were back in prison within three years, either for committing a new crime or for violating rules of their supervision. Published in 2002, the BJS study followed a sample of offenders from 15 states, and did not provide any statelevel recidivism data. Recognizing the importance of recidivism to policy makers seeking better results from their correctional systems, Pew, in collaboration with the Association of State Correctional Administrators (ASCA), undertook a comprehensive survey aimed at producing the first state-by-state look at recidivism rates. The Pew/ASCA survey asked states to report three-year return-to-prison rates for all inmates released from their prison systems in 1999 and 2004. This survey differs from the prior BJS study in many important ways, the most significant of which is that it includes recidivism data from more than twice as many states. According to the survey results, 45.4 percent of people released from prison in 1999 and 43.3 percent of those sent home in 2004 were reincarcerated within three years, either for committing a new crime or for violating conditions governing their release. While differences in survey methods complicate direct comparisons of national recidivism rates over time, a comparison of the states included in both the Pew/ASCA and BJS studies reveals that recidivism rates have been largely stable. When excluding California, whose size skews the national picture, recidivism rates between 1994 and 2007 have consistently remained around 40 percent. The new figures suggest that despite the massive increase in corrections spending, in many states there has been little improvement in the performance of corrections systems. If more than four out of 10 adult American offenders still return to prison within three years of their release, the system designed to deter them from continued criminal behavior clearly is falling short. That is an unhappy reality, not just for offenders, but for the safety of American communities. Details: Washington, DC: The Pew Charitable Trusts, 2011. 42p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 13, 2011 at: http://www.pewtrusts.org/uploadedFiles/wwwpewtrustsorg/Reports/sentencing_and_corrections/State_Recidivism_Revolving_Door_America_Prisons%20.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.pewtrusts.org/uploadedFiles/wwwpewtrustsorg/Reports/sentencing_and_corrections/State_Recidivism_Revolving_Door_America_Prisons%20.pdf Shelf Number: 121333 Keywords: RecidivismRehabilitationReoffending |
Author: Zweig, Janine Title: Recidivism Effects of the Center for Employment Opportunities (CEO) Program Vary by Former Prisoners’ Risk of Reoffending Summary: The New York City-based Center for Employment Opportunities (CEO) is a transitional jobs program designed to help former prisoners increase longer-term employment and, consequently, reduce recidivism. Interim results from MDRC’s rigorous impact evaluation of CEO show reduced recidivism in both the first and the second year of follow-up. This research brief expands on those results by using regression-based analysis to identify whether CEO had its greatest impact among low-, medium-, or high-risk offenders — with risk levels being defined by participants’ characteristics before random assignment that are associated with recidivism after random assignment. CEO had its strongest reductions in recidivism for former prisoners who were at highest risk of recidivism, for whom CEO reduced the probability of rearrest, the number of rearrests, and the probability of reconviction two years after random assignment. If confirmed by other studies, these findings suggest that the limited resources available to transitional jobs programs for former prisoners should be targeted toward the people at highest risk of recidivating, because they are helped most by this intervention. Details: New York: MDRC, 2010. 16p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 21, 2011 at: http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/opre/welfare_employ/enhanced_hardto/reports/ceo_program/ceo_program.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/opre/welfare_employ/enhanced_hardto/reports/ceo_program/ceo_program.pdf Shelf Number: 121460 Keywords: EmploymentEx-OffendersRecidivismReentryReoffending |
Author: Te Puni Kōkiri, the Ministry for Māori Development Title: Māori Designed, Developed and Delivered Initiatives to Reduce Māori Offending and Re-offending Summary: This report covers the proceedings of the wānanga (conference) hosted by Te Puni Kōkiri 24 June 2010 Brentwood Hotel Wellington. The purpose of the wānanga was primarily an opportunity to share the learning from Māori designed, developed and delivered initiatives with policy analysts and others working to address the drivers of crime and with an interest in reducing the over-representation of Māori in the criminal justice system. The impetus for this work began three or four years ago when the former government was concerned about high rates of Māori imprisonment. It became clear that Māori wanted an opportunity to design, develop and deliver initiatives themselves to address the problems leading to high levels of imprisonment. The way policy development works is premised on research evidence but there is little evidence-based information on what works for Māori. Most of the evidence that informs what is designed for Government is from overseas and not based on actual Māori experience. It is important to look at how Māori see the world and the solutions that Māori design for their communities. Māori tend to develop initiatives based on hypotheses, but do not have the resources to research them or fully evaluate them. They then find that government funders say that there is no evidence to support the initiatives. However, in practice there is much to be learnt from Māori designed, developed and delivered initiatives and early evaluations have shown promising results. Details: Wellington, NZ: New Zealand Government, 2010. 50p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 26, 2011 at: http://www.tpk.govt.nz/en/in-print/our-publications/publications/maori-designed-developed-and-delivered-initiatives-to-reduce-maori-offending-and-re-offending/download/tpk-reduceoffend-2010-en.pdf Year: 2010 Country: New Zealand URL: http://www.tpk.govt.nz/en/in-print/our-publications/publications/maori-designed-developed-and-delivered-initiatives-to-reduce-maori-offending-and-re-offending/download/tpk-reduceoffend-2010-en.pdf Shelf Number: 121499 Keywords: Crime PreventionIndigenous Peoples (New Zealand)Minority GroupsPrisonersRecidivismReoffending |
Author: Snowball, Lucy Title: Police Bail and Risk of Re-Offending Summary: This study sought to determine whether the police are remanding offenders with a low risk of re-offending. First a model of juvenile re-offending was developed based on offender characteristics available to the police at the time of the bail decision. This model was then used to predict the probability of re-offending for a sample of 23,667 juveniles, 29.1 per cent of whom had been remand by the police. The others had either been released on bail or unconditionally released. The probabilities were grouped into deciles and compared for the police remand and the non police remand groups. After determining the risk of reoffending for the sample of juvenile defendants, it was clear that on average those held on police remand had a high risk of re-offending. However the police are granting bail to a number of high risk offenders. The study found that there is no evidence that the police are remanding juveniles who are at a low risk of re-offending. Details: Sydney: New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, 2011. 3p. Source: Internet Resource: Issue Paper No. 57: Accessed May 5, 2011 at: http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/bocsar/ll_bocsar.nsf/vwFiles/bb57.pdf/$file/bb57.pdf Year: 2011 Country: Australia URL: http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/bocsar/ll_bocsar.nsf/vwFiles/bb57.pdf/$file/bb57.pdf Shelf Number: 121619 Keywords: BailJuvenile Offenders (Australia)RecidivismReoffending |
Author: Holmes, Jessie Title: Re-offending in NSW Summary: Aim: To provide an overview of adult and juvenile re-offending over the longer term in NSW. Method: Descriptive analysis of data from the NSW Re-offending Database (ROD). Results and conclusion: Most offenders convicted in the NSW criminal courts were reconvicted of a further offence within 15 years of their index offence, and this was especially so for juveniles. Those reconvicted tended to be reconvicted for a variety of offences. Details: Sydney: New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, 2011. 5p. Source: Internet Resource: Issue Paper No. 56: Accessed May 5, 2011 at: http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/bocsar/ll_bocsar.nsf/vwFiles/bb56.pdf/$file/bb56.pdf Year: 2011 Country: Australia URL: http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/bocsar/ll_bocsar.nsf/vwFiles/bb56.pdf/$file/bb56.pdf Shelf Number: 121620 Keywords: Juvenile Offenders (Australia)OffendersRecidivismReoffending |
Author: Lind, Bronwyn Title: Screening Cautioned Young People for Further Assessment and Intervention Summary: This study aimed to assess whether it is possible to screen juvenile offenders for recidivism risk from information readily available at the time of cautioning a young offender. Data on all 8,537 juveniles cautioned by police or courts in 2006 were analysed using logistic regression. The dependent variable in the logistic regression model was a binary variable measuring reoffending. The potential predictors included number of previous cautions, conferences or court appearances, jurisdiction issuing the caution (court vs. police), Indigenous status, gender, age at index caution, offence type, offence seriousness, prior violence, remoteness (ARIA) and social and economic disadvantage. The final model included prior contacts, jurisdiction issuing the index caution, Indigenous status and gender as predictors. The c-statistic (area under the ROC curve) when comparing predicted with observed values was 0.767, 95% confidence interval (0.757, 0.777). The model fit was confirmed by comparing predicted values from half the dataset with observed values from the other half. The study concluded that it is possible to screen juveniles for future risk of reoffending from data readily available at the time they are cautioned. Details: Sydney: New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, 2011. 12p. Source: Internet Resource: Contemporary Issues in Crime and Justice No. 149: Accessed May 5, 2011 at: http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/bocsar/ll_bocsar.nsf/vwFiles/cjb149.pdf/$file/cjb149.pdf Year: 2011 Country: Australia URL: http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/bocsar/ll_bocsar.nsf/vwFiles/cjb149.pdf/$file/cjb149.pdf Shelf Number: 121645 Keywords: Juvenile Offenders (Australia)RecidivismReoffendingRisk Assessment |
Author: Heseltine, Karen Title: Prison-based Correctional Offender Rehabilitation Programs: The 2009 National Picture in Australia Summary: In recent years, correctional administrators both in Australia and overseas have invested significant resources in the development and delivery of offender rehabilitation programs. These initiatives have occurred in the context of an impressive evidence base, attesting to the notion that such efforts are likely to have a greater impact on recidivism than incarceration alone and perhaps now, more than any time in the last 30 years, there is widespread optimism that such initiatives will help to reduce reoffending and improve community safety. This report provides an updated account of the nature and scope of custodial-based offender rehabilitation programs in Australia. It does this in three ways — first, it describes those programs that are offered to adult offenders in public prisons throughout Australia and highlights changes that have occurred in practice since the first audit of programs was completed in 2004. Second, it identifies areas of programmatic strength in relation to internationally accepted good practice criteria. Third, it describes some of the future developments that are likely to occur in the next few years and discusses some of the possible impediments to developing programs further that may exist. The final report comprises two sections. It begins with a description of the legislative guidance and/or mandate that underpins the delivery of rehabilitation programs in each jurisdiction. This is followed by a description of the custodial-based offender rehabilitation programs that are currently offered in Australia and how these have changed over time. It concludes with a general discussion of the challenges that face service providers in the next few years. The second section provides a more detailed description of programs, reported by jurisdiction. Details: Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology, 2011. 99p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 20, 2011 at: http://www.aic.gov.au/documents/5/6/4/%7B564B2ECA-4433-4E9B-B4BA-29BD59071E81%7Drpp112.pdf Year: 2011 Country: Australia URL: http://www.aic.gov.au/documents/5/6/4/%7B564B2ECA-4433-4E9B-B4BA-29BD59071E81%7Drpp112.pdf Shelf Number: 121773 Keywords: Correctional Programs (Australia)Offender RehabilitationRecidivismReoffending |
Author: New Zealand Ministry of Justice Title: Reoffending Analysis for Restorative Justice Cases: 2008 and 2009 Summary: The aim of this study was to determine whether restorative justice conferences led to reduced reoffending. It is based on data for offenders completing conferences in 2008 and 2009 compared with a similar group of offenders who did not receive restorative justice. The principal finding of the report is that restorative justice had a statistically significant impact on reducing the proportion of people reoffending, and for those who did reoffend, there is an indication of a reduction in the frequency of reoffending and a lower rate of imprisonment. Rigorous data verification, statistical modelling and matching processes were used. Conferenced offenders were compared with: offenders referred for restorative justice but who did not receive a restorative justice conference as the victim declined or the case was otherwise considered unsuitable (non-conferenced); other offenders meeting the restorative justice eligibility criteria who were not referred (other eligible); and a matched comparison group of offenders (a sub-set of the other eligible offenders, selected to match the demographic and offending characteristics of those who completed a restorative justice conference). Restorative justice shows promise in reducing reoffending that leads to imprisonment, however, the results from this study are not statistically significant. This is partly explained by the small numbers of offenders in this analysis that were imprisoned within 12 and 24 months. For the 2009 cohort, after 12 months, offenders who had been through a restorative justice conference were 33 percent less likely to be imprisoned for subsequent offending than comparable offenders (5.2 percent compared to 7.8 percent). For the 2008 cohort, after 12 months, the subsequent imprisonment rate for conferenced offenders was 18 percent lower than that of the matched comparison group (8.7 percent compared to 10.6 percent). After 24 months, the subsequent imprisonment rate for conferenced offenders was 29 percent lower than that of the matched comparison group (11.1 percent compared to 15.6 percent). The results taken from this study and the 2005 study (which found a reduction in subsequent imprisonment of between 15 and 20 percent, though, not statistically significant), taken together, suggest a real reduction in imprisonment rates. Details: Wellington: Ministry of Justice, 2011. 49p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 30, 2011 at: http://www.justice.govt.nz/publications/global-publications/r/reoffending-analysis-for-restorative-justice-cases-2008-and-2009/publication Year: 2011 Country: New Zealand URL: http://www.justice.govt.nz/publications/global-publications/r/reoffending-analysis-for-restorative-justice-cases-2008-and-2009/publication Shelf Number: 121954 Keywords: RecidivismReoffendingRestorative Justice (New Zealand) |
Author: Richards, Kelly Title: Technical and Background Paper: Measuring Juvenile Recidivism in Australia Summary: This study is a step towards having national data on juvenile recidivism that are both meaningful and comparable across Australia's jurisdictions. Performance measurement (the use of empirical indicators to measure outcomes that government services are supposed to achieve) has emerged in recent years as a strategy to assist governments assess the impact of their operations, improve service provision and effectively target resources. In the criminal justice sector, recidivism is often used as a measure of the performance of government agencies, such as correctional services and juvenile justice agencies. Recidivism has, however, been identified as a limited and problematic measure of performance, for a range of reasons. It has been argued, for example, that many factors influence whether an offender recidivates, some of which are not within the control of government agencies. Recidivism is a particularly problematic measure of the performance of juvenile justice agencies, as offending peaks during adolescence. As such, juveniles might be expected to recidivate at a higher rate than adults, irrespective of interventions provided by juvenile justice agencies. Recidivism nonetheless remains one important measure of the performance of juvenile justice agencies, albeit one that should be cautiously interpreted. This report presents the findings of a literature review and consultations with key stakeholders in each of Australia’s jurisdictions on measuring juvenile recidivism. It outlines the limitations of using recidivism as a measure of performance for juvenile justice agencies and presents a range of options for better conceptualising and measuring juvenile recidivism. The report also provides four international examples of recent efforts to adopt more robust and meaningful measures of juvenile recidivism. Finally, 13 principles are proposed that could be used to inform and enhance the measurement of juvenile recidivism in Australia. Clearly, measuring juvenile recidivism is a challenging task. This study is an important step towards having national data on juvenile recidivism that are both meaningful and comparable across Australia’s jurisdictions, and that would contribute towards the development of more effective juvenile justice interventions across Australia. Details: Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology, 2011. 44p. Source: Internet Resource: Technical and Background Paper 44: Accessed June 30, 2011 at: http://www.aic.gov.au/documents/1/B/1/%7B1B1FAF61-B45D-42A4-B93B-E655C4CA078E%7Dtbp044.pdf Year: 2011 Country: Australia URL: http://www.aic.gov.au/documents/1/B/1/%7B1B1FAF61-B45D-42A4-B93B-E655C4CA078E%7Dtbp044.pdf Shelf Number: 121925 Keywords: Juvenile Offenders (Australia)RecidivismRehabilitationReoffending |
Author: Drake, Elizabeth Title: Washington State Recidivism Trends: Adult Offenders Released From Prison (1990 – 2006) Summary: In this report, we examine trends in long-term recidivism for adult offenders leaving prison in Washington State. This analysis uses the Washington State Institute for Public Policy’s criminal history database, which was developed in the 1990s to conduct criminal justice research for the legislature. The data are a synthesis of conviction information from the Administrative Office of the Courts and the Department of Corrections (DOC). In 2007, using these adult and juvenile criminal history data, the Institute developed a risk assessment tool to predict an offender’s probability of recidivism. The result was the static risk assessment, which was implemented by DOC in 2008. Using the assessment, DOC classifies offenders into one of four risk levels: lower, moderate, high non-violent or high violent risk for re-offense. Information in this report is presented for 17 annual “cohorts” of offenders from 1990 through 2006. A cohort includes all offenders in a given year who were released from prison. Recidivism is defined as any felony offense committed by an offender within three years of being at-risk in the community that results in a Washington State conviction. Details: Olympia, WA: Washington State Institute for Public Policy, 2011. 2p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 15, 2011 at: http://www.wsipp.wa.gov/rptfiles/11-01-1201.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.wsipp.wa.gov/rptfiles/11-01-1201.pdf Shelf Number: 122075 Keywords: Recidivism (Washington State)Reoffending |
Author: Great Britain. Ministry of Justice Title: Proven Re-offending Statistics Quarterly Bulletin January to December 2009, England and Wales 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 January and December 2009. 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 6 months is allowed for cases to progress through the courts. Between January and December 2009, there were just under 700,000 offenders who were cautioned, convicted (excluding immediate custodial sentences) or released from custody. Just over 180,000 of these offenders committed a proven re-offence within a year. This gives a one-year proven re-offending rate of 26.3 per cent. These re-offenders committed an average of 2.79 offences each - around 510,000 offences in total – 79 per cent were committed by adults and 21 per cent were committed by juveniles. •just over half of these offences were committed by offenders with more than 25 previous offences •0.7 per cent (around 3,400) were serious violent/sexual proven re-offences. This report presents the proportion of offenders who re-offend (proven re-offending rate) and the number of proven re-offences those offenders commit by age group, gender, ethnicity, criminal history, offence type, serious proven re-offending, prolific and priority offenders and drug misusing offenders. Also included are proven re-offending rates for different types of sentence and by individual prison, probation trust and youth offending team. Latest figures for 2009 are provided with comparisons to 2008, results are also compared to 2000 to highlight long-term trends; 2000 is the earliest re-offending data that exists on a comparable basis. Details: London: Ministry of Justice, 2011. 67p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 31, 2011 at: http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/publications/statistics-and-data/reoffending/proven-reoffending-jan-dec09.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/publications/statistics-and-data/reoffending/proven-reoffending-jan-dec09.pdf Shelf Number: 123187 Keywords: Crime StatisticsCriminal Statistics (U.K.)RecidivismReoffending |
Author: Wood, Sara Title: Evaluation of the Youth Crime Action Plan (YCAP) in Liverpool Summary: The Youth Crime Action Plan (YCAP) was developed in 2008 and involves a three tier approach to tackle anti‐social behaviour and crime committed by youths. Comprising seven programmes or strands, it aims to reduce offending and re‐offending rates among young people by earlier prevention, tougher enforcement and punishment, and non‐negotiable support. YCAP is being delivered by sixty‐nine local authorities across the country, including Liverpool. The Centre for Public Health (CPH) was commissioned by Liverpool City Council to evaluate the six main YCAP projects implemented across Liverpool, and to report on a seventh strand in which YCAP funding was provided to various agencies to help support young victims of crime: 1. Reparation in leisure time (RLT). 2. Operation Staysafe (OS). 3. Street‐Based Teams (SBTs). 4. After School Patrols (ASPs). 5. Family Intervention Project (FIP). 6. Triage in custody suites 7. Supporting young victims. This report provides findings from all evaluations and studies, which were conducted between April 2010 and March 2011. Details: Liverpool: Centre for Public Health, Liverpool John Moores University, 2011. 80p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 8, 2011 at: http://www.cph.org.uk/showPublication.aspx?pubid=723 Year: 2011 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.cph.org.uk/showPublication.aspx?pubid=723 Shelf Number: 123264 Keywords: Anti-Social BehaviorJuvenile Offenders (U.K.)Rehabilitation, JuvenilesReoffending |
Author: Wilson, Edith Title: Assessing the Predictive Validity of the Asset Youth Risk Assessment Tool Using the Juvenile Cohort Study (JCS) Summary: Asset is a structured risk assessment tool for young people, used by all youth offending teams in England and Wales. This research was commissioned to inform the Youth Justice Board’s (YJB) review of assessment and intervention planning. Using data from the Juvenile Cohort Study, it aimed to evaluate how well Asset predicts future proven re-offending over a one-year period. The predictive validity of Asset was also compared against the Offender Group Reconviction Scale (OGRS 3) and a combination of static and dynamic components of Asset. Asset was found to be a good predictor of one-year proven re-offending: those with higher Asset scores were more likely to re-offend, to commit more re-offences, to commit more serious re-offences, and were more likely to receive a custodial disposal (compared to those with lower Asset scores). Asset plus OGRS 3 was the best predictor of proven re-offending of those tested. As a predictor of re-offending, OGRS 3 was as good as Asset, but it did not perform well as a standalone measure for Final Warnings. The results generally support the application of OGRS 3 in the youth justice system for predicting proven one-year re-offending, which was proposed as part of the YJB review of assessment and intervention planning (although more detailed assessments may still be required for intervention planning). Details: London: Ministry of Justice, 2011. 81p. Source: Internet Resource: Ministry of Justice Research Series 10/11; Accessed January 17, 2012 at: http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/publications/research-and-analysis/moj-research/assessing-predictive-validity.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/publications/research-and-analysis/moj-research/assessing-predictive-validity.pdf Shelf Number: 123630 Keywords: Juvenile OffendersRecidivismReoffendingRisk Assessment (U.K.) |
Author: Great Britain. National Audit Office Title: Comparing International Criminal Justice Systems Summary: This briefing was prepared for the House of Commons Justice Committee to provide an international dimension to its inquiry into the budget and structure of the Ministry of Justice in England and Wales. The briefing compares crime and criminal justice data from a number of different countries and sets out some of the challenges of making such comparisons. It also identifies a number of areas where it may be beneficial for the Ministry or others to do additional comparative work. Details: London: National Audit Office, 2012. 56p. Source: Briefing for the House of Commons Justice Committee: Internet Resource: Accessed March 13, 2012 at http://www.nao.org.uk//idoc.ashx?docId=558e0abc-7429-47cb-a1d9-51affadc6556&version=-1 Year: 2012 Country: International URL: http://www.nao.org.uk//idoc.ashx?docId=558e0abc-7429-47cb-a1d9-51affadc6556&version=-1 Shelf Number: 124473 Keywords: Administration of JusticeCrime TrendsCriminal Justice SystemsReoffending |
Author: Losel, Friedrich A. Title: Strengthening Transnational Approaches to Reducing Reoffending: Final Report Summary: The STARR Cambridge Team has produced six research products, comprising three systematic reviews and three questionnaire surveys. These products have focused on interventions to reduce reoffending among three offence categories, respectively: young offenders, domestic violence perpetrators, and substance abusing offenders. The questionnaire survey also gathered additional information on interventions to reduce reoffending among alcohol abusing offenders. The three systematic reviews investigated the current state of European evidence on programmes to reduce reoffending in each of the three primary offence categories under STARR’s purview. The questionnaire surveys clarified our understanding of what is currently practiced throughout Europe in reoffending programmes. We summarise the key conclusions from each of our primary research outputs below. Readers seeking further elaboration of the methods, processes, and outcomes are referred to the corresponding Appendices. In addition to conducting primary research, the Cambridge Team has made various other contributions to the STARR project: 1. support of the project partners in the design and execution of a series of focus groups on obstacles to programme evaluation; 2. provision of research guidance and expertise in the execution of the STARR project partners’ pilot projects in Bulgaria, Hungary, and France; 3. assistance in the organisation of the STARR seminars and conferences; 4. lectures at all STARR conferences; and 5. facilitation of group workshops at three STARR conferences and seminars. Furthermore, we have bolstered STARR’s international presence by disseminating selected findings in invited plenary lectures at a number of conferences; e.g., at the International Prisons and Corrections Conference at Ghent, Belgium (2010), International Conference of Psychology and Law at Miami, USA (2011), and the Summit of the Chinese Criminological Society at Hangzhou, China (2011). Details: Cambridge, UK: Institute of Criminology, University of Cambridge, 2012(?). 158p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 28, 2012 at: http://www.cepprobation.org/uploaded_files/Rep%20STARR%20ENG.pdf Year: 2012 Country: International URL: http://www.cepprobation.org/uploaded_files/Rep%20STARR%20ENG.pdf Shelf Number: 125369 Keywords: Alcohol AbuseCorrectional TreatmentDomestic ViolenceDrug Offenders, TreatmentJuvenile Offenders, TreatmentRecidivismReoffending |
Author: Bradford Metropolitan District Council (U.K.) Title: Reducing Reoffending and Young People in Custody Summary: Bradford has a young population, with 28 per cent of the population under 20 years of age, compared to 24 per cent nationally. It also has relatively high levels of both youth offending and of youths breaching community sentences so that they end up in custody. To address these issues this project set out to utilise customer insight to better understand and engage with young people ultimately hoping to divert them away from offending and improve compliance with court orders. In addition to the obvious benefit this will bring, both for the individual young people themselves and for their families, it will also help to reduce overall costs through lower expenditure on policing; court appearances and short custodial sentences and it should contribute to lower levels of crime within the locality. By gaining a deeper insight into this client group, they would be enabled to deliver more differentiated and targeted youth offending services, as well as removing duplication as different agencies currently work across each other to support his group. The project also set out to profile the wider community and consider their attitudes to youth offending. It sought to identify opportunities to support wider work on community cohesion and identify localities where Big Society initiatives could be used to reduce youth offending. This part of the project sought to provide better information on youth crime to local area committees, providing a vehicle for local residents to determine which preventative services should be delivered in their locality. The principle aim of the project was to reduce youth crime and anti-social behaviour through the delivery of the following objectives: a reduction of breaches through better compliance with court orders a reduction in prolific offenders support to those local social enterprises activities that target crime and anti-social activity improvement of prevention activity, by understanding how targeted activities work best for different groups profiling of offenders and anti-social behaviour order information mapping the frequency of reoffending of young people in custody and patterns to help prevent reoffending. mapping the impact of breaches of orders increasing levels of cohesion between youths and the wider community. The project had the following targets, which it recognises are ambitious considering the current economic climate and the increase in youth unemployment: a 5 per cent reduction in detected offences committed by young offenders a 5 per cent reduction in young people sentenced to custody a 3 per cent reduction in the breach of court hearings It was estimated that these would provide the following financial savings: £448,000 reduction in detected offences committed by young offenders £203,200 reduction in the costs of providing annual custody for offenders £12,600 reduction in the cost of preparing for court appearances This is a total potential direct saving of £665,800. Additional benefits are more difficult to quantify and relate directly back to the project, however, these are likely to include those „societal costs‟ that are difficult to measure in financial terms. For example, costs from reoffending in terms of resident well-being (e.g. reduced levels of fear of crime and associated mental health benefits) and local authority and partner provider savings from more effective targeting and delivery of prevention services, avoiding the duplication of services. Details: Bradford, UK: Bradford Metropolitan District Council, 2012. 30p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 2, 2012 at: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/effective-practice/crime-effective-practice/other-crime-types/Reducng-Reoffding-and-Yng-People?view=Binary Year: 2012 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/effective-practice/crime-effective-practice/other-crime-types/Reducng-Reoffding-and-Yng-People?view=Binary Shelf Number: 125455 Keywords: Anti-Social BehaviorDelinquency PreventionJuvenile Offenders (U.K.)RecidivismReoffendingTreatment Programs, Juveniles |
Author: Homeless Link Title: Better Together: Preventing Reoffending and Homelessness Summary: Homelessness and re-offending have a complex link where, for many individuals, each is both a cause and a result of the other. Among people who are homeless there is a vast over-representation of offending backgrounds. Over 75% homelessness services in England support clients who are prison leavers. One in five clients using homelessness services has links with the probation service. In turn, homelessness increases the chances of re-offending. Ex-prisoners who are homeless upon release are twice as likely to re-offend as those with stable accommodation. Offenders who are homeless upon entering prison have a much higher reconviction rate within one year of release, with 79% being reconvicted, compared to 47% who have accommodation. While the links between homelessness and offending have been well documented, less attention has been given to the role that the homelessness sector plays in preventing reoffending, or their working relationships with the criminal justice sector. Too often the homelessness sector has been viewed as synonymous only with ‘housing’ rather than for the wider role that it plays in addressing a whole range of other needs, including preventing re-offending. Our aim was to explore these issues, along two key strands: How the homelessness sector can play a more active role in supporting clients with offending histories, and in preventing re-offending; and Ways to build strong partnerships between the homelessness and criminal justice sectors, in order to reduce the re-offending rate of homeless clients. Details: London: Homeless Link, 2011. 31p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 7, 2012 at: http://homeless.org.uk/criminal-justice-project Year: 2011 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://homeless.org.uk/criminal-justice-project Shelf Number: 125894 Keywords: - HousingHomelessness (U.K.)Prisoner ReentryRecidivismReoffending |
Author: Boulger, Jordan Title: Juvenile Recidivism in Illinois: Examining Re-arrest and Re-incarceration of Youth Committed for a Court Evaluation Summary: This study tracked re-arrest and re-incarceration of 1,230 youth incarcerated in the Illinois Department of Juvenile Justice (IDJJ) for court evaluation after being released in state fiscal years 2005, 2006, and 2007. A court evaluation is a 30-, 60-, or 90-day commitment to IDJJ, during which administrators assess a youth’s rehabilitative needs and inform a judge’s sentencing decision. Demographic characteristics, re-arrest, and re-incarceration of the court evaluation population in Illinois were examined. Key findings include: 89 percent of youth incarcerated for court evaluations were male, and about half were African-American. These youth averaged 15.5 years old at admission and 15.8 at exit from the Department of Juvenile Justice. 36 percent of the sample had completed some high school (grades 9 through 12). Almost two thirds of youth in the sample were incarcerated for court evaluation for a non-violent offense, most commonly a property offense. About one quarter of the sample youth were released after being sentenced for a Class 2 felony, while 21 percent had been sentenced for a Class 3 felony. Youth incarcerated for court evaluations averaged about 4.6 prior arrests. Only 3 percent of youth had been previously incarcerated. Class 4 offenders tended to have more prior arrests, with an average of six. Drug offenders had the lengthiest criminal backgrounds, averaging seven prior arrests. Of the youth in the sample, 86 percent were re-arrested within three years of release from a youth prison. Overall, 93 percent of the sample were re-arrested within six years. Drug offenders had the highest three-year re-arrest rate at 93 percent, while sex offenders had the lowest (80 percent). Class 4 offenders had the highest overall re-arrest rate at 93 percent, while misdemeanants had the lowest (81 percent). Overall, 59 percent of the sample was re-incarcerated as either a juvenile or an adult, with 36 percent re-incarcerated within a year after release. Forty percent of the youth had at least one juvenile re-incarceration, while 29 percent were re-incarcerated as adults. 10 percent were re-incarcerated as both juveniles and adults. Details: Chicago: Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority, 2012. 46p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 12, 2012 at: http://www.icjia.state.il.us/public/pdf/ResearchReports/IDJJ_Recidivism_Court_Evaluation_082012.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://www.icjia.state.il.us/public/pdf/ResearchReports/IDJJ_Recidivism_Court_Evaluation_082012.pdf Shelf Number: 126299 Keywords: Juvenile Offenders (Illinois)RecidivismReoffending |
Author: Phillips, Liz Title: Evaluation of the YJB Pilot Resettlement Support Panel Scheme Summary: The Youth Justice Board (YJB) made funding available in July 2009 to enable six selected Youth Offending Teams (YOTs) in Wales to expand resettlement for young people aged 12 to 17 who are leaving custody. The funding is also aimed at preventing young people from entering custody in the first place. The pilot resettlement schemes are a new approach to addressing the issues faced by young people in custody. They fit in with the priorities of the All- Wales Youth Offending Strategy (AWYOS) Delivery Plan, in particular, reducing reoffending and the use of custodial sentences, and increasing effective resettlement. The pilot resettlement schemes are a new approach to addressing the issues faced by young people in custody. They fit in with the priorities of the All- Wales Youth Offending Strategy (AWYOS) Delivery Plan, in particular, reducing reoffending and the use of custodial sentences, and increasing effective resettlement. The RSPs’ main objective is to coordinate multi-agency support for the resettlement of young people through addressing substance misuse, accommodation problems, mental health and education issues. The Panels also assist young people in accessing education, employment and training opportunities, mediate with families and peers, and encourage more appropriate use of leisure time. Developing young people’s life skills, budget management, healthy living, and raising their self-esteem and confidence to facilitate positive decision-making are also RSP objectives. RSPs typically have membership from social services, education, health (particularly Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS), the police, local authority housing department, housing providers, careers advisers, YOT personnel, Young Offenders’ Institutions (YOIs), and Youth Services. The six Welsh LAs who took part in the evaluation were Bridgend, Caerphilly and Blaenau Gwent, Conwy and Denbighshire, Gwynedd and Ynys Mon, Merthyr Tydfil and Wrexham. All RSPs are required to review the delivery of resettlement support plans and outcomes for participating children and young people. Bridgend and Wrexham, however, have an enhanced review function. This means that they are required to scrutinise individual cases to ascertain whether resettlement support could have been delivered differently to offer a more effective community-based alternative to custody. The aims of the evaluation are to conduct a: Process evaluation which examines: • the setting up and functioning of the RSPs particularly with regard to ‘buy in’ from member agencies, and working together • the role and impact of the resettlement support worker and the supervision support worker • the role and effectiveness of the review body, and an: Outcome evaluation to determine: • the effectiveness of the scheme in improving outcomes for young offenders • the extent to which partners commit resources to resettlement support plans. Recommendations for more effective implementation of the scheme based on the conclusions are also included. Details: Cardiff, Wales: Welsh Government Social Research, 2012. 149p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 12, 2012 at: http://www.nfer.ac.uk/nfer/publications/WYJT01/WYJT01.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.nfer.ac.uk/nfer/publications/WYJT01/WYJT01.pdf Shelf Number: 126318 Keywords: At-risk YouthJuvenile Offenders (Wales, UK)Juvenile ReentryRehabilitationReoffendingResettlementYoung Adult Offenders |
Author: Bostwick, Lindsay Title: Juvenile Recidivism in Illinois: Exploring Youth Re-arrest and Re-incarceration Summary: This study was conducted to add to the understanding of juveniles incarcerated in Illinois by examining re-arrest and re-incarceration of 3,052 juveniles released from the Illinois Department of Juvenile Justice (IDJJ) in state fiscal years 2005, 2006, and 2007. This report provides a detailed summary of this population, including demographics and offending history to recidivism into the adult system. Key findings include: 63 percent of youth in the sample were incarcerated for a non-violent offense, 43 percent for a property offense, and 31 percent for a person offense. Most (85 percent) served sentences in IDJJ for felonies. Youth in the sample had been arrested an average of five times prior to incarceration, and 21 percent had previously been incarcerated. Youth incarcerated for Class 4 felonies had the highest average number of prior arrests (mean=7) compared to other offense classes. Youth incarcerated for drug offenses had the highest average number of prior arrests (mean=8) compared to other offense types. 86 percent of youth were re-arrested within three years of release from IDJJ. Youth released after serving a sentence for a drug offense had the highest re-arrest rates (95 percent), while sex offenders had the lowest (61 percent). Youth released after serving a sentence for a Class 4 felony had the highest re-arrest rates (91 percent). Youth released for first-degree murder had the lowest re-arrest rates (46 percent) compared to other offense types. 68 percent of youth in the sample were re-incarcerated within three years of release. 53 percent of youth in the sample were re-incarcerated as juveniles. Some (34 percent) were re-incarcerated as adults. 41 percent of those in the sample were re-incarcerated at least once for a new sentence. 53 percent of youth in the sample were re-incarcerated at least once for a technical violation of parole or MSR. 64 percent of first re-incarcerations were for technical violations of parole. Details: Chicago: Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority, 2012. 48p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 12, 2012 at: http://www.icjia.state.il.us/public/pdf/ResearchReports/IDJJ_Recidivism_Delinquents_082012.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://www.icjia.state.il.us/public/pdf/ResearchReports/IDJJ_Recidivism_Delinquents_082012.pdf Shelf Number: 126319 Keywords: Juvenile Offenders (Illinois)RecidivismReoffending |
Author: Taussig, Isabel Title: Penalties and Reconviction Risk Among Offenders Convicted of Drug Driving Summary: The aims of this study was to investigate: 1) penalties for drug driving; 2) risk of reconviction among drug drivers; and 3) how penalties and reconviction risk vary according to offender characteristics. Information for 3,770 offenders with proven drug driving offences (2007 - 2011) was extracted from the NSW re-offending database. Aims (1) and (2) were addressed by identifying the most serious penalties for drug driving and the number of convictions accumulated over 12 and 24 months. Aim (3) was addressed by building logistic regression models identifying independent predictors of penalty and recidivism. The results showed that the most common principal penalty for drug driving was a fine (60.2% received a fine and the average fine was $581). While 17.2 per cent of offenders had their matters dismissed without conviction, most dismissals (84%) also included a good behaviour bond. Offenders were less likely to have their matters dismissed if they were younger, had concurrent charges or a prior criminal record. One-third (35.3%) had been convicted for a new offence within 24 months. Recidivism was higher for offenders who had a prior criminal record, were not on bail and/or were Indigenous. Conclusion: The most common outcomes for drug driving are fines and dismissals. Those who have their matters dismissed tend to share characteristics with those at lower risk of recidivism. Details: Sydney: NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, 2012. 11p. Source: Internet Resource: Bureau Brief, Issue Paper No. 79: Accessed September 18, 2012 at: http://www.bocsar.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/bocsar/ll_bocsar.nsf/vwFiles/BB79.pdf/$file/BB79.pdf Year: 2012 Country: Australia URL: http://www.bocsar.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/bocsar/ll_bocsar.nsf/vwFiles/BB79.pdf/$file/BB79.pdf Shelf Number: 126370 Keywords: Driving Under the Influence (Australia)Drugged DrivingDrugs and DrivingRecidivismReoffendingSentence LengthSentencing |
Author: Buckland, Gemma Title: Review of Effective Practice with Young Offenders in Mainland Europe Summary: Professionals are working across the European Union to tackle the urgent problems that cause offending by young people. The aim of this report is to share information on success in working on these issues. It provides a review of practices from countries in the European Union that show some promise of effectiveness. Evaluations for youth justice initiatives in Europe are very poorly disseminated. This report has been compiled using a combination of searches in bibliographic databases, searches of the World Wide Web in all the European national languages and through personal contacts with academics and Ministries of Justice. Details: London: Youth Justice Board, 2001. 51p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 26, 2012 at: http://yjbpublications.justice.gov.uk/en-gb/scripts/prodView.asp?idproduct=120&eP= Year: 2001 Country: Europe URL: http://yjbpublications.justice.gov.uk/en-gb/scripts/prodView.asp?idproduct=120&eP= Shelf Number: 126463 Keywords: Delinquency PreventionJuvenile Offenders (Europe)Rehabilitation ProgramsReoffending |
Author: Sturrock, Rachel Title: Supporting Transitions: A Summative Evaluation of the Transition to Adulthood Pilots Summary: This summative evaluation examines the outcomes for young adults benefitting from a ‘T2A approach’ through three pilot projects funded by the Barrow Cadbury Trust (BCT). This approach is a new way of working with 18 to 24-year-olds in the criminal justice system which takes into account their distinct developmental needs. It is part of a wider initiative funded by the Trust – the Transition to Adulthood Alliance (T2A) – which is campaigning on this issue. This is the third evaluation of the T2A pilots’ work commissioned by the Barrow Cadbury Trust. The Oxford Centre for Criminology conducted a formative evaluation which explored the work as it developed (Burnett et al; 2010) and Matrix Evidence carried out a break-even analysis (Matrix; 2011). Details: Catch22, 2012. 84p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 9, 2012 at: http://www.t2a.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/T2A-Summative-Evaluation-Catch22-2012.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.t2a.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/T2A-Summative-Evaluation-Catch22-2012.pdf Shelf Number: 126662 Keywords: RecidivismRehabilitation ProgramsReoffendingYoung Adult Offenders (U.K.) |
Author: Bewley, Helen Title: The Effectiveness of Different Community Order Requirements for Offenders Who Received an OASys Assessment Summary: The study used propensity score matching to explore the impact of different community order requirements on the re-offending rate and frequency of re-offending within two years of the initial offence. The analysis used data from the Offender Assessment System, probation and re-offending records and administrative data on employment and benefit receipt. The study found no evidence to suggest that increasing the punitive element of community orders would have a detrimental effect on re-offending, for the combinations of requirements considered. However, combining other types of requirement, such as supervision, with a punitive element, can increase the effectiveness of the community order. Details: London: Ministry of Justice, 2012. 135p. Source: Internet Resource: Ministry of Justice Research Series 17/12: Accessed October 24, 2012 at: http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/publications/research-and-analysis/moj-research/niesr-report.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/publications/research-and-analysis/moj-research/niesr-report.pdf Shelf Number: 126796 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationCommunity SentencingCommunity SupervisionOffenders (U.K.)ProbationersRecidivismReoffending |
Author: Rourke, Poppy Title: Risk of Reconviction Among Offenders Who Commence the Blacktown Traffic Offender Programme Summary: Aim: To examine the profile of offenders who commenced the Blacktown Traffic Offender Program (BTOP) between 1994 and 2011 and to investigate which factors predict re-offending. Method: Descriptive statistics were used to examine the profile of program participants. Logistic regression models were used to determine which participant characteristics were associated with an increased risk of reconviction (for any offence and any traffic offence). Results: Fifteen per cent of participants committed a new offence in the 2 years following program commencement, and 11 per cent committed a further traffic offence. Being male, aged between 16 and 20 years, Indigenous, having a prior criminal record, and having 3 or more concurrent offences were all associated with an increased risk of being convicted for any further offence. Being aged between 16 and 20 years, living in more disadvantaged areas, having a prior criminal record, and having 3 or more concurrent offences were associated with an increased likelihood of being convicted for a new traffic offence. Approximately two-thirds of offenders who present with 4 or more risk factors go on to commit any new offence and one-third commit a new traffic offence. Conclusion: Results suggests that certain individual characteristics indicate an elevated risk of reconviction for any further offence, and further traffic offences in the 2 years following commencement of the BTOP. Offenders who present with multiple (4 or more) risk factors are at significantly greater risk of reconviction. Details: Sydney, Australia: NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, 2012. 8p. Source: Issue Paper No. 81: Internet Resource: Accessed January 13, 2013 at http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/bocsar/ll_bocsar.nsf/vwFiles/bb81.pdf/$file/bb81.pdf Year: 2012 Country: Australia URL: http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/bocsar/ll_bocsar.nsf/vwFiles/bb81.pdf/$file/bb81.pdf Shelf Number: 127278 Keywords: Intervention ProgramsReconvictionReoffendingTraffic OffendersTraffic Offenses |
Author: Barefoot Research and Evaluation Title: Support for Women Around Northumberland. Project Evaluation Summary: Support for Women Around Northumberland (SWAN) is one of two projects in the North East which have received funding from the Ministry of Justice under their Diverting Women from Custody Programme. The objectives of SWAN are to reduce the re-offending of female offenders or those at-risk of offending through providing a range of diversionary and preventative interventions. The project became operational in February 2010 and has received funding until March 2011. SWAN is delivered by a partnership of voluntary sector organisations in Northumberland - ESCAPE Family Support (the lead agency), the Women’s Health Advice Centre (WHAC), Fourth Action and Relate. The original project document stated that between February 2010 and March 2011, the project would undertake needs assessments and create support plans for 80 women. It also stated that over the course of the project, a total of 50 women will consistently engage with the project. Between February and November a total of 120 women have been referred into SWAN. At the time of writing this evaluation report, a total of 70 women have been assessed with a resultant support plan. Of these, a total of 50 women have engaged regularly with the project. The project has resulted in a 70 percent reduction in the rate of re-offending of the women who have engaged with the project. There has also been a significant reduction in the number of charges (73 percent) made by the Police and the number of convictions (81 percent) amongst engaged female offenders. There has also been a 72 percent reduction in appearances before Magistrates. Details: Barefoot Research and Evaluation, 2010. 32p. Source: Internet Resource: accessed February 7, 2013 at: http://www.barefootresearch.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/SWAN-Report-Single-Pages.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.barefootresearch.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/SWAN-Report-Single-Pages.pdf Shelf Number: 127537 Keywords: Female Offenders (U.K.)Intervention ProgramsRecidivismReoffendingTreatment Programs |
Author: Trotter, Chris Title: Analysing of Supervision Skills of Juvenile Justice Workers Summary: There is evidence that the style of supervision by juvenile justice workers can make a difference to the likelihood that young people under supervision will re-offend. This study aimed to examine the style of supervision offered by juvenile justice workers and how this relates to re-offending patterns by clients. It provides information about what goes on in worker/client interviews and what works best in fostering reduced recidivism. More specifically the aim was to gather information about the nature of micro-skills which are used by youth justice workers in the supervision of offenders on probation, parole and other community based orders, how clients respond to the use of those micro-skills and how the use of the skills relates to client outcomes such as recidivism. The research was conducted in collaboration with the Department of Juvenile Justice in NSW. Forty-seven workers participated in the study. The next 5 clients allocated to the workers from the time of volunteering from the study were then selected for each of the workers. The workers were then asked to invite the research officers who were working on the project to observe the next interview they conducted with any one of the five clients who were allocated to them. Eighty-nine interviews were observed however an additional 39 were also observed as part of the pilot study for this project. They are included in the analysis and results reported on in this paper. In total 128 interviews were observed. Eighty interviews were also conducted with clients following the observation and 78 interviews were conducted with workers following the observations and interviews with the clients. Two year recidivism data is available for 117of the observations. Eleven of the interviews were conducted in remote areas of NSW during 2011 and the recidivism data for those interviews is not yet available. Details: Report to the criminology Research Advisory Council, 2012. 41p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 22, 2013 at: http://www.criminologyresearchcouncil.gov.au/reports/1213/24-0708-FinalReport.pdf Year: 2012 Country: Australia URL: http://www.criminologyresearchcouncil.gov.au/reports/1213/24-0708-FinalReport.pdf Shelf Number: 127708 Keywords: Juvenile Justice StaffJuvenile Offender Supervision (Australia)Juvenile Parole OfficersJuvenile Probation OfficersRecidivismReoffendingYouth Justice Workers |
Author: Centre for Social Justice Title: Can Secure Colleges Transform Youth Custody? Transcript from a roundtable discussion on Secure Colleges Summary: The case for change is clear. Last year more than 3,500 young offenders were sentenced to custody and more than 70% of them went onto reoffend within a year, despite an average of around £100,000 per annum being spent on their detention. There is an urgent need to improve the educational attainment of children in custody, reduce the sky-high levels of reoffending, and turn around the lives of these young people for their own sake and for the sake of the communities that are blighted by the crime they commit. The CSJ has long argued for education to play a central role in the rehabilitation of young offenders. We were delighted to host a roundtable on Secure Colleges with the Minister for Prisons and Rehabilitation, Jeremy Wright MP, and leading voices from the criminal justice and education sectors. Our aim was to bring together key individuals and organisations that can help the Coalition Government make the idea of Secure Colleges a successful reality in the UK. Details: London: Centre for Social Justice, 2013. 51p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 25, 2013 at: http://www.centreforsocialjustice.org.uk/publications/can-secure-colleges-transform-youth-custody Year: 2013 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.centreforsocialjustice.org.uk/publications/can-secure-colleges-transform-youth-custody Shelf Number: 128796 Keywords: Educational ProgramsOffender RehabilitationRecidivismReoffendingYoung Adult Offenders (U.K.) |
Author: Victoria. Sentencing Advisory Council Title: Reoffending Following Sentencing in the Magistrates’ Court of Victoria Summary: An important aspect of the Sentencing Advisory Council’s work is examining the effects of sentencing on an offender’s subsequent behaviour. This is one element of the more general question of whether, and to what extent, sentencing can achieve its various purposes. Information about the effects of sentencing should inform decision-making in relation to sentencing policy and practice. In order to provide this information, the Council has developed a database to examine the nature and extent of reoffending following sentencing in Victoria. This report uses statistical techniques to estimate the effect of each of a number of variables on the likelihood of reoffending. The variables include the type of sentence imposed for the initial offence as well as factors such as the offender’s age, gender and criminal history. These techniques enable an examination of whether sentencing has an effect on reoffending in Victoria and if it does: • how the effect of sentencing compares with the effects of other factors; and • the extent to which this varies according to the type of sentence imposed. Details: Melbourne: Victoria Sentencing Advisory Council, 2013. 56p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 6, 2013 at: https://sentencingcouncil.vic.gov.au/sites/sentencingcouncil.vic.gov.au/files/reoffending_following_sentencing_in_the_magistrates_court_of_victoria.pdf Year: 2013 Country: Australia URL: https://sentencingcouncil.vic.gov.au/sites/sentencingcouncil.vic.gov.au/files/reoffending_following_sentencing_in_the_magistrates_court_of_victoria.pdf Shelf Number: 128978 Keywords: RecidivismReoffendingSentencing (Australia) |
Author: Texas. Legislative Budget Board Title: Statewide Criminal Justice Recidivism and Revocation Rates Summary: In fiscal year 2012, nearly 80,000 adults and over 5,000 juveniles returned to neighborhoods following their release from Texas correctional facilities. More than 355,000 adults and more than 30,000 juveniles were under active supervision in the community. In fiscal year 2013, appropriations for the state agency overseeing the care of these adult populations, the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, totaled $3.1 billion, and appropriations for the state agency overseeing the care of these juvenile populations, the Texas Juvenile Justice Department, totaled $330.4 million. This report examines the public safety outcomes for this investment. This report assesses whether groups of these individuals were rearrested and/or (re)incarcerated within three years of release from incarceration or after beginning supervision. This report refers to subsequent incarcerations as reincarcerations if the population has been previously incarcerated; otherwise, they are referred to as incarcerations. Adult cohorts analyzed in this report include individuals released from Texas prisons, state jails, Substance Abuse Felony Punishment Facilities, In-Prison Therapeutic Community programs, and Intermediate Sanction Facilities. Juvenile cohorts include individuals released from Texas Juvenile Justice Department secure residential facilities, juveniles starting juvenile probation department (JPD) supervision, and juveniles released from JPD secure residential facilities. This report also summarizes whether populations under active supervision in the community were terminated (i.e., revoked) and incarcerated in response to the commitment of a new offense or technical violation of supervision conditions. The populations included in this analysis represent a diverse set of offenders with varying levels of community-based supervision, offense severity, offense history, and risk of reoffending. Details: Austin: Texas Legislative Budget Board, 2013. 118p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 10, 2013 at: http://www.lbb.state.tx.us/Public_Safety_Criminal_Justice/RecRev_Rates/Statewide%20Criminal%20Justice%20Recidivism%20and%20Revocation%20Rates2012.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.lbb.state.tx.us/Public_Safety_Criminal_Justice/RecRev_Rates/Statewide%20Criminal%20Justice%20Recidivism%20and%20Revocation%20Rates2012.pdf Shelf Number: 129357 Keywords: Parole RevocationsParoleesRecidivism (Texas, U.S.)Reoffending |
Author: Irish Prison Service Title: Irish Prison Service Recidivism Study Summary: This report is a study of recidivism among all prisoners released by the Irish Prison Service on completion of a sentence in 2007, based on reoffending and reconviction data up to the end of 2010. The study focuses on recidivism where the new offence does not necessarily lead to a period of imprisonment and gives a clearer picture of the offending behaviour of ex-prisoners. Previously, the only information available to the Service related to re-imprisonment rates. This research project was undertaken in partnership with the Central Statistics Office, specifically the Crime Statistics Section, who facilitated the linking of Irish Prison Service data, Garda Síochána records and Courts Service records. This type of cross-agency analysis of released prisoners has not been possible in the past and this is the first study of its kind in theRepublicofIreland. The findings mark an important contribution to criminological research inIrelandand highlight the need for a greater emphasis on a structured multi-agency approach to preparing prisoners for their release. It will also enable yearly monitoring of recidivism trends and the evaluation of rehabilitation interventions. Main Findings •A recidivism rate of 62.3% within three years. •Over 80% of those who re-offended did so within 12 months of release. •The recidivism rate decreased as the offender age increased. •Male offenders represented 92.5% of the total population studied and had a higher recidivism rate than female offenders (63% for males and 57% among females). •The most common offences for which offenders were reconvicted was Public Order Offences. •Burglary offenders, while a relatively small group within the study, had the highest rate of reconviction at 79.5%. Details: Longford, Ireland: Irish Prison Services, 2013. 25p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 11, 2013 at: http://www.irishprisons.ie/images/pdf/recidivismstudyss2.pdf Year: 2013 Country: Ireland URL: http://www.irishprisons.ie/images/pdf/recidivismstudyss2.pdf Shelf Number: 129368 Keywords: PrisonersRecidivism (Ireland)ReconvictionRehabilitationReoffending |
Author: Wilkinson, Katherine Title: The Doncaster Desistance Study Summary: The Hallam Centre for Community Justice conducted two evaluations of the DoVeS Counselling Service at HMP Doncaster, which supports offenders who have had experiences of domestic violence. These reports showed the positive affects of accessing the service on their client's attitudes to their own offending behaviour and demonstrated the challenges of collecting robust data to reflect on service efficiency post release. The Doncaster Violent Crime Theme Group wanted to fund the service, however required evidence that the service affected re-offending rates. Demonstrating effectiveness quantitatively through reconviction/reoffending follow-up studies with a comparable control group with this population would prove complex and expensive. Therefore, this study was developed as an alternative way of examining the affects of DoVeS service engagement post release on desisting from offending. A desistance approach was adopted, given the previous evaluation findings that individual identity shifts featured highly in DoVeS service user narratives. A qualitative narrative approach was therefore adopted as an appropriate method to explore desisting positions and identify the impact of CJS interventions on respondent's adopting non-offending lifestyles. By adopting this approach, this small research project hopes to move beyond evaluating reducing reoffending programmes from a quantitative, positivist stance, to focus on how interventions may work to foster or support desistance. This study therefore identifies the transition and sequencing of desistance from criminal activity of a sample of sentence serving offenders who were in custody at HMP Doncaster in 2006. 20 men who were interviewed twice regarding accessing the DoVeS counselling service were invited to take part in this project. The research team successfully contacted and interviewed five (ex) offenders who had been desisting from offending for up to 3 years. Details: Sheffield, UK: Hallam Centre for Community Justice, Sheffield Hallam University, 2009. 42p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 5, 2013 at: http://shura.shu.ac.uk/997/1/fulltext.pdf Year: 2009 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://shura.shu.ac.uk/997/1/fulltext.pdf Shelf Number: 129545 Keywords: Counseling ServicesDesistanceDomestic ViolenceRecidivismReoffending |
Author: Champion, Nina Title: Through the Gateway: How Computers Can Transform Rehabilitation Summary: The Prison Reform Trust and Prisoners Education Trust have worked together to identify more effective ways of using information communication technologies (ICT) in prison, and the benefits that are likely to come from expanding their use. ICT for education, resettlement and family ties can be an important tool in reducing reoffending. In this report, ICT refers to computers, telephones, video conferencing tools, wingbased pc terminals, e-readers, internet and intranet technology. In December 2012, the Ministry of Justice issued a strategy that highlights the importance it gives to ICT in the way it operates as a modern department of government: "This means wherever possible our services, including information and transactions, will be delivered through digital channels, rather than face-to-face, phone or post. It will involve changing the way we work, and transforming our processes and practices. Most importantly, digital services will be designed around the needs of our users, whether public, practitioners, staff, partner organisations or stakeholders. Those who may struggle to access or use these services by themselves will be given support so they're not excluded by these changes." (The Right Honourable Chris Grayling, MP, 2012) This study considers to what extent the strategy could benefit prisoners' rehabilitation and what more could be done to use ICT in prisons to help reduce reoffending after release. This report is based on a survey of prisons, sent to all governors and directors in England and Wales, visits to nine prisons, and three expert roundtables: on education, family ties, and resettlement. It is also based on a survey of prisoners' families and a focus group of prisoners' families. Details: London: Prison Reform Trust; Mitcham, Surrey, Prisoners Education Trust, 2013. 52p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 6, 2013 at: http://www.prisonreformtrust.org.uk/Portals/0/Documents/Through%20the%20gateway.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.prisonreformtrust.org.uk/Portals/0/Documents/Through%20the%20gateway.pdf Shelf Number: 131589 Keywords: ComputersPrisoner Rehabilitation (U.K.)Reoffending |
Author: Wilson, Edith Title: Youth Justice Interventions - findings from the Juvenile Cohort Study (JCS) Summary: This report aims to provide a broad overview of 'what Youth Offending Teams (YOTs) do' in terms of planning and delivering interventions to young people (aged 10-17 years) who are under their supervision in the community. The study was conducted to fill a gap in the youth justice evidence base by assessing the range of interventions delivered by YOTs and how these relate to young people's offending-related risks, needs and future re-offending. This study is the first of its scale as previous research was based on small samples or focused on specific types of interventions. The main aim of the Youth Justice System (YJS) in England and Wales is to prevent young people from offending. Within the YJS, a YOT's primary role is to co-ordinate the youth justice services in the local area, and work with young people who have come into contact with the police or have been given a criminal justice disposal. In order to support the young person to desist from further offending, the YOT practitioner assesses their offending-related risks and needs via a standard youth assessment tool called Asset. The findings from this assessment inform the production of the intervention plan, which sets out the aims and nature of the interventions that will be delivered by the YOT to help the young person to stop offending. Details: London: Ministry of Justice, 2013. 68p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed January 13, 2014 at: Year: 2013 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/266405/juvenile-cohort-study.pdf Shelf Number: 131757 Keywords: InterventionsJuvenile Offenders (U.K.)RecidivismReoffending |
Author: McGregor, Catherine Title: Youth Offenders Risk Identification (YORI): A Screening Tool for Youth Offenders in Western Australia Summary: The present study arose from early discussions between representatives of the Department of Corrective Services (DCS), Youth Justice and the School of Law and Justice at Edith Cowan University (ECU) in August 2009. Investigators from the School of Law and Justice were already involved in a study with DotAG within the children court aimed at identifying the correlates and risk factors involved in youth offending in Western Australia using a content analysis of existing court reports at five year intervals from 1994 to 2009. This project was known as Uncouth Youth? Building a profile of juvenile offenders in Western Australia ("Uncouth Youth"). Discussions with DCS identified an urgent need to develop a brief, valid and user-friendly tool to assist in targeting services towards youth offenders at the greatest risk of re-offending. A valid and reliable screening tool would allow for the triaging of young offenders coming into contact with DCS. This triage system would operate in the same way as those in hospital emergency departments by identifying those young people who should undergo more intensive intervention. There are a number of available instruments designed to identify young offenders at risk of re-offending and to help guide the selection of appropriate interventions aimed at reducing that risk. However, these instruments are generally too lengthy and detailed for standard operational use by busy frontline staff coming into contact with substantial numbers of young offenders and there is a clear need for a more user-friendly tool. Details: Perth: Edith Cowan University, 2010. 29p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 21, 2014 at: https://www.ecu.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/83661/Young-Offender-Risk-Identification-YORI-Report.pdf Year: 2010 Country: Australia URL: https://www.ecu.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/83661/Young-Offender-Risk-Identification-YORI-Report.pdf Shelf Number: 132093 Keywords: Juvenile Delinquency PreventionJuvenile Offender RecidivismJuvenile OffendersPredictionReoffending |
Author: Baird, Chris Title: A Comparison of Risk Assessment Instruments in Juvenile Justice Summary: Juvenile justice service staff began exploring the use of actuarial risk assessments that classify offenders by the likelihood of future delinquency with earnest in the 1970s, but actuarial risk assessments have been used by public social service agencies in the United States since 1928. The value and utility of a valid, reliable, and equitable risk assessment within a broader practice reform effort was made clear to justice agencies in 1998 when the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) published the Comprehensive Strategy for Serious, Violent, and Chronic Juvenile Offenders. OJJDP's reform effort illustrated how juvenile justice agencies could better ensure the effectiveness and appropriate targeting of services by implementing both an actuarial risk assessment to accurately, reliably, and equitably classify youth by the likelihood of future delinquency and an equally effective needs assessment to identify an intervention and treatment plan tailored to an individual's needs. This approach built upon the efforts of the National Institute of Corrections' Model Probation/Parole Management Project that combined actuarial risk assessment, individual needs assessment for effective treatment planning, regular reassessments of risk and needs and risk-based supervision standards, and workload-based budgeting. Other models of risk assessment were introduced over subsequent decades, and researchers began categorizing and comparing them as generations of risk assessments. The first generation of risk assessments were not actuarial- individual workers assigned risk levels without the aid of actuarial instruments. Generation 2 instruments were statistically derived, but relied heavily on static criminal history factors to assess risk. They tended to be developed using local data for specific jurisdictions, typically consisted of fewer than a dozen factors (e.g., the California Base Expectancy Tables developed in the 1960s), and focused on identifying groups of offenders with distinctly different risks of future offending. Many of today's instruments, often referred to as generation 3 or generation 4, have expanded beyond the singular objective of risk assessment to classify individuals by risk of delinquency. These instruments often contain dozens of factors (for example, the Correctional Offender Management Profiling and Alternative Sanctions [COMPAS] Youth risk assessment instrument). They frequently divide risk factors into two groups: "static" and "dynamic" (see, for example, Schwalbe, 2008; Hoge, 2002). Static factors are generally measures of prior delinquency. Dynamic factors are commonly referred to as "criminogenic needs" and represent conditions or circumstances that can improve over time (Andrews, Bonta, & Wormith, 2006). In addition, protective factors and references to "responsivity" have been added to generation 4 instruments. Responsivity is intended to reflect an individual's readiness for change and gauge a youth's ability to respond to particular treatment methods and programs (Andrews, 1990). Generation 4 instruments contain anywhere from 42 to approximately 150 factors. These variations in methodology and philosophy raised questions about which types of instruments most accurately and effectively help jurisdictions differentiate between low-, moderate-, and high-risk youth. Many evaluations of risk assessments based validity on correlation coefficients or other measures of association. Those that examined the degree of difference in recidivism rates observed for youth identified as low, moderate, or high risk often found little differentiation; results could vary substantially by race, ethnicity, and gender. Few jurisdictions conducted local validation studies to ensure a risk assessment's validity and reliability, and now one foundation-funded reform effort is telling agencies that local validation is not required if an instrument has been validated in three agencies or for similar populations. Perhaps the most significant change in the last few decades has been the emergence of commercially available risk assessment systems. Prior to this development, risk assessment studies were generally conducted by universities, nonprofit research organizations, or research units within government agencies. Claims made about the validity and reliability of some of these tools have been challenged by other researchers (Skeem & Eno Louden, 2007; Baird, 2009). In response to concerns about the classification and predictive validity of several risk assessments voiced by juvenile justice practitioners and researchers, OJJDP funded a proposal submitted by the National Council on Crime and Delinquency (NCCD) to evaluate commonly used risk assessments by comparing their predictive validity, reliability, equity, and cost. NCCD is a nonprofit social research organization, and its researchers conducted the study of eight risk assessments in 10 jurisdictions in consultation with an advisory board of juvenile justice researchers and developers of commercial juvenile justice risk assessment systems included in the study. Details: Oakland, CA(?): National Council on Crime and Delinquency, 2013. 541p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 22, 2014 at: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/grants/244477.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/grants/244477.pdf Shelf Number: 132109 Keywords: ClassificationJuvenile Justice SystemsPredictionRecidivismReoffendingRisk Assessment Instruments |
Author: Durose, Matthew R. Title: Recidivism of Prisoners Released in 30 States in 2005: Patterns from 2005 to 2010 Summary: This report examines the 5-year post-release offending patterns of persons released from state prisons in 2005 by offender characteristics, prior criminal history, and commitment offense. It provides estimates on the number and types of crimes former inmates commit both prior to their imprisonment and after release. The report includes different measures of recidivism, including a new arrest, court adjudication, conviction, and incarceration for either a new sentence or a technical violation. It also documents the extent to which the released prisoners committed crimes in states other than the one that released them. Data are from the Bureau of Justice Statistics' Recidivism Study of State Prisoners Released in 2005, which tracked a sample of former inmates from 30 states for five years following release in 2005. The findings are based on prisoner records obtained from the state departments of corrections through the National Corrections Reporting Program (NCRP) and criminal history records obtained through requests to the FBI's Interstate Identification Index (III) and state repositories via the International Justice and Public Safety Network (Nlets). Highlights: Among state prisoners released in 30 states in 2005 - About two-thirds (67.8%) of released prisoners were arrested for a new crime within 3 years, and three-quarters (76.6%) were arrested within 5 years. Within 5 years of release, 82.1% of property offenders were arrested for a new crime, compared to 76.9% of drug offenders, 73.6% of public order offenders, and 71.3% of violent offenders. More than a third (36.8%) of all prisoners who were arrested within 5 years of release were arrested within the first 6 months after release, with more than half (56.7%) arrested by the end of the first year. Two in five (42.3%) released prisoners were either not arrested or arrested once in the 5 years after their release. A sixth (16.1%) of released prisoners were responsible for almost half (48.4%) of the nearly 1.2 million arrests that occurred in the 5-year follow-up period. An estimated 10.9% of released prisoners were arrested in a state other than the one that released them during the 5-year follow-up period Within 5 years of release, 84.1% of inmates who were age 24 or younger at release were arrested, compared to 78.6% of inmates ages 25 to 39 and 69.2% of those age 40 or older. Details: Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2014. 31p. Source: Internet Resource: Special Report: Accessed April 23, 2014 at: http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/rprts05p0510.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/rprts05p0510.pdf Shelf Number: 132138 Keywords: PrisonersRecidivismReoffending |
Author: Great Britain. Ministry of Justice Title: Transforming Rehabilitation: A Summary of Evidence on Reducing Reoffending (Second Edition) Summary: This evidence review has been produced to support policy makers, practitioners and others who work with offenders. It summarises key evidence on approaches to offender management and how to work effectively with offenders, and then considers the evidence on specific interventions such as drug and alcohol treatment, offender behaviour programmes, mentoring and restorative justice. The first version of this review, published in September 2013, has been updated by a second edition, published in April 2014, in order to include recently published and emerging evaluation evidence. Details: London: Ministry of Justice, 2014. 58p. Source: Internet Resource: Ministry of Analytical Series: Accessed April 23, 2014 at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/243718/evidence-reduce-reoffending.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/243718/evidence-reduce-reoffending.pdf Shelf Number: 132150 Keywords: Crime PreventionInterventionsOffender SupervisionRecidivismRehabilitationReoffending |
Author: Hurry, Jane Title: Improving the Literacy and Numeracy of Young People in Custody and In the Community. Research Report Summary: Young people in the youth justice system tend to have lower than average attainment in literacy and numeracy. This makes it more difficult for them to find consistent employment and heightens the chances of offending. As a result, education/training is identified as one of the promising approaches to reducing reoffending, and has been rigorously translated into policy in the UK, with a requirement that 'at least 90% of young offenders are in suitable full-time education, training and employment'. However, the young people themselves are often very reluctant students. There is a shortage of evidence as to the best methods of improving the literacy and numeracy of these young people. The aims of this present study were to: - observe the kind of provision on offer and how students responded to this provision - test the impact of either increasing discrete literacy and numeracy provision or contextualising provision. Details: London: National Research and Development Centre for Adult Literacy and Numeracy, 2010. 40p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 5, 2014 at: http://www.nrdc.org.uk/publications_details.asp?ID=183 Year: 2010 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.nrdc.org.uk/publications_details.asp?ID=183 Shelf Number: 132232 Keywords: Delinquency Prevention Education and Training EmploymentJuvenile OffendersReoffending |
Author: Ringland, Clare Title: The Impact of Intensive Correction Orders on Re-Offending Summary: Aim: To examine the risk of re-offending of those who received an intensive correction order (ICO), relative to those who received periodic detention and suspended sentences with supervision. Method: Details of offenders' demographic and offence characteristics, prior convictions and penalties received, and re-offences were extracted from the Re-offending Database maintained by the NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research. Using propensity score modelling, offenders who received an ICO as a principal penalty in a NSW court between 1 October 2010 and 30 September 2012 were matched to two comparable groups of offenders who received periodic detention between 1 October 2007 and 30 September 2009 and suspended sentences with supervision between 1 October 2010 and 30 September 2012. A supplementary comparison with those who received suspended sentences with supervision included matching on Level of Service Inventory - Revised (LSI-R) assessment scores, in addition to demographic and offending characteristics. Time to first re-offence was estimated using the Nelson-Aalen estimator of the cumulative hazard rate function and compared between groups using Cox proportional hazards regression. Results: An offender on an ICO had 33 per cent less risk of re-offending than an offender on periodic detention (HR=0.67, 95% confidence interval (0.55, 0.83), p<.001). There was no significant difference in re-offending between those who received ICOs and supervised suspended sentences after taking into account LSI-R assessment scores. Conclusion: There is some evidence to suggest that ICOs are more effective than periodic detention in terms of re-offending rates. However, future evaluations should include more detailed offender, treatment and program participation information in order to better understand any observed differences between comparison groups. Details: Sydney: New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, 2013. 24p. Source: Internet Resource: Contemporary Issues in Crime and Justice, No. 176: Accessed May 7, 2014 at: http://www.bocsar.nsw.gov.au/agdbasev7wr/_assets/bocsar/m716854l2/cjb176.pdf Year: 2013 Country: Australia URL: http://www.bocsar.nsw.gov.au/agdbasev7wr/_assets/bocsar/m716854l2/cjb176.pdf Shelf Number: 132261 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationCommunity-based CorrectionsIntensive SupervisionRecidivismReoffending |
Author: Stys, Yvonne Title: Federal Offenders with a High Reintegration Potential (RP): Characteristics and Community Outcomes Summary: Correctional systems are tasked with managing a diverse population of offenders from those who could be released from custody early in their sentence, without risk of re-offence; to those who may never be safely released. The challenge is to identify those suitable for early release through an effective assessment process. In addition to individual measures of risk, the Correctional Service of Canada (CSC or the Service) calculates a reintegration potential (RP) score; this RP classification forms the basis of the offender's correctional plan and paves the way for a specific correctional path. Given the potential value of effective assessment for identifying lower risk offenders, it is important to know whether the expected differences in the flow of offenders through correctional systems can actually be demonstrated. To do so, this research examined the characteristics of 21,746 offenders admitted to the CSC between 2002 and 2006 and recorded the success of their releases into the community until January 2010. Of this group, a total of 8,824 offenders identified at admission as being lower risk (high RP) were followed through the system from admission to release (and for those who were not successful, back to custody) in order to investigate the characteristics of these offenders and to determine if they are following a correctional trajectory that is consistent with what would be expected for this group. A profile of offenders with a high RP was created through the examination of admission information, institutional experiences, and community outcomes. These results were then compared against those who were designated as offenders with medium or low RPs in order to identify the distinct attributes of the high RP cohort. Analyses were conducted separately for four groups of offenders (study groups); non-Aboriginal males (n=16,815), Aboriginal males (n=3,731), non-Aboriginal women (n=876) and Aboriginal women (n=324). At the time of admission, both high RP non-Aboriginal offender groups were found to be significantly older than their medium and low RP counterparts. Generally, males with a high RP tended to be admitted for shorter sentence lengths than the medium and low RP groups, although this relationship did not always hold true for the women's groups. Offenders with a high RP were also generally less likely to be admitted with a violent offence, and more likely to be admitted for a drug-related offence than offenders with medium or low RPs. Examination of institutional experience revealed that only non-Aboriginal women offenders with a high RP differed from their medium RP counterparts in institutional program participation - they were more likely to start and complete programs - and only non-Aboriginal male offenders with a high RP were less likely than their low RP counterparts to complete programs. Where there were significant differences in institutional employment, the high RP groups were always employed for significantly fewer days than the other RP levels, even when time served in the institution was taken into account. The high RP Aboriginal groups did not differ from the medium RP groups and the high RP Aboriginal women group did not differ from the low RP group in terms of involvement in institutional incidents, however in all other instances, the high RP groups were significantly less likely than the medium and low RP groups to be involved in institutional incidents as the instigator/associate. When considering release types, results indicated that offenders with a high RP were generally more likely than offenders with medium and low RPs to participate in escorted and unescorted temporary absences (ETAs and UTAs), with limited exceptions for women offenders. Overall, offenders with a high RP were significantly more likely than the other RP levels to be granted day or full parole as their first release from custody, again with limited exceptions for women offenders - for example there was no significant difference in this regard when comparing high and medium RP Aboriginal women. All four high RP offender groups served a significantly smaller percentage of their sentence prior to their first release than offenders in the medium and low RP groups. Finally, survival analyses conducted to determine differences in the risk of failure upon release for the three RP levels found that for all four interest groups, offenders with a high RP were significantly more likely to be successful on release, and less likely to experience a revocation or a new offence upon release. Specifically, being an offender with a medium RP rather than an offender with a low RP was found to increase the hazard of return to custody by between 1.52 (Aboriginal males) and 2.39 (non-Aboriginal males), and being an offender with a low RP rather than an offender with a high RP increased the hazard of return to custody by between 1.93 (Aboriginal males) and 3.37 (non-Aboriginal males). In conclusion, based on these outcomes, it would appear that the designation of high reintegration potential is associated with better access to correctional resources and earlier release from prison to serve the balance of the sentence in the community. Offenders with a high RP are generally following a correctional trajectory appropriate for that RP level and are performing as would be expected in the community. However, it should be noted that not all offenders who are identified as having a high RP are actually released early, nor do they all succeed after release. This demonstrates the variability of risk within the high RP group and suggests that reintegration potential may require some adjustments to the scoring which serves to define the levels for the three groups. Details: Ottawa: Correctional Service of Canada, 2012. 122p. Source: Internet Resource: Research Report No. R-260: Accessed May 15, 2014 at: http://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/lbrr/archives/cn21494-eng.pdf Year: 2012 Country: Canada URL: http://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/lbrr/archives/cn21494-eng.pdf Shelf Number: 132371 Keywords: Early ReleaseParolePrisoner ReentryRecidivismReintegrationReoffendingRisk Assessment (Canada) |
Author: Anderson, Simon Title: Evaluation of the Community Reintegration Project Summary: This is an evaluation of the Community Reintegration Project (CRP), which formed part of the Scottish Government's wider Reducing Reoffending Programme (RRP) and focused on addressing the needs of offenders serving prison sentences between six months and less than four years. Executive Summary - All four prison sites operated a process that was consistent with the broad CRP model - in that it involved structured engagement with offenders through five broad stages, referral to CJSW and relevant services - but there was considerable variation in how activities were delivered. - The number of offenders eligible for - and participating in - the project was relatively small in all prisons except HMP Perth, raising questions about whether the pilot reached 'critical mass'. - Meaningful engagement with the CRP (participation in a Comprehensive Screening) appears to have happened in around half of all eligible admissions, but there was a high degree of attrition beyond this with many scheduled meetings not taking place. - Practitioners were generally supportive of the principle of the CRP but were concerned about particular aspects of the process, such as the paperwork and training. There was also evidence that systems for monitoring progress were not always effective. - There is some evidence that the CRP facilitated progress towards short and medium-term outcomes for organisations and staff, though there remains scope for further improvements in joint working and engagement and motivation of eligible offenders. At this stage there is limited evidence about the impacts of the CRP on individual offenders, though some qualitative accounts indicate the potential to achieve the intended long-term outcomes. - Key contextual factors shaping implementation and impact included the 'crowded landscape' of overlapping (and potentially competing) service provision; broad cultural and strategic shifts within SPS; and the physical and organisational contexts within specific sites. - The CRP process could be optimised through improvements to the paperwork and training; greater clarity about inter-agency roles and communication channels; a distinctive 'brand' identity for the project; and creative responses to the constraints of individual sites. - There is evidence that the CRP's underlying theory of change remains broadly plausible, but throughput needs to be increased and attrition reduced - and community-based services adequately resourced - for it to achieve impact on a significant scale. Details: Edinburgh: Scottish Social Research, 2014. 115p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 11, 2014 at: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/0045/00456670.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/0045/00456670.pdf Shelf Number: 132971 Keywords: Male OffendersPrisoner ReentryPrisoner Reintegration (Scotland)RecidivismReoffending |
Author: Weatherburn, Don Title: Re-offending on Parole Summary: Aim: To measure the rate of re-offending on parole and identify the predictors of both general and violent offending on parole. To describe the types of offences committed on parole. Method: The analysis was based on 9,604 offenders released on parole in 2010 or 2011. Multinomial logistic regression was used to identify demographic and criminal history characteristics independently associated with re-offending or re-imprisonment while on parole. Results: Just under 61 per cent (60.8%) of parolees neither re-offended nor were re-imprisoned during their parole period. About twenty-eight per cent (28.4%) of the sample re-offended on parole. A further 10.8 per cent were re-imprisoned on parole without having first re-offended. Approximately 7 per cent (7.1%) of the sample committed a violent offence on parole. Parolees were more likely to offend on parole if they were male; Indigenous; young; had spent less than 180 days in prison (during the current episode); had a higher Level of Service Inventory - Revised score had a non drug offence as their principal offence; had six or more prior court appearances, had been imprisoned before; or had a prior conviction for drug use and/or possession. The correlates of violent re-offending on parole were very similar but also included prior conviction for a serious violent offence. Those who re-offended on parole committed a broad spectrum of offences, including: break and enter, assault, possess illicit drugs, receive/handle proceeds of crime, drive while licence disqualified, breach apprehended violence order and property damage. Conclusion: Offending on parole is less common than previous studies have suggested. Future research should focus on three issues: whether it is possible to improve the accuracy of the parole risk assessment process; whether post release supervision/support reduces the risk of re-offending following release from prison; and whether offenders released to parole are less likely to re-offend if released to parole by the State Parole Authority than if released on parole by a court. Details: Sydney: NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, 2014. Source: Internet Resource: Contemporary Issues in Crime and Justice, No. 178: Accessed September 17, 2014 at: http://www.bocsar.nsw.gov.au/agdbasev7wr/_assets/bocsar/m716854l2/cjb178.pdf Year: 2014 Country: Australia URL: http://www.bocsar.nsw.gov.au/agdbasev7wr/_assets/bocsar/m716854l2/cjb178.pdf Shelf Number: 133330 Keywords: Parole RevocationParolees (Australia)RecidivismReoffendingRisk Assessment |
Author: Rickey, Benedict Title: Unlocking Offending Data: How access to offending data could help charities improve outcomes for offenders Summary: Oak Foundation often asks charities to demonstrate the lasting change they have brought about in people's lives. Their impact might be helping someone who has been sleeping rough to secure stable housing, or supporting someone to give up a life of crime. Unfortunately, charities often struggle to capture and demonstrate this type of impact. As a funder, we often feel that charities are doing a good job, but lack the hard data to prove it. NPC is seeking to change this. In this report, NPC finds that providing better access to offending data through a 'Justice Data Lab' would have huge benefits. The government's recent introduction of payment by results contracts means charities are under renewed pressure to prove their impact on things like reoffending. But the lab would not just be about payment by results - it would have three other major benefits for charities: It would help charities to prove their impact on reoffending, by showing how their users' offending behaviour changes over time, and assessing whether reductions in offending were due to the charity's support; It would help charities to improve their impact, for instance by identifying groups that continue to reoffend in spite of support, and may need more attention; and It would help charities to identify what works, by analysing the impact different services have on offending to identify which is most effective at reducing reoffending. In an era where government cuts to services are commonplace, the potential benefits of knowing what works are significant. If the Justice Data Lab proves a success, the concept could be adopted by other government departments in the UK and abroad. This could mean providing access to data in areas such as drug use, mental health, and housing, where there is a real need to improve our knowledge of what works. Establishing a Justice Data Lab will be complex and certainly will not happen overnight. However, we are heartened by the commitment of the Ministry of Justice and the contributions of the charities that have been involved so far. We also appreciate the tenacity of NPC in supporting the Ministry of Justice to take this challenging work forward. We are optimistic that the Justice Data Lab can be turned from concept into reality, bringing us one step nearer to the long term transformation in data sharing and improving services that we all want to see.. Details: London: New Philanthropy Capital, 2012. 34p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 24, 2014 at: http://www.oakfnd.org/secure/sites/default/files/Unlocking-offending-data-FINAL.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.oakfnd.org/secure/sites/default/files/Unlocking-offending-data-FINAL.pdf Shelf Number: 133403 Keywords: Charitable Foundations Ex-OffendersHomelessness (U.K.)RecidivismReoffending |
Author: Victoria. Sentencing Advisory Council Title: Exploring the Relationship between Community-Based Order Conditions and Reoffending Summary: 1.1 This report examines the relationship between conditions imposed on offenders as part of a community-based sentence and subsequent reoffending. Specifically, the report considers community-based orders (CBOs) imposed by the Magistrates' Court of Victoria between 1 July 2007 and 30 June 2009, with a focus on (a) how magistrates used different combinations of conditions and (b) how offender and offence characteristics, including reoffending rates, differed between offenders who did and did not receive 'supervision' as a condition of their order. The analysis provides an insight into the interaction between decisions made by sentencers in relation to community-based sentencing and subsequent reoffending within the Victorian criminal justice system. 1.2 Although the CBO was abolished in January 2012, this report is highly relevant to the CBO's replacement: the community correction order (CCO). Despite an increased range of conditions available under the latter order, recent research suggests that magistrates are using CCOs in a very similar manner to how they were using CBOs. Thus, the report is still likely to provide an insight into the expected reoffending patterns for CCOs. 1.3 The Council defines reoffending as any offending that followed the imposition of the index sentence and was sentenced in any Victorian court to 30 June 2012. Defined this way, the overall reoffending rate for offenders who received a CBO is 42.6%. 1.4 There are multiple methods for examining reoffending. The methodology used in this report is consistent with the approach taken by the New South Wales (NSW) Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research (BOCSAR) in their analysis of reoffending in NSW. This method differs from the Productivity Commission's analysis in a number of significant ways, including: - focusing on reoffending that follows the imposition (as opposed to completion) of a community order; - counting reoffending that results in fines; and - including reoffending that occurs between three and five years post-sentence (as opposed to two years). 1.5 Unpaid community work, assessment/treatment, and supervision were the main conditions attached to CBOs. At least one of these three conditions was included in 97.2% (n = 6,177) of the CBOs imposed during the index period. The focus of this report is on the supervision condition. Of the sample of 6,177 offenders, 45% (n = 2,791) received supervision as at least one of the conditions of a CBO (the 'Supervision CBO' group) while the remaining 55% (n = 3,386) did not (the 'No Supervision CBO' group). The Supervision CBO group had a significantly higher reoffending rate than the No Supervision CBO group (49.5% compared with 36.9%). Details: Melbourne: Sentencing Advisory Council, 2014. 36p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 20, 2014 at: https://www.sentencingcouncil.vic.gov.au/sites/default/files/publication-documents/Exploring%20the%20Relationship%20between%20Community-Based%20Order%20Conditions%20and%20Reoffending.pdf Year: 2014 Country: Australia URL: https://www.sentencingcouncil.vic.gov.au/sites/default/files/publication-documents/Exploring%20the%20Relationship%20between%20Community-Based%20Order%20Conditions%20and%20Reoffending.pdf Shelf Number: 134174 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationCommunity SupervisionCommunity-Based Corrections (Australia)RecidivismReoffendingSentencing |
Author: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare Title: Using the Juvenile Justice National Minimum Data Set to measure returns to sentenced youth justice supervision: Stage 2 Summary: This is the second of 2 reports presenting measures of returns to sentenced youth justice supervision using data from the Juvenile Justice National Minimum Data Set (JJ NMDS). This report further examines timeframes for measuring returns and explores the potential for using JJ NMDS data to measure the seriousness of reoffending. A number of recommendations are made, including that timeframes of 6 months and 1 year be used; that an increase in sentence severity be used as an interim proxy indicator of escalating offending behaviour; and that future work include reporting on returns to sentenced supervision on an annual basis. Details: Canberra: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, 2015. 42p. Source: Internet Resource: Juvenile Justice Series No. 17: Accessed January 29, 2015 at: http://www.aihw.gov.au/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=60129550171 Year: 2015 Country: Australia URL: http://www.aihw.gov.au/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=60129550171 Shelf Number: 134490 Keywords: Juvenile Offenders (Australia) Recidivism Reoffending |
Author: Mews, Aidan Title: The impact of short custodial sentences, community orders and suspended sentence orders on re-offending Summary: Community orders and suspended sentence orders represent a substantial proportion of sentences given in England and Wales - about 13 per cent of all adult sentences imposed in 2013. This study examined the impact on adult re-offending outcomes of these court orders and requirements imposed as part of those orders. It also looked at the effects over different follow-up periods to explore the impact over time. The study builds on previous analyses of community requirements, using more data, a more thorough matching process, and examining more combinations of requirements. Approach Offender data from 2008 to 2011 (inclusive) were used. A propensity score matching approach was followed, matching offenders given particular sentences with other, similar ones given other sentences. This method used data from Offender Assessment System (OASys) assessments, probation and re-offending, and tax and benefits systems. This is a well-tested approach to looking at impact, but one that cannot decisively discount the potential for an unmeasured factor to influence results. Key findings - - Short-term custody (less than 12 months in prison, without supervision on release) was consistently associated with higher rates of proven re-offending than community orders and suspended sentence orders ('court orders'). Over a 1 year follow-up period, a higher proportion of people re-offended having been sentenced to short term custody than other, similar people given a community order (around 3 percentage points higher) or a suspended sentence order (7 percentage points higher). In addition, short term custody was associated with up to 1 more re-offence per person on average than both community and suspended sentence orders. - However, the impact appeared to vary over different follow-up periods. Over a three year period, while it was still the case that more people re-offended having been sentenced to short term custody rather than a 'court order', this difference decreased. The benefits of the 'court orders' on reducing re-offending were felt predominately in the first year of follow-up. - The benefit of 'court orders' over short term custody was seemingly increased when OASys variables were not used in the matching method, suggesting that these variables include influential factors associated with re-offending and/or the likelihood of being given a particular sentence. The analysis indicates that it is important to include OASys scores in the matching process, and that their omission leads to an upward bias in the estimate of impact. They should therefore be used routinely in similar analyses, even though that entails limiting the analysis to the subset of cases for which an OASys assessment is available. - There was evidence of particular requirements and groups of requirements having greater benefits in terms of reducing re-offending compared to short term custody. - Supervision requirements were generally associated with reduced proven re-offending where they were used. - There were examples where activity requirements and accredited programme requirements were associated with reductions in re-offending, but overall the impact was uncertain. However, these requirements were examined collectively, and particular activities / programmes may have had a more positive impact on re-offending. In addition, using proven re-offending as a sole outcome measure may not pick up all potential benefits of these requirements. - The impact of using combinations of requirements together was difficult to predict. Sometimes, the impact of requirements changed when used with certain others. For example, activity requirements had an uncertain impact when used with a curfew on community orders. When supervision was added to the activity as well, a significant reduction in re-offending was found. However, when a programme requirement was added to this, the impact returned to being uncertain. - There may be differences in impacts associated with suspended sentence orders and community orders, with outcomes mostly non-significant for suspended sentence orders. Some characteristic of either or both of these orders may make particular requirements more / less effective (the data used in this study do not allow a full explanation of what precisely is driving the effects). Details: London: Ministry of Justice, 2015. 43p. Source: Internet Resource: Ministry of Justice Analytical Series: Accessed January 29, 2015 at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/399389/impact-of-short-custodial-sentences-on-reoffending.PDF Year: 2015 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/399389/impact-of-short-custodial-sentences-on-reoffending.PDF Shelf Number: 134491 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationRecidivismReoffendingSentencing (U.K.) |
Author: Wood, Martin Title: Re-offending by offenders on Community Orders: Results from the Offender Management Community Cohort Study Summary: This report is one of a series summarising findings from the Offender Management Community Cohort Study (OMCCS), a longitudinal cohort study of offenders aged 18 and over, who started Community Orders between October 2009 and December 2010. The report focuses on re-offending by these offenders, using a measure of proven re-offending. Proven re-offending is defined as any offence committed in the 12 months following the start of the Community Order that received a court conviction or caution in that 12 months or within a further six month waiting period. It examines the factors associated with re-offending, such as offenders' needs, attitudes and their relationship with their Offender Manager. The report will help inform policy makers and providers about the key characteristics of this group of offenders and will be useful in the development of practice in the delivery of Community Orders and supervision in the community. Preliminary findings on re-offending levels among offenders on Community Orders from the OMCCS were published in July 2013 (Wood et al., 2013a) using incomplete re-offending data. This report presents updated analysis on levels of re-offending and therefore findings may vary from those previously published. Details: London: Ministry of Justice, 2015. 76p. Source: Internet Resource: Ministry of Justice Analytical Series: Accessed January 29, 2015 at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/399388/reoffending-by-offenders-on-community-orders.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/399388/reoffending-by-offenders-on-community-orders.pdf Shelf Number: 134492 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationCommunity SentencesOffender Supervision (U.K.)RecidivismReoffending |
Author: O'Reilly, Justine Title: A review of Police and iwi/Maori relationships: Working together to reduce offending and victimisation among Maori Summary: This is a summary of the review of Police and iwi/Maori relationships and what can be done together to reduce offending and victimisation. It draws together information from interviews with iwi/Maori stakeholders, police and government agencies,[1] offending and victimisation statistics, workforce and population data, and analysis of research.[2] This review has been timed to inform Police structure, capacity and partnerships with iwi/Maori as part of delivering Prevention First (PF), Turning of the Tide (T4), the Road Policing Strategy (RPS), the Responsiveness to Maori (RTM) framework and meeting wider Better Public Services targets. [1] Interviews with 137 people were undertaken in 10 of the 12 Police Districts (all except Southern and Tasman). These areas have comparatively low Maori populations, and the main iwi for the South Island (Ngai Tahu) were included in interviews undertaken in Canterbury. Purposive sampling was used for initial contacts, guided by local iwi liaison officers, MPES national office and senior Police staff. Key roles within Police were interviewed (District and Area Commanders, ILOs, Prevention Managers, Victim Managers) as well as a mix of specialist and front-line roles (family violence, Neighbourhood Policing Teams, Public Safety Teams). From the initial contacts, snowball sampling was used to recruit other participants. Half of the interviews were with Maori: iwi leaders, kuia, kaumatua, Maori Wardens, Maori social service providers and men participating in a family violence programme. The remainder were with a broad range of Police staff. Two interviews were undertaken with Te Puni Kokiri and Probation staff, and Justice, Probation, Courts and TPK were consulted on the draft. The majority of interviews were in-depth, one-on-one and face-to-face and used a mix of structured and semi-structured questions. [2] Independent research has been used to provide an outside perspective: Te Whaiti and Roguski (1998), Te Puni Kokiri (2002), Marxwell (2005), McKay, (2013), OAG, (2003), Morrison, (2009). Human Rights Commission (2012), IPCA (2013), NZ Police (2012), SSC, the Treasury and the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet (2012). Details: Wellington: New Zealand Police, 2014. 61p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed January 30, 2015: http://www.police.govt.nz/sites/default/files/publications/review-of-police-and-iwi-maori-relationships.pdf Year: 2014 Country: New Zealand URL: http://www.police.govt.nz/sites/default/files/publications/review-of-police-and-iwi-maori-relationships.pdf Shelf Number: 134502 Keywords: Aboriginal Peoples Minority Groups Police-Citizen Interactions Police-Minority Relations (New Zealand) Recidivism ReoffendingVictims of Crimes |
Author: Gilbert, Jarrod Title: Evaluating the Pathway: An Evaluation of the Pathway Total Reintegration Strategy undertaken by Pathway Charitable Group Summary: This report records the evaluation of the Pathway Total Reintegration Strategy, a programme that works with released prisoners in Canterbury to assist their reintegration into society. The Reintegration Strategy programme is an arm of the Pathway Charitable Group (formerly the Pathway Trust), which works with the disadvantaged in various ways. Pathway has commissioned this report in order to assess the efficacy of their prisoner reintegration programme, which is now in its sixth year. This report draws on research data that are both quantitative and qualitative in nature. The quantitative analysis, undertaken by the Department of Corrections, compares the actual versus the expected recidivism rates of Pathway clients and the overall rates across New Zealand. This is supported by a qualitative analysis based on interviews conducted with people who have gone through the programme, including those who successfully avoided reoffending and those who did not. The methods for each approach are outlined in the body of the report. Details: Wellington, NZ: Howard League, New Zealand, 2013?. 28p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 3, 2015 at: http://www.howardleague.org.nz/uploads/1/1/6/3/11633778/report_-_pathway.pdf Year: 2013 Country: New Zealand URL: http://www.howardleague.org.nz/uploads/1/1/6/3/11633778/report_-_pathway.pdf Shelf Number: 134517 Keywords: Prisoner Reentry Prisoner Reintegration (New Zealand) Recidivism Reoffending |
Author: Gilbert, Jarrod Title: Reintegration Services in the Canterbury Region Summary: The idea for a study of reintegration services came from the work of the Howard League in Canterbury prisons. In particular, prisoners often worried that there were inadequate programmes and services to help them leave prison and prevent them from returning. We began with a focus on the relationship between prisons and NGO services, and this focus was maintained throughout the study. Further themes emerged, especially the broad philosophical, targeted service reorganisation taking place within the Department of Corrections. We found ourselves researching within a maelstrom of changing systems and relationships, which were often imperfectly articulated and imperfectly understood by various participants in the prison and community sectors. Key findings arising from the study include: - There is a consensus in the Department of Corrections management in Canterbury that cooperation between the Department and NGOs is desirable to assist in the rehabilitation and reintegration of prisoners, with the ultimate goals of reducing prisoner numbers and creating fewer victims of crime. - This cooperation between state and independent agencies is mirrored in certain jurisdictions around the world, and from these we can gain certain insights, namely: the importance of mutual 'buy-in' to end goals and the means to achieve them; the necessity for clear and honest lines of communication; and a need for NGO professionalism to be balanced against the risk of NGOs losing their unique and important points of difference that make them effective. - Corrections management have embraced a culture of change and their thinking is sophisticated, though the process is ongoing. - Much of this culture change can generally be understood as moving away from a system with a focus on confinement and toward one with a greater focus on rehabilitation and reintegration. The latter is captured by use of the term 'transitioning' to describe the move from prison to the community. - Acknowledging financial constraints, there was a desire among management to offer more services to prisoners and to 'front load' services rather than waiting until the end of the sentence is nearing, and to engage with prisoners on short sentences. - Management realised that there was a need for better engagement with NGOs. - Prisoners interviewed for this project included men and women with a range of sentences and risk profiles. - The vast majority of prisoners reported a willingness to change away from criminality, with 80 percent of the prisoner sample reporting that they wanted to change 'a lot' about their lives. Recidivism rates, however, show that most will fail. - These prisoners said offending occurred for a number of psychological and practical reasons, many of which can be targeted by programmes and interventions. - The three most prominent types of assistance required were: support and counselling, employment, and alcohol and drug support. - Among prisoners, there was a low level of understanding about what support was available and often there was conflict reported between what prisoners thought they needed and what Corrections was offering them. - The majority of prisoners reported that they heard about programmes or courses mainly from other prisoners, and only a third through Corrections or Probation. - Relationships with Case Officers were largely good, but relationships with Case Managers were mixed, and included a number of very negative experiences. Details: Canterbury, NZ: Howard League for Penal Reform, Canterbury Branch, 2014. 67p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 3, 2015 at: http://www.howardleague.org.nz/uploads/1/1/6/3/11633778/final_report.pdf Year: 2014 Country: New Zealand URL: http://www.howardleague.org.nz/uploads/1/1/6/3/11633778/final_report.pdf Shelf Number: 134518 Keywords: Prisoner ReentryPrisoner RehabilitationPrisoner Reintegration (New Zealand)RecidivismReoffending |
Author: Roth, Lenny Title: Reducing Adult Reoffending Summary: Repeat offenders are responsible for a large proportion of crime in NSW; and those returning to prison make up more than half of the prison population. The costs of reoffending to society and the criminal justice system are therefore clear. Focusing on adult reoffending, this paper seeks to address these four key questions: (1) Are rates of reoffending getting better in NSW? (2) What is the evidence about works in reducing reoffending? (3) What is being done to reduce reoffending in NSW? (4) What more could be done to reduce reoffending in NSW? Details: Sydney: NSW Parliamentary Research Service, 2015. 62p. Source: Internet Resource: Briefing Paper No. 2/2015: Accessed February 19, 2015 at: http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/publications.nsf/0/AE2B3F8CD73079C2CA257DEF0002BD58/$File/Reducing%20adult%20reoffending.pdf Year: 2015 Country: Australia URL: http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/publications.nsf/0/AE2B3F8CD73079C2CA257DEF0002BD58/$File/Reducing%20adult%20reoffending.pdf Shelf Number: 134651 Keywords: Chronic Offenders Recidivism ReoffendingRepeat Offenders (Australia) |
Author: Kivivuori, Janne Title: The Robustness of Self-Control as a Predictor of Recidivism Summary: In prior research, we examined the correlates of self-assessed re-offending probability (SARP) in a sample of Finnish short-term prisoners (Kivivuori and Linderborg 2009 and 2010). We observed that multiple variables tapping the social adjustment and social deprivation of the prisoner were associated with SARP. Having few or no siblings, having lived outside nuclear family conditions during childhood, lack of parental supervision during youth, and negative events during adulthood increased the variety of offences the prisoner projected to his post-release future. Negative events were incidents that reflect poverty or the breaking of social ties: being fired from a job, divorce, being evicted from an apartment, need to seek social assistance, need to loan money from friends and relatives, and mental health problems. The research additionally included two measures tapping the dimension of personal self-control. We observed that low self-control and high youth crime involvement were associated with increased SARP. One of the basic goals of the research is to examine social factors and self-control as correlates of SARP, when both are simultaneously controlled in a single model. In this respect, the core finding was that social factors and self-control were both significant correlates of SARP. These findings were based on a cross-sectional survey of short-term prisoners in Finland (Kivivuori & Linderborg 2009 and 2010). The basic structure of the data was cross-sectional, even though the outcome variable was pseudo-longitudinal (offences subjectively projected to post-release future). In reporting the cross-sectional findings, we also anticipated the logical next step, namely, replacing the subjective and cross-sectional outcome variable (SARP) with a genuinely longitudinal outcome variable (Kivivuori & Linderborg 2010, 137). In this research brief, we build on this by using a genuinely longitudinal outcome variable of recorded recidivism (RR) after release from prison. Replacing SARP with RR enabled us to do three things: first, we examined whether the prisoners' estimates concerning their own future behaviour were correct. Second, we assessed whether variables associated with SARP remain robust predictors when their link to RR is investigated. Third, we tentatively assessed whether SARP itself, now conceptualised as prisoner desistance optimism during the prison term, is a predictor of recidivism. Details: Helsinki: National Research Institute of Legal Policy, 2012. 8p. Source: Internet Resource: Research Brief 25/2012: Accessed February 27, 2015 at: http://www.optula.om.fi/material/attachments/optula/julkaisut/verkkokatsauksia-sarja/E9Lo8aUWV/25_research_note.pdf Year: 2012 Country: Finland URL: http://www.optula.om.fi/material/attachments/optula/julkaisut/verkkokatsauksia-sarja/E9Lo8aUWV/25_research_note.pdf Shelf Number: 134729 Keywords: DesistanceRecidivism (Finland)ReoffendingSelf-ControlSocial CapitalSocial Control |
Author: Great Britain. Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Probation Title: Full Joint Inspection of Youth Offending Work in Trafford Summary: Reducing reoffending Overall work to reduce reoffending was satisfactory. A strong focus and priority was given to reducing reoffending. Assessment and planning were, for the most part done well, and children and young people were particularly well supported in meeting health and education needs. However, in a small number of cases, assessments and elements of plans were not satisfactory and these had not been identified through management oversight systems. Protecting the public Overall work to protect the public and actual or potential victims was good. Assessment and planning work to reduce the risk of harm was completed well in a large majority of cases. There were systems in place to ensure oversight of, and partner contributions to, the management of risk of harm. Delivery of victim work, restorative justice and reparation was well structured although evidence for the uptake of direct work with victims was lacking. Barriers to information sharing between the police and YOS, as a result of the recently reduced capacity of the seconded police officer, inhibited the use of intelligence as part of case management. Protecting children and young people Overall work to protect children and young people and reduce their vulnerability was satisfactory. Although the majority of work to protect children and young people was completed sufficiently well, we saw a small number of cases in which the assessment and planning of vulnerability was weak, and which, on further investigation, revealed a number of systemic problems. Work was child-centred and there was a positive working relationship between the YOS and children's social care in many cases. Interventions to reduce unnecessary use of custody were good. However, more complex safeguarding cases revealed deficits in the YOS's collective knowledge, levels of staff training, management oversight and governance arrangements. Ensuring the sentence is served Overall work to ensure that the sentence was served was good. Practitioners across the YOS demonstrated enthusiasm, commitment and knowledge of their cases. There was evidence of good working relationships with children and young people and their parents/carers, who were largely positive in their comments about their contact with the YOS. Diversity needs were met well and where barriers to engagement were encountered, these were generally dealt with constructively. The use of self-assessment tools was inconsistent and some children and young people felt their views were not fully taken into account. Governance and partnerships Overall, the effectiveness of governance and partnership arrangements was satisfactory. The governance arrangements for the YOS were complex, with separate board arrangements in place for oversight of performance and safeguarding. Performance against youth justice key indicators was good, although membership and attendance at the YOS Performance and Governance Board had been inconsistent from some partners. More use could have been made of available data to understand trends, drive performance improvement and provide challenge. Governance and oversight of YOS safeguarding work was not sufficiently robust, lacked prominence on key agendas and did not feature in the local Youth Justice Plan. There was, however, some strong partnership work, particularly around health, education, training and employment. Interventions Overall the management and delivery of interventions to reduce reoffending were good. We found that the YOS had a good range of appropriate and accessible interventions available to children and young people. Where provision was external to the YOS, referral systems and pathways were in place. Most offence targeted work was undertaken on a one-to-one basis, although a number of group based interventions were also available. Materials used were focused on the reduction of reoffending. In a small number of cases, required interventions were not delivered. Details: London: HM Inspectorate of Probation, 2015. 42p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 1, 2015 at: https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprobation/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2015/02/Trafford-FJI-250215.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprobation/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2015/02/Trafford-FJI-250215.pdf Shelf Number: 135081 Keywords: InterventionsJuvenile DetentionJuvenile Offenders (U.K.)RecidivismRehabilitation ProgramsReoffending |
Author: Elwick, Alex Title: Improving outcomes for young offenders: An international perspective Summary: This review of international approaches to education and interventions for young people in custody identifies differences between judicial systems, and in particular youth justice systems, across the world. It focuses on reoffending behaviour in these different systems and the methods these administrations employ to address the issue. The review draws upon a series of case studies from a range of high-performing jurisdictions in order to exemplify institutions, interventions and programmes which have either been shown to have a positive impact on reoffending or indirectly contribute towards these acknowledged or proven high-performing systems. Based upon these case studies, a number of key features of provision for young offenders in custody emerge which, within their own contexts, contribute to a successful approach. These include: - Education is placed at the heart of an institution's focus. - Interventions are personalised and targeted. - Staff are given multidisciplinary training, often to graduate level, and custodial staff are also involved in the education of offenders. - Institutions are relatively small, and are split into units which are even smaller. - There are high ratios of staff to offenders. - Offenders are assigned mentors who work with them up to 12 months after their release. - Activities within the community are a key aspect of provision. - Residential facilities are locally distributed, situated reasonably close to the homes of young offenders. Building on this analysis, a number of recommendations are made in terms of the future of youth custody in England and Wales: Details: Reading, Berkshire, UK: CfBT Education Trust, 2013. 32p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 20, 2015 at: http://cdn.cfbt.com/~/media/cfbtcorporate/files/research/2013/r-improving-outcomes-2013.pdf Year: 2013 Country: International URL: http://cdn.cfbt.com/~/media/cfbtcorporate/files/research/2013/r-improving-outcomes-2013.pdf Shelf Number: 135268 Keywords: Educational ProgramsEvidence-Based ProgramsJuvenile OffendersRecidivismRehabilitation ProgramsReoffending |
Author: Moore, Simon Title: A brief evaluation of Cardiff Triage Summary: Triage takes an holistic approach in addressing multiple aspects of clients' lives in order to reduce the incidence of First Time Entrants to the Criminal Justice System with a view to preventing their reoffending. Actions are taken by Triage through referring youth to appropriate services in order to address and support youngsters' problems that may relate to (but are not limited to) matters concerned with their family, substance use and education. Cardiff Triage is managed by Media Academy Cardiff (MAC). MAC is a private limited company founded in May 2010 that works to engage vulnerable young people in South East Wales. In August 2010 MAC won the tender to deliver Triage in conjunction with Cardiff and Vale Youth Offending Services (YOS). Triage is primarily delivered in Cardiff Bay Police Station, the central arrest point for the city of Cardiff. The aims of Triage are to reduce First Time Entrants and reoffending among 10-17 year olds and to provide provision to support and meet the needs of young people and their families, helping them to address those risk factors that are associated with reoffending. Triage is a multiagency approach and, in its current form in South Wales, has (within two years) attracted national recognition (e.g.Cardiff Triage was nominated for the national award in the Times Educational FE awards in the "Outstanding Contribution to the Community" category and received a Careers Wales Award). Triage is delivered by the MAC Director, three case workers (all youth workers who are employed by MAC), one victim worker (who also supervises Triage staff), two volunteer family workers, a sessional worker and a half-time seconded drug and alcohol worker. Volunteers also contribute to delivery of the project. The implementation of Cardiff Triage is associated with a reduction in First Time Entrants of 65%. Having Triage Case-Workers located in the Cardiff Bay Custody Suite means referrals can be immediate and therefore saves police time and resources. Triage has been in place for just over two years and therefore data relating to long-term outcome is unavailable. Efforts should be made to capture these data, including data from clients as they transition into adulthood, so that the long-term effectiveness and likely cost-savings of Triage might be captured. Triage provides a service to vulnerable youngsters that most likely mitigate long-term risk to themselves, their families and their community's well-being. Triage successfully integrates a range of services and provides an important focus at which the community and service providers can work together towards reducing crime and the impact of crime in both the short and in the long-term. Though involving victims, offenders, the police service and service providers Triage demonstrates early opportunities for realigning resources towards a robust proactive and preventative model and away from a reactive punitive approach. The veracity of the services provided through Triage are undermined by funding uncertainties; uncertainties that diminish long-term strategic planning, training opportunities, and the further development of expertise required for closer collaboration with partner agencies and the retention of valued staff. While a reduction in reoffending in the client group is a key outcome for Triage, activity spills over into more intangible measures, including a reduction in fear of crime, improving the relationship between partner agencies, including the police and the local community, and facilitating cross agency networking and engagement. Details: Cardiff, Wales: Violence & Society Research Group Cardiff University, 2012. 29p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 25, 2015 at: https://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/youth-justice/effective-practice-library/cardiff-triage-evaluation.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/youth-justice/effective-practice-library/cardiff-triage-evaluation.pdf Shelf Number: 135397 Keywords: Juvenile Offenders (Wales)RecidivismRehabilitationReoffendingTreatment ProgramsYoung Adult Offenders |
Author: Ireland. Central Statistics Office Title: Prison Recidivism: 2008 cohort Summary: The Central Statistics Office (CSO) has published figures on recidivism rates among prisoners released from custody of the Irish Prison Service in 2008. The CSO used a combination of data from both An Garda Siochana and the Irish Prison Service in compiling these figures. The data looks at both the rate of re-offending ('recidivism') and the total numbers of people who have re-offended within three years of release in the year 2008 (the '2008 cohort'), with comparisons to equivalent data on re-offending among those released in 2007 ('2007 cohort'). Overall, the rate of recidivism has fallen from 55.3% for the '2008 cohort' to 51% among the '2007 cohort'. The document includes details of the type of offences the offenders committed originally and what type of offence they committed in the subsequent three year period from release in 2008. Furthermore, there is a breakdown of data on recidivism, with categories such as gender, age, initial offence type, and time period until subsequent offence. The IPRT welcomes the publication of this data, which helps to inform evidence-based penal policy. Coordination of data collection and research across all the criminal justice agencies is hugely important to the development of such policy. However, there are some points of concern arising from this data. The trend shows that recidivism is highest among young male offenders under the age of 21, at 57.7%, with lower rates in each subsequent age group. This is in line with academic research which demonstrates that offending rates naturally decrease with age. In addition, a large proportion of subsequent offences happen within a short time span after release (64.2% of all recidivists re-offend within 6 months of release, rising to 87.9% of male recidivists under 21). Further research and resources must be directed towards diversion of young males away from criminality, especially in the first few months after release. Details: Dublin: Central Statistics Office, 2013. 13p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 6, 2015 at: http://www.cso.ie/en/media/csoie/releasespublications/documents/crimejustice/2008/prisonrecidivism2008.pdf Year: 2013 Country: Ireland URL: http://www.cso.ie/en/media/csoie/releasespublications/documents/crimejustice/2008/prisonrecidivism2008.pdf Shelf Number: 135530 Keywords: Prisoner RehabilitationRecidivism (Ireland)Reoffending |
Author: Ja, Davis Y. Title: The Repeat Offenders Prevention Project (ROPP) of the City/County of San Francisco: A final evaluation report Summary: In the late 1980s and early 1990s, Orange County conducted exploratory studies that resulted in the identification of characteristics or risk factors associated with serious, chronic offending by juveniles (Schumacher and Kurz, 2000). Over a three-year period, first-time offenders with these risk factors were found to account for 55% of all repeat offenses. Commonly referred to as the 8% Problem or 8% Population, these juveniles constituted only 8% of all first time offenders. The 8% Population risk factors identified in the Orange County research were: Being a first-time ward of the juvenile court at age 15 years or younger Displaying at least three of the following: School behavior and performance problems (attendance problems, suspension/expulsion, failure of two or more classes); Family problems (poor supervision/control, history of domestic violence, child abuse/neglect, family members with criminal backgrounds); Substance abuse problems (regular use of alcohol or drugs); and/or High-risk pre-delinquent behaviors (e.g., stealing, chronic runaway, gang membership or association). In 1994, the California Legislature established a three-year pilot project, contingent upon the appropriation of funds, to be called the Repeat Offender Prevention Project (ROPP). The legislation called for the counties of Fresno, Humboldt, Los Angeles, Orange, San Diego, San Mateo and Solano to design, establish, implement, and evaluate a model program to meet the needs of the 8% Population as identified in the Orange County research. The enabling legislation (Welfare and Institution Code Sections 743-749), further specified that: Programs involve a collaborative team approach to case assessment and management Both the participating youth and their families receive services developed by a multi-disciplinary team Each program be evaluated by randomly assigning all eligible juveniles to ROPP (treatment group) or to standard probation (comparison group), and then comparing the groups on the following outcomes at 6-, 12-, 18- and 24-month intervals: Number, subject matter and disposition of subsequent petitions to declare the minor a ward of the juvenile court; Number of days served in any local or state correctional facilities; Number of days of school attendance during the current or most recent semester; and Grade point average for the most recently completed school semester Each county submit written progress reports and evaluation reports to the Board of Corrections (Board) Based on the county reports, the Board provide annual reports to the Legislature on the effectiveness of the programs in achieving the demonstration project and program goals The 1996/97 Budget Act (Chapter 162) appropriated $3.5 million for ROPP. The 1997/98 Budget Act (Chapter 282) augmented the initial funding by $3.5 million and extended the grant expiration date from June 30, 1999 to June 30, 2000. In 1998, the Legislature passed AB 2594 (Chapter 327), which made the City/County of San Francisco eligible for ROPP funds. In addition, the 1998/99 Budget Act (Chapter 324) appropriated another $3.8 million to ROPP and extended the grant to June 30, 2001. To give counties the opportunity to increase the number of participants in their projects as well as the time needed to thoroughly assess the impact of interventions, the Legislature subsequently extended the grant period until June 30, 2002 and provided $3.8 million to fund this extension in the 2000/01 Budget Act (Chapter 52). San Francisco County received a total of $981,254 in State funds to implement ROPP, and contributed an additional $1,637,642 in local funds. This report describes San Francisco Countys ROPP program and the results of the program evaluation. Details: San Francisco: Davis Y. Ja and Associates, Inc., 2003. 78p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 18, 2015 at: http://www.dyja.com/sites/default/files/u20/ROPP_Final_Report.pdf Year: 2003 Country: United States URL: http://www.dyja.com/sites/default/files/u20/ROPP_Final_Report.pdf Shelf Number: 135705 Keywords: Chronic OffendersJuvenile OffendersRecidivismReoffendingRepeat Offenders |
Author: Duncan, L. Title: Youth Reoffending in Northern Ireland (2010/11 Cohort) Summary: This bulletin provides information on the one year proven reoffending rate for a cohort of youths who received a non-custodial disposal at court, a diversionary disposal or were released from custody during 2010/11. A youth is defined as anyone aged 17 and under at this point. Of the 3,248 young offenders included in the 2010/11 youth cohort, 772 (24%) committed a proven reoffence within a year following being released from custody, given a non-custodial disposal at court or receiving a diversionary disposal. Almost half (47%) of the 772 who reoffended committed their first reoffence within the first three months following being given a non-custodial disposal, receiving a diversionary disposal or release from custody. The number of reoffences within the year ranged from one to 55. In terms of offending history, 47% had committed previous offences ranging from one to 72 distinct offences. Reoffending rates largely increased as the number of previous offences increases. Overall, 14% of females and 27% of males had reoffended. Of the 32 youths released from custody, 25 committed a proven reoffence. The one year proven reoffending rate for youths who received a community disposal at court requiring supervision was 54%. The one year proven reoffending rate for youths who received a community disposal at court not requiring supervision was 43%. The one year proven reoffending rate for youths who received a diversionary disposal was 19%. The highest reoffending rates were found amongst those who had committed a baseline offence in the "Burglary" category (36%), followed by "Public Order" (33%). Details: Belfast: Analytical Services Group, Department of Justice, 2014. 14p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 21, 2015 at: http://www.dojni.gov.uk/index/statistics-research/stats-research-publications/reoffending-stats-and-research/6-2014-youth-reoffending-in-ni-2010-11-cohort.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.dojni.gov.uk/index/statistics-research/stats-research-publications/reoffending-stats-and-research/6-2014-youth-reoffending-in-ni-2010-11-cohort.pdf Shelf Number: 135740 Keywords: Juvenile OffendersRecidivismReoffendingYoung Adult Offenders |
Author: Duncan, L. Title: Adult Reoffending in Northern Ireland (2011/12 Cohort) Summary: This bulletin provides information on the one year proven reoffending rate for the cohort of adults who received a non-custodial disposal at court, a diversionary disposal or were released from custody during 2011/12. An adult is defined as anyone aged 18 or over at the time of disposal or release from custody. Of the 28,751 adult offenders included in the 2011/12 cohort, 5,116 (18%) committed a proven reoffence within a year following being released from custody, receiving a non-custodial disposal at court or receiving a diversionary disposal. Overall, 41% of the 5,116 who reoffended committed their first reoffence within the first three months following court sentencing, receiving a diversionary disposal or release from custody. The number of reoffences within the year ranged from one to 30 per person. In terms of offending history, 60% had committed previous offences, ranging from 1 to 576 distinct offences. Reoffending rates largely increased with the number of previous offences. Overall, 11% of females and 19% of males or other genders had reoffended. The one year proven reoffending rate for adults released from custody was 48%. The one year proven reoffending rate for adults who received a community disposal at court requiring supervision was 33%. The one year proven reoffending rate for adults who received a community disposal at court not requiring supervision was 18%. The one year proven reoffending rate for adults who received a diversionary disposal was 14%. The highest reoffending rates were found amongst those who had committed a baseline offence in the "Robbery" category (44%), followed by "Burglary" (37%). Details: Belfast: Department of Justice, Analytical Services Group, 2014. 18p. Source: Internet Resource: Research and Statistical Bulletin 18/2014: Accessed May 29, 2015 at: http://www.dojni.gov.uk/index/statistics-research/stats-research-publications/reoffending-stats-and-research/18-2014-adult-reoffending-in-northern-ireland-_2011-12-cohort_.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.dojni.gov.uk/index/statistics-research/stats-research-publications/reoffending-stats-and-research/18-2014-adult-reoffending-in-northern-ireland-_2011-12-cohort_.pdf Shelf Number: 135804 Keywords: Adult OffendersCrime StatisticsRecidivismReoffending |
Author: ICF GHK Title: 'London Reducing Reoffending Programme' Evaluation Summary: The 'London Reducing Reoffending Programme' (LRRP) was an innovative Payment by Results (PbR) programme that aimed to reduce youth reoffending in London. The evaluation involved extensive qualitative fieldwork with stakeholders from across the programme, including young offenders themselves. In total 185 interviews were conducted including 93 with young offenders participating in the programme. A proven re-offending study was conducted to explore whether a cohort of young people supported by LRRP had a conviction recorded in the twelve months since joining the programme. It compares the twelve months before the cohort of young people joined the programme with the twelve months after they joined, whether or not these participants were in custody or in the community at the time of registration. 'DIESEL'3 is the database developed for performance management of the ESF programme by the LDA and provides information about the young people engaged by LRRP; Police National Computer (PNC) data provides data about the number and type of convictions recorded for those young people. The cohort of young people for this study is all of those registered with LRRP from the inception of the programme in April 2010 to the end of October 2010. This is so a period of twelve months, plus six months for any convictions to be processed within the criminal justice system, can be analysed. This is the standard approach to the period of time to consider in studies of re-conviction carried out by the MoJ and Home Office. But we have not been able to take account of when any participants were released from custody when we know they served a custodial sentence, due to limitations of the data available to the evaluation. This is an important caveat in the analysis that means it does not meet the other elements of what would be expected in a standard approach. Although the analysis provides the strongest approach possible with the available data, in addition to the caveat relating to missing custody release data the approach also means that no young offenders who engaged with LRRP from October 2010 - and as the programme matured - are included. To include all programme participants would require an analysis beginning in 2014 (to enable the twelve plus six months for all). Thus there are two very important caveats to consider when drawing conclusions from the analysis. There is also no counterfactual or comparison group for the evaluation. This is because LRRP was pan-London in approach and therefore there was not geographical targeting to enable within London comparisons to be identified. It was not feasible to seek the engagement of areas outside of London within the resources available to the evaluation (with time and commitment required from other authorities) and the initial timescale for analysis and reporting. The evaluation also includes: the analysis of DEISEL data; a self-assessment survey; and data from the assessment tools used with young offenders (ASSET for those aged up to 17 years and OASys for those aged 18 years and over). These latter two elements are not included in this summary due to low numbers of cases. The evaluation was structured using a programme theory, or 'theory of change' approach. It was peer reviewed by academic experts. Details: Birmingham, UK: ICF GHK, 2013. 71p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 5, 2015 at: https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/Specs%202-4%20Evaluation%20Final%20Report%20-%20Full%20report.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/Specs%202-4%20Evaluation%20Final%20Report%20-%20Full%20report.pdf Shelf Number: 135917 Keywords: RecidivismRehabilitationReoffendingYoung Adult Offenders |
Author: Victoria. Sentencing Advisory Council Title: Reoffending Following Sentence in Victoria: A Statistical Overview Summary: Reducing reoffending following the imposition of a sentence is one of the primary aims of sentencing and of the criminal justice system generally. However, widely used measures of reoffending in Victoria are of limited value in assessing the effectiveness of sentencing because they: - focus on a group of people that represents a small proportion of all people sentenced; - limit the type of event that counts as reoffending; and - use a relatively short follow-up period. This study proposes a measure of reoffending that overcomes some of these limitations. The measure used here focuses on offenders who receive any sentence type on multiple occasions over a nine-year period. Using this measure, the present study provides an overview of reoffending following sentence in Victoria. Using an alternative measure of reoffending to commonly quoted measures, Reoffending Following Sentence examines reoffending patterns for 63,366 people sentenced in Victorian criminal courts between July 2004 and June 2014. Details: Melbourne: Sentencing Advisory Council, 2015. 30p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 9, 2015 at: https://www.sentencingcouncil.vic.gov.au/sites/default/files/publication-documents/Reoffending%20Following%20Sentence%20in%20Victoria_0.pdf Year: 2015 Country: Australia URL: https://www.sentencingcouncil.vic.gov.au/sites/default/files/publication-documents/Reoffending%20Following%20Sentence%20in%20Victoria_0.pdf Shelf Number: 135978 Keywords: RecidivismReoffending |
Author: McGuire, James Title: What works in reducing reoffending in young adults? A Rapid Evidence Assessment Summary: This Rapid Evidence Assessment (REA) examined 'what works' in reducing the reoffending of young adult offenders, defined here as those aged between 18 and 25 years. Ten relevant and sufficiently rigorous studies were identified. The quality and robustness of these studies varied, and the interventions they tested ranged from Restorative Justice (RJ) schemes, to re-entry systems and structured offence-focused programmes. Several of these studies reported positive effects in changes in risk factors, and in reductions in recidivism. The strongest evidence emerged from structured parole re-entry schemes, and from offending behaviour programmes. There was more limited evidence in support of RJ interventions. Key findings - The REA identified 10 studies that evaluated interventions with young adults (aged 18-25). Six of these studies observed an impact on recidivism. - The strongest evidence of sizeable reductions in recidivism among young adults comes from two studies of structured parole re-entry systems. - There is evidence of reductions in criminal recidivism of several types following prison-based offending behaviour programmes and from a structured high-intensity detention regime. - There is some evidence that following victim-offender conferences, applying an RJ model, there are reductions in reoffending, at least when focused on property crimes. - A seventh study examining whether treatment for mental health problems had an effect in reducing criminal charges also yielded positive findings but its findings are not wholly conclusive and are difficult to interpret. - The more military-style (Military Corrective Training Centre, MCTC) detention regime, in common with other studies of this type of intervention, produced no positive outcomes. Details: London: National Offender Management Service, 2015. 5p. Source: Internet Resource: Analytical Summary: Accessed July 30, 2015 at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/449347/reducing-reoffending-in-adults.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/449347/reducing-reoffending-in-adults.pdf Shelf Number: 136259 Keywords: RecidivismRehabilitationReoffendingYouth Adult Offenders |
Author: Brooks, Andrew Title: An Investigation into the Effectiveness of the Focus on Resettlement (FOR) Programme: A Reoffending Study Summary: The FOR programme is a short cognitive-behavioural intervention attended by offenders in prison just prior to release and which aims to increase their motivation to engage with services providing assistance with resettlement. Initial contact is made with these agencies before release with follow up post release thus providing a bridge from custody back into the community. This study used propensity score matching (PSM) to measure the effectiveness of the programme in reducing one-year proven reoffending for the participants from 2004 when it was first implemented to June 2009. Treated and control groups of equal size were used: a male sample of 473 and a female sample of 266. The study aims to assess whether the resettlement programme can contribute to reducing reoffending. This is a historic look at data that had accumulated before significant changes to the content of the FOR programme were made, including an independent quality assurance process replacing peer audit, further training in writing objectives and a more robust framework for continuity between custody and community. Key findings There was no significant change in reoffending rates for males who attended FOR (59.5%) compared to a matched control sample (56.5%). There was no significant change in reoffending rates for females who attended FOR (40.6%) compared to a matched control sample (44.0%). There was no significant difference in the time to first offence between the FOR group and the matched control sample for either the male or female analyses. Details: London: National Offender Management Service, 2015. 6p. Source: Internet Resource: Analytical Summary: Accessed July 30, 2015 at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/449631/investigation-into-the-FOR-programme.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/449631/investigation-into-the-FOR-programme.pdf Shelf Number: 136264 Keywords: Cognitive SkillsPrisoner ReentryRecidivismRehabilitationReoffendingTreatment Programs |
Author: Moore, Robin, ed. Title: A compendium of research and analysis on the Offender Assessment System (OASys): 2009-2013 Summary: The compendium presents the OASys studies completed between 2009 and 2013, including a systematic review of the underlying evidence base, a survey of assessors' views and experiences, and analyses of various aspects of reliability and validity. Updated versions of the operational risk of reoffending predictors are presented. The findings support the continuing development of offender assessment. Details: London: National Offender Management Service, 2015. 367p. Source: Internet Resource: Analytical Series: Accessed July 30, 2015 at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/449357/research-analysis-offender-assessment-system.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/449357/research-analysis-offender-assessment-system.pdf Shelf Number: 136266 Keywords: OffendersPredictionRecidivismReoffendingRisk Assessment |
Author: Bloomfield, Sinead Title: An outcome evaluation of the Integrated Domestic Abuse Programme (IDAP) and Community Domestic Violence Programme (CDVP) Summary: Two Domestic Violence interventions were delivered by the National Probation Service: the Integrated Domestic Abuse Programme (IDAP) and the Community Domestic Violence Programme (CDVP). This study evaluated the effectiveness of these two interventions in reducing three categories of reoffending (any offence, core violence and domestic violence) during a two year follow up period. The sample consisted of 6,695 offenders referred to either IDAP or CDVP between January 2002 and April 2007. A total of 4,537 had at least started IDAP or CDVP and formed the treatment group; a total of 2,158 had never started IDAP or CDVP and formed the control group. Key findings - The results indicated that both IDAP and CDVP were effective in reducing domestic violence and any reoffending in the two-year follow up period with small but significant effects; IDAP also produced significant small effects in reducing core violence reoffending. - A difference of 13.2 percentage points was observed between those who received treatment and those who did not for any reoffending across both programmes (13.3 for IDAP and 12.7 for CDVP). - A difference of 10.9 percentage points was observed for domestic violence reoffending across both programmes (11.0 for IDAP and 9.6 for CDVP). - A difference of 6.5 percentage points was observed for core violent reoffending across both programmes (7.1 for IDAP and 2.6 for CDVP, although the difference for CDVP was not significant). - For those participants who did go on to reoffend, those who received treatment took significantly longer to reoffend than the control group. - A difference of 1.3 months was observed between those who received treatment and those who did not for any reoffending across both programmes (1.3 months for IDAP and 1.8 for CDVP). - A difference of 0.9 months was observed for domestic violence reoffending across both programmes (0.9 months for IDAP and 1.8 months for CDVP). - A difference of 1.1 months was observed for core violent reoffending across both programmes (1.0 for IDAP and 0.9 for CDVP). Details: London: National Offender Management Service, 2015. 7p. Source: Internet Resource: Analytical Summary: Accessed July 30, 2015 at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/449008/outcome-evaluation-idap-cdvp.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/449008/outcome-evaluation-idap-cdvp.pdf Shelf Number: 136270 Keywords: Domestic ViolenceFamily ViolenceInterventionsReoffendingViolence Against Women |
Author: Oregon. Criminal Justice Commission Title: Oregon Recidivism Analysis Summary: Historically, recidivism in Oregon has been tracked with a single definition: a new felony conviction within three years of release for incarceration or imposition of probation. Criminal justice stakeholders are well versed in this recidivism definition, and some are in the habit of referencing a single recidivism number from memory based on the latest recidivism analysis. The new definition essentially provides three measures of recidivism, and a richer context for recidivism analysis. Developing the analysis necessary to report recidivism using this new definition requires the merging of multiple criminal justice data systems on a scale never achieved before in Oregon. Many factors can impact recidivism rates such as law enforcement resources and other criminal justice system resources, the risk profile of individuals in the system, changing emphasis on arrests or prosecutions, as well as the use of evidence based programs. This analysis does not attempt to explain why recidivism rates have changed over time, but simply displays the recidivism rates for offenders released from incarceration or sentenced to felony probation statewide and county by county. This analysis shows the current statewide rates of recidivism: For those released from prison or from a felony jail sentence in the first six months of 2011: 16% were re-incarcerated for a new felony crime within three years of release, 39% were convicted of a new misdemeanor or felony crime within three years of release, and 52% were arrested for a new crime within three years of release. For those who started a felony probation sentence in the first six months of 2011: 12% were incarcerated for a new felony crime within three years, 40% were convicted of a new misdemeanor or felony crime within three years, and 46% were arrested for a new crime within three years. Details: Salem, OR: Oregon Criminal Justice Commission, 2015. 85p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 14, 2015 at: http://www.oregon.gov/cjc/SAC/Documents/OregonRecidivismAnalysisMay2015.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://www.oregon.gov/cjc/SAC/Documents/OregonRecidivismAnalysisMay2015.pdf Shelf Number: 136415 Keywords: Felony Offenders Recidivism Reoffending |
Author: Ipsos MORI Scotland Title: Evaluation of Shine Women's Mentoring Service Summary: Shine is a Public Social Partnership which provides a one-to-one mentoring service for women who are serving short-term prison sentences, on remand, or subject to Community Payback Orders and at a high risk of custody. The service is designed to empower women to identify and achieve their goals - and to engage with other services which can help them do that. The ultimate aim is to help reintegrate women who offend back into the community and reduce reoffending. The Scottish Government Reducing Reoffending Change Fund provided funding for the design and development of the service (in 2012) and for the running of the service from April 2013 to March 2017. Evaluation objectives Shine commissioned Ipsos MORI Scotland to evaluate: - levels of participation in the service - whether the activities in the service logic model had been undertaken as planned - whether mentors felt equipped to deliver the activities to a high standard - progress against short and medium term outcomes. In addition, the evaluation explored 'what is mentoring?' and what might increase engagement. Evaluation Methods The evaluation was based on: - quantitative data on outcomes - qualitative depth interviews with mentees; mentors; prison champions; and Criminal Justice Social Workers who were referrers/potential referrers to the service. The fieldwork was conducted between July 2014 and January 2015. Key findings Over the first 20 months, there has been an average of 727 referrals to Shine per year. There is evidence that a considerable proportion of mentees made progress on short and medium term outcomes. This should contribute in the long term to reduced reoffending and increased integration. Shine's targets of 60% of those who engage with the service achieving improved motivation to change behaviour and 60% achieving increased engagement with other services have been met. One of the main strengths of the service is that it is personalised and tailored to the needs and goals of the individual mentee. Because of this personalisation, activities vary considerably from case to case but the following qualities, skills and behaviours were key to building relationships and were consistently demonstrated by mentors: regular contact; being non-judgmental; being easy-going; being a relaxing, calming influence; listening; encouraging the mentee to set goals; encouraging mentees to think through consequences; praising and building self-esteem; challenging; being persistent; caring; encouraging engagement with other services. The evaluation also identified a number of areas for improvement. These included better preparation of mentees for exit and, in some areas, better communication with local Criminal Justice Social Work teams. The Shine partnership is currently developing an improvement plan to address these issues. Details: Edinburgh: Ipsos MORI Scotland, 2015. 51p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 14, 2015 at: https://gallery.mailchimp.com/119386c3f41e3eabc47e67d04/files/Evaluation_of_the_Shine_Women_s_Mentoring_Service_FV_050215_WWW_version.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://gallery.mailchimp.com/119386c3f41e3eabc47e67d04/files/Evaluation_of_the_Shine_Women_s_Mentoring_Service_FV_050215_WWW_version.pdf Shelf Number: 136429 Keywords: Female OffendersMentoringRecidivismReoffending |
Author: Great Britain. Ministry of Justice Title: Transforming Rehabilitation: A revolution in the way we manage offenders Summary: 'Transforming Rehabilitation - a revolution in the way we manage offenders' describes the Government's proposals for reforming the delivery of offender services in the community to reduce reoffending rates whilst delivering improved value for money for the tax payer. The proposals set out in the consultation paper include: - opening the majority of probation services to competition, with contracts to be awarded to providers who can deliver efficient, high quality services and improve value for money; - commissioning to be managed centrally, with specifications informed by local delivery requirements within 16 regional contract package areas, to generate economies of scale and deliver efficiencies, whilst responding to local needs; - contract package areas to align closely with other public service boundaries, to support more integrated commissioning in the future; - more scope for providers to innovate, with payment by results as an incentive to focus on rehabilitating offenders - we expect to see increased use of mentors and an emphasis on addressing offenders' 'life management' issues; - key functions to remain within the public sector, including the direct management of offenders who pose the highest risk of serious harm. We have already consulted on the principles behind many of the proposals in the consultation paper through the 'Punishment and Reform: effective probation services' consultation. We now wish to undertake a shorter, focused consultation exercise, as although many of the underlying themes and issues are the same, our latest proposals contain some significant differences. In Part B of the paper ('Extending our reform programme'), we are seeking a wide range of views on further proposals which could support our reforms. In Part C ('System specification questions'), we set out some detailed issues on which we particularly want the views of current practitioners, sentencers and potential providers, as we finalise the operational design of the new system. Details: London: The Stationery Office Limited, 36p. Source: Internet Resource: Consultation Paper CP1/2013: Accessed September 18, 2015 at: https://consult.justice.gov.uk/digital-communications/transforming-rehabilitation/supporting_documents/transformingrehabilitation.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://consult.justice.gov.uk/digital-communications/transforming-rehabilitation/supporting_documents/transformingrehabilitation.pdf Shelf Number: 136818 Keywords: Offender RehabilitationOffender SupervisionProbationReoffending |
Author: Shelter Scotland Title: Preventing Homelessness and Reducing Reoffending - Insights from service users of the Supporting Prisoners; Advice Network, Scotland Summary: This reports details the findings of in-depth interviews with 16 service users of the Supporting Prisoners; Advice Network about their experience of housing, homelessness and the strong link with re-offending. Key themes include: -The importance of house as home - Belongings being at risk -The importance of friends and family in helping to maintain a tenancy -The right home prevents reoffending -Fear of hostels -Stress and depression -Lack of knowledge -Communication with professionals The report makes strategic and operational recommendations based on the insights form our service users and Shelter Scotland's 15 year history of delivering specialist services to this group. Details: Edinburgh: Shelter Scotland, 2015. 24p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 24, 2015 at: http://scotland.shelter.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/1185787/Preventing_Homelessness_and_Reducing_Reoffending_092015_FINAL.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://scotland.shelter.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/1185787/Preventing_Homelessness_and_Reducing_Reoffending_092015_FINAL.pdf Shelf Number: 137329 Keywords: HomelessnessPrisoner ReentryRecidivismReoffending |
Author: Adler, Joanna R. Title: What Works in Managing Young People who Offend? A Summary of the International Evidence Summary: This review was commissioned by the Ministry of Justice and considers international literature concerning the management of young people who have offended. It was produced to inform youth justice policy and practice. The review focuses on the impact and delivery of youth justice supervision, programmes and interventions within the community, secure settings, and during transition into adult justice settings or into mainstream society. Approach A Rapid Evidence Assessment (REA) was conducted to assess the international evidence systematically. In line with English and Welsh youth justice sentencing, young people were taken to be 10-17 years old when considering initial intervention, programmes and supervision, and up to 21 years old when considering transitions into the adult criminal justice system and resettlement post release from custody. Evidence was considered from any country where studies were reported in English, and published between 1st January 1990 and 28th February 2014. The majority of these findings are from evaluations conducted in the United States of America and their transferability to an English and Welsh context should be considered given the different legal and sentencing frameworks, as well as economic and social contexts. Key findings Key elements of effective programmes to reduce reoffending In line with most previous reviews, effective interventions in reducing youth reoffending considered the factors set out below. - The individual's risk of reoffending: assessing the likelihood of further offending and importantly, matching services to that level of risk with a focus on those people who are assessed as having a higher risk. - The needs of the individual: focusing attention on those attributes that are predictive of reoffending and targeting them in rehabilitation and service provision. An individual's ability to respond to an intervention: maximising the young person's ability to learn from a rehabilitative programme by tailoring approaches to their learning styles, motivation, abilities and strengths. The type of programme: therapeutic programmes tend to be more effective than those that are primarily focused on punitive and control approaches. Therapeutic approaches include: skills building (e.g. Cognitive Behavioural Therapy; social skills); restorative (e.g. restitution; victim-offender mediation); counselling (e.g. for individuals, groups and families) and mentoring in some contexts. The use of multiple services: addressing a range of offending related risks and needs rather than a single factor. Case management and service brokerage can also be important. Programme implementation: quality and amount of service provided and fidelity to programme design. The wider offending context: considering family, peers and community issues. Details: London: Ministry of Justice, 2016. 78p. Source: Internet Resource: Ministry of Justice Analytical Series, 2016: Accessed February 23, 2016 at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/498493/what-works-in-managing-young-people-who-offend.pdf Year: 2016 Country: International URL: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/498493/what-works-in-managing-young-people-who-offend.pdf Shelf Number: 137942 Keywords: Juvenile OffendersRecidivismRehabilitationReoffendingYoung Adult Offenders |
Author: RMIT University Title: Evaluation of the Redevelopment of Community Correctional Services: Final Report Summary: Community corrections in Victoria instigated the Corrections Long Term Management Strategy (CLTMS) in 2001.The Reducing Re-offending Strategy was a component of CLTMS and was designed to guide correctional policy and practice over the next decade. A major feature of the Reducing Re-offending Strategy was the Redevelopment of Community Correctional Services (CCS). Within the available funding, 42.3 million dollars was allocated to the Redevelopment of Community Correctional Services. The Redevelopment was initiated to strengthen the capacity of Community Correctional Services to manage offenders and to reduce the number of prison beds. There were three compelling reasons that this was necessary: - The prison system was under enormous pressure due to a dramatic rise in prison numbers; - There was a financial imperative to expand community corrections as a more cost effective alternative to prison and there was a need for a greater range of sentencing options; - There was a growing evidence base that community correctional services had more potential to assist offender rehabilitation and reduce re-offending than a custodial sentence. A key indicator of success was an increase in substitution from prison to community based correctional services with an anticipated reduction of 350 prison beds over the four year period of implementation. The intended longer term outcome of the implementation of Redevelopment was a reduction in re-offending. Details: Melbourne: RMIT University, 2005. 124p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 25, 2016 at: https://assets.justice.vic.gov.au/corrections/resources/19ef8778-54fe-4660-b203-6dfa1ec7d33e/evaluation_redevelopment_community_correctional_services_final_report.pdf Year: 2005 Country: Australia URL: https://assets.justice.vic.gov.au/corrections/resources/19ef8778-54fe-4660-b203-6dfa1ec7d33e/evaluation_redevelopment_community_correctional_services_final_report.pdf Shelf Number: 137974 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationCommunity CorrectionsCommunity-Based CorrectionsOffender RehabilitationRecidivismReoffending |
Author: Keohane, Nigel Title: Breaking Bad Habits: Reforming rehabilitation services Summary: Reducing this rate of reoffending is central to the Government's Transforming Rehabilitation proposals. This report analyses the Government's reforms and makes three principal points. First, it calculates the costs of reoffending to the public purse and to society and it argues that the Government should seek to be much more ambitious in the level of investment. Second, it recommends that other government schemes - such as the Work Programme and prison services - should be rolled into the rehabilitation reforms. Finally, the report provides new analysis showing that a principal rationale for the reforms - that expertise from charities and social enterprises can be brought in to help turn around the lives of offenders - is in danger of misfiring if additional safeguards are not put in place. Details: London: Social Market Foundation, 2014. 71p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 18, 2016 at: http://www.smf.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Publication-Breaking-Bad-Habits-Reforming-rehabilitation-services.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.smf.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Publication-Breaking-Bad-Habits-Reforming-rehabilitation-services.pdf Shelf Number: 138336 Keywords: RecidivismRehabilitationReoffendingRepeat Offenders |
Author: Guy, Laura S. Title: Advancing Use of Risk Assessment in Juvenile Probation Summary: Juvenile probation officers at three sites in two States (Mississippi and Connecticut) were trained to use the Structured Assessment of Violence Risk in Youth (SAVRY; Borum, Bartel & Forth, 2006) and the Massachusetts Youth Screening Instrument-Second Version (MAYSI-2; Grisso & Barnum, 2000, 2006). Also included in the use of these instruments was a decisionmaking model for case planning that integrated information about behavioral health variables and risk for reoffending. A standardized implementation process was used to assist sites in the selection of tools, development of policies, categorization of available services and interventions, as well as the development or modification of existing case plans. Results indicate that probation staff can be trained to complete violence risk assessment using the structured professional judgment approach. This produced a high degree of inter-rater agreement, and case management decisions can take into account a youth's risk for future offending. The study advises that in order for risk assessment to impact youths' cases and individual outcomes, risk assessment must occur early in the judicial process. Risk assessment should be conducted before making decisions about disposition, placement, and the services to be provided. It is also recommended that States use a structured, empirically validated approach to risk assessment. A variety of inconsistencies were found in probation staffs' use of the MAYSI-2, despite efforts to train staff to use this assessment tool. Reasons for this inconsistent use of MAYSI-2 are suggested, and recommendations are offered to address it. Study limitations and future research are discussed. Details: Boston: University of Massachusetts Medical School Department of Psychiatry, 2015.202p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 29, 2016 at: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/grants/249155.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/grants/249155.pdf Shelf Number: 138470 Keywords: Case ManagementJuvenile Offender ClassificationJuvenile OffendersJuvenile ProbationReoffendingRisk Assessment |
Author: Gilbert, Jarrod Title: Youth Desistance in Aotearoa New Zealand: What We Can Learn from Higher Risk Former Offenders Summary: This report is based on a study of 51 people who were imprisoned at a young age and who were assessed as having a medium to high risk of re-offending, but who nonetheless desisted from crime. The research was commissioned to understand how and why this desistance occurred. Despite uniformity of the qualifying factors, there were significant differences between many participants within the research cohort. At each end of this spectrum of difference we identified high- and low-end outliers, and these became important lenses through which to view different desistance processes and challenges. - Prison was reported to be a deterrent from crime by 81 percent of the cohort. - Sentence length was not related to deterrence: there were no meaningful differences between longer and shorter sentences. - Deterrence was influenced by both fear of returning to prison and the boredom associated with imprisonment. Executive summary - There was a sense among most participants that they did not 'fit in' with other prisoners. Nonetheless, many reported in hindsight that the prison experience had some positive effects. - Those who had spent time in both youth and adult units reported that youth units were harder, more frightening and more dangerous places than adult facilities, and that they felt less safe within them. - In order of likelihood, the decision to desist was made in prison, before prison, and after prison. The decision to desist was most often a conscious and quick one, made at the point of arrest, conviction or imprisonment. For a minority of subjects the decision formed over a longer timeframe and tended not to be overt or conscious. Both types of desistance decision ended in a 'switch' in thinking, meaning a desire to not commit crime in the future. - One strong deterrent element of imprisonment among some participants was the shame they felt about the embarrassment caused to other family members. Details: Canterbury, NZ: Independent Research Solutions, 2014. 60p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 30, 2016 at: http://www.jarrodgilbert.com/uploads/1/1/6/3/11633778/desistance_report_final.pdf Year: 2014 Country: New Zealand URL: http://www.jarrodgilbert.com/uploads/1/1/6/3/11633778/desistance_report_final.pdf Shelf Number: 138493 Keywords: DesistanceDeterrenceJuvenile OffendersOffender RehabilitationReoffendingRepeat Offenders |
Author: Bevan, Marianne Title: Women's Experiences of Re-offending and Rehabilitation Summary: This research was focused on the narratives of a group of women in New Zealand who had served sentences managed by the Department of Corrections, had received some form of rehabilitation, but nevertheless had re-offended. It sought to understand what women thought were important factors driving their re-offending, and how approaches to rehabilitative assistance could be improved to support desistance from crime. The study involved interviews with 54 women who were currently serving a prison sentence, had served at least one prior custodial or community sentence in the past six years, and had previously attended a rehabilitation programme. Details: Wellington, New Zealand Department of Corrections, 2015. 39p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 2, 2016 at: http://www.corrections.govt.nz/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/830826/Women_s_Experiences_of_Re-offending_and_Rehabilitation_Final.pdf Year: 2015 Country: New Zealand URL: http://www.corrections.govt.nz/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/830826/Women_s_Experiences_of_Re-offending_and_Rehabilitation_Final.pdf Shelf Number: 138531 Keywords: Female Offenders Recidivism Rehabilitation Reoffending |
Author: Youth Justice Board for England and Wales Title: Youth Justice Statistics 2014/15: England and Wales Summary: general statistics areas covered include: - offences which have resulted in a disposal - court remands - disposals - intensive supervision and surveillance programmes - custody - key performance indicators - resources The YJS in England and Wales works to prevent offending and reoffending by young people under the age of 18. The system is different to the adult system and is structured to address the needs of young people. The YJS is far smaller than the adult system (see Chapter 11 for more details). The Youth Justice Board (YJB) is the executive non-departmental public body that oversees the YJS in England and Wales. The overall number of young people in the YJS continued to reduce in the year ending March 2015. Reductions have been seen in the number entering the system for the first time (First Time Entrants, FTEs), as well as reductions in those receiving disposals1, including those receiving custodial sentences. Compared to the year ending March 2010, there are now 67% fewer young people who were FTEs, 65% fewer young people who received a youth caution or court disposal and 57% fewer young people (under 18) in custody in the youth secure estate. The reoffending rate has increased (by 5.6 percentage points since the year ending March 2008, to 38.0% in the year ending March 2014), but there were significant falls in the number of young people in the cohort, the number of reoffenders and the number of reoffences. Details: London: Youth Justice Board and Ministry of Justice, 2016. 106p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 20, 2016 at: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/youth-justice-annual-statistics-2014-to-2015 Year: 2016 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/youth-justice-annual-statistics-2014-to-2015 Shelf Number: 139089 Keywords: Criminal Justice StatisticsJuvenile Justice SystemsJuvenile OffendersRecidivismReoffending |
Author: Great Britain. National Audit Office Title: Transforming Rehabilitation Summary: The Ministry of Justice (the Ministry) is responsible for protecting the public, reducing reoffending and providing a more effective criminal justice system. It is supported by 37 agencies and public bodies, including the National Offender Management Service (NOMS). NOMS is an executive agency of the Ministry, responsible for making sure that people serve the sentences and orders handed out by courts, both in prisons and through probation in the community. Probation is the means through which offenders are supervised and their rehabilitation is pursued. Probation services exist to: protect the public; reduce reoffending and rehabilitate offenders; carry out the proper punishment of offenders; and ensure offenders are aware of the impact of crime on victims and the public. Previously, probation services were delivered by 35 self-governing probation trusts working under the direction of NOMS. From late 2013, arrangements for delivering probation and rehabilitation services to offenders underwent concurrent changes, including: - in June 2014 probation services were divided into a National Probation Service (NPS) across seven regions and 21 new community rehabilitation companies (CRCs): - The public sector NPS advises courts on sentencing all offenders and manages those offenders presenting higher risks of serious harm or with prior history of domestic violence and sexual offences. Around 20% of all cases are allocated to the NPS. - CRCs supervise offenders presenting low- and medium-risk of harm. CRCs operated as companies in public ownership until 1 February 2015 when they transferred to eight, mainly private sector, providers. Around 80% of cases are allocated to the CRCs. - As at July 2015, some 243,000 offenders were supervised by the NPS and CRCs; - supervision was extended to offenders released from prison sentences of under 12 months, as part of the Offender Rehabilitation Act 2014; and - reorganisation of the prison system to provide 'Through the Gate' services. Since May 2015 CRCs have provided offenders with resettlement services while imprisoned. Our report This report builds on our 2014 Probation: landscape review and our reports on commercial and contracting issues, particularly Transforming contract management in the Home Office and Ministry of Justice. It explores ongoing probation reforms and the extent to which changes are being managed in a way likely to promote value for money. We recognise that these changes have barely started and that it will take two years before prospects for success are clearer. In particular, success depends on achieving economic benefits to society estimated at more than L12 billion of economic benefits from reduced reoffending over the next seven years. This report has four parts: - Part One provides an overview of probation reforms and assesses the procurement for the CRC contracts. - Part Two focuses on the performance management of the 21 CRCs and the NPS. - Part Three identifies important operational issues in CRCs and the NPS. ' Part Four examines progress by CRCs and the NPS in transforming probation services, and the main challenges they face in achieving the necessary transformation. Details: London: NAO, 2016. 56p. Source: Internet Resource: HC 951 SESSION 2015-16 28 APRIL 2016: Accessed April 29, 2016 at: https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Transforming-rehabilitation.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Transforming-rehabilitation.pdf Shelf Number: 138842 Keywords: Offender SupervisionProbationProbationersRecidivismReoffending |
Author: Great Britain. Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Probation Title: Full Joint Inspection of Youth Offending Work in Staffordshire Summary: Reducing reoffending Overall work to reduce reoffending was satisfactory. Good quality reports were produced for the courts and initial assessments were of a high standard. A new planning format had been adopted and further work was required to make sure that plans captured the issues identified in the assessment as well as reflecting the views of children and young people. Strategies for dealing with children and young people with low levels of motivation to change needed further development. Protecting the public Overall work to protect the public and actual or potential victims was good. Reports and initial assessments contained a thorough analysis of the risk of serious harm posed by children and young people. Multi-agency arrangements were good and there was a strong partnership approach to work to protect the public. Victims were well served by the YOS. Protecting children and young people Overall work to protect children and young people and reduce their vulnerability was good. Assessments were thorough and the YOS had appropriate multi-agency arrangements in place to manage vulnerability. Work to manage and reduce vulnerability was generally good, however, the reduction in health secondees to the service may reduce the ability of the service to respond to vulnerable children and young people in the future. Making sure the sentence is served Overall work to make sure the sentence was served was good. The YOS and its partners worked well to achieve positive outcomes for children and young people. Compliance was managed effectively. Barriers to engagement were identified and responded to, and children and young people together with their parents/carers were engaged meaningfully in the order. Governance and partnerships Overall, the effectiveness of governance and partnership arrangements was satisfactory. Operational management of the service was effective, there was a well trained, competent workforce and there were examples of strong partnership working. The YOS Management Board had met regularly but there had been a number of significant gaps in representation, notably health and education. Reoffending rates had risen and the Board's response was unclear. Interventions to reduce reoffending Overall the management and delivery of interventions to reduce reoffending was good. Staff had access to a wide range of resources. Outcomes achieved as a result of interventions had not yet been fully identified and evaluated. Details: London: HM Inspectorate of Probation, 2016. 37p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 7, 2016 at: https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprobation/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2016/06/Staffordshire-FJI-report.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprobation/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2016/06/Staffordshire-FJI-report.pdf Shelf Number: 139299 Keywords: Detention FacilitiesJuvenile DetentionJuvenile Justice SystemsJuvenile OffendersRecidivismReoffendingYouthful Offenders |
Author: Sweeney, Josh Title: Young people returning to sentenced youth justice supervision 2014-15 Summary: Summary In Australia, young people who have been found guilty of an offence may be given an unsupervised community- based sentence , a supervised community -based sentence or a sentence of detention. The latter two types of sentences are known as ' supervised sentences'. Youth justice departments are responsible for providing young people serving supervised sentences with services designed to reduce the frequency and seriousness of any future offending. The rate of return to sentenced supervision is an indicator of the effectiveness of these services, although factors beyond the control of these departments will also have an impact on levels of returns to sentenced supervision. This report is based on the 2014-15 Juvenile Justice National Minimum Data Set - a longitudinal data set, containing data from 2000-01 to 2014- 15. Details: Canberra: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, 2016. 39p. Source: Internet Resource: Juvenile Justice Series no. 20: Accessed August 1, 2016 at: http://aihw.gov.au/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=60129555842 Year: 2016 Country: Australia URL: http://aihw.gov.au/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=60129555842 Shelf Number: 139919 Keywords: Juvenile DetentionJuvenile JusticeJuvenile OffendersRecidivismReoffending |
Author: Victoria. Sentencing Advisory Council Title: Contravention of Family Violence Intervention Orders and Safety Notices: Prior Offences and Reoffending Summary: Building on the Council's previous work, this study examines factors associated with reoffending by, and the prior offences of, the 1,898 offenders sentenced for breaching a family violence intervention order or family violence safety notice in Victoria in the financial year 2009-10. The study examines offending by this group in the five years before, and the five years after, 2009-10. Details: Melbourne: Sentencing Advisory Council, 2016. 130p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 2, 2016 at: https://www.sentencingcouncil.vic.gov.au/sites/default/files/publication-documents/Contravention%20of%20FVIOs%20and%20FVSNs%20Prior%20Offences%20and%20Reoffending.pdf Year: 2016 Country: Australia URL: https://www.sentencingcouncil.vic.gov.au/sites/default/files/publication-documents/Contravention%20of%20FVIOs%20and%20FVSNs%20Prior%20Offences%20and%20Reoffending.pdf Shelf Number: 140128 Keywords: Domestic ViolenceFamily ViolenceIntimate Partner ViolenceProtection OrdersRecidivismReoffending |
Author: Albrecht, Hans-Jorg Title: National Reconviction Statistics and Studies in Europe Summary: Recidivism belongs to the main categories of criminology, crime policy and criminal justice. If the target of preventing offenders from reoffending is taken seriously crime policy should be measured by success of certain penal sanctions in terms of relapses. Also institutions that deal directly with crime and offenders need to get basic information on the consequences of their actions; particularly when decisions have to be based on a prognosis they should refer to general knowledge about offender groups at risk of reoffending. All these are reasons why - besides the conventional crime and criminal justice statistics, that don't allow to follow further offending - representative recidivism studies are needed. In the last years the discussion in criminology and crime policy has shown a growing interest in recidivism. Meanwhile a lot of European countries gather systematic and comprehensive information on recidivism, periodically and on a national level. This volume presents an exemplary collection of such endeavors. In the first international part Hans-Jorg Albrecht introduces recidivism as a subject of criminological research and focuses on reconviction statistics as a knowledge base for crime policy and sanctioning practice. Papers on database, methods and outcome of national studies/statistics from different European countries follow: Germany (Jorg-Martin Jehle), Switzerland (Daniel Fink and Steve Ducommun-Vaucher), Austria (Arno Pilgram and Veronika Hofinger), France (Annie Kensey) and Estonia (Andri Ahven). Part one is completed by an international comparison of reconviction studies in England and Wales, Scotland and the Netherlands (Bouke S. J. Wartna, Ian Knowles, Ian Morton, Susan M. Alma and Nikolaj Tollenaar). Part two focuses on the German reconviction study. Jorg-Martin Jehle presents its basic concept and demonstrates examples of evaluation in terms of sanctions, offences and personal features of offenders. Carina Tetal describes the original data base of the criminal register and the complicated process for the electronic transformation and linking of data sets. Sabine Hohmann-Fricke outlines questions of validity which are connected to data selection and the length of observation period and demonstrates the possibilities of data evaluation, focusing on the interval of relapses. Further examples for evaluation of these reconviction data are presented: offence related studies (Stefan Harrendorf) and gender-based results of sanctioning and reconviction (Tanja Kohler). Finally the contribution of Volker Grundies deals with reconviction in relation to age and gender based on data of the Freiburg cohort study. Details: Freiburg: Universitatsverlag Gottingen, 2014. 249p. Source: Internet Resource: Gottingen Studies in Criminal Law and Justice: Accessed September 28, 2016 at: http://univerlag.uni-goettingen.de/handle/3/isbn-978-3-86395-187-0 Year: 2014 Country: Europe URL: http://univerlag.uni-goettingen.de/handle/3/isbn-978-3-86395-187-0 Shelf Number: 140486 Keywords: RecidivismReconvictionReoffending |
Author: Lauwaert, Katrien Title: Desistance and restorative justice. Mechanisms for desisting from crime within restorative justice practices Summary: The project 'Desistance and restorative justice. Mechanisms for desisting from crime within restorative justice practices' focuses on the benefit offenders can get in a desistance perspective from participating in a restorative justice (RJ) process. The research was developed as a complement of an earlier study the European Forum for Restorative Justice coordinated on 'Victims and restorative justice' and as a response to an increasing interest of in particular policymakers in knowing what the effect of participation in restorative justice processes is on offending behaviour. Recidivism research has looked into the link between RJ and reoffending. The results are not conclusive, but show that at least there is a potential for RJ to reduce crime. Recidivism research, with its mainly quantitative approach, does not, however, provide insight in why this influence occurs. Therefore this project has investigated 1) how participation in restorative justice processes influences the desistance journey of people who have offended, and 2) which factors within restorative justice practices support subjective and social changes that help initiate or maintain desistance from crime. A qualitative approach was used in order to answer the research questions. We interviewed 80 desisters who had taken part in a restorative justice process. The interviews were conducted in in Austria, Belgium, and Northern Ireland. In Austria the juvenile and adult desisters had participated in victim-offender mediation which is organised as a pre-trial diversion measure for not so serious offences. In Belgium the adult desisters had participated in victim-offender mediation which runs parallel to the criminal justice procedure and involves (rather) serious offences. In Northern Ireland the juvenile desisters had participated in diversionary and court-ordered conferencing for offences of varying seriousness as part of the regular procedure. The findings of the research confirm that victim-offender mediation and conferencing as practiced in Austria, Belgium and Northern Ireland have the potential to influence desistance; sometimes as a trigger for change, but more often as a support for an ongoing desistance process. The research uncovered a number of recurring factors and dynamics. However, every desistance account was highly individual and therefore no generalisations should be made. In all three countries the work of the mediator created an atmosphere of openness and respect, and this set the right context for other effects to happen. Adopting a non-judgmental attitude, showing a willingness to listen, and not labeling the participants as criminals was conducive to a constructive spirit and open communication in which participants felt comfortable to speak freely, to explain their whole story and to take responsibility. Although the flexibility of the restorative justice process differs in the three countries, it was clear that the possibility to tailor the process to the needs of the parties also helped to make it a useful experience for the desisting offender. The communication with the victim was a dominant element in terms of impact on change. Facing the situation of the victim, experiencing the sometimes constructive attitude of the victim, the fact that the offender could explain things, apologise, express regrets and show changes in his life since the offence, these had all been helpful elements. The restorative justice process enabled the offenders to change their perspective, to develop empathy with the victim, or to acknowledge the real impact of their behaviour. After the restorative justice process the offenders had felt relieved, they had felt courageous and proud or it had helped them to turn the page. In Northern Ireland in particular the rehabilitative elements in the reparation plans, which were prepared during the conference, were beneficial to many participants, especially to the juveniles who had been persistent offenders. Moreover, these young persons benefitted strongly from the relationship they were able to develop with the Youth Justice Agency worker who supervised the completion of their reparation plan, and from the ethos and humanising response they received from the Youth Justice Agency as a whole. Financial reparation as a result of a mediation, came to the fore as an element supporting desistance in a few Belgian narratives. How were these factors helpful for desistance? Through these factors, the restorative justice processes helped desisters to deal with emotions of shame, blame, guilt and culpability. They instilled hope, provided an opportunity to find closure or to confirm the desister's pro-social identity. In specific situations the restorative justice process helped repairing relationships. Furthermore, it was seen as (very) helpful by the participants that the restorative justice process prevented a case to go to court, or that the restorative justice process supported a positive decision for an early release from prison. Finally, the efficacy of victimless conferences and conferences with drug addicted offenders are areas which merit further attention, as our findings indicate that these situations may prevent restorative justice processes from influencing desistance. Details: Leuven: European Forum for Restorative Justice, 2015. 190p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 7, 2016 at: http://www.euforumrj.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Research-report-desistance-and-RJ-total-doc-24-11-final.pdf Year: 2015 Country: Europe URL: http://www.euforumrj.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Research-report-desistance-and-RJ-total-doc-24-11-final.pdf Shelf Number: 145115 Keywords: DesistanceRecidivismReoffendingRestorative JusticeVictim-Offender Mediation |
Author: Rowlinson, Tony Title: An Observational Process Study of a Short Programme for lowerrisk Domestic Abuse Offenders under Conditional Caution in the Hampshire CARA Experiment Summary: The 2013/2014 crime survey of England and Wales found that 28% of women and nearly 15% of men had experienced any domestic abuse (DA) since the age of 16. How to prevent more victims of domestic abuse and so reduce harm is the current focus of all Chief Constables, especially as the evidence base to date suggests that progression through the formal criminal justice system post-arrest for domestic abuse does not effectively reduce DA re-offending. Project CARA is a randomised control trial which started in 2012 continuing through December 2015, and which tests the effectiveness of a conditional caution for eligible lower-risk domestic abuse offenders. Half the participants in the trial are required post-arrest to attend a particular domestic abuse prevention workshop programme designed and delivered by a charity, The Hampton Trust (who gave conditional permission for the author to observe the workshop). Subsequent reoffending by these participants was compared with offending by those not randomly assigned to the workshop programme. The experiment is not yet complete although indicative results (November 2015) are very encouraging. Even though this workshop programme appears to be effective, however, little is known about the core elements that lead to this change in behaviour for most of those who attend. The workshop has so far been a 'black box' and the principal aim of this research is to open this box, identify these core elements and to gain an understanding of the interactions between facilitators and perpetrators that promotes behavioural change. This thesis reports on this observational study. Through analysis of 1400 participant observer hours, the principles and processes of Motivational Interviewing (MI) were found to be the core elements of the workshop with the more perpetrators in the workshop group, so the higher collective effervescence observed. The study also describes the detail of the workshop parts as they were found to be key elements supporting perpetrator behaviour change. Replication of the workshop so that it may reach more perpetrators and so prevent more harm to victims of DA is made more possible as a result of this research should permission for wider dissemination of the findings be provided by the Hampton Trust. The findings of the research underpin the need for police to partner with and commission third sector providers of domestic abuse interventions which are proven to work, rather than attempt to reduce domestic violence through their traditional single agency response and the formal criminal justice system. Details: Cambridge, UK: Wolfson College University of Cambridge, 2015. 136p. Source: Internet Resource: Thesis: Accessed October 11, 2016 at: http://www.crim.cam.ac.uk/alumni/theses/Tony%20Rowlinson.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.crim.cam.ac.uk/alumni/theses/Tony%20Rowlinson.pdf Shelf Number: 145414 Keywords: Conditional CautionDomestic ViolenceIntimate Partner ViolenceRecidivismReoffending |
Author: Stavrou, Efty Title: The revised Group Risk Assessment Model (GRAM 2): Assessing risk of reoffending among adults given non-custodial sanctions Summary: Aim: To re-examine the Group Risk Assessment Model (GRAM) for predicting reoffending in adults given non-custodial sentences and to assess the accuracy of the model. Method: Adult offenders given non-custodial sentences in 2011 were the cohort of interest. Reoffending within 24 months of the index appearance was measured using court data. Models predicting reoffending using personal, index offence and criminal history characteristics were undertaken using multivariate logistic regression and model fits were assessed. Model validity and reliability was also measured by applying the model estimates to sub-group data and to separate smaller cohorts. Results: Of the 81,199 adult offenders, 26% reoffended within two years of the index appearance. The best model fit for GRAM 2 comprised age, gender, Indigenous status, number of concurrent offences, prior custodial sentence, prior proven offences and the index offence type. The internal and external validity of the model was strong, however application of the model to offenders from smaller geographical areas or to those with a prior history of prison or property offending should be undertaken with care. Application of the model for screening purposes should also be carefully considered. Conclusion: The GRAM 2 has been shown to be a robust tool for predicting reoffending. Although reliable, model estimates and their applicability should be re-examined periodically. Details: Sydney: NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, 2016. Source: Internet Resource: Contemporary Issues in Crime and Justice, No. 197: Accessed October 12, 2016 at: http://www.bocsar.nsw.gov.au/Documents/CJB/Report-2016-GRAM2-Group-Risk-Assessment-Model-CJB197.pdf Year: 2016 Country: Australia URL: http://www.bocsar.nsw.gov.au/Documents/CJB/Report-2016-GRAM2-Group-Risk-Assessment-Model-CJB197.pdf Shelf Number: 145439 Keywords: PredictionRecidivismReoffendingRisk Assessment |
Author: Lai, Keith Title: Does Supervision After Release From Prison Reduce Re-offending? Summary: Currently, in England and Wales, adult prisoners serving a sentence of 12 months or more are supervised by the Probation Service "on licence" upon release from custody, whilst those serving a sentence of less than 12 months are not. This paper summarises work exploring the use of a Regression Discontinuity Design to assess the impact of this supervision on re-offending rates. The analysis compares the re-offending rates of offenders either side of the 12 month licence supervision threshold. It is based on offenders with one or no previous convictions and sentenced to around a year in custody. © Crown copyright 2013 You may re-use this information (excluding logos) free of charge in any format or medium, under the terms of the Open Government Licence. To view this licence, visit http://www.nationalarchives. gov.uk/doc/open-governmentlicence/ or email: psi@nationalarchives.gsi. gov.uk Where we have identified any third party copyright material you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned. First published July 2013 ISBN 978-1-84099-606-7 Contact info: mojanalyticalservices@ justice.gsi.gov.uk Key findings For offenders with one or no previous convictions, the one-year re-offending rate is between 14 and 17 percentage points lower for offenders on licence than similar offenders not on licence. Extending the analysis to a two-year re-offending rate increased the difference between the offenders on licence and offenders not on licence to between 16 and 20 percentage points. These estimates are statistically significant at the 5% level. Whilst none of the results relating to the three-year re-offending rate were statistically significant at the 5% level, the size of the re-offending reductions are only a little smaller in absolute terms than for the one and two year re-offending reductions. More generally, the estimates are less reliable and subject to more uncertainty the longer the time period from release. The analysis suggests that a period of probation supervision after release from custody reduces the re-offending rate of offenders sentenced to around one year in custody and with one or no previous convictions. Details: London: Ministry of Justice, 2013. 3p. Source: Internet Resource: Analytical Summary: Accessed November 11, 2016 at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/224557/supervision-after-release.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/224557/supervision-after-release.pdf Shelf Number: 130133 Keywords: Offender SupervisionPrisoner ReentryProbationRecidivismReoffending |
Author: Oregon. Criminal Justice Commission Title: Oregon Recidivism Analysis Summary: Historically, recidivism in Oregon has been tracked with a single definition: a new felony conviction within three years of release for incarceration or imposition of probation. Criminal justice stakeholders are well versed in this recidivism definition, and some are in the habit of referencing a single recidivism number from memory based on the latest recidivism analysis. The new definition essentially provides three measures of recidivism, and a richer context for recidivism analysis. Developing the analysis necessary to report recidivism using this new definition requires the merging of multiple criminal justice data systems on a scale never achieved before in Oregon. This report is the fourth in a series of comprehensive statewide analysis2 using the definition of adult recidivism in HB 3194 (codified in ORS 423.557). The most recent data available is included, and the statewide recidivism analysis is provided in this report. In addition, the CJC has released an interactive and online data dashboard to present the recidivism analyses3 . This data dashboard includes many different filters and breakouts of the recidivism data, including results by gender, age, race, county, and risk to recidivate level. This dashboard is available to criminal justice stakeholders and members of the public as an interactive and online data sharing tool to provide recidivism analysis results. Many factors can impact recidivism rates such as law enforcement resources and other criminal justice system resources, the risk profile of individuals in the system, changing emphasis on arrests or prosecutions, as well as the use of evidence based programs. This analysis does not attempt to explain why recidivism rates have changed over time, but simply displays the recidivism rates for offenders released from incarceration or sentenced to felony probation statewide. This analysis shows the current statewide rates of recidivism: For those released from prison or from a felony jail sentence in the first six months of 2013: 17% were re-incarcerated for a new felony crime within three years of release, 42% were convicted of a new misdemeanor or felony crime within three years of release, and 55% were arrested for a new crime within three years of release. For those who started a felony probation sentence in the first six months of 2013: 13% were incarcerated for a new felony crime within three years, 41% were convicted of a new misdemeanor or felony crime within three years, and 49% were arrested for a new crime within three years Details: Salem, OR: Oregon Criminal Justice Commission, 2016. 35p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed December 13, 2016 at: https://www.oregon.gov/cjc/SAC/Documents/Oregon_Recidivism_Analysis_Nov2016.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: https://www.oregon.gov/cjc/SAC/Documents/Oregon_Recidivism_Analysis_Nov2016.pdf Shelf Number: 146421 Keywords: Drug OffendersFelony Offenders Recidivism Reoffending |
Author: Youth Justice Board for England and Wales Title: Youth Justice Statistics 2015/16: England and Wales Summary: These statistics concentrate on young people in the Youth Justice System (YJS) from 1 April 2015 to 31 March 2016 (hereafter the year ending March 2016). Following on from the recommendations in the Overcoming Barriers to Trust in Crime Statistics report18, this publication guides the user through the flows of young people aged 10-17 years in the justice system in England and Wales. The data described in this publication come from various sources including the Home Office, the Ministry of Justice (MoJ), Youth Offending Teams (YOTs) and youth secure estate providers. The Analysis Team and the Information Team in the Youth Justice Board (YJB) produce this report, under the direction of the Chief Statistician in the MoJ. Details of all of the administrative databases and bespoke collections used for this report can be found in the Explanatory Notes and Data Sources. Where data are taken from other publications, links can be found within the chapters. A separate Glossary has been published alongside this report to provide users with further information on the terminology, especially the types of disposals given to young people. As this is an annual report, the focus is on the year ending March 2016, however much of the data used in this report are drawn from quarterly publications and there may be more up to data available in these. The purpose of this report is to provide an overall summary of the YJS, allowing users to find everything in one place. All data referred to are available in the Excel supplementary tables that accompany this report. Separate tables covering YOT level information are also available. We have adopted rounding conventions in this publication to aid interpretation and comparisons. Figures greater than 1,000 have been rounded to the nearest 100 and those smaller than 1,000 to the nearest 10. Rates have been reported to one decimal place. Percentages have been calculated from unrounded figures and then rounded to the nearest whole percentage. Averages have either been rounded or reported to one decimal place, depending on the context. Unrounded figures have been presented in the Excel supplementary tables. The data in this report are compared with the previous year (the year ending March 2015 in most cases), with the year ending March 2006 as a long term comparator (10 years) and where a 10 year comparator is not available, the year ending March 2011 has been used (five year comparator). Any other reference period is referenced explicitly. This publication starts (in Chapter 1) by looking at the number of arrests of young people and the number of youth cautions (previously reprimands and final warnings). It then goes on (in Chapter 2) to look at young people who are entering the system for the first time. In Chapter 3 the publication describes the characteristics of young people who have been given a youth caution or who were convicted at court. The publication also covers the proven offences committed by young people (Chapter 4) and the sentences they received (Chapter 5). There are separate Chapters on the use of remand (both in custody and in the community) for young people (Chapter 6); details of the profile of young people in custody (Chapter 7) and behaviour management in the youth secure estate including statistics on the use of force as recorded under the Minimising and Managing Physical Restraint system (Chapter 8). Towards the end of the publication, in Chapter 9 we look at trends in proven youth reoffending; in Chapter 10 the criminal histories of young people in the system; and in Chapter 11 the differences between the trends in the youth and adult system. In addition, there are Annexes to the publication that cover key outcome measures relating to youth justice (Annex A), as well as information on budget and staffing levels in YOTs (Annex B). Annex C covers data from the Crime Survey for England and Wales for 10 to 15 year olds, while Annex D presents the average number of days from offence to completion. There are also details of the data sources used in this publication. Alongside this statistical release, we have published new information on the key characteristics and needs of young people in custody. This one off supplementary analytical paper is available at www.gov.uk/government/statistics/youth-justicestatistics-2015-to-2016. Details: London: Youth Justice Board and Ministry of Justice, 2017. 103p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed January 26, 2017 at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/585897/youth-justice-statistics-2015-2016.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/585897/youth-justice-statistics-2015-2016.pdf Shelf Number: 140670 Keywords: Criminal Justice Statistics Juvenile Justice Systems Juvenile Offenders Recidivism Reoffending |
Author: Fitzgerald, Robin Title: Recidivism among prisoners: Who comes back? Summary: This study examined recidivism in an Australian correctional population. Three different groups of offenders were identified from their recidivism profiles: low-risk or slow recidivists, moderate-risk or delayed recidivists, and high-risk or rapid recidivists. Slow recidivists were more likely to be younger Indigenous men, with a history of both drug use and parole suspension or cancellation. Delayed recidivists were more likely to be younger non-Indigenous women serving shorter sentences. Rapid recidivists were differentiated only by being more likely to serve shorter sentences. Data were drawn from the Queensland Corrective Services Integrated Offender Management System. The findings will be useful to policymakers and practitioners working in corrections and related fields. Details: Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology, 2016. 10p. Source: Internet Resource: Trends & issues in crime and criminal justice no. 530: Accessed February 1, 2017 at: http://www.aic.gov.au/media_library/publications/tandi_pdf/tandi530.pdf Year: 2016 Country: Australia URL: http://www.aic.gov.au/media_library/publications/tandi_pdf/tandi530.pdf Shelf Number: 140771 Keywords: Recidivism Reoffending |
Author: Great Britain. Parliament. House of Commons. Work and Pensions Committee Title: Support for Ex-offenders. Fifth Report of Session 2016-17 Summary: The Government's own assessment of the prison system is that it fails to rehabilitate or make sure criminals are prevented from reoffending. The cost to the taxpayer of reoffending stands at around L15 billion per year. It is in society's interest to bring this cost down. Members of this Committee have assisted constituents with firsthand experience of failures in rehabilitation; individuals leaving prison with no fixed accommodation, no financial support and no prospect of finding work. Employment significantly reduces the chances of reoffending. It can also lead to other positive outcomes that have been shown to reduce reoffending, such as financial security and finding a safe and permanent home. We have heard from businesses who have successfully worked with prisons to get ex-offenders into jobs but more employers must follow suit. Individuals entering prison have a range of complex needs. Nearly one-third report a learning difficulty or disability and almost half report having no school qualifications. They enter a prison system where the landscape of education and employment support is fragmented, and good practice is patchy and inconsistent. Added to this are the challenges of rising levels of violence in prisons, a reduction in prison officer numbers and pressure on capacity. Education and employment in prison The problem of employment support in prison is partly one of coordination. Currently, there is no clear strategy for how different agencies, in different prisons, should work together to achieve the common goal of getting ex-offenders into work. We urge the Government to state clearly who has ultimate responsibility for helping prison leavers into work. The Government, charities, employers and ex-offenders themselves all agree that the 'gold standard' of employment support involves employers working in prisons and offering work placements through Release on Temporary License. Over the course of this inquiry, we have seen many examples of good practice, such as work done by Blue Sky, a company that works to understand employer's labour needs, delivers training in prisons and places ex-offenders into jobs. Details: London: House of Commons, 2016. 51p. Source: Internet Resource: Fifth Report of Session 2016-17; HC 58: Accessed February 11, 2017 at: https://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201617/cmselect/cmworpen/58/58.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201617/cmselect/cmworpen/58/58.pdf Shelf Number: 145020 Keywords: Correctional ProgramsEx-offender EmploymentInmate Work ProgramsPrisoner Education and TrainingPrisoner ReentryRehabilitation ProgramsReoffending |
Author: Doleac, Jennifer L. Title: The effects of DNA databases on the deterrence and detection of offenders Summary: Countries around the world use databases of criminal offenders' DNA profiles to match known offenders with crime scene evidence. The purpose is to ease police detection work and to increase the probability that offenders get caught if they reoffend, thereby deterring future criminal activity. However, relatively little is known about the behavioral effects of this law enforcement tool. We exploit a large expansion of Denmark's DNA database in 2005 to measure the effect of DNA profiling on criminal behavior. Individuals charged after the expansion were much more likely to be added to the DNA database than similar offenders charged just before that date. Using a regression discontinuity strategy, we find that the average effect of the DNA database is a reduction in recidivism. By using the rich Danish register data, we further show that effects are heterogeneous across observable offender characteristics; it is mainly offenders initially charged with violent crime that are deterred from committing new crimes. We also find that DNA profiling has a positive detection effect, increasing the probability that repeat offenders get caught. Finally, we find evidence that DNA profiling changes non-criminal behavior: offenders added to the DNA database are more likely to get or remain married. This is consistent with the hypothesis that, by deterring future criminal behavior, DNA profiling changes an offender's life course for the better. Details: Unpublished paper, 2016. 70p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 11, 2017 at: http://jenniferdoleac.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/DNA_Denmark.pdf Year: 2016 Country: Denmark URL: http://jenniferdoleac.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/DNA_Denmark.pdf Shelf Number: 147325 Keywords: Criminal DeterrenceCriminal InvestigationDNA FingerprintingDNA TypingRecidivismReoffending |
Author: Centre for Justice Innovation Title: Problem-solving Courts: An Evidence Review Summary: Problem-solving courts put judges at the centre of rehabilitation. Generally operating out of existing courts, problem-solving courts yoke together the authority of the court and the services necessary to reduce reoffending and improve outcomes. This paper reviews the research on problem-solving courts and finds that, when used correctly, they can reduce reoffending and cut costs. Coming at a time when both the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice have expressed an interest in problem-solving, this review is designed to inform the development of government policy and, more importantly, to help shape the practice developed within pilots in England and Wales. What does the evidence tell us? There are many different kinds of problem-solving courts, each specialising in tackling a different need, type of crime, or even a different area. Looking at the evidence for different forms of court, we found: Drug courts: The evidence on adult drug courts is strong. It suggests that they are effective at reducing substance misuse and reoffending. They are particularly effective with offenders who present a higher risk of reoffending. However, the evidence on juvenile drug courts is negative. It suggests they have either minimal or harmful impacts on young offenders. Family drug and alcohol courts: The evidence on family drug and alcohol courts (and the related family treatment courts) is good. It suggests that they are effective in tackling parental substance misuse and can reduce the number of children permanently removed from their families. Mental health courts: The evidence on mental health courts is good. High-quality international evidence suggests that mental health courts are likely to reduce reoffending, although they may not directly impact offenders’ mental health. Domestic violence courts: The evidence on the impact of problem-solving domestic violence courts on outcomes for victims,such as victim safety and satisfaction, is good. The evidence on their ability to reduce the frequency and seriousness of a perpetrator reoffending is promising. This is encouraging when set against the lack of other effective options for reducing reoffending by perpetrators of domestic violence. Community courts: The international evidence that community courts reduce reoffending and improve compliance with court orders is promising. However, the evidence of their impact in England and Wales is mixed (though drawing conclusions from a single pilot site is difficult). We also looked at evidence on effective ways of working with women and young adults in the justice system. While problem-solving courts working with these groups are a new idea and little direct evidence is available on their effectiveness, the evidence suggests that there is potential for courts for these groups to improve outcomes if they draw from existing good practice. Why do problem-solving courts work? As well as looking at whether problem-solving courts work, we also looked at research which seeks to understand how they work. We found two main themes: Procedural fairness: evidence shows that perception of fair treatment leads to better compliance with court orders. Effective judicial monitoring is strongly associated with effectiveness. It relies on clear communication and certainty. Details: London: The Centre, 2016. 46p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 17, 2017 at: http://justiceinnovation.org/portfolio/problem-solving-courts-an-evidence-review/ Year: 2016 Country: International URL: http://justiceinnovation.org/portfolio/problem-solving-courts-an-evidence-review/ Shelf Number: 146967 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationCommunity CourtsDomestic Violence CourtsDrug CourtsFamily and Alcohol CourtsMental Health CourtsProblem-Solving CourtsRecidivismReoffending |
Author: Centre for Justice Innovation Title: Point me in the right direction: Making advice work for former prisoners Summary: People released from prison face myriad obstacles on the hard road towards a new life. They will need to overcome a shortage of affordable housing, mistrust and discrimination from employers, and a complex and inflexible benefits system. Social welfare advice services such as Citizens Advice Bureaus, Law Centres and independent advice providers can help with these issues. But due to far-reaching cuts, these services often don't work for former prisoners who don't know the services, find it hard to get appointments, and face a sense of stigma about their offending past. This report looks at how we can make advice work better for people who have been in prison. Life after prison Housing and employment play a key role in helping people to build crime free lives. Prisoners who find a stable place to live shortly after release are 15% less likely to reoffend, while those who find paid work are 9% less likely. However, our research uncovered numerous examples of former prisoners encountering many obstacles with even these basics: One person was living in private rented accommodation which was so damp it was making him ill. When he complained to the landlord, he was told that his criminal background was frightening his neighbours and was pressured into leaving. A second person had been employed for several years when a change of role within her organisation triggered a new criminal record check. She was wrongly accused of lying about her convictions and dismissed. A third was required to stay in a probation hostel after leaving prison but was dependent on benefits to pay his rent. When he was sanctioned for missing an appointment he was left without income and threatened with eviction, which could mean being recalled to custody. He was left with a stark choice - reoffend to raise his rent money or risk ending up in prison. Advice for former prisoners Social welfare advice services specialise in helping people deal with these kinds of issues. They offer free advice to help people understand and defend their rights. However, our research suggests that people who have been in prison face three barriers to accessing them: Awareness: Many of the service users we spoke to were not aware of the existence of advice service or the ways that they could help. Access: Recent cuts to legal aid and other funding and increases in demand have increased waiting times and reducing the help that's on offer. Stigma: Former prisoners we spoke to felt that services would not welcome them because of their criminal past. As one put it: "as an ex-con, they'll do nothing for you." Making advice work We have identified four ways in which social welfare advice can be improved for former prisoners: Advice clinics in prison to help prisoners with issues like benefits and housing as they prepare for release. Training and resources for probation officers to help them to identify when social welfare advice can be helpful and to refer clients into these services. Better online directories of advice service can help service users find advice, and let services signal that they welcome people who have been in prison. New advice services which specialise in working with offenders and which employ people with experience of the justice system as staff and offer a more wide-ranging and long term support. However, many of these options will cost money. And even those with no direct cost may be swimming against the tide of the advice sector which, faced with an increasing gap between demand and supply, is struggling to cope with existing client groups rather than seeking out new ones. For this reason, we would urge commissioners of offender services – such as the National Offender Management Service, individual probation providers or newly empowered prison governors – to actively seek to include social welfare advice services in their commissioning processes and supply chains. Details: London: The Centre, 2016. 23p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 17, 2017 at: http://justiceinnovation.org/portfolio/point-right-direction/ Year: 2016 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://justiceinnovation.org/portfolio/point-right-direction/ Shelf Number: 146968 Keywords: Ex-OffendersPrisoner ReentryRecidivismReoffending |
Author: Queensland. Department of Premier and Cabinet Title: Queensland Parole System Review: Final Report Summary: The Honourable Annastacia Palaszczuk MP, Premier and Minister for the Arts and the Honourable Bill Byrne MP, Minister for Police, Fire and Emergency Services and Minister for Corrective Services established a review into the parole system in Queensland. Mr Walter Sofronoff QC was appointed to lead the review. The review sought input from victims' organisations, organisations working with offenders, academic researchers and experts, interested members of the public and persons working in the criminal justice system. A report including findings and recommendations was provided to the Premier and Minister for the Arts and the Minister for Police, Fire and Emergency Services and Minister for Corrective Services on 1 December 2016. Details: Brisbane: Queensland Government, 2016. 362p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed march 6, 2017 at: https://parolereview.premiers.qld.gov.au/assets/queensland-parole-system-review-final-report.pdf Year: 2016 Country: Australia URL: https://parolereview.premiers.qld.gov.au/assets/queensland-parole-system-review-final-report.pdf Shelf Number: 141348 Keywords: Community-Based CorrectionsCorrectional AdministrationParoleRecidivismReoffending |
Author: Willis, Matthew Title: Bail Support: A review of the literature Summary: This report presents the results of a literature review on bail support programs and services, commissioned by the Australian Capital Territory Justice and Community Safety Directorate as part of their Justice Reform Strategy. The literature review was conducted through a wide range of resources on criminological and other social services databases accessed through the services of Australian Institute of Criminology's JV Barry Library and through examination of government agency websites and generally available Internet resources. The literature search found information on a range of different support programs, including evaluations and reviews of some of those programs. Each Australian state and territory has at least one program or service available to support people on bail, either directly to allow the courts to grant bail or to provide treatment and other services during a defendant's time on bail. In some instances different types of programs have been merged, but overall bail support programs share substantial commonalities across Australia. They nonetheless vary in the range of services available, the extent and duration of those services, the degree to which services are provided directly by government agencies or provided through referral by non-government agencies. There are differences between Australian jurisdictions in the eligibility requirements for defendants to participate in the program, with some requiring that defendants have entered a guilty plea while this is not a consideration for others. In addition to the programs offered throughout Australia, the literature review included bail support and supervision responses in New Zealand, Canada and the United Kingdom. The program and service responses in those nations are generally similar to those in Australia, representing broadly comparable criminal justice systems and processes, and broadly comparable needs of offenders and defendants. The literature review also examined practices in a number of European countries, including Scandinavian countries. This aspect of the review showed that these countries take quite different approaches from Australia in the way they determine and effect the release or incarceration of accused persons. In Scandinavian countries bail is very rarely used. From the examination of bail support practices, and the evaluations and reviews that have been undertaken of various programs and services, a set of best practice principles for the implementation and operation of bail support programs was identified. These principles will apply both to programs targeting adults, and those targeting children and young people. However, there will be some differences in application of the principles, reflecting differences in legal considerations, responsibilities and needs between adult and youth clients. Best practice principles suggest that bail support programs should: be voluntary, ensuring that the client has at least some degree of motivation and willingness to engage with treatment and make changes to their life be timely and individualised, being available immediately upon bail being granted and able to respond to the accused person's immediate needs, even before they have left the court be holistic in nature, addressing the full range of the individual's criminogenic needs utilise collaborative arrangements and interagency approaches involving other government and non-government service providers adopt a strong and consistently applied program philosophy that manifests program-wide and at the level of individual case managers emphasise prioritise support before supervision, with treatment and responding to an individual's criminogenic needs being privileged over monitoring and supervision be localised and able to make use of local community resources and knowledge have a court-based staffing presence and establish good working relationships with court officers and service providers. Working relationships with court officials and the judiciary are important for establishing credibility and instilling judicial confidence be based on sound guidelines and processes that assist them to interface with the structured processes of the courts and the requirements of court orders while maintaining program integrity. The implementation of bail support programs also poses a number of challenges. Perhaps the foremost is the availability of suitable, affordable housing. This is critical to defendants being granted bail and being able to complete a bail program. Housing is also critical to longer term successful outcomes in terms of employment and maintaining a stable pro-social lifestyle. Housing availability is a challenge across all Australian jurisdictions and will remain an issue for bail support service providers. The establishment of bail hostels, as widely used in the UK, may present a way of increasing housing availability, although hostels raise a range of issues and have had little success in Australia. The availability and accessibility of treatment programs and other services is integral to the provision of bail support. Limited treatment places, particularly outside metropolitan areas, are a barrier to clients being able to successfully complete bail programs Despite these challenges, experience in Australia and overseas shows that government agencies are able to deliver effective bail support services to a wide range of people coming before the courts. Bail support services have been demonstrated to contribute to reduced remand populations, reduced reoffending among participants and improved sentencing and long term outcomes for accused persons and for the criminal justice system. Details: Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology, 2015. 39p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 6, 2017 at: http://cdn.justice.act.gov.au/resources/uploads/JACS/PDF/Bail_support_literature_review_v02_1.pdf Year: 2015 Country: Australia URL: http://cdn.justice.act.gov.au/resources/uploads/JACS/PDF/Bail_support_literature_review_v02_1.pdf Shelf Number: 141350 Keywords: BailPretrial JusticeRecidivismReoffending |
Author: Prell, Lettie Title: Iowa Recidivism Report: Prison Return Rates. FY2007 Releases Tracked for 3 Years Summary: Over the past several years, The Association of State Correctional Administrators (ASCA) has developed standard definitions of performance measures of importance to corrections. States adopting these standard measures will eventually be able to compare their performance with similar states, and set benchmarks for improvement. ASCA has defined a measure of recidivism -- the return rate to prison - which describes the percent of offenders released from prison who return within three years. The measure includes offenders released to parole supervision as well as those who discharge due to expiration of sentence. Prison releases also include exits from work release per ASCA definitions. In addition to reporting the overall return rate to prison, returns due to new convictions versus technical violations are also compiled. While Iowa has periodically conducted recidivism studies in this area for decades, some adjustments had to be made in order to conform to the ASCA counting rules. The Iowa Department of Corrections made these adjustments in the FY2000 and FY2004 data sets in order to respond to a PEW Trusts survey on this topic. Their report on FY2000 and FY2004 recidivism may be found at http://www.pewcenteronthestates.org/uploadedFiles/Pew_State_of_Recidivism.pdf. This report documents that Iowa's recidivism rates are consistently well below the average for all states. Justice Data Warehouse programming has now been completed that enables calculation of the return rate to prison on a regular basis. This report provides comparison of recidivism for FY2007 releases with the prior two years, and then provides more detail regarding the FY2007 recidivism findings. Highlights include the following: - Recidivism rates declined as prison releases increased. The FY2007 return rate to prison was 31.8%, the lowest among the three years studied - and was achieved despite a 37% increase in prison releases since FY2000. - Larger drops in recidivism for some offender sub-groups. Recidivism rates and particularly returns to prison for new convictions dropped markedly for women and African-Americans. There was also a very large drop in recidivism for offenders with chronic mental illnesses. - Decline in returns to prison due to new convictions. In FY2007, 31 fewer offenders were returned for new convictions compared with FY2004 returnees-despite 511 more offenders being released. Parole supervision may reduce reoffending, Although more research is needed, analysis suggests that new convictions among prison releases could be further reduced if more offenders received post-release supervision, rather being left to discharge their sentences. This is especially important because there has been an increase in discharges from prison compared with paroles. Reversing this trend would entail earlier releases for some offenders, but potentially achieve greater public safety. Details: Des Moines: Iowa Department of Corrections, 2011. 23p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 17, 2017 at: https://www.legis.iowa.gov/docs/publications/SD/24677.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: https://www.legis.iowa.gov/docs/publications/SD/24677.pdf Shelf Number: 131209 Keywords: Offender SupervisionRecidivismReoffending |
Author: Poynton, Suzanne Title: Bonds, suspended sentences and re-offending: Does the length of the order matter? Summary: Aim: To examine the effectiveness of good behaviour bonds and suspended sentences in reducing re-offending. Method: Propensity score matching was used to match offenders who received a court imposed bond of less than 24 months with offenders who received a court imposed bond of 24 months or more. These two matched groups were then compared on two re-offending outcomes; the likelihood of reoffending within three years of the index offence and the time to first new conviction. Propensity score matching was also used to match offenders who received a court imposed suspended sentence of less than 12 months with offenders who received a court imposed suspended sentence of 12 months or more. Again, the likelihood of reoffending and the time to first reconviction were compared for these matched groups. Reoffending comparisons between long and short bonds, and long and short suspended sentences were repeated separately for supervised and unsupervised orders. Results: After adjusting for other factors, the probability of reconviction and the time to reconviction were lower for offenders placed on bonds 24 months or longer compared with offenders placed on shorter bonds. A significant effect of bond length on reoffending was apparent for both supervised and unsupervised orders. After adjusting for other factors, the probability of reconviction and the time to reconviction were also lower for offenders given long (12 month plus) suspended sentences compared with offenders given short suspended sentences. However, no significant effect of suspended sentence length was found when supervised and unsupervised suspended sentences were analysed separately. Conclusion: This evidence suggests long bonds and long suspended sentences are more effective in reducing re-offending than short bonds and short suspended sentences. Details: Canberra: Criminology Research Advisory Council, 2012. 38p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 17, 2017 at: http://crg.aic.gov.au/reports/1314/02-1112-FinalReport.pdf Year: 2012 Country: Australia URL: http://crg.aic.gov.au/reports/1314/02-1112-FinalReport.pdf Shelf Number: 131264 Keywords: RecidivismReoffendingSentencingSuspended Sentences |
Author: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare Title: Young people returning to sentenced youth justice supervision 2015-16 Summary: The majority of young people who receive a supervised youth justice sentence serve only 1 sentence, and do not return. For those born from 1990-91 to 1997-98, about 61% had only 1 sentence before the age of 18. Of the young people aged 10-16 in 2014-15 who were released from sentenced community-based supervision, about 22% returned to sentenced supervision in 6 months, and 46% returned within 12 months. Of those released from sentenced detention, 48% returned to sentenced supervision within 6 months, and 74% returned within 12 months. Details: Canberra: AIHW, 2017. 42p. Source: Internet Resource: Juvenile Justice Series No. 21: Accessed June 28, 2017 at: http://www.aihw.gov.au/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=60129559882 Year: 2017 Country: Australia URL: http://www.aihw.gov.au/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=60129559882 Shelf Number: 146433 Keywords: Community Corrections Community-Based Supervision Juvenile Justice Systems Juvenile Offenders Recidivism ReoffendingYouthful Offenders |
Author: Mews, Aidan Title: Impact evaluation of the prison-based Core Sex Offender Treatment Programme Summary: The aim of the research was to extend the evidence base on the effectiveness of treatment for sexual offenders. This study measures the impact of the prison-based Core Sex Offender Treatment Programme (SOTP) on the re-offending outcomes of sex offenders in England and Wales, whilst controlling for the different observable characteristics, needs, and risk factors of offenders. Core1 SOTP is a cognitive-behavioural psychological intervention designed by the HM Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS) for imprisoned men who have committed sexual offences. The Programme is intended to reduce sexual reoffending amongst participants by identifying and addressing known criminogenic needs. It was accredited for use in prisons in 1992 by the then HM Prison and Probation Service Prison and Probation Services Joint Accreditation Panel, which later became the Correctional Services Accreditation and Advice Panel (CSAAP). The CSAAP help the MOJ and HMPPS to develop and implement high quality offending behaviour programmes and promote excellence in programmes designed to reduce reoffending. Programmes are assessed against a set of criteria derived from the "what works" evidence base. These include having a clear model of change, effective risk management, targeting offending behaviour, employing effective methods, ensuring relevance to individual learning styles, and maintaining the quality and integrity of delivery. Changes have been made to the targets, the content, and the methods used in Core SOTP since its introduction in response to emerging research. As a result, during the course of this study (and in the period thereafter) the Programme has changed. However, it remains a cognitive behavioural group based treatment approach. It was, and remains, available in approximately one-sixth of male prison establishments in England and Wales and is intended for individuals sentenced to 12 months or more, who had either a current or previous (sentence) sex offence, were willing to engage in treatment, and were not in denial of their offending. There were 2,562 convicted sex offenders who started treatment under the prison-based Core Sex Offender Treatment Programme between 2000 and 2012 in England and Wales. These were matched to 13,219 co Police National Computer (PNC) records, SOTP treatment records, and the Offender Assessment System (OASys) database (where available). Standardised mean differences between the matched treated and comparison groups for the matching factors showed that the matching quality achieved was excellent. Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to match sexual offenders who participated in Core SOTP (treated sex offenders) to similar sexual offenders who did not. PSM is a statistical matching technique which uses factors theoretically and empirically associated with both receiving the treatment and the outcome variable (i.e. reoffending) to predict a 'propensity score', which represents the likelihood of entering treatment. This propensity score is then used to match treated individuals to comparison offenders who are similar to them. The matched treatment and comparison groups were then compared on an extensive range of proven reoffending outcomes (sexual and non-sexual). These outcome measures were calculated over a period of up to 13.9 years (average of 8.2 years) starting from each offender's release from prison between 2002 and 2012, with the follow-up period finishing in October 2015. For all individuals in this study (the treatment group plus the unmatched comparison group), the binary reoffending rate for all offences was 38.3% and the sexual reoffending rate excluding breaches,4 was 7.5%. These are low when compared to international studies but are within the range of other UK-based studies on reconviction rates for sex offenders (Craig et al., 2008). PSM can provide a robust quasi-experimental approach, although offenders can only be matched on observable variables. While extensive efforts were undertaken in identifying relevant factors, it is possible that unobserved factors could influence the findings that emerge from this research. Such factors include deviant sexual interest, general self-regulation problems and the degree of violence associated with the current sexual offence. Key findings The main findings of the analysis were as follows: - Some statistically significant differences were detected over an average 8.2 year follow up period. They were small in magnitude although they widened over the follow-up period. In particular: - More treated sex offenders committed at least one sexual reoffence (excluding breach) during the follow-up period when compared with the matched comparison offenders (10.0% compared with 8.0%). - More treated sex offenders committed at least one child image reoffence during the follow-up period when compared with the matched comparison offenders (4.4% compared with 2.9 %). Otherwise, the matched treated and comparison groups had similar reoffending rates across a variety of outcome measures. - A variety of sensitivity analyses were performed, which mostly focused on the sexual reoffending measure. The sexual reoffending treatment effect was found to be reasonably stable across these. As previously noted, it is possible that these results could be materially influenced by unobserved factors. However, such factors would need to increase both the odds of treatment and the odds of reoffending after controlling for the observable factors that were included within the matching process. In fact to conclude that the sexual re-offending treatment impact is not statistically significantly different from a reduction of 2 percentage points, the odds of treatment and re-offending would both need to increase by 122%. This increases to 219% for a 5 percentage point reduction. While the sensitivity analysis, involving both treatment and comparison groups, shows reoffending rates to be higher for individuals who have higher risk profiles, the matching process includes a range of factors that are used to determine risk. Conclusions The results suggest that while Core SOTP in prisons is generally associated with little or no changes in sexual and non-sexual reoffending, there were some statistically significant differences. The small changes in the sexual reoffending rate suggest that either Core SOTP does not reduce sexual reoffending as it intends to do, or that the true impact of the Programme was not detected. This study draws on large treatment and comparison groups, long follow-ups, and many matching factors, thus addressing the most common shortcomings in the research field on sex offenders' reoffending behaviour. However it still has a number of limitations that could either bias the findings or the interpretation of them. In particular: - It is impossible to conclusively rule out the absence of variables relating to deviant sexual interest, general self-regulation problems and the degree of violence associated with the current sexual offence that could possibly influence the results. Moreover, it is possible that the available data do not fully account for issues such as motivation to address offending behaviour. However, these absences are at least partly accounted for by matching factors included in this study (e.g. sexual deviancy by matching factors covering previous offending). Furthermore as shown above, what remains unaccounted for would need to have strong relationships both with participation onto treatment and reoffending to conclude that Core SOTP is associated with a reduction in sexual reoffending. - The estimated impact of Core SOTP was found to be similar when removing from the comparison group those who were identified as having done community SOTP. However, it will include some differences between the matched treatment and comparison groups that reflect changes occurring after the prison sentence has commenced and which are not associated with the provision of Core SOTP. Such factors include participation on other treatment programmes in prison and in the community, differences in offender management and in supervision, and regional demographics e.g. in employment rates. - Availability of good quality data on all factors which determine an offenders' participation on core SOTP, was also a particular issue. It is possible that paucity of data on some key offender characteristics including denial of offending, and a degree of self-selection, could bias the results. Details: London: Ministry of Justice, 2017. 65p. Source: Internet Resource: Ministry of Justice Analytical Series: Accessed June 30, 2017 at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/623876/sotp-report-web-.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/623876/sotp-report-web-.pdf Shelf Number: 146479 Keywords: Cognitive-Behavioral TreatmentCorrectional ProgramsRecidivismReoffendingSex Offender TreatmentSex Offenders |
Author: Great Britain. Ministry of Justice Title: Transforming Rehabilitation: A Summary of Evidence on Reducing Reoffending Summary: This summary provides an overview of key evidence relating to reducing the reoffending of adult offenders. It has been produced to support the work of policy makers, practitioners and other partners involved in offender management and related service provision. The summary outlines evidence on factors associated with reoffending as well as desistance. It also presents evidence on aspects of general offender management and supervision, and on particular interventions and approaches that can reduce reoffending. These include drug and alcohol treatment, accommodation, education, mental health services, offending behaviour programmes and mentoring. The summary does not aim to be exhaustive and is not a formal systematic review. Evidence is drawn from the UK where possible, and reference is also made to international studies. A number of in-depth reviews of evidence on reducing reoffending have also been produced by UK and international researchers and should be referred to for detailed information. Annex B sets out useful information sources. The summary is not intended to be prescriptive. It does not offer direction or recommend particular activities. The aim is to provide a starting point for understanding the range of evidence available to support policy and practice in this area. This summary does not cover all activities and interventions that can contribute to reductions in reoffending among the adult population. These are numerous and include, for instance, activities by local partners such as the police, Police and Crime Commissioners, local authorities, and local and national health bodies. However, reference is made to general public services linked to reducing reoffending and to key partners, with examples of responsibilities for commissioning services set out briefly in Annex E to illustrate their breadth. Details: London: Ministry of Justice, 2013. 58p. Source: Internet Resource: Ministry of Justice Analytical Series: Accessed August 2, 2017 at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/243718/evidence-reduce-reoffending.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/243718/evidence-reduce-reoffending.pdf Shelf Number: 130018 Keywords: Crime Prevention Interventions Offender Supervision Recidivism Rehabilitation Reoffending |
Author: Anders, Jake Title: HMP Peterborough Social Impact Bond - cohort 2 and final cohort impact evaluation Summary: In 2010, the world's first Social Impact Bond (SIB) was launched at Peterborough Prison. It was used to fund an intervention - 'The One Service' - aimed at reducing the reoffending among prisoners discharged after serving a sentence of less than 12 months. Under the terms of the SIB, investors are paid according to how successful the One Service is in reducing reconvictions. If a minimum threshold of a 7.5% reduction in reconviction events is reached across the pilot, payment is triggered. Additionally, there is an option to trigger an early payment if a 10% reduction is noted in the number of reconviction events in individual cohorts. A propensity score matching (PSM) approach was used to estimate impact. For cohort 1, the impact was estimated, by a previous team of independent assessors, to be a reduction in reconviction events of 8.4% (Jolliffe and Hedderman, 2014). Anders and Dorsett (2017) reviewed the PSM approach, prompted in part by the desire to understand the reasons behind the differences in reconviction rates between prisoners discharged from HMP Peterborough and prisoners discharged from other prisons. Following their review, Anders and Dorsett (2017) recommended that the cohort 1 approach be maintained for cohort 2. They also recommended an adjustment to the sample selection in Cohort 2. It is important to note that this recommendation was based on the analysis of cohort 1 data and was not informed by cohort 2 reoffending data. Matching was performed for cohort 2 using a dataset that excluded reoffending data. We estimate that the One Service reduced the number of reconviction events among those discharged from HMP Peterborough by 9.7% for cohort 2. The reduction across both cohorts is estimated to be 9.0%, which reached the minimum threshold of 7.5% across all cohorts. This reduction is sufficient to trigger an outcome payment. Details: London: National Institute of Economic and Social Research, 2017. 18p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 7, 2017 at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/633243/peterborough-social-impact-bond-cohort-2-results-report.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/633243/peterborough-social-impact-bond-cohort-2-results-report.pdf Shelf Number: 146765 Keywords: Costs of Criminal Justice (U.K.) Interventions Prisoner Reentry Recidivism Rehabilitation ReoffendingSocial Impact Bonds |
Author: Farmer, Michael (Lord Farmer) Title: The Importance of Strengthening Prisoners' Family Ties to Prevention Reoffending and Reduce Intergenerational Crime Summary: The Secretary of State commissioned this Review to investigate how supporting men in prison in England and Wales to engage with their families, can reduce reoffending and assist in addressing the intergenerational transmission of crime (a landmark study found that 63% of prisoners' sons went on to offend themselves ) as part of the Government's urgently-needed reform agenda. The Ministry of Justice's own research shows that, for a prisoner who receives visits from a partner or family member, the odds of reoffending are 39% lower than for prisoners who had not received such visits. Supportive relationships with family members and significant others give meaning and all important motivation to other strands of rehabilitation and resettlement activity. As one prisoner told me, 'If I don't see my family I will lose them, if I lose them what have I got left?' Yet the unacceptable inconsistency of work that helps prisoners to maintain and strengthen these relationships across the estate shows it is not yet mainstream in offender management in the same way as employment and education. Family work should always be seen and referred to alongside these two rehabilitation activities as the third leg of the stool that brings stability and structure to prisoners' lives, particularly when they leave prison. That is why the overarching conclusion of my Review is that good family relationships are indispensable for delivering the Government's far-reaching plans across all the areas outlined in their white paper on Prison Safety and Reform, published in November 2016. If prisons are truly to be places of reform, we cannot ignore the reality that a supportive relationship with at least one person is indispensable to a prisoner's ability to get through their sentence well and achieve rehabilitation. It is not only family members who can provide these and, wherever family relationships are mentioned, it should be assumed that other significant and supportive relationships are also inferred. Consistently good family work, which brings men face-to-face with their enduring responsibilities to the family left in the community, is indispensable to the rehabilitation culture we urgently need to develop in our penal system and has to be integral to the changes sought. It helps them forge a new identity for themselves, an important precursor to desistance from crime, based on being a good role model to their children, a caring husband, partner and friend and a reliable provider through legal employment. However, responsibilities are not discharged in a vacuum. Families need to be willing and able to engage with the rehabilitation process, so harnessing the resource of good family relationships must be a golden thread running through the processes of all prisons, as well as in the implementation of all themes of the white paper. Details: London: Ministry of Justice, 2017. 112p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 23, 2017 at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/636619/farmer-review-report.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/636619/farmer-review-report.pdf Shelf Number: 146878 Keywords: Children of PrisonersFamilies of InmatesIntergenerational CrimePrison VisitsPrisoner RehabilitationRecidivismReoffendingVisitation |
Author: Doleac, Jennifer L. Title: The Interaction and Impact of State DNA Database Laws, Final Summary Overview Summary: Despite the widespread use of criminal offender DNA databases by the law enforcement community, relatively little is known about their real-world effects on criminal behavior. The purpose of DNA databases is to quickly and accurately match crime scene evidence with known offenders. They aim to reduce crime by increasing the probability of punishment, conditional on offending. They also exhibit large returns to scale. For these reasons, DNA databases are likely to be far more cost-effective than traditional law enforcement tools. Indeed, previous research has shown that DNA databases have large crime-reducing effects at the state level (Doleac, 2015). However, because DNA database expansions are - like most crime policies - legislated at the state level, the resulting policies may not be efficient from a national perspective. Each state will weigh its own costs and benefits when making policy decisions, without regard for their effects on other states. But state DNA databases do not exist in a vacuum: they could have effects on criminal behavior elsewhere. The federal government can improve the national efficiency of state-level policies by inducing states to consider the costs and benefits to their neighbors - i.e., to internalize the externalities. The federal government has invested a large amount of money in helping states expand their databases and clear sample backlogs, presumably because it perceives positive externalities to state database expansions. Positive externalities would exist if offenders are highly mobile, and are deterred or incapacitated upon being added to a state database. If they stop committing crime, this would reduce crime in other states. Positive externalities could also exist if profiles from one state help other states catch and incapacitate offenders. One important aspect of DNA database policy in the United States is that states can search for profile matches across state lines, using CODIS. This should increase the positive externalities of state-level expansions. For instance, if Georgia expands its database, neighboring states such as Florida could benefit from being able to search those additional profiles. Depending on how often crimes in Florida are committed by out-of-state offenders, the expansion of Georgia's database could help Florida identify and convict more offenders, reducing its own crime rate. When Georgia is weighing the costs and benefits of expanding its database, it will probably not consider these external benefits, and so its database will be inefficiently small; hence the justification for federal funding to encourage more expansions. However, there could be negative externalities, particularly if a state's database expansion induces probable offenders to move to another state. For instance, suppose Georgia adds felony arrestees to its database, but Florida does not include that group. Offenders in Georgia who think they could be arrested for a felony will have an incentive to move to Florida, to avoid DNA profiling and therefore detection for past or future crimes. (Such a behavioral effect is not unreasonable to expect: we typically assume that human capital is mobile, and that workers move to places with better jobs.) In this case, Georgia's database expansion would displace some of its own crime to Florida. As before, Georgia would not include this external cost in its cost-benefit analysis, but in this case a state database that seems optimal from the state's perspective will be inefficiently large from the national perspective. Which of these externalities dominates in the DNA database context is an empirical question. The goal of this project is to answer that question. This report summarizes the main findings. Details: Final report to the U.S. National Institute of Justice, 2017. 19p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 20, 2017 at: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/251035.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/251035.pdf Shelf Number: 147416 Keywords: Cost-Benefit AnalysisCriminal DeterrenceCriminal InvestigationDNA FingerprintingDNA TypingRecidivismReoffending |
Author: Wang, Joanna JJ Title: Intensive corrections orders versus short prison sentence: A comparison of re-offending Summary: Aim: To compare reoffending rates between those who received an intensive correction order (ICO) and those who received short prison sentence (less than two years). Method: Offenders' demographic characteristics, index offence characteristics, prior convictions and penalties, LSI-R score and re-offences were extracted from the Re-offending Database maintained by the NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research. Using logistic regression model with inverse probability of treatment weighting, the effect of penalty choice on re-offending was estimated. Doubly robust estimation and bivariate probit model with an instrumental variable were also used to address potential model misspecification and endogeneity of penalty assignment. As a sensitivity analysis, separate modelling was performed for offenders who were in medium to high risk categories and the prison group was restricted to those with 6 months or less fixed term. Results: There was a 11%-31% reduction in the odds of re-offending for an offender who received an ICO compared with an offender who received a prison sentence of up to 24 months. The bivariate probit model with an instrumental variable did not reveal a significant effect or evidence of endogeneity. Conclusion: These results further strengthen the evidence base suggesting that supervision combined with rehabilitation programs can have a significant impact on reoffending rates Details: Sydney: New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, 2017. 20p. Source: Internet Resource: Contemporary Issues in Crime and Justice, No. 207: Accessed October 19, 2017 at: http://apo.org.au/system/files/113866/apo-nid113866-449821.pdf Year: 2017 Country: Australia URL: http://apo.org.au/system/files/113866/apo-nid113866-449821.pdf Shelf Number: 147729 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationCommunity-based CorrectionsIntensive SupervisionRecidivismReoffending |
Author: Holmberg, Stina Title: Reintegration assistance after prison: Follow-up on the Prison and Probation Service's work with special reintegration assistance measure Summary: Within three years of release from prison, two out of five persons commit a new offence sanctionable by prison or probation. For most of these individuals, recidivism occurs within several months after they have left prison (Bra 2017). In order to reduce the risk that individuals who are released commit new offences in connection with release, the Swedish Prison and Probation Service can grant reintegration assistance at the end of their sentence. These measures smooth the transition between prison and life at liberty, and entail a gradual reduction of the Prison and Probation Service's control over the client. The four so-called special reintegration assistance measures are: - day release; - treatment period; - halfway house; - enhanced day release. Bra has been instructed by the Government to follow up on the Prison and Probation Service's work with reintegration assistance. In conjunction with this instruction, the Government instructed the Prison and Probation Service at the end of 2015 to develop and strengthen its work with reintegration assistance. Bra's instruction requires us to follow up on the progress of the Prison and Probation Service's development work and to track the scope and nature of the reintegration assistance. We are also meant to report on any impediments to well-functioning and knowledge-based reintegration assistance work. Special attention is to be paid to any differences in working methods in various parts of the country, differences between men and women, and differences for persons from different language backgrounds. The crime victim aspects are to be highlighted, where relevant. Finally, Bra is, as necessary, required to suggest ideas for further development of the reintegration assistance efforts. As a basis for the study, Bra has visited 13 different facilities ' prisons with various security classifications, detention centres, day release offices, halfway houses, and treatment homes. We have interviewed a total of 100 individuals, both staff and clients, at these facilities. Interviews have also been conducted with a number of individuals at the headquarters of the Prison and Probation Service, as well as with other strategically important individuals. In addition, Bra has had continual contact with representatives from the Prison and Probation Service's working group for the development work. Our quantitative source material includes both the Prison and Probation Service's existing statistics and a special order in respect of clients who were released from prison. Bra has also been given access to unpublished data from a study which was conducted on the Prison and Probation Service's research unit. In addition to the above, a survey of the literature in the form of previous studies and evaluations has been conducted. Details: Stockholm: Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention (Bra), 2018. 12p. Source: Internet Resource: English summary of Bra report 2017:15: Accessed April 4, 2018 at: https://www.bra.se/download/18.10aae67f160e3eba62919667/1517917740405/2017_15_Reintegration_assistance_summary.pdf Year: 2028 Country: Sweden URL: https://www.bra.se/download/18.10aae67f160e3eba62919667/1517917740405/2017_15_Reintegration_assistance_summary.pdf Shelf Number: 149687 Keywords: ParoleesPrisoner ReentryProbationersRecidivismRehabilitationReintegrationReoffending |
Author: Hillier, Joseph Title: Do offender characteristics affect the impact of short custodial sentences and court orders on reoffending? Summary: Custodial sentences of under 12 months without supervision on release are associated with higher levels of reoffending than sentences served in the community via 'court orders' (community orders and suspended sentence orders). This report examines whether this impact differs according to offenders' age, ethnicity, gender, and mental health. It also provides further analysis on the reoffending impact of suspended sentence orders compared with similar cases where community orders were given, whether the impacts vary according to the number of previous offences, and the impacts of mental health and alcohol treatment requirements. Key findings - Reductions in re-offending were associated with the use of court orders as compared with short-term custody. These effects: - Were greater for people with larger numbers of previous offenses. For people with no previous offenses, there was no statistically significant difference between the re-offending associated with short-term custody and that associated with court orders. - Differed according to an offender's age group, after controlling for the number of previous offenses. The use of court orders was associated with relatively more benefit for those aged 18-20 and those over 50, and less benefit for those aged 21-29. - Differed according to identification of mental health issues, after controlling for the number of previous offenses. The use of court orders was associated with more benefit for offenders with 'significant' psychiatric problems and those with current or pending psychiatric treatment. - Were similar across ethnic groups and for both males and females, after controlling for the number of previous offences. - For those with identified mental health issues, mental health treatment requirements attached to court orders were associated with significant reductions in re-offending where they were used, compared with similar cases where they were not. The re-offending rate was around 3.5 percentage points lower over a one-year follow-up period. - For those with identified alcohol use issues, alcohol treatment requirements were associated with similar or slightly lower re-offending where they were used compared with similar cases where they were not. - Suspended sentence orders were associated with a reduced rate of re-offending (over a one year follow-up period) of around 4 percentage points compared with similar cases where community orders were given, with a smaller impact over longer follow-up periods. Suspended sentence orders were associated with more benefit in reducing re-offending as age increased and less benefit as the number of previous offenses increased. Details: London: Ministry of Justice, 2018. 22p. Source: Internet Resource: Analytical Summary 2018 : Accessed May 23, 2018 at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/706597/do-offender-characteristics-affect-the-impact-of-short-custodial-sentences.pdf Year: 2018 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/706597/do-offender-characteristics-affect-the-impact-of-short-custodial-sentences.pdf Shelf Number: 150334 Keywords: Custodial SentencesRecidivismReoffendingSentencingShort Sentences |
Author: Hillier, Joseph Title: The Reoffending Impact of Increased Release of Prisoners on Temporary Licence Summary: Research from the USA suggests temporary release from prison is an effective way to improve offenders' reoffending and employment outcomes. This study assesses the impact of Release on Temporary Licence (ROTL) in England and Wales from a dose-response perspective. The effects on individuals' reoffending outcomes of increasing numbers of temporary releases in the period leading up to release from prison on individuals' reoffending were examined. Data of those released from prison in 2012 and 2013 were used in the analysis. Key findings - Results suggest that increased use of ROTL overall was associated with reduced reoffending for those to whom it was given prior to release from prison in 2012 and 2013. This was after controlling for offenders' characteristics, offending history and ROTL failure. - For those given at least one ROTL, additional ROTLs in the six-month period leading up to release were associated with small but statistically significant reductions in rates of proven reoffending and frequency of reoffences. - The reoffending effects associated with increased ROTLs became larger the closer individuals were to release. - The categories of ROTL were associated with different impacts. For example, after controlling for other variables, in the six-month period leading up to release: - Each additional Resettlement Day Release was associated with a 0.5% reduced odds of reoffending over a one-year follow-up period. - Each additional Resettlement Overnight Release was associated with a 5% reduced odds of reoffending over a one-year follow-up period. - Further analysis comparing those with under 25 ROTLs within six months prior to release with similar offenders with 25 or more ROTLs confirmed that the higher ROTL group had a 3.1 percentage points lower reoffending rate over a one-year follow-up period (and 0.1 fewer reoffences per offender on average). - While the approach taken in this study involved adjusting for offenders' characteristics, offending history and ROTL failure, it cannot definitively control for all factors that may influence the findings. In particular, the available data do not include ROTL release duration or contextual details such as the quality of the ROTL release. Details: London: Ministry of Justice, 2018. 15p. Source: Internet Resource: Analytical Summary: Accessed May 31, 2018 at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/709123/rotl-report.pdf Year: 2018 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/709123/rotl-report.pdf Shelf Number: 150351 Keywords: RecidivismReoffendingTemporary Release |
Author: Great Britain. House of Commons. Justice Committee Title: Transforming Rehabilition Summary: In 2014 and 2015 the Government introduced major structural reforms to the probation system, which included changes to who delivered probation services and what was delivered as part of probation. These reforms were known as Transforming Rehabilitation (TR). The TR reforms sought to: - Extend statutory rehabilitation to offenders serving custodial sentences of less than 12 months; - Introduce nationwide 'Through the Gate' resettlement services for those leaving prison; - Open up the market to new rehabilitation providers to get the best out of the public, voluntary and private sectors; - Introduce new payment incentives for market providers to focus relentlessly on reforming offenders; - Split the delivery of probation services between the National Probation Service (offenders at high risk of harm) and Community Rehabilitation Companies (low and medium risk offenders); and - Reduce reoffending. In this Report we examine the many serious issues that have arisen as part of those reforms and propose some short and medium-term solutions. The scale of the issues facing the sector is of great concern to us given that evidence suggests that if probation services are delivered well they can have a positive impact on the prospects of someone receiving probation support and wider society. Details: London: House of Commons, 2018. 90p. Source: Internet Resource: Ninth Report of Session 201719: Accessed June 25, 2018 at: https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmjust/482/482.pdf Year: 2018 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmjust/482/482.pdf Shelf Number: 150640 Keywords: Offender Supervision Probation Probationers Recidivism Reoffending |
Author: Wan, Wai Yin Title: Assessing the impact of NSW's Safer Pathway Program on recorded crime outcomes - an aggregate-level analysis Summary: Aim: To evaluate the effectiveness of the Safer Pathway program in reducing the incidence of domestic violence. Method: Data was obtained from the NSW Police Force's COPS and CIDS databases. Each of the nine LACs where the Safer Pathway program had been implemented were matched with statistically similar control LACs where the program was not available. Seven different domestic violence (DV) outcomes were examined; the number of incidents of DV offences, DV assaults, persons of interest (POIs) proceeded against for DV offences, POIs proceeded against for DV assault, victims of DV incidents, victims of DV assault and police call-outs for DV. Each outcome was analysed separately using a fixed-effect negative binomial or Poisson panel model. This analysis was performed both at the pair level (the pair analysis) and pooling LACs based on stage of implementation (the stage analysis). The main variable of interest was the difference in the trend change between the Safer Pathway and control LACs. Results: The stage analysis showed no significant results for any stage 1 LACs (where the program commenced in September 2014) for any of the outcomes examined. However, the stage 2 LACs (where the program commenced in July 2015) showed a significant decrease in three outcomes relative to the matched control LACs (all by 0.8% per month). In the pair analysis, downward differences in trend changes were found in three outcomes in Canobolas (of 2.2%, 1.6% and 2.2% per month) and one in Rose Bay (2.9% per month). Botany Bay however showed a significant upward difference in trend change in four different outcomes (ranging between 1.3 and 1.9% per month). Conclusion: In stage 2 LACs, there is evidence for a small improvement in several DV indicators after the program was implemented. The results for stage 1 LACs are mixed. Details: Sydney: NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, 2018. 26p. Source: Internet Resource: Contemporary Issues in Crime and Justice Number 210: Accessed September 18, 2018 at: http://www.bocsar.nsw.gov.au/Documents/CJB/2018-Report-Assessing-the-impact-of-NSWs-Safer-Pathway-Program-on-recorded-crime-outcomes-cjb210.pdf Year: 2018 Country: Australia URL: http://www.bocsar.nsw.gov.au/Documents/CJB/2018-Report-Assessing-the-impact-of-NSWs-Safer-Pathway-Program-on-recorded-crime-outcomes-cjb210.pdf Shelf Number: 151573 Keywords: Domestic Violence Family Violence Intimate Partner Violence Recidivism Reoffending |
Author: St. Giles Trust Title: The Evaluation of St Giles Trust's SOS Project Summary: St Giles Trust's SOS Project trains and employs reformed ex-offenders as caseworkers, who provide practical and psychological support to their clients - primarily other ex-offenders, but also those at risk of offending - to help them to avoid offending and reintegrate themselves into society. This is a pioneering model for the delivery of such services and the limited results of this paper indicate this model could have an impact if scaled and supported appropriately. This paper provides an account of a mixed-methods evaluation of the SOS Project, carried out by The Social Innovation Partnership (TSIP) and its associates, whose dual-purpose was to analyse the SOS Project's impact and optimise its implementation. The key findings of this report are: - The caseworkers themselves are the biggest strength of the SOS Project. Their commitment, willingness to challenge their clients, and ability to address their attitudes and behaviours whilst still providing support are integral to the SOS Project's work. Clients most frequently mentioned support from SOS workers and the information, advice and guidance as the most valuable parts of the SOS Project. - The SOS Project and St Giles Trust in general are clearly (based on case file reviews, interviews, and partner discussions) receiving referrals from multiple routes, and taking on clients who are difficult or not motivated to reform. This dynamic and 'hard-to-measure' variable means the reconviction analysis conducted in this study needs to be considered in this context. - The SOS Project is well-aligned with the National Offender Management Service (NOMS) understanding of best practice - it takes a holistic approach that principally targets four of NOM' reoffending risk factors this is an important foundation that St Giles Trust are targeting well. With more structure, all nine outcomes could be strongly targeted. - According to client interviews and caseworkers' self-reported outcomes, the SOS Project shows signs of positive impact. The feedback was overwhelmingly positive and case file analysis indicates good work. - A reconviction analysis showed that the reoffending rates of SOS clients were not significantly different from what would be predicted had no intervention taken place. However, due to unavoidable issues with data, these results may not accurately reflect the SOS Project's impact. Further work is recommended. - In any case, data collection needs to be improved in order to fully and accurately capture the SOS Project's impact. St Giles Trust could capture its data better with dedicated administrative support - The process of delivering this evaluation has illustrated that projects that emerge organically and subject to a wide range of funder requirements like the SOS Project (evolved over 6 years) i.e. take on a variety/difficult of clients, use multiple referral routes, and use flexible interventions need to carefully consider the evaluation methodologies and desired outcomes that they select to assess their work. Details: London: St. Giles Trust, 2013. 64p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 3, 2018 at: https://www.stgilestrust.org.uk/misc/Evaluation%20into%20SOS%20Gangs%20project%20full%20report.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://www.stgilestrust.org.uk/misc/Evaluation%20into%20SOS%20Gangs%20project%20full%20report.pdf Shelf Number: 151748 Keywords: CaseworkersEx-OffendersMentoringOffender SupervisionPeer AdvisorsRecidivismReoffending |
Author: Rahman, Sara Title: The Effect of the Violent Offender Treatment Program (VOTP) on Offender Outcomes Summary: Aim: To identify the impact of the Violent Offender Treatment Program (VOTP) on re-offending and return to custody outcomes at 24 months of free time post release. Method: Data were obtained for all offenders referred to VOTP between 2007 and 2014 and released from prison, yielding a sample size of 587 referrals. Ordinary least squares and two-stage-least-squares (2SLS) linear probability models were used to estimate the differences between those who started the program and those who did not, on four outcome variables measured at 24 months free time post release: 1) re-offending with any offence; 2) re-offending with any offence or a return to custody; 3) re-offending with a violent offence; and 4) re-offending with a violent offence or a return to custody. Similar analyses were also undertaken comparing outcomes for offenders who completed VOTP with those who did not complete the program. Results: Starting VOTP was associated with significantly lowered probability of general re-offending (by 9 percentage points), general re-offending or returning to custody (7 percentage points) at 24 months free time post release. Similar differences in the probability of general re-offending (9 percentage points) and general re-offending or returning to custody (7 percentage points) were found in relation to completing VOTP. We also find non-significant results for violent re-offending. The latter finding may be related to loss of statistical power due to sample attrition. Conclusion: VOTP appears to be associated with lower rates of general re-offending and return to custody, however the estimates obtained are based on a simple regression approach and may not represent causal effects. Replication with more robust techniques and/or a larger sample size is recommended. Details: Sydney: NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, 2018. 18p. Source: Internet Resource: (Crime and Justice Bulletin No. 216): Accessed October 11, 2018 at: https://www.bocsar.nsw.gov.au/Documents/CJB/2018-Report-Effect-of-the-Violent-Offender-Treatment-Program-(VOTP)-CJB216.pdf Year: 2018 Country: Australia URL: https://www.bocsar.nsw.gov.au/Documents/CJB/2018-Report-Effect-of-the-Violent-Offender-Treatment-Program-(VOTP)-CJB216.pdf Shelf Number: 152902 Keywords: Offender Treatment Programs Recidivism ReoffendingViolent Offenders |
Author: Probation Board for Northern Ireland Title: Evaluation of the Enhanced Combination Order Pilot Summary: Executive Summary 1.1 Overall The qualitative and quantitative evidence highlighted in this evaluation shows that the initiative has been successful in achieving its aims. The ECO pilot has been shown to be an effective programme for participants who valued the support it provided. The commitment of the staff involved was evident across all the evaluation activities and the high regard in which they were held by participants was demonstrated during the client focus groups. The initiative has been embraced by the Judiciary and the number of custodial sentences of 12 months or less, awarded by courts involved in the ECO pilot, decreased by 10.5 percent between 2015 and 2016. While there was also a reduction in the overall number of short term sentences across all the NI courts, at 2.4 percent this was lower than that across the pilot areas suggesting that ECO was impacting on prison numbers although further work is required to see if this trend continues. This reduction in custodial sentences with the resultant decrease in tax payer costs was identified as a major benefit of the pilot. The indicative costs of ECOs has been estimated at 9k per annum, which on top of the clearly beneficial social impact, the reduced re-offending rate and focus on victim issues, indicates a sentence which provides excellent value for money and better outcomes in comparison to short prison sentences. In addition there are positive and encouraging indications regarding impact on reoffending. The offending rate for a cohort of 52 ECO participants in the six months prior to being sentenced to an ECO was 57.7 percent. In the six months post sentencing, the reoffending rate at 17.3 percent was significantly lower. 1.2 Context At May 2015, statistics showed that 88 percent of prison sentences were for 12 months or less. Research has shown that short prison sentences are less effective in addressing offending behaviours than community-based disposals because there is little that can be done in practical terms to rehabilitate offenders during a short prison stay; the re-offending rate for those sentenced to a short prison term was also shown to be greater than 50 percent. The Lord Chief Justice therefore requested that the Probation Board for Northern Ireland (PBNI) develop a demanding community sentence as an alternative to the high number of short prison sentences of less than 12 months. Following consultation with DOJ, PSNI and PPS, it was agreed that PBNI would pilot an intensive community sentence as an option for Judges in the Ards and Armagh & South Down court divisions. Termed the Enhanced Combination Order (ECO), it was based on existing legislation and offered Judges an existing community option in a more intensive format. ECOs focussed on rehabilitation, victim issues, restorative practice and desistance. They also included a focus on mental health, parenting/family issues and an assessment by PBNI Psychologists. The requirements on offenders subject to such orders were to: - complete unpaid work within local communities at an accelerated pace, - participate in victim focussed work, and if possible, a restorative intervention, - undergo assessment and, if appropriate, mental health interventions with PBNI psychology staff, - participate in parenting/family support work if applicable, - complete an accredited programme, if appropriate, such as Thinking Skills, - undertake intensive offending focussed work with their Probation Officer (PO). This report summarises the findings from an evaluation to assess the effectiveness of the initiative and gather evidence to establish the extent to which these requirements are being met. 1.3 Approach The ECO initiative, operational since 1st October 2015, is scheduled to run until September 2017. This report uses administrative data and qualitative information gathered through surveys, interviews and focus groups with participants, Probation staff, Judges and stakeholders to identify progress made during the first 18 months. By 10th March 2017, 136 offenders had been subject to an ECO; of these 13 had completed the order, 12 had been revoked and 111 were actively engaged; 22 breaches were recorded during the period including the 12 participants who were revoked. 1.4 Outcomes Offending focussed work It was evident from the written comments recorded in the data sheet that POs were working extensively on the requirement to undertake intensive offending focussed work with participants, exploring the impact of participants behaviour on victims, their family and the community. In general participants also thought that the order had helped them address their problems and the way they thought about their future offending behaviour. Participants often demonstrated a high level of respect for their PO/Probation Services Officer (PSO) and were keen not to let them down'. Due to the timing of this evaluation it is only possible to provide a comparison between the re-offending rates six months before the ECO was made and six months after the ECO was made. While results should be viewed with caution due to the small numbers and the limited time frames involved, the re-offending rate in the six months post sentencing was significantly lower than in the six months prior to being sentenced to an ECO. While 37 participants re-offended while on the pilot, qualitative evidence suggests that the intense support helped reduce re-offending among some. Accredited Programmes The completion of an accredited programme, if appropriate, was a requirement of the ECO pilot and over one third of participants had additional requirements attached to their order, mainly Drug/Alcohol Counselling, Thinking Skills and Treatment Programmes. By March 2017, approximately one third of participants had taken part in at least one programme, some of which had been recommended during the Psychology assessments. The Thinking Skills and Human Faces courses were identified as particularly effective and some participants who initially felt such interventions weren't necessary for them had found their course really beneficial. Support with employment was also available through Community and Voluntary Sector initiatives such as ACCESS (support to increase employability), Work Routes and People First, and in Newry an external adviser provided guidance on education and potential job related opportunities. The data showed that at least five participants had obtained employment during their time on the order. Parenting/Family Support Just over half of participants were reported to need support with parenting/family issues. The requirement therefore to participate in parenting/family work was appropriate for them and by March 2017 around one quarter of all participants had undertaken work/received support in this area. Participants were reported to have engaged well and along with Probation staff viewed this element of the order very favourably. Examples were provided across the research of the impact this aspect had on family life including gaining access to and custody of children. The support provided by Barnardos was highly valued with the primary aim to increase parental understanding of the impact offending had on childrens welfare and life chances. It was evident that this aim was being achieved through conversations with focus group participants. In addition to the work related to parenting, support was also provided to those experiencing marital difficulties and family members of participants with addiction and mental health issues. Psychological Assessment Undergoing an assessment and, if appropriate, mental health interventions with PBNI psychology staff was a further ECO requirement. At the time of the evaluation just under half of participants had gone or were going through the psychological assessment process; referrals had been made in around a further fifth of cases. Staff and participants were generally very positive of this element, particularly as issues with alcohol/substance misuse, previous life traumas and mental health were challenges for many participants. The one to one work undertaken by the Psychologists as well as their recommended interventions/programmes were viewed very favourably and over two fifths of participants were recorded as having undertaken mental health or addiction related work. Details: Belfast, Ireland: 2017. 32p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed January 9, 2019 at: https://www.pbni.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/ECO-Evaluation_Final-Report-04.12.17.pdf Year: 2017 Country: Ireland URL: https://www.pbni.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/ECO-Evaluation_Final-Report-04.12.17.pdf Shelf Number: 154018 Keywords: Community Sentence Community-based Initiatives Enhanced Combination Order Incarceration Ireland Offenders Prison Prison Sentencing Probation Board for Northern Ireland Probation Officers Reoffending |
Author: The Social Innovation Partnership Title: The Wire (Women's Information and Resettlement for Ex-Offenders) Evaluation Report Summary: Summary of findings - Reconviction rates: The reconviction rate for the eligible 104 engaged WIRE partcipants (out of a total of 342 referred women) was 42%, against 51% for the national average for women offenders and 88% for prolific offenders. Whilst there are issues around how this is evidenced, our additional qualitative analysis broadly supports that the WIRE is a valued service. - Desistance: The average number of offences per participant halved for the 12 months at liberty after the programme as compared to the 12 months before (at 2 offences as compared to 4 previously). Again, there are similar evidencing issues, although we seek to address these through our additional analysis (e.g. interviews). - OASys:Using OGRS3 categories, roughly half of WIRE participants in "high" and "very high" risk of reoffending categories had not reoffended after 12 months (which is half the standard OGRS3 period), which appears to be an encouraging result. However, these results will need to be confirmed after two years post-conviction. - Continuing success: Resourcing issues could affect the ongoing success of the WIRE programme, limiting staff's ability to (i) give dedicated personal support and (ii) perform a sufficient amount of ongoing reporting to improve performance as measured by both Stage 1 and Stage 2 indicators, and also to evidence successes and support fundraising. - Programme Strategy: Evidence suggests that WIRE outcomes are more likely to be achieved at the early stage (Stage 1) of WIRE interventions. - People (resourcing): The project struggled to match staffing levels with demand (principally due to funding constraints), despite this the team were able to meet housing and meet at the gates targets. - Administration: There were a number of issues identified with reporting strategies. The evaluators worked with the WIRE team to identify and implement solutions. - People: The complex nature and motivation of clients to change has the potential to impact the success of the project, clients need to want to engage for success to be achieved. The staff are also a key component of the success of the project, the workers need to possess a unique blend of tenaciousness to achieve outcomes and empathy to understand the women's experiences. - Outcomes: Housing outcomes are a strength of the WIRE and it is from this solid foundation that the workers are able to support the women in desisting from crime. - Process: The individualised nature of the service requires staff have skills and that enable them to dedicate the time needed to support women through this intense period. High demand for the service and funding constraints mean staff numbers are such that they have been focusing on Stage 1 as opposed to stage 2. Recommendations and Next Steps - Evidence practices: A number of reporting and evidence practices have been improved in the course of this evaluation. These improvements should be endorsed and maintained, within the WIRE and beyond, as a way of improving services, ensuring value for money and potentially assisting with future fundraising activities. - Staff and resourcing: Sufficient staff and resources should be allocated to the WIRE, including administrative support, to allow the core team to focus on delivery. To improve Stage 2 outcomes, the programme should be seen as sufficiently distinct (WIRE Plus) to require smaller case loads - Process refinements and stakeholder engagement: Work should be done with prisons to restore an appropriate prison presence, even if just once a week, for WIRE staff. Awareness of the WIRE and its full range of work (i.e. beyond housing) should also be raised amongst other key organisations, along with the evidence of the WIRE's work with clients. Details: London, UK: The Social Innovation Partnership, 2012. 31p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed January 16, 2019 at: https://www.stgilestrust.org.uk/misc/Support%20for%20vulnerable%20women%20leaving%20prison%20full%20report.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://www.stgilestrust.org.uk/misc/Support%20for%20vulnerable%20women%20leaving%20prison%20full%20report.pdf Shelf Number: 154216 Keywords: DesistanceEx-OffendersFemale OffendersGenderHousingPost ConvictionPrisonerPrisoner-Release ProgramsPrisonsReoffendingResettlementWomen Offenders |
Author: Queensland Productivity Commission Title: Inquiry into Imprisonment and Recidivism: Draft Report Summary: In September 2018, the Queensland Government directed the Queensland Productivity Commission to undertake an inquiry into imprisonment and recidivism. This report summarises our early findings and nominates areas where further information is sought. Despite declining crime rates, the imprisonment of Queenslanders is escalating. Concerning trends include the growth in the rate of imprisonment of women, which doubled the rate of men over the last ten years, and the significant and growing over-representation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders. These matters are not unique to Queensland and reflect wider Australian and international trends. In direct financial terms, imprisonment costs the Queensland community almost a billion dollars every year. Its social costs, although harder to measure, are much greater. Incarceration has profound impacts on prisoners, their families and the community- loss of employment, housing, relationships, as well as mental health problems and potential criminogenic effects-all of which increase the risk of reoffending. In this report, we ask whether community safety is best served by continuing the current approach. Is there a case for some crimes to be punished with non-custodial options? Could better outcomes be achieved with greater attention to rehabilitation and reintegration? Would some offences be better treated as medical issues than criminal offences? Should victims be empowered by building in restitution and restoration options? Early indications are that the community may actually be made safer by reforming current practices, and we are seeking further information to allow us to complete the inquiry. This report reflects the contributions of over 400 stakeholders, representing a broad cross-section of Queenslanders-government agencies, victim peak bodies, prisoner advocates, unions, the judiciary, corrections officers, prisoners, Indigenous peak bodies, and academics. We applaud the willingness of stakeholders to seek better outcomes for victims, offenders, and the community. Details: Brisbane: The Author, 2019. 358p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 6, 2019 at: https://qpc.blob.core.windows.net/wordpress/2019/02/Imprisonment-and-recidivism-Draft-Report.pdf Year: 2019 Country: Australia URL: https://qpc.blob.core.windows.net/wordpress/2019/02/Imprisonment-and-recidivism-Draft-Report.pdf Shelf Number: 154499 Keywords: Costs of Corrections Offender Rehabilitation Recidivism Reoffending |
Author: Great Britain. National Audit Office Title: Transforming Rehabilitation: Progress review Summary: The Ministry of Justice (the Ministry), through HM Prison & Probation Service (HMPPS), is responsible for probation services in England and Wales. As at September 2018, 257,000 offenders were supervised by probation services, which are delivered in courts, prisons and in the community. In 2013, the Ministry embarked on major reforms of probation services. It dissolved 35 self-governing probation trusts and created 21 Community Rehabilitation Companies (CRCs) to manage offenders who pose a low or medium risk of harm. It created a public sector National Probation Service (NPS) to manage offenders who pose higher risks. In February 2015, the CRCs were transferred to eight, mainly private sector, suppliers working under contracts, managed by HMPPS, that were to run to 2021-22. The Ministry considered that its reforms would deliver reductions in reoffending corresponding to L10.4 billion net economic benefits to society over the seven-year period of the contracts. In July 2018, the Justice Secretary acknowledged that the quality of probation services being delivered was falling short of expectations and announced that the Ministry will terminate its CRC contracts 14 months early, in December 2020. The Ministry has consulted on the future of probation services and plans to procure second-generation contracts in April 2019. Content and scope of the report This report takes stock of the Transforming Rehabilitation reforms following the decision to terminate the CRC contracts. It builds on our previous work and examines the Ministry's: progress in achieving the objectives of the reforms (Part One); implementation of the reforms (Part Two); and use of learning to inform the future of probation services (Part Three). Report conclusions The Ministry set itself up to fail in how it approached the Transforming Rehabilitation reforms. Its rushed implementation introduced significant risks that its chosen commercial approach left it badly placed to manage. The consequences of these decisions are far-reaching. CRCs have under-invested in probation services, which have suffered as a result. There is little evidence of hoped-for innovation and many of the early operational issues, such as friction between the NPS and CRCs, persist. Although the number of reoffenders has reduced, the average number of reoffences they commit has increased significantly. Transforming Rehabilitation has achieved poor value for money for the taxpayer. The Ministry has chosen to end the CRC contracts in 2020, 14 months early, but this comes at a cost. When added to previous, unsuccessful, efforts to stabilise CRCs, the Ministry will pay at least 467 million more than was required under the original contracts. It now estimates it will pay up to L2.3 billion under the contracts. This is still less than the L3.7 billion expected at the outset of the reforms, but little progress has been made on transforming probation services. The Ministry has consulted on the next generation of contracts and its proposals address many of the issues that have caused problems. But it has limited time to procure the new contracts, and in persisting with the split between the NPS and CRCs, it will still need to manage risks posed by the interfaces between these organisations and the wider system. It also needs to make sure that the quality of probation services is improved and maintained during the transition from the existing contracts to the new ones. Details: London: NAO, 2019. 51p. Source: Internet Resource: HC 1986: Accessed March 4, 2019 at: https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Transforming-Rehabilitation-Progress-review.pdf Year: 2019 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Transforming-Rehabilitation-Progress-review.pdf Shelf Number: 154794 Keywords: Offender Supervision Probation Probationers Recidivism Reoffending |
Author: Howard, Flora Fitzalan Title: Prisoner and Staff Perceptions of Procedural Justice in English and Welsh Prisons Summary: This research was conducted to develop measures of prisoners' and staff members' procedural justice perceptions, and to explore the variation and importance of these perceptions in English and Welsh prisons. Previous research has identified procedural justice perceptions as being relevant to a series of prisoner outcomes that are priority areas for Her Majesty's Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS), including misconduct, wellbeing and reoffending. Furthermore, previous research suggests that staff perceptions of procedural justice may have important implications for workforce maintenance, wellbeing and effectiveness. This work aimed to test prior research findings and expand HMPPS's understanding of procedural justice for prison staff and people in custody. Details: London, United Kingdom: HM Prison and Probation Service, 2019. 10p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 9, 2019 at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/prisoner-and-staff-perceptions-of-procedural-justice-in-english-and-welsh-prisons Year: 2019 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/771324/prisoner-staff-perceptions-procedural-justice-research.pdf Shelf Number: 154749 Keywords: Correctional Officers England Incarceration Prison Prisoners Probation Procedural Justice Recidivism Reoffending |
Author: Controller and Auditor-General, New Zealand Title: Department of Corrections: Managing Offenders to Reduce Reoffending Summary: Most of us know someone who has been affected by crime. The goals of the Department of Corrections (the Department) are to improve public safety and reduce reoffending. This report sets out the findings of a performance audit that focused on the Department's work to reduce reoffending. We wanted to assess how well the Department is managing offenders to achieve this goal. The Department has set a target to reduce reoffending by 25% by 2017. Overall, this would result in 600 fewer reimprisonments, 4000 fewer community reconvictions, and about 18,500 fewer victims each year. The Department works in a challenging environment. It is responsible for managing more than 40,000 offenders at any one time. About 8500 are held in prisons, and about 32,000 are serving a community-based sentence or order. Many of the offenders the Department manages have high alcohol and drug dependencies, high mental health needs, low literacy and numeracy skills, and low job skills and qualifications. We found strengths in how the Department is working to reduce reoffending. The Department's approach to managing offenders is based on, and supported by, international research. It has a culture that values evidence. For example, the Department has placed increased focus on education, training, and employment opportunities for offenders, which research has shown to be effective in reducing reoffending. The Department also targets Maori offenders, who represent about half of all offenders in prison and 45% of offenders serving community-based sentences. The Department continuously assesses the effectiveness and efficiency of its interventions, learns from success and failures, and uses that information for improvements. The Department is to be commended for its evidence-based approach. The Department is increasing the number of programmes that work and is putting systems and tools in place to better manage offenders to reduce the likelihood of reoffending. However, it faces some challenges in scheduling offenders into programmes and ensuring the successful transition of prisoners into the community. The Department will need to continue working on the challenges it faces to maintain and enhance the effectiveness of its approach. We have made recommendations to assist the Department in addressing some of these challenges: efficiently and effectively scheduling offenders into programmes for example, having a scheduling system that provides a structured day for offenders and supports rehabilitation and reintegration once an offender has completed rehabilitation; continuing to strengthen the alignment between prisons and community probation in particular, how case managers in prisons and probation officers work together to better transition offenders from prisons into the community; and being more consistent in getting feedback from offenders and stakeholders. The Department carried out a range of structural changes in 2012 to unify its effort to reduce reoffending. It moved leadership and decision-making to the regions and brought together the management of prisons, community probation, and rehabilitation and reintegration services under a unified regional management structure. The Department also has a clear strategy that staff understand well. The Department has clearly defined what it wants to achieve and how its work contributes to reducing reoffending. In 2009, my Office carried out a performance audit that looked at the Department's compliance with its procedures for managing offenders. The report of that audit made several recommendations. To the Department's credit, the changes it has made have extended beyond the recommendations of our 2009 report. The Department still has some way to go to achieve its target of reducing reoffending by 25% by 2017. It has made a good start and has achieved encouraging early results, particularly with community-based offenders. In the last two years, the reoffending rate has reduced from 30.1% to 26.6%. However, the Department manages some very difficult people and will never be able to stop all reoffending. It is important that the Department builds on its successes so far. Details: Wellington, New Zealand: Controller and Auditor-General, 2013. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 22, 2019, at: https://www.oag.govt.nz/2013/reducing-reoffending/docs/reducing-reoffending.pdf Year: 2013 Country: New Zealand URL: https://www.oag.govt.nz/2013/reducing-reoffending Shelf Number: 156000 Keywords: Community Probation Corrections New Zealand Prison Prisoners Recidivism Reentry Rehabilitation Reoffending |
Author: Prisoners' Education Trust Title: Greenhouses not Warehouses: Commissioning Education to Plant Seeds of Hope and Opportunity Summary: Prisons are being given increasing flexibility and control over education budgets and the ability to commission a wide range of provision. Governor-led commissioning is an exciting opportunity to increase engagement of prisoners in education to achieve a whole-prison learning culture. The PLA has produced this workbook aimed at helping governors and managers plan and commission education. It includes a self-assessment tool and provides advice, case studies and additional resources around ten key aspects of commissioning. This timely resource sets out the crucial questions to be thinking about and suggestions for how to bring together the right people to answer them for your prison and population. Details: London, United Kingdom: Prisoner Learning Alliance and Prisoners' Education Trust, 2017. 43p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 31, 2019 at: https://www.prisonerseducation.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/PLA-Greenhouses-not-warehouses-Workbook-web-version-1.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://ec.europa.eu/epale/mt/node/72547 Shelf Number: 156115 Keywords: Correctional Programs DesistanceEducation Program Incarceration Offender Rehabilitation Prison Programming PrisonersReoffending |
Author: Prisoners' Education Trust Title: What is Prison Education For? A Theory of Change Exploring the Value of Learning in Prison Summary: This document aims to stimulate debate and conversation about the purpose and value of prison education, how we can more strategically evaluate the benefits and how we can improve provision. We have consulted prison teachers, carried out focus groups with former prisoner learners and have reviewed some of the key literature regarding prison education and desistance. The output of a theory of change process is a diagram setting out a hypothesis of how we think prison education 'works'. We think there are five broad themes around the benefits of education: -Collectively, we think these lead to longer-term outcomes including: -development of the whole-person, -a prison culture that promotes rehabilitation, -participation in society, -making a positive contribution, -sustained employment or self employment The thinking is that each outcome potentially contributes to the desistance process and improvements across all the NOMS pathways [accommodation, finance, family, employment, health, substance misuse and attitudes, thinking and behaviour and therefore to reduced reoffending. We hope Governors and education providers use these ideas to formulate a vision, strategy and delivery model for education across the whole of their prison to make the most of its wide ranging benefits. We also hope this Theory of Change will serve as a hook for academics and those commissioning research in this area to test the strands of the theory to build the evidence base of 'what works, for whom and how' in achieving the outcomes we all want to see. Details: London, UK: Prisoner Learning Alliance and Prisoners' Education Trust, 2016. 28p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 31, 2019 at: https://www.prisonerseducation.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Theory-of-Change-Report.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://www.prisonerseducation.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Theory-of-Change-Report.pdf Shelf Number: 156116 Keywords: Correctional Programs Desistance Education Program Incarceration Offender Rehabilitation Prison Programming Prisoners Reoffending |
Author: HM Inspectorate of Probation Title: Post-Release Supervision for Short-Term Prisoners: The Work Undertaken by Community Rehabilitation Companies Summary: In 2015, the government extended probation supervision to people released from custody after a short prison sentence, with the aim of reducing their reoffending. These people tend to be prolific perpetrators of crime, with theft and violence featuring in a long history of convictions for many of them. Over three in four are supervised by Community Rehabilitation Companies (CRCs). These are troubled people in the main. Many are arguably disadvantaged on almost every index of need, having had an unfair start in life, with an estimated one in four taken into care. They have usually led bleak lives as adults, all too frequently blighted by addiction, broken relationships and mental health problems. Many in our sample had been sentenced to custody without the court having the benefit of a presentence report from the National Probation Service. On further digging, we find this is a national problem. It is plainly unacceptable to leave the court to sentence a person to custody without the benefit of essential information and advice on why they offended, their current circumstances (for example, whether they are a parent) and any alternative sentence options. Often, the first tasks upon release are to help the individual find somewhere to live and apply for Universal Credit. Housing is increasingly difficult to find, and state benefit is not paid quickly enough to reduce the risk of individuals stealing to feed themselves, or reoffending in other ways. This is a known issue for prisoners generally, but the people who tend to be given short sentences are very likely indeed to need early help, and likely to return to prison promptly without it. I suspect notably more are homeless upon release, and unfit or unable to earn a living. There is very little specific and reliable information available, however, to show their issues or how they fare upon release. This is so regrettable: it limits the ability to grip the issues nationally or evaluate the success of post-release supervision beyond the bare impact on reoffending. As it is, we found no tangible reduction in reoffending in the cases we looked at. National reoffending statistics show no material change in reoffending either; moreover, almost one in four are recalled to prison. Many in this group differ markedly to others, in themselves and in the chaotic lives they lead. CRCs are not obliged to supervise them any differently, however, and indeed the requirements on postsentence supervision are arguably less onerous. We found those in our sample supervised in much the same way as others: CRC staff strive to meet contract requirements, but these hardly scratch the surface of things for this group. The government has signalled its intention to move away from short sentences, but we conclude that this is unlikely to be effective without other changes. All under probation supervision should be supervised to a good standard, of course, but intensive and holistic rehabilitative supervision will be required for this group, to meet the government's aims. In my view, a system-wide approach as well as much more purposeful probation supervision are needed. I appreciate this is not straightforward, but without it, individuals are locked in an expensive merry-go-round of criminal justice processes and the public are left at undue risk as well. Details: Manchester, England: HM Inspectorate of Probation, 2019. 49p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 3, 2019 at: https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprobation/inspections/prs/ Year: 2019 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprobation/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2019/05/Post-release-supervision-inspection-report.pdf Shelf Number: 156136 Keywords: Community Rehabilitation Companies Incarceration Mental Health Issues Post-Release Supervision Prisoners Probation Recidivism Reentry Rehabilitation Reoffending |
Author: New South Wales Auditor-General Title: Managing Growth in the NSW Prison Population Summary: At the time of this audit, the NSW Department of Justice (DOJ) was responsible for delivering custodial corrections services in New South Wales through its Corrective Services NSW division (Corrective Services NSW). From 1 July 2019, the Department of Family and Community Services and Justice will be responsible for these functions. Within DOJ, Corrective Services NSW is responsible for administering sentences and legal orders through custodial and community-based management of adult offenders. Its key priorities are: providing safe, secure and humane management of prisoners reducing reoffending improving community safety and confidence in the justice system. The prison population in New South Wales grew by around 40 per cent between 2012 to 2018, from 9,602 to 13,630 inmates. This rate of growth was higher than experienced prior to 2012. DOJ forecasts growth to continue over the short and longer-term. DOJ has responded to inmate population growth by doubling-up and tripling-up the number of prison beds in cells, reactivating previously closed prisons, and a $3.8 billion program of new prison capacity. DOJ has also developed a long-term prison infrastructure strategy that projects long-term needs and recommended investments to meet these needs. This audit assessed how efficiently and effectively DOJ is responding to growth in the NSW prison population. In this report, we have not analysed the sources of demand or recommended ways that custody may be avoided. These are largely government policy issues. Details: Sydney, Australia: Audit Office of New South Wales, 2019. 47p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 8, 2019 at: https://www.audit.nsw.gov.au/our-work/reports/managing-growth-in-the-nsw-prison-population Year: 2019 Country: Australia URL: https://www.audit.nsw.gov.au/sites/default/files/pdf-downloads/FINAL%20Report%20-%20Managing%20growth%20in%20NSW%20prison%20population-%20web%20version.pdf Shelf Number: 156252 Keywords: Australia Corrections Incarceration Inmate Population Growth Prison Population Recidivism Reoffending |
Author: Rose, Evan K. Title: Does Incarceration Increase Crime? Summary: This paper studies the causal effect of incarceration on reoffending using discontinuities in sentencing guidelines and two decades of administrative records from North Carolina. A regression discontinuity analysis shows that one year of incarceration reduces the likelihood of committing new assault, property, and drug offenses within three years of conviction by 38%, 24%, and 20%, respectively. Incarceration sentences temporarily incapacitate offenders by removing them from society but can also influence post-release criminal behavior. To parse the non-linear and heterogeneous effects of these channels, we develop an econometric model of sentencing length and recidivism. Our model allows for Roy-style selection into sentencing on the basis of latent criminality. We propose a two-step control function estimator of the model parameters and show that our estimates accurately reproduce the reduced form effects of the sentencing discontinuities we study. Our parameter estimates indicate that incarceration has modest crime-reducing behavioral effects that are diminishing in incarceration length. A cost-benefit analysis suggests, however, that the benefit of reducing crime by lengthening sentences (through both incapacitation and behavioral channels) is outweighed by the large fiscal costs of incarceration. Details: Berkeley, California: University of California, Berkeley, 2018. 125p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 10, 2019 at: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3205613 Year: 2018 Country: United States URL: https://yotamshemtov.github.io/files/YotamShemTov_JMP.pdf Shelf Number: 156362 Keywords: Cost-Benefit Analysis Crime Reduction Incarceration Recidivism Reoffending |
Author: Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (U.K.) Title: Custody-Community Transitions Summary: This report from the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (A) provides advice on how to reduce drug-related harms that occur when people move between custody and the community. It seeks to answer three questions. 1. What are the drug-related harms and benefits associated with transitions between custody and the community? 2. What are the most important existing recommendations in this area, and to what extent have they been implemented? 3. Is there a need for new or adapted recommendations? This report was written by the Custody-Community Transitions working group, chaired by Professor Alex Stevens. It is based on previous reports and evidence gathered by invitation of written submissions and an evidence-gathering day. The report identifies substantial harms associated with transitions between custody and the community, especially for people who have problems with drugs, including the following. -Homelessness. In 2017/18, 34.5% of adult prisoners under supervision from the National Probation Service or Community Rehabilitation Companies were discharged to unsettled or unknown accommodation on their first night of release (MoJ, 2018a). -Reoffending. Adults serving sentences of less than 12 months in England and Wales had a reoffending rate of 64.4% between April and June 2017, with rates likely to be even higher among those with a drug problem. -Transmission of blood-borne viruses. Prison is a risk environment for the transmission of HIV and Hepatitis C (Dolan et al., 2016), so entry to prison can be a risk for infection, and release may spread that risk to the community. However, the prevalence of HIV infection among prisoners is low by international standards (Golrokhi et al., 2018). -Increased risk of death, including by overdose. Death rates among prisoners and, especially, those on post-release supervision are many times higher than in the general population. The few weeks immediately after release is a particularly high risk period for drug-related death (Inquest contribution, 2018; also House of Commons Health and Social Care Select Committee, 2018; Phillips et al., 2017; Graham et al., 2015). For some people, entering the criminal justice system can provide an opportunity to reduce drug misuse and enter treatment. However, these benefits are too often squandered by the failure to provide continuity of care between custody and the community (Lloyd et al., 2017). This report identified a number of important previous reports and recommendations that have been made on this issue (see Appendix 2), including: -Bradley (2009) The Bradley Report: Lord Bradley's Review of people with mental health problems or learning disabilities in the criminal justice system (the Bradley review); and, -Patel (2010) The Patel Report: Reducing Drug-Related Crime and Rehabilitating Offenders: Recovery and Rehabilitation for drug users in prison and on release: recommendations for action.These reports have not been systematically followed up, so it is difficult to know the extent to which they have been implemented. There are, however, concerning indicators of failure to implement previous recommendations, including the following. -On continuity of care: Patel (2010) identified this as the key element in reducing drugrelated problems for people leaving prison. However, the latest data from Public Health England (PHE) suggest that only 32.1% of people who are assessed as needing treatment when they leave prison enter treatment in the community within 21 days (PHE, 2018a). -On equivalence of care: Bradley (2009) endorsed the principle of equivalence of healthcare between custody and community. Current policy outside prisons is to maximise access to naloxone (the medicine that reverses opioid overdose). However, only 12% of prisoners who were previously heroin-dependent left an English prison with naloxone in 2017/18 (PHE, 2019). In Scotland, 664 take-home naloxone (THN) kits were issued in 2017/18, to approximately 35% of the prisoners who tested positive for opioids at reception (ISD, 2018a). -On reoffending. The aim of the Transforming Rehabilitation White Paper (MoJ, 2013) was to reduce reoffending rates. However, the performance of Community Rehabilitation Companies in providing these services has been widely criticised and they have failed to reduce high rates of reoffending, especially among short-term prisoners. The quality of probation services in England has been diminished (Stacey, 2019). This has particularly worrying implications for people with drug problems, who are in need of additional and specialist support. In order to facilitate the implementation of existing and future recommendations, this report makes the following recommendations for systemic improvement. 1. That the Drug Strategy Board nominates one Minister who will have over-arching responsibility and accountability for the improvement of custody-community transitions for prisoners with complex health needs, including problems with drugs. 2. That this Minister be given the following mandate: To assess and improve performance in delivering officially accepted recommendations on transitions between custody and the community for people with substance misuse, mental health and homelessness problems. 3. That the Minister of Justice (England and Wales), the Cabinet Secretary for Justice (Scotland) and their counterpart in Northern Ireland take further steps to reduce the number of transitions into and out of prisons, especially as multiple short sentences are associated with increased risk of death. This should involve: a. reform sentencing to minimise the use of sentences of less than 12 months, with the aim of eliminating the use in sentencing of periods of less than 3 months in prison; and reforms to the system of supervision on licence, so as to reduce the number of people who are recalled to prison. This report also makes the following practical recommendations. 4. That the prison services of the UK take steps to minimise the release of prisoners with complex needs (including substance misuse) on Friday afternoons. 5. That the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) should: accelerate the introduction of the measures listed in the Rough Sleeping Strategy (MHCLG, 2018) to enable prisoners to access employment or Universal Credit immediately on release; b. work in partnership with Her Majesty's Courts and Tribunal Services (HMCTS) and the National Probation Service (NPS) to ensure that people who are imprisoned are not overpaid the housing element of Universal Credit; and, c. Following the completion of the evaluation of the pilots, implement the effective elements identified through evaluation. 6. That the prison and probation services of the UK should develop and extend services that provide face-to-face, individualised support to prisoners who have drug problems in the run up to release and through the transition to the community. 7. That the Drug Strategy Board should make a clear statement that it is the responsibility of the national NHS bodies to ensure that all people who have an assessed problem with opioid use should be given the opportunity to take home naloxone when they leave prison or police custody. The Board should ensure that resources are made available to the national NHS bodies to support this responsibility. 8. That relevant agencies (for example, PHE) establish custody-community pathways into identified treatment for prisoners who have an assessed problem with alcohol, cannabis, cocaine, or other non-opioid drugs - as well as for users of opioids. Additionally, that a pathway should be developed that offers sufficient support to enable prisoners leaving abstinence-focused interventions to maintain such change following release. 9. That the Home Office should commission research specifically to identify and ameliorate problems and opportunities related to transitions into and out of police custody by people who have problems with drugs. This should include gathering information, across the UK, on: a. the levels of overdose and drug-related deaths in police custody and immediately afterwards; and, b. the coverage and effectiveness of Liaison and Diversion schemes in meeting the needs of arrestees with drug and alcohol misuse problems. Details: London, United Kingdom: Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, 2019. 30p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 18, 2019 at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/a-report-custody-community-transitions Year: 2019 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/808320/CMD_Custody_community_transitions_report_June_2019.pdf Shelf Number: 156486 Keywords: Alcohol Abuse Drug Abuse Drug Use Harm Reduction Opioid Use Prison Reentry Reoffending |
Author: Bushnell, Andrew Title: Skewed Priorities: Comparing the Growth of Prison Spending with Police Spending Summary: Australia has seen rapid, unsustainable growth in its incarceration rate. Over the past ten years, the proportion of Australian residents who are incarcerated has risen by 30 percent, from 167 per 100,000 adults to 217 per 100,000 adults. This rise has led to taxpayers carrying a heavier burden for incarceration. Across the country, state and territory governments now spend more than $4.4 billion annually on prison operations, out of more than $17 billion total justice costs. Over the past five years, the average annual growth of prison spending has been 6.6 percent, with a 29 percent total increase over that period. The purpose of this paper is to show what this increase means in real terms. Every extra dollar committed to incarceration is a dollar that might have been spent elsewhere in the criminal justice system, on some other government service, or returned to taxpayers. To illustrate this point, this paper compares operational prison spending with spending on police services. This comparison is valid for two main reasons: the first is that policing and incarceration share the common purpose of reducing crime through incapacitating and deterring criminals, and so it is legitimate to consider whether governments' criminal justice spending is efficiently ordered towards that end; and secondly, studies have shown that policing is more effective in deterring crime than increasing the severity of punishment, and so maximising value for money in criminal justice may involve redirecting spending from prisons to policing. Given Australia's already high level of policing, this comparison might also suggest that a reduction in incarceration will not diminish the overall deterrent effect of Australia's criminal justice system. The IPA supports a sensible and safe reduction in Australia's level of incarceration through the reform of punishment for nonviolent offenders, including the expansion of community service, home detention, and fines and restitution orders. These punishments can capture the severity of many types of offending, while at the same time being cheaper to administer than prison and more strongly correlated with preventing reoffending and lowering crime. In this paper, references to reducing incarceration mean this kind of reform. Details: Melbourne, Australia: Institute of Public Affairs, 2019. 22p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 18, 2019 at: https://apo.org.au/sites/default/files/resource-files/2019/06/apo-nid240451-1364636.pdf Year: 2019 Country: Australia URL: https://apo.org.au/node/240451?utm_source=APO-feed&utm_medium=RSS&utm_campaign=rss-all Shelf Number: 156492 Keywords: Incarceration Law Enforcement Police Services Policing Prison Public Spending Punishment Reoffending |
Author: Mallik-Kane, Kamala Title: Expanding Medicaid Access to Halfway House Residents: Early Qualitative Findings from Connecticut's Experience Summary: Prior to Connecticut's 2016 Medicaid policy change, people placed in the state's halfway houses as part of their reentry preparation had to return to jails and prisons to receive health care. This qualitative brief describes how residents and staff experienced and perceived the transition to Medicaid in access to care, health care usage, and program operations. We found that access to community-based care is a substantial improvement, because returning to jail deterred residents from seeking care and was logistically burdensome. Residents appreciated easier access to care and higher care quality, while staff perceived less burden with no additional risk. Yet, Medicaid income eligibility limits, provider availability, and halfway house pass policies have posed challenges. We suggest ways to improve linkages to community-based care, and are conducting ongoing research assessing whether Medicaid access affected rates of health care usage and criminal reoffending. Details: Washington, DC: Urban Institute, 2018. 37p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 14, 2019 at: https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/99514/expanding_medicaid_access_to_halfway_house_residents.pdf Year: 2018 Country: United States URL: https://www.urban.org/research/publication/expanding-medicaid-access-halfway-house-residents Shelf Number: 156751 Keywords: Community-Based Care Halfway House Healthcare Qualitative Research Reentry Reoffending |