By Julian V. Roberts, Lilly Crellin, Jonathan Bild and Jade Mouton

This report summarises findings from a survey of the public conducted in 2024. It contributes to the well-established and still growing literature on public opinion and imprisonment. The primary focus was upon public knowledge of prisons and prison trends in England and Wales. This survey is a follow-up to an earlier report by the Sentencing Academy on public knowledge of sentencing. Key Findings ¨ Most people acknowledge that they know little about prisons in England and Wales, with almost three-quarters of respondents stating that they knew either ‘not very much’ or ‘nothing at all’. ¨ More than nine in ten respondents significantly over-estimated the proportion of women within the prison population; 93% of respondents thought that women made up 10% or more of the prison population. The correct answer is 4%. ¨ Respondents also over-estimated the proportion of the prison population serving a sentence for a violent offence; whilst around one in three adult sentenced prisoners have been sentenced for a violent offence, 58% of respondents thought that violent offenders made up 40% or more of the prison population. ¨ Offenders who have served a short prison sentence of less than 12 months have the highest re-offending rate. However, most respondents considered that prisoners released after having served longer sentences had a higher re-offending rate. ¨ When asked to specify what they considered to be the single most important purpose of imprisonment, the most popular option, chosen by 42% of respondents, was protecting the public by removing offenders from society. Rehabilitation was the next most commonly-chosen purpose, attracting 19% of respondents. ¨ Approximately three-quarters of respondents (73%) considered prisons to be either ‘not at all’ or ‘not very’ effective at rehabilitating offenders and preventing re-offending. Whilst the perception of prisons as being effective at punishing offenders was less negative, over half of respondents (53%) thought prisons were ‘not at all’ or ‘not very’ effective in performing this function. ¨ In common with many previous surveys, a significant proportion of respondents considered prison conditions to be ‘too easy’, with 49% of respondents holding this view.  

London: Sentencing Academy, 2024. 20p.

By Evarn J. Ooi

Aim

To investigate the impact of the Practice Guide for Intervention (PGI) on re-offending and imprisonment among supervised offenders serving a community-based order in New South Wales (NSW), specifically, either a good behaviour bond or a suspended sentence.

Method

Introduced in June 2016, PGI led to a substantial overhaul in the delivery of supervision services by NSW Community Corrections Officers (CCOs). Using a difference-in-differences (DiD) strategy, we compare re-offending (imprisonment) between supervised and unsupervised offenders serving a good behaviour bond (suspended sentence) before and after the introduction of PGI. Re-offending (imprisonment) is measured as the probability of committing a new and proven offence (being imprisoned) within 12 months of index court finalisation. The pre-PGI period includes offenders with a finalised court appearance between June and December 2014. There are two post-PGI periods. The first post-PGI period includes offenders with a finalised court appearance between June and December 2016 (the first six months after PGI was introduced). The second post-PGI period includes offenders with a finalised court appearance between June and December 2017, when the use of PGI across NSW was approaching its peak.

Results

Among supervised offenders serving a good behaviour bond, the DiD estimates indicate a small 1 to 2 percentage point increase in re-offending after the introduction of PGI compared with unsupervised offenders. However, the difference is not statistically significant. For supervised offenders sentenced to a suspended sentence, we also find a slight increase in the probability of imprisonment, but the increase is not statistically significant.

 Conclusion

Overall, we do not find evidence that the introduction of PGI led to a reduction in re-offending among supervised offenders sentenced to a good behaviour bond, nor do we find a reduction in the probability of imprisonment among supervised offenders serving a suspended sentence.

(Crime and Justice Bulletin No. 229). Sydney: NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research. 2020. 27p.

By  Mia Bird, Omair Gill, Johanna Lacoe, Molly Pickard, Steven Raphael and Alissa Skog

Sentence enhancements are used to add time to an individual’s base sentence. California uses over 100 unique enhancements. This report analyzes data from the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) to understand the role of sentence enhancements in California’s corrections system. It finds that enhancements lengthen average sentences and are more likely to impact the sentences of men and Black and American Indian people who are sentenced to prison, application varies by county, and that enhancements contribute to the overall size of the state prison population. KEY FINDINGS • Prevalence: Roughly 40% of individual prison admissions since 2015 have sentences lengthened by a sentence enhancement. Among the currently incarcerated, the prevalence of enhanced sentences is much higher, impacting the sentences of approximately 70% of people incarcerated as of 2022. • Sentence length: Sentence enhancements increase the average sentence by roughly 1.9 years (or 48%) for all admissions. The impact is larger for people receiving longer sentences. • Four enhancement types account for 80% of sentence years added since 2015. Those four enhancements include the state’s Three Strikes law, firearm enhancements, the nickel prior (which adds five years for a prior serious offense), and gang enhancements. • Racial, ethnic, and sex disparities: Sentence enhancements are more likely to be applied to men. Black people and American Indian individuals are the most likely to receive enhanced sentences, followed by Hispanic people, White people, and Asian or Pacific Islander people. • Potential drivers of disparities: Most, but not all, of the inter-racial and inter-sex disparities in the use of enhancements can be explained by group-based differences in case characteristics observable in CDCR data, including the number of prior prison commitments, the number of conviction charges, the most serious conviction offense, and the county of sentencing. • County variation: Enhancements are applied unevenly across California counties, with the lowest application rates in Bay Area counties and Southern California coastal counties, and the highest rates among far Northern counties, the counties in the Central Valley, and Inland Empire counties.   

Los Angeles: California Policy Lab, 2023, 57p.