By Sarah L. Desmarais, David A. D’Amora, Lahiz P. Tavárez

These guidelines were developed to promote accuracy, fairness, transparency, and effective communication and use of risk and needs assessment instruments to inform decision making following conviction. Whatever the setting, the guidelines presume that the intended use of post-conviction risk and needs assessment instruments is to support accurate, fair, and transparent decisions regarding a person’s risk of recidivism. These guidelines also presume that the purpose of post-conviction risk and needs assessment instruments is, ultimately, to promote public safety and positive outcomes for people in the criminal justice system through the least restrictive means possible.

This project was accomplished through the collaborative efforts of researchers, risk and needs assessment instrument developers, practitioners, and leaders in the field who gave generously of their time and expertise over the course of 2.5 years. It draws on an extensive review of literature and related research, observations from the field, feedback from national experts, several multidisciplinary forums and advisory group discussions, and a rigorous review process.

Advancing Fairness and Transparency: National Guidelines for Post-Conviction Risk and Needs Assessment is a resource for making decisions that help people succeed after a conviction. The guidelines were developed by the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) and The Council of State Governments Justice Center. They promote fairness, transparency, and accuracy in the use of risk and needs assessment instruments.

The guidelines are intended to be used by policymakers, researchers, practitioners, and agency administrators. They can help inform decisions and case planning after a conviction and sentencing, or in alternative forms of criminal justice processing.

The guidelines include recommendations for promoting accuracy, such as: Conducting a local evaluation of the assessment instrument, Meeting minimum performance thresholds, and Using a continuous quality improvement process.

New York: Council of State Governments, Justice Center, 2022. 54p.

By Eve Tailor and Dan Jones

Numerous prisons, charities, and prison education providers deliver peer mentoring schemes relating to education, skills, and work (ESW). Where successful, these schemes are viewed as significant in the delivery of ESW and have been highly praised by His Majesty's Inspectorate of Prisons (HMIP) and Ofsted. However, practice is inconsistent and there is limited evidence about which delivery models are most successful. The rationale for undertaking this research was to understand effective practice in ESW peer mentoring in more detail, including the functioning of these schemes. The findings from this study will be used by the HMPPS Prisoner Education Service team to inform ESW peer mentoring policy development.

Findings are based on 48 qualitative interviews with mentees, mentors and ESW staff members across 5 male prisons in England in April and May 2023.

1.2 Key Findings

A variety of mentoring schemes operate in ESW within men’s prisons. The setting, structure, purpose, and formality of schemes explored in this study vary significantly. For example, formalised schemes had structured mentor/mentee relationships and clear staff oversight. These schemes tended to focus on skill development, such as reading. Less formalised schemes often had flexible and less structured operation, with mentors supporting multiple mentees. These less formalised schemes often involved supporting staff to deliver ESW services. There is no ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach to peer mentoring in ESW, allowing individual sites to tailor their provision to the learners at their site.

Some of the enablers of effective practice identified by participants in this study included:

• mentors having previous experience as a mentee or mentor in other custodial and non-custodial settings,

• approachable mentors helping to facilitate mentee recruitment and effective running of schemes,

• privileges and low-risk status enabling greater access to the prison site and recognition of the hard work of mentors.

Some of the barriers to effective practice identified by participants in this study included:

• regime and restricted movement preventing access to mentoring,

• limited awareness from operational staff about the purpose of peer mentoring,

• lack of appropriate space on wings to provide support,

• recruitment issues arising from stigma and lack of awareness, and

• a lack of a ‘pipeline’ for new mentors which made some schemes unsustainable.

Participants identified a range of benefits and drawbacks associated with ESW peer mentoring. Benefits included improved staff-prisoner relationships and the development of soft skills such as communication and learning new skills.

Drawbacks identified by participants included mentors having to deliver mentoring during association and losing their ‘down time’, becoming demoralised by the lack of engagement, and previous poor experiences of mentoring being “off-putting” for future participation in schemes.

Ministry of Justice Analytical Series, London: UK Ministry of Justice, 2024. 41p.

By: Mirko Bagaric and Morgan Begg

1. The objectives of the criminal justice system should be to ensure that incarceration is preserved for violent offenders and those who have perpetrated crimes of a sexual nature. The incarceration of low-risk, and non-violent offenders adds significant economic and social costs without delivering a benefit to the community in terms of improved safety outcomes.

2. The NSW government should recognise that the use of the prison system should be reserved for the most fearful and threatening offenders, those who must be incapacitated to reduce harms to society. By definition, white-collar criminals are non-violent who pose no physical threat to society. Incarceration should be a solution for only the most threatening to society. In the case of white-collar criminals, the aims of punishment can be equally achieved through other means, such as garnishing wages, severe financial penalties, and technological incarceration, which may be more effective at incapacitating white-collar criminals from recidivism.

3. In sentencing fraud offenders, courts should take into account three key considerations: (i) community protection; (ii) the principle of proportionality (the punishment should fit the crime); and (iii) the interests of victims, which is best promoted through reparation.

Melbourne: Institute of Public Affairs, 2022. 32p.

By Jennifer L. Doleac and Benjamin Hansen

Jurisdictions across the United States have adopted “ban the box” (BTB) policies preventing employers from asking about job applicants’ criminal records until late in the hiring process. Their goal is to improve employment outcomes for those with criminal records, with a secondary goal of reducing racial disparities in employment. However, removing criminal history information could increase statistical discrimination against demographic groups that include more ex-offenders. We use variation in the timing of BTB policies to test BTB’s effects on employment. We find that BTB policies decrease the probability of employment by 3.4 percentage points (5.1%) for young, low-skilled black men.

Journal of Labor Economics, Volume 38, Number 2, April 2020

By Nicola Collett

In the UK, there are over 12.5 million people living with a criminal record (henceforth PWCRs). Owing to its widespread use outside of the criminal justice system, the oftenindefinite retention of such information can have long-term consequences for those who have them. This has attracted the attention of charities such as Unlock, and scholars such as those forming the Collateral Consequences of a Criminal Record Working Group1 . Notably, a significant amount of this research has focused on the experiences of prison leavers as they navigate desistance and re-integration. However, the vast majority of those living with a criminal record have not experienced incarceration, and have records relating to minor cautions or convictions having briefly interacted with the criminal justice system (CJS) in youth. This means a significant number of people living with criminal records are currently overlooked, and their experiences are not effectively captured in research. This is a considerable oversight because, as this report will demonstrate, many of these individuals face life-long stigma and discrimination despite the lesser nature of their historical offending. This report presents the key findings from doctoral research funded by Keele University. The purpose of this report is twofold. First, it seeks to illustrate the varied and often unpredictable ways criminal record disclosure can occur in both public and private life domains. Second, it will explore how PWCRs navigate such disclosures, acknowledging the highly subjective nature of criminal record experiences. In doing so, this report provides an evidence base for significantly reducing the use of criminal record information outside of the CJS, and illustrates why there is a need to develop communities of support for PWCRs. It calls for more empirical research with those living with criminal records to further understand the implications of early-life CJS interaction. Indeed, it is hoped that this report will encourage further research with those living in England and Wales with criminal records, adding to the growing evidence base for meaningful reform.

Keele, UK: Keele University, 2024. 36p.

By: Carla Ferstman

My motivations to write this book stem in part from my having left in 2018 my work at the nongovernmental organisation REDRESS after what then felt like a lifetime of 17 years. I was trying to unpack and process what I learnt from all those I worked with – my colleagues, our partners and, of course, our clients – all of them survivors of torture, and the bulk of them having been arbitrarily detained, many for extended periods of time. The subject matter shaped my work over many years representing and advocating on behalf of persons detained in different parts of the world for reasons including their human rights advocacy, connections to certain political or other movements, the persecution they faced in their home countries, and the policies of deterrence put in place by countries attempting to stem the flow of migrants or respond to the threats of terrorism. The trauma of arbitrary detention and torture, and the heavy emotions associated with pursuing remedies, was at the heart of what we did, why we did it, who we did it with, and what it meant to survivors. It framed why we kept going, how we approached the barriers we faced and the motivation we brought to the advocacy work and the litigation. My decision to concentrate on arbitrary detention in this book is because it was at the heart of so many of the cases I encountered and was so central to the intense and continuing suffering of former detainees. Added to this was my belief from the world around me that the scourge of detention, including arbitrary detention, was being normalised by a growing number of governments for increasingly nefarious reasons.

The other impetus stems from my experience of the COVID-19 lockdowns. Early in the pandemic, I co-edited a collection of reflections on COVID in which I began to think through the relationship between pandemics and detention. These early reflections helped to hone my thinking on exceptionalities, arbitrariness, vulnerabilities and the placement of law, which have become crucial themes explored in the book.

Bristol University Press, May 2024

By: John Tillson and Winston C. Thompson

In this chapter we analyze general views on punishment in order to consider what behavioural requirements schools may establish for students and which (if any) they may enforce through punishment, during compulsory education. Punishment, as we use the word, is the intentional imposition of burdensome treatment on someone – usually on the rule breaker – for having broken a rule, partly because the treatment is burdensome. By carefully analyzing various aspects of punishment, we aim to identify principles that should guide and constrain which behaviours schools punish, and how and why they punish them. In brief, we develop the following principles regarding legitimate requirements that can be made of students and the ways punishment may be used to enforce them. Before children are autonomous, schools may establish both paternalistic, and other-regarding requirements, but not requirements imposed from within comprehensive conceptions of the good. They may punish children in order to ensure a fair distribution of the burdens and benefits of social arrangements. Schools may punish children for paternalistic reasons, including developmental reasons, but not for reasons of general deterrence. When children become autonomous, compulsory schooling may establish only other-regarding requirements of student conduct. They may punish to ensure a fair distribution of the burdens or benefits of social arrangements; this includes punishing for reasons of general deterrence, due to children’s responsible choices enhancing their liability, as well as for other-regarding developmental reasons.

We acknowledge that more or less detail may be given for operationalizing and implementing these principles. Given the generality of our task, we offer limited detail in this regard. A yet more comprehensive account would explain by what authority schools may make and enforce requirements, and to what extent (if any) students or parents should have a role in the deciding requirements. For our present purposes, we highlight that however this authority is distributed, there are better or worse decisions that can be made. In this chapter, we seek only to guide the content of these decisions through identifying appropriate goals for and constraints on school discipline.

Pedagogies of Punishment The Ethics of Discipline in Education, Bloomsbury

By: Lisa Mary Armstrong and Margaret Malloch

In June 2011, the Commission on Women Offenders was set up to explore ways to improve the justice system in Scotland. The Commission’s report made a broad range of recommendations echoing those of the Corston Review (2017) but for the most part have remained aspirational. In Scotland, change has been painfully slow with many women imprisoned on short term sentences and remand rates having spiralled during the pandemic. One of the recommendations to come out of the Commission’s report led to the building of two Community Custodial Units (CCUs). The units were designed to take into consideration the high rate of trauma and adversities that formed the experience of many women in prison. Consequently, the discourse of trauma-informed and gender-specific approaches to punishment has been pronounced. This chapter considers the aims and objectives of the restructuring of the women’s prison estate and the emphasis that it gives to conjoining ‘community’ and ‘custody’ in the operation of the two new units that are presented as the innovative pulse of the new Strategy for Women in Custody. We are interested in exploring the extent to which the prison is the most effective space for this attempt at community integration, in contrast to a distinct community resource. While acknowledging the recent introduction of the CCUs, we do not attempt to provide an evaluation of them, but rather to engage with the principles and ethos which underpin their conceptualisation.

Geographies of Gendered Punishment, Palgrave Studies in Prisons and Penology

By: Emil E Jonescu, Talia Uylaki, and Sonja Duric

The purpose of this paper is to draw attention to gaps in existing research and design for neurodiverse people and their quality of life. In particular, this paper focuses on custodial typologies (their philosophical position, and design evolution) as facilities designed to detain either sentenced or unsentenced people, over the short or long term.

Historically, criminality was regarded as an illness and treated through segregation, and to varied degrees, crime, morality, mental health, and religion were deemed inextricably connected. Therefore, prisons, mental institutions, hospitals, and ecclesiastical architecture share philosophical and historical infrastructure. Concurrent evolutionary threads of 'new' solutions, philosophies, and architecture particular to confinement were formed through discourse among social reformers. However, prisons have largely overlooked the needs of neurodivergent individuals.

Neurodiversity refers to the natural variation of human brains and includes individuals who have been diagnosed with conditions such as autism spectrum disorder, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, and other developmental or intellectual disabilities. Neurodivergent individuals often have unique needs that must be considered in the design and operation of custodial facilities.

Accordingly, this research first undertook a scoping review of online databases and literature to examine, evaluate, and extend on existing peer-reviewed published scholarly literature related to theories, carceral frameworks, and criminality, with a focus on the intersection of neurodiversity and the justice system. The study specifically sought recent and relevant crime and punishment studies.

Secondly, the study conducted a meta-synthesis on an accumulated pool of existing international studies and identified areas of contemporary research, existing gaps, and potential areas of future research for neurodivergent individuals. The findings of this review highlight a general lack spatial research and gaps in existing literature that recognises the complexity of the police ‘lockup’ (a short-term custodial facility for un-sentenced detainees) and its critical function in the criminal justice system, in comparison to other custodial settings that have been studied and have evolved.

Lastly, in examining the extant literature on custodial facilities the study advocates for increased contemporary initiatives and a shift in attitudes that recognise the distinct functions performed by disparate institutions that necessitate different accommodation structures and a distinct functional form. This includes considerations for the unique needs of neurodivergent individuals that are overrepresented in such institutional settings.

X-Potential, V.02 (4), Australia: Hames Sharley.

By Jon Collins

No-one disputes the importance of prison education. But does it help people turn away from crime and live personally fulfilling lives? And what are the key elements which make for ‘good’ prison education.

In this evidence review, Jon Collins, Chief Executive of Prisoners’ Education Trust (PET), looks at:

• The educational needs of people in prison

• The current state of prison education

• The evidence base for the effectiveness of prison education

• Critical success factors for high quality prison education.

Mildenhall Suffolk UK: Clinks, 2024. 21p.

By Martha Newson, Linus Peitz, Jack Cunliffe & Harvey Whitehouse

As incarceration rates rise globally, the need to reduce re-offending grows increasingly urgent. We investigate whether positive group bonds can improve behaviours among incarcerated people via a unique soccer-based prison intervention, the Twinning Project. We analyse effects of participation compared to a control group (study 1, n = 676, n = 1,874 control cases) and longitudinal patterns of social cohesion underlying these effects (study 2, n = 388) in the United Kingdom. We also explore desistance from crime after release (study 3, n = 249) in the United Kingdom and the United States. As law-abiding behaviour also requires a supportive receiving community, we assessed factors influencing willingness to employ formerly incarcerated people in online samples in the United Kingdom and the United States (studies 4–9, n = 1,797). Results indicate that social bonding relates to both improved behaviour within prison and increased willingness of receiving communities to support re-integration efforts. Harnessing the power of group identities both within prison and receiving communities can help to address the global incarceration crisis.

Nat Hum Behav (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-024-02006-3

By: Independent Monitoring Boards

Property – having your own possessions that are important to you – is vital to those who are living in the constraints of a prison environment, deprived of their liberty, with little connection to the outside world.

The national scale of loss and damage to prisoners’ property shown by IMBs monitoring in adult prisons and YOIs, and the detrimental impact this has on these men, women and children’s quality of life, is unacceptable.

Property loss and damages severely harmed prisoners’ mental health and wellbeing, causing huge amounts of distress. It also undermined their safety, dignity and humanity, physical health, and prospects for progression and release.

Many of these losses have been unforgivable: a disabled prisoner living without his prosthetic limb for over a year; critical evidence for a prisoner’s sentencing missing; the irreplaceable letters from prisoners’ loved ones who have died while they’ve been inside misplaced.

The causes of lost property have been well-documented. Over many, many years almost all IMBs in adult prisons and YOIs have repeatedly told ministers and the Prison Service that they need to get a grip and have made recommendations about how to do so. In the latest tranche of annual reports alone, nearly 60 IMBs asked 75 property related questions to governors and directors, the service and ministers.

In September 2022, the Prison Service implemented a new policy framework with the aim of addressing the main problems continually identified by IMBs nationally in recent years and improving prisoner outcomes. During its development, and even now, IMBs receive assurances that the framework is doing just that. Two years later, however, the wider findings of the IMB suggest there is little to no evidence the framework has made any difference.

As the causes of property loss have been so well evidenced by local IMBs over the years, this thematic monitoring report focuses much less on the process and system failures (although there are many) and far more on the poor outcomes for prisoners. It also highlights good practice in prisons and YOIs that has helped to prevent or resolve property loss. Although these effective local initiatives aren’t a substitute for national solutions, these examples show that it can be done, and this is not an inevitable, intractable problem.

It is my hope as National Chair that this is the last time IMBs will have to set out these recurring issues and the scale of this problem, and that the new government will finally overhaul property processes and systems and invest in much-needed immediate and long-term resolutions, including a national digital tracking system. This will also be a significant investment in staff time, prison safety, improving prisoners’ lives, their mental health and wellbeing, and their perceptions of staff, fair treatment and the system overall.

Independent Monitoring Boards (IMBs) monitor and report on the conditions and treatment of those detained in every prison in England and Wales, as well as every immigration detention facility across the UK.

This report provides an overview of outcomes for men and women in adult prisons and children and young people in young offender institutions (YOIs), whose property has been lost or damaged.

It is based on analysis of:

• 71 survey responses from 64 IMBs monitoring in adult prisons and YOIs completed in early 2024 (see Annex 1).

• 106 Boards’ latest published annual reports, published until 31 July 2024.

• Property applications (a written or verbal representation to Boards)

• consisting of:

  • Data on the number of property applications received in the above annual reports.

  • 1732 property-related applications received via the 0800 free phone line between April 2020 and July 2023.

London: The Independent Monitoring Boards, 2024. 21p

By: Dr. Mike Lauder

On 17 July 2002, David Blunkett announced a White Paper, Justice for All (Home Office, 2002). He stated: “In protecting the public, we are placing emphasis on dealing with dangerous, violent and sexual offenders. Those not sentenced to lie imprisonment but who are nevertheless a danger to society will remiain custody until they are considered safe for release. An indeterminate sentence will ensure that they will only be released under strict supervision when they are no longer assessed to be a threat to the public”. (HC Deb, 17 July 2002, c287).

The Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPP) sentence was introduced under the Criminal Justice Act 2003. The IPP sentence was abolished in 2012 but this action was not retrospective. By June 2024, there were still 2,734 IPP prisoners (1,132 unreleased and 1,602 recalled) and, of those unreleased, 99 percent had served time beyond their tariff (Ministry of Justice, 2024).

There are now some who believe that keeping this cohort of people in prison is uniquely cruel as there is evidence that to do so might create unwarranted psychological harm (Grimshaw, 2022). Members of Parliament now recognise that the IPP system is fundamentally flawed. What was devised to be a social good has, some would argue, become one that creates harm (Justice Committee, 2022).

The aim of this working paper is to describe the role that may have been played by the flaws inherent within the ‘Perfect World Paradigm’ when it is used to make public policy.

Centre for Crime and Justice Studies’ working paper series; London: Center for Crime and Justice Studies, 2024

By Benjamin Heller

New York City already has a plan to close Rikers Island by 2027 and replace it with a smaller, more humane borough-based jail system. City leader now have a unique opportunitiy to rightsize the Department of Correction: recalibrating its budget and reshaping its workforce to meet the needs of a signficantly smalled jail system and unlocking millions of dollars in savings that could be reinvested in commnites. As the transition to a borough-based jail system draws nearer, DOC needs a blueprint to right size and reinvent itself rather than simply export the current dysfunction on Rikers Island to new location. Ultimately, New York City’s leaders must create this blueprint now to provide DOC and other relevant agencies with adequate time and guidance to phase in new policies and practices before the completion of the borough-based jail system.

New York: Vera Institute of Justice, 2022

By: Rongqin Yu, NiklasLångstro, Mats Forsman, Arvid Sjolander, Seena Fazel, Yasmina Molero

Objectives

To examine Differences in recidivism rates between different prisons using two designs— between-individual and within-individual—to account for confounding factors.

Methods

We examined recidivism rates among 37,891 individuals released from 44 Swedish prisons in three security levels, and who were followed from 2006 to 2013. We used longitudinal data from nationwide registers, including all convictions from district courts. First, we applied a between-individual design (Cox proportional hazards regression), comparing reconviction rates between individuals released from prisons within the same security level, while adjusting for a range of individual-level covariates. Second, we applied a within-individual design (stratified Cox proportional hazards regression), comparing rates of reconviction within the same individuals, i.e., we compared rates after release from one prison to the rates in the same individual after release from another prison, thus adjusting for all time-invariant con founders within each individual (e.g. genetics and early environment). We also adjusted for a range of time-varying individual-level covariates.

Results

Results showed differences in the hazard of recidivism between different prisons in between-individual analyses, with hazards ranging from 1.22 (1.05–1.43) to 4.99 (2.44 10.21). Results from within-individual analyses, which further adjusted for all time-invariant confounders, showed minimal differences between prisons, with hazards ranging from 0.95 (0.87–1.05) to 1.05 (0.95–1.16). Only small differences were found when violent and nonviolent crimes were analyzed separately.

Conclusions

The study highlights the importance of research designs that more fully adjust for individual-level confounding factors to avoid over-interpretation of the variability in comparisons across prisons.

PLoS ONE 17(5): e0267941. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0267941, 2022.

By Megan Denver, Ben Struhl

The project that is presented in this report aimed to conduct process, impact, and cost-effectiveness evaluations for the Massachusetts Department of Correction (MA DOC) and the Hampden County Sheriff’s Office (HCSO) program. The project was based on three main research questions: (1) which components of the HCSO program are fully and faithfully implemented, and which aspects contain challenges for staff participants and residents? Which parts of HCSO’s model are likely contributing to any detected causal effects? (2) Does the step-down re-entry program improve reintegration preparedness and recidivism relative to the traditional re-entry pathway? And (3), is the jail step-down program cost-effective relative to housing the same people in prison? The paper describes the research design, methods, and analytical and data analysis techniques, and notes the expected applicability of the research for policymakers in different jurisdictions. Appendix A discusses things to consider when developing a step-down program, and Appendix B provides cost estimates excluding statutorily required programs.

Boston, MA: Northeastern University, 2024. 46p.

By Rosie Chalam-Judge, Eleanor Martin

Community Sentence Treatment Requirements (CSTRs), comprising of Alcohol Treatment requirements (ATRs), Drug Rehabilitation Requirements (DRRs), and Mental Health Treatment Requirements (MHTRs), aim to address health needs of individuals on a community sentence and ultimately reduce reoffending.

While there is existing evidence indicating that in some circumstances alcohol, drug, and mental health treatment can have some positive effects on reoffending outcomes, research related to CSTRs is limited. To expand the evidence, MoJ have been working in partnership with HMPPS, DHSC and NHS England to deliver a programme of analytical work to robustly assess the effectiveness of CSTRs, including the Better Outcomes Through Linked Data (BOLD) programme. The BOLD substance misuse team carried out a project exploring pathways between probation and drug and alcohol treatment services and are undertaking further analysis to continue the investigation of the potential attrition between sentencing and accessing treatment services.

This impact evaluation aimed to compare justice outcomes of those sentenced with a CSTR against two comparison groups: those sentenced to community sentences without a CSTR and those sentenced to short custodial sentences. The analysis explored the rate of successful completion of community sentences and proven reoffending measures, including reoffending rate, frequency of reoffending, days to first reoffence, reoffending resulting in custody rate and frequency of reoffending resulting in custody.

There are differences in the characteristics of individuals who are sentenced with each type of CSTR and those who are not. To account for this, a statistical technique called propensity score matching (PSM) was used. This method aimed to create matched control groups of individuals who did not receive a CSTR but were as similar as possible to the groups of individuals who were sentenced to each type of CSTR, so any differences detected between the groups were likely due to whether they received a CSTR sentence or not. While over a hundred variables were included in the analysis, there may be unobserved characteristics not captured, or not captured accurately, in the data available which could influence CSTR sentencing and reoffending outcomes. This is a consideration for any PSM analysis. The analysis also only compared individuals sentenced with and without an ATR, DRR, or MHTR – data were not available on whether they attended, engaged with, or completed treatment. More detail can be found in the methodology section.

This analysis used 2018 sentencing data to allow sufficient time to measure outcomes and to avoid the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. Recent investments and initiatives have since been implemented to improve and expand the CSTR provision, therefore this evaluation forms a baseline measure of their impact.

Main findings

Justice outcomes of those sentenced with each type of CSTR and the matched control groups were compared and tested for significance. The matched control groups are referred to as those on a community sentence without a CSTR and those released from a short custodial sentence. These groups are matched to have similar characteristics to each CSTR group, including reported drug misuse, alcohol misuse, and mental health issues. The results were largely positive for ATR and MHTR recipients, with mixed results for DRR recipients. Reoffending rates and other statistically significant results are included in this summary, see section 4 for the full results. Due to rounding, the differences between some figures may appear to not sum exactly.

Successful community sentence completion rate

• The data indicated 67% of ATR recipients, 41% of DRR recipients and 78% of MHTR recipients successfully completed their community sentence. This means they served their sentence term without early termination, for example due to a breach or further offence. It was not possible to accurately match individuals in the treatment groups (ATR, DRR, and MHTR recipients) with individuals who did not receive a CSTR to compare sentence completion outcomes, due to availability issues with the data

Reoffending outcomes for alcohol treatment requirement (ATR) recipients compared with individuals sentenced without a CSTR

• Reoffending rates were very similar between ATR recipients and recipients of a community sentence without a CSTR (42% and 40% respectively) and ATR recipients and short custodial sentence recipients (45% for both). There were no statistically significant differences, therefore this analysis did not provide evidence to indicate that receiving an ATR impacted the reoffending rate compared with recipients of community sentences without a CSTR or short custodial sentences.

• ATR recipients, when compared to those on a community sentence without a CSTR, took 12.42 more days on average to reoffend (118.93 days for ATR recipients and 106.51 days for community sentence recipient on average) and were less likely to reoffend and receive a custodial sentence by 4 percentage points (33% and 38% of those who reoffended, respectively) – these were statistically significant results.

• Compared with those released from a short custodial sentence, ATR recipients reoffended slightly less frequently with 0.26 fewer reoffences on average (1.73 reoffences on average for ATR recipients and 1.99 for short custodial sentence recipients) and took 12.07 more days on average to reoffend (118.32 days for ATR recipients and 106.25 for short custodial sentence recipients on average). They were less likely to reoffend and receive a custodial sentence by 5 percentage points (34% of ATR recipients who reoffended and 39% of short custodial sentence recipients who reoffended) and were convicted an average of 0.54 fewer reoffences resulting in a custodial sentence (1.57 reoffences for ATR recipients and 2.12 for short custodial sentence recipients on average) – these were statistically significant results.

Reoffending outcomes for drug rehabilitation requirement (DRR) recipients compared with individuals sentenced without a CSTR

• For DRR recipients, there was no statistically significant difference between reoffending rates (63% for both DRR recipients and recipients of a community sentence without a CSTR, 64% for both DRR and short custodial sentence recipients), therefore this analysis did not indicate that receiving a DRR sentence impacted the reoffending rate compared with recipients on a community sentence without a CSTR or short custodial sentences.

• Compared with recipients of a community sentence without a CSTR, DRR recipients reoffended slightly more frequently with 0.18 more reoffences on average (3.55 reoffences for DRR recipients and 3.37 reoffences for recipients of a community sentence without a CSTR, on average), and took on average 4.33 fewer days to reoffend (86.64 days for DRR recipients and 90.97 days for recipients of a community sentence without a CSTR, on average). Although small, these were statistically significant differences.

• DRR recipients, when compared with short custodial sentence recipients, reoffended less frequently with 0.38 fewer reoffences on average (3.56 reoffences for DRR recipients and 3.93 reoffences for short custodial sentence recipients, on average) and took 12.28 fewer days on average to reoffend (86.66 days for DRR recipients and 98.93 days for short custodial sentence recipients, on average). They were less likely to reoffend and receive a custodial sentence by 6 percentage points (47% of DRR recipients and 53% of short custodial sentence recipients), and were convicted of fewer reoffences resulting in a custodial sentence with 0.58 fewer reoffences on average (3.20 reoffences for DRR recipients and 3.78 reoffences for short custodial sentence recipients, on average) – these were statistically significant results.

• These results could be due to multiple reasons, including delay or difficulty in accessing treatment, and increased supervision by the Probation Service of DRR sentences compared with community sentences potentially providing more opportunities for reoffences to be detected. These are discussed further in the discussion and conclusion section.

Reoffending outcomes for mental health treatment requirement (MHTR) recipients compared with individuals sentenced without a CSTR

• This analysis indicates MHTR recipients had a lower reoffending rate than those on a community sentence without a CSTR by 8 percentage points (27% for MHTR recipients and 34% for recipients of a community sentence without a CSTR) and short custodial sentence recipients by 9 percentage points (27% MHTR recipients and 36% short custodial sentence recipients). These were statistically significant differences.

• Compared with short custodial sentence recipients, MHTR recipients reoffended less frequently with 0.53 fewer reoffences on average (1.01 reoffences for MHTR recipients and 1.54 reoffences for short custodial sentence recipients, on average), were less likely to reoffend and receive a custodial sentence by 17 percentage points (28% of MHTR recipients and 45% of short custodial sentence recipients) and were convicted of fewer reoffences resulting in custodial sentence with 0.69 fewer reoffences on average (1.39 reoffences resulting in a custodial sentence for MHTR recipients and 2.08 reoffences for short custodial sentence recipients, on average) – statistically significant results.

Conclusion

These findings indicate being sentenced with an ATR, DRR, or MHTR had a positive effect on reoffending outcomes compared with short custodial sentences, which is in line with previous research findings. However, the results report mixed effects of CSTRs on reoffending outcomes compared with community sentences without CSTRs. Further research would be needed to understand the reasons behind these findings. There are some key considerations when considering the implications of the results:

• As CSTRs may involve closer and more intensive supervision from probation and clinical staff than those on a community sentence without a CSTR, some of which receive little formal oversight, it may be that reoffences are more likely to be detected for those sentenced with a CSTR. This may diminish the ability to detect reoffending benefits of CSTRs, if present.

• Delay in accessing or commencing treatment may also influence reoffending outcomes, as previous research has demonstrated engagement in drug and alcohol misuse treatment can reduce reoffending (see section 2.2) and an analysis of pathways into treatment for ATR and DRR recipients found there can be long delays before attending treatment.

• Only reoffending within one year of sentence (or release for short custodial sentence recipients) was included and the effects on offending behaviour of CSTR sentencing may take longer to become apparent. CSTR sentencing and treatment may also have impacts that were not measured in this analysis, for example on health, employability, and social support. Overall, the findings of this impact evaluation demonstrate why additional CSTR investment and development in CSTRs has been pursued in recent years, and therefore it is recommended this analysis is repeated in 2026/27 to assess whether the impact of CSTR sentencing has changed over time. The data used have limitations and there are caveats that should be considered, for example the quality or type of treatment received by those sentenced with a CSTR is not consistent – see sections 3.4 and 3.5 for more information.

Ministry of Justice Analytical Series; London: Ministry of Justice, 2024. 80p.

By Frederic G. Reamer

Probation practitioners sometimes face moral uncertainty in their work that requires skilled judgment. These decisions may entail vexing questions about the limits of probationers’ privacy, informed consent protocols, paternalism, compliance with allegedly draconian policies, allocation of limited resources, and whistle-blowing, among others. Especially since the early 1980s, practitioners have been introduced to a wide range of conceptually rich ethical decision-making protocols. Practitioners’ increasingly nuanced grasp of ethical issues reflects the broader expansion of ethics education in the professions generally, including medicine, nursing, psychology, mental health counseling, and marriage and family therapy, among others (Banks, 2012; Barsky, 2019; Council on Social Work Education, 2022; Martin, Vaught and Solomon, 2017; Reamer, 2018a). Core competences related to professional ethics typically address practitioners’ ability to:

• make ethical decisions by applying relevant standards, relevant laws and regulations, and models for ethical decision-making

• cope with moral ambiguity

• use reflection and self-regulation to manage personal values and maintain professionalism

• demonstrate professional demeanor in behaviour, appearance, and communication (oral, written, and electronic)

• use technology ethically and appropriately to facilitate practice outcomes

• use supervision and consultation to guide professional judgment and behaviour.

These core competencies, which are especially relevant to probation, focus primarily on practitioners’ grasp and application of key concepts and decision-making protocols. They also highlight the importance of practitioners’ humility and ‘reflective practice’ when managing ethical issues (Dewayne, 2006; Kaushik, 2017). This Academic Insights paper will explore these concepts further, highlighting the potential benefits for probation practice.

Academic Insights 2023/03; Manchester, UK: HM Inspectorate of Probation 2023. 15p.

By Matthew Cracknell

Introduced under the Transforming Rehabilitation reforms, the Offender Rehabilitation Act 2014 created a period of post-sentence supervision (PSS) after licence for individuals serving short custodial sentences. This empirical study features on the ground views and perspectives of practitioners and service users of PSS in one case-study area. Findings from this research suggest a number of issues and ambiguities with the enactment of the sentence. These include ambiguities regarding the correct use of enforcement procedures; the antagonistic relationship between third sector and Community Rehabilitation Company staff, primarily centred around transferring cases and concerns over the use of ‘light touch’ supervision and uncertainties over what the rehabilitative aims of this sentence mean in practice. These issues led to practitioners questioning the legitimacy of the third sector organisation involved in the management of PSS, while service users experienced PSS as a frustrating ‘pass-the-parcel’ experience, where resettlement support was constantly stalled and restarted at each juncture of the sentence. Before briefly discussing the potential future of PSS under the next iteration of probation policy, this article concludes by arguing that there is emerging evidence of a commonality of failures occurring at every juncture of the short sentence, undermining resettlement prospects for the long-neglected short sentence population.

Probation Journal Volume 67, Issue 4, December 2020, Pages 340-357

By Matt Cracknell

In 2021, 47,014 people were released from prison in England and Wales (Ministry of Justice, 2022), demonstrating the extent to which resettlement work is a core part of probation practice. However, the practitioners tasked to work with these individuals are often asked to fulfill a range of antagonistic and contradictory aims and approaches to resettlement (Canton, 2022) that can include:

• aftercare

• treatment

• the continuation of punishment

• risk management.

Indeed, there have been various policy and practice initiatives regarding how best to support people as they leave custody dating back to the birth of the modern prison in the early 19th century (Crow, 2006). These ambiguities reinforce concerns outlined by Maruna (2006) – that resettlement lacks an underlying theory or narrative for how it is supposed to work.

The uncertainty regarding how best to support people leaving custody is mirrored in ambiguities in the terminology used to describe this practice, with a set of interchangeable terms such as resettlement, re-entry, reintegration, and rehabilitation often used. However, there are a number of scholars who feel that the prefix ‘re’ for these terms is inappropriate and does not sufficiently capture the reality that many people leaving prison are perennially disadvantaged and had not previously been integrated or settled in society (Carlen and Tombs, 2006). In England and Wales, resettlement is the common terminology in official policy language, replacing the previous terms of ‘aftercare’ or ‘throughcare’, and is used to describe the process of leaving prison and returning to society. However, linked to its originations in official policy language, resettlement is also commonly used to refer to any prison and/or probation intervention used to address practical issues and criminogenic factors in order to reduce reoffending (Rubio Arnal, 2021).

Despite the longstanding ‘intractable problem’ (Crow, 2006: 3) in providing effective resettlement, there is a substantial evidence base that demonstrates how best to support people as they leave prison and transition back into the community. This Academic Insights paper will draw upon this literature in order to outline what best practice in this area might look like, outlining six key principles of effective resettlement support. The paper will then turn to outlining some potential barriers that need to be addressed in order to realise this approach, setting out the implications for resettlement policy.

Academic Insights 2023/01 ; Manchester, UK: HM Inspectorate of Probation, 2023. 13p.