Search results

Established in 2007, Vision Housing is a small London‐based specialist housing provider working primarily with ex‐offenders. This study seeks to evaluate the impact of Vision Housing's provision of housing and support on re‐offending rates.

The evaluation design compared expected re‐offending rates after one year calculated using offender group reconviction scale (OGRS3) with actual reoffending rates after one year based on data from the police national computer (PNC). “Re‐offending” was defined in line with the current Ministry of Justice definition based on “proven re‐offending”.

The predicted rate of proven re‐offending for 400 clients referred to Vision over 12 months was 40.7 per cent. Their actual proven re‐offending rate over 12 months was 37.0 per cent. This is 3.7 percentage points less than the predicted proven re‐offending rate, equivalent to a 9.1 per cent reduction in proven re‐offending. This result was statistically significant. Analysis also suggested that Vision Housing is more successful with women; offenders under the age of 35; offenders referred by the Prison and Probation Service; offenders with a higher predicted risk of proven re‐offending; and offenders who had committed more serious offences.

The evaluation conducted to date does not include a comparison group and therefore has relatively low levels of internal validity.

The authors are not aware of any UK studies of the impact of housing on re‐offending that have successfully used a more methodologically robust evaluation design. Until such studies are carried out, the results of the current study should be of great interest to policy‐makers and those delivering rehabilitative services to ex‐offenders in partnership with third sector organisations.

This study has produced evidence of the impact of housing on recidivism and quantified that impact.

This chapter looks at the role qualitative evaluation can play in the external review of the Probation Service, the development of an evaluation framework for ongoing assessment and how it can be used to develop new elements of the service. How is this different from the use of existing data by the service?

This takes us to the kind of information that is used by the probation service, to make judgements about the effectiveness of its programmes and the impact on offenders. The main contention is that this is in the main quantitative data, and reports on levels of re-offending. The data is standardised so that it can be used to make comparisons between different types of sentence and criminal justice intervention.

Our contention is that this information is limited in what it says for two main reasons. Firstly, quantitative data tends to report on impact, that is whether an offender has committed another crime after engagement with the probation service, or whether there are patterns of behaviour between offences, individual circumstances and the likelihood or re-offending. In short, the data is a snapshot of whether an offender has changed his or her behaviour or not. However, this chapter will illustrate how quantitative data misses an understanding of how behaviour changes and why behaviour does not change. As a result, this leaves the service with a limited understanding of how it is working.

Secondly, the chapter will argue that the existing probation framework itself creates quite specific definitions of which data is relevant and which data is not relevant. We will give examples of narratives that offenders offer in group sessions that provide rich material about their lives, pressures and offence. But evidence suggests that this information is not used to inform programmes, re-assess and review an offender's own progression towards re-offending or a life without crime.

The assessment of risk of recidivism in sexual offenders is fundamental to clinical practice. It is widely accepted that, compared with actuarial measures of risk, unaided clinical judgment has generally been found to be of low reliability. Consequently, the literature has shown a surge in actuarial measures. However, a major difficulty in assessing risk in sex offenders is the low base rate, leading to an increased likelihood of making a false positive predictive error. To overcome this, risk assessment studies are increasingly using the receiver operating characteristic (ROC), which displays the relationship between level of risk and decision choice. This note summarises the methodological issues in measuring predictive accuracy in assessing risk of re‐offending in sexual offenders, and identifies from the literature both static and dynamic risk factors associated with sexual offence recidivism.

The purpose of this paper is to present a discussion of the value of early diversion schemes, underpinned by the principles of restorative justice (RJ), for First Time Entrants (FTEs) into the criminal justice system (CJS).

The paper focuses specifically on the findings of a 12-month study into the introduction of “Triage” by one Youth Offending Team (YOT) in the northeast of England.

Re-offending data suggested that Triage is more effective in reducing re-offending than conventional justice practices, due to the restorative nature of the scheme. However, the qualitative data raised a number of issues, particularly relating to problems of “net-widening” and the impact of recording processes on young people's desistance, as well as the role of victim engagement in the process. These issues could undermine the long-term effectiveness of Triage and its successful application within other youth justice contexts.

The paper aims to contribute further understanding regarding the impacts of RJ practices on reducing re-offending compared to traditional processes, and in particular, consider the role of implementation issues in the production of outcomes and impacts.

This paper aims to review the available evidence on the role of stable accommodation in reducing the risk of recidivism. It seeks to answer questions about the nature and extent of such a role, whether stable accommodation on its own plays a role or as part of an overall programme, and what the implications arising from the current evidence are for policy makers and practitioners.

The research strategy consisted of a number of steps. First, existing systematic reviews in the field were reviewed to identity relevant evidence. Following this, a standard search of the literature was undertaken to identity potential research for further consideration. Articles and books identified were subject to a three part test to determine relevance and robustness of method.

The paper suggests that the evidence base is less than clear about the role of stable accommodation in reducing risk of recidivism. The extant literature can be classified as two types; the first utilises robust methods but fails to single out accommodation as a single intervention. The second often focuses on stable accommodation but fails to use Randomised Controlled Trial or quasi‐experimental methods.

Taken as a whole, it is clear that stable accommodation has a potential role in programmes aimed at reducing recidivism. The nature of that role, the causal mechanisms underlying that role and the methods used to increase stability of accommodation are not clear from the literature.

The paper provides a means of classifying the extant literature and assesses this literature in terms of its methodological robustness.

The aim of the paper is to examine the contribution made by housing‐related third sector organisations (TSOs) in assisting ex‐prisoners to find housing, and the barriers they face in doing so.

An offender survey was used to measure awareness of and engagement with TSOs in eight prisons, alongside qualitative interviews with prisoners, criminal justice staff and TSO representatives.

Despite the involvement of TSOs, securing accommodation for ex‐prisoners remains complex and difficult, largely due to high service demand, housing shortages, budget cuts, and needs assessment and allocations systems which reduce the responsiveness of housing providers to the reducing re‐offending agenda.

The research benefited from a mixed‐method approach which captured the perceptions of service users and professionals. The response rate for the offender survey was low (12 per cent), and the survey findings should be treated with caution.

Local authorities and other housing providers need to be more willing to accept ex‐prisoners as potential service users, and better links need to be made between local homelessness strategies, choice based lettings systems and prisoner resettlement programmes. Providing support services to ex‐offenders may encourage such acceptance and help to maintain the motivation to desist from crime.

Previous research has paid little specific attention to the role of TSOs in (ex)offender housing. This paper addresses this omission by drawing on original empirical research to examine the value of their work in securing accommodation for ex‐prisoners and helping to reduce re‐offending.

The purpose of this paper is to test the relationship between the belief in redeemability – Version 2 (BIR-2) Scale and desistance from crime. It also seeks to explore how patterns of responding on the BIR-2 with offenders compare to previous patterns of responding in the general public.

The authors report the results of a study of offenders using the belief in redeemability – Version 2 (BiR-2) scale. In total, 180 offenders under the supervision of the Community Corrections Service (formerly the Probation and Parole Service) of New South Wales completed the ten-item questionnaire and when these data were combined with demographic and reoffending data collected by Corrective Services New South Wales, 168 sets of useable data were collected. Scores on the BIR-2 scale were compared to Level of Service Inventory – Revised (LSI-R) score, Most Serious Offence category, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander status, number of custodial sentences in previous five years, age, gender and reoffending.

Results showed that the sample overall was closely representative of the caseload from which the study sample was drawn (a metropolitan community corrections office) and that BIR-2 scores showed a small, significant, negative correlation with LSI-R scores. Analysis of re-offending data indicated a small, positive, but non-significant correlation with BIR-2. Implications of this are discussed and future research outlined.

The paper suggests that it is worth attempting to measure belief in redeemability in the broader context of a narrative approach to desistance.

This is the first time that a scale has been used to test the importance of a belief in redeemability quantitatively and to permit the use of multivariate analysis.

The purpose of this paper is to gauge service user’ perspectives on the effectiveness of two community outreach forensic psychological services in London for people with personality disorder and serious mental illness who pose a risk of sexual and violent offending. Both services are guided by principles of the Good Lives Model and circles of support and accountability.

The research design was mixed qualitative and quantitative, incorporating thematic evaluation of semi-structured interviews with service users and a rating-scale constructed specifically for this purpose.

Outcomes suggest both services are broadly successful in achieving their aims to: first, enhance psychological well-being and general quality of life; second, promote links with other agencies and broader social inclusion; and third, monitor and manage risk of re-offending.

However, there are limitations. Cause and effect cannot be inferred and outcomes are not generalizable to other contexts partly as a result of the small sample size. Another possible issue is that participants spoke favorably about their care through fear of being evaluated negatively or through fear of compromising the support they receive. To control for these and other possible confounding variables, further more rigorous research is required.

The current findings can be used as a guide to help services engage and manage people with personality disorder and serious mental illness who are at risk of further serious offending.

It is suggested here that the current findings contribute to the body of evidence supporting initiatives that aim to address recidivism by enabling offenders to develop a more positive identity through social and community inclusion and integration.

Recidivism is often used to measure the success of the criminal justice initiatives. We explore alternate measures of success that were identified for special offenders through the development of program theory. Using content analysis of 50 closed files from the Special Offenders Services program in Lancaster County, PA, we found that most offenders completed the program without re-offending, maintained their medication, participated in counseling, fulfilled their court cost obligations, and had few housing transitions. However, there were differences between parolees and probationers in terms of their outcomes. We recommend that special offender programs use uniform data-recording procedures.

Resettlement programmes provide support for young offenders during their custodial sentence and for approximately nine months after release. This article describes how the costs and benefits of providing an effective service of this kind were estimated based on the ‘RESET’ programme, published evidence on the costs of crime and the likely reduction in offending due to an intensive support programme. The cost of crime has been estimated at £46,459 per year (after allowing for a reduction due to the time spent in custody), plus prison custody at an average of £30,475 and emergency accommodation at an average of £1,106, making a total of £78,040 for each offender. Using a fairly modest assumption that good support in resettlement could lead to approximately a 35% reduction in frequency and a 10% reduction in seriousness of offending, a saving of £20,407 per offender per year could be achieved. These savings would more than offset the average cost of a good quality resettlement service of £8,074. The scheme would break even if the frequency of offending were reduced by only 20%.