How not to assess probation performance: Constructing local reconviction rates

Abstract

Much of the responsibility for securing reductions in offending and reoffending is being devolved to local statutory services. It follows that robust and timely local measures for assessing reoffending must be created. To this end, for the last three years the National Offender Management Service has produced quarterly reconviction reports for individual probation areas based on 'snapshots' (cross-sectional samples) of the supervision caseload. An independent examination of the data for the East Midlands Region reveals that the way cases have been selected and followed-up departs from the conventions employed in all previous ('longitudinal') reconviction studies in England and Wales. In particular, the 'cross-sectional' or snapshot approach led to the 'at risk' period varying from one offender to another; and those on longer sentences stood a much greater than usual chance of appearing in several samples over time. This, together with other problems associated with not following a conventional longitudinal approach, leads to the conclusion that it would be unwise to use the quarterly figures produced thus far to draw conclusions about probation areas' performance.

Graffiti Offenders' Patterns of Desistance from, and Persistence in, Crime: New Insights into Reducing Recidivist Offending

“…Third, the use of proxy measures of offending desistance/persistence (e.g. police databases) can distort the true patterns of desistance/persistence among offenders, as recidivist offenders tend to learn from their prior apprehension experiences and then tend to engage in covert, less detectable types of offence, which can result in a false assessment that their offending patterns have ceased/ decreased (Cuneen & Luke, 2007;Hedderman, 2009;Tresidder et al, 2009;J-F, 2010). Fourth, while the police report data might provide indicative desistant and persistent patterns of offending, they might also be reflective of other extraneous factors, such as offenders committing less detectable offences and changes in the processing practices of offenders (Richards, 2011).…”

Quasirational models of sentencing.

“…The sentencing task is complex. Sentencers receive little or no feedback on the outcomes of their own or others’ sentencing decisions, and although official statistics on issues such as recidivism (reoffending) rates may be available, these are averages over offence types, offender types and court types, and are often unreliable (e.g., Hedderman, 2009; Richards, 2011). Some form of feedback may be available when a decision is appealed, but this is rare, and successful appeals largely reflect concerns over lack of due process rather than the outcome (Brignell & Donnelly, 2005; Sentencing Advisory Council, 2012).…”

What works and what does not work in reducing juvenile graffiti offending? A comparison of changes that occurred in the frequency of persistent graffitists’ patterns of offending following the announcement of two successive initiatives aimed at reducing graffiti proliferation

“…A second limitation of the study is that since approximately 98 per cent of all juvenile acts of delinquent offending do not appear on police databases (Friendship et al, 2002;Carroll et al, 2008), any analysis of police data sets can only be considered as a partial indicator of juvenile graffiti offending behaviour. Third, the use of proxy measures (for example, police databases) in determining graffiti offenders' patterns of behaviour is also problematic because juveniles may learn from their past apprehension experiences, in so far as they may become astute at engaging in covert, less detectable in offending and more efficient at avoiding capture (Cuneen and Luke, 2007;Hedderman, 2009;Tresidder et al, 2009;J-F, 2010;Richards, 2011;Taylor and Khan, 2013). Finally, this research is situated in a context where graffiti writing on property without the permission of the owner is an offence under Western Australia's rule of law, and thus it should be acknowledged that other individuals hold a different view, namely, that graffiti is a culturally meaningful activity that allows society's marginalised youth to communicate with society (see Ferrell, 1993;Halsey and Young, 2006;Rowe and Hutton, 2012).…”