Reconviction: A critique and comparison of two main data sources in England and Wales

Abstract

Purpose and method. Crime reduction is a central feature of the current Government Home policy. This incorporates a wide variety of initiatives from crime‐prevention strategies to offending‐behaviour programmes. One key performance indicator for assessing crime reduction is reconviction. This article critically analyses the two main sources of criminal history data held in England and Wales from which reconviction is determined: first, the Offenders Index (OI), which is accessible to independent researchers; and second, the National Identification Service (NIS), available for limited Home Office personnel. Criminal history data were compared for 134 sexual offenders using both sources of data. Results. Overall, there was a poor correlation for offence‐based criminal history summaries between the two data sources. Further analysis revealed that neither source appeared more reliable, with each source contributing unique and additional information. Sentencing occasion‐based summaries, however, showed a strong relationship between the two sources. Five‐year reconviction rates for the sample were highest using a combination OI and NIS data than reconviction rates using one source alone. Conclusions. There is no evidence in this study to suggest that the NIS is more reliable than OI. OI users are urged to use sentencing occasion summaries over offence‐based summaries for control group matching purposes as these data appear to be more consistent between the two sources. In the future, when researchers have access to both sources of data, it is recommended that they use a combination of data sets for assessing past criminal history and deriving risk of reconviction in order to provide a more complete picture. A sound knowledge of the limitations of the data source being used is essential for researchers.

A Comparison of Adults with Antisocial Personality Traits with and without Childhood Conduct Disorder

“…Acknowledging this, the assessors took steps to check against a secondary source wherever there was uncertainty about whether a clear research diagnosis could be made, and scored the IPDE conservatively if any uncertainty remained. We also acknowledge that errors can occur when gathering data from the Offenders' Index where some convictions may occasionally go unreported (16,25), although the process of cross checking against medical notes will again have helped to reduce such errors.…”

“…Comparisons were also made on forensic data derived from the Offenders' Index (OI) (16) which is maintained by the English Home Office (Research, Development, & Statistics Department) to provide an official record of all individuals convicted of a standard list offence in England and Wales since 1963. Standard list offences include all indictable offences and a few non-indictable offences; they are generally the more serious types of offences.…”

Predicting dropout from a residential programme for adolescent sexual abusers using pre-treatment variables and implications for recidivism

“…The two national databases of England and Wales: the Police National Computer (PNC) and the Offender Index (OI), when used in combination, have been found to yield more accurate information. Both sources have inaccuracies, with neither proving to be more reliable than the other (Friendship et al, 2001). In addition, the Predicting early dropout 143 last known professional contact with the young person was contacted, first by questionnaire, then by telephone, in order to supplement the official data sources.…”

The violent reconvictions of sexual offenders

“…The NIS, managed by the police, holds microfiche and Police National Computer data which records cautions, convictions and offence summaries for offences in England and Wales. Friendship, Thornton, Erikson and Beech (2001) describe both OI and NIS data in detail.…”