1

A New Approach to Reducing Re-offending

Presented by

Steve HallDirector Reducing Re-offending

Reintegration Puzzle Conference

Ever hear about desistance from crime?

August 2003 ,UK

Re-offending in New Zealand

And desistance...

No simple definition of recidivism

Ad hoc measurement.

Remarkable inconsistency of approach.

Different definitions applied in different contexts.

Measured in different ways.

Different measures being compared as if same.

(Maltz 1984).

In 2011 in the UK:

More offenders have previous history of offending (90%).

A third committed or linked to 15+ crimes.

46% of imprisoned had 15+ crimes.

2001- 30% imprisoned offenders.

“Ministry of Justice officials say the figures show a "clear trend" of a rising re-offending rate”.

BBC News Report 24 May 2012

.

Recidivism increasing

However of the 2011 cohort:

Proven re-offending rate - 25.5%.

Increased 0.6 percentage points in 12 months.

Fall of 0.7 percentage points since 2000.

More likely to re-offend than 2000 cohort.

After controlling for offender characteristics, this is a decrease of 3.1 percentage points.

Recidivism decreasing

So why so much variation?

Context is critical:

The target group.

The event/events used to indicate the occurrence of re-offending, and the source of the information.

The time period over which the indicator events are observed and counted.

Recidivism in Australia Payne J, Australian institute of Criminology

Measurement is complex

Ministry of Justice UK: Proven re-offending statistics: definitions and measurement. October 2012

Waiting period Up to 24 months

Event inside 12 months

Proven conviction outside24 months don't count

Only convictions

count

Only first conviction counts

Thinking differently?

Never confuse a single defeat with a final defeat. 

~F. Scott Fitzgerald

It is a mistake to suppose that people succeed through success; they often succeed through failures. 

~Anon

Comparing (re-offending) rates

Scottish Centre for Crime and Justice Research 2012

Is change happening?

Two in every three prisoners will have been previously imprisoned.

25% of prisoners reconvicted within three months of being released.

25 -30% of prisoners reimprisoned within one year of release.

Recidivism rates been consistent over time.

“The average number of days spent out of

custody in the 12 months following release

from prison.”

The Out of Custody Index (OCI)

A (new) New Zealand approach

A very different approach

Includes everyone in custody - “social impact”.

Uses IOMS data - providing “real time” information.

Incentive to work with all prisoners – no “failure point”.

Work starts prior to any conviction.

Alternative (out of the box) solutions.

Amount of “failures” less significant.

Positive measure encourages “strengths” based practice.

Positive improvements have (realisable) $ value.

Simple business rules

IOMS data.

Prison releases.

Minimum (initially 42 days) continuous custody.

Death, deportation and extradition only exclusions.

Multiple prison releases included.

Early development phases

Several other prison sites and combinations considered.

Normalising populations by risk, release type, age,

prison duration failed to produce a valid match.

Normalising by risk makes logical sense, but risk

measure is not yet complete.

Outcome of Development

Early findings:

No “equivalent” direct comparison group.

Significant regional influence causing increased remand

times for Auckland Courts.

ROC*ROI is not available nor accurate for all prisoners

on their date of release.

Possibility of comparing against “whole population”.

New Zealand prison releases (sentenced)

Initial Prison AR

OH

AT

A P

RIS

ON

AR

WC

F

AU

CK

LAN

D P

RIS

ON

CH

RIS

TC

HU

RC

H P

RIS

ON

CH

RIS

TC

HU

RC

H W

OM

EN

S

HA

WK

ES

BA

Y P

RIS

ON

INV

ER

CA

RG

ILL

PR

ISO

N

MA

NA

WA

TU

PR

ISO

N

ME

CF

NE

W P

LYM

OU

TH

NR

CF

OC

F

RIM

UT

AK

A P

RIS

ON

RO

LLE

ST

ON

PR

ISO

N

SH

CF

TO

NG

AR

IRO

/RA

NG

IPO

WA

IKE

RIA

PR

ISO

N

WE

LLI

NG

TO

N P

RIS

ON

WH

AN

GA

NU

I PR

ISO

N

Gra

nd T

otal

AROHATA PRISON 174 18 7 199ARWCF 7 350 357AUCKLAND PRISON 3 1 2 6CHRISTCHURCH PRISON 5 641 1 6 1 2 3 2 35 9 268 1 1 2 1 4 982CHRISTCHURCH WOMENS 2 1 156 159DUNEDIN PRISON 1 1 2 4HAWKES BAY PRISON 7 470 13 5 1 1 12 1 6 3 6 2 12 539INVERCARGILL PRISON 8 1 221 24 6 1 261MANAWATU PRISON 3 34 241 1 14 2 3 9 4 1 15 327MECF 142 6 23 3 619 62 3 20 8 349 42 19 3 12 1311MT EDEN WOMENS 3 3NEW PLYMOUTH 15 6 1 213 1 3 3 1 1 9 1 103 357NRCF 11 4 1 1 15 290 1 17 3 1 1 1 346OCF 8 6 296 2 3 3 318RIMUTAKA PRISON 3 10 6 3 7 3 4 382 5 2 1 8 12 5 451ROLLESTON PRISON 1 1 2SHCF 1 1 2WAIKERIA PRISON 37 5 50 3 12 30 8 3 34 5 82 343 988 4 19 1623WHANGANUI PRISON 2 6 10 2 1 1 6 1 3 7 207 246Grand Total 183 372 209 684 163 611 240 294 679 216 364 369 483 305 464 407 1044 25 381 7493

Last Prison

7493

679

New Zealand prison releases (remand)

Initial Prison AR

OH

AT

A P

RIS

ON

AR

WC

F

AU

CK

LAN

D P

RIS

ON

CH

RIS

TC

HU

RC

H P

RIS

ON

CH

RIS

TC

HU

RC

H W

OM

EN

S

HA

WK

ES

BA

Y P

RIS

ON

INV

ER

CA

RG

ILL

PR

ISO

N

MA

NA

WA

TU

PR

ISO

N

ME

CF

NA

TIO

NA

L O

FF

ICE

NE

W P

LYM

OU

TH

NR

CF

OC

F

RIM

UT

AK

A P

RIS

ON

RO

LLE

ST

ON

PR

ISO

N

SH

CF

TO

NG

AR

IRO

/RA

NG

IPO

WA

IKE

RIA

PR

ISO

N

WH

AN

GA

NU

I PR

ISO

N

Gra

nd T

ota

l

AROHATA PRISON 155 4 1 160ARWCF 2 426 2 430AUCKLAND PRISON 4 1 1 6CHRISTCHURCH PRISON 704 1 3 5 1 5 8 5 732CHRISTCHURCH WOMENS 4 2 86 92HAWKES BAY PRISON 325 4 5 1 8 2 345INVERCARGILL PRISON 1 190 1 3 195MANAWATU PRISON 1 2 192 5 1 2 203MECF 2 1 1 1 2258 1 7 7 4 1 14 2297NATIONAL OFFICE 2 2NEW PLYMOUTH 1 1 95 2 2 4 105NRCF 1 38 371 4 414OCF 7 2 1 157 167RIMUTAKA PRISON 3 9 2 524 1 1 540SHCF 11 11TONGARIRO/RANGIPO 1 1WAIKERIA PRISON 2 7 1 38 1 1 1 1 9 4 1357 3 1425WELLINGTON PRISON 1 1WHANGANUI PRISON 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 124 133Grand Total 161 432 4 723 89 337 197 197 2357 3 99 379 168 561 5 16 6 1388 137 7259

Last Prison

7259

2357

Final measurement design

Reference group will always be different but provide

benchmark.

Normalising results by risk banding ( ROC*ROI) will

improve over time.

The release population from MECF is significantly different

than any other prison and the whole population. Even after

scaling by risk and other factors still see a gap based

largely on remand duration.

2011/2012

RI Population (7103)

CI Population (6223)

Reference Group (988)

4117

2599

1118

387601

Maori 189Non-Maori 198

All Releases (14773)

RI and CI release populations compared

Cohort size and impact (MECF)

All 1 Week 2 Weeks 3 Weeks 4 Weeks 5 Weeks 6 Weeks 7 Weeks 8 Weeks3031 1817 1633 1497 1352 1234 1144 1051 996

The cohort group is reduced by a further 12.5% because prisoners who are not continually in custody are excluded.

July 2015 – June 2016

Timeframes

July 2010 – June 2011releases

Jul 2012 – Jun 2013

July 2013 – June 2014

July 2014 – June 2015

Measurement period

July 2015 – June 2016

Measurement period

Measurement period

Measurement period

Measurement period

Measurement period

Target 25% reduction expected in 2016/17 Annual Report

Serco started management at MECF from September 2011

Serco begin performance measurement from July 2013

Serco year 1 measure

Serco year 2 measure

Serco year 3 measure

Serco year 4 measure

July 2011 – June 2012

Measurement period

Measurement validity

Designed to be a ”proxy” measure.

Re-imprisonment (or not) is an event that is determined

by the state’s actions, systems and processes.

Connected to recidivism or re-offending but not the

same.

Amount of time an individual is able to “avoid” custody

immediately post release is a very strong ‘indicator’ of

desistance.

OCI rates

285

290

295

300

305

310

315

320

325

OCI Total OCI MECF Scaled OCI Dept Scaled

April 2009-2010

July 2011-2012

Current RI rates in New Zealand

20

22

24

26

28

30

32

34

36

RI Reimp RI MECF RI Dept

RI rate 2011-12 27.1 RI rate 2012-13 27.0

April 2011-2012

April 2009-2010

Comparing OCI with RI

RI

OCI

Limit of RI data

July 2011-2012

280

285

290

295

300

305

310

315

320

325

330

Ave

rage

Day

s ou

t of C

usto

dy

Reference Group

Comparison Group

CI Population

Measuring performance improvement

Using results from 2010/2011 releases we can see MECF at 296, and the Department of Corrections at 315 days out of custody.

Serco and Corrections baselines will be measured from July 2011 – June 2012 release period.

July 2008

From 1 July 2013

Serco MECF started reporting performance based on the

OCI measure.

First time in the world that a “distance travelled” approach

has been used to measure recidivism.

MECF aims to increase the average post custody release

period by three days per annum for the next four years.

Twelve days increase in OCI is equivalent to a 25%

reduction in re-offending rates for the target group.

Outcomes – All prisoners4

02

69

40

36

0

40

45

2

40

54

4

40

63

4

40

72

5

40

81

7

40

90

9

41

00

0

41

09

1

41

18

3

41

27

5

41

36

5

41

45

6

41

54

8

41

64

0

41

73

0

41

82

1

41

91

3

42

00

5

42

09

5

42

18

6

42

27

8

42

37

0

42

46

1

42

55

2

42

64

4

42

73

6

42

82

6

42

91

7

280

285

290

295

300

305

310

315

320

325

330

Dept Target

MECF Target

OCI MECF Scaled

OCI Dept Scaled

Outcomes - Māori4

02

69

40

36

0

40

45

2

40

54

4

40

63

4

40

72

5

40

81

7

40

90

9

41

00

0

41

09

1

41

18

3

41

27

5

41

36

5

41

45

6

41

54

8

41

64

0

41

73

0

41

82

1

41

91

3

42

00

5

42

09

5

42

18

6

42

27

8

42

37

0

42

46

1

42

55

2

42

64

4

42

73

6

42

82

6

42

91

7

280

285

290

295

300

305

310

315

320

325

330

Dept (Maori) Target

MECF (Maori) Target

OCI MECF (Maori) Scaled

OCI Dept (Maori) Scaled

Outcomes - compared

All prisoners

Māori

Impact of cohort type on OCI

285

290

295

300

305

310

OCI MECF 0

OCI MECF 7

OCI MECF 14

OCI MECF 35

OCI MECF 42

Using the tool analyse trends

OCI compared 10 years

But over 2-3 years

Introducing court comparison

Conclusions (1)

Any measure of recidivism will have limitations – most

have lots.

Current measures of recidivism ignore remand prisoners

(half of all prison releases).

Fergus McNeil suggests we should not make choices on

the basis of re-offending alone, since this tells us little

about the long-term prospects – new offending might

actually be part of this longer term change.

Conclusions (2)

Measuring “success” (time not offending) might help

increase it.

Current measures of recidivism are just too slow to

provide information that we can usefully act upon.

The cost of crime and the visibility on this are

important drivers for change (and investment in better

solutions).

Measuring success is an important motivator for staff

and prisoners.