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 Anna Chalton, Dugan Dallimore and Paul McGorrery

Threat Offences in Victoria examines sentencing outcomes from 2015 to 2019 for five types of threat offences: threat to kill, threat to inflict serious injury, threat to destroy or damage property, threat to commit a sexual offence and threat to assault an emergency worker. It considers the offences co-sentenced alongside threat offences and the prior and subsequent offending rates for people sentenced for threat offending.

Melbourne: Sentencing Advisory Council (VIC), 2021. 76p.

By The Reducing Reoffending Third Sector Advisory Group (RR3)

   The Reducing Reoffending Third Sector Advisory Group (RR3) provides the key interface between the voluntary sector, and the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) and His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS), in order to increase mutual understanding and build a strong and effective partnership. The group is made up of senior leaders from the voluntary sector and meets quarterly with civil servants to provide guidance and feedback on MoJ policy developments. The RR3 convenes Special Interest Groups (SIGs) to advise on specific areas of policy and practice as the need arises. This Employment SIG has focused on the barriers to employment faced by people, both in prison and on their release into the community. This focus has been caveated with the acknowledgement that there are many people in prison who require additional, pre-employment support in order that they can gain the skills and the confidence that they need to secure employment at an appropriate juncture. For this group, the focus has been not on the immediate steps needed to secure employment, either in prison or in the community, but on addressing more complex needs that present obstacles to gaining employment in the future. Following an introduction into the current employment situation faced by people leaving prison and recent initiatives implemented in prisons to boost employment outcomes, the paper focuses on the following areas: 1) Prison workshops 2) The financial security of people in prison 3) Employer and training provider engagement 4) Addressing complex needs 5) Service coordination

Suffolk, UK: Clinks. 2024, 17pg

MAY CONTAIN MARKUP

By Todd R. Clear

This book analyzes the sources and results of the fourfold increase in the U.S. correctional population since 1970. It considers the following themes: the value of punitiveness, defined as penal harm; research on crime and criminals; concerns about victims of crime; and concerns about community safety. It also analyzes the relationship between social problems and penal harm, such as poverty and crime during the twenty-year period of correctional expansion.

The author argues that a careful review of proposals for expanded penal harm cannot be justified. The growth in corrections was not caused by crime nor has it reduced crime. Clear describes a new strategy for corrections based on his examination of the politics of social control and the growth in penal harm.

State University of New York Press, 1994 , 42 pages

By Denis Gough and Megan Coghlan  

This rapid evidence review (RER) presents an analysis of literature and research to understand factors linked to reoffending and desistance, while also analysing multi-2022. 943p.agency working in relation to reducing reoffending. This is important given the 2021- 2023 Department of Justice Statement of Strategy that includes a focus on reducing reoffending and understanding multi-agency working to inform policy and ensure a shared purpose in the criminal justice sector in Ireland. To identify relevant literature for this RER peer reviewed academic literature only is analysed to understand reoffending and desistance, while a mixture of academic and governmental literature was selected to analyse multi-agency working. To be eligible for analysis, the relevant literature and research was required to be European and published in English from 1990-present.

Dublin: Ireland Department of Justice,  2022. 94p.