Skip to main content
Article thumbnail
Location of Repository

How not to assess probation performance: Constructing local reconviction rates

By Carol Hedderman


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 `crosssectional' 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

Publisher: SAGE Publications, in association with NAPO, the Trade Union and Professional Association for Family Court and Probation Staff.
Year: 2009
DOI identifier: 10.1177/0264550509103196
OAI identifier:

Suggested articles


  1. (2006). A Desistance Paradigm for Offender Management’, Criminology and Criminal Justice: doi
  2. (2001). A six-year follow-up of men going through probation-based sex offender treatment programmes, Findings 144, London: Home Office. doi
  3. (2004). Adult Reconviction: results from the doi
  4. (2008). Building on sand: why expanding the prison estate is not the way to secure the future’ in doi
  5. (1988). Criminal Career research: its value for Criminology’, doi
  6. (2006). Criminal Careers up to age 50 and Life Success up to age 48: New Findings from the Cambridge Study in Delinquent Development, Home Office Research Study 299, London: Home Office. doi
  7. (1998). Deterrence and incapacitation’ doi
  8. (2000). Does Community Service Rehabilitate better than Short-term Imprisonment? Results of a Controlled Experiment’, doi
  9. (2007). Effectiveness: Who counts What?’ doi
  10. (2004). Empirical Research Relevant to Sentencing Frameworks’,
  11. (1994). Explaining Reconviction Rates: a Critical Analysis, Home Office Research Study doi
  12. (2001). From Offending to Employment: a study of two probation schemes in Inner London and Surrey, Home Office Research Findings No 135, London: Home Office: Research and Statistics Directorate. doi
  13. (2004). Introduction: the policy context and assessing the evidence’
  14. (2006). Keeping the lid on the prison population: will it work?’,
  15. (2003). Managing Offenders, Changing Lives: a new approach, London: Home Office.
  16. (2006). Offender Management Caseload Statistics 2005 England and Wales, Home Office Statistical Bulletin 18/06, London: Home Office. doi
  17. (2005). Officially recorded convictions for probationers: The relationship with self-report and supervisory observations’, doi
  18. (2007). Past, present and future sentences: what do we know about their effectiveness?’ doi
  19. (2008). Re-offending of adults: new measures of reoffending 2000-2005 England and Wales, Statistics bulletin, London: Ministry of Justice.
  20. (2005). Re-offending of adults: results from the 2002 cohort. Home Office Statistical Bulletin 25/05, London: Home Office.
  21. (2007). Re-offending of adults: results from the 2004 cohort, Home Office Statistical Bulletin 06/07, London: Home Office.
  22. (1997). Reconvictions of prisoners discharged from prison in 1993, England and Wales, Statistical Bulletin 5/97, London: Home Office.
  23. (1997). Reconvictions of those commencing community penalties in 1993, England and Wales, Statistical Bulletin 6/97, London: Home Office.
  24. (1993). Reconvictions of those given Probation and Community service orders in 1987, Statistical Bulletin 18/93, London: Home Office.
  25. (2004). Reducing Reoffending: National Action Plan, London: Home Office.
  26. (2002). Rethinking What Works with Offenders: Probation, Social Context and Desistance from Crime, doi
  27. (1998). The development of juvenile aggression and violence: Some common misconceptions and controversies’, doi
  28. (1997). The limitations of reconviction rates’ doi
  29. (1998). The role of sentencing policy’
  30. (2003). Understanding What Works: Accredited Cognitive Skills Programmes for Adult Men and Young Offenders, Home Office Research Findings 226, London: Home Office.
  31. (1997). What worked? A five year study of probation reconvictions’, doi
  32. (2004). What Works?’: Revisiting the Evidence in England and Wales, doi
  33. (2008). Why Longitudinal Research?

To submit an update or takedown request for this paper, please submit an Update/Correction/Removal Request.