1 A New Approach to Reducing Re- offending Presented by Steve Hall Director Reducing Re-offending...
-
Upload
henry-bouler -
Category
Documents
-
view
219 -
download
1
Transcript of 1 A New Approach to Reducing Re- offending Presented by Steve Hall Director Reducing Re-offending...
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.