Scottish Sentencing and Penal Policy Commission report: Justice That Works

Chapter Eight: The road home: reintegration and reducing reoffending

Summary

Preparation for release continues to vary widely, leaving many people without adequate support to secure housing, income, healthcare or other essentials. Such gaps heighten the risk of relapse, homelessness and reoffending, particularly for individuals serving short sentences or held on remand. Reintegration is not a single event at the prison gate but a process that begins in custody and depends on continuity, coordination and trust between services.

Mandatory multi-agency planning – uniting prisons, social work, health, housing and voluntary organisations – would create more reliable reintegration pathways. A needs-based approach extending support beyond long-term prisoners is essential, especially for those who cycle repeatedly through the system. Failure to provide timely, joined-up support shifts risk into communities and undermines the effectiveness of sentencing decisions.

Rehabilitation should build practical skills, strengthen treatment for mental-health and substance-use issues and enhance employability. Transitional accommodation improved throughcare and stronger community links are crucial components of stable reintegration and long-term public safety. Sustained investment in throughcare is therefore both a public protection measure and a test of system effectiveness.

Early planning and managed release for community reintegration

As discussed in Chapter Seven, programmes do not in and of themselves equate to either rehabilitation or to progression. Other aspects are critical such as housing, family, income and employment as well as targeting needs that have been shown to have a relationship with reoffending generally.³⁰¹ Interventions and support towards desistance and rehabilitation must be tailored to the individual.³⁰²,³⁰³

The transition out of custody is a crucial moment for individuals and for the communities that receive them. Evidence to the Commission from a number of bodies, including the Care Inspectorate, noted the central importance of early, effective and consistent pre-release planning in promoting the likelihood of a successful transition from custody to the community, irrespective of geography.³⁰⁴ In this chapter we focus on pre-release planning – the practical release planning and arrangements that take place when someone is getting ready to leave prison – as well as the broader rehabilitative work with individuals whilst serving their sentence.

Our Call for Evidence showed that many respondents felt that preparation for release should begin as early as possible, from the start of the sentence being served or remand in custody pending trial. Key concerns raised were that conditions in prisons were not currently conducive to pre-release planning and support, with purposeful activity opportunities for people often lacking, especially for those on remand.³⁰⁵

In our sessions involving individuals who had previously been in custody, some key points emerged:

• Lack of structured throughcare and access to information.
• Delays in accessing benefits, housing, and prescriptions.
• Risk of relapse without immediate support.
• Falling through the cracks and at the mercy of multiple services.

Despite the acknowledged importance of meetings bringing together key individuals and agencies in advance of release, evidence to the Commission highlighted that in practice the systems are not working effectively to plan and support prisoner release.

“Once you’re outside that gate, there’s no support.”

“There’s a cliff edge – it doesn’t prepare you to integrate into society.”

“When people are released from prison, if they had alcohol or drug issues, they often end up in hostels with others who use alcohol and drugs and end up falling back.”

“What I’m sure would have helped me most was proper throughcare and someone working with me before release and continuing after, helping with housing applications, benefits, and links to community services. These things would be beneficial.” – Lived Experience Participants.

Pre-liberation planning for reintegration

Release planning can also involve anticipating practical issues ahead of liberation. The Scottish Parliament Criminal Justice Committee’s recent inquiry into substance abuse in prison highlighted issues upon entering prison, but also at release.³⁰⁶ The Scottish Parliament Information Centre (SPICe) analysis of the submissions to the call for evidence contains numerous references to the critical nature of release planning and the transition to community, particularly in situations involving recovery from substance abuse.³⁰⁷

We considered immediately practical steps, bearing in mind the need for individuals to access support upon release. There are already days where prisoners cannot be released – mainly weekends and public holidays. Section 8 of the Bail and Release from Custody (Scotland) Act 2023 (‘the 2023 Act’) adds other days, including Fridays. However, that section is not yet in force. This is despite the Bill’s stated aim: “providing improved support to people leaving prison and creating the conditions which better enable their successful reintegration will help reduce the risk of further reoffending with associated reductions in the economic and social costs of offending.”³⁰⁸

The section that requires named public bodies to engage in release planning for both the remand and sentenced population is also not yet in force. We heard from those who called for this to happen. Many organisations spoke of the need for multi-agency planning for release. The Criminal Justice Voluntary Sector Forum told us that the emergency release in 2024 and the change to release points in February 2025 “highlighted the importance of having strong pre-release planning arrangements in place to ensure that people receive the services and support they need in the lead up to and post-release.”³⁰⁹

Proper release planning matters not only to the individual being released, but families, victims and wider communities. Evidence to the Commission highlighted the need for some victims to be able to plan for their safety when a person who has offended is released from prison. Victims of crime might establish physical and emotional safety while the person is in prison. Planning for liberation is an important factor in managing that safety for the victim when the prisoner is released. One mitigation of the risk regarding liberation might be greater use of electronic monitoring. We cover this in more detail in Chapter Six.

Recommendation 8.1: Commence the remainder of Part 2 of the Bail and Release from Custody (Scotland) Act 2023 as a matter of priority to allow for better preparation for release from custody. Lead partner – Scottish Government.

Prison-based social work: supporting release and reintegration

HMIPS and the Care Inspectorate published a 2024 thematic review of prison-based social work.³¹⁰ This highlights the role that prison-based social work plays in supporting a particular subset of the prison population – those prisoners who will be subject to statutory supervision after release from prison. However, prison-based social work does not support individuals serving a sentence of less than four years, nor does social work support the remand population. These are sizeable groups without social work support.³¹¹

In Chapter Seven we queried whether the distinction between short and long-term prisoners still serves a purpose. The question is pertinent here. Providing social work support on the basis of the length of sentence does not consider any underlying issues of those currently excluded by reason only of serving a sentence of under four years. A person-centred approach might look different to the current system and could be a better way of allocating resource.

Some who gave evidence to us suggested that there might be an opportunity cost involved in providing social work on the basis of need to people serving a short-term sentence. For example, individuals might first serve a short-term sentence and then later return to custody for a long-term sentence; others might serve multiple short-term sentences without ever “qualifying” for social work support because no sentence is for four years or more. However, there appears to be no collected data in this regard about these types of cohorts, so there is no empirical evidence to trace their journeys through prison or indeed the broader justice system. In Chapter Ten we make recommendations about the benefits of greater data collection and analysis. This is one such example.

We did find research showing that a subset of the short-term population received more than one sentence in a year.³¹² If some people frequently cycle through short-term sentences, it seems possible that providing them with social work provision might contribute to breaking this cycle. We think that this could potentially prevent a future, longer-term sentence but this requires additional data collection and research.

“People with regular short sentences (for example, two within an agreed period) should have statutory supervision on release for the rest of their sentence (60% of sentence). This would be resource-intensive in the community but could have significant impact on this ‘revolving door’, reducing costs for the police, courts and prison service.” – The Scottish Association of Social Work (SASW), Call for Evidence.

Recommendation 8.2: Collect data about the frequency of short-term sentences being served, and about any long-term prisoners who have previously served a short-term sentence. This would provide an evidence base for the likely cohort that could be addressed by social work provision, on a needs basis, among the short-term population. Lead partners – Scottish Government working with Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service (SCTS) and Justice Social Work.

For people who do receive prison-based social work, evidence to the Commission set out that many staff are “forced to focus…on reports and risk assessments which limits the other more therapeutic work” that would benefit prisoners.³¹³ The Commission acknowledges that social workers have a statutory duty to compile reports and carry out risk assessments. However, we heard repeatedly that what supports desistance (and therefore makes everyone safer) is support; specifically support in addressing a wide range of underlying factors and of barriers to positive change.³¹⁴

Additionally, we note the evidence that successful outcomes typically involve achieving basic needs such as housing, family, employment.³¹⁵ Social workers are well placed to assist prisoners navigating these fields, regardless of sentence length.

We have also seen that the number of prisoners over the age of 60 has increased significantly. HMIPS described the increase as “striking”, observing “the additional challenges which age and infirmity bring to prison life.”³¹⁶ From the HMIPS report we see that 47% of all older prisoners were long-term prisoners, so captured by current prison-based social work prioritisation. However, many of the issues faced by that cohort of prisoners need to be addressed regardless of the length of the sentence being served.

Recommendation 8.3: Resource prison-based social work to provide statutory reports and risk assessments but also support on basis of need. This should be extended to short-term prisoners on a needs basis rather than sentence length alone. Lead partners – Scottish Government and Justice Social Work.

Rehabilitation to prepare for reintegration

In Chapter Seven, we explained how there must be effective intervention and support for people who have offended, recognising that offending behaviour is often linked to unmet needs and that meaningful change is possible with the right support at the right time. This support includes: education, training, treatment for addiction, mental health support, life skills, and personal development.

“There are three things which are important in promoting desistance – a home, a job and relationships. Barriers to achieving these must be removed.” – Aid & Abet, Call for Evidence.

The Commission considers that the evidence is unclear about the extent to which rehabilitative work in prison currently delivers these aspects to achieve desistance. It is not clear whether psychological programmes are prioritised over, or run alongside, the basic support listed above. Chapter Seven refers to this in more detail. Other related themes, each raised by several respondents in our Call for Evidence were about the support needed by those involved in the system, included providing people in prison, as well as upon release, with support to gain practical skills to facilitate reintegration into the community. This was viewed as a way to improve people’s life chances, by helping to develop structure and routines, improve self-efficacy, confidence, and mental health, and develop positive social networks.

Supporting prisoners works for them as individuals but also for victims, communities, and for society as a whole. We know that what supports desistance³¹⁷ from crime makes us all safer. And what works is support in addressing a wide range of underlying factors and barriers to positive change.³¹⁸

Recent evidence reviews by both the UK Government³¹⁹ and Scottish Government³²⁰ on what works to reduce reoffending have shown that punitive or deterrence-based interventions are less likely to reduce reoffending than interventions based on rehabilitation and reintegration; and that punitive or deterrence-based measures delivered without rehabilitative or wider support may instead increase the risk of recidivism. The evidence strongly suggests³²¹ that the most effective responses to offending typically keep people in their communities and address their underlying “criminogenic needs” i.e. risk factors directly linked to criminal behaviour.³²²

If reintegration is to be successful at reducing the likelihood of reoffending, it is important to note that desistance, refraining from crime, is a “highly individualised process” and that ”one-size-fits-all interventions do not work.”³²³ A number of factors are associated with reduced reoffending but “when offenders are categorised by risk category in terms of reoffending, there is substantial heterogeneity (difference) in outcomes and their desistance patterns will vary according to different levels of need and risk.”³²⁴

Purposeful activity is an important aspect of prison life for two reasons. Firstly, it is a part of meeting obligations to human rights and human dignity, having time out of cells to engage in a decent regime of activities. Secondly, where it is a meaningful form of purposeful activity, it may help prisoners do something constructive to develop life skills, pursue personal development and prepare for life post-release. Activities which support employability and vocational skills can be supported by positive partnerships with the third sector or business and industry.³²⁵ The Commission acknowledges that, while there are some pockets of good practice emerging, purposeful activity has been raised over many years as an area needing further improvement.³²⁶ We encourage scrutiny bodies – HM Inspectorate of Prisons for Scotland, the Scottish Human Rights Commission, and the Scottish Parliament Criminal Justice Committee – to pay attention to this issue to ensure accountability and see that progress is made.

Recommendation 8.4: Increase the range and quality of purposeful activity options, and reduce disparities in the number of hours offered by different prisons. Lead partner – Scottish Prison Service (SPS).

Reintegration: accommodation

Housing challenges more broadly within society mean that affordable accommodation can be hard to come by. This is exacerbated for those prisoners leaving custody, particularly where there are issues of alcohol or drug addiction. A further category of prisoners are those who leave with nowhere to live. Next Chapter gave us information from one individual with experienceof this: “I had to put in a homelessness application, and this could only be done once I had been released. This meant I had to travel 100 miles as soon as I left prison for an appointment, which was difficult and required three trains and a bus. On the day I left prison, I had no idea where I would be sleeping that night. Your whole life is in a suitcase that you have to lug around with you.”³²⁷

This happens even though we know that having somewhere to stay is key to successful reintegration back into the community. We heard from Turning Point Scotland that at one of their recent engagement exercises with people they support who had recently been released from prison, everyone they spoke to was released to homelessness.³²⁸ We also heard that one local authority will not accept an application for homelessness until the applicant is physically present in the area.

However, we did also hear evidence of good practice. Perth & Kinross Council’s homelessness prevention team works to protect and maintain people’s tenancies when they receive a short-term prison sentence. In Dumfries, temporary accommodation is identified before release, so the individual knows where they will live.³²⁹ Crisis told us about Ayr Housing Aid centre, which has established relationships with three prisons. Housing advisers attend prisoner inductions, and housing is part of core screening for new prisoners. The benefits are evident from the recorded outcomes.³³⁰

“Partners continue to report that the Standards are not consistently followed across establishments. Barriers include variation between prison establishments, local housing shortages, unclear lines of accountability, and the absence of mechanisms to ensure compliance.” – SACRO, Call for Evidence.

As SPS notes, accommodation is also often the key to accessing other services.³³¹ The Sustainable Housing on Release for Everyone (SHORE) standards provide guidance but evidence to the Commission suggested that implementation varies. SACRO told us that implementation has improved but continues to be uneven.

Against this backdrop, the Commission considered information from respondents to our Call for Evidence, who referenced a type of “step-down” facility. We heard that this would offer support while allowing higher supervision and monitoring, with support provided according to need and risk.³³² In Chapter Four we described the potential for suitable supported accommodation as an alternative to remanding individuals in custody. There may well be some overlap here, and with applications for parole.

We were told that transitional accommodation has previously existed in Scotland but that there are now few options. Although evidence is limited on which features of accommodation interventions might be most impactful, evidence does suggest that housing provision should be accompanied by individualised support.³³³

The Commission considers the potential benefits of accommodation for people who have offended to be great here, as is the case on bail as an alternative to remand. The Commission considers that if supported, transitional accommodation were available, a licence condition could be imposed such that parole is only granted if the person lives in this type of accommodation, where there would be support with substance abuse, mental health issues or other needs.

Recommendation 8.5: Develop a policy on transitional accommodation with individualised support and forecast the financial implications of developing such a service. Lead partners – Scottish Government and local authority housing departments.

Reintegration: throughcare

Throughcare is one of the building blocks of reintegration. The term refers to support offered to someone in custody shortly before they leave, during the period of being released, and thereafter in the community for up to 12 months afterwards. Throughcare encompasses the full range of support: pre-release planning, practical resettlement support, housing and homelessness services, continuity of health and addiction care, family support, employability and training pathways, through-the-gate services such as meeting people on release and ensuring they reach first appointments, and links to community-based wellbeing, peer support and volunteering. Effective throughcare depends on various elements working together: support, mentoring, interventions addressing accommodation, income, health, family and employment.

The length of a prisoner’s sentence dictates how support is provided. A short-term prisoner is entitled to voluntary throughcare, while a long-term prisoner receives statutory throughcare. In statutory throughcare, justice social workers supervise individuals on parole or licence, and manage associated risk. Evidence to the Commission set out that, for both cohorts, “it is more positive and successful when [former prisoners] are given the opportunity to engage with, and get support from, people in their community with lived experience.”³³⁴

In previous iterations of throughcare, individuals remanded to custody were not eligible for support. Individuals remanded to custody pending trial have not been tried, much less convicted, of any offence. While awaiting trial, however, in many cases the consequences of custody were the same. For example, someone might lose their house or job, and be cut off from family.

Now the landscape of throughcare provision in Scotland has changed. From April 2025, Upside became the national voluntary throughcare service. Upside has largely been welcomed, though we also heard that there may be limits to the target audience based on the funding model. Not everyone eligible for voluntary throughcare will request it, or accept an offer of support. Evaluation of Upside in due course, once it has operated for sufficient time, will demonstrate whether it is being implemented as intended and achieving the desired outcomes for those not entitled to statutory throughcare, those leaving prison from remand or after a sentence of less than four years.

Mentoring

We have heard about mentoring, a relationship-based intervention that supports people at risk of (re)offending to stabilise their lives and build a non-offending identity. There is no single definition of mentoring but generally, a bond is formed in a trusted, non-judgemental relationship. This might involve structured, goal-focused work; practical help to secure housing, income, health care and prosocial connections; and assertive advocacy and accompaniment (“through-the-gate” and “through the town hall”). The mentor role may be fulfilled by a peer, such as an individual with lived experience (for example, a person who has previously offended), or by a non-peer.

“We need our community of peers who are just like us when we are coming out of prison.” – Lived Experience Participant.

There is growing evidence that mentoring is promising,³³⁵ and in combination with a wider system of support, will, in the long term, contribute to a reduction in reoffending.³³⁶ The Fraser of Allander Institute published an evaluation³³⁷ of mentoring for people leaving Scottish prisons, where they were offered pre-release and post-release mentoring through a third sector partnership. It found that multiple needs (like addictions, finance) and good outcomes were supported in the mentoring process, leading to increased motivation to engage with services and positive social support networks. Another study³³⁸ of mentoring with young male prolific offenders and women who have offended in six mentoring services across Scotland also found it helps motivation to change and supports the process of desistance.

Peer mentors are frequently seen as uniquely credible to former prisoners and may offer a stronger sense of hope, though they require careful training and supervision. In the lived experience workshops, we repeatedly heard participants speaking of the value of support for their own rehabilitation and desistance from others who had already done it themselves, including in contexts like recovery cafes in prisons as well as in community contexts. The evidence base for peer mentors in criminal justice is still developing, however, a recent systematic review³³⁹ found “strong evidence suggests that support from a peer mentor alongside formal interventions positively influences subjective factors that contribute to desistance from crime… particularly among prison leavers.”

Any focus on mentoring should prioritise those people most likely to benefit. For example, some evidence suggests mentoring may have stronger effects amongst people at the point of being apprehended by the police, rather than those at risk of offending (but who have not yet committed a crime).³⁴⁰

Mentoring is not a silver bullet, but as humane and practical support, it is a way to tackle the barriers that drive reoffending, while building the relationships and routines that foster long-term desistance.

“The first 72 hours following release is when support is most important to help to prevent relapse. Anecdotal evidence tells us that no matter what “rehabilitative” programmes may be undertaken in prison an individual tends to leave those tools in prison. immediately on release and for so long thereafter as is required is crucial to avoid relapse and reoffending” – Aid & Abet, Call for Evidence.

Recommendation 8.6: Community Justice Partnerships should consider whether there are appropriate mentoring services in their area, targeted to those most likely to benefit. If not, they should take action with Community Justice Scotland to remedy this. Lead partners – Community Justice Partners, third sector, and Community Justice Scotland.

Unplanned release

The proportion of the average daily prison population held on remand in 2024-2025 was 22%.³⁴¹ We consider this group in more detail at Chapter Five. This is a group that might leave prison in an unplanned manner: for example, if someone remanded in SPS custody is taken to court and released directly from there. In this scenario, someone’s belongings might remain at the prison while they are liberated. The person released directly from court would have no access to any of the support services that form part of proper release planning. We do note that, from July 2025, individuals released following a period of remand now have access to Upside throughcare support.

“Being released straight from court is problematic. This can mean an individual is released with all their belongings still in the prison establishment, [with] no access to housing, support or treatment/medication.” – Scottish Recovery Consortium, Call for Evidence.

Homelessness, as described above, the need for healthcare including medication, and the need to apply for benefits may all be required. With no pre-release support for people remanded to custody, someone released directly from court might struggle to make all necessary arrangements on the day of release. Although as noted previously, access to Upside is now available. We heard from the Scottish Recovery Consortium that individuals might not have access to a smartphone, which could itself preclude accessing government services.

Recommendation 8.7: Improve the coordination of liberations direct from court. Lead partners – SCTS and SPS.

Release: parole

Parole allows eligible prisoners to be released from custody and to be placed on licence in the community under the supervision of a community-based social worker. For the remainder of the time on licence while they are out in the community, they continue to be subject to monitoring under possible penalty of recall to custody for any breach of the conditions attached to their licence.

Release on parole licence is only granted where the Parole Board for Scotland (PBS) is satisfied that the relevant test for release has been met. There are various tests: either defined in legislation for some sentences or, where there is no statutory test, PBS’s own test “that such risk as the prisoner poses can be managed safely in the community.”³⁴² Risk assessment is therefore central to a decision about whether or not a prisoner is granted release on parole licence. If PBS is satisfied that the relevant test is met and recommends release on parole licence, PBS must publish an anonymised summary of its reasons. This is required only in indeterminate sentence cases i.e. for people serving a sentence with no set end point.³⁴³ The Victims, Witnesses and Justice Reform (Scotland) Act 2025 extends this summary of reasons to determinate sentences, though the relevant provision is not yet in force.³⁴⁴

Where the PBS decides not to grant release on parole licence in an indeterminate sentence case, there is no requirement to publish a summary of this decision. There is also no requirement to publish a summary in relation to determinate sentences i.e. long-term sentences. For this reason, we have only been able to read about some decisions to release.

Recommendation 8.8: Publish a summary of Parole Board for Scotland decisions not to grant parole. This would allow information to be shared about the types of reasons why the relevant test has not been met. Lead partner – The Parole Board for Scotland.

As noted above, release on parole licence is only granted where the Parole Board for Scotland is satisfied that the relevant test for release has been met, with an assessment of risk central to a decision. Evidence to the Commission suggested that the parole system’s approach to risk needs to be addressed, with one suggestion that rehabilitation be included as a consideration in parole decision-making.³⁴⁵

“The experience is that the Parole Board [for Scotland] are fixated on the elimination of risk rather than taking a realistic approach to it. The general test of offenders being released should their risk be manageable in the community is often far too strictly applied. There appears to be little leeway to offer prisoners an opportunity even when programme work is immediately available in the community but is almost certain not [to] be available before the automatic release date. It is generally understood that the Parole Board in England have adopted a far more realistic approach. The Parole Board in Scotland require to be given a legal mandate to consider rehabilitation as a principal consideration in their decision making.” – Edinburgh Bar Association, Call for Evidence.

We were keen to understand the respective success rates for parole cases in Scotland as compared to England and Wales. This did not seem available. We also wished to consider the success rates of parole cases in Scotland over time but annual reports, which contain data on releases, are available online only to 2018.³⁴⁶ Long-term prisoners are eligible for parole at the halfway point of their sentence, and we heard that release on parole licence at this halfway point has become increasingly rare over time.

We do note research that suggests parole is harder to get now.³⁴⁷ During our work, we heard that this could relate to acknowledged challenges of progression throughout the prison estate referred to in Chapter Seven. Experience in open condition custody improves the potential to demonstrate readiness for release, increasing the evidence that can be cited in favour of parole. The increasing numbers of “very” long-term prisoners (a term used in some research to describe those serving a sentence of 10 or more years) might potentially be explained by reductions in the number of people serving indeterminate sentences being granted parole.³⁴⁸

The Parole Board for Scotland told us that “the binary choice between prison and the community is too blunt” and “leads to significant numbers… being incarcerated for longer than would be necessary if there was a broader choice of options that allowed safe transition and management within the community without impacting on public protection.”³⁴⁹ We consider this compelling, however, there has always been a binary choice between custody and community. We therefore think it important to first understand the trends and consider that this element should be covered in the Scottish Government’s ongoing review of parole.

Recommendation 8.9: Publish consistent data about parole rates, reasons for refusal, and assist in research to consider trends over time. Lead partner – Parole Board for Scotland.

We heard from the Parole Board for Scotland that the Scottish Ministers have the power to appoint parole advisers for prisoners but that this has never been done. PBS would support the appointment of parole advisers and believes that education and preparation of prisoners about their journey to release would positively impact release rates.³⁵⁰ The Scottish Ministers can appoint parole advisers to give advice to prisoners, or former prisoners, who wish to make representations to PBS as regards any matter concerning their release on licence, or their recall to prison.³⁵¹

We also heard that information about parole is challenging to access, inconsistent between prison establishments, and often confusing or incorrect’.³⁵² Academic research has also found that prisoners did not feel they had enough access to support or information in preparing for parole, and that there were barriers to effective participation in their preparation and actual parole hearings.³⁵³

The Commission considers it particularly important to provide access to accessible, plain English information to prisoners in a range of formats – either written or in person. The existing roles involved include: SPS personal officers, individual defence agents, and the recent work of the Scottish Human Rights Commission for example, providing prisoners with plain English guide to the prison rules.³⁵⁴

Recommendation 8.10: Publish information about parole in more accessible formats for the benefit of those eligible for parole. Lead partner – Parole Board for Scotland.

The Scottish Government recently consulted on a number of options in relation to parole.³⁵⁵ That consultation closed in mid-November 2025 and has not as yet been published so we have been unable to take into account any findings. As the parole consultation asked about various matters that the Commission heard about during our work, we expect the consultation to take into account the responses to our Call for Evidence that relate to these topics. However, we would highlight a few aspects below.

When someone is granted parole and is released from prison, they are subject to licence conditions that must be complied with while in the community. Our lived experience workshops highlighted the role of personal relationships with individual social workers in managing compliance with these conditions. Evidence to the Commission emphasised that these relationships are critical to success. The Scottish Recovery Consortium told us that an individual’s relationship with their social worker “often has a significant impact on whether they are deemed to have breached their licence conditions or not, which leads to uncertainty and mistrust in the system.”³⁵⁶

The Scottish Prisoner Advocacy and Research Collective (SPARC) told us that for most people subject to monitoring, “parole meetings feel like police interviews.” SPARC stated “the idea that parole officers are there to offer care and support is fundamentally incompatible with their power to recall people based on the very things they claim to support.”

We heard this also from Professor Fergus McNeill, who told us that “supervision and support are not synonymous” and that “we have increased supervision and (unintentionally) reduced support,” which has been counterproductive. Combining care with control undoubtedly has an impact on an individual’s willingness to directly address issues with the person supervising them.

We have also heard that, while complete desistance is the ultimate goal, even a reduction in the number and type of breaches of licence conditions can still be a mark of progress. As a concept, parole recognises the possibility of change in an individual. However, progress is unlikely to be linear and change may well be incremental. Where progress has begun, there should be continued support.

“Often no distinction is drawn between “can’t” and “won’t” in considering compliance” – Aid & Abet, Call for Evidence.

The Commission has heard about recalls to custody for administrative non-compliance, for relapse, or for exhibiting behaviour linked to unmet need.³⁵⁷ We wanted to explore whether such returns to custody might be avoidable, on the basis that a better option might be to offer support or addiction management, for example, we note that for the first time, in 2024-25 data was collected on the split of recalled prisoners for those on any form of licence – parole and non-parole. There were 290 recalled prisoners in 2024-25, of whom 65% were recalled due to non-compliance with licence conditions, with the remainder recalled due to both non-compliance of licence conditions and commission of an offence.³⁵⁸ However, the data is not disaggregated by type of non-compliance, or type of condition not complied with and accordingly we found it impossible to draw any particular conclusions from the recall figures.

Prolific or frequent offenders

The “revolving door” refers to people who repeatedly encounter the justice system, often for low-level offences. Their behaviour is usually linked to challenges like poor health, trauma, poverty, and discrimination. Many experience issues including substance misuse, homelessness, mental health difficulties, and victimisation (for example, domestic abuse). These individuals frequently receive short prison sentences and cycle in and out of custody, placing additional strain on the justice system.³⁵⁹ In Chapter One we highlight how late intervention – rather than prevention – by public services, combined with missed opportunities and unmet needs, contributes to this cycle. The result is a significant human and economic cost.

In England and Wales, the Ministry of Justice uses a structured categorisation for “prolific offenders,” with age-based thresholds: juvenile prolific, young adult prolific, and adult prolific. For example, adult prolific offenders are defined as “offenders who are aged 21 or older on their most recent appearance in the criminal justice system, have a total of 16 or more previous convictions or cautions and have 8 or more previous convictions or cautions when aged 21 or older.”³⁶⁰ Evidence shows that prolific offenders share similar types of criminogenic needs as other people who have offended, but these needs occur more frequently and with greater intensity. They often present with multiple needs: 73% have 6-8 out of 8 identified needs, compared to 49% among non-prolific offenders.³⁶¹

Scotland lags behind England and Wales in understanding the demographics and needs of people who offend, including those with persistent offending patterns. We do know that reconviction rates for adults with more than 10 prior convictions on their criminal record is quite high (47% for males, 49% for females).³⁶² Also, recent ad-hoc analysis has highlighted the complexity of offending histories among those receiving short custodial sentences (12 months or less).³⁶³ Of 5,400 short custodial sentences imposed by courts, around 25% related to people who received more than one short sentence throughout the year.³⁶⁴ This suggests that a significant number of individuals cycle through the prison system multiple times in a year, reflecting the revolving door phenomenon.

“Those who know and work in the justice sector – including practitioners, people with lived experience of the system, victims, leaders and campaigners – have long understood that individuals caught in the ’revolving door’ of the justice system often spend their lives navigating a complex system that often only worsens the very issues that led them there in the first place: trauma, poverty, and discrimination.” – Revolving Doors and Newton, 2025.

“My experience of the criminal justice system has stripped me of all my life, stripped me of my dignity, stripped me of my human rights.” – Lived Experience Participant.

Official statistics confirm that people serving short sentences are reconvicted more frequently than those serving longer sentences. This pattern also reflects the nature of their offending: individuals given shorter sentences typically commit less serious crimes but do so more often, resulting in higher reconviction rates compared to those who commit more serious offences.

In 2008, the McLeish Commission described a prison system where people “do life by instalments” and warned of “institutionalisation.”³⁶⁵ This remains relevant today. Wider evidence suggests that people who have offended repeatedly may not view prison as a strong deterrent.³⁶⁶,³⁶⁷ McLeish recommended that “those serving shorter sentences should be released under licence conditions and directed to support services” although this recommendation was in the different context of considering the implementation of the Custodial Sentences and Weapons (Scotland) Act 2007, which was not fully implemented.

“... there is clear evidence that release without support and, where need be, supervision leads to many offenders returning to chaotic lifestyles with no family support, home or services. It is therefore no surprise that reoffending rates are high and that many offenders end up serving a life sentence by instalments.” – (4.6), McLeish Commission, 2008.

Since then, evidence reviews published in 2025 by the Ministry of Justice and the Scottish Government confirm that interventions to reduce reoffending are most effective when they follow the Risk-Need-Responsivity (RNR) model:³⁶⁸,³⁶⁹

• Risk: People most likely to reoffend should receive the most intensive intervention [who to prioritise working with].
• Need: Target criminogenic needs, like pro-criminal attitudes and peers, poor family relationships, and drug use [what work needs to be done].
• Responsivity: Adapt interventions to the individual’s learning style, motivation, and strengths [how the work should be delivered³⁷⁰].

Release from prison is a critical transition point. Yet in Scotland, those convicted of short-term sentences – often with high risks and complex needs – who may have previously served numerous short-term sentences, are released after serving 40% of their sentence, often with no meaningful opportunities for rehabilitation in prison (for example, no social work support). Upon release, access to statutory supervision, support or throughcare varies and may rely on an individual exercising their entitlement to request support.

We as a Commission are clear that short prison sentences are ineffective at breaking the cycle or “revolving door” of persistent reoffending. The current approach is not working. The root causes of offending and complex needs need better addressed, and circumstances stabilised, for the group doing prolific reoffending.

We have been clear throughout this report that short prison sentences should only be used when there is no other alternative. We have recommended measures such as diversion, problem-solving courts, more effective use of community sentences, enhanced substance misuse interventions, and mentoring. These aim to use early intervention and stop those first in contact with the justice journeying further into a cycle of offending, addressing health and social care needs with the right support at the right time. However, for those people who do receive numerous short custodial sentences within a given period, we are currently missing an important opportunity to intervene to provide the community-based element of supervision or support upon release that could provide the encouragement and structure needed to desist. In our call for evidence, the Scottish Association of Social Work (SASW), highlighted the need for post-release supervision of those who have histories of persistent reoffending.

Recommendation 8.11: Develop a consistent policy definition of prolific offenders and consider introducing a post release community supervision period and/or mandated support requirements for this cohort following a short prison sentence. Lead partner – Scottish Government.

In line with the above recommendation, it is important to undertake research and analysis to better understand the needs of prolific offenders. Chapter Ten outlines actions to deepen this understanding, including the use of linked administrative datasets – such as health data – to explore their needs and trajectories.