What Works to Reduce Reoffending: update of the evidence on imprisonment and community disposals

Chapter 3: Summary and Conclusions

3.1 Summary and conclusions

This paper has provided an update to the What Works to Reduce Reoffending review published in 2015 and has sought to assess the latest evidence on the effectiveness of different approaches to reduce reoffending among young people and adults, with a particular focus on the impact of imprisonment, community disposals, suspended sentences and early release schemes. Several patterns emerged across the literature with relevance to the research questions set out in the introduction to this paper. This concluding chapter summarises the key findings from the literature and then compares the findings with the conclusions of the 2015 version.

There is broad consensus across the literature that generic or one-size-fits all interventions do not work well or are less effective at reducing reoffending than those interventions that adhere to Risk-Need-Responsivity (RNR) principles (i.e., those interventions that match level of treatment to level of risk of reoffending, target factors known to be associated with crime, and use multimodal, cognitive-behavioural approaches to treatment) (Barnett et al. 2018).

Where evidence is available, the literature suggests that punitive or deterrence-based interventions are less likely to reduce reoffending than interventions based on rehabilitation and reintegration. Further, where punitive or deterrence-based measures are delivered without rehabilitative or wider support, it may instead increase the risk of recidivism. The evidence strongly suggests that the most effective responses to offending typically keep people in their communities and address their underlying criminogenic needs.

Although supervision, when delivered appropriately, may play an important role in aiding desistance from offending, a number of studies suggest that supervision without rehabilitative support may be ineffective. Indeed, where supervision is particularly intense, this intervention may have a harmful effect. For example, in one study, intensely monitored offenders had higher rates of reoffending than a matched comparison group receiving intervention as usual (Ministry of Justice 2015). Even if it is effective at reducing reoffending, this may not translate to a reduction in the prison population if intense supervision results in frequent recall for technical violations that do not constitute new offences.

Overall evidence suggests that those interventions that: do not build skills to support offenders to behave differently in the future; do not help offenders build a prosocial identity and reintegrate into the community; do not target factors that have repeatedly been shown to have a relationship with reoffending^[5]; rely on extrinsic motivation to stop offenders committing crime, and are characterised by poor implementation (which can render even the typically effective intervention ineffective or even harmful) do not reduce reoffending effectively.

3.2 Comparison with the findings of the 2015 review

The 2015 review, concluded that:

• Desistance is a highly individualised process and one-size-fits-all interventions do not work.
• Short prison sentences have higher rates of reoffending than those serving community sentences.
• There are a number of individual factors which are associated with reduced reoffending.
• A number of scholars have argued that desistance from crime is different for women than it is for men, and that women require different interventions to help assist this process.
• Offenders’ relationships – with supervisors, family, friends and the community are considered important to the process of desistance.

Broadly, the findings of the 2024 paper accord with the conclusions of the 2015 review. In particular, where the previous review highlighted that there was a growing evidence base indicating that community sentences can be more effective than short-term prison sentences, it is evident that findings in this area have become more conclusive. Overall, there are no findings in this paper that undermine or call into question the findings of the 2015 paper.

Key questions for policy

• Do we have a wide enough range of community sentences to allow judges choice in sentencing decisions as an alternative to custody and as such, would a wider range increase use or would it lead to up-tariffing?
• Evidence indicates that when offenders are categorised by risk category, there is substantial heterogeneity in outcomes and their desistance patterns will vary according to different levels of need and risk. Therefore, is the current quality and capacity in services delivered through community sentences high enough to address the criminogenic needs of different types of offenders?
• Are offender risk assessments, in their current form, adequate, completed on time and to a high standard? Are they being used to inform choices of interventions appropriately?
• To what extent are community sentences currently based on robust evidence around what works to reduce reoffending? Could we be doing more?
• Given evidence suggests that the effectiveness of imprisonment is predicated on the availability, accessibility and quality of rehabilitative programmes, how can we ensure that these programmes are robust and high quality enough to reduce reoffending if the prison population continues to increase?
• How do we improve trust in community sentences within the criminal justice system to encourage greater use?
• If there are high quality services and interventions in Scotland, are they available at national level?