How quantitative criminology research has changed policy on offender management
Submitting Institution
Lancaster UniversityUnit of Assessment
LawSummary Impact Type
LegalResearch Subject Area(s)
Studies In Human Society: Criminology
Summary of the impact
Policy on offender management has been changed in several areas through
statistical research on criminal careers. The research has:
a) crucially influenced an Information Tribunal appeal case on the
retention of police records, where five Police Authorities were appealing
against a decision of the Information Commissioners.
b) influenced the research methodology and policy of the Home Office
towards the retention of DNA profiles for those arrested but not found
guilty, and contributed to a new Act of Parliament.
c) through the development of a reconviction predictor tool for offenders
(OGRS3), improved court pre-sentence reports, and provided a mechanism for
new policy on payment by results.
Underpinning research
The research was funded by the ESRC and the Home Office over the period
2000-2012. Brian Francis (Senior Lecturer, then Professor of Social
Statistics) and Keith Soothill (Professor of Social Research) were the key
researchers in this work.
a) Data from the Home Office's Offenders Index was analysed, which
contains a one in thirteen sample of all convictions in England and Wales
organised by offender. The yearly risk of reconviction after age 21 given
a single non-violent conviction before age 21 was examined. Two birth
cohorts of offenders were used — 1953 and 1958. This risk of a
reconviction in the offending groups was compared with the risk of first
conviction for a non-offending group from the same birth cohort, obtained
by combining the non-offenders from the Offenders Index data augmented
with population data and using a discrete time hazard rate analysis. We
found that the risk of reconviction for the offending group declined
rapidly and had nearly converged to the risk of a first conviction for the
non-offending group by age 35 in both cohorts. This provided evidence that
the retention of criminal convictions long in the past was of no
operational value for future offending. [1]
b) The research described in a) was extended to deal with the topic of
the retention of DNA profiles for arrestees rather than the retention of
criminal records. This additional research was motivated by the
publication of a consultation document by the Home Office on DNA retention
methodology which contained a flawed methodology. [2] [3]
c) Ordinal split-sample regression models were investigated under
research funded by the Home Office for a new reconviction assessment tool
which can be used to estimate both one-year and two year reconviction
probabilities. The model can be used reliably on Police National Computer
conviction records. A new non-linear offending rate variable was developed
as part of the model which offers substantial improvement in predictive
ability over the old methodology. [4] [5] [6]
References to the research
[1] Soothill, K. and Francis, B. (2009). When do ex-offenders become like
non-offenders? Howard Journal of Criminal Justice, 48, 4, 373 -
387.
[2] Soothill, K. & Francis, B. (2009), Keeping the DNA link. New
Law Journal, 159, 7378.
[3] Soothill, K. and Francis, B. (2010). The debate rumbles on: The
measurement tail is now wagging the dog, New Law Journal, 22
January, 94-95.
The key research grants over this period were:
• 2000-2002 ESRC Criminal
Careers: Understanding Temporal Changes in Offending Behaviour £42,500
• 2005-2008 ESRC The Lancaster-Warwick-node Developing
Statistical Modelling in the Social Sciences Phase 1 £865,725
• 2004-2006 Home Office. OGRS3-A new measure of reoffending based on
PNC data. £15,000.
• 2008-2012 ESRC The Lancaster-Warwick-Stirling node: Developing
statistical modelling in the social sciences Phase 2 £1,144,818
Details of the impact
a) The first piece of research concerned the retention of Police National
Computer records for those found guilty as teenagers but with a subsequent
long conviction-free period, and was carried out in the early part of
2008, Our team members were called as expert witnesses in a Information
Tribunal case held in April 2008 between the Information Commissioners
(IC) and five police authorities, following a police appeal against an
earlier judgement by the IC that the police authorities should delete
early convictions from the Police National Computer. Our research on the
comparison of the risk of reconviction for those with an early conviction
before the age of 21 compared to the risk of a first conviction for those
conviction free before the age of 21 was developed under an ESRC research
methods grant, and relates to the concept of hazard rate convergence. The
research was used to form a report to the court. The report was quoted
extensively by the tribunal chair. For example, page 30 of the judgment
states that:
"we did find the expert evidence helpful in making our own judgment
about the practical significance of the conviction information that is
at issue in this case and that it could be informed by the statistical
work in the Francis/Soothill report..."
The appeal case led to a Government review of the retention of police
records and to the appointment of a new post of Independent Advisor on
Criminality Information Management.
b) The second part of the research concerned the retention of DNA
profiles for those arrested but not found guilty and was carried out in
2009 and 2010. A Home Office consultation on DNA profile retention was
released in April 2009 which proposed controversial measures to the
retention of DNA sample profiles for those arrested but not found guilty
(these were six years for adult arrestees, with twelve years for adults
arrested for violent and sexual crimes). We made a submission to the Home
Office consultation document which criticised the methodology of the
research carried out by the Jill Dando institute, and suggested that a
differential retention period for those arrested for serious offences
lacked evidence.
Following subsequent press coverage of this issue in The Guardian
and online blogs, we were contacted by the Chief Economic Advisor to the
Home Office, John Elliott, to provide advice to improve their research,
and subsequently to critique their new research supporting the revised
policy. Our recommendation that there be no distinction between retention
periods for arrests for serious offences and arrests for less serious
offences was accepted, as was an improved methodology. This has now led to
a revised policy which has been implemented in a new Act — the Protection
of Freedoms Act 2010-12, which now contains a reduced five year retention
period for DNA profiles for those arrested but not found guilty.
This impact was chosen to be an ESRC
Impact case study.
c) The third part of the research has resulted in the OGRS3 tool that has
been adopted by the National Probation Agency for the assessment of
recidivism risk in pre-sentence reports presented to the courts, and is
thus being used to assess and prioritise offenders. For example, the
Ministry of Justice's 2011 National Offender Management Service guidance
"Determining pre sentence reports" states that "A RoSH screening and
OGRS calculation must be completed for all report formats" It is
also used in the Prison Service as a way of determining enrolment of
offenders into the Enhanced Thinking Skills (ETS) programme.
The OGRS3 tool is additionally increasingly being used as a measure for
"payment by results" contracts for reducing reoffending. Contractors are
assessed against the expected level of reoffending produced from OGRS from
an available prison sample, and their chosen intervention is expected to
reduce offending below that level, otherwise a reduced payment is made.
Sources to corroborate the impact
Impact A
The judicial decision of the tribunal case which accepts the
Francis-Soothill report can be found at: http://www.informationtribunal.gov.uk/DBFiles/Decision/i200/
Chief_Constables_v_IC_final_decision_2007081_web_entry[1].pdf (page
30)
Former Information Commissioners Head of Enforcement, now Consultant at
Field Fisher Waterhouse Legal Practice, UK (can testify as to the
research's crucially influence on an Information Tribunal appeal case on
the retention of police records).
Impact B
The website for the consultation document and its revision can be found
at:
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/documents/cons-2009-
dna-database/
The Information Commissioners response to the Home Office consultation
quoting the Francis-Soothill work can be found at:
http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/library/data_protection/notices/response_to_ho_consult
ation_may09.pdf
A major law firm's (Kingsley Napley) response to the consultation quoting
the Francis-Soothill work can be found at:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200910/ldselect/ldconst/107/10704.htm
The work was commented on in the Guardian:
"DNA database plans based on 'flawed science', warn experts" The Guardian
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/jul/19/dna-database-crime-privacy-discrimination
The ESRC impact case study can be found at: http://www.esrc.ac.uk/impacts-and-
findings/features-casestudies/case-studies/7724/reviewing-the-dna-database.aspx
Director for Social Science and Chief Economist, Home Office, UK (can
testify as to how the research influenced the research methodology and
policy of the Home Office towards the retention of DNA profiles for those
arrested but not found guilty, and contributed to a new Act of
Parliament).
Impact C
Examples of the use by England and Wales Probation Services can be found
at, eg, http://www.leicsprobation.co.uk/supervision-risk-assessment.html
and documented in the House of Commons Justice Committee The Role of the
Probation Service Eighth report of Session 2010-12: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmjust/519/519vw.pdf
Use in pre-sentence reports is evidenced in numerous sources. An example
is the Ministry of Justice National Offender Management Service document
PI 05/2011:
http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/offenders/psipso/psi-2011/pi_5-2011_determining_pre-
Sentence_reports.doc
The use of OGRS in a "payment by results" reoffending intervention can be
found at the Ministry of Justice's document NOMS Commissioning
Intentions for 2013/2014:
http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/about/noms/commissioning-intentions-2013-14.pdf
Senior Research Officer, National Offender Management Service, Ministry
of Justice, UK (can testify how, through the development of a reconviction
predictor tool for offenders (OGRS3), the research improved court
pre-sentence reports and provided a mechanism for new policy on payment by
results).