Table F.5 shows the accommodation status of offenders in the screening sample broken down by their sentence type. The largest proportions of offenders were either living in rented accommodation or with family, friends or others. The same pattern applied for those who were sentenced to a CRO or a CPRO. An offender was significantly more likely to be sentenced to a CRO or a CPRO if s/he was either a tenant or lived in a hostel, and significantly less likely to be sentenced to the same sentence if s/he was an owner occupier.79 Offenders who lived with family, friends or others were significantly more likely to be sentenced to a custodial sentence than other offenders were, whilst owner occupiers were significantly more likely to be sentenced to a CPO than other offenders were.80
Table F.5: Accommodation status and sentence type of offenders Sentence
*The percentage values in parentheses are the percentage of cases within each sentence type.
There was a significant association between the type of accommodation an offender lived in and the pathfinder area in which they were supervised.81 Underlying this is a complex pattern that is difficult to explain, but is likely to be related to the local housing and labour market. For example, in Cornwall and Dorset Probation Areas, offenders were less likely to be owner occupiers than in other areas, whilst offenders in Cumbria and Nottinghamshire Probation Areas were more likely to be owner occupiers.82 By contrast, offenders in Dorset Probation Area and particularly in Sussex Probation Area were more likely to be living in Bed and Breakfasts, Lodgings or Hotels, whilst those in Nottinghamshire Probation Area were much less likely to be living in this sort of accommodation.83 Finally, in Thames Valley Probation Area, offenders were less likely to be tenants compared with other areas but more likely to be living with family, friends or others.84
As Table F.6 shows, such patterns persisted for the 2,819 offenders who were sentenced to a CRO or a CPRO and for whom data were received on both the type of accommodation reported at the PSR stage and the pathfinder area in which they were supervised. Once again, the majority of offenders who were sentenced to a CRO or a CPRO were either living as tenants or with family, friends and others. Those in Nottinghamshire Probation Area were more likely to be owner occupiers while those in Dorset and Sussex Probation Areas were significantly less likely to own their homes.85 Those in the Thames Valley Probation Area were significantly less likely to be tenants, whilst those in Sussex Probation Area were more likely to be living in Bed and Breakfasts, Lodgings and Hotels.86
79 Adjusted residuals of 2.0, 4.2 and -3.1 respectively.
80 Adjusted residuals of 2.2 and 7.4 respectively
81 Chi-square=210.1, d.f. = 30, p < 0.001.
82 Adjusted residuals -2.2, -3.5, 4.4 and 2.7 respectively.
83 Adjusted residuals 2.9, 7.2 and -7.5 respectively.
84 Adjusted residuals -4.1 and 3.6 respectively.
85 Adjusted residuals 2.5, -2.2 and -2.1 respectively.
86 Adjusted residuals -3.2 and 6.6 respectively.
Table F.6: The type of accommodation being used by offenders who were sentenced to a CRO or a CPRO, broken down by pathfinder area
Pathfinder area Owner
*The percentage value shown in parentheses is the percentage of cases within each pathfinder area.
Domestic circumstances
Another potential indicator of the stability of someone’s lifestyle is their domestic circumstances, i.e. whether they live with a partner or have dependants. In the overall sample, 8,162 cases provided information on marital status and dependants. Of these, 5,393 (66%) were single, divorced or separated, of which 873 (5%) had dependants. 2,541 (31%) cases were either married or lived with a partner. Of these, 1,290 (51%) had dependants.
There was a significant association87 between marital status and sentence type. For example, those offenders living with a partner and with dependants were significantly less likely to be sentenced to a CRO or a CPRO than other offenders were, and those who were living with a partner were significantly more likely to be sentenced to a CPO than other offenders were.88
Alcohol and drug abuse
At the PSR stage, the PSR writer was asked to make a judgement about whether or not they thought an offender was abusing alcohol and/or drugs. Table F.7 shows the frequency of these judgements broken down by sentence type. It is clear from the 7,792 cases for which the data were provided, that those who were sentenced to either custody (59% of cases) or a CRO or a CPRO (66% of cases) were significantly more likely to be judged by the PSR writer as abusing alcohol and/or drugs.89 This judgement was reversed for those subsequently sentenced to a CPO (only 35% of cases were judged to be abusing alcohol and/or drugs).
Table F.7: PSR writer’s judgement about substance abuse by an offender, broken down by sentence type
*The percentage values in parentheses are the percentage of cases within each sentence type.
87 Chi-square=42, d.f. = 18, p < 0.001.
88 Adjusted residuals= -2.6 and 3.7 respectively.
89 Chi-square=515.8, d.f. = 9, p < 0.001.
Schooling and qualifications
Table F.8 shows the qualifications gained by offenders in the screening sample categorised by sentence type, and Table F.9 shows their pattern of school attendance. The large number of offenders who held no qualifications and who attended school irregularly was comparable to that found in other research conducted with similar sample groups of offenders. There was a significant association between the levels of qualifications held and sentence type, with those being sentenced to either custody, or to a CRO or a CPRO being significantly less well qualified than offenders sentenced to a CPO.90 The scale of the problem posed by the lack of qualifications amongst offenders was gauged by comparing the results presented in Table F.8 with the percentage of employed adults with differing levels of qualification derived from the nationally representative 2001 Skills Survey (Felstead et al., 2002). Of those employed in the 2001 Skills Survey, 11 per cent held no qualifications at the time of the survey, 14 per cent had Level 1 qualifications, 21 per cent Level 2 qualification, and 54 per cent had Level 3 qualifications and above. While these qualifications were not always judged by those interviewed during the survey as being necessary to do a job, they were considered necessary to get the job they currently held. This suggests that offenders may be at a severe disadvantage in the current labour market.
Table F.8: The highest level of qualification obtained by offenders, broken down by sentence type
*The percentage values in parentheses are the percentage of cases within each sentence. See Appendix A for the levels in the National Qualifications Framework.
Table F.9: Offenders’ school attendance, broken down by sentence type Sentence type Regular attendance Irregular attendance Total
Custody 955 (49%) 991 (51%) 1,946
CRO/CPRO 1,274 (52.5%) 1,153 (47.5%) 2,427
CPO 1,216 (67%) 593 (33%) 1,809
Other 479 (56%) 370 (44%) 849
Total 3,924 (56%) 3,107 (44%) 7,031
*The percentage values in parentheses are the percentage of cases within each sentence type.
There was also a significant association between an offender’s pathfinder area and the level of qualifications s/he held.91 For example, offenders in Cumbria and Nottinghamshire Probation Areas92 were significantly more likely to have no qualifications compared with offenders in other areas, whilst those in Dorset, Sussex and Thames Valley Probation Areas were significantly less likely to have no qualifications compared with offenders in other areas.93 A possible reason for this might have been that the pattern of school attendance varied between the pathfinder areas, but there was no significant association between pathfinder areas and school attendance for those sentenced to a CRO or a CPRO.94
90 Chi-square =90.5, d.f. = 9, p <0.001. For example, adjusted residuals for those being sentenced to either custody or a CRO or a CPRO and having no qualifications are 4.4 and 3.4 respectively.
91 Chi-square=95.2, d.f. = 18, p < 0.001.
92 Adjusted residuals 6 and 3.4 respectively.
93 Adjusted residuals -3.2, -2.1 and – 4.1 respectively.
94 Chi-square= 11.4, d.f. = 6, p = 0.075.
Risk of reconviction
Six of the Basic Skills Pathfinder areas provided OGRS2 scores and the seventh, Sussex Probation Area, supplied LSI-R scores for offenders as part of the screening data. These data were used to classify offenders as being at ‘low’, ‘medium’ and ‘high’ risk of reconviction.
Table F.10 shows the proportion of offenders falling into each of these risk categories broken down by pathfinder area. These figures are broadly comparable to what would be expected of this population (see Raynor et al., 2000). Cumbria, Lincolnshire and Nottinghamshire Probation Areas95 all had a significantly greater proportion of offenders falling into the ‘high’
risk category compared to other pathfinder areas, whilst Dorset and Sussex Probation Areas had a significantly greater proportion of offenders in the ‘low’ risk category.96
Table F.10: Risk of reconviction, broken down by pathfinder area
Pathfinder area ‘Low’ risk ‘Medium’ risk ‘High’ risk Total Cornwall 90 (39%) 105 (46%) 36 (16%) 231 Cumbria 200 (33%) 231 (39%) 168 (28%) 599 Dorset 538 (44%) 482 (39%) 218 (18%) 1,238 Lincolnshire 318 (29%) 423 (38%) 371 (33%) 1,112 Nottinghamshire 796 (34%) 998 (42%) 562 (24%) 2,356
Sussex 585 (57%) 367 (36%) 83 (8%) 1,035
Thames Valley 567 (38%) 585 (39%) 349 (23%) 1,501 Total 3,094 (38%) 3,191 (40%) 1,787 (22%) 8,072
*The percentage values in parentheses are the percentage of cases within each pathfinder area.
A similar pattern emerged for offenders sentenced to a CRO or a CPRO except that Nottinghamshire Probation Area no longer had a significantly greater proportion of offenders in this sentence group who fell into the ‘high’ risk category. Dorset Probation Area had a significantly greater proportion of these offenders who fell into the ‘medium’ risk category rather than the ‘low’ risk category, as did Thames Valley Probation Area. The proportions in each category of risk differed in Sussex Probation Area and this is possibly because Sussex Probation Area uses LSI-R to measure risk of reconviction.
95 Adjusted residuals 3.6, 9.7 and 2.4 respectively.
96 Adjusted residuals 4 and 12.9 respectively.