Much of the responsibility for securing reductions in offending and reoffending is being devolved to local statutory services. It follows that robust and timely local measures for assessing reoffending must be created. To this end, for the last three years the National Offender Management Service has produced quarterly reconviction reports for individual probation areas based on `snapshots' (cross-sectional samples) of the supervision caseload. An independent examination of the data for the East Midlands Region reveals that the way cases have been selected and followed-up departs from the conventions employed in all previous (`longitudinal') reconviction studies in England and Wales. In particular, the `crosssectional' or snapshot approach led to the `at risk' period varying from one offender to another; and those on longer sentences stood a much greater than usual chance of appearing in several samples over time. This, together with other problems associated with not following a conventional longitudinal approach, leads to the conclusion that it would be unwise to use the quarterly figures produced thus far to draw conclusions about probation areas' performance.
Beech, A., Erikson, M., Friendship, C. and Ditchfield, J. (2001) A Six-year Follow-up of Men Going through Probation-based Sex Offender Treatment Programmes, Home Office Research Findings 144, London: Home Office.
2.
Blumstein, A., Cohen, J. and Farrington, D.P. (1988) `Criminal Career Research: Its Value for Criminology', Criminology28(1): 1-35.
3.
Bottoms, A.E. (2004) `Empirical Research Relevant to Sentencing Frameworks' , in A. Bottoms, S. Rex and G. Robinson (eds) Alternatives to Prison: Options for an Insecure Society. Cullompton: Willan Publishing.
4.
Cann, J., Falshaw, L., Nugent, F. and Friendship, C. (2003) Understanding What Works: Accredited Cognitive Skills Programmes for Adult Men and Young Offenders, Home Office Research Findings 226. London: Home Office .
5.
Carter, P. (2003) Managing Offenders, Changing Lives: A New Approach . London: Home Office.
6.
Cunliffe, J. and Shepherd, A. (2007) Re-offending of Adults: Results from the 2004 Cohort, Home Office Statistical Bulletin 06/07. London: Home Office.
7.
Cuppleditch, L. and Evans, W. (2005) Re-offending of Adults: Results from the 2002 Cohort, Home Office Statistical Bulletin 25/05. London: Home Office.
8.
Farrall, S. (2002) Rethinking What Works with Offenders: Probation, Social Context and Desistance from Crime. Cullompton: Willan Publishing.
9.
Farrall, S. (2005) `Officially Recorded Convictions for Probationers: The Relationship with Self-report and Supervisory Observations', Legal and Criminal Psychology10(1): 121-31.
10.
Farrington, D.P., Coid, J.W., Harnett, L., Jolliffe, D., Soteriou, N., Turner, R. and West, D.J. (2006) Criminal Careers up to Age 50 and Life Success up to Age 48: New Findings from the Cambridge Study in Delinquent Development, Home Office Research Study 299. London: Home Office.
11.
Friendship, C., Mann, R. and Beech, A. (2003) The Prison-based Sex Offender Programme - An Evaluation, Home Office Research Findings 205, London: Home Office.
12.
Friendship, C., Street, R., Cann, J. and Harper, G. (2004) `Introduction: the Policy Context and Assessing the Evidence', in G. Harper and C. Chitty (eds), The Impact of Corrections on Re-offending: A Review of `What Works', Home Office Research Study 291 , London: Home Office.
13.
Hedderman C. (2006) `Keeping the Lid on the Prison Population: Will It Work?', in M. Hough, R. Allen and U. Padel (eds) Reshaping Probation and Prisons: The New Offender Management Framework (2006). London: Polity Press.
14.
Hedderman, C. (2007) `Past, Present and Future Sentences: What Do We Know about their Effectiveness?' in L.R. Gelsthorpe and R. Morgan (eds), The Probation Handbook. Cullompton: Willan Publishing.
15.
Hedderman, C. (2008) `Building on Sand: Why Expanding the Prison Estate is Not the Way to Secure the Future', in M. Hough, R. Allen and E. Solomon (eds), Tackling Prison Overcrowding . Bristol: Policy Press.
16.
Home Office (1993) Reconvictions of Those Given Probation and Community Service Orders in 1987, Home Office Statistical Bulletin 18/93. London: Home Office.
17.
Home Office (2004) Reducing Reoffending: National Action Plan. London: Home Office.
18.
Home Office (2006) Offender Management Caseload Statistics 2005 England and Wales, Home Office Statistical Bulletin 18/06. London: Home Office.
19.
Kershaw, C. and Renshaw, G. (1997a) Reconvictions of Prisoners Discharged from Prison in 1993, England and Wales, Statistical Bulletin 5/97. London: Home Office.
20.
Kershaw, C. and Renshaw, G. (1997b) Reconvictions of Those Commencing Community Penalties in 1993, England and Wales, Statistical Bulletin 6/97. London: Home Office.
21.
Killias, M., Aebi, M. and Ribeaud, D. (2000) `Does Community Service Rehabilitate better than Short-term Imprisonment? Results of a Controlled Experiment', The Howard Journal39(1): 40-57.
22.
Lloyd, C., Mair, G. and Hough, M. (1994) Explaining Reconviction Rates: A Critical Analysis, Home Office Research Study 136. London: HMSO.
23.
Loeber, R. and Stouthamer-Loeber, M. (1998) `The Development of Juvenile Aggression and Violence: Some Common Misconceptions and Controversies', American Psychologist, 53: 242-59.
24.
McNeill, F. (2006) `A Desistance Paradigm for Offender Management' , Criminology and Criminal Justice: An International Journal6(1): 39-62.
25.
Mair, G., Lloyd, C., and Hough, M. (1997) `The Limitations of Reconviction Rates', in G. Mair (ed.) Evaluating the Effectiveness of Community Penalties. Aldershot: Avebury.
26.
Merrington, S. and Stanley, S. (2004) `What Works?': Revisiting the Evidence in England and Wales', Probation Journal51(1): 7-20.
27.
Merrington, S. and Stanley, S. (2007) `Effectiveness: Who Counts What?', in L.R. Gelsthorpe and R. Morgan (eds) The Probation Handbook. Cullompton : Willan Publishing.
28.
Ministry of Justice2008) Re-offending of Adults: New Measures of Re-offending 2000-2005, England and Wales, Statistics Bulletin. London: Ministry of Justice .
29.
Moxon, D. (1998) `The Role of Sentencing Policy', in P. Goldblatt and C. Lewis (eds) Reducing Reoffending: An Assessment of Research Evidence on Ways of Dealing with Offending Behaviour, Home Office Research Study 187 . London: Home Office.
30.
Nagin, D.S. (1998) `Deterrence and Incapacitation', in M. Tonry (ed.) The Handbook of Crime and Punishment. New York: Oxford University Press.
31.
Oldfield, M. (1997) `What Worked? A Five-year Study of Probation Reconvictions' , Probation Journal44(1): 2-10.
32.
Sarno, C., Hearnden, I. and Hedderman, C. (2001) From Offending to Employment: A Study of Two Probation Schemes in Inner London and Surrey, Home Office Research Findings 135. London: Home Office Research and Statistics Directorate .
33.
Spicer, K. and Glicksman, A. (2004) Adult Reconviction: Results from the 2001 Cohort, On-line Report 59/04. London: Home Office.
34.
United Kingdom Longitudinal Research Centre ( 2008) Why Longitudinal Research? URL (accessed 2 February 2009): http://www.iser.essex.ac.uk/ulsc/about/whylong.php
35.
von Hirsch, A., Bottoms, A., Burney E. and Wikström, P-O.(1999) Criminal Deterrence and Sentence Severity: An Analysis of Recent Research . Oxford: Hart Publishing.
