Community Sentence Treatment impact study

A newly published report investigates the impact of Community Sentence Treatment Requirements (CSTRs) on reoffending, comparing them with short custodial sentences and other community sentences.

The report, published this month, evaluates the impact of Community Sentence Treatment Requirements (CSTRs), including Alcohol Treatment Requirements (ATRs), Drug Rehabilitation Requirements (DRRs), and Mental Health Treatment Requirements (MHTRs). CSTRs aim to address the underlying health issues of offenders while on community sentences, with the ultimate goal of reducing reoffending.

While prior evidence has suggested that treatment for issues such as alcohol misuse, drug addiction, and mental health conditions can help reduce reoffending, research specifically examining the impact of CSTRs has been limited. The Ministry of Justice (MoJ), working with partners from Her Majesty's Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS), the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC), and NHS England, has expanded its efforts to evaluate the effectiveness of CSTRs, notably through the Better Outcomes Through Linked Data (BOLD) program.

The analysis focuses on comparing the justice outcomes of individuals sentenced with CSTRs against those who received other forms of community sentences or short custodial sentences. Specifically, it looked at the completion of community sentences and proven reoffending metrics, including the rate and frequency of reoffending, time to first reoffence, and the frequency of reoffending resulting in custody.

Methodology and Findings

To ensure accurate comparisons, a statistical technique called Propensity Score Matching (PSM) was used to match offenders with similar characteristics, controlling for variables such as drug or alcohol misuse and mental health issues. This technique helps ensure that any differences in outcomes are likely attributable to the type of sentence received rather than other factors.

Key findings included the following:

• Successful completion rates: ATR recipients had a 67% successful completion rate, MHTR recipients 78%, and DRR recipients 41%. Due to data limitations, it was not possible to compare these rates with individuals who did not receive a CSTR.

• Reoffending rates: ATR recipients had similar reoffending rates compared to individuals sentenced without a CSTR (42% and 40%, respectively). However, ATR recipients reoffended less frequently and took longer to commit a new offense compared to short custodial sentence recipients.

• DRR outcomes: DRR recipients reoffended at similar rates to those on other community sentences or short custodial sentences. However, they reoffended less frequently than individuals released from short custodial sentences and were less likely to have reoffences leading to further custody.

• MHTR outcomes: MHTR recipients had a notably lower reoffending rate (27%) compared to those on community sentences without a CSTR (34%) and short custodial sentences (36%). MHTR recipients also reoffended less frequently and were less likely to receive a custodial sentence following reoffending.

Conclusion and Considerations

The findings indicate that being sentenced with a CSTR generally leads to better reoffending outcomes compared to short custodial sentences, aligning with previous research. However, the comparison with other community sentences without a CSTR yields mixed results. Factors such as the closer supervision involved in CSTRs, which may increase the likelihood of detecting reoffences, and delays in accessing treatment, may affect the overall outcomes.

This report serves as a baseline measure of CSTR impact and highlights the need for further research to better understand the conditions that contribute to CSTR effectiveness.

For a detailed breakdown of the findings, visit the full report here.

Copyright & permissions