City and Guilds (3rd analysis) report (HTML version)
Published 30 April 2026
© Crown copyright 2026
This publication is licensed under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0 except where otherwise stated. To view this licence, visit nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3 or write to the Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, London TW9 4DU, or email: psi@nationalarchives.gov.uk.
Where we have identified any third party copyright information you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned.
This publication is available at https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/justice-data-lab-statistics-april-2026/city-and-guilds-3rd-analysis-report-html-version
This analysis looked at the reoffending behaviour of 19,807 males and 2,477 females who participated in the City & Guilds skills and qualification programme in prisons between 2019 and 2023.
City & Guilds provides educational courses to offenders in over 120 prisons across England and Wales, with the aim of equipping them with the knowledge and skills they need to secure employment. Previous analyses were published in February 2017 and January 2019, covering an earlier cohort. This has been published in the Justice Data Lab statistics collection on GOV.UK, covering separate cohorts and sub-analyses of the programme. In this evaluation, men and women were analysed separately due to the known differences in reoffending behaviour. In addition, three sub-analyses were carried out on age, ethnicity and course type where sample size and matching quality were sufficient.
1. Headline results - male
The overall results show that men who participated in the City & Guilds programme took longer to reoffend than those who did not take part. This result is statistically significant.
The headline analysis in this report measured proven reoffences in a one-year period for a ‘treatment group’ of 19,807 male offenders who took a course in prison some time between 2019 and 2023 and for a much larger ‘comparison group’ of similar offenders who did not take one. The analysis estimates the impact of receiving support from City & Guilds on reoffending behaviour.
| For 100 typical men in the treatment group, the equivalent of: | For 100 typical men in the comparison group, the equivalent of: | |
| 20 of the 100 men committed a proven reoffence within a one-year period (a rate of 20%), less than 1 man more than in the comparison group. | 19 of the 100 men committed a proven reoffence within a one-year period (a rate of 19%). | |
| 67 proven reoffences were committed by these 100 men during the year (a frequency of 0.7 offences per person), 2 offences fewer than in the comparison group. | 69 proven reoffences were committed by these 100 men during the year (a frequency of 0.7 offences per person). | |
| 152 days was the average time before a reoffender committed their first proven reoffence, 4 days later than the comparison group. | 148 days was the average time before a reoffender committed their first proven reoffence. |
Please note totals may not appear to equal the sum of the component parts due to rounding.
| For 100 typical men who receive support, compared with 100 similar men who do not: | |
| The number of men who commit a proven reoffence within one year after release could be lower by as many as 0 men, or higher by as many as 1 man. This is not a statistically significant result. | |
| The number of proven reoffences committed during the year could be lower by as many as 6 offences, or higher by as many as 1 offence. This is not a statistically significant result. | |
| On average, the time before an offender committed their first proven reoffence could be longer by between 1 and 7 days. This is a statistically significant result. |
| ✔ | What you can say about the one-year reoffending rate: |
| “This analysis does not provide clear evidence on whether support from City & Guilds increases or decreases the number of participants who commit a proven reoffence in a one-year period.” | |
| ✖ | What you cannot say about the one-year reoffending rate: |
| “This analysis provides evidence that support from City & Guilds increases/decreases/has no effect on the reoffending rate of its participants.” | |
| ✔ | What you can say about the one-year reoffending frequency: |
| “This analysis does not provide clear evidence on whether support from City & Guilds increases or decreases the number of proven reoffences during a one-year period.” | |
| ✖ | What you cannot say about the one-year reoffending frequency: |
| “This analysis provides evidence that support from City & Guilds increases/decreases/has no effect on the number of proven reoffences committed during a one-year period by its participants.” | |
| ✔ | What you can say about the time to first reoffence: |
| “This analysis provides evidence that support from City & Guilds lengthens the average time to first proven reoffence for its participants.” | |
| ✖ | What you cannot say about the time to first reoffence: |
| “This analysis provides evidence that support from City & Guilds shortens/has no effect on the average time to first proven reoffence for its participants.” |
2. Headline results - female
The overall results show that women who participated in the City & Guilds programme were less likely to reoffend than those who did not take part. This result is statistically significant.
The headline analysis in this report measured proven reoffences in a one-year period for a ‘treatment group’ of 2,477 female offenders who took a course in prison some time between 2019 and 2023 and for a much larger ‘comparison group’ of similar offenders who did not take one. The analysis estimates the impact of receiving support from City & Guilds on reoffending behaviour.
| For 100 typical women in the treatment group, the equivalent of: | For 100 typical women in the comparison group, the equivalent of: | |
| 15 of the 100 women committed a proven reoffence within a one-year period (a rate of 15%), 2 women fewer than in the comparison group. | 17 of the 100 women committed a proven reoffence within a one-year period (a rate of 17%). | |
| 80 proven reoffences were committed by these 100 women during the year (a frequency of 0.8 offences per person), 3 offences fewer than in the comparison group. | 83 proven reoffences were committed by these 100 women during the year (a frequency of 0.8 offences per person). | |
| 128 days was the average time before a reoffender committed their first proven reoffence, 5 days earlier than the comparison group. | 133 days was the average time before a reoffender committed their first proven reoffence. |
Please note totals may not appear to equal the sum of the component parts due to rounding.
| For 100 typical women who receive support, compared with 100 similar women who do not: | |
| The number of women who commit a proven reoffence within one year after release could be lower by between 1 and 4 women. This is a statistically significant result. | |
| The number of proven reoffences committed during the year could be lower by as many as 16 offences, or higher by as many as 10 offences. This is not a statistically significant result. | |
| On average, the time before an offender committed their first proven reoffence could be shorter by as many as 16 days, or longer by as many as 6 days. This is not a statistically significant result. |
| ✔ | What you can say about the one-year reoffending rate: |
| “This analysis provides evidence that support from City & Guilds decreases the number of proven reoffenders during a one-year period.” | |
| ✖ | What you cannot say about the one-year reoffending rate: |
| “This analysis provides evidence that support from City & Guilds increases/has no effect on the reoffending rate of its participants.” | |
| ✔ | What you can say about the one-year reoffending frequency: |
| “This analysis does not provide clear evidence on whether support from City & Guilds increases or decreases the number of proven reoffences during a one-year period.” | |
| ✖ | What you cannot say about the one-year reoffending frequency: |
| “This analysis provides evidence that support from City & Guilds increases/decreases/has no effect on the number of proven reoffences committed during a one-year period by its participants.” | |
| ✔ | What you can say about the time to first reoffence: |
| “This analysis does not provide clear evidence on whether support from City & Guilds shortens or lengthens the average time to first proven reoffence.” | |
| ✖ | What you cannot say about the time to first reoffence: |
| “This analysis provides evidence that support from City & Guilds shortens/lengthens/has no effect on the average time to first reoffence for its participants.” |
3. Charts of key reoffending measures
The figures in this section present the key measures of reoffending for the treatment and comparison groups. Figures 1 and 2 show the one-year proven reoffending rate, figures 3 and 4 show the proven reoffending rate frequency, and figures 5 and 6 show the average days to first proven reoffence.
Figure 1: One-year proven reoffending rate for males after support from City & Guilds
Figure 2: One-year proven reoffending rate for females after support from City & Guilds
Figure 3: One-year proven reoffending frequency for males after support from City & Guilds
Figure 4: One-year proven reoffending frequency for females after support from City & Guilds
Figure 5: Average time (days) to first proven reoffence for males after support from City & Guilds
Figure 6: Average time (days) to first proven reoffence for females after support from City & Guilds
4. Results in detail
The headline results in this report refer to the following:
-
Male Overall analysis: treatment group matched to offenders across England and Wales using demographics, criminal history and individual risks and needs.
-
Female Overall analysis: treatment group matched to offenders across England and Wales using demographics, criminal history and individual risks and needs.
These headline results controlled for offender demographics and criminal history and the following risks and needs: peer group influence, accommodation, employment history, education, financial history, relationships, mental health, thinking skills, and attitudes towards offending.
The sizes of the treatment and comparison groups for reoffending rate and frequency analyses are provided below. To create a comparison group that is as similar as possible to the treatment group, each person within the comparison group is given a weighting proportionate to how closely they match the characteristics of individuals in the treatment group. The calculated reoffending rate uses the weighted values for each person and therefore does not necessarily correspond to the unweighted figures.
| Gender | Analysis | Treatment group size | Comparison group size | Reoffenders in treatment group | Reoffenders in comparison group (weighted number) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Male | Overall | 19,807 | 144,062 | 3,867 | 55,783 (27,698) |
| Female | Overall | 2,477 | 11,714 | 366 | 5,587 (1,990) |
In addition to the headline analyses, three sub-analyses were conducted with the following definitions:
-
Course type analysis: Individuals who participated in one of the following training programmes during their custodial sentence:
-
Business and/or Customer Service (Business)
-
Construction and/or Building Services and Engineering (Const/BSE)
-
Employability and/or Personal and Social Skills (Emp/PSS)
-
Engineering and/or Manufacturing and/or Transport (Eng/Manu/Trans)
-
Hospitality and/or Catering (Hosp/Catering)
-
Maths and/or English (Maths/English)
-
Note: the abbreviated course names shown in brackets are used in results tables where space is limited.
Sample sizes were not sufficient to undertake a sub-analysis for female participants in the Eng/Manu/Trans category. Furthermore, although a sub‑analysis was conducted for female participants in the Const/BSE and Emp/PSS course categories, the observed matching quality was not sufficient to report reliable findings.
-
Age band analysis: Individuals who were within the following age bands at the time of their release date from prison:
-
18 - 29
-
30 - 39
-
40+
-
Although a sub‑analysis was conducted for female participants in the 18–29 age band, the resulting matching quality was not sufficient to report reliable findings.
-
Ethnicity analysis: Individuals who fall within the following ethnic groups:
-
Asian
-
Black
-
White
-
Due to small sample size, other ethnicities could not be included in this sub-analysis. In addition, although a sub‑analysis was conducted for female participants with Asian and Black ethnicity, the resulting matching quality was not sufficient to report reliable findings.
Three measures of one-year reoffending were analysed, as well as four additional measures (see results in Tables 1-7):
- Rate of reoffending
- Frequency of reoffending
- Time to first reoffence
- Rate of first reoffence by court outcome
- Frequency of reoffences by court outcome
- Rate of custodial sentencing for first reoffence
- Frequency of custodial sentencing
4.1 Significant results
39 measures show a statistically significant result. These provide significant evidence that for:
Male Overall analysis
-
Male participants who reoffend within a one-year period commit their first proven reoffence later than non-participants.
-
Male participants who reoffend within a one-year period are more likely to commit a triable-either-way first reoffence than non-participants who commit a triable-either-way first reoffence.
-
Male participants who reoffend within a one-year period are less likely to commit a summary first reoffence than non-participants who commit a summary first reoffence.
-
Male participants who reoffend within a one-year period commit fewer summary offences than non-participants who commit summary offences.
-
Male participants who reoffend within a one-year period receive fewer custodial sentences than non-participants who reoffend.
Male Age: 18 - 29 analysis
-
Male participants commit fewer proven reoffences within a one-year period than non-participants.
-
Male participants who reoffend within a one-year period commit their first proven reoffence later than non-participants.
-
Male participants who reoffend within a one-year period commit fewer triable-either-way offences than non-participants who commit triable-either-way offences.
-
Male participants who reoffend within a one-year period commit fewer summary offences than non-participants who commit summary offences.
-
Male participants who reoffend within a one-year period receive fewer custodial sentences than non-participants who reoffend.
Male Age: 40+ analysis
- Male participants who reoffend within a one-year period are less likely to commit an indictable-only first reoffence than non-participants who commit an indictable-only first reoffence.
Male Ethnicity: Black analysis
-
Male participants who reoffend within a one-year period commit their first proven reoffence later than non-participants.
-
Male participants who reoffend within a one-year period are less likely to commit a summary first reoffence than non-participants who commit a summary first reoffence.
-
Male participants who reoffend within a one-year period are more likely to receive a custodial sentence for their first reoffence than non-participants who reoffend.
Male Ethnicity: White analysis
-
Male participants who reoffend within a one-year period are less likely to commit an indictable-only first reoffence than non-participants who commit an indictable-only first reoffence.
-
Male participants who reoffend within a one-year period are more likely to commit a triable-either-way first reoffence than non-participants who commit a triable-either-way first reoffence.
-
Male participants who reoffend within a one-year period are less likely to commit a summary first reoffence than non-participants who commit a summary first reoffence.
-
Male participants who reoffend within a one-year period commit fewer summary offences than non-participants who commit summary offences.
-
Male participants who reoffend within a one-year period receive fewer custodial sentences than non-participants who reoffend.
Male Business and/or Customer Service (Business) analysis
- Male participants who reoffend within a one-year period commit fewer summary offences than non-participants who commit summary offences.
Male Engineering and/or Manufacturing and/or Transport (Eng/Manu/Trans) analysis
-
Male participants commit fewer proven reoffences within a one-year period than non-participants.
-
Male participants who reoffend within a one-year period commit fewer triable-either-way offences than non-participants who commit triable-either-way offences.
-
Male participants who reoffend within a one-year period receive fewer custodial sentences than non-participants who reoffend.
Male Hospitality and/or Catering (Hosp/Catering) analysis
-
Male participants who reoffend within a one-year period are less likely to commit a summary first reoffence than non-participants who commit a summary first reoffence.
-
Male participants who reoffend within a one-year period commit fewer summary offences than non-participants who commit summary offences.
Male Maths and/or English (Maths/English) analysis
-
Male participants are more likely to commit a proven reoffence within a one-year period than non-participants.
-
Male participants who reoffend within a one-year period are less likely to commit an indictable-only first reoffence than non-participants who commit an indictable-only first reoffence.
-
Male participants who reoffend within a one-year period commit fewer summary offences than non-participants who commit summary offences.
Female Overall analysis
-
Female participants are less likely to commit a proven reoffence within a one-year period than non-participants.
-
Female participants who reoffend within a one-year period commit more triable-either-way offences than non-participants who commit triable-either-way offences.
Female Age: 30 - 39 analysis
- Female participants who reoffend within a one-year period are more likely to receive a custodial sentence for their first reoffence than non-participants who reoffend.
Female Age: 40+ analysis
-
Female participants are less likely to commit a proven reoffence within a one-year period than non-participants.
-
Female participants commit fewer proven reoffences within a one-year period than non-participants.
-
Female participants who reoffend within a one-year period are more likely to commit a triable-either-way first reoffence than non-participants who commit a triable-either-way first reoffence.
Female Ethnicity: White analysis
- Female participants who reoffend within a one-year period commit more triable-either-way offences than non-participants who commit triable-either-way offences.
Female Hospitality and/or Catering (Hosp/Catering) analysis
-
Female participants who reoffend within a one-year period commit more triable-either-way offences than non-participants who commit triable-either-way offences.
-
Female participants who reoffend within a one-year period are more likely to receive a custodial sentence for their first reoffence than non-participants who reoffend.
-
Female participants who reoffend within a one-year period receive more custodial sentences than non-participants who reoffend.
Female Maths and/or English (Maths/English) analysis
- Female participants are less likely to commit a proven reoffence within a one-year period than non-participants.
Note: Indictable-only, Triable-either-way, and Summary are classifications of offences based on severity, with Indictable-only being the most severe and Summary the least. For more information, see the Additional information on the dataset and terminology section.
4.2 Tables of all reoffending measures
Tables 1 to 7 show the overall measures of reoffending. Rates are expressed as percentages and frequencies expressed per person. Tables 3 to 7 include reoffenders only, and are only shown where the total number of offenders in the treatment group is greater than 30. In tables 4 to 7, court and custodial outcomes are only shown if the number of offenders in both the treatment and comparison groups is greater than 10 for that outcome.
In tables 4 and 5, court outcomes of indictable, either-way, and summary are classifications of offences based on severity, with Indictable being the most severe and Summary the least. For more information, see the Additional information on the dataset and terminology section.
Results that are statistically significant are presented in bold.
Table 1: Proportion of men and women who committed a proven reoffence in a one-year period (reoffending rate) after support from City & Guilds compared with a matched comparison group
| Gender | Analysis | Number in treatment group | Number in comparison group | Treatment group rate (%) | Comparison group rate (%) | Estimated difference (% points) | Significant difference? (p-value) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Male | Overall | 19,807 | 144,062 | 20 | 19 | 0 to 1 | No (0.32) |
| Age: 18 - 29 | 7,559 | 42,033 | 21 | 21 | -1 to 1 | No (0.59) | |
| Age: 30 - 39 | 6,819 | 39,303 | 20 | 20 | -1 to 1 | No (0.38) | |
| Age: 40+ | 5,347 | 40,274 | 17 | 17 | -1 to 1 | No (0.74) | |
| Ethnicity: Asian | 1,808 | 8,781 | 14 | 13 | -1 to 2 | No (0.41) | |
| Ethnicity: Black | 3,278 | 15,265 | 17 | 16 | -1 to 2 | No (0.27) | |
| Ethnicity: White | 14,034 | 98,146 | 21 | 21 | -1 to 1 | No (0.80) | |
| Business | 506 | 100,004 | 18 | 17 | -2 to 4 | No (0.50) | |
| Const/BSE | 2,949 | 130,617 | 15 | 15 | -2 to 1 | No (0.30) | |
| Emp/PSS | 317 | 115,420 | 20 | 18 | -2 to 7 | No (0.34) | |
| Eng/Manu/Trans | 525 | 90,613 | 18 | 19 | -4 to 2 | No (0.54) | |
| Hosp/Catering | 2,899 | 93,137 | 18 | 19 | -2 to 1 | No (0.26) | |
| Maths/English | 11,172 | 124,580 | 22 | 21 | 0 to 2 | Yes (0.02) | |
| Female | Overall | 2,477 | 11,714 | 15 | 17 | -4 to -1 | Yes (<0.01) |
| Age: 30 - 39 | 996 | 4,925 | 21 | 22 | -4 to 2 | No (0.40) | |
| Age: 40+ | 922 | 3,664 | 9 | 13 | -6 to -2 | Yes (<0.01) | |
| Ethnicity: White | 1,984 | 7,180 | 17 | 18 | -3 to 1 | No (0.17) | |
| Business | 196 | 6,247 | 10 | 10 | -4 to 5 | No (0.82) | |
| Hosp/Catering | 664 | 9,052 | 15 | 16 | -3 to 2 | No (0.71) | |
| Maths/English | 1,319 | 10,487 | 17 | 20 | -5 to -1 | Yes (<0.01) |
Table 2: Number of proven reoffences committed in a one-year period (reoffending frequency - offences per person) by men and women who received support from City & Guilds compared with a matched comparison group
| Gender | Analysis | Number in treatment group | Number in comparison group | Treatment group frequency | Comparison group frequency | Estimated difference | Significant difference? (p-value) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Male | Overall | 19,807 | 144,062 | 0.67 | 0.69 | -0.06 to 0.01 | No (0.21) |
| Age: 18 - 29 | 7,559 | 42,033 | 0.61 | 0.66 | -0.1 to 0 | Yes (0.03) | |
| Age: 30 - 39 | 6,819 | 39,303 | 0.78 | 0.77 | -0.05 to 0.08 | No (0.70) | |
| Age: 40+ | 5,347 | 40,274 | 0.62 | 0.62 | -0.06 to 0.07 | No (0.93) | |
| Ethnicity: Asian | 1,808 | 8,781 | 0.37 | 0.37 | -0.07 to 0.06 | No (0.91) | |
| Ethnicity: Black | 3,278 | 15,265 | 0.44 | 0.42 | -0.04 to 0.07 | No (0.49) | |
| Ethnicity: White | 14,034 | 98,146 | 0.78 | 0.82 | -0.09 to 0 | No (0.07) | |
| Business | 506 | 100,004 | 0.62 | 0.55 | -0.12 to 0.25 | No (0.51) | |
| Const/BSE | 2,949 | 130,617 | 0.42 | 0.47 | -0.11 to 0 | No (0.05) | |
| Emp/PSS | 317 | 115,420 | 0.82 | 0.64 | -0.15 to 0.51 | No (0.28) | |
| Eng/Manu/Trans | 525 | 90,613 | 0.44 | 0.65 | -0.32 to -0.09 | Yes (<0.01) | |
| Hosp/Catering | 2,899 | 93,137 | 0.65 | 0.65 | -0.09 to 0.1 | No (0.90) | |
| Maths/English | 11,172 | 124,580 | 0.77 | 0.79 | -0.07 to 0.03 | No (0.42) | |
| Female | Overall | 2,477 | 11,714 | 0.8 | 0.83 | -0.16 to 0.1 | No (0.69) |
| Age: 30 - 39 | 996 | 4,925 | 1.14 | 1.1 | -0.2 to 0.28 | No (0.75) | |
| Age: 40+ | 922 | 3,664 | 0.4 | 0.57 | -0.32 to -0.03 | Yes (0.02) | |
| Ethnicity: White | 1,984 | 7,180 | 0.94 | 0.92 | -0.14 to 0.18 | No (0.78) | |
| Business | 196 | 6,247 | 0.35 | 0.5 | -0.35 to 0.06 | No (0.16) | |
| Hosp/Catering | 664 | 9,052 | 1.03 | 0.8 | -0.07 to 0.53 | No (0.13) | |
| Maths/English | 1,319 | 10,487 | 0.86 | 0.95 | -0.26 to 0.09 | No (0.33) |
Table 3: Average time (days) to first proven reoffence in a one-year period for men and women who received support from City & Guilds, compared with a matched comparison group (reoffenders only)
| Gender | Analysis | Number in treatment group | Number in comparison group | Treatment group time (days) | Comparison group time (days) | Estimated difference | Significant difference? (p-value) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Male | Overall | 3,867 | 55,783 | 152 | 148 | 1 to 7 | Yes (0.02) |
| Age: 18 - 29 | 1,597 | 14,017 | 156 | 150 | 1 to 12 | Yes (0.02) | |
| Age: 30 - 39 | 1,371 | 15,689 | 151 | 149 | -4 to 8 | No (0.46) | |
| Age: 40+ | 892 | 15,139 | 146 | 144 | -6 to 8 | No (0.78) | |
| Ethnicity: Asian | 247 | 2,192 | 161 | 166 | -19 to 8 | No (0.40) | |
| Ethnicity: Black | 542 | 4,520 | 171 | 160 | 2 to 19 | Yes (0.01) | |
| Ethnicity: White | 2,999 | 39,526 | 147 | 144 | 0 to 7 | No (0.07) | |
| Business | 90 | 33,252 | 166 | 152 | -7 to 36 | No (0.19) | |
| Const/BSE | 431 | 47,852 | 164 | 157 | -2 to 17 | No (0.12) | |
| Emp/PSS | 63 | 39,995 | 137 | 149 | -37 to 11 | No (0.29) | |
| Eng/Manu/Trans | 94 | 30,387 | 146 | 151 | -25 to 15 | No (0.61) | |
| Hosp/Catering | 519 | 31,677 | 155 | 150 | -4 to 14 | No (0.27) | |
| Maths/English | 2,438 | 46,791 | 149 | 146 | -1 to 8 | No (0.12) | |
| Female | Overall | 366 | 5,587 | 128 | 133 | -16 to 6 | No (0.35) |
| Age: 30 - 39 | 211 | 2,567 | 135 | 133 | -12 to 16 | No (0.80) | |
| Age: 40+ | 82 | 1,504 | 118 | 133 | -36 to 5 | No (0.14) | |
| Ethnicity: White | 336 | 3,270 | 127 | 127 | -12 to 10 | No (0.90) | |
| Hosp/Catering | 100 | 3,938 | 129 | 135 | -27 to 14 | No (0.55) | |
| Maths/English | 220 | 4,825 | 127 | 130 | -16 to 11 | No (0.71) |
Table 4.1: Proportion of men supported by City & Guilds with first proven reoffence in a one-year period (reoffending rate) by court outcome, compared with similar non-participants (reoffenders only)
| Analysis | Number in treatment group | Number in comparison group | Court outcome | Treatment group rate (%) | Comparison group rate (%) | Estimated difference (% points) | Significant difference? (p-value) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 3,867 | 55,783 | Indictable | 2 | 3 | -1 to 0 | No (0.07) |
| Either way | 63 | 60 | 0 to 4 | Yes (0.01) | |||
| Summary | 24 | 26 | -3 to -1 | Yes (<0.01) | |||
| Age: 18 - 29 | 1,597 | 14,017 | Indictable | 3 | 3 | -1 to 0 | No (0.36) |
| Either way | 63 | 62 | -1 to 4 | No (0.21) | |||
| Summary | 24 | 26 | -4 to 1 | No (0.16) | |||
| Age: 30 - 39 | 1,371 | 15,689 | Indictable | 2 | 2 | -1 to 0 | No (0.38) |
| Either way | 60 | 58 | -1 to 5 | No (0.19) | |||
| Summary | 26 | 28 | -5 to 0 | No (0.08) | |||
| Age: 40+ | 892 | 15,139 | Indictable | 1 | 2 | -2 to 0 | Yes (0.03) |
| Either way | 65 | 62 | 0 to 6 | No (0.06) | |||
| Summary | 21 | 23 | -4 to 1 | No (0.24) | |||
| Ethnicity: Asian | 247 | 2,192 | Indictable | 5 | 4 | -2 to 4 | No (0.43) |
| Either way | 61 | 55 | -1 to 12 | No (0.09) | |||
| Summary | 27 | 30 | -9 to 3 | No (0.37) | |||
| Ethnicity: Black | 542 | 4,520 | Indictable | 3 | 3 | -2 to 1 | No (0.91) |
| Either way | 71 | 68 | -1 to 7 | No (0.10) | |||
| Summary | 19 | 23 | -8 to -1 | Yes (0.01) | |||
| Ethnicity: White | 2,999 | 39,526 | Indictable | 2 | 2 | -1 to 0 | Yes (0.05) |
| Either way | 61 | 59 | 0 to 4 | Yes (0.02) | |||
| Summary | 24 | 26 | -4 to -1 | Yes (<0.01) | |||
| Business | 90 | 33,252 | Either way | 67 | 60 | -3 to 17 | No (0.19) |
| Summary | 22 | 26 | -13 to 5 | No (0.34) | |||
| Const/BSE | 431 | 47,852 | Indictable | 3 | 3 | -2 to 1 | No (0.71) |
| Either way | 59 | 60 | -5 to 4 | No (0.82) | |||
| Summary | 30 | 28 | -3 to 6 | No (0.50) | |||
| Emp/PSS | 63 | 39,995 | Either way | 68 | 61 | -5 to 19 | No (0.23) |
| Summary | 24 | 26 | -13 to 9 | No (0.73) | |||
| Eng/Manu/Trans | 94 | 30,387 | Either way | 62 | 61 | -10 to 11 | No (0.92) |
| Summary | 27 | 27 | -9 to 9 | No (0.98) | |||
| Hosp/Catering | 519 | 31,677 | Indictable | 3 | 3 | -1 to 1 | No (0.97) |
| Either way | 66 | 62 | 0 to 8 | No (0.06) | |||
| Summary | 20 | 25 | -9 to -2 | Yes (<0.01) | |||
| Maths/English | 2,438 | 46,791 | Indictable | 2 | 3 | -1 to 0 | Yes (0.02) |
| Either way | 62 | 60 | 0 to 3 | No (0.14) | |||
| Summary | 24 | 25 | -3 to 0 | No (0.06) |
Table 4.2: Proportion of women supported by City & Guilds with first proven reoffence in a one-year period (reoffending rate) by court outcome, compared with similar non-participants (reoffenders only)
| Analysis | Number in treatment group | Number in comparison group | Court outcome | Treatment group rate (%) | Comparison group rate (%) | Estimated difference (% points) | Significant difference? (p-value) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 366 | 5,587 | Either way | 69 | 66 | -2 to 8 | No (0.20) |
| Summary | 19 | 17 | -3 to 6 | No (0.46) | |||
| Age: 30 - 39 | 211 | 2,567 | Either way | 69 | 65 | -2 to 11 | No (0.16) |
| Summary | 19 | 20 | -6 to 5 | No (0.91) | |||
| Age: 40+ | 82 | 1,504 | Either way | 85 | 69 | 8 to 24 | Yes (<0.01) |
| Ethnicity: White | 336 | 3,270 | Either way | 70 | 68 | -3 to 8 | No (0.34) |
| Summary | 19 | 15 | 0 to 8 | No (0.08) | |||
| Hosp/Catering | 100 | 3,938 | Either way | 71 | 69 | -7 to 11 | No (0.67) |
| Summary | 20 | 16 | -4 to 12 | No (0.36) | |||
| Maths/English | 220 | 4,825 | Either way | 70 | 68 | -4 to 8 | No (0.55) |
| Summary | 19 | 16 | -3 to 8 | No (0.31) |
Table 5.1: Number of proven reoffences in a one-year period (reoffending frequency) by court outcome for men supported by City & Guilds, compared with similar non-participants (reoffenders only)
| Analysis | Number in treatment group | Number in comparison group | Court outcome | Treatment group frequency | Comparison group frequency | Estimated difference | Significant difference? (p-value) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 3,867 | 55,783 | Indictable | 0.05 | 0.06 | -0.02 to 0.01 | No (0.43) |
| Either way | 2.10 | 2.16 | -0.17 to 0.06 | No (0.35) | |||
| Summary | 0.82 | 0.91 | -0.13 to -0.05 | Yes (<0.01) | |||
| Age: 18 - 29 | 1,597 | 14,017 | Indictable | 0.06 | 0.07 | -0.02 to 0.01 | No (0.38) |
| Either way | 1.63 | 1.80 | -0.29 to -0.04 | Yes (<0.01) | |||
| Summary | 0.78 | 0.90 | -0.18 to -0.06 | Yes (<0.01) | |||
| Age: 30 - 39 | 1,371 | 15,689 | Indictable | 0.04 | 0.04 | -0.02 to 0.01 | No (0.40) |
| Either way | 2.42 | 2.39 | -0.20 to 0.26 | No (0.80) | |||
| Summary | 0.93 | 0.97 | -0.10 to 0.04 | No (0.39) | |||
| Age: 40+ | 892 | 15,139 | Indictable | 0.06 | 0.06 | -0.04 to 0.03 | No (0.90) |
| Either way | 2.46 | 2.29 | -0.10 to 0.43 | No (0.22) | |||
| Summary | 0.73 | 0.79 | -0.15 to 0.03 | No (0.18) | |||
| Ethnicity: Asian | 247 | 2,192 | Indictable | 0.09 | 0.07 | -0.05 to 0.08 | No (0.61) |
| Either way | 1.62 | 1.55 | -0.21 to 0.36 | No (0.60) | |||
| Summary | 0.73 | 0.87 | -0.30 to 0.02 | No (0.08) | |||
| Ethnicity: Black | 542 | 4,520 | Indictable | 0.04 | 0.05 | -0.03 to 0.01 | No (0.37) |
| Either way | 1.68 | 1.67 | -0.18 to 0.19 | No (0.93) | |||
| Summary | 0.62 | 0.68 | -0.15 to 0.04 | No (0.27) | |||
| Ethnicity: White | 2,999 | 39,526 | Indictable | 0.05 | 0.06 | -0.02 to 0.01 | No (0.62) |
| Either way | 2.24 | 2.32 | -0.22 to 0.07 | No (0.29) | |||
| Summary | 0.86 | 0.97 | -0.16 to -0.06 | Yes (<0.01) | |||
| Business | 90 | 33,252 | Either way | 2.32 | 1.93 | -0.39 to 1.17 | No (0.32) |
| Summary | 0.70 | 0.90 | -0.40 to -0.01 | Yes (0.04) | |||
| Const/BSE | 431 | 47,852 | Indictable | 0.05 | 0.06 | -0.04 to 0.02 | No (0.69) |
| Either way | 1.62 | 1.80 | -0.41 to 0.06 | No (0.14) | |||
| Summary | 0.87 | 0.88 | -0.12 to 0.10 | No (0.87) | |||
| Emp/PSS | 63 | 39,995 | Either way | 2.76 | 2.18 | -0.73 to 1.89 | No (0.38) |
| Summary | 0.89 | 0.89 | -0.29 to 0.30 | No (0.99) | |||
| Eng/Manu/Trans | 94 | 30,387 | Either way | 1.27 | 2.11 | -1.13 to -0.56 | Yes (<0.01) |
| Summary | 0.73 | 0.90 | -0.40 to 0.07 | No (0.17) | |||
| Hosp/Catering | 519 | 31,677 | Indictable | 0.05 | 0.06 | -0.04 to 0.00 | No (0.13) |
| Either way | 2.39 | 2.11 | -0.08 to 0.66 | No (0.13) | |||
| Summary | 0.74 | 0.86 | -0.24 to -0.01 | Yes (0.03) | |||
| Maths/English | 2,438 | 46,791 | Indictable | 0.05 | 0.06 | -0.02 to 0.02 | No (0.85) |
| Either way | 2.16 | 2.30 | -0.28 to 0.01 | No (0.06) | |||
| Summary | 0.84 | 0.93 | -0.15 to -0.04 | Yes (<0.01) |
Table 5.2: Number of proven reoffences in a one-year period (reoffending frequency) by court outcome for women supported by City & Guilds, compared with similar non-participants (reoffenders only)
| Analysis | Number in treatment group | Number in comparison group | Court outcome | Treatment group frequency | Comparison group frequency | Estimated difference | Significant difference? (p-value) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 366 | 5,587 | Either way | 3.96 | 3.22 | 0.15 to 1.33 | Yes (0.01) |
| Summary | 0.76 | 0.78 | -0.17 to 0.11 | No (0.70) | |||
| Age: 30 - 39 | 211 | 2,567 | Either way | 3.82 | 3.26 | -0.22 to 1.35 | No (0.16) |
| Summary | 0.78 | 0.74 | -0.16 to 0.24 | No (0.70) | |||
| Age: 40+ | 82 | 1,504 | Either way | 3.38 | 2.93 | -0.48 to 1.37 | No (0.34) |
| Summary | 0.52 | 0.67 | -0.42 to 0.12 | No (0.28) | |||
| Ethnicity: White | 336 | 3,270 | Either way | 4.13 | 3.43 | 0.06 to 1.35 | Yes (0.03) |
| Summary | 0.75 | 0.78 | -0.19 to 0.12 | No (0.68) | |||
| Hosp/Catering | 100 | 3,938 | Either way | 5.42 | 3.67 | 0.26 to 3.23 | Yes (0.02) |
| Summary | 0.71 | 0.65 | -0.16 to 0.27 | No (0.61) | |||
| Maths/English | 220 | 4,825 | Either way | 3.63 | 3.19 | -0.25 to 1.12 | No (0.21) |
| Summary | 0.80 | 0.77 | -0.16 to 0.24 | No (0.71) |
Table 6: Proportion of men and women who received a custodial sentence for their first proven reoffence after support from City & Guilds, compared with similar non-participants (reoffenders only)
| Gender | Analysis | Number in treatment group | Number in comparison group | Treatment group rate (%) | Comparison group rate (%) | Estimated difference (% points) | Significant difference? (p-value) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Male | Overall | 3,867 | 55,783 | 56 | 56 | -2 to 1 | No (0.60) |
| Age: 18 - 29 | 1,597 | 14,017 | 57 | 57 | -2 to 3 | No (0.88) | |
| Age: 30 - 39 | 1,371 | 15,689 | 55 | 55 | -4 to 2 | No (0.56) | |
| Age: 40+ | 892 | 15,139 | 55 | 54 | -3 to 4 | No (0.69) | |
| Ethnicity: Asian | 247 | 2,192 | 60 | 55 | -2 to 11 | No (0.15) | |
| Ethnicity: Black | 542 | 4,520 | 60 | 53 | 2 to 11 | Yes (<0.01) | |
| Ethnicity: White | 2,999 | 39,526 | 55 | 56 | -4 to 0 | No (0.08) | |
| Business | 90 | 33,252 | 62 | 55 | -3 to 18 | No (0.14) | |
| Const/BSE | 431 | 47,852 | 52 | 55 | -7 to 3 | No (0.36) | |
| Emp/PSS | 63 | 39,995 | 54 | 55 | -13 to 12 | No (0.90) | |
| Eng/Manu/Trans | 94 | 30,387 | 63 | 56 | -3 to 17 | No (0.18) | |
| Hosp/Catering | 519 | 31,677 | 56 | 57 | -5 to 3 | No (0.61) | |
| Maths/English | 2,438 | 46,791 | 56 | 56 | -2 to 2 | No (0.85) | |
| Female | Overall | 366 | 5,587 | 52 | 48 | -1 to 10 | No (0.09) |
| Age: 30 - 39 | 211 | 2,567 | 53 | 44 | 2 to 16 | Yes (0.02) | |
| Age: 40+ | 82 | 1,504 | 50 | 47 | -8 to 14 | No (0.62) | |
| Ethnicity: White | 336 | 3,270 | 52 | 50 | -4 to 7 | No (0.53) | |
| Hosp/Catering | 100 | 3,938 | 61 | 50 | 1 to 21 | Yes (0.03) | |
| Maths/English | 220 | 4,825 | 49 | 47 | -5 to 8 | No (0.64) |
Table 7: Number of custodial sentences received in a one-year period by men and women who received support from City & Guilds, compared to similar non-participants (reoffenders only)
| Gender | Analysis | Number in treatment group | Number in comparison group | Treatment group frequency | Comparison group frequency | Estimated difference | Significant difference? (p-value) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Male | Overall | 3,867 | 55,783 | 1.99 | 2.11 | -0.23 to -0.01 | Yes (0.04) |
| Age: 18 - 29 | 1,597 | 14,017 | 1.61 | 1.81 | -0.34 to -0.07 | Yes (<0.01) | |
| Age: 30 - 39 | 1,371 | 15,689 | 2.27 | 2.31 | -0.26 to 0.17 | No (0.68) | |
| Age: 40+ | 892 | 15,139 | 2.28 | 2.17 | -0.15 to 0.37 | No (0.42) | |
| Ethnicity: Asian | 247 | 2,192 | 1.51 | 1.51 | -0.27 to 0.27 | No (1.00) | |
| Ethnicity: Black | 542 | 4,520 | 1.55 | 1.43 | -0.07 to 0.32 | No (0.22) | |
| Ethnicity: White | 2,999 | 39,526 | 2.13 | 2.31 | -0.32 to -0.04 | Yes (<0.01) | |
| Business | 90 | 33,252 | 2.07 | 1.9 | -0.54 to 0.87 | No (0.65) | |
| Const/BSE | 431 | 47,852 | 1.55 | 1.75 | -0.4 to 0 | No (0.05) | |
| Emp/PSS | 63 | 39,995 | 2.6 | 2.1 | -0.86 to 1.87 | No (0.46) | |
| Eng/Manu/Trans | 94 | 30,387 | 1.46 | 2.03 | -0.94 to -0.21 | Yes (<0.01) | |
| Hosp/Catering | 519 | 31,677 | 2.04 | 2.04 | -0.32 to 0.32 | No (1.00) | |
| Maths/English | 2,438 | 46,791 | 2.11 | 2.25 | -0.29 to 0.01 | No (0.06) | |
| Female | Overall | 366 | 5,587 | 3.1 | 2.7 | -0.1 to 0.9 | No (0.12) |
| Age: 30 - 39 | 211 | 2,567 | 2.78 | 2.6 | -0.42 to 0.77 | No (0.56) | |
| Age: 40+ | 82 | 1,504 | 2.51 | 2.62 | -0.99 to 0.78 | No (0.81) | |
| Ethnicity: White | 336 | 3,270 | 3.17 | 2.95 | -0.32 to 0.77 | No (0.41) | |
| Hosp/Catering | 100 | 3,938 | 4.28 | 2.96 | 0.13 to 2.5 | Yes (0.03) | |
| Maths/English | 220 | 4,825 | 2.88 | 2.63 | -0.35 to 0.84 | No (0.42) |
The standard acceptable level of statistical significance to demonstrate impact is 0.05. This means that for the difference between the treatment and comparison groups to be considered statistically significant or impactful, the p-value in the tables above must be 0.05 or lower, indicating that the probability of the result occurring by chance is 5% or less.
5. Profile of the male treatment group
City & Guilds work with over 120 prisons across England and Wales with the aim of providing the knowledge and skills they need to secure employment and realise their potential.
| Participants included in analysis (19,807) | Participants not included in analysis (69,799 with available data) | |
|---|---|---|
| Sex | ||
| Male | 100% | 100% |
| Ethnicity | ||
| White | 71% | 71% |
| Black | 17% | 15% |
| Asian | 9% | 9% |
| Unknown | 2% | 4% |
| Other | 1% | 1% |
| Nationality | ||
| UK nationality | 90% | 86% |
| Foreign nationality | 8% | 11% |
| Unknown nationality | 2% | 3% |
| Index disposal | ||
| Prison | 100% |
Please note totals may not appear to equal the sum of the component parts due to rounding.
The individuals in the treatment group were aged 18 to 94 years at the beginning of their one-year period (average age 34).
Information on index offences for the 69,799 males not included in the analysis is not available, as they could not be linked to a suitable sentence.
For 10,930 males, no personal information is available as they could not be identified in our databases.
Information on individual risks and needs was available for 17,840 males in the treatment group (90% of males), recorded near to the time of their original conviction. This information is not complete for all males across all risks considered for this analysis. For those where information is known for specific risks, some key findings are shown below. For more information, see the Excel annex published with this evaluation.
- 92% of male participants had some or significant difficulties with problem solving.
- 64% of male participants would be unemployed upon release or were unemployed and 12% of male participants were not available for work or would not be available for work upon release.
- 61% of male participants had some or significant difficulties with achieving goals.
Note: These percentages represent the proportion of individuals with a recorded risk or need, excluding those where a record could not be found or the risk or need was recorded as ‘NA’.
6. Profile of the female treatment group
City & Guilds work with over 120 prisons across England and Wales with the aim of providing the knowledge and skills they need to secure employment and realise their potential.
| Participants included in analysis (2,477) | Participants not included in analysis (5,523 with available data) | |
|---|---|---|
| Sex | ||
| Female | 100% | 100% |
| Ethnicity | ||
| White | 83% | 80% |
| Black | 9% | 10% |
| Unknown | 4% | 6% |
| Asian | 3% | 3% |
| Other | 1% | 1% |
| Nationality | ||
| UK nationality | 90% | 87% |
| Foreign nationality | 5% | 8% |
| Unknown nationality | 5% | 5% |
| Index disposal | ||
| Prison | 100% |
Please note totals may not appear to equal the sum of the component parts due to rounding.
The individuals in the treatment group were aged 18 to 69 years at the beginning of their one-year period (average age 38).
Information on index offences for the 5,523 females not included in the analysis is not available, as they could not be linked to a suitable sentence.
For 5,354 females, no personal information is available as they could not be identified in our databases.
Information on individual risks and needs was available for 2,372 females in the treatment group (95% of females), recorded near to the time of their original conviction. This information is not complete for all females across all risks considered for this analysis. For those where information is known for specific risks, some key findings are shown below. For more information, see the Excel annex published with this evaluation.
- 90% of female participants had some or significant difficulties with problem solving.
- 60% of female participants would be unemployed upon release or were unemployed and 25% of female participants were not available for work or would not be available for work upon release.
- 59% of female participants had some or significant difficulties with achieving goals.
Note: These percentages represent the proportion of individuals with a recorded risk or need, excluding those where a record could not be found or the risk or need was recorded as ‘NA’.
7. Matching the treatment and comparison groups
The analyses matched the treatment group to a comparison group. A large number of variables were identified and tested for inclusion in the regression models. The matching quality of each variable can be assessed with reference to the standardised differences in means between the matched treatment and comparison groups (see standardised differences annex). Over 95% of variables are categorised as green on JDL’s traffic light scale, indicating that the matching quality achieved on the observed variables was very good.
Further details of group characteristics and matching quality, including risks and needs recorded by the Offender Assessment System (OASys), can be found in the Excel annex accompanying this report.
This report is also supplemented by a general annex, which answers frequently asked questions about Justice Data Lab analyses and explains the caveats associated with them.
8. Additional information on the dataset and terminology
Index dates
The index date is the date at which the follow up period for measuring reoffending begins.
- For those with custodial sentences, the index date is the date they are released from custody.
Court outcomes
A ‘court outcome’ refers to a guilty verdict for a criminal offence based on its offence type. For adults, there are three broad types of offence, based on severity:
- Indictable only offences are the most serious and must be tried at the Crown Court.
- Triable-either-way offences are of intermediate severity and may be tried at either court based on the circumstances of the case.
- Summary offences are the least serious and must be tried at magistrates’ courts.
For more information, see guidance provided by the Sentencing Council (HTML)
Multiple qualifications
Some participants have completed multiple qualifications during a given prison sentence. Where this is the case in the headline analysis, or any of the sub-analyses, these are included as separate records for evaluation purposes. Sensitivity analyses were also performed restricting individuals to a single record (their first such course within a given sentence), all of which produced similar results to those allowing multiple records per individual. Given this, it was decided to retain all participations in the final results.
Other considerations
Part of the cohort within this publication overlaps with the COVID-19 pandemic including lockdowns and operational restrictions. It will therefore be affected by the continued recovery of the courts system. Particularly, continued delays in the processing of cases mean that increased numbers of reoffence convictions may fall outside of six-month waiting period and therefore not be counted in these statistics. Programme delivery in prisons may also have been impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic.
Participants excluded from the analysis
Participants were excluded if they were previously convicted of a sexual offence or if aged 18 or over at the time of release from prison. In addition their intervention must have started within a prison sentence and ended either within the same sentence or up to 60 days after their release from prison.
9. Explanation of Sub-analyses
Course type
Additional data was provided by City & Guilds relating to the qualification programmes individuals completed. These programmes were then grouped into the following higher-level categories (more information on the specific programmes within each category can be found in the Excel annex):
-
Business and/or Customer Service (Business)
-
Construction and/or Building Services and Engineering (Const/BSE)
-
Employability and/or Personal and Social Skills (Emp/PSS)
-
Engineering and/or Manufacturing and/or Transport (Eng/Manu/Trans)
-
Hospitality and/or Catering (Hosp/Catering)
-
Maths and/or English (Maths/English)
Note: the abbreviated course names shown in brackets are used in results tables where space is limited.
The JDL used this data to analyse the reoffending behaviour of individuals who completed a programme within one of these categories. The comparison groups for this sub-analysis only included individuals who had similar characteristics to those identified as participating in one of the respective course categories.
Age band
The JDL categorised the age of the participants at the time of their release date from prison into the following three age categories:
-
18 - 29
-
30 - 39
-
40+
The JDL used this data to analyse the reoffending behaviour of individuals based on the age band they fell into at the time of their release date from prison.
The comparison group for this sub-analysis included individuals with the relevant age band at the time of their release date.
Ethnicity
The JDL analysed the following three ethnic groups:
-
Asian
-
Black
-
White
Due to small sample size, other ethnicities could not be included in this sub-analysis.
The comparison groups for this sub-analysis only included individuals who had the same ethnicities as the treatment group.
10. Limitations and caveats to our findings
Propensity Score Matching (PSM)
This evaluation uses ‘Propensity Score Matching’ (PSM), which is a quasi-experimental evaluation methodology. It is considered a level 4 on the SMS (Scientific Methods Scale). However, PSM is not as robust as randomised control trials or prospectively matched evaluations. For more information on the strengths and limitations of propensity score matching, see the following published reports:
A key limitation of PSM is that it can only reduce bias based on information about participants that is recorded and available (called ‘observed factors’). Crucially, this information is required for both the treatment and comparison groups. There is a risk that unobserved or unavailable information could influence the results of a PSM evaluation. To mitigate this risk, the JDL strives to include all observed factors expected to be predictive of selection onto the intervention evaluated and of reoffending risk. For more information, see the JDL Methodology Paper (HTML) which outlines the methodology applied in more detail.
Reoffending outcomes and analysis
This evaluation uses the same definition of ‘reoffending’ as used in the Ministry of Justice’s Proven Reoffending National Statistics. More information on this methodology is available on the Proven reoffending statistics collection (HTML). Importantly, this definition does not include crimes that are committed but not recorded by the police or do not lead to a caution or conviction. It also does not adjust for any periods of time individuals are returned to custody, either due to recall or additional sentences, or time spent outside the UK.
There are other rehabilitation outcomes, in addition to reoffending used in this evaluation, which may be important to consider for specific interventions. Examples could include employability, educational or skills attainment, physical or mental health, health of relationships, or attitudes.
Analysis of interventions with female participants tend to have smaller sample sizes compared to similar interventions or analyses with male participants. This should be considered when reviewing results as smaller sample sizes lead to a reduced likelihood of achieving statistical significance.
Multiple corrections method
Statistical significance as defined in this report means that if no real differences exist there is a 5% chance of each result nonetheless being found to be statistically significant. On the same basis though, the chance of at least one of the many results being found to be statistically significant is much higher than 5%. Given the number of analyses and sub-analyses involved in this evaluation, care should therefore be taken when interpreting the findings. While multiple correction methods can be applied to reduce the risk of incorrectly finding a positive treatment effect, they can also increase the likelihood that real differences will not be detected. The results presented in this report have therefore not undergone multiple correction methods. As a result, the findings should be interpreted with appropriate caution, particularly where the differences observed are minimal, or where subgroup sizes are small.
11. Numbers of males in the treatment and comparison groups
[1] Adjudication results must be guilty to be considered for analysis, as an individual must have committed an initial offence and have been convicted for it in order for the reoffending rate to be measured.
[2] People were excluded from the analysis if they were still in prison or serving life sentences during the period that re offending was measured. Additionally, the intervention must have started within a prison sentence and ended either within the same sentence or up to 60 days after their release from prison.
[3] Inclusion criteria includes: Being aged 18 or over at the time of release from prison.
12. Numbers of females in the treatment and comparison groups
[1] Adjudication results must be guilty to be considered for analysis, as an individual must have committed an initial offence and have been convicted for it in order for the reoffending rate to be measured.
[2] People were excluded from the analysis if they were still in prison or serving life sentences during the period that re offending was measured. Additionally, the intervention must have started within a prison sentence and ended either within the same sentence or up to 60 days after their release from prison.
[3] Inclusion criteria includes: Being aged 18 or over at the time of release from prison.
13. Further information
Official Statistics
Our statistical practice is regulated by the Office for Statistics Regulation (OSR).
OSR sets the standards of trustworthiness, quality and value in the Code of Practice for Statistics that all producers of official statistics should adhere to.
You are welcome to contact us directly with any comments about how we meet these standards.
Alternatively, you can contact OSR by emailing regulation@statistics.gov.uk or via the OSR website.
Contact
Press enquiries should be directed to the Ministry of Justice press office.
https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/ministry-of-justice/about/media-enquiries
Other enquiries about the analysis should be directed to:
Justice Data Lab team
Email: justice.datalab@justice.gov.uk
© Crown copyright 2026
Produced by the Ministry of Justice
Alternative formats are available on request from justice.datalab@justice.gov.uk
This document is released under the Open Government Licence