LandWorks 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/landworks-report-html-version
This analysis looked at the reoffending behaviour of 90 men who took part in LandWorks between July 2013 and December 2023.
LandWorks is a specialist rehabilitation and resettlement charity based in the South West of England. The programme provides placements that combine real work experience and training with comprehensive resettlement support, creating a route back into employment for people leaving prison or serving community sentences. Participants engage in market gardening, pottery and woodworking alongside 1-1 counselling, with an emphasis on building employability skills, confidence and social skills. This analysis only considers males as there were too few females within the cohort to analyse separately.
1. Headline results - regional
The overall results show that men who participated in Landworks 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 90 male offenders who received support some time between July 2013 and December 2023, and for a much larger ‘comparison group’ of similar offenders who did not receive it. The analysis estimates the impact of receiving support from LandWorks 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: | |
| 13 of the 100 men committed a proven reoffence within a one-year period (a rate of 13%), 8 men fewer than in the comparison group. | 21 of the 100 men committed a proven reoffence within a one-year period (a rate of 21%). | |
| 44 proven reoffences were committed by these 100 men during the year (a frequency of 0.4 offences per person), 17 offences fewer than in the comparison group. | 61 proven reoffences were committed by these 100 men during the year (a frequency of 0.6 offences per person). |
Time to first reoffence has not been included as a headline result due to low numbers of reoffenders, which could give misleading results.
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 between 1 and 15 men. This is a statistically significant result. | |
| The number of proven reoffences committed during the year could be lower by as many as 51 offences, or higher by as many as 18 offences. This is not a statistically significant result. |
| ✔ | What you can say about the one-year reoffending rate: |
| “This analysis provides evidence that support from LandWorks 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 LandWorks 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 LandWorks 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 LandWorks increases/decreases/has no effect on the number of proven reoffences committed during a one-year period by its participants.” |
2. Charts of key reoffending measures
The figures in this section present the key measures of reoffending for the treatment and comparison groups. Figure 1 shows the one-year proven reoffending rate and figure 2 shows the proven reoffending rate frequency.
Figure 1: One-year proven reoffending rate after support from LandWorks
Figure 2: One-year proven reoffending frequency after support from LandWorks
3. Results in detail
The headline result in this report refers to the following:
- Regional analysis: treatment group matched to offenders in the South West of England using demographics, criminal history and individual risks and needs.
This headline result controlled for offender demographics and criminal history and the following risks and needs: accommodation, employment history, financial history, relationships, lifestyle, mental health, thinking and behaviour, drug and alcohol use, 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.
| Analysis | Treatment group size | Comparison group size | Reoffenders in treatment group | Reoffenders in comparison group (weighted number) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Regional | 90 | 46,839 | 12 | 11,591 (9,842) |
Two measures of one-year reoffending were analysed (see results in Tables 1-2):
- Rate of reoffending
- Frequency of reoffending
3.1 Significant results
One measure shows a statistically significant result. This provides significant evidence that:
Overall analysis
- Participants are less likely to commit a proven reoffence within a one-year period than non-participants.
3.2 Tables of all reoffending measures
Tables 1-2 show the overall measures of reoffending. Rates are expressed as percentages and frequencies expressed per person.
Table 1: Proportion of men who committed a proven reoffence in a one-year period (reoffending rate) after support from LandWorks compared with a matched comparison group
| Number in treatment group | Number in comparison group | Treatment group rate (%) | Comparison group rate (%) | Estimated difference (% points) | Significant difference? (p-value) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 90 | 46,839 | 13 | 21 | -15 to -1 | Yes (0.04) |
Table 2: Number of proven reoffences committed in a one-year period (reoffending frequency - offences per person) by men who received support from LandWorks compared with a matched comparison group
| Number in treatment group | Number in comparison group | Treatment group frequency | Comparison group frequency | Estimated difference | Significant difference? (p-value) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 90 | 46,839 | 0.44 | 0.61 | -0.51 to 0.18 | No (0.34) |
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.
4. Profile of the treatment group
LandWorks placements are available for people serving community orders, suspended prison sentences and on licence following prison release. LandWorks took participants through ROTL (Release on Temporary Licence) until 2020, these cases make up around 1/3 of participants included in this analysis.
| Participants included in analysis (90) | Participants not included in analysis (59 with available data) | |
|---|---|---|
| Sex | ||
| Male | 100% | 86% |
| Female | 0% | 14% |
| Ethnicity | ||
| White | 92% | 97% |
| Unknown | c% | c% |
| Black | c% | c% |
| Asian | c% | c% |
| Other | c% | c% |
| Nationality | ||
| UK nationality | 94% | 95% |
| Unknown nationality | 4% | 5% |
| Foreign nationality | c% | c% |
| Index disposal | ||
| Prison | 47% | |
| Community order | 29% | |
| Suspended sentence order | 24% |
Please note totals may not appear to equal the sum of the component parts due to rounding.
‘c’ denotes where numbers have been suppressed because there were 5 or fewer individuals in this category.
The individuals in the treatment group were aged 18 to 71 years at the beginning of their one-year period (average age 37).
Information on index offences for the 59 participants not included in the analysis is not available, as they could not be linked to a suitable sentence.
For 8 people, no personal information is available as they could not be identified in our databases.
Information on individual risks and needs was available for 74 males in the treatment group (82% 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.
- 55% of male participants had some or significant difficulties with their work skills
- 57% of male participants had some or significant difficulties with their employment history
- 75% 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’.
5. 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.
6. 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.
- For those with a court order (such as a community sentence or a suspended sentence order), the index date is the date when an offender begins the court order.
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
A maximum inclusion criterion of six months between the index date and intervention start date has been applied to ensure the analysis captures any ‘treatment effects’. Any participants with intervention dates more than six months after their index date are therefore excluded from the analysis.
Participants were also excluded if they were previously convicted of a sexual offence or were under the age of 18 on their index date. Female participants were also excluded because sample sizes were not sufficient for analysis.
7. 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.
8. Numbers of people 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] For community-based participations, records were excluded if an index date could not be identified within 6 months before their intervention start date.
[3] The inclusion criteria removed female offenders and offenders aged under 18 at the time of their index date
9. 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