Official Statistics

HMPPS CFO Activity Hubs report (HTML version)

Published 29 January 2026

Applies to England and Wales

This analysis looked at the reoffending behaviour of 2,343 men and 367 women who attended a HMPPS CFO Activity Hub between June 2021 and July 2023.

His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS) Creating Future Opportunities (CFO) coordinates large-scale programmes to support offenders into employment. This publication reports on a specific HMPPS CFO programme, Activity Hubs, where support through scheduled ‘activities’ was delivered in dedicated spaces in the community. Previous CFO programmes, evaluated by the JDL, were delivered on-site in prisons or probation offices in England.

Men and women were analysed separately due to the known differences in reoffending behaviour. A sub-analysis also looked at those who visited an Activity Hub on at least 3 separate days for a scheduled activity. Sample sizes were not sufficient and matching quality was too poor to undertake a sub-analysis of multiple visits for female participants.

1. Headline results - male

The overall results do not show a statistically significant effect on a person’s reoffending behaviour.

The headline analysis in this report measured proven reoffences in a one-year period for a ‘treatment group’ of 2,343 male offenders who began receiving support some time between June 2021 and July 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 HMPPS CFO 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:
26 of the 100 men committed a proven reoffence within a one-year period (a rate of 26%), 1 man more than in the comparison group.		24 of the 100 men committed a proven reoffence within a one-year period (a rate of 24%).
92 proven reoffences were committed by these 100 men during the year (a frequency of 0.9 offences per person), 8 offences more than in the comparison group.		84 proven reoffences were committed by these 100 men during the year (a frequency of 0.8 offences per person).
169 days was the average time before a reoffender committed their first proven reoffence, 5 days earlier than the comparison group.		173 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 3 men. This is not a statistically significant result.
	The number of proven reoffences committed during the year could be lower by as many as 3 offences, or higher by as many as 18 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 12 days, or longer by as many as 3 days. This is not 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 HMPPS CFO Activity Hubs increases or decreases the number of participants who commit a proven reoffence in a one-year period. There may be a number of reasons for this and it is possible that an analysis of more participants would provide such evidence.”
✖	What you cannot say about the one-year reoffending rate:
	“This analysis provides evidence that support from HMPPS CFO Activity Hubs 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 HMPPS CFO Activity Hubs increases or decreases the number of proven reoffences during a one-year period. There may be a number of reasons for this and it is possible that an analysis of more participants would provide such evidence.”
✖	What you cannot say about the one-year reoffending frequency:
	“This analysis provides evidence that support from HMPPS CFO Activity Hubs 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 HMPPS CFO Activity Hubs shortens or lengthens the average time to first proven reoffence. There may be a number of reasons for this and it is possible that an analysis of more participants would provide such evidence.”
✖	What you cannot say about the time to first reoffence:
	“This analysis provides evidence that support from HMPPS CFO Activity Hubs shortens/lengthens/has no effect on the average time to first reoffence for its participants.”

2. Headline results - female

The overall results do not show a statistically significant effect on a person’s reoffending behaviour.

The headline analysis in this report measured proven reoffences in a one-year period for a ‘treatment group’ of 367 female offenders who began receiving support some time between June 2021 and July 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 HMPPS CFO 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:
16 of the 100 women committed a proven reoffence within a one-year period (a rate of 16%), 3 women fewer than in the comparison group.		19 of the 100 women committed a proven reoffence within a one-year period (a rate of 19%).
63 proven reoffences were committed by these 100 women during the year (a frequency of 0.6 offences per person), 6 offences fewer than in the comparison group.		69 proven reoffences were committed by these 100 women during the year (a frequency of 0.7 offences per person).
164 days was the average time before a reoffender committed their first proven reoffence, 13 days earlier than the comparison group.		178 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 as many as 7 women, or higher by as many as 1 woman. This is not a statistically significant result.
	The number of proven reoffences committed during the year could be lower by as many as 30 offences, or higher by as many as 18 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 37 days, or longer by as many as 11 days. This is not 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 HMPPS CFO Activity Hubs increases or decreases the number of participants who commit a proven reoffence in a one-year period. There may be a number of reasons for this and it is possible that an analysis of more participants would provide such evidence.”
✖	What you cannot say about the one-year reoffending rate:
	“This analysis provides evidence that support from HMPPS CFO Activity Hubs 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 HMPPS CFO Activity Hubs increases or decreases the number of proven reoffences during a one-year period. There may be a number of reasons for this and it is possible that an analysis of more participants would provide such evidence.”
✖	What you cannot say about the one-year reoffending frequency:
	“This analysis provides evidence that support from HMPPS CFO Activity Hubs 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 HMPPS CFO Activity Hubs shortens or lengthens the average time to first proven reoffence. There may be a number of reasons for this and it is possible that an analysis of more participants would provide such evidence.”
✖	What you cannot say about the time to first reoffence:
	“This analysis provides evidence that support from HMPPS CFO Activity Hubs 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 HMPPS CFO Activity Hubs

Figure 2: One-year proven reoffending rate for females after support from HMPPS CFO Activity Hubs

Figure 3: One-year proven reoffending frequency for males after support from HMPPS CFO Activity Hubs

Figure 4: One-year proven reoffending frequency for females after support from HMPPS CFO Activity Hubs

Figure 5: Average time (days) to first proven reoffence for males after support from HMPPS CFO Activity Hubs

Figure 6: Average time (days) to first proven reoffence for females after support from HMPPS CFO Activity Hubs

4. Results in detail

The headline results in this report refer to the following:

1. Male Overall analysis: treatment group matched to offenders across England and Wales using demographics, criminal history and individual risks and needs.

2. 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: accommodation, employment history, financial history, relationships, mental health, thinking skills, 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.

Gender	Analysis	Treatment group size	Comparison group size	Reoffenders in treatment group	Reoffenders in comparison group (weighted number)
Male	Overall	2,343	257,786	600	75,089 (62,507)
Female	Overall	367	24,314	60	5,368 (4,738)

In addition to the headline analyses, one sub-analysis was conducted with the following definition:

1. Multiple visits analysis: Individuals who were recorded as attending an Activity Hub on at least three separate days to take part in a scheduled activity. Due to a small sample size and poor matching quality, it was not possible to conduct a sub-analysis for female participants.

Three measures of one-year reoffending were analysed, as well as four additional measures (see results in Tables 1-7):

1. Rate of reoffending
2. Frequency of reoffending
3. Time to first reoffence
4. Rate of first reoffence by court outcome
5. Frequency of reoffences by court outcome
6. Rate of custodial sentencing for first reoffence
7. Frequency of custodial sentencing

4.1 Significant results

5 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 fewer indictable-only offences than non-participants who commit indictable-only offences.

Male Multiple Visits Analysis

• Male participants who reoffend within a one-year period commit their first proven reoffence earlier than non-participants.

• Male participants who reoffend within a one-year period are less 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 more likely to commit a summary first reoffence than non-participants who commit a summary first reoffence.

Female Overall Analysis

• Female participants who reoffend within a one-year period are less likely to commit a triable-either-way first reoffence than non-participants who commit a triable-either-way first reoffence.

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.

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 HMPPS CFO Activity Hubs 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	2,343	257,786	26	24	0 to 3	No (0.13)
	Multiple visits	734	62,578	20	19	-2 to 4	No (0.53)
Female	Overall	367	24,314	16	19	-7 to 1	No (0.11)

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 HMPPS CFO Activity Hubs 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	2,343	257,786	0.92	0.84	-0.03 to 0.18	No (0.15)
	Multiple visits	734	62,578	0.6	0.6	-0.13 to 0.12	No (0.96)
Female	Overall	367	24,314	0.63	0.69	-0.3 to 0.18	No (0.61)

Table 3: Average time (days) to first proven reoffence in a one-year period for men and women who received support from HMPPS CFO Activity Hubs, 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	600	75,089	169	173	-12 to 3	No (0.21)
	Multiple visits	147	12,452	183	197	-28 to -1	Yes (0.03)
Female	Overall	60	5,368	164	178	-37 to 11	No (0.28)

Table 4: Proportion of men and women supported by HMPPS CFO Activity Hubs with first proven reoffence in a one-year period (reoffending rate) by court outcome, compared with similar non-participants (reoffenders only)

Gender	Analysis	Number in treatment group	Number in comparison group	Court outcome [1]	Treatment group rate (%)	Comparison group rate (%)	Estimated difference (% points)	Significant difference? (p-value)
Male	Overall	600	75,089	Either way	51	50	-3 to 5	No (0.78)
				Summary	27	25	-2 to 5	No (0.41)
Male	Multiple visits	147	12,452	Either way	38	52	-22 to -6	Yes (<0.01)
				Summary	33	24	1 to 16	Yes (0.03)
Female	Overall	60	5,368	Either way	20	38	-29 to -8	Yes (<0.01)
				Summary	37	26	-2 to 23	No (0.09)

[1] 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.

Table 5: Number of proven reoffences in a one-year period (reoffending frequency) by court outcome for men and women supported by HMPPS CFO Activity Hubs, compared with similar non-participants (reoffenders only)

Gender	Analysis	Number in treatment group	Number in comparison group	Court outcome	Treatment group frequency	Comparison group frequency	Estimated difference	Significant difference? (p-value)
Male	Overall	600	75,089	Indictable	0.03	0.05	-0.03 to 0.00	Yes (0.05)
				Either way	1.89	1.82	-0.20 to 0.32	No (0.63)
				Summary	0.93	0.91	-0.09 to 0.13	No (0.71)
Male	Multiple visits	147	12,452	Either way	1.39	1.67	-0.64 to 0.08	No (0.12)
				Summary	0.90	0.85	-0.17 to 0.29	No (0.62)
Female	Overall	60	5,368	Either way	1.62	1.72	-1.10 to 0.90	No (0.84)
				Summary	0.98	0.84	-0.23 to 0.52	No (0.43)

Table 6: Proportion of men and women who received a custodial sentence for their first proven reoffence after support from HMPPS CFO Activity Hubs, 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	600	75,089	46	43	0 to 8	No (0.09)
	Multiple visits	147	12,452	41	43	-10 to 6	No (0.66)
Female	Overall	60	5,368	32	26	-7 to 18	No (0.36)

Table 7: Number of custodial sentences received in a one-year period by men and women who received support from HMPPS CFO Activity Hubs, 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	600	75,089	1.83	1.71	-0.14 to 0.37	No (0.38)
	Multiple visits	147	12,452	1.48	1.61	-0.51 to 0.26	No (0.51)
Female	Overall	60	5,368	1.5	1.26	-0.65 to 1.13	No (0.59)

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

There were 21 Activity Hubs located in the community across England. Participants are selected based on a needs assessment conducted by HMPPS CFO. All participants must have had an employment need, and additionally a combination of other serious needs, for example substance misuse, accommodation, education, or extensive criminal histories. Only individuals with a community based sentence (including Suspended Sentence Orders or Community Orders) or those released from a custodial sentence, were eligible to receive support from an Activity Hub.

	Participants included in analysis (2,343 offenders)	Participants not included in analysis (3,101 offenders with available data)
Sex
Male	100%	100%
Ethnicity
White	76%	78%
Black	14%	13%
Asian	6%	3%
Unknown	3%	5%
Other	1%	1%
Nationality
UK nationality	93%	93%
Foreign nationality	5%	4%
Unknown nationality	2%	3%
Index disposal
Prison	54%
Community order	28%
Suspended sentence order	19%

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 84 years at the beginning of their one-year period (average age 36).

Information on index offences for the 3,101 males not included in the analysis is not available, as they could not be linked to a suitable sentence.

For 47 males, no personal information is available as they could not be identified in our databases.

Information on individual risks and needs was available for 2,396 males in the treatment group (93% 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.

• 94% of male participants had some or significant difficulties with problem solving
• 80% of male participants had some or significant difficulties coping
• 63% of male participants would be unemployed upon release or were unemployed, and 24% of male participants were not available for work or would not be available for work upon release

6. Profile of the female treatment group

There were 21 Activity Hubs located in the community across England. Participants are selected based on a needs assessment conducted by HMPPS CFO. All participants must have had an employment need, and additionally a combination of other serious needs, for example substance misuse, accommodation, education, or extensive criminal histories. Only individuals with a community based sentence (including Suspended Sentence Orders or Community Orders) or those released from a custodial sentence, were eligible to receive support from an Activity Hub.

	Participants included in analysis (367 offenders)	Participants not included in analysis (380 offenders with available data)
Sex
Female	100%	100%
Ethnicity
White	86%	83%
Black	8%	9%
Unknown	5%	4%
Asian	1%	2%
Other	0%	1%
Nationality
UK nationality	92%	92%
Unknown nationality	6%	4%
Foreign nationality	2%	4%
Index disposal
Community order	48%
Suspended sentence order	26%
Prison	25%

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 68 years at the beginning of their one-year period (average age 36).

Information on index offences for the 380 females not included in the analysis is not available, as they could not be linked to a suitable sentence.

For 6 females, no personal information is available as they could not be identified in our databases.

Information on individual risks and needs was available for 394 females in the treatment group (97% 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.

• 93% of female participants had some or significant difficulties with problem solving
• 71% of female participants had some or significant difficulties with their financial situation
• 48% of female participants would be unemployed upon release or were unemployed, and 38% of female participants were not available for work or would not be available for work upon release

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.
• 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.

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: Which court will a case be heard in? - Sentencing Council (HTML)

Participants excluded from the analysis

All individuals participated in the programme following their release from prison or after they received a court order or non-custodial sentence.

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.

9. Explanation of sub-analysis

Multiple visits

Additional data was provided by HMPPS CFO relating to the number and dates of visits made by participants to Activity Hubs.

The JDL used this data to identify individuals who had visited an Activity Hub on at least three separate days for a scheduled activity within six months of either their release from custody (for those with custodial disposals) or the date they received their community based sentence.

The comparison group for the sub-analysis only includes individuals who had similar characteristics to those identified as having at least 3 visits.

10. 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] Records were excluded if an index date could not be identified within 6 months before their intervention start date.
[3] Inclusion criteria include: having not been previously convicted of a sexual offence and being over 18 at the time of their index date.

11. 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] Records were excluded if an index date could not be identified within 6 months before their intervention start date.
[3] Inclusion criteria include: having not been previously convicted of a sexual offence and being over 18 at the time of their index date.

12. 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