Purpose. The effectiveness of prison‐based cognitive‐behavioural treatment programmes was evaluated using reconviction as the outcome measure. Method. Reconviction rates were compared between two groups of adult male offenders who were serving a custodial sentence of 2 years or more in Her Majesty's Prison Service, England and Wales. The treatment group (N =667) consisted of offenders who had voluntarily participated in one of two treatment programmes that targeted 'cognitive deficits' related to offending behaviour. The comparison group (N =1,801) was made up of offenders who had not participated in the treatment programme but were “matched” to the treatment group on a number of empirically relevant variables. Results. Treatment produced a robust reduction in the probability of reconviction (p < .001) when other relevant variables were controlled for. For treated offenders, the percentage point reduction in reconviction was 14% in medium‐lowrisk offenders and 11% in medium‐high‐risk offenders. Conclusion. These outcome results demonstrate that the principles of effective practice in the field of offender rehabilitation, which were identified through meta‐analytical research predominately in North America, can be applied to a UK offender population to similar effect.

Purpose and method. Crime reduction is a central feature of the current Government Home policy. This incorporates a wide variety of initiatives from crime‐prevention strategies to offending‐behaviour programmes. One key performance indicator for assessing crime reduction is reconviction. This article critically analyses the two main sources of criminal history data held in England and Wales from which reconviction is determined: first, the Offenders Index (OI), which is accessible to independent researchers; and second, the National Identification Service (NIS), available for limited Home Office personnel. Criminal history data were compared for 134 sexual offenders using both sources of data. Results. Overall, there was a poor correlation for offence‐based criminal history summaries between the two data sources. Further analysis revealed that neither source appeared more reliable, with each source contributing unique and additional information. Sentencing occasion‐based summaries, however, showed a strong relationship between the two sources. Five‐year reconviction rates for the sample were highest using a combination OI and NIS data than reconviction rates using one source alone. Conclusions. There is no evidence in this study to suggest that the NIS is more reliable than OI. OI users are urged to use sentencing occasion summaries over offence‐based summaries for control group matching purposes as these data appear to be more consistent between the two sources. In the future, when researchers have access to both sources of data, it is recommended that they use a combination of data sets for assessing past criminal history and deriving risk of reconviction in order to provide a more complete picture. A sound knowledge of the limitations of the data source being used is essential for researchers.

The violent reconvictions of a sample of sexual offenders discharged from prison between 1992 and 1996 (who had not been reconvicted of a sexual offence) were examined. The hypothesis was that a proportion of these violent reconvictions would have a sexual motivation. The sample consisted of 104 adult male sexual offenders for whom detailed information regarding their violent reconviction was available. The sample was categorized according to the motivation of the violent reconviction. It was found that a proportion of the violent reconvictions were sexually motivated (12%) and that some of these had resulted from an original charge for a sexual offence. Significant differences were found between the sexual motivation and violent motivation group on the number of criminal history and victim characteristic variables. It was concluded that, in the case of sexual offenders, violent convictions might mask the true motivation of the offence.