§ Mr. George HowarthTo ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will list the most recently available numbers of prisoners reconvicted within(a) two years, (b) four years and (c) five years of discharge from each (i) adult female local prison, (ii) adult female open prison, (iii) female closed training prison and (iv) female open and closed young offender institution; [38752]

(2) if he will list the most recently available number of prisoners reconvicted within (a)two years, (b)four years and (c) five years of discharge from each (i) local prison, (ii) open prison, (iii) dispersal prison, (iv) category B prison and (v) young offender institution. [38745]

§ Miss Widdecombe[holding answer 22 July 1996]: Responsibility for these matters has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

179WLetter from Richard Tilt to Mr. George Howarth, dated 23 July 1996:

The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Questions about reconvicted prisoners.I attach tables in reply to points (a) of each of these Questions. Information in reply to points (b) and (c) is not available at this time. I will write to you again giving you the information in the near future.With reference to (a), the most recent available information relates to a sample of prisoners discharged from prison during 1992. The information available is as follows:

Table 1: Reconviction rates within two years of discharge in 1992 for prisoners discharged from Local prison regimes. Female establishments are asterisked. Figures in brackets give the range above and below the estimate that rates are likely to vary according to chance ^{1}Establishment Two year percentage reconvicted Number sampled Bedford 41 (17) 51 Belmarsh 43(8) 325 Birmingham 54 (10) 183 Bristol 59 (13) 112 Brixton 34(11) 149 Bullingdon/Oxford 31 13) 98 Cardiff 62(11) 123 Chelmsford 37 (13) 65 Durham 49(9) 199 Elmley 61 (17) 61 Exeter 47 (10) 133 Holloway* 37(6) 289 Hull 45(11) 112 Leeds 63(8) 209 Leicester 53 (12) 109 Lewes 63 (12) 92 Lincoln 45(10) 125 Liverpool 57(7) 299 Newhall* 49(11) 85 Norwich 41 (12) 116 Pentonville 45(7) 414 Preston 56 (12) 106 Pucklechurch* 51 (11) 83 Shrewsbury 65 (14) 66 Swansea 57 (15) 71 Wandsworth 40(6) 590 Winchester 54(11) 123 Wormwood Scrubs 49(7) 380 Total 49(2) 5,100 ^{1}The range for chance variation is based on a 95 per cent, confidence interval, ie. the interval in which the true value is likely to lie for 19 out of 20 occasions. Figures are not given where there are fewer than 50 prisoners in the sample for an establishment.180W

Table 2: Reconviction rates within two years of discharge in 1992 for prisoners discharged from Open prison regimes. Female establishments are asterisked. Figures in brackets give the range above and below the estimate that rates are likely to vary according to chance ^{1}Establishment Two year percentage reconvicted Number sampled Askham Grange* 28(7) 149 Drake Hall* 30 (5) 410 East Sutton* 32(8) 137 Ford 20(6) 354

Table 2: Reconviction rates within two years of discharge in 1992 for prisoners discharged from Open prison regimes. Female establishments are asterisked. Figures in brackets give the range above and below the stimate that rates are likely to vary according to chance ^{1}Establishment Two year percentage reconvicted Number sampled Grendon/Spring Hill 27(11) 132 Hewell Grange 28(13) 92 High Point 38(18) 53 Kirkham 37(7) 376 Leyhill 25(9) 172 Morton Hall 41 (12) 109 North Sea Camp 31 (9) 132 Rudgate 29(8) 188 Standford Hill 29(8) 252 Sudbury 35(7) 353 Total 31 (2) 2,927 ^{1}The range of chance variation is based on a 95 per cent, confidence interval, i.e. the interval in which the true value is likely to lie for 19 out of 20 occasions. Figures are not given where there are fewer than 50 prisoners in the sample for an establishment.

Table 3: Reconviction rates within two years of discharge in 1992 for prisoners discharged from Closed Cat B regimes. Female establishments are asterisked. Figure in brackets give the range above and below the estimate that rates are likely to vary according to chance ^{1}Establishment Two year percentage reconvicted Number sampled Dartmoor 56 (12) 108 Garth 60(13) 64 Maidstone 35(11) 62 Total 46 (5) 506 ^{1}The range for chance variation is based on a 95 per cent, confidence interval, i.e. the interval in which the true value is likely to lie for 19 out of 20 occasions. Figures are not given where there are fewer than 50 prisoners in the sample for an establishment.181W

Table 4: Reconviction rates within two years of discharge in 1992 for prisoners discharged from Closed Cat C regimes. Female establishments are asterisked. Figures in brackets give the range above and below the estimate that rates are likely to vary according to chance ^{1}Establishment Two year percentage reconvicted Number sampled Acklington 51(8) 264 Aldington 34(15) 69 Ashwell 37(11) 158 Brockhill 42 (12) 115 Bulwood Hall* 43(11) 80 Camp Hill 52(8) 218 Channings Wood 43(9) 185 Downview 23 (13) 69 Erlestoke 31 (15) 85 Everthorpe 70(11) 71 Featherstone 40(1) 165 Haverigg 64(8) 186 High Point 43(6) 394 Lancaster 56 (14) 86 Latchmere House 25 (13) 71 Lindholme 51 (7) 368 Littlehey 35(11) 114

Table 4: Reconviction rates within two years of discharge in 1992 for prisoners discharged from Closed Cat C regimes. Female establishments are asterisked. Figures in brackets give the range above and below the estimate that rates are likely to vary according to chance ^{1}Establishment Two year percentage reconvicted Number sampled The Mount 29(9) 147 Northeye 43 (12) 136 Norwich 47 (15) 76 Ranby 54(8) 254 Risley 24(9) 106 Rochester 43 (14) 57 Send 38(15) 59 Shepton Mallet 48 (13) 91 Stafford 55(6) 422 Stocken 39 (12) 115 Styal* 54(9) 136 The Verne 36(9) 194 Wayland 22(11) 92 Wellingborough 39 (13) 83 Whatton 14(6) 96 Wymott 59(6) 442 Total 47(2) 5,456 ^{1}This range for chance variation is based on a 95 per cent. confidence interval, i.e. the interval in which the true value is likely to lie for 19 out of 20 occasions. Figures are not given where there are fewer than 50 prisoners in the sample for an establishment.

Table 5: Reconviction rates within two years of discharge in 1992 for prisoners discharged from closed Y0I regimes. Female establishments are asterisked. Figures in brackets give the range above and below the estimate that rates are likely to vary according to chance ^{1}Establishment Two year percentage reconvicted Number sampled Castington 67 (10) 82 Deerbolt 82(4) 461 Dover 63(7) 209 Feltham 60(7) 227 Glen Parva 72(5) 358 Hollesley Bay 66(9) 127 Huntercombe/Finnamore 63(7) 220 Moorland 81 (10) 77 Northallerton 72(8) 138 Onley 73 (6) 298 Portland 76(6) 225 Stoke Heath 78(7) 170 Total 71 (2) 2,782 ^{1}This range for chance variation is based on a 95 per cent, confidence interval, ie. the interval in which the true value is likely to lie for 19 out of 20 occasions. Figures are not given where there are fewer than 50 prisoners in the sample for an establishment.182W

Table 6: Reconviction rates within two.years of discharge in 1992 for prisoners discharged from Open YOI regimes. Female establishments are asterisked. Figures in brackets give the range above and below the estimate that rates are likely to vary according to change ^{1}Establishment Two year percentage reconvicted Number sampled Drake Hall* 50(13) 60 Guys Marsh 74(9) 107 Hatfield 62(8) 148 Huntercombe/Finnamore 53 (10) 101

Table 6: Reconviction rates within two years of discharge in 1992 for prisoners discharged from Open YOI regimes. Female establishments are asterisked. Figures in brackets give the range above and below the estimate that rates are likely to vary according to change ^{1}Establishment Two year percentage reconvicted Number sampled Thorn Cross 67(7) 187 Usk/Precoed 67(11) 70 Total 64(4) 727 ^{1}This range for chance variation is based on a 95 per cent, confidence interval, i.e. the interval in which the true value is likely to lie for 19 out of 20 occasions. Figures are not given where there are fewer than 50 prisoners in the sample for an establishment.

Table 7: Reconviction rates within two years of discharge in 1992 for prisoners discharged from short sentence YOI regimes. Female establishments are asterisked. Figures in brackets give the range above and below the estimate that rates are likely to vary accordingly to chance. ^{1}Establishment Two year percentage reconvicted Number sampled Eastwood Park 76(6) 211 Hollesley Bay 66(8) 163 Werrington 66(11) 78 Wetherby 72(5) 340 Total 72 (3) 792 ^{1}This range for change variation is based on a 95 per cent, confidence interval, i.e. the interval in which the true value is likely to lie for 19 out of 20 occasions. Figures are not given where there are fewer than 50 prisoners in the sample for an establishment.

Table 8: Reconviction rates within two years of discharge in 1992 for prisoners discharged from Juvenile YOI regimes. Female establishments are asterisked. Figures in brackets give the range above and below the estimate that rates are likely to vary according to chance ^{1}Establishment Two year percentage reconvicted Number sampled Feltham 82(5) 186 Kirklevington 96(4) 118 Onley 89(4) 271 Werrington 90(4) 261 Total 89(2) 836 ^{1}This range for chance variation is based on a 95 per cent, confidence interval, i.e. the interval in which the true value is likely to lie for 19 out of 20 occasions. Figures are not given where there are fewer than 50 prisoners in the sample for an establishment.