HC Deb 23 July 1996 vol 282 cc178-82W
Mr. George Howarth

To 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.

Letter 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.
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 chance1
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.
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.
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 chance1
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.