Second supplementary memorandum submitted
by the Ministry of Justice
ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS
AND INFORMATION
REQUESTED BY
THE JUSTICE
COMMITTEE FROM
OFFENDER MANAGEMENT
SENTENCING ANALYTICAL
SERVICES (OMS ANALYTICAL
SERVICES)
Following my evidence at the Justice Committee's
third evidence session (17 June 2008) for its inquiry into Justice
Reinvestment, the Committee requested some additional information.
My letter of 3 July provided details of evidence and documents
based on published information submitted by OMS Analytical Services
to the Lord Carter's Review of Prisons and I undertook to supply
outstanding information to the committee by 18 July. The details
of the requests were confirmed as a result of further communication
between Justice Committee officials and OMS Analytical Services
staff.
I have set out below the additional information requested
and the documents attached. I have indicated where documents are
hitherto unpublished.
CLARIFICATION ON
THE AVERAGE
TARIFF FOR
IMPRISONMENT FOR
PUBLIC PROTECTION
(IPP)
In my evidence (Q89 of the 17 June 2008 uncorrected
transcript), I said that the tariff for an IPP is about 41 months.
This actual figure is a mean average of 39 months. This is based
on the latest (July 2007) data collected by the MoJ. I would be
grateful if you could correct the uncorrected transcript to reflect
the actual figure.
URBAN/RURAL
DISPARITIES IN
PROBATION INTERVENTIONS
The committee (Q 90) requested any further information
about differences in the delivery of interventions in rural and
urban areas. The MoJ does not currently collect data broken down
by rural and urban basis. However information is collected by
probation region and area and I have attached documents (see below)
about community sentencing requirements and interventions and
offender programmes that I hope will assist with understanding
regional and local variations. In addition, the department has
a number of cohort studies underway to develop our knowledge of
interventions nationally.
— Appendix A: Sentencing Requirements
by area (unpublished).
— Appendix B and C and D: Interventions/Programmes
by region and areas, a glossary of the abbreviations and acronyms
used and an explanatory note about offending programmes.
— Appendix E: An explanatory note about
the Cohort studies being planned and undertaken for OMS Analytical
Services (unpublished).
INFORMATION ON
COST BENEFIT
ANALYSIS AND
AN EXAMPLE
OF ITS
USE IN
POLICY FORMATION
I have attached a copy of a set of presentation
slides (not printed) about a Cost Benefit model developed
for the South West region is provided as an indicative example
of how the department uses Cost Benefit Analysis (CBA) to inform
policy, in this case, the appraisal of interventions (Q91). The
model uses data about offenders in the South West region and uses
economic appraisal techniques for serious and non-serious offenders
to consider the effectiveness of programmes and to explore the
relationship between benefits and costs of interventions. Although
this document has been distributed fairly widely by us, and therefore
is in the public domain, it has not been published before. I would
want to caveat the use of the document and to urge caution in
drawing any conclusions as the data available at the time for
developing the model was limited. This is the particularly the
case for the data on criminal career costs, programme effectiveness
and unit costs.
— Appendix F: Informing Priorities
for Commissioning using Cost-Benefit Analysis (unpublished).
ALL RESEARCH
AND ANALYSIS
PROVIDED TO
THE LORD
CARTER REVIEW
OF PRISON
After further discussion with officials supporting
the Justice Committee, I understand that the Committee's main
interest is in understanding the impact assessment model used
to generate options for prison and probation caseloads for the
Carter team. Accordingly, please find attached a summary of the
Carter Model (not printed) which underpins the analytical
evidence in the published report. This document is unpublished.
— Appendix G: Summary Description of Carter Model (unpublished).
ANALYTICAL SUPPORT
SUPPLIED TO
THE CARTER
REVIEW
I have attached a note which outlines the analytical
support provided by OMS Analytical Services to the Carter Review.— Appendix
H: Analytical Support from OMS Analytical Services to the Carter
Review of Prisons.
I have also attached two further documents for
the Committee. In their evidence to the committee, Professors
McGuire and Falconer (Qs 102 and 110) commented on government
econometric research on criminology and offenders and Eilís
Lawlor of the New Economics Foundation (transcript 24 June Q 171
and 172) on how the MoJ measures reconviction. I have attached
a brief memorandum that sets out the nature, focus and extent
of government econometric capacity in this area and provides greater
clarity on the severity and frequency of reconviction.
— Appendix I: Government Econometrics for
Criminology and Offender Management and Reconviction Measures.
Finally, I have added a set of footnotes added
to the uncorrected proof of evidence which provides explanatory
references to technical terms and documents in the evidence.
— Appendix J: Uncorrected Proof of
Evidence with footnotes added.
Chloë Chitty
Assistant Director
OMS Analytical Services
July 2008
| 
