2015 Recidivism Report National figures for the reconviction rates of offenders punished in the period between 2002 and 2012

(1)

Factsheet 2016-1a

2015 Recidivism Report

National figures for the reconviction rates of offenders

punished in the period between 2002 and 2012

Author: B.S.J. Wartna, N. Tollenaar,

S. Verweij, D.L. Alberda & A.A.M. Essers

June 2017

Analyses of the backgrounds of prosecuted

offenders show that more than 40% of the

criminal offences brought to the attention of the

Public Prosecution Service (PPS) are committed by

people who have previously come into contact

with the criminal justice system (Wartna, 2009).

The Dutch government is very keen to curb

recidivism among offenders and is doing this by

introducing instruments for ‘appropriate sentences

and timely rehabilitation’ (Second Rutte

Government, 2012). In addition to retribution and

the restoration of the rule of law, criminal law

aims at special prevention. Future offences can be

prevented through the use of measures which

reduce the likelihood of recidivism. This country’s

security is increased by effective interventions

which target known offenders. They must be

prevented from coming into contact with the

criminal justice system again. The Research and

(2)

Box 1

Main findings

The latest Recidivism Monitor measurements show a further decrease in Dutch criminal recidivism. The fall in the

prevalence of two-year general recidivism among adult offenders has, however, levelled off slightly over the last three

study years. The first year of the study relates to adults and juveniles who were sanctioned by court or the PPS in 2002, or

who were released from a penitentiary institution, the last year being 2012.



Since 2003, the percentage of repeat adult offenders sanctioned by court or the PPS has decreased slightly. Only in

2010 did the decrease come briefly to a halt. Thereafter, the percentage of people coming into contact with the criminal

justice system again fell fractionally. For the study period as a whole, there was a fall of 4.2 percentage points, from

29.2% in 2002 to 25.0% in 2012.



Clients of the probation and after-care service were placed under supervision or given a community service order. There

was also a fall in this sector. In 2002, the reconviction rate within two years amounted to 39.4%. This was 33.9% in

2012, representing a decrease of 5.5 percentage points. Between 2009 and 2011, the fall in the proportion of repeat

offenders stagnated, but in the latest cohort studied there was once again a slight decrease of 0.5 percentage points.



The greatest decrease was among ex-prisoners. There has been a downward trend in the recidivism percentages in the

prison system since 2002, which levelled off after 2009. Of all adults leaving a penitentiary institution in 2012, 47.1%

had another criminal case within two years. In 2002, this percentage was 55.3%. The prevalence of recidivism among

ex-prisoners therefore decreased by 8.2 percentage points during the study period.



The population of juvenile offenders sanctioned by court or the PPS did not start decreasing until 2006. From 2009,

however, the percentage falls more sharply than for adult offenders. Overall, the prevalence of two-year recidivism fell

by 5.8 percentage points, from 38.4% in 2002 to 32.6% in 2012.



The decrease is smaller in the sub-group of juvenile offenders released from a juvenile detention centre. The two-year

reconviction rate fell by just 3.2 percentage points between 2002 and 2010: from 60% in 2002 to 57.6% in 2012. There

are more fluctuations in this relatively small group.

The rates in this box are adjusted reconviction rates. Changes in the composition of the offender groups on background

characteristics such as sex, age and the number of previous criminal cases have been taken into account. The existence of

several key registration effects was also checked. The fall in recidivism, which is evident in all the offender populations,

therefore appears to be a real decline. A report on the causes and backgrounds was published in 2014.

Study method

The Recidivism Monitor’s measurements are based

on data from the Research and Policy Database for

Judicial Documentation (OBJD). The OBJD is an

‘anonymised’ version of the Criminal Records

System, the statutory registration system showing

how criminal cases have been disposed of.

1

_{The use}

of this source implies that only the criminal cases

which have come to the attention of the PPS are

analysed in the study. Offences which go undetected

or are not passed on to the PPS are not taken into

consideration.

Details of the method used by the Recidivism Monitor

can be found in a brochure available on the WODC

website (www.wodc.nl/Recidivism Monitor). The

brochure explains how the case and offence data

from the OBJD are converted into reconviction

statistics. An explanation is given of how sections of

law are converted into offence categories, how the

case disposal information is classified, which data

1_{The OBJD contains no names or addresses. People can be} identified by means of an irreversibly encrypted number.

fields are used to put the criminal cases in the

correct order and which definitions are used for the

term ‘recidivism’ (see box 2).

This fact sheet presents the outcome for entire

offender populations and therefore only presents a

picture of recidivism in the Netherlands at the

national level. Although figures are available for up

to ten years following disposal of the index case or

release from the institution, we are examining only

the prevalence of new criminal cases in the period up

to two years after the sentence for the original

offence. This enables us to give a reasonably

up-to-date picture of the reconviction rate. The two-year

reconviction rate gives a good indication of

recidivism in the medium term as well as in the long

term.

2

(3)

Table 1

The offender groups in the WODC Recidivism Monitor — measurements of 2015

Study numbers

The study numbers are given in Table 1. There is

some overlap, i.e. an offender may appear in more

than one population, and within that population he or

she may feature in several annual cohorts. However,

he or she will feature only once in each cohort.

3

_In

total, nearly 1.7 million individuals were included in

the Recidivism Monitor’s study. More than 1.3 million

people have been involved since 2002.

The group of offenders formerly on probation

consists of adults who have completed a community

service order and persons who were placed under the

supervision of one of the probation organisations,

3 _{Suppose a 35-year old man has three criminal cases brought} against him in one year. The first was disposed of through a community service order, and the latter two through a short term of imprisonment. In this example, the first case is the index case in both the study on ‘adult offenders’ and ‘offenders formerly on probation’, whilst the two other cases are regarded as recidivism events. The second case is included as an index case in the study on ‘ex-prisoners’. The third case is regarded as recidivism, whilst the first case is considered to be part of the offender’s criminal antecedents’.

namely Reclassering Nederland [Dutch Probation

Service], Stichting Verslavingsreclassering GGZ

[Dutch Addiction Probation Service] or the Leger des

Heils Jeugdzorg & Reclassering [Salvation Army

Youth Care and Probation Service]. The recidivism

rate is calculated from the end date of the

community service order or the supervision.

In addition to people who were given a prison

sentence, the population of ex-prisoners also

includes people held in pre-trial detention or who

were imprisoned for debts.

4

_{The size of the total}

group has been fairly stable in recent years. There

has been a sharp fall in the size of the juvenile

offender population over the past few years. The

same applies to the juvenile detention centre sector.

4_{The DJI [Custodial Institutions Agency] records the last known} type of confinement. If the court imposes a term of

imprisonment which is shorter than the time spent in pre-trial detention and opts for an extramural penalty or acquittal, this is recorded as ‘pre-trial detention’. In cases where the pre-trial detention is resumed following a suspension, the end of the last part will be the starting point for calculating the recidivism rate.

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Adult offender sanctioned by the court or the PPS

Adults with a criminal case as a result of a crime, disposed of through a fixed penalty, a discretionary dismissal, a penalty order issued by a public prosecutor or a penalty or measure imposed by the court

148,770 169,815 171,746 172,496 174,653 170,455 163,754 167,388 141,386 145,017 147,887

Offenders formerly

on probation Adults placed under supervision or who carried out a community service order at one of the probation institutions

24,603 31,804 33,416 38,537 41,534 41,752 41,830 41,593 39,128 36,304 38,589

Ex-prisoners Adults who have been released from a penitentiary institution, with the exceptionof those released from aliens custody and individuals who are awaiting deportation

19,790 23,042 28,351 35,697 35,691 34,007 32,170 30,888 30,656 31,273 30,186

Juvenile offenders sanctioned by court or the PPS

Minors with a criminal case as a result of a crime, disposed of through a fixed penalty, a discretionary dismissal, a penalty order issued by the public prosecutor or a punishment or measure imposed by a court 20,350 21,483 23,070 23,915 24,249 25,312 24,797 21,772 18,358 17,070 15,747 Former inmates of juvenile detention centres

Minors released from a remand and treatment centre, including those convicted under criminal law or placed in an institution under civil law

2,363 2,526 2,774 2,891 2,726 2,536 2,130 2,001 2,033 1,777 1,585

Group

(4)

The number of minors convicted under criminal law

and placed in a juvenile detention centre has been

declining since 2006. Evidently, increasingly few

intramural penalties are being imposed on juveniles

in the Netherlands. In 2012, more than half of

juvenile offenders were given a community service

order, and only 5% a custodial sentence (see

annex 4).

Web application using unadjusted reconviction

rates

The Recidivism Monitor’s measurement results are

stored in REPRIS, a web application which can be

accessed through the WODC website

5

_{. REPRIS}

contains all the figures for all cohorts of the

permanent study populations. In addition to

recidivism rates, statistics on recidivism frequency

and volume are also recorded. The recidivism

frequency is the average number of new criminal

cases for each repeat offender. The volume of the

recidivism is the total number of new criminal cases

per 100 perpetrators.

An option screen may be used to make a selection

from the figures.

6

_{The recidivism picture can be}

retrieved for the entire population or for one of its

sub-groups. There are a few options which allow the

population to be broken down into characteristics,

such as sex, age, type of offence and the number of

previous criminal cases. These characteristics may be

combined in such a way that the figures may be

viewed for any sub-group. The only limitation is that

the offender group must be sufficiently large. The

result is not shown for sub-groups made up of fewer

5_{REPRIS is only available in Dutch.}

6_{All unadjusted figures are recalculated every year and may differ} slightly from those of the previous round. This is the result of supplementing and cleaning up the source data in the OBJD and small changes in the method used.

Figure 1 REPRIS option screen

than 15 offenders. This threshold has been used for

statistical reasons and to protect the privacy of the

ex-offenders involved. Low numbers mean there is

an increased risk of indirect traceability and also

make the measurement results insufficiently reliable.

This fact sheet addresses ‘general recidivism’ only,

but REPRIS also contains information about more

specific forms of recidivism. Box 2 contains an

overview of the definitions used within the

Recidivism Monitor. The criteria are in part ‘nested’.

General recidivism encompasses all forms of

recidivism; ‘very serious recidivism’ is a subset of

‘serious recidivism’. Very serious recidivism occurs

less often than general or serious recidivism.

Criminal offences carrying a maximum penalty of

eight years or more, such as murder, manslaughter,

rape and armed robbery, are less common than

offences such as vandalism, theft or acts of violence

in a public place, and this is reflected in the

reconviction rates. The nature of ‘special’ and

‘specific’ recidivism depends on the original offence.

Box 2

Recidivism criteria

General recidivism New, valid* criminal cases for a criminal offence, regardless of the nature and seriousness of the crimes committed

Serious recidivism New, valid* criminal cases for a criminal offence carrying a mandatory penalty of at least four years, or for which pre-trial detention may be imposed

Very serious recidivism

New, valid* criminal cases for a criminal offence carrying a mandatory penalty of at least eight years Unconditional prison

sentence recidivism

New, valid* criminal cases for a criminal offence for which a fully or partially unconditional prison sentence has been imposed Special recidivism New, valid* criminal cases for the same sort of criminal offence as the original offence

Specific recidivism New, valid* criminal cases for the same criminal offence as the original offence

(5)

Criminal proceedings resulting from sexual offences

are less common than those resulting from property

offences, for example. Special and specific recidivism

rates are therefore usually the lowest following a

conviction for a sexual offence.

Fluctuations in offender populations

The annexes to this fact sheet contain overviews of

the backgrounds of the prosecuted offenders. The

proportion of women has increased over the years in

three of the five offender populations. The average

age of adult offenders is on the rise. In more recent

years, more people aged 40 to 50 years and above

are to be found among adult offenders in general,

offenders formerly on probation and ex-prisoners.

The prison population in particular is ageing. Older

people are entering the system, mainly because of

unpaid fines for traffic offences. In most cases, they

are detained for a few days only. We also see a

sharp decline in the median period of imprisonment.

More than half of the detentions in 2011 and 2012

lasted less than one month, compared with one

quarter of detentions in 2002.

The proportion of offenders born in the Netherlands

is increasing. This applies to adults as well as to

juveniles. For the juvenile detention centre sector,

we also have data concerning the native origin of the

offenders. Approximately 65% of the juveniles

detained are of non-Dutch origin, i.e. at least one

parent was born outside the Netherlands. In 2012,

the last year of the selection period, we see a sudden

rise in the numbers of juveniles of ‘other

non-Western origin’, with parents born in countries such

as Ghana, Somalia and Egypt. However, these are

not large numbers in absolute terms.

There has been a fall in the proportion of first

offenders in all sectors, among both adult and

juvenile offenders. Among ex-prisoners, we also see

a fall in the number of ‘extremely persistent

offenders’, people with at least twenty previous

criminal cases. This probably has to do with the

establishment of the Institution for Repeat Offenders

(ISD). People with a very high risk of recidivism are

detained in special institutions (see Tollenaar, Van

der Laan & Beijersbergen, 2014).

In both juvenile sectors, not only the proportion

of first offenders, but also the age at which the

youngsters first came into contact with the criminal

justice system is decreasing. Both aspects point to

an ‘aggravation’ of the population. The likelihood of

recidivism increases with the number of previous

criminal cases. Moreover, the earlier a person

becomes criminally active, the greater the chance

that he or she will revert to crime later.

Annex 4 shows that the proportion of juvenile

offenders who have been given a community service

order has fallen over the past two years. The high

percentage of discretionary dismissals in 2012 is

striking. Adult perpetrators are most often ordered to

pay a fine (or a fixed penalty imposed by the PPS).

The proportion of prison sentences has fallen over

the years.

The fluctuations in the offender populations are

important because they cause fluctuations in the

level of recidivism. Along with the offenders’

backgrounds, the ‘risk profile’ of offender groups

also changes. For instance, an increase in the

number of women brought to trial will be

accompanied in subsequent years by a fall in

recidivism. The increase in the number of older

offenders also has consequences because the

likelihood of recidivism is usually inversely

proportional to age. Conversely, a fall in the

proportion of first offenders actually forces the

recidivism rates back up.

To compensate for the disruptive influence of

fluctuations on the measured characteristics, it is

possible to adjust the raw reconviction rates using

statistical models. The models used contain six

common characteristics: the offender’s sex, age and

country of birth, the type of offence, the number of

previous criminal proceedings and the age at which

he or she first came into contact with the criminal

justice system. Box 3 explains the models’

structures. The links between these factors and the

likelihood of recidivism is analysed and the results

are used to estimate the influence these fluctuations

have had. The same method is used to check

whether there have been any registration effects.

Between 2000 and 2005, an increasing number of

offences reported to the police were cleared up; after

that, the clear-up rate fluctuated (Heer-De Lange &

Kalidien, 2016). Since the Recidivism Monitor’s study

relates to recorded crime only, the increase of the

clear-up rate automatically boosts reconviction

rates.

7

_{The verification for this effect and the}

influence of possible changes in the willingness to

report crimes takes place on the basis of national

data. Moreover, no distinction is made as regards the

7_{We use the series of figures from Criminaliteit en}

Rechtshandhaving [Criminality and Law Enforcement] 2014.

(6)

Box 3

Adjusting raw reconviction rates

Fluctuations in the composition of the offender groups and potential registration effects make it difficult to keep a clear

perspective on the development of the reconviction rates. That is why the Recidivism Monitor shows adjusted rates as well

as raw ones. The raw figures are corrected by means of a statistical model, a parametric survival model, which is a special

form of regression analysis (Royston, 2001). The model estimates the influence of background characteristics on the

chances of reconviction and calculates whether there are significant registration effects. The raw reconviction rates can be

adjusted with the aid of the models. A separate regression model is created for each of the five offender populations.

Missing values in the background characteristics were imputed using the hot deck method (Brooks & Bailar, 1978) among

the population of the ex-prisoners and in juvenile detention centres using 'regression switching' (Van Buuren et al., 1999).

The models were fitted to one half of the population and validated against the other half ('split-half validation'). In view of

the relatively small number of former inmates of juvenile detention centres, a ‘ten-fold cross validation’ was performed for

this group. The fit for the five models is good. Two years after the imposition of penalties or release from the institution,

the prediction error does not exceed 0.9% in any of the five offender populations. This means that the models provide an

accurate estimate regarding the influence of the factors on the two-year reconviction percentage.

Six common background characteristics were included in the statistical models: the offender’s sex, age and country of

birth, the type of offence, the number of previous criminal cases and the age at which the first criminal case took place.

Among all populations other than juvenile detention centres, the number of previous criminal proceedings for very serious

offences is of additional importance to predicting recidivism. Among the adult offenders, ex-prisoners and offenders on

probation, the number of previously imposed fines also played a (positive) role in predicting recidivism. The type of offence

was ultimately left out of the model for ex-prisoners. The native background could be used instead of the country of birth

in the juvenile detention centre model. The age at which inmates are released proved not to be significant.

Together, the background characteristics included in the models determine the ‘risk profile’ of a cohort within an offender

population. Subsequently, annual clear-up rates and percentages representing the willingness to report crime were added

to the model. In none of the offender populations did the fluctuations in the willingness to report crime turn out to

contribute separately to the recidivism prediction. In this round, this also applied to the clear-up rate. The upward pressure

was not evident in any of the sectors. The recidivism figures therefore did not need to be adjusted for this element.

type of offence. In other words, the necessary

limitations are applied. Nevertheless, the adjusted

figures give a clearer picture of the net development

of the reconviction rates than the raw, unadjusted

percentages.

Adjusted reconviction rates

Figure 2 provides the adjusted rates of general

recidivism in the five offender populations from the

period between 2002 and 2012. The data pertain to

general recidivism two years after the disposal of the

index case or the release from the institution. The

year 2002 was chosen as the starting year for this

period because a package of measures aimed at

reducing recidivism (VbbV, 2010) was introduced in

this year. The impact of this package should be

visible from 2002 onwards.

The adjusted rates show the trends of criminal

recidivism in the five sectors irrespective of the

changes in the background characteristics included in

the model and also irrespective of fluctuations in the

willingness to report a crime and in the clear-up

percentage. The figures are calculated as though the

consecutive cohorts within offender populations

did not differ from each other; the cohorts were

composed in the same way for all the measured

characteristics and therefore had the same risk

profile as the 2012 group.

In addition to the previous measurement (Wartna et

al., 2015), the release years 2011 and 2012 were

added to the study. The adjusted recidivism rates

have fallen further since then. Figure 2 clearly shows

that the prevalence of general recidivism after two

years is lower in all sectors in 2012 than in 2010.

8

(7)

Figure 2 Prevalence of general recidivism after 2 years in 11 consecutive cohorts of five offender

populations; adjusted for fluctuations in their composition

The differences are not large, but they are in line

with the general picture: since 2002, there has been

a virtually continuous fall in recidivism in all sectors

of criminal law studied in the Netherlands.

It was reported in previous Recidivism Reports that

criminal recidivism in the Netherlands had decreased

in multiple sectors. Figure 2 shows that this decline

has continued in most sectors, although the decrease

in recent years is not as strong as it was previously.

Table 2 shows the absolute and relative decrease in

the recidivism percentage for each sector in the

period between 2002 and 2012. The absolute

decrease is the difference between the percentages

in the figure. The relative decrease is calculated by

dividing that difference by the 2002 percentage.

We see the greatest decrease in percentage points in

the prison system sector. In 2012, 47.1% of

ex-prisoners had one or more criminal cases in the

period up to two years after release from the

institution. In 2002, this was 55.3%, an absolute

difference of 8.2 percentage points. In relative

terms, the fall amounts to 14.8% (8.2 divided by

55.3). It is noteworthy that, during the period

between 2002 and 2012, there was a relative fall in

criminal recidivism of 14% to 15% in virtually all

sectors. Only the juvenile detention sector lags

behind, with a relative fall of 5.3%. In 2012, the

population of juveniles released from a juvenile

detention centre still formed roughly 6% of the total

population of sentenced minors (see Table 2). This

group is becoming ever smaller. We expect the

recidivism rate in this sector to start fluctuating more

Table 2

Absolute and relative fall in the prevalence of general recidivism within two years over

the period between 2002 and 2012; by sector

Sector Annual numbers Weight Fall between 2002 and 2012 (%)

Minimum Maximum in 2012 Absolute Relative

Adult offenders 141,381 174,653 1 4.2 14.4

Offenders formerly on probation 24,603 41,830 0.26 5.5 14.0

Ex-prisoners 19,790 35,697 0.20 8.2 14.8

Juvenile offenders 15,747 25,312 1 5.8 15.1

Former inmates of juvenile detention centres 1,585 2,891 0.06 3.2 5.3

(8)

sharply in the years ahead. Smaller populations are

more sensitive to individual variations.

Conclusion: explanation of the figures

What significance can we attach to the figures? In

the past few years, numerous measures have been

put in place to reduce recidivism, both in the juvenile

sector and in respect of adult offenders. Screening

instruments have been developed for risk

assessment and indication, the range of appropriate

behavioural intervention programmes has been

expanded and improvements have been made in the

aftercare provided to prisoners.

9

Is the falling recidivism rate proof of the

effectiveness of those measures? Has the policy

pertaining to the administration of justice actually

resulted in a fall in recidivism in the Netherlands?

Not necessarily, because alongside the impact of

policy plans there are other possible explanations for

the fall in criminal recidivism. The crime rate has

fallen in general, so this could be one reason. It is

also possible, though, that the lower recidivism rates

are the result of changes in the approach taken with

regard to crime by the police and judicial authorities

and in how they record crime.

The Relapse in Recidivism report aims to show the

impact criminal law policy has had on the reduction

of recidivism. After carrying out all the checks that

could be included, the authors conclude that,

although it is plausible that the implementation of

the measures targeted at offenders has played a

role, it is impossible to quantify the extent of that

contribution.

The policy evaluation also revealed that there was a

certain degree of ‘under-implementation’; not all

measures were fully executed within the period in

question. That is why a new, overarching study into

the further elaboration of matters such as the

introduction of the LIJ [National Set of Instruments

for the Juvenile Justice System], the changes in the

probation supervision structure, the ongoing

development of aftercare for ex-prisoners and the

entirety of behavioural intervention programmes

available will start in 2016. The spending cuts in the

Custodial Institutions Agency (DJI) Master Plan for

2013-2018 will also be covered. During 2017,

consideration will be given to the inclusion of the

99_{See inter alia the recidivism letter from the government}

members to the Lower House (DSP, 2008; TK 2007–2008, 24 587, no. 299) and the newsletter of the Aanpak jeugdcriminaliteit [Tackling Juvenile Crime] programme (DJJ, 2008) for an explanation of the measures planned.

findings of this study in a subsequent round of the

Recidivism Monitor.

Literature

Boonmann C., Wartna, B.S.J., Bregman, I.M., Schapers,

C.E., Beijersbergen, K.A. (2015) Recidive na forensische

zorg. Een eerste stap in de ontwikkeling van een

Recidivism Monitor voor de sector Forensische Zorg. The

Hague: WODC. Cahiers 2015-03.

Brooks, C.A. and Bailar, B.A. (1978). An error profile:

employment as measured by the current population

study. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Commerce,

U.S. Government Printing Office. Statistical policy

working paper 3.

Buuren, S. van, Boshuizen, C., & Knook, L. (1999). Multiple

imputation of missing blood pressure covariates in

survival analysis. Statistics in Medicine, 18, 681-694.

DJJ (2008). Aanpak jeugdcriminaliteit: Van beleid naar

uitvoering. The Hague: Ministry of Justice. Tackling

Juvenile Crime Programme newsletter, April 2008.

DSP (2008). Doelstelling: 10%-punt recidivereductie. The

Hague: Ministry of Justice.

Kalidien, S.N. (final editing), Heer-De Lange, N.E. de (final

editing) (2014). Criminaliteit en rechtshandhaving 2015:

Ontwikkelingen en samenhangen. The Hague: Boom

Juridische uitgevers.

Second Rutte Government (2012). Bruggen slaan:

Regeerakkoord VVD - PvdA. Consulted on 20 February

2013:

www.rijksoverheid.nl/regering/regeerakkoord/

veiligheid-en-justitie

Royston, P. (2001). Flexible alternatives to the Cox-model,

and more. The Stata Journal, 1, 1-28.

Tollenaar, N., Laan, A.M. van der, Beijersbergen, K.A.

(2014). Korte- en langetermijneffecten van de

ISD-maatregel. The Hague: WODC. Fact sheets 2014-03.

VbbV (2007). VerantwoordingVeiligheid begint bij

Voorkomen: Voortbouwen aan een veiliger samenleving.

The Hague: Ministry of Justice/Ministry of the Interior

and Kingdom Relations.

VbbV (2010). Veiligheid begint bij Voorkomen: Tastbare

resultaten en een vooruitblik. The Hague: Ministry of

Justice/Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations.

Wartna, B.S.J. (2009). In de oude fout. Over het meten van

recidive en het vaststellen van het succes van

strafrechtelijke interventies. The Hague: Boom Juridische

uitgevers, WODC.

Wartna, B.S.J., Tollenaar, N., Verweij, S., Timmermans, M.,

Witvliet, M., Homburg, G.H.J. (2015). Terugval in

recidive. Exploratie van de daling in de recidivecijfers

van jeugdigen en ex-gedetineerden bestraft in de

periode 2002-2010. The Hague: WODC/Regional plan.

(9)

Annex 1

Background characteristics of adult offenders sanctioned by court or the PPS, by year

of disposal *

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 148,770 169,815 171,746 172,496 174,653 170,455 163,754 167,388 141,386 145,017 147,887 Sex Male 85.4 85.4 85.2 84.8 84.3 82.9 82.4 82.6 81.7 81.1 81.2 Female 14.5 14.5 14.6 15.0 15.5 17.0 17.5 17.3 18.2 18.9 18.8 Age 12-17 years 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 18-24 years 25.0 24.9 25.6 25.7 26.0 26.9 27.4 27.6 27.9 27.9 27.7 25-29 years 15.1 14.5 13.9 13.8 13.9 14.0 14.1 14.6 14.8 14.8 15.2 30-39 years 28.1 27.9 27.2 26.3 25.5 24.3 23.6 23.1 22.5 21.9 21.5 40-49 years 17.7 18.2 18.6 19.2 19.4 19.3 19.4 19.2 19.1 19.2 19.0 50 years or above 13.3 13.8 14.0 14.4 14.7 15.2 15.1 15.1 15.5 15.9 16.1 Country of birth The Netherlands 67.3 67.1 68.3 69.6 70.2 71.1 70.5 70.2 69.4 69.1 69.4 Morocco 3.5 3.6 3.5 3.4 3.1 2.8 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.7 2.5 Netherlands Antilles/Aruba 3.6 3.7 3.4 3.1 2.8 2.7 2.7 2.8 2.9 2.9 3.0 Suriname 4.2 4.2 4.6 4.5 4.4 3.8 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.8 3.5 Turkey 3.0 3.2 3.1 2.9 2.9 2.8 2.7 2.8 2.6 2.6 2.4

Other Western countries 9.9 9.2 8.8 8.5 8.7 8.7 9.0 9.3 10.0 10.3 10.7 Other non-Western

countries 8.1 8.3 7.7 7.3 7.2 7.2 7.3 7.4 7.5 7.9 7.6

Type of offence

Public order offences** 11.9 12.6 13.6 14.0 14.4 14.6 15.4 14.2 14.6 14.9 16.0 Property offences

(non-violent) 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.8

Violent property offences 1.7 1.5 1.5 1.4 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.3 1.2 1.3 Violent offences 25.2 24.0 23.1 22.5 22.7 21.4 22.4 21.3 23.7 24.9 25.1 Sexual offences 9.9 9.5 10.0 10.1 10.0 10.3 10.7 9.3 9.3 8.9 8.8 Drug offences 6.5 6.5 7.4 6.8 6.8 6.3 6.6 5.8 5.9 5.6 6.1 Traffic offences WVW94

[Road Traffic Act 1994] 29.8 30.6 29.3 29.9 29.8 29.4 26.6 32.3 27.3 25.1 25.6 Other 13.6 14.0 13.8 13.7 13.5 15.5 15.7 14.7 16.0 17.4 15.4

Type of disposal

Imprisonment <=6

months 9.5 9.2 8.3 7.7 7.0 6.7 6.7 6.1 6.8 6.5 6.7

Imprisonment >6 months 4.2 3.9 3.7 3.4 3.0 2.8 2.9 2.5 3.0 2.7 2.5 Community service order 13.6 14.3 15.4 17.3 18.3 18.2 19.1 18.4 18.7 17.4 17.7 Training order 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.5 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.1 Conditional imprisonment 4.2 3.7 3.1 2.8 2.5 2.2 2.1 1.9 2.0 1.9 1.9 Fine 58.2 58.4 59.2 58.9 58.9 60.7 59.0 60.9 59.4 59.2 55.8 Discretionary dismissal 6.2 5.8 6.1 5.4 4.8 4.6 5.1 5.5 6.0 9.6 12.5 Criminal history 0 previous contacts 41.3 40.9 40.4 39.4 39.5 41.0 40.6 39.4 39.0 39.7 39.0 1-2 previous contacts 25.4 25.8 26.1 26.7 26.7 26.0 25.5 26.3 25.4 25.2 25.2 3-4 previous contacts 10.6 10.7 10.9 11.2 11.1 11.0 11.0 11.5 11.4 11.2 11.6 5-10 previous contacts 11.8 11.9 12.1 12.2 12.5 12.2 12.6 12.8 13.5 13.3 13.5 11-19 previous contacts 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.4 5.3 5.2 5.5 5.3 5.8 5.8 5.8 20 or more previous contacts 5.6 5.4 5.3 5.1 4.9 4.7 4.8 4.7 4.9 4.9 4.9

Age at first criminal case

12-17 years 19.5 19.8 20.3 20.9 21.2 20.9 21.7 22.0 23.3 23.3 23.7 18-24 years 32.5 32.4 32.8 32.8 32.9 33.1 32.8 33.4 32.7 32.7 32.6 25-29 years 13.2 13.0 12.5 12.4 12.2 12.0 11.9 11.9 11.7 11.6 11.6 30-39 years 17.6 17.3 17.2 16.6 16.3 15.8 15.5 15.2 14.7 14.2 13.9 40-49 years 9.4 9.4 9.4 9.4 9.6 9.8 9.8 9.5 9.4 9.6 9.6 50 years or above 7.2 7.3 7.3 7.4 7.4 8.1 7.8 7.6 7.8 8.3 8.3 Owing to missing values, the column percentages do not always add up to 100%.

(10)

Annex 2

Background characteristics of offenders formerly on probation, by year of disposal*

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 24,603 31,804 33,416 38,537 41,534 41,752 41,830 41,593 39,128 36,304 38,589 Sex Male 86.3 85.8 86.0 85.7 85.9 86.2 86.4 86.7 87.5 86.5 86.2 Female 13.7 14.2 14.0 14.3 14.1 13.8 13.6 13.3 14.0 13.5 13.8 Age on release up to 20 years 5.3 5.3 5.6 5.9 5.2 5.2 4.9 4.7 4.3 4.0 3.6 20-24 years 21.0 21.4 20.9 20.9 21.0 21.2 21.5 21.3 21.8 21.7 21.5 25-29 years 15.3 15.3 14.9 14.7 14.9 14.7 14.8 15.2 16.3 16.0 16.3 30-39 years 31.0 29.4 28.4 28.0 26.8 26.7 25.6 25.3 25.0 23.8 23.7 40-49 years 17.2 17.5 19.1 19.1 20.1 20.2 20.7 21.1 21.4 21.5 21.2 50 years or above 9.6 10.5 10.4 10.7 11.3 11.4 12.1 11.9 12.2 12.7 13.3 Country of birth The Netherlands 71.6 71.0 71.6 71.9 72.5 72.8 73.8 74.0 74.3 72.9 73.2 Morocco 4.3 4.4 4.4 4.2 4.2 4.2 3.8 3.6 3.8 3.7 3.6 Netherlands Antilles/Aruba 4.4 5.0 4.9 4.7 4.4 4.1 4.1 4.2 4.5 4.5 4.5 Suriname 5.7 5.1 5.5 5.4 5.4 5.4 5.1 4.6 4.9 4.9 4.7 Turkey 3.0 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.4 3.4 3.3 3.1 3.0 2.9 2.7

Other Western countries 4.8 4.7 4.3 4.4 4.2 4.3 4.3 4.5 4.6 4.6 4.8 Other non-Western countries 6.1 6.5 6.0 6.0 5.8 5.7 5.7 6.0 6.3 6.3 6.3

Type of offence

(non-violent) 25.6 34.7 33.6 32.4 31.8 32.1 31.0 29.2 30.3 29.8 30.2 Violent property offences 3.4 3.7 3.6 3.2 3.1 3.1 3.0 2.8 3.1 3.2 3.7 Violent offences 10.5 16.4 19.1 19.6 21.1 22.7 24.6 26.3 27.5 27.0 25.8 Sexual offences 1.6 2.8 2.8 2.4 2.4 2.3 2.4 2.1 2.3 2.0 2.0 Drug offences 6.2 9.6 10.4 10.4 10.6 9.9 8.9 8.3 8.0 7.7 7.5 Traffic offences WVW94 (including contraventions) 6.2 10.5 10.5 10.9 10.7 10.5 10.0 10.7 10.4 9.5 8.7 Other (including contraventions) 2.4 3.8 3.4 3.4 3.0 2.6 2.7 2.9 2.9 3.5 3.5 Criminal history 0 previous contacts 10.5 21.6 21.2 21.2 20.2 19.4 19.0 17.8 17.2 15.9 15.5 1-2 previous contacts 31.2 25.6 25.4 25.4 25.7 24.9 23.8 23.9 23.7 22.2 22.3 3-4 previous contacts 15.6 14.5 14.9 14.8 15.1 14.9 15.3 15.2 15.6 15.6 15.2 5-10 previous contacts 21.6 19.7 20.1 20.5 20.8 21.4 22.1 22.7 23.5 23.7 23.5 11-19 previous contacts 10.7 9.7 9.7 9.6 9.5 10.3 10.3 10.8 11.6 12.2 12.4 20 or more previous contacts 10.5 9.0 8.8 8.4 8.8 9.1 9.7 9.6 9.9 10.5 11.1

12-17 years 32.7 31.6 32.1 32.2 33.0 34.4 34.9 36.2 37.8 38.7 39.5 18-24 years 34.0 33.4 33.4 34.0 33.2 32.9 32.8 32.4 32.5 31.8 31.1 25-29 years 10.6 11.0 11.2 10.6 10.7 10.1 10.0 9.7 9.7 9.3 9.4 30-39 years 13.0 13.3 12.4 12.7 12.4 12.0 11.6 11.3 11.3 10.3 9.8 40-49 years 5.6 6.0 6.2 5.9 6.3 6.2 6.2 6.3 6.1 5.9 5.8 50 years or above 3.3 3.8 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.6 3.8 3.5 3.3 3.4 3.8 Probation product Supervision order 18.1 17.0 17.6 17.6 19.5 20.2 22.2 23.5 25.1 26.7 27.1 Community service order 81.9 83.0 82.4 82.4 80.5 79.8 77.8 76.5 76.4 73.3 72.9 Owing to missing values, the column percentages do not always add up to 100%.

(11)

Annex 3

Background characteristics of adult detainees, by year of release*

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 19,790 23,042 28,351 35,697 35,691 34,007 32,170 30,888 30,656 31,273 30,186 Sex Male 93.2 88.5 89.9 91.6 91.1 91.4 91.0 91.5 91.6 91.4 91.8 Female 6.8 11.5 10.1 8.4 8.9 8.6 9.0 8.5 8.4 8.6 8.2 Age on release up to 20 years 5.4 5.3 4.9 4.3 4.6 5.1 4.8 5.1 5.1 5.1 4.8 20-24 years 19.0 18.3 18.2 18.0 17.7 18.2 18.1 18.6 18.9 18.9 18.6 25-29 years 18.1 17.6 16.3 16.0 15.8 16.1 16.4 17.0 17.0 16.6 17.0 30-39 years 34.6 34.4 33.4 31.9 31.0 29.1 29.1 27.9 27.1 26.7 26.4 40-49 years 17.1 18.3 19.7 21.3 21.5 21.8 21.6 21.4 21.1 21.3 21.3 50+ 5.8 6.2 7.4 8.5 9.4 9.6 10.0 10.0 10.7 11.3 11.8 Country of birth The Netherlands 50.5 49.7 53.7 56.8 58.8 57.8 58.4 59.1 58.5 58.9 59.0 Morocco 8.1 7.4 6.9 6.8 6.3 6.1 5.6 5.2 5.1 4.6 4.8 Netherlands Antilles/Aruba 8.7 10.6 9.4 8.0 7.2 6.7 6.8 6.8 6.6 6.7 7.0 Suriname 8.5 8.2 8.7 8.5 8.0 7.6 7.3 6.8 6.7 6.2 5.7 Turkey 3.3 3.2 3.2 3.3 3.2 3.1 2.8 2.7 2.6 2.5 2.5

Type of offence

Public order offences** 6.6 5.7 6.7 7.3 7.1 7.4 7.1 7.0 6.9 6.1 6.1 Property offences (non-violent) 12.8 11.6 10.3 8.3 7.4 7.0 6.7 6.8 6.7 7.4 7.5 Violent property offences 34.9 34.1 34.2 32.9 30.3 28.6 29.2 29.1 29.5 29.5 29.9 Violent offences 14.2 13.9 13.9 15.5 15.5 15.5 15.9 15.5 15.3 15.2 13.9

Sexual offences 2.9 2.7 2.7 2.0 2.1 2.1 1.9 1.6 1.7 1.6 1.4

Drug offences 17.1 20.0 16.7 12.9 12.0 11.6 11.2 10.6 10.6 9.7 9.7 Traffic offences WVW94 (including

contraventions) 4.1 4.4 7.2 10.1 12.0 12.5 13.0 13.2 13.1 11.3 9.7 Others (including contraventions) 2.5 3.0 3.2 4.7 5.6 6.4 6.5 6.4 6.6 6.0 5.7 Unknown/not sanctioned by court

or PPS 4.4 3.8 4.4 5.6 7.3 8.3 8.2 9.4 9.3 12.8 15.8 Criminal history 0 previous contacts 18.3 19.7 14.9 11.9 11.9 12.5 12.4 12.5 13.1 13.0 12.4 1-2 previous contacts 14.7 15.8 17.5 17.6 17.7 17.5 16.8 16.8 16.5 16.8 16.1 3-4 previous contacts 10.3 10.8 12.1 13.2 13.1 13.5 13.1 13.1 13.4 13.4 13.4 5-10 previous contacts 19.8 19.3 20.7 23.1 23.7 23.5 24.0 24.5 24.2 24.6 25.1 11-19 previous contacts 13.8 13.3 14.2 14.5 14.8 14.6 15.3 15.3 15.6 15.6 15.9 20 or more previous contacts 23.1 21.1 20.6 19.6 18.7 18.4 18.3 17.8 17.3 16.7 17.1

12-17 years 39.2 36.9 38.6 39.5 40.1 40.7 41.1 42.0 42.4 42.7 42.9 18-24 years 31.4 31.8 32.1 32.4 31.3 30.8 30.5 30.5 30.1 29.5 29.6 25-29 years 11.8 12.2 11.3 10.9 10.8 10.8 10.4 10.2 9.9 9.9 9.8 30-39 years 11.9 12.8 11.9 11.4 11.6 11.4 11.5 10.6 11.0 11.1 11.0 40-49 years 3.8 4.4 4.2 4.1 4.2 4.5 4.6 4.6 4.5 4.5 4.4 50 years or above 1.4 1.6 1.6 1.4 1.7 1.6 1.7 1.9 1.9 2.0 2.0 Length of confinement up to 1 month 25.7 28.8 32.8 38.7 44.3 46.8 47.6 49.6 49.6 50.3 51.2 1 to 3 months 25.9 24.5 25.3 25.7 23.7 22.5 22.9 22.5 22.0 21.4 20.2 3 to 6 months 20.3 20.3 17.8 15.3 13.8 13.0 12.9 12.2 12.5 12.7 12.6 6 months to 1 year 18.0 16.9 15.2 12.9 10.9 10.3 9.3 8.1 8.1 7.9 8.0 1 year or more 10.2 9.4 8.9 7.4 7.3 7.3 7.3 7.6 7.8 7.7 7.9

Owing to missing values, the column percentages do not always add up to 100%.

(12)

Annex 4

Background characteristics of juvenile offenders sanctioned by court or the PPS, by

year of release*

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 20,350 21,483 23,070 23,915 24,249 25,312 24,797 21,772 18,358 17,070 15,747 Sex

Male 83.3 82.9 83.2 82.5 82.1 81.3 81.0 80.9 81.4 81.0 80.8 Female 16.6 17.0 16.8 17.4 17.9 18.7 19.0 19.0 18.5 19.0 19.1 Age 12 years 2.6 3.0 2.9 2.7 2.9 3.0 2.8 2.6 2.2 2.1 2.1 13 years 7.8 7.3 7.9 8.5 8.2 8.2 8.1 7.5 6.9 6.8 7.5 14 years 13.9 13.8 14.3 15.0 15.0 14.6 14.9 14.4 13.4 13.3 13.7 15 years 20.2 19.4 19.8 19.7 20.0 20.4 19.7 19.4 19.2 19.1 19.5 16 years 23.6 23.8 23.4 23.9 24.1 24.4 23.8 24.2 24.7 24.4 23.8 17 years 31.8 32.4 31.5 30.1 29.7 29.3 30.5 31.8 33.5 34.3 33.3 Country of birth The Netherlands 79.5 81.3 82.7 84.2 85.1 86.8 87.1 87.6 87.3 87.3 87.4 Morocco 2.9 2.4 2.1 1.8 1.6 1.2 1.0 0.9 1.0 0.9 0.9 Netherlands Antilles/Aruba 3.0 2.7 2.3 2.4 1.9 1.7 1.8 1.6 1.8 1.8 1.7 Suriname 1.6 1.4 1.2 1.0 1.2 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.7 Turkey 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5

Other Western countries 4.4 4.1 3.8 3.8 3.6 3.3 3.3 3.5 3.6 3.8 4.0 Other non-Western

countries 7.5 6.9 6.7 5.9 5.5 5.2 5.1 5.0 4.8 4.9 4.7

Type of offence

(non-violent) 37.5 35.5 35.7 33.9 34.4 32.2 31.8 33.6 33.9 32.2 30.8 Violent property offences 6.8 5.7 5.3 4.8 4.4 4.3 3.6 3.6 4.5 5.1 6.1 Violent offences 14.6 15.2 15.8 17.0 17.1 17.0 18.0 17.6 18.0 18.3 19.9 Sexual offences 2.5 2.2 2.0 2.1 1.7 1.4 1.3 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.0 Drug offences 1.6 1.6 1.7 2.0 1.8 1.9 1.5 1.7 1.4 1.9 2.0 Traffic offences WVW94 3.3 3.3 3.4 3.4 3.6 4.2 4.5 6.0 5.9 5.1 4.6 Other 6.3 8.8 7.0 7.5 7.7 9.0 9.1 10.2 10.8 13.3 14.3 Type of disposal Imprisonment <=6 months 6.9 6.5 6.1 6.5 5.8 5.4 4.6 4.3 4.7 4.8 4.8 Imprisonment >6 months 1.2 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.6 0.7 0.5 Community service order 45.7 50.3 55.7 56.4 58.0 59.5 61.4 63.0 62.8 57.9 53.2 Training order 17.8 13.4 12.1 12.2 12.5 10.7 9.9 8.0 6.6 5.9 6.1 Conditional imprisonment 3.5 3.8 3.4 2.6 1.9 1.6 1.4 1.1 0.9 0.7 0.7 Fine 10.1 11.6 9.5 9.6 10.2 11.4 10.9 11.6 12.2 16.2 13.5 Discretionary dismissal 11.2 9.8 8.9 7.6 6.8 7.0 7.6 7.1 7.2 9.3 16.5 Criminal history 0 previous contacts 72.1 71.8 71.3 70.6 68.6 68.2 67.3 66.5 65.7 67.5 68.1 1-2 previous contacts 21.6 21.6 22.2 23.1 24.5 24.4 24.8 25.0 25.1 24.1 23.7 3-4 previous contacts 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.4 4.8 5.0 5.3 5.6 5.9 5.7 5.5 5-10 previous contacts 1.9 2.0 1.9 1.9 2.0 2.2 2.5 2.7 3.1 2.6 2.7 11 or more previous contacts 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1

12 years 5.1 5.6 5.8 5.6 5.9 6.3 6.4 6.4 6.5 6.3 6.2 13 years 13.0 12.6 12.9 13.7 14.1 14.1 14.3 14.3 14.0 13.4 14.1 14 years 18.4 18.5 19.3 19.8 19.8 19.8 20.5 20.6 19.6 19.9 19.7 15 years 21.4 20.7 21.2 21.3 21.3 21.3 20.8 20.5 20.4 20.1 20.8 16 years 20.4 20.6 20.2 20.1 20.1 20.3 19.2 19.0 19.5 19.5 18.9 17 years 21.3 21.7 20.6 19.4 18.7 18.1 18.7 19.1 19.9 20.8 20.2

(13)

Annex 5

Background characteristics of inmates of juvenile detention centres, by year of

release*

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2,363 2,526 2,774 2,891 2,726 2,536 2,130 2,001 2,033 1,777 1,585 Sex Male 93.5 92.4 92.6 93.7 93.1 92.0 91.9 92.6 93.9 94.4 95.5 Female 6.5 7.6 7.4 6.3 6.9 8.0 8.1 7.4 6.1 5.6 4.5 Age on release 15 years or below 29.4 26.6 28.9 29.2 27.8 29.9 26.2 23.3 18.2 20.0 20.3 16 to 18 years 51.6 50.5 50.6 52.1 51.9 52.4 52.4 55.7 59.1 57.3 57.9 18 years or above 19.0 22.9 20.5 18.8 20.4 17.6 21.4 20.9 22.6 22.6 21.8 Country of birth The Netherlands 67.1 69.4 72.7 75.3 75.1 78.7 79.7 79.5 77.2 80.6 80.8 Morocco 7.2 6.1 5.1 4.3 4.8 3.2 2.4 2.3 2.7 2.0 2.0 Netherlands Antilles/Aruba 5.3 5.2 4.6 4.4 3.8 3.4 3.8 3.0 4.0 3.2 3.1 Suriname 3.8 3.4 2.9 2.5 2.5 1.9 2.1 2.1 1.4 1.4 0.8 Turkey 1.1 1.4 1.2 1.2 1.5 0.9 0.7 0.9 1.1 1.0 0.9

Ethnicity The Netherlands 32.8 34.2 39.7 40.0 41.0 45.5 42.2 42.1 40.3 40.2 34.2 Morocco 22.4 22.2 20.9 19.5 20.5 18.1 19.8 18.8 19.2 19.0 20.1 Netherlands Antilles/Aruba 6.9 6.8 6.3 6.3 5.9 5.4 7.1 6.2 6.7 5.9 6.0 Suriname 12.1 11.0 9.8 8.9 8.7 8.3 7.9 8.6 7.1 8.5 7.3 Turkey 4.8 5.7 5.6 6.5 6.8 5.8 6.0 5.9 7.7 7.2 8.5

Type of offence

(non-violent) 26.5 29.8 28.8 28.9 31.1 31.2 30.1 27.8 26.4 24.4 26.4 Violent property offences 36.5 29.9 30.7 29.2 28.5 26.8 28.1 29.1 33.1 37.1 40.8 Violent offences 10.2 12.5 12.4 13.2 13.0 15.1 14.8 13.9 14.0 16.2 11.5

Sexual offences 4.6 2.7 5.5 4.1 4.6 3.4 3.9 3.5 4.2 3.5 3.1

Other (incl. violations) 5.2 4.8 4.7 4.2 4.0 6.1 5.2 7.0 6.8 6.7 7.4

Unknown 7.4 8.1 6.3 6.4 5.7 4.5 5.0 7.2 4.0 3.8 1.8 Criminal history 0 previous contacts 36.5 35.4 34.4 31.5 27.3 27.3 24.9 25.1 26.5 26.8 25.6 1-2 previous contacts 33.7 33.5 36.0 35.7 34.9 34.9 35.8 34.0 32.4 32.2 33.9 3-4 previous contacts 14.8 16.9 16.4 17.6 21.1 20.5 20.7 22.2 20.0 21.2 20.8 5-10 previous contacts 13.3 12.5 12.1 13.8 15.4 16.1 17.3 17.3 19.7 18.0 18.3 11 or more previous contacts 1.7 1.7 1.1 1.4 1.4 1.1 1.3 1.4 1.4 1.7 1.5

15 years or below 67.8 65.0 68.9 70.6 71.1 74.5 76.0 73.9 71.9 70.6 72.8 16 to 18 years 28.7 29.9 27.5 26.8 25.7 23.1 21.4 23.0 24.2 26.0 24.3 18 years or above 3.5 4.9 3.5 2.6 3.2 2.4 2.6 2.9 3.7 3.3 2.8 Length of confinement 1 to 14 days 23.3 28.1 25.8 28.3 30.4 30.6 31.2 32.8 33.0 32.7 29.6 14 to 30 days 11.0 11.5 14.5 14.5 13.5 15.2 14.5 12.7 13.5 13.1 14.3 31 to 60 days 18.6 20.1 19.0 19.4 19.5 18.9 17.7 19.5 19.1 17.4 18.6 61 days to 3 months 11.3 10.3 11.1 10.1 9.8 9.5 7.5 9.8 8.6 9.1 10.8 3 to 6 months 19.5 15.8 16.4 15.9 12.2 13.8 12.3 12.1 11.7 12.6 11.9 6 to 12 months 9.0 7.1 6.5 5.9 6.3 4.9 5.6 3.8 5.2 5.9 6.6 from 12 months 7.3 7.2 6.6 5.9 8.3 7.0 11.3 9.2 9.0 9.2 8.2 Type of confinement Pre-trial detention 67.3 68.3 68.5 69.4 70.6 68.9 69.3 69.5 69.0 70.6 71.5 Juvenile detention 26.5 25.0 26.1 25.6 23.6 25.4 20.3 22.5 22.9 22.0 22.0 Criminal measure 6.1 6.7 5.4 5.0 5.8 5.7 10.3 8.0 8.1 7.4 6.4

(14)

This series offers concise reports of research conducted by or on behalf of the WODC. Inclusion in the

series does not mean that the contents reflect the point of view of the Dutch Minister of Security and

Justice.

All WODC reports can be downloaded free of charge at www.wodc.nl (in English: english.wodc.nl).

This site grants access to REPRIS, a web application that allows selections to be made from the

Recidivism Monitor figures. REPRIS contains statistics with regard to the offender groups being

monitored (juvenile and adult offenders sanctioned by court or the PPS, ex-prisoners, former inmates of

juvenile detention centres, offenders formerly on probation and former patients of the Forensic

Psychiatric Centre) as well as offender groups for whom criminal recidivism was measured on a one-off

basis. A printout from REPRIS is accompanied by an explanation, but the WODC cannot be held