Data Insight: Enforced alcohol abstinence: does it reduce reoffending?

This Data Insight draws on Ministry of Justice Data First magistrates’ courts and probation datasets to examine how alcohol-treatment and monitoring requirements are used and whether they reduce reoffending.  

Read publication

This project separately assessed the impact of alcohol abstinence monitoring requirements and alcohol treatment requirements on likelihood of reoffending. It used a formal measure of successful completion of a requirement and a further three proxy outcome measures of reoffending. 

The proxy reoffending outcomes comprised: 

• a measure of whether individuals reappeared before the magistrates’ courts for a further offence following a referral to probation 
• the number of such reappearances
• the time (in days) elapsed until any such reappearance.

Successful completion of both abstinence and treatment requirements was, on average, less likely for those serving community sentences for theft offences (compared to other offences). 

Statistical models controlling for characteristics such as age, sex, ethnicity, deprivation and offence type yielded mixed results as to the impact of abstinence and treatment requirements. They offered evidence that abstinence requirements reduced the likelihood of reoffending, but no evidence that treatment requirements did similarly.

What I found

Alcohol abstinence monitoring requirements:

• Three in four abstinence requirements (78.1%) were successfully completed 
• They tend to be used for sentencing of minor offences 
• Successful completion is less likely for those with sentences for theft offences 
• Offenders with an abstinence requirement are less likely to reoffend.

Alcohol treatment requirements:

• Two thirds (68.2%) of treatement requirements were successfully completed 
• They tend to be used for sentencing of minor offences, as well as theft and violence  
• Rates of completion of a treatment requirements vary across offenders’ characteristics 
• Offenders with treatment requirements were more likely to reoffend.

Why it matters

This study represents the first of its kind to make use of large scale linked magistrates’ courts and probation data, together with four success measures, to assess formal and substantive compliance with alcohol requirements. It is also the first to consider both treatment and abstinence requirements in the same study, encouraging reflection on the purposes of these court-enforced alcohol interventions. Its findings are of particular importance, indicating limited support for these interventions to curb reoffending.  

Statistical models, controlling for age, sex, ethnicity, and area level deprivation, as well as offence type, yielded mixed results as to the impact of abstinence and treatment requirements. They offered evidence that abstinence requirements reduced the likelihood of reoffending, but no evidence that treatment requirements did similarly.  

This project contributes to our understanding of how to effectively respond to alcohol-related crime. It provides insights into the efficacy of court-enforced alcohol orders for reducing reoffending. The findings, which offer no evidence of a protective effect of treatment requirements on reoffending, encourage reflection on the purposes of this intervention, as their continuation based on a defence of curbing reoffending is weak. However, ‘effectiveness’ may be assessed in myriad ways, so harm reduction, healthier drinking patterns, or other wellbeing or lifestyle factors may be viable rationales for their continuation. Nevertheless, abstinence requirements were identified as having a protective effect on both the likelihood and frequency of reappearing before the court. Despite the initial appeal of these results being cited as evidence for the continued use of abstinence requirements, more research is needed into the conditions and for what type of drinkers these are most effective. 

Those serving sentences for theft offences were, on average, less likely to complete their alcohol requirements. This acquisitive crime profile might be indicative of behaviour used to fund entrenched alcohol use or dependence, or of other factors relating to means (income) or homelessness. These would benefit from investigation. Further research to explore the use of alcohol requirements in such circumstances is thus encouraged.