Reoffending statistics show we are failing on crime

Innovative local community-based solutions are crucial in addressing inequality and disadvantage that are common causes of reoffending. File photo

In November, the Central Statistics Office released statistics on reoffending by detected incidents in 2024. 

Overall, 61% of detected crime incidents in 2024 involved suspects with a history of offending. In other words, 61% of detected crime in 2024 was committed by people who had already been in contact with the criminal justice system. 

Such statistics on reoffending are not unique to Ireland and evidence from other countries show a similar pattern, with a small number of people being accountable for a large proportion of (certain) offences. Do these figures suggest that the criminal justice system is failing in supporting people to move away from crime? 

Or is it more accurate to say that State responses to welfare and crime are failing? There are many valuable insights written on the root causes of reoffending, the criminal justice system and chronic conditions in overcrowded Irish prisons. Given this, it is also worth mentioning some innovative responses to reoffending, a lot of which lie beyond the traditional criminal justice system.

Mary's story

In my own work, the following story is shared all too often. Mary* grew up in a community with a high crime rate and high levels of deprivation. Her contact with the criminal justice system started at a young age when in primary school and saw Mary experiment with substance use and shoplifting. 

This was the start of a journey in and out of prison throughout her teenage years and then into adulthood. 

Explanations for the cycle of criminality include a physical dependency on substances, the perception that prison is a break from the chaos of using drugs, going back to the same environment when released from prison where nothing has changed except your criminal record status and a deepening feeling of resignation, homelessness, difficulty accessing treatment and difficulty accessing employment.

Explanations

Some of these explanations are reflected in the reoffending statistics released in November. For example, the Dublin Metropolitan Region had the highest percentage of reoffending incidents in 2024, suggesting a link between reoffending and deprivation. 

According to Pobal (2022), areas near the centre of cities like Dublin, Limerick, Cork and Waterford, as well as the suburbs of north and west Dublin, are some of the most deprived areas in the country. They are also areas that have not seen improvement in deprivation levels since 2016 suggesting that the deprivation gap has widened and the disparity between those with and without access to resources has grown. 

Wider economic and social policies can sustain disadvantage, inequality and crime over time. This means that in certain areas, cycles of poverty, limited education, poor health and lack of opportunity are generational.

835 people (11.5%) committed to Irish prisons in 2024 declared being of no fixed abode. This is likely an underestimate as people may declare a homeless shelter as their address or not declare any address when imprisoned (for context, a total of 16,614 people are homeless and relying on emergency accommodation in Ireland today). 

Relatedly, similar to Mary’s story, many people leaving prison present at homeless accommodation immediately after. This means people are likely returning to the community without stability in their lives. Evidence shows that homelessness is generally beyond an individual’s control and therefore limits a person’s ability to build a stable life outside of prison. 

Homelessness also limits a person’s ability to move away from substance use (given high levels of substance use in homeless hostels) and to move away from crime.

Disadvantage is important in understanding reoffending as it points to social exclusion as a key factor influencing reoffending. In a criminal justice context, social exclusion stems from education status, unemployment, drug and alcohol misuse, mental and physical health, attitudes and self-control, institutionalisation and a lack of life skills, housing, financial support and family networks. 

Many people in contact with the criminal justice system have experienced social exclusion in all or many of the above ways. This is important because it means that the State can have a meaningful impact on crime rates by investing in social policy and welfare.

Innovative solutions

Innovative local community-based solutions are crucial in addressing inequality and disadvantage that are common causes of reoffending. 

Research in Scotland showed that investing 10% of the spending on responses to crime could reduce violence by 50% or more over time. Scotland adopted a public health approach to reducing violence which is the subject of a recently published book which examined this approach in England and Wales. 

This shows that a holistic public health approach to violence prevention can significantly and consistently lower levels of violence in society by investing in tackling inequalities in society (such as disadvantage and homelessness), access to institutions and social infrastructure (e.g. education and welfare), increased interventions (e.g. counselling) and interactions (e.g. relationships with family).

More widely, social justice approaches can address the causes of social exclusion that have been listed in this piece. For example, research shows that a significant predictor of reoffending is having a criminal record. Limited Spent Conviction legislation in Ireland only considers certain convictions to become spent after a period of seven years and only applies to minor offences. 

In contrast, evidence shows that a strengths-based disclosure model that offers peer support and mentorship to people who have had contact with the criminal justice system can reduce stigma and rejection from education or the workplace. This links to social enterprise strategies that acknowledges that people in education or employment are less likely to commit crime.

Meghan Coghlan: 'Emphasising a social policy response to crime can support those who are most vulnerable in society.'

Homelessness is an important social exclusion factor that significantly affects those who have been in contact with the criminal justice system. The State’s Housing First policy has had success in combatting homelessness with an 86% success rate. This policy provides housing with wraparound support for mental health and/or alcohol and substance use for adults who have been homeless for a long period of time. 

However, these types of policies are being undermined by the shortage in available housing units. For every home provided under Housing First, three new adults become homeless. It is essential that funding for this policy is continued and expanded.

Unfortunately, people leaving prison with no fixed abode, with no family support and with substance misuse problems must often first present to emergency accommodation. The State relies on charitable and non-governmental organisations to provide a lot of accommodation, residential treatment and recovery services which remain underfunded. 

Urgent and rapid state investment in social housing provisions is vital to ensure more stability for those who lack access to the housing market. Programmes like Housing First cannot work effectively if the supply of housing cannot keep up with the demand for housing.

To understand reoffending figures, we need to challenge the assumption that certain groups of people are more deviant than others and explore State responses to welfare and crime. Research has shown that public health and harm reduction measures can have a preventative effect on crime. 

Social policy response

Emphasising a social policy response to crime can support those who are most vulnerable in society. To do this, it is crucial that essential frontline services provided by the charitable and non-governmental sector are funded appropriately. 

The State must also stop relying on the private market for housing and reinvest in social housing provision. Ultimately, tackling disadvantage and social exclusion is likely the most effective long-term strategy for addressing factors that lead to reoffending.

*name changed

• Megan Coghlan is assistant professor in Criminology at Maynooth University School of Law and Criminology