NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED Integrated Offender Management: A Multiagency Desistance Programme C/Supt Andy Williams MStBarak Ariel PhD

NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED Evidence Based Practice – necessity Theory History & Evaluation Bristol IOM Does it work? To Cover

EBP – A Necessity? (timing has never been better/worse!) NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

Theory Life Course Desistance (Glueck & Glueck, 1930; Sampson & Laub, 1993; West & Farrington, 1977) Defiance, Deterrence and Irrelevance (Sherman, 1993) (Offender Desistance Policing (Sherman and Neyroud, 2012) NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

Research Desistance Studies (Liverpool & Sheffield) –Re-integration –Procedural Fairness –Compliance Historical research of Intensive Supervision NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

Research of IOM Home Office policy launch 2009 p.9 “No specific impact evaluation of IOM” London Diamond Project (Dawson et al, 2011) Process Evaluation of 5 Pilots (Senior et al, 2011) Limited quantitative data / Limited evidence NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

What is Bristol IOM? NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

Carrot and Stick + No Choice NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

IOM Started in 2009 Co-located multiagency – Police, Prisons, Probation & CJIT Selection / Supervision / Surveillance No Choice (expect defiance?) Fast-track Pathways treatment NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

Pathways – Criminogenic Need Accommodation Alcohol Attitudes, Thinking and Behaviour Children, Family of Offenders Drugs Employment, Training and Education Finance, Budgets and Debt Mental and Physical Health NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

RESEARCH – DOES IT WORK? NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

Research Questions 1.Are post-IOM arrest reductions associated with IOM? 2.Any reductions in seriousness of arrest? 3.Any differences between those with and without pathways? NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

Methodology Data: cohort of 155 Bristol’s most prolific offenders Coded pathways – Inter-rater reliability test (Cronbach alpha.97) All offenders entered programme after being assessed as serious/prolific 111 offenders under police supervision + pathway treatments 39 offenders under police supervision + no pathway Poisson Generalized Linear Model NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

Findings NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

Baseline Data n155 Treatment year2010 Age31.7 (8.49) Ethnicity (% none-White)15.5% Gender (% male)92.9% Mean number of arrests 6-months pre IOM1.86 (2.5)*** Mean number of days in Prison pre IOM 42.9 (93.5) 73% with 0 days OASYS Risk Level pre-treatment (scale 1-3) 2.64 (0.5) (sys mis 59%) NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED Statistically significant differences between treated and untreated groups (t-tests or chi-square tests, depending on data distribution) - * p <.05; ** p <.01; *** p <.001

Age Curve NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

Contact / Pathway Treatment Group NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED Number of Contacts During IOM (treatment group)44.6 (SD=46.5) No Pathway No Contacts28% Single Pathway (within treatment group)12% Multiple Pathways (within treatment group)88% Pathways: Drugs37% Accommodation27% Employment Training & Education25% Attitudes Thinking & Behaviour12% Mental & Physical Health12% Alcohol8% Finance Benefit & Debt4% Children & Family of Offenders3%

Findings – Arrest Rates NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

Seriousness of Arrest NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

Bristol IOM 2010 Programme Poisson Generalised Linear Model Parameter Estimates ParameterBS.E. 95% Wald Confidence Interval LowerUpper Wald Chi- Square Treatment.877*** Ethnicity Age Gender Arrest (pre-IOM).187*** Z Days on IOM-.272* Pathways: Accommodation.768** Drugs-.488* Mental & Physical Health-1.161** Finance Benefit & Debt Alcohol Attitudes Thinking & Behaviour Employment & Education Children & Family of Offenders

Bristol IOM 2010 Programme Estimated Marginal Means (Post-Treatment Arrests)^ Mean Std. Error 95% Wald Confidence Interval LowerUpper IOM Untreated Group IOM Treated Group ^ Covariates appearing in the model are fixed at the following values: Age=31.99; percent minority =27%; percent female = 6%; Pre-IOM arrest mean=1.79; Days on IOM (Z-Score) =.0149

Limitations & Caution No causal inference (RCT next step?) Regression to the mean Selection bias 6 month period Prison NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

Key Findings IOM participants have more than twice the likelihood to desist from crime The effect of IOM appears stronger than any other predictor, including offender’s age, gender and criminal record IOM Treatment - 78% before- after reduction in arrests No IOM treatment before-after 197% increase in arrests IOM treatment 67% reduction in seriousness of arrest No IOM treatment 15% increase in seriousness of arrest Most ‘effective’ pathway = Accommodation NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

Next Steps? Role of Police in achieving accelerated Desistance? Offender Desistance Policing (Sword of Damocles, Sherman and Neyroud, 2012) – great opportunity Police / Offender relationship – ‘rich potential’? RCT for IOM? NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

C/Supt Andy Williams MSt