1. Safe & Well? Managing the Return of Repeatedly Missing People, in England & Wales
Michael Harris (Police Inspector(Acting) Avon & Somerset Constabulary)
And
Dr. Karen Shalev Greene (Centre for the Study of Missing Persons)
University of Portsmouth
June 2017

2. Methodology
Police Constables across most Police Forces in England & Wales were invited to complete an anonymous, web-based survey by clicking on a link provided via their intranet or force . The researcher, as an ‘insider’ was removed from that process.
36 questions collected demographic data; Return Interview frequency experience; classifications of who conducted RI’s within their area; thoughts on who they thought should conduct RI’s dependent on circumstances; who should and should not be prioritised for a RI; RI training levels.
Respondents were also asked Likert questions on RI engagement levels; usefulness of the RI in preventing repeat episodes and determining causes. All quantitative questions were coded into IBM SPSS for analysis.
Free text questions asked why respondents had given certain answers, which will be coded into Nvivo to get qualitative results.

3. 1943
Total Constable Responses
Date Survey Finalised: January 2016

4. Q1: What is your gender?
Answered: 1, Skipped: 15
Men statistically significantly older than women and have longer service within population, possibly due to women leaving service earlier to have children? (p=.000)

5. Q5: What is the highest level of education you have completed?
Answered: 1, Skipped: 32
Graduates were statistically significantly younger than non-graduates within population, possibly due to increased popularity of university now? (p=.000 U= )

6. Q6: Approximately how many Missing CHILD (under 18) returns have you been tasked with, in the last 12 months?
Answered: 1, Skipped: 268

7. Q7: Approximately how many of these CHILD returns were reported missing repeatedly? (3 times or more)
Answered: 1, Skipped: 277

8. Q8: Approximately how many Missing ADULT returns have you been tasked with, in the last 12 months?
Answered: 1, Skipped: 283

9. Q9: Approximately how many of these ADULT returns were reported missing repeatedly? (3 times or more)
Answered: 1, Skipped: 284

10. Q10: Within your Police Force, who conducts a more in-depth return interview with a Missing CHILD? (select all that apply)
Answered: 1, Skipped: 327

11. Q11: Within your Police Force, who conducts a more in-depth return interview with a Missing ADULT? (select all that apply)
Answered: 1, Skipped: 328

12. Q15: In your view, who is most appropriate person to conduct a more in-depth return interview for a missing ADULT? (select one)
Answered: 1, Skipped: 764

13. Q17: Would your answer for choice of interviewer be different for a missing ADULT with an additional vulnerability (e.g. physical or mental disability)?
Answered: 1, Skipped: 812

14. Q18: Therefore, in your view, who is the most appropriate person to conduct a more in-depth return interview for a missing ADULT with an additional vulnerability (e.g. physical or mental disability etc)? (select one)
Answered: Skipped: 1,564

15. Q19: In your view, who is most appropriate person to conduct a more in-depth return interview for a missing CHILD (under 18)? (select one)
Answered: 1, Skipped: 917

16. Q21: Would your answer for choice of interviewer be different for a missing CHILD with an additional vulnerability (e.g. physical or mental disability)?
Answered: 1, Skipped: 847

17. Q22: Therefore, in your view, who is the most appropriate person to conduct a more in-depth return interview for a missing CHILD with an additional vulnerability (e.g. physical or mental disability etc)? (select one)
Answered: Skipped: 1,703

18. Q24: Thinking about the most common type of missing person in the last 12 months, how engaged were they with you in the return process?
Answered: Skipped: 999

19. Q28: In the last 12 months, has information about missing persons from third parties been shared with you? (e.g. Social Services, charities)
Answered: 1, Skipped: 919

20. Q29: Did you find that information from the return process in the last 12 months, has helped you understand the CAUSES of the missing episode?
Answered: 1, Skipped: 931

21. Q30: In your opinion, did you find information from the return process in the last 12 months, prevented future missing episodes?
Answered: 1, Skipped: 925

22. Untrained officers are overwhelmingly doing the most Adult RI’s

23. Men do the least RI’s with Repeat Mispers, whom overwhelmingly account for less than half of their RI experience

24. Men choose Social Workers to RI a missing adult, whilst women choose NHS staff (p=.052)

25. Priorities for a Return Interview (RI)
Graduate-educated respondents didn’t feel a Police Officer should RI a child (p=.054)
Post-Graduates were twice as likely than non-graduates, to prioritise for RI those at risk of Child Sexual Exploitation (p=.080)
Where officers whose RI experience of repeat child mispers was low, only 1% prioritised first-time missing people for RI. (p=.055)
Where officers whose RI experience of repeat child mispers was high, only a third prioritised children for a RI. 54% of officers with least repeat child misper experience did prioritise children. (p=.055)

26. When asked who officers would least prioritise for a RI, there were significant gender differences. (p=.000)
Men outweigh women in not prioritising missing men.
Only one woman chose a man!
Men outweigh women in not prioritising repeat mispers,
at 22% v 13% (nearly double)
Women outweigh men in not prioritising older or vulnerable adults,
at 15% v 10%
Women outweigh men in not prioritising child repeat mispers,
at 30% v 22%

27. When asked who officers would least prioritise for a RI, there were significant differences dependent on RI experience of repeat child mispers. (p=.001)
Officers most experienced at RI’s where children are repeatedly missing (27%), are most likely to say they should not be prioritised for a RI, against those least experienced with RI’s for child repeats (9%).
Those least experienced with RI’s for child repeat mispers were more likely to say adults (38%) and vulnerable adults (17%) should not be prioritised.

28. Return Interview Engagement
Those reporting high RI engagement by the misper are twice as likely to not prioritise vulnerable adults for a RI, but half as likely to suggest adults should not be prioritised for a RI. (p=.001)
Those reporting low RI engagement from mispers are twice as likely to say repeatedly missing people should not be prioritised for a RI, and even more so for child repeat mispers. (p=.001)
Those reporting lower RI engagement, were also much less likely to agree “free will” misper cases should be prioritised for a RI.
(p=.001)
Non-graduate officers were the most positive about misper engagement in the RI. (p=.005. u=28737 )
Respondents were asked who they thought should NOT be prioritised for a RI

29. Gender
Female officers were more positive than men about the RI helping them understand causes of the missing episode. (p=.005. u= 88893)
Female officers were also more positive than men about RI’s helping prevent future missing episodes
(p=.049. u= )

30. Return Interview Training Levels
Those RI-trained…
..tended to be younger than those officers who were not RI-trained. (p=.011. u= )
..are more positive about thinking the RI can help in preventing future episodes. (p=.002. u=53882)
..are more likely to be positive about the RI helping determine the cause of missing episode. (p=.000. u=51468)
..were more positive about 3rd party information-sharing taking place (sometimes), versus those untrained. (p=.005. u= )
Those who are not RI-trained have the longest service. (p=.000. u= )

31. RI Training levels continued…
Out of those trained to conduct a RI….
..no-one thought a missing boy should miss out on a RI.
..were nearly three times more likely to say a man should not be prioritised.
Those unsure about their training status were twice as likely to say that those who exercised “free will” should not be prioritised for a RI. Also, they were twice as likely to say the decision should be on a case-by-case basis.
(p=.004)
Respondents were asked who they thought should NOT be prioritised for a RI

32. Free text answers (sic) revealed interesting cultural opinions by officers
“Persons who are going missing from care homes. The youth element who are only classed as risk because of age. They get on a train, turn there phone off and avoid police. Perhaps a criminal conviction for wasting police time as there was never a risk to them.”
“Genuine proper ‘missing from homes’ and ‘concern for safetys’: not the nonsense daily habitual child missing from homes and adult cry for helps – who no partner agencies should deal with”

33. Free text answers (sic) revealed interesting cultural opinions by officers
“Repeat callers or individuals that appear to use the police system to care and look for people that are not interested in doing it themselves. Simply to not act as a baby sitting or ‘bring them home’ service.”
“Adults over 18 who decides to go for a walk or to socialise to calm down after a verbal domestic, and then the family decide to call police because they have never done this before.”

34. ..and more positively….
“I don’t think any (mispers) should be least prioritised.. It’s our job to manage the safe return of people who are missing. A job should be dealt with from start to end. It might prevent it from happening again, and if not there is intelligence to be gained which may result in a quicker find next time .”
“All should have an in-depth return interview. If you are reported missing for any reason, this should warrant an interview, regardless of circumstance, unless it is clear that it was a misunderstanding or that the person was absent, not missing ”

35. Thank you for listening….
Any questions?
Michael Harris
Karen Shalev Greene