1. UK Drug Workers Annual National Conference 2009
York
13th and 14th October 2009
Workshop
Integrated Offender Management

2. The ground I will cover
Impact of PPO on crime and re-offending.
Implementing Integrated Offender Management.

3. Firstly, the impact of PPO
Sources:
- National PPO evaluation report;
- National Indicator 30 data.

4. How PPO and DIP are evolving
(i) Review of DIP delivery model:
To improve the ability of DIP to drive down drug-related crime.
(ii) PPO programme refresh:
To maximum the impact of local schemes on reducing crime and re-offending.

5. PPO Refresh
Why refresh and why now?
The programme is 5 years on.
Economic downturn brings new
challenges.
Crime strategy refreshed.
“New” performance data.
CJ Inspectors’ thematic report
(16 July); and
Integrated Offender Management.

6. Does it work ….
Yes!
When “Catch & Convict” is joined with “Rehabilitate & Resettle”
Before the launch of the PPO programme PPOs were increasingly “Caught & Convicted”
62%

7. NI30 data monitoring – national: 2008/09
Baseline
37,463
39,332
35,594 x
33,725 x x x x
31,855
33,894 x x
32,957
Target end point
30,733 x
28,065 x
22,888 x
16,422 x
Rolling 12 month: predicted
8,661
Rolling 12 month: observed
Actual convictions
Anticipated reduction from baseline (39,332) to end point (31,855)
= 19%

8. An analysis of the 2009/10 NI30 cohort tells us:
PPO Refresh: emerging evidence – what emerging evidence?
An analysis of the 2009/10 NI30 cohort tells us:
a significant proportion of PPOs are retained on the programme for a long time;

9. Years as a PPO as at 1 April 2009
PPO Refresh: emerging evidence – what emerging evidence?
17% of the cohort already PPOs for 5 years or more
27%
22%
17%
17%
16% 0% 1 2 3 4 5 5+
Years as a PPO as at 1 April 2009

10. An analysis of the 2009/10 cohort tells us:
PPO Refresh: emerging evidence – what emerging evidence?
An analysis of the 2009/10 cohort tells us:
a significant proportion of PPOs are retained on the programme for a long time; and
many of them are no longer offending prolifically;

11. One third had no convictions at all in the baseline year
PPO Refresh: emerging evidence – what emerging evidence?
32%
28%
23%
18%
One third had no convictions at all in the baseline year 3 6 6+
Number of convictions

12. An analysis of the 2009/10 cohort tells us:
PPO Refresh: emerging evidence – what emerging evidence?
An analysis of the 2009/10 cohort tells us:
a significant proportion of PPOs are retained on the programme for a long time; and
many of them are no longer offending prolifically;
a significant proportion are in custody.
33% of all PPOs
27% 6%
Over 12 months
Under 12 months

13. Partnerships are encouraged to assess of their PPO scheme to:
PPO Refresh: what is being asked?
Partnerships are encouraged to assess of their PPO scheme to:
ensure that it is tackling the most prolific and damaging offenders;
ensure that it is tackling the right number of offenders;
ensure that it has an appropriate balance between PPOs in the community and in custody.

14. PPO Refresh: the right offenders?
Partnerships are also encouraged to update selection/de-selection arrangements:
to ensure that the intensive PPO approach is provided for those who need it;
while they need it;
with “compliant” offenders moved on to a less intensive management regime.

15. Then carry out a similar review at least quarterly.
PPO Refresh: the right offenders?
Review the current PPO list against other known offenders (including those about to be released from prison) to ensure the scheme is targeting the most active and damaging offenders;
A similar review to be conducted in advance of agreeing the 2010/11 National Indicator/Local Area Agreement cohort (April 2010);
Then carry out a similar review at least quarterly.

16. Ensure that the scheme is tackling the right number of offenders:
PPO Refresh: numbers
Ensure that the scheme is tackling the right number of offenders:
The original guidance suggested 15 to 20 PPOs in smaller areas; 60 to 100 in larger areas.

17. but currently 33% of all PPOs are in prison
PPO Refresh: the community/custody balance
Ensure that the scheme has achieved the right community/ custody balance:
the original guidance suggested that the majority of PPOs should be in the community, or to be released imminently from custody;
but currently 33% of all PPOs are in prison
82% of these (or 27% of all PPOs) sentenced
to over 12 months.

18. Refresh guidance updates existing selection and de-selection guidance.
PPO Refresh: recommended approach
Refresh guidance updates existing selection and de-selection guidance.
This may create capacity issues:
schemes to give priority to most prolific and damaging offenders;
in particular “non stat” offenders being released from custody, who are at high risk of re-offending.

19. Integrated Offender Management
Moving on:
Integrated Offender Management

20. The case for IOM
Integrated Offender Management
IOM provides the context for taking forward these recommendations……
…. by asking: do all relevant activities and programmes, at the local, regional and national levels:
- join together as coherently as they might;
- share priorities, a common vision and approach;
deliver the best response to crime and re-
offending that they can.
- maximise positive outcomes for the community?

21. IOM – the Government’s ambition - outcomes
In every locality, the most damaging offenders –identified and targeted;
They receive appropriate intensity of intervention to disrupt criminal lifestyles and support rehabilitation
More dynamic use of available programmes
Potential overlaps or gaps addressed;
With greater clarity around roles and responsibilities.

22. IOM: an “umbrella” for multi-agency responses
Local delivery, strategic fit
Everyone is “in scope”: intensity of management relating to
severity of risk, irrespective of position within CJS or whether statutory/non-statutory offender:
- Most dangerous managed under MAPPA;
Most damaging receive most intensive (PPO)
management, but only while risk remains critical;
Evidence base
PPO and DIP evaluation establish success of these approaches.
Evidence on community based drug and alcohol rehabilitation
Evidence of the effectiveness mentoring of adult offenders is promising.
The emerging evidence on basic skills training suggests that basic skills courses can improve prisoners’ skills
Allows local partners to recognise the inter-dependence and mutual benefits of managing and intervening with a cohort of offenders to:
Reduce social exclusion and health inequalities
Reduce crime
Reduce re-offending
improve public confidence
Opportunities realised
Closing the custody, community gap: Some prisons have shown that it is possible to form effective partnerships with services in the community
Working with families to help the children of criminals
Involving third sector in delivery: strong support in fieldwork for developing the role of the Third Sector in regard to providing supervision, mentoring, link workers etc.
Accountability of offender: Using the authority of lead professionals to hold offenders to account.
Offenders who respond to be downgraded to lower
tier of intensity (reserving PPO places for the most prolific).

23. IOM - where are we now?
Six centrally supported pioneer areas testing different IOM models – and all being evaluated.
The six pioneer areas have to date included in their cohorts:
PPOs (52%)
DIP clients
Unsupervised offenders (33%)
NOMS Statutory cases (27%)
DV offenders (Lancs pilot)
Youth (Avon & Somerset, Lancs, West Yorks, West Mids)
Many other areas adopting IOM or showing interest.

24. IOM – priority target groups
“Statutory” offenders who may require additional support to hold them in compliance;
“Non-statutory” under 12 month offenders;
PPOs
Drug misusing offenders:
DIP review identifies IOM as potentially offering
the local organisational infrastructure for
sustaining DIP in the long-term.

25. IOM: the strategic push (1)
A clear message on the Government’s vision emphasising:
Joined up action – police, probation, local authorities
etc tackling offenders together.
IOM is the strategic umbrella to draw together other
programmes and approaches more consistently.
Offenders facing their responsibility or facing the
consequences.
Making better use of existing (and proven)
programmes: squeezing more benefits from them for
communities.
It’s Justice Seen, Justice Done.

26. IOM: the strategic push (2)
Increase in numbers being managed: the IOM caseloads
in 6 pioneer areas set to increase from 2000 to over 3000
by March 2010.
Interim evaluation of IOM by November 2009.
Operation Vigilance, tackling serious acquisitive crime in
targeted areas will encourage IOM style working.
Refreshed PPO guidance.
Improving the Premium Service, taking account of the
thematic inspection.

27. IOM: an “umbrella” for applying multi-agency responses
Offenders in the community: Local partners coming together to tackle offending in their communities should map existing offender supervision and identify the gaps in their local approach
Pre CJS supervision
Statutory community sentence supervision
Statutory Licence Supervision
Post CJS supervision
Community sentences: 162,648 offenders managed by probation as part of a community based sentence of the court
YOTs: supervising young persons who subject to the range of court-ordered disposals and community penalties
Licence: 162,648 offenders managed by probation as part of a community based sentence of the court
YOTs: Providing a supervising officer for those young people who receive custodial sentences
Offenders on statutory community supervision
Serious acquisitive crime
High harm
MAPPA: The 50,000 offenders arrangements for assessing and managing the risks posed by sexual and violent offenders
Prolific and other Priority offenders (PPO): The 10,000 offenders with the highest risk of re-offending in their community
MARACS: key agencies, police, probation, education, health, housing and the voluntary sector, working together on an individual victim’s case to share information
Offenders subject multi-agency supervision
Drug
Interventions Programme
Drug Interventions Programme
Problem solving courts
Families and children services
Offenders subject to no supervision
Crime causing youth offenders known to the police
Short sentenced prisoners
Post CJS repeat offenders known to the police