Transcript Slide 1

University of Oxford
Centre for Criminology
Probation & Youth Justice Research Unit
MANAGING PERSISTENT AND
SERIOUS OFFENDERS IN THE
COMMUNITY
Dr Colin Roberts,
Professor of Criminology & Penology
31st October 2006
Monash Law Chambers
Melbourne
PRINCIPLE OBJECTIVES OF THE PROBATION AND
YOUTH JUSTICE RESEARCH UNIT
Foster and develop multi-disciplinary research within the
University between different departments and faculties,
and in collaboration with other universities.
Seek to obtain research funding from government, public
organisations in criminal justice, independent research
trusts and for profit companies, and publish the results.
Increase the number of research students registered.
Contribute to the development of: evidence and
intelligence-led practice, more effective interventions,
improved policy making, and provide direct consultation
to key agencies. Assist in providing greater public
assurance and safety from crime.
Two Recent Research Studies undertaken by the Unit
1.Intensive Supervision and Surveillance Programme (ISSP) for Young
Offenders for the Youth Justice Board (YJB) for England and Wales
2. Intensive Prolific Offenders Project (IRIS) for the Thames Valley
Police
Both projects have involved the employment of full-time research
officers from a wide range of academic backgrounds, and the overall
research design, analysis and write-up has been overseen by :
a senior group of academics from the Universities of Oxford and
Cambridge including: three criminologists, one neurological and one
behavioural psychologist, an adolescent psychiatrist, a physiologist
specialising in learning handicaps, two educationalists, a criminal
and human rights lawyer ,a social worker and an economist
specialising in cost benefit analysis.
The ISSP Research Study
YJB commissioned a multi-dimensional evaluation of the first 41
schemes across England and Wales.
Three key national objectives:
to reduce the rate of re-offending in the target group of persistent
and serious young offenders by 5%, and to reduce the seriousness
of any re-offending.
To tackle underlying problems of the young people in an effective
manner, with particular emphasis on education and training.
To demonstrate that supervision and surveillance is being
undertaken consistently and rigorously, and in ways which will reassure sentencers and the community of their credibility and likely
success.
CONTINUED
The ISSP consisted of either six or twelve months of
intensive supervision and electronic surveillance, either
as part of a community sentence or after time in youth
custody, requiring a minimum of 25 hours contact
additional to school, training or work attendance.
The research involved a sample of 4,000 young people
on ISSP, and a comparison group of over a 1,000 from
non- experimental locations, followed up for two years
post sentence or release from custody ( a random
allocation trial was proposed but the YJB considered it
would be unacceptable to the general public)
Key Findings from the ISSP Research Study
Targeting of 6 month ISSP cases was
estimated to be reasonably accurate (7%
net-widening ), but the 12 month cases
attracted massive net-widening (42%)
particularly from the Crown Court
CONTINUED
Young Offenders on ISSP were mostly very disadvantaged an
damaged
Average age was 16.4 years, but average reading age was 10.5
years
Mean number of convicted offences in previous 12 months at liberty
was 9.8 per offender, and 84% had already served a custody
sentence
15% were currently of no fixed abode, a further 12% were in the
local government care and 39% were on of the local “at risk “
register
Of those of school attending age (under 17 years),78% were not
receiving any type of formal education
12% had been diagnosed with a mental health condition, 18%
reported deliberate self-harming in the previous 12 months, and 9%
were known to have attempted suicide
CONTINUED
At least 37 out of 41 schemes struggled
throughout to provide 25 hours of meaningful
contact with the young people per week
Mean was 22 hours for 6 month ISSP cases
Mean was only 17 hours for 12 month ISSP
cases
Major problems of service delivery were in
relation to: accommodation, drug abuse
treatment, and mental health issues
CONTINUED
Surveillance largely involved electronic devices
66% were on electronic curfew tags for a
minimum of 3 months
12% were subject to electronic voice verification
9% were on both forms of electronic systems
18% were humanly tracked only
41% were electronically monitored and humanly
tracked
The research showed that only in monitoring
with electronic and human contacts was there
any positive benefits, and only in 9% of all cases
CONTINUED
Re-offending and reconviction
12 month reconviction rate was 89% and 24 month rate
was 94%
Reductions in frequency of re-offending were 42% for
community sentence and 35% for post-custody cases
over 24 months
Re-offending gravity reduced by 15% for community
cases and 12% for custody cases over 24 months
BUT matched comparison group cases showed slightly
lower reconviction rate,lower re-offending frequency and
lower re-offending gravity rates
CLEAR CASE OF REGRESSION TO THE MEAN
NOT EVIDENCE OF A TREATMENT EFFECT
CONTINUED
Measurable impact on some underlying problems was more
encouraging
Education and training engagement increased by 11%
Family and close relationships improved by 10%
Thinking and pro-social attitudes and activities improved by 9%
Accommodation situations improved in 8% of relevant cases
HOWEVER
Drug abuse reductions only occurred in 2% of relevant cases
Motivation to change and desist from re-offending occurred in 1%
In mental health case there was a -1% regression in treatment
provision and health improvement.
CONTINUED
Completion and Termination Rates
Overall average completion rate was 45%
across all cases
Over 80% of the young people were breached at
some time on ISSP
20% were breached and ordered not to continue
19% were terminated early due to re-offending
17% were terminated early for re-offending and
breaches
in 84% of cases who were terminated a
custodial sentence was made
Costs of ISSP
The following data only applies to 6 month ISSP, 12 month case
costs considerably more per head as there were few of them (250)
Mean cost per young offender per start was £12,500
Mean cost per person per completion was £32,000
At scheme level costs per start varied from £5,500 to £30,000 a
person
At scheme level costs per completion varied from£12,000 to
£80,500
COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS SHOWED BIG NEGATIVE RATIOS
ONLY 2 SCHEMES SHOWED SMALL AND LIMITED POSITIVE
FINANCIAL OUTCOMES
Overview of ISSP Research Study Findings
Huge variations in the quality of the different ISSP schemes
Minority of schemes ( 9 at the most ) showed some significant
effects on under-lying problems and re-offending
Majority drowned out the achievements of the few to produce the
overall discouraging results
Best schemes appeared to have: clear models for practice (e.g.
MST, Multi-dimensional Advocacy), good leadership, well trained
and enthusiastic staff, excellent collaboration with other local
agencies (e.g. police, schools, employers, health services,
accommodation providers, drug treatment agencies )
Worst schemes had confused managers, high staff turn-over, poor
facilities, non-existent local collaborations with other key agencies
OVERVIEW CONTINUED
Targeting Problems and confused objectives
Difficulties grew in defining persistent vs
serious young offenders
Ensuring proportionality and “Just desserts” in
sentencing
Negative labelling effects on many young
person’s self-identity
Was reducing the young prison population the
prime hidden agenda ?
OVERVIEW CONTINUED
Intensification of Community Controls on Young People
Net widening, mesh thinning and greater penetration in social control
Up-tariffing by giving intrusive and demanding community penalties which
young offenders cannot comply with and then go to custody
Unintended consequences on criminal careers of mixing together young
offenders who have different levels and types of offending experience
Over-emphasis on surveillance with no positive dimensions, viewed by
young offenders as oppressive, negative and very punitive. Makes it a
shaming experience with no re-integrative dimension ( al a Braithwaite)
Lost the proper balance between care, control, support, and coercion
Some staff became unintentionally collusive in work with young people,
did not properly pro-socially model (al a Trotter), and may have actually
encourage deviance, non-compliance and ultimately further offending.
BUT DOES MORE MEAN MORE EFFECTIVE ? CERTAINLY NOT IN ISSP
Prolific Offender Projects (POPS) in England & Wales
Since mid-1990’s gradual development of POPs
in more than a dozen Police Areas
Earliest projects and research were in
Lancashire and Staffordshire
University of Oxford has done consultancy and
research in six of them:
Northumbria, Greater Manchester,
Nottinghamshire, Avon & Somerset,
West Midlands and Thames Valley.
Key Characteristics of POPS in England & Wales
Police led, but staffed with experienced police and probation
officers, located in local police stations.
Local schemes using police and probation information for “profiling”
and identification of most prolific local offenders
Fully compliant with human rights legislation and use these rights to
inform offenders and others of their prolific offender status
Combine high levels of police and electronic monitoring with
intensive one-to-one supervision and other contacts (e.g. mobiles,
police checks) by police and probation officers.
Enforce strict compliance with police and court orders, community
sentence conditions, custody licences & parole, and electronic
curfews
CONTINUED
Ensure increased probability of arrests and convictions for any re-offending
via greater and more effective use of intelligence-led police practice, and
agreed information sharing between agencies
Fast-tracked prosecution into court, advanced sentencing hearings, swift
enforcement of court and community sentence breaches, and rapid prisonrecalls escorted to prisons by police officers.
Provides immediate support and help to designated offenders in prison and
outside to actively encourage desistance from crime, including :
accommodation support, financial management ( e.g. bank accounts),
education and job-training placement, family relationship support (e.g.
partner support, child care support), faster access health care diagnosis and
referral.
Rapid access to community and residential drug and alcohol treatment
Offenders once designated as prolific can only be taken off POP if they are
crime free for 12 months at liberty
POPS concentrate on having Multi-professional Teams
Police officers are mostly experienced detectives with
good local crime and community knowledge, probation
officers are of at least five years experience in the local
area. Teams usually include community drug specialists
and other specialist civilians with strong local ties. Teams
all operate in the same office and have knowledge of
each other’s cases .
Different team members use their own professional
status to enforce orders and compliance, and to ensure
good communication back with their own agencies or
settings.
Other characteristics of POPS in England & Wales
Local POP’s have strong links and support from local
legal professionals: judges, magistrates, court clerks,
Crown Prosecution Service, and defence lawyers
Despite greatly increased levels of surveillance and
monitoring there are very few complaints from
designated offenders of harassment, due to strict human
rights compliance in all dealings with them
Provides a classic form of “carrot and stick” model of
offender management. If offenders continue to offend
they are arrested more quickly and processed more
rapidly. If they want to begin to desist from crime, the
support from the police and key others is high quality,
instantly available and well supported by other key
agencies and officials
Comparisons made of criminal careers of prolific offenders
Compared offenders in the IRIS cohort and the matched
comparison sample, by analysing their known criminal
record and the types of offences committed, their
location and circumstances, whether they had led to a
court conviction, or only had resulted in an arrest, and
whether the offences had been later admitted to and
brought before a court ( TIC’d –taken into consideration).
Measured time by separate weeks at liberty, to be able
to exclude periods in custody on remand or sentenced
when they would have been incapacitated (i.e. could not
offend in the community)
OFFENDINGCOMPARISONS CONTINUED
Examined their offending careers over the 24 months at
liberty pre-IRIS against the 12 and 24 month periods at
liberty since they commenced on IRIS, or for they same
time period at liberty for the comparison group.
Constructed from police and probation records Individual
Case Profiles with time-lining week by week on different
characteristics. These can be used for individual singlecase studies or for collective analysis.
First 20 offenders put on IRIS had in the 24 months at
liberty pre-IRIS been convicted in courts of 269 offences
(excluding road traffic offences) and had admitted to in
court a further 384 separate offences.
CONTINUED
The most commonly convicted offences were:
robbery, aggravated and domestic burglary,
thefts of and from cars, thefts from shops and
persons, deception and fraud, serious motoring
offences (e.g. death by dangerous driving,
excess alcohol and/or drug use), assaults,
woundings and criminal damage ( including
arson ). Specialist Sex offenders were excluded
from selection ,but some of the prolific offenders
had recent convictions for sexual crimes, mainly
against adult women.
Key Findings on IRIS in the First Year of Operation
Statistically significant reductions on all
measures used in analysis.
Frequency and gravity of known offending in
IRIS cases had reduced, as had police
intelligence reports of suspected offending.
Largest known offending reductions were for:
Robberies down 81%
All burglaries down 72%
Thefts of cars down 83%
Thefts from cars down 69%
Continued Key Findings from IRIS
Improvements occurred in compliance rates in the IRIS group even
though there was far greater levels of surveillance, stop checks and
supervision contacts of all kinds.
In IRIS the monthly at liberty known re-offending rates dropped from 2.1
per offender to 0.8 –a 60% reduction
In the Comparison group the rate only fell from 2.1 to 1.9 – a 5%
reduction
In the IRIS group breaches of Court Bail reduced from 1.8 to 0.15 per
offender per month at liberty, prison license and parole re-calls fell
from 0.45 to 0.25 per month, and curfew breaches dropped from
0.25 per month to 0.05
In the comparison group over the same time period the overall noncompliance rate actually slightly increased from 0.26 to 0.33 per
offender per month – a rise of 42%.
Cost Benefit of IRIS: Key Findings After 12 Months
Full running costs for first 20 offenders were £10, 250
per offender
Costs of known offences to victims and health services
was pre-IRIS £2,500 per offender per month at liberty
Post- IRIS reduced to £790 per offender – a 67%
reduction
Costs of known offences for police activity only reduced
from £450 per offender per month at liberty pre IRIS, to
£150 per offender per month post IRIS.
A 66% reduction produced local police activity savings
for 20 offenders of over £65,000 in one year, the
equivalent of employing two new police officers
Cost Benefit Analysis : Continued Key Findings
Savings in the first 12 months from the full
economic costs of offences committed by only
the first 20 offenders on IRIS were :
over £4,000 per offender per year at liberty
The full Cost Benefit Ratio was 1.35 for full
running and set-up costs against all the known
offence reduction savings.
The Cost Benefit Ratio was 0.60 of full running
and set-up costs, when only benefits to victims
and health services are included in calculations.
Initial Conclusions from some aspects of the IRIS Research Findings
IRIS and other POPS targeting local prolific offenders are proving popular
with local people, and are being embraced by police and probation areas for
several reasons.
They are “tough” on crime involving known local prolific offenders. These
typically are only 7-9% of the known offenders but commonly account for
over 90% of the known local crimes, and also commit a disproportionate
number of the most grave offences, including homicides, serious asaults,
arsons, aggravated burglaries and car thefts, and armed robberies. They
were measurably arrested more quickly and prosecuted
more successfully ( fewer acquittals), and sentenced more swiftly.
This type of humane toughness is cost effective in the use of scarce police
resources. They make a significant contribution to reducing local crime rates
and meeting police targets for crime reduction of key offence types. The
projects stick at individual offenders until the stop offending, so they keep
some individuals on their “books” for years and years.
The police officers do not become social workers, they retain their detecting
and interrogation skills, but they gain new sources of intelligence
information. Offenders who resist can be shown to have reduced the
frequency and seriousness of their continued offending.
Overview of the Conclusions from POPS Research
They do something positive to help offenders to desist and actually direct
contribute to reducing re-offending, and making offenders to become useful
citizens. Offenders welcome the real support and practical help they get.
The multi-professional teams are really effective if the offender is motivated
to change, and can offer rapid and meaningful assistance with such strong
local police backing.
They are actually tough on persistent criminals: 9% of offenders commit
over 90% of known crimes and account for a disproportional number of the
most serious offences. They arrest quickly and process and sentence more
swiftly, and save the police and other criminal justice agencies money.
They provide what we know the public wants: crime reduction and less fear
of being a victim, but also direct offender supervision which puts them on
the “ straight and narrow”. They help the police to do a difficult job better,
probation to be more effective and other agencies to meet their objectives
with a hard to reach group of clients.
They appear to produce some “win, win “ outcomes police, probation, other
agencies and the public.
Concluding Comments on Multi-professional Research in
Criminal Justice
A Multi- professional research consortium has the potential to contribute in different way
It has all the advantages of intellectual co-operation:
Wider base of publications, journals and inter-disciplinary books,
Wider range of theoretical and methodological techniques and approaches
Sharing expertise and wider knowledge, and greater evidence-based
Knowledge and evidence development:
Practical expertise transfer from different disciplines
Policy implications arising from multi-dimensional approaches
Improved theoretical models to assist in better practice and policy making
It can achieve an overall widening and improvement of services to contracted clients and funding
bodies.
Improves chances of renewed contracts and wider range of and stability on contracted work for
research staff and research students ( Masters and Doctorates)
Contributes to improved offender management and crime reduction
Helps ensure better services to victims and reduced victimisation,
Assists in managing and delivering more efficient and effective criminal justice agencies,
Most importantly it can help deliver greater public assurance and safety