not protectively marked integrated offender management: a multiagency desistance programme c/supt...

NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

Integrated Offender Management:

A Multiagency Desistance Programme

C/Supt Andy Williams MSt Barak 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

NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

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 2009-2010 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

n 155Treatment year 2010Age 31.7 (8.49)Ethnicity (% none-White) 15.5%Gender (% male) 92.9%Mean number of arrests 6-months pre IOM 1.86 (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 Contacts 28%Single Pathway (within treatment group) 12%Multiple Pathways (within treatment group) 88%Pathways:  

Drugs 37%Accommodation 27%Employment Training & Education 25%Attitudes Thinking & Behaviour 12%Mental & Physical Health 12%Alcohol 8%Finance Benefit & Debt 4%Children & Family of Offenders 3%

Findings – Arrest Rates

NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

Seriousness of Arrest

NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

Bristol IOM 2010 Programme

Poisson Generalised Linear Model Parameter Estimates

Parameter B S.E.

95% Wald Confidence Interval  

Lower UpperWald Chi-

SquareTreatment .877*** .2713 .345 1.409 10.448Ethnicity -.029 .2187 -.458 .400 .018Age -.012 .0113 -.034 .010 1.114Gender -.542 .4612 -1.446 .362 1.382Arrest (pre-IOM) .187*** .0390 .111 .264 23.029Z Days on IOM -.272* .1313 -.529 -.014 4.286Pathways:          

Accommodation .768** .3143 .152 1.384 5.969Drugs -.488* .2889 -1.054 .078 2.855Mental & Physical Health -1.161** .5024 -2.145 -.176 5.338Finance Benefit & Debt -.245 .5206 -1.265 .776 .221Alcohol -.214 .3716 -.942 .515 .331Attitudes Thinking & Behaviour

-.011 .4004 -.796 .774 .001

Employment & Education .343 .3054 -.256 .941 1.259Children & Family of Offenders

.831 .5444 -.236 1.898 2.331

Bristol IOM 2010 Programme

Estimated Marginal Means (Post-Treatment Arrests)^

  MeanStd. Error

95% Wald Confidence Interval

Lower Upper

IOM Untreated Group 1.28 .263 .76 1.79

IOM Treated Group .53 .079 .38 .69

^ 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

NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

C/Supt Andy Williams MSt

andy.williams@avonandsomerset.pnn.police.uk

07768 327764