You are on page 1of 92

An Evaluation of the Prolific and

Priority Offender Scheme in Four


London Boroughs

Final Report to London Probation


July 2007

Helen Easton
Senior Research Fellow

The Crime Reduction & Community Safety


Research Group (CRCSRG)
London South Bank University
Final Draft 30/07/07

Contents

Executive summary 4

Definitions 7

Introduction and background 8

Research aims 23

Methodology 24

Findings 29

Conclusions 80

Recommendations 83

References 84

Appendix 1: Re-conviction and cost benefit analysis guidance 89

3
Final Draft 30/07/07

Executive summary
Introduction and background
• This report presents the findings of a qualitative study of 37 Prolific and Other Priority
Offenders (PPOs) and 18 practitioners working with PPOs in four London boroughs –
Barnet, Islington, Southwark and Lambeth
• Research suggests that 100,000 of the one million offenders active in the general
population at one time had received three or more convictions during their offending
careers. A group of 5 000 (0.5% of the active offending population) super-prolific
offenders have been found to commit 9% of all crime (Home Office, 2002).
• This notion of persistence has been challenged (Hagell aned Newburn, 1994;
Townsley and Pease, 2002).
• Nationally PPOs are predominantly white (88%) male (95%) young, begun offending
earlier, were more versatile offenders and had nearly 2.5 times the convictions of a
comparison group (Dawson, 2005)
• Recent research reported a 43% reduction in the offending of the entire PPO cohort
when comparing the number of convictions in the 17 months before and after the
programme (Dawson and Cuppleditch, 2007).
• The literature suggests that interventions with offenders should be based on an explicit
model of risk factors; have a risk classification; target criminogenic needs; be
responsive; have programme integrity and treatment should recognise a range of
offender’s problems and employ methods from behavioural, cognitive and cognitive-
behavioural fields (McGuire and Priestley, 1995).
• The core features of case management which improved offender engagement were the
acknowledgement of offender’s needs and experiences and a continuity of contact
(Partridge, 2004).
• Reconviction is commonly used as a measure of a programmes success, however it is
argued that this measure does not allow an examination of why or who a programme
works to reduce offending.

Research aims
The key aims of the research are to:
• Examine the range of factors which may be involved in reducing reconviction and re-
offending among PPOs in each of four London PPO schemes.
• Use an in-depth case study approach with 20 offenders who have responded well to
the PPO scheme and 20 offenders who haven’t in order to obtain a range of views and
experiences.
• Support the development of a methodology to determine the cost benefits of the PPO
scheme in London.
• To provide constructive recommendations and good practice for PPO schemes across
London.

Methodology
• Semi-structured Interviews were undertaken with a total of 37 offenders currently on
the PPO scheme in four London boroughs – Islington (9), Southwark (7), Lambeth (10)
and Barnet (10). Case study research was undertaken for each PPO interviewed using
OASys and Delius.
• 18 semi-structured practitioner interviews were undertaken.

4
Final Draft 30/07/07

Findings
Agency views
• Organisational differences existed between the police, probation and drug services
which had an impact on the delivery of the scheme in three boroughs.
• Police and probation felt they had been ‘left to get on with it’ without much support from
strategic partnerships or line management.
• Limited staff and financial resources were impacting the schemes ability to deliver a
premium service in all instances and teams reported having to prioritise the needs of
offenders.
• Barnet had developed good practice in relation to the role of the police in the PPO
scheme.
• Support offered was considered tokenistic in two boroughs as it provided no long term
sustainable routes out of offending.
• Local services may not be configured to meet the needs of PPOs.
• Key successes were the trusting, honest, consistent relationships which had begun to
develop between practitioners and PPOs and the range of interventions provided to
PPOs
• Islington had created a psychodynamic therapy group and Southwark a mentoring
scheme for its PPOs.
• Barnet and Lambeth both had built close relationships with local prisons through the
DIP.
• Key barriers were lack of access to resources, finding and managing housing for
PPOs, lack of support from key partners and strategic partnerships.

Offender views
• Of the 24 offenders interviewed in the community:
o 17 reported that they hadn’t offended since they had last left custody or had
become a PPO whichever was most recent1.
o A further five had significantly reduced or changed their patterns of offending.
o 18 reported having problems with Class A drugs. Ten of these were no longer
using drugs.
o A further 5 had significantly reduced or changed their drug use.
o Only three reported no significant change in their patterns of substance misuse.
• Eleven of the 37 offenders interviewed were aged 21 years and younger: five directly
attributed the reasons for their stopping offending to the PPO scheme.
• A further three acknowledged that the PPO scheme had made a contribution but that
other factors had also been involved in their ‘decision’ to stop offending.
• PPOs preferred working with the PPO scheme to previous experiences of probation or
youth offending as they felt respected, treated like individuals, listened to, and
supported. They felt the scheme allowed room for negotiation and honesty and
generally saw that practitioners were committed to supporting them.
• PPOs understood the two key elements of the scheme and felt the scheme was
consistent and did what it set out to do.
• Offenders who acknowledged they had continued to offend were generally older,
substance misusing offenders with a complex range of support needs and an extensive
offending history.

1
25 offenders were interviewed, however, one had only been out of prison for one week and his
responses are therefore not relevant to this discussion.

5
Final Draft 30/07/07

Conclusions
• The schemes have generally obtained a good balance of enforcement and ‘social work
ethos’ and each borough has developed or accessed a range of interventions in
response to the individual needs of PPOs within their limited local resources.
• Good practice in relation to the police role has been developed in Barnet
• Generally, practitioners are demonstrating many of the elements of good practice
identified in the literature but the nature and extent of this good practice does vary
across boroughs and individuals.
• Barnet DIP and PPO scheme are co-located and are reaping the benefits of better
alignment.
• The relationship between the DIP and PPO scheme in the three inner London
boroughs varied and was often dependent on relationships which had been built
through the DRR teams.
• There was a definite lack of strategic level ownership and communication which
hampered the progress of each of the PPO schemes.
• Lack of funding and other resources limited the provision and therefore the potential of
the schemes to provide a premium service to all PPOs. Schemes reported having to
prioritise provision as a result.
• Housing remained the most difficult of the PPOs needs to meet. There was a lack of
support from housing partners and limited resources with which to support PPOs who
had vulnerable tenancies, rental arrears or housing related problems whilst they were
in prison.
• PPOs reported a lack of employment opportunities, particularly the older PPOs with
longer criminal histories.
• There are no meaningful and sustainable routes out of offending and many PPOs
struggle when returning to drug using peers and neighbourhoods.

Main recommendations
1. Improved strategic links with the CDRP and a set of protocols documenting
commitment from key partners;
2. Improved two way flow of information between PPO practitioners and strategic partners
in order that a) PPO practitioners are informed of changes to guidelines which may
affect PPOs and b) so partners are aware of the needs of the PPO team and can
develop processes in support of their work;
3. Allocation of a budget for direct work with PPOs2;
4. Facility to support the management of this budget, for example, an allocated finance
officer;
5. Development and evaluation of local interventions such as the Islington PPO group.
6. A dedicated and co-located DIP worker for each scheme in lieu of a fully co-located
team for inner London boroughs.
7. Development and communication of local protocols outlining the operating principles of
the PPO police in relation to on-site arrests, dealing with warrants / outstanding
matters, gathering intelligence, communicating with borough police / MPS, day to day
work with PPOs.
8. Follow up interviews and case analysis of this cohort of PPOs to conduct an evaluation
of the long term impacts of the scheme, the survival of scheme effects and the points
of attrition for those PPOs who return to offending.
9. Examination of the current PPO cohort in terms of its contribution to the level of crime
and therefore the effectiveness and accuracy of the targeting process in each borough.

2
London Borough of Camden has recently committed over £100K to the borough’s PPO scheme
through funding identified by the CDRP.

6
Final Draft 30/07/07

Definitions
In London, an adult PPO is a person who is aged 18 and over and for whom the following
three factors apply: 1) there are six or more indications of criminal activity – either criminal
convictions and / or reliable intelligence – over a two year period; 2) s/he has been
involved in an offence which falls under PSA 1 or 43 or another crime of local significance;
3) where offending is motivated by drug or alcohol misuse (Government Office for London,
2007).

Statutory offenders are subject to statutory supervision by the probation or youth


offending services and may include offenders on Community Orders and those on license
following release from prison. Non statutory offenders are not currently under statutory
supervision. A PPO is usually be identified and supervised by the borough where the
offender lives, however in some instances offenders do not offend in the borough where
they reside. In London, a person identified as a PPO in one borough is recognised as a
PPO across London irrespective of where they live. PPOs offending outside of the
borough where they live are known as cross borough offenders.

A Persistent Young Offender (PYO) is a young person who has been dealt with by the
courts on three or more occasions and who commits another offence within 3 years of their
last court appearance4.

3
Overall national Public Service Agreement (PSA) 1 is to reduce crime by 15% and more in high
crime areas by 2007-08. PSA 4 is to reduce the harm caused by illegal drugs including substantially
increasing the number of drug misusing offenders entering treatment through the Criminal Justice
System.
4
Youth Justice Board (2000) National Standards

7
Final Draft 30/07/07

Introduction
This report presents the findings of a qualitative study of 37 Prolific and Other Priority
Offenders (PPOs) and 18 practitioners working with PPOs in four London boroughs. The
research has been commissioned by London Probation with funding from Government
Office for London to examine good practice in each of the four schemes and to provide
information to CDRPs within London about the ways in which the PPO scheme has an
impact on the PPOs behaviour and attitude to offending. This study is intended to
compliment the recent national evaluation of the PPO scheme which indicated that PPOs
on the scheme had significantly reduced their offending when compared to a non-PPO
cohort.

The first section of this report describes the background to the PPO scheme in England
and Wales, the national PPO cohort and some of the findings of a recent evaluation of the
national PPO scheme. It then goes on to review some of the literature associated with re-
offending and desistance and a review of some of the good practice in relation to initiatives
and practices with prolific offenders.

Background
Prolific and Other Priority Offenders
The Government White Paper titled Policing a New Century estimated there were one
million offenders active in the general population at one time and that around 100,000 or
10% of these had received three or more convictions during their offending careers. It was
estimated that this group were responsible for committing at least half of all ‘serious crime’
and a substantial amount of repeat victimisation (Home Office, 2001). This group of
offenders is a dynamic group with an estimated one fifth (20,000) moving into and out of
the group per year5. Further research shows that a group of 5 000 (0.5% of the active
offending population) super-prolific offenders have been found to commit 9% of all crime
(Home Office, 2002). Other research has challenged this notion of persistence finding for
example that different definitions often identified different offenders and that prolific
offending was often short lived (Hagell and Newburn, 1994).

The 2002 White Paper Justice for All highlighted the gap between offences committed and
those brought to justice with the Government setting a target to increase the number of

5
http://www.crimereduction.gov.uk/ppo/ppominisite01.htm

8
Final Draft 30/07/07

offences brought to justice to 1.2 Million in 2005/6 (HMIC, 2004) The Carter Review
Managing Offenders, Reducing Crime: A New Approach (2003) echoed the need to tackle
this group of offenders through more intense surveillance and greater control of those who
were a medium- to high-risk.

In April 2003 the Persistent Offender Scheme (POS) was launched to ensure that all
agencies in the criminal justice system placed a focus on this group of offenders. The
Home Office implemented 15 Intensive Supervision and Monitoring Schemes (ISMs) under
this scheme to support the achievement of the new Government targets (HMIC, 2004).
Several other schemes targeting prolific offenders such as the Drug Treatment and Testing
Order (DTTO) and Intensive Supervision and Surveillance Programmes (ISSP) for young
offenders were also initiated (HMIC, 2004), the evaluations of which have formed the basis
for good practice in this area (Homes et al, 2005). Following feedback from practitioners
and several reviews of existing persistent offender and prolific offender schemes, the
government launched the Priority and Prolific Offender Strategy (PPO) in March 2004. The
scheme was fully implemented across England and Wales by September 2004.

What is the PPO scheme?


The PPO scheme is a national initiative which targets the most prolific offenders who are
responsible for a disproportionate amount of crime with the aim of reducing their offending
and the subsequent harms caused to communities. The PPO scheme is led by Crime and
Disorder Reduction Partnerships (CDRPs) across the country with an emphasis on multi-
agency working to effectively catch, convict, monitor and manage prolific offenders both in
prison and in the community (Dawson, 2005).

The PPO scheme allows local areas to identify offenders on the basis of the following
criteria:
• The nature and volume of the crimes they are committing;
• The nature and volume of other harm they are causing (by virtue of gang
leadership or anti-social behaviour);
• Other local criteria based on the impact on individuals concerned on their local
communities.

The scheme consists of three complementary strands:

9
Final Draft 30/07/07

• Prevent and deter: aimed at preventing those most ‘at risk’ from becoming PPOs
through youth-justice interventions;6
• Catch and convict: aimed at ensuring PPOs are consistently prioritised through the
criminal justice system;7
• Rehabilitate and resettle: aimed at rehabilitating PPOs in custody or those serving
sentences in the community.

Home Office guidance recommended that such PPO schemes should use the National
Intelligence Model (NIM); be police and probation led8; and target a minimum of 15-20
offenders from a local area for intensive management. Furthermore, once an individual is
identified, schemes were expected to manage offenders through a combination of
enforcement measures and incentives to change behaviour. Such incentives, for example,
included support with specific rehabilitation, housing, or counselling needs (Home Office,
2004).

In July 2006, the Home Office published Rebalancing the Criminal Justice System’. Within
this document it was recommended that the PPO scheme be closely aligned with the Drug
Intervention Programme (DIP) to ensure that the drug users causing the highest amounts
of crime are identified and targeted most effectively9.

PPOs: the national picture


Nationally, 7 801 individuals had been identified as PPOs by October 2004 (Dawson and
Cuppleditch, 2007). Examination of this cohort found that PPOs were predominantly white
(88%) male (95%) and young (the most common age was 20 years, however ages ranged
from 17 years to 88 years of age) (Dawson, 2005). The PPOs had generally begun
offending earlier (15 compared to 21), were more versatile offenders (offending in seven
crime types compared to one) and in the last five years had nearly 2.5 times the
convictions of a comparison group (ibid).

6
While CDRPs have overall responsibility for the Prevent and Deter Strand of the scheme, in
practice, this is usually managed by local Youth Offending Teams. Guidance was issued by the
Youth Justice Board in November 2004 to support their work in this regard (Youth Justice Board,
2004).
7
In London this strand is known as Catch and Bring to Justice (Government Office for London,
2007)
8
With the exception of the Prevent and Deter Strand
9
Government Office for London (2007b)

10
Final Draft 30/07/07

The table below shows demographic data taken from J-Track and produced by the Home
Office for April 2007 for the entire PPO cohort.

Table 1: Demographic data for the national PPO cohort – April 2007
Gender
Male 96%
Female 4%
Age
12 and under 0.0%
13-17 6%
18-20 17%
21-25 26%
26-30 21%
31-35 16%
36-40 9%
41-50 5%
51 and over 1%
Not stated 0%
Ethnicity
White - British 72%
Other white background 4%
Other black background 2%
Black - Caribbean 3%
Mixed - White and Black
Caribbean 2%
Other (individually less than
1%) 3%
Not stated 14%
Blank 0%
Source: JTrack n=11311

According to the recently conducted national evaluation of the PPO scheme 37% of
offenders had an acquisitive offence in their history (Dawson and Cuppleditch, 2007). A
further breakdown of the types of convictions PPOs had in their history is shown below.

11
Final Draft 30/07/07

Figure 1: PPO conviction history

Other motoring
offence, 18% Aquisitive offence
Criminal damage
Aquisitive
offence, 37% Drug offence
Other summary Violent offence
offence, 17% Other summary offence
Violent offence, Criminal Other motoring offence
4% damage, 3%
Drug offence,
4%

Source: Dawson and Cuppleditch (2007)

Key findings from the national PPO impact assessment


In early 2007 the Home Office published a national impact assessment of the PPO
scheme which reported a 43% reduction in the offending of the entire PPO cohort when
comparing the number of convictions in the 17 months before and after the programme
(Dawson and Cuppleditch, 2007). This reduction in offending was most marked upon entry
to the scheme with a reduction of 62% in the first 17 months of the scheme. On average,
offending fell from 0.51 to 0.39 convictions per month when the 12 months prior to the
scheme and the 12 months following the scheme were compared. This represents a
reduction of 24 per cent10.

Apart from reducing offending, a key priority of the PPO scheme is increasing the speed
with which offenders are processed through the criminal justice system following a new
offence. The Home Office research found that PPOs were being processed through 13
days sooner than they had been prior to entry on the scheme. Offenders interviewed
during this research were aware of the ‘carrot and stick’ approach and understood the
additional enforcement aspects of the scheme as well as the consequences of non
compliance. The PPOs welcomed the additional support and their views of probation were
positive. The majority of the PPOs reported a reduction or claimed to have stopped
offending since their involvement in the PPO scheme (Dawson and Cuppleditch, 2007).

A second publication was issued at the same time which highlights the following key
recommendations for improving the implementation of the PPO scheme nationally:
10
Methodological issues prevented the research being able to indicate the extent to which these
reductions could be attributed entirely to the PPO scheme.

12
Final Draft 30/07/07

• Involvement of all relevant agencies in the selection / deselection of PPOs


• Co-location of PPO staff
• Scheme costs should be identified and sources of funding sought out
• PPOs should be provided with clear information about the scheme and with
motivational support.
• Blockages with communication and data sharing should be identified and resolved.
• A multi-agency approach is required in order to tackle PPOs specific accommodation,
drugs misuse, education, training and employability needs (Dawson, 2007).

Review of key literature


Risk factors associated with offending
Well known research by Farrington (1997) identified risk factors which were associated
with the onset and the persistence of offending behaviour and the factors which influence
desistence from offending. While some evidence exists of a relationship between risks
factors and offending, more often, the relationships are complex and not clearly
understood11.

Farrington et al (1996) found unemployment to have a relationship to offending. The


stability and quality of the employment and the satisfaction experienced from work were
found to be associated with reduced re-offending (Motiuk and Brown,1993; Farrington,
1989). While a lack of basic skills has not been directly found to be directly predictive of
offending, this factor relates directly to other factors which are known to be associated with
offending, for example, unemployment, social exclusion or a poor school experience
(Proporino and Robinson, 1992).

The Social Exclusion Unit report that substance misuse is associated with offending as it
may have an impact on other areas of an offender’s life, for example, their chances of
obtaining and holding down a job (SEU, 2002). Research has found that treating
substance misusing offenders, particularly when they are retained in treatment for at least
12 weeks, has a positive effect on rates of re-offending and that investing in drug treatment
can reduce costs in the criminal justice system (Gossop et al, 1997). Similarly, other
studies have found that targeting offenders with serious drug problems who commit a high

11
There is an extensive body of literature relating to risk factors which has been reviewed
elsewhere in detail. This report will present a summary of the relevant points only.

13
Final Draft 30/07/07

level of acquisitive crime can reduce offending behaviour (Chenery and Pease, 2000;
Worrall et al., 2002; Hough et al, 2003).

Stable accommodation is both directly and indirectly linked to reductions in re-offending


(Harper and Chitty, 2005). According to the Social Exclusion Unit (2002) one in three
prisoners is not permanent accommodation prior to imprisonment and up to one third of
prisoners loses their housing whilst in prison. Those who receive short prison sentences
are reportedly between two and three times more likely to re-offend if they do not have
suitable accommodation available when they leave prison (Nacro, 2006).

Ex-prisoners face barriers to obtaining and maintaining housing including: rent arrears;
insufficient money to make a deposit; discrimination by landlords; a lack of housing advice
and support whilst in prison; a lack of supported housing for those with lower level needs
upon their release; and the 13 week housing benefit rule12; (Nacro, 2006). A lack of
suitable housing can have far reaching impacts for offenders including increased social
exclusion13 (SEU, 2002) and harsher treatment by the criminal justice system (Nacro,
1999). Independent housing for offenders may: improve the monitoring of offenders;
decrease the likelihood of custodial sentences and increase access to alternative
punishments such as curfews; allow offenders independence from substance misusing or
violent partners; and finally, through having a permanent address for correspondence it
may improve an offenders ability to access health services, employment and training
opportunities (Nacro, 1999).

Persistence
There is a significant amount of research which has established that at any one time a
small proportion of all offenders are responsible for a disproportionate amount of crime
(eg. Wolfgang et al, 1972; West and Farrington, 1977; Home Office, 1985; Farrington,
1987) and it is these findings which have led to policy and practice such as intensive
supervision and surveillance programmes and PPO schemes. It has also been noted
however, that this group of offenders is not stable nor is the same group of offenders
identified when different definitions of persistence are used (Hagell and Newburn, 1994).
Furthermore, others have identified that the current practices of identifying the most
persistent and prolific offenders may not target the correct group and therefore fulfil the
aims of such a scheme – to make the maximum impact on crime. In fact, one study by

12
Which allows sentenced prisoners to be away from home for 13 weeks before their housing
benefit is withdrawn.
13
This may in fact increase with the implementation of Anti-Social Behaviour legislation.

14
Final Draft 30/07/07

Townsley and Pease (2002) found no evidence that the group of individuals nominated as
the most prolific did make a disproportionate contribution to the level of crime and
therefore it may be necessary to conduct studies which target the effectiveness and
accuracy of the targeting process (Millie and Erol, 2006).

Rehabilitation or desistance?
There are two key strands to the literature about re-offending, that which examines
desistance by offenders and that which examines the benefits of rehabilitative
interventions, however, in reality the boundaries between the two areas are less clearly
defined with offender change usually the result of a combination of these two and perhaps
other factors. Maruna argues that research into re-offending and offender rehabilitation
often focuses on ‘what works’ without attempting to understand how and why rehabilitation
works with some offenders and fails with others (Maruna, 2000). In his opinion, research
into desistance can assist in identifying ways in which interventions can work to enhance
an individual’s own efforts to change.

The literature on desistance identifies three broad perspectives: maturational reform; social
bonds theory and narrative theory (Maruna, 2000). Maturational theories focus on the link
between age and specific criminal behaviours – street crime for example. One such
research study found young people who desisted began to realise the consequences of
their offending; that it was pointless or wrong; or had begun work, college, a relationship or
had assumed responsibilities through leaving home (Jamieson, McIvor and Murray, 1999).
Other research found young men slower to desist than young women. This was generally
connected to their being slower to assume responsibilities and achieve independence
(Graham and Bowling, 1995). Risk factors associated with young men who failed to desist
were a high frequency of prior offending; ongoing contact with offending peers and heavy
drinking and drug use (ibid). The same research found two factors that were positively
associated with desistence for young men – continuing to live at home and a perception
that their school work was above average (ibid).

Social bonds theories suggest that relationships to family, work and education in early
adulthood explain changes in criminal behaviour during an offender’s life through the
creation of a reason to stop offending. For those where such bonds are absent there may
be a sense of ‘nothing to lose’. In a study of recidivism among property offenders
conducted by Burnett (1992) those who were most successful in desisting had also been

15
Final Draft 30/07/07

the most confident and optimistic about doing so14. From her research she categorised
three types of persisters – hedonists, earners and survivors. The ‘hedonists’ were attracted
to the excitement of being involved in criminal activities; the ‘earners’ considered crime a
viable way of earning an income and the ‘survivors’ were generally dependant on drugs
and offending to support their substance misuse. She also categorised three types of
desisters – ‘non starters’ who denied they were criminals; ‘avoiders’ who aimed to keep out
of prison as they had established that the costs of crime outweighed the benefits; and
‘converts’ who had found new interests, for example, a job or new partner and who were
now not prepared to jeopardise these by committing property crime. For this type of
desister an objective change in circumstances was accompanied by a judgement about
the value, meaning or importance of this change (Farrall, 2002).

Narrative theories stress changes to a person’s sense of self and identity which is reflected
in a greater consideration of the future, other people and changing motivations. In one
research study the narrative of the persister was of a person condemned to a life of
offending, while the desisters felt that they were a victim of society who had turned to
crime or drugs to exert some sort of power over their circumstances but were still
essentially good (Maruna, 2001). This narrative of desistance however, still meant that
offenders did not feel able to make their own choices or manage their lives to overcome
societal pressures.

Interventions supporting a reduction in re-offending


In 2002 the Social Exclusion Unit published a report which indicated that over half of all
crime is committed by those who have already been through the criminal justice system
and that the costs of crimes committed by ex-prisoners amounted to approximately £11
billion a year (SEU, 2002). According to recent Home Office research the rate of re-
offending of adults who were released from prison or who commenced a community
penalty in the first quarter of 2004 was 57.6% (Cunliffe and Shepherd, 2007).

Research on the effectiveness of schemes targeting prolific and persistent offenders is


mixed. Much of the evidence used in the UK to develop approaches aimed at reducing re-
offending has come from studies undertaken in the US and Canada in response to
pessimism about the ability of interventions with offender to ‘work’. Apart from difficulties in

14
Burnett notes that the process of desistence is not straightforward and usually involves a process
of shifting back and forth between desistence and re-offending.

16
Final Draft 30/07/07

determining whether results from such studies can be generalised into the British context,
the nature and quality of the studies conducted in Britain varies dramatically (Home Office,
2004) and only a relatively small body of evaluation research exists. In addition, many
studies focus on measuring reconviction which it has been argued is not a useful or
accurate way of measuring the impacts of a programme on an offender’s behaviour,
nevertheless some of the key findings regarding interventions targeting offenders are
outlined below.

Meta-analyses of the ‘what works’ literature, research and policy have found that
interventions with offenders should be based on an explicit model of risk factors; have a
risk classification; target criminogenic needs; be responsive; have programme integrity and
treatment should recognise a range of offenders problems and employ methods from
behavioural, cognitive and cognitive-behavioural fields (McGuire and Priestley, 1995).
Another review conducted by McGuire (2002a) found that offenders often have multiple
criminogenic needs, therefore, programmes and interventions are required that will tackle
a range of such problems and be multi-modal in nature (McGuire, 2002b). Similarly, work
conducted by the Probation Service on case management approaches found that the core
features which improved offender engagement and therefore the case management
system were the acknowledgement of offender’s needs and experiences and a continuity
of contact (Partridge, 2004).

The ‘what works’ literature generally shows that re-offending and reconviction can best be
addressed through interventions which influence risk factors, particularly problems with
education, employment and substance misuse (Harper and Chitty, 2004). Based on
findings of this nature, the London Resettlement Strategy has identified seven pathways to
help address the key factors which influence re-offending: accommodation; education,
training and employment; health; drugs; finance; debt and benefit; children and families;
and attitudes, thinking and behaviour (Government Office for London, 2006).

Intensive supervision and monitoring


Meta-analyses of intensive supervision and monitoring schemes concluded that they have
little or no effect on offenders’ future criminal activity (Gendreau, Goggin and Fulton, 2001;
Paparozzi, 1994), however when intervention was combined with treatment, a reduction in
recidivism was reported (Petersilia and Turner, 1993; Pararozzi, 1994; Gendreau et al.,
1993). Research has found the following elements of PPO schemes and other intensive
monitoring schemes to be associated with an increase in the likelihood of success:

17
Final Draft 30/07/07

• Good communication and information sharing between staff and partner agencies
(Chenery and Pease, 2000; Hope et al., 2001; Worrall et al., 2003; Dawson, 2005);
• A good balance of ‘law enforcement’ and a social work ‘ethos’ (Gendreau et al., 1993);
• Clear and effective line management between the police and probation staff (Mawby
and Worrall, 2004);
• High levels of motivation among staff and commitment to service operation (Worrall et
al., 2003; Paparozzi and Gendreau, 1994; Dawson, 2005);
• Informing magistrates and crown prosecution service representatives of the schemes
(Chenery and Pease, 2000);
• Using a shared database (Heal, 2001) and having a crime analyst as part of the team
(Worrall et al., 2004);
• Implementing mentors towards the end of the programme (Heal, 2001; Holden,
McAllister Partnership, 2003).

What works with who?


Much of the research into criminogenic risk factors and ‘what works’ has been undertaken
with white male offenders and largely neglects other offender groups. Important
differences have been found in the offending behaviour of men and women and it is
argued that as a result programmes which focus on male criminogenic factors may be
unable to meet the needs of women (Hedderman, 2004; cited in Harper and Chitty, 2005).
Similarly, the London Resettlement Strategy also highlights that the criminogenic needs
and risk of reconviction of BME offenders differ to those of white offenders (Government
Office for London, 2006).

What works in probation practice15?


The application of the ‘what works’ principles has primarily focussed on particular activities,
for example, systems of accrediting interventions, designing programmes that match the
level or risk and need with the type and level of intervention or evaluating the programme’s
integrity. This has led to increasing concern with which programmes work better than
others, in which contexts and for which groups rather than examining the qualities of the
interventions which may be a large part of the programmes effectiveness.

Some argue that this focus on accreditation, assessment and evaluation has been
undertaken to the detriment of developing good probation practice to support the
development of quality relationships which can support offenders to desist (Barry, 2000;
15
Further detail is available in McNeill, Batchelor, Burnett and Knox (2005).

18
Final Draft 30/07/07

Batchelor and McNeill, 2005; Burnett, 2004). Raynor (2004) argues that there is an
increasing need for practitioners to be able to use interpersonal skills, flexibility and
discretion in their contact with offenders and also to take individual concerns and diversity
issues into account.

Desistence and the probation relationship


Research with probation officers and their clients found that clients who attributed changes
in their behaviour to their supervision reported that their supervision had been active and
participatory with the sense of being engaged in a joint negotiation with their supervisor
(Rex, 1999). Rex’s research found that offenders who reported being more willing to desist
also reported feeling personally committed in their relationship with their probation officer
and that this sense of commitment was developed through experience of the probation
officer’s personal and professional commitment to them. Rex argues that offenders come
to view probation officers as role models through a sense of obligation generated by the
support and encouragement provided to the offender, with up to half of those interviewed
describing this as personal loyalty and accountability to their supervisor. Probationers also
found guidance and support regarding personal and social problems which Rex described
as work aimed at strengthening social ties, a factor also noted in theories of desistance. It
was also reported that positive supervision included a reinforcing of pro-social behaviour
and that offenders were motivated by evidence of the probation officer’s concern for them
as a (ibid).

Desistence and the social context


A study examining the progress or lack of progress made by probationers who desist from
offending found that in only a few cases could desistence be attributed directly to
interventions by the probation officer. Rather it was found that desistence could be related
to the offender’s motivations and to the personal and social context within which the
barriers to desistence were addressed (Farrell, 2002). In this study Farrell argues that
interventions delivered by probation can develop an offender’s human but not social capital
as desistence is not only dependent on individual choices, it also occurs in a social and
institutional context over which the offender has no control (Farrell and Bowling, 1999).

19
Final Draft 30/07/07

Rationale for research


Increasingly there has been a shift away from concern with overall crime rates to a focus
on the prolific offending behaviour of individual offenders. This has led to the development
of key performance targets around re-offending and the development of initiatives and
strategies to deal with individual offending as a way of improving local community safety16.

In London, as elsewhere, CDRPs are responsible for local crime reduction initiatives. As
the PPO scheme is a major new initiative which aims to intensively target the prolific
offending of a small group, CDRPs have expressed an interest in knowing both whether
PPO schemes represent value for money and also how best to work with the PPOs to
achieve good value and the greatest benefit to their local crime reduction initiatives.
Initially a cost-benefit analysis was proposed, however, such a study is limited by the
several key problems17 and would not allow any detailed analysis of the elements of the
PPO scheme or the offender’s biography which had an influence over their behaviour.

The recent national assessment of the impacts of the PPO scheme reports a 43%
reduction in the offending of the entire PPO cohort based on the number of convictions in a
17 month period either side of being registered as a PPO (Dawson and Cuppleditch,
2007). However, such a study examines overall recidivism compared to a similar non PPO
cohort and provides little detail about the ways in which each scheme has contributed to
these successes18.

Reconviction was established as a key indicator of performance for the English and Welsh
Prison Service by Carter et al (1992; cited in Home Office, 2004), however this method of
assessment has been frequently challenged and its limitations are well known. According
to Matthews and Pitts (2000) this is for two key reasons: 1) the causal links between the
programme and measurement are not easy to identify and often get neglected, and 2) that
the recidivism measure can be constructed and defined in a range of often contradictory
ways. They argue that recidivism can refer to any single or combination of: re-arrest rate,

16
Local Area Agreements have also for the first time seen NOMS as a contributing organisation and
there is a new mandatory indicator to reduce re-offending (Government Office for London, 2006).
17
See Appendix 1.
18
Similarly, a recent evaluation of the Derby PPO scheme using a small matched comparison group
and survival analysis, found that 78% of the Non-PPOs re-offended compared to 50% of the PPOs.
It also found that the estimated average re-offending time for PPO offenders is 315 days which is
more than double that of the non PPO offenders (Ipsos Mori, 2007). The report authors note
however that none of these decreases can be directly attributed to the scheme due to
methodological challenges.

20
Final Draft 30/07/07

reconviction rate, readmission rate and re-offending rate, and that problems exist with any
of the measures chosen. Re-arrest rates for instance may be influenced by an offenders
being know as a ‘likely suspects’. Reconviction rates may rule out some of these trivial
arrests but also miss offenders who avoid conviction for a number of reasons such as legal
technicalities resulting in these cases being identified as ‘successes’. Jones (1996)
suggests that readmission data is considered more robust as the offence for which
someone was sentenced must have been sufficiently serious for them to end up in prison,
however, it is likely that it is less serious than the offence for which they were originally
sentenced again making questionable what constitutes ‘success’. Self report measures are
also challenged for tending to underestimate offending behaviour due to the offender’s
vested interest in not making details of their offending known19.

Therefore, research examining recidivism rates alone fails to capture the various types of
‘success’ for instance, a reduction or a change to a less harmful form of offending, or a
change of attitude or behaviour which may support a future reduction in re-offending.
Using a particular model of measuring recidivism may mean that some of these examples
are held up as failures and as Matthews (1997) argues, many programmes which aim to
reduce recidivism have positive effects but that these effects may have little influence over
the chance that an offender will be rearrested or reconvicted.

According to Pitts and Matthews (2000) ‘it is necessary to move away from a zero-sum
conception of rehabilitation and from the notion that the aim of rehabilitative programmes is
to turn bad people into good people or committed criminals into law abiding citizens.’ They
advocate that programme evaluations aim to identify which elements of a scheme make
change possible and that low level objectives such as developing basic skills such as
literacy and numeracy, developing conditions for independent living or attitudinal changes
are equally as important as changes in re-offending as it is unrealistic to expect a short
term programme to change decades of socialisation.

It is for these reasons that qualitative interviews with offenders who have been
participating in the PPO scheme have been undertaken and it is expected that such
research will compliment the recent national evaluation undertaken by the Home Office

19
For example a recent Home Office study of offenders on probation indicates that when asked as
part of their OASys assessment 65% of offenders assessed by probation as having a high likelihood
of reconviction felt that they would definitely not or were unlikely to offend again.

21
Final Draft 30/07/07

(Dawson and Cuppleditch, 2007) and provide additional information for CDRPs and
practitioners within London.

Context for research


As PPO schemes are developed to meet local crime reduction needs and have been
established within existing community safety structures there is variation in how they work,
how they are funded and supported, and therefore ways in which they are effective. There
is currently no data available about the elements of the scheme which are associated with
reduced re-offending and reconviction, the types of offenders who respond well, the way in
which offenders change their behaviour or attitudes when put on the scheme, or about the
factors which influence an offender’s progress on the PPO scheme.

PPO schemes aim to target the most prolific offenders in each borough in order to reduce
the amount of crime they commit and the harm they cause to the local community. This
research has been commissioned by London Probation from funding provided by
Government Office for London in order to develop a better understanding of how the PPO
Scheme in London achieves this aim and to examine the features of the scheme which
impact on an offender’s ability to reduce the extent and seriousness of their offending.

22
Final Draft 30/07/07

Research aims
This study aims to compliment the national impact assessment study conducted by the
Home Office (Dawson and Cuppleditch, 2007) by examining in more detail four PPO
schemes in London. This report will present the findings of 37 qualitative semi-structured
interviews conducted with offenders and 18 semi-structured interviews with practitioners
working with PPOs on the schemes and examine the ways in which each scheme
operates to reduce re-offending and the ways in which it is considered effective.

The key aims of the research are to:


• Examine the range of factors which may be involved in reducing reconviction and
re-offending among PPOs in each of four London PPO schemes
• Use an in-depth case study approach with 20 offenders who have responded well
to the PPO scheme and 20 offenders who haven’t in order to obtain a range of
views and experiences.
• Support the development of a methodology to determine the cost benefits of the
PPO scheme in London from which local benefits in terms of crime reduction can
be established and from which funding decisions can be made
• To provide constructive recommendations and good practice for PPO schemes
across London.

23
Final Draft 30/07/07

Methodology
Guidance issued by Government Office for London suggests that PPO panels could use
feedback from offenders to identify barriers to progress and success factors in order to
highlight good practice (Government Office for London, 2007). This research employs a
qualitative methodology based on offender interviews to allow an ‘in-depth’ examination of
the types of factors most likely to influence a PPO to change (Sayer, 1992).

Research strategy
In order to develop an understanding of the causal factors and processes involved in
promoting change among PPOs an in-depth case study approach was undertaken which
involved interviews with offenders, interviews with professionals working with PPOs and an
examination of OASys, Delius and other probation records. Due to the limited budget
available for this research it was initially undertaken in three London boroughs - Islington,
Southwark and Lambeth - which were selected as they represent a range of locations,
offender types and PPO schemes and for the relationships that already existed which
facilitated access. London Borough of Barnet later provided additional research funding to
the project and have therefore been included as a fourth borough.

Offender interviews
Interviews were to be undertaken with a total of 40 offenders currently on the PPO scheme
in the four London boroughs. Ten interviews were to be conducted in each borough, five
with those who have continued to offend and who are not engaging and five with those
who are engaging and are thought to have reduced their offending since entering the
scheme. Each borough was asked to select ten appropriate participants to be involved in
the research.

In total, 38 offenders were approached to participate in the research: 10 in Islington, 10 in


Lambeth, 10 in Barnet and eight in Southwark. One Islington offender currently in prison
refused to participate in the study. Twelve interviews were conducted in London prisons on
legal visits and 25 interviews were conducted in the community at the offender’s probation
office. Three of the offenders were women and 34 were male. The table below shows the
sample composition in terms of ethnicity.

24
Final Draft 30/07/07

Table 2: Ethnicity of interviewees (n=37)


Ethnicity Count %
Black or Black British:African 1 3%
Black or Black British:Any other black background 1 3%
Black or Black British:Caribbean 5 14%
Black or Black British:Other 1 3%
Mixed:White and Black Caribbean 4 11%
Other ethnic group 1 3%
White:Any other white background 1 3%
White:British 20 54%
White:Irish 3 8%

Compared to the both the London and National cohort of PPOs the sample of interviewees
had more ‘White British’ respondents than London and fewer than the national cohort (54%
compared to 49% in London and 72% in England and Wales). The table below shows the
age of each of the offenders interviewed. The average age was 31 years. The youngest
offender was 19 and the oldest was 47 years. Over a third of those interviewed were 25
years or younger (35%, n=13) and of these 30% were aged 21 years or younger.

Figure 2: Age of interviewees (n=37)

3%
11%

<25
35%
26-30
31-35
27% 36-40
41-45
46-50

8% 16%

The interviews were semi-structured and in depth and examined in detail the factors which
have had an impact on the offender’s behaviour. They included questions to determine a
change in attitude; behaviour; substance use; and the nature, frequency and location of
offending behaviour. They also examined how the offender has responded to the PPO
scheme and which features of the scheme they felt were most / least effective.

25
Final Draft 30/07/07

Each of the interview participants was offered a £20 incentive in acknowledgement of their
time and expenses and as a way of encouraging participation in order to meet the short
time frame of the research. Those offenders interviewed in a prison setting were offered
the same incentive which would be kept for them until their release by their probation
office.

General research questions


The research aimed to explore the following questions:
• What were offender’s initial reactions to being placed on the PPO scheme?
• What do the offenders think of the PPO scheme?
• What interventions have they received?
• What features of the scheme have they felt assisted them? Why?
• What features of the scheme do they feel could be improved? Why?
• How has the nature and extent of offending changed following entry on the PPO
scheme?
• What changes have there been in the offender’s attitudes to their offending and
behaviour?
• How does the offender’s self reported offending and behaviour compare with data
held by agencies?
• How has the offender’s substance misuse, personal, social and family
circumstances; and mental state been impacted by the scheme?

Case file reviews


As part of agreeing to participate in an interview about the PPO scheme, offenders were
asked for their consent to examine the Police and Probation data held about them. This
data was used to construct a case study of each of the offenders interviewed in order to
compare changes in the nature and extent of their offending behaviour prior to and during
their participation on the PPO scheme. This case file information was incorporated with the
interview data to create case studies of each PPO.

Practitioner interviews
Brief semi-structured interviews were undertaken with key members of the PPO team or
practitioners delivering interventions using a standard topic guide. Those interviewed
varied between boroughs mainly due to differing team structures and limited availability,
but included Senior Probation Officers, Probation Officers, Probation Support Officers,
Police Constables, a mentor and the facilitator of an offender group. In total 12

26
Final Draft 30/07/07

practitioners were interviewed either individually or as part of a group. Interviews with


practitioners were undertaken largely as background to the research with offenders.
However, as these interviews resulted in a substantial amount of data, these have also
been analysed in the above fashion and a summary of the findings are presented later in
the report.

Analysis of interview data


The offender interview data was analysed in an inductive manner, with the objective of
understanding the ways in which the PPO scheme has had an impact on offending
behaviour and attitudes to offending. Case study data will be analysed in conjunction with
interview data using an organised analysis framework constructed from the issues
emerging in the data.

Firstly, data was sorted into primary categories which led to the identification of prominent
issues. Secondly, a detailed examination was undertaken of the similarities and
differences in offender’s experiences across boroughs, type of offending, age and other
key factors. From this over-arching categories and frameworks were developed. Finally, a
reflexive consideration of the policy and practice implications was undertaken which
contributed to the development of the report recommendations.

OASys and Delius data


OASys data has been used to support an assessment of those PPOs interviewed who
have continued to offend since entering the scheme and those whose offending behaviour
has significantly decreased. Data from OASys has been examined in conjunction with data
from Delius in order to produce offender case studies.

Police National Computer (PNC) Data (MG16s)


Data from the PNC can provide data on arrests which result in charges, convictions and
sentencing information. The research examined MG16s for a small number of PPOs to
assist in developing a methodology which can be used to determine the cost benefits of
the PPO scheme in each London borough20. It was not possible in the timeframe or for the
budget to examine reconviction rates for each of the schemes and in some boroughs this
analysis has already been undertaken21.

20
See Appendix 1 for guidance on cost benefit analysis.
21
A discussion of the methodologies used and their limitations is discussed in Appendix 1.

27
Final Draft 30/07/07

Acknowledgements and limitations of the study


Quantitative and qualitative research methods
As has already been identified, there are limitations in any study which attempts to assess
the impact of an intervention aimed at reducing recidivism. In this research a qualitative
methodology has been chosen to highlight the ways in which offenders have responded to
different elements of the PPO scheme and to try to establish the ways in which the
scheme may have an impact on offenders rather than determining an exact measure of the
scheme’s success in terms of recidivism. Such an approach acknowledges some of the
limitations in quantitative research into recidivism and aims to compliment the recent
national evaluation of the PPO scheme which used propensity score matching to analyse
reconvictions.

Reliability of data sources


In some cases the data held on offenders in probation computer systems (Delius and
OASys) was inconsistent or incomplete. As such systems have not been designed as
research databases but as operational tools to assess and case manage offenders, it is
therefore understandable that some gaps and inconsistencies exist. Similarly, there were
contradictions between data held in these systems and the qualitative data produced
through interviews with offenders and practitioners. Where these differences have been
considered significant they have been discussed within the report.

28
Final Draft 30/07/07

Findings
‘The London Model’
In London each of the 32 borough PPO schemes are overseen by Government Office for
London (GOL) to ensure some consistency in regard to resource planning, performance
management and cross borough tracking of offenders, but while GOL takes a strategic
overview of the schemes the responsibility for implementation of the scheme remains local
in order that CDRPs may respond best to the boroughs needs using the resources
available. Each CDRP is therefore responsible for setting up and running a PPO scheme
and for creating a PPO strategy which satisfies both national criteria and local needs.

The third version of the London Model guidance published by GOL recommends that a
specially created multi-agency PPO Steering Group is set up to undertake these strategic
activities. (Government Office for London, 2007, p.8). The guidance also recommends a
multi-agency PPO Panel be convened where PPOs can be selected and deselected and
offender’s needs can be addressed (Ibid).

GOL recommends that the operational PPO team should be co-located and should include
a Senior Probation Officer, a Probation Officer, a Probation Service Officer and Police
Officer, an Administrative Support Worker and a Drugs Worker, however, there is some
variation in relation to this depending on local circumstances. London Probation has
agreed to provide a probation support officer (PSO) to the PPO team to work with non-
statutory offenders on the scheme who are not normally part of the probation caseload,
however, funding for this post is dependant upon the CDRP. In Intensive DIP boroughs
the drugs worker should be provided by the DIP due to the likelihood that a significant
number of PPOs will have substance misuse problems (ibid).

The main functions of the PPO team are: completing and reviewing offender assessments,
sentence plans and action plans; maintaining face to face contact with offenders (with 4
contacts per week recommended); working with the DIP to ensure appropriate referral,
assessment and treatment for substance misusing offenders; monitoring and enforcement
of statutory cases; motivating non-statutory cases; record keeping; referring offenders to
appropriate interventions and monitoring progress; visiting PPOs in prison; attending court;
making home visits; exchanging information and intelligence with the Police; making
contact with the offender’s family; preparing pre-sentence reports; contributing to remand
planning, sentence and release planning; completing national performance management

29
Final Draft 30/07/07

data returns; working with other agencies to identify potential PPOs; referring cases to the
PPO panel; marketing the PPO scheme locally and providing advice to other agencies;
meeting PPOs at the prison gate upon their release; engaging resources for PPO
interventions (Ibid).

PPOs: the London picture


According to data produced by the MPS in December 2006 there were 1100 PPOs in
London compared with 1232 at the latest assessment by the Home Office. The MPS data
suggests that around half of these 1100 were remanded in custody or were serving a
prison sentence at the time of the research; over 90% had been arrested since the
beginning of the scheme; about half were currently known to probation and over a quarter
were known to drug treatment services (MPS, 2006). According to this data, one fifth of the
PPOs could be considered cross border offenders in that they were last arrested outside
their home borough.

The most recent data produced in the March 2007 Headline Measures report published by
the Home Office22 show that the population of PPOs in London is significantly more
diverse than in England and Wales as a whole. There are also differences in the ages of
offenders as the table indicates.

Table 3: National and London PPO cohort demographics


PPO Cohort
Gender National London
Male 96% 96%
Female 4% 4%
Age
12 and under 0.0% 0.0%
13-17 6% 4%
18-20 17% 17%
21-25 26% 23%
26-30 21% 16%
31-35 16% 15%
36-40 9% 12%
41-50 5% 11%
51 and over 1% 2%
Not stated 0% 1%
Ethnicity
White - British 72% 49%
Other white background 4% 5%
Other black background 2% 9%

22
http://www.crimereduction.gov.uk/ppo/ppomf04-07.xls

30
Final Draft 30/07/07

Black - Caribbean 3% 11%


Mixed - White and Black Caribbean 2% 3%
Other (individually less than 1%) 3% 12%
Not stated 14% 12%
Blank 0% 0%
Source: JTrack n=11311 n=1232

The March 2007 PPO Headline Report shows that in London fewer PPOs were assessed
as having an alcohol problem than in England and Wales (18% compared to 27%). There
is no difference in the numbers of PPOs testing positive for drugs (56%). The table below,
taken again from the same report compares the most recent offences of London PPOs
compared with the national cohort and shows there are few differences.

Table 4: National and London PPO cohort – recent offences

Most recent
offence National London
Breach
offences 6% 5%
Burglary 22% 21%
Driving
offences 7% 8%
Other 14% 18%
Robbery 4% 4%
Summary offences 15% 13%
Theft and handling stolen
goods 8% 9%
Theft from shops 9% 8%
Vehicle crime 5% 5%
Violence against the person 9% 9%
Source: PNC n=9300 n=1007

Criminogenic needs
In January 2007 London Probation conducted an examination of the OASys data held on
each of the London PPOs and compared it to London offenders as a whole (Bellair, 2007).
Unsurprisingly, this data found that in London PPO offenders generally had more
criminogenic needs than the overall offender population and having nearly double the
‘need’ across most factors. This study found that 93% of the PPO population in London
had accommodation needs, compared to 46% in the general offender population and 79%
had drug misuse needs compared to 35%. PPOs were also found to have a higher risk
profile and a greater risk of reconviction than other London offenders (63% were assessed
as having a high risk of reconviction compared to 15%). This study also found that in terms
of ethnicity, a significantly greater proportion of London PPOs were ‘White British’ (54%)
than in the general London offender population (40%).

31
Final Draft 30/07/07

Four different schemes – Four different approaches


PPO schemes have developed to meet local crime reduction needs and as such there is
variation in how they work, how they are funded, the structures and services which they
are supported by and therefore in the ways in which they are effective. While the purpose
of this research is not to evaluate the effectiveness of each of the schemes individually,
some detail about each of the schemes is offered as background and to assist in the
discussion of good practice.

London Borough of Islington


Islington is one of 14 inner London boroughs bordered in the North by Haringey, the East
by Hackney, the West by Camden and in the South by the City of London. In terms of
population Islington is the second densest area in London with a density of 118 people per
hectare compared to the London average of 4623. According to the ONS 2005 Mid-Year
Population Estimate Islington has approximately 182,600 residents. Around a quarter
(24.7%) of Islington’s population are from ethnic minority groups. The three largest ethnic
minority groups in the borough are Black African (6%), Black Carribean (5%) and
Bangladeshi (2%)24. Of the 188 Super Output Areas (SOAs) in Islington, 43% of those are
in the top 10% most deprived. As a borough overall, Islington is ranked 3 out of 354 Local
Authorities in England and Wales25.

In Islington there are currently 48 PPOs. Of these 2 (4%) are female and 46 (96%) are
male, nearly half are White British (49%) and 13% are Black Caribbean. The PPOs
ranged in age from 17 to 52 years. A recent analysis of reconviction rates among PPOs in
Islington found there had been an average reduction of 9% in the rate of reconviction of all
PPOs since joining the scheme26.

23
Census 2001
24
Census 2001
25
www.odpm.gov.uk Indices of Deprivation 2004
26
Please see Appendix 1 for further discussion of the methodology used.

32
Final Draft 30/07/07

Figure 3: Ethnicity of Islington PPOs

6% 2%
4% 13% Any other Asian background
Black Caribbean
Black African
6% Any other Black background
White and Black Caribbean
6% White and Asian
Any other ethnic group
4% White British
White Irish
2%
49% Any other White background
8%

The Islington PPO scheme operates as part of the Islington Crime Drugs and Youth
Partnership (ICDYP). The Team currently consists of one Senior Probation Officer (SPO)
(with joint responsibilities for Drug Rehabilitation Requirements), one Probation Officer
(PO), two Probation Service Officers (SPOs), one drugs worker and two Police Constables
(PCs). One of the PCs works directly with offenders on a regular basis, the other works in
the Borough Intelligence Unit (BIU) at Tolpuddle Police Station. The team do not currently
have any administrative support.

The PPO team operate out of the Highbury Magistrates Court / London Probation building
in Holloway Road. Their premises are shared with the Camden probation team. In Islington
the PPO PSOs and drug worker share an office, however there is no co-location of the
Police and Probation despite close working relationships. Services for drug users are also
not co-located in this borough. Unique to Islington is the weekly PPO psychodynamic
therapy group which is led by a therapist with experience of working with violent prisoners.

London Borough of Lambeth


Lambeth is also an inner London borough. It is bordered by Croydon, Merton, Southwark,
Wandsworth and Westminster. Lambeth has five key town centres: North Lambeth,
Streatham, Clapham and Stockwell, Norwood and Brixton. The population has recently

33
Final Draft 30/07/07

been estimated to be 269,10027. Lambeth is also one of the most densely populated areas
in England with a density of 99.2 people per hectare28.

Lambeth is also ethnically diverse borough with 38% of the borough’s population coming
from ethnic minorities, the seventh highest proportion in the country29. The borough has
the second highest proportion of Black Caribbean residents in the country and the fourth
highest proportion of Black African people. There are also approximately 150 different
languages are spoken across the borough30. Lambeth has areas of both affluence and
deprivation, however some of its pockets of deprivation are among the worst in the
country. Of its 177 Super Output Areas (SOAs) Lambeth has 50 of these in the top 5%
most deprived in terms of crime and 11 in the top 5% in terms of income.

There are currently 55 PPOs on the Lambeth PPO register, including 7 PYOs. Of these,
47% are White British and 38% are Black Caribbean. PPOs in Lambeth ranged in age
from 15 to 47 years old.

Figure 4: Ethnicity of Lambeth PPOs

Black Caribbean

7%
Black African

Any other black


38%
background
White and Black
Caribbean
47% White and Asian
2%
White British
2% 2%
2% (blank)

The Lambeth PPO team currently consists of one PSO, one PO and one Police Sergeant.
The police and probation team are co-located and are based at Stockwell Road Probation
Office. As with the other PPO teams they are managed by an SPO. In Lambeth PPO
referrals and ongoing work with PPOs is managed in the Joint Action Group (JAG) which

27
ONS 2005 Mid-Year Estimate
28
http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/BA67FA12-CCA8-4F90-AC11-
52FBABE1B2A4/0/Aboutlambeth.pdf
29
ibid
30
2006 Lambeth Pupil Survey.

34
Final Draft 30/07/07

meets monthly. The Lambeth PPO team do not have an administrator however at the time
of the research the team had been informed that they would be provided with such a post.

London Borough of Southwark 31


Southwark is also an inner London borough. It has borders with Lambeth in the West,
Lewisham in the East, and the City of London and Tower Hamlets to the North. The
population of the borough has recently been estimated to be 254,70032. There are 84.9
people per hectare in the borough33. Around 40% of Southwark’s population are from black
or minority ethnic groups with the two largest minority groups being Black African (16%)
and Black Caribbean (8%). Southwark’s population of Black Africans is the largest
proportion of Black Africans of any Local Authority area in England and Wales34. According
to the 2004 Indices of Multiple Deprivation Southwark is ranked 12 out of 354 Local
Authority Areas in England and Wales, however levels of deprivation vary significantly
across the borough. Of the 164 SOAs in the borough, 24 or those are in the top 10% most
deprived.

In Southwark, there are currently 58 PPOs listed on the PPO register. Of these 53 (91%)
are male and 5 (9%) are female. Over half are White British (n=31, 52%) and nine (16%)
are Black Caribbean35.

31
The Southwark PPO scheme has been the subject of two recent studies. Cinnamon and Hoskins
(2006) outlines the way in which the PPO scheme in Southwark operates in practice and Sveinsson
(2006) undertook a case study of the Southwark PPO scheme by interviewing 20 offenders with the
aim of informing and developing local practice.
32
ONS 2005 Mid-Year Estimate
33
2001 Census
34
2001 Census
35
In the data provided, eight PPOs had either refused to provide and ethnic group or one had not
been recorded.

35
Final Draft 30/07/07

Figure 5: Ethnicity of Southwark PPOs

14% 16%

2% Black Caribbean
Black African
9%
Mixed Caribbean
Other Ethnicity
7%
White British
(blank)
52%

The PPOs range in age from 51 years old to 18 years old. Over a third (36%) of Southwark
PPOs are aged under 25 years, with a further 21% aged between 25 and 30 years.

The Southwark PPO team currently consists of five full time staff members - a probation
officer; a probation services officer, an administrator and a co-located police constable.
There is also a police sergeant based at Southwark Police Station who also has
responsibility for the police team who deal with ASBOs in the borough and a police
administrator. The PPO team is managed by a Senior Probation Officer who also has
responsibilities for managing the Drug Rehabilitation Requirement team. In Southwark
PPO referrals and ongoing work with PPOs is managed in the Joint Action Group (JAG)
which meets monthly and which is attended by key partners. In Southwark, the work of
probation and the police is supported by a mentoring programme delivered by a South
London charity.

London Borough of Barnet


The London Borough of Barnet is a large North London borough which covers an area of
33.8 square miles. It is bordered by the London boroughs of Harrow, Brent, Camden,
Enfield, Haringey and the County of Hertfordshire. Barnet is the second most populated
borough in London with a population of 314,564 people and 126,944 households in 2001.
According to mid year 2004 estimates the population of Barnet is growing with an
estimated population at this time of 326,747. Barnet has 13 major town centres.

According to the 2001 Census, the largest single minority ethnic groups are Indian (8.6%)
and Black African (4.3%). Barnet has the seventh largest number of Indian residents of

36
Final Draft 30/07/07

any of the 32 London boroughs and the twelfth highest number of Black African residents.
The 2001 Census also revealed that 14.8% of the population in Barnet are Jewish, the
highest proportion for any local authority in England and Wales. The three most deprived
areas in the borough (all in Colindale around the Grahame Park Estate) are in the top 14
most deprived in England.

In Barnet there are 30 PPOs currently on the PPO register. Twenty nine of the PPOs are
male and one is female. While the PPOs range in age from 18 years of age to 45 years of
age, nearly two thirds are aged under 25 years (63%, n=19)36. Of those aged 25 and under
nearly three quarters are aged 21 years and under (n=14). The average age of a PPO in
Barnet is 25 years. Barnet’s PPOs are predominantly White, with only one of 30 PPOs
being of Black Caribbean origin.

Figure 6: Ethnicity of Barnet PPOs

7% 3% 7%
3%
Black - Caribbean
Mixed - White and Asian
Other white background
White - British
Not stated

80%

The Barnet PPO team are co-located with Barnet’s DIP at The Grove37. The Grove is
operated by Turning Point in conjunction with the NHS. The PPO team consists of a co-
located Police Sergeant, a POs, one PSO and an administrator shared between the DRR
and the PPO team. The team are overseen by a SPO and are supported by a police officer
in the Borough Intelligence Unit. The drug services provided at The Grove include: group
and individual working and counselling; complementary therapies; assessments for
prescribing services; a daily drop in service; referrals to detox and rehabilitation services;

36
20% are aged 26-30 years, 10% aged 36-40 years and 7% 41-45 years old.
37
Barnet is a non-intensive DIP borough in contrast with Lambeth, Islington and Southwark who are
all intensive DIP schemes.

37
Final Draft 30/07/07

support in custody suites, courts and prison; housing, benefits and rental deposit support;
and an out of hours helpline.

Agency views
This section of the report presents the views of 18 practitioners involved in working with
PPOs in Islington, Southwark, Lambeth and Barnet. Those interviewed included Senior
Probation Officers, Probation Officers, Probation Support Officers, Police Constables, a
DIP worker, a mentor and the facilitator of an offender group. The interviews undertaken
were largely to gather information about the operation of each of the schemes, however,
several key issues were highlighted and are presented below.

Multi-agency working
The PPO scheme was set up as a joint police and probation initiative and traditionally new
partnerships such as these have experienced difficulties (Crawford, 1998). Each of the
boroughs reported that determining how to work locally has had its challenges.
Practitioners from each of the PPO schemes mentioned the organisational differences they
faced in attempting to work in partnership, particularly the differences in organisational
culture between the Police and Probation, with the Police being necessarily enforcement
focussed but also using seniority in the management of staff. In contrast, probation has
historically been more oriented towards a social work model and these differences remain
despite recent shifts in both organisations. The interviews with practitioners found that
these differences in organisational culture impacted on the operation of the PPO scheme,
particularly in terms of line management arrangements for the Police who were based in a
co-located team. This in turn, determined the amount of support received by the Police in
general, the approach taken to offenders and the process of gathering intelligence.

The relationship between drug service providers and probation also faced problems,
particularly related to information and data sharing about offenders attending drug services
and while the situation was generally felt to have improved with the development of
information sharing protocols, offender confidentiality agreements and joint attendance at
PPO Panel meeting it was still reported that improvements needed to be made in practice
in this area.

Such issues were less of a problem in Barnet where the PPO team had co-location with
the DIP, a police sergeant with significant experience and good links back to the borough;
and fewer PPOs. The small co-located team in Barnet had developed responsive, close

38
Final Draft 30/07/07

relationships which benefited the closer alignment of the scheme, particularly through
better sharing of information and communication about clients. The team had developed
strong operational practices and joint working which they each reported as beneficial to
their work with PPOs.

Policing
The Police have several functions in relation to the PPO scheme, the most obvious being
under the catch and bring to justice strand. Other responsibilities are outlined in detail in
the guidance issued to London schemes and include: internal and external information and
intelligence exchange; agency liaison; screening PPO referrals; PPO home visits
(including visits to follow up non-attendance); meetings with PPOs; contributing to
assessments and court reports; providing police expertise to PPO scheme; linking with
local police, particularly core teams and Safer Neighbourhoods Teams; informing borough
tasking and co-ordinating process for effective monitoring / targeting of PPOs; prison visits
and meeting PPOs at prison gate; carrying out drug testing; and attending court
(Government Office for London, 2007).

Generally, the teams reported a strong and constructive relationship between probation
and the police which was facilitating work with PPOs through closer working relationships
and improved access to information. However, the ways these core functions were
exercised by the PPO Police officer varied somewhat between the schemes and it was
clear that working as a member of the PPO team may produce challenges for the police
particularly, in striking a balance between gathering intelligence and building trust with
PPOs.

The probation officers interviewed highlighted that the co-location or close involvement of
the police in probation activities meant that the approach taken by the individual officer
played an important role in determining the local operation of the scheme and the nature
and extent of their involvement in direct work with offenders. The practitioners reported
that the new role required knowledge, skills and behaviour which may not traditionally be
learnt through enforcement led policing. One Police officer regarded his previous
experience and training in specialist covert policing useful as it had assisted him with the
challenging function of maintaining rapport with offenders without losing boundaries a skill
which may not be developed in enforcement oriented policing. Two practitioners felt that

39
Final Draft 30/07/07

the police may have found their ‘lock ‘em up attitude’ challenged through working closely
with offenders and participating in the complex work of preventing re-offending38.

Generally, the police involved in the scheme felt their line management was not directly
taking responsibility for their day to day work. In one borough this was also identified by
the SPO who reported it difficult to get in contact with the police sergeant who was not co-
located. This meant that the PPO police officers were left to develop their own good
practice and often sought guidance and support on practice issues from probation. This
was beneficial in that it strengthened relationships in the PPO team. For example, in
Southwark, the SPO reported that the closer working between the police and probation
had contributed to better offender management through having more information on which
to base assessments of re-offending and risk. However, in other cases, perhaps where
fewer resources where available, feeling unclear about how best to work with offenders
may have left the police focussing on traditional and more familiar functions such as
gathering intelligence. In Barnet, the co-located police sergeant had developed a strong
set of operational principals which he felt were supporting the teams work with PPOs39.

Gathering and sharing intelligence internally and externally is a core function of the police
involved in the PPO team. The approach taken varied across the four boroughs and this
was identified as an area where policing and probation boundaries rubbed together with
differing results. In one borough there was concern that the responsibility of the PPO
police officer in gathering intelligence during joint meetings had not been made fully
transparent to the PPOs. This lack of clarity had the potential to undermine the trust which
had been established the relationships between PPOs and practitioners, which in turn may
affect the degree to which an offender may feel able to talk to any member of the team
about issues or concerns in future and therefore the overall effectiveness of the PPO
scheme.

This variation of approach in combination with levels of resourcing also impacted on the
relationships PPO police had with the other functions of the police service (Safer
Neighbourhoods Teams; core teams etc) and how other policing functions were
undertaken with PPOs.

38
For instance, offenders who no longer swear at the police officer or who allow them to sit in the
room during meetings.
39
Interviews with Barnet’s PPOs confirmed this as many reported that the practices used had meant they had
stayed involved with the scheme at times when they previously may have disengaged.

40
Final Draft 30/07/07

Good Practice – Police function in the PPO team


In Barnet, the police sergeant is co-located and therefore well integrated into the PPO
team. Generally, he reports that he receives the strategic support required from the MPS
and that he has developed local practice in the following ways:
• Intelligence – Intelligence is gathered about offenders to monitor their activities and
that there is a two way flow of intelligence into and out of the PPO team. He recognises
that PPOs are reluctant to talk if they are concerned about the flow of intelligence back
to the borough police. He is therefore usually not present in one to one sessions with
PPOs and therefore does not gather a significant amount of intelligence other that that
from other sources which is screened to ensure its credibility before it is forwarded onto
the borough police.
• Liaison between MPS / borough police and PPOs – The police sergeant plays a
significant role in the team through his regular contact with the borough police. His key
functions in this regard are to:
o communicate regarding the progress of PPOs in order that SNTs can
manage their contact with individuals in the community (a policy exists
where those who are engaging positively are not to be targeted but that
those who aren’t are closely monitored);
o support PPOs in retrieving property kept whilst they were in custody;
o attend the Police station when PPOs are arrested;
o monitor police processes; advises PPOs regarding outstanding matters and
warrants including arranging appointments to resolve such issues and
ensuring PPOs are not gate arrested on leaving prison;
o set protocols with borough police in order that PPOs can attend The Grove
without fear of being arrested on site;
o liaise with neighbouring borough police when a Barnet PPO is wanted;
o communicate with borough police regarding the scheme, its progress,
potential barriers and possible solutions (the DIP were recently invited to
present details of their programme to senior Police in the borough); and
o Undertaking reconviction analysis through accessing police national
computer data.
• Arranging and attending meetings with PPOs – The police sergeant has been
provided with the use of a police vehicle. Only he is permitted to drive this vehicle and
therefore he is often responsible for transporting PPOs to important meetings, for
instance, recently a prison visit was arranged for a PPOs new twin daughters to be

41
Final Draft 30/07/07

taken to visit a PPO in prison outside London as the mother was unable to afford or
manage this journey alone.

• First point of contact – for PPOs who turn up without appointments and for those who
are being newly introduced to the scheme.

Managing ‘cross-border’ PPOs


While the guidance issued by Government Office for London (2007) indicates that:‘within
London Probation it has been agreed that if an offender appears on the PPO list in one
borough then that individual should be treated as a PPO throughout London regardless of
which borough they live’, several of the practitioners identified potential problems with
identification, selection and monitoring of cross border offenders, stemming from the
policing focus on location of offending and probation’s focus on where the offender
resides. It was also recognised that a person identified as a ‘priority offender’ in one
borough may not be in another due to the scope within the scheme to identify offenders
based on CDRP priorities.

Three of the four boroughs studied identified that this had created some tensions between
the borough where an offender lived and the borough where the offender committed
crimes in that the later wanted the offender selected as a PPO while the former did not
identify them as a priority offender and had limited resources and other more problematic
offenders. In one instance a Barnet PPO was accused of a very serious incident in another
borough and was being pursued by the CPS and the police from this borough. The police
sergeant reported that a conflict arose between himself and the DCI in charge of the
investigation in the other borough which resulted in him making a complaint with the
support of his senior management team. This incident highlights important issues in terms
of cross borough policing with other boroughs.

Strategic level support and ownership


Another theme common to each of the PPO schemes was a feeling that greater
accountability and ownership was required by the CDRP and Senior Management Teams
of the police. One borough felt that ‘it has been left to probation to sort everything out’. In
two others that there were only limited resources within probation to deliver not only a
priority service to offenders but also all the performance management requirements and
administrative functions which had developed as a result of the scheme.

42
Final Draft 30/07/07

It was felt that this lack of strategic ownership and accountability had several important
impacts on the scheme: 1) lack of awareness among other agencies about their
requirement to support this borough wide initiative 2) a lack of support in accessing and
managing financial support for the scheme; and 3) lack of strategic guidance and
information for operational teams. As one SPO reported:

‘They are supposed to guide us but we don’t get much information. Generally
information flows upwards, not the other way.’ (SPO)

These weaknesses meant probation were often struggling with administrative issues
rather than delivering or developing the priority service needed by the PPOs and
undertaking other tasks which would potentially improve the schemes results (marketing,
attending court visits, lobbying for funding etc). Such problems with strategic level support
and ownership meant that the PPO teams were left to find their own solutions, for
example, one team took proactive steps and invited a strategic level member of the
housing team to attend a meeting with the PPO team in order for them to establish how the
PPOs could best be supported but felt let down when they didn’t turn up to any more
meetings and the issues hadn’t been resolved.

Key interventions
The practitioners interviewed reported that they had used their limited resources to deliver
or source a range of interventions targeted to the needs of offenders. These included:
• the provision of bus tickets / passes to assist access to probation and other
appointments;
• accessing funding from grant sources for clothing, training and household
goods;
• Purchasing food, clothing or furniture when necessary;
• Paying small bills or providing ‘pay as you go’ electricity;
• Attending courts (where possible);
• Home visits;
• Joint police / probation prison visits at the beginning, during and towards the
end of an offender’s prison sentence (where possible);
• A mentoring scheme (in Southwark);
• A psychodynamic therapy group, one to one counselling and group outings
(in Islington);

43
Final Draft 30/07/07

• Sessions with a restorative justice practitioner (in Barnet);


• Providing personal support to PPOs during times of crisis, for example, the
death of a parent or during a hospital admission;
• Providing personal support to PPOs attending new drugs or Education,
Training and Employment (ETE) services often by attending initial meetings
or making contacts;
• Supporting PPOs in dealing with personal matters relating to housing,
benefits possibly by writing letters, obtaining identification or assisting them
by lobbying strategic level support for their case.
• Creating development opportunities for PPOs eg. speaking at schools,
football coaching training etc.
• Assisting PPOs in finding suitable employment.

In Islington and Southwark, particularly, the practitioners considered the support offered by
the scheme to be ‘tokenistic’ and ‘superficial’ and recommended that in order for PPOs
schemes to have success in the long term there needs to be a ‘trajectory out of offending’
with good quality housing and stimulating, satisfying opportunities to allow PPOs a
legitimate alternative lifestyle to that of drug use and offending. As one SPO put it:

‘There needs to be a real programme to get PPOs out of an area where they are
offending and into a community where they can survive, with networks and links,
jobs and a house. Currently we are managing PPOs in the environment where they
got into drugs and they can’t get away from those negative influences. They need
stable opportunities.’

It was also felt that the current scheme could not deliver on this need due to problems with
funding and a lack of resources which were exacerbated in boroughs where there was no
co-location with the DIP, there were more PPOs and the PPOs had greater needs. Firstly,
each of the PPO teams mentioned that very little financial support was given to the PPO
team for their work directly with offenders. Secondly, what money was given was often
limited either due to its being short term in nature meaning an intervention which was
funded during one financial year may not receive funding in the next period, or that the
source of the funding meant it can not be spent on a particular activity. This raised a
question about the nature of the PPO scheme. Does it provide a premium service in terms
of a speedy response to crisis or does it provide a premium service to support a long term
reduction in re-offending?

44
Final Draft 30/07/07

Probation practitioners also reported that their service delivery to PPOs relied on local
services which may not be suited to offenders or which may require chaotic offenders who
lack confidence or money to travel across or even outside the borough. This may make it
unlikely the PPO will attend without some intensive support from one of the PPO team
which draws on already limited resources. In once borough the practitioners reported that
they were pleased that one of the external providers had taken proactive steps to seeking
out opportunities to develop programmes for PPOs in their area, however, this was not
generally the case.

Despite the barrier of funding, each of the boroughs had developed creative ways of
working with PPOs to maximise the support they received from the scheme. Two of the
boroughs had developed interesting and unique interventions (see below) which were
providing support to their PPOs and which were felt by both practitioners and offenders to
be having very positive outcomes. In Barnet, the co-location of the DIP provided increased
access to services for the entire PPO cohort, whether or not they were Class A drug users.
For instance, one young PPO had self referred to see the psychologist to work on his
anger and ADHD which he felt was complicated by his history of cannabis use. Another
had regular sessions with the restorative justice practitioner and several obtained support
with benefits from the floating support worker who attended the DIP. In these cases, the
ease of access to the services and the PPOs familiarity with the practitioners which had
developed through a shared space (common kitchen and dining room) meant PPOs took
opportunities that may be available in other boroughs but for the reasons mentioned are
not often used by PPOs.

Good Practice – PPO Group40


In Islington, there is a psychodynamic therapy group and one to one therapy sessions.
This was started up with the aim of increasing engagement among PPOs with the scheme
itself and as an opportunity for the PPO team to work regularly with offenders – talking,
listening and sharing, and through this creating trust. In addition, it has become a place
where probation and the police can take on board the PPOs issues offenders and show
accountability to the PPO group. The group also works on aspects of negative

40
At the time of conducting this research the PPO team were negotiating the continuation of funding
for this intervention.

45
Final Draft 30/07/07

transference to probation as an institution and the authority figures PPOs encounter within
it, encouraging PPOs to take responsibility by modelling appropriate responses.

The PPOs attend voluntarily and among those participating none have reoffended and
most respond positively to it with one commenting it is the ‘highlight of his week’. It is
considered successful as it provides the PPOs with access to a role and status, such as
the feeling that they are supporting their peers and are a valid member of the group, and
with skills such as pro-social behaviour which is condoned, supported and rewarded.

Good Practice – Mentoring


In Southwark, the PPO scheme are supported by a mentoring scheme delivered by
YourStory, a South London based charity. The mentoring programme supports the
monitoring taking place by probation and the police and the key aim is ‘to assist offenders
in complying with orders and the overall PPO initiative, rather than experience short
periods in prison and repeatedly fail to settle into the community’ (Cinnamon and Hoskins,
2006). Mentor contact with PPOs is led by probation but delivered by YourStory mentors
who may meet the PPO in a social setting, go the gym, playing football, visiting museums
or art galleries, going shopping, or even in prison while a PPO is on a custodial sentence.
Mentors provide feedback to probation following all of their activities. The mentors reported
that they often had telephone contact with PPOs between meetings and aimed to support
the PPOs in meeting their own needs often continuing to see the PPO after their license
expires to allow a smooth transition.

The mentoring scheme is thought of highly by both practitioners and PPOs in Southwark,
however, a recent rapid review of the literature of the impact of mentoring on re-offending
which examined 18 studies (of which only two were conducted in Britain) found that
mentoring had significantly reduced offending by 4 to 11 per cent (Joliffe and Farrington,
2007)41. However, mentoring was found only to be successful when used as part of a
number of interventions suggesting that its use in the PPO scheme is likely to increase its
effectiveness. Other elements of programmes which were found to be associated with
greater success in reducing re-offending were programmes where the mentor and mentee
spent more time together during each meeting (eg. over five hours) and met at least once
a week, factors which also exist in the Southwark mentoring programme.

41
This result was largely driven by studies of lower methodological quality with studies designed to
produce a more accurate assessment of the impact of mentoring finding that mentoring did not
make a significant impact on re-offending.

46
Final Draft 30/07/07

At the time of writing, London South Bank University are conducting an evaluation of the
mentoring work delivered by YourStory and while the literature review suggests that as an
intervention, mentoring shows promise but is not proven successful as a means of
reducing re-offending, it appears the Southwark model has several key elements
associated with success.

Key successes
Practitioners recognised that changes in PPO behaviour were often the result of multiple
factors and usually involved the concurrence of personal events, the support of the
scheme and the deterrence of the catch and convict strand. Each of the boroughs were
clear about offenders with whom there had been a dramatic change in attitude and
behaviour. The extent to which this can be attributed to the PPO scheme is difficult to
assess, however it is useful to explore the elements which may have contributed to this.
Further examples are provided from the offender’s point of view in the next section.
However, some examples of working which practitioners felt made a difference are
highlighted here.

The interviews with practitioners and offenders and the relevant literature all suggest that
one of the key elements supporting success with PPOs is the development of a trusting
and consistent relationship between practitioners and PPOs where mutual commitment
can be demonstrated and there can be a joint negotiation between practitioner and PPO.
Due to the local variation in the configuration of services, strategic support, resourcing, and
practitioner attitudes and working preferences, the PPO team’s capacity to develop this
type relationship varied. In some boroughs the PSO and PO worked incredibly closely with
PPOs which often cemented the relationship and had benefits as the PPOs felt confident
speaking with practitioners about all their needs.

In contrast, in Southwark, much of the one to one work with offenders (undertaken by
PSOs and POs in boroughs such as Islington, Lambeth and Barnet) was supported by the
YourStory mentors which had the effect of strengthening the mentoring relationships but at
the same time reducing key relationship building opportunities with practitioners. It is
important to mention, that even when these relationships are particularly strong, there are
still occasions where offenders may not confide in their worker. In one case, an offender
had such a strong relationship with the PPO practitioners that he felt ashamed to talk to
them about his drug relapse and in this instance the presence of someone to speak to
outside the probation team may have assisted him in accessing the support he needed.

47
Final Draft 30/07/07

As offender needs differed from location to location and between individuals it is difficult to
be prescriptive about what elements of the relationship led to a positive outcome, however
several examples of work with offenders stood out as good examples. In one borough a
PSO was praised by her colleagues for instilling a sense of ‘reward and recognition’ for
PPOs who had made significant achievements. It was reported by a member of her team
that she worked hard to develop a strong personal relationship with PPOs which could
support a system where benefits associated with the scheme became related to a PPO’s
progress towards milestones. This was also positively noted by the offenders who were
under her supervision.

In another borough, the PPO team were working with a PPO who was in custody and
whose belongings would be destroyed if a storage solution was not rapidly found. The
team were concerned that the loss of belongings would have a significant negative impact
on this PPO however, they had no budget from which to pay for removal and storage. The
team successfully found a person from a local church who would be willing to store this
PPOs belongings in their garage but were required to move the items themselves – using
the allocated police vehicle and the POs own car. Activities such as these highlight the
limited resources with which PPO teams are expected to work and their creativity and
commitment in finding solutions for the benefit of PPOs. Such activities are time
consuming but reap direct benefits for PPOs and are therefore considered worthwhile by
the team.

In another borough, practitioners highlighted the attendance of non statutory cases as a


success for the scheme but reported that working with this group effectively was often
dependent on the needs of the statutory cases at the time as resources were limited within
the team.

According to one police officer an unexpected benefit of the PPO scheme has been its
ability to break down some of the offending relationships previously held by PPOs, as one
offender had reported to him that the threat of being more closely monitored had meant his
previous associates had begun to avoid him.

Generally, both probation and the police reported a satisfying working relationship within
the team and a real sense of joint working and of co-operation despite being
representatives of different organisations. Most felt that they presented a united front which

48
Final Draft 30/07/07

added to strengthen the scheme and encouraged participation among the PPOs and that
they were only hindered by some of the barriers mentioned below.

Key barriers to effective working


Funding
Perhaps unsurprisingly, the key barrier identified by all the practitioners involved in this
research was funding42 – either lack of funding all together or difficulty applying for,
accessing and managing funding that was available. Each team reported that they had no
dedicated funding other than money provided by the DIP and that all their work had to be
undertaken within an existing budget and through standard funds which were limited in
terms of what they were able to fund. Two of the four boroughs had obtained short term
funding which had been used to deliver key interventions, however, at the end of the
financial year it was doubtful if these grants would be maintained, making it difficult to plan
for continuous provision.

Most of those interviewed were of the opinion that negotiating funding took valuable time
from direct case work with PPOs. In one borough the PPO team were provided some
support from the CDRP who had a Finance Officer however this support was limited and
unpredictable. Despite making good use of the sources of funding and grant schemes
available to offenders there was a limited awareness of the channels available to obtain
further funding, how much would be available, for what purposes it could used or how to
make a bid. It felt to most of the teams that they had been left to deliver a substantial local
crime reduction initiative with limited strategic financial support.

Assessments
Practitioners in inner London boroughs also mentioned that there were gaps in provision
around assessing the learning and mental health needs of PPOs. The team in Lambeth
particularly identified problems with the assessment timeframes of some agencies who
were not able to meet the premium service remit which left the responsibility for finding
alternatives to the POs and PSOs. In Lambeth, the assessments required for a PPO to
attend a dry house on release from prison were lengthy and could not be arranged until the
PPO had a scheduled release date. The PPO team noted that often the period of notice
given by prisons meant they were unable to book an assessment appointment and that the
option of accommodation in this service was therefore unavailable.

42
This was also identified in Dawson (2005).

49
Final Draft 30/07/07

Housing
Early research into the national PPO scheme found that in general there was a mismatch
between the offender’s criminogenic needs and the involvement of agencies able to meet
these needs (Dawson, 2005). The interviews with practitioners involved in supporting
PPOs confirmed these findings, particularly in relation to housing.

In each of the boroughs there were problems in obtaining housing for PPOs other than
hostels which were not appropriate for all offenders. In one case in particular this had
resulted in the PPO being housed outside their ‘home’ borough in a one bedroom flat.
While the housing was more appropriate than that offered within the borough, this meant
the PPO needed to travel by several buses to get to appointments with probation and drug
services. This PPO also had significant health issues which had resulted in recent
hospitalisation and was thus not an ideal housing solution.

Some of the other housing issues identified by and routinely dealt with at great length by
each of the practitioners were offenders who had lost their housing during a custodial
sentence; offenders who faced problems with rent arrears; offenders stigmatised and
victimised in their community; and slippery definitions of vulnerability and prioritisation. In
once instance a PPO had accrued £4000 in rent arrears for which he needed to attend
court. The PPO team supported the application and made several contacts with housing in
order to prevent him being evicted. In addition, he and his family had collected £1000
towards the debt, but the claim was rejected by the housing team and the PPO was
evicted from the property.

One PPO team emphasised the difficulties they face housing PPOs who have been
released from prison with short notice, on a Friday, or who need to be assessed prior to
entry to supported housing. Problems housing PPOs at this time mean that some of these
PPOs will return directly to substance misuse and offending. In response to this a member
of the team suggested they need access to a pool of money which can be used for
providing short term housing in a B&B to cover the gap between prison and a place in
rehab, or to cover the cost of rent deposits on privately rented premises to bypass local
authority processes.

Staffing and other resource issues


Most of the practitioners reported that there were many activities listed in the ‘London
Model’ guidance which they were unable to undertake regularly largely due to a lack of

50
Final Draft 30/07/07

team resources. One team also commented that they found the limited staff resources
meant it was difficult to plan around holidays, illness and training. Another mentioned the
difficulty they would face if a substantial number of PPOs were released from prison in a
short space of time.

Although they were aware of the benefits, most teams reported some difficulty in attending
PPO court cases and making regular visits to offenders in prison, particularly if the
offender was in custody in a prison outside London. They felt they needed to prioritise
certain activities such as attending the Job Centre or housing appointments with PPOs but
that they usually took a long time and were therefore labour intensive. In one borough the
PO reported that he had begun to take a strategic approach with prison visits, targeting
particular offenders who he had assessed as being able to benefit from the contact in
prison simply due to the fact that he knew he alone could not undertake this level of
support for each of the borough’s PPOs.

With additional staff resources, the PPO teams reported that they would be able to attend
court to support the PPOs and return the results directly to the team; attend the Police
station if a PPO is arrested; develop the scheme through communication and marketing;
attend strategic meetings to promote the scheme with support agencies; negotiate
agreements with other agencies about service provision; make applications for funding and
undertake monitoring and evaluation of the scheme43.

One practitioner reported that the SPO who managed the PPO team was only a half post
and felt that the PPO team really needed a full time manager to accommodate the volume
of work and the high level of needs among the offenders. Increasing the availability of the
SPO may also help in developing strategic links with the CDRP and other agencies which
would assist in communicating the aims and objectives of the scheme and its benefits to
the borough.

In each of the inner London boroughs the Police officers involved directly with the PPO
scheme reported that they had no access to a Police vehicle which would assist them in
their responsibilities to conduct home and prison visits and would also make supporting
some of the offenders less resource intensive. One Police officer reported that he had
encountered a difficult situation when he had been travelling by bus with one of the PPOs

43
With the support of a crime analyst it should be possible to examine the impacts of the scheme on
local crime rates and whether the correct PPOs had been selected for the scheme as part of such
activity.

51
Final Draft 30/07/07

only to discover he was using a forged bus pass. In Barnet, the police sergeant has access
to a police vehicle which he uses, for example, to drive PPOs to appointments, take family
members or the PPO and DIP team for prison visits, move PPOs belongings, however, the
vehicle can not be used by other PPO team members who often resort to using their own
cars.

DIP alignment and drug services


The closer alignment between the PPO scheme and the DIP has recently become a
priority and was also raised by many interviewees as something that required attention. In
one borough, it was felt that the DIP links are largely only present due to the SPO’s joint
responsibility for DRRs and the PPO scheme, and that much of the joint working in this
case was occurring as a function of personal relationships and experience rather than
structured accountability. In another borough, it was felt that the DIP and CDRP were not
meeting their responsibilities of providing a drug treatment pathway for the borough’s
PPOs. In this borough it was acknowledged that an action plan for the improvement of the
alignment between the DIP and the PPO scheme had been created. The PO reported that
a lot of time was being spent by practitioners trying to find appropriate drug treatment
services for PPOs.

It was also recognised that due to the requirement on PPOs to have multiple contacts a
week, having treatment services at another location may make it difficult for PPOs to
manage, particularly if they have also been housed out of the borough. In response to this,
one borough had ‘bought in’ a drugs worker to operate on site with PPOs only. At the time
of writing this post has now been replaced by a member of the borough’s DIP team as they
move towards closer alignment.

In the early stages in one borough there had been issues with information sharing between
drug services and the PPO team which had resulted in one high risk PPO obtaining
several prescriptions for painkillers. In this borough, the drug treatment services were
provided in another part of the borough and while well respected the flow of information
between probation and the drug services had been limited despite a service level
agreement having been drawn up for that purpose. In this instance information was shared
informally at the PPO Panel meetings but not routinely outside this forum due to the need
for client confidentiality. In this borough this has been remedied through obtaining the
PPOs consent to share information which has improved the situation but has not
mainstreamed the sharing of information on all PPOs.

52
Final Draft 30/07/07

In general, the practitioners were satisfied with the services provided by the DIP but ideally
would like a dedicated and co-located DIP worker for the PPO team to support offenders in
rapidly accessing treatment pathways through contacts with PPOs in prison and in the
community, to manage their contacts with drug services in the borough and to share
information between drug services and those working directly with PPOs.

One of the most significant features of the Barnet PPO scheme is its co-location with the
DIP which has significant benefits and some drawbacks. The benefits of co-location and of
therefore having three agencies on one site include:
• Consistency of approach leading to better management of offenders who may play
practitioners off against one another;
• Improved monitoring of breaches (for instance, if a PPO doesn’t attend a drug
treatment appointment in the morning this information is immediately available to the
PPO team);
• Close monitoring of those disengaging from treatment;
• Improved information sharing between the DIP and the PPO team. The DIP have
overcome potential confidentiality issues by discussing these with clients at
assessment and asking them to sign a confidentiality agreement regarding the sharing
of their personal information;
• Co-ordination and flexibility of appointments which facilitates attendance for PPOs and
minimises missed appointments. Drug testing appointments are strategically scheduled
either side of the weekend for all DIP clients including PPOs.
• Improved communication between teams which fosters a sense of accountability.
There is also improved attendance at joint meetings, rapid access to monitoring
information and a greater sharing of general information about PPOs (for instance, if
either team was advised of court or prison release dates these could be quickly
communicated face to face).
• Three way meetings in community and prison with offenders which enabled better
planning and management to be undertaken (often the DIP worker, police sergeant and
probation officer travel to visits together in the car and allows joint discussion of
treatment plans without the need for a scheduled meeting).
• Improved contact with local prison (Wormwood Scrubs) through DIP off-site team who
have easy access, keys and strong relationships with CARATs team (such
relationships are assisting the borough in its obligations to provide ongoing support to
prisoners under the London Resettlement Strategy).

53
Final Draft 30/07/07

• Ease of engaging PPOs into treatment due to existing familiarity with services;
• Access for all PPOs (regardless of their DIP status) to a range of services provided
through the DIP including: psychologist, counselling, complimentary therapy,
prescribing services, support with housing / benefits etc.

Several problems with such close working were also identified including:
• Unclear boundaries between the roles and responsibilities of DIP / Probation workers,
(for example in Barnet drug testing is undertaken by the DIP team which removes this
as an interaction between PPO and probation officer);
• Despite improved levels of communication channels are mostly informal and
information about PPOs may be lost as a result;
• Team meetings becoming hijacked by joint agendas as no joint team meetings are in
place;
• Imbalances in information sharing (particularly highlighted by the DIP who felt they
were forthcoming with information about DIP clients but that they didn’t receive PSRs
or MG16’s in return44).
• Managing clients / PPOs who were banned from using the drug service45.

Support services
For many practitioners, there was some frustration that other agencies could not provide
dedicated support for the PPO team and while many have begun to routinely attend PPO
Panels, there is limited operational support and the PPO team are still having to attend
appointments with PPOs at services like the JobCentre to ensure the case is dealt with
completely and effectively. The PPO teams frequently reported feeling frustrated at the
lack of commitment by other agencies. This may be the result of a lack of accountability
and the problems of aligning strategic priorities and performance management
frameworks.

Non statutory cases


The teams also identified the difficulties faced in identifying suitable PPOs as the offenders
identified by the police as prolific may not be known to probation. Such non-statutory cases
were difficult for probation to work with as little information was available or could be

44
Pre sentence reports or police national computer data about offences and convictions.
45
In one case, a PPO was banned from the drug services at the The Grove which he took as being
banned from the building and therefore didn’t attend his probation appointments which led to his
recall. Another was banned for using crack on the premises. Both DIP and PPO practitioners
identified that arrangements needed to be put in place should this situation arise in future.

54
Final Draft 30/07/07

recorded on them and often work with this group depended on the offender’s motivation
and the team’s commitment to manage statutory PPO cases.

Offender’s views
Interviews were conducted with 37 offenders who are currently registered on the PPO
scheme in Islington, Lambeth, Southwark and Barnet: nine in Islington, ten in Lambeth,
eight in Southwark and ten in Barnet. Twenty five were conducted in the community at the
offender’s probation office and twelve were conducted in London prisons. Three of the
offenders were women and 34 were male. Twenty of the offenders were White British
(54%), five were Black or Black British Caribbean (14%), four were mixed White and Black
Caribbean (11%), three were White Irish (8%) and there was also one Black or Black
British: Any other black background (3%), one Black or Black British: Other (3%) and one
White: Any other white background (3%).

Offending and personal histories


Due to the research budget and timetable for this research it was difficult to conduct a
detailed investigation of the offender’s previous convictions or their social or personal
histories, however, some of this information was discussed during interviews. The findings
presented here are therefore indicative and useful as a background to the sample of
offenders interviewed.

The PPOs most recent OASys assessments indicated that the sample ranged in age at
first conviction from 11 years to 33 years old. The average age of first conviction was 15.8
years. For nearly half (49%) of those interviewed burglary (residential, non residential,
artifice and combinations of these) was the main type of offence they had been committing
leading up to becoming a PPO. A further 16% had committed robbery, 8% theft, 11% y
According to their most recent OASys of the 35 offenders for whom data was available
71% (n=35) had regularly used a Class A drug in the last 6 months and 26% (n=9) had
used Cannabis. Of the Class A drug users 34% (n=12) had used Heroin as their main drug
during the last 6 months, 31% (n=11) had used Crack and 6% (n=2) had used Cocaine.

The PPOs self reports and data held in Delius and OASys indicated that most had faced
serious disruption during their early years including the loss of one or both parents; drug or
alcohol abusing parents; parents who are also offenders; parents or siblings with mental
health issues; violence and bullying; learning difficulties and ADHD; sexual, physical and

55
Final Draft 30/07/07

emotional abuse; family separation or being placed in care; early substance misuse;
homelessness; school exclusion or truancy or any combination of these46.

How the PPOs were advised they were on the scheme


The PPOs reported that they had been informed they were on the scheme in a variety of
ways including: in prison either by their own probation officer or probation and police officer
on a visit (which were sometimes for this purpose alone); by a probation officer based in
the prison; by staff running prison skills programmes or drug services or at a meeting with
probation in the community. Some of the PPOs suggested that the amount and type of
information they received had been minimal with one offender knowing nothing about the
PPO scheme and several not remembering much about the way they had been informed
or who had told them. Others acknowledged that at the time they had been told they were
not receptive at all and did not engage with the probation or police officer who was
explaining the scheme.

Two offenders reported that they had heard rumours about the scheme through associates
whilst in prison which they admitted had left them with preconceived and often negative
ideas about the scheme which were informed by limited information. One of the two
reported being told about the PPO scheme early in his sentence and that he was not
provided with any further information until just prior to his release which had left him feeling
anxious about life outside prison for several months.

In her discussion of the Newcastle PPO scheme Seebohm (undated) suggested that ‘the
tone set during the first contact with an offender is key to their compliance’. This view was
also held by one of the POs interviewed for this research and was echoed in many of the
PPO interviews, however as is identified later in this section, there may be other
opportunities to change offender’s initial reactions. One offender who had been a PPO
since the outset of the scheme, reported that he had initially been met by threats that ‘they
would have him back in prison within 7 days’. Fortunately the PPO team in this offender’s
borough has seen a change of team and have developed their practice to the extent that
this offender has completely turned around and is constructively preparing for his release
from prison (see example below).

Reactions to becoming a PPO

46
Further analysis of the interview data would allow a more detailed examination of some of these
issues.

56
Final Draft 30/07/07

Initial responses
Many of the offenders interviewed reported moving through a range of emotions after
being advised they had been selected as a PPO. This was particularly well detailed during
one interview with a drug using offender who had a long criminal history and was now in
the community. At the time of interview he had been engaging with the scheme regularly
and indicated that he was no longer offending or using drugs and that the scheme had
provided him with numerous benefits. He reported that he was advised by his probation
officer who had visited him in prison in Oxford. While he had refused to see his officer
initially, at the second meeting he responded to the news with anger due to recent
problems with his mother, who had been ill and accidentally burned her house down. He
reported that his initial reaction was fuelled by rumours among inmates who ‘didn’t really
know what the scheme was about’ and by the idea that members of the PPO team would
come and meet him at the prison gates.

Following his second visit he had become apprehensive as it had become a choice to a)
agree to the conditions and be released with support or b) not agree and face additional
observation by the Police. He later became curious as he was provided more information
but reports that ‘What I was told was pretty sketchy in the beginning…it wasn’t in depth
enough for me to understand what was going on and what my responsibilities were’ but he
acknowledges that this may have been due to his emotional state at the time as he was
very concerned about his mum. After being released from prison in late 2006 and having
worked on the scheme for around three months at the time of interview he reported that he
was now enjoying the scheme. When asked why he felt it was working he replied:

‘I don’t know why….Well… I do know why…because someone has taken an


interest in me [taps chest]. At last they are looking at me. At the root of my
problems, at the cause of my problems…’

For some, as in the case above, the initial reaction of anger or apprehension was directly
due to being notified about the catch and convict elements of the scheme and the
increased involvement of the Police. This initial response however was tempered in most
cases when the offender began to see the types of support on offer and how it could assist
them in making change, although, for one offender, the two elements of the scheme were
difficult to reconcile.

57
Final Draft 30/07/07

‘To be honest it was a bit intimidating at first. I had all sorts of irrational thoughts,
especially with the old bill being there because I had never heard of this sort of
thing before…that was my first thought ‘They’re here to nick me’. It put my back
right up to be honest…600 Police officers around [area] had been given my
photograph and told ‘look just look out for this man’…that didn’t sound too
clever…but after that they said that they were here to help me and it made me think
to myself well what are they doing that for if they are trying to help me.’

Some felt surprised that they had been selected as one of the ‘Top 40’ offenders. For two
PPOs this was because they felt too young to be named a prolific offender and three
others indicated that ‘there were worse people out there’. Several offenders reported that
being notified they were PPO and being forced to confront their list of previous offences
had been a shock as they hadn’t realised the extent of their offending and substance use
or that agencies were so acutely aware of their patterns of behaviour. According to one
offender interviewed in prison:

‘[It] made me reflect and think about what I was doing and where I was going…they
were all drug related crimes and I didn’t feel good about it…I had been smoking
crack every day…It made me uneasy to think people know what I am doing and
that I am committing offences.’

Another response among PPOs was apathy because they thought of the PPO scheme as
‘just another government initiative’. Two offenders interviewed in prison felt that it meant
nothing to them as in reality they would not be subject to either the ‘catch and convict’ or
‘resettle and rehabilitate’ elements of the programme until they were released. Interestingly
however, one offender who held this view and was considered by the PPO team to have
been unresponsive, later reported that having been notified about the PPO scheme while
serving a sentence had meant that on being transferred to another prison, where he could
no longer deal or use drugs, he had begun to consider his options and had ‘geared himself
up to go to rehab’. He said that he had started listening when he realised they were not
making threats but had identified the key issues he was facing and were developing a
release plan which would respond to these issues. He reported:

‘They talked to me straight and they didn’t come in threatening me. I’m just waiting.
I’m expecting results. They’ve promised certain things. Knowing this has put it in
my mind. I’m geared up for it, planting my foot…’

58
Final Draft 30/07/07

Views about the PPO scheme


Labelling
There has been some discussion of labelling theory in relation to the PPO scheme
(Seebohm, undated; Sveinsson, 2006). In his study of the Southwark PPO scheme
Sveinsson reports that offenders felt ‘labelled’ by the title ‘prolific offender’ and acted to
rebel against this label in a number of ways. He further argued that this may indeed end up
having a counter-productive effect on the borough’s crime reduction efforts. Sveinsson’s
findings may in part be due to the focus on ‘labelling’ as a topic of investigation as this was
something rarely reported by during the interviews undertaken for this research.

In contrast, the offenders interviewed for this research often reported being more
concerned about the additional Police attention being a PPO would involve than having a
problem with the label itself. For instance one of the female offenders felt that being on the
scheme may have an impact on the sentences she would receive. Others that being a
PPO meant their picture was up in all the police stations and that anything they did was
being observed by local neighbourhood police. As one PPO put it:

‘I didn’t like the idea of being scrutinised, the label so much didn’t bother me, it was
just the scrutiny, you know they were looking at me with a magnifying glass, that’s
how it seemed, that’s the impression they gave me and I was more worried about
them finding, you know, coming up with other charges…but apart from that it didn’t
bother me.’

Other PPOs who had accepted their lengthy criminal histories, felt that the label was a true
reflection of their offending and therefore did not object to it. None of these offenders
however, suggested that they were reacting against this ‘label’, partly it seemed because
the scheme had incentives for involvement and disincentives for continuing offending
which the offenders seemed to understand. Even those who were selected by their
probation officer as not having responded to the scheme did not report resisting the
scheme due to their having been labelled but rather they attributed any continuing
offending behaviour to an ongoing problem with substance misuse or through an ingrained
pattern of offending behaviour.

Increased contact levels

59
Final Draft 30/07/07

For some of the PPOs interviewed, there was a recognition that the additional attention
from the police and increased accountability to probation would be difficult to manage. One
offender viewed this as a particular an issue as they had been housed outside the borough
(due to a lack of suitable housing within the borough) and were required to attend
probation and support services in the borough where they were supervised. This was
compounded by the fact that this offender was also a drug user who had serious health
concerns, and reports suffering from depression and obsessive compulsive disorder. The
offender reported:

‘It’s too much. Every appointment I go to I am late. It is too much pressure for
me…I have to do this group [drug user’s group]…It is making me depressed. I have
to get three buses from [home] to get there. It takes me 1 and a half hours!’

For another young male PPO on an 18 month order, coming four times a week for 18
months was going to be very difficult due to his responsibilities to his new baby. In
contrast, a young male PPO who after being released from prison was living with his
mother who had mental health issues compounded by excessive alcohol use and a brother
who also had mental health problems reported that while he once found it difficult to
remember attending probation since being a PPO had begun to attend regularly. He felt
that rather than just being a meeting to keep he was receiving practical support each time
he visited which reassured him, took the pressure off and therefore made it easier for him
to remember to come.

While some found the increased reporting requirements difficult, others enjoyed attending
probation and the related support sessions. In Islington in particular, there seemed to be a
high degree of voluntary engagement by PPOs largely through the weekly PPO
psychodynamic therapy group which is led by a therapist with experience of working with
violent prisoners. Attendance at the group is voluntary for PPOs and the meetings are
divided into two one hour sessions. The first half hour is for the PPOs to work with the
therapist and each other alone and during the second hour visitors and agency staff are
invited in to discuss matters raised in the first hour or relevant to the PPOs as a group.
During the second session, problems are discussed and resolved either by the other PPOs
or with probation or police representatives which provides the PPOs an opportunity to
solve problems for themselves with the support of agencies and services and a sense that
probation are accountable for at least investigating if not delivering on the issues raised in
this forum. Members of the group are also able to work with the facilitator on a one to one

60
Final Draft 30/07/07

basis if they feel it useful and these one to one meetings are often held of site at a local
café. The group acts to role model positive interactions and encourages transparency,
good communication and respect between PPOs and the agencies with whom they have
contact. As one PPO explained:

‘When we is in the group, if there is anything we need, we put it down on paper.


We call in the probation after and we put it to them. ‘Can they help us?’ They take it
down. We want answers the next week, or if not they’ve got our phone numbers
before next week. We want to know they have followed it up and they do it! They
fucking do it! They help us in every possible way, you know, I can’t knock ‘em …’

The group has played an important role in developing relationships of trust and mutual
respect between PPOs, the police and probation, particularly as it has been the site of
common experience and positive role modelling. Another non statutory PPO who regularly
attends the group and is no longer using drugs or committing burglaries explained:

‘That group… my first session here, I actually witnessed someone getting arrested.
That was [another PPO] and I couldn’t quite understand and I thought ‘Hold on’, it
was just the way they come for him. As soon as we stepped outside they was
there… I mean it wasn’t the most serious crime in the world, alright it was a criminal
act but it wasn’t the most serious crime in the world…and I thought to myself… ‘Is it
worth it?’…I’ve just seen someone getting nicked, you know what I mean, and I’ve
heard everyone talking about this meeting on a Thursday that everyone goes to
and to be honest I just felt like saying ‘Sod all this’. I mean I only go there
voluntary….what I found really good as well, is the way everyone come back in
here, rallied together. All the people on the PPO scheme, [the group leader], [the
Police officer] and [the probation support officer]. It’s the way they come in and
everyone interacted with each other and sorted it all out. Everything was done
calmly. It was just the way everyone come together. I thought ‘Well, there’s got to
be something in this.’ It was the way everyone, not just the PPOs but everyone on
the team got together and done their bit.’

In Islington several of the PPOs who were performing well on the scheme felt proud of
their involvement in the PPO group and even looked forward to attending. In some cases,
those who now fully engaged in group, had previously been reluctant to participate in
group work due to their previous experiences. These PPOs reported that the Islington

61
Final Draft 30/07/07

group was less rigid than other groups they had previously attended as it allowed open
discussions and interaction between members. They also enjoyed the supportive peer
group which had developed and the feeling they were contributing something back to other
group members and indirectly to society through the continued non-offending of members
whom they had supported.

Directly related to the increased levels of contact is the possibility of developing a stronger
and more constructive relationship between the PPOs and their supervisors which the
literature considers important in supporting offenders to change (Rex, 1999; Burnett,
2004). Many of the offenders rated their experience on the PPO scheme positively in
comparison to previous experiences of probation which they felt had been just about
fulfilling the responsibility to protect the public and administer justice. Their experiences on
the PPO scheme whether in the community or in prison had been vastly different as one
interviewee describes:

‘Probation is actually taking an interest in me at last. Previous probation orders


have been attending, ticking boxes, walking out the door, goodbye. Ultimately I was
a revolving door prisoner. Now then, for the first time they are actually listening to
my problems and I am putting my problems on the table and they are saying ‘Right,
there is this problem and this is what we can do about it.’…I think for somebody
who wants to engage genuinely and honestly then it’s a good thing. If I was to sit
here and be giving probation a load of rubbish I think they would know about it. If I
was committing crime again if I was using, using, committing crime, burgling using,
they would know and ultimately I would be recalled.’

For many offenders the most positive elements of the scheme were related to the work
they had been undertaking with probation and the relationships which had developed both
with the police and probation. The nature of the work obviously varied across each of the
PPO cases, however there were some elements which seemed to be particularly well
received by offenders and tended to be related to positive change. Firstly, in one borough,
the PPOs felt that they were being acknowledged by their case managers for progress
towards goals however small and even if accompanied by other less constructive
behaviour. For others the PPO team’s work towards identifying their needs and supporting
them to meet them had been the most important element with one young PPO who was no
longer offending saying: ‘I need the help and I want the help and for the first time ever I
have been given an order and am getting the help I need.’

62
Final Draft 30/07/07

Another element of the scheme which was viewed positively was the constructive two way
negotiation between offenders and their supervisors. Many felt more able to engage with
the scheme when they were able to identify their own needs and work towards their own
solutions with the support of the PPO team. This seemed to be working particularly well
through the PPO group in Islington where a sense of mutual respect and trust had been
developed and was maintained at each session.

Across each of the boroughs it was common for the PPOs to mention that the scheme was
consistent in its approach and that practitioners followed through on their promises, for
example, probation arranged meetings, made phone calls, searched for housing or
employment options or that police were keeping an eye on offenders and feeding back
intelligence in the way they had instructed PPOs they would. There was also a sense that
the PPO teams would go a step further for PPOs particularly if they had shown willing and
made some progress. Several offenders indicated there had been some flexibility in re-
arranging appointments or interventions in order to prevent the offender breaching for a
minor incident. This use of discretion and the practitioner’s commitment was viewed highly
by those who had received it and one offender who could speak for several of those
interviewed put it like this:

‘They actually do what they are saying they are going to do. It’s like they are totally
different…these people, actually, they don’t want to breach anybody you know.
They want you to crack it. They want you to get through it and to come out the
other end and they are doing everything they can to make it happen…. I trust them.
I mean I’ve never trusted these people before. I even trust [the police officer]....it
was just seeing him go out of his way to help me. He actually come and spent ages
down the social security with me. He got the manager, things like that…He just
went out of his way.’

Police involvement in the scheme


Nearly all of the PPOs interviewed initially felt resistance to the idea of the Police being
involved in the work with probation, however, many had changed their opinion once they
had some experience with the PPO police officer. Several of the PPOs felt that the police’s
involvement in the scheme was not to be trusted, which is not surprising given their
previous offending behaviour and experiences of contact with the police. Their usual
response to the presence of the Police in joint meetings was to look away or not respond

63
Final Draft 30/07/07

to their questions. In three cases, PPOs identified that they felt the PPO police had shared
intelligence which had led to their arrest or charge and had therefore lost any trust which
may have been established.

Despite initial mistrust and the exceptional cases where offenders had developed trust and
then had an experience which had undermined it, most of the offenders interviewed had
been surprised by the work of the PPO police and considered them ‘different’ to the ‘other’
police in the rest of the force. The PPOs who were most positive towards the police were
those where relationships of trust and understanding had been built up over a period of
time and where the police had taken an active role in working with the offender to meet
their needs (eg. taking them to the benefits office, speaking on their behalf at court etc). In
Barnet, several of the PPOs reported that the support they received from the police
sergeant and the trust he had developed through his ways of working has meant that they
had continued to engage (in both drug treatment and probation) as they no longer feared
being arrested on site, knew they would be supported if they were arrested and taken into
custody and had someone with whom they could consult about outstanding matters. As
one PPO described:

‘Like when I might have had a feeling that I have been wanted or something.
Whereas before I would just disappear and that’s how I was getting breached on all
my orders and it wasn’t true. Now I can come in and ask them. There’s a police
officer here. He can phone up and see if I am wanted or not.’

Despite improved relationships between the PPOs and the scheme Police, the PPO’s
relationship with ‘other’ police (eg. Safer Neighbourhoods Teams or CID) did not usually
benefit. Several PPOs reported that they had been arrested and remanded in custody for
‘alleged’ offences during periods where they had not offended and as a result felt they
were being targeted based on their previous behaviour or through being labelled a PPO.
As one Barnet PPO described:

‘As soon as you get caught by the police, as soon as they know you are a PPO,
that’s it, they assume you have done something. They try to get you for anything.
They get on the radio and say ‘Has anything happened around the corner?...They
just assume it is you.’

64
Final Draft 30/07/07

Others felt that they were stopped and searched on a daily basis and were treated badly
by their local police teams or that they were the subject of intrusive overt surveillance even
when they were no longer offending and were engaging with the scheme. The additional
‘supervision’ by the police clearly angered some, while others reported that being
addressed in the street by local police teams on first name terms was embarrassing and
insulting particularly when the police mentioned their knowledge of the PPOs previous
history. One offender identified this as a particular problem due to the police approaching
him when he was dropping his children off at school and was concerned that he would be
identified by other parents as an offender or that his children would be the subject of
differential treatment or bullying.

This increased attention was particularly frustrating for PPOs who had stopped offending
but none reported that this had affected their motivation to change. Rather in Islington and
Barnet, several PPOs who reported this experience had actually discussed the matter with
the PPO teams and when a PPO had been engaging well and not offending, the local
police teams were asked to reduce their attentions to that offender, which also acted as a
recognition of their reduced offending.

Several offenders reported that the additional surveillance acted as a deterrent, as it meant
the scheme was fulfilling its aims and objectives. One offender from Southwark reported
that he had been cycling on the pavement near his neighbourhood and had been stopped
by the Police Community Support Officers (PCSOs). After being stopped he had returned
to his bike and cycled on thinking no more of it. He was shocked to turn up to his next
meeting at probation and be told by his probation officer that the PCSOs had seen him
riding his bike on the pavement and took this as a confirmation that the police and
probation were actually keeping a closer eye on him. Many of the younger PPOs,
particularly those who had been PYOs and had transitioned into probation after turning 18,
reported that this had acted as a deterrent from continued offending.

Key risk factors


Housing
The reality for many offenders who currently have housing but who have been sentenced
to a period in custody is that they may lose their housing whilst in prison due to rent
arrears accumulated after the 13 week housing benefit provision expires. This
accumulation of rent arrears may mean that they will be illegible for re-housing upon
release. It is also reported that offenders may not have access to any advice or support in

65
Final Draft 30/07/07

this regard during their imprisonment, nor will many Local Authorities give a commitment to
re-house prisoners on release in return for terminating their tenancies on imprisonment.
While the definition of priority need in the Homelessness Act (2002) includes prisoners it is
uncommon that housing is available for those leaving custody.

Many of the PPOs interviewed reported that they had encountered problems in relation to
housing and that while this was often an area where they had received intensive support
from the PPO scheme, success was only possible within a limited framework. For one
offender, such limited access to suitable housing meant he would attempt to get into
residential rehab upon leaving prison despite already refraining from drug use as he felt
this would improve his chances of getting suitable accommodation longer term.

Another reported that she had been left to manage her housing issues alone during her
custodial sentence and that during this time she had lost her local authority housing. The
authority agreed to store her property for a standard period of time, however this period
expired two weeks before she was released and despite writing letters and making an
appeal, she had lost not only her flat but all her possessions. As she was serving until the
end of her sentence as she had been recalled she felt that she would not be a priority for
support on her release and had thus made her own appointments with the Homeless
Person’s Unit.

Typically, in each of the four boroughs, only crisis accommodation was available and this
too was dependent upon assessments and application which PPO practitioners needed
resources to support. PPOs were reluctant to be housed in hostel type accommodation
due to the restrictions it placed on them and for offenders who were also drug users this
type of accommodation posed a high risk due to the potential to encounter other drug
users.

In two cases, PPOs reported significant problems with their current housing as a result of
their association with other offenders or substance users. One young PPO who had been
housed out of his borough had had his accommodation taken over by an older violent
offender resulting in him moving back to his mother’s house which was subsequently
burgled and damaged by this other offender. The other of the two reported that he had
faced anger and resentment from other local drug users who were living on the streets as
he had his own property. He was going to be evicted for anti-social behaviour despite
making regular complaints about the broken lock on the common door to his flats which

66
Final Draft 30/07/07

gave access to the stairwell where people were using drugs and claiming that they were
friends of his.

Substance misuse
The April 2007 returns submitted by the MPS indicate that 28% of the entire London PPO
cohort are currently on a drug treatment programme. A study of OASys assessments
indicated that 79% of London PPOs had drug misuse needs (Bellair, 2007). Three of the
four boroughs involved in this research are ‘intensive’ DIP boroughs indicating a generally
high level of substance misuse among offenders which is likely to be even higher among
PPOs.

Of the 24 offenders interviewed in the community47 18 reported having problems with


Class A drugs. Ten of these were no longer using drugs and a further 5 had significantly
reduced or changed their drug use (for example, no longer using crack, no longer injecting,
now taking methadone). Only three of those interviewed reported no significant change in
their patterns of substance misuse. According to the data held in OASys, most of the
offenders interviewed had been using illegal drugs regularly which is not surprising given
the extent of drug related offending in each of the boroughs researched.

Of the 37 offenders interviewed, 71% were assessed as having significant issues with
Class A Drugs, (34% heroin, 31% crack and 6% cocaine) and 26% were regular users of
Cannabis48. Often the information on probation computer systems differed from the self
report information provided by offenders. Again this is unsurprising as substance use
patterns change over time but it highlights the need for a close alignment with DIP and
drug services and probation in order that work with PPOs can continue to address these
issues. Several offenders reported during interviews that they had been using drugs whilst
in prison, had been using illegal and prescription drugs in combination and had been using
drugs from a very young age.

Problems with substance misuse were one of the main reasons offenders reverted to
offending behaviour. One PPO who was interviewed at the end of his recall described his
experiences of leaving prison as ‘a constant battle with cravings’ and despite being picked

47
One offender had only been released from a custodial sentence in a week prior to the interview
and has therefore been excluded from this analysis.
48
Data was unavailable for two offenders included in the sample. Many had problems with poly
drug use, however this was difficult to assess in the time given.

67
Final Draft 30/07/07

up from the prison by his probation officer and taken to hostel accommodation where there
was relapse support was recalled back to prison within 10 days for failing to keep his
appointments. He reported that he had left the hostel straight away and walked to Brixton
market where a dealer he knew gave him free drugs and that had he not been recalled for
failing to stay at the hostel, he would have probably ended up back in prison for committing
offences to obtain more drugs.

Employment, Education and Training


The research related to risk factors and the national evaluation of the PPO scheme
indicate a connection between employment, education and training and offending
behaviour. In London nearly double the number of PPOs had this as criminogenic need
when compared to the overall offender population (62% of all PPOs compared to 33% of
the London offending population). Several of the practitioners also indicated that this was
one of the most common of the PPO needs but also one of the most difficult to work with
as it was dependant on other factors such as housing or substance misuse and having
basic literacy and numeracy skills, for instance, one young PPO indicated that he would
like to work as a bicycle courier but couldn’t as he was unable to read a map. In some
cases the PPO scheme had supported PPOs to learn to drive or to obtain CSCS
(Construction Site Certification Scheme cards) to improve their employment prospects.
The PPOs who had received this kind of support were very grateful to the team for their
support.

Many of the PPOs reported that they would like to work but that they faced discrimination
in accessing employment due to their criminal records. Several admitted that perhaps the
only option for them in relation to employment was to become self-employed. However
they also recognised that for this to be a realistic alternative they would require training
and financial support. As one offender said:

‘People like me we can’t walk out there and into a job. Maybe [help] around
training and helping to finance starting our own business, you know like, I’d do
delivery work. If I had the money to go and get a van or something, you know just
delivering parcels and stuff like that…because no one’s going to employ me. I’m
not deluded in that way. I don’t think I could work for other people. I’ve been my
own boss for too many years and I’m used to having money…’

68
Final Draft 30/07/07

PPOs from each of the four boroughs who had worked with the scheme to change their
patterns of substance misuse and offending were proud of their achievements and wanted
to return something to their community. Several reported that they would like to deliver
preventative talks in schools or act as mentors. In one case, a non-statutory PPO who had
proven himself to probation and the police was supported in applying and had been
accepted to undertake training as a football coach with Arsenal Football Club. Such unique
opportunities, set as milestones and rewards for other achievements seemed to be
working with offenders who were ready to change.

Success or failure?
As has been identified, it is widely recognised that quantitative studies of reconviction and
recidivism do not provide much information to practitioners about how best to work with
prolific offenders to enable them to desist from offending. Measuring reconvictions or rates
of re-offending neglects to uncover the types of change, the mechanisms through which
change operates and may categorise positive improvements as ‘failures’ due to
prosecutions for old offences or small reconvictions. More detailed studies can take into
account offence seriousness and survival analysis but they are still limited in their
understanding of the way social and personal factors intersect with interventions and
supervision.

Burnett (1992) described desistence from offending as vacillating’ and ‘back and forth’
which suggests that offenders go through a process of adjusting to no longer offending.
This idea was confirmed in many of the interviews with offenders frequently reporting that
they wanted to stop offending and drug use. Of the 24 offenders interviewed in the
community 17 reported that they hadn’t offended since they had last left custody or had
become a PPO whichever was most recent49. A further five had significantly reduced or
changed their patterns of offending (for example, from prolific burglary to occasional
shoplifting). Two PPOs who had desisted from their previous levels of offending and who
had been caught for minor offences expressed great regret at their actions, something
which they acknowledged as a positive change.

One offender who was engaging and highly motivated and who was considered a success
by all with whom he was involved had still re-offended while on the PPO scheme and
under a model which assessed success purely on reconviction he could be deemed a

49
25 offenders were interviewed, however, one had only been out of prison for one week and his
responses are therefore not relevant to this discussion.

69
Final Draft 30/07/07

failure. With a different approach however, he can be considered a successful case and
the elements contributing to this success and the knock on benefits can be established
and potentially explored further (see case study 1). It can therefore be argued that success
may mean a decrease in the volume or frequency of offending or a change in the
seriousness of offending which may have the desired impact on local crime rates.
Alternatively, it may mean a reduction in substance use, the development of new coping
skills, improved literacy, regular attendance at probation, negative drug tests, beginning a
support group or no longer swearing at the police.

Amongst the 37 PPOs interviewed the majority of offenders agreed to discuss their
patterns of offending and the changes in their offending behaviour and lifestyles. One PPO
who had been convicted of a number of commercial burglaries reported a total of 25
convictions along with 256 offences ‘taken into consideration’. When asked how many
burglary offences he had committed he admitted ‘it must be about a thousand’ committed
over a two year period of heavy cocaine use where he would make at least £1,000 a day
by committing burglaries which he then used on drugs. He also indicated that he had
committed two burglaries which had made him £100,000 of which he used £50,000 to
attempt to set up a drugs business.

Similarly, other offenders reported committing 2-3 burglaries a day and only ever receiving
convictions for a fraction of the offences they committed. One particularly prolific burglar
reported:

‘When I’ve got an addiction going, especially if it’s crack cocaine, it’s astronomical
the crimes I commit. I’ve done 50 burglaries a night, you know what I mean, 50
offices…I’ll do the safes in ‘em usually, if they’ve not got a safe in them, then
computer chips. I don’t like walking out with any property on me because I am too
well known down in the West End, because that’s the only place I will work,
because that’s where the money is…I’d have bundles, lumps of money, you know
what I mean. I’d open a safe and there would be £90K there and it would last me 5
or 6 weeks. I was going out shopping, I got a place over at Regent’s Park all done
with criminal money, you know what I mean….I was in treatment and they done a
family questionnaire…they estimated in between £2m and £2.5 m which is
crazy!!…I’ve done £5K of crack in 16 hours.’

70
Final Draft 30/07/07

While the first of these offenders was only due for release from prison, the other was
considered a success on the PPO scheme as he was no longer offending and was
regularly engaging with the PPO team. This offender however, also expressed concern
that he felt he had become institutionalised and was anxious about what would happen
after his period of supervision ceased as the felt it provided him with some boundaries and
consequences which assisted him to live in the community.

While most of the PPOs interviewed in the community reported that they had either ceased
offending or had significantly reduced their offending, this had often been as the result of a
number of factors and had fluctuated back and forth over time depending upon their social
and personal circumstances. There were several key ways which had supported PPOs to
be actively involved in the scheme and stop offending. They include:
• Deterrent effect of a either long or repeated prison sentences and the availability of an
alternative in the PPO scheme;
• Being linked with rehabilitation services during a prison sentence;
• Being motivated by personalised, ’honest’, flexible, responsive support and developing
trust with the PPO team through their actions;
• The support of a peer group who had maintained a period of non-offending (Islington);
• A system of rewards and progress for non-offending eg. access to training courses and
development opportunities;
• Being ‘kept busy’ by the requirements of the programme;
• Reduced contact with offending peers who did not appreciate the additional supervision
that the PPO scheme attracted;
• Receiving emotional support in dealing with personal circumstances eg. death of a
parent, drug using family members, offending peer groups, threatened tenancies.

Those offenders who had engaged with the scheme reported several positive ways in
which their attitude had changed:
• Increased co-operation with the Police in relation to outstanding matters: This seems to
be mutually reinforcing as several of the PPO realised the police attitude towards them
improves as they engage with the scheme and are no longer being identified in relation
to new offences.
• Engaging with probation immediately on release from custody: One offender reported
that she left prison and went directly to The Grove where she organised appointments,
signed up to being a PPO and saw a drugs worker. This meant she quickly arranged a

71
Final Draft 30/07/07

prescription and reinforced the decisions she had made in prison to seek support with
her substance misuse and reduce her offending in order to gain access to her children.
• Personal development and increased communication: This was particularly noticeable
among young male PPOs. The scheme provided them with structured, needs based
support, positive role models and individual treatment.
• Improved self esteem: This was particularly the case in Barnet and with some PPOs
who had actively engaged in the scheme in other boroughs. In these cases the PPOs
self esteem improved as the PPOs were not wanted for any offences and they felt
secure that the PPO team would support them if they should be wanted in future. In
some cases this reinforced the PPOs choice to stop offending. PPOs in Islington also
reported improved self esteem through the work they had been undertaking in the PPO
group and offenders in Lambeth reported that their relationships with their PSO / PO
had helped them become ‘more opened’.

While there were several ways in which the attitudes of the PPOs had improved, there
were cases where this was not the case. One PPO reported that he had mentioned his
‘temptation’ to offend in order that the team provided him with some financial support.
Another, a young male PPO interviewed in prison, admitted that he had stopped engaging
with probation a few weeks prior to his license expiry date as he knew he could only be
recalled for this period of time and thought he would take the chance.

Those offenders who acknowledged that they had still been offending were typically older,
substance using offenders with a complex range of support needs and extensive offending
history. One had serious mental and physical health issues which had seen her recently
hospitalised. The PPOs interviewed who were not engaging with the scheme were also
less positive about the interventions and support they were receiving and had often
identified themselves as ‘offenders’ or coming from a ‘criminal area’ or having an ‘offending
family’. They frequently reported the scheme to be ‘just the same as everything else’, ‘too
much pressure’ or ‘setting them up to fail’.

Young PPOs / PYOs


Eleven of the 37 offenders interviewed were aged 21 years and younger. The views of this
group of offenders provided useful insights about the role of transitions between youth and
adult supervision and desistence from offending as a result of maturation. The younger
PPOs had mixed views about the PPO scheme which were often influenced by their

72
Final Draft 30/07/07

previous experiences of adult probation or work undertaken with the youth offending team
(YOT).

One of the 11 PPOs aged under 21 was currently serving a sentence in a Youth Offending
Institute. He was selected by the probation team to participate in this study as he was to be
an ‘active non engager’. During the interview he reported that he had begun offending at
age 13, was a PYO at 17 and had transferred over to the supervision of the probation team
at 18 years of age. He had committed a range of motor vehicle crime which he viewed as
‘not serious’ but which were in fact considered very high risk by those who worked with
him.

His case raised several issues about points of transition between the youth and adult
criminal justice systems, particularly as he was due to attend court the outcome of which
may mean he is sentenced to a further custodial sentence which felt he may have to serve
in an adult prison as he is soon to turn 21. This seemed to provoke some anxiety in him as
he was feeling pleased with his progress in the youth justice system50. This PPO also
reported preferring working with the YOT as ‘they treat you like you are younger’. Another
of the young PPOs agreed that he had preferred working with the YOT as he felt they were
more flexible but also acknowledged that they unlike the PPO scheme had not stopped
him re-offending.

This was not a commonly held view among the other nine young people interviewed who
generally preferred working with the PPO team for a number of reasons. One felt that he
had been ‘interrogated’ by the YOT (and adult probation) in the past, another that YOT had
not given him the time, personal attention or care that he had received from the PPO team
and which he attributed to his positive progress. Each of the other young PPOs in some
way attributed their reduced offending to a process of ‘maturation’ either as individuals or
within their peer group. In addition, all recognised that the PPO scheme had played a part
in this either through providing them the support that they needed or through the deterrent
effect of additional monitoring by the Police.

The younger PPOs reported that the PPO scheme had in some way helped them stay out
of trouble by:
• supporting them to stop using drugs (particularly in Barnet through contact with DIP
services);

50
Another young PPO reported enjoying his time in the youth offending institution for this reason.

73
Final Draft 30/07/07

• providing them with advice about how not to offend;


• assisting them in identifying and finding a solution to their problems;
• actively listening and making time for discussions with them (particularly when there
was a temptation to return to offending or substance use);
• providing small amounts of financial support at crucial times when offending may have
seemed an alternative;
• helping them to find training and employment opportunities and providing moral support
when applications and interviews were not successful; and
• through ‘having a good relationship with the officer.’

These PPOs could be described as being ‘maturational desisters’ as most mentioned they
had begun offending either as a result of a disruptive home life or through becomming
‘involved in the wrong crowd’ or a combination of both. Now that this group of peers was
no longer offending and had begun college or work or their personal circumstances had
improved they were no longer offending. Several of these PPOs also mentioned having
girlfriends and being or about to become fathers which they felt was a reason they were no
longer offending. As one PPO described ‘I miss the excitement but I look at the baby and
realise it is not worth it.’ Five of the 11 young PPOs directly attributed the reasons for their
stopping offending to the PPO scheme. A further three did not actively make this
association but acknowledged that the PPO scheme had made a contribution but
ultimately it had been their ‘decision’.

74
Final Draft 30/07/07

PPO case study examples


The case studies below highlight the different needs and outcomes of three of the PPOs
interviewed as part of this research and consider some of the implications for practice with
PPOs in general.

1. Engaging and performing


Personal history
• 37 year old white male
• Had spend much of his youth in local authority care
• Heroin user
• Known to other PPOs in area
• Is currently a carer to his mother

Offending history
• Residential and commercial burglaries, thefts.
• Began offending at 13 years old.

Progress on PPO scheme


• Notified he was a PPO prior to release from prison at the end of 2006.
• Has committed no burglaries, thefts or other acquisitive offences since being released
onto the PPO scheme.
• Obtained his own methadone prescription and is now mostly testing negative when
drug tested which he reports is a first.
• Despite initially not being interested, he now reports attending the voluntary PPO group
weekly and has begun other group sessions which he has also never done before.
• Was arrested outside probation during a PPO group for a minor offences committed in
early 2007. Was supported through this by the PPO Police Officer who attended the
custody suite and courts and as a result received a fine. This experience has
developed trust across the PPOs attending the group and has allowed this PPO to
continue to progress rather than face a set back.
• Thinks that without the scheme he probably would have gone back to drug use and
daily offending.
• Below he describes the impact the scheme has made on him and the ways in which it
has supported him:

75
Final Draft 30/07/07

‘What kind of happens with me and what I find really positive for me is we discuss my
problems and at the outcome of this discussion ideas and suggestions from all sides, from
probation and my side, are put forward and we come to a solution and an agreement…I
discuss a problem and I see a bit of light and come to a solution…it helps me more if it is
something I have done of my own back….rather than them saying ‘You must do this’…I
think it has had a positive effect on me, well I know it has, because I am sitting here talking
to you.’

Implications for policy and practice


• Reinforces the importance of a collaborative, personal and needs based approach from
the PPO team
• Highlights the benefits of the PPO group as a sight of pro-social modelling which
assists offenders identifying and resolving their own needs
• Reinforces the benefits of voluntary elements for PPOs for whom this is appropriate.

Recommendations
• Consider developing and funding similar interventions with PPOs across London.
• Further support for the PPO scheme to allow needs based working with PPOs
including supporting PPOs during custody and court cases.
• Development of local policing protocols to allow PPOs to attend probation and
interventions without fear of arrest and a process whereby PPO police are notified of
PPOs outstanding issues and can support them in arranging to be accompanied when
attending the Police station to report.

2. Reporting but not engaging


Personal history
• 39 year old black male.
• Began using cannabis at 18 and crack at 25. Also uses heroin.
• Has had extensive periods of homelessness.

Offending history
• Began offending at 16 when he assaulted a Police Officer
• Has been convicted of a sexual offence
• Generally shoplifts and has been banned from many shops in his area.

76
Final Draft 30/07/07

Recent progress
• Is attending probation regularly and undertaking drug tests which are generally positive
for crack.
• Jeopardised his drug treatment by shoplifting in the chemist where he picks up his
prescription.
• Finds working with the Police on the scheme difficult as he can not accept that they do
not have ‘a hidden agenda’.
• Reports that his house is regularly visited by the borough police and that information
has been given to the council he is operating a crack house. He claims this is due to
the broken lock on the communal door which he has reported as broken but which has
not been repaired. This has led to other drug users in the area claiming they know him
and using drugs in the common areas.
• Reports that he does not find probation supportive due to racial and class differences
which create a lack of empathy among his supervisors and as he feels judged based
on his previous offences.
• Reports that support offered with employment has not been followed up on. He doesn’t
feel that it is his responsibility to follow this up with probation.
• Feels that the government have funded yet another initiative which is having no direct
impact on him and that he is not benefiting from any of the money which has been put
into drug treatment.

Implications for policy and practice


• Importance of being able to meet the diversity needs of PPOs
• Developing practice which can overcome perceived judgements and build constructive
relationships with challenging offenders
• Need to support vulnerable offenders in maintaining tenancies and managing possible
victimisation from other offenders / drug users.

Recommendations
• Investigating interventions which meet the diversity needs of offenders and ensuring
access to these where necessary. In this case for instance it may be useful to provide
mentoring support on a one-off basis even if providing mentoring across the scheme is
not possible.

77
Final Draft 30/07/07

3. Not engaging and recalled to prison


Personal history
• 40 year old mixed white and black Caribbean male
• Began offending around 15 years old. Used cannabis and alcohol heavily from a young
age. First used crack at 17 years old.
• Family was broken up when he was put into foster care.

Offending history
• Around 50 prior offences for theft, burglaries (commercial and domestic), affray and
robbery.
• Hasn’t ever received benefits when he has been in the community.

Progress on PPO scheme


• Notified of being on the PPO scheme in 2005 after being charged in prison for two
outstanding incidents.
• Maintained crack use throughout but is in prison and is not currently using.
• Began a prison sentence in 2006 but was recalled after 10 days in the community
where he had lapsed back into crack use and breached his bail.
• After being released on a Friday, he left the hostel, went down via Brixton market to his
friend’s house. During the first few days out of prison he was beaten up by people he
owed money and is unclear what happened after this until he was arrested and
returned to prison.
• Reported that there was no difference for him being on or off the scheme.

Implications for policy and practice


• Management of PPOs with substance misuse needs released into the community at
the end of the week when support services are unavailable.
• Providing ongoing support to PPOs during periods of imprisonment to ensure a better
transition into the community.

Recommendations
• Three way meetings with PPO prior to release with Police, Probation and DIP
• Ongoing visits and support to PPOs whilst in prison to develop continuity of support
and maximise engagement on release.

78
Final Draft 30/07/07

• DIP support worker for PPO team who can provide support during initial period of
release and who can accompany PPO to local drug treatment services on day of
release.

79
Final Draft 30/07/07

Conclusions
Good practice
General
The schemes have generally obtained a good balance of enforcement and ‘social work
ethos’ which was identified as important within the key literature as it increased the
likelihood of the scheme’s success. Each of the boroughs had developed or accessed a
range of interventions in response to the individual needs of PPOs and with limited
resources. In Islington the PPO team had developed a psychodynamic therapy group, in
Southwark a mentoring scheme and Lambeth and Barnet had both developed close
working relationships with their local prisons with the support of the DIP.

Policing
Strong relationships have been built between the police and probation practitioners in each
of the PPO teams with three teams having co-located staff and the fourth having a very
well integrated police officer. Good practice in relation to the police role in the PPO
scheme has been developed in Barnet, where the PPO police sergeant has worked with
the scheme since its inception. The key features of this which both PPOs and practitioners
felt were crucial to the success of the scheme include:
• A clear policy about not arresting PPOs / DIP clients who are attending The Grove
• Clear communication with Safer Neighbourhood’s Teams and borough police about
PPOs current progress
• Negotiating between PPOs and the borough police regarding outstanding incidents and
arrest warrants.
• Supporting PPOs who are held in custody or who are attending court.
• Obtaining the use of a police vehicle to transport PPOs to meetings, pick them up at
the prison gate, take family members and probation / DIP on visits to offenders in
custody, and moving PPOs belongings.

Probation
The probation teams have developed a range of creative support measures for PPOs and
are accessing resources which are available through charities, trusts and other
organisations. Generally, practitioners are demonstrating many of the elements of good
practice identified in the literature: being highly motivated; showing commitment to service
operation; using flexibility, discretion and interpersonal skills in contacts with PPOs;
allowing PPOs to be active and participate in negotiations; showing concern for PPOs as

80
Final Draft 30/07/07

individuals and through addressing risk factors. It was these factors which PPOs
considered most positive about the scheme and which they felt supported them in
desisting from offending. The nature and extent of this good practice, does however, vary
across boroughs and individuals.

DIP / PPO alignment


There is much evidence that the DIP in Barnet, despite being a ‘non intensive’ programme,
is supporting the PPO scheme in many ways. Key to this are:
• Joined up working with PPOs serving custodial sentences – joint visits, facilitating
access to training within prison, identifying the throughcare needs of offenders due for
release from custody.
• Access for all PPOs to DIP services including counselling, psychology, complimentary
therapies, drugs workers, floating support worker.
• Direct daily communication about the engagement of PPOs with drug related
requirements.
In inner London boroughs where co-location is not possible there is some evidence that
the DIP is working with the PPO scheme however this varies significantly across boroughs
and the research suggests that there is still a need to develop work in this area rather than
rely on relationships which exist largely due to the joint DRR /PPO responsibilities among
probation teams. Lambeth and Barnet both had close links with their local prisons fostered
through close working with the DIP.

Gaps and barriers


The key barriers to more effective practice identified during the research were:
• A lack of strategic level ownership and communication with the operational teams
about how to overcome barriers, identify funding and access support from partners.
• Limited financial resources and financial management. Additional funding could, for
example: support the teams in providing housing rental deposits or in securing short
term accommodation for PPOs when other avenues have been exhausted or are not
available; or allow teams to deliver a premium service to all PPOs despite their status
as statutory or non-statutory offenders and during periods of imprisonment.
• Difficulties finding suitable accommodation for PPOs and a lack of support from key
partners in relation to this, for example, during periods in custody, for those PPOs who
were vulnerable in their current accommodation or those with rental arrears.
• Lack of employment opportunities for PPOs with lengthy offending histories.

81
Final Draft 30/07/07

• Limited staff resources which mean the teams are limited in their capacity to deliver on
all the activities suggested in the ‘London model’ guidance. In some cases activities
needed to be prioritised due to competing demands. Few resources mean supporting
non statutory offenders or dealing with cross borough offending is difficult.
• Inner London boroughs had greater numbers of PPOs, particularly those with
substance misuse problems and were less integrated with the DIP than the Barnet
PPO scheme. This meant less direct access to DIP services for PPOs and also less
direct communication and information sharing between teams. There were also no
dedicated DIP workers with responsibility to PPOs and often knowledge of DIP
services was dependent on the shared DRR / PPO roles within probation rather than
that of the PPO team itself.
• There are no meaningful and sustainable routes out of offending and many PPOs
struggle when returning to drug using peers and neighbourhoods.

82
Final Draft 30/07/07

Recommendations
The general findings of this evaluation of the PPO scheme in four London boroughs are
consistent with the findings of the national evaluation conducted by the Home Office
(Dawson and Cuppleditch, 2007). The results of this study suggest that the four schemes
have developed good practice and have engaged some of the boroughs most prolific
offenders despite having limited resources. Closer strategic links and better
communication with the CDRP may improve the financial resources available to each of
the schemes and allow the PPO teams to work more closely with offenders across the key
areas recommended in guidance issued by Government Office for London. Closer
strategic and operational links may also improve the commitment of some partners and
ensure services are commissioned to better meet PPOs needs. The following are the key
recommendations which have emerged from this research in four London boroughs.

1. Improved strategic links with the CDRP and a set of protocols documenting
commitment from key partners;
2. Improved two way flow of information between PPO practitioners and strategic partners
in order that a) PPO practitioners are informed of changes to guidelines which may
affect PPOs and b) so partners are aware of the needs of the PPO team and can
develop processes in support of their work;
3. Allocation of a budget for direct work with PPOs51;
4. Facility to support the management of this budget, for example, an allocated finance
officer;
5. Development and evaluation of local interventions such as the Islington PPO group.
6. A dedicated and co-located DIP worker for each scheme in lieu of a fully co-located
team for inner London boroughs.
7. Development and communication of local protocols outlining the operating principles of
the PPO police in relation to on-site arrests, dealing with warrants / outstanding
matters, gathering intelligence, communicating with borough police / MPS, day to day
work with PPOs.
8. Follow up interviews and case analysis of this cohort of PPOs to conduct an evaluation
of the long term impacts of the scheme, the survival of scheme effects and the points
of attrition for those PPOs who return to offending.
9. Examination of the current PPO cohort in terms of its contribution to the level of crime
and therefore the effectiveness and accuracy of the targeting process in each borough.

51
London Borough of Camden has recently committed over £100K to the borough’s PPO scheme
through funding identified by the CDRP.

83
Final Draft 30/07/07

References

Beaumont, L (2007) MPS Prolific and Priority Offenders: The London Perspective, May
2007 (April 2007 returns)

Bellair (2007) Priority and Prolific Offender Profile Report, Unpublished.

Burnett, R. (1992) The Dynamics of Recidivism, Oxford: Oxford Centre for Criminological
Research.

Brand, S and Price, R (2000) The economic and social costs of crime, Home Office
Research Study 217, London: Home Office.

Carter, P. (2003) Managing Offenders, Reducing Crime: A New Approach, London: Prime
Minister’s Strategy Unit.

Cinnamon, K and Hoskins, J (2006) ‘The Prolific and other Priority Offender initiative in
practice’, Probation Journal, 53.

Chenery, S. and Pease, K. (2000) The Burnley / Dordrecht Initiative Final Report.
University of Huddersfield / Safer Cities Partnership, Burnley. Unpublished.

Cunliffe, J. and Shepherd, D. (2007) Re-offending of adults: results from the 2004 cohort,
Home Office Statistical Bulletin 06/07.

Dawson, P. (2005) Early Findings from the Prolific and Other Priority Offenders Evaluation,
Home Office Development and Practice Report 46, London: Home Office.

Dawson, P (2007) The National PPO evaluation – research to inform and guide practice,
Home Office Online Report 09/07, London: Home Office.

Dawson, P and Cuppleditch, L (2007) An impact assessment of the Prolific and other
Priority Offender Programme, Home Office Online Report 08/07, London: Home Office.

Dubourg, R., Hamed, J., and Thorns, J. (2005) The economic and social costs of crime
against individuals and households 203/04, Home Office Online Report 30/05, London:
Home Office.

84
Final Draft 30/07/07

Farrington, D. (1997) ‘Human Development and Criminal Careers’, in M. Maguire, R.


Morgan and R. Reiner (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Criminology (2nd edn). Oxford:
Clarendon Press .

Fulton, B. and Stone, S. (1992). ISP Overview: Evaluating the Effectiveness of Intensive
Supervision. Corrections Today, December 1992.

Gendreau, P., Goggin, C. and Fulton, B (2001). Intensive Supervision in Probation and
Parole Settings in Hollin, C. The Handbook of Offender Assessment and Treatment. John
Wiley & Sons.

Gendreau, P., Paparozzi, M., Little, T. and Goddard, M. (1993). Does ‘punishing smarter’
work? An assessment of the new generation of alternative sanctions in probation. Forum
on Corrections Research, 5, 31-34.

Government Office for London (2006) Reducing Re-offending in London: Phase Two of the
London Resettlement Strategy- A Consultation Document, London: Government Office.

Government Office for London (2007a) The London Model: Guidance for Setting Up and
Running Prolific and Other Priority Offender Schemes for Adult Offenders in London,
London: Government Office.

Government Office for London (2007b) Aligning the Prolific and Other Priority Offender
Programme and the Drug Intervention Programme (DRAFT), London: Government Office.

Graham, J. and Bowling, B. (1995) Young People and Crime, Home Office Research
Study 145, London: Home Office.

Harper, G and Chitty, C (2005) The impact of corrections on re-offending: a review of ‘what
works’ (3rd edition), Home Office Research Study 291, London: Home Office.

Heal, A. (2001) Persistent Offender Partnership Programme. NACRO Evaluation Report.


Unpublished.

85
Final Draft 30/07/07

Holden McAllister Partnership (2002) Evaluation of the Burglary Reduction Initiative


Leicester: Final Evaluation Report for the Steering Committee. Unpublished.

Home Office (2001) Policing a New Century: A Blueprint for Reform, Crm 5326, London
HMSO.

Home Office (2002) Justice for All, White Paper CM5563, London: HMSO.

Home Office (2004) Criminal Justice Interventions Programme and Prolific and Priority
Offenders Programme: Partnership Guidance for CJITs and PPO schemes, London: Home
Office.

Homes, A., Walmsley, R. and Debidin, M. (2005) Intensive supervision and monitoring
schemes for persistent offenders: staff and offender perceptions, Home Office
Development and Practice Report, 41, London: Home Office

Hope, T., Worrall, A., Dunkerton, L. and Leacock, V. (2001) Final Evaluation Report for the
Newcastle Prolific Offenders Project. Keele University/Staffordshire Probation Area.
Unpublished.

IpsosMori (2007) Safer Derby: Evaluation of Derby Prolific and other Priority Offender
Scheme (An Executive Summary) Derby: Derby Community Safety Partnership

Jamieson, McIvor and Murray, (1999) Understanding offending among young people.
Edinburgh: The Stationary Office.

Lloyd, C., Mair, G. and Hough, M. (1994). Explaining reconviction rates: a critical analysis.
Home Office Research Study, No. 136. London: HMSO.

Lyon, J., Dennison, C., and Wilson, A. (2000) ‘Tell them so they listen’: focus group
research for young people in custody. Home Office Research Study No. 201. London.
Home Office.

Millie, A and Errol, R (2007) ‘Rehabilitation and Resettlement: A Study of Prolific Offender
Case Management in Birmingham, United Kingdom’, International Journal of Offender
Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 50.

86
Final Draft 30/07/07

Maruna, S. (2000) ‘Desistence from Crime and Offender Rehabilitation: A Tale of Two
Research Literatures’, Offender Programmes Report, Vol 4 (1).

Mawby, R.C and Worrall, A. (2004). ‘Polibation’ revisited: policing, probation and prolific
offender projects. International Journal of Police Science and Management 6,2, 63-73.

McGuire, J. and Priestley, P. (1995) ‘Reviewing “What Works”: Past, Present and Future’,
in McGuire, J (ed.) What Works: Reducing Reoffending – Guidelines from Research and
Practice. Chichester: Wiley.

McGuire, J (2002) ‘Integrating findings from research reviews in McGuire (ed.) Offender
Rehabilitation and Treatment – Effective Programme and Policies to Reduce R-
eoffending.. England: John Wiley and Sons.

McNeill, F., Batchelor, S., Burnett, R., and Knox, J. (2005) 21st Century Social Work:
Reducing Re-offending: Key Practice Skills, Edinburgh: Scottish Executive.

Nacro (1999) Going straight home, London: Nacro.

Nacro (2006) Going straight home: A policy briefing on the role of housing in preventing
offending, Nacro Policy Briefing, London: Nacro.

Paparozzi, M. A. (1994). A comparison of the effectiveness of an Intensive Parole


Supervision Program with traditional parole supervision. Unpublished doctoral dissertation.
Rutgers University, Brunswick, New Jersey.

Paparozzi, M. and Gendreau, P. (1993). An ISP that Works! Treatment, Organizational


Supportiveness and Officer Roles. Unpublished manuscript, Bureau of Parole, Trenton,
New Jersey.

Petersilia, J. and S. Turner. 1993. ‘Intensive Probation and Parole.’ Pp. 281–335 in M.
Tonry (ed.), Crime and Justice: A Review of the Research, Volume 17. Chicago: University
of Chicago Press.

87
Final Draft 30/07/07

Rex (1999) ‘Desistence from Offending: Experiences of Probation’, Howard Journal of


Criminal Justice, Vol 38 (4).

Sayer, A (1992) Method in Social Science: A Realist Approach, London: Routledge.

Seebohm, L (undated) The Newcastle Prolific and Priority Offenders Scheme: An


innovative approach to supervision and monitoring, Available at:
www.crimereduction.gov.uk/ppo/pponewcastle.doc (Accessed 28/05/07).

Sveinsson, K. (2006) Prolific and other Priority Offender Scheme in Southwark: A case
study to inform the development of practice.

Worrall, A., Mawby, R. C., Heath, G. and Hope. T. (2003). Intensive Supervision and
Monitoring Projects. Home Office Online Report 42/03. London: Home Office.

Worrall, A., Dunkerton, L. and Leacock, V. (2002). Targeting and treatment? Do Prolific
Offender Projects have a future? Probation Journal, 49, 4, 277- 286.

Worrall, A. (2001/2002). Prolific Offender Projects – a new route to public protection?


Criminal Justice Matters, 46, 22-23, Winter 2001/2002.

Youth Justice Board (2004) Prolific and Other Offenders Strategy: Guidance for YOTs,
London: Youth Justice Board.

88
Final Draft 30/07/07

Appendix 1 – Re-conviction and cost benefit analysis


guidance

Reconviction analysis
Two of the four boroughs who participated in this research had undertaken recent
reconviction analysis, both using methodologies created locally. A description of the
approaches taken, an outline of the findings and a discussion of the strengths and
weaknesses of each approach is outlined below. A further discussion of some of the key
points to consider when undertaking such analysis is also included.

London Borough of Barnet


London Borough of Barnet examined offending rates prior to and since being formally
adopted as a PPO. The measure used is the number of offences committed in the last 12
months prior to the formation of the PPO team (early 2006) and the number committed in
the 12 months following this. Data was taken from PNC checks undertaken specifically for
the purpose.

Barnet did not include in their cohort five offenders who were currently serving custodial
sentences or had recently been released from custody following after serving lengthy
sentences. Overall, there were 123 offences prior to the PPO team’s inception and 38 after
which amounts to an overall reduction in offending of 69%.

London Borough of Islington


In Islington a different approach was taken with an offending rate calculated for each
offender before and after their joining the scheme. The offending rate was calculated by
dividing the number of convictions by the number of months before the scheme or since
being adopted by the scheme using PNC data. The averages over each offender were
calculated and used as a comparison from which the reconviction rate of the overall
sample could be established. The results found a 9% reduction in reconvictions over the
entire cohort with a conviction rate of .30 prior to the scheme and 0.21 following the
scheme.

89
Final Draft 30/07/07

Table A1: Example of reconviction methodology (London Borough of Islington)


Name DOB Convictions Months Offending Convictions Months Offending
prior to PPO prior to rate since PPO since rate
PPO PPO
XX 01/01/01 31 118 0.26 13 14 92.86
YY 02/02/02 8 47 0.17 2 32 6.25

Discussion
There are however, some limitations of using these methods to determine the success of a
PPO scheme. Firstly, the sample of PPOs chosen differs in each borough with Islington
establishing the overall reconviction rate for the entire cohort including those who could not
be re-offending as they are currently in custody. Removing these offenders from the
analysis may have a negative impact on the rates of reconviction, however, it may be also
be difficult to establish the amount of time each offender has spent in custody over the
entire period of the study in order to take this into account.

Neither method compares the reconviction rates of PPOs with similar offenders in the
general offending population in order to see if PPOs rates of reconviction differ significantly
from those of offenders who are not on the scheme, nor does it establish if the type of
offending has changed or possibly reduced in seriousness, for example, no longer
involving violence or a shift from commercial burglary to shoplifting. There is also no
discussion of offences which have been committed versus those for which a conviction has
been recorded since the offender became a PPO.

Neither example attempts to undertake a survival analysis to look at the reduction in


reconvictions over time since becoming a PPO. It may be useful, for example, to look at
reconviction rates at six month intervals after becoming a PPO to see if the scheme works
better in the initial stages or after some time. Similarly, it may be useful for a deeper
examination of cases where reconviction rates are significantly lower or higher than
average.

As identified in the introduction to this report, calculating reconviction rates may give some
idea about the effectiveness of the PPO scheme, but it should also be undertaken in
conjunction with other assessments of effectiveness. It is also important to note that
measuring the reconviction rates of the PPO scheme may be paradoxical as one of the
scheme’s key aims is to ‘catch and convict’.

Cost benefit analysis: Is the PPO scheme value for money?

90
Final Draft 30/07/07

Assessing the cost / benefits of the borough’s PPO scheme may provide powerful
information from which decisions about strategic priorities and resource allocations can be
made by CDRPs, however, the accuracy, and therefore usefulness, of any cost benefit
analysis however is dependent upon how accurately costs and benefits are determined,
something which may prove very difficult particularly due to the unreliability of some of the
data and methods used to gather it.

To conduct a cost / benefit analysis of the PPO scheme in each borough, three key steps
should be included:
1. Calculate the costs of running the scheme locally (eg. staffing, funding
interventions and expenses).
2. Calculate the costs of the offending of the PPO cohort (over and above that of non-
PPO offenders) using recent Home Office guidance (Dubourg et al, 2005).
3. Calculate the benefits of the PPO scheme over and above that of non PPOs:
a. changes in rates of recorded crime over the ‘priority’ offences for which
PPOs are targeted,
b. changes to the nature and frequency of offending by PPOs,
c. general improvements in PPOs (for example a reduction in substance use),
and
d. improvements in partnership working and community cohesion.

Costs of running PPO schemes


The local funding available to PPO schemes varies but may include the following: police,
probation and DIP staff costs (including posts which have a partial responsibility to the
PPO scheme); costs of travel cards (over and above those give to other probation clients);
costs of interventions (for example, psychodynamic therapeutic interventions in Islington or
mentoring in Southwark); miscellaneous budgets allocated by CDRP (for example, money
allocated for petty cash which supports ad-hoc interventions such as payment of small
bills, purchasing of groceries, fork lift license training etc).

Costs of offending committed by PPOs


In 2000 the Home Office published ‘The Economic and Social Costs of Crime’ (Brand and
Price, 2000) which provided an estimated cost for the main high profile crimes (burglaries
for example were estimated to cost an average of £2.3K)52. The report estimated the cost

52
Drug-trafficking, handling stolen goods, pubic order offences and summary and non-summary
motoring offences are not included in the estimates.

91
Final Draft 30/07/07

of crime in England and Wales to be £60 billion. According to Brand and Price (2000)
calculating the cost of crime relies on the use of officially recorded police statistics which is
problematic as there is an extensive underreporting of most crimes, particularly incidents
of violence against the person and to compensate for this a multiplier was used to
ascertain more closely the ‘actual’ levels of crime.

The findings of the initial analysis were updated in Dubourg et al (2005) where new
estimates for the costs of key crimes against individuals and households. While the figures
calculated within these reports are estimates of the average costs of key crimes they may
be useful in estimating the costs of crimes committed by PPOs as they include costs to the
criminal justice system including police time and sentencing costs, and for violent crimes
the physical and emotional costs, costs in lost output and health costs. Costs which may
not be considered are effects on community cohesion, quality of life or the reputation of an
area. It needs also to be stressed that the Home Office guidance may not accurately
reflect the costs of crimes committed only by PPOs.

Benefits of the PPO scheme


The PPO scheme may have the following benefits for the borough however these may be
difficult to accurately calculate. They include:
• An overall reduction in the borough’s priority crimes through the correct targeting of
PPOs and their rapid recall to custody upon breach ;
• Overall reduction in offending among PPOs through a combination of targeted support
and rapid recall to custody upon breach;
• A reduction in the seriousness and frequency of offending among individual PPOs;
• Reduction in the resources needed to support PPOs through improved multi-agency
working and a strategic approach;
• A possible reduction of offending in non-PPO groups due to the deterrent effect of the
scheme;
• Possible improvements in public opinion and fear of crime through communication of
positive outcomes.

To measure the benefit of the PPO scheme for the borough overall, it may be possible to
estimate the impact of the PPO scheme on the priority crimes for which PPOs are
targeted. Once this figure is calculated, the economic and social costs may be established
using current Home Office estimates of the costs of crime (Dubourg et al, 2005), however,
this method would have particular limitations. For instance, while the aim of the PPO

92
Final Draft 30/07/07

scheme is to target the most prolific or the ‘priority’ offenders in a borough, research
indicates that the process of selection may not actually identify these offenders (Hagell and
Newburn, 1994; Townsley and Pease, 2002). Even if these offenders were identified it may
not be possible for probation or the police to work with these offenders for a number of
reasons. Therefore, schemes may not identify or work with the most prolific offenders or
those who make the most impact on local crime rates.

Reconviction analysis, such as that conducted in Barnet and Islington, comes with its own
methodological problems which have been discussed but may be useful in providing an
overall picture in combination with other methods of assessment such as qualitative
interviews with PPOs or an examination of OASys assessments (as used in this research).

While there are other potential benefits, such as improved community cohesion or reduced
fear of crime it would be extremely difficult to disentangle the effects of the PPO scheme
from other factors and they are therefore not able to be accurately measured.

93

You might also like