Report on Policing and Offender Management

Report: 8
Date: 8 December 2011
By: A/Assistant Commissioner, Territorial Policing on behalf of the Commissioner

Summary

The report provides an overview of the MPS involvement in Offender Management (IOM) and;

• Outlines the draft MPS Integrated Offender Management Strategy and operational framework explaining the benefits of such an approach and how it aligns to existing offender management models.
• Addresses questions raised by Members during October SOP about management of offenders with mental health issues, who are deemed to present a risk but who do not fit MAPPA criteria.
• Outlines how the MPS works with other agencies to share information and manage risk and updates on work to improve information-sharing practices.

A. Recommendation

That

1. Members note the current position

B. Supporting information

1. The Home Office and Ministry of Justice Integrated Offender Management (IOM) guidance document was issued in March 2010. This articulates how there has been a growing need to look at how resources can be most efficiently used within the criminal justice system. A key driver for IOM has been to examine the case for more investment in community-based approaches for offenders, as an alternative to the revolving door of short-term custody.

2. The guidance also suggests that integrated working can be especially effective in preventing serious acquisitive and violent crimes by identifying and managing offenders deemed to be at high-risk of re-offending.

3. IOM is both a multi-agency strategic initiative and an operational process for managing offenders of most concern in the community. It is the strategic umbrella that brings together local agencies to prioritise intervention with offenders who are causing most crime in the locality together with those who are identified as being a high risk of harm or a high risk of re-offending. It builds on and expands current offender management programmes such as Prolific and Priority Offenders (PPO), Drug Intervention Programme (DIP), Youth Offending Teams (YOTs) and Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements (MAPPA) which have been associated with a period of sustained reductions in crime and reoffending. IOM recognises that different partners are involved in the lives of offenders at different points and for different purposes and also manages a selected and locally defined cohort of offenders who are in the community regardless of whether they are under statutory supervision (MAPPA) or not.

4. Offender Management programmes currently being developed are increasingly demonstrating the value of information sharing and multi-agency cooperation with the effective and cost efficient management of offenders. The most dangerous offenders will continue to be managed by MAPPA arrangements as defined by legislation.

5. IOM is based on five key principles;

• All partners tackling offenders together by way of a coordinated and structured approach
• Delivering a local response to local problems with all relevant local partners from public, private and voluntary sector involved in the process
• Offenders made to face their responsibilities or face the consequences
• Making better use of existing (and proven) offender management programmes and governance and
• All offenders at high risk of harm and re-offending are in scope.

Current Position in London

6. The London Diamond Initiative was one of six national pilot areas (operating between 2008 and 2010) and has to date, been the only fully evaluated IOM model for London. Diamond tested a ‘Justice reinvestment model’ in areas that were identified as having the highest concentration of resident offenders and focussed activity on those returning to the area having been sentenced to less than 12 months imprisonment. This cohort was identified as previously having a very high rate of re-offending, being released with no statutory supervision or support.

7. Since the introduction of the new statutory targets to reduce re-offending rates (April 2010) for local Community Safety Partnerships, many of the London boroughs have started to develop a variety of different IOM models looking at effective practice from both the Diamond evaluation and other models developed outside of London. This has resulted in a less than consistent and corporate approach in designing a model against academically recognised evidenced based learning.

8. Reducing re-offending is part of the core business of all Community Safety Partnerships. The Private, Voluntary, Community and Faith sectors also have a crucial role to play in delivering the diversity of services necessary to help prevent re-offending, particularly in relation to health, housing, education, family support, training and employment.

9. It is important that reducing re-offending is not regarded as solely the responsibility of the police, local authority and probation. Local Delivery Partners such as (Drug Intervention Programmes) DIP and housing services would benefit greatly from a whole system approach as would Health Authorities and Prisons. Each of these agencies has a key role to play in taking forward the IOM approach.

10. Although all boroughs currently commit resource to their local YOT, PPO and MAPPA there is no joined up consistent approach to ensure effective and corporate service delivery, this results in offenders residing in, (or returning from prison) in one borough experiencing different types of interventions and management to those on another borough.

11. The London Criminal Justice Partnership (LCJP) has undertaken a scoping exercise looking at IOM models across London. All boroughs deliver IOM but it is a local decision as to how they manage and whether they target offenders outside of the models described above. Currently, 16 boroughs examine a broader cohort of offenders, looking at gang offenders, or those having served less than 12 months imprisonment for example.

12. SCD Command is in the process of introducing a Lifetime Offender Management Programme for persons identified as part of an initiative to tackle those offenders responsible for serious and organised crime.

Development of a London IOM Strategy

13. Whilst there is clearly a need for local IOM development there is also a desire for the MPS and partner agencies to develop a corporate approach, with a strategy that incorporates the general principles, delivery and performance framework for boroughs to work within. This will ensure that local practitioners, whether from statutory or non-statutory bodies, use a collaborative approach to both the design and delivery of services that will directly influence and benefit their local communities. Localism as a concept will provide services that are closer to their point of use and more focused on local need. This current range of IOM models across London does not currently support one which is a cost effective, corporate operational model, evenly resourced between local partners or properly designed on evidenced based academic research.

14. An agreed MPS Corporate IOM strategy will assist by:

• Encouraging all partners to take forward an IOM approach and agree clear regional and local governance arrangements.
• Bringing together all partners to target a locally agreed cohort, drawing on existing resources to hold offenders in compliance and working with them to stop their criminal behaviour.
• Having a clear process to move offenders between various levels of management out of targeted cohorts once they have desisted in their offending behaviour.
• Ensuring that all partners are performing their role in ensuring that where offenders fail to comply with their sentence conditions, swift coordinated action is taken to bring them to justice.
• Ensuring there is a corporate performance framework to assist with identifying effective practice across the service.
• A more structured approach by teams, supported by evidence and training, to manage the offenders motivation throughout their contact which will include a range of enforcement options. Staff training should be a core part of any offender management programme and this can be more efficiently and effectively delivered centrally.

15. The development of an MPS and Partners, IOM strategy has been the responsibility of The London Criminal Justice Partnership. Version 12 of the strategy, including a proposed operational framework, is currently out for consultation with London Councils, having been agreed in principle by MPS, LPT, GLA, and NTA (DIP). The strategy is based on learning gained both from the findings from the Diamond Initiative evaluation as well as other national good practice.

Governance

16. Clear and effective multi-agency governance arrangements are fundamental to ensuring effective delivery of the strategy. At National level the Crime and Policing Act 2009 requires Community Safety Partnerships (CSP’s) to have in each area, a ‘Reducing Re-Offending Strategy’. The development of an IOM framework fits well in supporting this requirement.

17. The establishment of a strategic pan-London ‘Offender Management Board’ has been agreed to achieve the stated aims of the strategy. The IOM Board will report directly to the London Crime Reduction Board and receive direct support from the newly formed Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime.

18. The IOM Board will;

• Continue the development of the IOM delivery framework proposed as a pan London model.
• Continue to develop a multi-agency strategy on managing offenders in the community.
• Propose sharply focussed key actions to which the Board is invited to commit shared resources.
• Liaise closely with Heads of Community Safety on Boroughs to ensure coordination of activity across London’s Community Safety Partnerships.
• Define the scope of offender management against commonly agreed parameters which allows for informed local selection of cohort.
• Develop a consistent approach to the management of risk across offender populations and agency boundaries.
• Consider options for joint training opportunities for staff managing offenders across partner agencies.
• Report regularly to the London Crime Reduction Board on progress against agreed milestones.

19. Any local governance structure below the CSP will need to be effective with leading and guiding the work of the local IOM arrangements. Some boroughs already have such a structure in place in the form of Offender Management Groups, which has the senior management responsibility for IOM on the borough.

20. These groups should provide a clear link from strategy to delivery between all existing offender management arrangements, including YOS, MAPPA, MARAC, DIP etc. This should not just be a liaison function but a management group with the power to make decisions, commission reviews and allocate resources.

21. The IOM Framework is designed to allow referrals from the existing IOM models such as MAPPA and YOS, where the existing offender manager requires some additional assistance from the Borough IOM team. The referral process is currently subject of development as part of the draft strategy document.

22. The Borough (or cluster) Criminal Justice Groups (BCJG) should actively support the delivery of offender management arrangements through its role as the senior management team of Criminal Justice Service (CJS) agencies at a local level. The development of stronger and more effective relationships can be helped by ensuring the same senior level representation from police and probation are on both the CSP and the BCJG.

23. The key benefits of a London Integrated Offender Management approach include;

• Reduced crime, reduced re-offending and reduced demand
• London region being the lead for influencing the national direction for IOM, based on the academic research and evaluation from the London Diamond Initiative evaluation, and learning gained from other national models.
• Eliminating waste and reducing duplication, increasing effectiveness and realising efficiency savings.
• Better coordination and pooling of resource at both regional and local level which will help to engage the non-criminal justice partners in supporting an IOM approach.
• More effective local policing by Safer Neighbourhood Teams, through increased knowledge and intelligence on offenders residing within their area and those who are subject to statutory conditions.
• Coordinated service delivery to increase continuity and avoid duplication of conflict both within and across Borough boundaries.
• Increase use of services by co-location (where possible) of staff from multiple agencies in one place, increasing continuity, consistency of purpose and more efficient and effective service delivery.
• Case management connectivity through a newly developed shared data system for tracking individuals and their involvement across multiple agencies and the capability of measuring their outcomes. The only shared data system at present is Violent and Sexual Offender Register (ViSOR) which is a system recording active management of an individual by a named individual who is trained and vetted to use the system.
• A shared responsibility for case management which allows the system to use all resources fully from prison to community and from within the Criminal Justice Services.

Development of an IOM Pilot in North West London

24. As already mentioned the 32 London Boroughs have differing approaches to IOM. The North West Command (7 Boroughs of Hillingdon, Harrow, Brent, Ealing, Hounslow, Hammersmith & Fulham and Kensington & Chelsea) has volunteered to pilot a radical new approach to the identification and selection of the offenders that will form an offender cohort managed by way of an IOM approach across the Area. The approach relies on the exchange of data between London Probation Trust and MPS using the Offender Group Reconviction Scales (OGRS) calculated for both the statutory cohort and those identified by the MPS through the normal intelligence model (excluding Juveniles at this stage). The OGRS scales have proved to be an extremely accurate predictor of re offending and academically sound. They have not, as yet been used by the MPS and Probation in such a manner that will allow for a cohort of the highest scoring offenders to be made subject of agreed partnership attention and interventions.

25. The project is in its early stages of implementation and development of the operational framework, governance and understanding cross borough issues. Work has been completed by the seven borough analysts to identify and agree the cohort. Following two successful workshops a more detailed operational process involving the all local partners is currently being formalised.

Management of persons identified as ‘risk’ including those with Mental Ill Health

26. The MPS supports the delivery of policing services to individuals with a mental illness by ensuring all Boroughs have an Inspector who is the Borough Mental Health Liaison Officer (BMHLO). Their role is to build and maintain relationships with partners in relation to all aspects of operational policing involving someone with a mental illness. The BOCU Commander must also nominate a member of their Senior Management Team to take overall responsibility for both the general delivery of operational policing and consultation with the Chief Executive of the mental health trust or equivalent, to ensure that specific local arrangements are in place in relation to high risk areas of business as well as ensuring that mental health and policing form part of the strategic assessment.

27. Work is currently being undertaken to establish the compatability of implementing the ACPO Guidance on Protecting the Public which provides a definition of a Potentially Dangerous Person (PDP) and a process for managing their risks.

28. The MPS definition of a PDP is a person :

• Who is not eligible for management under MAPPA and;
• Whose behaviour gives reasonable grounds for believing there is a likelihood of them committing an offence or offences that will cause serious harm and;
• Whose management would benefit from a multi-agency approach and;
• Who is not otherwise expected to be actively managed by a specific MPS unit.

29. The MPS is currently reviewing how it can identify those to whom this definition applies as there is no statutory framework for identifying a PDP. This would address the current gap in legislation and offender management strategies, as it would cater for the person who is not convicted of any offence (and therefore not an offender) but who is still deemed to present a risk to the public. This could include those persons suffering with mental ill health in the community. A further consideration by the MPS before the PDP process could be adopted is deciding who will have ownership of the management and administration for the PDP, as they do not fit in the MAPPA framework and cannot legally be discussed or managed through the current multi-agency structure.

Information Sharing and Managing Risk

30. The following examples outline how the MPS is working with other agencies to share information and manage risk.

Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements (MAPPA)

31. Sections 325 to 327 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 and Part 2 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 places a duty on the Responsible Authorities (RA) who are Police, Probation and Prison Services, to risk assess and manage the risks posed by specified sexual and violent offenders in a way which best protects the public from serious harm. This is known as MAPPA. The three agencies of the RA must act in co-operation. This includes the exchange of information in assessing and managing the risks posed by MAPPA offenders. It also imposes on the RA’s a ‘duty to co-operate’ with the following DTC agencies which are Youth Offending Teams, Jobcentre Plus, Local Education Authorities, Local Housing Authorities, Registered Social Landlords, Local Authority Social Services, Health, Electronic Monitoring Providers and UKBA.

32. ‘Information sharing’, in the context of MAPPA management, is the sharing of personal information within the MAPPA framework. Any personal information shared with an agency/person outside MAPPA is a ‘disclosure’. The exchange of information is essential to effective public protection, and MAPPA provides clear principles upon which MAPPA agencies should exchange information amongst themselves and where a Responsible Authority may disclose such information to other persons or organisations outside MAPPA.
Lifetime Offender Management Project

33. This project is being developed within the Serious Crime Command (SCD3) and seeks to manage serious and organised criminals and seeks to manage these offenders through an end-to-end process. Thereby reducing organised crime, reducing harm and increasing public protection. The intention of the programme is to ensure that the most harmful, high risk criminals based on intent and capability are subject to appropriate control measures.

Prolific and Other Priority Offender (PPOs)

34. The prolific and other priority offenders approach effectively manages offenders who are identified as committing a disproportionate amount of crime and harm in their local communities. Within local integrated offender management arrangements, the PPO approach provides a focus on the small hard core of most persistent offenders. PPO schemes usually consist of three strands:

• deter young offenders
• catch and convict
• rehabilitate and resettle

35. The PPO approach effectively manages offenders who are identified as committing a disproportionate amount of crime and harm in their local communities and have been successful in reducing re-offending rates among targeted offenders.

Multi Agency Risk Assessment Conferences (MARAC)

36. MARAC is part of a coordinated community response to domestic abuse, incorporating representatives from statutory, community and voluntary agencies working with victims/survivors, children and the alleged perpetrator.

37. The MARAC aims are to:

• Share information to increase the safety, health and well-being of victims/survivors – adults and their children;
• Determine whether the alleged perpetrator poses a significant risk to any particular individual or to the general community;
• Construct jointly and implement a risk management plan that provides professional support to all those at risk and that reduces the risk of harm;
• Reduce repeat victimisation;
• Improve agency accountability; and
• Improve support for staff involved in high-risk domestic abuse cases.

38. The MARAC is usually chaired by the Detective Inspector in charge of the Community Safety Unit (CSU), it is coordinated by the Community Safety Partnership and meets on a monthly basis. Importantly all participating agencies sign up to a Domestic Abuse Information Sharing Protocol. Participating agencies include representatives from statutory services (like the Police, Probation and Social Services), as well organisations from the voluntary and community sector (including registered social landlords and specialist organisations for domestic abuse and victims). Any other agency invited to attend the MARAC on a case-by-case basis is required to sign up to these protocols.

Multi-Agency Safeguarding Hubs (MASH)

39. A MASH brings together all statutory and non statutory partners in a Local Authority area and houses them into a single room or ‘hub’ (police, health, mental health, probation, education). It enables these partners to simultaneously search their relevant indices to identify all the issues associated with particular individuals (children and adults alike) and locations. They can collate and discuss their findings in person to provide a full and immediate intelligence picture and agree a level of risk to each subject in a truly multi-agency fashion. They can then further agree a “form of words” in an information report for dissemination to the most relevant unit outside the MASH. This conveys an agreed assessment in an actionable format while fully protecting confidentiality.

40. Pilot sites, commencing at the end of the year have been established in Haringey, Islington and Harrow with further proposed sites in Lambeth, Sutton and Lewisham. Staffing will include police, Children and Young Persons Services, Health, Probation and Housing.

Local Borough Intelligence Units (BIU)

41. Either through local Public Protection officers (Jigsaw) or directly, BIUs now receive regular requests from London Probation Service for intelligence to help them risk assess offenders under their management. The probation service routinely provide local police with information regarding managed offenders, including details of licence conditions, those released under a hospital order and releases on temporary licence (ROTL). The MPS and NOMS also share information in relation to recalls to prison.

MPS Prisons Intelligence Unit (PIU)

42. The PIU handle intelligence supplied by Her Majesty’s Prison Service (HMPS) and input this into the existing MPS intelligence system (Crimint+). Any relevant intelligence is then disseminated to the appropriate BOCU / Unit / Squad. Police also routinely provide details of offending to enable the Prison Service to carry out risk assessments, manage conflict and prevent access to victims and witnesses. A Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) exists for effective lines of communication and an exchange of intelligence between the Police and Prison Services. However an MoU is required with individual prisons as each establishment is autonomous and governed independently.

Management of Police Information 2010 (MoPI) Guidance

43. All information sharing across Government Departments and Agencies should follow the principles set out in the ‘Management of Police Information 2010 (MoPI) Guidance’ which stipulates Information Sharing Agreements (ISA’s) must be in place and held centrally. The Information Sharing Support Unit (ISSU) manages the ISA Registry on behalf of the MPS. The purpose of the ISA is to coordinate the involvement of different agencies in assessing and managing risk; and to enable every agency, which has a legitimate interest, to contribute as fully as its existing statutory role and functions allow in a way that complements the work of other agencies. There are currently over 270 other protocols or memorandums of understanding (MoU) across London enabling police and other partners to share information.

Improvements to Information Sharing Practices

44. As a result of the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) recommendations following the tragic murders of Gabriel Ferez and Laurent Bonomo by Dano Sonnex and Nigel Farmer in June 2008 the MPS reviewed their processes. This resulted in a new and formalised information sharing protocol with the Probation Service. Information is now exchanged prior to a licence recall application being made for example. New procedures around timeliness, supervision, and monitoring at Daily Management Meetings (DMM) were agreed by the MPS and performance is monitored both locally and centrally in this regard.

45. The MPS is also developing practices to better assess risk in a collaborative way between different units to formally agree who is the most vulnerable and dangerous in any given area (geographical or otherwise). This is to ensure that identified risks are not isolated in different investigative areas and to ensure that they are managed appropriately. Wandsworth, Newham, and officers from the Serious Crime Directorate, specifically SCD2 and SCD5 have created a model whereby officers from each cluster meet in a scheduled, fortnightly meeting in which they systematically review all crime and intelligence reports related to sex offending. They collectively identify and agree which individuals present the greatest risk of committing a sexual offence and who is most at risk of being a victim of a sexual offence. This process quality-assures and tests their own local Operational Command Unit risk identification to check that all have reached the same conclusions about risk.

C. Other organisational and community implications

Equality and Diversity Impact

1. Most of the models discussed within this report are existing work streams and will therefore have existing assessments in place. In regard to the new developments of the draft IOM strategy, the London IOM Board, and the development of MPS guidance on Potentially Dangerous Persons, none of these are yet at a stage where the Race and Diversity Impact can be comprehensively assessed. However, the impact is being considered within the policy development.

Financial Implications

2. Within this paper there are no new issues that require financial commitment. Start-up costs for any new IOM structures will vary from borough to borough depending on their current maturity levels. Neither the proposed strategy nor the framework place financial obligations on boroughs. However, there may be local needs identified which will be agreed at a local level such as the use of partner accommodation, IT and dedicated resources together with the amalgamation of existing offender management programmes. Any budget requirement will be met from existing borough budgets.

3. Funding for all other projects (MASH for example) is being agreed through their own business cases.

Legal Implications

4. This report is for information only, therefore there are no direct legal implications that arise.

5. The statutory obligations upon the MPS have been addressed within the body of the report.

6. The report refers to the benefits of sharing of information between different parties. Data sharing is primarily governed by the Data Protection Act 1998 (“the Act”). In order to comply with the principles of the Act, the report confirms the MPS has in place a number of protocols and Memorandum of Understanding with relevant stakeholders. This aims to ensure all data processed is secure, fair, lawful and necessary.

7. The MPS may obtain further advice on any aspect of information sharing or the Integrated Offender Management strategy from DLS or the Public Access Office.

Environmental Implications

8. There are no environmental implications within this report.

D. Background papers

None

E. Contact details

Report authors: Chief Superintendent Steve Bloomfield (Criminal Justice), Martin Stevens (LCJP) and Commander Carl Bussey (Crime & Customer Strategy), MPS

For information contact:

MPA general: 020 7202 0202
Media enquiries: 020 7202 0217/18

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback