Understanding the Impact of a
Dedicated Missing Persons Unit
A mixed methods evaluation of LOCATE,
West Midlands Police Force, United Kingdom
Dr Susan Giles (University of Liverpool), Dr Siddartha Bandyopadhyay,
Neha Prashar & Juste Abramovaite (University of Birmingham)
Background and Rationale
• Current police management of missing persons has been identified as an
area in need of improvement. HMIC (2016) report on missing children
noted ‘inconsistencies in properly assessing risks, managing investigations,
and providing support and help to the child’.
• Good practise also highlighted by HMIC in PEEL evaluations (e.g. dedicated
CSE, Missing Children/Person co-ordinator roles)
• Pilot LOCATE April, 2015; West Mids Police commissioned evaluation
November 2016 with view to Force roll out.
• A rapid evidence assessment (Giles, 2017) demonstrated that LOCATE is a
innovative model (combining investigation and strategic problem solving)
and that there is no existing evidence of ‘what works’ in relation to
dedicated teams
• Mixed method evaluation developed; examining three broad outcomes
LOCATE: A Quantitative Analysis
Aims of Analysis
• Evaluate the impact of the introduction of LOCATE in Birmingham
against pre LOCATE periods and also compared with Wolverhampton
and Coventry
• The following outcomes were measured in order to quantify the
impact
1. No. of found and No. of hours missing by different time periods, gender,
age and risk category.
2. No. of harmed and those who committed a crime by gender, age and risk
category.
3. No. of repeat missing persons, including top missing hotspots.
Methods
• Graphical depictions of pre and post LOCATE by month and year were
obtained in order to assess any obvious differences.
• Regression analysis for the No. of hours missing were carried out, as
well as, Difference in Difference (DID) analysis between Birmingham
and other parts of the West Midlands
• Geographical data enabled hotspots to be pinpointed both pre and
post LOCATE to assess whether there has been a change in hotspot
areas.
• Survival analysis was undertaken in order to assess whether certain
characteristics of a missing person made them more or less likely to
go missing again.
Examples : No. of Found
Examples : By Gender, Age and Risk
Examples : Harm Categories
Harm Composition for Missing Persons
Birmingham East, 2015.01 - 2017.03
Harm Categories (by Percentage), Before and After Locate
Birmingham East, 2015.04 - 2017.03
Before Locate
6%
20%
3%
2%
5%
5%
23%
After Locate
13%
7%
9%
5%
2%
34%
17%
26%
6%
37%
38%
42%
Accidental Harm
Found Dead - Possible Suicide
Physical Injury
Sexual Offence Victim
Found Dead
Emotional Harm
Self Harm
Accidental Harm
Found Dead - Possible Suicide
Physical Injury
Sex Offence Victim
Found Dead
Emotional Harm
Self Harm
Example: Survival Analysis (BE)
BE
VARIABLES
19-40
41-64
65+
Medium
High
Male
LOCATE
Observations
(1)
hrAll
(2)
hr Pre
(3)
hr Post
1.274**
(0.130)
0.784
(0.120)
1.052
(0.231)
1.183
(0.208)
1.080
(0.231)
0.566***
(0.0490)
1.223
(0.198)
1.416***
(0.163)
0.833
(0.149)
0.911
(0.210)
0.650**
(0.128)
0.501***
(0.129)
0.540***
(0.0600)
0.579**
(0.140)
898
533
0.909
(0.293)
1.399
(0.308)
1.731*
(0.491)
0.649***
(0.0900)
365
Robust se in parentheses, month and year dummies were included.
*** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1
• The table represents the hazard ratios,
relative to the base level for each category.
• For age groups, it is relative to 0-18 year olds.
• For risk level, it is relative to low risk.
• Gender is relative to females
• The LOCATE variable is a dichotomous
variable that is equal to 1 if the observation
is post LOCATE
• If the hazard ratio is above 1, then there is
an increase of (hazard ratio -1) in the rate
of going missing again, relative to the base.
• If the hazard ratio is below 1, then there is
a decrease of (1- hazard ratio) in the rate
of going missing again.
Results
• An increase in numbers found (including by Police) post LOCATE in
Birmingham across different time categories
• Most missing persons were found within 0-5 miles, a pattern that was
unchanged post LOCATE
• There were no significant change in average number of hours missing,
accept when looking at the 0-8 hour interval where there was an
increase in number of hours missing overall.
• In Birmingham East, those aged 0-18 or 19-40 years old, low risk
types and males experience a higher average of hours missing post
LOCATE.
• In Birmingham West, those found by the police for both males and
females experience a higher average of hours missing post LOCATE.
Results
• The numbers harmed do not change significantly
• Percentage of people who commit crime are slightly lower post LOCATE in
Birmingham (both East and West) while Wolverhampton and Coventry had
slight increases.
• Survival analysis (time before going missing) indicated better survival for
19-40 year olds in Birmingham East but worse for high risk categories post
LOCATE in Birmingham East
• For both West and East Birmingham ‘survival’ of males appears to increase
post LOCATE.
• Missing hotpots indicated some frequent missing addresses though
incomplete recording of postcodes made it possible to pinpoint only some
of the places
Conclusion
• Dramatic changes pre and post LOCATE were not expected due to the
adjustment period of a new programme occurring after
implementation.
• The LOCATE program has only been running for a year and so further
data once the adjustment period has finished will need to be
analysed.
• This report provides a framework for that future analysis and provides
an insight into how the police force is adapting to the new program.
LOCATE: A Qualitative Analysis
Process Evaluation
• Main objective:
• Ascertain process and quality of the introduction of LOCATE in Birmingham
compared to two ‘business as usual’ models
• Prior RESPONSE team function in Birmingham and Wolverhampton
• New missing person function for Wolverhampton Investigation team (WIT)
• Conclusion: The process evaluation provided satisfactory evidence in support for
the continuation of LOCATE in Birmingham and roll out of LOCATE model across
WMP.
Process Evaluation
• In total, 10 interviews and 6 focus groups were conducted, each lasting between
30 mins and 1 hour in length.
• Phase I (December, 2016) 4 focus groups and 5 individual interviews, involving
23 police officers in total (ACC, Supt, DI, DS, Sgt, DC, PC) who had strategic or
operational involvment with either LOCATE, WIT or RESPONSE Teams,
Birmingham PPU and Partnership Team
• Phase II (February, 2017) 2 focus groups and 3 individual interviews, involving
12 police officers in total (DI, DS, Sgt, PC) involved with LOCATE, WIT,
RESPONSE teams and Birmingham Partnership Team
Using thematic analysis revealed 25 key themes, organised into 5 headings.
Process Evaluation
1. NEEDS ANALYSIS, LOCATE addresses a need within the Force and is the ‘right
response’ to a recognised problem
“Level of risk the force are dealing with is massive, LOCATE turns things on its
head” , “Even if it does not make economic sense, there is a moral argument, it
is the right thing to do”. “Domestic Homicide reviews as a result of missing
person enquiries”, “LOCATE has been a godsend to us [partnership team]”,
“Would have massive impact if LOCATE wasn’t continued around resilience of
what partnership team could or couldn’t do because it’s about vulnerability”
Process Evaluation
2. POSITIVE OUTCOMES: LOCATE contributes to harm reduction by helping repeat
missing
- Many examples were provided - “Two repeat missing (over 140 episodes) now in
secure accommodation…This may not be the ideal outcome for the missing persons
but arguably, they are safer”, “Another female, would be dealt with on a daily basis,
she started to give LOCATE officers a call. They could risk assess her a bit better, she
was absconding from a care home to another address and LOCATE team identified
that there was no risk at that address. The LOCATE team do not hear from her now”
Process Evaluation
3. Mechanisms, How LOCATE works
A more efficient use of police resources because:3.1. A dedicated resource allows continuity and familiarity
3.2. LOCATE officers become ‘experts’ in handling missing person enquiries
3.3. Specialists have a better understanding of risk, they can personalize
investigations and ensure proportionality
3.4. LOCATE has oversight of larger area
3.5. A more efficient approach has been enabled, by the improved quality of
intelligence that is gathered
Process Evaluation
3. Mechanisms, How LOCATE works
3.6. LOCATE helps WMP provide a better and more effective service for missing
persons, processes can be put in place in manage risk
3.7. Improved satisfaction with police because a personal connection is
developed
3.8. Improved partnership working
3.9. LOCATE is recognised as a brand, by missing person and partners
Process Evaluation
4. Why LOCATE is the preferred method
4.1. Response teams do not have time or capacity to investigate missing
persons and are a ‘jack of all trades’
4.2. WIT lacks resilience to respond to missing persons consistently and to the
same degree as LOCATE
4.3. There is insufficient resource for proactive work beyond investigative
function of locating missing person.
Process Evaluation
5. Challenges
5.1. Frequent flyers: recovered quicker but also go missing again and ‘taxi service’
concerns
5.2. It is too early to evidence all outcomes
5.3. Exit and hand over plans need development
5.4. Quality of information in handover reports need to be improved, and notification
about new reports
5.5. Impact of Force Restructure
5.6. Protecting LOCATE’s remit to prevent them having to contend with a ‘numbers’
game
5.7. Working in new ways with partners, learning to ‘push back’ to other agencies in
ways that police forces may have not done so before
Process Evaluation
Moving forward - Recommendations
• Diversity and volunteer nature of team are key strengths
• Risk and resilience moving forward, ensure capacity and avoid complacency
• Invest in training and specialisms
• Consider impact of ownership on success
Conclusions
• The impact of the Force restructure made it difficult to isolate the
impact of LOCATE and a much longer follow up period is needed.
• Our work supported the continuation of LOCATE in Birmingham. We
recommended roll out across the Force.
• West Midlands are working through the cost implications of this
(where would it sit, what would it look like)
Contact Details
• Dr Susan Giles, The University of Liverpool
Email: [email protected]
• Dr Siddhartha Bandyopadhyay, The University of Birmingham
Email: [email protected]
• Neha Prashar, The University of Birmingham
Email: [email protected]