GREATER MANCHESTER OFFENDER MANAGEMENT
FRAMEWORK
‘Fitting it all together’
Chief Inspector Andy SIDEBOTHAM
Introduction to Integrated Offender Management - Spotlight
Introduction
Integrated Offender Management has matured out of pilots undertaken by GM into PPO schemes in 2008. During this period, as our knowledge and understanding of
effective practice has developed, we have achieved phenomenal success with several boroughs becoming the ‘best in the country’ in terms of reoffending rates. To achieve
this has seen substantial cultural and operational / practice changes in boroughs which have achieved this: a shift away from a policing culture of arresting our way out of
problems, or seeing our role as ‘locking people up’. Aligned to this, language has evolved away from early days of IOM with “catch and convict”, “rehabilitate and resettle”,
“divert and deter” cohorts into a simpler mission based on effective practice.
What does offender management GM deliver?
1. REDUCE REOFFENDING
This is what IOM teams exist to deliver for the organisation and in doing so we can demonstrate substantial
impact of reducing crime, demand and costs to the organisation. Currently this saving to the public purse cannot
not quantified in Greater Manchester due to lack of performance management tools however when considering
our approach to IOM it is estimated approximately £20 million per annum in reduced cost of crime caused by the
900+ offenders being actively managed under GM IOM schemes using similar force benchmarking data.
The delivery method to achieve this is also simplified and clear now:
CASE MANAGEMENT PLANS WHICH BALANCE CONTROL AND CHANGE
The Home Office “Key IOM Principles” document re-launched and refreshed in February 2015 makes specific
reference to the “carrot and stick” approach as effective practice in reducing reoffending and our experiences in
Greater Manchester have informed this document and strongly support this view.
The case for change: investment in preventative activities to reduce demand, deliver
greater efficiency and prevent harm
The Challenge:
• The need for greater strategic direction, governance and a performance framework that will support a more consistent local delivery
• Developing consistency of approach and effective practice has proven difficult due to with competing priorities.
• This has also led to GMP Spotlight resources being deployed into activities which are not ‘integrated offender management’, for example disrupting gang nominals,
executing actions on drug and firearms intelligence and not maximising the benefits of IOM
• The evolvement of place based working and creation of public service hubs have questioned the existing practices and highlighted the need to understand the best
approach to manage offenders within the community.
• Funding challenges and reducing resources across the public sector further drives the need for change. GM need to reduce demand and increase efficiency, while at the
same time continuing to offer an excellent service to the public.
Promoting
Positive Social
Outcomes in
Health, Housing
and
Employment
Reduced
Offending &
reoffending
Reduced
Demand & Risk
from Harm
The Opportunity:
•
•
•
•
A principled consistent approach of managing offenders across GM in relation to different spatial levels and the risk they pose
Greater investment in place based working embedding practise of reducing complex dependency and therefore escalation of offender risk
Identify and recommend new approaches to manage sections of the cohort that cause the most harm. i.e. Sex offenders, DA perpetrators
Consideration of Health and Justice Devolution Collaborative investment that leads to improved health, social outcomes and pathway support services.
Collaborating with Place Based Teams to Prevent Harm
The IOM Model will see close collaboration between Op Challenger, SOMU, Spotlight, Public Service Hubs and Place-based
Teams in order to prevent harm
• Overlap of preventative services to manage children and first
time offenders away from potential to (re) offend
• IOM hold the responsibility to reduce reoffending which is
directly linked to Local Policing contribution within
preventative arena (Early Help Etc.)
New GM Offender Management Framework
Activity
Geography
GM
High Risk
Specialist Offender Management
Spotlight
Increasing Level of Risk
Locality
Public
Service
Hub
Intelligence
Statutory High Risk Offenders
Cluster
Integrated Place Based Teams
Universal Integrated Offender Management
Low Risk
Community Assets
e.g. social networks, community networks, voluntary groups, social enterprises etc.
Neighbourhood
Trialling Approaches at different Spatial levels: developing Public Service Hubs
Spotlight Co-ordinator; A new role to link and co-ordinate intelligence and activity in alignment with local need.
Re-designing GM Offender Management
Sufficient capacity will be created to effectively protect the public from harm.
The new service offer for Offender Management consists of three fundamental changes:
1.
Establishment of a new corporate strategy for Offender management across GM in line with GM PSR Principles.
2.
Intensity of management scaled to risk and opportunity to reduce harm & demand.
3.
Development of new cohorts of managed offenders.
Priorities
Strategy
Functionality
Clarity & Consistency
Transition
Programs
Pathways
Workstream
Description of Offender Management strategy across GM. Understanding the why, what and how its delivered at each spatial level.
Development of GM Principles of Offender Management
Develop an understanding of the functionality in relation to the offender management services in GM and their role in relation to the management of offenders
Understand and describe the range of assessments of needs and risk used in GM. Develop a common understanding of the risk posed by all agreed cohorts in
terms of their Threat, Harm, Risk and vulnerability & demand on public services.
Use this information to inform Offender Management approaches that are proportionate to that assessment in a consistent and corporate way.
Understand and inform cohort selection at different spatial levels.
Use this information together with performance and outcomes data to inform investment in Offender management models
Develop an understanding of the offenders journey and how this can inform the ability to step up, down or discontinue between Offender
Management models and spatial levels based on a common understanding of risk.
Test different approaches to offender management at different spatial levels
Identify cohorts for ‘Invest to save’ opportunities and consider options to support case management arrangements that deliver significant
reductions in demand and harm from
(re) offending. Review of evidence-based best practice to inform our approach to these cohorts, building on the best national practise and local best practise such
as female offenders, examples of which could include:
• Standard in-custody needs screening for ALL offenders
• Sex Offenders (Through ACCORD program)
• Homeless Offenders
• Serial Domestic Abusers – Oldham Pilot
Develop a better understanding and improve opportunities for offender management particularly in terms of
• Offender Health
• Offender Accommodation
• Offender Employment
Final Points
This slide illustrates a wider understanding of outcomes and performance objectives from a more
comprehensive integrated Offender management offer that would be developed by GM OM Framework
1. NATIONAL MEASURES OF PERFORMANCE
3.. PROPOSED 2ND TIER MEASURES OF PERFORMANCE (examples for illustration)
Measure
Target
Current Performance
Adult Proven Reoffending (Quarterly)
No target
Reporting not targets
25.3% Nationally
Introduction of an automated capability, that on Transition state 1 links into existing
IOM operating processes and software to better understand what works in terms of
Effective case management and pathway intervention (*IT investment needed for
this T1 capability which may have to develop current operating systems)
Measure
Timely completion of case
management plans for all
adopted offenders
2. GM MEASURES OF PERFORMANCE
Measure
Greater Manchester
Probation area
Target
Not measured as
not defined for
West Midlands
Current Performance
Unknown
Reducing Offences from
managed Cohorts (Idiom)
TBC%
Baseline
Unknown
Reducing Cost of Crime from
managed Cohorts (IdiomAnnual Projection)
TBC%
Baseline
Unknown
Binary & Frequency of
Reoffending (charged)for
managed Cohort (Idiom)
TBC%
Baseline
Reduction of first time
entrants into CJ processes
Reduction in number of
Looked after Children
Unknown
Measure
% of IOM case management
task completion per
officer/area
Measure
Number of positive Referrals
to pathway support services
(i.e. into full time job)
Measure
Timeliness of actioning
priority unlawfully at large
offenders
Measure
TBC%
Baseline
TBC
Unknown
Linked to youth offer
Reduction of risk from
cohort based on collective
aggregation of risk
assessment score (TB
created)
Target
TBD
Target
TBD
Target
TBD
Target
TBD
Target
TBD
Current Performance
Measure needs
development for Transition
1 then Baseline
Current Performance
Measure needs
development for Transition
1 then Baseline
Current Performance
Measure needs
development for Transition
1 then Baseline
Current Performance
Measure needs
development for Transition
1 then Baseline
Current Performance
Measure needs
development for Transition
1 then Baseline
Final Points
1. Acknowledgement of the huge scale of work
2. Seek agreement on this ambitious approach to develop our model
in GM
3. Pragmatic in the delivery of this framework in terms of
prioritisation
Questions ?
Devolution / PSR questions
1. What do we think we do well/works well now?
2. What could we do better? What would we change and
why?
3. What can we do ourselves and what might we need
devolution to help us with?
4. What could those specific Devo ‘asks’ be - have we
considered the risks?
Please feedback 2-3 key points from your discussions in
workshop at feedback session.