PROLIFIC AND OTHER PRIORITY OFFENDER PROGRAMME

CROSS-SCHEME OFFENDERS GUIDANCE ON SHARED PROTOCOLS: BASED ON THE WEST MIDLANDS MODEL

PROLIFIC AND OTHER PRIORITY OFFENDERS Cross Scheme Offenders: Guidance on shared protocols - Based on West Midlands Model Introduction Launched by the Prime Minister in September 2004, the aim of the Prolific and other Priority Offender programme is to allow Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships, the Police, Probation and Prison Services, Youth Offending Teams and other partners to develop multi-agency schemes to identify and target the most problematic offenders who cause disproportionate harm to communities in which they live. The strategy has three interlocking strands:
1.

-

Prevent and Deter – stop young people engaging in offending behaviour and graduating into the next generation of prolific offenders; Catch and Convict - those offenders who commit the most crime in their local areas, or whose offending causing the most harm to the local community; Rehabilitate and Resettle - those identified as prolific offenders, so that they stop their offending, by offering a range of supportive interventions. Offenders are offered the opportunity for rehabilitation or face a very swift return to the courts.

-

Cross-Scheme Offenders 2. This guidance is intended to help schemes and key partner agencies involved in the PPO programme to tackle the problems associated with those PPOs who offend in areas other than the locality in which they live and in which they are registered as a PPO. Classification or definition of a PPO will vary from area to area, taking account of local circumstances, but for the purpose of this guidance, a cross- scheme offender is a PPO whose offending impacts on a PPO scheme area other than the area where he or she resides or is registered as a PPO. It will be in the interest of the scheme covering the area in which the offender lives (“the home scheme”) and the wider programme to register the PPO where there is evidence of such offending and adopt the PPO. This group of PPOs are known as cross-scheme offenders.

“Scheme” We expect schemes to be focused on Police Basic Command Units, led by Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships within a framework established at LCJB area level. Schemes will comprise of multi-agency teams, directly overseen by Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships and key partners to target a small number of highly active offenders engaging them through a range of interventions programme.

3. This guidance is drawn up following a scoping study carried out by Staffordshire Probation Service, the Government Office for the West Midlands and West Midlands Police, to measure the extent of the problem posed by cross-scheme offenders in the region. The scoping study included: profiling of PPOs (ethnicity, gender, age etc); where they live; where they offend; the nature of their offending behaviour (i.e. drugs, burglary, car crime etc) definitions of PPOs where offending is outside home PPO scheme, and difficulties / barriers around adopting cross-scheme offenders.

Reference has also been made to other guidance developed by schemes, notably the PPO schemes in London. A summary of the London Model is attached at Annex D. 4. In order to develop an effective and robust strategy, it is recommended that Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships and schemes review the extent to which they may be affected by the activity of cross-scheme offenders. Where it is perceived that there may be a problem, it would make sense to attempt to identify the number of such offenders and to devise a strategy, where necessary, to manage their activity effectively. There is evidence in the West Midlands scoping study that some prolific PPOs remain unregistered as PPOs because they offend outside their home locality. Role of partner agencies: Catch and Convict/ Rehabilitate and Resettle 5. The West Midlands scoping work helped to highlight some of the underlying management problems and issues surrounding cross-scheme offenders and the aim of this guidance is to help partners within PPO schemes to target, identify and monitor offenders involved in schemes where they are not registered as PPOs. It intends also to help schemes to adopt and develop local protocols where these problems arise. However, it is recommended that before schemes develop their own

protocols, they make some assessment of the extent to which cross-scheme offenders are a problem as shown in the GOWM example (see annex A). 6. The West Midlands experience highlights the potential problems associated with cross-scheme offenders both in terms of the nature of offending in areas where the PPO travels and difficulties in engaging key partners to share appropriate information on agreed protocols in the effective identification, monitoring and supervision of these offenders. Their scoping study, which is evidenced based, reveals the extent of the problem and has enabled this guidance to set out an effective strategy that will advise Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships on how best to deal with problems associated with cross-scheme offenders in their schemes. Proposed process and responsibility 7. For the purpose of this guidance, it is recommended that the home scheme where the PPO resides should take responsibility for the day-to-day management of the cross-scheme offender. It is recommended that all partner agencies where there is evidence of cross-scheme offending, share intelligence around PPOs and use an active list to monitor their activities. However, where a cross-scheme offender comes to the notice of the police in the area where he or she has offended or been arrested, the scheme or Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnership should register the crossscheme offender as a “potential” PPO and inform the home owning scheme. The home owning scheme should, in the first instance, have the responsibility and draw up an Action Plan with the help of key agencies involved in the monitoring and supervision of the offender to ensure that, as far as it is practically possible, all partners agree to a clearly defined protocol to help cross-scheme offenders access appropriate services and interventions. 8. A local PPO team panel or forum made up of Local Criminal Justice Board and Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnership partners will enable agencies including those representing the home scheme and where the offender offends, to meet and review cross-scheme offender cases regularly, particularly to measure the impact of crime for which they are responsible. Local definitions of PPOs in areas where they offend and reside may hinder this process particularly where the PPO does not meet the required PPO threshold. In these circumstances, and again by mutual agreement, schemes and their representative partners need to be flexible about definitions criteria which could potentially hinder agencies from coming together and effectively managing these offenders. 9. Figure A below sets out the process by which agencies can develop a simple plan of action that will determine the way in which a cross-scheme offender can be tracked across schemes using JTrack to monitor them. The harm caused by an offender offending in a neighbouring scheme area should be jointly managed with the scheme where the offender resides. Reducing the harm is a whole community approach where schemes come together to seek a solution to managing that harm and reducing it.

PROCESS TO MONITOR PPO ACTIVITY IN SCHEME AREAS: SHARED PROTOCOL
FIGURE A: Scenario 1

Offender lives in Area A. Not currently a PPO

Offends in Area B. Nature of offending is above Area B’s PPO threshold

Area A considers request

Area B request Area A to put offender on their PPO list

Does offender meet Area A threshold?

If yes

Area A manages offender as PPO and both areas continue sharing ongoing intelligence

If no

Presumption that Area A put offender on PPO list (on quid pro quo basis) but for discussion between areas. But if offender is listed. Areas continue sharing ongoing intelligence

Scenario Two

Offender living in Area A Already a PPO Offends in Area B

Area B informs Area A and both areas continue to share intelligence

PNC identifies offender as PPO

Scenario 3 (Transient offender)

Offender lives and offends in Area A, but level and nature of offending is below PPO threshold

Offender also offends in Area B (or in more than two areas)

Combined offending pushes offender above threshold in areas A and B

Can this be spotted by schemes?

If yes

If no

Offender added to PPO list in area A and all areas share ongoing intelligence

Offender missed from scheme

10. It is important for all the agencies involved in this process to agree to an action plan for all cross-scheme offenders and share appropriate information through the relevant IT systems. Transient PPOs 11. In developing this guidance, we have taken into account, a small but significant number of PPOs who may offend in more than one scheme area but whose offending in any one scheme may not alone warrant PPO status. Figure A Scenario 3 describes the process. However, their cumulative offending may amount to significant prolific behaviour to warrant registration as a PPO. Offenders who are organised and travel to one or more specific areas or locations are likely to fall into

this group. Again, we suggest where there is evidence of this that the home scheme where the PPO resides should consider registering the offender as a PPO. Prevent and Deter As in the other two strands, there is evidence that young people in the Prevent and Deter strand may also be involved in cross scheme offending. While the Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnership may have overall responsibility for running the scheme, the day to day responsibility tends to rest with the local Youth Offending Team to work with the police to identify and target those most at risk of crime in their communities. Where there is evidence that young people are offending outside their Yot area, it is for the home Yot, where the young person lives, and the Yot where the young person offends, to establish a forum in which to devise a plan to monitor and prevent such young people from getting involved in further criminality and progressing on to full PPO status.
12. Selecting cross-scheme offenders

The PPO Catch and Convict guidance sets out clearly how PPOs are to be selected locally using a selection matrix and various other data and intelligence. However problems may arise where a PPO who lives in scheme A may not reach the threshold of scheme B where the PPO offends. This point is covered in Scenario 3 in Figure. A. For the purpose of this guidance, it is recommended that schemes adopt a flexible approach on how they target and adopt the cross-scheme offender who travels around neighbouring schemes to commit crime.
13.

Role of agencies and targeting interventions 14. Agencies who will need to be involved in the tracking, monitoring and supervision of cross-scheme offenders are: Police Probation Prisons Yots Local authorities Courts/CPS Offender Managers

15. When a PPO has been identified as a cross-scheme offender, it is important that Offender Managers and the Police from both scheme areas liaise with each other to draw up an action plan and set out a clear framework as to how each agency will respond to the needs of the offender. If an offender is actively engaged in crime near a scheme or area other than where he or she lives, it may be easier for resources or intervention to be transferred with the consent of the home owning scheme. Clearly, there may well be instances where this is not practical, particularly where issues around transferring resources for drug treatment is concerned. The home owning scheme should engage with agencies in areas where the PPO offends and agree a strategy to help and manage the offender. Reducing or stopping their offending is the ultimate aim.

When the offender re-offends 16. In schemes where the offender is being managed as part of the rehabilitate and resettle strand of the programme, there may well be instances where a PPO reoffends in the adopted scheme. It is the responsibility of Probation, Police and other criminal justice agencies to bring the offender to justice. Again, liaison officers from the adopted scheme should notify the home owning scheme of the arrest and any other breach the offender has against him or her. These details should then be passed to the home scheme where the cross-scheme offender can be appropriately monitored and supervised by the local PPO team. 17. The matrix at Annex A outlines the roles and responsibilities for local agencies and schemes in managing cross-scheme offenders. Use of JTrack 18. All PPOs should be flagged on PNC and appear on JTrack. It is recommended that when a PPO is arrested by the police in a neighbouring scheme, details of the arrest are entered on JTrack as soon as it is practically possible and the home scheme notified of the arrest where the offender resides. This will minimise instances of double counting and will ensure that any case changes are monitored and recorded when the offender passes through the Criminal Justice System. Some well established practice within force areas already exists where PPOs are being tracked or monitored. However, there may well be barriers to effective practice when offenders offend outside the force area. This guidance seeks to help those agencies and partners who have responsibility for cross-scheme offenders within schemes of a force area. Commissioning and managing treatment of cross-scheme offenders involved in drug use 19. In the first instance, it might be practical for the home scheme where the offender resides, to take the responsibility to ensure that adequate provision is made for the effective intervention and treatment of those PPOs whose criminality is associated with drug use. Securing treatment will reduce the risk of re-offending as soon as possible. 20. The introduction of Testing on Arrest and Required Assessments will, in those areas where cross scheme offenders are subject of such requirements, make provision for treatment in the home area of the offender. Where further voluntary treatment is appropriate following a Required Assessment the provision of such treatment would be negotiated between police, treatment providers and offender at the time of the Required Assessment and could, if convenient for all parties, be provided by an agency from an area outside that of the offender’s area of residence. 21. It will be the responsibility of the Drug Action Team then to commission services to meet the needs of individuals in their local population. The general principle for a PPO to receive funding is that the cross-scheme offender should have had an assessment of his or her individual treatment needs and have a ‘treatment

plan’ that is managed by a drugs worker or appropriate offender manager. If this is not the case, then the respective DAT should be contacted. The usual practice is that the DAT where the cross-scheme offender resides is responsible for funding their treatment wherever the treatment is located. 22. If the most appropriate service to meet a person’s needs is based outside of the resident DAT’s boundary, then it is possible for the DAT to spend their own money to commission treatment from the outside service. This does not require any transfer of central funding to a different DAT. 23. However, a potential problem occurs when a cross-scheme offender enters a treatment service outside of the area of their residence, and the treatment provider does not engage with the appropriate DAT until the drug offender is fully engaged with treatment. Understandably, this can cause tension when the DAT of residence would have been able to provide equivalent or better services within their locality. The potential risk may involve the cross-scheme offender to lose out if their treatment is then abruptly terminated because of a lack of funding. 24. Good communication, therefore, between treatment providers and DATs, and offender mangers is essential. In some cases, DATs can come to a reciprocal agreement in the knowledge that cross-scheme offender from either side are accessing treatment services in each other’s area. 25. In April 2001, the Government set up a special health authority, the National Treatment Agency for Substance Misuse (NTA), to increase availability, quality and effectiveness of treatment. 26 The NTA website (www.nta.nhs.uk) holds a number of leading guidance documents on commissioning and also includes details of training on effective commissioning practices. Included is guidance on effectively commissioning services on a regional level, when a number of DATs within the same region of the country can work together to commission from a treatment service.
Local Area Agreements

27. Now that Local Area Agreement contracts have been introduced, it is important the these arrangements are used within each scheme area to drive the identification of shared local priorities and with all partners engaged in a multi agency approach to target those involved in cross scheme offending. The issue of crossscheme offenders should feed into Local Area Agreement where appropriate to ensure it receives local priority.
Summary

It is recommended that schemes consider this guidance to help identify, monitor and manage cross-scheme offenders in their areas. Attached in Annex B is a check list to commence this process and to establish a locally shared protocol to tackle problems associated with cross-scheme offenders.
28.

ANNEX A
Pre -Sentence Catch & convict targeting Selection/ Monitoring Activity No action No action but maintain list of all PPOs in area Post -Sentence Rehabilitate & resettle Sentences: Custody Community Probation in Scheme A manage the Community sentence of CSO No action Offender managers in Scheme A to manage custodial sentence No action

Arrest No action: To consider registering PPO if referred to by another scheme Police arrest CSO in scheme B and inform home scheme A

Courts Local court to consider PPO as a priority and remit case to scheme court if appropriate No action

Release Police & probation from Scheme A to supervise CSO during release on agreed action plan No action

De-selection Offender manages in A & B to agree on criteria for deselection for CSO based on action plan No action

CSOs in Scheme A (not offending)

CSO travelling to Scheme B to offend

Police of scheme B to target CSO

Police, probation and other agencies to monitor and gather intelligence/ crime patterns and draw up an Action Plan

ANNEX B SURVEY OF CROSS- scheme PPO ACTIVITY: PPO LOCATION and REGISTRATION – to be completed for all PPOs identified as offending in more than one BCU

Name of PPO

Where PPO lives

Area/ scheme where PP offends

Scheme where PPO is registered

Offender Profile Drugs misuse Burglary Driving offences Robbery Summary offences

If PPO identified outside home Scheme area: describe any good practice or difficulties regarding ownership of the PPO home scheme.

If PPO is identified as a PPO outside the home area:describe any good practice or difficulties about prioritising interventions resources by the home scheme No interventions PPO currently on remand

BCU Scheme CDRP

Theft other

X1

BCU W’lhamtn

Chase Staffordshire

Chase

Drugs misuse

Identified through crime patterns as being an offender on Staffordshire and inter force liaison The offender is currently in prison. There has been effective liaison between Staffordshire and West Midlands to achieve this

X2

BCU… Wolverhampton

BCU Wolverhampton Staffordshire…

Wolverhampton Chase(staffs)

drugs misuse

No direct intervention at this stage as he lives off Staffordshire police area

OFFENDING burglary driving offences Other Robbery Summary offences Theft and handling stolen goods xTheft from shops vehicle crime Violence against the person

PPO Scheme Chase… CDRP… South Staffordshire

-

Force Area… Staffordshire

-

ANNEX C Checklist for schemes to develop effective protocols in tracking, monitoring and managing CSOs Yes
Is cross scheme offending a problem in your area? Is there a shared protocol in place to manage CSOs? Have you identified the number of PPOs who offend outside their schemes? Have you scoped out the extent of the problem?

no

comment

Which agencies are involved in tackling CSOs? Who has responsibility on arrest of PPO for entering JTrack updates: i) PPO owner or ii) arresting area? Do neighbouring schemes share intelligence on CSOs? What have been the barriers to tackling CSOs(resources/interventions lack of engagement by key partners)? Is information exchange between agencies effective?

Annex D
Tackling Cross scheme offenders: London Model

In general a PPO will appear on the borough (CDRP) PPO list for the borough in which they offend. As London Probation supervises offenders according to the borough where they reside, there is potential for confusion to arise with PPOs who live and offend in different boroughs. Such PPOs are known as ‘cross-border offenders’. Within LP 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 the organisation. This means that if the offender lives in a borough where he/she is not on the CDRP PPO list he/she should still be supervised by the PPO team in the borough where he/she resides and receives the same levels of enhanced supervision available to all PPOs. PPO teams may need to keep an alternative list of LP PPOs if they are supervising several offenders within this category. The offender manager should always be an officer from the PPO team where the offender resides (home borough). They will be responsible for the case management of the individual and associated tasks, for example, ensuring an OASys is completed within 5 working days and that their PPO status is flagged on Delius. These arrangements will require ongoing liaison with the borough in which the PPO offends (offending borough). All members of the PPO team should be actively involved in the case management of the offender in the home borough. For the police liaison officer this may mean that they have to go ‘off borough’ or liaise with colleagues in another borough regarding offending behaviour and police intelligence. Cross-border offenders should have one action plan, written and implemented by the offender manager. In some circumstances it might be

that the PPO is discussed at the PPO panels in both the home borough and the offending borough. The home borough may wish to focus on the probation centred case management aspects as of the case, whereas the offending borough should focus more on the police input and offending behaviour. As a general principle arrangements should be agreed by both boroughs which aim to keep the management of the case as straightforward as possible and ensure that both boroughs are fully updated on the individual’s progress. The home borough should be treated as the active borough for the purposes of all monitoring activity. This includes the Home Office PMF return and eOASys/NS monitoring. These arrangements should be made clear to all PPO team staff to ensure that duplication in monitoring is avoided. For the same reasons it is important that cross-border PPOs do not appear on more than one CDRP PPO list.

Our particular thanks to the following who have contributed in helping to draw up this guidance: Richard Taylor Jim Atkins (retired) D.C. Sean Lawlor Insp Dave Murcott Offender Management Coordinator, Government Office West Midlands Staffordshire Probation Staffordshire Police West Midlands Police