Agenda item

(i)    Report of the Director of Transformation and Partnerships.

(ii)   Presentation by the Chief of Staff, Office of the Police, Crime and Victims’ Commissioner. 

The Chairman introduced the Chief of Staff, Office of the Police, Crime and Victims’ Commissioner, Alan Reiss who was in attendance to give an update for Members in respect of the Checkpoint programme (for copy see file of minutes).

The Chief of Staff referred Members to the report circulated with the agenda papers and noted that Detective Chief Inspector Andy Crowe was also in attendance, as the Officer who ran the Checkpoint scheme. 

Members were reminded that the first priority of the scheme was in reducing reoffending and to improve the outcome for victims and communities.  It was added that the disposals were tracked to ensure that the root causes were being tackled, addressing the issues.  It was explained that the Police had a number of out of court disposals they could utilise, for example a caution, and Checkpoint was one that added to this.

Councillors noted that in order to be eligible for Checkpoint, the subject must have admitted to the offence and that the scheme was a deferred prosecution and a voluntary adult offender scheme.  It was explained that the 4 month contract would be bespoke to each subject and full compliance would result in an exit from the Criminal Justice System and no criminal conviction for the subject.  It was noted that there would be engagement with victims throughout, providing them with a voice and to help persuade them that Checkpoint was a better solution, looking to prevent reoffending and prevent further victims.  Members noted that the scheme was designed to identify “critical pathways” so that early interventions were possible in tackling issues and behaviours that were leading to reoffending, such as drug and alcohol dependency or lack of skills to gain employment.

The Chief of Staff reiterated that the 4 month contract was bespoke to each subject, however there were the following conditions: no reoffending within a 4 month period (mandatory); participation in a Restorative Approach (RA) (mandatory if the victim agrees); attend appointments regarding individual personal issues or undertake one-to-one intervention work with their Navigator; carry out community/voluntary work, 18-36 hours and/or wear a GPS tag; and voluntary drug testing.  It was explained that the aim was to be able to stop reoffending and to help put something back into the local community.  The Chief of Staff explained that the Checkpoint scheme was not a soft option with an example being the Solicitor of a regular offender in a similar scheme in Birmingham, Operation Turning Point, had complained that the diversion process was harder for their client than the traditional punishment.

Members were referred to slides that set out included offences, and it was explained there were some inaccuracies, and rather the list was:

Theft Offences – shoplifting, taking from a motor vehicle, theft of a motor vehicle, theft from a person, vehicle interference

·       Burglary Dwelling

·       Criminal Damage – dwellings, buildings, vehicles, arson

·       Drug possession

·       Fraud

·       Public Order – Section 3, 4 and 5, Drunk and Disorderly

·       Child Neglect (Safeguarding Approval)

·       Assaults – Common and Actual Bodily Harm

Members were asked to note in the case of child neglect, long discussions had taken place working with Durham County Council and Darlington Borough Council Social Services to ensure the suitability for the Checkpoint scheme and have key protocols agreed.

Councillors noted the types of activities offenders would undertake in terms of their Checkpoint contract and were shown and image of remedial works carried out at Stanley Pool.  It was noted that the “Durham Difference” included: instead of issuing a traditional out of court disposal such as a caution or fixed penalty notice (FPN), Durham Constabulary would look to solve the problem; Checkpoint Navigators take the time to get to know an offender and identify what the real causes of offending were; Navigators works with the person to address those issues, navigating to the right services and removing their need to offend; and the Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons (HMIC) stating that Checkpoint was “an exceptional offender management system”.

The Chief of Staff explained that Navigators were not Police Officers, and their role was much more than simply signposting, they would look to help offenders, seeing them as individuals and encouraging them to move forward.  It was added that there was access to Checkpoint across all of County Durham and Darlington, working with a range of partners, including Durham County Council (DCC) and that updates were reported to the Reducing Reoffending Group and in turn the Criminal Justice Board, Safer Durham Partnership and Darlington Safe Partnership.

Members noted that another method of influencing people’s behaviour was to use “nudges”, with examples given being the use of bodycams by all frontline Officers.  It was noted that the footage can them be used to show offenders their actions which can lead to a change in attitude and behaviour.  An outline was given of a case study where an individual was referred to the Checkpoint programme and had been shown the bodycam footage of the arrest and the individual had been very remorseful and had made good progress with their Checkpoint contract, working with Social Services and North East Council on Alcoholism (NECA) at Darlington.  Councillors noted the “Because of you” focusing on highlighting the harm caused by people using drugs in terms of giving money to Organised Crime Groups (OCGs), funding more serious crimes such as murder and terrorism. 

The Chief of Staff explained that many offenders were wishing to volunteer even after their contract was completed and there could be an opportunity for “peer mentoring”.  Members noted the complete offender management platform being used, COMET (Client and Offender Management Engagement Tracker) which held all of the relevant data securely and had access to a directory of partners offering support.  It was added that in time, partners should be able to input their information into COMET in addition and therefore the whole offender journey would be in one place.  Members learned as regards 3D “street interventions”, or community interventions which can help negate arrests, and also as regards other early interventions for cases where offenders were not eligible for Checkpoint or had not been arrested.

It was explained that looking at 5 years’ worth of data in terms of the likelihood of an offender reoffending that by 24 months around 60% had reoffended, with 10% representing serious offences.  In terms of performance of the Checkpoint programme it was noted that around 2,500 people had gone through programme, with the most common pathways being alcohol, mental health and “consequential thinking”.  Members noted headline figures in terms of: 5.9% failing as a result of lack of engagement; 4.3% being re-arrested while under contract; 14.3% re-arrested within 18 months of Checkpoint; and 4% receiving a conviction within 18 months of Checkpoint.

The Chief of Staff concluded by noting that the benefits of the Checkpoint scheme were four-fold: the offender had the opportunity to improve their life; victims were given a voice; communities were improved through physical works and better social cohesion; and the criminal justice system saved in terms of time and resources that would have been spend as regards court.

The Chairman thanked the Chief of Staff for his presentation and asked Members of the Committee for their questions.      

Mr AJ Cooke noted the figures in terms of those failing as regards a lack of engagement as asked whether there was “a second chance”.  The Chief of Staff noted that by policy there was not a second chance, and DCI A Crowe added that as the offender had been arrested and through Checkpoint their prosecution had been deferred, any breach of their Checkpoint contract would result them coming out of the programme.

Councillor J Maitland asked as regards any age restrictions on the scheme, it was noted that the programme was for those 18 years and older, and that the data was available broken down by age and gender, with the Chief of Staff noting that there were a number of women aged 35 – 50 with alcohol issues and DCI A Crowe adding approximately 35% of offenders in the Checkpoint programme were female.

Councillor N Martin asked as regards the legal basis of the scheme and who was responsible for deciding whether an individual would go into the Checkpoint programme.  The Chief of Staff noted that in terms of legal cover, via the Government, namely the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) there were a number of out of court disposals and the CPS were represented on the Checkpoint Board.  It was added that while there was the list of offences which could be eligible for Checkpoint, there was no automatic eligibility.  DCI A Crowe noted that offences considered by Crown Court would not be eligible for Checkpoint, and that the offender on a Checkpoint programme was effectively bailed for 4 months currently, though the MoJ was looking at introduction 28 day bail limits for England and Wales, though processes were in place should this come into effect.  Members noted that when offenders sign up with their navigators, there would be a meeting halfway to assess the progress being made.

Councillor T Nearney asked as regards the list of eligible offences, whether it would be expanded and if there would be capacity, for example in terms of navigators.  The Chief of Staff noted that the Police, Crime and Victims’ Commissioner (PCVC) for Durham was committed to the Checkpoint programme and while budgets were under pressure, the programme offered the opportunity to solve problems early and from that perspective was a good investment.  It was added that Police Innovation Funding had been utilised, though this ended in March 2017, so the programme would be mainstreamed.  It was explained that the list of offences could be expanded, though carefully, with an area being looked at was harassment, showing the impact upon victims, and the use of social media and malicious communications.  The Chief of Staff added that the Chief Constable’s and PCVC’s position on drugs was well documented and clear and therefore there could be scope for some offences to be included.  It was added that currently there was capacity in terms of navigators and that this would be monitored accordingly.

Mr AJ Cooke asked if offenders were informed that they would not get a second chance at the Checkpoint programme should they breach their contract.  DCI A Crowe noted that the programme was explained and that access to the programme was 3 strikes, so effectively a maximum of 3 over a 5½ year period.  Councillor F Tinsley asked if those with an existing criminal record were eligible.  DCI A Crowe noted they would be, with only 15% of those in or having gone through the Checkpoint programme having no criminal record.

The Chairman noted it was important to get the message across within our communities that the Checkpoint programme was not a “soft touch”.  DCI A Crowe explained that focus groups had shown that two things that people concerned with were catching offenders and making sure that the crime did not happen again, no more victims from that offender, and Checkpoint offered 4 months of intensive intervention, with the results from the programme being positive.

Resolved:   

That the report and presentation be noted.