Agenda item

(i)    Report of the Assistant Chief Executive.

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

The Chairman thanked the Chief of Staff (PCC), Alan Reiss who was in attendance to speak to Members in relation to the work of Checkpoint (for copy see file of minutes).

The Chief of Staff (PCC) thanked Members for the opportunity to explain the Checkpoint programme, noting that it was an innovative and bold initiative, with the potential to change how reoffending and crime were tackled.

Members learned that evidence had shown that: 40% of people coming through custody received a caution or other out of court disposal; only 3% of people who appear at Magistrates’ Court receive a prison sentence; 40% of offenders would re-offend within 6 months; and that intervention methods had been shown to work much more effectively that prison. 

Councillors were referred to a graph highlighting the prevalence of reoffending over time, with it being noted that 40% reoffend within 6 months, 50% within 12 months and 60% within 24 months, and the rate levelled off at around 60-70% after that.  It was added that therefore it was important to be able to target early interventions to try to prevent a cycle of reoffending.

The Committee learned that Checkpoint is a partnership programme, with a wide contribution from many agencies.  It was explained that Checkpoint was a “voluntary adult offender scheme which will result in an exit from the Criminal Justice System if they comply”.  Members noted that the programme was designed to identify “critical pathways” and to intervene in an offender’s early behaviour in order to reduce or stop further offending.  Councillors were informed that there was the use of out of court disposals such as cautions, fixed penalty notices (FPNs) and Restorative Approaches (RAs) and a deferred prosecution of 4 months. 

The Chief of Staff (PCC) explained that the programme worked such that once the investigative process was finalised, the offender would be released with an appointment to meet a “Navigator” within 24 to 72 hours.  It was added that the trained Navigators were not Police Officers and that the Navigators would carry out an in-depth assessment and agree a 4 month contract with the offender.  The offender needs to consent to undertake the contract, with work involved looking to address the root causes of the offending. 

Members were informed that the five points included within a 4 month contract were:

1.      No re-offending within a time period.

2.      Participate in RAs if appropriate.

3.      Attend sessions re. critical pathway.

4.      Attend sessions re. critical pathway.

5.      Community/voluntary work and Global Positioning System (GPS) tag.    

It was noted that the option of a GPS tag could be useful in helping offenders resist peer pressure in terms of reoffending, for example if they were asked to go with others to commit further offences, they could decline, citing the GPS tag as a reason.  It was noted that critical pathways included: alcohol dependency; substance misuse; mental or physical health; accommodation; finances; employment; relationships and support; and attitudes and behaviour.  Members learned that the deferred prosecution offered good motivation for offenders, and gave a fall-back position should the offender not fulfil their contract.  The Committee was reminded that the majority of crime was carried out by a small number of offenders and therefore working with those offenders and tackling their critical pathways was key in helping to reduce crime and reoffending.  The Chief of Staff (PCC) noted that for an offender to be eligible for the Checkpoint programme they must admit their guilt, or there must be sufficient evidence that they have committed the offence (in the case of “no-reply”).  It was noted that Checkpoint was not a “soft option” and that a lot of effort was required by an offender to fulfil their 4 month contract.

Councillors were referred to the offender eligibility criteria which were: the arrested person must be over 18 years of age; they must live within County Durham or Darlington; the offence must be deemed low or medium level; the offender must not be already on probation, court bail or court order; they must have admitted the crime of there be sufficient evidence to charge; and the person must agree to go on to the programme.  It was explained that low and medium referred to the Crime Harm Index, and that the offence must be one of those listed.

Members were referred to a diagram showing offences that could be considered, noting that some appeared to be controversial, including assault and cruelty or neglect to children, however, it was reiterated that these must be at a low or medium level as referred to on the Crime Harm Index. 

Councillors noted that should an offender not comply with their contract, they would then be referred back to court to consider the original offence, and any other potential offences, with a report as regards their participation in Checkpoint being submitted to the court.  The Chief of Staff (PCC) noted the current figures in relation to the performance of the Checkpoint programme with:

• 367 offenders on Checkpoint since 1 April 2015;
• 5.2% having failed;
• 94.8% complying with their contract;
• 17.4% have already successfully completed their contract;
• Approximately 42% of the offences committed have a victim.   

Members learned that the first person to complete the programme in August 2015 had managed to bring their problems with alcohol under control, had trained and reskilled, secured a job and also undertook a RA with the victim of the offence.

The Chief of Staff (PCC) explained that a new approach was the use of a “forecasting model” which was being developed by Cambridge University working closely with Durham Constabulary.  Members noted that Professor Geoffrey Barnes of the University of Pennsylvania had used the forecasting model to good effect in connection with probation in the United States.  It was added that the model would indicate and grade an offender according to their propensity to commit crime.  It was explained that a randomised control trial would be undertaken to provide evidence of the success of the programme.  Members noted the trial would be undertaken in December 2015/January 2016, with half the participants undergoing the Checkpoint programme, half going through the existing processes.

The Committee noted the governance structure for the Checkpoint Programme, with a Governance Board having representatives from all partner agencies, and having links to: the Safe Durham Partnership Board; Darlington Community Safety Partnership Board; Durham Constabulary Executive; Durham and Darlington Reducing Reoffending Group; and the Local Criminal Justice Board Out of Court Scrutiny Panel.  It was added that there was a Quality Assurance Group that reported back to the Board on the details and elements of the programme.

Members were referred to 2 cases studies, showing how working with partners was able to affect positive changes, utilising partner agencies such as Lifeline, to help to address issues such as alcohol and substance misuse.  It was added that there was weekly newsletter that highlighted the activities of the Checkpoint programme and spread the news of the good work being undertaken in this regard.

The Chairman thanked the Chief of Staff (PCC), noted the positive work of the programme even at this early stage and asked Members for their questions.

Councillor N Martin noted he was very interested in the programme and thought that he felt this was how we should be dealing with offenders, identifying issues they may face and helping to reduce reoffending. 

Councillor N Martin asked if therefore any capacity issues with partners involved in supporting the critical pathways had been identified or any issue in the timeliness of accessing the pathways, especially given the short timescale of the 4 month contract period.  The Chief of Staff (PCC) noted that all the relevant agencies were represented on the Governance Board and none of the partners, as yet, had reported any capacity issues.  It was added that the programme was relatively new and that it would be monitored as regards capacity over time. 

Mr AJ Cooke noted he was impressed with the results of the programme thus far and asked whether the committee would receive a further update in 12 months’ time.  Chief Superintendent G Hall reiterated that there was the weekly newsletter and the Chairman confirmed that this would be circulated to Members of the Committee for their information.

Councillor C Wilson noted she too was impressed with the work of the programme to date and asked what work was being undertaken in terms of cases where there were issues with an offender and their wider family.  The Chief of Staff (PCC) explained that in cases of multiple offences, the offender having already committed 3 previous offences; then they would not be eligible for Checkpoint.  It was pointed out however, that there were other schemes and initiatives under the “Think Family” agenda that would look to support those individuals in the type of cases as mentioned. 

Councillor J Maitland asked why Cambridge University had been chosen in respect of the programme.  The Chief of Staff (PCC) noted that there were several reasons, including: the high academic standing of the university; the work they were already undertaking in this respect; the existing links to Durham Constabulary with several Officers having undertaken postgraduate courses in criminology provided by the university; and the University had offered to carry out the work free of charge.

Councillor M Hodgson noted the statistics associated with the forecaster model and asked as regards the 66% accuracy and also noted concern as regards the types of crime being included within the eligibility for the programme, most notably child cruelty and neglect.  The Chief of Staff (PCC) noted that the 66% was not the reoffending rate of those on the programme, rather the accuracy of the forecasting model in determining those that were likely to reoffend.  It was reiterated that, in terms of some offences that may appear to be unsuitable, it was the severity of the offence that was taken into account and only those at a low or medium level would be deemed as eligible.  The Chief of Staff (PCC) explained that using the example of child cruelty and neglect, the Act defined the crime as such, however, if there was an element of cruelty, or the neglect was of a serious level then the offender would not be eligible for the programme.  Members were given an example of neglect where a mother with alcohol misuse issues had been able to engage with partners and gain support for her situation where she had not been able to do so previously.  It was added that engaging with the Checkpoint programme did not preclude the involvement of the relevant agencies such as Social Services.  It was added that the Governance Board had noted such concerns and work with Child Protection Teams to maintain the safeguarding of children as the top priority.

Councillor G Holland referred to the case studies provided to Members and noted parallels with many individuals that find themselves in difficulty with the law through a complex range of issues including social, financial, lack of employment and job prospects, and deterioration of physical and mental health. 

Councillor G Holland wondered whether there could be any benefit in group therapy being used to help those within the Checkpoint programme, giving an example of a person that had successfully completed the programme perhaps becoming a mentor to 20 or 30 other people.  The Chief of Staff (PCC) noted that he was not aware of group therapy having been looked at in conjunction with the Checkpoint programme, however, the suggestion was noted.

Chief Superintendent G Hall asked whether, given the recent changes to the Probation Service, that there had been assurance from Government as regards avoiding duplication of service.  The Chief of Staff (PCC) explained that the offenders dealt with by Checkpoint were not the same as those dealt with by the Probation service and therefore there would not be duplication.  It was added that there were representatives from both the National Probation Service (NPS) and the Community Rehabilitation Company (CRC) on the Checkpoint Governance Board, also providing Navigators to the Checkpoint programme.

Resolved:

(i)    That the report be noted.

(ii)   That the Safer and Stronger Overview and Scrutiny Committee receive an update report in 12 months’ time as regards progress of the Checkpoint programme.