A Thematic Analysis of the Effectiveness of The Assisting Rehabilitation through Collaboration (ARC) Programme

Abstract

This paper evaluates the perceptions of effectiveness, from those working within ARC (Assisting Rehabilitation through Collaboration); the National Integrated Offender Management (IOM) Programme in Lincolnshire. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 20 professionals from either the ARC core team, partner agencies, or police inspectors external to ARC. The data was analysed using Thematic Analysis. Participants identified six key themes relating to the perceived effectiveness of ARC; the ARC Cohort; ARC staff; barriers; outcomes; partnerships; and the wider policing staff. The barriers faced by the ARC implementation are also faced by other IOM programmes. The core features identified to strengthen IOM implementation are better access to housing and improving mental health provision.

Keywords

Prolific and priority offenders integrated offender management ARC rehabilitation probation Lincolnshire police

Introduction

In 2004, the government introduced the Prolific and other Priority Offenders (PPO) strategy to reduce reoffending and prevent crime (HMIP et al., 2009). This national initiative provided intensive interventions and supervision in the community for known prolific offenders and young people at risk of becoming prolific offenders (Cinamon and Hoskins, 2006). Statistics show that between the years 2000 and 2016, in the UK alone, there were 492,000 prolific offenders, 79% of whom received their first sanction as a juvenile (Ministry of Justice, 2017; 2019). In line with national findings, data from 2015 shows that 2% of offenders in Lincolnshire are responsible for 13% of all offences, and in Lincoln city, this increased to 27% (Lincolnshire County Council, 2017).

In 2009, the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) and the Home Office introduced Integrated Offender Management (IOM) as a multi-agency approach to target persistent re-offenders. Key agencies involved are the police, HM Prison and Probation Service, local authorities and voluntary services, such as housing projects and drug and alcohol groups (Home Office, 2015b; Wong and Hartworth, 2009). Building on current successful offender rehabilitation organisations such as the Prolific and other Priority Offenders (PPO) schemes, Multi-Agency Public Protection Panel Arrangements (MAPPA) and Drug Interventions Programmes (DIP), the IOM framework was developed to bring multiple local agencies together to target offenders within their local areas (Hadfield et al., 2020; Hill, 2010; Revolving Doors Agency, 2012).

The IOM framework is an overarching scheme with no set structure for the implementation of IOM, and therefore, each IOM programme developed independently and offered slightly different services. Local authorities follow key principles set out by the Home Office but with the freedom to implement initiatives that target their local cohort (Hill, 2010; Home Office, 2015b). Initially, five key principles were set out by the Home Office and MoJ in 2010. Principle one, proposed a multi-agency approach that focused on the offenders themselves and not their offence type or behaviour. Principle two set out that this approach was delivered locally to local cohorts. Principle three, highlights the importance of offenders recognising their actions and behaviours and face their responsibilities, and failure to do so would result in consequences. Principle four, relates to the “better use of existing programmes”, and Principle five, “All offenders at high risk of causing serious harm and/or re-offending are ‘in scope’” (Home Office, 2010). Following the Joint Inspection of the Integrated Offender Management Approach (HMIP & HMIC, 2014), in 2015, the Home Office and MoJ updated the IOM framework to six key principles; “all partners manage offenders together…, to deliver a local response to local problems…, with all offenders potentially in scope…, facing up to their responsibility or facing the consequences…, with best use made of existing programmes and governance arrangements…, to achieve long-term desistance from crime…” (Home Office, 2015a, p 2-3).

The effectiveness of the strategies used in IOM Programmes has been a concern in recent years and the 2020 thematic analysis of IOM by Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Probation (HMIP) established that IOM had “lost its way”. Determining the impact of IOM programmes on reoffending is important and relates to the future effectiveness of probation services. The HMIP and Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services (HMICFRS) recommended that the MoJ and Home Office carry out an evaluation of IOM Programmes, assessing the impact of these strategies in reducing local crime rates, and identify the offenders that would most benefit enrolling on these programmes (Criminal Justice Joint Inspection, 2020). Frazer and Malthouse (2020) identified that a high percentage of neighbourhood crime is carried out by those who did not fit the IOM criteria and that over 75% of neighbourhood theft offences did not end in a conviction or arrest due to no suspects being identified (Frazer and Malthouse, 2020; Home Office, 2020). Therefore, local crime rates are ever-increasing but not impacted by IOM implementation.

In the United Kingdom, there were 125 IOM Programmes in 2020 (Bold, 2020). In Lincolnshire, Assisting Rehabilitation through Collaboration (ARC) was launched in 2016 as a local re-launch of IOM. Working as a partnership with local teams, such as Lincolnshire police, the Youth Offending Service and local voluntary sector providers, ARC aimed to step away from the ‘Catch and Convict’ approach. Instead, they focused on the person, targeting the criminogenic needs of the individual (Lincolnshire County Council, 2017). Those offered ARC support had to fit the criteria of eight offences in the last 12 months for over 18’s, and five offences for under 18’s (Lincolnshire Police, 2020). In 2017, the ARC cohort comprised 82 individuals, ranging from the age of 13 to 60. Although these individuals had committed a wide range of offences, 60% of all offences were shoplifting (Lincolnshire County Council, 2017).

Support and interventions provided by ARC aimed to address the multitude of complex needs of the cohort over the nine month timeframe of the programme. The Social Exclusion Unit identified eight pathways that IOM programmes followed to address the criminogenic needs of prolific offenders: accommodation, drug and alcohol, attitudes and behaviours, families, education and employment, finance, and physical and mental health (Senior et al., 2011a; Williams and Ariel, 2012). In line with the national Integrated Offender Management scheme that suggests local IOM programmes should provide interventions on these “pathways”, ARC focused on pathways related to accommodation, mental and physical health, substance use, and families as these were deemed by Lincolnshire Police to be most relevant for the local cohort.

Pathways of re-offending have been widely researched in the desistance literature. To better understand the effectiveness of these eight pathways within IOM Programmes, a literature search was conducted with papers analysed and categorised into key themes; accommodation; drugs and alcohol; education and employment; families; attitudes and behaviours; mental and physical health; and finances. Findings showed that the effectiveness of pathways had not been previously examined. It was found that each pathway, although effective in reducing reoffending rates, were not being implemented effectively within IOM, and therefore offenders were not getting the correct levels of support. This review concluded that to successfully analyse the effectiveness of each pathway, IOM programmes need to implement them more efficiently. Further research should be carried out after the current IOM review has taken place to evaluate whether the pathways have been implemented successfully and whether they are more effective.

In previous literature, IOM providers identified themes of success such as the reduction in arrest records, increase in knowledge of finance and secure accommodation for their cohort when evaluating their local IOM Programmes. Hudson and Jones’ (2016) research found that offender perceptions of police had significantly improved when working co-operatively through IOM. This collaborative approach was also identified in other papers as ‘making life better for offenders’, however it was also acknowledged that the inter-agency cooperation needed to be improved (Annison et al., 2015; Hadfield et al., 2020).

The current study investigated the effectiveness of the Assisting Rehabilitation through Collaboration (ARC) Programme in Lincolnshire in relation to offender outcomes and workplace structure. The study also aimed to identify service provider views about what works effectively or needs improvement and critically to analyse the core themes of effective and ineffective practice within the Lincolnshire ARC Programme implementation of IOM. This study was conducted in 2021, prior to changes made by the ARC implementation of IOM which is changing going forwards.

Method

Measures

Participants took part in one-to-one semi-structured interviews via Microsoft Teams. These interviews were audio or video recorded. Semi-structured interviews were used for the flexibility to adapt questioning depending on the direction of the conversation. Post-interview, participants were invited to submit further evidence via e-mail or further discussion. Four participants submitted further information, three via e-mail, and one via recorded discussion.

Participants

A sample of 20 professionals working within and alongside ARC were recruited via e-mail circulated by ARC senior management. Participants contacted the initial research team to express interest. Everyone expressing an interest to participated was invited and we reached data saturation on the analysis. Overall, the sample consisted of nine professionals employed directly as the ARC core team, eight professionals from ARC partner agencies, and three police inspectors external to ARC.

The ARC core team sample included professionals from a variety of job roles; Chief Inspector, two support officers, four compliance officers, a Chaplain and the ARC operational manager. Within the ARC partner agencies group, there were representatives from Lincolnshire County Council, Humberside Lincolnshire and North Yorkshire Community Rehabilitation Company, healthcare services and accommodation providers.

Procedure

ARC senior management circulated an advertisement of the research via e-mails for participants to express their interest. Participants contacted the research team directly. Participants were not offered an incentive for participation. Verbal consent was given by participants, and Participant Information Sheets were provided. Interviews were either video or audio recorded using the facilities on Microsoft Teams and lasted between 20 and 160 minutes. Interviews were conducted by the original research team. Following the interview, participants were verbally debriefed and were invited to submit further evidence via e-mail or further discussion.

Ethical Considerations

Ethical approval was granted by the University of Lincoln by Ethics process LEAS ethics review #2020_4066. Interviews were stored on a secure drive. To protect the confidentiality, participants have been anonymised. Participants of the ARC Core Team will be named A1 through to A9, those from partner agencies will be named P1 through to P8, and the police inspectors will be named I1 to I3. Participants were provided with a Participant Information Sheet and consent forms, no participants withdrew.

Data Analysis

Interviews were transcribed by members of the research team. Braun and Clarke’s (2006) principles of thematic analysis; familiarisation, generating code, searching for themes, reviewing the themes, defining the themes, and producing the report were applied. The interview transcripts were read multiple times to ensure a strong sense of context, they were then coded using NVivo and themes were identified. Relevant extracts from each of the interviews were identified and sorted into the relevant themes. In doing so, interviews were re-read, themes were reviewed, and a thematic map was created. The thematic analysis identified six themes, and 15 further sub-themes).

Results

Six superordinate themes relating to the perceived effectiveness of ARC were prominent; ARC Cohort; ARC Staff; Barriers to IOM; Outcomes of people supported; Effective Partnerships and Wider Policing Staff.

ARC Cohort

Two subthemes were evident regarding the ARC Cohort: Entry Criteria and Prevention. Participants from all groups demonstrated the belief that targeting the right people early enough and improving the prevention aspect would reduce reoffending rates.

Entry Criteria

Thirteen participants highlighted issues with ARC inclusion criteria during their interviews. It was indicated by multiple participants that the current entry criterion does not pick people up early enough. For example, A1 said:

We wait then until they are absolutely prolific, top 2%, hit all the criteria to move on to ARC and then we start investing in them. Somewhere on the line, if we look at the Individual Progress Assessments (IPAs), and we look at their history and their criminogenic needs, we'd be able to identify where we could pick them out earlier.

Another aspect of the criteria that was mentioned was its ability to target high-risk offenders. A high majority of the ARC cohort, and national IOM schemes, commit low-level offences such as shoplifting. Participants acknowledged that these types of offenders met the criteria for ARC quickly. I2 said “I just don't know if we're always identifying the people that are causing most harm”. I3 agreed “what you end up with is shoplifters and people theft motor vehicles, which, again, they impact on us, but I don't think that was really what they set up to do. I think was more serious harm, serious violence, serious crime, serious acquisitive crime.”. Similarly, A3 admitted that they thought that the ARC focus groups used to be “domestic abuse perpetrators” and “prolific burglars”. However, they admitted that the shoplifters on the cohort are a “very, very complex personality disordered drug-addicted people are a group of people” and if the current criterion enters them onto ARC, then they will be getting support and “from a moral point of view for me that the cohort is right at the moment”.

Prevention

All ARC core team participants, and several partner agency staff emphasised the need for more preventative action. A2 stated, “We definitely need to do more work around prevention.”. A3 talked about the role of ARC support officers in helping to reduce offending behaviour. They explained that if a people being supported is known for stealing food as they have none, they would ask a support officer to provide them with food, usually via a local community larder, in order to prevent the offence from taking place. Prevention as a theme came up often during the interviews. P5 suggested, “we could be more proactive in preventing people going on to ARC, but also more supportive of those that are on the outskirts of it.”.

ARC Staff

Within this theme, there were four subthemes: Chaplain Support, Management, Staff Support and Training. This was a considerable area of focus for participants on the ARC core team, however, one partner agency staff also mentioned Chaplain support during their interview.

Chaplain Support

Among ARC Staff, there is one Chaplain that offers multi-faith support and guidance to members of the cohort. Five participants mentioned the positive impact the Chaplain has on both the ARC Team and the people supported, P7 says:

The Chaplain … oversees some of our ARC cases she’s absolutely brilliant so having her as part of the ARC team. She picks up all the bits that no one else does, she ferries them around and I don’t know what we do if we didn’t have her.

Two participants suggested that the support given by the Chaplain is different to that of support officers or PCSO’s and that the Chaplain continues work with people after core ARC provisions finish.

Management

The management structure of ARC and the implementation of strategies used were also a theme. Four participants talked about the high turnover of senior management, and how this affects strategies being implemented due to each new manager having a different interpretation of how to run ARC, or processes being reviewed and no time to change. A6 said, “every time we get a new boss, it just all changes. And we're never left long enough to implement anything before somebody comes in, and changes at all.”. However, the same participants did highlight that the current management is working well, with A5 saying “I think our management at the minute is probably the best we've ever had.”.

Support

Closely following from management, 2 participants felt supported by senior management. A9 said, “I do feel supported by my senior management team. I hope … I'm supportive to my team and their needs and what they want”. It was also mentioned that despite feeling as though senior management do support them, the ARC team do not work cohesively, and one participant said that “The force still don't care about us”.

Training

In the theme Training, there were several subthemes identified. ARC staff identified that there was a lack of training. It was assumed that training in this context included training specific to the ARC processes as well as the knowledge and skills necessary to engage with this client group. All the ARC Core Team were asked about the training they received for the role. 7 participants explicitly said that there was no training for ARC, A1 said “Specific to the role of ARC again, there's been nothing specific because that there isn't necessarily anything specific to that”. The second subtheme that emerged was that there were innate skills. A2 highlighted that they do not believe that training would benefit support officers, they said “you’ve either got the skills or you haven’t, it's not something that can be taught”. Contrary to this, A7 said that management cannot expect staff to automatically have the skillset for working with offenders on ARC. The third subtheme was that the skills are learnt on the job, “there isn't really any training at all, and you learn on the job.” (A2). The final subtheme was future training, however, when invited to suggest how ARC was run in the future, all but one of the ARC Core Team participants suggested an increase in training. Whether that be surveillance training, homelessness training or basic refresher training. A5 said:

Once you get trained, that's it. Unless it's driving, which obviously you need to get refresher training on. But the basic stuff, you don't really get refresher training for that. So, it'd be, it'd be good to have something.

A9 further indicated “training is perhaps a bit heavy-handed; awareness or upskilling might be the most appropriate thing.”

Barriers to IOM

When discussing the features that do not work as well within ARC, the challenges identified by the ARC core team and partner agencies were housing provisions and mental health provisions.

Housing Provisions

One of the biggest barriers faced by ARC is housing and accommodation provisions. A7 stated, “I think it's a big barrier, housing. I mean, we work well with housing, but they haven't got enough houses…”. Not only do the ARC Core Team acknowledge this barrier, but partner agencies also highlighted it too. P8 said:

Housing is horrendous. And that is such a key to most of the guys we work with, not so much in Lincoln, I do think it's more out, you know, going towards Skegness, Boston way that the housing is horrendous, the accommodation is horrendous. And it is such a key factor with some of these guys.

Mental Health Provisions

Twelve participants said that the second biggest barrier to their work was the mental health provision in Lincolnshire. When talking about issues the cohort face, A5 said:

Pretty much the majority of them say 90-95% of them are addicted to drugs. A lot of them have got mental health issues which is a real issue for us because mental health support that we have access to, and we can refer into is really bad in Lincolnshire.

A8 agreed, saying “health and mental health if we could fix that, we’d be sailing.”, A9 also said, “I think access to health care is always, I think, going be an issue.”. A6 confessed that “we haven't had dedicated staff since LPFT mental health in 2016 when we first transitioned from IOM into ARC”. A2 admitted that although having a Chaplain in the team helps people supported with mental health problems, “we could do with somebody from mental health in the team”.

Outcomes of people supported through ARC

Three subthemes were identified within this outcomes theme: housing, mental health and offending behaviour.

Housing

When discussing positive outcomes for people supported, housing and accommodation were mentioned by 10 participants as positive outcomes. P1 mentioned that for them, the idea of a good outcome is for the person “to try and be in some kind of stable accommodation, to try and manage their life, I mean, I'm not going to say to be drug-free, or to be crime-free, but to try and reach a period of stability”. I2 acknowledged that they can see ARC success once a person supported has been placed in stable housing “and they've probably been slightly removed from the community, which they were misusing substances with and committing crime with. And there's been a you know, real drop off in offending”.

Mental Health

One of the biggest successes of the ARC cohort is an improvement in mental health and a reduction in drugs. Five participants mentioned health when discussing the outcomes of people supported. P5 said “I think any improvements in mental health, that's a massive one”, they admitted that “it can be really easy to forget that if you don't have the soft outcomes, you will never get the hard outcomes”. P1 spoke about how they found it a positive outcome when the person they were supporting, who had been on ARC many times asked to see mental health, “that's a big step because up until then he's refused”.

Offending Behaviour

The most obvious positive outcome would be a reduction in reoffending behaviour. P5 said:

The big one is obviously when they're not offending, that's or when they're offending reduces dramatically. And that's always a really nice outcome. And we can see people making more positive progress.

Other participants established that the reduction in drug use, mental health support and stable accommodation all contribute to the reduction in offending. A5 said “the main thing, obviously, reducing offending is what we want. And but on top of that, getting people back into their family, this is an important thing for me to do. And that's done by reducing drugs and finding them a house.”

Effective Partnership

Within the theme of effective partnership, there were two subthemes: co-location and communication. Collaborative working between multiple services requires effective communication.

Co-Location

Four participants mentioned the benefits of co-location with partner agencies for both staff and people supported. A3 mentioned that when services were co-located at Myle Cross, people supported could attend and “they could see the ARC workers, they could see probation, they see [substance misuse provider], they could see housing, everyone was co-located. If they had a particular issue, everything was under one roof, not only for the client but for the partners in the team”. Currently ARC is only co-located with Lincolnshire County Council, A1 mentioned this in their interview: “the co-location we've got with LCC I think is a positive”. A7 suggested that to improve ARC services in the future they need “some kind of fairly central hub with co-location of different organisations, including housing and drug and alcohol services”.

Communication

Good communication between police, probation and partner agencies is critical in order to give the best support to people requiring support. A3 highlighted that “communication between police and probation is very, very good. Communication between other agencies not so good”. This was mirrored by A4 who said, “the police now consider ARC to be their project. Yeah. So, they don't really communicate with partners. Well, I don't know that they don't, but it's glaringly obvious that they don't.”. It was also discussed by 3 participants that a shared computer system and joint IT programmes would increase communication and improve partnership working. A3 said, “if we had a shared IT system that we all updated, then we would be able to see which agency was doing what. Because otherwise, things get duplicated, things get missed”. This idea of a shared IT programme was shared with A9.

Interestingly, partner agency participants had a more positive view of the communication between them and ARC. P5 said:

I've always found it really good. I mean, the ARC team are really open and honest, we can I can get hold of them. They share information with me. I feed it back into them. It's always worked really well. And no, no issues whatsoever.

Wider Policing Staff

Mixed Views

When interviewing police inspectors outside of the ARC programme, there were mixed views on how well ARC worked. One participant, I3, admitted that they did not have any positive feedback about ARC. They said, “I wish I could tell you lots of positive things about ARC, but I don't know. … It's just if I had many positive things to say, I'd say so, but I'm not aware of any.”. I2 advised that the staff and the ARC team is extremely positive, however, acknowledged that the entry criteria are restricting them. I1 was very positive when talking about ARC. They confessed, “I'm answering your question by giving you more positives as opposed to, but I don't particularly I don't really have many (negatives)”.

Discussion

The aim of this study was to examine the effectiveness of the local implementation of IOM via the ARC service, identifying examples of good practice and areas for improvement. The findings from this study indicated that although the outcomes for many people requiring support through ARC were perceived as positive, there were many aspects of the scheme that needed addressing and adapting to provide the best supervision and management of offenders within Lincolnshire. This is consistent with the national findings from the Criminal Justice Joint Inspection (2020) who evaluated IOM programmes nationally.

At the time of the review, ARC adopted offenders who had committed 8 or more offences within a 12 month period in Lincolnshire, irrespective of offence type. Local concerns raised suggested that ARC should re-consider the entry criteria, and rather than waiting until they hit the top 2% and target those who need appropriate supervision earlier. The House of Commons Justice Committee (2011) also acknowledged the need for earlier supervision suggesting that IOM programmes can be utilised earlier, targeting offenders with greater risk of harm. The neighbouring Leicestershire and Rutland’s IOM criteria has been adapted for earlier intervention (Hadfield et al., 2020) and the Neighbourhood Crime IOM Strategy (2020) recommended a flexible inclusion criterion in IOM programmes, prioritising offenders on a general, and local, level. Targeting offenders earlier allows individuals greater access to drug services and housing provision, which in turn reduces offending behaviour and the number of victims.

Interviewees of the current study highlighted the need for a greater preventative aspect to ARC, and intensely targeting younger and vulnerable offenders leaving prison. Current IOM schemes provide eight pathways to desistance, that have been derived from the desistance literature. The Government commissioned its Social Exclusion Unit (2002) to investigate steps that could be taken to stop repeat offending. They identified accommodation, drug and alcohol, attitudes and behaviours, families, education and employment, finance, and physical and mental health, as the criminogenic needs to be addressed to reduce reoffending (Senior et al., 2011b; Social Exclusion Unit, 2002; Williams and Ariel, 2012). Applying these pathways earlier by adjusting the entry criteria, will prevent further offending and victims from occurring before the individual is eligible for the ARC intervention.

One of the participants indicated that ARC uses surveillance techniques with offenders by the increased recognition of those who have not co-operated in order to prevent any future crimes from being committed. United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (2018) highlighted that surveillance-based rehabilitation techniques were not effective without access to appropriate treatment. The need for community support is highlighted in a recent study into prison rehabilitation practices in England and Wales found that support for offenders ending their sentences, and Through the Gate services should be improved in order to reduce reoffending rates (Bullock and Bunce, 2018).

Increased communication and improved collaboration were identified as key improvements for ARC with co-location and joint IT systems identified as possible solutions. A shared finding between the current study and Sleath and Brown (2017a), regarding communication, is that additional work is needed to be done to improve information sharing. It is not possible to know if this was affected by policy, process, legislation, management rather than human interaction. However, participants of this study suggested the use of shared computer systems which would reduce agencies having incomplete information about the supported persons and their outcomes. By increasing the effectiveness of communication between ARC staff and partner agencies, the management of offenders would be more effective. Unsurprisingly, research shows that without effective communication between police and probation services, community safety and risk management would not be adequate for public protection (Mawby & Worrall, 2011).

An interesting finding of the current study is that the ARC core team admitted to having difficulties communicating with the partner agencies, however those working for partner agencies advised that communication was good. The Ministry of Justice and Home Office (2015) published that Collaborative working is a key principle of IOM and therefore, in future developments of ARC it will be important to assess whether the collaboration between the ARC staff and partner agencies have improved.

Chaplaincy support is not purely religious or faith-based, instead, it provides a holistic approach to wellbeing. A finding of the current study was that both ARC staff and partner agency staff found having a Chaplain within the service positive. Participants reflected how the Chaplain often picked up the work that support officers could not. Although the literature does not cover Chaplaincy within Integrated Offender Management programmes, Todd and Tipton (2011) found that the support given from Chaplains was different from those of prison officers as they are viewed as separate from the prison management.

Several ARC staff participants highlighted the issues with a disjointed management structure, indicating that having a high turnover in senior management impacted the implementation of IOM processes with each new manager having a different understanding of the delivery models. The Criminal Justice Joint Inspection report (2020) highlights similar findings indicating that in many of the IOM cases, the local delivery models were not adequately explained by management to frontline staff.

When asked if they felt supported by their management, only two participants said they did. This is a vital finding, because, without an appropriate support system, staff may begin to feel overworked, stressed and burnt out. A supportive and functional management system needs to be in place with Russell (2014) finding that in high-risk occupations, such as within the police force, transformational leadership reduces stress and burnout in police staff. The 2020 Criminal Justice Joint Inspection found that almost half of the IOM officers interviewed felt that their workloads were unmanageable. Similar to this study, the same report found that there was no formal training provided for IOM staff members. This is increasingly worrying as it highlights there was no formal training given in safeguarding, despite the increasing numbers of domestic abuse nominals joining cohorts (Criminal Justice Joint Inspection, 2020). Knight and Stout (2009) indicated that when working with high-risk offenders, such as those who commit domestic violence, in a community offender management context, appropriate training is critical for the safety of both staff and people supported. Interestingly, no training or a lack of appropriate training is highlighted by the Criminal Justice Joint Inspection of IOM (2014) and the reviews of Lane and Kangulec (2012) and Sleath and Brown (2017b).

The current study showed that despite the lack of provision being a major barrier to ARC, obtaining appropriate housing for a member of the cohort was one of the most mentioned positive outcomes. The Criminal Justice Joint Inspection (2020) found that lack of housing provisions was the biggest barrier. The Criminal Justice Joint Inspection carried out in 2014 found that through housing intervention from IOM schemes, 35% of offenders with accommodation problems had made improvements on their offending behaviour (Criminal Justice Joint Inspection, 2014). Research into housing provisions in London has shown that when offenders have been provided with appropriate accommodation during their probationary period, reoffending rates are reduced by 11% (Ellison et al., 2013).

Mental health provisions were also discussed as a positive outcome of ARC. Much of the literature agrees that mental health problems have a link with offending behaviour. They also affect other criminogenic needs such as drug and alcohol use, education, housing and family relationships (United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, 2018). The Criminal Justice Joint Inspection (2020) found that in areas that the IOM programmes had been evaluated, many advised that housing and mental health provisions were not widely available.

There are several limitations to the study. The first is the sample limitation that although this study had participants who worked with or alongside the ARC programme, there were no participants who were from the ARC cohort. The initial intention had been to include a parallel service user perspective however the start of the study coincided with the start of the COVID 19 pandemic and lockdowns such that it was not possible to collect service user data due to COVID 19 restrictions in place during the timeframe of the study. The study can only evaluate the effectiveness from an operational level without the input from people supported. It cannot evaluate the experience of the programme for those on it. The original project aimed to interview people supported, however, due to Covid-19 restrictions this was unable to happen. Hence further research from an ARC cohort perspective should be carried out.

The second limitation is the method of data collection. Although reassurances were made that their responses would be anonymous, the use of semi-structured interviews meant participants were being asked “what does not work well?” about their place of work. This may have resulted in the participants feeling uncomfortable and therefore responses could be biased to social desirability or what they think their manager wants to hear. Social desirability bias, is the likelihood that some participants may answer in a way that is deemed more socially acceptable, than their ‘true’ answer (Latkin et al., 2017). Also due to COVID restrictions the interviews were conducted using Microsoft Teams and therefore, the settings were not controlled. Some participants were interviewed at home and had distractions such as pets and other people, other participants at work and therefore responses might have been biased in case someone overheard. In future research, interviewing participants out of the workplace and with no distractions would be important to ensure unbiased responses.

Conclusion

This research aimed to assess the perceived effectiveness of the ARC programme from those providing it in Lincolnshire, in relation to perceived offender outcomes and workplace structure / culture. It identified what works effectively from a service providers perspective. Core themes were identified, analysed and ineffective practice was highlighted. The findings show that despite several limitations with the focus of service provision, such as the lack of housing, mental health input, and issues with team communication, overall, the outcomes of ARC are positive, and the team feel as though reoffending is being reduced. This current study has identified factors that ARC staff, partner agency staff and the wider police staff deem as contributing to the effectiveness, however, research is also needed to determine the effectiveness from the perspective of those supported. Although the research was specific to the ARC implementation of IOM programme, the recommendations would be relevant for all IOM programmes going forward.

Integrated Offender Management is not just about conviction and punishment, it is about helping people find the tools to improve their lives and reducing offending behaviour, but that will not happen if they are not targeting people early enough and do not have the provisions to make a difference.

Footnotes

Author Note

Niamh Reeson, completed this work as part of their MSc in Forensic Psychology

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Lincolnshire Police for their support in undertaking this research.

ORCID iDs

Todd E Hogue

Lauren Smith

References

Annison

Bradford

Grant

(2015). Theorizing the role of ‘the brand’ in criminal justice: The case of Integrated Offender Management. Criminology & Criminal Justice, 15(4), pp.387–406. doi:10.1177/1748895815572164.

Bold

(2020). Inspection of Integrated Offender Management. Probation Journal, 67(2), pp.167–168. doi:10.1177/0264550520917230.

Braun

Clarke

(2006). Using Thematic Analysis in Psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, [online] 3(2), pp.77–101. doi:10.1191/1478088706qp063oa.

Bullock

Bunce

(2018). ‘The prison don’t talk to you about getting out of prison’: On why prisons in England and Wales fail to rehabilitate prisoners. Criminology & Criminal Justice, 20(1), pp.111–127. doi:10.1177/1748895818800743.

Cinamon

Hoskins

(2006). The Prolific and other Priority Offender initiative in practice. Probation Journal, 53(2), pp.154–166. doi:10.1177/0264550506063574.

Criminal Justice Joint Inspection (2014). A Joint Inspection of the Integrated Offender Management Approach. [online] London: Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Probation. Available at: https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/crown-prosecution-service/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2014/04/Integrated-Offender-Management-report.pdf.

Criminal Justice Joint Inspection (2020). A joint thematic inspection of Integrated Offender Management. [online] Manchester: Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Probation. Available at: https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/cjji/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2020/02/A-joint-thematic-inspection-of-Integrated-Offender-Management-2.pdf.

Ellison

Fox

Gains

Pollock

(2013). An evaluation of the effect of housing provision on re‐offending. Safer Communities, 12(1), pp.27–37. doi:10.1108/17578041311293125.

Frazer

Malthouse

(2020). Neighbourhood Crime Integrated Offender Management Strategy: A unified approach to offender supervision in the community. [online] GOV.UK. HM Government. Available at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/942145/neighbourhood-crime-iom-strategy.pdf

10.

Hadfield

Sleath

Brown

Holdsworth

(2020). A systematic review into the effectiveness of Integrated Offender Management. Criminology & Criminal Justice, 00(0), p.174889582091229. doi:10.1177/1748895820912295.

11.

Hill

(2010). Integrated Offender Management - Implementation. [online] Sunderland City Council Committee Management System. Sunderland: Sunderland City Council.

12.

HM Inspectorate Of Probation, HM Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate, HM Inspectorate Of Court Administration, HM Prison Service and Her Majesty's Inspectorate Of Constabulary (2009). Prolific and Other Priority Offenders : a Joint Inspection of the PPO Programme. London: Criminal Justice Joint Inspection.

13.

Home Office (2010). Integrated Offender Management: Key Principles. [online] Home Office and Ministry of Justice. Available at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/97802/IOM-Key-Principles-Guidance.pdf [Accessed 25 Jul. 2021].

14.

Home Office (2015a). Integrated offender management (IOM). [online] GOV.UK. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/integrated-offender-management-iom [Accessed 16 Jul. 2021].

15.

Home Office (2015b). Integrated offender management : key principles. [online] London: Home Office and Ministry Of Justice. Available at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/406865/HO_IOM_Key_Principles_document_Final.pdf

16.

Home Office (2020). Crime outcomes in England and Wales, year to June 2020. [online] GOV.UK. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/crime-outcomes-in-england-and-wales-year-to-june-2020-data-tables [Accessed 19 Jul. 2021].

17.

House of Commons Justice Committee (2011a). The Justice Committee 8th Report: The Role of the Probation Service, Volume 1: Report. HC 519-I, 2010 - 2012. Available at: https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmjust/519/519i.pdf.

18.

Hudson

Jones

(2016). Satellite Tracking of Offenders and Integrated Offender Management: A Local Case Study. The Howard Journal of Crime and Justice, 55(1-2), pp.188–206. doi:10.1111/hojo.12156.

19.

Knight

Stout

(2009). Probation and offender manager training: An argument for an integrated approach. Probation Journal, 56(3), pp.269–283. doi:10.1177/0264550509342681.

20.

Lane

Kangulec

(2012). Integrated offender management workforce development. Safer Communities, 11(3), pp.154–158. doi:10.1108/17578041211244067.

21.

Latkin

C.A.

Edwards

Davey-Rothwell

M.A.

Tobin

K.E.

(2017). The Relationship between Social Desirability Bias and self-reports of health, Substance use, and Social Network Factors among Urban Substance Users in Baltimore, Maryland. Addictive Behaviors, [online] 73(73), pp.133–136. doi:10.1016/j.addbeh.2017.05.005.

22.

Lincolnshire County Council (2017). Reducing Offending though Assisting Rehabilitation through Collaboration (ARC). [online] Lincolnshire County Council. Available at: https://lincolnshire.moderngov.co.uk/documents/s20582/Assisting_Rehabilitation_through_Collaboration_ARC.pdfhttps://lincolnshire.moderngov.co.uk/documents/s20582/Assisting_Rehabilitation_through_Collaboration_ARC.pdf

23.

Mawby

R. C.

Worrall

(2011). ‘They were very threatening about do-gooding bastards’: Probation’s changing relationships with the police and prison services in England and Wales. European Journal of Probation, 3(3), pp.78–94. doi:10.1177/206622031100300306.

24.

Ministry of Justice (2017). Prolific offenders -characteristics of prolific offenders. [online] GOV.uk. Available at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/681553/prolific-offenders-15-feb-2017.pdf

25.

Ministry of Justice (2019). Prolific Offenders Criminal Pathway: Prison Events & Offender Needs Main points. [online] GOV.uk. Available at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/802131/prolific-offenders-experimental-statistics-may-2019.pdf [Accessed 6 Sep. 2021].

26.

Ministry Of Justice and Home Office (2015). Integrated offender management : Key principles. [online] London: Home Office. Available at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/406865/HO_IOM_Key_Principles_document_Final.pdf

27.

Lincolnshire Police (2020). Force Management Statement 2020. [online] Lincolnshire Police. Available at: https://www.lincs.police.uk/media/255783/lincolnshire-police-force-management-statement-2020-v33.pdf

28.

Revolving Doors Agency (2012). Integrated Offender Management – Effective alternatives to short sentences. [online] Revolving Doors. Available at: http://www.revolving-doors.org.uk/file/1800/download?token=zjYmZ6xF

29.

Russell

L. M.

(2014). An empirical investigation of high-risk occupations. Management Research Review, 37(4), pp.367–384. doi:10.1108/mrr-10-2012-0227.

30.

Senior

Wong

Culshaw

Ellingworth

O’Keeffe

Meadows

(2011a). Process Evaluation of Five Integrated Offender Management Pioneer Areas. [online] London: Ministry of Justice. Available at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/217376/evaluation-integrated-offender-mgt-pioneer-areas.pdf.

31.

Senior

Wong

Culshaw

Ellingworth

O’Keeffe

Meadows

(2011b). Process Evaluation of Five Integrated Offender Management Pioneer Areas. [online] London: Ministry of Justice. Available at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/217376/evaluation-integrated-offender-mgt-pioneer-areas.pdf.

32.

Sleath

Brown

(2017a). Staff and offender perspectives of Integrated Offender Management and the impact of its introduction on arrests and risk of reoffending in one police force region. Policing and Society, 29(5), pp.511–529. doi:10.1080/10439463.2017.1410148.

33.

Sleath

Brown

(2017b). Staff and offender perspectives of Integrated Offender Management and the impact of its introduction on arrests and risk of reoffending in one police force region. Policing and Society, 29(5), pp.511–529. doi:10.1080/10439463.2017.1410148.

34.

Social Exclusion Unit (2002). Reducing re-offending by ex-prisoners. [online] Social Exclusion Unit. Available at: https://www.bristol.ac.uk/poverty/downloads/keyofficialdocuments/Reducing_Reoffending.pdf

35.

Todd

Tipton

(2011). The Role and Contribution of a Multi-Faith Prison Chaplaincy to the Contemporary Prison Service. [online] Cardiff Centre for Chaplaincy Studies. Available at: https://orca.cardiff.ac.uk/29120/1/ChaplaincyReportFinalDraft.pdf [Accessed 21 Sep. 2021].

36.

United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (2018). The Prevention of Recidivism and the Social Reintegration of Offenders. 2nd ed. [online] Vienna: Unitied Nations. Available at: https://www.unodc.org/documents/justice-and-prison-reform/18-02303_ebook.pdf.

37.

Williams

A. E.

Ariel

(2012). The Bristol Integrated Offender Management Scheme: a Pseudo-Experimental Test of Desistance Theory. Policing, 7(2), pp.123–134. doi:10.1093/police/pas053.

38.

Wong

Hartworth

(2009). Integrated Offender Management and Third Sector engagement: Case studies of four pioneer sites. [online] Manchester Metropolitan University. Nacro. Available at: https://e-space.mmu.ac.uk/id/eprint/622249 [Accessed 25 Jul. 2021].