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

Abstract

This document is the author's post-print version, incorporating any revisions agreed during the peer-review process. Some differences between the published version and this version may remain and you are advised to consult the published version if you wish to cite from it.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.

A systematic review into the effectiveness of Integrated Offender Management

“…This was with the exception of Annison et al (2015) who discussed the notion of IOM as a 'brand' and Lane and Kangulec (2012) who discussed the characteristics of the IOM team. Of the nine studies that evaluated the effectiveness of IOM, five used qualitative designs (Cram, 2018;Dyer and Biddle, 2016;Home Office, 2013; House of Commons Justice Committee, 2011; Wong et al, 2012), three used mixed methods designs (Evans, 2016;Senior et al, 2011;Sleath and Brown, 2019) and one used a quantitative design (Williams and Ariel, 2012). These articles investigated the effectiveness of IOM via its differing components (e.g.…”

“…The authors acknowledge that their data set does not provide the ideal longitudinal measures that would provide a greater understanding of IOM effectiveness -an issue the researchers had to contend with, and one which many evaluative researchers face when data collecting for reoffending outcomes. In Sleath and Brown's (2019) study, arrest records were also obtained post-IOM interventions, but these were collected at the slightly longer, 18-month period. Again, their data showed a statistically significant effect on recidivism.…”

The ‘carrot’ and ‘stick’ of integrated offender management: implications for police culture

“…It also updates IOM partners with current intelligence about their behaviour in custody, financial position on release and proposed release settlement area prior to their actual release. Following release from custody, probation workers, guided by the 'offender management model' (Home Office, 2006), a Risk-Need-Responsivity approach (Andrews et al, 2011;Annison, et al, 2015), focus on education/training, employment and housing, but also enforcement orientated strategies such as curfews, drug testing and electronic tagging (Criminal Justice Joint Inspection, 2014;Sleath and Brown, 2017). Drugs services, in the form of Criminal Justice Intervention Team workers, are also enlisted if the person has a history of substance misuse problems.…”

“…What did come across clearly during the fieldwork, however, was in practice most field intelligence officers used their rehabilitative mandate to generate fresh intelligence (see also, Evans, 2015;Sleath and Brown, 2017). Working in this way provided an opportunity for officers to incorporate intelligence gathering into the provision of support whilst driving forward the crime control goals of the police organisation.…”

“…Annison et al, (2015) interviewed Thames Valley IOM police officers. The responses they received suggested 'a cultural and practical shift' had taken place among these officers 'towards probation' (see also, Sleath and Brown, 2017). More broadly, a joint inspection of IOM, involving interviews with providers of IOM and offenders across six parts of England and Wales, identified three common threads running through the delivery of IOM schemes: (i) good practice concerning both rehabilitative and restrictive/enforcement approaches and to intelligence sharing; (ii) integrity of staff working within the IOM approach and (iii) a positive response by those subject to IOM to the way they had been targeted and treated (Criminal Justice Joint Inspection, 2014).…”