Skip to text
You are here: Cabinet PapersDevelopment of a Co-Ordinated, Inter-Agency Inititiative for Tackling Persistent or Prolific Offending

Paper 15: Development of a Co-Ordinated, Inter-Agency Inititiative for Tackling Persistent or Prolific Offending

PURPOSE

  1. Cabinet directed the Ministry of Justice and Police (joint lead) in consultation with Te Puni Kokiri and the Ministry of Pacific Island Affairs, and other agencies as appropriate, to develop a co-ordinated, interagency initiative for tackling persistent or prolific offending, including a detailed implementation timescale and identification of implications for Māori and Pacific peoples, and report back by 30 October 2006 [CAB Min (06) 27/3A refers]. This paper responds to Cabinet's direction.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

  1. International research indicates a small proportion of offenders are committing a disproportionate amount of crime within their local areas, resulting in large social and fiscal costs to themselves, their families, the community and the tax-payer. Preliminary analysis conducted by Police indicates a comparable situation exists in New Zealand.
  1. International initiatives have produced promising results in reducing crime in prolific or persistent offending populations. For example, a project launched in Blackpool, England, the Tower Project, reduced criminality in the target group by 30%. This project was later subsumed into the nationally implemented Prolific and Other Priority Offenders Strategy, which demonstrated a 10% reduction at its six month evaluation.
  1. An inter-agency initiative is currently under development in Christchurch which aims to address the needs of the top ten crime families in the area, and reduce their level of crime.
  1. It is recommended that over the next 12 months, Ministry of Justice and Police work collaboratively with the Christchurch inter-agency representatives in further developing and refining this project to construct a robust initiative that addresses prolific or persistent offending. Development of processes and protocols will be undertaken, followed by initial intervention in a small target group. Preliminary evaluation will then be completed.
  1. This information will provide the basis for an assessment on the effectiveness of the project. Hon Annette King and I will report back to Cabinet by 31 August 2007 on the preliminary outcomes. If the results are positive, a New Initiatives Bid will be completed for the 2008/09 Budget to allow the project to be implemented in five locations throughout New Zealand, providing opportunity for a detailed two year recidivism study. This in turn will allow investigation into the viability of a national initiative.

BACKGROUND

  1. Nationally and internationally, there is broad agreement that persistent or prolific offenders cause a disproportionate amount of crime in their local areas, and are highly likely to spend significant periods of their life in prison.
  1. Research from England and Wales indicates that 10% of offenders account for 50% of all convicted offences, and that 0.5% of offenders account for 9% of convicted offences. Within New Zealand, preliminary analysis conducted by the Police suggests that the top 20% of offenders are responsible for 60-65% of crime.
  1. The offending committed by prolific or persistent offenders results in large social and financial costs to themselves, their families, communities and the tax payer. A Canterbury initiative identified the highest risk families in the area. Of the ten families identified, the first was calculated as having already cost the community $3 million, while the second accounted for $2 million.[1]

DISCUSSION

  1. Research indicates that the risk of continued offending for prolific or persistent offenders is high, leading to repeat involvement in the criminal justice system. A 2002 Ministry of Justice study investigating re-imprisonment and re-conviction rates for released prisoners showed that the more often people had been convicted previously, the more likely they were to be re-convicted and re-imprisoned. Within two years of their release from prison, 41% of first time offenders were re-convicted compared with 85% of offenders with more than 20 previous convictions.[2]
  1. The lengthy criminal histories of prolific and persistent offenders also mean that they are more likely to receive a custodial sentence once re-convicted. A 2002 Ministry of Justice study showing that 18% of first time offenders were re-imprisoned, compared with 48% of offenders with more than 20 previous convictions.
  1. These statistics demonstrate that a high level of resource is currently being directed towards the conviction and containment of prolific or persistent offenders due to continued offending.
  1. The idea of targeting prolific or persistent offending has, to a degree, been pursued in some areas in New Zealand. For example, a Police driven inter-agency initiative in Hamilton targeting prolific burglars achieved a 75% reduction in the number of burglaries in its first year of operation. While promising results have been achieved, there have been a variety of different approaches, varying degrees of service co-ordination and delivery, and differences in focus.
  1. In New Zealand, there are a number of national initiatives that focus on sub-groups of offenders (i.e. youth offending and family violence), as well as locally initiated, single-agency driven initiatives. However, there is currently no nationally co-ordinated, inter-agency approach targeting prolific or persistent offending
  1. Targeting pro-active interventions towards this group has been demonstrated internationally and nationally to reduce re-offending. It is proposed that a co-ordinated inter-agency approach should be developed in New Zealand, learning from successful projects such as the Prolific and Other Priority Offenders Strategy in England, and local initiatives, such as the Hot Families 'Breaking the Cycle' project in Canterbury, which led to the current development of the Top Ten Family Strategy in Christchurch.
  1. The long term impact of any initiative targeting prolific or persistent offenders is difficult to quantify at this time. However, by assisting prolific offenders to turn away from crime, it is anticipated that this project will directly impact upon prison bed numbers in the medium to long term, as well as reducing the pressure on other criminal justice resources (such as Court) and the rates of re-offending within the targeted group.

CURRENT INITIATIVES

The Tower Project - Blackpool England

  1. The Tower Project was a crime reduction initiative initiated in 2002 which pro-actively targeted persistent offenders who offended to support drug dependence. This project was subsequently subsumed into the nationally implemented Prolific and Other Priority Offenders Strategy.
  1. The following strategies were implemented:
  • persistent or prolific offenders were selected based upon their rate of re-offending (particularly in robberies, burglaries or auto crime), with computer settings heavily weighted for drug use
  • a multi-agency team was developed to approach the most persistent or prolific offenders and offer them immediate access to mainstream drug treatment and testing, housing, benefits and other support
  • participants were given the following option: "You can access all the necessary components for you to live a crime and drug free life, or if you refuse help and if there is intelligence that you are committing crime, police proactive activity will concentrate on you".
  1. A twelve month evaluation of the Tower Project found:
  • a 30% reduction in criminality amongst the selected group
  • no evidence of geographic displacement of crime.
  1. A Crime, Disorder and Drugs Audit in 2004 noted that evaluation of the Tower Project attributed at least 10% of the reduction in crime across town to the initiative.

The Prolific and Other Priority Offenders Strategy - National Implementation England and Wales

  1. It has been estimated that in England, out of a million offenders, 100,000 have three or more convictions. This 10% are responsible for 50% of the crime. The active offender population is not static - 20,000 people leave the pool every year and are replaced by another 20,000. The most prolific 5,000 offenders within this group are estimated to be responsible for nearly one in ten offences (or 9% of all crime).
  1. In response, the Prime Minister announced an end to end strategy to address this 'super prolific' group of offenders. The strategy targets prolific or persistent offenders in three ways.
  • Prevent and Deter - to stop people (overwhelmingly youth) engaging in offending, and graduating into prolific or persistent offenders.
  • Catch and Convict - actively tackling those who's offending is already prolific.
  • Rehabilitate and Resettle - working with, and offering a range of proactive interventions to identified prolific or persistent offenders. They will be offered the opportunity to accept rehabilitation, or face a swift return to the Court.
  1. Early findings released in 2005 demonstrate that at the six month mark there was a 10% reduction in recorded convictions within the first cohort compared to the six months prior to the start. Evaluation and follow up work is continuing in an attempt to disentangle the effects of the programme from other factors, with results yet to be published.

Hot Families 'Breaking the Cycle' and the Top Ten Family Strategy, Christchurch

  1. Local intelligence statistics in Canterbury identified a small percentage of offenders that were committing a disproportionate amount of crime. The majority of these offenders were persons linked as family groups.
  1. Concern over this finding led to the initiation of the Hot Families 'Breaking the Cycle' project. This project involved the collection of key information about these families, allowing the creation of family trees which detailed linkages between family members.
  1. This information provided increased surveillance and deterrence opportunities. At that time, the project remained a police initiative and did not have the involvement of wider government agencies.
  1. In February 2006, the Police presented the Hot Families 'Breaking the Cycle' project to the Canterbury Social Inter-agency Network (CSPIN) in order to gain wider government agency support.[3]
  1. A collaborative response was agreed to, and the Top Ten family strategy was proposed. This plan is intended to develop initiatives to respond specifically to the families identified by the Police in the Hot Families 'Breaking the Cycle' project who "have an historical and ongoing record of law breaking and social dysfunction, that have not noticeably responded in a positive way to support provided by Government agencies". To date, ten extended families have been identified, which contain a total of some 260 family members.
  1. This plan pursues a whole of government approach to improving outcomes for families, communities and agencies. Its aims are to:
  • reduce crime and victimisation
  • support family members, children and young people to 'break the cycle'
  • improve family wellbeing
  • deter family members from dominating and generating fear in their neighbourhood and communities
  • reduce the costs the families inflict on government agencies, victims and communities.
  1. This plan provides a way for agencies to prioritise and focus collaborative action through the reporting of information on family groups. Having only been initiated in the beginning of 2006, this strategy is still in the development stage and has yet to be implemented.

PROPOSAL

  1. I recommend that over the next 12 months, the Ministry of Justice and Police work collaboratively with CSPIN in further developing and refining the 'Top 10 Families' strategy to construct a robust initiative that addresses prolific or persistent offending. This will include the development of processes and protocols, undertaking initial intervention in a small target group, and the evaluation of preliminary outcomes.
  1. This proposal is based on the targeting and co-ordination of existing services and does not involve the development of new services.
  1. A number of processes and protocols have already been developed by CSPIN (such as an information sharing protocol) that can form the basis of a prolific and persistent offender initiative. However, a number of priority areas remain and will be further developed in the coming months. Some of these include:
  • the development of a working definition of prolific and persistent offending that will be applicable within a New Zealand setting
  • the development of an identification system for persistent or prolific offenders based on verifiable history of convictions and inter-agency information
  • establishing a protocol for individual and family needs analysis. This will provide a basis for identification of service needs
  • the formulation of an effective means of initiating and supervising the interventions, for example a 'family co-ordinator' approach versus agency oversight.
  1. CSPIN is still in a developmental stage and has not commenced any form of intervention. While further work will be undertaken in the coming months on the mechanisms and means by which this will occur, any final design will incorporate three key elements.

A. Targeted family based work

The aim is to reduce offending behaviour by addressing the root causes. This is based on the belief that action must take place at a family level. While the exact process requires further development, it is likely that this will occur by:

  1. identifying prolific or persistent offenders
  1. working with the individual and family to identify specific criminogenic and social needs of the individual, and ensuring targeted provision of services
  1. working with the individual and family to identify the needs of immediate family members, and any extended family members identified as being contributory to the individuals offending behaviour, and ensuring provision of services accordingly
  1. interventions and services that will be offered include (but is not limited to) substance abuse interventions, mental health assistance, parenting or relationships skills, anger management counselling housing needs, budgeting skills, employment or benefit concerns, work skills, literacy needs, and general health issues.

It is anticipated that providing family based services will be an incentive for change in the individual, impacting positively upon their offending behaviour. The identification of family members is not intended to infer criminality by association. By assisting families rather than individuals, we are able to:

  1. address the inter-generational effects of crime on offenders' families
  1. recognise the importance of family support in assisting individuals to break the cycle of offending and criminal behaviour.

B. A co-ordinated inter-agency approach

It is anticipated that prolific or persistent offenders will have multiple and complex needs. Currently little inter-agency co-ordination exists in response to this, and agencies providing services to these individuals tend to work in isolation. An uncoordinated approach is unlikely to significantly reduce offending behaviour (for example, finding employment will be of little benefit if an underlying drug dependency has not been resolved). It is envisaged that inter-agency co-ordination will be fostered by:

  1. regular inter-agency meetings to discuss and resolve issues, and update progress
  1. the maintenance of on-going communication between meetings
  1. ensuring the information sharing protocol meets the needs of the initiative while balancing individuals' rights.

Co-ordination between agencies will:

  1. reinforce the achievements of each agency
  1. co-ordinate and align systems, and minimise service overlap and duplication
  1. improve offenders' access to required interventions
  1. allow integration of intervention with existing service delivery. This is particularly important if the individual is subject to a mandated sentence (i.e. Supervision) to prevent conflict between approaches.

C. Achieving 'buy in'

Prolific or persistent offenders will not be mandated to take part and therefore voluntary take-up of service support may present as an issue. To achieve 'buy in', the client is offered:

  1. the means to access assistance and interventions
  1. the provision of support and assistance to immediate and wider family members
  1. pro-active support in achieving an offence free lifestyle
  1. the project will look to the family to assist the individual in making positive change.

These incentives may not be sufficiently motivating in all cases. Prolific and persistent offenders will be informed that continued offending is unacceptable, and offered pro-active support and assistance. However, they will also be told that if they continue to offend they will be the focus of close scrutiny and pro-active Police activity. If they are found to have re-offended, Police will act decisively in returning them swiftly to the criminal justice system

This approach is an extension of existing Police practice, rather than a new operational tactic. The aim is for identified individuals to take ownership of their actions. Additional action will not be taken against family members who decline to participate in order to avoid a net widening effect.

  1. Once processes and protocols are developed, intervention will commence in a small sub-set of the ten families identified by CSPIN, allowing preliminary analysis to take place near the end of the 12 month period. Even though intervention will be at the early stages at the time of evaluation, due to the frequency with which this group is offending, changes in behaviour should be noticeable within a short space of time.
  1. This process of development, initial intervention and preliminary analysis will provide the basis for an assessment on the likely effectiveness of the approach.
  1. The proposal for tackling persistent and prolific offending is regarded as a tertiary prevention level intervention under the Effective Intervention framework and is aimed at addressing factors that reduce recidivism. This proposal will also have ties to other cross government and community based work, such as the Ministry of Social Development's vulnerable families initiative. Justice and Police Officials will continue to work with agencies involved in these initiatives to ensure any learning is shared and the co-ordination of service provision for mutual clients is achieved.

IMPLEMENTATION TIMESCALE

  1. It is recommended that a three phased approach be utilised, beginning with the establishment of operational mechanisms and testing the proposed approach is 'fit for purpose' in a New Zealand context. This will provide a basis for the implementation of a broader programme and the opportunity for detailed evaluation. This, in turn, will allow investigation into the viability of a national initiative.

Phase One

  1. Phase one will require the Ministry of Justice and the NZ Police to work collaboratively with CSPIN in their existing Top Ten Family Strategy as detailed in the 'proposal' section.
  1. A limited budget has been identified from baseline Vote Justice and Vote Police budgets to assist the initiative to progress efficiently. Proposed resource use includes:
  • provision for dedicated Project Management
  • assistance in liaising with contributing Government agencies regarding the availability and consistency of service provision
  • ensuring preliminary project evaluation takes place
  • making arrangement for an advisor working on The Prolific and Other Priority Offenders Strategy in England to engage with the project, assisting and giving guidance to the proposal and its implementation.
  1. As it is currently in the development stage, the Top 10 Families Strategy lacks resources to provide dedicated services to the entire target group. Therefore, over the next 12 months, the project will draw on existing baseline service provision to meet the identified needs of sub-set of the ten families.
  1. At the conclusion of the 12 month period, preliminary analysis will take place to assess effectiveness.
  1. By providing resources to advance an existing plan, and targeting intervention at a sub-set of the ten families, costs are minimised, while allowing robust processes to be developed and preliminary outcomes obtained within the 12 month period.

Phase Two

  1. If preliminary outcomes from phase one are positive, phase two will be implemented. Phase two involves a New Initiative Bid for the 2008/09 Budget. If this bid is successful, it is proposed that a prolific offender project be developed in five sites across New Zealand (sites will be determined based on crime data, demographics, geography, scale and inter-agency consultation to reflect broader New Zealand). The programme will run for three years. This will enable full implementation as well as a two year recidivism study for those involved in year one delivery and a one year recidivism study for year two participants.

Phase Three

  1. Phase three involves rolling the initiative out nationally. If the evaluation results demonstrate significant impact at the five nominated sites following this three year period, a further Budget Bid will be put forward. If successful in this bid, the project can then be implemented nationally.

IMPLICATIONS FOR MĀORI AND PACIFIC PEOPLES

  1. The degree to which Māori and Pacific Peoples are represented in the prolific and persistent offender population is currently unclear. While further analysis will be conducted over the next 12 months, it is anticipated that the majority of identified prolific and persistent offenders will be Māori.
  1. A Ministry of Justice study found that Māori were significantly more likely than non-Māori to be both reconvicted (78% Māori versus 68% European and 66% Pacific Peoples) and re-imprisoned (43% Māori versus 31% European and 32% Pacific Peoples) within two years of their release from prison.
  1. Furthermore, all ten of the identified families in the Top 10 Families Strategy are Māori. While the demographics of identified prolific and persistent offenders are likely to be dependant on factors such as the geographic area being targeted, it is expected that Māori will be over-represented in this group.
  1. Any service delivery will need to ensure the needs of Māori (and Pacific Peoples) are met. A co-ordinated approach to the provision of services and targeted family based work would allow appropriate interventions to be accessed, where available and appropriate, and allow any identified barriers to be addressed, thereby improving the effectiveness of interventions and outcomes for Māori and Pacific peoples.
  1. The proposal for family based work as opposed to solely targeting the individual recognises the importance of family/whānau support within Māori and Pacific Peoples culture. It is anticipated that the proposed family based approach will have a positive impact on intergenerational crime, which will result in positive flow on effects as noted in point 34(A).
  1. The CSPIN group is committed to ensuring that the initiative will meet the needs of Māori. It will be the responsibility of all agencies represented in CSPIN and their national offices, with support from Te Puni Kokiri, to ensure that interventions meet the needs of Māori and enhance Māori ability to reach their potential while assisting them to address their needs and aspirations.

POTENTIAL RISKS

  1. A number of potential risks can be identified should this proposal be initiated. In designing a service response, means to mitigate these risks will be incorporated where possible. Identified risks include;
  • An increased impact on the criminal justice system
    In the short term, the targeting of non-compliant individuals could lead to increased arrest and imprisonment rates, placing pressure on the criminal justice system. It is the responsibility of CSPIN to minimise non-compliance through direct work with offenders and their families. The target group are high risk, with already high re-conviction and re-imprisonment rates. Therefore, with effective management of compliance, the impact on the criminal justice system will be minimised.
  • Failure to impact on offending rates
    At the end of the 12 month period, there is a possibility that the plan will fail to reduce offending in the target group. To mitigate this, we will monitor offending levels throughout the period of intervention, and modify approaches if this issue is noted. If, at the end of the 12 months, there is still evidence of a failure to impact on offending rates, I will return to cabinet with either an amended plan or a recommendation to terminate the project.
  • Encroaching on civil liberties
    As offenders will not be mandated to take part in this proposal, care will need to be taken that fairness and due care are maintained in the project's deliverables, and that privacy issues are maintained, as well as individual's and families human rights. This is a recognised need, and further work will be progressed prior to the commencement of any intervention to ensure a balancing of the rights and obligations of the individual, the family and the community.
  • High costs
    While the fiscal cost of offending is able to be quantified, the cost of resourcing this proposal is currently unknown. It is possible that the cost per individual and family will be high, depending on the degree of assistance required. However, a significant level of investment may be justifiable should the reduction in offending and other social costs be comparable. Intervention in the next 12 months will be undertaken using baseline resources. This will provide a tentative estimation of service delivery cost which will be included in the report back in August 2007. Should phase two be implemented, a more detailed cost benefit analysis will be able to be conducted.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

  1. This paper has no financial implications. The resource to further support the Top 10 Family Strategy in the next 12 months has been drawn from baseline Vote Justice and Vote Police budgets. Additionally, CSPIN agencies will direct baseline resources to advance required interventions. However, the proposal outlined in phase one is expected to lead to a New Initiative budget bid for the 2008/09 budget in order to fund the implementation of the programme to five locations and a national evaluation.

CONSULTATION

  1. Consultation has been undertaken with New Zealand Police, Ministry of Social Development, The Department of Corrections, Te Puni Kokiri, the Ministry of Pacific Island Affairs and the CSPIN group.
  1. The proposal recommends further development and refinement of an existing plan. This plan has existing cross-government support under the auspices of CSPIN. As processes and protocols are developed, consultation will be undertaken with a wide range of government and non-government organisations during phase one and again in advance of any proposed roll-out of the programme beyond the Canterbury region.

RECOMMENDATIONS

  1. The Minister of Justice and the Minister of Police recommends that the Committee:
  1. note that preliminary analysis conducted by the New Zealand Police indicates a small number of offenders are responsible for a disproportionate amount of crime.
  2. note that international projects targeting prolific or persistent populations have demonstrated value in focussing efforts and services towards this group.
  3. note that Cabinet directed the development of a co-ordinated, inter-agency initiative for tackling persistent or prolific offending, [CAB Min (06) 27/3A refers]
  4. agree that officials from the Ministry of Justice and Police undertake a phased implementation process involving firstly the refining and further development of the existing CSPIN initiative (phase one), secondly the development of an initiative across five sites, including evaluation, over three years (phase two) and finally consideration of a national roll-out (phase three).
  5. direct officials from Ministry of Justice and New Zealand Police (joint lead), in consultation other agencies as appropriate, to work collaboratively with the Canterbury Social Policy Inter-agency Network (CSPIN) to further develop and refine their existing Top Ten Family Strategy in order to address prolific or persistent offending.
  6. note that the first phase of this work, the collaborative work with CSPIN, is based on the targeting and co-ordination of existing services, and does not involve the development of new services.
  7. invite the Ministers of Justice and Police to report to Cabinet by 31 August 2007 on the preliminary outcomes of the collaborative work with CSPIN (phase one), and on the proposal for the implementation of the initiative across five sites nationally (phase two), including any financial implications.
Hon Mark Burton
Minister of Justice 		Hon Annette King
Minister of Police

Footnotes

1 Costs calculated by NZ Police on a Treasury established Costs of Crime model, reference; Roper, T & Thompson, A (2006), Estimating the Costs of Crime in New Zealand in 2003/2004, The Treasury: Wellington

2. Spier, P. (2002), Re-conviction and Re-imprisonment rates for released prisoners, Ministry of Justice, Wellington

3 This network has representatives from New Zealand Police, Statistics New Zealand, Department of Internal Affairs, Department of Corrections, Ministry of Education, Department of Child Youth and Family Services, Canterbury District Health Board, Ministry of Social Development, Housing New Zealand, Te Puni Kokiri, Ministry of Pacific Island Affairs, and Christchurch City Council