> KHIJk(l
(/0DArialngsRomanXXu0DTimes New RomanXXu0 DWingdingsRomanXXu0@.
@n?" dd@ @@``h,$#
!#"0AA@8#$ʚ;ʚ;g4mdmd<0ppp@<4dddd$k0Xu<4!d!d$l0X0___PPT10
pp___PPT9f^VnL+%㨹O3!`PNG
IHDRasRGBcPLTE!!!BBBkccsssRJJ911111)))便{{{RRRkkkZZZ֭skkB99cZZ999)!!7cmPPJCmp0712,JQtRNS0J`IDATnAaUh:te)Kܿ
gAcN2JmݛeGMU9^yW?{gMܤ`j{5nLIENDB`?
%H&!EPRINCIPLE OBJECTIVES OF THE PROBATION AND YOUTH JUSTICE RESEARCH UNITFFE uFoster and develop multidisciplinary research within the University between different departments and faculties, and in collaboration with other universities.
Seek to obtain research funding from government, public organisations in criminal justice, independent research trusts and for profit companies, and publish the results.
Increase the number of research students registered.
Contribute to the development of: evidence and intelligenceled practice, more effective interventions, improved policy making, and provide direct consultation to key agencies. Assist in providing greater public assurance and safety from crime. vZvu 3Two Recent Research Studies undertaken by the Unit443
1.Intensive Supervision and Surveillance Programme (ISSP) for Young Offenders for the Youth Justice Board (YJB) for England and Wales
2. Intensive Prolific Offenders Project (IRIS) for the Thames Valley Police
Both projects have involved the employment of fulltime research officers from a wide range of academic backgrounds, and the overall research design, analysis and writeup has been overseen by :
a senior group of academics from the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge including: three criminologists, one neurological and one behavioural psychologist, an adolescent psychiatrist, a physiologist specialising in learning handicaps, two educationalists, a criminal and human rights lawyer ,a social worker and an economist specialising in cost benefit analysis.$P3P The ISSP Research Study d
YJB commissioned a multidimensional evaluation of the first 41 schemes across England and Wales.
Three key national objectives:
to reduce the rate of reoffending in the target group of persistent and serious young offenders by 5%, and to reduce the seriousness of any reoffending.
To tackle underlying problems of the young people in an effective manner, with particular emphasis on education and training.
To demonstrate that supervision and surveillance is being undertaken consistently and rigorously, and in ways which will reassure sentencers and the community of their credibility and likely success.$PdPe.
; CONTINUED
DThe ISSP consisted of either six or twelve months of intensive supervision and electronic surveillance, either as part of a community sentence or after time in youth custody, requiring a minimum of 25 hours contact additional to school, training or work attendance.
The research involved a sample of 4,000 young people on ISSP, and a comparison group of over a 1,000 from non experimental locations, followed up for two years post sentence or release from custody ( a random allocation trial was proposed but the YJB considered it would be unacceptable to the general public)EZED )Key Findings from the ISSP Research Study**)
Targeting of 6 month ISSP cases was estimated to be reasonably accurate (7% netwidening ), but the 12 month cases attracted massive netwidening (42%) particularly from the Crown Court
( CONTINUED
:Young Offenders on ISSP were mostly very disadvantaged an damaged
Average age was 16.4 years, but average reading age was 10.5 years
Mean number of convicted offences in previous 12 months at liberty was 9.8 per offender, and 84% had already served a custody sentence
15% were currently of no fixed abode, a further 12% were in the local government care and 39% were on of the local at risk register
Of those of school attending age (under 17 years),78% were not receiving any type of formal education
12% had been diagnosed with a mental health condition, 18% reported deliberate selfharming in the previous 12 months, and 9% were known to have attempted suicideP
CONTINUED
K At least 37 out of 41 schemes struggled throughout to provide 25 hours of meaningful contact with the young people per week
Mean was 22 hours for 6 month ISSP cases
Mean was only 17 hours for 12 month ISSP cases
Major problems of service delivery were in relation to: accommodation, drug abuse treatment, and mental health issuesLLK CONTINUED
Surveillance largely involved electronic devices
66% were on electronic curfew tags for a minimum of 3 months
12% were subject to electronic voice verification
9% were on both forms of electronic systems
18% were humanly tracked only
41% were electronically monitored and humanly tracked
The research showed that only in monitoring with electronic and human contacts was there any positive benefits, and only in 9% of all casesP CONTINUED
Reoffending and reconviction
12 month reconviction rate was 89% and 24 month rate was 94%
Reductions in frequency of reoffending were 42% for community sentence and 35% for postcustody cases over 24 months
Reoffending gravity reduced by 15% for community cases and 12% for custody cases over 24 months
BUT matched comparison group cases showed slightly lower reconviction rate,lower reoffending frequency and lower reoffending gravity rates
CLEAR CASE OF REGRESSION TO THE MEAN
NOT EVIDENCE OF A TREATMENT EFFECT2"PPUP.
CONTINUED
Measurable impact on some underlying problems was more encouraging
Education and training engagement increased by 11%
Family and close relationships improved by 10%
Thinking and prosocial attitudes and activities improved by 9%
Accommodation situations improved in 8% of relevant cases
HOWEVER
Drug abuse reductions only occurred in 2% of relevant cases
Motivation to change and desist from reoffending occurred in 1%
In mental health case there was a 1% regression in treatment provision and health improvement.>HPP
PP
CONTINUED
s Completion and Termination Rates
Overall average completion rate was 45% across all cases
Over 80% of the young people were breached at some time on ISSP
20% were breached and ordered not to continue
19% were terminated early due to reoffending
17% were terminated early for reoffending and breaches
in 84% of cases who were terminated a custodial sentence was made$$PPPts
Costs of ISSP
The following data only applies to 6 month ISSP, 12 month case costs considerably more per head as there were few of them (250)
Mean cost per young offender per start was 12,500
Mean cost per person per completion was 32,000
At scheme level costs per start varied from 5,500 to 30,000 a person
At scheme level costs per completion varied from12,000 to 80,500
COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS SHOWED BIG NEGATIVE RATIOS ONLY 2 SCHEMES SHOWED SMALL AND LIMITED POSITIVE FINANCIAL OUTCOMES2PP{P
(Overview of ISSP Research Study Findings))(
Huge variations in the quality of the different ISSP schemes
Minority of schemes ( 9 at the most ) showed some significant effects on underlying problems and reoffending
Majority drowned out the achievements of the few to produce the overall discouraging results
Best schemes appeared to have: clear models for practice (e.g. MST, Multidimensional Advocacy), good leadership, well trained and enthusiastic staff, excellent collaboration with other local agencies (e.g. police, schools, employers, health services, accommodation providers, drug treatment agencies )
Worst schemes had confused managers, high staff turnover, poor facilities, nonexistent local collaborations with other key agencies$PP OVERVIEW CONTINUED ZTargeting Problems and confused objectives
Difficulties grew in defining persistent vs serious young offenders
Ensuring proportionality and Just desserts in sentencing
Negative labelling effects on many young person s selfidentity
Was reducing the young prison population the prime hidden agenda ?...T OVERVIEW CONTINUED Intensification of Community Controls on Young People
Net widening, mesh thinning and greater penetration in social control
Uptariffing by giving intrusive and demanding community penalties which young offenders cannot comply with and then go to custody
Unintended consequences on criminal careers of mixing together young offenders who have different levels and types of offending experience
Overemphasis on surveillance with no positive dimensions, viewed by young offenders as oppressive, negative and very punitive. Makes it a shaming experience with no reintegrative dimension ( al a Braithwaite)
Lost the proper balance between care, control, support, and coercion
Some staff became unintentionally collusive in work with young people, did not properly prosocially model (al a Trotter), and may have actually encourage deviance, noncompliance and ultimately further offending.
BUT DOES MORE MEAN MORE EFFECTIVE ? CERTAINLY NOT IN ISSP$zP?PB5 I 0 4Prolific Offender Projects (POPS) in England & Wales554
Since mid1990 s gradual development of POPs in more than a dozen Police Areas
Earliest projects and research were in Lancashire and Staffordshire
University of Oxford has done consultancy and research in six of them:
Northumbria, Greater Manchester, Nottinghamshire, Avon & Somerset,
West Midlands and Thames Valley.2ZZkZF.) .Key Characteristics of POPS in England & Wales//. D
Police led, but staffed with experienced police and probation officers, located in local police stations.
Local schemes using police and probation information for profiling and identification of most prolific local offenders
Fully compliant with human rights legislation and use these rights to inform offenders and others of their prolific offender status
Combine high levels of police and electronic monitoring with intensive onetoone supervision and other contacts (e.g. mobiles, police checks) by police and probation officers.
Enforce strict compliance with police and court orders, community sentence conditions, custody licences & parole, and electronic curfews $PP CONTINUED
Ensure increased probability of arrests and convictions for any reoffending via greater and more effective use of intelligenceled police practice, and agreed information sharing between agencies
Fasttracked prosecution into court, advanced sentencing hearings, swift enforcement of court and community sentence breaches, and rapid prisonrecalls escorted to prisons by police officers.
Provides immediate support and help to designated offenders in prison and outside to actively encourage desistance from crime, including :
accommodation support, financial management ( e.g. bank accounts),
education and jobtraining placement, family relationship support (e.g. partner support, child care support), faster access health care diagnosis and referral.
Rapid access to community and residential drug and alcohol treatment
Offenders once designated as prolific can only be taken off POP if they are crime free for 12 months at liberty0PPP 4 POPS concentrate on having Multiprofessional Teams554
Police officers are mostly experienced detectives with good local crime and community knowledge, probation officers are of at least five years experience in the local area. Teams usually include community drug specialists and other specialist civilians with strong local ties. Teams all operate in the same office and have knowledge of each other s cases .
Different team members use their own professional status to enforce orders and compliance, and to ensure good communication back with their own agencies or settings.$ZZ 0Other characteristics of POPS in England & Wales110 xLocal POP s have strong links and support from local legal professionals: judges, magistrates, court clerks, Crown Prosecution Service, and defence lawyers
Despite greatly increased levels of surveillance and monitoring there are very few complaints from designated offenders of harassment, due to strict human rights compliance in all dealings with them
Provides a classic form of carrot and stick model of offender management. If offenders continue to offend they are arrested more quickly and processed more rapidly. If they want to begin to desist from crime, the support from the police and key others is high quality, instantly available and well supported by other key agencies and officialsP. :Comparisons made of criminal careers of prolific offenders;;: x
Compared offenders in the IRIS cohort and the matched comparison sample, by analysing their known criminal record and the types of offences committed, their location and circumstances, whether they had led to a court conviction, or only had resulted in an arrest, and whether the offences had been later admitted to and brought before a court ( TIC d taken into consideration). Measured time by separate weeks at liberty, to be able to exclude periods in custody on remand or sentenced when they would have been incapacitated (i.e. could not offend in the community) =Z=.] '"OFFENDINGCOMPARISONS CONTINUED Examined their offending careers over the 24 months at liberty preIRIS against the 12 and 24 month periods at liberty since they commenced on IRIS, or for they same time period at liberty for the comparison group.
Constructed from police and probation records Individual Case Profiles with timelining week by week on different characteristics. These can be used for individual singlecase studies or for collective analysis.
First 20 offenders put on IRIS had in the 24 months at liberty preIRIS been convicted in courts of 269 offences (excluding road traffic offences) and had admitted to in court a further 384 separate offences.Z CONTINUED
The most commonly convicted offences were: robbery, aggravated and domestic burglary, thefts of and from cars, thefts from shops and persons, deception and fraud, serious motoring offences (e.g. death by dangerous driving, excess alcohol and/or drug use), assaults, woundings and criminal damage ( including arson ). Specialist Sex offenders were excluded from selection ,but some of the prolific offenders had recent convictions for sexual crimes, mainly against adult women. Z.
3Key Findings on IRIS in the First Year of Operation443 P
Statistically significant reductions on all measures used in analysis.
Frequency and gravity of known offending in IRIS cases had reduced, as had police intelligence reports of suspected offending.
Largest known offending reductions were for:
Robberies down 81%
All burglaries down 72%
Thefts of cars down 83%
Thefts from cars down 69%$PPPQP Continued Key Findings from IRIS!! Improvements occurred in compliance rates in the IRIS group even though there was far greater levels of surveillance, stop checks and supervision contacts of all kinds.
In IRIS the monthly at liberty known reoffending rates dropped from 2.1 per offender to 0.8 a 60% reduction
In the Comparison group the rate only fell from 2.1 to 1.9 a 5% reduction
In the IRIS group breaches of Court Bail reduced from 1.8 to 0.15 per offender per month at liberty, prison license and parole recalls fell from 0.45 to 0.25 per month, and curfew breaches dropped from 0.25 per month to 0.05
In the comparison group over the same time period the overall noncompliance rate actually slightly increased from 0.26 to 0.33 per offender per month a rise of 42%.Z 2Cost Benefit of IRIS: Key Findings After 12 Months332 J
Full running costs for first 20 offenders were 10, 250 per offender
Costs of known offences to victims and health services was preIRIS 2,500 per offender per month at liberty
Post IRIS reduced to 790 per offender a 67% reduction
Costs of known offences for police activity only reduced from 450 per offender per month at liberty pre IRIS, to 150 per offender per month post IRIS.
A 66% reduction produced local police activity savings for 20 offenders of over 65,000 in one year, the equivalent of employing two new police officers $P%P&$ .Cost Benefit Analysis : Continued Key Findings//. Savings in the first 12 months from the full economic costs of offences committed by only the first 20 offenders on IRIS were :
over 4,000 per offender per year at liberty
The full Cost Benefit Ratio was 1.35 for full running and setup costs against all the known offence reduction savings.
The Cost Benefit Ratio was 0.60 of full running and setup costs, when only benefits to victims and health services are included in calculations.0Z0Z
Z CInitial Conclusions from some aspects of the IRIS Research FindingsDDC
IRIS and other POPS targeting local prolific offenders are proving popular with local people, and are being embraced by police and probation areas for several reasons.
They are tough on crime involving known local prolific offenders. These typically are only 79% of the known offenders but commonly account for over 90% of the known local crimes, and also commit a disproportionate number of the most grave offences, including homicides, serious asaults, arsons, aggravated burglaries and car thefts, and armed robberies. They were measurably arrested more quickly and prosecuted
more successfully ( fewer acquittals), and sentenced more swiftly.
This type of humane toughness is cost effective in the use of scarce police resources. They make a significant contribution to reducing local crime rates and meeting police targets for crime reduction of key offence types. The projects stick at individual offenders until the stop offending, so they keep some individuals on their books for years and years.
The police officers do not become social workers, they retain their detecting and interrogation skills, but they gain new sources of intelligence information. Offenders who resist can be shown to have reduced the frequency and seriousness of their continued offending. >PPIPwP
V ~ !0Overview of the Conclusions from POPS Research 110
They do something positive to help offenders to desist and actually direct contribute to reducing reoffending, and making offenders to become useful citizens. Offenders welcome the real support and practical help they get. The multiprofessional teams are really effective if the offender is motivated to change, and can offer rapid and meaningful assistance with such strong local police backing.
They are actually tough on persistent criminals: 9% of offenders commit over 90% of known crimes and account for a disproportional number of the most serious offences. They arrest quickly and process and sentence more swiftly, and save the police and other criminal justice agencies money.
They provide what we know the public wants: crime reduction and less fear of being a victim, but also direct offender supervision which puts them on the straight and narrow . They help the police to do a difficult job better, probation to be more effective and other agencies to meet their objectives with a hard to reach group of clients.
They appear to produce some win, win outcomes police, probation, other agencies and the public.$PkPlk "FConcluding Comments on Multiprofessional Research in Criminal JusticeGGF
A Multi professional research consortium has the potential to contribute in different way
It has all the advantages of intellectual cooperation:
Wider base of publications, journals and interdisciplinary books,
Wider range of theoretical and methodological techniques and approaches
Sharing expertise and wider knowledge, and greater evidencebased
Knowledge and evidence development:
Practical expertise transfer from different disciplines
Policy implications arising from multidimensional approaches
Improved theoretical models to assist in better practice and policy making
It can achieve an overall widening and improvement of services to contracted clients and funding bodies.
Improves chances of renewed contracts and wider range of and stability on contracted work for research staff and research students ( Masters and Doctorates)
Contributes to improved offender management and crime reduction
Helps ensure better services to victims and reduced victimisation,
Assists in managing and delivering more efficient and effective criminal justice agencies,
Most importantly it can help deliver greater public assurance and safety$uPP<z # B 0` z` ff[[ffRR` py``Ӣ` ´vy` hk][^ROQGTП` N]1FS+BO)33` vs3db3` f` r3>?" dd@,?ldd@ n2 ld@n2`ld n?" dd@ @@``PR @ ` `6p>>ʚސB(
dT 8q
"8q
#lA]
T˓?y@?
"
>
#l
ϓ?y@?
"gm
>
#lғ?y@?
"
>
#lcCՓ?y@?
"
>
#lp%ٓ?y@?
"u
{
>
#lmݓ?y@?
"
>
#lP?y@?
"
>
3rD?yd@?
"GBM
>
3r&?yd@?
"[
>
3r?yd@?
"*.
>
3ry?yd@?
"9
?
>
3r0t?vyd@?
" A"G
>
3rH?Myd@?
"'p+v
>
3r(n[?yd@?
"y
q
>
3r&a?yd@?
"
>
3rDC?yd@?
"OD
>
#lݤC?yd@?
"n8 >
>
3r0C?yd@?
":D
hJ
>
3r
C?yd@?
"[(O
.
>
3rl tC?yd@?
"R
X
>
#lYXC?yd@?
"(
>
#lEfxC?d@?
"Q
W
>
3rC?yd@?
"P
>
#lwC?yd@?
"v
>
#l;C?yd@?
"P.4
>
#lA<`$C?yd@?
"
>
#l^'C?yd@?
"ag
>
3re]X+C?yd@?
"
>
3rwbC?yd@?
"r
>
3rZX1C?yd@?
"c
>
!
3rR4C?yd@?
"4:
>
"
3r(Th8C?yd@?
"Rg
*m
> 2
#
`?yd@?
"
2
$
`?yd@?
"a2
%
`?yd@?
"Dc2
&
`?yd@?
"e
2
'
`?yd@?
"oc2
(
`?yd@?
")22
)
`?yd@?
"p2
*
`?yd@?
"o`
2
+
`?yd@?
"R
0
2
,
`?yd@?
"a
2

`?yd@?
"v
S 2
.
`?yd@?
"jT 2
/
`?yd@?
"
BI 2
0
`?yd@?
"
j}2
1
`?yd@?
" =2
2
`?yd@?
"
hH2
3
`?yd@?
"x02
4
`?yd@?
"S
12
5
`?yd@?
"pX2
6
`?yd@?
"! 2
7
`?yd@?
"G)2
8
`?yd@?
"t2
9
`?yd@?
" O 2
:
`?yd@?
"<2
;
`?yd@?
"vH2
<
`?yd@?
"x\2
=
Z?yd@?
" F2
>
`?yd@?
"oq2
?
`?yd@?
"
82
@
`?yd@?
"\92
A
Z?yd@?
"Dv2
B
`?yd@?
"2
C
Z?yd@?
"GB2
D
Z?yd@?
"qm2
E
`?yd@?
" ;P 2
F
`?yd@?
".2
G
`?yd@?
"
2
H
`?yd@?
" 
'2
I
Z?yd@?
",2
J
Z?yd@?
"?Nq2
K
`?yd@?
"i2
L
`?yd@?
"E;n2
M
Z?yd@?
"2
N
Z?yd@?
"V2
O
`?yd@?
"'2
P
`?yd@?
") A s2
Q
`?yd@?
"
2
R
Z?yd@?
"&2
S
Z?yd@?
"=jo2
T
Z?yd@?
"_2
U
Z?yd@?
"2
V
Z?yd@?
"G;m2
W
Z?yd@?
"2
X
`?yd@?
"B
2
Y
`?yd@?
"}
?
q2
Z
`?yd@?
"C2
[
`?yd@?
"2
\
`?yd@?
"=2
]
`?yd@?
"Hvz2
^
`?yd@?
"E2
_
`?yd@?
"2
`
`?yd@?
"] q2
a
`?yd@?
",
3
2
b
`?yd@?
"[l
2
c
`?yd@?
" F
2
d
`?yd@?
"
2
e
`?yd@?
"
>G 2
f
`?yd@?
"&2
g
`?yd@?
"n/2
h
`?yd@?
"Pj2
i
`?yd@?
"sB2
j
`?yd@?
"2
k
`?yd@?
"5Cu2
l
`?yd@?
"C2
m
`?yd@?
"B2
n
`?yd@?
"k2
o
Z?yd@?
"F
2
p
`?yd@?
"V2
q
Z?yd@?
"P>2
r
Z?yd@?
"<2
s
Z?yd@?
" X 2
t
Z?yd@?
"m 2
u
Z?yd@?
"/72
v
Z?yd@?
"# 2
w
Z?yd@?
"U2
x
Z?yd@?
"c72
y
Z?yd@?
"1N2
z
Z?yd@?
"2
{
`?yd@?
"U$2

`?yd@?
"72
}
`?yd@?
"Ly2
~
Z?yd@?
"
L
y2
Z?yd@?
"$2
Z?yd@?
"v
U
2
Z?yd@?
"+B2
Z?yd@?
"=2
Z?yd@?
"@)2
Z?yd@?
";Fs2
Z?yd@?
"2
Z?yd@?
"{$Q2
Z?yd@?
"nG2
Z?yd@?
"`'T2
`?yd@?
"#12
Z?yd@?
"
2
Z?yd@?
"c
2
Z?yd@?
"fX2
Z?yd@?
"\ H2
Z?yd@?
"
@2
Z?yd@?
"`
;2
Z?yd@?
" 4
2
Z?yd@?
"M y2
Z?yd@?
"\2
Z?yd@?
"SLy2
Z?yd@?
"2
Z?yd@?
"J:w2
Z?yd@?
"/ 62
Z?yd@?
"c?l2
Z?yd@?
"i2
Z?yd@?
"~2
Z?yd@?
""X2
Z?yd@?
":2
Z?yd@?
"ma2
Z?yd@?
"k2
Z?yd@?
"2
Z?yd@?
"
2
Z?yd@?
"L"x2
Z?yd@?
"w L2
`?yd@?
"Z2
`?yd@?
"=2
`?yd@?
"02
`?yd@?
"D2
`?yd@?
" u 2
`?yd@?
")
2
Z?yd@?
"2
`?yd@?
" x
2
Z?yd@?
"#:2
Z?yd@?
">2
`?yd@?
"V2
`?yd@?
"?2
`?yd@?
"e2
`?yd@?
"r8Z2
`?yd@?
"~e2
`?yd@?
"2
`?yd@?
"y2
`?yd@?
"^2
`?yd@?
"42
`?yd@?
"$2
`?yd@?
" W`
2
`?yd@?
"1N
2
`?yd@?
"
@{2
`?yd@?
"L1
2
`?yd@?
"a
2
`?yd@?
"
2
`?yd@?
"
mR 2
`?yd@?
"h/2
`?yd@?
"r@2
`?yd@?
"2
`?yd@?
"L2
`?yd@?
")2
`?yd@?
"N2
Ð
`?yd@?
"$2
Đ
`?yd@?
#" {
Q2
Ő
`?yd@?
#" Cm2
Ɛ
`?dyd@?
#" yn2
ǐ
`?dyd@?
#" O:2
Ȑ
`?yd@?
#" D
=
2
ɐ
`?yd@?
#" EN2
ʐ
`?dyd@?
#" Z
[
2
ː
`?yd@?
#" 9e2
̐
`?yd@?
#" ,U2
͐
`?dyd@?
#" y?2
ΐ
`?yd@?
#" q
@
2
ϐ
`?yd@?
#" f
2
А
`?yd@?
#" DM2
ѐ
`?yd@?
#" )
S 2
Ґ
`?yd@?
#" L2
Ӑ
`?yd@?
#" M2
Ԑ
`?yd@?
#" 9P2
Ր
`?yd@?
#" x
2
`?yd@?
"1U2
א
`?yd@?
"
2
ؐ
Z?yd@?
"a2
ِ
`?dyd@?
#"
ڐ
6rC #"`] `}C
B*
ې
6PxC #"`] `}C
@*
ܐ
6C #"`]} C
B*$
ݐ
08C " `C
RClick to edit Master text styles
Second level
Third level
Fourth level
Fifth level!
S
ސ
6LC " `}C
T Click to edit Master title style!
!`
Hvydh@ ? ff[[ffRR<0___PPT10.
0)___PPT9BpBB Digital Dotsٚ 0IA@ޔ(
$T 8q
":p
#lA]
L_?y@?
"
<
#l
hnG?y@?
"gm
<
#lqG?y@?
"
<
#lcC@uG?y@?
"
<
#lp%_?y@?
"u
{
<
#lm$_?y@?
"
<
#ld_?y@?
"
<
3rD_?yd@?
"GBM
<
3r&_?yd@?
"[
<
3r}?yd@?
"*.
<
3ry}?yd@?
"9
?
<
3r0l}?vyd@?
" A"G
<
3r}?Myd@?
"'p+v
<
3r(n[,}?yd@?
"y
q
<
3r&a}?yd@?
"
<
3r}?yd@?
"OD
<
#lݤL}?yd@?
"n8 >
<
3r0}?yd@?
":D
hJ
<
3r
}?yd@?
"[(O
.
<
3rl l#}?yd@?
"R
X
<
#lY&}?yd@?
"(
<
#lEfx,*}?d@?
"Q
W
<
3r}?yd@?
"P
<
#lw0}?yd@?
"v
<
#l;L4}?yd@?
"P.4
<
#lA<7}?yd@?
"
<
#l^;}?yd@?
"ag
<
3re]l>}?yd@?
"
<
3rwbA}?yd@?
"r
<
3rZ,E}?yd@?
"c
<
!
3rRH}?yd@?
"4:
<
"
3r(TK}?yd@?
"Rg
*m
< 2
#
`?yd@?
"
2
$
`?yd@?
"a2
%
`?yd@?
"Dc2
&
`?yd@?
"e
2
'
`?yd@?
"oc2
(
`?yd@?
")22
)
`?yd@?
"p2
*
`?yd@?
"o`
2
+
`?yd@?
"R
0
2
,
`?yd@?
"a
2

`?yd@?
"v
S 2
.
`?yd@?
"jT 2
/
`?yd@?
"
BI 2
0
`?yd@?
"
j}2
1
`?yd@?
" =2
2
`?yd@?
"
hH2
3
`?yd@?
"x02
4
`?yd@?
"S
12
5
`?yd@?
"pX2
6
`?yd@?
"! 2
7
`?yd@?
"G)2
8
`?yd@?
"t2
9
`?yd@?
" O 2
:
`?yd@?
"<2
;
`?yd@?
"vH2
<
`?yd@?
"x\2
=
Z?yd@?
" F2
>
`?yd@?
"oq2
?
`?yd@?
"
82
@
`?yd@?
"\92
A
Z?yd@?
"Dv2
B
`?yd@?
"2
C
Z?yd@?
"GB2
D
Z?yd@?
"qm2
E
`?yd@?
" ;P 2
F
`?yd@?
".2
G
`?yd@?
"
2
H
`?yd@?
" 
'2
I
Z?yd@?
",2
J
Z?yd@?
"?Nq2
K
`?yd@?
"i2
L
`?yd@?
"E;n2
M
Z?yd@?
"2
N
Z?yd@?
"V2
O
`?yd@?
"'2
P
`?yd@?
") A s2
Q
`?yd@?
"
2
R
Z?yd@?
"&2
S
Z?yd@?
"=jo2
T
Z?yd@?
"_2
U
Z?yd@?
"2
V
Z?yd@?
"G;m2
W
Z?yd@?
"2
X
`?yd@?
"B
2
Y
`?yd@?
"}
?
q2
Z
`?yd@?
"C2
[
`?yd@?
"2
\
`?yd@?
"=2
]
`?yd@?
"Hvz2
^
`?yd@?
"E2
_
`?yd@?
"2
`
`?yd@?
"] q2
a
`?yd@?
",
3
2
b
`?yd@?
"[l
2
c
`?yd@?
" F
2
d
`?yd@?
"
2
e
`?yd@?
"
>G 2
f
`?yd@?
"&2
g
`?yd@?
"n/2
h
`?yd@?
"Pj2
i
`?yd@?
"sB2
j
`?yd@?
"2
k
`?yd@?
"5Cu2
l
`?yd@?
"C2
m
`?yd@?
"B2
n
`?yd@?
"k2
o
Z?yd@?
"F
2
p
`?yd@?
"V2
q
Z?yd@?
"P>2
r
Z?yd@?
"<2
s
Z?yd@?
" X 2
t
Z?yd@?
"m 2
u
Z?yd@?
"/72
v
Z?yd@?
"# 2
w
Z?yd@?
"U2
x
Z?yd@?
"c72
y
Z?yd@?
"1N2
z
Z?yd@?
"2
{
`?yd@?
"U$2

`?yd@?
"72
}
`?yd@?
"Ly2
~
Z?yd@?
"
L
y2
Z?yd@?
"$2
Z?yd@?
"v
U
2
Z?yd@?
"+B2
Z?yd@?
"=2
Z?yd@?
"@)2
Z?yd@?
";Fs2
Z?yd@?
"2
Z?yd@?
"{$Q2
Z?yd@?
"nG2
Z?yd@?
"`'T2
`?yd@?
"#12
Z?yd@?
"
2
Z?yd@?
"c
2
Z?yd@?
"fX2
Z?yd@?
"\ H2
Z?yd@?
"
@2
Z?yd@?
"`
;2
Z?yd@?
" 4
2
Z?yd@?
"M y2
Z?yd@?
"\2
Z?yd@?
"SLy2
Z?yd@?
"2
Z?yd@?
"J:w2
Z?yd@?
"/ 62
Z?yd@?
"c?l2
Z?yd@?
"i2
Z?yd@?
"~2
Z?yd@?
""X2
Z?yd@?
":2
Z?yd@?
"ma2
Z?yd@?
"k2
Z?yd@?
"2
Z?yd@?
"
2
Z?yd@?
"L"x2
Z?yd@?
"w L2
`?yd@?
"Z2
`?yd@?
"=2
`?yd@?
"02
`?yd@?
"D2
`?yd@?
" u 2
`?yd@?
")
2
Z?yd@?
"2
`?yd@?
" x
2
Z?yd@?
"#:2
Z?yd@?
">2
`?yd@?
"V2
`?yd@?
"?2
`?yd@?
"e2
`?yd@?
"r8Z2
`?yd@?
"~e2
`?yd@?
"2
`?yd@?
"y2
`?yd@?
"^2
`?yd@?
"42
`?yd@?
"$2
`?yd@?
" W`
2
`?yd@?
"1N
2
`?yd@?
"
@{2
`?yd@?
"L1
2
`?yd@?
"a
2
`?yd@?
"
2
`?yd@?
"
mR 2
`?yd@?
"h/2
`?yd@?
"r@2
`?yd@?
"2
`?yd@?
"L2
`?yd@?
")2
`?yd@?
"N2
Ô
`?yd@?
"$2
Ĕ
`?yd@?
#" {
Q2
Ŕ
`?yd@?
#" Cm2
Ɣ
`?dyd@?
#" yn2
ǔ
`?dyd@?
#" O:2
Ȕ
`?yd@?
#" D
=
2
ɔ
`?yd@?
#" EN2
ʔ
`?dyd@?
#" Z
[
2
˔
`?yd@?
#" 9e2
̔
`?yd@?
#" ,U2
͔
`?dyd@?
#" y?2
Δ
`?yd@?
#" q
@
2
ϔ
`?yd@?
#" f
2
Д
`?yd@?
#" DM2
є
`?yd@?
#" )
S 2
Ҕ
`?yd@?
#" L2
Ӕ
`?yd@?
#" M2
Ԕ
`?yd@?
#" 9P2
Ք
`?yd@?
#" x
2
֔
`?yd@?
"1U2
ה
`?yd@?
"
2
ؔ
Z?yd@?
"a2
ٔ
`?dyd@?
#"
ڔ
<X} "}
T Click to edit Master title style!
!
۔
08} " `
}
W#Click to edit Master subtitle style$
$
ܔ
6܋} #"`] `}}
@*
ݔ
6} #"`` }
B*
ޔ
6} #"`] `}}
B*`
Hydh@ ? ff[[ffRR80___PPT10.
0)h0(
0} =9
R*
0} v 9
T*
6l} 2=k }
R*
6xs 2v k
T* H
0g ? 3380___PPT10.
00(
O
<CGq
University of Oxford
Centre for Criminology
Probation & Youth Justice Research Unit
MANAGING PERSISTENT ANDSERIOUS OFFENDERS IN THECOMMUNITY
Dr Colin Roberts,
Professor of Criminology & Penology
31st October 2006
Monash Law Chambers
Melbourne
&
? < # H
0h ? 33___PPT10i.(Ф+D=' 7=
@B +$
0P$(
r
S8Gސ `}
G
r
SGݐ `G
H
0h ? ff[[ffRR80___PPT10.0dA~
0`*(
r
StGސ `}
G
x
c$LGݐ `G
H
0h ? 33___PPT10i.(@+D=' 7=
@B +
0p*(
r
SGސ `}
G
x
c$xGݐ `G
H
0h ? 33___PPT10i.(5+D=' 7=
@B +
0*(
r
S@^ސ `}
^
x
c$^ݐ `^
H
0h ? 33___PPT10i.)+D=' 7=
@B +
0 *(
r
S^ސ `}
^
x
c$^ݐ `^
H
0h ? 33___PPT10i.)PA*+D=' 7=
@B +
0$*(
$r
$ S!^ސ `}
^
x
$ c$$^ݐ `^
H
$0h ? 33___PPT10i.)P;+D=' 7=
@B +
0(*(
(r
( S5^ސ `}
^
x
( c$6^ݐ `^
H
(0h ? 33___PPT10i.)`+D=' 7=
@B +
0,*(
,r
, SE^ސ `}
^
x
, c$F^ݐ `^
H
,0h ? 33___PPT10i.)Tn+D=' 7=
@B +
00*(
0r
0 SV^ސ `}
^
x
0 c$W^ݐ `^
H
00h ? 33___PPT10i.)+D=' 7=
@B +
04*(
4r
4 Sg^ސ `}
^
x
4 c$h^ݐ `^
H
40h ? 33___PPT10i.)+D=' 7=
@B +
08*(
8r
8 Sx^ސ `}
^
x
8 c$y^ݐ `^
H
80h ? 33___PPT10i.)K+D=' 7=
@B +
0<*(
<r
< S^ސ `}
^
x
< c$^ݐ `^
H
<0h ? 33___PPT10i.)Pl+D=' 7=
@B +
0@*(
@r
@ S^ސ `}
^
x
@ c$^ݐ `^
H
@0h ? 33___PPT10i.*`(+D=' 7=
@B +
0 D@(
Dr
D S^ސ `}
^
D c$^ݐ `^
"p`PpH
D0h ? 33___PPT10i.*85+D=' 7=
@B +
00H@(
Hr
H SL^ސ `}
^
H c$^ݐ `^
"p`PpH
H0h ? 33___PPT10i.*G+D=' 7=
@B +
0@L*(
Lr
L S^ސ `}
^
x
L c$^ݐ `^
H
L0h ? 33___PPT10i.*Z+D=' 7=
@B +
0PP*(
Pr
P S^ސ `}
^
x
P c$^ݐ `^
H
P0h ? 33___PPT10i.*g+D=' 7=
@B +
0`T*(
Tr
T S^ސ `}
^
x
T c$^ݐ `^
H
T0h ? 33___PPT10i.*`Yw+D=' 7=
@B +
0pX*(
Xr
X SP_ސ `}
_
x
X c$_ݐ `_
H
X0h ? 33___PPT10i.*^+D=' 7=
@B +
0\*(
\r
\ SD_ސ `}
_
x
\ c$_ݐ `_
H
\0h ? 33___PPT10i.*+D=' 7=
@B +
0 `*(
`r
` SP+_ސ `}
_
x
` c$(,_ݐ `_
H
`0h ? 33___PPT10i.*W)+D=' 7=
@B +$
0$(
r
S;_ސ `}
_
r
S<_ݐ `_
H
0h ? ff[[ffRR80___PPT10.xG#
0h*(
hr
h SK_ސ `}
_
x
h c$tL_ݐ `_
H
h0h ? 33___PPT10i.* G+D=' 7=
@B +
0l*(
lr
l S\_ސ `}
_
x
l c$`]_ݐ `_
H
l0h ? 33___PPT10i.*z+D=' 7=
@B +
0x*(
xr
x Si_ސ `}
_
x
x c$j_ݐ `_
H
x0h ? 33___PPT10i.++I9+D=' 7=
@B +
0*(
r
 St_ސ `}
_
x
 c$._ݐ `_
H
0h ? 33___PPT10i.+D+D=' 7=
@B +
0*(
r
S_ސ `}
_
x
c$hRFݐ `_
H
0h ? 33___PPT10i.+P+D=' 7=
@B +
0*(
r
S_ސ `}
_
x
c$_ݐ `_
H
0h ? 33___PPT10i.+Z+D=' 7=
@B +
0*(
r
St_ސ `}
_
x
c$L_ݐ `_
H
0h ? 33___PPT10i.+i+D=' 7=
@B +
0*(
r
S_ސ `}
_
x
c$_ݐ `_
H
0h ? 33___PPT10i.+t+D=' 7=
@B +r@"8NdzGs Vl
#s)&0*(1Oh+'0Thp
$Slide 1c.h.robertsDigital DotsRichard Dean Huysmans19Microsoft PowerPoint@zv@Ыq(@XGSg )' """)))UUUMMMBBB999PP3f333f3333f3ffffff3f̙3ff333f333333333f33333333f33f3ff3f3f3f3333f33̙33333f333333f3333f3ffffff3f33ff3f3f3f3fff3ffffffffff3ffff̙fff3fffff3fff333f3f3ff3ff33f̙̙3̙ff̙̙̙3f̙3f333f3333f3ffffff3f̙3f3f3f333f3333f3ffffff3f̙3f3ffffffffff!___www4'A x(xKʦ""")))UUUMMMBBB999PP3f3333f333ff3fffff3f3f̙f3333f3333333333f3333333f3f33ff3f3f3f3333f3333333f3̙33333f333ff3ffffff3f33f3ff3f3f3ffff3fffffffff3fffffff3f̙ffff3ff333f3ff33fff33f3ff̙3f3f3333f333ff3fffff̙̙3̙f̙̙̙3f̙3f3f3333f333ff3fffff3f3f̙3ffffffffff!___wwwfmfmfmfmfmfmfmfmfffmfmfmfffmfffmfffmfffmffffffffCfffCfffCfffCfffCfCfCfCfCfCfCfCfCfCfCfCfCfCfCfCfCfCfCfCfCfCfCfCfCfCfCfCfCfCfCfCf?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{}~
!"#$%&'()*+,./012345679:;<=>?ABCDEFGLRoot EntrydO)Current User@SummaryInformation(
UPowerPoint Document(~DocumentSummaryInformation88