Faculty Forum   Centre for Public Health - PowerPoint Presentation

Slide1

Faculty Forum

 

Centre for Public HealthCriminal Justice Monitoring and Research

Presentation to the Police Knowledge Fund Project

Gordon Hay, Kevin Cuddy, Jane

Oyston

& Simon Russell

www.cph.org.uk

9

th

December 2015

Slide2

Introduce the Centre for Public HealthFocus on Criminal Justice workHow monitoring and research can contribute to decision-making processes and practicesDiscussion at endQuestions during presentationObjectives

Slide3

Centre for Public Health

Slide4

Research in the OPCC priority areas Supporting victimsProtecting vulnerable peopleResearch in the Merseyside Police priority areasChild exploitationMonitoring and surveillanceDIP, TIIGResearchAlcohol (street drinking, licensing)DrugsViolence

Structure of presentation

Slide5

Making WAVES Encourage victims and witness to report crimes and access supportEvaluation of pilot projectsCase studiesHate crimeDomestic violenceAnti-social behaviourGang-related crimeMulti-agency, including…

Support for Victims

Slide6

Liverpool Women’s Turnaround ProjectFemale onlyLiverpool and KnowsleyInvolved or at risk of becoming involved in offendingObjectivesReduce offending, prison, family breakdownImprove wellbeing, empower womenEvaluationData MonitoringService Delivery

Vulnerable People

Slide7

Programme of work on ‘Adverse Childhood Experiences’Links with the Liverpool Safeguarding Children Board (LSCB)Student dissertations‘County Lines’Young people exploited when developing new drug marketsChild Exploitation

Slide8

Slide9

Partner organisationLearning and ImpactDeliver training and developing resources7 minute briefingsStudent dissertationsChild Sexual ExploitationLiverpool Safeguarding Children Board

Slide10

Indecent Images of Children Offenders: Development and Change M.Sc. Investigative and Forensic Psychology, University of LiverpoolDissertation completed with Kent PoliceJane Oyston j.e.oyston@ljmu.ac.uk

Slide11

Sequential PathwaysCriminal career: the examination of the series of offences within an offender’s criminal history (Farrington, 1992).Escalation – increases in frequency and seriousness.Oscillation – fluctuates in levels of seriousness.Flat-lining / Maintenance – same level of seriousness.De-escalation – decreases in frequency and seriousness.

Slide12

Data Collection / MethodologyPolice case files examined to collect and code data.Content analysis used to code data.Coding dictionary used to record data.Temporal information was recorded where found.Group split into contact and non-contact offenders. Compare behavioural and socio-demographic factors.

Slide13

LiteratureMcManus, M., Long, M., Alison, L. & Almond, L. Factors associated with contact child sexual abuse in a sample of indecent image offenders. (2014) Journal of Sexual Aggression.Long, M. L., Alison, L. A., & McManus, M. A. (2013). Child pornography and likelihood of contact abuse: A comparison between contact child sexual offenders and non-contact offenders. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 25, 370–395

Slide14

Decision Making and Risk Assessment of Child Sexual ExploitationComparisons between offender groups.Examination of victim demographics and interactions.Examining previous cases.

Slide15

DIP and its application in ResearchKevin CuddyDIP ResearcherCentre for Public Health

Slide16

Drug Use & OffendingWealth of research that drug users commit more crime under the influence of drugs than when notLink between drug use and acquisitive crime is well established – almost half of those arrested in England for acquisitive crime test positiveAnnual cost of drug related crime is £13.9bn

Slide17

DIPThe Drug Interventions Programme (DIP) was set up in 2003 ostensibly to break this link between drugs and crime and minimise the harm caused to both individuals and society as a whole by directing drug misusers into treatmentEvidence to suggest that drug treatment impacts favourably on levels of offending – NTA estimate 4.9m crimes prevented nationally in 2011 with a saving of £960m to societyMulti-agency integrated approach key to its success – partners include criminal justice agencies, treatment providers, government departments and Drug (& Alcohol) Action Teams

Slide18

CPH Data SetMonthly data from the 4 custody suites in Merseyside where drug testing is carried out: Demographic dataResult of TestTime of TestOffence committed

Slide19

Routine Data OutputsMonth

(2013/14)

Total Tests Attempted

Total Successfully Tested

1

Individuals Successfully

Tested

Total Positive Tests

2

Individuals Testing Positive

Required Assessments (RA) Served

3

Individuals Testing Positive – Test result confirmed – RA Served

4

Sep 13

463

(33 non-trigger)

452

429

210

(130 C, 55 B, 25 O)

199

191

178

Oct 13

539

(50 non-trigger)

534

499

257

(141 C, 73 B, 43 O)

237

230

212

Nov 13

416

(53 non-trigger)

410

390

190

(116 C, 58 B, 16 O)

177

174

164

Dec 13

459

(91 non-trigger)

433

420

197

(111 C, 57 B, 29 O)

191

186

174

Jan 14

440

(78 non-trigger)

418

406

174

(95 C, 61 B, 18 O)

171

166

156

Feb 14

476

(61 non-trigger)

449

436

199

(109 C, 64 B, 26 O)

192

189

183

Mar 14

509

(60 non-trigger)

498

477

247

(132 C, 80 B, 35 O)

239

237

220

Apr 14

445

(51 non-trigger)

436

415

229

(131 C, 82 B, 16 O)

219

217

212

May 14

414

(57 non-trigger)

408

390

191

(100 C, 71 B, 20 O)

180

175

168

Jun 14

425

(61 non-trigger)

412

391

226

(108 C, 92 B, 26 O)

208

205

194

Jul 14

468

(61 non-trigger)

455

430

224

(107 C, 86 B, 31 O)

212

212

205

Aug 14

506

(89 non-trigger)

494

474

275

(153 C, 91 B, 31 O)

261

255

238

Sep 14

376

(48 non-trigger)

367

345

214

(118 C, 73 B, 23 O)

198

193

184

Slide20

Routine Data OutputsNumber of Arrest Occasions

Jan – Dec 13 (n=1,638)

Feb 13 – Jan 14 (n=1,746)

Mar 13 – Feb 14 (n=1,722)

Apr 13 – Mar 14 (n=1,778)

May 13 – Apr 14 (n=1,838)

Jun 13 – May 14 (n=1,955)

Jul 13 – Jun 14 (n=2,001)

Aug 13 – Jul 14 (n=1,936)

Sep 13 – Aug 14 (n=2,000)

Oct 13 – Sep 14 (n=1,994)

One

1,238

(75.6%)

1,311

(75.1%)

1,299

(75.4%)

1,329

(74.7%)

1,383

(75.2%)

1,458

(74.6%)

1,486

(74.3%)

1,444

(74.6%)

1,507

(75.4%)

1,494

(74.9%)

Two

226

(13.8%)

239

(13.7%)

234

(13.6%)

260

(14.6%)

260

(14.1%)

287

(14.7%)

293

(14.6%)

270

(13.9%)

269

(13.5%)

272

(13.6%)

Three

66 (4.0%)

80 (4.6%)

78 (4.5%)

78 (4.4%)

80 (4.4%)

94 (4.8%)

108 (5.4%)

104 (5.4%)

111 (5.6%)

113 (5.7%)

Four

37 (2.3%)

43 (2.5%)

38 (2.2%)

40 (2.2%)

47 (2.6%)

45 (2.3%)

48 (2.4%)

53 (2.7%)

46 (2.3%)

47 (2.4%)

Five

21 (1.3%)

17 (1.0%)

25 (1.5%)

25 (1.4%)

20 (1.1%)

21 (1.1%)

19 (0.9%)

23 (1.2%)

26 (1.3%)

26 (1.3%)

Six

20 (1.2%)

17 (1.0%)

16 (0.9%)

12 (0.7%)

15 (0.8%)

15 (0.8%)

14 (0.7%)

18 (0.9%)

16 (0.8%)

18 (0.9%)

Seven

10 (0.6%)

18 (1.0%)

10 (0.6%)

10 (0.6%)

9 (0.5%)

11 (0.6%)

14 (0.7%)

8 (0.4%)

9 (0.5%)

8 (0.4%)

Eight

7 (0.4%)

9 (0.5%)

8 (0.5%)

11 (0.6%)

9 (0.5%)

7 (0.4%)

9 (0.4%)

4 (0.2%)

6 (0.3%)

5 (0.3%)

Nine

8 (0.5%)

1 (0.1%)

4 (0.2%)

4 (0.2%)

6 (0.3%)

8 (0.4%)

1 (0.1%)

3 (0.2%)

3 (0.2%)

4 (0.2%)

Ten

 

6 (0.3%)

4 (0.2%)

3 (0.2%)

3 (0.2%)

3 (0.2%)

3 (0.1%)

3 (0.2%)

4 (0.2%)

3 (0.2%)

Eleven

2 (0.1%)

2 (0.1%)

3 (0.2%)

4 (0.2%)

4 (0.2%)

3 (0.2%)

2 (0.1%)

 

 

1 (0.1%)

Twelve

 

1 (0.1%)

1 (0.1%)

 

 

1 (0.1%)

1 (0.1%)

5 (0.3%)

2 (0.1%)

 

Thirteen

2 (0.1%)

1 (0.1%)

1 (0.1%)

1 (0.1%)

1 (0.1%)

1 (0.1%)

2 (0.1%)

1 (0.1%)

3 (0.1%)

2 (0.1%)

Fourteen

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 (0.1%)

 

 

1 (0.1%)

Sixteen

 

 

 

1 (0.1%)

1 (0.1%)

1 (0.1%)

 

 

 

 

Twenty

1 (0.1%)

1 (0.1%)

1 (0.1%)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Clients presenting more than once (%)

24.4%

24.9%

24.6%

25.3%

24.8%

25.4%

25.7%

25.4%

24.6%

25.1%

Slide21

Thematic ResearchDrug Testing ReportProvides data on demographics of clientsCollates times of drug tests to show peak times of testingDetails results of tests over a time period

Slide22

Drug Testing Report LiverpoolSeftonSt HelensWirralMerseysideNo of Attempted Tests456718281370

20589823No of Successful Tests (%)4467 (97.8%)1791 (98.0%)1346 (98.2%)2040 (99.1%)9644 (98.2%)Age (%)    

 18 – 2426.3%

27.7%

34.1%

25.2%

27.4%

25 – 29

18.2%

17.6%

17.2%

19.0%

18.1%

30 – 34

15.6%

14.0%

14.2%

13.5%

14.7%

35 – 39

12.2%

12.2%

11.8%

14.3%

12.6%

40 – 44

13.6%

12.2%

11.3%

12.0%

12.7%

45 – 49

7.8%

8.3%

6.4%

8.7%

7.9%

50+

6.3%

8.0%

5.0%

7.4%

6.7%

Gender (%)

 

 

 

 

 

Male

82.5%

79.7%

83.9%

84.2%

82.4%

Female

17.5%

20.3%

16.1%

15.8%

17.6%

Ethnicity (%)

 

 

 

 

 

White European

93.2%

97.5%

98.7%

97.6%

95.7%

Dark European

1.7%

0.7%

0.1%

0.5%

1.0%

Afro-Caribbean

2.6%

0.7%

0.5%

0.6%

1.6%

Asian

0.9%

0.3%

0.2%

0.4%

0.6%

Chinese

0.2%

0.2%

n/a

<0.1%

0.1%

Other

0.7%

0.1%

0.1%

n/a

0.4%

Unknown

0.7%

0.7%

0.3%

0.7%

0.6%

D(A)AT of Residency (%)

 

 

 

 

 

Knowsley

5.4%

11.1%

11.6%

0.7%

6.3%

Liverpool

64.8%

20.8%

7.4%

10.0%

37.0%

Sefton

4.4%

45.7%

1.6%

0.8%

10.9%

St Helens

1.6%

5.7%

50.2%

0.1%

8.8%

Wirral

2.8%

0.7%

0.4%

66.9%

15.6%

Other

5.1%

5.0%

3.7%

3.7%

4.6%

Blank field

15.8%

11.1%

25.0%

17.8%

16.7%

Test Results (%)

 

 

 

 

 

Negative

48.6%

47.9%

51.1%

49.2%

49.0%

Positive

51.4%

52.1%

48.9%

50.8%

51.0%

Cocaine only

52.0%

49.3%

46.4%

39.8%

48.2%

Opiates only

11.0%

10.6%

14.7%

18.6%

13.0%

Both (Cocaine and Opiates)

37.0%

40.1%

38.9%

41.6%

38.8%

Offences (%)

 

 

 

 

 

Trigger

86.5%

96.9%

86.8%

90.4%

87.0%

Non-Trigger

13.5%

3.1%

13.2%

9.6%

13.0%

Slide23

Thematic ResearchAn Evaluation of DIP’s Impact on OffendingMain aim was to investigate whether or not clients in the DIP process in Merseyside reduce their offending, with particular emphasis on whether this was the case for High Crime Causing Users (HCCU) alsoProvide Merseyside DIP teams with an assessment of offending outcomes for DIP clients & also provide Merseyside Police with an overview of the effectiveness of DIP

Slide24

MethodologyData taken from 3 separate sources:Drug Testing Data - 6 month cohort of clients who tested positive after an arrest for a trigger offence in a Merseyside custody suite between April & September 2012DIP Monitoring Data – monitoring forms completed by DIP workers between April & September 2012PNC Data – all trigger offences in Merseyside between April 2011 & September 2013Drug Testing Data was initially matched to PNC data to establish how many times each client had been arrested for trigger offences in the 12 months pre & post test and then matched to DIP Data to determine the level of involvement with DIP post positive test

Slide25

Research FindingsOffending significantly lower in 12 months post initial positive test compared to 12 months pre test – 49% reduction in number of offences committedExtremely positive finding regarding DIP although data would suggest levels of reductions are not dependent on level of subsequent involvement - reductions highest among those clients who had no further DIP contact following their arrest and subsequent positive test – effect of the arrest process?Significant reductions seen in number of offences in all three offending groups (high, medium & low) – something not seen in aforementioned nationwide researchHighest reductions among HCCU’s

Slide26

Impact for Merseyside PoliceResearch has by in large aided with decision making processes around DIP within Merseyside PoliceDrug Testing data highlighted substantial numbers of negative tests being undertaken – potential cost saving area for Merseyside Police – has lead to introduction of Targeted TestingOffending data presented to both PCC and Chief Officer Group – highlighted the value of DIP in reducing offending and contributed to the continuing funding of Test on Arrest on Merseyside

Slide27

Thank you.Email: k.cuddy@ljmu.ac.ukPhone: 0151 2314290

Slide28

TIIG – Overview & (Police) ApplicationsSimon Russell – TIIG Project Lead

Slide29

TIIG – Trauma and Injury Intelligence Group(Cardiff)TIIG - established by Centre for Public Health 2001 Systematic data collection across NW of England By 2012 - 31 EDs Warehouse NWAS data3rd party status – police / service dataKey aims:Monitoring of trends (intentional and unintentional injuries)Assist local partners (Police, local councils, PH teams, Licensing Authorities, CSPs)Inform prevention strategies (needs assessment)Now still 31, share 22, ISTV 20

Slide30

Data set (varies)DemographicsGeographyReferral (ambulance / self)Disposal (fracture clinic / mental health)Alcohol / substance useEnhanced violence items2-3/10 assaults reported4-8/10 assaults go to ED

Slide31

Data sharingRoutine sharing - all injury / assaultsDate / timeLocation (details)Weapon (details)Attacker: Gender/Number/RelationshipAlcohol Reported Data requestsBulletinsResearch outputs

Slide32

DSH Females

Assaults males

Slide33

Attendance Rate vs Deprivation

Slide34

Slide35

ViolenceTrendsAt risk groupsDetailsHotspots (city centres)Location (specific premises)Weapons (e.g. bottles)DVTIIG + NWAS Address + incident location

Slide36

-20.5%-19.6%-19.2%-32.7%

-20.0%

Slide37

-6%-22%

Slide38

LicensingLicense ReviewsPH – Police - PH2012: Review due to C&DPolice evidencePublic health evidenceOutcome: Conditional re-opening 2015: ReviewPolice evidencePH evidence – assaults at premises, time/day, weapons, gender, age..Irresponsible promotionsOutcome: License revoked

Slide39

Tel: 0151 231 4500Email: S.J.Russell@ljmu.ac.ukEmail: tiig@ljmu.ac.ukWeb: www.cph.org.ukWeb: www.tiig.infoTwitter: www.twitter.com/tiig_cphContact me:

Slide40

Series of research / evaluationsAssertive outreach serviceResidential alcohol detoxificationREST Rehabilitation, education, support and treatmentEffectiveness (and cost effectiveness) of a ‘wet’ facilityBacked up with enforcement

Work in progress….Street Drinking

Slide41

Research / EvaluationsNight time economyLicensing AuthoritiesSay No To DrunksPilot InterventionService of alcohol to drunk people is illegalButMajority feel that bar staff do not careEasy to buy alcohol when drunkKnowledge of the law was lowWork in progress….

Nightlife Research

Slide42

Series of national and local estimates of the prevalence of opiate and / crack cocaine useResearch into Novel Psychoactive SubstancesEarly Warning SystemEffectiveness of drug prevention inteerventionsSteroid and Image Enhancing DrugsSizing the drugs marketMonitoring and surveillance of drug (and alcohol) treatmentDrug-driving legislationDrugs

Slide43

World Health Organization Collaborating Centre for Violence PreventionBurden and impact of violencePrevention and effectiveness of interventionsChild maltreatmentViolence against adults with disabilitiesElder maltreatmentMental health needs of gang-affiliated young peopleRoad traffic accidentsViolence

Slide44

Can monitoring and research contribute to police decision-making processes and practices?Discuss