THE THE DOMICE DOMICE PROJECTPROJECTA Transnational Project Supported by the European Union

Steve Pitts – Project DirectorNational Offender Management Service – England and Wales 1

A PROJECT TO BE

PROUD OF

DDOOMMI I CCEE

A Transnational Project Supported by the European Union

eveloping

ffender

anagement

n

orrections in

urope

2

The Lead Partner

Partner Jurisdictions

The European Organisation

Research Partners

Operational : March 2010 – November 2011

Non-Custodial Sentences

Prison Sentences Supervised Release

Pre-Sentence

What was the focus of the project?

How case management (assessment, planning, co-ordinated implementation of the plan, review, revision and evaluation) is organised, designed and delivered to adult offenders

•across the whole of the correctional system

•in all European jurisdictions

Assess Plan Implement Review Evaluate

Bearing in mind that some

European countries have multiple jurisdictions

Why did we focus on this process?

• because it is the core process jurisdictions use to deliver punishments, rehabilitation, prisoner resettlement, public protection, and restorative justice

• because it is the core process by which punishments, treatments and interventions are “mixed and matched” so that they are effective at the level of each individual

• because we need to understand more about how things operate in different countries as more offenders move from country to country and we look to transfer more sentences

...and what did we aim to achieve?

•a shared common concept with which to compare and contrast

•a learning network of practitioners and managers

•better cross-border understanding

•good practice ideas to support improvement:

• value for money, effectiveness, rehabilitation, prisoner re-integration, restorative justice, public protection

What method did we use?

We........

•produced a Literature Review

•designed, tested (and then abandoned) an online questionnaire

•found a “correspondent” in each jurisdiction (40+) using “patient persistence”

•designed a common System Map to compare and contrast systems

........here is the template from which we built all the System Maps ......

Supervised ReleaseImmediate Custody

Non-Custodial OptionsPre-Sentence

Sentence Passed

1

3

2

4

1.4 Pre-sentence assessment and report

preparation

1.3 Pre-sentence supervisio

n

3.1 Immediate Custody

2.1 Non-custodial Orders or Sentences - types 1 - n

2.2 Non-custodial Supervision for those with Mental Ill Health

4.1 Unsupervised release at full term

DOMICE- System Map-(Jurisdiction) DOMICE- System Map-(Jurisdiction) (date)(date)

Executive or Judicial Decision Making?

1.7 Pre-sentence

Supervision

1.2 Mediation

Diversion from

Prosecution

1.1 Conditional Bail

1.5 Pre-Sentence Custody

4.3 Discretionary Early Release with

Electronic Monitoring and/or

Home Curfew

4.5 Discretionary conditional and/or supervised Early Release (Parole)

2.3 Suspended Custody with Conditions or Supervision

1.6 Bail or Conditional

Bail

DIVERSION FROM PRE-SENTENCE CUSTODY

3.2 Part-custodial, part-non-custodial (supervised) sentence

4.4 Automatic Conditional and/or Supervised Early

Release

4.2 Unsupervised Early Release

What method did we use?

We........

•produced a Literature Review

•designed, tested (and then abandoned) an online questionnaire

•found a “correspondent” in each jurisdiction (40+) using “patient persistence”

•designed a common System Map to compare and contrast systems

•we then conducted telephone interviews with each correspondent

•built a customised System Map for each jurisdiction

•refined the System Maps through rounds of editing

•designed and ran 5 Focus Groups in regions of Europe

•further edited the System Maps

•ran an international conference

•built a website with our findings and the System Maps

The methodology has been innovativeinnovative and unusually unusually effectiveeffective in securing active active

and enthusiastic and enthusiastic participationparticipation

• Barcelona• Copenhagen• Rotterdam• Sofia• Frankfurt

What did we find?

• DOMICE was an ambitious project

• case management is a difficult subject to study; there is no agreed definition of it

• in some shape of form, it is universal; it is the “core business process”

• it accounts for substantial expenditure

• arrangements vary enormously, within and between jurisdictions; it is not easy to understand them without some understanding of each historical, cultural and legal context

What did we find?

Common themes are:

• the design of case management is piecemeal and fragmented; nowhere is it designed as a continuous process from start to end of the correctional system

• an appetite for competition is driving this further; multiple providers tend to mean multiple assessments, multiple records and different cultures

• the dominant model in custody is team-based; in non-custodial settings it is an individual based one, focussed around an individual Case Manager; each has its strengths and weaknesses

• aims are not always clear, but there is a shift in focus from rehabilitation toward public protection

• case management is becoming increasingly technical and technological

• there is little research about it about how to design and do it well, or about how it is actually done, or how much it costs and how to deliver the best value

• case management staff are well educated, resourceful and committed

• in most places they are under-resourced, even by countries’ own standards

• quality assurance is weak; it remains a largely private activity

• it is parochial/local in its focus, with little international understanding or learning

What are the implications of this?

Scarce resources are being wasted because there is insufficient attention paid in correctional

systems to understandingunderstanding, designingdesigning and

deliveringdelivering case management/ work with people who have offended

There is a healthy appetite for international learning which is not yet being fully utilised

What do we recommend?

MAINTAIN THE FOCUSDOMICE has created momentum; the Focus Groups have created a learning network; the website is a knowledge base. Action should be taken to sustain these resources, to support sharing, exchange, development & research:

– impact & cost: structures, partners, supporting desistence, public protection

WHOLE-SYSTEM INTEGRATIONCommissioners/managers of correctional systems should give more attention to

•ensuring the integration of processes across the whole of the correctional system

•especially prisoner resettlement, links with other agencies (integration, public safety)•ensuring continuity of approach and where possible of a key relationship

BETTER QUALITY ASSURANCEThe providers of case management should work with managers or commissioners to design & implement comprehensive programmes of quality assurance & development

A EUROPEAN PERSPECTIVEThe training or induction of all of those involved in case management should include a European perspective, to support learning & Framework Decision implementation

Thank you for your attention!

Steve.pitts@noms.gsi.gov.uk

With acknowledgement of the contribution of the DOMICE subject experts - Tony Grapes and Jo Chilvers And on behalf of the DOMICE Project Board and Partners