Targeting prolific and other priority offenders and promoting pathways to desistance: Some reflections on the PPO programme using a theory of change framework

Matt Hopkins,Julia Wickson

doi:10.1177/1748895812462595

Abstract

The Prolific and Other Priority Offender (PPO) programme was introduced in 2004 to target the most prolific and persistent offenders within Community Safety Partnership areas. Based on identifying offenders through local crime analysis, intensive supervision and targeted intervention, evaluations have shown promising results. By using a ‘theory of change’ approach as an analytical framework and a local PPO project as a case study, this article begins to question whether the rationale behind the PPO programme can be viewed as ‘plausible’, if key strands of implementation are ‘doable’ and if the desired outcomes are ‘testable’. The article argues that although the rationale for the PPO programme might be plausible, doubts are raised over its likely impact on local crime rates and the extent PPO projects might be able to target prolific offenders effectively. Finally, it suggests that although testable outcomes can be established, the extent to which the programme has enhanced our understanding of desistance is questionable.

Highlights

The Prolific and other Priority Offender (PPO) programme was introduced in September 2004
Prolific offenders remain a focal point of current criminal justice policy
Policy makers should be reminded that many similar sentiments to those expressed in the Green Paper were expressed in relation to the inception of the PPO programme

Summary

Introduction

The Prolific and other Priority Offender (PPO) programme was introduced in September 2004. A number of projects had targeted ‘persistent’ offenders prior to 2004, this was the first time there was a statutory obligation for local Community Safety Partnerships (CSPs) to implement such a programme in their area.. As Farrall et al (2007) assert, the programme was implemented because of a desire to target those offenders deemed to be responsible for committing a disproportionate number of offences. The PPO programme sought to target the most prolific offenders as it was thought that setting the most active offenders on the path to desistance would yield benefits in terms of reductions of crime, harm to the community and associated criminal justice costs of processing offenders (Home Office, 2003) A number of studies have suggested that a small proportion of offenders commit a high proportion of all crime (Blumstein et al, 1986; Home Office, 2001, 2003, 2004; OCJR, 2004) and it has been estimated that around 10% of all offenders commit around 50% of all offences (Home Office, 2001). the PPO programme sought to target the most prolific offenders as it was thought that setting the most active offenders on the path to desistance would yield benefits in terms of reductions of crime, harm to the community and associated criminal justice costs of processing offenders (Home Office, 2003)

Methods

Results

Conclusion