Checkpoint: An innovative Programme to navigate people away from the cycle of reoffending – A randomised control trial evaluation
| Author | Kevin Weir,Stephanie Kilili,John Cooper,Andrew Crowe,Gillian Routledge |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/0032258X211018774 |
| Published date | 01 September 2022 |
| Date | 01 September 2022 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Article
Checkpoint: An innovative
Programme to navigate
people away from the cycle
of reoffending – A randomised
control trial evaluation
Kevin Weir, Stephanie Kilili , John Cooper,
Andrew Crowe and Gillian Routledge
Durham Constabulary, Aykley Heads Durham, Durham, UK
Abstract
This study contributes to the evidencebase of police deferred prosecutionschemes aimed
at reducing reoffending. Durham Constabulary, UK, introduced Checkpoint, an adult
deferred prosecution scheme whichtargets offenders entering theCriminal Justice System
by providing an alternative to a criminal prosecution. Applying theories of deterrence and
desistance, this paper describes the randomised control trial findings of 521 offenders
randomised between 1 August 2016 and 31 March 2018. The results indicate that the
Checkpoint treatment cohort achieved a lower reoffending rate in comparison to the
control cohort, on the basis of prevalence (10.3% reduction) and risk of reoffending (30%
reduction).
Keywords
Reoffending, out of court disposals, evidence-based policing, offender desistance
Introduction
Out-of-Court Disposals (OOCD) have become a key policy and political area in the UK,
with the removal in April 2013 of the previous requirement on the Crown Prosecution
Service to decide on the suitability of cases for conditional cautions, dev olving the
decision to the custody officer in the police station (Neyroud and Slothower, 2013).
Corresponding author:
Stephanie Kilili, Durham Constabulary, Durham Police HQ, Aykley Heads, Durham DH1 5TT, UK.
Email: stephanie.kilili@durham-pcc.gov.uk
The Police Journal:
Theory, Practice and Principles
ªThe Author(s) 2021
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/0032258X211018774
journals.sagepub.com/home/pjx
2022, Vol. 95(3) 562–589
Weir et al. 563
This created not only an increase in time spent on a disposal decision by the police but
also a requirement on the police to set and manage conditions for offenders. Some were
of poor quality or not applied correctly, and invariably, no attempt was made to under-
stand what drove offending behaviour (CJJI, 2011).
In response to the 2011 Criminal Justice Joint Inspection report (CJJI), the Ministry of
Justice (MoJ) initiated a consultation with the public and police practitioners with a view
to reforming the adult disposal framework and legislative and procedural changes to
OOCDs. In October 2017 DCC Glen, the National Police Chiefs’ Council lead for
charging and OOCDs, submitted her national strategy for consideration to the Chief
Constables’ Council; this strategy sought to move policing voluntarily from the existing
multiple choice framework towards a two-tier framework, based on a community reso-
lution (CR) and a conditional caution (CC). While the reform does indeed represent a
simplification to a more straightforward, escalatory process, the onus of the evaluation
was on the implementation of the new framework rather than on its effectiveness. The
sparsity of quantitative studies in terms of comparing diversionary and conventional
approaches, using offender cohorts that share similar characteristics, remains a clear and
present issue for OOCD policy.
In the UK, only a limited number of studies have taken place to assess the effective-
ness of cautions and diversion but for those that have, they suggest that diversion may
well be more effective than formal processing (Neyroud and Slothower, 2013). One of
the first attempts in the UK to test a diversionary approach against a normal prosecution
procedure was Operation Turning Point (OTP) run by West Midlands Police (Neyroud
and Slothower, 2013). The overall aim of OTP was to ‘test whether low harm offenders,
who might otherwise have been prosecuted, could be dealt with in a combination of a
deferred prosecution and tailored c onditions to encourage desistance’ (N eyroud and
Slothower, 2013: 22). Results show ed increased victim satisfacti on, significant cost
savings but less conclusive findings in relation to harm and reoffending frequency
(Neyroud et al., 2015). In 2015, Durham Constabulary adopted a deferred prosecution
model, namely Checkpoint, in order to assess its impact on reducing reoffending and
improving offenders’ life chances (Weir et al., 2019). The main differences between the
two can be found in Table 1.
Checkpoint has been designed to take a public health approach to policing based on
the concept of Offender Desistance Policing (ODP) (Sherman, 2011; Sherman and
Neyroud, 2012). The objective of the intervention is to reduce reoffending by giving
offenders the opportunity to address the underlying causes of their offending behaviour
and improve life chances. Checkpoint is an offender management programme that seeks
to address the underlying reasons why someone has offended and places a greater degree
of accountability on the offender to face up to the consequences of their offending
behaviour, by working with an offender manager or Navigator on a one-to-one basis.
Offenders receive the support they need to address the reasons they offend, acknowl-
edging the impact of their actions, to make reparations for the harm they have caused and
helping them to move on with their lives.
One of the key criticisms of research into OOCDs has been that, despite the fact that
such disposals have been in use for decades, little in the way of testing OOCDs against
prosecution processes has taken place using appropriate research methods (Neyroud,
To continue reading
Request your trial