Targeting prolific and other priority offenders and promoting pathways to desistance: Some reflections on the PPO programme using a theory of change framework
| Author | Matt Hopkins,Julia Wickson |
| Date | 01 November 2013 |
| Published date | 01 November 2013 |
| DOI | 10.1177/1748895812462595 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Criminology & Criminal Justice
13(5) 594 –614
© The Author(s) 2012
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1748895812462595
crj.sagepub.com
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
University of Leicester, UK
Julia Wickson
Wickson Consultancy and University of Portsmouth, UK
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.
Keywords
Desistance, persistent offending, prolific and other priority offenders
Corresponding author:
Matt Hopkins, Department of Criminology, University of Leicester, The Friars, 154 Upper New Walk,
Leicester LE1 7QA, UK.
Email: mh330@le.ac.uk
462595CRJ13510.1177/1748895812462595Criminology & Criminal JusticeHopkins and Wickson
2012
Article
Hopkins and Wickson 595
Introduction
The Prolific and other Priority Offender (PPO) programme was introduced in
September 2004. Its main purpose was threefold: (1) to prevent and deter young
people from becoming prolific offenders; (2) to catch and convict prolific offenders;
and (3) to rehabilitate and resettle prolific offenders (Dawson, 2005). Although 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)1 to implement such a programme in their area.2 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.
Indeed, a number of studies have suggested that a small proportion of offenders com-
mit 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 per cent of all offenders
commit around 50 per cent of all offences (Home Office, 2001).3 Therefore, 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).
Although a wide range of research has described the development of the PPO projects
(Dawson, 2005; Farrall et al., 2007; Vennard and Pearce, 2004), little critical analysis has
been carried out of the impact on local crime rates or how the programme has informed
our understanding of desistance for prolific offenders. This is surprising for two primary
reasons. First, as over 10,000 offenders have now been referred to the PPO programme,
a rich body of evidence and experience is likely to exist within Community Safety
Partnership areas about the interventions and approaches to offender supervision that
work (or do not work) with prolific offenders. Second, the publication of the Breaking
the Cycle Green Paper by the Ministry of Justice in 2010 (Ministry of Justice, 2010,
2012) promises what Raynor (2012: 945) describes as a ‘rehabilitation revolution which
would focus the entire penal system on a primary goal of reducing re-offending’. This
‘revolution’ is to be delivered through a framework of Integrated Offender Management
(IOM), where local partnerships would co-ordinate and manage offenders (Home Office/
Ministry of Justice, 2009a), and interventions would be delivered by private and volun-
tary organizations ‘underpinned by a system of payment by results’ (Raynor, 2012: 945).
Therefore, much of the experience in relation to the implementation and impact of the
PPO programme is of direct relevance to the vision outlined in the Breaking the Cycle
Green Paper.
This article explores the PPO programme within a ‘theory of change’ framework
(Connell and Kubisch, 1998). This framework has previously been used to develop a
structured understanding of the theories that drive crime prevention programmes. As
Connell and Kubisch (1998) argue, for any programme or initiative to achieve its poten-
tial, it should be guided by a theory of change that is present before the programme and
should be revisited both during implementation and throughout the evaluation. The the-
ory of change framework is principally guided by three core questions that offer a useful
exploratory framework for the PPO programme:
To continue reading
Request your trial