UK Chapter of the International System Dynamics Society 12 th - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

▶
uk chapter of the international system dynamics society
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

UK Chapter of the International System Dynamics Society 12 th - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Oct 23, 2022 568 likes •810 views

Applying a System Dynamics Approach to Inform the Direction of Offender Pathways and Services Savas Hadjipavlou & Samantha Hinks: Ministry of Justice Douglas McKelvie: Symmetric SD UK Chapter of the International System Dynamics Society 12

slide-1
SLIDE 1

Applying a System Dynamics Approach to Inform the Direction of Offender Pathways and Services

Savas Hadjipavlou & Samantha Hinks: Ministry of Justice Douglas McKelvie: Symmetric SD UK Chapter of the International System Dynamics Society 12th February 2009

slide-2
SLIDE 2

Overview of the presentation

 What is the context we’re working in?  What was the Problem & why did we need a model?  Why use System Dynamics?  What does the model look like?  What does it include?  What are the outputs?  How has it helped in problem solving?  What other applications has it had?  New model and applications

slide-3
SLIDE 3

What is the context we are working in?

 Traditionally units within government have worked

  • n their own specific objectives rather than looking at

the bigger picture.

 Modelling is still a very new approach, particularly

within the Ministry of Justice.

slide-4
SLIDE 4

What was the problem & why did we need a model?

 Need to explore impacts of an intervention for long stay

serious offenders, on the wider prison/hospital estate.

 Need to plan complex (and expensive) services where

impacts take a long time.

 Need to take account of ‘recycling’ (e.g. breach and

reconviction) into the system.

 Need to be able to assess costs and benefits.

slide-5
SLIDE 5

Why a System Dynamics Approach?

Allows us to :

  • Model a whole system visually.
  • Tell a ‘story’.
  • Look at stocks (offenders) and flows through the

system.

  • Use data and assumptions about services and

policies to help predict outcomes.

  • Carry out ‘what if’ analysis; identify bottlenecks.
  • ITHINK software allows a highly interactive

approach.

slide-6
SLIDE 6

Overview of Model

1 Screening 2 Assessment 3 Programme 4 Pre Tariff 5 Post Tariff 6 Community Supervision Mental Health Act route

slide-7
SLIDE 7

What does the Model include?

 Sentence rates  Sentences lengths  Proportion needing

assessment

 Assessment and treatment

capacity

 Assessment and treatment

length

 % ‘treatable’/ long stay  Treatment effectiveness  Post treatment capacity  Release rates  Length of community

supervision

 Breach rates  Reconviction rates

slide-8
SLIDE 8

What are the Outputs?

Numbers (until 2024):

 In custody  Under community

supervision

 Assessed  Waiting for assessment  In treatment  Waiting for treatment  Treated  Reconvicted

slide-9
SLIDE 9

Numbers do not necessarily represent reality

Using the model to problem solve Issue: Waiting list for DSPD

Numbers Waiting for the DSPD Prison Programme

100 200 300 400 500 600 700 2 3 2 5 2 7 2 9 2 1 1 2 1 3 2 1 5 Time (July) Numbers waiting

 Currently: capacity of 130

DSPD prison treatment places; 5 year programme.

 Results in a waiting list for

services over time.

 The model can help us

inform what might be done to reduce the waiting list and quantify the impact of different options.

slide-10
SLIDE 10

Numbers do not necessarily represent reality

Option 1: Increase capacity – but how far?

Numbers Waiting for the DSPD Prison Programme by Capacity

100 200 300 400 500 600 700 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 Time (July) Numbers waiting current capacity double capacity triple capacity quadruple capacity multiply initial capacity by 5

  • Multiplying the initial treatment capacity by 5 would eliminate a

waiting list, but is this financially and practically viable?

slide-11
SLIDE 11

Numbers do not necessarily represent reality

Option 2: Increase treatment capacity and reduce treatment length – but how far?

Numbers Waiting for the DSPD Prison Programme by Scenario

100 200 300 400 500 600 700 2 3 2 5 2 7 2 9 2 1 1 2 1 3 2 1 5 Time (July) Numbers waiting current capacity & 5yr prog triple capacity & 5yr prog triple capacity & 3yr prog triple capacity & 2yr prog

  • Tripling the initial capacity and reducing the treatment length to 2

years, could eliminate a waiting list.

  • This then enables us to think through the practicalities of this.
slide-12
SLIDE 12

Other applications

 Contributed to the annual Prison Population Projections  Parole Board Projections  Informing changes to legislation for serious, high risk

  • ffenders.
slide-13
SLIDE 13

Using the model to problem solve

The Problem:

 IPPs (Indeterminate Public Protection Sentences)

were putting pressure on the Prison system.

 Large number of receptions each month;  Short sentences (tariffs);  Wide range of needs;  Unable to assess and move IPPs into treatment

within tariff so many likely to stay (unnecessarily) beyond tariff.

 The model could be used to help explore different

  • ptions for altering the application of the IPP

sentence.

slide-14
SLIDE 14

Using the model to problem solve: Scenario to be tested

 Setting a ‘2 year’ seriousness threshold for IPPs  Where threshold met, sentencers have more

discretion to give other sentences as well as IPPs which would result in:

 Fewer IPP receptions p/m  Higher average tariff

slide-15
SLIDE 15

Numbers do not necessarily represent reality

Results: Impact on Prison Population

IPP Prison Population by Scenario

2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Year (April) IPP Prison Population current situation proposed scenario

 Implementing the

proposed changes could reduce the IPP Prison Population by about 6,000 by 2014.

 But… those who

would previously have got IPPs would now get different

  • sentences. So we

used the model to consider the impact

  • n the wider Prison

population.

slide-16
SLIDE 16

Numbers do not necessarily represent reality

Results: Impact on Prison Population

Combined IPP; EPP; Det 4yrs+ Prison Population by Scenario

29000 31000 33000 35000 37000 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Year (April) Combined Prison Population current situation proposed scenario

 Implementing the

proposed changes could reduce the combined Prison population by more than 2,000 by 2014.

 But… what about

impacts elsewhere in the system?

 The model enables us

to look at this.

slide-17
SLIDE 17

Numbers do not necessarily represent reality

Results: Impact on Probation Supervision

IPPs under Probation Supervision by Scenario

500 1000 1500 2000 2500 2 8 2 9 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 2 1 3 2 1 4 Year (April)

  • No. of IPPs in Community

current situation proposed scenario

 Implementing the

proposed changes could reduce the number of IPPs under Probation supervision by about 800 by 2014.

 But… those who would

previously have got IPPs would now get different sentences. So we needed to consider the impact on the wider Probation caseload.

slide-18
SLIDE 18

Numbers do not necessarily represent reality

Results: Impact on Probation Supervision

Combined IPP; EPP; det 4yrs+; Lifer Combined Probation Caseload by Scenario

10000 15000 20000 25000 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Year (April)

  • No. under Probation

Supervision current situation proposed scenario

 Implementing the

proposed changes was unlikely to result in a large saving to Probation. By 2014, the combined number needing Probation Supervision could be reduced by about 300.

 So… it is important to

consider the system as a whole, which the model enabled us to do.

slide-19
SLIDE 19

Need for a New Model

 Need to consider level of need (mental health;

alcohol/drug misuse) for potential diversion to interventions for all offenders across the whole of the Criminal Justice System.

 Want to be able to segment the population by

sentence type and offence type to better target need with appropriate interventions.

slide-20
SLIDE 20

HEALTH PARTNERSHIP: POSSIBLE POINTS OF INTERVENTION

SOCIALLY EXCLUDED DRUGS MENTAL HEALTH PERSONALITY DISORDERS PREVIOUS OTHERS NOMS

+

Arrest Charge

+

Court

+

Conviction

+

Sentence

+

Parole

+

Expiry

  • f

Sentence

Statutory agencies Voluntary groups

Prevention – access to health services for identical groups

+

OFFENCE CJS Start receiving healthcare in the community May

  • ffend

Receiving healthcare in community Goes straight back into being managed in community – receiving healthcare

High/ Medium Security Hospital

Existing health services Community Transfer Transfer Transfer

Prison

+ + + +

Life continues Ensure continuity

  • f care

Hospital Possible points of transfer for offenders (where appropriate) into hospital Prison Possible points of transfer back into prison Community + Possible Health Partnerships intervention Mental Health Tribunal

+

Preventing Offending

  • r reoffending

Appropriate Placements – getting people in the

right place at the right time

Care in Custody

police, prison, hospital

Care in the community Community resettlement/ supervision

The Offender/Health Pathway

slide-21
SLIDE 21

Next Steps

 Have a national picture of ‘need’, but can use the

infrastructure to develop regional models and a model for women.

 Can introduce capacity constraints to consider the

reality of rolling out new interventions.

 ITHINK provides a user-friendly medium for doing

this.

slide-22
SLIDE 22

Summary

 Although things are changing, Government

departments still have a tendency to focus on their individual unit objectives rather than see the bigger picture.

 The use of modelling techniques is still quite new.  We have hopefully shown the need for modelling

techniques and how a System Dynamics approach has been used to problem solve and guide policy decision-making.

slide-23
SLIDE 23

Questions/comments?

Contact details: Savas.hadjipavlou@justice.gsi.gov.uk Samantha.hinks@justice.gsi.gov.uk douglas.mckelvie@symmetricsd.co.uk