This article describes and discusses ‘Invisible Walls’(IW), a pioneering ‘whole family’ approach to enhancing imprisoned fathers’ ties with their children and families. It summarises earlier evaluation findings on the Lottery-funded Invisible Walls Wales (IWW) project in HM Prison and YOI Parc, Wales, UK, outlines its influence on policy, and discusses how th e model has since evolved. In Parc, partnerships with schools now play a significant part; a further important development has been efforts to break down silos and make ‘family’ services available to all people in prison and their ‘significant others’. The paper also addresses the problem of replicating or adapting successful local projects on a much larger scale: experience from IW suggests that this can be helped by individual establishments exchanging ideas, but achieving and sustaining high volumes of beneficiaries requires commitment and investment by government, combined with culture and attitude change at local level.

International research finds that the majority of harm from crime can be attributed to a small proportion of perpetrators. Accurately identifying these individuals as priorities for intervention can lead to significant harm reduction. A new method, the Priority Perpetrator Identification Tool, was implemented in three police force areas of England and Wales. Additional investment, restructuring of units and the development of bespoke policies and protocols were necessary to establish the pilots, which to date have seen the Priority Perpetrator Identification Tool used in nearly 1500 domestic abuse cases. Mixed-methods research illustrates how the pilots instigated a systematic approach to identify and prioritise perpetrators in order to inform decisions about the scope and type of intervention to be deployed to reduce their offending. The development of these new collaborative arrangements represents a step change in the way the most harmful domestic abuse perpetrators are identified and managed within a multi-agency partnership.

The article examines the operation and impact of a specialist wing in a male prison, which aims to repair and enhance family relationships. It outlines the damaging effects of parental imprisonment on children and on paternal identity, and explores whether, and how, residence on the wing and prisoners’ joint participation with children and families in extended visits and family-focused activities and interventions, mitigate such damage. The findings are overwhelmingly positive, demonstrating improvements in well-being among children and family members, enhanced family relationships, and a stronger sense of paternal identity among prisoners. It is argued that these activities set in motion processes akin to those postulated by Burke (1991) as necessary for maintenance and renewal of identity: namely, the ‘verification’ of ‘identity standards’ through ‘reflective appraisal’ by key referent groups (here, families and children). There is also evidence that positive changes in prisoners quite frequently persist after release.

This research reports on three innovative pilots (located in Hampshire, Dyfed Powys and Greater Manchester) that have incorporated the PPIT into their working practices in order to establish a more robust identification and referral pathway for priority domestic abuse perpetrators. A process evaluation was undertaken between January and November 2017 to assess the strengths and limitations of each of the three pilots, compare the offender cohorts being identified, identify the strategies being undertaken to manage these individuals, and gather the perceptions of those involved about the effectiveness of these new arrangements. The research adopted a mixed method approach comprising interviews with practitioners (n=18) a number of site visits and a quantitative analysis of monitoring data of perpetrators (n=513) coming through the PPIT pilots. This research illustrated the many ways that practitioners can work together to create meaningful change in how domestic abuse is tackled in local areas. This is a complex area of work, which requires partnership working across multiple agencies to address offending that is both high volume and which can also be highly harmful to adults as well as children. Further research is required to systematically evaluate the full range of outcomes that are possible (i.e. in addition to the positive changes reported here, such as more informed and coordinated responses in the identification and management of priority domestic abuse perpetrators, do the actions taken within the PPIT pilots also produce significant reductions in re-offending and corresponding improvements to victims’ safety?). In addition to data gathered through the monitoring databases already in place in the pilots, future research needs to access the views of those perpetrators and victims directly affected by these new working arrangements and interventions. Finally, opportunities for mutual learning and critical reflection on practice should be provided to support practitioners and to help build a community of practice of key stakeholders engaged in this type of work.

The article reports key findings from an evaluation of Invisible Walls Wales' (IWW), a multi-agency through the gate' project in HMP Parc, South Wales, based on an innovative model of whole family' support for prisoners, their children and partners. It provides an overview of previous research on the impact of parental imprisonment on children and families, including financial hardship, emotional stress and risks of intergenerational offending'. It outlines the core elements of the IWW model and the substantial infrastructure of family support facilities in the prison on which it was built. It summarises outcomes of the project for fathers, partners and children, and gives examples of how IWW's whole family' approach is influencing policy and practice elsewhere. Reoffending rates are not yet available, but are anticipated to be low. However, the key strength of the project, it is argued, lies in its emphasis on the whole family' as the main beneficiary, rather than focusing narrowly on rehabilitation of the father.

Overview Recent research in Wales suggests that the group of domestic abuse perpetrators causing the most harm is likely to include some combination of serial, high-risk and repeat perpetrators (Robinson et al., 2014), evidence which led to the development of the Priority Perpetrator Identification Tool (PPIT) (Robinson & Clancy, 2015). The PPIT has been designed to help frontline practitioners identify a subset of perpetrators considered the most dangerous and thus priorities for multi-agency monitoring and management. For this research, police, probation officers, and Independent Domestic Violence Advisors (IDVAs) in Wales completed a PPIT form for each individual in a sample of perpetrators known to their agency (total n=406) and then provided further information about this process via a practitioner survey (n=42). Analysis of these data sources reveals: (1) the offending and demographic profiles for this sample of domestic abuse perpetrators, and how this varies across agencies, (2) the size and profile of the subset of perpetrators deemed to be ‘priority perpetrators’ by frontline practitioners, (3) the evidence and information used by practitioners when making these assessments, (4) differences in the interpretation and scoring of the tool across agencies, and (5) practitioners’ perspectives on the utility and functionality of the tool. Findings Analysis revealed that certain PPIT items are recognised by practitioners as more prevalent within this multi-agency sample of 406 perpetrators, in addition to being more often perceived to be at ‘critical’ levels. Specifically, the most prevalent characteristics are recent offending (29.1% critical), escalating offending (28.1% critical), repeated offending against the same victim (31.6% critical) and offending that is highly harmful, by virtue of the psychological and/or physical harm it has caused to a victim (34.1% critical). Notably, the demographic characteristics of perpetrators (gender, age, race/ethnicity) were generally unrelated to the scores given by practitioners on the PPIT items. However, agency of origin was clearly related to the patterns of scores produced on the PPITs, with some agencies less likely to produce higher scores (e.g., CRC and police non-MARAC cases) compared to others (e.g., NPS, police MARAC and IDVA cases). Such variation is interpreted as a logical extension of the different groups of people coming into contact with these agencies, and the nature of their work. A sizeable proportion (38%) of the perpetrators included in this multi-agency sample were judged to be priority perpetrators. As expected, priority perpetrators are much more likely to be scored ‘critical’ for all ten PPIT items. Furthermore, the differences between the two groups were statistically significant as well as substantial, with a large proportion (if not a clear majority) of priority perpetrators assessed as ‘critical’ compared to only a small percentage of the other group. Binary logistic regression analysis of the PPIT items identified those that are particularly influential in practitioners’ judgements of who is/not a priority perpetrator: #1 recent, #2 escalating, #5 related and #7 high harm. The quantitative findings in combination with qualitative comments from practitioners as to the ‘main reason’ behind their judgements show the core determinants behind practitioners’ decision-making to be: recent, repetitive, escalating, and severely harmful offending. Practitioners also seem to take particular note of ‘related’ offending and other forms of violence, in addition to the domestic abuse. In addition, comments by practitioners demonstrated the important role played by their perceptions of coercive control, which was considered to be present much more often in the offending behaviour of priority perpetrators (34.9% compared to 61.7%). This study also provided an opportunity for practitioners to feedback their thoughts on the PPIT using an anonymous online feedback survey. Overall, although practitioners appeared positive that the PPIT could act as another tool to assist in the identification and management of risk associated with priority perpetrators, there appeared to be some confusion regarding the purpose of the PPIT and how it will align with existing processes. Additionally, whilst there was consensus that the ten PPIT items were necessary and appropriate, most practitioners also indicated that they would benefit from greater clarification of the criteria for evidencing some of the risk factors and scores attributed to each item. Implications The overarching implication of this study is that there is a big appetite for new approaches to responding to perpetrators of domestic abuse. The main benefit of the PPIT appears to be that it takes a step towards ‘speaking a common language’ across agencies about perpetrators and their abusive behaviour. However, a tool such as the PPIT is only a starting point. The extent and nature of the actions to follow the use of the PPIT still need to be developed. Some initiatives are already underway, which incorporate the PPIT, and the future evaluation of these different pilot projects will further enhance understanding of how to best address the behaviour of what is a very diverse group of perpetrators, committing a high volume of harmful offences, in any single community.

Executive Summary Overview Our previous research into serial domestic abuse indicated the importance of shared multi-agency understanding when it comes to identification of and responses to the most serious forms of domestic abuse. Our last report, published in November 2014, questioned the prevailing assumption that serial abusers should be the focus of enhanced targeting and intervention, and instead recommended developing perpetrator-focussed responses that take into account serial alongside repeat and high-risk offending. Specifically, we recommended the development of a consistent definition and monitoring/flagging process for priority perpetrators. Informed by extensive experience and research indicating the efficacy of multi-agency responses to domestic abuse, we embarked on a project to create a Priority Perpetrator Identification Tool (PPIT), incorporating serial, repeat and high-risk offending into a single tool with input and agreement across relevant agencies (e.g., Police, Criminal Justice and Third Sector). The intention is for the PPIT to complement and draw upon other existing tools (e.g., DASH for victims, OASys and SARA for perpetrators) so that agencies can reliably identify those individuals whose offending behaviour requires priority action. The development of this tool represents the first stage of establishing a more robust identification and referral pathway for priority domestic abuse perpetrators in Wales. This report documents the development and consultation process which was undertaken January-March of this year to create the PPIT. Findings Based on the evidence collected from the consultation (n=15 participants in the stage one stakeholder event and n=25 participants in the stage two online survey), there appears to be a high level of support amongst both operational and strategic agency representatives (from a range of agencies in Wales and elsewhere in the UK), for a tool to assist with the identification of those committing the most serious and harmful forms of domestic abuse. It is noteworthy that an overwhelming majority of respondents felt that the ten items in the PPIT captured the most important aspects to consider, and the brief guidance accompanying the tool was largely fit-for-purpose. Despite the complexities of what is involved, the majority view is favourable to implementing the PPIT. Implications The PPIT is envisioned as an instrument to be used to trigger an intervention, rather than an intervention itself, and aims to support the identification of a commonly recognised priority cohort of individuals which will be the focus of the collective efforts all partners. Concept and planning work is already underway to address the ‘what comes next’ question raised by many of those involved in the consultation process. To maximise its efficacy and potential to be a reliable and useful tool for frontline use across a range of agencies, we recommend further testing of the PPIT. Further research is needed to assess the range of policy and practice implications likely to result from the implementation of the PPIT.

The Integrated Offender Management (IOM) Cymru partnership commissioned this research to achieve a clearer picture of whether and how ‘serial domestic abuse’ is being understood, defined and recorded by Police forces, Probation providers and Third Sector partners across Wales. Phase one of the research included a qualitative mapping exercise along with a quantitative analysis of n=6642 anonymised domestic abuse perpetrator records provided by Wales Probation Trust. This report sets out findings from phase two which entailed interrogating agency files to gather more detailed information on a random sample of perpetrators (n=100). Objectives for this phase of the research included: 1) Estimating the prevalence of serial domestic abuse 2) Evaluating agency information and the overlaps (and gaps) across agencies 3) Identifying any distinguishing characteristics of serial domestic abuse perpetrators 4) Providing new evidence to inform developing policy and practice in this area Findings Prevalence estimates varied considerably across the three main sources of information used in this research (Police, Probation and Third Sector), ranging from 4% to 20%. A key finding from this research is that different agencies are identifying different individuals as serial (from the same sample of 100 domestic abuse perpetrators) with only a very small degree of overlap across agencies (at best only 1 out of 100). Using Probation data, it was difficult to empirically distinguish ‘serial domestic abuse perpetrators’ from non-serial perpetrators. While serial perpetrators were also likely to be repeat perpetrators, only a fraction could also be considered ‘high risk’ using Probation risk assessment tools (OASys and SARA). Therefore, in the case of domestic abuse offending, the categories of serial/ repeat/ high-risk should not necessarily be considered interchangeable or synonymous. Serial perpetrators do, however, differ to some extent in their individual risk profile as assessed by the Spousal Abuse Risk Assessment (SARA) risk factors. For example, serial domestic abuse perpetrators are more likely than non-serial domestic abuse perpetrators to have past assault of family and stranger/acquaintance violence, recent escalation in violence, past use of weapons and denial of spousal assault, amongst others. A profiling exercise of the ‘top ten’ serial perpetrators was conducted to identify whether those prioritised by Police forces represent a distinctly different, and more dangerous, group of perpetrators. This exercise revealed that, in addition to each force developing their own definition of what constitutes a serial perpetrator, different methods and processes are utilised across forces to target this group of perpetrators, if this is done at all. Only two of the four Welsh forces (South Wales and Dyfed Powys) routinely target serial perpetrators within their force operational processes, thus highlighting that not all forces necessarily view serial perpetration as synonymous with the highest priority offending. Cross-force comparison showed that the profile of ‘top ten’ serial perpetrators varied considerably across forces, and whilst all but one perpetrator was ‘known’ to Probation, only one-third of this group could be identified by Probation as serial perpetrators. Implications In conclusion, the evidence derived from this exploratory study does not suggest that ‘serial domestic abuse perpetrators’ represent a qualitatively different group – one that is distinctive, can be reliably identified, and that has a profile calling for a particular course of action in terms of multi-agency response and risk management. This in turn suggests that the conceptualisation of ‘serial domestic abuse perpetrator’ should be informed not just by the quantity of victims but also the quality of, and motivations behind, the abusive behaviour. For this reason, we recommend that serial offending be considered alongside repeat and high-risk offending behaviour in the determination of who is a priority perpetrator and that this determination should instigate a more intensive and targeted multi-agency response.

The Integrated Offender Management (IOM) Cymru partnership commissioned this research to investigate the feasibility of developing a shared definition and common multi-agency recording process for serial domestic abuse perpetrators across Wales. This report sets out findings from phase one of the research which included a qualitative mapping exercise (interviews with Police, Probation, and third sector agency representatives) along with a quantitative analysis of n=6642 anonymised domestic abuse perpetrator records provided by Wales Probation Trust. The qualitative evidence obtained for this report indicated substantial variability within and across agencies, which undoubtedly impacts upon the way in which serial abusers are identified, targeted and managed across Wales: • The four Welsh police forces have a definition of serial domestic abuse in place, but each varies slightly, as do their recording systems and reporting processes. • The data currently held by Probation do not enable ‘serial perpetrators’ to be easily identified, and the two IT systems used by Wales Probation Trust to manage information about domestic abuse perpetrators are not used consistently across Wales. • There is not currently a systematic process in place to ensure serial perpetrators are routinely identified and flagged across all relevant third sector agencies. The quantitative case files analysis indicated the following: • Roughly three-quarters of perpetrators fell into the ‘medium’ risk category (as defined in OASys or SARA). • MAPPA arrangements were in place for only a small proportion (17.5%). • Analysis of the risk judgments indicated significant variation across Wales (e.g., some regions had twice as many perpetrators deemed to be at ‘high’ risk). It is not possible to ascertain whether this reflects a true difference in the risk profile of perpetrators, or different assessment practices amongst Offender Managers across the regions, or a combination of these. Both the qualitative and the quantitative findings have implications for the feasibility of implementing a system for the routine identification of ‘serial’ domestic abuse perpetrators across Wales. The main recommendation arising from this research is that Police, National Offender Management Service (NOMS) in Wales, and third sector partners should work towards a commonly agreed definition of ‘serial domestic abuse’ and amend their recording systems so that these individuals may be easily identified (a full set of recommendations is provided at the end of this report). By developing an agreed profile and a shared definition of serial domestic abuse perpetrators, interventions and services can be targeted more effectively to reduce re-offending and protect victims.

Short-term prisoners have exceptionally high reconviction rates. Growing recognition of this and of deficiencies in prison-probation coordination has accelerated ‘resettlement’ of ex-prisoners up the penal agenda. This report looks at the effectiveness of these strategies in detail through three case studies of ‘Resettlement Pathfinders’ projects.

This penultimate chapter presents findings and raises issues arising from the organisational structures and arrangements surrounding the implementation of the Phase 2 Resettlement Pathfinders and the delivery of the FOR programme. It begins with a look at organisational issues, then outlines the main stages of prisoners’ progress, from recruitment and assessment to post-release follow-up. Throughout, particular attention will be paid to any obstacles to the effective delivery of the interventions. Between 7 October 2002 and 31 July 2003, regular visits were made to each of the three sites to observe various FOR sessions. Interviews were undertaken with the treatment managers and tutors, designed to elicit information about staff training and supervision, recruitment and assessment procedures and interviewees’ experiences of delivering the programme. The questionnaires covered the following areas: the nature of pre-release work carried out with the prisoners; the integration of the FOR programme within the prison, with particular reference to linkage with in-house services; the mechanisms for ensuring that the prisoners receive adequate post-release support following their release into the community. In addition, systematic analysis was undertaken of all relevant documentation, including quarterly monitoring forms, case management records and OASys and CRIME-PICS II assessments. We begin by briefly presenting the main findings on each of the following organisational issues: management and staffing; staff training; facilities; relationships with prison management; relationships with prison staff; links with prison services; recruitment of offenders to the programme. A lack of permanent, dedicated FOR staff was a problem for both Lewes and Hull at various stages throughout the programme. While staffing problems were overcome

In this chapter we explore staff and offender experiences of, and views about, the pre-release stage of the Resettlement Pathfinders, with particular attention to the FOR programme. This includes the experiences of treatment managers, programme tutors and prisoners. Post-release experiences will be discussed in Chapter 4. In addition to frequent informal interaction with them, the evaluation team conducted a total of 24 formal interviews with all the treatment managers and tutors across the three sites. These included five staff members (four of them in Lewes) who were interviewed twice in order to get a clearer picture of progress over time. (A further 13 interviews were conducted with outside probation officers and others linked to FOR who were responsible for the community stage: their views are discussed in Chapter 4.) As well as exploring staff views about the programme in general and their experiences of delivering specific sessions, the semi-structured interview schedule was designed to elicit information relating to a range of practical, organisational and delivery issues. The programme staff were also asked about the nature of other pre-release work carried out with the prisoners and the integration of the FOR programme within the prison, with particular reference to linkage with in-house services. The following discussion focuses mainly on staff experiences of delivering the programme and their views about its style and content. It is structured under the following headings: Comparison with other treatment programmes. Session content. Programme applicability. Workbooks. Programme effectiveness and quality of delivery. Staff with experience of other prison-based treatment programmes were asked how they thought FOR compared.

In this chapter, the focus is upon post-release aspects of the resettlement process. The discussion is based on four main data sources: the interviews – already referred to in the previous chapter – with 71 ex-prisoners who had previously completed the FOR programme; interviews with 13 FOR ‘community links’ or ‘post-release tutors’; a postal questionnaire completed by 24 community-based service providers with links to the programme; and analysis of the post-release sections of the case management records (CMRs) kept on all FOR participants. First, a brief summary is given of the extent of contact between offenders and FOR staff or community links: this issue is further discussed in Chapter 5, where post-release contact is examined as an interim indicator of resettlement outcomes. Second, an account is given of referrals made to local agencies and of subsequent levels of service uptake. Finally, views of the community link staff and ex-prisoners are presented. It is important to reiterate that the evaluation of the Phase 1 Resettlement Pathfinders included only Automatic Unconditional Release (AUR) prisoners (for whom all post-release contact was voluntary), but that the eligibility criteria were expanded in Phase 2 to include Automatic Conditional Release (ACR) prisoners and young offenders (YOs), two groups that are subject to statutory post-release supervision. This complicated the post-release stages of the resettlement strategy, which were managed differently in each site. As outlined in Chapter 1, the aim in Parc was to allocate all ACR participants to specially designated (and trained) FOR probation officers in a number of locations around South Wales: while this occurred in most cases, a substantial minority were in fact supervised by other members of throughcare teams.