1. Use of Customer Insight in
Review of Offender management services
in Lewisham
Frank Curran
Consultant

2. Total Place
Reducing re-offending chosen as one of four Total
Place strands in 2009
Aim: To identify opportunities for improving the
effectiveness of existing service delivery models
and subsequently to reduce re-offending rates
and the harm caused by offenders.
Scope: Review the range of community based
rehabilitative services and resettlement
packages offered in Lewisham, to offenders
especially adults leaving prison

3. Aim of Customer Insight
Who is the ‘customer’?
Aim to answer:
•What is the client journey from arrest to rehabilitation?
•What is the offenders own experience of the services and
interventions they receive(d)
•What are the drivers of criminal behaviour?
Scope:
•8 offender ethnographies
•Offender journey mapping
•5 service provider ethnographies/ shadowing
•Case file review

4. Example of ethnography output

5. “She spoke of her frustration He remembers ‘waking up and
about leaving prison clean and thinking “it’s another day, what
‘full of good intentions’ and being shall I do today?”’. He was used to
placed in a hostel next to drug the routine of prison and found it
dealers and users. She knew hat weird not to be told what to do.
because she was in the sort of
environment she’d relapse”
“ If you can’t find
services, you find
your drug dealer”

6. Pros and cons
What worked well Possible difficulties
• Doesn’t over simplify • Not statistically sound
• Detailed case studies and quotations •Will it have credibility?
•How will it inform service
• Offender led
change?
• Honestly of those involved •Recruiting
• Not involving the ‘usual suspects’ •Mapping offender journey more
• Case studies very compelling difficult than we expected
Would do differently:
• Service provider ethnographies
• Retrospective journey mapping with repeat offenders – very complex
journeys

7. Resettlement & Rehabilitative Services
Post-Release

8. Findings from customer insight work
• Limited co-ordination of rehabilitative services
– Complexity of offender pathway
– Multiple assessment points & key workers
– Ad-hoc information sharing arrangements
• Transition from prison to community not smooth
– Release dates not communicated to community based
providers
– Friday releases
– Offenders released from prisons outside of London
– Lack of basic provision in place upon release
• Rehabilitative Services & Interventions
– Designed as a one way rigid process
– Limited range of service offers
– Employment related training not linked to employment
opportunities
– No assessment of effectiveness

9. Lewisham’s response (1)
Commissioned a service to “disrupt “ the system
and work with offenders to reduce reoffending:
2.Service paid partly on success in reducing offending
amongst participants
3.Provider given great flexibility in service design
4.Service focuses on people released from prison and
others motivated to change behaviour
5.Service acts as lead professional

10. Lewisham’s response (2)
•Improve operational co-ordination amongst agencies
leading to better joint approach to offenders
•Improved information sharing leading to reduced
assessments
•Two police officers working on the project
•Discussions with NOMS re prison releases
•Discussions with Work Programme primes re linking with
local CJ services
•Dashboard of performance measures reviewed every
month at joint board meeting

11. Reducing offending system
Proposed model
model

12. Questions & Comments?
For further information contact Frank
Curran 07515 875381