Resettle intensive intervention and risk management service (IIRMS): a pathway to desistance?
Authors: Ryan Sue , Eldridge Alaw , Duffy Cormac , Crawley Ellen , O'Brien Caroline 
Published: July 2022

Purpose
This study aims to explore the demographic and reconviction data of individuals who had engaged in an established Intensive Intervention and Risk Management Service, a community service within the offender personality disorder pathway (OPD).

Design/methodology/approach
Demographic information and reconviction data from the Police National Computer was accessed for all participants (n = 69) released to the service over a 10-year period (2008– 2018), 45 of who met criteria to be included in the study. Their intervention period spans custody to community, with an expected period of 2 years engagement upon release.

Findings
Participants in the service had experienced significant traumatic histories, with four or more adverse childhood experiences. Individuals had a mean of 17 convictions for violent and/or sexual offences and an average of 11 years in custody prior to release. The average length of intervention at Resettle in the community was almost 19 months, with an additional minimum of six months in-reach prior to release. A total of 60% of individuals were recalled back to custody at least once during their intervention, with this being more likely for those who had been convicted of a violent rather than sexual offence. Within the group who were reconvicted, the reconvictions were for less serious offences than the index offence, with only 16% being convicted of an indictable offence. Almost two-thirds (64.4%) did not receive a further conviction post-intervention in the follow-up period.

Research limitations/implications
This follow-up study focused upon demographic and reconviction data from one established IIRMS. Although findings are not necessarily generalisable to other IIRMS and OPD pathway services, the demographic and reconviction data has important learning for how services may reflect upon engaging with individuals whose needs and risks had not previously been adequately met and managed upon release. This data are useful learning, for what may help individuals with complex needs upon release into the community after long sentences and how to best meet their needs. There are aspects of the Resettle IIRMS approach which could be applied to non-specialist services to encourage a holistic, compassionate and relational approach to reaching those with complex needs who pose significant risks to others.

Practical implications
This follow-up study has provided access to participants’ engagement with an established IIRMS. Although participants “opt in” to the service whilst in custody, engagement on release becomes a probation licence condition; a fixed boundary regarding attendance and engagement which, although enables robust risk management and reduces the likelihood of drop-out, also raises consideration about choice and control. The four day per week service provides an intensive intervention, for those with complex needs and limited prior experience of living safely (with minimal risk to self or others) in the community. Participants were previously offered little hope of release or effective support because of their risk, need, complexity and, in some cases, concern about whether their risk could be effectively managed. Although not a panacea for all, the results are suggestive of a service that is navigating the boundary between “care and control” to good effect for future resettlement and desistance.

Originality/value
The findings are important for service providers, commissioners and the public purse. The results are useful for the national development of IIRMS. The findings are also important for prisoners and people on probation to inform their decision-making regarding intervention choices and hope for what may be achievable.