---
title: "Checkpoint Programme"
type: "pdf"
year: "2017"
canonical: "/projects/387"
---

# Application for Goldstein Award - Checkpoint 

# Table of Contents

- [Application for Goldstein Award - Checkpoint](#application-for-goldstein-award-checkpoint)
  - [Scanning](#scanning)
- [Analysis](#analysis)
- [Response](#response)
- [Assessment:](#assessment)
- [Appendix 1 - Re-offending Rates](#appendix-1-re-offending-rates)
  - [Prevalence of Any Reoffending over Time:](#prevalence-of-any-reoffending-over-time)
- [Appendix 2 - Phase 1 data](#appendix-2-phase-1-data)
- [Appendix 3 - Checkpoint Assessment form](#appendix-3-checkpoint-assessment-form)
- [Housing](#housing)
- [Employment / Education / Training](#employment-education-training)
- [Finances (Mark all relevant boxes)](#finances-mark-all-relevant-boxes)
- [Mental Health (Mark all relevant boxes)](#mental-health-mark-all-relevant-boxes)
- [Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Wellbeing Scale (WEMWBS)](#warwick-edinburgh-mental-wellbeing-scale-wemwbs)
- [Physical Health (mark all relevant boxes)](#physical-health-mark-all-relevant-boxes)
- [Smoker](#smoker)
- [Substance Misuse](#substance-misuse)
- [Alcohol Misuse](#alcohol-misuse)
- [Attitude, Thinking & Behaviour](#attitude-thinking-behaviour)
  - [Free Text](#free-text)
- [Appendix 4 - Checkpoint Contract Form](#appendix-4-checkpoint-contract-form)
  - [Checkpoint Contract Conditions](#checkpoint-contract-conditions)
- [Appendix 5 - Checkpoint Evaluation Form](#appendix-5-checkpoint-evaluation-form)
  - [Checkpoint Evaluation Form](#checkpoint-evaluation-form)
  - [Subject Details](#subject-details)
  - [Evaluation](#evaluation)
- [Pathway changes post Checkpoint](#pathway-changes-post-checkpoint)
  - [Accommodation](#accommodation)

## Scanning

During an informal conversation between two senior officers the issue of what would feasibly happen to one of their teenage sons should they make a stupid mistake, for example if he was found in possession of cannabis or became embroiled in a drunken argument in the street and it led them into the criminal justice system? Would the young man be penalized forever with a criminal record, lose his job? Would it lead him down the wrong path and would it jeopardise his future? Or was there an alternative way of dealing with that young man, and others like him, to educate them and put them back on the right track without disadvantaging them any further whilst at the same time improving life chances and overall wellbeing. This conversation eventually led the senior officers to consider the processes that offenders, particularly first-time offenders, go through when they enter the criminal justice system for lowlevel offences and whether this played a part in the re-offending rates.

The current situation in relation to criminal outcomes are limited and fixed; once a crime is reported and a suspect is identified, that individual becomes part of the criminal justice process and their behaviour is recorded within the criminal systems. Even juveniles or young adults can end up with a recordable caution or conviction which then remains on their record for the rest of their lives and is disclosable to future employers; affecting their careers, travel, finances etc. This situation can have a detrimental impact on that person long after the incident in question. Once that happens, that individual is more likely to re-offend particularly if the root cause of their behaviour or action was not addressed or resolved at an early stage.

Early research within Durham Constabulary's data showed that approximately 42\% of offenders committed a further offence within 6 months and almost 60\% re-offended within 2 years. It became clear that the criminal justice process was doing nothing to address the likelihood of re-offending and the current processes were not deterring offenders (see Appendix 1).

The issue of re-offending and damaging life chances was identified by a number of police officers in varying roles within Durham Constabulary when looking at problem-solving (which is a significant approach in Durham Constabulary's policing methods).

A small team of police officers were tasked to look at this further to identify possible solutions to reducing re-offending rates as well as aiming to improve people's lives at the same time. The team consulted with Public Health authorities (NHS) and with other partner agencies such as employment and substance misuse agencies to look at solutions and methods of interventions and agree a plan of joint working with the low-level offenders.

The British Government has a clear mandate that the police service is expected to not only investigate but also to reduce crime, and particularly in this period of austerity it is recognized that this can only be achieved if police and partner agencies work alongside each other and think of innovative and cost effective solutions.

This partnership arena is supported in law by the Governments 1998 Crime and Disorder Act, in which statutory partnerships were created in order to prevent crime and to rehabilitate offenders.

The Checkpoint Programme developed from the changes in the British Government's approach to "out of court disposals". Out of court disposals and other similar interventions have been available for a long time and the principle of dealing with routine, low-level offences without the need for bringing the matter to court is well-established. The "police caution", in which an officer warns an offender about their conduct and records the matter for future reference, has existed formally for decades and informally since the advent of policing. Volume motoring offences such as speeding are routinely dealt with by way of a fixed penalty notice issued by the police allowing the offender to discharge liability for the offence by paying a financial penalty or request a hearing at court.

In April 2013 the government removed the requirement on the Crown Prosecution Service requirement to decide on whether conditional cautions were a suitable disposal for offenders and devolved the decision process to the police sergeants responsible for the management of custody suites. This created not only an increase in time spent on disposal decision-making

by the police sergeant but also a requirement on the police to set and manage conditions for offenders.

This decision resulted in a paradigm shift in British policing whereby out of court disposals significantly increased, some of which were poor quality, were not applied correctly, and were wide in their variety. However there was little to no attempt to understand the driver for behaviour (Criminal Justice Journal 1, 2011).

This was at odds with the Integrated Offender Management Unit (IOMU) whose role was to support offenders, identify their critical pathways to reduce reoffending and create an evidence base of interventions that had proven results. Durham Constabulary and its partners had previously brought together co-located teams to manage the most prolific repeat offenders in line with the Governments policy on Integrated Offender Management (IOM) (Home Office 2009).

In February 2015 the Government reiterated this stance in their refreshed key principles IOM document, which reaffirmed the partnership approach (Home Office 2015). Tackling the underlying causes of crime (Critical Pathways) is meant to be embedded in the culture of the IOMU. These teams have proven to be very effective at reducing reoffending, based on a particular cohort's reoffending rates.

The implementation of the rehabilitative role of the IOM, in the Durham force area, however, has been varied. Their policy is to target the most persistent and problematic offenders, Sherman's "power few", who invariably require intensive support and the IOM cohort have limited capacity to provide such support (Sherman 2007).

Checkpoint is a culture-changing initiative, it seeks to tackle the root causation of offending and associated health and community related issues at a much earlier point in an offender's life. Checkpoint aims to utilise interventions to provide a structured diversion focused on identifying critical pathways to reducing reoffending for low and medium harm offenders with the aim that both demand and reoffending will be reduced. Checkpoint uses specialist "navigators" to identify individuals aged 18 (or over) in order to identify the most appropriate interventions or services to support the individual away from crime (supported desistence) and

improve their life chances, overall health and wellbeing. This project primarily aims to capitalise on a bespoke forecasting model which identifies those of greater risk of reoffending based on statistical evidence for entry into the scheme.

Academic research shows that the fear of prosecution and the certainty of prosecution (rather than the severity of punishment) can have a greater impact on an individual and their motivation to change (Routledge 2015).

Checkpoint is a voluntary programme but completion will result in an exit from the Criminal Justice System as long as the offender complies with their individually tailored 'contract to engage' (see Appendix 5) which is designed to address the critical pathways of that individual. Any failure, either through re-offending or lack of engagement, may result in formal court proceedings being invoked.

Within Durham Constabulary's policing area, on average 16000 people are arrested each year; with 4000 being brought into custody as a voluntary offender. However, of these figures, only 6000 individuals were brought into custody, suggesting that a significant number of individuals are repeat offenders.
$42 \%$ of low-level offenders will re-offend within 6 months of their first arrest (Appendix 1). Low-level offenders are often given a caution or fixed penalty notice in the early stages of their offending pathway and offenders at this level are given no opportunity to address the root causes of their offending behaviour. This also means that first time offenders may be disadvantaged later in life after making one mistake which has resulted in a criminal record.

The current out of court disposal options were looked at and although these were beneficial in some cases, they were not always applied correctly; they did not address the root causes of offending behaviour and therefore did not prevent re-offending.

During the research stage of Checkpoint, it was also recognized generally that health and wellbeing within the community was not as good as it should be, in particular in those "hard to reach groups" who may have issues in key critical pathways. It was accepted that the police as an organization often came into regular contact with these "hard to reach groups" within the community such as homeless groups, those suffering with mental health or those addicted

to alcohol or drugs and it would benefit the community as a whole to maximize the opportunity for intervention from public health and other health service providers.

Checkpoint is not simply about crime and disorder; it's about life chances, health and wellbeing, community confidence and cohesion. It capitalises on Durham Constabulary's ethos and experience in Problem Orientated Policing and partners expertise in treating the underlying causes of crime - Checkpoint is problem-solving on an individual basis and on an industrial scale. It is also a multi-agency programme which aims to improve awareness of and access to health-based services for all persons presenting at Police Custody in order to improve public health, life chances, and both individual and community wellbeing.

Early consultation took place between the police and public health in order to secure support and involvement in this multi-agency initiative. Partner agency links with Durham Police were already strong however further links were established early in the process to ensure services were available to offenders once the programme commenced. The overarching responsibility for the Checkpoint Programme is the "Durham and Darlington Reducing Reoffending Group". The development and implementation of Checkpoint was also governed by a multi-agency board consisting of various partner agencies including police, council, social care, mental and physical health services, and employment and housing services.

Research conducted in the Durham Police area also showed that victim satisfaction was better if they were given regular updates in relation to their case and if reassurances could be given that the offender would not repeat their behaviour again in the future. In the majority of cases, the police were unable to fulfil this level of victim satisfaction; it proved difficult to explain the rationale of the traditional out of court disposals to victims or be in a position to give any reassurances regarding re-offending, which may have contributed to a drop in victim satisfaction in the past. Checkpoint aimed to redress this by ensuring personal contact for each case that was referred to the programme and giving full explanations to each victim. Restorative Justice was also discussed with every victim where appropriate to give the victim "a voice" in the criminal justice process. In 2006 the Victims Code was introduced to UK policing whereby there is defined rules of contact with each and every victim of crime as

standard. As part of the Checkpoint process, this code was adhered to, with regular updates given to the victim as and when they requested it throughout the duration of the offender's contract.

# Analysis 

As alluded to earlier in this report, the research carried out within Durham Constabulary policing area showed that, per year, 16000 arrests were recorded along with 4000 voluntary attenders brought into custody for various offences. A "voluntary attender" is someone who volunteers to be interviewed in relation to an offence thereby negating the need for an actual arrest to be made. The research also showed that, of these 2000 detentions in custody, only 6000 individuals equated for that figure suggesting that re-offending was prevalent. The average number of offenders in the IOM cohort is 200 therefore thousands of people are leaving police custody each year having never been assessed as to why they offend and what could be done to prevent them reoffending.

Many of these people are at crisis point, leading chaotic lifestyles, lacking the knowledge to access support services and vulnerable to reoffending. Based on research conducted in Durham, Checkpoint was developed to close this gap and address the critical pathway needs of low and medium level offenders.

Many victims were also left dissatisfied with the outcome of their crime or incident, with offenders receiving a simple caution or small fine and nothing more.

There is a lot of research suggesting that key critical pathways are often prevalent in an offenders' background which, if addressed early enough, could reduce the likelihood of their re-offending. These pathways may be mental and physical health, substance misuse (alcohol and drugs), financial/unemployment problems, housing or relationships/peer groups. Fixed penalty punishments and cautions do not enable offenders to address their issues and often can exacerbate their problems. For example, a fixed penalty notice is a financial punishment of a standard amount of money to be paid by a person committing certain low level offences however if an offender is struggling financially and addicted to drugs or alcohol,

then they are unlikely to be in a position to ever pay the fine, resulting in more severe punishment and compound their difficulties.

There was also another perspective to the issue; improving the wellbeing of people within the community was also key to this programme. A lot of research was carried out by public health in relation to "hard to reach" community sections and it quickly became apparent that by working together with the police on a multi-agency programme, the benefits would be twofold. As well as reducing the likelihood of re-offending, it would also be possible to improve a person's wellbeing and enable better engagement with services within the community. Overall this would also benefit the wider community (less victims, less crime, increased wellbeing). There are several examples of such improvements. For instance, offender A; a known alcoholic, was living in a community where anti-social behaviour was prevalent by local gangs of youths. These youths targeted offender A because of his issues and he was struggling to deal with them. The situation worsened within the neighbourhood as he reacted to their behaviour and incidents of anti-social behaviour increased significantly. Offender A was eventually arrested for causing damage to one of the gang member's car and was referred to Checkpoint. We were quickly able to identify that alcohol and mental health were key issues in his life and referred him to support services. In a short space of time, offender A significant reduced his alcohol intake and was better able to deal with issues in the community and the anti-social behaviour lessened considerably. Other residents within that community also benefited from the reduction of crime and disorder.

Another case study involves a young female in her early 20s, who had been in and out of care since her mum died when she was 8 years old. By the time she was 11 years old, she was alcohol-dependant and continued drinking and socialising with other alcoholics for the next 10 years. At 18 years old she was released from social care and left to fend for herself with no means of financial income, no home, no job and no support. Things deteriorated rapidly for her and she ended up stealing alcohol for herself from local shops. At her third offence, she came onto the Checkpoint programme and with the help of the navigator, she managed to turn her life around - she sorted her finances out, she reduced her alcohol intake

significantly, she secured her own accommodation and eventually got herself a job. She achieved all this within the 4 months she was on the Checkpoint programme and she is forever grateful for the support and opportunity given.

Prior to Checkpoint being implemented, a lot of the community problems were being dealt with by various agencies, departments or individuals with no real structure or plan. What worked on one occasion was not necessarily applied on another occasion and no sharing of information was in place. This often meant that re-offending occurred and good practice was missed by the lack of information-sharing.

Research shows that the physical and mental health of people within the Durham Constabulary policing area is suffering in comparison to other areas of the UK with mortality rates being lower than anywhere else in the UK. These rates also vary depending on which area of County Durham that they reside ie the north area is deemed to have more unemployment and poor health than areas within the south of the county. The demographics of these areas play a significant part in the root cause of offending.

The Checkpoint programme was publicised within the local communities prior to commencing and when explained to the public, it was both well-received and welcomed by the majority of the public.

Discussions with service providers (such as the NHS) and partner agencies were also wellreceived and mutual agreements were obtained to forge greater links between the navigators facilitating offenders to engage with said services in a timely and appropriate fashion.

# Response 

It was agreed at strategic level for the police to work with partner agencies to create an intervention programme which was designed to address any individual critical pathways and ultimately support the offender in desisting from re-offending. Durham Police was the lead organisation working closely with partner agencies such as Probation and drug \& alcohol services.

The joint aim was to both reduce re-offending within the area but also improve wellbeing within the community, either directly or indirectly.

The Checkpoint assessment process involves the completion of an in-depth assessment form with the offender (see Appendix 3) which includes questions around each and every critical pathway regardless of the referring offence. The Checkpoint contract is a bespoke contract created as a result of the assessment stage and usually contains between 2-5 conditions (see Appendix 4). This contract is tailored to meet the needs of both the individual offender, the victim in that case and the wider community. The conditions included two mandatory agreements that no re-offending takes place within the duration of their contract period and that restorative justice options would be considered and participated in where appropriate. The remaining conditions would relate to the offenders' critical pathways such as substance misuse, health issues, housing or employment issues or consequential thinking.

It was anticipated that by complying with this contract, it would reduce the re-offending rates whilst at the same time improving the wellbeing of the community, including victims of crime, local residents and the offender themselves. Durham Police considered other similar projects (such as "Turning Point" which West Midlands Police had implemented on a smaller scale) however it was decided that a more in-depth and supportive programme would be more beneficial within the community.

It was also decided that, at the end of their contract, each offender is required to complete an evaluation form that includes both qualitative and quantitative information about their time on Checkpoint (see Appendix 5).

As it was always intended to be a multi-agency approach to the issue, agreements were in place with partner agencies for 8 navigators to be seconded to Durham Police specifically for Checkpoint. 4 members of staff were Probation workers and 4 were recruited from local council-funded substance misuse services who were already working within communities to manage and reduce harm amongst those persons addicted to drugs and/or alcohol providing a more holistic approach. These members of staff worked within Durham's police stations supervised by the police team.

Initially there were issues around admin and technology as well as wider legal issues around partnership working, for example in relation to data protection and sharing of confidential information. Cost was an implication in the early stages however these were quickly resolved in the pilot stage of the programme through early consultation and sharing of costs between local government and the police. There was also other more practical issues such as the volume of cases that were referred to Checkpoint in the early stages which vastly exceeded the numbers anticipated. There was a brief halt in the programme between Phase 1 in December 2015 and Phase 2 in February 2016. Phase 1 was the testable treatment phase when Checkpoint was first implemented which allowed the team to adapt the processes according to any identified needs. Phase 2 was commenced a short time after Phase 1 once minor issues around workloads, criteria and admin processes had been resolved. (Phase 3 commenced in May 2016 and is currently running as part of an academic "randomised control trial").

# Assessment: 

The goals and objectives were far exceeded from the initial expectation with Checkpoint. In Phase 1 alone, 541 offenders came onto the Checkpoint programme with just over 10\% failing the programme. Only $4.3 \%$ of this group re-offended in comparison to the $42 \%$ reoffending rate prior to Checkpoint. 5.9\% failed due to lack of engagement on the programme.

Further checks show that, to date, only 12.9\% of the Phase 1 cohort have been re-arrested with only $3.6 \%$ of those being convicted during the following 18 months (see Appendix 2).

Regular QA reviews were carried out by the two police supervisors in every individual case and these cases were also dip-sampled and reviewed by the Detective Inspector. Any issues were quickly identified and resolved, for example follow-up calls were made to other service providers to ensure that they had fulfilled their requirement in working with the offender. An example of this is the case of a young male who suffered with mental health issues after experiencing a bereavement. He was advised to attend counselling sessions in relation to this however due to his character, he felt unable to speak openly about his issues therefore did not disclose his issues and his case was closed without further counselling. Once this was

realised during the review, his navigator was requested to visit the counsellor with the offender to speak on his behalf at the initial appointment to enable the right support to be given.

Data was also collected and analysed by a designated analyst and regular updates were fed back to the team on a regular basis highlighting any anomalies or issues with the process (Appendix 2).

The data is reviewed every 6 months in relation to the re-offending rates for 2 years. Phase 1 data is completed for the 2 year period, as outlined in Appendix 2. Evaluation of Phase 2 and 3 are continuing.

At the end of every contract, the offender was asked to complete an evaluation form outlining any improvements on a scale of 1-10 as well as completing a set of questions to ascertain the benefits from the programme (see Appendix 5). This form was developed by the police team to look at both quantitative and qualitative responses.

Communication became smoother as the programme became embedded into mainstream work and this enabled us to gather feedback from partners and service providers such as Mental Health Teams, Social Services, Local Authorities and Substance Misuse Services.

As already mentioned, Durham Police are currently conducting a Randomised Control Trial assisted by Cambridge University to compare both qualitative and quantitative data; this is ongoing and is anticipated to continue until April 2018. This is one of the few RCTs to be carried out within the criminal justice arena in over 50 years and is aimed at providing evidence of the positive impact of Checkpoint.

# Appendix 1 - Re-offending Rates

## Prevalence of Any Reoffending over Time:

![img-0.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/17-03/img-0.jpeg)

# Appendix 2 - Phase 1 data 

| Failures (engagement) | \% failure to engage within 122 days of  start of Checkpoint contract | 31 | $5.9 \%$ |
| :-- | :-- | :-- | :-- |
| Failure (re-offending) | \% arrested within 122 days of  Checkpoint contract | 23 | $4.3 \%$ |
| Within 6 months... | $\%$ rearrested | 28 | $5.9 \%$ |
|  | $\%$ convicted | 6 | $1.3 \%$ |
| Within 9 months... | $\%$ rearrested | 20 | $4.2 \%$ |
|  | $\%$ convicted | 6 | $1.3 \%$ |
| Within 12 months... | $\%$ rearrested | 16 | $3.4 \%$ |
|  | $\%$ convicted | 5 | $1.1 \%$ |
| Within 18 months... | $\%$ rearrested | 4 | $0.8 \%$ |
|  | $\%$ convicted | 2 | $0.4 \%$ |

# Appendix 3 - Checkpoint Assessment form

|  Referral |   |
| --- | --- |
|  Surname |   |
|  Forenames |   |
|  DOB | Ethnic Apearance  |
|  Nat Insurance | NHS No  |
|  Phone | Email  |
|  Referral Area |   |
|  Blue Light Drinkers | Checkpoint  |
|  Claires Law | Domestic Violence  |
|  Protect a Child | IOMU  |
|  POP | Sarahs Law  |
|  Think Family | VIP  |
|  Crime / Incident No |   |
|  SAF /Other Refs |   |
|  Custody / VA No |   |
|  Arresting Officer |   |
|  Custody Officer |   |
|  DV Related | Yes  |
|  Hate Crime | Yes  |
|  BWV | Yes  |
|  CCTV | Yes  |
|  Offending Area |   |
|  Barnard Castle | Bishop Auckland  |
|  Chester le Street | Consett  |
|  Durham | Newton Aycliffe  |
|  Seaham | Spennymoor  |
|  Interview Status | Denial  |
|   | No Reply  |
|  Bail Date |   |
|  Bail Time |   |
|  Bail Station | Bishop Auckland  |
|   | Durham  |
|  Appointment Date | Appointment Time  |
|  Location | OIC  |
|  Vulnerabilities (Age, Disabilities, Gender, Communications and language, Health, Appropriate Adult etc) |   |

|  Assessment |  |  |  |  |  |   |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
|  Assessment Location |  | Police Office |  | Street |  | Other  |
|  Person Completing |  | Name |  |  | No: |   |
|  Date |  |  |  | Time |  |   |
|  Cultural, Lifestyle, Disability, Religious Requirements or Traveller background |  |  |  |  |  |   |
|  Ex Forces |  |  |  |  |  |   |
|  Yes |  | No |  |  |  |   |
|  Vulnerable Offender |  |  |  |  |  |   |
|  Yes |  | No |  |  |  |   |
|  List any other agencies you are involved with (Include Phone Nos, Names, Times and Dates such as DWP, Doctors etc) |  |  |  |  |  |   |
|  Subjects Account of the Offence (include Behaviour, Involvement, Victims, Ages, Vulnerability, Motivation, Mitigation, Planning, Breach of trust, etc) |  |  |  |  |  |   |
|  What would have prevented you from committing this incident/offence? (eg CCTV, Smart Water, Increased Security/Staff, NHW, Layout, Other - provide details) |  |  |  |  |  |   |
|  Are there any other outstanding matters which need to be considered? |  |  |  |  |  |   |
|  Yes |  | No |  |  |  |   |

CJS Involvement
No CJS Involvement Previous to YOS Recorded on PNC Previous to CRC Current to CRC Previous to NPS Current to NPS Previous Order Types
ARR ASS Order Binding Over Order Community Order Community Payback Confiscation Order Community Protection Warning Court Fines (Outstanding) Forced Marriage Protection Order Depravation of Ownership Disqualification Disqualification of Ownership Animals Drinking Banning Order DRR Exclusion Order Football Banning Order Forfeiture Destruction Order Mental Health Order Not Applicable Other Parenting Order Police Information Notice (POV) DVPG DVPG Fines / Compensation Prison SOFOL Suspended Sentence Order Restraining Order Fines, Costs & Compensation (offender) 

Support Network
Name DOB or Age Sex Relationship Same address
M M N Y N
M M N Y N
M M N Y N
M M N Y N
M M N Y N
M M N Y N
M M N Y N
M M N Y N
Victim of Crime
Have you ever been the victim of a crime? Yes No
Crime Type Year Reported to Police Yes No
Violence Fraud Summary of crime
Sexual
Offence Theft
Damage / Arson Other
Damage / Arson Year Reported to Police Yes No
Violence Fraud Summary of crime
Sexual
Offence Theft
Damage / Arson Other

|  Crime Type | Year | Reported to Police | Yes | No  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
|  Violence | Fraud |  | Summary of crime |   |
|  Sexual
Offence | Theft |  |  |   |
|  Damage / Arson | Other |  |  |   |

# Housing

|  Current Accommodation type (mark one box) | Hostile | Housing Association  |
| --- | --- | --- |
|   | Living with Parents or relative | No Fixed Abode  |
|   | Owner Occupied | Private Tennent  |
|   | Rough Sleeping | Shared Living Accomodation  |
|   | Sofa Surfing Family / Friends | Supported Accomodation  |

|  Issues (mark all Issues) | Advice and Application | Utilities  |
| --- | --- | --- |
|   | ASR | Community Integration  |
|   | Environmental / Hygiene | Fire, Safety & Security  |
|   | Financial Management | Food Voucher  |
|   | Other | Notice to Quit  |
|   | Released from Prison | Previous Eviction Warnings  |
|   | Travel / Transport | Rent Arrears  |
|   | Warden Services | Rent & Debt Arrears  |
|   | Social Isolation |   |
|  Is this particular pathway linked to this referral? | Yes | No  |
|  Is the subjects wider offending linked to this pathway? | Yes | No  |

|  Is there a working smoke Alarm within the property? | Yes | No  |
| --- | --- | --- |
|  Free Text (if housing is an identified issue please include the subjects previous addresses from the last 5 years, this will assist the housing provider. Record any relevant rationale and information below) |  |   |

On a scale of 1-10 (1 low impact- 10 high impact) how much do you feel accommodation issues have contributed to your offending and how is this impacting upon your current health and wellbeing?

|  None | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
|  |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |

# Employment / Education / Training

|  Status (Mark one box) | Full Time Education ☐ | Full Time Employment ☐  |
| --- | --- | --- |
|   | Incapacity Benefit / Sickness ☐ | Part Time Education ☐  |
|   | Part Time Employment ☐ | Retired ☐  |
|   | Temp / Casual ☐ | Unemployed ☐  |
|   | Unknown ☐ |   |
|  Time Frame (Mark one box) | 0-6 Months ☐ | 6-12 Months ☐  |
|   | 1-2 Years ☐ | 5-4 Years ☐  |
|   | 5-6 Years ☐ | 7-8 Years ☐  |
|   | 9-10 Years ☐ | 10+ Years ☐  |
|  Current Occupation |  |   |
|  Previous Occupations |  |   |
|  Highest educational Qualification | A Level ☐ | Degree ☐  |
|   | GCSE 1-4 (A-C) ☐ | GCSE 5+ (A-C) ☐  |
|   | GCSE Other ☐ | No Formal Qualification ☐  |
|   | NVQ 1-3 ☐ | NVQ 4-5 ☐  |
|   | Other (please specify below) ☐ | Post Graduate ☐  |
|   | Professional Work Qualification ☐ | Declined to say ☐  |
|  Education Leaving Age | 0-14 ☐ | 15 ☐  |
|   | 15 ☐ | 16 ☐  |
|   | 17 ☐ | 18 ☐  |
|   | 19 ☐ | 20 ☐  |
|   | 21 ☐ | 22+ ☐  |
|  Hobbies, Interests, Skills, Experiences & Ambitions |  |   |
|  Reading and Writing Ability & Issues |  |   |
|  Qualification / Skills Sought |  |   |
|  Restrictions/Availability/ Work Commitments (record details of Work Coach) |  |   |
|  Preferred Work |  |   |

Free Text to provide further details

|  Is this particular pathway linked to this referral? | Yes ☐ | No ☐  |
| --- | --- | --- |
|  Is the subjects wider offending linked to this pathway? | Yes ☐ | No ☐  |

On a scale of 1-10 (1 low impact- 10 high impact) how much do you feel employment, education & training issues have contributed to your offending and how is this impacting upon your current health and wellbeing?

|  None | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
|  ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐  |

# Finances (Mark all relevant boxes)

|  Issues | |
| --- | --- |
|  Arrears of Benefits | |
|  Carer Unpaid | |
|  Credit Card Debit | |
|  DLA/Pet | |
|  Food Voucher | |
|  Housing Benefits | |
|  ISA | |
|  Other (specify in Notes) | |
|  Personal Loan(s) | |
|  Transport / Travel Issues | |
|  Unofficial Loans | |

|  Previous Sanctions | Details (Include circumstances & no of times)  |
| --- | --- |
|  Yes ☐ No ☐ |   |
|  Currently Sanctioned | Details (Include circumstances)  |
|  Yes ☐ No ☐ |   |
|  Current access to Bank Account | Yes ☐ No ☐  |
|  Free Text to provide further details |   |

|  Is this particular pathway linked to this referral? | Yes ☐ No ☐  |
| --- | --- |
|  Is the subjects wider offending linked to this pathway? | Yes ☐ No ☐  |
|  On a scale of 1-10 (1 low impact- 10 high impact) how much do you feel your financial issues have contributed to your offending and how is this impacting upon your current health and wellbeing? |   |

|  None | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
|  ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐  |

# Mental Health (Mark all relevant boxes)

|  |   |
| --- | --- |
|  Anger Management | Attempted Suicide  |
|  Bi-Polar | Body Dysmorphic Disorder  |
|  Bereavement Issues | Dementia / Alzheimer's  |
|  Depression (Clinical Diagnosed) | Depression (Self Diagnosed)  |
|  Eating Disorder | Learning Difficulties  |
|  Medication Issue (Self / Missing / Abusing) | Obsessive Compulsive  |
|  Other | Panic Attacks  |
|  Personality Disorder | Phobia (specify in Notes)  |
|  Post -Traumatic Stress | Schizophrenia  |
|  Self Esteem | Self Harm  |
|  Sleeping Problems | Social Isolation  |
|  Stress / Anxiety (Clinical Diagnosed) | Stress / Anxiety (Self Diagnosed)  |
|  Suicidal Feelings | Trauma / Traumatic events  |
|  Free Text to provide further details (Include whether clinically diagnosed or self diagnosed) |   |

Medication, Triggers & Aggravators

# Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Wellbeing Scale (WEMWBS)

|  |   |   |   |   |   |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
|  Question | None of the time | Rarely | Sometimes | Often | All of the time  |
|  I've been feeling useful | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5  |
|  I've been feeling relaxed | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5  |
|  I've been feeling interested in other people | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5  |
|  I've had energy to spare | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5  |
|  I've been thinking clearly | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5  |
|  I've been feeling good about myself | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5  |
|  I've been feeling close to other people | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5  |
|  I've been feeling confident | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5  |
|  I've been feeling loved | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5  |
|  I've been interested in new things | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5  |
|  I've been feeling cheerful | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5  |
|  I've been dealing with problems well | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5  |
|  I've been feeling optimistic about the future | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5  |
|  I've been able to make up my own mind about things | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5  |

Total Score

0-32 Points Wellbeing is very low ☑ 32-40 Below average wellbeing ☐ 40-59 Average wellbeing ☐ 59-70 Above average Wellbeing ☐

Is this particular pathway linked to this referral? Yes ☑ No ☐

Is the subjects wider offending linked to this pathway? Yes ☑ No ☐

On a scale of 1-10 (1 low impact- 10 high impact) how much do you feel your mental wellbeing has contributed to your offending and how is this impacting upon your current health and wellbeing?

|  None | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
|  ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐  |

# Physical Health (mark all relevant boxes)

|  Asthma | Cosmetic Issue  |
| --- | --- |
|  Dental Hygiene | Diabetes  |
|  Disability | Health Awareness  |
|  Hearing Loss | Heart Disease  |
|  Illness (specify) | Immunisation  |
|  Joint Problems | Migraines/Headaches  |
|  Nutrition/Diet | Other (specify)  |
|  Pain Management | Sexual Health  |
|  Sleep Deprivation | Visual Impairment  |
|  Weight/Obesity |   |

Free Text to provide further details (include whether clinically diagnosed or self diagnosed)

# Smoker

|  Yes | No  |
| --- | --- |
|  Non Smoker |   |
|  6-10 11-15 16-20 21-25 26-30 31-35 36+ Unknown |   |
|  A & E Attendance (last 12 months) |   |
|  None |   |
|  1 |   |
|  2 |   |
|  3 |   |
|  4+ |   |

|  Circumstances |   |
| --- | --- |
|  |   |

|  Registered with GP ? |   |
| --- | --- |
|  GP Name |   |
|  Yes |   |
|  No |   |

|  Registered with Dentist ? |   |
| --- | --- |
|  Dentist Name |   |
|  Yes |   |
|  No |   |

|  Pregnant | Yes | No  |
| --- | --- | --- |
|  Is this particular pathway linked to this referral? | Yes | No  |
|  Is the subjects wider offending linked to this pathway? | Yes | No  |

On a scale of 1-10 (1 low impact- 10 high impact) how much do you feel your physical health has contributed to your offending and how is this impacting upon your current health and wellbeing?

|  None | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
|  |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |

# Substance Misuse

|  Amphetamine | Benzos | Cannabis  |
| --- | --- | --- |
|  Cocaine | GHB | Glue  |
|  Ketamine | Legal Highs | MDNA  |
|  Methadone | Methamphetamine | Opiates  |
|  Other | Over counter Meds | Prescription Meds  |
|  Solvents | Steroids | Suboxone  |
|  Tobacco |  |   |

|  Drug Type | Price Paid | Weight | Weekly Expense (£) | Time Used Months/ Years | Means Taken  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
|  |   |   |   |   |   |
|  |   |   |   |   |   |
|  |   |   |   |   |   |
|  |   |   |   |   |   |
|  |   |   |   |   |   |
|  |   |   |   |   |   |
|  |   |   |   |   |   |
|  |   |   |   |   |   |
|  |   |   |   |   |   |
|  |   |   |   |   |   |
|  |   |   |   |   |   |
|  |   |   |   |   |   |
|  |   |   |   |   |   |
|  |   |   |   |   |   |
|  |   |   |   |   |   |
|  |   |   |   |   |   |
|  |   |   |   |   |   |
|  |   |   |   |   |   |
|  |   |   |   |   |   |
|  |   |   |   |   |   |
|  |   |   |   |   |   |
|  |   |   |   |   |   |
|  |   |   |   |   |   |
|  |   |   |   |   |   |
|  |   |   |   |   |   |
|  |   |   |   |   |   |
|  |   |   |   |   |   |
|  |   |   |   |   |   |
|  |   |   |   |   |   |
|  |   |   |   |   |   |
|  |   |   |   |   |   |


# Alcohol Misuse

|  Question | 0 | 1 Point | 2 Points | 3 Points | 4 Points | Score  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
|  How often do you have a drink that contains alcohol? | Never | Monthly | 2-4 per Month | 2-3 Per week | 4+ times per week |   |
|  How many standard alcoholic drinks do you have on a day when you are drinking? | 5-7 | 8-9 | 9-10 | 1-10 | 10+ |   |
|  How often do you have 6 or more standard drinks on one occasion? | Never | Less than monthly | Monthly | Weekly | Daily or almost daily |   |
|  How often in the last year have you found you were not able to stop once you had started drinking? | Never | Less than monthly | Monthly | Weekly | Daily or almost daily |   |
|  How often in the last year have you failed to do what was expected of you because of drinking? | Never | Less than monthly | Monthly | Weekly | Daily or almost daily |   |
|  How often in the last year have you needed an alcoholic drink in the morning to get you going? | Never | Less than monthly | Monthly | Weekly | Daily or almost daily |   |
|  How often in the last year have you had a feeling of guilt or regret after drinking? | Never | Less than monthly | Monthly | Weekly | Daily or almost daily |   |
|  How often in the last year have you not been able to remember what happened the night before when drinking? | Never | Less than monthly | Monthly | Weekly | Daily or almost daily |   |
|  Have you or somebody else been injured as a result of your drinking? | No |  | Yes but not in the last year |  | Yes during the last year |   |
|  Has a relative, friend, doctor or health worker been concerned about your drinking and advised you to cut down? | No |  | Yes but not in the last year |  | Yes during the last year |   |
|  Total Score |  |  |  |  |  |   |

|  Weekly Expense |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 

|  Relationships |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |   |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
|  Status
(Mark one
box) |  | Civil Partnership
☐ |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |   |
|   |  | Common Law
☐ |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |   |
|   |  | Engaged
☐ |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |   |
|   |  | Married
☐ |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |   |
|   |  | Separated
☐ |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |   |
|   |  | Single
☐ |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |   |
|   |  | Mark all relevant boxes |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |   |
|  Child Care Issues
☐ |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |   |
|   |  | Offender Peer Group
☐ |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |   |
|   |  | Unstable Family Background
☐ |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |   |
|  Child Protection Issues
☐ |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |   |
|   |  | DV Perpetrator (Subject)
☐ |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |   |
|  Educational Welfare
☐ |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |   |
|   |  | Emotional Control (Perpetrator)
☐ |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |   |
|  Family Interventions
☐ |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |   |
|   |  | Gang Relationship
☐ |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |   |
|   |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |   |
|  Injuries to Self/ Others
☐ |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |   |
|   |  | Missing from Home
☐ |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |   |
|   |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |   |
|  Other
☐ |  | Parental Issues
☐ |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |   |
|   |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |   |
|  Previous to Care System
☐ |  | Physical, Emotional & Financial
Control (perp)
☐ |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |   |
|   | Social Isolation
☐ |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |   |
|   |  | Social Media Pressure
☐ |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |   |
|  Threats, Harassment & Stalking
☐ |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |   |
|   |  | Reduced Family / Friend contact
☐ |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |   |
|  Details: |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |   |
|  |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
|  |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
|  |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
|  |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
|  Is this particular pathway linked to this referral?
Is the subjects wider offending linked to this
pathway? |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |   |
|   |  | Yes
☐ |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |   |
|   |  | No
☐ |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |   |
|  On a scale of 1-10 (1 low impact- 10 high impact) how much do you feel your relationship status has
contributed to your offending and how is this impacting upon your current health and wellbeing? |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |   |
|  |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
|  None
☐ | 1
☐ | 2
☐ | 3
☐ | 4
☐ | 5
☐ | 6
☐ | 7
☐ | 8
☐ | 9
☐ | 10
☐ |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |   |

# Attitude, Thinking & Behaviour

Were you with anyone at the time of the offence and how did they influence your behaviour?

Why did you feel that you needed to go along with them?

What was going on in your life at the time of your offence?

Were you angry about something or someone?

Why did you want to get noticed?

Why did you think you could get away with it?

What harm do you think you have caused the victim?

What harm do you think your behaviour has had on the community?

What would you do differently in the future?

## Free Text

|  Is this particular pathway linked to this referral? | Yes | No  |
| --- | --- | --- |
|  Is the subjects wider offending linked to this pathway? | Yes | No  |

On a scale of 1-10 (1 low impact- 10 high impact) how much do you feel your attitude, thinking and behaviour has contributed to your offending and how is this impacting upon your current health and wellbeing?

|  None | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
|  |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |

What Pathways does the SUBJECT believe is causing the offending and how can their Life Chances be improved

|  Attitude, Thinking & Behaviour |  | Accomodation  |
| --- | --- | --- |
|  Employment, Education& Training | Mental Health | Physical Health  |
|  Relationships | Alcohol | Finance  |
|  Are there any particular triggers or factors which have led to the situation you are in? |  |   |
|  What do you feel would be the most effective way to stop/reduce your re-offending in the future? |  |   |
|  What do feel would be the most effective way to improve your health and life chances? |  |   |
|  What do you want to achieve in life? |  |   |
|  Where do you see yourself in the future? |  |   |
|  How do you think you can get there? |  |   |
|  Sensitive Data (Specify any data which cannot be shared, which is specific to the offender eg. employer notification, family or relatives ) |  |   |
|  Signature/s |  |   |
|  I certify that the details recorded within this document are a true and accurate reflection of my needs assessment. I consent for my personal details and information to be provided to any partner agency that may be able to support and assist me. I consent for the Police to be provided with any information regarding my attendance and engagement at any of my appointment/s. |  |   |
|  Subject Signature |  | Date  |
|  Appropriate Adult |  | Date  |
|  (Officer)I certify that there is sufficient evidence to prosecute the subject and the case is uncontested and all matters have been concluded |  |   |

# Appendix 4 - Checkpoint Contract Form

## Checkpoint Contract Conditions

Subject Details

|  Surname: |   |
| --- | --- |
|  Forenames: |   |
|  Date of Birth: | Sex:  |
|  Ethnic Code: |   |
|  Address: |   |
|  Post Code: |   |
|  Contact Details: | Commencement Date: Click here to enter a date.  |

|  No. | Activity | Pathway | Conditions | Proof of Compliance | Completion Date  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
|  1 | Not to re-offend over the period of this contract |  | I will not re-offend over the period of this contract and I will engage with my Navigator throughout my contract |  | Click here to enter a date.  |
|  2 | Critical Pathway Intervention |  |  |  | Click here to enter a date.  |
|  3 | Critical Pathway Intervention |  |  |  | Click here to enter a date.  |
|  4 | Critical Pathway Intervention |  |  |  | Click here to enter a date.  |
|  5 |  |  |  |  | Click here to enter a date.  |

# Appendix 5 - Checkpoint Evaluation Form 

## Checkpoint Evaluation Form

## Subject Details

| Surname: |  |
| :-- | :-- |
| Forenames: |  |
| DOB: (Must be 15 Years or older) | Sex: |
| Ethnic Code : W1 - | PNC ID : |
| Address: |  |
| Post Code: |  |
| Contact Details: |  |
| Mobile Number: | None held: |

## Evaluation

Created Date:
Tell me what your life was like before you had your Intervention

What problems were you experiencing and how did you deal with them?

Tell me about your experiences within Intervention

What has made a difference and what is your life like now?

What do you do now that stops you having the same situation?

Are there any additional areas you need help and support with?

Is there anything else you would like to say?

# Pathway changes post Checkpoint 

## Accommodation

On a scale of 1-10 (1 low impact - 10 high impact) how much do you feel Accommodation issues now impacts on your offending / vulnerability and your current health, wellbeing and quality of life?
Scale
Employment / Education / Training
On a scale of 1-10 (1 low impact - 10 high impact) how much do you feel Employment/Education and Training issues now impacts on your offending / vulnerability and your current health, wellbeing and quality of life?
Scale
Finances
On a scale of 1-10 (1 low impact - 10 high impact) how much do you feel Finance issues now impacts on your offending / vulnerability and your current health, wellbeing and quality of life?
Scale
Mental Health
On a scale of 1-10 (1 low impact - 10 high impact) how much do you feel Mental Health issues now impacts on your offending / vulnerability and your current health, wellbeing and quality of life?
Scale
Physical Health
On a scale of 1-10 (1 low impact - 10 high impact) how much do you feel Physical Health issues now impacts on your offending / vulnerability and your current health, wellbeing and quality of life?
Scale
Substance Misuse
On a scale of 1-10 (1 low impact - 10 high impact) how much do you feel Substance Misuse issues now impacts on your offending / vulnerability and your current health, wellbeing and quality of life?
Scale
Alcohol
On a scale of 1-10 (1 low impact - 10 high impact) how much do you feel Alcohol issues now impacts on your offending / vulnerability and your current health, wellbeing and quality of life?
Scale
Relationships
On a scale of 1-10 (1 low impact - 10 high impact) how much do you feel Relationship issues now impacts on your offending / vulnerability and your current health, wellbeing and quality of life?
Scale
Attitude, thinking and Behaviour
On a scale of 1-10 (1 low impact - 10 high impact) how much do you feel Attitude/Thinking and Behaviour issues now impacts on your offending / vulnerability and your current health, wellbeing and quality of life?
Scale
Sexual Exploitation
On a scale of 1-10 (1 low impact - 10 high impact) how much do you feel Sexual Exploitation issues now impacts on your offending / vulnerability and your current health, wellbeing and quality of life?
Scale
Are you willing to assist in mentoring and support of others? : NO
Are you willing to assist in any media work to promote the work you've undertaken? : NO