{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02633889376646181, 'fraction_numerical': 0.003511852502194908, 'mean_word_length': 5.826347305389222, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
‘Polibation’ Revisited: Policing, Probation and Prolific Offender Projects

The emergence of Prolific Offender Projects (POPs) in England and Wales has been facilitated by the 1998 Crime and Disorder Act's emphasis on multi-agency working. The successful establishment of POPs is predicated upon professionals from different, sometimes mutually suspicious, agencies working effectively together in possibly sceptical surroundings. In this paper, drawing principally on our recent experience of evaluating the Stoke-on-Trent POP, we examine some of the organisational implications of establishing POPs. This includes consideration of the development of a ‘polibation’ ethos within the project team, analysis of project location, and the need to establish the value of the project. We conclude that POPs do challenge organisational cultures but that the case for the existence of a ‘polibation’ officer is, as yet, unproven. We also conclude that effective communication and line management, together with establishing credibility through action, are essential to fostering understanding of these projects within their operating environment.