You are on page 1of 208

QUALITY MANAGEMENT OF

ACCREDITED PROGRAMMES Probation


PURPOSE
To introduce the framework and documentation for undertaking a self
Circular
assessment of the following Accredited Programmes:
REFERENCE NO:
Think First 23/2004
Priestley 1:1
DIDS ISSUE DATE:
ETS 21/04/04

ACTION IMPLEMENTATION DATE:


Chief Officers should: 22/04/04
Implement the Self Assessment Process by September 2004
Advise the NPD Quality Systems Manager of the dates arranged for self EXPIRY DATE:
assessment by May 21st 2004

SUMMARY TO:
The NPS has been reviewing its arrangements for quality management of Chairs of Probation Boards
some accredited programmes. This circular outlines the process to be Chief Officers of Probation
undertaken by Areas. These arrangements will replace the biennial audit
Secretaries of Probation Boards
system formerly carried out by HMIP.
CC:
NPD has attempted to minimise the demands on Area’s and frontline staff
Regional Managers
therefore it is intended to place reliance on the existing infrastructure for
video monitoring as this has already proven to be successful. Regional What Works Managers

The self assessment framework and documentation has been developed and
has, wherever possible, been aligned with Prison Service documentation. AUTHORISED BY:
Roger McGarva
This process was reported to the Correctional Services Accreditation Panel
(CSAP) at its meeting on 16th March and has been approved. It builds on the ATTACHED:
previous document, Quality Counts - A Quality Management System for the 1 Guidance notes and self
National Probation Service, launched in October 2003. assessment form for groupwork
programmes
2 Guidance notes and self
assessment form for individual
CONTACT FOR ENQUIRIES programmes
Pauline McLoughlin, Quality Systems Manager, Room 332 Horseferry House 3 Case management
questionnaire

National Probation Directorate


Horseferry House, Dean Ryle Street, London, SW1P 2AW General Enquiries: 020 7217 0659 Fax: 020 7217 0660

Enforcement, rehabilitation and public protection


Background

The change in audit availability, prompted by the introduction of a new system of inspection by HMIP, has allowed NPS to
consider the introduction of quality management across a range of services. HMIP have helpfully allocated a number of
inspection days to assist with the implementation of this framework.

The proposed structure is described for accredited programmes, but will be used for other forms of service delivery, such
as ECP or basic skills. The steps are summarised below.

Quality Management Framework

The Performance Standards Manual for Accredited Programmes will be used as the basis against which quality of
delivery will be assessed.

Areas are asked to self-assess against these standards using the attached documentation and to provide a report
detailing the score that they believe should be awarded and the evidence they have to support this. The guidance notes
include rigorous and robust levels of evidence required to support this assessment.

It is not necessary for advance information to be provided but Area’s should note in their evidence where the policies and
information are stored so that it can be validated.

Areas are asked to assess only the Leadership (section A) and Case Management (Section D) elements once.
Programme Management (section B) and Programme Delivery (Section C) should be done for each programme.

A quality score will be available for each programme and an aggregate of all programme scores will form the Area Quality
Rating. This will replace the IQR previously given by HMIP. There is no intention at this stage to adjust programme
completions by this score.

Areas are asked to provide the NPD Quality Systems Manager (QSM) with the date, venue and times that the self
assessment is to take place by May 21st 2004. The QSM, together with a representative from HMIP, will then select at
random a number of events for attendance. Area’s will not be informed in advance.

A regional validation exercise will take place once all 42 self assessments have been completed. This should consist of a
range of staff from all grades together with the QSM and a representative from HMIP. These events will be scheduled to
run through October and November and will be co-ordinated by your Regional What Works Manager

The QSM and a small team from HMIP will then independently validate the scores.

Proposed Timetable

The Area self assessment will take place between May 2004 and September 2004.

The regional validation events will take place between October 2004 and November 2004.

An overall score for the NPS as a whole will then be available by January 2005.

Reporting to the CSAP

For each Area a report will be provided giving the quality score for each programme and an aggregated score for the
Area as a whole. This report will be available to the NPD as soon as it is published and a summary of the process will be
reported to the Panel annually (timing to be agreed).

Video monitoring

Video monitoring has been used by NPS to measure section C of the Performance Standards, "Quality of Service
Delivery". The existing infrastructure is seen as successful therefore this framework will place reliance on it rather than
devising another system.

Insert PC number and title here 2


Programmes to be included in this process

There are a few programmes that this framework will not apply to in this initial stage either because of the complexity of
the programme, e.g. sex offender treatment programmes, or because there are insufficient video assessors trained e.g.
ASRO. It is therefore intended to concentrate on the following programmes:-

Think First
Priestly 1:1
ETS
DIDS

Sample size

The sample size required is 20% of the annual commencements for each programme delivered, based upon the
accredited programmes monthly return sent to NPD starting with effect from 01/10/2003. This needs to include 10 cases
that completed for each programme. The maximum number of cases per programme required for London is 100 and all
other Areas is 50. The minimum number of cases per programme is 10. Where there are insufficient cases to meet this
minimum all cases must be reviewed.

Documentation

Included with this circular is a completed self assessment form as a guide and a blank form to be completed by the Area
and returned to the Quality Systems Manager by September 30th 2004.

Conclusion

This process will be reviewed in December 2004, and subject to that assessment this framework will be extended to those
programmes that have been excluded from this initial quality assurance process. It is intended that all programmes will
be assessed in the business year 2005/2006 subject to the development of NOMS.

This first quality assurance process will be used by NPS as a learning experience on which to build. It will provide a
comparison with the former HMIP audits, which will be used to assess the validity of the process. The intention is for
NPD to follow up the process with a consultation exercise including Area representatives, members of the CSAP and
HMIP.

Larger print versions of the documents are available on request. All documents are currently being translated into Welsh.

Insert PC number and title here 3


Accredited Programmes Groupwork Self Assessment Form

Guidance Notes for Self assessment

Self assessment stages


The self assessment for accredited programmes is an opportunity for the area to look at the way it runs accredited programmes. The evidence required might in
part be new evidence and also evidence provided to HMIP at the last audit.
The tools / documents provided by the Quality Management Team (QMT) for the purpose of quality assessment are as follows:

• Accredited Programmes Groupwork Self Assessment Guidance Form


• Accredited Programmes Groupwork Self Assessment Form
• QMT Case File Reading Form

The first stage requires areas to ensure that the evidence in relation to the above components of the assessment is available and accessible. At this stage it is not
necessary to physically collect it. As with EEM, the scores will first of all be established by the areas on the basis of the available evidence. There is no
requirement to send any of the evidence to the QMT. The QMT does not require any advance information but will expect the area to complete the self
assessment form. However, the area should note at this stage where the evidence is located, as this will be of use for the verification process. The scores resulting
from the self assessment will constitute the Provisional Quality Score (PQS).

The information contained in the “Evidence required” section of the “Accredited Programmes Groupwork Self Assessment Guidance Form” represents good
practice and mandatory elements relevant to accredited programmes. When undertaking self assessment if you believe your area has innovative practice which
affects the score please include full details of the specific practice. This should include processes and outcomes in sufficient detail for the Quality Management
Team (QMT) validation panel to make a judgement about the validity of the information. The QMT validation panel will consider the practice identified and the
allotted score based upon the evidence provided, to ensure “best practice” is disseminated widely and scoring integrity is maintained.

The second stage involves validation of the scores set by areas. In order to be able to complete the validation the area will be required to nominate representatives
to form a regional validation team, which will be facilitated by Quality Systems Manager. Prior to the validation event areas will be informed which evidence needs
to be available on the day for validation. A score will be available for each programme and an aggregated score will be given for the Area as a whole.

Accredited Programmes Groupwork Self Assessment Form 1


Guidelines on Collating Evidence

The Quality Management process is, in line with Probation Service Policy, evidence based. Quality Management is more about finding evidence to show whether
or not an area has met a specific pre determined criteria. In the case of accredited programmes, these criteria are defined in the “Performance Standards Manual for
the Delivery of Accredited Group Work Programmes”. The Accredited Programmes Groupwork Self Assessment Guidance Form mirrors these standards and
makes specific what the evidence required is and how it should be scored in terms of quality rating.

The self assessment approach has been designed within the framework of the EFQM. Consequently the following principles apply:

™ Evidence should be identifiable rather than anecdotal i.e. the evidence can be shown whenever it is requested.
™ There should be an appropriate scope for evidence in terms of :
o The extent to which a full range of evidence, relevant to the criteria, are presented (scope)
o The extent to which the relevance of the evidence presented is understood (relevance)
o The extent to which the evidence covers all relevant areas of the area set up e.g. throughout Programmes (segmentation)
™ The evidence can demonstrate what it claims to demonstrate in terms of the criteria set.

Sample Size

The sample size required for self assessment is 20% of the annual commencements, for each programme delivered, based upon the accredited programmes
monthly return sent to NPD. This needs to include 10 cases that completed for each programme. The maximum number of cases per programme required for
London is 100 and all other areas is 50. The minimum number of cases per programme is 10. Where there are insufficient cases to meet this minimum all cases
must be reviewed.

Please refer to the Probation Circular but remember that Leadership and Case Management need only be done once – NOT for each programme.

Video Monitoring Scores

The scoring approach, which has been adopted, involves calculating an average from the sample of tapes and then rounding the score to the nearest whole number.
For example, an average of 3.5 would be rounded up to 4, whilst an average of 3.4 would be rounded down to 3.

Accredited Programmes Groupwork Self Assessment Form 2


Types of Evidence
Team Meeting Minutes – Where minutes contain evidence, which relates to a number of criteria the same minutes can be submitted as evidence for each relevant
criterion thereby reducing the actual sets of minutes produced overall. All minutes must have been produced during the 12-month period immediately prior to the
self assessment date.

Business Plans, Policy Statements, Strategy Documents - The most recent document produced should be used as evidence.

Scoring
As a guiding principle Mandatory Elements require a higher degree of evidence to achieve a Score 2 than Important Elements. However, where National Standards
targets apply this is reflected in the scoring regardless of the level of importance placed on the criterion. Likewise where it is imperative to maintain Treatment
Integrity this approach has been adopted.

Accredited Programmes Groupwork Self Assessment Form 3


Committed Leadership & Supportive Management
A 1.1 Committed Leadership (Mandatory)
The senior management of the area should be openly and explicitly committed to the proper running of the programme through policy and public statements.

Evidence required Method of Checking / Evidence Score


1. Specific improvement or maintenance objectives in
the area annual business plan about the importance
assigned to the delivery of the chosen accredited
programme(s).
2. Specific targets set in line with NPD targets.
3. ‘What Works’ strategy detailing targets for running
accredited programmes and implementation of
specific programme in the context of strategy.
4. Attendance by senior managers at staff
awareness/context setting days for the accredited
programme.
5. Middle Mangers & Case Managers as well as PSR
authors had attended context setting days.
6. New staff had attended context setting days.
7. Communication with all staff in support of service
delivery. For example:
¾ Team meeting minutes,
¾ Newsletters,
¾ E-mails.
8. Evidence of regular discussion in senior
management meetings about the effective delivery of
the accredited programme, e.g. discussion of
operational issues and guidance issued to staff,
decisions made on basis of evidence. For example:
¾ Regular team meeting minutes.

Accredited Programmes Groupwork Self Assessment Form 4


A1.2 Management Structure (Important)
Effective line management structures exist for the proper operation of the programme, integrating this within case management structures. Adequate time should be set aside for the
effective management of the programme.

Evidence required Method of Checking / Evidence Score


1. Organisational chart outlines the management
structures for the delivery of accredited programmes.
2. Competency-based job descriptions exist for all staff
involved in programme delivery, case management
and in support roles.
3. Minutes of relevant divisional/functional
management meetings demonstrate integration of
programme delivery within the case management
process and effective communication across the
area. Minutes indicating, for example:
¾ Treatment Managers regular input at team meetings.
¾ Mechanism for interaction of programme delivery
staff and Case Managers.
¾ Regular programme management meetings.

Accredited Programmes Groupwork Self Assessment Form 5


A 1.3 Staff ownership of the accredited programme (Important)
There is full ownership of the programme by managers, programme Tutors and other relevant staff, e.g. court personnel and Case Managers.

Evidence required Method of Checking / Evidence Score


1. Evidence of consistent allocation and use of
accredited programmes across the area. For example:
¾ Referral rates across the area at or above the national
average.
2. Regular Case Manager attendance at programme
review meetings.
3. Case Managers, Pre-Sentence Report (PSR) authors
and other relevant personnel to attend context
setting or other accredited training courses. For
example:
¾ All middle managers attend context setting days or
other accredited training courses.
¾ Admin support staff have been to context setting
days.

Accredited Programmes Groupwork Self Assessment Form 6


A1.4 Effective communication with sentencers (Important)
There is high quality, proactive communication with local sentencers and clerks to the justices about the programme, including written information.

Evidence required Method of Checking / Evidence Score


1. Communications with judges, magistrates and
magistrates’ clerks, for example:
¾ Presentations to sentencers by managers,
¾ Input into magistrates training,
¾ Board members with responsibility for accredited
programmes linking with sentencers.
2. Minutes of liaison meetings between sentencers and
probation staff. For example:
¾ Accredited programmes agenda item.
3. Information leaflets for sentencers and clerks
explaining the programme.

Accredited Programmes Groupwork Self Assessment Form 7


Programme Management Responsibilities
B1.1 Resources and facilities (Mandatory)
Adequate accommodation consistent with the Estates Standards Manual is available for all sessions of the programme.

Evidence required Method of Checking / Evidence Score


1. Group rooms are of sufficient size to accommodate a
minimum of four offenders and a maximum of 12
offenders plus two programme Tutors and necessary
equipment (flipcharts, overhead projector [OHP] and
video camera).
2. The room should be well lit and well ventilated, with
minimum outside noise/disruption.
3. A separate area/room is available to allow sub-group
work to take place. This space should be able to
accommodate up to six offenders and one group
facilitator.
4. Comfortable chairs in each room (padded, fairly upright
chairs with arms may be most appropriate).
5. Desks/tables to enable offenders to complete written
work (as a minimum participants should be supplied with
clipboards).
6. Adequate supply of flipcharts/stands (two per main group
room and one for sub-group work).
7. OHP and screen must be provided.
8. Video monitoring equipment and sound system of
sufficient quality to enable sessions to be observed and
assessed by Treatment Managers and external auditors.
9. Secure video / audio storage facilities for the cataloguing
and storage of all sessions of the accredited programme.
Videotapes / audiotapes should be retained for treatment
management and audit purposes. Following an audit, all
recordings made prior to the latest programme subject to
audit inspection need no longer be retained. (Probation
Circular 16/2003)

Accredited Programmes Groupwork Self Assessment Form 8


B1.2 Provision of information leaflets about the programme (Important)
There should be a set of leaflets for offenders, sentencers and staff clearly describing the programme and its requirements.

Evidence required Method of Checking / Evidence Score


1. Leaflets customised for the audience, including
meeting the requirements of cultural diversity.
2. Leaflets drafted at a level that allows the audience to
fully understand the content.
3. Leaflets given to offenders in advance of sentencing.
4. Conditions of attendance and consequences of
failing to comply fully outlined in the information
leaflet(s).
5. Complaints procedure outlined in the leaflet(s).

Accredited Programmes Groupwork Self Assessment Form 9


B2.1 Managing attendance (Mandatory)
Offender attendance and absence are managed to achieve the required National Performance Management target for offender completions. Attendance is managed to achieve
coherent delivery with full impact for all undertaking the programme. The maximum number of absences by any one offender is consistent with the requirements of the
programme manual for the specific accredited programme.

Evidence required Method of Checking / Evidence Score


1. Area policy document on offender
attendance/enforcement.
2. Area documentation outlining how completion rates
will be enhanced over time. This can include any
analysis of attrition rates and subsequent action.
3. Attendance registers demonstrate that participants’
attendance conforms to the requirements of the
programme and National Standards.
4. IAPS database or local equivalent confirming
attendance by each offender and completion rates.

N.B. The accredited programme may specify pre and


post-programme work. Offenders will only be
deemed to be completers when they have
undertaken all of the approved elements.

5. Evidence of discussion between Case Manager and


programme staff when offenders have missed
sessions for acceptable or unacceptable reasons.

Accredited Programmes Groupwork Self Assessment Form 10


B2.2 Avoidance of cancellation or disruption to sessions (Important)
Sessions are not cancelled or disrupted owing to offender crises, high workload or other pressures, and arrangements exist to deal with crises outside of the programme session.
Sessions are delivered at the frequency defined in the programme manual.

Evidence required Method of Checking / Evidence Score


1. Published calendar for each session of the accredited
programme is available and is circulated to teams
and the courts.
2. Frequency of sessions conforms to requirements of
the accredited programme manual.
3. Arrangements are made to deal with offenders’
problems outside of the programmed session. This
should be outlined in briefing meetings to offenders
prior to their participation in the programme.
4. Workload or other pressures are seen to be resolved
by the Programme Manager to enable regular Tutor
attendance.

Accredited Programmes Groupwork Self Assessment Form 11


B2.3 Catch-up sessions/Attendance (Important)
Provision is made for catch-up sessions, or a ‘bus stop’ approach (see Probation Circular 92/2001) to allow offenders who miss a session to continue with the programme. All
offenders missing sessions, who are not excluded from the programme, should attend catch-up sessions, or in the case of a ‘bus stop’ approach be moved onto another
programme within ten working days, to ensure full delivery of the programme. Treatment Managers must specify arrangements for monitoring the integrity of catch-up sessions.

Evidence required Method of Checking / Evidence Score


1. Programme scheduled to enable catch-up sessions to
take place normally before the next group work
session.
2. Number of catch-up sessions conforms to the
requirements of the accredited programme manual.
3. Identified staff to run catch-up sessions.
4. A record of catch-up sessions completed for each
offender and whether or not catch-up session
attended.
5. Every seventh catch-up session run during the
programme subject to integrity checks.

Accredited Programmes Groupwork Self Assessment Form 12


B2.4 Timeliness (Important)
All offenders commence the programme, or specified pre-programme phase, within the first month of the order or within three months if other structured pre-programme work
is undertaken. Occasionally, the timing may be different to permit other preliminary work to be completed, e.g. a programme of drug detoxification.

Evidence required Method of Checking / Evidence Score


1. Written evidence of offenders commencing the
programme within the required timescale.
2. Clearly documented pre-programme work, in the
case record, where an offender is assessed as not
being ready/available/able to commence the
programme.
3. Case records demonstrate other preliminary work
that needs to be completed prior to the offender’s
participation in the programme.

Accredited Programmes Groupwork Self Assessment Form 13


B3.1 Staff selection (Mandatory)
A staff selection procedure meeting the requirements of the programme manual is in place and only staff meeting the defined criteria are selected to deliver the programme.

Evidence required Method of Checking / Evidence Score


1. Potential Tutors receive written information about
what is involved in running the accredited
programme from the Programme Manager and/or
the Treatment Manager.
2. Assessment centre procedures exist and are
followed.
3. Written policy confirming that only those staff who
meet the defined criteria, e.g. fully trained by
accredited trainers, deliver the programme.
4. Written policy outlining how staff not selected, as
Tutors will be assisted.

Accredited Programmes Groupwork Self Assessment Form 14


B3.2 Staff roles and competencies (Important)
Differences in role between grades or posts are clearly reflected in job descriptions. A defined set of competencies exist for each staff role involved in the programme, using
those specified in the programme manuals and the national management manual.

Evidence required Method of Checking / Evidence Score


1. Job descriptions are available for all programme
staff.
2. Evidence that staff roles have been discussed.
3. Evidence that all staff are clear about their areas of
responsibility.
4. Published list of core competencies consistent with
the requirements of the programme manual.
5. The core competencies outlined by the area are a
‘close match’ with the tasks outlined in Section 1 of
the National Management Manual for the Effective
Delivery of Accredited Programmes in the
Community.

Accredited Programmes Groupwork Self Assessment Form 15


B3.3 Preparation and debriefing time for Tutors (Important)
Tutors are allowed 1½ hours for preparation and debriefing for each session in addition to the programme delivery time.

Evidence required Method of Checking / Evidence Score


1. IAPS database or local equivalent is completed
following each session of the programme.

Accredited Programmes Groupwork Self Assessment Form 16


B3.4 Staff continuity (Important)
Three Tutors should normally be assigned to each accredited programme to allow for leave, sickness and other contingencies. All sessions of the programmes are delivered by at
least two of the three assigned staff. Continuity is maintained by at least one of the staff members having run the previous session.

Evidence required Method of Checking / Evidence Score


1. Published staff rotas to ensure that two trained staff
are available to run each session of the programme.
2. Session reports demonstrate continuity of staff
Tutors.
3. Planning meetings discussing staffing for each
group, including contingency arrangements.

Accredited Programmes Groupwork Self Assessment Form 17


B4.1 Training arrangements for new staff (Mandatory)
Training courses exist for all grades and roles involved in delivering the programme and all staff newly assigned to the programme receive training before running their first programme.
The training delivered follows that defined in the programme training manual.

Evidence required Method of Checking / Evidence Score


1. There is a record of all relevant training and other
staff development work undertaken by programme
staff, including the core training for the accredited
programme.
¾ Equal access to training programme for all staff,
¾ Refresher training (if available).
2. Supervision notes/appraisal documents demonstrate
an ongoing attention to staff development needs for
each member of staff involved in delivering the
programme.

Accredited Programmes Groupwork Self Assessment Form 18


B4.2 New staff paired with an experienced colleague when running their first programme (Important)
Staff newly trained in a programme should be paired with a more experienced colleague when running their first course.

Evidence required Method of Checking / Evidence Score


1. Written policy documentation.
2. Service practice of pairing a newly trained Tutor with
an experienced colleague.
3. List of staff appropriately trained.

Accredited Programmes Groupwork Self Assessment Form 19


B4.3 Training arrangements for experienced staff (Important)
Competency-based booster and developmental training arrangements exist for all staff experienced in delivering the programme. All programme delivery staff are required to
attend such training when they have demonstrated their competence to do so. (This will include delivering a stipulated minimum number of courses.)

Evidence required Method of Checking / Evidence Score


1. Staff development plan for each member of the
delivery team.
2. Dates when booster and developmental training
events arranged (if available).
3. List of team members for booster training.

B4.4 Staff knowledge of the concepts and methods used in the programme (Important)
All relevant staff have a knowledge of the programme model, targeting, objectives and methods sufficient for the effective delivery of the programme.

Evidence required Method of Checking / Evidence Score


1. Tutors have been assessed as competent at the point
of training by the national trainers.
2. Area documentation effectively outlines the
programme model, concepts and methods used in
the programme. For example:
¾ Programme manuals readily available to all staff for
reference.

Accredited Programmes Groupwork Self Assessment Form 20


B4.5 Staff knowledge of the theoretical and evidential basis of the programme (Important)
All relevant staff have a knowledge of the programme’s theoretical base and evidence, sufficient for effective delivery of the programme.

Evidence required Method of Checking / Evidence Score


1. Tutors have been assessed as competent at the point
of training by the national trainers.
2. Area documentation effectively outlines the
theoretical and evidential basis of the programme.
For example:
¾ Programme manuals readily available to all staff for
reference.

B4.6 Supporting skills necessary to run programmes (Important)


From interview, observation, appraisal and training audits all relevant staff have supporting skills including core group work skills, presentation skills, etc., sufficient for the
effective delivery of the programme.

Evidence required Method of Checking / Evidence Score


1. Training reviews for all staff to check training
undertaken and areas where further training
required.
2. Video monitoring observation forms document
training and developmental needs for programme
staff.
3. Supporting skills audit informed by the supervision
and appraisal process and reflected in the area’s
overall training strategy.

Accredited Programmes Groupwork Self Assessment Form 21


B5.1 Staff supervision and quality of practice (Mandatory)
All staff involved in the programme receive support and supervision at a frequency specified in the national management manual. This will enable Tutor skills to be developed
and problems resolved within the lifetime of the current programme by supervisors familiar with effectiveness methods and the programme. The Treatment Manager to have
observed staff in the delivery of the programme either directly or through video prior to each supervision session.

Evidence required Method of Checking / Evidence Score


1. Video monitoring forms completed on each Tutor
by the Treatment Manager. For audit and quality
assurance purposes the Treatment Manager is
required to watch and score at least one video for
every ten sessions of the programme. (Where an
individual accredited programme specifies a different
frequency for video monitoring, this takes
precedence over guidance given in the national
management manual for delivering accredited
programmes.)
2. Video monitoring forms, demonstrating attention to
skills development, identification of good practice
and resolution of problems encountered by tutors in
delivering the programme.

Accredited Programmes Groupwork Self Assessment Form 22


B5.2 Staff appraisal (Important)
All members of staff involved with the programme have their competence to perform their assigned role assessed annually through the appraisal process. Staff whose
performance is assessed as below the acceptable standard but making progress should be given further training and other assistance to improve their performance and a date set
for review. Staff who are not making progress in achieving the required standard of performance should not take any further part in running the programme.

Evidence required Method of Checking / Evidence Score


1. Appraisal documents record an assessment of the
competency of programme Tutors to deliver the
programme.
2. Video monitoring forms completed by the
Treatment Manager identify strengths and areas
where performance needs to be improved.
3. A plan of remedial action is recorded by the
Treatment or Programme Manager, for tutors who
are underperforming, including a date to review
progress.
4. There is a written policy on deselection or capability
procedures, if Tutors fail to improve their
performance. Information on staff who have been
deselected as Tutors and the reasons for deselecting
is collected.

Accredited Programmes Groupwork Self Assessment Form 23


B6.1 Offender Assessment and Selection (Mandatory)
Routine monitoring results confirm the profile of those entering the programme are consistent with the criminogenic needs addressed by the programme, the level of risk of
reoffending and the level of risk of harm/ dangerousness.

Evidence required Method of Checking / Evidence Score


1. Use of approved targeting matrix for the programme
that measures:
¾ offenders’ criminogenic needs,
¾ risk of reoffending.
2. Use of OASys.
3. Use of evaluation monitoring from IAPS or local
equivalent.
4. Written guidance on grounds for exclusion.

B6.2 Offender knowledge and understanding of the programme requirements (Important)


The requirements of the programme are clearly communicated on at least 2 occasions to each participant verbally and in writing and there is evidence from signed consent forms
or interview that offenders know and understand the requirements.

Evidence required Method of Checking / Evidence Score


1. Signed contracts or letter of understanding.
2. Evidence that the programme requirements have
been explained to the offender verbally by Tutor
and/or Case Manager.

Accredited Programmes Groupwork Self Assessment Form 24


B6.3 Group size (Important)
For group programmes the maximum starting group size during the previous year did not exceed 12 and the minimum was not less than 4.

Evidence required Method of Checking / Evidence Score


1. The number of offenders instructed to attend the
programme conforms to the minimum and
maximum group size.

Accredited Programmes Groupwork Self Assessment Form 25


B6.4 Accessibility of groupwork programmes (Important)
If women or minority ethnic offenders are placed in mixed groups there are no singleton placements unless agreed to by the offender. Appropriate support arrangements should
be provided and evidenced for these offenders.

Evidence required Method of Checking / Evidence Score


1. Written area policy confirming that there should be
no singleton placements of women or minority
ethnic offenders, unless agreed to by programme
participant.
2. Evidence where there are women or minority ethnic
offenders on a mixed group programme that
attention has been paid to the staff composition of
the Tutor group and arrangements to support
offenders attendance.

Accredited Programmes Groupwork Self Assessment Form 26


B7.1 Implementation of monitoring and evaluation design (Mandatory)
Interview and observation show that monitoring and evaluation arrangements are working as intended and are understood and supported by all staff involved. This should
include both input and feedback of data to managers and practitioners at local level.

Evidence required Method of Checking / Evidence Score


1. An Area document explains the monitoring and
evaluation arrangements and outlines the
responsibilities of relevant staff to accurately record
data and to provide individual and summary reports.
2. There are guidelines for completing psychometric
data, programme Session Review Forms and IAPS
database or local equivalent information.
3. There are guidelines regarding systems, processes,
roles and responsibilities for the retrieval of
individual and summary data for reports to
practitioners and managers.

Accredited Programmes Groupwork Self Assessment Form 27


B7.2 Practice is informed by monitoring and evaluation evidence (Important)
Consistent use is made of evaluation information as it becomes available by those with most direct responsibility, e.g. managers giving regular consideration to attendance and
completion information, practitioners to offender feedback and attitude/behaviour change scores. Awareness /knowledge about evaluation results from the same programme
operating elsewhere will be relevant.

Evidence required Method of Checking / Evidence Score


1. The supporting programme conditions have been
reviewed in response to monitoring and evaluation
information e.g. pre course preparation when it is
shown that other areas have consistently performed
better in terms of reduced attrition rates or greater
offender ‘programme readiness.’
2. Evidence of regular discussion by senior and middle
managers e.g. of attendance and completion
information and record of actions taken as a
consequence.
3. Evidence of routine discussion by programme staff
and actions taken as a consequence.

Accredited Programmes Groupwork Self Assessment Form 28


Quality of Programme Delivery
C1.1 Adherence to programme manual (Mandatory)
All sessions of the programme should be delivered in line with the instructions of the programme manual and demonstrate close adherence to the aims and objectives. There should be
evident commitment to follow the intention/purpose of the exercises used, including repetition/reinforcement, where these are designed parts of the programme.

Evidence required Method of Checking / Evidence Score


1. Material covered in the correct order.
2. Exercises set up and run correctly.
3. Exercises run to time.
4. Exercises explained properly.
5. Inappropriate extras not added.
6. Aims and objectives met.
7. Tutors checking out the participants’ learning related
to the aims and objectives.
8. Participants encouraged to make links between
exercises and session.

Accredited Programmes Groupwork Self Assessment Form 29


C1.2 Adherence to treatment style (Mandatory)
From direct observation or video evidence, programme Tutors make competent and appropriate use of the techniques specified. There will be evidence of effective communication of the
material, offender understanding and engagement. Pro-social attitudes are skilfully modelled by workers and are predominant in the group. This includes challenging pro-criminal or anti-
social attitudes and behaviour.

Evidence required Method of Checking / Evidence Score


1. Use of open questions to facilitate learning.
2. Listening and allowing for answers.
3. Summarises points and reflects back.
4. Challenges offence-supporting views.
5. Participants encouraged to explain and validate ideas
for themselves.
6. Demonstrates awareness of responsivity issues
(including race equality).
7. Encourages participants to elicit self-motivating
statements.

Accredited Programmes Groupwork Self Assessment Form 30


C1.3 Group work skills (Important)
Programme Tutors demonstrate effective management of the group, including effective co-working to facilitate learning by offenders and modelling pro-social behaviour.
Disruption by participants is minimised.

Evidence required Method of Checking / Evidence Score


1. Exercises introduced and ended well.
2. Appropriate verbal style (clearly spoken, warm,
encouraging, gives judicious praise).
3. Uses appropriate language (shows awareness of race
equality and wider diversity issues).
4. Effective co-working.
5. Handovers conducted well.
6. Group managed well (control of whole group,
disruptive and quiet members).
7. All group members involved.
8. Uses non-verbal encouragement (warm, open,
assertive body posture, listens, accepting style).

Accredited Programmes Groupwork Self Assessment Form 31


C1.4 Programme delivered addressing race equality and diversity issues (Mandatory)
From direct observation or video evidence, issues of racism and sexism are effectively addressed whether arising within programme delivery or offender response. Staff are alert to race
equality and diversity issues, they always respond appropriately and show that they have considered and developed strategies for responding, e.g. relevant resources and arguments, clarity
about boundaries, approaches that may promote perspective taking.

Evidence required Method of Checking / Evidence Score


1. Examples within programme sessions of Tutors
challenging racist, sexist or other inappropriate
attitudes or behaviour.
2. Programme Managers, Treatment Managers and Tutors
alert to issues of race equality and diversity, e.g. Tutors
ensuring cultural relevance of exercises (in mixed race
group,) managers considering staff composition, e.g.
increased number of women Tutors in a group where
there is a small minority of women offenders within a
predominantly male setting.
3. Evidence of policy/practice documents about
promoting diversity within programme delivery.

Accredited Programmes Groupwork Self Assessment Form 32


C1.5 Programme Session Review Form (For use by Facilitators / Tutors at the end of the session) (Important)
The programme Session Review Form for each session is completed.

Evidence required Method of Checking / Evidence Score


1. Evidence that the programme Tutors have
completed the programme Session Review Form for
each session of the programme.
2. Accurate recording e.g. levels of offender
engagement and of particular issues affecting
individual participants.
3. Timely completion of the Session Review Form for
all sessions (in the debriefing meeting following the
programme delivery).

Accredited Programmes Groupwork Self Assessment Form 33


C1.6 End of programme Post-Programme Report (Important)
The case record shows that at the end of the programme delivery staff prepare a Post- Programme Report (see Probation Circular 03/2004) for the Case Manager which includes
the following sections:
¾ Programme summary
¾ Attendance and Participation
¾ Progress made
¾ Areas for Improvement and Potentially risky situations
¾ Suggestions for further work
¾ Participant’s comments

Evidence required Method of Checking / Evidence Score


1. Post-Programme Reports for Case Manager
demonstrating that these factors have been
addressed.
2. Post-Programme Reports completed within 2 weeks
of the end of the programme, countersigned by the
Treatment Manager and sent to the Case Manager.

Accredited Programmes Groupwork Self Assessment Form 34


Case Management Responsibilities
D1.1 Initial Supervision plan sets relevant objectives for the offender (Important)
The supervision plan integrates the programme into the overall plan of work for each offender. Specific objectives are set in a sequence appropriate for the offender and are
recorded in the Initial Supervision Plan and regularly reviewed. Assessments should be based on OASys.

Evidence required Method of Checking / Evidence Score


1. Use of OASys to inform assessment.
2. Evidence that the initial supervision plan integrates
the programme within an overall work plan for the
offender.
3. SMART objectives relevant to the programme are
set. The Case Manager should clearly record what
work is to be done by whom and in what timescale.

Accredited Programmes Groupwork Self Assessment Form 35


D1.2 Effective liaison arrangements between the Case Manager and programme staff (Mandatory)
The case records show the existence of effective arrangements for liaison handover and communication. This should include the 3 way meetings between the Case Manager
programme Tutor and the offender at the end of the programme.

Evidence required Method of Checking / Evidence Score


1. Evidence of consistent attendance at the 3 way
meetings by Case Managers, programme Tutors and
offenders.

Accredited Programmes Groupwork Self Assessment Form 36


D1.3 Supporting the Offender through the phases of the programme (Mandatory)
The Case Manager is responsible for preparing and motivating the offender prior to his/her participation in an accredited programme and for reinforcing learning during the
programme.

Evidence required Method of Checking / Evidence Score


1. Case records demonstrate that the Case Manager has
undertaken any required pre –programme and
motivational work with the offender.
2. The case record should reflect work done when
there are problems with an offender’s attitude,
participation or attendance on the programme.

Accredited Programmes Groupwork Self Assessment Form 37


D1.4 Understanding and knowledge of programme methods (Important)
Case Managers have a clear understanding of the aims and objectives of the programme and that they have either the requisite skills to undertake reinforcement and/or relapse
prevention work, or the ability to refer to staff possessing these skills.

Evidence required Method of Checking / Evidence Score


1. Training strategy to address areas of unmet need.
2. Attendance at the Case Manager training for the
programme.
3. Training audit of Case Managers to assess their level
of skills necessary to undertake reinforcement and
relapse prevention work.

Accredited Programmes Groupwork Self Assessment Form 38


D1.5 Managing of Attendance and Enforcement (Important)
Responsibility for the monitoring of attendance and the enforcement of orders is clearly defined with appropriate systems in place. There is evidence of effective enforcement in
all cases.

Evidence required Method of Checking / Evidence Score


1. Area policy and guidance documents on
enforcement conform to the requirements of
National Standards.
2. Case records that note an offender’s attendance/
non-compliance and any necessary enforcement
action.
3. Action on enforcement takes place within agreed
National Standards timetable.

Accredited Programmes Groupwork Self Assessment Form 39


D1.6 Documentation (Important)
The case record shows that all relevant documentation is completed.

Evidence required Method of Checking / Evidence Score


1. Case records containing all relevant documentation
e.g. pre-work conducted, post – programme reports,
attendance levels etc.
2. Timely and accurate IAPS database or local
equivalent returns.

Accredited Programmes Groupwork Self Assessment Form 40


D1.7 End of programme review (Important)
The Supervision Plan review for each offender shows that at the end of the programme appropriate individual objectives are identified to strengthen and build on the progress
made and to achieve successful community reintegration.

Evidence required Method of Checking / Evidence Score


1. Evidence that the post-programme report influences
the supervision plan review especially in respect of
areas of work not sufficiently covered by the
programme that the offender needs to address.
2. SMART objectives relevant to the programme set in
the supervision plan review document.
3. Attention paid to community reintegration issues.

Accredited Programmes Groupwork Self Assessment Form 41


D1.8 Reinforcement and relapse prevention work (Important)
There are specific arrangements in place to reinforce learning and for relapse prevention work, including booster programmes where required by the programme, delivered by
appropriately trained and skilled staff.

Evidence required Method of Checking / Evidence Score


1. Case Managers role in reinforcing programme
learning is clearly defined in area documentation.
2. Where available, booster programmes are used
appropriately for offenders who have completed an
accredited programme.
3. Training review ensures that only appropriately
trained and skilled staff deliver accredited
booster/relapse prevention work.

Accredited Programmes Groupwork Self Assessment Form 42


Definitions
The following definitions are given in an attempt to aid understanding of the key concepts contained within the Accredited Programmes Self Assessment
Documents.

Diversity

The Quality Assessment of Accredited programmes will pursue matters of Diversity within the National Probation Service’ policy on diversity as set out in
“Heart of the Dance – A Diversity Strategy for the National Probation Service for England and Wales 2002-2006”. The process should therefore reflect the
requirements of the National Probation Service Charter. “The National Probation Service pledges itself to equal service for all our members, the offenders, victims of crime
and our communities”. (Heart of the Dance 2003: page 5) It will also relate to the five specific points of the National Probation Service Charter and thereby
ensure the four principles for Diversity (Heart of the Dance 2003: page 6) are achieved.

Furthermore, the policy of diversity should be viewed within the framework of “responsivity”.

Responsivity

“The responsivity principle states that interventions should be delivered in ways which match the offenders’ learning style and engage their active participation” (HMIP Evidence
Based Practice A Guide to Effective Practice 1998: page 14 paragraph 1.27).

The root of the responsivity principle lies in the belief that every offender regardless of race, religion, gender, sexuality, age etc, should be enabled to fulfil
their potential to lead law abiding lifestyles to the maximum.

The wording in “The Performance Standards Manual for the Delivery of Accredited Programmes” usually takes the form of addressing “race equality and
diversity issues”. This clearly stresses the importance of race but is also talking about all issues of discrimination. Quality Assessment should therefore avoid
hierarchies of discrimination. This means that Anti- Discriminatory Practice addresses racism, sexism, homophobia, disability and ageism. It should also
include any other form of discrimination where an individual is prevented from benefiting from a programme or faces obstacles to their attendance and
participation. Anti- discriminatory practice therefore will address issues such as basic skills problems and learning difficulties, mental health, rurality and so
on.

Accredited Programmes Groupwork Self Assessment Form 43


Quality Assessment will look at how programme staff, (including Case Managers and other involved staff) develop offenders’ responsivity by:

¾ Assessing and matching offenders appropriately to programmes.


¾ Tackling discrimination to overcome obstacles to the successful and beneficial completion of a programme.
¾ Programme staff conduct induction, pre and post programme work, programme sessions in an anti- discriminatory way. This includes challenging
inappropriate behaviour, ensuring that obstacles to participation and learning are effectively dealt with.
¾ Anti- discriminatory behaviour is modelled by staff both in their interactions with offenders and each other.

Community Re-integration

“Community reintegration is the most critical process for achieving long-term change. It should be an essential element of any supervision plan. The outputs of any programme should
include motivation, preparation and skills enhancement to achieve successful participation in community life.” (HMIP Evidence Based Practice A Guide to Effective Practice
1998: page 64 paragraph 5.2)

Exceptional Circumstances

“There is an unforeseen or unavoidable event, which is outside the Programme Manager / Tutor’s control and which any reasonable person would conclude would render it impractical
to continue with the scheduled session or in the case of catch-up sessions sequence the session according to Probation Circular 92/2001 (Appendix 7).”

Accredited Programmes Groupwork Self Assessment Form 44


Accredited Programmes Groupwork Self Assessment Guidance Form

Guidance Notes for Self assessment

Self assessment stages

The self assessment for accredited programmes is an opportunity for the area to look at the way it runs accredited programmes. The evidence required might in
part be new evidence and also evidence provided to HMIP at the last audit.
The tools / documents provided by the Quality Management Team (QMT) for the purpose of quality assessment are as follows:

• Accredited Programmes Groupwork Self Assessment Guidance Form


• Accredited Programmes Groupwork Self Assessment Form
• QMT Case File Reading Form

The first stage requires areas to ensure that the evidence in relation to the above components of the assessment is available and accessible. At this stage it is not
necessary to physically collect it. As with EEM, the scores will first of all be established by the areas on the basis of the available evidence. There is no
requirement to send any of the evidence to the QMT. The QMT does not require any advance information but will expect the area to complete the self
assessment form. However, the area should note at this stage where the evidence is located, as this will be of use for the verification process. The scores resulting
from the self assessment will constitute the Provisional Quality Score (PQS).

The information contained in the “Evidence required” section of the “Accredited Programmes Groupwork Self Assessment Guidance Form” represents good
practice and mandatory elements relevant to accredited programmes. When undertaking self assessment if you believe your area has innovative practice which
affects the score please include full details of the specific practice. This should include processes and outcomes in sufficient detail for the Quality Management
Team (QMT) validation panel to make a judgement about the validity of the information. The QMT validation panel will consider the practice identified and the
allotted score based upon the evidence provided, to ensure “best practice” is disseminated widely and scoring integrity is maintained.

The second stage involves validation of the scores set by areas. In order to be able to complete the validation the area will be required to nominate representatives
to form a regional validation team, which will be facilitated by Quality Systems Manager. Prior to the validation event areas will be informed which evidence needs
to be available on the day for validation. A score will be available for each programme and an aggregated score will be given for the Area as a whole.

Accredited Programmes Groupwork Self Assessment Guidance 1


Guidelines on Collating Evidence

The Quality Management process is, in line with Probation Service Policy, evidence based. Quality Management is more about finding evidence to show whether
or not an area has met a specific pre determined criteria. In the case of accredited programmes, these criteria are defined in the “Performance Standards Manual for
the Delivery of Accredited Group Work Programmes”. The Accredited Programmes Groupwork Self Assessment Guidance Form mirrors these standards and
makes specific what the evidence required is and how it should be scored in terms of quality rating.

The self assessment approach has been designed within the framework of the EFQM. Consequently the following principles apply:

™ Evidence should be identifiable rather than anecdotal i.e. the evidence can be shown whenever it is requested.
™ There should be an appropriate scope for evidence in terms of :
o The extent to which a full range of evidence, relevant to the criteria, are presented (scope)
o The extent to which the relevance of the evidence presented is understood (relevance)
o The extent to which the evidence covers all relevant areas of the area set up e.g. throughout Programmes (segmentation)
™ The evidence can demonstrate what it claims to demonstrate in terms of the criteria set.

Sample Size

The sample size required for self assessment is 20% of the annual commencements, for each programme delivered, based upon the accredited programmes
monthly return sent to NPD. This needs to include 10 cases that completed for each programme. The maximum number of cases per programme required for
London is 100 and all other areas is 50. The minimum number of cases per programme is 10. Where there are insufficient cases to meet this minimum all cases
must be reviewed.

Please refer to the Probation Circular but remember that Leadership and Case Management need only be done once – NOT for each programme.

Video Monitoring Scores

The scoring approach, which has been adopted, involves calculating an average from the sample of tapes and then rounding the score to the nearest whole number.
For example, an average of 3.5 would be rounded up to 4, whilst an average of 3.4 would be rounded down to 3.

Accredited Programmes Groupwork Self Assessment Guidance 2


Types of Evidence
Team Meeting Minutes – Where minutes contain evidence, which relates to a number of criteria the same minutes can be submitted as evidence for each relevant
criterion thereby reducing the actual sets of minutes produced overall. All minutes must have been produced during the 12-month period immediately prior to the
self assessment date.

Business Plans, Policy Statements, Strategy Documents - The most recent document produced should be used as evidence.

Scoring
As a guiding principle Mandatory Elements require a higher degree of evidence to achieve a Score 2 than Important Elements. However, where National Standards
targets apply this is reflected in the scoring regardless of the level of importance placed on the criterion. Likewise where it is imperative to maintain Treatment
Integrity this approach has been adopted.

Accredited Programmes Groupwork Self Assessment Guidance 3


Committed Leadership & Supportive Management
A 1.1 Committed Leadership (Mandatory)
The senior management of the area should be openly and explicitly committed to the proper running of the programme through policy and public statements.

Evidence required Method of Checking / Evidence Scoring


1. Specific improvement or maintenance objectives in • Area documentation, including annual business plan, Score 2
the area annual business plan about the importance training strategy, policy statements and relevant 90% of evidence including 1-3 must be present.
assigned to the delivery of the chosen accredited senior management/divisional management minutes.
programme(s). • Annual business plan. Score 1
2. Specific targets set in line with NPD targets. • “What Works” strategy. 65% to 89% of evidence including any two of evidence
3. ‘What Works’ strategy detailing targets for running 1-3 must be present.
• Targets in above documents.
accredited programmes and implementation of
specific programme in the context of strategy. • Other documentation, including copies of Score 0
4. Attendance by senior managers at staff presentations made by senior managers to staff Less than 65% of evidence. None of evidence 1-3 is
awareness/context setting days for the accredited groups and guidance issued to staff. present.
programme. • Dates of context setting days with attendance lists
5. Middle Mangers & Case Managers as well as PSR and job titles.
authors had attended context setting days. • Attendance list for new staff with dates of events.
6. New staff had attended context setting days. • Minutes of five meetings during the last 12 months.
7. Communication with all staff in support of service • Copies of internal bulletins.
delivery. For example: • Copies of e-mails to the whole of the service.
¾ Team meeting minutes, • Minutes of five meetings during the last year.
¾ Newsletters,
• Evidence of public statements & resource allocations
¾ E-mails. for the current financial year.
8. Evidence of regular discussion in senior
management meetings about the effective delivery of
the accredited programme, e.g. discussion of
operational issues and guidance issued to staff,
decisions made on basis of evidence. For example:
¾ Regular team meeting minutes.

Accredited Programmes Groupwork Self Assessment Guidance 4


A1.2 Management Structure (Important)
Effective line management structures exist for the proper operation of the programme, integrating this within case management structures. Adequate time should be set aside for the
effective management of the programme.

Evidence required Method of Checking / Evidence Scoring


1. Organisational chart outlines the management • Area documentation, including organisational charts. Score 2
structures for the delivery of accredited programmes. • Job descriptions for all staff. Evidence 1-3.
2. Competency-based job descriptions exist for all staff • Five sets of relevant minutes during the last 12
involved in programme delivery, case management months indicating attendance. Score 1
and in support roles. Evidence (any two).
3. Minutes of relevant divisional/functional
management meetings demonstrate integration of Score 0
programme delivery within the case management Fewer than two evidence points.
process and effective communication across the
area. Minutes indicating, for example:
¾ Treatment Managers regular input at team meetings.
¾ Mechanism for interaction of programme delivery
staff and Case Managers.
¾ Regular programme management meetings.

Accredited Programmes Groupwork Self Assessment Guidance 5


A 1.3 Staff ownership of the accredited programme (Important)
There is full ownership of the programme by managers, programme Tutors and other relevant staff, e.g. court personnel and Case Managers.

Evidence required Method of Checking / Evidence Scoring


1. Evidence of consistent allocation and use of • IAPS database or local equivalent for allocations to Score 2
accredited programmes across the area. For example: the programme. Evidence 1-3.
¾ Referral rates across the area at or above the national • Case records to verify attendance by Case Managers
average. at programme review meetings. Score 1
2. Regular Case Manager attendance at programme • Area & NPD statistics. Evidence (any two).
review meetings.
• Numbers and percentage of Case Managers, PSR
3. Case Managers, Pre-Sentence Report (PSR) authors Score 0
authors and other relevant personnel, e.g. admin,
and other relevant personnel to attend context Fewer than two evidence points.
PO, middle managers who attended context setting
setting or other accredited training courses. For
days and/or Case Manager training.
example:
¾ All middle managers attend context setting days or • Date of meeting and attendance list/training record.
other accredited training courses.
¾ Admin support staff have been to context setting
days.

Accredited Programmes Groupwork Self Assessment Guidance 6


A1.4 Effective communication with sentencers (Important)
There is high quality, proactive communication with local sentencers and clerks to the justices about the programme, including written information.

Evidence required Method of Checking / Evidence Scoring


1. Communications with judges, magistrates and • Date of meeting and name of manager who Score 2
magistrates’ clerks, for example: attended. Evidence 1-3.
¾ Presentations to sentencers by managers, • Programme of Sentencer training event(s).
¾ Input into magistrates training, • Relevant minutes of meetings during the last 12 Score 1
¾ Board members with responsibility for accredited months. Evidence (any two).
programmes linking with sentencers. • Copy of leaflet for sentencers.
2. Minutes of liaison meetings between sentencers and Score 0
• Relevant minutes of board meetings during the last Fewer than two evidence points.
probation staff. For example:
12 months.
¾ Accredited programmes agenda item.
3. Information leaflets for sentencers and clerks • Minutes, written presentations and information
explaining the programme. leaflets.

Accredited Programmes Groupwork Self Assessment Guidance 7


Programme Management Responsibilities
B1.1 Resources and facilities (Mandatory)
Adequate accommodation consistent with the Estates Standards Manual is available for all sessions of the programme.

Evidence required Method of Checking / Evidence Scoring


1. Group rooms are of sufficient size to accommodate a • Physical description of the group rooms, at each location, Score 2
minimum of four offenders and a maximum of 12 including size, equipment and facilities. The group rooms at 90% and above of the locations met the
offenders plus two programme Tutors and necessary evidence required.
equipment (flipcharts, overhead projector [OHP] and
video camera). If these requirements have not been met, but there is evidence
2. The room should be well lit and well ventilated, with that plans are in place to bring any deficiency up to standard
minimum outside noise/disruption. within 3 months the criterion can be considered fully met.
3. A separate area/room is available to allow sub-group
work to take place. This space should be able to Score 1
accommodate up to six offenders and one group The group rooms at 65% - 89% of the locations met the
facilitator. requirements.
4. Comfortable chairs in each room (padded, fairly upright
chairs with arms may be most appropriate). Score 0
5. Desks/tables to enable offenders to complete written The group rooms at less than 65% of the locations met the
work (as a minimum participants should be supplied with requirements.
clipboards).
6. Adequate supply of flipcharts/stands (two per main group
room and one for sub-group work).
7. OHP and screen must be provided.
8. Video monitoring equipment and sound system of
sufficient quality to enable sessions to be observed and
assessed by Treatment Managers and external auditors.
9. Secure video / audio storage facilities for the cataloguing
and storage of all sessions of the accredited programme.
Videotapes / audiotapes should be retained for treatment
management and audit purposes. Following an audit, all
recordings made prior to the latest programme subject to
audit inspection need no longer be retained. (Probation
Circular 16/2003)

Accredited Programmes Groupwork Self Assessment Guidance 8


B1.2 Provision of information leaflets about the programme (Important)
There should be a set of leaflets for offenders, sentencers and staff clearly describing the programme and its requirements.

Evidence required Method of Checking / Evidence Scoring


1. Leaflets customised for the audience, including • Copies of leaflets, for offenders, sentencers and Score 2
meeting the requirements of cultural diversity. staff. In 75% and above cases programme specific copies of
2. Leaflets drafted at a level that allows the audience to • Contents of leaflets. leaflets are available to staff, sentencers and offenders. In
fully understand the content. • Case records indicate offender has received the addition the leaflets must contain an explanation of the
3. Leaflets given to offenders in advance of sentencing. leaflet(s), including when they were given. (QMT following:
4. Conditions of attendance and consequences of Case File Reading Form Question 12). • compliance,
failing to comply fully outlined in the information • enforcement,
leaflet(s). • complaints procedures,
5. Complaints procedure outlined in the leaflet(s).
• cultural diversity issues,
• customised for the target audience at a level that
allows the reader to fully understand the leaflet,
• Case records indicate offenders have received the
leaflet(s), including when they were given.

If any one of the above required elements is omitted


from the leaflets, the score should be reduced to 1.

Score 1
In 50% - 74% of cases programme specific copies of
leaflets are available to staff, sentencers and offenders
and they contain the required elements.

Where a required element is omitted the score should be


reduced to 0.

Score 0
In less than 50% of cases programme specific copies of
leaflets were available to staff, sentencers and offenders.

Accredited Programmes Groupwork Self Assessment Guidance 9


B2.1 Managing attendance (Mandatory)
Offender attendance and absence are managed to achieve the required National Performance Management target for offender completions. Attendance is managed to achieve
coherent delivery with full impact for all undertaking the programme. The maximum number of absences by any one offender is consistent with the requirements of the
programme manual for the specific accredited programme.

Evidence required Method of Checking / Evidence Scoring


1. Area policy document on offender • Area documentation on enforcement of attendance Score 2
attendance/enforcement. and enhancing completion rates. In 90% and above cases all of the following elements
2. Area documentation outlining how completion rates • IAPS database or local equivalent. have been achieved:
will be enhanced over time. This can include any • Attendance registers, showing starters, dropouts and • The attendance register indicates that only the
analysis of attrition rates and subsequent action. completion rates. permitted number of absences from the programme
3. Attendance registers demonstrate that participants’ has been allowed.
• Case records. (QMT Case File Reading Form
attendance conforms to the requirements of the • When appropriate letters have been sent out to
Question 17).
programme and National Standards. offenders in line with National Standards relating to
4. IAPS database or local equivalent confirming attendance.
attendance by each offender and completion rates. • There is evidence of good liaison between
programme staff and Case Managers.
N.B. The accredited programme may specify pre and
post-programme work. Offenders will only be Score 1
deemed to be completers when they have In 65% - 89% of cases the required elements have been
undertaken all of the approved elements. achieved.
5. Evidence of discussion between Case Manager and Where an attendance register is not maintained the score
programme staff when offenders have missed should be 0, even if there is good communication
sessions for acceptable or unacceptable reasons. between programme staff and Case Managers.

Score 0
In less than 50% of cases the required elements have
been achieved.

Accredited Programmes Groupwork Self Assessment Guidance 10


B2.2 Avoidance of cancellation or disruption to sessions (Important)
Sessions are not cancelled or disrupted owing to offender crises, high workload or other pressures, and arrangements exist to deal with crises outside of the programme session.
Sessions are delivered at the frequency defined in the programme manual.

Evidence required Method of Checking / Evidence Scoring


1. Published calendar for each session of the accredited • IAPS database or local equivalent to check out Score 2
programme is available and is circulated to teams published sessions against actual sessions. In 75% and above cases all of the following elements
and the courts. • Area documentation including published calendar of have been achieved:
2. Frequency of sessions conforms to requirements of programmes. • Tutors have successfully delivered sessions in line
the accredited programme manual. • Review post-session and Post-Programme Reports. with the published schedule.
3. Arrangements are made to deal with offenders’ • There is a Tutor back-up system in place, which
problems outside of the programmed session. This provides cover during times of sickness absence, or
should be outlined in briefing meetings to offenders annual leave.
prior to their participation in the programme. • Sessions are only cancelled in exceptional
4. Workload or other pressures are seen to be resolved circumstances (See Definitions – page 44).
by the Programme Manager to enable regular Tutor
• The frequency of sessions conforms to the
attendance.
requirements of the programme manual.

Score 1
In 50% - 74% of cases the required elements have been
achieved.

Where there is no calendar or it has not been circulated


the score should be 0.

Score 0
In less than 50% of cases the required elements have
been achieved.

Accredited Programmes Groupwork Self Assessment Guidance 11


B2.3 Catch-up sessions/Attendance (Important)
Provision is made for catch-up sessions, or a ‘bus stop’ approach (see Probation Circular 92/2001) to allow offenders who miss a session to continue with the programme. All
offenders missing sessions, who are not excluded from the programme, should attend catch-up sessions, or in the case of a ‘bus stop’ approach be moved onto another
programme within ten working days, to ensure full delivery of the programme. Treatment Managers must specify arrangements for monitoring the integrity of catch-up sessions.

Evidence required Method of Checking / Evidence Scoring


1. Programme scheduled to enable catch-up sessions to • IAPS database or local equivalent to identify catch- Score 2
take place normally before the next group work up sessions arranged and appointments kept/not In 75% and above cases the following elements are
session. kept. The database will also identify the Tutors achieved:
2. Number of catch-up sessions conforms to the involved in running the catch-up sessions. • Catch-up sessions are provided on a regular and
requirements of the accredited programme manual. • Review programme schedule to ensure that this consistent basis, in accordance with the programme
3. Identified staff to run catch-up sessions. allows adequate time for catch-up sessions. manual.
4. A record of catch-up sessions completed for each • Every seventh catch-up session audio taped • Catch-up sessions are video / audio taped.
offender and whether or not catch-up session /videotaped by the Treatment Manager. • There is a system in place for the Treatment
attended. Manager to review every seventh session.
• QMT Case File Reading Form Question 16.
5. Every seventh catch-up session run during the
• Catch-up sessions are recorded as having taken
programme subject to integrity checks.
place.

Score 1
In 50% - 74% of cases only one of the required elements
is missing.

Score 0
Where two or more of the required elements are missing.

Accredited Programmes Groupwork Self Assessment Guidance 12


B2.4 Timeliness (Important)
All offenders commence the programme, or specified pre-programme phase, within the first month of the order or within three months if other structured pre-programme work
is undertaken. Occasionally, the timing may be different to permit other preliminary work to be completed, e.g. a programme of drug detoxification.

Evidence required Method of Checking / Evidence Scoring


1. Written evidence of offenders commencing the • Check timeliness of commencements via IAPS Score 2
programme within the required timescale. database or local equivalent. Evidence 1-3.
2. Clearly documented pre-programme work, in the • QMT Case File Reading Form Questions 13, 14 and
case record, where an offender is assessed as not 15. Score 1
being ready/available/able to commence the Evidence (any two).
programme.
3. Case records demonstrate other preliminary work Score 0
that needs to be completed prior to the offender’s Fewer than two evidence points.
participation in the programme.

Accredited Programmes Groupwork Self Assessment Guidance 13


B3.1 Staff selection (Mandatory)
A staff selection procedure meeting the requirements of the programme manual is in place and only staff meeting the defined criteria are selected to deliver the programme.

Evidence required Method of Checking / Evidence Scoring


1. Potential Tutors receive written information about • Area training documentation, including information Score 2
what is involved in running the accredited given to potential Tutors, selection / deselection In 90% and above all of the following elements have
programme from the Programme Manager and/or policies and procedures. been achieved:
the Treatment Manager. • IAPS database or local equivalent or personnel / • Staff selection procedures are followed, including the
2. Assessment centre procedures exist and are training documentation confirming assessment provision of written information to candidates.
followed. centre and training dates for each Tutor and • Assessment centres meet the requisite criteria.
3. Written policy confirming that only those staff who outcomes. • There is a written policy outlining who can deliver a
meet the defined criteria, e.g. fully trained by programme.
accredited trainers, deliver the programme.
• There is a deselection policy.
4. Written policy outlining how staff not selected, as
Tutors will be assisted.
Score 1
In 65% - 89% only one of the required elements is
missing.

Score 0
Where two or more of the required elements are missing.

Accredited Programmes Groupwork Self Assessment Guidance 14


B3.2 Staff roles and competencies (Important)
Differences in role between grades or posts are clearly reflected in job descriptions. A defined set of competencies exist for each staff role involved in the programme, using
those specified in the programme manuals and the national management manual.

Evidence required Method of Checking / Evidence Scoring


1. Job descriptions are available for all programme • Job descriptions. Score 2
staff. • Appraisal / supervision notes. In 75% and above cases both of the following elements
2. Evidence that staff roles have been discussed. • Area documentation outlining the core competencies have been achieved:
3. Evidence that all staff are clear about their areas of for each staff role. • Programme staff including Programme Managers,
responsibility. Treatment Managers and Tutors have been provided
• Cross-referencing the competencies against the
4. Published list of core competencies consistent with with competency-based job descriptions based on
programme manual and national management
the requirements of the programme manual. relevant occupational standards, commensurate with
manual where appropriate.
5. The core competencies outlined by the area are a their roles and national management manual
‘close match’ with the tasks outlined in Section 1 of requirements.
the National Management Manual for the Effective • All three groups of staff are able to give detailed and
Delivery of Accredited Programmes in the accurate descriptions of their roles and
Community. responsibilities and how they link with staff in other
roles.

Score 1
In 50% - 74% of cases the required elements have been
achieved.

Score 0
In less than 50% of cases the required elements have
been achieved.

Accredited Programmes Groupwork Self Assessment Guidance 15


B3.3 Preparation and debriefing time for Tutors (Important)
Tutors are allowed 1½ hours for preparation and debriefing for each session in addition to the programme delivery time.

Evidence required Method of Checking / Evidence Scoring


1. IAPS database or local equivalent is completed • IAPS database or local equivalent indicating time Score 2
following each session of the programme. spent on preparation and debriefing. In 75% and above cases all of the following elements
• Notes of preparation and debriefing meetings. have been achieved:
• Facilitator /Tutor Session Review Form completed • The IAPS database or local equivalent record shows
after every session. that preparation time is taken at the required level.
• Sessions are scheduled to allow sufficient
preparation and debriefing.
• Facilitator /Tutor Session Review Forms were
completed.

Score 1
In 50% - 74% of cases the required elements have been
met.

Score 0
In less than 50% of cases the required elements have
been met.

Accredited Programmes Groupwork Self Assessment Guidance 16


B3.4 Staff continuity (Important)
Three Tutors should normally be assigned to each accredited programme to allow for leave, sickness and other contingencies. All sessions of the programmes are delivered by at
least two of the three assigned staff. Continuity is maintained by at least one of the staff members having run the previous session.

Evidence required Method of Checking / Evidence Scoring


1. Published staff rotas to ensure that two trained staff • IAPS database or local equivalent to confirm names Score 2
are available to run each session of the programme. of Tutors for each programme. In 75% and above the IAPS database or local equivalent
2. Session reports demonstrate continuity of staff • IAPS database or local equivalent to check Tutor confirms that there is an established system of assigning
Tutors. attendance against the session evaluation forms. a minimum of three Tutors to each programme, with the
3. Planning meetings discussing staffing for each third Tutor providing back-up cover.
group, including contingency arrangements.
Score 1
In 50% - 74% the requirements have been achieved.

Score 0
In less than 50% the requirements have been achieved.

Accredited Programmes Groupwork Self Assessment Guidance 17


B4.1 Training arrangements for new staff (Mandatory)
Training courses exist for all grades and roles involved in delivering the programme and all staff newly assigned to the programme receive training before running their first programme.
The training delivered follows that defined in the programme training manual.

Evidence required Method of Checking / Evidence Scoring


1. There is a record of all relevant training and other • IAPS database or local equivalent confirming that Score 2
staff development work undertaken by programme programme specific training has taken place. Evidence 1 & 2 must be present.
staff, including the core training for the accredited • Area documentation listing the training undertaken
programme. by programme staff during the last 12 months. Score 1
¾ Equal access to training programme for all staff, • Attendance list for training events during the last One piece of evidence.
¾ Refresher training (if available). 12 months.
2. Supervision notes/appraisal documents demonstrate Score 0
• Sample of supervision notes of programme staff.
an ongoing attention to staff development needs for No piece of evidence.
each member of staff involved in delivering the • Dates of events during the last 12 months.
programme.

Accredited Programmes Groupwork Self Assessment Guidance 18


B4.2 New staff paired with an experienced colleague when running their first programme (Important)
Staff newly trained in a programme should be paired with a more experienced colleague when running their first course.

Evidence required Method of Checking / Evidence Scoring


1. Written policy documentation. • IAPS database or local equivalent with list when Score 2
2. Service practice of pairing a newly trained Tutor with staff have been trained and therefore it can be Evidence 1-3.
an experienced colleague. established whether new staff have been paired with
3. List of staff appropriately trained. experienced colleagues. Score 1
• Policy available to all staff. Evidence (any two).

Score 0
Fewer than two evidence points.

Accredited Programmes Groupwork Self Assessment Guidance 19


B4.3 Training arrangements for experienced staff (Important)
Competency-based booster and developmental training arrangements exist for all staff experienced in delivering the programme. All programme delivery staff are required to
attend such training when they have demonstrated their competence to do so. (This will include delivering a stipulated minimum number of courses.)

Evidence required Method of Checking / Evidence Scoring


1. Staff development plan for each member of the • IAPS database or local equivalent listing training Score 2
delivery team. undertaken by delivery staff and those identified for Evidence 1-3, or 1 and 3 if it can be evidenced that 2 is
2. Dates when booster and developmental training booster training where appropriate. not available.
events arranged (if available). • Area training plan.
3. List of team members for booster training. • Date of anticipated training. Score 1
Evidence (any two), or 1 f it can be evidenced that 2 is
not available.

Score 0
Fewer than two evidence points.

B4.4 Staff knowledge of the concepts and methods used in the programme (Important)
All relevant staff have a knowledge of the programme model, targeting, objectives and methods sufficient for the effective delivery of the programme.

Evidence required Method of Checking / Evidence Scoring


1. Tutors have been assessed as competent at the point • Evidence of assessment on Tutors from training Score 2
of training by the national trainers. section. All evidence present.
2. Area documentation effectively outlines the • Documentation accessible to all staff.
programme model, concepts and methods used in Score 1
the programme. For example: One piece of evidence present.
¾ Programme manuals readily available to all staff for
reference. Score 0
No evidence present.

Accredited Programmes Groupwork Self Assessment Guidance 20


B4.5 Staff knowledge of the theoretical and evidential basis of the programme (Important)
All relevant staff have a knowledge of the programme’s theoretical base and evidence, sufficient for effective delivery of the programme.

Evidence required Method of Checking / Evidence Scoring


1. Tutors have been assessed as competent at the point • Evidence of assessment on Tutors from training Score 2
of training by the national trainers. section. All evidence present.
2. Area documentation effectively outlines the • Documentation accessible to all staff.
theoretical and evidential basis of the programme. Score 1
For example: Evidence 1 must be present.
¾ Programme manuals readily available to all staff for
reference. Score 0
No evidence present.

B4.6 Supporting skills necessary to run programmes (Important)


From interview, observation, appraisal and training audits all relevant staff have supporting skills including core group work skills, presentation skills, etc., sufficient for the
effective delivery of the programme.

Evidence required Method of Checking / Evidence Scoring


1. Training reviews for all staff to check training • Area training plan. Score 2
undertaken and areas where further training • Training reviews for all relevant staff. Evidence 1-3.
required. • Video monitoring forms completed by Treatment
2. Video monitoring observation forms document Manager. Score 1
training and developmental needs for programme Evidence (any two).
• Observation forms.
staff.
3. Supporting skills audit informed by the supervision • Appraisal and review of appraisal on appropriate Score 0
and appraisal process and reflected in the area’s staff. Fewer than two evidence points.
overall training strategy.

Accredited Programmes Groupwork Self Assessment Guidance 21


B5.1 Staff supervision and quality of practice (Mandatory)
All staff involved in the programme receive support and supervision at a frequency specified in the national management manual. This will enable Tutor skills to be developed
and problems resolved within the lifetime of the current programme by supervisors familiar with effectiveness methods and the programme. The Treatment Manager to have
observed staff in the delivery of the programme either directly or through video prior to each supervision session.

Evidence required Method of Checking / Evidence Scoring


1. Video monitoring forms completed on each Tutor • Video tapes available to match with forms. Score 2
by the Treatment Manager. For audit and quality • Five video monitoring forms completed by the All evidence present.
assurance purposes the Treatment Manager is Treatment Manager covering one set from five
required to watch and score at least one video for different Tutors during the past 12 months outlining Score 1
every ten sessions of the programme. (Where an the strengths and areas for improvement. One piece of evidence present.
individual accredited programme specifies a different
frequency for video monitoring, this takes Score 0
precedence over guidance given in the national No evidence present.
management manual for delivering accredited
programmes.)
2. Video monitoring forms, demonstrating attention to
skills development, identification of good practice
and resolution of problems encountered by tutors in
delivering the programme.

Accredited Programmes Groupwork Self Assessment Guidance 22


B5.2 Staff appraisal (Important)
All members of staff involved with the programme have their competence to perform their assigned role assessed annually through the appraisal process. Staff whose
performance is assessed as below the acceptable standard but making progress should be given further training and other assistance to improve their performance and a date set
for review. Staff who are not making progress in achieving the required standard of performance should not take any further part in running the programme.

Evidence required Method of Checking / Evidence Scoring


1. Appraisal documents record an assessment of the • Appraisal documents of staff. Score 2
competency of programme Tutors to deliver the • Video monitoring forms available. 75% of evidence including 1.
programme. • Where applicable plan is available.
2. Video monitoring forms completed by the Score 1
• Records from training section regarding remedial
Treatment Manager identify strengths and areas 50% to 74% of evidence including 1.
action.
where performance needs to be improved.
3. A plan of remedial action is recorded by the • Policy available. Score 0
Treatment or Programme Manager, for tutors who • Details available of staff deselected. Less than 50% of evidence.
are underperforming, including a date to review
progress.
4. There is a written policy on deselection or capability
procedures, if Tutors fail to improve their
performance. Information on staff who have been
deselected as Tutors and the reasons for deselecting
is collected.

Accredited Programmes Groupwork Self Assessment Guidance 23


B6.1 Offender Assessment and Selection (Mandatory)
Routine monitoring results confirm the profile of those entering the programme are consistent with the criminogenic needs addressed by the programme, the level of risk of
reoffending and the level of risk of harm/ dangerousness.

Evidence required Method of Checking / Evidence Scoring


1. Use of approved targeting matrix for the programme • Area documentation, including targeting matrix and Score 2
that measures: OASys documents. Area documentation should also If 90% and above offenders who commenced the
¾ offenders’ criminogenic needs, include written statements about exclusion criteria. programme conform to the eligibility and suitability
¾ risk of reoffending. • Check IAPS database or local equivalent to ensure criteria of the programme as assessed by OASys.
2. Use of OASys. profile is consistent with offender’s needs, level of
3. Use of evaluation monitoring from IAPS or local risk of reoffending and risk of harm/dangerousness. Score 1
equivalent. • QMT Case File Reading Form Question 11. If 65 - 89% conform.
4. Written guidance on grounds for exclusion.
Score 0
Less than 65 % conform.

B6.2 Offender knowledge and understanding of the programme requirements (Important)


The requirements of the programme are clearly communicated on at least 2 occasions to each participant verbally and in writing and there is evidence from signed consent forms
or interview that offenders know and understand the requirements.

Evidence required Method of Checking / Evidence Scoring


1. Signed contracts or letter of understanding. • IAPS database or local equivalent confirms that The requirements of the programme have been clearly
2. Evidence that the programme requirements have offenders have signed the letter of understanding. communicated to the offender on at least 2 occasions
been explained to the offender verbally by Tutor • Case records confirm that the requirements of the and there is signed consent from the offender.
and/or Case Manager. programme have been explained to the offender on
at least 2 occasions (QMT Case File Reading Form Score 2
Question 12). 75% and over.

Score 1
50-74%.

Score 0
Less than 50%.

Accredited Programmes Groupwork Self Assessment Guidance 24


B6.3 Group size (Important)
For group programmes the maximum starting group size during the previous year did not exceed 12 and the minimum was not less than 4.

Evidence required Method of Checking / Evidence Scoring


1. The number of offenders instructed to attend the • Attendance registers on IAPS database or local The maximum starting group size did not exceed 12 and
programme conforms to the minimum and equivalent to check commencements for the the minimum was not less than 4.
maximum group size. programme.
Score 2
75 % and above.

Score 1
50% - 74%.

Score 0
Less than 50%.

Accredited Programmes Groupwork Self Assessment Guidance 25


B6.4 Accessibility of groupwork programmes (Important)
If women or minority ethnic offenders are placed in mixed groups there are no singleton placements unless agreed to by the offender. Appropriate support arrangements should
be provided and evidenced for these offenders.

Evidence required Method of Checking / Evidence Scoring


1. Written area policy confirming that there should be • IAPS database or local equivalent to check which A written area policy is available detailing expectations
no singleton placements of women or minority Tutors ran the programme against the offender and support that should be made available. This will
ethnic offenders, unless agreed to by programme composition of the group. include an instruction that no woman or minority ethnic
participant. • Area Policy/practice documents. offender will be placed singly in a group without their
2. Evidence where there are women or minority ethnic • Notes of programme planning meetings expressed consent.
offenders on a mixed group programme that demonstrating attention has been given in advance Where a group contains 1 or more women and or
attention has been paid to the staff composition of to staff composition and to the arrangements to minority ethnic offenders there will be evidence that
the Tutor group and arrangements to support support offenders. these offenders have been appropriately supported and
offenders attendance. that their feedback has been sought.
• Feedback from all women or minority ethnic
offenders obtained prior to commencement and on
Score 2
completion of the programme. (A minimum of five
This standard has been achieved in 75% or more.
pieces of feedback).
• QMT Case File Reading Form Question 28. Score 1
50% - 74%.

Score 0
Less than 50%.

Accredited Programmes Groupwork Self Assessment Guidance 26


B7.1 Implementation of monitoring and evaluation design (Mandatory)
Interview and observation show that monitoring and evaluation arrangements are working as intended and are understood and supported by all staff involved. This should
include both input and feedback of data to managers and practitioners at local level.

Evidence required Method of Checking / Evidence Scoring


1. An Area document explains the monitoring and • Area policy document and relevant guidelines An Area policy document including appropriate
evaluation arrangements and outlines the available. guidelines is available. Following each completed
responsibilities of relevant staff to accurately record • IAPS database or local equivalent completed fully programme there is evidence that individual and
data and to provide individual and summary reports. and accurately. summary reports from IAPS database or local equivalent
2. There are guidelines for completing psychometric • Individual and summary reports from the database have been circulated to relevant Managers and
data, programme Session Review Forms and IAPS have been circulated to relevant managers and practitioners.
database or local equivalent information. practitioners.
3. There are guidelines regarding systems, processes, Feedback reports have been circulated.
roles and responsibilities for the retrieval of
individual and summary data for reports to Score 2
practitioners and managers. 90% and above of offenders.

Score 1
65-89% and above of offenders.

Score 0
Less than 65 % of offenders.

Accredited Programmes Groupwork Self Assessment Guidance 27


B7.2 Practice is informed by monitoring and evaluation evidence (Important)
Consistent use is made of evaluation information as it becomes available by those with most direct responsibility, e.g. managers giving regular consideration to attendance and
completion information, practitioners to offender feedback and attitude/behaviour change scores. Awareness /knowledge about evaluation results from the same programme
operating elsewhere will be relevant.

Evidence required Method of Checking / Evidence Scoring


1. The supporting programme conditions have been • Minutes of senior managers meetings held during the Score 2
reviewed in response to monitoring and evaluation last 12 months. Evidence that area practice has been improved in the
information e.g. pre course preparation when it is • Minutes of operational managers meetings held light of information from other areas operating the same
shown that other areas have consistently performed during the last 12 months. programme.
better in terms of reduced attrition rates or greater • Minutes of programme staff meetings held during Minutes of senior managers held during the last 12
offender ‘programme readiness.’ the last 12 months. months.
2. Evidence of regular discussion by senior and middle Minutes of operational managers meetings held during
• Evidence (e.g. meeting notes, reformulated policy or
managers e.g. of attendance and completion the last 12 months.
practice guidance) that area practice has been
information and record of actions taken as a Minutes of programme staff meetings held during the
improved in the light of information from other
consequence. last 12 months.
areas operating the same programme.
3. Evidence of routine discussion by programme staff
and actions taken as a consequence. Score 1
Where 1 of the above elements is missing.

Score 0
If 2 or more elements are missing.

Accredited Programmes Groupwork Self Assessment Guidance 28


Quality of Programme Delivery
C1.1 Adherence to programme manual (Mandatory)
All sessions of the programme should be delivered in line with the instructions of the programme manual and demonstrate close adherence to the aims and objectives. There should be
evident commitment to follow the intention/purpose of the exercises used, including repetition/reinforcement, where these are designed parts of the programme.

Evidence required Method of Checking / Evidence Scoring


1. Material covered in the correct order. • Monitoring of videotapes by Area Assessors. (Video The average score for the videotapes viewed by Area
2. Exercises set up and run correctly. Monitoring Form – Revised Section 1 Adherence to Assessors for Section 1 was:
3. Exercises run to time. Programme Manual).
4. Exercises explained properly. • Treatment Manager videotape monitoring returns. Score 2
5. Inappropriate extras not added. 4 or above.
6. Aims and objectives met.
7. Tutors checking out the participants’ learning related Score 1
to the aims and objectives. 3.
8. Participants encouraged to make links between
exercises and session. Score 0
Less than 3.

Accredited Programmes Groupwork Self Assessment Guidance 29


C1.2 Adherence to treatment style (Mandatory)
From direct observation or video evidence, programme Tutors make competent and appropriate use of the techniques specified. There will be evidence of effective communication of the
material, offender understanding and engagement. Pro-social attitudes are skilfully modelled by workers and are predominant in the group. This includes challenging pro-criminal or anti-
social attitudes and behaviour.

Evidence required Method of Checking / Evidence Scoring


1. Use of open questions to facilitate learning. • Treatment Manager video monitoring returns. The average score for the videotapes viewed by Area
2. Listening and allowing for answers. • Monitoring of video tapes by Area Assessors. (Video Assessors for Section 2 was:
3. Summarises points and reflects back. Monitoring Form – Revised Section 2 Adherence to
4. Challenges offence-supporting views. Treatment Style). Score 2
5. Participants encouraged to explain and validate ideas 4 or above.
for themselves.
6. Demonstrates awareness of responsivity issues Score 1
(including race equality). 3.
7. Encourages participants to elicit self-motivating
statements. Score 0
Less than 3.

Accredited Programmes Groupwork Self Assessment Guidance 30


C1.3 Group work skills (Important)
Programme Tutors demonstrate effective management of the group, including effective co-working to facilitate learning by offenders and modelling pro-social behaviour.
Disruption by participants is minimised.

Evidence required Method of Checking / Evidence Scoring


1. Exercises introduced and ended well. • Monitoring of video tapes by Area Assessors. (Video Score 2
2. Appropriate verbal style (clearly spoken, warm, Monitoring Form – Revised Section 3 Groupwork The average score for the videotapes viewed by Area
encouraging, gives judicious praise). Skills). Assessors for Section 3 was 4 and above. In addition in
3. Uses appropriate language (shows awareness of race • Treatment Manager video monitoring returns. over 75% of supervision /feedback notes of sessions /
equality and wider diversity issues). • Supervision notes of sessions covering one set from team meeting minutes group work skills including co-
4. Effective co-working. 5 different Tutors during the last 12 months and working issues are discussed as a standing agenda item.
5. Handovers conducted well. team meetings 5 during the last 12 months with
6. Group managed well (control of whole group, Treatment Manager / Programme Manager and Score 1
disruptive and quiet members). Tutors recording discussion of group work skills The average score for the videotapes viewed by Area
7. All group members involved. including co-working issues. Assessors for Section 3 was 3. In addition in over 50-
8. Uses non-verbal encouragement (warm, open, 74% of supervision /feedback notes of sessions / team
assertive body posture, listens, accepting style). meeting minutes group work skills including co-working
issues are discussed as a standing agenda item.

Score 0
In less than 65% of cases the required elements have
been achieved.

Accredited Programmes Groupwork Self Assessment Guidance 31


C1.4 Programme delivered addressing race equality and diversity issues (Mandatory)
From direct observation or video evidence, issues of racism and sexism are effectively addressed whether arising within programme delivery or offender response. Staff are alert to race
equality and diversity issues, they always respond appropriately and show that they have considered and developed strategies for responding, e.g. relevant resources and arguments, clarity
about boundaries, approaches that may promote perspective taking.

Evidence required Method of Checking / Evidence Scoring


1. Examples within programme sessions of Tutors • Monitoring of videotapes by Area Assessors, to check Score 2
challenging racist, sexist or other inappropriate that issues of racism and sexism are effectively In 90% and above cases all of the following elements have
attitudes or behaviour. addressed. (Video Monitoring Form – Revised Section been achieved:
2. Programme Managers, Treatment Managers and Tutors 2d Challenges offence-supporting/anti-social views? • Of the videotapes viewed by Area Assessors the
alert to issues of race equality and diversity, e.g. Tutors [includes racist and sexist behaviour]). average score for each Tutor for Section 2d was 4 or
ensuring cultural relevance of exercises (in mixed race • Policy / practice documents promoting diversity issues above.
group,) managers considering staff composition, e.g. in the delivery of accredited programmes, including • Managers demonstrated that diversity issues had been
increased number of women Tutors in a group where guidance on support arrangements for female and addressed when allocating participants to a group.
there is a small minority of women offenders within a ethnic minority offenders. • Programme Manager, Treatment Manager and Tutor
predominantly male setting. • Supervision notes covering one set from 5 different supervision notes show that race equality and wider
3. Evidence of policy/practice documents about Tutors, two sets each from different Programme and diversity issues are a standing item for discussion.
promoting diversity within programme delivery. Treatment Manager during the last 12 months. • There is an area policy / practice documents, which
• QMT Case File Reading Form Question 28. promote diversity in relation to general offending
behaviour programmes.

Where no policy / practice documents exist, the score


should be 1.

Score 1
In 65% - 89% of cases the required elements have been
achieved.

Where no policy / practice documents exist, the score


should be 0.

Score 0
In less than 65% of cases the required elements have been
achieved.

Accredited Programmes Groupwork Self Assessment Guidance 32


C1.5 Programme Session Review Form (For use by Facilitators / Tutors at the end of the session) (Important)
The programme Session Review Form for each session is completed.

Evidence required Method of Checking / Evidence Scoring


1. Evidence that the programme Tutors have • Programme Session Review Form. Score 2
completed the programme Session Review Form for • Monitoring of videotapes by Area Assessors, to In 75% and above cases all of the following elements
each session of the programme. assess the accuracy of judgements about the session, have been achieved:
2. Accurate recording e.g. levels of offender e.g. level of offender engagement. • Of the videotapes viewed by Area Assessors there
engagement and of particular issues affecting • Supervision notes one set from 5 different Tutors was concordance between the levels of participant
individual participants. during the last 12 months. understanding and engagement recorded by Tutors
3. Timely completion of the Session Review Form for in relation to individual participants.
all sessions (in the debriefing meeting following the • Tutors use debriefing time to complete Session
programme delivery). Review Form for each session of the programme.
• The Session Review Forms are being used in
supervision / feedback between the Treatment
Manager and Tutors to highlight areas for further
staff development.

Score 1
In 50% - 74% of cases the required elements have been
achieved.

Score 0
In less than 50% of cases the required elements have
been achieved.

Accredited Programmes Groupwork Self Assessment Guidance 33


C1.6 End of programme Post-Programme Report (Important)
The case record shows that at the end of the programme delivery staff prepare a Post- Programme Report (see Probation Circular 03/2004) for the Case Manager which includes
the following sections:
¾ Programme summary
¾ Attendance and Participation
¾ Progress made
¾ Areas for Improvement and Potentially risky situations
¾ Suggestions for further work
¾ Participant’s comments

Evidence required Method of Checking / Evidence Scoring


1. Post-Programme Reports for Case Manager • Sample of Post-Programme Reports. Score 2
demonstrating that these factors have been In 90% and above of cases all of the following elements
addressed. have been achieved:
2. Post-Programme Reports completed within 2 weeks • The Post-Programme Reports were prepared using
of the end of the programme, countersigned by the the standard format.
Treatment Manager and sent to the Case Manager. • The sections of the template were completed.
• The Post-Programme Reports were sent to Case
Managers within two weeks of the completion of the
course.

Score 1
In 65% - 89% of cases the required elements have been
achieved.

Score 0
In less than 65% of cases the required elements have
been achieved.

Accredited Programmes Groupwork Self Assessment Guidance 34


Case Management Responsibilities
D1.1 Initial Supervision plan sets relevant objectives for the offender (Important)
The supervision plan integrates the programme into the overall plan of work for each offender. Specific objectives are set in a sequence appropriate for the offender and are
recorded in the Initial Supervision Plan and regularly reviewed. Assessments should be based on OASys.

Evidence required Method of Checking / Evidence Scoring


1. Use of OASys to inform assessment. • QMT Case File Reading Form Questions 7, 8, 9 & The supervision plan is based on an OASys assessment
2. Evidence that the initial supervision plan integrates 10. and integrates the programme into the overall plan of
the programme within an overall work plan for the work for the offender. SMART objectives relevant to the
offender. programme are set and regularly reviewed.
3. SMART objectives relevant to the programme are
set. The Case Manager should clearly record what Score 2
work is to be done by whom and in what timescale. Standards are fully met in 75% or more of cases.

Score 1
Standards are fully met in 50-74 % of cases.

Score 0
Standards are met in less than 50% of cases.

Accredited Programmes Groupwork Self Assessment Guidance 35


D1.2 Effective liaison arrangements between the Case Manager and programme staff (Mandatory)
The case records show the existence of effective arrangements for liaison handover and communication. This should include the 3 way meetings between the Case Manager
programme Tutor and the offender at the end of the programme.

Evidence required Method of Checking / Evidence Scoring


1. Evidence of consistent attendance at the 3 way • IAPS database or local equivalent for attendance by Score 2
meetings by Case Managers, programme Tutors and Case Managers at the end of programme review. In 90% and above cases there is evidence of action
offenders. • QMT Case File Reading Form Questions 22 & 23. points following the post programme review meeting
between the Case Manager and programme staff.

Score 1
65-89 %.

Score 0
Less than 65%.

Accredited Programmes Groupwork Self Assessment Guidance 36


D1.3 Supporting the Offender through the phases of the programme (Mandatory)
The Case Manager is responsible for preparing and motivating the offender prior to his/her participation in an accredited programme and for reinforcing learning during the
programme.

Evidence required Method of Checking / Evidence Scoring


1. Case records demonstrate that the Case Manager has • Case records demonstrating preparation and Case records will demonstrate that the Case Manager
undertaken any required pre –programme and motivational work (QMT Case File Reading Form has:
motivational work with the offender. Question 13).
2. The case record should reflect work done when • Evidence from case record of discussion of an -undertaken all of the required preparation and
there are problems with an offender’s attitude, offender’s homework assignments (QMT Case File motivational work,
participation or attendance on the programme. Reading Form Question 21).
• Evidence from the case record demonstrating -reinforced learning during the programme, in particular
ongoing work by the Case Manager in addressing by discussion of the offender’s homework requirements,
obstacles to attendance (QMT Case File Reading
Form Question 20). -addressed any problems which might have prevented
the offender’s attendance on the programme.

Score 2
If standard has been met in 90% and above of cases.

Score 1
If standard has been met in 65-89% of cases.

Score 0
If standard has been met in less than 65% of cases.

Accredited Programmes Groupwork Self Assessment Guidance 37


D1.4 Understanding and knowledge of programme methods (Important)
Case Managers have a clear understanding of the aims and objectives of the programme and that they have either the requisite skills to undertake reinforcement and/or relapse
prevention work, or the ability to refer to staff possessing these skills.

Evidence required Method of Checking / Evidence Scoring


1. Training strategy to address areas of unmet need. • Documentary evidence that Case Managers have Score 2
2. Attendance at the Case Manager training for the attended the relevant training appropriate to the There is an area training strategy.
programme. programme.
3. Training audit of Case Managers to assess their level • Supervision notes one set from five different Case 90% or above Case Managers have attended the relevant
of skills necessary to undertake reinforcement and Managers. training appropriate to the programme.
relapse prevention work. • Appraisal documents from five different Case
Managers evidencing understanding and knowledge 75% or above of supervision notes evidence
of programme methods. understanding and knowledge of programme methods.
• Area training strategy.
75% or above of appraisal documents evidence
understanding and knowledge of programme methods.

Score 1
If 1 element of the above is missing.

Score 0
If 2 or more elements are missing or if there is no area
training strategy.

Accredited Programmes Groupwork Self Assessment Guidance 38


D1.5 Managing of Attendance and Enforcement (Important)
Responsibility for the monitoring of attendance and the enforcement of orders is clearly defined with appropriate systems in place. There is evidence of effective enforcement in
all cases.

Evidence required Method of Checking / Evidence Scoring


1. Area policy and guidance documents on • Case records (QMT Case File Reading Form There is an Area enforcement policy. Case records
enforcement conform to the requirements of Questions 18 & 19). evidence that any absence either from the programme or
National Standards. • Area enforcement policy. the order as a whole is enforced in line with the Area
2. Case records that note an offender’s attendance/ • IAPS database or local equivalent to identify enforcement policy and National Standards.
non-compliance and any necessary enforcement offender’s compliance/ non-compliance with the
action. most recent three completed programmes. Score 2
3. Action on enforcement takes place within agreed 90% and above.
National Standards timetable.
Score 1
65 - 89%.

Score 0
Less than 65%.

Accredited Programmes Groupwork Self Assessment Guidance 39


D1.6 Documentation (Important)
The case record shows that all relevant documentation is completed.

Evidence required Method of Checking / Evidence Scoring


1. Case records containing all relevant documentation • IAPS database or local equivalent. Case file contains all relevant documentation.
e.g. pre-work conducted, post – programme reports, • Case records (QMT Case File Reading Form
attendance levels etc. Question 27). Score 2
2. Timely and accurate IAPS database or local In 75% and above cases.
equivalent returns.
Score 1
In 50 - 74 % of cases.

Score 0
Less than 50% of cases.

Accredited Programmes Groupwork Self Assessment Guidance 40


D1.7 End of programme review (Important)
The Supervision Plan review for each offender shows that at the end of the programme appropriate individual objectives are identified to strengthen and build on the progress
made and to achieve successful community reintegration.

Evidence required Method of Checking / Evidence Scoring


1. Evidence that the post-programme report influences • Case records (QMT Case File Reading Questions 24, The supervision plan review is influenced by the post
the supervision plan review especially in respect of 25 & 26). programme report, identifies supervision objectives in
areas of work not sufficiently covered by the relation to factors not sufficiently covered by the
programme that the offender needs to address. programme, and pays appropriate attention to
2. SMART objectives relevant to the programme set in community reintegration issues. SMART objectives
the supervision plan review document. relevant to the programme are set.
3. Attention paid to community reintegration issues.
Score 2
This standard is met in 75% and above of cases.

Score 1
This standard is met in 50 - 74% of case.

Score 0
Less than 50% of cases.

Accredited Programmes Groupwork Self Assessment Guidance 41


D1.8 Reinforcement and relapse prevention work (Important)
There are specific arrangements in place to reinforce learning and for relapse prevention work, including booster programmes where required by the programme, delivered by
appropriately trained and skilled staff.

Evidence required Method of Checking / Evidence Scoring


1. Case Managers role in reinforcing programme • Area guidance on the role of the Case Manager in Area documentation defining Case Manager role. Where
learning is clearly defined in area documentation. reinforcing programme learning. booster/relapse prevention work is required by the
2. Where available, booster programmes are used • Where booster/relapse prevention work is required programme, evidence from IAPS database or local
appropriately for offenders who have completed an by the programme, evidence from IAPS database or equivalent that this is delivered by appropriately trained
accredited programme. local equivalent that this is delivered by appropriately staff.
3. Training review ensures that only appropriately trained staff.
trained and skilled staff deliver accredited • Case records demonstrate reinforcement of learning Case records demonstrate reinforcement of learning by
booster/relapse prevention work. by Case Managers (QMT Case File Reading Form Case Managers (QMT Case File Reading Form Question
Question 21). 21).

Score 2
75% and above of cases.

Score 1
50% - 74% of cases.

Score 0
Less than 50% of cases.

Accredited Programmes Groupwork Self Assessment Guidance 42


Definitions
The following definitions are given in an attempt to aid understanding of the key concepts contained within the Accredited Programmes Self Assessment
Documents.

Diversity

The Quality Assessment of Accredited programmes will pursue matters of Diversity within the National Probation Service’ policy on diversity as set out in
“Heart of the Dance – A Diversity Strategy for the National Probation Service for England and Wales 2002-2006”. The process should therefore reflect the
requirements of the National Probation Service Charter. “The National Probation Service pledges itself to equal service for all our members, the offenders, victims of crime
and our communities”. (Heart of the Dance 2003: page 5) It will also relate to the five specific points of the National Probation Service Charter and thereby
ensure the four principles for Diversity (Heart of the Dance 2003: page 6) are achieved.

Furthermore, the policy of diversity should be viewed within the framework of “responsivity”.

Responsivity

“The responsivity principle states that interventions should be delivered in ways which match the offenders’ learning style and engage their active participation” (HMIP Evidence
Based Practice A Guide to Effective Practice 1998: page 14 paragraph 1.27).

The root of the responsivity principle lies in the belief that every offender regardless of race, religion, gender, sexuality, age etc, should be enabled to fulfil
their potential to lead law abiding lifestyles to the maximum.

The wording in “The Performance Standards Manual for the Delivery of Accredited Programmes” usually takes the form of addressing “race equality and
diversity issues”. This clearly stresses the importance of race but is also talking about all issues of discrimination. Quality Assessment should therefore avoid
hierarchies of discrimination. This means that Anti- Discriminatory Practice addresses racism, sexism, homophobia, disability and ageism. It should also
include any other form of discrimination where an individual is prevented from benefiting from a programme or faces obstacles to their attendance and
participation. Anti- discriminatory practice therefore will address issues such as basic skills problems and learning difficulties, mental health, rurality and so
on.

Accredited Programmes Groupwork Self Assessment Guidance 43


Quality Assessment will look at how programme staff, (including Case Managers and other involved staff) develop offenders’ responsivity by:

¾ Assessing and matching offenders appropriately to programmes.


¾ Tackling discrimination to overcome obstacles to the successful and beneficial completion of a programme.
¾ Programme staff conduct induction, pre and post programme work, programme sessions in an anti- discriminatory way. This includes challenging
inappropriate behaviour, ensuring that obstacles to participation and learning are effectively dealt with.
¾ Anti- discriminatory behaviour is modelled by staff both in their interactions with offenders and each other.

Community Re-integration

“Community reintegration is the most critical process for achieving long-term change. It should be an essential element of any supervision plan. The outputs of any programme should
include motivation, preparation and skills enhancement to achieve successful participation in community life.” (HMIP Evidence Based Practice A Guide to Effective Practice
1998: page 64 paragraph 5.2)

Exceptional Circumstances

“There is an unforeseen or unavoidable event, which is outside the Programme Manager / Tutor’s control and which any reasonable person would conclude would render it impractical
to continue with the scheduled session or in the case of catch-up sessions sequence the session according to Probation Circular 92/2001 (Appendix 7).”

Accredited Programmes Groupwork Self Assessment Guidance 44


Accredited Programmes Individual Self Assessment Form

Guidance Notes for Self assessment

Self assessment stages


The self assessment for accredited programmes is an opportunity for the area to look at the way it runs accredited
programmes. The evidence required might in part be new evidence and also evidence provided to HMIP at the last audit.
The tools / documents provided by the Quality Management Team (QMT) for the purpose of quality assessment are as
follows:
• Accredited Programmes Groupwork Self Assessment Guidance Form
• Accredited Programmes Groupwork Self Assessment Form
• QMT Case File Reading Form
The first stage requires areas to ensure that the evidence in relation to the above components of the assessment is
available and accessible. At this stage it is not necessary to physically collect it. As with EEM, the scores will first of all be
established by the areas on the basis of the available evidence. There is no requirement to send any of the evidence
to the QMT. The QMT does not require any advance information but will expect the area to complete the self assessment
form. However, the area should note at this stage where the evidence is located, as this will be of use for the verification
process. The scores resulting from the self assessment will constitute the Provisional Quality Score (PQS).
The information contained in the “Evidence required” section of the “Accredited Programmes Groupwork Self Assessment
Guidance Form” represents good practice and mandatory elements relevant to accredited programmes. When undertaking
self assessment if you believe your area has innovative practice which affects the score please include full details of the
specific practice. This should include processes and outcomes in sufficient detail for the Quality Management Team (QMT)
validation panel to make a judgement about the validity of the information. The QMT validation panel will consider the
practice identified and the allotted score based upon the evidence provided, to ensure “best practice” is disseminated
widely and scoring integrity is maintained.
The second stage involves validation of the scores set by areas. In order to be able to complete the validation the area
will be required to nominate representatives to form a regional validation team, which will be facilitated by Quality Systems
Manager. Prior to the validation event areas will be informed which evidence needs to be available on the day for
validation. A score will be available for each programme and an aggregated score will be given for the Area as a whole.

Accredited Programmes Individual Self Assessment Form 1


Guidelines on Collating Evidence

The Quality Assessment process is, in line with Probation Service Policy, evidence based. Quality Assessment is more
about finding evidence to show whether or not an area has met a specific pre determined criteria. In the case of accredited
programmes, these criteria are defined in the “Performance Standards Manual for the Delivery of Accredited Group Work
Programmes”. The Accredited Programmes Groupwork Self Assessment Guidance Form mirrors these standards and
makes specific what the evidence required is and how it should be scored in terms of quality rating.

The self assessment approach has been designed within the framework of the EFQM. Consequently the following
principles apply:

™ Evidence should be identifiable rather than anecdotal i.e. the evidence can be shown whenever it is requested.
™ There should be an appropriate scope for evidence in terms of :
o The extent to which a full range of evidence, relevant to the criteria, are presented (scope)
o The extent to which the relevance of the evidence presented is understood (relevance)
o The extent to which the evidence covers all relevant areas of the area set up e.g. throughout Programmes
(segmentation)
™ The evidence can demonstrate what it claims to demonstrate in terms of the criteria set.

Sample Size

The sample size required for self assessment is 20% of the annual commencements, for each programme delivered,
based upon the accredited programmes monthly return sent to NPD. This needs to include 10 cases that completed for
each programme. The maximum number of cases per programme required for London is 100 and all other areas is 50.
The minimum number of cases per programme is 10. Where there are insufficient cases to meet this minimum all cases
must be reviewed.

Accredited Programmes Individual Self Assessment Form 2


Please refer to the Probation Circular but remember that Leadership and Case Management need only be done
once – NOT for each programme.

Video Monitoring Scores

The scoring approach, which has been adopted, involves calculating an average from the sample of tapes and then
rounding the score to the nearest whole number. For example, an average of 3.5 would be rounded up to 4, whilst an
average of 3.4 would be rounded down to 3.
Types of Evidence
Team Meeting Minutes – Where minutes contain evidence, which relates to a number of criteria the same minutes can be
submitted as evidence for each relevant criterion thereby reducing the actual sets of minutes produced overall. All minutes
must have been produced during the 12-month period immediately prior to the self assessment date.
Business Plans, Policy Statements, Strategy Documents - The most recent document produced should be used as
evidence.

Scoring
As a guiding principle Mandatory Elements require a higher degree of evidence to achieve a Score 2 than Important
Elements. However, where National Standards targets apply this is reflected in the scoring regardless of the level of
importance placed on the criterion. Likewise where it is imperative to maintain Treatment Integrity this approach has been
adopted.

Accredited Programmes Individual Self Assessment Form 3


Committed Leadership & Supportive Management

A 1.1 Committed Leadership (Mandatory)


The senior management of the area should be openly and explicitly committed to the proper running of the programme
through policy and public statements.

Evidence required Method of Checking / Evidence Score


1. Specific improvement or
maintenance objectives in the area
annual business plan about the
importance assigned to the delivery
of the chosen accredited
programme(s).
2. Specific targets set in line with NPD
targets.
3. ‘What Works’ strategy detailing
targets for running accredited
programmes and implementation of
specific programme in the context of
strategy.
4. Attendance by senior managers at
staff awareness/context setting days
for the accredited programme.
5. Middle Managers & Case Managers
as well as PSR authors had
attended context setting days.
(CONTINUED)

Accredited Programmes Individual Self Assessment Form 4


A 1.1 Committed Leadership Continued

Evidence required Method of Checking / Evidence Score


6. New staff had attended context
setting days.
7. Communication with all staff in
support of service delivery. For
example:
¾ Team meeting minutes,
¾ Newsletters,
¾ E-mails.
8. Evidence of regular discussion in
senior management meetings about
the effective delivery of the
accredited programme, e.g.
discussion of operational issues and
guidance issued to staff, decisions
made on basis of evidence. For
example:
¾ Regular team meeting minutes.

Accredited Programmes Individual Self Assessment Form 5


A1.2 Management Structure (Important)
Effective line management structures exist for the proper operation of the programme, integrating this within case
management structures. Adequate time should be set aside for the effective management of the programme.

Evidence required Method of Checking / Evidence Score


1. Organisational chart outlines the
management structures for the
delivery of accredited programmes.
2. Competency-based job descriptions
exist for all staff involved in
programme delivery, case
management and in support roles.
3. Minutes of relevant
divisional/functional management
meetings demonstrate integration of
programme delivery within the case
management process and effective
communication across the area.
Minutes indicating, for example:
¾ Treatment Managers regular input
at team meetings,
¾ Mechanism for interaction of
programme delivery staff and Case
Managers,
¾ Regular programme management
meetings.

Accredited Programmes Individual Self Assessment Form 6


A 1.3 Staff ownership of the accredited programme (Important)
There is full ownership of the programme by managers, programme Tutors and other relevant staff, e.g. court personnel
and Case Managers.

Evidence required Method of Checking / Evidence Score


1. Evidence of consistent allocation
and use of accredited programmes
across the area. For example:
¾ Referral rates across the area at or
above the national average.
2. Regular Case Manager attendance
at programme review meetings.
3. Case Managers, Pre-Sentence
Report (PSR) authors and other
relevant personnel to attend context
setting or other accredited training
courses. For example:
¾ All middle managers attend context
setting days or other accredited
training courses.
¾ Admin support staff have been to
context setting days.

Accredited Programmes Individual Self Assessment Form 7


A1.4 Effective communication with sentencers (Important)
There is high quality, proactive communication with local sentencers and clerks to the justices about the programme,
including written information.

Evidence required Method of Checking / Evidence Score


1. Communications with judges,
magistrates and magistrates’ clerks,
for example:
¾ Presentations to sentencers by
managers,
¾ Input into magistrates training,
¾ Board members with responsibility
for accredited programmes linking
with sentencers.
2. Minutes of liaison meetings between
sentencers and probation staff. For
example:
¾ Accredited programmes agenda
item.
3. Information leaflets for sentencers
and clerks explaining the
programme.

Accredited Programmes Individual Self Assessment Form 8


Programme Management Responsibilities

B1.1 Resources and facilities (Important)


Adequate accommodation consistent with the Estates Standards Manual is available for all sessions of the programme.

Evidence required Method of Checking / Evidence Score


1. Interview rooms should be of
sufficient size to conduct the work
required for individual programmes.
2. The room should be well lit and well
ventilated, with minimum outside
noise/disruption.
3. Comfortable chairs in each room
(padded, fairly upright chairs with
arms may be most appropriate).
4. A desk / table to enable an offender
to complete written work (as a
minimum participants should be
provided with a clipboard).
5. A flipchart and stand, and other aids
should be available to enhance
responsivity.
(CONTINUED)

Accredited Programmes Individual Self Assessment Form 9


B1.1 Resources and facilities Continued

Evidence required Method of Checking / Evidence Score


6. Audio / video monitoring equipment
of sufficient quality to enable
sessions to be assessed by
Treatment Managers and external
auditors.
7. Secure tape storage facilities for the
cataloguing and storage of all
sessions of the accredited
programme. Tapes should be
retained for treatment management
and audit purposes. Following an
audit, all recordings made prior to
the latest programme subject to
audit inspection need no longer be
retained. (Probation Circular
16/2003)

Accredited Programmes Individual Self Assessment Form 10


B1.2 Provision of information leaflets about the programme (Important)
There should be a set of leaflets for offenders, sentencers and staff clearly describing the programme and its
requirements.

Evidence required Method of Checking / Evidence Score


1. Leaflets customised for the
audience, including meeting the
requirements of cultural diversity.
2. Leaflets drafted at a level that
allows the audience to fully
understand the content.
3. Leaflets given to offenders in
advance of sentencing.
4. Conditions of attendance and
consequences of failing to comply
fully outlined in the information
leaflet(s).
5. Complaints procedure outlined in
the leaflet(s).

Accredited Programmes Individual Self Assessment Form 11


B2.1 Managing attendance (Mandatory)
Offender attendance and absence are managed to achieve the required National Performance Management target for
offender completions. Attendance is managed to achieve coherent delivery with full impact for all undertaking the
programme. The maximum number of absences by any one offender is consistent with the requirements of the
programme manual for the specific accredited programme.

Evidence required Method of Checking / Evidence Score


1. Area policy document on offender
attendance/enforcement.
2. Area documentation outlining how
completion rates will be enhanced
over time. This can include any
analysis of attrition rates and
subsequent action.
3. Attendance registers demonstrate
that participants’ attendance
conforms to the requirements of the
programme and National Standards.
4. IAPS database or local equivalent
confirming attendance by each
offender and completion rates.

N.B. The accredited programme


may specify pre and post-
programme work.
(CONTINUED)

Accredited Programmes Individual Self Assessment Form 12


B2.1 Managing attendance Continued

Evidence required Method of Checking / Evidence Score


Offenders will only be deemed to be
completers when they have
undertaken all of the approved
elements.

5. Evidence of discussion between


Case Manager and programme staff
when offenders have missed
sessions for acceptable or
unacceptable reasons.

Accredited Programmes Individual Self Assessment Form 13


B2.2 Avoidance of cancellation or disruption to sessions (Important)
Sessions are not cancelled or disrupted owing to offender crises, high workload or other pressures, and arrangements
exist to deal with crises outside of the programme session. Sessions are delivered at the frequency defined in the
programme manual.

Evidence required Method of Checking / Evidence Score


1. Frequency of sessions conforms to
requirements of the accredited
programme manual.
2. Arrangements are made to deal with
offenders’ problems outside of the
programmed session. This should
be outlined in briefing meetings to
offenders prior to their participation
in the programme.
3. Workload or other pressures are
seen to be resolved by the
Programme Manager to enable
regular Tutor attendance.

Accredited Programmes Individual Self Assessment Form 14


B2.3 Timeliness, pace and duration (Mandatory)
All offenders commence the programme, or specified pre-programme phase, within the first month of the order or within
three months if other structured pre-programme work is undertaken. Occasionally, the timing may be different to permit
other preliminary work to be completed, e.g. a programme of drug detoxification. The programme is completed within the
period specified in the appropriate programme management manual.

Evidence required Method of Checking / Evidence Score


1. Written evidence of offenders
commencing the programme within
the required timescale.
2. Case records evidence other
preliminary work that needs to be
completed prior to the offender’s
participation in the programme
where he / she is assessed as not
being ready to commence the
programme.

Accredited Programmes Individual Self Assessment Form 15


B3.1 Staff selection (Mandatory)
A staff selection procedure meeting the requirements of the programme manual is in place and only staff meeting the
defined criteria are selected to deliver the programme.

Evidence required Method of Checking / Evidence Score


1. Potential Tutors receive written
information about what is involved in
running the accredited programme
from the Programme Manager
and/or the Treatment Manager.
2. Assessment centre procedures exist
and are followed.
3. Written policy confirming that only
those staff who meet the defined
criteria, e.g. fully trained by
accredited trainers, deliver the
programme.
4. Written policy outlining how staff not
selected, as Tutors will be assisted.

Accredited Programmes Individual Self Assessment Form 16


B3.2 Staff roles and competencies (Important)
Differences in role between grades or posts are clearly reflected in job descriptions. A defined set of competencies exist
for each staff role involved in the programme, using those specified in the programme manuals and the national
management manual.

Evidence required Method of Checking / Evidence Score


1. Job descriptions are available for all
programme staff.
2. Evidence that staff roles have been
discussed.
3. Evidence that all staff are clear
about their areas of responsibility.
4. Published list of core competencies
consistent with the requirements of
the programme manual.
5. The core competencies outlined by
the area are a ‘close match’ with the
tasks outlined as an appendix to the
National Management Manual for
the Effective Delivery of Accredited
Programmes in the Community.

Accredited Programmes Individual Self Assessment Form 17


B3.3 Preparation and post-session activity by Tutors (Important)
Tutors are allowed a minimum of 45 minutes and a maximum of 1½ hours for preparation and post-session activity in
addition to the programme delivery time.

Evidence required Method of Checking / Evidence Score


1. IAPS database or local equivalent
record completed following each
session of the programme.

Accredited Programmes Individual Self Assessment Form 18


B3.4 Staff continuity (Important)
One named Tutor should normally be assigned to each offender undertaking an accredited programme and sessions
should be delivered by the assigned Tutor wherever possible. Arrangements should also be in place for named Tutor
cover for leave, sickness and other contingencies involving the medium or long-term absence of the assigned Tutor.

Evidence required Method of Checking / Evidence Score


1. Published staff rotas and caseload
records to ensure that programme
staff have the workload capacity to
deliver each session of the
programme.
2. Session reports demonstrate
continuity of staff Tutors.
3. Planning meetings discussing
staffing for each programme,
including contingency arrangements
and cover for scheduled leave.

Accredited Programmes Individual Self Assessment Form 19


B4.1 Training arrangements for new staff (Mandatory)
Training courses exist for all grades and roles involved in delivering the programme and all staff newly assigned to the
programme receive training before running their first programme. The training delivered follows that defined in the
programme training manual.

Evidence required Method of Checking / Evidence Score


1. There is a record of all relevant
training and other staff development
work undertaken by programme
staff, including the core training for
the accredited programme.
¾ Equal access to training programme
for all staff,
¾ Refresher training (if available).
2. Supervision notes/appraisal
documents demonstrate an ongoing
attention to staff development needs
for each member of staff involved in
delivering the programme.

Accredited Programmes Individual Self Assessment Form 20


B4.2 Training arrangements for experienced staff (Important)
Competency-based accreditation and developmental training arrangements exist for all staff experienced in delivering the
programme. All programme delivery staff are required to attend such training when they have demonstrated their
competence to do so. (This will include delivering a stipulated minimum number of courses.)

Evidence required Method of Checking / Evidence Score


1. Staff development plan for each
member of the delivery team.
2. Dates when booster and
developmental training events
arranged (if available).
3. List of team members for booster
training.

Accredited Programmes Individual Self Assessment Form 21


B4.3 Staff knowledge of the methods, theory and evidential basis of the programme (Important)
All relevant staff have a knowledge of the programme model, targeting, objectives and methods, as well as a knowledge
of the programme’s theoretical and evidential base sufficient for effective delivery of the programme.

Evidence required Method of Checking / Evidence Score


1. Tutors have been assessed as
competent at the point of training by
the national trainers.
2. Area documentation effectively
outlines the programme model,
concepts and methods used in the
programme.
¾ Programme manuals readily
available to all staff for reference.

Accredited Programmes Individual Self Assessment Form 22


B4.4 Supporting skills necessary to run programmes (Important)
From interview, observation, appraisal and training audits all relevant staff have supporting skills including interpersonal,
presentational, understanding of responsivity issues, etc., sufficient for the effective delivery of the programme.

Evidence required Method of Checking / Evidence Score


1. Training reviews for all staff to
check training undertaken and
areas where further training
required.
2. Video monitoring observation forms
document training and
developmental needs for
programme staff.
3. Supporting skills audit informed by
the supervision and appraisal
process and reflected in the area’s
overall training strategy.

Accredited Programmes Individual Self Assessment Form 23


B5.1 Staff supervision and quality of practice (Mandatory)
All staff involved in the programme receive support and supervision at a frequency specified in the national management
manual for individual programmes. This will enable Tutor skills to be developed and problems resolved within the lifetime
of the current programme by supervisors familiar with effectiveness methods and the programme. The Treatment
Manager to have assessed staff in the delivery of the programme through use of audio/video recordings prior to each
supervision session.

Evidence required Method of Checking / Evidence Score


1. Video monitoring forms completed
on each Tutor by the Treatment
Manager. For audit and quality
assurance purposes the Treatment
Manager is required to watch and
score at least one video for every
ten sessions of the programme.
(Where an individual accredited
programme specifies a different
frequency for video monitoring, this
takes precedence over guidance
given in the national management
manual for delivering accredited
programmes.)
2. Video monitoring forms,
demonstrating attention to skills
development, identification of good
practice and resolution of problems
encountered by Tutors in delivering
the programme.

Accredited Programmes Individual Self Assessment Form 24


B5.2 Staff appraisal (Important)
All members of staff involved with the programme have their competence to perform their assigned role assessed
annually through the appraisal process. Staff whose performance is assessed as below the acceptable standard but
making progress should be given further training and other assistance to improve their performance and a date set for
review. Staff who are not making progress in achieving the required standard of performance should not take any further
part in running the programme.

Evidence required Method of Checking / Evidence Score


1. Appraisal documents record an
assessment of the competency of
programme Tutors to deliver the
programme.
2. Video monitoring forms completed
by the Treatment Manager identify
strengths and areas where
performance needs to be improved.
3. A plan of remedial action is
recorded by the Treatment or
Programme Manager, including a
date to review progress.
4. There is a written policy on
deselection or capability
procedures, if Tutors fail to improve
their performance. Information on
staff who have been deselected as
Tutors and the reasons for
deselecting is collected.

Accredited Programmes Individual Self Assessment Form 25


B6.1 Offender Assessment and Selection (Mandatory)
Routine monitoring results confirm the profile of those entering the programme are consistent with the criminogenic needs
addressed by the programme, the level of risk of reoffending and the level of risk of harm/ dangerousness.

Evidence required Method of Checking / Evidence Score


1. Use of approved targeting matrix for
the programme that measures:
¾ offender’s criminogenic needs,
¾ risk of reoffending.
2. Use of OASys.
3. Use of evaluation monitoring from
IAPS or local equivalent.
4. Written guidance on grounds for
exclusion.

Accredited Programmes Individual Self Assessment Form 26


B6.2 Offender knowledge and understanding of the programme requirements (Important)
The requirements of the programme are clearly communicated on at least 2 occasions to each participant verbally and in
writing and there is evidence from signed consent forms or interview that offenders know and understand the
requirements.

Evidence required Method of Checking / Evidence Score


1. Signed contracts or letter of
understanding.
2. Evidence that the programme
requirements have been explained
to the offender verbally by Tutor
and/or Case Manager.

Accredited Programmes Individual Self Assessment Form 27


B6.3 Accessibility of Individual programmes (Important)
Careful consideration is given to the allocation of Tutors to women or minority ethnic offenders. Appropriate support
arrangements should be provided and evidenced for these offenders.

Evidence required Method of Checking / Evidence Score


1. Written area policy outlining criteria
to be considered when assigning a
Tutor to a female or minority ethnic
offender.
2. Evidence where there are women or
minority ethnic offenders that
attention has been paid to
arrangements to support their
attendance.
3. Area guidance on the use of
interpreters.
4. Consideration of the use of a CD-
ROM with offenders who might find
written material problematic.

Accredited Programmes Individual Self Assessment Form 28


B7.1 Implementation of monitoring and evaluation design (Mandatory)
Interview and observation show that monitoring and evaluation arrangements are working as intended and are
understood and supported by all staff involved. This should include both input and feedback of data to managers and
practitioners at local level.

Evidence required Method of Checking / Evidence Score


1. An area document explains the
monitoring and evaluation
arrangements and outlines the
responsibilities of relevant staff to
accurately record data and to
provide individual and summary
reports.
2. There are guidelines for completing
psychometric data, programme
Session Review Forms and IAPS
database or local equivalent
information.
3. There are guidelines regarding
systems, processes, roles and
responsibilities for the retrieval of
individual and summary data for
reports to practitioners and
managers e.g. process for recording
ongoing attendance and completion
rates, periodic reporting of
concordance data to managers.

Accredited Programmes Individual Self Assessment Form 29


B7.2 Practice is informed by monitoring and evaluation evidence (Important)
Consistent use is made of evaluation information as it becomes available by those with most direct responsibility, e.g.
managers giving regular consideration to attendance and completion information, practitioners to offender feedback and
attitude/behaviour change scores. Awareness /knowledge about evaluation results from the same programme operating
elsewhere will be relevant.

Evidence required Method of Checking / Evidence Score


1. The supporting programme
conditions have been reviewed in
response to monitoring and
evaluation information e.g. pre
course preparation when it is shown
that other areas have consistently
performed better in terms of
reduced attrition rates or greater
offender ‘programme readiness.’
2. Evidence of regular discussion by
senior and middle managers e.g. of
attendance and completion
information and record of actions
taken as a consequence.
3. Evidence of routine discussion by
programme staff and actions taken
as a consequence.

Accredited Programmes Individual Self Assessment Form 30


Quality of Programme Delivery

C1.1 Adherence to programme manual (Mandatory)


All sessions of the programme should be delivered in line with the instructions of the programme manual and demonstrate
close adherence to the aims and objectives. There should be evident commitment to follow the intention/purpose of the
exercises used, including repetition/reinforcement, where these are designed parts of the programme.

Evidence required Method of Checking / Evidence Score


1. Material covered in the correct
order.
2. Exercises set up and run correctly.
3. Exercises run to time.
4. Exercises explained properly.
5. Inappropriate extras not added.
6. Aims and objectives met.
7. Tutors checking out the participants’
learning related to the aims and
objectives.
8. Participants encouraged to make
links between exercises and
session.

Accredited Programmes Individual Self Assessment Form 31


C1.2 Adherence to treatment style (Mandatory)
From audio /video evidence, programme Tutors make competent and appropriate use of the techniques specified. There
will be evidence of effective communication of the material, offender understanding and engagement. Pro-criminal and
anti-social attitudes and behaviour are challenged. Pro-social attitudes are skilfully modelled by the Tutor and are
predominant in the sessions.

Evidence required Method of Checking / Evidence Score


1. Use of open questions to facilitate
learning.
2. Listening and allowing for answers.
3. Summarises points and reflects
back.
4. Challenges offence-supporting
views.
5. Offender encouraged to explain and
validate ideas for him/herself.
6. Demonstrates awareness of
responsivity issues (including race
equality).
7. Encourages offender to elicit self-
motivating statements.

Accredited Programmes Individual Self Assessment Form 32


C1.3 Individual programme delivery skills (Important)
Programme Tutors demonstrate effective delivery skills, including particular attention to modelling pro-social behaviour.
Tutors show themselves able to deal with resistant offenders so disruption is minimised.

Evidence required Method of Checking / Evidence Score


1. Exercises introduced and ended
well.
2. Appropriate verbal style (clearly
spoken, warm, encouraging, gives
judicious praise).
3. Uses appropriate language (shows
awareness of race equality and
wider diversity issues).
4. Offender disruption managed well.
5. Active engagement encouraged.
6. Uses non-verbal encouragement
(warm, open, assertive body
posture, listens, accepting style).

Accredited Programmes Individual Self Assessment Form 33


C1.4 Programme delivered addressing race equality and diversity issues (Mandatory)
From audio /video evidence, issues of racism and sexism are effectively addressed whether arising within programme
delivery or offender response. Staff are alert to race equality and wider diversity issues, they always respond
appropriately and show that they have considered and developed strategies for responding, e.g. relevant resources and
arguments, clarity about boundaries, approaches that may promote perspective taking.

Evidence required Method of Checking / Evidence Score


1. Examples within programme
sessions of Tutors challenging
racist, sexist or other inappropriate
attitudes or behaviour.
2. Programme Managers, Treatment
Managers and Tutors alert to issues
of race equality and diversity, e.g.
Tutors ensuring cultural relevance
of exercises, managers considering
staff/ offender match on basis of
gender, race and other relevant
factors.
3. Evidence of policy/practice
documents about promoting
diversity within programme delivery
e.g. relevant section of race action
plan, equal opportunities policy.

Accredited Programmes Individual Self Assessment Form 34


C1.5 Programme Session Review Form (For use by Facilitators / Tutors at the end of the session) (Important)
The programme Session Review Form for each session is completed.

Evidence required Method of Checking / Evidence Score


1. Evidence that the programme Tutor
has completed the programme
Session Review Form for each
session of the programme.
2. Accurate recording e.g. levels of
offender engagement and of
particular issues affecting individual
participants.

Accredited Programmes Individual Self Assessment Form 35


C1.6 End of programme Post-Programme Report (Important)
The case record shows that at the end of the programme delivery staff prepare a Post- Programme Report (see Probation
Circular 03/2004) for the Case Manager which includes the following sections:

¾ Programme summary
¾ Attendance and Participation
¾ Progress made
¾ Areas for Improvement and Potentially risky situations
¾ Suggestions for further work
¾ Participant’s comments

Evidence required Method of Checking / Evidence Score


1. Post-Programme Reports for Case
Manager demonstrating that these
factors have been addressed.
2. Post-Programme Reports
completed within 2 weeks of the end
of the programme, countersigned by
the Treatment Manager and sent to
the Case Manager.

Accredited Programmes Individual Self Assessment Form 36


Case Management Responsibilities

D1.1 Initial Supervision plan sets relevant objectives for the offender (Important)
The supervision plan integrates the programme into the overall plan of work for each offender. Specific objectives are set
in a sequence appropriate for the offender and are recorded in the Initial Supervision Plan and regularly reviewed.
Assessments should be based on OASys.

Evidence required Method of Checking / Evidence Score


1. Use of OASys to inform
assessment.
2. Evidence that the initial supervision
plan integrates the programme
within an overall work plan for the
offender.
3. SMART objectives relevant to the
programme are set. The Case
Manager should clearly record what
work is to be done by whom and in
what timescale.

Accredited Programmes Individual Self Assessment Form 37


D1.2 Effective liaison arrangements between the Case Manager and programme staff (Mandatory)
The case records show the existence of effective arrangements for liaison handover and communication. This should
include the 3 way meetings between the Case Manager, programme Tutor and the offender at the end of the
programme.

** This criterion will not be assessed if an Area is operating only case management models 1 or 2

Evidence required Method of Checking / Evidence Score


1. Evidence of consistent attendance
at the 3 way meetings by Case
Managers, programme Tutors and
offenders.

Accredited Programmes Individual Self Assessment Form 38


D1.3 Supporting the Offender through the phases of the programme (Mandatory)
The Case Manager is responsible for preparing and motivating the offender prior to his/her participation in an accredited
programme and for reinforcing learning during the programme.

Evidence required Method of Checking / Evidence Score


1. Case records demonstrate that the
Case Manager has undertaken any
required pre –programme and
motivational work with the offender.
2. The case record should reflect work
done when there are problems with
an offender’s attitude, participation
or attendance on the programme.

Accredited Programmes Individual Self Assessment Form 39


D1.4 Understanding and knowledge of programme methods (Important)
Case Managers have a clear understanding of the aims and objectives of the programme and that they have either the
requisite skills to undertake reinforcement and/or relapse prevention work, or the ability to refer to staff possessing these
skills.

Evidence required Method of Checking / Evidence Score


1. Training strategy to address areas
of unmet need.
2. Attendance at the Case Manager
training for the programme.
3. Training audit of Case Managers to
assess their level of skills necessary
to undertake reinforcement and
relapse prevention work.

Accredited Programmes Individual Self Assessment Form 40


D1.5 Managing of Attendance and Enforcement (Important)
Responsibility for the monitoring of attendance and the enforcement of orders is clearly defined with appropriate systems
in place. There is evidence of effective enforcement in all cases.

Evidence required Method of Checking / Evidence Score


1. Area policy and guidance
documents on enforcement conform
to the requirements of National
Standards.
2. Case records that note an
offender’s attendance/ non-
compliance and any necessary
enforcement action.
3. Action on enforcement takes place
within agreed National Standards
timetable.

Accredited Programmes Individual Self Assessment Form 41


D1.6 Documentation (Important)
The case record shows that all relevant documentation is completed.

Evidence required Method of Checking / Evidence Score


1. Case records containing all relevant
documentation e.g. pre-work
conducted, post – programme
reports, attendance levels etc.
2. Timely and accurate IAPS database
or local equivalent returns.

Accredited Programmes Individual Self Assessment Form 42


D1.7 Post programme review (Important)
The supervision plan review for each offender shows that at the end of the programme appropriate individual objectives
are identified to strengthen and build on the progress made and to achieve successful community reintegration.

Evidence required Method of Checking / Evidence Score


1. Evidence that the post-programme
report influences the supervision
plan review especially in respect of
areas of work not sufficiently
covered by the programme that the
offender needs to address.
2. SMART objectives relevant to the
programme set in the supervision
plan review document.
3. Attention paid to community
reintegration issues in the post
programme phase.

Accredited Programmes Individual Self Assessment Form 43


D1.8 Reinforcement and relapse prevention work (Important)
There are specific arrangements in place to reinforce learning and for relapse prevention work, including booster
programmes where required by the programme, delivered by appropriately trained and skilled staff.

Evidence required Method of Checking / Evidence Score


1. Case Managers role in reinforcing
programme learning is clearly
defined in area documentation.
2. Where available, booster
programmes are used appropriately
for offenders who have completed
an accredited programme.
3. Training review ensures that only
appropriately trained and skilled
staff deliver accredited
booster/relapse prevention work.

Accredited Programmes Individual Self Assessment Form 44


Definitions

The following definitions are given in an attempt to aid understanding of the key concepts contained within the Accredited
Programmes Self Assessment Documents.

Diversity

The Quality Assessment of Accredited programmes will pursue matters of Diversity within the National Probation
Service’ policy on diversity as set out in “Heart of the Dance – A Diversity Strategy for the National Probation Service
for England and Wales 2002-2006”. The process should therefore reflect the requirements of the National Probation
Service Charter. “The National Probation Service pledges itself to equal service for all our members, the offenders,
victims of crime and our communities”. (Heart of the Dance 2003: page 5) It will also relate to the five specific points
of the National Probation Service Charter and thereby ensure the four principles for Diversity (Heart of the Dance
2003: page 6) are achieved.

Furthermore, the policy of diversity should be viewed within the framework of “responsivity”.

Responsivity

“The responsivity principle states that interventions should be delivered in ways which match the offenders’ learning
style and engage their active participation” (HMIP Evidence Based Practice A Guide to Effective Practice 1998: page
14 paragraph 1.27).

The root of the responsivity principle lies in the belief that every offender regardless of race, religion, gender,
sexuality, age etc, should be enabled to fulfil their potential to lead law abiding lifestyles to the maximum.

Accredited Programmes Individual Self Assessment Form 45


The wording in “The Performance Standards Manual for the Delivery of Accredited Programmes” usually takes the
form of addressing “race equality and diversity issues”. This clearly stresses the importance of race but is also talking
about all issues of discrimination. Quality Assessment should therefore avoid hierarchies of discrimination. This
means that Anti- Discriminatory Practice addresses racism, sexism, homophobia, disability and ageism. It should
also include any other form of discrimination where an individual is prevented from benefiting from a programme or
faces obstacles to their attendance and participation. Anti- discriminatory practice therefore will address issues such
as basic skills problems and learning difficulties, mental health, rurality and so on.

Quality Assessment will look at how programme staff, (including Case Managers and other involved staff) develop
offenders’ responsivity by:

¾ Assessing and matching offenders appropriately to programmes.


¾ Tackling discrimination to overcome obstacles to the successful and beneficial completion of a programme.
¾ Programme staff conduct induction, pre and post programme work, programme sessions in an anti-
discriminatory way. This includes challenging inappropriate behaviour, ensuring that obstacles to participation
and learning are effectively dealt with.
¾ Anti- discriminatory behaviour is modelled by staff both in their interactions with offenders and each other.

Community Re-integration

“Community reintegration is the most critical process for achieving long-term change. It should be an essential
element of any supervision plan. The outputs of any programme should include motivation, preparation and skills
enhancement to achieve successful participation in community life.” (HMIP Evidence Based Practice A Guide to
Effective Practice 1998: page 64 paragraph 5.2)

Accredited Programmes Individual Self Assessment Form 46


Exceptional Circumstances

“There is an unforeseen or unavoidable event, which is outside the Programme Manager / Tutor’s control and which
any reasonable person would conclude would render it impractical to continue with the scheduled session or in the
case of catch-up sessions sequence the session according to Probation Circular 92/2001 (Appendix 7).”

Accredited Programmes Individual Self Assessment Form 47


Accredited Programmes Individual Self Assessment Guidance Form

Guidance Notes for Self assessment

Self assessment stages


The self assessment for accredited programmes is an opportunity for the area to look at the way it runs accredited
programmes. The evidence required might in part be new evidence and also evidence provided to HMIP at the last audit.
The tools / documents provided by the Quality Management Team (QMT) for the purpose of quality assessment are as
follows:
• Accredited Programmes Groupwork Self Assessment Guidance Form
• Accredited Programmes Groupwork Self Assessment Form
• QMT Case File Reading Form
The first stage requires areas to ensure that the evidence in relation to the above components of the assessment is
available and accessible. At this stage it is not necessary to physically collect it. As with EEM, the scores will first of all be
established by the areas on the basis of the available evidence. There is no requirement to send any of the evidence
to the QMT. The QMT does not require any advance information but will expect the area to complete the self assessment
form. However, the area should note at this stage where the evidence is located, as this will be of use for the verification
process. The scores resulting from the self assessment will constitute the Provisional Quality Score (PQS).
The information contained in the “Evidence required” section of the “Accredited Programmes Groupwork Self Assessment
Guidance Form” represents good practice and mandatory elements relevant to accredited programmes. When undertaking
self assessment if you believe your area has innovative practice which affects the score please include full details of the
specific practice. This should include processes and outcomes in sufficient detail for the Quality Management Team (QMT)
validation panel to make a judgement about the validity of the information. The QMT validation panel will consider the
practice identified and the allotted score based upon the evidence provided, to ensure “best practice” is disseminated
widely and scoring integrity is maintained.
The second stage involves validation of the scores set by areas. In order to be able to complete the validation the area
will be required to nominate representatives to form a regional validation team, which will be facilitated by Quality Systems
Manager. Prior to the validation event areas will be informed which evidence needs to be available on the day for
validation. A score will be available for each programme and an aggregated score will be given for the Area as a whole.

Accredited Programmes Individual Self Assessment Guidance


1
Guidelines on Collating Evidence

The Quality Assessment process is, in line with Probation Service Policy, evidence based. Quality Assessment is more
about finding evidence to show whether or not an area has met a specific pre determined criteria. In the case of accredited
programmes, these criteria are defined in the “Performance Standards Manual for the Delivery of Accredited Group Work
Programmes”. The Accredited Programmes Groupwork Self Assessment Guidance Form mirrors these standards and
makes specific what the evidence required is and how it should be scored in terms of quality rating.

The self assessment approach has been designed within the framework of the EFQM. Consequently the following
principles apply:

™ Evidence should be identifiable rather than anecdotal i.e. the evidence can be shown whenever it is requested.
™ There should be an appropriate scope for evidence in terms of :
o The extent to which a full range of evidence, relevant to the criteria, are presented (scope)
o The extent to which the relevance of the evidence presented is understood (relevance)
o The extent to which the evidence covers all relevant areas of the area set up e.g. throughout Programmes
(segmentation)
™ The evidence can demonstrate what it claims to demonstrate in terms of the criteria set.

Sample Size

The sample size required for self assessment is 20% of the annual commencements, for each programme delivered,
based upon the accredited programmes monthly return sent to NPD. This needs to include 10 cases that completed for
each programme. The maximum number of cases per programme required for London is 100 and all other areas is 50.
The minimum number of cases per programme is 10. Where there are insufficient cases to meet this minimum all cases
must be reviewed.

Please refer to the Probation Circular but remember that Leadership and Case Management need only be done
once – NOT for each programme.
Accredited Programmes Individual Self Assessment Guidance
2
Video Monitoring Scores

The scoring approach, which has been adopted, involves calculating an average from the sample of tapes and then
rounding the score to the nearest whole number. For example, an average of 3.5 would be rounded up to 4, whilst an
average of 3.4 would be rounded down to 3.

Types of Evidence
Team Meeting Minutes – Where minutes contain evidence, which relates to a number of criteria the same minutes can be
submitted as evidence for each relevant criterion thereby reducing the actual sets of minutes produced overall. All minutes
must have been produced during the 12-month period immediately prior to the self assessment date.
Business Plans, Policy Statements, Strategy Documents - The most recent document produced should be used as
evidence.

Scoring
As a guiding principle Mandatory Elements require a higher degree of evidence to achieve a Score 2 than Important
Elements. However, where National Standards targets apply this is reflected in the scoring regardless of the level of
importance placed on the criterion. Likewise where it is imperative to maintain Treatment Integrity this approach has been
adopted.

Accredited Programmes Individual Self Assessment Guidance


3
Committed Leadership & Supportive Management

A 1.1 Committed Leadership (Mandatory)


The senior management of the area should be openly and explicitly committed to the proper running of the programme
through policy and public statements.

Evidence required Method of Checking / Evidence Scoring


1. Specific improvement or • Area documentation, including Score 2
maintenance objectives in the area annual business plan, training 90% of evidence including 1-3 must be
annual business plan about the strategy, policy statements and present.
importance assigned to the delivery relevant senior
of the chosen accredited management/divisional Score 1
programme(s). management minutes. 65% to 89% of evidence including any
2. Specific targets set in line with NPD • Annual business plan. two of evidence 1-3 must be present.
targets. • “What Works” strategy.
3. ‘What Works’ strategy detailing • Targets in above documents. Score 0
targets for running accredited • Other documentation, including Less than 65% of evidence. None of
programmes and implementation of copies of presentations made by evidence 1-3 is present.
specific programme in the context of senior managers to staff groups and
strategy. guidance issued to staff.
4. Attendance by senior managers at • Dates of context setting days with
staff awareness/context setting days attendance lists and job titles.
for the accredited programme. • Attendance list for new staff with
5. Middle Managers & Case Managers dates of events.
as well as PSR authors had (CONTINUED)
attended context setting days.
(CONTINUED)

Accredited Programmes Individual Self Assessment Guidance


4
A 1.1 Committed Leadership Continued

Evidence required Method of Checking / Evidence Scoring


6. New staff had attended context • Minutes of five meetings during the
setting days. last 12 months.
7. Communication with all staff in • Copies of internal bulletins.
support of service delivery. For • Copies of e-mails to the whole of
example: the service.
¾ Team meeting minutes, • Minutes of five meetings during the
¾ Newsletters, last year.
¾ E-mails. • Evidence of public statements &
8. Evidence of regular discussion in resource allocations for the current
senior management meetings about financial year.
the effective delivery of the
accredited programme, e.g.
discussion of operational issues and
guidance issued to staff, decisions
made on basis of evidence. For
example:
¾ Regular team meeting minutes.

Accredited Programmes Individual Self Assessment Guidance


5
A1.2 Management Structure (Important)
Effective line management structures exist for the proper operation of the programme, integrating this within case
management structures. Adequate time should be set aside for the effective management of the programme.

Evidence required Method of Checking / Evidence Scoring


1. Organisational chart outlines the • Area documentation, including Score 2
management structures for the organisational charts. Evidence 1-3.
delivery of accredited programmes. • Job descriptions for all staff.
2. Competency-based job descriptions • Five sets of relevant minutes during Score 1
exist for all staff involved in the last 12 months indicating Evidence (any two).
programme delivery, case attendance.
management and in support roles. Score 0
3. Minutes of relevant Fewer than two evidence points.
divisional/functional management
meetings demonstrate integration of
programme delivery within the case
management process and effective
communication across the area.
Minutes indicating, for example:
¾ Treatment Managers regular input
at team meetings,
¾ Mechanism for interaction of
programme delivery staff and Case
Managers,
¾ Regular programme management
meetings.

Accredited Programmes Individual Self Assessment Guidance


6
A 1.3 Staff ownership of the accredited programme (Important)
There is full ownership of the programme by managers, programme Tutors and other relevant staff, e.g. court personnel
and Case Managers.

Evidence required Method of Checking / Evidence Scoring


1. Evidence of consistent allocation • IAPS database or local equivalent Score 2
and use of accredited programmes for allocations to the programme. Evidence 1 - 3.
across the area. For example: • Case records to verify attendance
¾ Referral rates across the area at or by Case Managers at programme Score 1
above the national average. review meetings. Evidence (any two).
2. Regular Case Manager attendance • Area & NPD statistics.
at programme review meetings. • Numbers and percentage of Case Score 0
3. Case Managers, Pre-Sentence Managers, PSR authors and other Fewer than two evidence points.
Report (PSR) authors and other relevant personnel, e.g. admin, PO,
relevant personnel to attend context middle managers who attended
setting or other accredited training context setting days and/or Case
courses. For example: Manager training.
¾ All middle managers attend context • Date of meeting and attendance
setting days or other accredited list/training record.
training courses.
¾ Admin support staff have been to
context setting days.

Accredited Programmes Individual Self Assessment Guidance


7
A1.4 Effective communication with sentencers (Important)
There is high quality, proactive communication with local sentencers and clerks to the justices about the programme,
including written information.

Evidence required Method of Checking / Evidence Scoring


1. Communications with judges, • Date of meeting and name of Score 2
magistrates and magistrates’ clerks, manager who attended. Evidence 1-3.
for example: • Programme of Sentencer training
¾ Presentations to sentencers by event(s). Score 1
managers, • Relevant minutes of meetings Evidence (any two).
¾ Input into magistrates training, during the last 12 months.
¾ Board members with responsibility • Copy of leaflet for sentencers. Score 0
for accredited programmes linking • Relevant minutes of board meetings Fewer than two evidence points.
with sentencers. during the last 12 months.
2. Minutes of liaison meetings between • Minutes, written presentations and
sentencers and probation staff. For information leaflets.
example:
¾ Accredited programmes agenda
item.
3. Information leaflets for sentencers
and clerks explaining the
programme.

Accredited Programmes Individual Self Assessment Guidance


8
Programme Management Responsibilities

B1.1 Resources and facilities (Important)


Adequate accommodation consistent with the Estates Standards Manual is available for all sessions of the programme.

Evidence required Method of Checking / Evidence Scoring


1. Interview rooms should be of Physical description of the interview Score 2
sufficient size to conduct the work rooms, at each location, including size, The interview rooms at 75% and above
required for individual programmes. equipment and facilities. locations met the evidence required.
2. The room should be well lit and well
ventilated, with minimum outside If these requirements have not been
noise/disruption. met, but there is evidence that plans
3. Comfortable chairs in each room are in place to bring any deficiency up
(padded, fairly upright chairs with to standard within 3 months the
arms may be most appropriate). criterion can be considered fully met.
4. A desk / table to enable an offender
to complete written work (as a Score 1
minimum participants should be The interview rooms at 50% - 74% of
provided with a clipboard). the locations met the requirements.
5. A flipchart and stand, and other aids
should be available to enhance Score 0
responsivity. The interview rooms at less than 50%
(CONTINUED) of the locations met the requirements.

Accredited Programmes Individual Self Assessment Guidance


9
B1.1 Resources and facilities Continued

Evidence required Method of Checking / Evidence Scoring


6. Audio / video monitoring equipment
of sufficient quality to enable
sessions to be assessed by
Treatment Managers and external
auditors.
7. Secure tape storage facilities for the
cataloguing and storage of all
sessions of the accredited
programme. Tapes should be
retained for treatment management
and audit purposes. Following an
audit, all recordings made prior to
the latest programme subject to
audit inspection need no longer be
retained. (Probation Circular
16/2003)

Accredited Programmes Individual Self Assessment Guidance


10
B1.2 Provision of information leaflets about the programme (Important)
There should be a set of leaflets for offenders, sentencers and staff clearly describing the programme and its
requirements.

Evidence required Method of Checking / Evidence Scoring


1. Leaflets customised for the • Copies of leaflets, for offenders, Score 2
audience, including meeting the sentencers and staff. In 75% and above cases programme
requirements of cultural diversity. • Contents of leaflets. specific copies of leaflets are available
2. Leaflets drafted at a level that • Case records indicate offender has to staff, sentencers and offenders. In
allows the audience to fully received the leaflet(s), including addition the leaflets must contain the
understand the content. when they were given. (QMT Case following:
3. Leaflets given to offenders in File Reading Form Question 12). • compliance,
advance of sentencing. • enforcement,
4. Conditions of attendance and • complaints procedures,
consequences of failing to comply • cultural diversity issues,
fully outlined in the information • customised for the target audience
leaflet(s). at a level that allows the reader to
5. Complaints procedure outlined in fully understand the leaflet,
the leaflet(s). • Case records indicate offenders
have received the leaflet(s),
including when they were given.

If any one of the above required


elements is omitted from the leaflets,
the score should be reduced to 1.
(CONTINUED)

Accredited Programmes Individual Self Assessment Guidance


11
B1.2 Provision of information leaflets about the programme Continued

Evidence required Method of Checking / Evidence Scoring


Score 1
In 50% - 74% of cases programme
specific copies of leaflets are available
to staff, sentencers and offenders and
they contain the required elements.

Where a required element is omitted


the score should be reduced to 0.

Score 0
In less than 50% of cases programme
specific copies of leaflets were
available to staff, sentencers and
offenders.

Accredited Programmes Individual Self Assessment Guidance


12
B2.1 Managing attendance (Mandatory)
Offender attendance and absence are managed to achieve the required National Performance Management target for
offender completions. Attendance is managed to achieve coherent delivery with full impact for all undertaking the
programme. The maximum number of absences by any one offender is consistent with the requirements of the
programme manual for the specific accredited programme.

Evidence required Method of Checking / Evidence Scoring


1. Area policy document on offender • Area documentation on Score 2
attendance/enforcement. enforcement of attendance and In 90% and above cases all of the
2. Area documentation outlining how enhancing completion rates. following elements have been
completion rates will be enhanced • IAPS database or local equivalent. achieved:
over time. This can include any • Attendance registers, showing • The attendance register indicates
analysis of attrition rates and starters, dropouts and completion that only the permitted number of
subsequent action. rates. absences from the programme has
3. Attendance registers demonstrate • Case records. QMT Case File been allowed.
that participants’ attendance Reading Form Question 17. • When appropriate letters have been
conforms to the requirements of the sent out to offenders in line with
programme and National Standards. National Standards relating to
4. IAPS database or local equivalent attendance.
confirming attendance by each • There is evidence of good liaison
offender and completion rates. between programme staff and Case
Managers.
N.B. The accredited programme may (CONTINUED)
specify pre and post-programme
work.
(CONTINUED)

Accredited Programmes Individual Self Assessment Guidance


13
B2.1 Managing attendance Continued

Evidence required Method of Checking / Evidence Scoring


Offenders will only be deemed to be Score 1
completers when they have In 65% - 89% of cases the required
undertaken all of the approved elements have been achieved.
elements.
Where an attendance register is not
5. Evidence of discussion between maintained the score should be 0,
Case Manager and programme staff even if there is good communication
when offenders have missed between programme staff and Case
sessions for acceptable or Managers.
unacceptable reasons.
Score 0
In less than 50% of cases the required
elements have been achieved.

Accredited Programmes Individual Self Assessment Guidance


14
B2.2 Avoidance of cancellation or disruption to sessions (Important)
Sessions are not cancelled or disrupted owing to offender crises, high workload or other pressures, and arrangements
exist to deal with crises outside of the programme session. Sessions are delivered at the frequency defined in the
programme manual.

Evidence required Method of Checking / Evidence Scoring


1. Frequency of sessions conforms to • Review post-session and Post- Score 2
requirements of the accredited Programme Reports. In 75% and above cases all of the
programme manual. following elements have been
2. Arrangements are made to deal with achieved:
offenders’ problems outside of the • Tutors have successfully delivered
programmed session. This should sessions in line with the programme
be outlined in briefing meetings to manual.
offenders prior to their participation • There is a Tutor back-up system in
in the programme. place, which provides cover during
3. Workload or other pressures are times of sickness absence, or
seen to be resolved by the annual leave.
Programme Manager to enable • Sessions are only cancelled in
regular Tutor attendance. exceptional circumstances (See
Definitions – page 54).

(CONTINUED)

Accredited Programmes Individual Self Assessment Guidance


15
B2.2 Avoidance of cancellation or disruption to sessions Continued

Evidence required Method of Checking / Evidence Scoring


Score 1
In 50% - 74% of cases the required
elements have been achieved.

Score 0
In less than 50% of cases the required
elements have been achieved.

Accredited Programmes Individual Self Assessment Guidance


16
B2.3 Timeliness, pace and duration (Mandatory)
All offenders commence the programme, or specified pre-programme phase, within the first month of the order or within
three months if other structured pre-programme work is undertaken. Occasionally, the timing may be different to permit
other preliminary work to be completed, e.g. a programme of drug detoxification. The programme is completed within the
period specified in the appropriate programme management manual.

Evidence required Method of Checking / Evidence Scoring


1. Written evidence of offenders • Check timeliness of Score 2
commencing the programme within commencements and completions In 90% and above cases, evidence 1
the required timescale. via IAPS database or local and 2 achieved.
2. Case records evidence other equivalent.
preliminary work that needs to be • QMT Case File Reading Form Score 1
completed prior to the offender’s Question 13,14 and 15. In 65% - 89% of cases, evidence 1 and
participation in the programme 2 achieved.
where he / she is assessed as not
being ready to commence the Score 0
programme. In less than 65% of cases, evidence 1
and 2 achieved.

Accredited Programmes Individual Self Assessment Guidance


17
B3.1 Staff selection (Mandatory)
A staff selection procedure meeting the requirements of the programme manual is in place and only staff meeting the
defined criteria are selected to deliver the programme.

Evidence required Method of Checking / Evidence Scoring


1. Potential Tutors receive written • Area training documentation, e.g. Score 2
information about what is involved in information for potential Tutors, In 90% and above all of the following
running the accredited programme selection / deselection policies and elements have been achieved:
from the Programme Manager procedures. • Staff selection procedures are
and/or the Treatment Manager. • IAPS database or local equivalent followed, including the provision of
2. Assessment centre procedures exist or personnel / training written information to candidates.
and are followed. documentation confirming • Assessment centres meet the
3. Written policy confirming that only assessment centre and training requisite criteria.
those staff who meet the defined dates for each Tutor and outcomes. • There is a written policy outlining
criteria, e.g. fully trained by who can deliver a programme.
accredited trainers, deliver the • There is a deselection policy.
programme.
4. Written policy outlining how staff not Score 1
selected, as Tutors will be assisted. In 65% - 89% only one of the required
elements is missing.

Score 0
Where two or more of the required
elements are missing.

Accredited Programmes Individual Self Assessment Guidance


18
B3.2 Staff roles and competencies (Important)
Differences in role between grades or posts are clearly reflected in job descriptions. A defined set of competencies exist
for each staff role involved in the programme, using those specified in the programme manuals and the national
management manual.

Evidence required Method of Checking / Evidence Scoring


1. Job descriptions are available for all • Job descriptions. Score 2
programme staff. • Appraisal / supervision notes. In 75% and above cases both of the
2. Evidence that staff roles have been • Area documentation outlining the following elements have been
discussed. core competencies for each staff achieved:
3. Evidence that all staff are clear role. • Programme staff including
about their areas of responsibility. • Cross-referencing the competencies Programme Managers, Treatment
4. Published list of core competencies against the programme manual and Managers and Tutors have been
consistent with the requirements of national management manual provided with competency-based
the programme manual. where appropriate. job descriptions based on relevant
5. The core competencies outlined by occupational standards,
the area are a ‘close match’ with the commensurate with their roles and
tasks outlined as an appendix to the national management manual
National Management Manual for requirements.
the Effective Delivery of Accredited • All three groups of staff are able to
Programmes in the Community. give detailed and accurate
descriptions of their roles and
responsibilities and how they link
with staff in other roles.
(CONTINUED)

Accredited Programmes Individual Self Assessment Guidance


19
B3.2 Staff roles and competencies Continued

Evidence required Method of Checking / Evidence Scoring


Score 1
In 50% - 74% of cases the required
elements have been achieved.

Score 0
In less than 50% of cases the required
elements have been achieved.

Accredited Programmes Individual Self Assessment Guidance


20
B3.3 Preparation and post-session activity by Tutors (Important)
Tutors are allowed a minimum of 45 minutes and a maximum of 1½ hours for preparation and post-session activity in
addition to the programme delivery time.

Evidence required Method of Checking / Evidence Scoring


1. IAPS database or local equivalent • IAPS database or local equivalent Score 2
record completed following each indicating time spent on preparation In 75% and above cases all of the
session of the programme. and debriefing. following elements have been
• Notes of preparation and debriefing achieved:
meetings. • The IAPS database or local
• Facilitator /Tutor Session Review equivalent record shows that
Form completed after every preparation time is taken at the
session. required level.
• Sessions are scheduled to allow
sufficient preparation and
debriefing.
• Facilitator /Tutor Session Review
Forms were completed.

Score 1
In 50% - 74% of cases the required
elements have been met.

Score 0
In less than 50% of cases the required
elements have been met.

Accredited Programmes Individual Self Assessment Guidance


21
B3.4 Staff continuity (Important)
One named Tutor should normally be assigned to each offender undertaking an accredited programme and sessions
should be delivered by the assigned Tutor wherever possible. Arrangements should also be in place for named Tutor
cover for leave, sickness and other contingencies involving the medium or long-term absence of the assigned Tutor.

Evidence required Method of Checking / Evidence Scoring


1. Published staff rotas and caseload • IAPS database or local equivalent Score 2
records to ensure that programme confirming names of Tutors for each In 75% and above the IAPS database
staff have the workload capacity to programme. or local equivalent confirms that there
deliver each session of the • IAPS database or local equivalent to is an established system of assigning a
programme. check Tutor attendance against the minimum of three Tutors to each
2. Session reports demonstrate session evaluation forms. programme, with the third Tutor
continuity of staff Tutors. providing back-up cover.
3. Planning meetings discussing
staffing for each programme, Score 1
including contingency arrangements In 50% - 74% the requirements have
and cover for scheduled leave. been achieved.

Score 0
In less than 50% the requirements
have been achieved.

Accredited Programmes Individual Self Assessment Guidance


22
B4.1 Training arrangements for new staff (Mandatory)
Training courses exist for all grades and roles involved in delivering the programme and all staff newly assigned to the
programme receive training before running their first programme. The training delivered follows that defined in the
programme training manual.

Evidence required Method of Checking / Evidence Scoring


1. There is a record of all relevant • IAPS database or local equivalent Score 2
training and other staff development confirming that programme specific Evidence 1 &2 must be present.
work undertaken by programme training has taken place.
staff, including the core training for • Area documentation listing the Score 1
the accredited programme. training undertaken by programme One piece of evidence.
¾ Equal access to training programme staff during the last 12 months.
for all staff, • Attendance list for training events Score 0
¾ Refresher training (if available). within last 12 months. No piece of evidence.
2. Supervision notes/appraisal • Sample of supervision notes of
documents demonstrate an ongoing programme staff.
attention to staff development needs • Dates of events during the last 12
for each member of staff involved in months.
delivering the programme.

Accredited Programmes Individual Self Assessment Guidance


23
B4.2 Training arrangements for experienced staff (Important)
Competency-based accreditation and developmental training arrangements exist for all staff experienced in delivering the
programme. All programme delivery staff are required to attend such training when they have demonstrated their
competence to do so. (This will include delivering a stipulated minimum number of courses.)

Evidence required Method of Checking / Evidence Scoring


1. Staff development plan for each • IAPS database or local equivalent Score 2
member of the delivery team. listing training undertaken by Evidence 1-3 or 1 and 3 if it can be
2. Dates when booster and delivery staff and those identified for evidenced that 2 is not available.
developmental training events booster training where appropriate.
arranged (if available). • Area training plan. Score 1
3. List of team members for booster • Date of anticipated training. Evidence (any two) or one if it can be
training. evidenced that 2 is not available.

Score 0
Fewer than two evidence points.

Accredited Programmes Individual Self Assessment Guidance


24
B4.3 Staff knowledge of the methods, theory and evidential basis of the programme (Important)
All relevant staff have a knowledge of the programme model, targeting, objectives and methods, as well as a knowledge
of the programme’s theoretical and evidential base sufficient for effective delivery of the programme.

Evidence required Method of Checking / Evidence Scoring


1. Tutors have been assessed as • Evidence of assessment on Tutors Score 2
competent at the point of training by from training section. All evidence present.
the national trainers. • Documentation accessible to all
2. Area documentation effectively staff. Score 1
outlines the programme model, One piece of evidence present.
concepts and methods used in the
programme. Score 0
¾ Programme manuals readily No evidence present.
available to all staff for reference.

Accredited Programmes Individual Self Assessment Guidance


25
B4.4 Supporting skills necessary to run programmes (Important)
From interview, observation, appraisal and training audits all relevant staff have supporting skills including interpersonal,
presentational, understanding of responsivity issues, etc., sufficient for the effective delivery of the programme.

Evidence required Method of Checking / Evidence Scoring


1. Training reviews for all staff to • Area training plan. Score 2
check training undertaken and • Training reviews for all relevant Evidence 1-3.
areas where further training staff.
required. • Video monitoring forms completed Score 1
2. Video monitoring observation forms by Treatment Manager. Evidence (any two).
document training and • Observation forms.
developmental needs for • Appraisal and review of appraisal on Score 0
programme staff. appropriate staff. Fewer than two evidence points.
3. Supporting skills audit informed by
the supervision and appraisal
process and reflected in the area’s
overall training strategy.

Accredited Programmes Individual Self Assessment Guidance


26
B5.1 Staff supervision and quality of practice (Mandatory)
All staff involved in the programme receive support and supervision at a frequency specified in the national management
manual for individual programmes. This will enable Tutor skills to be developed and problems resolved within the lifetime
of the current programme by supervisors familiar with effectiveness methods and the programme. The Treatment
Manager to have assessed staff in the delivery of the programme through use of audio/video recordings prior to each
supervision session.

Evidence required Method of Checking / Evidence Scoring


1. Video monitoring forms completed • Video tapes available to match with Score 2
on each Tutor by the Treatment forms. All evidence present.
Manager. For audit and quality • Five video monitoring forms
assurance purposes the Treatment completed by the Treatment Score 1
Manager is required to watch and Manager covering one set from five One piece of evidence present.
score at least one video for every different Tutors during the past 12
ten sessions of the programme. months outlining the strengths and Score 0
(Where an individual accredited areas for improvement. No evidence present.
programme specifies a different
frequency for video monitoring, this
takes precedence over guidance
given in the national management
manual for delivering accredited
programmes.)
2. Video monitoring forms,
demonstrating attention to skills
development, identification of good
practice and resolution of problems
encountered by Tutors in delivering
the programme.

Accredited Programmes Individual Self Assessment Guidance


27
B5.2 Staff appraisal (Important)
All members of staff involved with the programme have their competence to perform their assigned role assessed
annually through the appraisal process. Staff whose performance is assessed as below the acceptable standard but
making progress should be given further training and other assistance to improve their performance and a date set for
review. Staff who are not making progress in achieving the required standard of performance should not take any further
part in running the programme.

Evidence required Method of Checking / Evidence Scoring


1. Appraisal documents record an • Appraisal documents of staff. Score 2
assessment of the competency of • Video monitoring forms available. 75% of evidence including 1.
programme Tutors to deliver the • Where applicable plan is available.
programme. • Records from training section Score 1
2. Video monitoring forms completed regarding remedial action. 50% to 74% of evidence including 1.
by the Treatment Manager identify • Policy available.
strengths and areas where • Details available of staff deselected. Score 0
performance needs to be improved. Less than 50% of evidence.
3. A plan of remedial action is
recorded by the Treatment or
Programme Manager, including a
date to review progress.
4. There is a written policy on
deselection or capability
procedures, if Tutors fail to improve
their performance. Information on
staff who have been deselected as
Tutors and the reasons for
deselecting is collected.

Accredited Programmes Individual Self Assessment Guidance


28
B6.1 Offender Assessment and Selection (Mandatory)
Routine monitoring results confirm the profile of those entering the programme are consistent with the criminogenic needs
addressed by the programme, the level of risk of reoffending and the level of risk of harm/ dangerousness.

Evidence required Method of Checking / Evidence Scoring


1. Use of approved targeting matrix for • Area documentation, including Score 2
the programme that measures: targeting matrix and OASys If 90% and above offenders who
¾ offender’s criminogenic needs, documents. Area documentation commenced the programme conform
¾ risk of reoffending. should also include written to the eligibility and suitability criteria of
2. Use of OASys. statements about exclusion criteria. the programme as assessed by
3. Use of evaluation monitoring from • Check IAPS database or local OASys.
IAPS or local equivalent. equivalent to ensure profile is
4. Written guidance on grounds for consistent with offender’s needs, Score 1
exclusion. level of risk of reoffending and risk If 65 - 89% conform.
of harm/dangerousness
• QMT Case File Reading Form Score 0
Question 11. If less than 65% conform.

Accredited Programmes Individual Self Assessment Guidance


29
B6.2 Offender knowledge and understanding of the programme requirements (Important)
The requirements of the programme are clearly communicated on at least 2 occasions to each participant verbally and in
writing and there is evidence from signed consent forms or interview that offenders know and understand the
requirements.

Evidence required Method of Checking / Evidence Scoring


1. Signed contracts or letter of • IAPS database or local equivalent The requirements of the programme
understanding. confirms that offenders have signed have been clearly communicated to the
2. Evidence that the programme the letter of understanding. offender on at least 2 occasions and
requirements have been explained • Case records confirm that the there is signed consent from the
to the offender verbally by Tutor requirements of the programme offender.
and/or Case Manager. have been explained to the offender
on at least 2 occasions (QMT Case Score 2
File Reading Form Question 12). 75% and over.

Score 1
50-74%.

Score 0
Less than 50%.

Accredited Programmes Individual Self Assessment Guidance


30
B6.3 Accessibility of Individual programmes (Important)
Careful consideration is given to the allocation of Tutors to women or minority ethnic offenders. Appropriate support
arrangements should be provided and evidenced for these offenders.

Evidence required Method of Checking / Evidence Scoring


1. Written area policy outlining criteria • IAPS database or local equivalent to A written area policy is available
to be considered when assigning a check which Tutors ran the detailing expectations and support that
Tutor to a female or minority ethnic programme against the offender should be made available. This will
offender. composition of the group. include an instruction that if an
2. Evidence where there are women or • Area Policy/practice documents. individual programme is to be delivered
minority ethnic offenders that • Notes of programme planning to a woman or minority ethnic offender
attention has been paid to meetings demonstrating attention then careful consideration will be given
arrangements to support their has been given in advance to staff to which Tutor is assigned to that
attendance. composition and to the offender. When an individual
3. Area guidance on the use of arrangements to support offenders. programme is delivered to a woman or
interpreters. • Feedback from all women or minority ethnic offender there will be
4. Consideration of the use of a CD- minority ethnic offenders obtained evidence that the offender has been
ROM with offenders who might find prior to commencement and on appropriately supported and that their
written material problematic. completion of the programme. (A feedback has been sought
minimum of five pieces of
feedback). Score 2
• QMT Case File Reading Form This standard has been achieved in
Question 28. 75% or more.

Score 1
50% - 74%.

Score 0
Less than 50%.

Accredited Programmes Individual Self Assessment Guidance


31
B7.1 Implementation of monitoring and evaluation design (Mandatory)
Interview and observation show that monitoring and evaluation arrangements are working as intended and are
understood and supported by all staff involved. This should include both input and feedback of data to managers and
practitioners at local level.

Evidence required Method of Checking / Evidence Scoring


1. An area document explains the • Area policy document and relevant An Area policy document including
monitoring and evaluation guidelines available. appropriate guidelines is available.
arrangements and outlines the • IAPS database or local equivalent Following each completed programme
responsibilities of relevant staff to completed fully and accurately. there is evidence that individual and
accurately record data and to • Individual and summary reports summary reports from IAPS database
provide individual and summary from the database have been or local equivalent have been
reports. circulated to relevant managers and circulated to relevant Managers and
2. There are guidelines for completing practitioners. practitioners
psychometric data, programme
Session Review Forms and IAPS Feedback reports have been
database or local equivalent circulated.
information.
3. There are guidelines regarding Score 2
systems, processes, roles and 90% and above of offenders.
responsibilities for the retrieval of
individual and summary data for Score 1
reports to practitioners and 65-89% and above of offenders.
managers e.g. process for recording
ongoing attendance and completion Score 0
rates, periodic reporting of Less than 65 % of offenders.
concordance data to managers.

Accredited Programmes Individual Self Assessment Guidance


32
B7.2 Practice is informed by monitoring and evaluation evidence (Important)
Consistent use is made of evaluation information as it becomes available by those with most direct responsibility, e.g.
managers giving regular consideration to attendance and completion information, practitioners to offender feedback and
attitude/behaviour change scores. Awareness /knowledge about evaluation results from the same programme operating
elsewhere will be relevant.

Evidence required Method of Checking / Evidence Scoring


1. The supporting programme • Minutes of senior managers Score 2
conditions have been reviewed in meetings held during the last 12 Evidence that area practice has been
response to monitoring and months. improved in the light of information
evaluation information e.g. pre • Minutes of operational managers from other areas operating the same
course preparation when it is shown meetings held during the last 12 programme.
that other areas have consistently months. Minutes of senior managers held
performed better in terms of • Minutes of programme staff during the last 12 months.
reduced attrition rates or greater meetings held during the last 12 Minutes of operational managers
offender ‘programme readiness.’ months. meetings held during the last 12
2. Evidence of regular discussion by • Evidence (e.g. meeting notes, months.
senior and middle managers e.g. of reformulated policy or practice Minutes of programme staff meetings
attendance and completion guidance) that area practice has held during the last 12 months.
information and record of actions been improved in the light of
taken as a consequence. information from other areas Score 1
3. Evidence of routine discussion by operating the same programme. Where 1 of the above elements is
programme staff and actions taken missing.
as a consequence.
Score 0
If 2 or more elements are missing.

Accredited Programmes Individual Self Assessment Guidance


33
Quality of Programme Delivery

C1.1 Adherence to programme manual (Mandatory)


All sessions of the programme should be delivered in line with the instructions of the programme manual and demonstrate
close adherence to the aims and objectives. There should be evident commitment to follow the intention/purpose of the
exercises used, including repetition/reinforcement, where these are designed parts of the programme.

Evidence required Method of Checking / Evidence Scoring


1. Material covered in the correct • Monitoring of videotapes by Area The average score for the videotapes
order. Assessors. (Video Monitoring Form viewed by Area Assessors for Section
2. Exercises set up and run correctly. – Revised Section 1 Adherence to 1 was:
3. Exercises run to time. Programme Manual).
4. Exercises explained properly. • Treatment Manager videotape Score 2
5. Inappropriate extras not added. monitoring returns. 4 or above.
6. Aims and objectives met.
7. Tutors checking out the participants’ Score 1
learning related to the aims and 3.
objectives.
8. Participants encouraged to make Score 0
links between exercises and Less than 3.
session.

Accredited Programmes Individual Self Assessment Guidance


34
C1.2 Adherence to treatment style (Mandatory)
From audio /video evidence, programme Tutors make competent and appropriate use of the techniques specified. There
will be evidence of effective communication of the material, offender understanding and engagement. Pro-criminal and
anti-social attitudes and behaviour are challenged. Pro-social attitudes are skilfully modelled by the Tutor and are
predominant in the sessions.

Evidence required Method of Checking / Evidence Scoring


1. Use of open questions to facilitate • Treatment Manager monitoring The average score for the videotapes
learning. returns. viewed by Area Assessors for Section
2. Listening and allowing for answers. • Monitoring of videotapes by Area 2 was:
3. Summarises points and reflects Assessors. (Video Monitoring Form
back. – Revised Section 2 Adherence to Score 2
4. Challenges offence-supporting Treatment Style). 4 or above.
views.
5. Offender encouraged to explain and Score 1
validate ideas for him/herself. 3.
6. Demonstrates awareness of
responsivity issues (including race Score 0
equality). Less than 3.
7. Encourages offender to elicit self-
motivating statements.

Accredited Programmes Individual Self Assessment Guidance


35
C1.3 Individual programme delivery skills (Important)
Programme Tutors demonstrate effective delivery skills, including particular attention to modelling pro-social behaviour.
Tutors show themselves able to deal with resistant offenders so disruption is minimised.

Evidence required Method of Checking / Evidence Scoring


1. Exercises introduced and ended • Monitoring of tapes by Area Score 2
well. Assessors (Video Monitoring Form The average score for the videotapes
2. Appropriate verbal style (clearly – Revised Section 3). viewed by Area Assessors for Section
spoken, warm, encouraging, gives • Treatment Manager monitoring 3 was 4 or above In addition over 75%
judicious praise). returns. of supervision / feedback notes of
3. Uses appropriate language (shows • Supervision notes of sessions sessions and team meeting minutes
awareness of race equality and covering one set from 5 different indicate that delivery issues are
wider diversity issues). Tutors during the last 12 months discussed as a standing agenda item.
4. Offender disruption managed well. and team meetings 5 during the last
5. Active engagement encouraged. 12 months with Treatment Manager Score 1
6. Uses non-verbal encouragement / Programme Manager and Tutors The average score for the videotapes
(warm, open, assertive body recording discussion of delivery viewed by Area Assessors for Section
posture, listens, accepting style). issues. 3 was 3. In addition in over 50% - 74%
of supervision / feedback notes of
sessions and team meeting minutes
indicate that delivery issues are
discussed as a standing agenda item.

Score 0
In less than 65% of cases the required
elements have been achieved.

Accredited Programmes Individual Self Assessment Guidance


36
C1.4 Programme delivered addressing race equality and diversity issues (Mandatory)
From audio /video evidence, issues of racism and sexism are effectively addressed whether arising within programme
delivery or offender response. Staff are alert to race equality and wider diversity issues, they always respond
appropriately and show that they have considered and developed strategies for responding, e.g. relevant resources and
arguments, clarity about boundaries, approaches that may promote perspective taking.

Evidence required Method of Checking / Evidence Scoring


1. Examples within programme • Monitoring of tapes by Area Score 2
sessions of Tutors challenging Assessors, to check that diversity In 90% and above cases all of the
racist, sexist or other inappropriate issues are effectively addressed. following elements have been
attitudes or behaviour. (Video Monitoring Form – Revised achieved:
2. Programme Managers, Treatment Section 2d Challenges offence- • Of the videotapes viewed by Area
Managers and Tutors alert to issues supporting / anti-social views? Assessors the average score for
of race equality and diversity, e.g. [includes racist and sexist each Tutor for Section 2d was 4 or
Tutors ensuring cultural relevance behaviour]). above.
of exercises, managers considering • Policy / practice documents • Managers demonstrated that
staff/ offender match on basis of promoting diversity issues in the diversity issues had been
gender, race and other relevant delivery of accredited programmes. addressed when allocating
factors. • Supervision notes covering one set participants to a group.
3. Evidence of policy/practice from 5 different Tutors, two sets • Programme Manager, Treatment
documents about promoting each from different Programme and Manager and Tutor supervision
diversity within programme delivery Treatment Manager during the last notes show that race equality and
e.g. relevant section of race action 12 months. wider diversity issues are a standing
plan, equal opportunities policy. • QMT Case File Reading Form item for discussion.
Question 28. (CONTINUED)

Accredited Programmes Individual Self Assessment Guidance


37
C1.4 Programme delivered addressing race equality and diversity issues Continued

Evidence required Method of Checking / Evidence Scoring


• There is an area policy / practice
documents, which promote diversity
in relation to general offending
behaviour programmes.

Where no policy / practice documents


exist, the score should be 1.

Score 1
In 65% - 89% of cases the required
elements have been achieved.

Where no policy / practice documents


exist, the score should be 0.

Score 0
In less than 65% of cases the required
elements have been achieved.

Accredited Programmes Individual Self Assessment Guidance


38
C1.5 Programme Session Review Form (For use by Facilitators / Tutors at the end of the session) (Important)
The programme Session Review Form for each session is completed.

Evidence required Method of Checking / Evidence Scoring


1. Evidence that the programme Tutor • Programme Session Review Form. Score 2
has completed the programme • Monitoring of videotapes by Area In 75% and above cases all of the
Session Review Form for each Assessors, to assess the accuracy following elements have been
session of the programme. of judgements about the session, achieved:
2. Accurate recording e.g. levels of e.g. level of offender engagement. • Of the videotapes viewed by Area
offender engagement and of • Supervision notes one set from 5 Assessors there was concordance
particular issues affecting individual different Tutors during the last 12 between the levels of participant
participants. months. understanding and engagement
recorded by Tutors in relation to
individual participants.
• Tutors complete programme
Session Review Forms for each
session of the programme.
• The Session Review Forms are
being used in supervision between
the Treatment Manager and Tutors
to highlight areas for further staff
development.
(CONTINUED)

Accredited Programmes Individual Self Assessment Guidance


39
C1.5 Programme Session Review Form (For use by Facilitators / Tutors at the end of the session) Continued

Evidence required Method of Checking / Evidence Scoring


Score 1
In 50% - 74% of cases the required
elements have been achieved.

Score 0
In less than 50% of cases the required
elements have been achieved.

Accredited Programmes Individual Self Assessment Guidance


40
C1.6 End of programme Post-Programme Report (Important)
The case record shows that at the end of the programme delivery staff prepare a Post- Programme Report (see Probation
Circular 03/2004) for the Case Manager which includes the following sections:

¾ Programme summary
¾ Attendance and Participation
¾ Progress made
¾ Areas for Improvement and Potentially risky situations
¾ Suggestions for further work
¾ Participant’s comments

Evidence required Method of Checking / Evidence Scoring


1. Post-Programme Reports for Case • Sample of Post-Programme Score 2
Manager demonstrating that these Reports. In 90% and above of cases all of the
factors have been addressed. following elements have been
2. Post-Programme Reports achieved:
completed within 2 weeks of the end • The Post-Programme Reports were
of the programme, countersigned by prepared using the standard format.
the Treatment Manager and sent to • The sections of the template were
the Case Manager. completed.
• The Post-Programme Reports were
sent to Case Managers within two
weeks of the completion of the
course.
(CONTINUED)

Accredited Programmes Individual Self Assessment Guidance


41
C1.6 End of programme Post-Programme Report Continued

Evidence required Method of Checking / Evidence Scoring


Score 1
In 65% - 89% of cases the required
elements have been achieved.
Score 0
In less than 65% of cases the required
elements have been achieved.

Accredited Programmes Individual Self Assessment Guidance


42
Case Management Responsibilities

D1.1 Initial Supervision plan sets relevant objectives for the offender (Important)
The supervision plan integrates the programme into the overall plan of work for each offender. Specific objectives are set
in a sequence appropriate for the offender and are recorded in the Initial Supervision Plan and regularly reviewed.
Assessments should be based on OASys.

Evidence required Method of Checking / Evidence Scoring


1. Use of OASys to inform • QMT Case File Reading Form The supervision plan is based on an
assessment. Questions 7, 8, 9 & 10. OASys assessment and integrates the
2. Evidence that the initial supervision programme into the overall plan of
plan integrates the programme work for the offender. SMART
within an overall work plan for the objectives relevant to the programme
offender. are set and regularly reviewed.
3. SMART objectives relevant to the
programme are set. The Case Score 2
Manager should clearly record what Standards are fully met in 75% and
work is to be done by whom and in above of cases.
what timescale.
Score 1
Standards are fully met in 50-74 % of
cases.

Score 0
Standards are met in less than 50% of
cases.

Accredited Programmes Individual Self Assessment Guidance


43
D1.2 Effective liaison arrangements between the Case Manager and programme staff (Mandatory)
The case records show the existence of effective arrangements for liaison handover and communication. This should
include the 3 way meetings between the Case Manager, programme Tutor and the offender at the end of the
programme.

** This criterion will not be assessed if an Area is operating only case management models 1 or 2

Evidence required Method of Checking / Evidence Scoring


1. Evidence of consistent attendance • IAPS database or local equivalent Score 2
at the 3 way meetings by Case for attendance by Case Managers In 90% and above cases there is
Managers, programme Tutors and at end of programme review. evidence of action points following the
offenders. • QMT Case File Reading Form post programme review meeting
Questions 22 & 23. between Case Manager and
programme staff.

Score 1
65-89%.

Score 0
Less than 65%.

Accredited Programmes Individual Self Assessment Guidance


44
D1.3 Supporting the Offender through the phases of the programme (Mandatory)
The Case Manager is responsible for preparing and motivating the offender prior to his/her participation in an accredited
programme and for reinforcing learning during the programme.

Evidence required Method of Checking / Evidence Scoring


1. Case records demonstrate that the • Discussion of an offender’s Case records will demonstrate that the
Case Manager has undertaken any homework assignments and of Case Manager has:
required pre –programme and difficulties that could prevent his/her
motivational work with the offender. attendance on the programme. -undertaken all of the required
2. The case record should reflect work • Case records demonstrating preparation and motivational work,
done when there are problems with preparation and motivational work
an offender’s attitude, participation (QMT Case File Reading Form -reinforced learning during the
or attendance on the programme. Question 13). programme, in particular by discussion
• Evidence from case record of of the offender’s homework
discussion of an offender’s requirements,
homework assignments (QMT Case
File Reading Form Question 21). -addressed any problems which might
• Evidence from the case record have prevented the offender’s
demonstrating ongoing work by the attendance on the programme.
Case Manager in addressing
obstacles to attendance (QMT Case Score 2
File Reading Form Question 20). If standard has been met in 90% and
above of cases.
(CONTINUED)

Accredited Programmes Individual Self Assessment Guidance


45
D1.3 Supporting the Offender through the phases of the programme Continued

Evidence required Method of Checking / Evidence Scoring


Score 1
If standard has been met in 65-89% of
cases.

Score 0
If standard has been met in less than
65% of cases.

Accredited Programmes Individual Self Assessment Guidance


46
D1.4 Understanding and knowledge of programme methods (Important)
Case Managers have a clear understanding of the aims and objectives of the programme and that they have either the
requisite skills to undertake reinforcement and/or relapse prevention work, or the ability to refer to staff possessing these
skills.

Evidence required Method of Checking / Evidence Scoring


1. Training strategy to address areas • Documentary evidence that Case Score 2
of unmet need. Managers have attended the There is an area training strategy.
2. Attendance at the Case Manager relevant training appropriate to the
training for the programme. programme. At least 90% or above Case Managers
3. Training audit of Case Managers to • Supervision notes one set from five have attended the relevant training
assess their level of skills necessary different Case Managers. appropriate to the programme.
to undertake reinforcement and • Appraisal documents from five
relapse prevention work. different Case Managers evidencing At least 75% of supervision notes
understanding and knowledge of evidence understanding and
programme methods. knowledge of programme methods.
• Area training strategy.
At least 75% of appraisal documents
evidence understanding and
knowledge of programme methods.

Score 1
If 1 element of the above is missing.

Score 0
If 2 and above elements are missing or
if there is no area training strategy.

Accredited Programmes Individual Self Assessment Guidance


47
D1.5 Managing of Attendance and Enforcement (Important)
Responsibility for the monitoring of attendance and the enforcement of orders is clearly defined with appropriate systems
in place. There is evidence of effective enforcement in all cases.

Evidence required Method of Checking / Evidence Scoring


1. Area policy and guidance • Case records (QMT Case File There is an Area enforcement policy
documents on enforcement conform Reading Form Questions 18 & 19). and case records evidence that any
to the requirements of National • Area enforcement policy. absence either from the programme or
Standards. • IAPS database or local equivalent to the order as a whole is enforced in line
2. Case records that note an identify offender’s compliance/ non- with the Area enforcement policy and
offender’s attendance/ non- compliance with the most recent National Standards.
compliance and any necessary three completed programmes.
enforcement action. Score 2
3. Action on enforcement takes place 90% and above.
within agreed National Standards
timetable. Score 1
65 - 89%.

Score 0
Less than 65%.

Accredited Programmes Individual Self Assessment Guidance


48
D1.6 Documentation (Important)
The case record shows that all relevant documentation is completed.

Evidence required Method of Checking / Evidence Scoring


1. Case records containing all relevant • IAPS database or local equivalent. Case file contains all relevant
documentation e.g. pre-work • Case records (QMT Case File documentation
conducted, post – programme Reading Form Question 27).
reports, attendance levels etc. Score 2
2. Timely and accurate IAPS database In 75% and above cases.
or local equivalent returns.
Score 1
In 50 - 74 % of cases.

Score 0
Less than 50% of cases.

Accredited Programmes Individual Self Assessment Guidance


49
D1.7 Post programme review (Important)
The supervision plan review for each offender shows that at the end of the programme appropriate individual objectives
are identified to strengthen and build on the progress made and to achieve successful community reintegration.

Evidence required Method of Checking / Evidence Scoring


1. Evidence that the post-programme • Case records (QMT Case File The supervision plan review is clearly
report influences the supervision Reading Form Questions 24, 25 & influenced by the post programme
plan review especially in respect of 26). report, identifies supervision objectives
areas of work not sufficiently in relation to factors not sufficiently
covered by the programme that the covered by the programme, and pays
offender needs to address. appropriate attention to community
2. SMART objectives relevant to the reintegration issues. SMART objectives
programme set in the supervision relevant to the programme are set.
plan review document.
3. Attention paid to community Score 2
reintegration issues in the post This standard is met in 75% and above
programme phase. of cases.

Score 1
This standard is met in 50 - 74% of
case.

Score 0
Less than 50% of cases.

Accredited Programmes Individual Self Assessment Guidance


50
D1.8 Reinforcement and relapse prevention work (Important)
There are specific arrangements in place to reinforce learning and for relapse prevention work, including booster
programmes where required by the programme, delivered by appropriately trained and skilled staff.

Evidence required Method of Checking / Evidence Scoring


1. Case Managers role in reinforcing • Area guidance on the role of the Area documentation defining Case
programme learning is clearly Case Manager in reinforcing Manager role.
defined in area documentation. programme learning. Where booster/relapse prevention work
2. Where available, booster • Where booster/relapse prevention is required by the programme,
programmes are used appropriately work is required by the programme, evidence from IAPS database or local
for offenders who have completed evidence from IAPS database or equivalent that this is delivered by
an accredited programme. local equivalent that this is delivered appropriately trained staff.
3. Training review ensures that only by appropriately trained staff.
appropriately trained and skilled • Case records demonstrate Case records demonstrate
staff deliver accredited reinforcement of learning by Case reinforcement of learning by Case
booster/relapse prevention work. Managers (QMT Case File Reading Managers (QMT Case File Reading
Form Question 21). Form Question 21).

Score 2
75% and above of cases.

Score 1
50% -74% of cases.

Score 0
Less than 50% of cases.

Accredited Programmes Individual Self Assessment Guidance


51
Definitions

The following definitions are given in an attempt to aid understanding of the key concepts contained within the Accredited
Programmes Self Assessment Documents.

Diversity

The Quality Assessment of Accredited programmes will pursue matters of Diversity within the National Probation
Service’ policy on diversity as set out in “Heart of the Dance – A Diversity Strategy for the National Probation Service
for England and Wales 2002-2006”. The process should therefore reflect the requirements of the National Probation
Service Charter. “The National Probation Service pledges itself to equal service for all our members, the offenders,
victims of crime and our communities”. (Heart of the Dance 2003: page 5) It will also relate to the five specific points
of the National Probation Service Charter and thereby ensure the four principles for Diversity (Heart of the Dance
2003: page 6) are achieved.

Furthermore, the policy of diversity should be viewed within the framework of “responsivity”.

Responsivity

“The responsivity principle states that interventions should be delivered in ways which match the offenders’ learning
style and engage their active participation” (HMIP Evidence Based Practice A Guide to Effective Practice 1998: page
14 paragraph 1.27).

The root of the responsivity principle lies in the belief that every offender regardless of race, religion, gender,
sexuality, age etc, should be enabled to fulfil their potential to lead law abiding lifestyles to the maximum.

Accredited Programmes Individual Self Assessment Guidance


52
The wording in “The Performance Standards Manual for the Delivery of Accredited Programmes” usually takes the
form of addressing “race equality and diversity issues”. This clearly stresses the importance of race but is also talking
about all issues of discrimination. Quality Assessment should therefore avoid hierarchies of discrimination. This
means that Anti- Discriminatory Practice addresses racism, sexism, homophobia, disability and ageism. It should
also include any other form of discrimination where an individual is prevented from benefiting from a programme or
faces obstacles to their attendance and participation. Anti- discriminatory practice therefore will address issues such
as basic skills problems and learning difficulties, mental health, rurality and so on.

Quality Assessment will look at how programme staff, (including Case Managers and other involved staff) develop
offenders’ responsivity by:

¾ Assessing and matching offenders appropriately to programmes.


¾ Tackling discrimination to overcome obstacles to the successful and beneficial completion of a programme.
¾ Programme staff conduct induction, pre and post programme work, programme sessions in an anti-
discriminatory way. This includes challenging inappropriate behaviour, ensuring that obstacles to participation
and learning are effectively dealt with.
¾ Anti- discriminatory behaviour is modelled by staff both in their interactions with offenders and each other.

Community Re-integration

“Community reintegration is the most critical process for achieving long-term change. It should be an essential
element of any supervision plan. The outputs of any programme should include motivation, preparation and skills
enhancement to achieve successful participation in community life.” (HMIP Evidence Based Practice A Guide to
Effective Practice 1998: page 64 paragraph 5.2)

Accredited Programmes Individual Self Assessment Guidance


53
Exceptional Circumstances

“There is an unforeseen or unavoidable event, which is outside the Programme Manager / Tutor’s control and which
any reasonable person would conclude would render it impractical to continue with the scheduled session or in the
case of catch-up sessions sequence the session according to Probation Circular 92/2001 (Appendix 7).”

Accredited Programmes Individual Self Assessment Guidance


54
Self-Assessment of Accredited Programmes

QMT CASE FILE READING FORM

Accredited programme:………………………………..

Name of reader

Date file read

Region

Probation Area

1. Offender’s full name:

2. Race/ethnicity (PREM code)

3. Gender: M/F

4. Date of birth (day/month/year):

5. Supervision Type: Community Rehabilitation Order Y


Community Punishment & Rehabilitation Order Y
Community Rehabilitation with Requirements Y
Community Punishment & Rehabilitation with Requirements Y
Licence Y
Drug Testing and Treatment Orders Y

6. Is this a case from a register of offenders who pose a risk of causing serious harm to the public? Y / N
Self-Assessment of Accredited Programmes

QUESTION COMMENT SCORE

7. Does the supervision plan integrate the 2


programme within the overall plan of work 1
for this offender? {D1.1} 0
8. Were SMART objectives in relation to the 2
programme set for this offender and are they 1
recorded in the initial supervision plan? 0
{D1.1}

9. Have these objectives been regularly 2


reviewed in supervision plans? {D1.1} 1
0
n/a

10. Does the supervision plan contain evidence 2


of assessments based on OASys? {D1.1} 1
0
11. Does the OGRS 2/OASys score fall within 2
the agreed targeting matrix? {B6.1} Please 1
state what the score is. 0

12. Does the case record show that the 2


requirements of the programme have been 1
communicated to the offender on at least 2 0
occasions, once verbally and once in writing
(e.g. contracts or letters of understanding
explaining the programme, or a record in the
contact log of discussions between the Case
Manager and the offender)? {B1.2} {B6.2}

13. Does the case record show that the case 2


manager has undertaken all of the required 1
pre-programme work with the offender? 0
{B2.4} {D1.3}

14. Was the offender scheduled to start the 2


programme (i.e. attend the psychometric
testing session) within 1 calendar month of n/a
sentence/licence? {B2.4}

15. If the offender was not scheduled to start the 2


programme within a month of sentence, are 1
the reasons explicitly documented in the 0
case record, and do they relate to necessary
work to be undertaken before he/she can
n/a
commence the programme? {B2.4}

16. Does the case record clearly show whether 2


an offender has attended the catch-up 1
sessions that were arranged for him/her? 0
{B2.3} n/a
Self-Assessment of Accredited Programmes

17. Is there evidence from the records of 2


communication between programme staff 1
and Case Manager in decision making 0
regarding acceptable and unacceptable
absences of the offender? {B2.1}

18. Is programme attendance monitored against 2


other attendance in a consistent and 1
integrated way? {D1.5} 0
19. Did enforcement in relation to programme 2
attendance (including pre and post sessions) 1
take place within the agreed timescales 0
under National Standards? {D1.5} n/a
20. Does the case record demonstrate on-going 2
work done by the Case Manager in 1
addressing problems such as an offender’s 0
attitude, their participation in the n/a
programme, or in areas that might have
prevented the offender’s attendance on the
programme (e.g. accommodation
difficulties, DSS problems, etc.)? {D1.3}

21. Does the case record demonstrate that the 2


Case Manager has reinforced learning 1
during the programme, e.g. discussion of an 0
offender’s homework assignments? {D1.3} n/a
{D1.8}

22. Is there evidence of liaison between the 2


Case Manager and programme Tutor? 1
{D1.2} 0
n/a
POST PROGRAMME WORK 2
23. Did the Case Manager attend the 3-way 0
meeting - post-programme review? {D1.2} n/a
24. Is there evidence that the post-programme 2
report influenced the supervision plan 1
review, and does it identify supervision 0
objectives in relation to factors not n/a
sufficiently covered by the programme?
{D1.7}

25. Were SMART objectives linked to post 2


programme work set in the supervision plan 1
review? {D1.7} 0
n/a
26. Does the case record show that attention has 2
been paid to community reintegration 1
following the end of the programme? 0
{D1.7} n/a
Self-Assessment of Accredited Programmes

27. Does the case record show that all relevant 2


documentation has been completed/is 1
contained within the case file? {D1.6} 0
28. Were diversity issues managed well for this 2
offender in terms of both accessibility and 1
support before, during and after the 0
programme? {B6.4, C1.4} n/a
({B6.3 Individual programmes only})
Self-Assessment of Accredited Programmes

QMT CASE FILE READING GUIDANCE

Name of reader

Date file read

Region

Probation Area

1. Offender’s full name:

2. Race/ethnicity (PREM code)

3. Gender: M/F

4. Date of birth (day/month/year):

5. Supervision Type: Community Rehabilitation Order Y


Community Punishment & Rehabilitation Order Y
Community Rehabilitation with Requirements Y
Community Punishment & Rehabilitation with Requirements Y
Licence Y
Drug Testing and Treatment Orders Y

6. Is this a case from a register of offenders who pose a risk of causing serious harm to the public? Y/N
Self-Assessment of Accredited Programmes
QUESTION COMMENT SCORE

7. Does the supervision plan Fully integrated objectives where aims of the programme are woven
integrate the programme within into the aims of supervision = 2
the overall plan of work for this Mention, and some attempt to link the needs of the offender with
offender? {D1.1} programme attendance = 1
Where an objective is simply ‘programme attendance’, or where there
is no mention = 0
8. Were SMART objectives in Fully SMART = 2
relation to the programme set for Most objectives SMART = 1
this offender and are they Objectives set, but not SMART = 0
recorded in the initial supervision
plan? {D1.1}
9. Have these objectives been Supervision plans should be reviewed every 4 months. If case is less
regularly reviewed in supervision than 4 months old, score n/a. To score 2, objectives in relation to the
plans? {D1.1} programme should have been reviewed.
10. Does the supervision plan To score 2, the plan should have clearly been influenced by OASys.
contain evidence of assessments Where it has been used (e.g. noted on plan) but has not been utilised
based on OASys? {D1.1} to inform the plan, score 1.
11. Does the case fall within the Does the case fall within the appropriate level of risk for the
agreed targeting matrix for the programme e.g. TF cases should be between 31% and 74% OGRS or
specific programme(s) being Medium Risk of Reconviction on OASys One, Two, or One and
reviewed? {B6.1} Please state Two.
what the score(s) are. Where a higher dosage is required, e.g. over 74% OGRS or High
Risk of Reconviction on OASys in TF, has an additional programme
been used / referred to.
To score 2, the case must fully meet the targeting matrix
requirements.
If the higher dosage requirement has not been met this should be
reduced to a 1.
Score 0 if there is no targeting tool or the case is outside the targeting
matrix criteria.

12. Does the case record show that To score 2, a copy of statement of understanding should be on file
the requirements of the (signed and dated), and a separate discussion of requirements on a
programme have been different occasion be recorded on the contact log. Dates of both
communicated to the offender on events should be post sentence.
at least 2 occasions, once
verbally and once in writing (e.g. If one or other present, score 1.
contracts or letters of
understanding explaining the
programme, or a record in the
contact log of discussions
between the Case Manager and
the offender)? {B6.2}
13. Does the case record show that Score on the basis not of quality of work, but on the fact that it
the case manager has undertaken happened. For TF 2 distinct sessions of work in first 4 weeks,
all of the required pre- preferably recorded as ‘pre-group session’ = 2. Sequence is not
programme work with the important as long as 2 sessions and pre meeting take place within
offender? {D1.3} month of order/licence.
With R&R/ETS information re requirements and motivational work
should take place as per manual within month, to score 2.
If there is only 1 general induction session, score 1.

14. Was the offender scheduled to Only score 2 if within month, otherwise n/a.
start the programme (i.e. attend Please note order/licence start and date of psychometric testing in the
the psychometric testing session) comment box.
within 1 calendar month of If n/a, please go to next question (15). If score is 2, go to question 16.
sentence/licence? {B2.4}
Self-Assessment of Accredited Programmes
15. If the offender was not scheduled Only score if previous answer was n/a. Reasons for delaying the
to start the programme within a start of the programme need to be clearly recorded AND relate to
month of sentence, are the offender need to score 2. For example, if assistance with substance
reasons explicitly documented in misuse is needed before programme can start, you should be able to
the case record, and do they find evidence of this such as an assessment, referral to a partnership.
relate to necessary work to be Score 1 if there are documented reasons for the delay but
undertaken before he/she can insufficiently determined execution by the Case Manager.
commence the programme? Score 0 if the reasons for delay are organisational (no programme
{B2.4} scheduled within the month) or no obvious reason for delay.

16. Does the case record clearly This should be visible on the contact log or attendance log on case
show whether an offender has record (and available to the Case Manager).
attended the catch-up sessions
that were arranged for him/her?
{B2.3}

17. Is there evidence from the This is evidenced by records of communication between programme
records of communication staff and Case Manager. Score 2 if there is evidence of
between programme staff and communication for all acceptable / unacceptable absences. Score 1 if
Case Manager in decision there was communication in 65% of absences. Score 0 below 65% of
making regarding acceptable and absences.
unacceptable absences of the
offender? {B2.1}

18. Is programme attendance Other attendance includes CP element of CPRO. To score a 2, there
monitored against other needs to be integration between the various elements of the order,
attendance in a consistent and programme and Case Manager appointments, as well as community
integrated way? {D1.5} punishment and partnership appointments (where the latter are
counted for National Standards purposes) Unlikely to score 1 here,
unless there is only a very minor lapse.

19. Did enforcement in relation to National Standards requirements: enquiry within 2 days by Case
programme attendance (including Manager/tutor
pre and post-sessions) take place Warning after 7 days if reason not provided/accepted
within the agreed timescales If absences are not clearly designated acceptable or unacceptable,
under National Standards? count as unacceptable.
{D1.5} Breach action initiated within 10 days of 2nd failure, or 3rd in licence
cases.

20. Does the case record demonstrate To score 2, look for proactive contact, whatever the local policy re
on-going work done by the Case frequency of contact. (But make a note where local policy is
Manager in addressing problems relevant).
such as an offender’s attitude, Prompt response to crisis or problems, score 1.
their participation in the
programme, or in areas that Score n/a if there are no difficulties with the offender’s attitude etc
might have prevented the which would require Case Manager action. (The following question
offender’s attendance on the deals with Case Manager reinforcement of learning)
programme (e.g. accommodation
difficulties, DSS problems, etc.)?
{D1.3}
21. Does the case record demonstrate To score 2 there should be planned Case Manager appointments
that the Case Manager has during the programme looking at the work, which has taken place in
reinforced learning during the the group, i.e. is proactive.
programme, e.g. discussion of an Score 1 using meetings, which are in response to crisis, to practise
offender’s homework skills learned in the group i.e. is reactive.
assignments? {D1.3} Score 0 where no specific work is undertaken.
Self-Assessment of Accredited Programmes
22. Is there evidence of liaison Look for evidence of timely and relevant exchange of information
between the Case Manager and both ways, and arrangements about which both case manager and
programme tutor? {D1.2} programme staff are clear. (NB Attendance at final 3-way meeting is
assessed below).

POST PROGRAMME WORK

23. Did the Case Manager attend the If the end of the group work programme has not been reached score
3-way meeting - post-programme n/a.
review? {D1.2} You cannot score 1 here.

24. Is there evidence that the post- Look for use of objectives identified in the PPR for a 2 score. If the
programme report influenced the review contains objectives, which consolidate or reinforce learning
supervision plan review, and from the programme, then score 2.
does it identify supervision If some of the PPR objectives have been translated into supervision
objectives in relation to factors objectives, score 1.
not sufficiently covered by the
programme? {D1.7}

25. Were SMART objectives linked If prior to the 4 month time frame, score n/a
to post programme work set in
the supervision plan review? See Q8 for scoring
{D1.7}

26. Does the case record show that Have the offender’s criminogenic needs been addressed? Has a link
attention has been paid to been made between skills learned during the programme and
community reintegration community reintegration: employment, basic skills, accommodation
following the end of the etc.
programme? {D1.7} Score 2 where this is clearly planned/ has happened.
Score 1 where there is some identification of such work.

27. Does the case record show that Score according to what should be on file at this stage in the order.
all relevant documentation has Look for targeting matrix, letter of understanding, evaluation &
been completed/is contained monitoring tool, OGRS score, supervision plans, post programme
within the case file? {D1.6} report.
Score 0 if none of these are completed/contained in the record; 1 if
some are, 2 if all are.

28. Were diversity issues managed Consider all aspects of diversity, including race, gender, disability,
well for this offender in terms of sexual orientation, literacy and mental health.
both accessibility and support Score 2 if there is clear evidence that the issues have been identified
before, during and after the and that arrangements, e.g. singleton placements, support, etc. have
programme? {B6.4, C1.4} been discussed with the offender and programmes team and action
({B6.3 Individual programmes has been taken.
only}) Score 1 where the case manager has gone some way towards this.
Score 0 if there is no evidence that consideration has been given to
diversity issues, or the required monitoring (e.g. PREM code) has not
been completed.
Score n/a only if the documentation is complete and there are no
issues to address.

Some additional notes:

Scoring:

2 = criterion is fully met; 1 = largely met; 0 = not met.


Self-Assessment of Accredited Programmes

QMT CASE FILE READING GUIDANCE

Name of reader

Date file read

Region

Probation Area

1. Offender’s full name:

2. Race/ethnicity (PREM code)

3. Gender: M/F

4. Date of birth (day/month/year):

5. Supervision Type: Community Rehabilitation Order Y


Community Punishment & Rehabilitation Order Y
Community Rehabilitation with Requirements Y
Community Punishment & Rehabilitation with Requirements Y
Licence Y
Drug Testing and Treatment Orders Y

6. Is this a case from a register of offenders who pose a risk of causing serious harm to the public? Y/N
Self-Assessment of Accredited Programmes
QUESTION COMMENT SCORE

7. Does the supervision plan Fully integrated objectives where aims of the programme are woven
integrate the programme within into the aims of supervision = 2
the overall plan of work for this Mention, and some attempt to link the needs of the offender with
offender? {D1.1} programme attendance = 1
Where an objective is simply ‘programme attendance’, or where there
is no mention = 0
8. Were SMART objectives in Fully SMART = 2
relation to the programme set for Most objectives SMART = 1
this offender and are they Objectives set, but not SMART = 0
recorded in the initial supervision
plan? {D1.1}
9. Have these objectives been Supervision plans should be reviewed every 4 months. If case is less
regularly reviewed in supervision than 4 months old, score n/a. To score 2, objectives in relation to the
plans? {D1.1} programme should have been reviewed.
10. Does the supervision plan To score 2, the plan should have clearly been influenced by OASys.
contain evidence of assessments Where it has been used (e.g. noted on plan) but has not been utilised
based on OASys? {D1.1} to inform the plan, score 1.
11. Does the case fall within the Does the case fall within the appropriate level of risk for the
agreed targeting matrix for the programme e.g. TF cases should be between 31% and 74% OGRS or
specific programme(s) being Medium Risk of Reconviction on OASys One, Two, or One and
reviewed? {B6.1} Please state Two.
what the score(s) are. Where a higher dosage is required, e.g. over 74% OGRS or High
Risk of Reconviction on OASys in TF, has an additional programme
been used / referred to.
To score 2, the case must fully meet the targeting matrix
requirements.
If the higher dosage requirement has not been met this should be
reduced to a 1.
Score 0 if there is no targeting tool or the case is outside the targeting
matrix criteria.

12. Does the case record show that To score 2, a copy of statement of understanding should be on file
the requirements of the (signed and dated), and a separate discussion of requirements on a
programme have been different occasion be recorded on the contact log. Dates of both
communicated to the offender on events should be post sentence.
at least 2 occasions, once
verbally and once in writing (e.g. If one or other present, score 1.
contracts or letters of
understanding explaining the
programme, or a record in the
contact log of discussions
between the Case Manager and
the offender)? {B6.2}
13. Does the case record show that Score on the basis not of quality of work, but on the fact that it
the case manager has undertaken happened. For TF 2 distinct sessions of work in first 4 weeks,
all of the required pre- preferably recorded as ‘pre-group session’ = 2. Sequence is not
programme work with the important as long as 2 sessions and pre meeting take place within
offender? {D1.3} month of order/licence.
With R&R/ETS information re requirements and motivational work
should take place as per manual within month, to score 2.
If there is only 1 general induction session, score 1.

14. Was the offender scheduled to Only score 2 if within month, otherwise n/a.
start the programme (i.e. attend Please note order/licence start and date of psychometric testing in the
the psychometric testing session) comment box.
within 1 calendar month of If n/a, please go to next question (15). If score is 2, go to question 16.
sentence/licence? {B2.4}
Self-Assessment of Accredited Programmes
15. If the offender was not scheduled Only score if previous answer was n/a. Reasons for delaying the
to start the programme within a start of the programme need to be clearly recorded AND relate to
month of sentence, are the offender need to score 2. For example, if assistance with substance
reasons explicitly documented in misuse is needed before programme can start, you should be able to
the case record, and do they find evidence of this such as an assessment, referral to a partnership.
relate to necessary work to be Score 1 if there are documented reasons for the delay but
undertaken before he/she can insufficiently determined execution by the Case Manager.
commence the programme? Score 0 if the reasons for delay are organisational (no programme
{B2.4} scheduled within the month) or no obvious reason for delay.

16. Does the case record clearly This should be visible on the contact log or attendance log on case
show whether an offender has record (and available to the Case Manager).
attended the catch-up sessions
that were arranged for him/her?
{B2.3}

17. Is there evidence from the This is evidenced by records of communication between programme
records of communication staff and Case Manager. Score 2 if there is evidence of
between programme staff and communication for all acceptable / unacceptable absences. Score 1 if
Case Manager in decision there was communication in 65% of absences. Score 0 below 65% of
making regarding acceptable and absences.
unacceptable absences of the
offender? {B2.1}

18. Is programme attendance Other attendance includes CP element of CPRO. To score a 2, there
monitored against other needs to be integration between the various elements of the order,
attendance in a consistent and programme and Case Manager appointments, as well as community
integrated way? {D1.5} punishment and partnership appointments (where the latter are
counted for National Standards purposes) Unlikely to score 1 here,
unless there is only a very minor lapse.

19. Did enforcement in relation to National Standards requirements: enquiry within 2 days by Case
programme attendance (including Manager/tutor
pre and post-sessions) take place Warning after 7 days if reason not provided/accepted
within the agreed timescales If absences are not clearly designated acceptable or unacceptable,
under National Standards? count as unacceptable.
{D1.5} Breach action initiated within 10 days of 2nd failure, or 3rd in licence
cases.

20. Does the case record demonstrate To score 2, look for proactive contact, whatever the local policy re
on-going work done by the Case frequency of contact. (But make a note where local policy is
Manager in addressing problems relevant).
such as an offender’s attitude, Prompt response to crisis or problems, score 1.
their participation in the
programme, or in areas that Score n/a if there are no difficulties with the offender’s attitude etc
might have prevented the which would require Case Manager action. (The following question
offender’s attendance on the deals with Case Manager reinforcement of learning)
programme (e.g. accommodation
difficulties, DSS problems, etc.)?
{D1.3}
21. Does the case record demonstrate To score 2 there should be planned Case Manager appointments
that the Case Manager has during the programme looking at the work, which has taken place in
reinforced learning during the the group, i.e. is proactive.
programme, e.g. discussion of an Score 1 using meetings, which are in response to crisis, to practise
offender’s homework skills learned in the group i.e. is reactive.
assignments? {D1.3} Score 0 where no specific work is undertaken.
Self-Assessment of Accredited Programmes
22. Is there evidence of liaison Look for evidence of timely and relevant exchange of information
between the Case Manager and both ways, and arrangements about which both case manager and
programme tutor? {D1.2} programme staff are clear. (NB Attendance at final 3-way meeting is
assessed below).

POST PROGRAMME WORK

23. Did the Case Manager attend the If the end of the group work programme has not been reached score
3-way meeting - post-programme n/a.
review? {D1.2} You cannot score 1 here.

24. Is there evidence that the post- Look for use of objectives identified in the PPR for a 2 score. If the
programme report influenced the review contains objectives, which consolidate or reinforce learning
supervision plan review, and from the programme, then score 2.
does it identify supervision If some of the PPR objectives have been translated into supervision
objectives in relation to factors objectives, score 1.
not sufficiently covered by the
programme? {D1.7}

25. Were SMART objectives linked If prior to the 4 month time frame, score n/a
to post programme work set in
the supervision plan review? See Q8 for scoring
{D1.7}

26. Does the case record show that Have the offender’s criminogenic needs been addressed? Has a link
attention has been paid to been made between skills learned during the programme and
community reintegration community reintegration: employment, basic skills, accommodation
following the end of the etc.
programme? {D1.7} Score 2 where this is clearly planned/ has happened.
Score 1 where there is some identification of such work.

27. Does the case record show that Score according to what should be on file at this stage in the order.
all relevant documentation has Look for targeting matrix, letter of understanding, evaluation &
been completed/is contained monitoring tool, OGRS score, supervision plans, post programme
within the case file? {D1.6} report.
Score 0 if none of these are completed/contained in the record; 1 if
some are, 2 if all are.

28. Were diversity issues managed Consider all aspects of diversity, including race, gender, disability,
well for this offender in terms of sexual orientation, literacy and mental health.
both accessibility and support Score 2 if there is clear evidence that the issues have been identified
before, during and after the and that arrangements, e.g. singleton placements, support, etc. have
programme? {B6.4, C1.4} been discussed with the offender and programmes team and action
({B6.3 Individual programmes has been taken.
only}) Score 1 where the case manager has gone some way towards this.
Score 0 if there is no evidence that consideration has been given to
diversity issues, or the required monitoring (e.g. PREM code) has not
been completed.
Score n/a only if the documentation is complete and there are no
issues to address.

Some additional notes:

Scoring:

2 = criterion is fully met; 1 = largely met; 0 = not met.


Area Score Group Totals Score 0 Score 1 Score 2
A1.1
A1.2
A1.3
A1.4 0

B1.1
B1.2 0

B2.1
B2.2
B2.3
B2.4 0

B3.1
B3.2
B3.3
B3.4 0

B4.1
B4.2
B4.3
B4.4
B4.5
B4.6 0

B5.1
B5.2 0

B6.1
B6.2
B6.3
B6.4 0

B7.1
B7.2 0

C1.1
C1.2
C1.3
C1.4
C1.5
C1.6 0

D1.1
D1.2
D1.3
D1.4
D1.5
D1.6
D1.7
D1.8 0

Totals 0 0 0 0 0
Area Score Group Totals Score 0 Score 1 Score 2
A1.1 1 1
A1.2 1 1
A1.3 1 1
A1.4 1 4 1

B1.1
B1.2 0

B2.1
B2.2
B2.3
B2.4 0

B3.1
B3.2
B3.3
B3.4 0

B4.1
B4.2
B4.3
B4.4
B4.5
B4.6 0

B5.1
B5.2 0

B6.1
B6.2
B6.3
B6.4 0

B7.1
B7.2 0

C1.1
C1.2
C1.3
C1.4
C1.5
C1.6 0

D1.1
D1.2
D1.3
D1.4
D1.5
D1.6
D1.7
D1.8 0

Totals 4 4 0 4 0
Area Score Group Totals Score 0 Score 1 Score 2
A1.1 1 1
A1.2 1 1
A1.3 1 1
A1.4 1 4 1

B1.1
B1.2 0

B2.1
B2.2
B2.3
B2.4 0

B3.1
B3.2
B3.3
B3.4 0

B4.1
B4.2
B4.3
B4.4
B4.5
B4.6 0

B5.1
B5.2 0

B6.1
B6.2
B6.3
B6.4 0

B7.1
B7.2 0

C1.1
C1.2
C1.3
C1.4
C1.5
C1.6 0

D1.1
D1.2
D1.3
D1.4
D1.5
D1.6
D1.7
D1.8 0

Totals 4 4 0 4 0
Area Score Group Totals Score 0 Score 1 Score 2
A1.1
A1.2
A1.3
A1.4 0

B1.1
B1.2 0

B2.1
B2.2
B2.3
B2.4 0

B3.1
B3.2
B3.3
B3.4 0

B4.1
B4.2
B4.3
B4.4
B4.5
B4.6 0

B5.1
B5.2 0

B6.1
B6.2
B6.3
B6.4 0

B7.1
B7.2 0

C1.1
C1.2
C1.3
C1.4
C1.5
C1.6 0

D1.1
D1.2
D1.3
D1.4
D1.5
D1.6
D1.7
D1.8 0

Totals 0 0 0 0 0