QUALITY MANAGEMENT OF ACCREDITED PROGRAMMES

PURPOSE
To introduce the framework and documentation for undertaking a self assessment of the following Accredited Programmes: Think First Priestley 1:1 DIDS ETS

Probation Circular
REFERENCE NO: 23/2004 ISSUE DATE: 21/04/04 IMPLEMENTATION DATE: 22/04/04 EXPIRY DATE:

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

SUMMARY
The NPS has been reviewing its arrangements for quality management of some accredited programmes. This circular outlines the process to be undertaken by Areas. These arrangements will replace the biennial audit system formerly carried out by HMIP. NPD has attempted to minimise the demands on Area’s and frontline staff therefore it is intended to place reliance on the existing infrastructure for video monitoring as this has already proven to be successful. The self assessment framework and documentation has been developed and has, wherever possible, been aligned with Prison Service documentation. 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 previous document, Quality Counts - A Quality Management System for the National Probation Service, launched in October 2003.

TO: Chairs of Probation Boards Chief Officers of Probation Secretaries of Probation Boards CC: Regional Managers Regional What Works Managers

AUTHORISED BY: Roger McGarva ATTACHED: 1 Guidance notes and self assessment form for groupwork programmes 2 Guidance notes and self assessment form for individual programmes 3 Case management questionnaire

CONTACT FOR ENQUIRIES
Pauline McLoughlin, Quality Systems Manager, Room 332 Horseferry House

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 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: Team meeting minutes, Newsletters, 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: Regular team meeting minutes. Method of Checking / Evidence Score

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 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: Treatment Managers regular input at team meetings. Mechanism for interaction of programme delivery staff and Case Managers. Regular programme management meetings.

Method of Checking / Evidence

Score

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 1. Evidence of consistent allocation and use of accredited programmes across the area. For example: 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: All middle managers attend context setting days or other accredited training courses. Admin support staff have been to context setting days. Method of Checking / Evidence Score

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

Method of Checking / Evidence

Score

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
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). The room should be well lit and well ventilated, with minimum outside noise/disruption. 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. Comfortable chairs in each room (padded, fairly upright chairs with arms may be most appropriate). Desks/tables to enable offenders to complete written work (as a minimum participants should be supplied with clipboards). Adequate supply of flipcharts/stands (two per main group room and one for sub-group work). OHP and screen must be provided. Video monitoring equipment and sound system of sufficient quality to enable sessions to be observed and assessed by Treatment Managers and external auditors. 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)

Method of Checking / Evidence

Score

2. 3.

4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

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 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). Method of Checking / Evidence Score

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 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. Method of Checking / Evidence Score

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 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. Method of Checking / Evidence Score

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 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. Method of Checking / Evidence Score

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 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. Method of Checking / Evidence Score

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 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. Method of Checking / Evidence Score

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 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. Method of Checking / Evidence Score

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 1. IAPS database or local equivalent is completed following each session of the programme. Method of Checking / Evidence Score

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 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. Method of Checking / Evidence Score

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 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. Equal access to training programme for all staff, 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.

Method of Checking / Evidence

Score

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

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 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. Method of Checking / Evidence Score

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 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: Programme manuals readily available to all staff for reference. Method of Checking / Evidence Score

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 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: Programme manuals readily available to all staff for reference. Method of Checking / Evidence Score

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 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. Method of Checking / Evidence Score

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 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. Method of Checking / Evidence Score

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 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. Method of Checking / Evidence Score

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

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 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. Method of Checking / Evidence Score

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 1. The number of offenders instructed to attend the programme conforms to the minimum and maximum group size. Method of Checking / Evidence Score

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 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. Method of Checking / Evidence Score

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 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. Method of Checking / Evidence Score

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 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. Method of Checking / Evidence Score

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 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.

Method of Checking / Evidence

Score

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 antisocial attitudes and behaviour.

Evidence required 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.

Method of Checking / Evidence

Score

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 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). Method of Checking / Evidence Score

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 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. Method of Checking / Evidence Score

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 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). Method of Checking / Evidence Score

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: Programme summary Attendance and Participation Progress made Areas for Improvement and Potentially risky situations Suggestions for further work Participant’s comments Evidence required 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. Method of Checking / Evidence Score

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 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. Method of Checking / Evidence Score

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

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 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. Method of Checking / Evidence Score

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 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. Method of Checking / Evidence Score

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 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. Method of Checking / Evidence Score

Accredited Programmes Groupwork Self Assessment Form

39

D1.6 Documentation (Important) The case record shows that all relevant documentation is completed. Evidence required 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. Method of Checking / Evidence Score

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 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. Method of Checking / Evidence Score

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 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. Method of Checking / Evidence Score

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: Assessing and matching offenders appropriately to programmes. Tackling discrimination to overcome obstacles to the successful and beneficial completion of a programme. 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. 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 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: Team meeting minutes, Newsletters, 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: Regular team meeting minutes. Method of Checking / Evidence • Area documentation, including annual business plan, training strategy, policy statements and relevant senior management/divisional management minutes. • Annual business plan. • “What Works” strategy. • Targets in above documents. • Other documentation, including copies of presentations made by senior managers to staff groups and guidance issued to staff. • Dates of context setting days with attendance lists and job titles. • Attendance list for new staff with dates of events. • Minutes of five meetings during the last 12 months. • Copies of internal bulletins. • Copies of e-mails to the whole of the service. • Minutes of five meetings during the last year. • Evidence of public statements & resource allocations for the current financial year. Scoring Score 2 90% of evidence including 1-3 must be present. Score 1 65% to 89% of evidence including any two of evidence 1-3 must be present. Score 0 Less than 65% of evidence. None of evidence 1-3 is present.

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 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: Treatment Managers regular input at team meetings. Mechanism for interaction of programme delivery staff and Case Managers. Regular programme management meetings.

Method of Checking / Evidence • Area documentation, including organisational charts. • Job descriptions for all staff. • Five sets of relevant minutes during the last 12 months indicating attendance.

Scoring Score 2 Evidence 1-3. Score 1 Evidence (any two). Score 0 Fewer than two evidence points.

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

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

Method of Checking / Evidence • Date of meeting and name of manager who attended. • Programme of Sentencer training event(s). • Relevant minutes of meetings during the last 12 months. • Copy of leaflet for sentencers. • Relevant minutes of board meetings during the last 12 months. • Minutes, written presentations and information leaflets.

Scoring Score 2 Evidence 1-3. Score 1 Evidence (any two). Score 0 Fewer than two evidence points.

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
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). The room should be well lit and well ventilated, with minimum outside noise/disruption. 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. Comfortable chairs in each room (padded, fairly upright chairs with arms may be most appropriate). Desks/tables to enable offenders to complete written work (as a minimum participants should be supplied with clipboards). Adequate supply of flipcharts/stands (two per main group room and one for sub-group work). OHP and screen must be provided. Video monitoring equipment and sound system of sufficient quality to enable sessions to be observed and assessed by Treatment Managers and external auditors. 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)

Method of Checking / Evidence
• Physical description of the group rooms, at each location, including size, equipment and facilities.

Scoring
Score 2 The group rooms at 90% and above of the locations met the evidence required. If these requirements have not been met, but there is evidence that plans are in place to bring any deficiency up to standard within 3 months the criterion can be considered fully met. Score 1 The group rooms at 65% - 89% of the locations met the requirements. Score 0 The group rooms at less than 65% of the locations met the requirements.

2. 3.

4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

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 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). Method of Checking / Evidence • Copies of leaflets, for offenders, sentencers and staff. • Contents of leaflets. • Case records indicate offender has received the leaflet(s), including when they were given. (QMT Case File Reading Form Question 12). Scoring Score 2 In 75% and above cases programme specific copies of leaflets are available to staff, sentencers and offenders. In addition the leaflets must contain an explanation of the following: • compliance, • enforcement, • complaints procedures, • 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 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. Method of Checking / Evidence • Area documentation on enforcement of attendance and enhancing completion rates. • IAPS database or local equivalent. • Attendance registers, showing starters, dropouts and completion rates. • Case records. (QMT Case File Reading Form Question 17). Scoring Score 2 In 90% and above cases all of the following elements have been achieved: • The attendance register indicates that only the permitted number of absences from the programme has been allowed. • When appropriate letters have been sent out to offenders in line with National Standards relating to attendance. • There is evidence of good liaison between programme staff and Case Managers. Score 1 In 65% - 89% of cases the required elements have been achieved. Where an attendance register is not maintained the score should be 0, even if there is good communication 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 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. Method of Checking / Evidence • IAPS database or local equivalent to check out published sessions against actual sessions. • Area documentation including published calendar of programmes. • Review post-session and Post-Programme Reports. Scoring Score 2 In 75% and above cases all of the following elements have been achieved: • Tutors have successfully delivered sessions in line with the published schedule. • There is a Tutor back-up system in place, which provides cover during times of sickness absence, or annual leave. • Sessions are only cancelled in exceptional circumstances (See Definitions – page 44). • The frequency of sessions conforms to the 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 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. Method of Checking / Evidence • IAPS database or local equivalent to identify catchup sessions arranged and appointments kept/not kept. The database will also identify the Tutors involved in running the catch-up sessions. • Review programme schedule to ensure that this allows adequate time for catch-up sessions. • Every seventh catch-up session audio taped /videotaped by the Treatment Manager. • QMT Case File Reading Form Question 16. Scoring Score 2 In 75% and above cases the following elements are achieved: • Catch-up sessions are provided on a regular and consistent basis, in accordance with the programme manual. • Catch-up sessions are video / audio taped. • There is a system in place for the Treatment Manager to review every seventh session. • Catch-up sessions are recorded as having taken 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 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. Method of Checking / Evidence • Check timeliness of commencements via IAPS database or local equivalent. • QMT Case File Reading Form Questions 13, 14 and 15. Scoring Score 2 Evidence 1-3. Score 1 Evidence (any two). Score 0 Fewer than two evidence points.

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 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. Method of Checking / Evidence • Area training documentation, including information given to potential Tutors, selection / deselection policies and procedures. • IAPS database or local equivalent or personnel / training documentation confirming assessment centre and training dates for each Tutor and outcomes. Scoring Score 2 In 90% and above all of the following elements have been achieved: • Staff selection procedures are followed, including the provision of written information to candidates. • Assessment centres meet the requisite criteria. • There is a written policy outlining who can deliver a programme. • There is a deselection policy. 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 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. Method of Checking / Evidence • Job descriptions. • Appraisal / supervision notes. • Area documentation outlining the core competencies for each staff role. • Cross-referencing the competencies against the programme manual and national management manual where appropriate. Scoring Score 2 In 75% and above cases both of the following elements have been achieved: • Programme staff including Programme Managers, Treatment Managers and Tutors have been provided with competency-based job descriptions based on relevant occupational standards, commensurate with their roles and national management manual requirements. • All three groups of staff are able to give detailed and accurate descriptions of their roles and 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 1. IAPS database or local equivalent is completed following each session of the programme. Method of Checking / Evidence • IAPS database or local equivalent indicating time spent on preparation and debriefing. • Notes of preparation and debriefing meetings. • Facilitator /Tutor Session Review Form completed after every session. Scoring Score 2 In 75% and above cases all of the following elements have been achieved: • The IAPS database or local equivalent record shows 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 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. Method of Checking / Evidence • IAPS database or local equivalent to confirm names of Tutors for each programme. • IAPS database or local equivalent to check Tutor attendance against the session evaluation forms. Scoring Score 2 In 75% and above the IAPS database or local equivalent confirms that there is an established system of assigning a minimum of three Tutors to each programme, with the third Tutor providing back-up cover. 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 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. Equal access to training programme for all staff, 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.

Method of Checking / Evidence • IAPS database or local equivalent confirming that programme specific training has taken place. • Area documentation listing the training undertaken by programme staff during the last 12 months. • Attendance list for training events during the last 12 months. • Sample of supervision notes of programme staff. • Dates of events during the last 12 months.

Scoring Score 2 Evidence 1 & 2 must be present. Score 1 One piece of evidence. Score 0 No piece of evidence.

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 1. Written policy documentation. 2. Service practice of pairing a newly trained Tutor with an experienced colleague. 3. List of staff appropriately trained. Method of Checking / Evidence • IAPS database or local equivalent with list when staff have been trained and therefore it can be established whether new staff have been paired with experienced colleagues. • Policy available to all staff. Scoring Score 2 Evidence 1-3. Score 1 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 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. Method of Checking / Evidence • IAPS database or local equivalent listing training undertaken by delivery staff and those identified for booster training where appropriate. • Area training plan. • Date of anticipated training. Scoring Score 2 Evidence 1-3, or 1 and 3 if it can be evidenced that 2 is not available. 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 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: Programme manuals readily available to all staff for reference. Method of Checking / Evidence • Evidence of assessment on Tutors from training section. • Documentation accessible to all staff. Scoring Score 2 All evidence present. Score 1 One piece of evidence present. 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 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: Programme manuals readily available to all staff for reference. Method of Checking / Evidence • Evidence of assessment on Tutors from training section. • Documentation accessible to all staff. Scoring Score 2 All evidence present. Score 1 Evidence 1 must be present. 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 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. Method of Checking / Evidence • Area training plan. • Training reviews for all relevant staff. • Video monitoring forms completed by Treatment Manager. • Observation forms. • Appraisal and review of appraisal on appropriate staff. Scoring Score 2 Evidence 1-3. Score 1 Evidence (any two). Score 0 Fewer than two evidence points.

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 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. Method of Checking / Evidence • Video tapes available to match with forms. • Five video monitoring forms completed by the Treatment Manager covering one set from five different Tutors during the past 12 months outlining the strengths and areas for improvement. Scoring Score 2 All evidence present. Score 1 One piece of evidence present. Score 0 No evidence present.

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 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. Method of Checking / Evidence • Appraisal documents of staff. • Video monitoring forms available. • Where applicable plan is available. • Records from training section regarding remedial action. • Policy available. • Details available of staff deselected. Scoring Score 2 75% of evidence including 1. Score 1 50% to 74% of evidence including 1. Score 0 Less than 50% of evidence.

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 1. Use of approved targeting matrix for the programme that measures: offenders’ criminogenic needs, risk of reoffending. 2. Use of OASys. 3. Use of evaluation monitoring from IAPS or local equivalent. 4. Written guidance on grounds for exclusion. Method of Checking / Evidence • Area documentation, including targeting matrix and OASys documents. Area documentation should also include written statements about exclusion criteria. • Check IAPS database or local equivalent to ensure profile is consistent with offender’s needs, level of risk of reoffending and risk of harm/dangerousness. • QMT Case File Reading Form Question 11. Scoring Score 2 If 90% and above offenders who commenced the programme conform to the eligibility and suitability criteria of the programme as assessed by OASys. Score 1 If 65 - 89% conform. 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 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. Method of Checking / Evidence • IAPS database or local equivalent confirms that offenders have signed the letter of understanding. • Case records confirm that the requirements of the programme have been explained to the offender on at least 2 occasions (QMT Case File Reading Form Question 12). Scoring The requirements of the programme have been clearly communicated to the offender on at least 2 occasions and there is signed consent from the offender. Score 2 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 1. The number of offenders instructed to attend the programme conforms to the minimum and maximum group size. Method of Checking / Evidence • Attendance registers on IAPS database or local equivalent to check commencements for the programme. Scoring The maximum starting group size did not exceed 12 and the minimum was not less than 4. 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 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. Method of Checking / Evidence • IAPS database or local equivalent to check which Tutors ran the programme against the offender composition of the group. • Area Policy/practice documents. • Notes of programme planning meetings demonstrating attention has been given in advance to staff composition and to the arrangements to support offenders. • Feedback from all women or minority ethnic offenders obtained prior to commencement and on completion of the programme. (A minimum of five pieces of feedback). • QMT Case File Reading Form Question 28. Scoring A written area policy is available detailing expectations and support that should be made available. This will include an instruction that no woman or minority ethnic offender will be placed singly in a group without their expressed consent. Where a group contains 1 or more women and or minority ethnic offenders there will be evidence that these offenders have been appropriately supported and that their feedback has been sought. Score 2 This standard has been achieved in 75% or more. 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 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. Method of Checking / Evidence • Area policy document and relevant guidelines available. • IAPS database or local equivalent completed fully and accurately. • Individual and summary reports from the database have been circulated to relevant managers and practitioners. Scoring An Area policy document including appropriate guidelines is available. Following each completed programme there is evidence that individual and summary reports from IAPS database or local equivalent have been circulated to relevant Managers and practitioners. Feedback reports have been circulated. Score 2 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 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. Method of Checking / Evidence • Minutes of senior managers meetings held during the last 12 months. • Minutes of operational managers meetings held during the last 12 months. • Minutes of programme staff meetings held during the last 12 months. • Evidence (e.g. meeting notes, reformulated policy or practice guidance) that area practice has been improved in the light of information from other areas operating the same programme. Scoring Score 2 Evidence that area practice has been improved in the light of information from other areas operating the same programme. Minutes of senior managers held during the last 12 months. Minutes of operational managers meetings held during the last 12 months. Minutes of programme staff meetings held during the last 12 months. 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 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.

Method of Checking / Evidence • Monitoring of videotapes by Area Assessors. (Video Monitoring Form – Revised Section 1 Adherence to Programme Manual). • Treatment Manager videotape monitoring returns.

Scoring The average score for the videotapes viewed by Area Assessors for Section 1 was: Score 2 4 or above. Score 1 3. 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 antisocial attitudes and behaviour.

Evidence required 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.

Method of Checking / Evidence • Treatment Manager video monitoring returns. • Monitoring of video tapes by Area Assessors. (Video Monitoring Form – Revised Section 2 Adherence to Treatment Style).

Scoring The average score for the videotapes viewed by Area Assessors for Section 2 was: Score 2 4 or above. Score 1 3. 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 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). Method of Checking / Evidence • Monitoring of video tapes by Area Assessors. (Video Monitoring Form – Revised Section 3 Groupwork Skills). • Treatment Manager video monitoring returns. • Supervision notes of sessions covering one set from 5 different Tutors during the last 12 months and team meetings 5 during the last 12 months with Treatment Manager / Programme Manager and Tutors recording discussion of group work skills including co-working issues. Scoring Score 2 The average score for the videotapes viewed by Area Assessors for Section 3 was 4 and above. In addition in over 75% of supervision /feedback notes of sessions / team meeting minutes group work skills including coworking issues are discussed as a standing agenda item. Score 1 The average score for the videotapes viewed by Area Assessors for Section 3 was 3. In addition in over 5074% of supervision /feedback notes of sessions / team 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 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. Method of Checking / Evidence • Monitoring of videotapes by Area Assessors, to check that issues of racism and sexism are effectively addressed. (Video Monitoring Form – Revised Section 2d Challenges offence-supporting/anti-social views? [includes racist and sexist behaviour]). • Policy / practice documents promoting diversity issues in the delivery of accredited programmes, including guidance on support arrangements for female and ethnic minority offenders. • Supervision notes covering one set from 5 different Tutors, two sets each from different Programme and Treatment Manager during the last 12 months. • QMT Case File Reading Form Question 28. Scoring Score 2 In 90% and above cases all of the following elements have been achieved: • Of the videotapes viewed by Area Assessors the average score for each Tutor for Section 2d was 4 or above. • Managers demonstrated that diversity issues had been addressed when allocating participants to a group. • Programme Manager, Treatment Manager and Tutor supervision notes show that race equality and wider diversity issues are a standing item for discussion. • 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 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 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). Method of Checking / Evidence • Programme Session Review Form. • Monitoring of videotapes by Area Assessors, to assess the accuracy of judgements about the session, e.g. level of offender engagement. • Supervision notes one set from 5 different Tutors during the last 12 months. Scoring Score 2 In 75% and above cases all of the following elements have been achieved: • Of the videotapes viewed by Area Assessors there was concordance between the levels of participant understanding and engagement recorded by Tutors in relation to individual participants. • Tutors use debriefing time to complete Session 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: Programme summary Attendance and Participation Progress made Areas for Improvement and Potentially risky situations Suggestions for further work Participant’s comments Evidence required 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. Method of Checking / Evidence • Sample of Post-Programme Reports. Scoring Score 2 In 90% and above of cases all of the following elements have been achieved: • The Post-Programme Reports were prepared using the standard format. • 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 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. Method of Checking / Evidence • QMT Case File Reading Form Questions 7, 8, 9 & 10. Scoring The supervision plan is based on an OASys assessment and integrates the programme into the overall plan of work for the offender. SMART objectives relevant to the programme are set and regularly reviewed. Score 2 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 1. Evidence of consistent attendance at the 3 way meetings by Case Managers, programme Tutors and offenders. Method of Checking / Evidence • IAPS database or local equivalent for attendance by Case Managers at the end of programme review. • QMT Case File Reading Form Questions 22 & 23. Scoring Score 2 In 90% and above cases there is evidence of action 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 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. Method of Checking / Evidence • Case records demonstrating preparation and motivational work (QMT Case File Reading Form Question 13). • Evidence from case record of discussion of an offender’s homework assignments (QMT Case File Reading Form Question 21). • Evidence from the case record demonstrating ongoing work by the Case Manager in addressing obstacles to attendance (QMT Case File Reading Form Question 20). Scoring Case records will demonstrate that the Case Manager has: -undertaken all of the required preparation and motivational work, -reinforced learning during the programme, in particular by discussion of the offender’s homework requirements, -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 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. Method of Checking / Evidence • Documentary evidence that Case Managers have attended the relevant training appropriate to the programme. • Supervision notes one set from five different Case Managers. • Appraisal documents from five different Case Managers evidencing understanding and knowledge of programme methods. • Area training strategy. Scoring Score 2 There is an area training strategy. 90% or above Case Managers have attended the relevant training appropriate to the programme. 75% or above of supervision notes evidence understanding and knowledge of programme methods. 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 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. Method of Checking / Evidence • Case records (QMT Case File Reading Form Questions 18 & 19). • Area enforcement policy. • IAPS database or local equivalent to identify offender’s compliance/ non-compliance with the most recent three completed programmes. Scoring There is an Area enforcement policy. Case records evidence that any absence either from the programme or the order as a whole is enforced in line with the Area enforcement policy and National Standards. Score 2 90% and above. 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 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. Method of Checking / Evidence • IAPS database or local equivalent. • Case records (QMT Case File Reading Form Question 27). Scoring Case file contains all relevant documentation. Score 2 In 75% and above cases. 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 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. Method of Checking / Evidence • Case records (QMT Case File Reading Questions 24, 25 & 26). Scoring The supervision plan review is influenced by the post programme report, identifies supervision objectives in relation to factors not sufficiently covered by the programme, and pays appropriate attention to community reintegration issues. SMART objectives relevant to the programme are set. 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 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. Method of Checking / Evidence • Area guidance on the role of the Case Manager in reinforcing programme learning. • Where booster/relapse prevention work is required by the programme, evidence from IAPS database or local equivalent that this is delivered by appropriately trained staff. • Case records demonstrate reinforcement of learning by Case Managers (QMT Case File Reading Form Question 21). Scoring Area documentation defining Case Manager role. Where booster/relapse prevention work is required by the programme, evidence from IAPS database or local equivalent that this is delivered by appropriately trained staff. Case records demonstrate reinforcement of learning by Case Managers (QMT Case File Reading 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 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: Assessing and matching offenders appropriately to programmes. Tackling discrimination to overcome obstacles to the successful and beneficial completion of a programme. 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. 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 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) Score

Accredited Programmes Individual Self Assessment Form

4

A 1.1 Committed Leadership Continued Evidence required Method of Checking / Evidence 6. New staff had attended context setting days. 7. Communication with all staff in support of service delivery. For example: Team meeting minutes, Newsletters, 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: Regular team meeting minutes. Score

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 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: Treatment Managers regular input at team meetings, Mechanism for interaction of programme delivery staff and Case Managers, Regular programme management meetings. Score

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 1. Evidence of consistent allocation and use of accredited programmes across the area. For example: 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: All middle managers attend context setting days or other accredited training courses. Admin support staff have been to context setting days. Method of Checking / Evidence Score

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

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 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) Score

Accredited Programmes Individual Self Assessment Form

9

B1.1 Resources and facilities Continued Evidence required Method of Checking / Evidence 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) Score

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 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). Method of Checking / Evidence Score

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 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 postprogramme work. (CONTINUED) Score

Accredited Programmes Individual Self Assessment Form

12

B2.1 Managing attendance Continued Evidence required Method of Checking / Evidence 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. Score

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 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. Score

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 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. Method of Checking / Evidence Score

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 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. Score

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 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. Score

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 1. IAPS database or local equivalent record completed following each session of the programme. Method of Checking / Evidence Score

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 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. Score

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 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. Equal access to training programme for all staff, 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. Score

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 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. Method of Checking / Evidence Score

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 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. Programme manuals readily available to all staff for reference. Method of Checking / Evidence Score

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 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. Method of Checking / Evidence Score

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 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. Method of Checking / Evidence Score

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 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. Method of Checking / Evidence Score

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

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 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. Method of Checking / Evidence Score

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 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 CDROM with offenders who might find written material problematic. Score

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 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. Score

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 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. Score

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 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. Score

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 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 selfmotivating statements. Score

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 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). Method of Checking / Evidence Score

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 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. Score

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 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. Method of Checking / Evidence Score

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: Programme summary Attendance and Participation Progress made Areas for Improvement and Potentially risky situations Suggestions for further work Participant’s comments Evidence required Method of Checking / Evidence 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. Score

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 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. Method of Checking / Evidence Score

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

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 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. Method of Checking / Evidence Score

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 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. Score

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

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 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. Score

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 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. Method of Checking / Evidence Score

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 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. Method of Checking / Evidence Score

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: Assessing and matching offenders appropriately to programmes. Tackling discrimination to overcome obstacles to the successful and beneficial completion of a programme. Programme staff conduct induction, pre and post programme work, programme sessions in an antidiscriminatory way. This includes challenging inappropriate behaviour, ensuring that obstacles to participation and learning are effectively dealt with. 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 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) Method of Checking / Evidence • Area documentation, including annual business plan, training strategy, policy statements and relevant senior management/divisional management minutes. • Annual business plan. • “What Works” strategy. • Targets in above documents. • Other documentation, including copies of presentations made by senior managers to staff groups and guidance issued to staff. • Dates of context setting days with attendance lists and job titles. • Attendance list for new staff with dates of events. (CONTINUED) Scoring Score 2 90% of evidence including 1-3 must be present. Score 1 65% to 89% of evidence including any two of evidence 1-3 must be present. Score 0 Less than 65% of evidence. None of evidence 1-3 is present.

Accredited Programmes Individual Self Assessment Guidance

4

A 1.1 Committed Leadership Continued Evidence required 6. New staff had attended context setting days. 7. Communication with all staff in support of service delivery. For example: Team meeting minutes, Newsletters, 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: Regular team meeting minutes. Method of Checking / Evidence • Minutes of five meetings during the last 12 months. • Copies of internal bulletins. • Copies of e-mails to the whole of the service. • Minutes of five meetings during the last year. • Evidence of public statements & resource allocations for the current financial year. Scoring

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 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: Treatment Managers regular input at team meetings, Mechanism for interaction of programme delivery staff and Case Managers, Regular programme management meetings. Method of Checking / Evidence • Area documentation, including organisational charts. • Job descriptions for all staff. • Five sets of relevant minutes during the last 12 months indicating attendance. Scoring Score 2 Evidence 1-3. Score 1 Evidence (any two). Score 0 Fewer than two evidence points.

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

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

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 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) Method of Checking / Evidence Physical description of the interview rooms, at each location, including size, equipment and facilities. Scoring Score 2 The interview rooms at 75% and above locations met the evidence required. If these requirements have not been met, but there is evidence that plans are in place to bring any deficiency up to standard within 3 months the criterion can be considered fully met. Score 1 The interview rooms at 50% - 74% of the locations met the requirements. Score 0 The interview rooms at less than 50% 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 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) Scoring

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 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). Method of Checking / Evidence • Copies of leaflets, for offenders, sentencers and staff. • Contents of leaflets. • Case records indicate offender has received the leaflet(s), including when they were given. (QMT Case File Reading Form Question 12). Scoring Score 2 In 75% and above cases programme specific copies of leaflets are available to staff, sentencers and offenders. In addition the leaflets must contain the following: • compliance, • enforcement, • complaints procedures, • 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. (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 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) Method of Checking / Evidence • Area documentation on enforcement of attendance and enhancing completion rates. • IAPS database or local equivalent. • Attendance registers, showing starters, dropouts and completion rates. • Case records. QMT Case File Reading Form Question 17. Scoring Score 2 In 90% and above cases all of the following elements have been achieved: • The attendance register indicates that only the permitted number of absences from the programme has been allowed. • When appropriate letters have been sent out to offenders in line with National Standards relating to attendance. • There is evidence of good liaison between programme staff and Case Managers. (CONTINUED)

Accredited Programmes Individual Self Assessment Guidance

13

B2.1 Managing attendance Continued Evidence required 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. Method of Checking / Evidence Scoring Score 1 In 65% - 89% of cases the required elements have been achieved. Where an attendance register is not maintained the score should be 0, even if there is good communication between programme staff and Case Managers. 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 1. Frequency of sessions conforms to • Review post-session and Postrequirements of the accredited Programme Reports. 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. Scoring Score 2 In 75% and above cases all of the following elements have been achieved: • Tutors have successfully delivered sessions in line with the programme manual. • There is a Tutor back-up system in place, which provides cover during times of sickness absence, or annual leave. • Sessions are only cancelled in 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 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. Method of Checking / Evidence • Check timeliness of commencements and completions via IAPS database or local equivalent. • QMT Case File Reading Form Question 13,14 and 15. Scoring Score 2 In 90% and above cases, evidence 1 and 2 achieved. Score 1 In 65% - 89% of cases, evidence 1 and 2 achieved. Score 0 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 1. Potential Tutors receive written • Area training documentation, e.g. information about what is involved in information for potential Tutors, running the accredited programme selection / deselection policies and from the Programme Manager procedures. and/or the Treatment Manager. • IAPS database or local equivalent 2. Assessment centre procedures exist or personnel / training and are followed. documentation confirming 3. Written policy confirming that only assessment centre and training those staff who meet the defined dates for each Tutor and outcomes. criteria, e.g. fully trained by accredited trainers, deliver the programme. 4. Written policy outlining how staff not selected, as Tutors will be assisted. Scoring Score 2 In 90% and above all of the following elements have been achieved: • Staff selection procedures are followed, including the provision of written information to candidates. • Assessment centres meet the requisite criteria. • There is a written policy outlining who can deliver a programme. • There is a deselection policy. 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 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 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. Method of Checking / Evidence • Job descriptions. • Appraisal / supervision notes. • Area documentation outlining the core competencies for each staff role. • Cross-referencing the competencies against the programme manual and national management manual where appropriate. Scoring Score 2 In 75% and above cases both of the following elements have been achieved: • Programme staff including Programme Managers, Treatment Managers and Tutors have been provided with competency-based job descriptions based on relevant occupational standards, commensurate with their roles and national management manual requirements. • All three groups of staff are able to 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 1. IAPS database or local equivalent record completed following each session of the programme. Method of Checking / Evidence • IAPS database or local equivalent indicating time spent on preparation and debriefing. • Notes of preparation and debriefing meetings. • Facilitator /Tutor Session Review Form completed after every session. Scoring Score 2 In 75% and above cases all of the following elements have been achieved: • The IAPS database or local equivalent record shows 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 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 1. Published staff rotas and caseload • IAPS database or local equivalent records to ensure that programme confirming names of Tutors for each staff have the workload capacity to programme. deliver each session of the • IAPS database or local equivalent to programme. check Tutor attendance against the 2. Session reports demonstrate session evaluation forms. continuity of staff Tutors. 3. Planning meetings discussing staffing for each programme, including contingency arrangements and cover for scheduled leave. Scoring Score 2 In 75% and above the IAPS database or local equivalent confirms that there is an established system of assigning a minimum of three Tutors to each programme, with the third Tutor providing back-up cover. Score 1 In 50% - 74% the requirements have 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 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. Equal access to training programme for all staff, 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. Method of Checking / Evidence • IAPS database or local equivalent confirming that programme specific training has taken place. • Area documentation listing the training undertaken by programme staff during the last 12 months. • Attendance list for training events within last 12 months. • Sample of supervision notes of programme staff. • Dates of events during the last 12 months. Scoring Score 2 Evidence 1 &2 must be present. Score 1 One piece of evidence. Score 0 No piece of evidence.

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 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. Method of Checking / Evidence Scoring Score 2 • IAPS database or local equivalent Evidence 1-3 or 1 and 3 if it can be listing training undertaken by delivery staff and those identified for evidenced that 2 is not available. booster training where appropriate. Score 1 • Area training plan. Evidence (any two) or one if it can be • Date of anticipated 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 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. Programme manuals readily available to all staff for reference. Method of Checking / Evidence • Evidence of assessment on Tutors from training section. • Documentation accessible to all staff. Scoring Score 2 All evidence present. Score 1 One piece of evidence present. Score 0 No evidence present.

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 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. Method of Checking / Evidence • Area training plan. • Training reviews for all relevant staff. • Video monitoring forms completed by Treatment Manager. • Observation forms. • Appraisal and review of appraisal on appropriate staff. Scoring Score 2 Evidence 1-3. Score 1 Evidence (any two). Score 0 Fewer than two evidence points.

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 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. Method of Checking / Evidence • Video tapes available to match with forms. • Five video monitoring forms completed by the Treatment Manager covering one set from five different Tutors during the past 12 months outlining the strengths and areas for improvement. Scoring Score 2 All evidence present. Score 1 One piece of evidence present. Score 0 No evidence present.

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 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. Method of Checking / Evidence • Appraisal documents of staff. • Video monitoring forms available. • Where applicable plan is available. • Records from training section regarding remedial action. • Policy available. • Details available of staff deselected. Scoring Score 2 75% of evidence including 1. Score 1 50% to 74% of evidence including 1. Score 0 Less than 50% of evidence.

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 1. Use of approved targeting matrix for • Area documentation, including the programme that measures: targeting matrix and OASys offender’s criminogenic needs, documents. Area documentation risk of reoffending. should also include written 2. Use of OASys. statements about exclusion criteria. 3. Use of evaluation monitoring from • Check IAPS database or local IAPS or local equivalent. equivalent to ensure profile is 4. Written guidance on grounds for consistent with offender’s needs, exclusion. level of risk of reoffending and risk of harm/dangerousness • QMT Case File Reading Form Question 11. Scoring Score 2 If 90% and above offenders who commenced the programme conform to the eligibility and suitability criteria of the programme as assessed by OASys. Score 1 If 65 - 89% conform. Score 0 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 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. Method of Checking / Evidence • IAPS database or local equivalent confirms that offenders have signed the letter of understanding. • Case records confirm that the requirements of the programme have been explained to the offender on at least 2 occasions (QMT Case File Reading Form Question 12). Scoring The requirements of the programme have been clearly communicated to the offender on at least 2 occasions and there is signed consent from the offender. Score 2 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 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 CDROM with offenders who might find written material problematic. Method of Checking / Evidence • IAPS database or local equivalent to check which Tutors ran the programme against the offender composition of the group. • Area Policy/practice documents. • Notes of programme planning meetings demonstrating attention has been given in advance to staff composition and to the arrangements to support offenders. • Feedback from all women or minority ethnic offenders obtained prior to commencement and on completion of the programme. (A minimum of five pieces of feedback). • QMT Case File Reading Form Question 28. Scoring A written area policy is available detailing expectations and support that should be made available. This will include an instruction that if an individual programme is to be delivered to a woman or minority ethnic offender then careful consideration will be given to which Tutor is assigned to that offender. When an individual programme is delivered to a woman or minority ethnic offender there will be evidence that the offender has been appropriately supported and that their feedback has been sought Score 2 This standard has been achieved in 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 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. Method of Checking / Evidence • Area policy document and relevant guidelines available. • IAPS database or local equivalent completed fully and accurately. • Individual and summary reports from the database have been circulated to relevant managers and practitioners. Scoring An Area policy document including appropriate guidelines is available. Following each completed programme there is evidence that individual and summary reports from IAPS database or local equivalent have been circulated to relevant Managers and practitioners Feedback reports have been circulated. Score 2 90% and above of offenders. Score 1 65-89% and above of offenders. Score 0 Less than 65 % of offenders.

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 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. Method of Checking / Evidence • Minutes of senior managers meetings held during the last 12 months. • Minutes of operational managers meetings held during the last 12 months. • Minutes of programme staff meetings held during the last 12 months. • Evidence (e.g. meeting notes, reformulated policy or practice guidance) that area practice has been improved in the light of information from other areas operating the same programme. Scoring Score 2 Evidence that area practice has been improved in the light of information from other areas operating the same programme. Minutes of senior managers held during the last 12 months. Minutes of operational managers meetings held during the last 12 months. Minutes of programme staff meetings held during the last 12 months. Score 1 Where 1 of the above elements is missing. 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 1. Material covered in the correct • Monitoring of videotapes by Area order. Assessors. (Video Monitoring Form 2. Exercises set up and run correctly. – Revised Section 1 Adherence to 3. Exercises run to time. Programme Manual). 4. Exercises explained properly. • Treatment Manager videotape 5. Inappropriate extras not added. monitoring returns. 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. Scoring The average score for the videotapes viewed by Area Assessors for Section 1 was: Score 2 4 or above. Score 1 3. Score 0 Less than 3.

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 1. Use of open questions to facilitate • Treatment Manager monitoring learning. returns. 2. Listening and allowing for answers. • Monitoring of videotapes by Area 3. Summarises points and reflects Assessors. (Video Monitoring Form back. – Revised Section 2 Adherence to 4. Challenges offence-supporting Treatment Style). 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 selfmotivating statements. Scoring The average score for the videotapes viewed by Area Assessors for Section 2 was: Score 2 4 or above. Score 1 3. Score 0 Less than 3.

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 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). Method of Checking / Evidence • Monitoring of tapes by Area Assessors (Video Monitoring Form – Revised Section 3). • Treatment Manager monitoring returns. • Supervision notes of sessions covering one set from 5 different Tutors during the last 12 months and team meetings 5 during the last 12 months with Treatment Manager / Programme Manager and Tutors recording discussion of delivery issues. Scoring Score 2 The average score for the videotapes viewed by Area Assessors for Section 3 was 4 or above In addition over 75% of supervision / feedback notes of sessions and team meeting minutes indicate that delivery issues are discussed as a standing agenda item. Score 1 The average score for the videotapes viewed by Area Assessors for Section 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 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. Method of Checking / Evidence • Monitoring of tapes by Area Assessors, to check that diversity issues are effectively addressed. (Video Monitoring Form – Revised Section 2d Challenges offencesupporting / anti-social views? [includes racist and sexist behaviour]). • Policy / practice documents promoting diversity issues in the delivery of accredited programmes. • Supervision notes covering one set from 5 different Tutors, two sets each from different Programme and Treatment Manager during the last 12 months. • QMT Case File Reading Form Question 28. Scoring Score 2 In 90% and above cases all of the following elements have been achieved: • Of the videotapes viewed by Area Assessors the average score for each Tutor for Section 2d was 4 or above. • Managers demonstrated that diversity issues had been addressed when allocating participants to a group. • Programme Manager, Treatment Manager and Tutor supervision notes show that race equality and wider diversity issues are a standing item for discussion. (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 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. Method of Checking / Evidence • Programme Session Review Form. • Monitoring of videotapes by Area Assessors, to assess the accuracy of judgements about the session, e.g. level of offender engagement. • Supervision notes one set from 5 different Tutors during the last 12 months. Scoring Score 2 In 75% and above cases all of the following elements have been achieved: • Of the videotapes viewed by Area Assessors there was concordance between the levels of participant 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: Programme summary Attendance and Participation Progress made Areas for Improvement and Potentially risky situations Suggestions for further work Participant’s comments Evidence required Method of Checking / Evidence 1. Post-Programme Reports for Case • Sample of Post-Programme Manager demonstrating that these Reports. 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. Scoring Score 2 In 90% and above of cases all of the following elements have been achieved: • The Post-Programme Reports were prepared using the standard format. • 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. (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 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. Method of Checking / Evidence • QMT Case File Reading Form Questions 7, 8, 9 & 10. Scoring The supervision plan is based on an OASys assessment and integrates the programme into the overall plan of work for the offender. SMART objectives relevant to the programme are set and regularly reviewed. Score 2 Standards are fully met in 75% and above 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 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 1. Evidence of consistent attendance at the 3 way meetings by Case Managers, programme Tutors and offenders. Method of Checking / Evidence • IAPS database or local equivalent for attendance by Case Managers at end of programme review. • QMT Case File Reading Form Questions 22 & 23. Scoring Score 2 In 90% and above cases there is evidence of action points following the post programme review meeting 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 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. Method of Checking / Evidence • Discussion of an offender’s homework assignments and of difficulties that could prevent his/her attendance on the programme. • Case records demonstrating preparation and motivational work (QMT Case File Reading Form Question 13). • Evidence from case record of discussion of an offender’s homework assignments (QMT Case File Reading Form Question 21). • Evidence from the case record demonstrating ongoing work by the Case Manager in addressing obstacles to attendance (QMT Case File Reading Form Question 20). Scoring Case records will demonstrate that the Case Manager has: -undertaken all of the required preparation and motivational work, -reinforced learning during the programme, in particular by discussion of the offender’s homework requirements, -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. (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 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. Method of Checking / Evidence • Documentary evidence that Case Managers have attended the relevant training appropriate to the programme. • Supervision notes one set from five different Case Managers. • Appraisal documents from five different Case Managers evidencing understanding and knowledge of programme methods. • Area training strategy. Scoring Score 2 There is an area training strategy. At least 90% or above Case Managers have attended the relevant training appropriate to the programme. At least 75% of supervision notes evidence understanding and knowledge of programme methods. 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 1. Area policy and guidance documents on enforcement conform to the requirements of National Standards. 2. Case records that note an offender’s attendance/ noncompliance and any necessary enforcement action. 3. Action on enforcement takes place within agreed National Standards timetable. Method of Checking / Evidence • Case records (QMT Case File Reading Form Questions 18 & 19). • Area enforcement policy. • IAPS database or local equivalent to identify offender’s compliance/ noncompliance with the most recent three completed programmes. Scoring There is an Area enforcement policy and case records evidence that any absence either from the programme or the order as a whole is enforced in line with the Area enforcement policy and National Standards. Score 2 90% and above. 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 1. Case records containing all relevant • IAPS database or local equivalent. documentation e.g. pre-work • Case records (QMT Case File conducted, post – programme Reading Form Question 27). reports, attendance levels etc. 2. Timely and accurate IAPS database or local equivalent returns. Scoring Case file contains all relevant documentation Score 2 In 75% and above cases. 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 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. Method of Checking / Evidence • Case records (QMT Case File Reading Form Questions 24, 25 & 26). Scoring The supervision plan review is clearly influenced by the post programme report, identifies supervision objectives in relation to factors not sufficiently covered by the programme, and pays appropriate attention to community reintegration issues. SMART objectives relevant to the programme are set. 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 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 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. Method of Checking / Evidence • Area guidance on the role of the Case Manager in reinforcing programme learning. • Where booster/relapse prevention work is required by the programme, evidence from IAPS database or local equivalent that this is delivered by appropriately trained staff. • Case records demonstrate reinforcement of learning by Case Managers (QMT Case File Reading Form Question 21). Scoring Area documentation defining Case Manager role. Where booster/relapse prevention work is required by the programme, evidence from IAPS database or local equivalent that this is delivered by appropriately trained staff. Case records demonstrate reinforcement of learning by Case Managers (QMT Case File Reading 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: Assessing and matching offenders appropriately to programmes. Tackling discrimination to overcome obstacles to the successful and beneficial completion of a programme. Programme staff conduct induction, pre and post programme work, programme sessions in an antidiscriminatory way. This includes challenging inappropriate behaviour, ensuring that obstacles to participation and learning are effectively dealt with. 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: 4. Date of birth (day/month/year): 5. Supervision Type: Community Rehabilitation Order Community Punishment & Rehabilitation Order Community Rehabilitation with Requirements Community Punishment & Rehabilitation with Requirements Licence Drug Testing and Treatment Orders Y Y Y Y Y Y M/F

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 7. Does the supervision plan integrate the programme within the overall plan of work for this offender? {D1.1} 8. Were SMART objectives in relation to the programme set for this offender and are they recorded in the initial supervision plan? {D1.1} 9. Have these objectives been regularly reviewed in supervision plans? {D1.1}

COMMENT

SCORE

2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 n/a 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0

10. Does the supervision plan contain evidence of assessments based on OASys? {D1.1} 11. Does the OGRS 2/OASys score fall within the agreed targeting matrix? {B6.1} Please state what the score is. 12. Does the case record show that the requirements of the programme have been communicated to the offender on at least 2 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 manager has undertaken all of the required pre-programme work with the offender? {B2.4} {D1.3} 14. Was the offender scheduled to start the programme (i.e. attend the psychometric testing session) within 1 calendar month of sentence/licence? {B2.4} 15. If the offender was not scheduled to start the programme within a month of sentence, are the reasons explicitly documented in the case record, and do they relate to necessary work to be undertaken before he/she can commence the programme? {B2.4} 16. Does the case record clearly show whether an offender has attended the catch-up sessions that were arranged for him/her? {B2.3}

2 1 0 2 n/a 2 1 0 n/a 2 1 0 n/a

Self-Assessment of Accredited Programmes

17. Is there evidence from the records of communication between programme staff and Case Manager in decision making regarding acceptable and unacceptable absences of the offender? {B2.1} 18. Is programme attendance monitored against other attendance in a consistent and integrated way? {D1.5} 19. Did enforcement in relation to programme attendance (including pre and post sessions) take place within the agreed timescales under National Standards? {D1.5} 20. Does the case record demonstrate on-going work done by the Case Manager in addressing problems such as an offender’s attitude, their participation in the 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 Case Manager has reinforced learning during the programme, e.g. discussion of an offender’s homework assignments? {D1.3} {D1.8} 22. Is there evidence of liaison between the Case Manager and programme Tutor? {D1.2} POST PROGRAMME WORK 23. Did the Case Manager attend the 3-way meeting - post-programme review? {D1.2} 24. Is there evidence that the post-programme report influenced the supervision plan review, and does it identify supervision objectives in relation to factors not sufficiently covered by the programme? {D1.7} 25. Were SMART objectives linked to post programme work set in the supervision plan review? {D1.7} 26. Does the case record show that attention has been paid to community reintegration following the end of the programme? {D1.7}

2 1 0

2 1 0 2 1 0 n/a 2 1 0 n/a

2 1 0 n/a 2 1 0 n/a 2 0 n/a 2 1 0 n/a

2 1 0 n/a 2 1 0 n/a

Self-Assessment of Accredited Programmes

27. Does the case record show that all relevant documentation has been completed/is contained within the case file? {D1.6} 28. Were diversity issues managed well for this offender in terms of both accessibility and support before, during and after the programme? {B6.4, C1.4} ({B6.3 Individual programmes only})

2 1 0 2 1 0 n/a

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: 4. Date of birth (day/month/year): 5. Supervision Type: Community Rehabilitation Order Community Punishment & Rehabilitation Order Community Rehabilitation with Requirements Community Punishment & Rehabilitation with Requirements Licence Drug Testing and Treatment Orders 6. Is this a case from a register of offenders who pose a risk of causing serious harm to the public? Y Y Y Y Y Y Y/N M/F

Self-Assessment of Accredited Programmes

QUESTION 7. Does the supervision plan integrate the programme within the overall plan of work for this offender? {D1.1} 8. Were SMART objectives in relation to the programme set for this offender and are they recorded in the initial supervision plan? {D1.1} 9. Have these objectives been regularly reviewed in supervision plans? {D1.1} 10. Does the supervision plan contain evidence of assessments based on OASys? {D1.1} 11. Does the case fall within the agreed targeting matrix for the specific programme(s) being reviewed? {B6.1} Please state what the score(s) are.

COMMENT Fully integrated objectives where aims of the programme are woven into the aims of supervision = 2 Mention, and some attempt to link the needs of the offender with programme attendance = 1 Where an objective is simply ‘programme attendance’, or where there is no mention = 0 Fully SMART = 2 Most objectives SMART = 1 Objectives set, but not SMART = 0 Supervision plans should be reviewed every 4 months. If case is less than 4 months old, score n/a. To score 2, objectives in relation to the programme should have been reviewed. To score 2, the plan should have clearly been influenced by OASys. Where it has been used (e.g. noted on plan) but has not been utilised to inform the plan, score 1. Does the case fall within the appropriate level of risk for the programme e.g. TF cases should be between 31% and 74% OGRS or Medium Risk of Reconviction on OASys One, Two, or One and Two. 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. To score 2, a copy of statement of understanding should be on file (signed and dated), and a separate discussion of requirements on a different occasion be recorded on the contact log. Dates of both events should be post sentence. If one or other present, score 1.

SCORE

12. Does the case record show that the requirements of the programme have been communicated to the offender on at least 2 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)? {B6.2} 13. Does the case record show that the case manager has undertaken all of the required preprogramme work with the offender? {D1.3}

Score on the basis not of quality of work, but on the fact that it happened. For TF 2 distinct sessions of work in first 4 weeks, preferably recorded as ‘pre-group session’ = 2. Sequence is not important as long as 2 sessions and pre meeting take place within 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. Only score 2 if within month, otherwise n/a. Please note order/licence start and date of psychometric testing in the comment box. If n/a, please go to next question (15). If score is 2, go to question 16.

14. Was the offender scheduled to start the programme (i.e. attend the psychometric testing session) within 1 calendar month of sentence/licence? {B2.4}

Self-Assessment of Accredited Programmes

15. If the offender was not scheduled to start the programme within a month of sentence, are the reasons explicitly documented in the case record, and do they relate to necessary work to be undertaken before he/she can commence the programme? {B2.4} 16. Does the case record clearly show whether an offender has attended the catch-up sessions that were arranged for him/her? {B2.3} 17. Is there evidence from the records of communication between programme staff and Case Manager in decision making regarding acceptable and unacceptable absences of the offender? {B2.1} 18. Is programme attendance monitored against other attendance in a consistent and integrated way? {D1.5}

Only score if previous answer was n/a. Reasons for delaying the start of the programme need to be clearly recorded AND relate to offender need to score 2. For example, if assistance with substance misuse is needed before programme can start, you should be able to find evidence of this such as an assessment, referral to a partnership. Score 1 if there are documented reasons for the delay but insufficiently determined execution by the Case Manager. Score 0 if the reasons for delay are organisational (no programme scheduled within the month) or no obvious reason for delay. This should be visible on the contact log or attendance log on case record (and available to the Case Manager).

This is evidenced by records of communication between programme staff and Case Manager. Score 2 if there is evidence of communication for all acceptable / unacceptable absences. Score 1 if there was communication in 65% of absences. Score 0 below 65% of absences.

Other attendance includes CP element of CPRO. To score a 2, there needs to be integration between the various elements of the order, programme and Case Manager appointments, as well as community 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. National Standards requirements: enquiry within 2 days by Case Manager/tutor Warning after 7 days if reason not provided/accepted If absences are not clearly designated acceptable or unacceptable, count as unacceptable. Breach action initiated within 10 days of 2nd failure, or 3rd in licence cases. To score 2, look for proactive contact, whatever the local policy re frequency of contact. (But make a note where local policy is relevant). Prompt response to crisis or problems, score 1. Score n/a if there are no difficulties with the offender’s attitude etc which would require Case Manager action. (The following question deals with Case Manager reinforcement of learning)

19. Did enforcement in relation to programme attendance (including pre and post-sessions) take place within the agreed timescales under National Standards? {D1.5} 20. Does the case record demonstrate on-going work done by the Case Manager in addressing problems such as an offender’s attitude, their participation in the 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 Case Manager has reinforced learning during the programme, e.g. discussion of an offender’s homework assignments? {D1.3}

To score 2 there should be planned Case Manager appointments during the programme looking at the work, which has taken place in the group, i.e. is proactive. Score 1 using meetings, which are in response to crisis, to practise skills learned in the group i.e. is reactive. Score 0 where no specific work is undertaken.

Self-Assessment of Accredited Programmes

22. Is there evidence of liaison between the Case Manager and programme tutor? {D1.2} POST PROGRAMME WORK 23. Did the Case Manager attend the 3-way meeting - post-programme review? {D1.2} 24. Is there evidence that the postprogramme report influenced the supervision plan review, and does it identify supervision objectives in relation to factors not sufficiently covered by the programme? {D1.7} 25. Were SMART objectives linked to post programme work set in the supervision plan review? {D1.7} 26. Does the case record show that attention has been paid to community reintegration following the end of the programme? {D1.7} 27. Does the case record show that all relevant documentation has been completed/is contained within the case file? {D1.6}

Look for evidence of timely and relevant exchange of information both ways, and arrangements about which both case manager and programme staff are clear. (NB Attendance at final 3-way meeting is assessed below).

If the end of the group work programme has not been reached score n/a. You cannot score 1 here. Look for use of objectives identified in the PPR for a 2 score. If the review contains objectives, which consolidate or reinforce learning from the programme, then score 2. If some of the PPR objectives have been translated into supervision objectives, score 1.

If prior to the 4 month time frame, score n/a See Q8 for scoring Have the offender’s criminogenic needs been addressed? Has a link been made between skills learned during the programme and community reintegration: employment, basic skills, accommodation etc. Score 2 where this is clearly planned/ has happened. Score 1 where there is some identification of such work. Score according to what should be on file at this stage in the order. Look for targeting matrix, letter of understanding, evaluation & monitoring tool, OGRS score, supervision plans, post programme report. Score 0 if none of these are completed/contained in the record; 1 if some are, 2 if all are. Consider all aspects of diversity, including race, gender, disability, sexual orientation, literacy and mental health. Score 2 if there is clear evidence that the issues have been identified and that arrangements, e.g. singleton placements, support, etc. have been discussed with the offender and programmes team and action has been taken. 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.

28. Were diversity issues managed well for this offender in terms of both accessibility and support before, during and after the programme? {B6.4, C1.4} ({B6.3 Individual programmes only})

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: 4. Date of birth (day/month/year): 5. Supervision Type: Community Rehabilitation Order Community Punishment & Rehabilitation Order Community Rehabilitation with Requirements Community Punishment & Rehabilitation with Requirements Licence Drug Testing and Treatment Orders 6. Is this a case from a register of offenders who pose a risk of causing serious harm to the public? Y Y Y Y Y Y Y/N M/F

Self-Assessment of Accredited Programmes

QUESTION 7. Does the supervision plan integrate the programme within the overall plan of work for this offender? {D1.1} 8. Were SMART objectives in relation to the programme set for this offender and are they recorded in the initial supervision plan? {D1.1} 9. Have these objectives been regularly reviewed in supervision plans? {D1.1} 10. Does the supervision plan contain evidence of assessments based on OASys? {D1.1} 11. Does the case fall within the agreed targeting matrix for the specific programme(s) being reviewed? {B6.1} Please state what the score(s) are.

COMMENT Fully integrated objectives where aims of the programme are woven into the aims of supervision = 2 Mention, and some attempt to link the needs of the offender with programme attendance = 1 Where an objective is simply ‘programme attendance’, or where there is no mention = 0 Fully SMART = 2 Most objectives SMART = 1 Objectives set, but not SMART = 0 Supervision plans should be reviewed every 4 months. If case is less than 4 months old, score n/a. To score 2, objectives in relation to the programme should have been reviewed. To score 2, the plan should have clearly been influenced by OASys. Where it has been used (e.g. noted on plan) but has not been utilised to inform the plan, score 1. Does the case fall within the appropriate level of risk for the programme e.g. TF cases should be between 31% and 74% OGRS or Medium Risk of Reconviction on OASys One, Two, or One and Two. 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. To score 2, a copy of statement of understanding should be on file (signed and dated), and a separate discussion of requirements on a different occasion be recorded on the contact log. Dates of both events should be post sentence. If one or other present, score 1.

SCORE

12. Does the case record show that the requirements of the programme have been communicated to the offender on at least 2 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)? {B6.2} 13. Does the case record show that the case manager has undertaken all of the required preprogramme work with the offender? {D1.3}

Score on the basis not of quality of work, but on the fact that it happened. For TF 2 distinct sessions of work in first 4 weeks, preferably recorded as ‘pre-group session’ = 2. Sequence is not important as long as 2 sessions and pre meeting take place within 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. Only score 2 if within month, otherwise n/a. Please note order/licence start and date of psychometric testing in the comment box. If n/a, please go to next question (15). If score is 2, go to question 16.

14. Was the offender scheduled to start the programme (i.e. attend the psychometric testing session) within 1 calendar month of sentence/licence? {B2.4}

Self-Assessment of Accredited Programmes

15. If the offender was not scheduled to start the programme within a month of sentence, are the reasons explicitly documented in the case record, and do they relate to necessary work to be undertaken before he/she can commence the programme? {B2.4} 16. Does the case record clearly show whether an offender has attended the catch-up sessions that were arranged for him/her? {B2.3} 17. Is there evidence from the records of communication between programme staff and Case Manager in decision making regarding acceptable and unacceptable absences of the offender? {B2.1} 18. Is programme attendance monitored against other attendance in a consistent and integrated way? {D1.5}

Only score if previous answer was n/a. Reasons for delaying the start of the programme need to be clearly recorded AND relate to offender need to score 2. For example, if assistance with substance misuse is needed before programme can start, you should be able to find evidence of this such as an assessment, referral to a partnership. Score 1 if there are documented reasons for the delay but insufficiently determined execution by the Case Manager. Score 0 if the reasons for delay are organisational (no programme scheduled within the month) or no obvious reason for delay. This should be visible on the contact log or attendance log on case record (and available to the Case Manager).

This is evidenced by records of communication between programme staff and Case Manager. Score 2 if there is evidence of communication for all acceptable / unacceptable absences. Score 1 if there was communication in 65% of absences. Score 0 below 65% of absences.

Other attendance includes CP element of CPRO. To score a 2, there needs to be integration between the various elements of the order, programme and Case Manager appointments, as well as community 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. National Standards requirements: enquiry within 2 days by Case Manager/tutor Warning after 7 days if reason not provided/accepted If absences are not clearly designated acceptable or unacceptable, count as unacceptable. Breach action initiated within 10 days of 2nd failure, or 3rd in licence cases. To score 2, look for proactive contact, whatever the local policy re frequency of contact. (But make a note where local policy is relevant). Prompt response to crisis or problems, score 1. Score n/a if there are no difficulties with the offender’s attitude etc which would require Case Manager action. (The following question deals with Case Manager reinforcement of learning)

19. Did enforcement in relation to programme attendance (including pre and post-sessions) take place within the agreed timescales under National Standards? {D1.5} 20. Does the case record demonstrate on-going work done by the Case Manager in addressing problems such as an offender’s attitude, their participation in the 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 Case Manager has reinforced learning during the programme, e.g. discussion of an offender’s homework assignments? {D1.3}

To score 2 there should be planned Case Manager appointments during the programme looking at the work, which has taken place in the group, i.e. is proactive. Score 1 using meetings, which are in response to crisis, to practise skills learned in the group i.e. is reactive. Score 0 where no specific work is undertaken.

Self-Assessment of Accredited Programmes

22. Is there evidence of liaison between the Case Manager and programme tutor? {D1.2} POST PROGRAMME WORK 23. Did the Case Manager attend the 3-way meeting - post-programme review? {D1.2} 24. Is there evidence that the postprogramme report influenced the supervision plan review, and does it identify supervision objectives in relation to factors not sufficiently covered by the programme? {D1.7} 25. Were SMART objectives linked to post programme work set in the supervision plan review? {D1.7} 26. Does the case record show that attention has been paid to community reintegration following the end of the programme? {D1.7} 27. Does the case record show that all relevant documentation has been completed/is contained within the case file? {D1.6}

Look for evidence of timely and relevant exchange of information both ways, and arrangements about which both case manager and programme staff are clear. (NB Attendance at final 3-way meeting is assessed below).

If the end of the group work programme has not been reached score n/a. You cannot score 1 here. Look for use of objectives identified in the PPR for a 2 score. If the review contains objectives, which consolidate or reinforce learning from the programme, then score 2. If some of the PPR objectives have been translated into supervision objectives, score 1.

If prior to the 4 month time frame, score n/a See Q8 for scoring Have the offender’s criminogenic needs been addressed? Has a link been made between skills learned during the programme and community reintegration: employment, basic skills, accommodation etc. Score 2 where this is clearly planned/ has happened. Score 1 where there is some identification of such work. Score according to what should be on file at this stage in the order. Look for targeting matrix, letter of understanding, evaluation & monitoring tool, OGRS score, supervision plans, post programme report. Score 0 if none of these are completed/contained in the record; 1 if some are, 2 if all are. Consider all aspects of diversity, including race, gender, disability, sexual orientation, literacy and mental health. Score 2 if there is clear evidence that the issues have been identified and that arrangements, e.g. singleton placements, support, etc. have been discussed with the offender and programmes team and action has been taken. 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.

28. Were diversity issues managed well for this offender in terms of both accessibility and support before, during and after the programme? {B6.4, C1.4} ({B6.3 Individual programmes only})

Some additional notes: Scoring: 2 = criterion is fully met; 1 = largely met; 0 = not met.

Area A1.1 A1.2 A1.3 A1.4 B1.1 B1.2 B2.1 B2.2 B2.3 B2.4 B3.1 B3.2 B3.3 B3.4 B4.1 B4.2 B4.3 B4.4 B4.5 B4.6 B5.1 B5.2 B6.1 B6.2 B6.3 B6.4 B7.1 B7.2 C1.1 C1.2 C1.3 C1.4 C1.5 C1.6 D1.1 D1.2 D1.3 D1.4 D1.5 D1.6 D1.7 D1.8 Totals

Score

Group Totals

Score 0

Score 1

Score 2

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0 0 0 0 0 0

Area A1.1 A1.2 A1.3 A1.4 B1.1 B1.2 B2.1 B2.2 B2.3 B2.4 B3.1 B3.2 B3.3 B3.4 B4.1 B4.2 B4.3 B4.4 B4.5 B4.6 B5.1 B5.2 B6.1 B6.2 B6.3 B6.4 B7.1 B7.2 C1.1 C1.2 C1.3 C1.4 C1.5 C1.6 D1.1 D1.2 D1.3 D1.4 D1.5 D1.6 D1.7 D1.8 Totals

Score 1 1 1 1

Group Totals

Score 0

4

Score 1 1 1 1 1

Score 2

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0 4 4 0 4 0

Area A1.1 A1.2 A1.3 A1.4 B1.1 B1.2 B2.1 B2.2 B2.3 B2.4 B3.1 B3.2 B3.3 B3.4 B4.1 B4.2 B4.3 B4.4 B4.5 B4.6 B5.1 B5.2 B6.1 B6.2 B6.3 B6.4 B7.1 B7.2 C1.1 C1.2 C1.3 C1.4 C1.5 C1.6 D1.1 D1.2 D1.3 D1.4 D1.5 D1.6 D1.7 D1.8 Totals

Score 1 1 1 1

Group Totals

Score 0

4

Score 1 1 1 1 1

Score 2

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0 4 4 0 4 0

Area A1.1 A1.2 A1.3 A1.4 B1.1 B1.2 B2.1 B2.2 B2.3 B2.4 B3.1 B3.2 B3.3 B3.4 B4.1 B4.2 B4.3 B4.4 B4.5 B4.6 B5.1 B5.2 B6.1 B6.2 B6.3 B6.4 B7.1 B7.2 C1.1 C1.2 C1.3 C1.4 C1.5 C1.6 D1.1 D1.2 D1.3 D1.4 D1.5 D1.6 D1.7 D1.8 Totals

Score

Group Totals

Score 0

Score 1

Score 2

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0 0 0 0 0 0