You are on page 1of 49

NATIONAL STANDARDS Probation

MONITORING
PURPOSE
Circular
To inform areas of new arrangements to 'streamline' the monitoring of REFERENCE NO:
National Standards.
24/2004

ACTION ISSUE DATE:


Areas are requested to implement these changes from May.
30/04/04
SUMMARY
IMPLEMENTATION DATE:
In order to reduce bureaucracy and free up management time for
supervision, NPD is reducing the amount of information it collects from areas 1 May 2004
in the monthly monitoring of National Standards. From the May data period
onwards we will only require core information necessary for reporting EXPIRY DATE:
performance on matters such as enforcement, compliance and contact. May 2009
Monitoring of other, supporting information will become optional and areas
can collect this for their own purposes as and when they wish.
TO:
Further details are provided in Annex A. Revised monitoring forms and Chairs of Probation Boards
guidance are attached as Appendices 1-6. NSMART has been revised Chief Officers of Probation
accordingly and is being issued to area National Standards co-ordinators.
Secretaries of Probation Boards

The deadline for the May returns has been put back to 20 June.
CC:
Board Treasurers
RELEVANT PREVIOUS PROBATION CIRCULARS
Regional Managers
PC 34/03: Revised National Standards Monitoring Arrangements
AUTHORISED BY:
CONTACT FOR ENQUIRIES
Roger McGarva
By e-mail to: Ed.Stradling@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk or by telephone on 020
7217 0758.
ATTACHED:
Annex A
Appendices 1-6

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


ANNEX A

National Standards Monitoring

Beginning with the May 2004 ("0504") data period, areas should use the new version of NSMART (v.2) and the revised
forms (marked v.4 in the bottom right-hand corner) which are provided at Annex B of this circular.

Main changes

• Certain questions are now optional. This is to enable a distinction between core information required at the centre for
monitoring performance and supporting information that is likely to be of more use locally. On the revised forms the
optional questions are shaded. On NSMART these will be clearly displayed as optional.

• The Month 1/2/3 split has been dropped. For each order type the same form is to be used each month. The core
questions will be mandatory, but areas have the option of answering some or all of the others as frequently as they wish
(e.g. monthly, quarterly, 6-monthly or not at all).

• A new set of questions has been introduced to supplement the existing ones on enforcement. These ask about the
number of unacceptable absences and about outcomes following breach action.

Detailed changes

CRO Form

Q.3 (Offender race/ethnicity code): this now specifies that the two-character Census 2001 code is required.

Q.10 (Appointments arranged in first 12 weeks): wording of answer option 3 amended to 'No, breach proceedings
underway and manager's authorisation to offer no further appointments clearly recorded on file'.

Q.12 (Appointments arranged in second 12 weeks): wording of answer option 3 amended as in Q.10.

Q.14 (Contact arranged after first 24 weeks): wording of answer option 3 amended as in Q.10 & 12

Former Q.18 (Implementation of additional requirements other than accredited programme) deleted.

Q.18 (formerly Q.19) (supervisor ensuring level of contact) becomes optional.

Q.19 (formerly Q.20 a & b) (timeliness of investigating failures): becomes optional; previously a two-part question about
first and second failure, now becomes single question relating to any failures; answer options amended.

Q.20 a & b (formerly Q.21 a & b) (recording of offender's explanation and supervisor's opinion): becomes optional;
previously split to relate to first and second failure, now relates to any failures.

Q.21 (formerly Q.22) (appropriateness of supervisor's opinion) becomes optional.

Notes to enforcement questions Q.22-25 (formerly Q.23-26): reference in note (c) to monitoring at termination has been
deleted.

Footnote 5: definition of breach action includes additional references to notifying 'delegated authority' such as breach
court and to secure e-mail and fax as acceptable means of contact.

Q.26-30: new questions relating to number of acceptable absences and outcomes following breach.

Q.31-33 (formerly Q.27-29) (sufficiency of risk assessment) become optional.

Former Q.32 (content of supervision plan) deleted.

Q.34-36 (formerly Q.33-35) (timeliness of supervision plan and review) become optional.

Q.37 (formerly Q.36) (use of OASys): new part (b) on recording of PNC number.

PC24/2004 - National Standards Monitoring 2


Q.38-39 (formerly Q.30-31) (review of risk of harm assessment and timeliness of risk management plan): questions
moved.

Former Q.39 (suitability of accommodation) deleted

Former Q.40 (offender in education or training) deleted

Q.42 (formerly Q.41) (departures from National Standards): former three-part question becomes single question with
revised wording: 'If there were any (exceptional) departures from national standards other than breach, were these
approved by managers in advance?'

CPO Form

Q.3 (Offender race/ethnicity code): this now specifies that the two-character Census 2001 code is required.

Former Q.7-9 (sufficiency and timing of written or other assessment) deleted.

Q.7 a & b (use of OASys; recording of PNC number): new question.

Q.14 (formerly Q.16) (supervisor ensuring level of contact) becomes optional.

Q.15 (formerly Q.17) (allowance for basic literacy or other work) becomes optional.

Q.16 (formerly Q.18 a & b) (timeliness of investigating failures): becomes optional; previously a two-part question about
first and second failure, now becomes single question relating to any failures; answer options amended.

Q.17 a & b (formerly Q.19 a & b) (recording of offender's explanation and supervisor's opinion): becomes optional;
previously split to relate to first and second failure, now relates to any failures.

Q.18 (formerly Q.20) (appropriateness of supervisor's opinion): becomes optional.

Notes to enforcement questions Q.19-20 (formerly Q.21-22): reference in note (c) to monitoring at termination has been
deleted.

Footnote 3: definition of breach action includes additional references to notifying 'delegated authority' such as breach
court and to secure e-mail and fax as acceptable means of contact.

Q.23-27: new questions relating to number of acceptable absences and outcomes following breach.

Q.28 (final review on termination) becomes optional.

Q.29 (formerly Q.26) (departures from National Standards): former three-part question becomes single question with
revised wording: 'If there were any (exceptional) departures from national standards other than breach, were these
approved by managers in advance?'

CPRO Form

Q.3 (Offender race/ethnicity code): this now specifies that the two-character Census 2001 code is required.

Q.9 (First CR appointment and first CP work session arranged): previously one question covering both elements, now
split to become two-part question on (a) CR and, (b) CP; additional answer option of 'N/A' to part (b).

Q.10 (First CR appointment and first CP work session took place): revised as in Q.9.

Q.11 (Contact arranged in first 12 weeks): split to become two-part question on (a) CR and (b) CP;
- wording of answer option 3 in both (a) and (b) amended to 'No, breach proceedings underway and manager's
authorisation to offer no further appointments clearly recorded on file'
- revised answer option 5 in part (a): 'No, CR element deferred with management authorisation'
- revised answer option 5 in part (b): ' CP element completed before 12 weeks…'
- answer option 6 introduced for part (b): 'No, CP element deferred with management authorisation'.

PC24/2004 - National Standards Monitoring 3


Q.12 (Contact taking place in first 12 weeks): split to become two-part question on (a) CR and (b) CP; answer options
revised accordingly; additional answer options for deferment of CR/CP element with management authorisation.

Q.13 (Contact arranged in second 12 weeks): split to become two-part question on (a) CR and (b) CP;
- wording of answer option 3 in both (a) and (b) amended to 'No, breach proceedings underway and manager's
authorisation to offer no further appointments clearly recorded on file'.

Q.14 (Contact taking place in second 12 weeks): split to become two-part question on (a) CR and (b) CP; answer options
revised accordingly.

Q.15 (line manager endorsement to delay one element) deleted.

Q.18 (formerly Q.19) (supervisor ensuring level of contact) becomes optional.

Q.19 (formerly Q.20 a & b) (timeliness of investigating failures) becomes optional; previously a two-part question about
first and second failure, now becomes single question relating to any failures; answer options amended.

Q.20 a & b (formerly Q.21 a & b) (recording of offender's explanation and supervisor's opinion): becomes optional;
previously split to relate to first and second failure, now relates to any failures.

Q.21 (formerly Q.22) (appropriateness of supervisor's opinion): becomes optional.

Notes to enforcement questions Q.22-23 (formerly Q.23-24): reference in note (c) to monitoring at termination has been
deleted.

Footnote 6: definition of breach action includes additional references to notifying 'delegated authority' such as breach
court and to secure e-mail and fax as acceptable means of contact.

Q.26-30: new questions relating to number of acceptable absences and outcomes following breach.

Q.31-33 (formerly Q.27-29) (sufficiency of risk assessment) become optional.

Former Q.33 (content of supervision plan) deleted.

Q.34 (supervision plan in 15 days): becomes optional

Q.35 (supervision plan reviewed every 16 weeks): becomes optional

Q.36 (use of OASys): new part (b) on recording of PNC number.

Q.37 (sufficiency of assessment for CP element): becomes optional

Q.38 (final review on termination) becomes optional.

Q.39-40 (formerly Q.30-31) (review of risk of harm assessment and timeliness of risk management plan): questions
moved.

Q.41 (formerly Q.32): question moved

Q.42-46 (formerly Q.39-43): become optional

Former Q.46 (suitability of accommodation) deleted

Former Q.47 (offender in education or training) deleted

Q.49 (formerly Q.48) (departures from National Standards): former three-part question becomes single question with
revised wording: 'If there were any (exceptional) departures from national standards other than breach, were these
approved by managers in advance?'

Resettlement Form

Q.3 (Offender race/ethnicity code); specifies that the two-character Census 2001 code is required.

PC24/2004 - National Standards Monitoring 4


Q.8-18 (pre-release work) become optional.

Q.23 (contact arranged in first 4 weeks): wording of answer option 3 revised to 'No, breach proceedings underway and
manager's authorisation to offer no further appointments clearly recorded on file'.

Q.26 (fortnightly contact arranged in 2nd and 3rd months): answer option 3 revised as for Q.23

Q.28 (monthly contact arranged after 3rd month: answer option 3 revised as for Q.23 & Q.26

Q.30 (supervisor ensuring level of contact) becomes optional.

Q.31 (timeliness of investigating failures) becomes optional; previously a three-part question about first, second and third
failure, now becomes single question relating to any failures; answer options amended.

Q.32 (recording of offender's explanation and supervisor's opinion): becomes optional; previously split to relate to first,
second and third failures, now relates to any failures.

Q.33 (appropriateness of supervisor's opinion): becomes optional.

Footnote 6: definition of breach action includes additional references to notifying 'delegated authority' such as breach
court and to secure e-mail and fax as acceptable means of contact.

Q.39-43: new questions relating to number of acceptable absences and outcomes following breach.

Q.44-46 (additional licence conditions) become optional.

Q.47-49 (formerly Q.44-46) (sufficiency of risk of harm assessment) become optional.

Former Q.49 (content of supervision plan) deleted.

Q.50 (supervision plan in 15 days): becomes optional

Q.51 (supervision plan reviewed every 16 weeks): becomes optional

Q.52 (final review on termination) becomes optional.

Q.53-54 (formerly Q.47-48) (review of risk of harm assessment and timeliness of risk management plan): questions
moved.

Former Q.55 (suitability of accommodation) deleted

Former Q.56 (offender in education or training) deleted

Q.57 (departures from National Standards): former three-part question becomes single question with revised wording: 'If
there were any (exceptional) departures from national standards other than breach, were these approved by managers in
advance?'

DTTO Form

Q.3 (Offender race/ethnicity code); specifies that the two-character Census 2001 code is required.

Q.18 (timeliness of investigating failures) becomes optional; previously a two-part question about first and second
failures, now becomes single question relating to any failures; answer options amended.

Q.19 (recording of offender's explanation and supervisor's opinion): becomes optional; previously split to relate to first and
second failures, now relates to any failures.

Q.20 (appropriateness of supervisor's opinion): becomes optional.

Footnote 7: definition of breach action includes additional references to notifying 'delegated authority' such as breach
court and to secure e-mail and fax as acceptable means of contact.

PC24/2004 - National Standards Monitoring 5


Q.25-29: new questions relating to number of acceptable absences and outcomes following breach.

Q.32 (formerly Q.27) (file reader's opinion of reason for not meeting standard of testing): becomes optional.

Q.33-40 (formerly Q.28-Q.35) (content of review reports): become optional.

Q.41-43 (formerly Q.37-39) (content of risk assessment): become optional.

Former Q.41 (content of supervision plan) deleted.

Q.44 (formerly Q.42) (supervision plan in 15 days): becomes optional

Q.45 (formerly Q.43) (supervision plan reviewed every 16 weeks): becomes optional

Q.46 (final review on termination) becomes optional.

Q.47 (formerly Q.45) (use of OASys): new part (b) on recording of PNC number.

Q.48 (formerly Q.36) (timeliness of 1st risk assessment): question moved.

Q.49 (formerly 40) (risk of harm assessment reviewed every 16 weeks): question moved

Q.50 (formerly Q.46) (quality of joint management of case): becomes optional

Former Q.49 (suitability of accommodation) deleted

Former Q.50 (offender in education or training) deleted

Q.53 (formerly Q.51) (departures from National Standards): former three-part question becomes single question with
revised wording: 'If there were any (exceptional) departures from national standards other than breach, were these
approved by managers in advance?'

PC24/2004 - National Standards Monitoring 6


Appendix 1

NATIONAL PROBATION DIRECTORATE

MONITORING OF NATIONAL STANDARDS (REVISED 2002)


AND EFFECTIVENESS OF SUPERVISION

COMMUNITY REHABILITATION ORDER (CRO)


Notes:

For questions with several options, please circle one answer.

In counting working days from one event to another, treat “day one” as the first working day after the first event, but
include the day of the second event in the count. So e.g. the day of the court order should not be counted but the day
of the appointment should. Do not count Saturdays, Sundays or public holidays as working days.

If information as to compliance with the standard is not clear, record this as the standard not having been met, on the
basis that the information should be clearly recorded.

Monitoring of cases 6 months after commencement should cover all questions other than those marked “(T)”.
Monitoring at termination should cover all questions other than those marked “(C)”.

Shaded questions are optional. NPD no longer requires the data from these, but areas can continue to use them for
local monitoring.

Probation area code (two-digit numerical code, as form 20) ………….


Data Period ………….
Officer code of middle manager reader ………….
Team code ………….
Officer code of supervising officer ………….
Is this case being sampled as a termination? Y/N
Date this form was completed (by the monitor) dd____/mm____/yy____
Date of commencement of order dd____/mm____/yy____
(T) Date of termination of order dd____/mm____/yy____

1. Offender’s reference code …………………


2. Gender of offender (please circle) M / F

3. Offender race/ethnicity code (new two character code, as set out in guidance) ……………

4. Age of offender (at commencement) (write in numbers) ………...
5. Order type:
CRO with no additional requirements 1
CRO including requirement for accredited programme 2
CRO with additional requirement(s) other than for accredited programme 3

6. Length of order (months) (write in numbers) .……….

7. Is this a case from a register of offenders who pose a risk of causing serious harm to the public Yes 1
or victim(s) (equivalent to High or Very High risk of harm in OASys)? No 2
Unclear 3

CRO v 4
Appendix 1

Contact, compliance and enforcement


8. Was the first appointment arranged to take place for within 5 working days of the making of the Yes 1
order? No 2
9. Did the first appointment1 take place within 5 working days of the making of the order? Yes 1
No 2
10. Were 12 appointments arranged2 to take place in Yes 1
the first 12 weeks?
No, offender in custody or long term sickness3 2

No, breach proceedings underway and manager's


authorisation to offer no further appointments is
clearly recorded on the file 3

No 4
11. Were at least 12 appointments attended in the Yes 1
first 12 weeks? No 2
12. Were at least 6 appointments arranged to take Yes 1
place in the second 12 weeks?
3
No, offender in custody or long term sickness 2

No, breach proceedings underway and manager's


authorisation to offer no further appointments is
clearly recorded on file 3

No 4

Order ran for less than 24 weeks 5


13. Were at least 6 appointments attended in the Yes 1
second 12 weeks? No 2
Order ran for less than 24 weeks 3
14. (T) After first 24 weeks, were at least monthly Yes 1
contacts arranged to take place?
3
No, offender in custody or long term sickness 2

No, breach proceedings underway and manager's 3


authorisation to offer no further appointments is
clearly recorded on file

No 4
Order ran for 24 weeks or less 5

15. (T) After first 24 weeks did contact take place at Yes 1
least monthly throughout order (whether or not order No 2
now terminated)? Order ran for 24 weeks or less 3
16. Did a home visit take place? Yes 1
No, offender resident in hostel (now “approved
premises”) 2
No, offender homeless or NFA 3
No 4
17. If there is accredited programme requirement, has Yes, and within 4 weeks of the order being made 1
programme (or specified pre-programme phase) Yes, but not within 4 weeks 2
commenced? No 3
No accredited programme requirement 4
18. Did the supervisor do all she/he could to achieve Yes definitely 1
the required level of contact in this case? Yes probably 2
Might have done more 3
Should definitely have done more 4

1
If an offender turns up at the office without an appointment but a member of staff sees them for a substantive interview this should be counted
as an appointment taking place. This applies to other references to “appointments taking place” or “attended".
Appointments should be counted as ‘arranged’ whether they are defined all at one time (e.g. ‘every Monday for the next 12 weeks’) or (e.g.)
2

made one at a time - e.g. at each appointment the next appointment is made. This applies to other references to “appointments arranged”.
Medically certificated sickness, where it was clear that contact during that time was impractical.
3

CRO v 4
Appendix 1
19. On the occasions of an apparent failure to comply Yes, always 1
(including any on an additional requirement), was Sometimes but not always 2
action taken within 2 working days to determine the No, on none of the occasions 3
reasons for failure? There were no apparent failures 4

20. For the apparent failures to comply (including any


on additional requirement):

(a) is the offender’s explanation (or lack) clearly Yes, always recorded and clearly within seven
recorded within seven working days of the failure? working days 1
Yes, but not always clearly within seven working
days 2
Sometimes but not always 3

No 4
There were no apparent failures 5

(b) is the supervisor’s opinion of whether Yes, always recorded and clearly within seven
explanation acceptable or unacceptable clearly working days 1
recorded within seven working days of the failure4
Yes, but not always clearly within seven working
days 2

Sometimes but not always 3


No 4
There were no apparent failures 5
21. Where the supervisor’s opinion on whether the Yes, always 1
apparent failure was acceptable or unacceptable is Sometimes but not always 2
recorded, does this appear to be an appropriate No, for none of the opinions 3
assessment? No opinions were recorded 4
There were no apparent failures 5

Note: for questions concerning action on unacceptable failures to comply (Q22 – 23) please:

(a) Record action taken as a result of (apparently) the unacceptable failure concerned, even if by the time the action is taken a
further failure(s) has occurred.

(b) Record action (if any) taken as a result of the unacceptable failure once designated as such; not the means (e.g. letter or
home visit) used to discover reason for apparent failure.

(c) If there are more than 2 unacceptable (or undesignated) failures in the 6 months, record action just on first 2.

(d) Count any failure not designated as either acceptable or unacceptable as unacceptable.

(e) Include any unacceptable failures on an additional requirement (including with a partnership agency), or on other attendance
at a partnership agency as a requirement of supervision, in the same way as any failures in respect of with the supervising
officer.
(f) If a failure is clearly designated as acceptable but you think it should have been unacceptable (and/or the supervisor has not
explained the designation), treat it as acceptable for purposes of question 22and 23.

4
Either explicitly by words “acceptable” or “unacceptable”, or by a clear and consistent area-wide recording convention which designates both
acceptable and unacceptable failures as such (e.g.: U, A)
CRO v 4
Appendix 1

22. (C) Action as a result of first unacceptable Breach action5,taken within 10 days of the failure 1
failure to comply? Breach action5, taken more than 10 days after the 2
failure
Formal final written warning 3
Other action 4
No apparent action 5
No unacceptable failure 6
23. (C) Action as a result6 of a second Breach action5, taken within 10 days of the failure 1
unacceptable failure to comply within a 12 month Breach action5, taken more than 10 days after the 2
period? failure
Other action 3
No apparent action 4
No second unacceptable failure 5
24. (C) If – contrary to the requirement of national Yes 1
standards – breach action was not taken as a No 2
result of (or before) a second unacceptable Not applicable 3
failure, was it taken subsequently?
25. (C) If breach action not taken as a result of Yes, and reasons fully recorded 1
(or before) second unacceptable failure has the Yes, and reasons not fully recorded 2
line manager made an entry endorsing the No 3
decision and given full reasons in the case Not applicable 4
record?
26. (C) How many acceptable absences have there been? None 1
1-2 2
3-5 3
6-10 4
More than 10 5
27. (C). If breach action was taken, was the Offender Additional Yes 1
Information Sheet completed (as per PC 17/04)? No 2
Not applicable 3
28. (C) If breach action was taken, was the order allowed to continue Yes 1
by the court? No 2
Not applicable 3
29. (C) If it was not allowed to continue, what was the court outcome? Fine 1
Additional CP hours 2
Order revoked and re-sentenced 3
Order expired 4
Not applicable 5
30. (C) If the order was revoked and the offender re-sentenced, what Custody 1
was the sentence? New community sentence 2
Awaiting sentence 3
Not applicable 4

Risk Assessment/Supervision Planning


31. Is there a sufficient assessment8, either in the
7
Yes 1
supervision Plan (SP) or in a formal risk assessment Yes, but not sufficient 2
document, of the risk of the offender’s causing No direct victim(s) 3
serious harm to the victim(s) of the offence? No SP/risk assessment document 4
32. Is there a sufficient7 assessment8, either in the Yes 1
supervision plan or in a formal risk assessment Yes, but not sufficient 2
document, of the risk of the offender’s causing No SP/risk assessment document 3
serious harm to the public?

5
i.e. application made for summons or warrant to return offender to court for breach (based on the date of the application). This may mean
going to court and actually taking out a summons or warrant, or it may mean notifying a court or delegated authority by letter, secure e-mail, fax or
telephone that breach action has been decided on and asking that arrangements be made for the officer to take out a summons or warrant. This
may also include cases that have been listed in a breach court through locally agreed administrative procedures. There must be clear evidence
of contact having been made with the court or delegated authority itself. Comments on record such as “papers passed to breach officer” or
“decided to breach him/her” or “discussed case with SPO and it was decided to go for breach” are NOT sufficient evidence that breach action has
been taken. If there is some doubt as to whether breach action (on the above basis) has been taken, answer “other action”.
6
In relation to action on a second unacceptable failure, there may be some cases where breach action has been taken but it is not entirely
clear, because of a time delay, whether it results specifically from the second rather than a subsequent failure. If so, answer “other action”.
7
sufficient in the context of the case
8
for any case where OASys was already in operation in the area when it commenced, your view of the sufficiency of the assessment should
take as to whether OASys was used appropriately
CRO v 4
Appendix 1
33. Is there a sufficient7 assessment8, either in the Yes 1
supervision plan or in a formal risk assessment Yes, but not sufficient 2
document, of the risk of the offender causing serious No SP/risk assessment document 3
harm to staff?
34. Was a written supervision plan completed within Yes 1
15 working days of the order being made? No 2
No supervision plan 3
35. Was the supervision plan always reviewed at Yes 1
least every 16 weeks? No 2
Order ran for less than 16 weeks 3
No supervision plan 4
36. (T) Is there a final review on termination? Yes 1
No 2
No supervision plan 3
37. (a) Is there evidence of an OASys assessment Yes 1
being completed in this case? No 2

(b) If yes, is the offender's PNC number recorded? Yes 1


No 2
Not applicable 3
38. (T) Was an assessment of risk of harm to the Yes 1
public and/or victim reviewed at least every 16 No 2
weeks? No (initial) risk of harm assessment 3
Order ran for less than 16 weeks 4
39. For offenders considered Very High or High risk Yes 1
of causing serious harm to the public (in OASys), No 2
was a sufficient risk management plan (either within Not considered very high or high risk of serious harm
the supervision plan or formal risk management to public 3
document) available within 5 working days of the
order being made, or the date at which a previously
lesser risk was identified as having risen to High or
Very High?

Employment, Education And Accommodation Issues


(for completion at termination only – circle one from each column)

40. (T) Employment status


Immediately prior to order At termination
Employed (full or part time) 1 1
Temporary or casual work 2 2
Education or training 3 3
Unemployed currently but has been in employment at some
stage during supervision on order 4
Unemployed but appointment made for job interview 5
Unemployed 6 6
Unavailable for work 7 7
Unclear from record 8 8

41. (T) Accommodation status

Settled 1 1
Not settled 2 2
Unclear from record 3 3

CRO v 4
Appendix 1

Departures from national standards

42. (T) If there were any (exceptional) departures from national standards other than breach, were these approved by
managers in advance?

Yes always 1
Sometimes but not always 2
No, never 3
Not applicable 4

CRO v 4
Appendix 1

For use locally by middle manager reader:

Strengths:

Weaknesses/areas for improvement:

CRO v 4
Appendix 2

NATIONAL PROBATION DIRECTORATE

MONITORING OF NATIONAL STANDARDS (REVISED 2002)


AND EFFECTIVENESS OF SUPERVISION

COMMUNITY PUNISHMENT ORDER (CPO)


Notes:

For questions with several options, please circle one answer.

In counting working days from one event to another, treat “day one” as the first working day after the first event, but
include the day of the second event in the count. So e.g. the day of the court order should not be counted but the day
of the appointment should. Do not count Saturdays, Sundays or public holidays as working days.

If information as to compliance with the standard is not clear, record this as the standard not having been met, on the
basis that the information should be clearly recorded.

Monitoring of cases 6 months after commencement should cover all questions other than those marked “(T)”.
Monitoring at termination should cover all questions other than those marked “(C)”.

Shaded questions are optional. NPD no longer requires the data from these, but areas can continue to use them for
local monitoring.

Probation area code (two-digit numerical code, as form 20) ………….


Data period ………….
Officer code of middle manager reader ………….
Team code ………….
Officer code of supervising officer ………….
Is this case being sampled as a termination? Y/N
Date this form was completed (by the monitor) dd____/mm____/yy____
Date of commencement of order dd____/mm____/yy____
(T) Date of termination of order dd____/mm____/yy____

1. Offender’s reference code …………………

2. Gender of offender (please circle) M / F

3. Offender race/ethnicity code (new two character code, as set out in guidance)
………
4. Age of offender (at commencement) (write in numbers) ……...

5. Length of order (hours) (write in numbers) ..…….

6. Is this a case from a register of offenders who pose a risk of causing serious harm to the public Yes 1
or victim(s) (equivalent to High or Very High risk of harm in OASys)? No 2
Unclear 3

CPO v4
Appendix 2
Assessment

7 (a). Is there evidence of an OASys assessment Yes 1


being completed in this case? No 2
M

(b). If yes, is the offender's PNC number recorded? Yes 1


No 2
Not applicable 3
8. Was the first appointment (for assessment) arranged Yes, and made at court 1
to take place within five working days of the order being Yes, and made after court 2
made? No 3
9. Did the first appointment (for assessment) take place Yes 1
within 5 working days of the order being made? No 2

Contact, compliance and enforcement

10. Was the first work session arranged to take place Yes 1
within 10 working days of the order being made? No 2
N/A 3
11. Did the first work session take place within 10 Yes 1
working days of the order being made? No 2
N/A 3
12. Was the offender offered a minimum average of Yes 1
five hours work a week throughout the order (to date)?1 No 2
13. Was the average weekly work rate a minimum of 5 Yes 1
hours over the order as a whole (to date)?1 No 2
14. Did the supervisor do all she/he could to achieve Yes definitely 1
the required level of contact in this case? Yes probably 2 M
Might have done more 3
Should definitely have done more 4
15. (T) If order terminated; was an allowance made for Yes 1
completing basic literacy or other work necessary to No 2
enable the offender to gain maximum benefit from the
order, or to provide qualifications directly related to work
done under the order?
16. On occasions of an apparent failure to comply, Yes, always 1
was action taken within 2 working days to determine Sometimes but not always 2
the reasons for failure? No, on none of the occasions 3
There were no apparent failures 4
17. For the apparent failures to
comply:

(a) is offender's explanation (or Yes, always, and clearly within seven working days 1
lack) clearly recorded within seven Yes always recorded but not always clearly within seven working 2
working days of the failure? days
No 3
There were no apparent failures 4

(b) is officer’s opinion of whether Yes, always, and clearly within seven working days 1
explanation acceptable or Yes always recorded but not always clearly within seven working 2
unacceptable clearly recorded within days
seven working days of the failure2? No 3
There were no apparent failures 4

1 th
Counting from the 10 working day after the order was made or from the first work session that took place, whichever is the earlier, up to: the
present (if order is still running); or to termination; or up to any explicit decision to cease offering appointments while breach action was underway
because the offender was unco-operative/disruptive and that for these or other similar reasons it was clear that no useful purpose would be served
by offering further work. The count of weeks should exclude if relevant:
- any week where the offender was in custody;
- any periods of medically certificated sickness of more than 2 consecutive weeks;
- any weeks (up to a maximum of two) when the area’s community punishment operation was closed down e.g. because of end-year
public holidays
2
Either explicitly by words “acceptable” or “unacceptable”, or by a clear and consistent area-wide recording convention which designates both
acceptable and unacceptable failures as such (e.g. U, A).

CPO v4
Appendix 2
18. Where the supervisor’s opinion on whether the Yes, always 1
apparent failure was acceptable or unacceptable is Sometimes but not always 2
recorded, does this appear to be an appropriate No, for none of the opinions 3
assessment? No opinions recorded 4
No apparent failures 5

Note: for questions concerning action on unacceptable failures to comply (Q19– 20) please:

(a) record action taken as a result of (apparently) the unacceptable failure concerned, even if by the time the action is taken a
further failure(s) has occurred.

(b) record action (if any) taken as a result of the unacceptable failure once designated as such; not the means (e.g. letter or home
visit) used to discover reason for apparent failure

(c) If there are more than 2 unacceptable (or undesignated) failures in the 6-monthperiod, record action just on first 2.

(d) count any failure not designated as either acceptable or unacceptable as unacceptable

(e) If a failure is clearly designated as acceptable (by the area-wide convention as in question 17) but you it should have been
unacceptable (and/or the supervisor has not explained the designation), treat as acceptable for the purposes of question 19 and
20 but take your view into account for question 18.

19. (C) Action as a result of first Breach action3, taken within 10 days of the failure 1
unacceptable failure to comply? Breach action3, taken more than 10 days after the failure 2
Formal final written warning 3
Other action 4
No apparent action 5
No unacceptable failure 6
20. (C) Action as a result4 of a second Breach action3 taken within 10 days of the failure 1
unacceptable failure to comply within a 12 Breach action3, taken more than 10 days after the failure 2
month period? Other action 3
No apparent action 4
No second unacceptable failure 5
21. (C) If - contrary to the requirement of Yes 1
national standards - breach action was not No 2
taken as a result of (or before) a second Not applicable 3 Q
unacceptable failure, was it taken
subsequently?
22. (C) If breach action not taken as a result Yes, and reasons fully recorded 1
of (or before) second unacceptable failure, has Yes, and reasons not fully recorded 2
the line manager made an entry endorsing the No 3
decision and given full reasons in the case Not applicable 4
record?
23. (C) How many acceptable absences have there been? None 1
1-2 2
3-5 3
6-10 4
More than 10 5
24. (C). If breach action was taken, was the Offender Additional Yes 1
Information Sheet completed (as per PC 17/04)? No 2
Not applicable 3
25. (C) If breach action was taken, was the order allowed to continue Yes 1
by the court? No 2
Not applicable 3

3
i.e. application made for summons or warrant to return offender to court for breach (based on the date of the application). This may mean going
to court and actually taking out a summons or warrant, or it may mean notifying a court or delegated authority by letter, secure e-mail, fax or
telephone that breach action has been decided on and asking that arrangements be made for the officer to take out a summons or warrant. This
may also include cases that have been listed in a breach court through locally agreed administrative procedures. There must be clear evidence of
contact having been made with the court or delegated authority itself. Comments on record such as “papers passed to breach officer” or
“decided to breach him/her” or “discussed case with SPO and it was decided to go for breach” are NOT sufficient evidence that breach action has
been taken. If there is some doubt as to whether breach action (on the above basis) has been taken, answer “other action”.

4
In relation to action on a second unacceptable failure, there may be some cases where breach action has been taken but it is not entirely clear,
because of a time delay, whether it results specifically from the second rather than a subsequent failure. If so, answer “other action”.

CPO v4
Appendix 2

26. (C) If it was not allowed to continue, what was the court outcome? Fine 1
Additional CP hours 2
Order revoked and re-sentenced 3
Order expired 4
Not applicable 5
27. (C) If the order was revoked and the offender re-sentenced, what Custody 1
was the sentence? New community sentence 2
Awaiting sentence 3
Not applicable 4

TERMINATION OF ORDER

Mon
28. (T) Is there a final review on termination? Yes 1
No 2

Departures from national standards

29. (T) If there were any (exceptional) departures from national standards other than breach were these approved by
managers in advance?

Yes always 1
Sometimes but not always 2
No, never 3
Not applicable 4

CPO v4
Appendix 2

For use locally by middle manager reader:

Strengths:

Weaknesses/areas for improvement:

CPO v4
Appendix 3

NATIONAL PROBATION DIRECTORATE

MONITORING OF NATIONAL STANDARDS (REVISED 2002)


AND EFFECTIVENESS OF SUPERVISION

COMMUNITY PUNISHMENT & REHABILITATION


ORDER (CPRO)
Notes:

For questions with several options, please circle one answer.

In counting working days from one event to another, treat “day one” as the first working day after the first event, but
include the day of the second event in the count. So e.g. the day of the court order should not be counted but the day
of the appointment should. Do not count Saturdays, Sundays or public holidays as working days.

If information as to compliance with the standard is not clear, record this as the standard not having been met, on the
basis that the information should be clearly recorded.

Monitoring of cases 6 months after commencement should cover all questions other than those marked “(T)”.
Monitoring at termination should cover all questions other than those marked “(C)”.

Answer on the basis of information in both the CRO and CPO records.

Shaded questions are optional. NPD no longer requires the data from these, but areas can continue to use them for
local monitoring.

Probation area code (two-digit numerical code, as form 20) ………….

Data Period ………….

Officer code of middle manager reader ………….

Team code ………….

Officer code of supervising officer ………….

Is this case being sampled as a termination? Y/N


Date this form was completed (by the monitor) dd____/mm____/yy____
Date of commencement of order dd____/mm____/yy____
(T) Date of termination of order dd____/mm____/yy____

1. Offender’s reference code …………………


2. Gender of offender (please circle) M / F

3. Offender race/ethnicity code (new two character code, as set out in guidance)
…………
4. Age of offender (at commencement) (write in numbers) ………...
5. Order type:
CPRO with no additional requirements 1
CPRO including requirement for accredited programme 2
CPRO with additional requirement(s) other than for accredited programme 3
6. Length of CR (community rehabilitation) element (months) (in numbers) ……….

CPRO v 4
Appendix 3
7. Length of CP (community punishment) element (hours) (in numbers) ……….

8. Is this a case from a register of offenders who pose a risk of causing serious harm to the public Yes 1
or victim(s) (equivalent to High or Very High risk of harm in OASys)? No 2
Unclear 3

Contact, compliance and enforcement


9. (a) Was the first CR appointment arranged to take place for within 5 working days of the making of Yes 1
the order?, No 2
(b) Was the first CP work session arranged to take place for within 10 working days of the order? Yes 1
No 2
N/A 3
10. (a) Did the first CR appointment take place1 within 5 working days of the order, Yes 1
No 2
(b) Did the first CP work session take place within 10 working days of the order? Yes 1
No 2
N/A 3
11. (a) In the first 12 weeks of the Yes 1
order were at least 12 CR No, offender in custody or long term sickness3 2
appointments arranged2?
No, breach proceedings underway and manager's authorisation to
offer no further appointments is clearly recorded on file 3
No 4
No, CR element deferred with management authorisation 5

(b) In the first 12 weeks of the order Yes 1


were at least 1 CP assessment and at
least 11 CP work sessions arranged2? No, offender in custody or long term sickness3 2

No, breach proceedings underway and manager's authorisation to 3


offer no further appointments is clearly recorded on file

No 4

CP element completed before 12 weeks, but with CP assessment and


sufficient weekly, CP work sessions arranged appropriately while CP
element in operation 5

No, CP element deferred with management authorisation 6


12. (a) In the first 12 weeks of the order Yes 1 M
did at least 12 CR appointments take No 2
place? Order as whole ran for less than 12 weeks 3
R
No, CR element deferred with management authorisation 4
d
c
(b) In the first 12 weeks of the order did Yes 1
1 CP assessment and at least 11 CP No 2
t
work sessions take place? CP element completed before 12 weeks, but CP assessment and
weekly CP work sessions took place while CP element in operation 3
Order as whole ran for less than 12 weeks 4
No, CP element deferred with management authorisation 5

1
If an offender turns up at the office without an appointment but a member of staff sees them for a substantive interview this should be counted as
an appointment taking place. This applies to other references to “appointments taking place” or “attended”.
2
Appointments should be counted as "arranged" whether they are defined all at one time (e.g. ‘every Monday for the next 12 weeks’) or (e.g.)
made one at a time - e.g. at each appointment the next appointment is made. This applies to other references to “appointments arranged”.
3
Medically certificated sickness, where it was clear that contact during that time was impractical.
CPRO v 4
Appendix 3

13. (a) In the second 12 weeks of the Yes 1


order were at least 6 CR appointments No, offender in custody or long term sickness3 2
arranged 2? No, breach proceedings underway and manager's authorisation to
offer no further appointments is clearly recorded on file 3
No 4
Order as whole ran for less than 24 weeks 5
No, CR element deferred with management authorisation 6

(b). In the second 12 weeks of the Yes 1


3
order were at least 12 CP work No, offender in custody or long term sickness 2
sessions arranged2? No, breach proceedings underway and manager's authorisation to
offer no further appointments is clearly recorded on file 3
No 4
CP element completed before 24 weeks, but with CP assessment and
sufficient, weekly CP work sessions arranged appropriately while CP
element in operation 5
Order as whole ran for less than 24 weeks 6
No, CP element deferred with management authorisation 7
14 (a). In the second 12 weeks of the Yes 1
order did at least 6 CR appointments No 2
take place? Order as whole ran for less than 24 weeks 3
No, CR element deferred with management authorisation 4

(b). In the second 12 weeks of the Yes 1


order did at least 12 CP work sessions No 2
take place? CP element completed before 24 weeks, but CP assessment and
weekly CP work sessions took place while CP element in operation 3
Order as whole ran for less than 24 weeks 4
No, CP element deferred with management authorisation 5
15. If the CR element has accredited programme requirement, did Yes 1
the programme or specified pre-programme phase commence within No, but did commence subsequently 2
4 weeks of the order? No 3
No accredited programme requirement 4
16. Was the offender offered a minimum average of five hours work a Yes 1
week on the CP element throughout the order (to date)?4 No 2 Mo
17. Was the average weekly work rate on the CP element a minimum Yes 1
of five hours over the order as a whole (to date)?
4
No 2 Mo
18. Did the supervisor do all she/he could to achieve the required Yes definitely 1
level of contact in this case? Yes probably 2
Might have done more 3
Should definitely have done more 4
19). On occasions of an apparent failure to comply (including any on Yes, always 1
an additional requirement), was action taken within 2 working days to Sometimes but not always 2
determine the reasons for failure? No, on none of the occasions 3
There were no apparent failures 4
20. For the apparent failures to comply
(including any on additional
requirement):
(a) is the offender’s explanation (or Yes, always, and clearly within seven working days 1
lack) clearly recorded within seven Yes always recorded but not always clearly within seven working 2
working days of the failure? days 3
No 4
There were no apparent failures

4 th
Counting from the 10 working day after the order was made or from the first work session that took place, whichever is the earlier, up to: the
present (if order is still running); or to termination; or up to any explicit decision to cease offering appointments while breach action was underway
because the offender was unco-operative/disruptive and that for these or other similar reasons it was clear that no useful purpose would be served
by offering further work. The count of weeks should exclude if relevant:
- any week where the offender was in custody;
- any periods of medically certificated sickness of more than 2 consecutive weeks;
- any weeks (up to a maximum of two) when the area’s community punishment operation was closed down eg because of end-year public holidays
CPRO v 4
Appendix 3
(b) is the supervisor’s opinion of Yes, always, and clearly within seven working days 1
whether explanation acceptable or Yes always recorded but not always clearly within seven working 2
unacceptable clearly recorded days 3
within seven working days of the No 4
failure5? There were no apparent failures
21. Where the supervisor’s opinion on Yes, always 1
whether the apparent failure was Sometimes but not always 2 Mo
acceptable or unacceptable is No, for none of the opinions 3
recorded, does this appear to be an No opinions were recorded 4
appropriate assessment? There were no apparent failures 5

Note: for questions concerning action on unacceptable failures to comply (Q22 – 23) please:

(a) record action taken as a result of (apparently) the unacceptable failure concerned, even if by the time the action is taken a
further failure(s) has occurred.

(b) consider unacceptable failures across the order as whole, aggregating failures across the CR and the CP elements. Include
any unacceptable failures on the CR element on an additional requirement including with a partnership agency, or other
attendance at a partnership agency as a requirement of supervision, in the same way as any failures in respect of attendance
with the supervising officer

(c) If there are more than 2 unacceptable (or undesignated) failures in the 6 months, record action just on first 2.

(d) record action (if any) taken as a result of the unacceptable failure once designated as such; not the means (e.g. or home
visit) used to discover reason for apparent failure

(e) count any failure not designated as either acceptable or unacceptable as unacceptable

(f) If a failure is clearly designated as acceptable (by the area-wide convention as in question 21) but you think it have been
unacceptable (and/or the supervisor has not explained the designation), treat it as acceptable for purposes of question 22
and 23 but take your view into account for question 21. .

22. (C) Action as a result of first unacceptable Breach action6,taken within 10 days of the failure 1
failure to comply? Breach action6, taken more than 10 days after the failure 2
Formal final written warning 3
Other action 4
No apparent action 5
No unacceptable failure 6
23. (C) Action as a result7 of a second Breach action6, taken within 10 days of the failure 1
unacceptable failure to comply within a 12 month Breach action6, taken more than 10 days after the failure 2
period? Other action 3
No apparent action 4
No second unacceptable failure 5
24. (C) If – contrary to the requirement of national Yes 1
standards – breach action was not taken as a No 2
result of (or before) a second unacceptable Not applicable 3
failure, was it taken subsequently?
25. (C) If breach action not taken as a result of Yes, and reasons fully recorded 1
(or before) second unacceptable failure has the Yes, and reasons not fully recorded 2 M
line manager made an entry endorsing the No 3
decision and given full reasons in the case Not applicable 4
record?
26. (C) How many acceptable absences have there been? None 1
1-2 2
3-5 3
6-10 4
More than 10 5

5
Either explicitly by words “acceptable” or “unacceptable”, or by a clear and consistent area-wide recording convention which designates both
acceptable and unacceptable failures as such (e.g.: U, A).
6
i.e. application made for summons or warrant to return offender to court for breach (based on the date of the application). This may mean
going to court and actually taking out a summons or warrant, or it may mean notifying a court or delegated authority by letter, secure e-mail, fax or
telephone that breach action has been decided on and asking that arrangements be made for the officer to take out a summons or warrant. This
may also include cases that have been listed in a breach court through locally agreed administrative procedures. There must be clear evidence
of contact having been made with the court or delegated authority itself. Comments on record such as “papers passed to breach officer” or
“decided to breach him/her” or “discussed case with SPO and it was decided to go for breach” are NOT sufficient evidence that breach action has
been taken. If there is some doubt as to whether breach action (on the above basis) has been taken, answer “other action”.
7
In relation to action on a second unacceptable failure, there may be some cases where breach action has been taken but it is not entirely
clear, because of a time delay, whether it results specifically from the second rather than a subsequent failure. If so, answer “other action”.
CPRO v 4
Appendix 3

27. (C). If breach action was taken, was the Offender Additional Yes 1
Information Sheet completed (as per PC 17/04)? No 2
Not applicable 3
28. (C) If breach action was taken, was the order allowed to continue by Yes 1
the court? No 2
Not applicable 3
29. (C) If it was not allowed to continue, what was the court outcome? Fine 1
Additional CP hours 2
Order revoked and re-sentenced 3
Order expired 4
Not applicable 5
30. (C) If the order was revoked and the offender re-sentenced, what Custody 1
was the sentence? New community sentence 2
Awaiting sentence 3
Not applicable 4

Risk Assessment/Supervision Planning


31. Is there a sufficient8 assessment9, either in the Yes 1
supervision Plan (SP) or in a formal risk assessment Yes, but not sufficient 2
document, of the risk of the offender’s causing serious No direct victim(s) 3
harm to the victim(s) of the offence? No SP/risk assessment document 4
32. Is there a sufficient8 assessment9, either in the Yes 1
supervision plan or in a formal risk assessment Yes, but not sufficient 2
document, of the risk of the offender’s causing serious No SP/risk assessment document 3
harm to the public?
33. Is there a sufficient8 assessment9, either in the Yes 1
supervision plan or in a formal risk assessment Yes, but not sufficient 2
document, of the risk of the offender causing serious No SP/risk assessment document 3
harm to staff?
34. Was a written supervision plan completed within 15 Yes 1
working days of the order being made? No 2 M
Supervision plan not, or imprecisely, dated 3
No supervision plan 4
35. Was the supervision plan always reviewed at least Yes 1
every 16 weeks? No 2 M
Order ran for less than 16 weeks 3
No supervision plan 4
36 (a). Is there evidence of an OASys assessment being Yes 1
completed in this case? No 2 M

(b). If yes, is the offender's PNC number recorded? Yes 1


No 2
Not applicable 3

8
sufficient in the context of the case
9
for any case where OASys was already in operation in the area when it commenced, your view of the sufficiency of the assessment should
take as to whether OASys was used appropriately
CPRO v 4
Appendix 3

37. For the CP element, is there a sufficient assessment of the offender’s:

a) health? Yes 1
No 2

b) skills? Yes 1
No 2

c) literacy? Yes 1
No 2

d) availability for work? Yes 1


No 2

e) any particular placement needs such as cultural or Yes 1


religious considerations? No 2
N/A 3

f) experience of racism and/or other discrimination? Yes 1


No 2
38. (T) Is there a final review on termination? Yes 1
No 2 M
39. (T) Was an assessment of risk of harm to the public Yes 1
and/or victim reviewed at least every 16 weeks? No 2
No (initial) risk of harm assessment 3
Order ran for less than 16 weeks 4
40. For offenders considered Very High or High risk of Yes 1
causing serious harm to the public (in OASys), was a No 2
sufficient risk management plan (either within the Not considered very high or high risk of serious
supervision plan or formal risk management document) harm to public 3
available within 5 working days of the order being made,
or the date at which a previously lesser risk was identified
as having risen to High or Very High?
41. For the CP element, was a written assessment of risks Yes 1
made before the CP placement started? No 2
Assessment not, or imprecisely, dated 3

Issues on Integration of the Two Elements

42. Does the supervision plan address the order as a Yes definitely 1
whole? To some extent 2 M
No 3
No supervision plan 4
43. Is there communication between the staff Yes 1
supervising the two elements about the progress of the Some communication but insufficient 2
order, including enforcement? No 3
44. Do the supervision plan reviews refer to progress Yes, all the reviews 1
on both parts of the order? Some but not all the reviews 2
None of the reviews 3
No reviews done, and/or case ran less than 4 months 4
45. Have the officers supervising each element of the Yes, in all such cases 1
order been informed of any unacceptable failure to Sometimes, but not in all 2
comply with the other element? No, in none of the cases 3
No unacceptable failures on either element 4
46. How would you rate the joint management of the Very good 1
two elements of the order? Satisfactory 2
Not satisfactory 3
Very poor 4

CPRO v 4
Appendix 3

Employment, Education And Accommodation Issues


(for completion at termination only – circle one from each column)

47. (T) Employment status


Immediately prior to order At termination
Employed (full or part time) 1 1
Temporary or casual work 2 2
Education or training 3 3
Unemployed currently but has been in employment at some
stage during supervision on order 4
Unemployed but appointment made for job interview 5
Unemployed 6 6
Unavailable for work 7 7
Unclear from record 8 8

48. (T) Accommodation status

Settled 1 1
Not settled 2 2
Unclear from record 3 3

Departures from national standards

49. (T) If there were any (exceptional) departures from national standards other than breach, were these approved
by managers in advance?,

Yes always 1
Sometimes but not always 2
No, never 3
Not applicable 4

CPRO v 4
Appendix 3

For use locally by middle manager reader:

Strengths:

Weaknesses/areas for improvement:

CPRO v 4
Appendix 4

NATIONAL PROBATION DIRECTORATE


MONITORING OF NATIONAL STANDARDS (REVISED 2002)
AND EFFECTIVENESS OF SUPERVISION

RESETTLEMENT
Notes:
For questions with several options, please circle one answer.

In counting working days from one event to another, treat “day one” as the first working day after the first event,
but include the day of the second event in the count. So e.g. the day of release should not be counted but the day
the supervision plan was completed should. Do not count Saturdays, Sundays or public holidays as working
days.

If information as to compliance with the standard is not clear, record this as the standard not having been met, on
the basis that the information should be clearly recorded.

Monitoring of cases 6 months after release should cover all questions other than those marked “(T)”. Monitoring at
termination should cover all questions other than those marked “(C)”.

Shaded questions are optional. NPD no longer requires the data from these, but areas can continue to use them for
local monitoring.

Probation area code (two-digit numerical code, as form 20) ………….

Data period ………….

Officer code of middle manager reader ………….

Team code ………….

Officer code of supervising officer ………….

Is this case being sampled as a termination? Y/N


Date this form was completed (by the monitor) dd____/mm____/yy____
Date of commencement of licence dd____/mm____/yy____
(T) Date of termination of licence dd____/mm____/yy____

1. Offender’s reference code …………………


2. Gender of offender (please circle) M / F
3. Offender race/ethnicity code (new two character code, as set out in guidance)
…………
4. Age of offender (at commencement of licence) (years, in numbers) ………...
5. Licence type: ACR, under 21, sentence less than 12 months 1
ACR, 12 months and over but less than 4 years 2
DCR, 4 years and over 3
NPD, 4 years and over 4
Other 5

6. Length of licence (months - rounded to nearest whole number: write as number) ……….

7. Is this a case from a register of offenders who pose a risk of causing serious harm to the Yes 1
public or victim(s) (equivalent to High or Very High risk of harm in OASys)? No 2
Unclear 3

Resettlement v 4
Appendix 4
Pre-release work

Note: if the offender was released under licence direct from court, do not answer questions 8-18, but write
'X' against each question in the right hand margin.

8. Did the degree of contact1 which the probation area had Yes, clearly so 1
with the prisoner appear to be adequate, given the needs Mainly, but could have been more 2
and circumstances of the case? No 3
9. Did the quality of contact1 which the probation area had Yes, clearly so 1
with the prisoner appear to be adequate, given the needs Mainly, but could have been better 2
and circumstances of the case? No 3
10. For parole or DCR cases, is there a parole assessment Yes 1
report (PAR) on file? No, but clear evidence that one was provided 2
No 3
Not applicable – not parole or DCR 4
11. For non-parole release cases, is there a non-parole Yes 1
release report on file? No, but clear evidence that one was provided 2
No 3
Not applicable – not non-parole release 4
12. If yes to either Q10 or Q11, was the report provided to Yes 1
the prison within the required timescale, i.e: No 2
- for PAR, at least 17 weeks before the parole Not clear 3
eligibility date? Not applicable 4
- for non-parole release, at least 6 weeks before Case sentenced before 1 April 2000 5
release?
13. If yes to Q10 or Q11, does the report (PAR or non-
parole release) include consideration of:-

a) the risk of the offender’s causing serious harm? Yes, clearly 1


To a limited but sufficient extent 2
Insufficiently 3
Not at all 4
Not applicable 5

b) licence conditions? Yes, clearly 1


To a limited but sufficient extent 2
Insufficiently 3
Not at all 4
Not applicable 5
14. If yes to Q10 or Q11, please assess overall quality of Very good 1
the report. Satisfactory 2
Not satisfactory 3
Very poor 4
Not applicable 5
15. From the information available in the record, was there Yes 1
anything that suggests a need for an additional licence No 2
condition, but no such condition was made?
16. Did the supervisor do all she/he could to ensure Yes definitely 1
appropriate arrangements for release including licence Yes probably 2
conditions? Might have done more 3
Should definitely have done more 4
17. If HDC was considered by the prison, was an Yes, and within 10 working days of request 1
assessment of the suitability of the proposed Yes, but not within 10 working days of request 2
accommodation, and any comments on the suitability of the No 3
offender, provided to the prison? No indication that HDC was considered 4
18. If yes (option 1 or 2) to Q17, please assess overall Very good 1
quality of the HDC assessment. Satisfactory 2
Not satisfactory 3
Very poor 4
Not applicable 5

1
Contact includes by letter or telephone.
Resettlement v 4
Appendix 4

Post release: contact, compliance and enforcement

19. Was the first appointment arranged2 to take Yes 1


place within one working day of release? No 2
20. Was the offender seen by the supervisor or their Yes 1
representative within one working day of release? No 2
21. Was a home visit to the offender arranged2 to Yes 1
take place within 10 working days of release? No, but was arranged to take place subsequently 2
No, offender resident in approved premises 3
No, offender released on HDC 4
No, offender released on HDC 5
No, offender homeless or NFA 6
No 7
22. Did a home visit take place3? Yes, and within 10 days of release 1
Yes, but not within 10 days 2
No 3
23. Was weekly contact arranged2 between the Yes 1
supervising officer and the offender throughout the No, offender in custody or long term sickness4 2
first 4 weeks (counting a home visit as a contact)? No, breach proceedings underway and manager's 3
authorisation to offer no further appointments is
clearly recorded on file
No 4
Licence ran for less than 4 weeks 5
24. Did at least 5 contacts take place3 throughout Yes 1
the first 4 weeks (including the initial appointment, No 2
and counting a home visit as a contact)? Licence ran for less than 4 weeks 3
25. If it is planned that the offender attend an Yes, and within 4 weeks of release 1
accredited programme, has the programme (or Yes, but not within 4 weeks 2
specified pre-programme phase) commenced? No 3
No plans for attendance on accredited programme 4
26. Was at least fortnightly contact arranged2 with Yes 1
the offender throughout the second and third months No, offender in custody or long term sickness4 2
following release? No, breach proceedings underway and manager's 3
authorisation to offer no further appointments is
clearly recorded on file
No 4
Licence ran for less than 3 months 5
27. Were at least fortnightly appointments attended3 Yes 1
throughout the second and third months following No 2
release? Licence ran for less than 3 months 3
28. Was at least monthly contact arranged2 after the Yes 1
third month following release? No, offender in custody or long term sickness4 2
No, breach proceedings underway and manager's 3
authorisation to offer no further appointments is
clearly recorded on file
No 4
Licence ran for 3 months or less 5
29. Were monthly appointments attended3 after the Yes 1
third month following release (to date)? No 2
Licence ran for 3 months or less 3
30. Did the supervisor do all she/he could to achieve Yes definitely 1
the required level of contact in this case? Yes probably 2
Might have done more 3
Should definitely have done more 4

2
Appointments should be counted as ‘arranged ’ whether they are defined all at one time (e.g. ‘every Monday for the next 4 weeks’) or (e.g.) made
one at a time, e.g. at each appointment the next appointment is made. This applies to other references to “appointments arranged”.
3
If an offender turns up at the office without an appointment but a member of staff sees them for a substantive interview this should be counted as
an appointment taking place. This applies to other references to “contact”.
4
Medically certificated sickness, where it was clear that contact during that time was impractical
Resettlement v 4
Appendix 4

31. On occasions of a failure to comply (including on Yes, always 1


an additional licence condition) was action taken Sometimes but not always 2
within 2 working days to determine the reasons for No, on none of the occasions 3
failure? There were no apparent failures 4
32. For the apparent failure to
comply (including any on an
additional licence condition):

(a) is offender’s explanation (or Yes, always, and clearly within seven working days 1
lack) clearly recorded within seven Yes always recorded but not always clearly within seven working days 2
working days of the failure? No 3
There were no apparent failures 4

(b) is officer’s opinion of whether Yes, always, and clearly within seven working day 1
explanation acceptable or Yes always recorded but not always clearly within seven working days 2
unacceptable clearly recorded No 3
within seven working days of the There were no apparent failures 4
failure5?
33. Where the supervisor’s opinion on whether the Yes, always 1
apparent failure was acceptable or unacceptable is Sometimes but not always 2
recorded, does this appear to be an appropriate No, for none of the opinions 3
assessment? No opinions were recorded 4
There were no apparent failures 5

Note: for questions concerning action on unacceptable failures to comply (Q34 – 36) please:

(a) Record action taken as a result of (apparently) the unacceptable failure concerned, even if by the time the action is taken a
further failure(s) has occurred.

(b) Record action (if any) taken as a result of the unacceptable failure once designated as such; not the means (e.g. letter or
home visit) used to discover reason for apparent failure

(c) If there are more than 3 unacceptable (or undesignated) failures, record just action on first 3

(d) Count any failure not designated as either acceptable or unacceptable as unacceptable

(e) Include any unacceptable failures on any additional requirement (including with a partnership agency) which formed part
of a special licence condition

(f) If a failure is clearly designated as acceptable (by the area-wide convention as in question 32) but you think it should have
been unacceptable (and/or the supervisor has not explained the designation), treat it as acceptable for the purposes of
question 34–36 but take your view into account for question 33.

34. (C) Action as a result of first Breach action/recall6, taken within 10 days of the failure 1
unacceptable failure to comply? Breach action/recall6, taken more than 10 days after the failure 2
Formal written warning 3
Other action 4
No apparent action 5
No unacceptable failure 6

5
Either explicitly by words “acceptable” or “unacceptable” or by a clear and consistent area-wide recording convention which designates both
acceptable and unacceptable failures as such (e.g. U, A).
6
i.e. either an application made for summons or warrant to return offender to court for breach, or a letter from the service to the Home Office (or a
phone call in emergency recall cases). The relevant date is that of date of the application to the court, or of the letter to the Home Office. In the
case of an application to the court, the application may mean going to court and actually taking out a summons or warrant, or it may mean notifying
a court or delegated authority by letter, secure e-mail, fax or telephone that breach action has been decided on and asking that arrangements be
made for the officer to take out a summons or warrant. This may also include cases that have been listed in a breach court through locally agreed
administrative procedures.There must be clear evidence of contact having been made with the court or delegated authority itself (for
breach cases) or with the Home Office (for recall cases). Comments on record such as “papers passed to breach officer” or “decided to breach
him/her” or “discussed case with SPO and it was decided to go for breach.” are NOT sufficient evidence that breach has been taken. Similarly
recall is NOT the letter from the supervising officer to the ACO. If there is some doubt as to whether breach/recall action (on the above basis) has
been taken, answer “other action”.
Resettlement v 4
Appendix 4

35. (C) Action as a result of a second Breach action/recall6 taken within 10 days of the failure 1
unacceptable failure to comply? Breach action/recall6, taken more than 10 days after the failure 2
Formal written warning by ACO or equivalent 3
Other action 4
No apparent action 5
No second unacceptable failure 6
6
36. (C) Action as a result7 of third Breach action/recall , taken within 10 days of the failure 1
unacceptable failure to comply? Breach action/recall6, taken more than 10 days after the failure 2
Other action 3
No apparent action 4
No third unacceptable failure 5
37. (C) If – contrary to the requirement of Yes 1
national standards – breach/recall action No 2
was not taken as a result of (or before) a Not applicable 3
third unacceptable failure was it taken
subsequently?
38. (C) If breach/recall action not taken as Yes, and reasons fully recorded 1
a result of (or before) third unacceptable Yes, and reasons not fully recorded 2
failure has the line manager made an entry No 3
endorsing the decision and given full Not applicable 4
reasons in the case record?
39. (C) How many acceptable absences have there been? None 1
1-2 2
3-5 3
6-10 4
More than 10 5
Offenders aged 21 and over only
40. (C) If the licence was breached, what was the Final formal warning 1
outcome? ACO warning 2
Recall to SEU 3
Not applicable 4
Offenders aged under 21 only
41. (C) If the licence was breached, what was the Fine 1
outcome? Additional period of imprisonment of up to 60 days 2
Not applicable 3
42. Did changed circumstances at any time suggest Yes 1
an enhanced risk of serious harm to the public (or No 2
particular individuals)?
43. If yes to Q42, did the area inform the Home Yes and a recommendation to recall 1
Office Sentence Enforcement Unit immediately? Yes and a recommendation not to recall 2
Yes but no clear recommendation about recall 3
No and the record indicates why not 4
No and the record does not indicate why not 5
Not applicable 6

Additional licence conditions


NB: does not apply to HDC, which is a separate licence

44. If there were licence condition(s) Yes 1


requiring the offender to refrain from No 2
certain activities (e.g. not to come within a Not clear 3
certain distance of a particular address), No such licence condition(s) 4
did any situation arise that required the No licence on file 5
supervisor to take action to seek to
ensure compliance?

7
In relation to action on a third unacceptable failure, there may be some cases where breach or recall action has been taken but it is not entirely
clear, because of a time delay, whether it results specifically from the third rather than a subsequent failure. In these circumstances answer “other
action”.

Resettlement v 4
Appendix 4

45. If yes to Q44, did the supervising Yes definitely 1


officer take all appropriate action to Some appropriate action but not all 2
address the situation (e.g. multi-agency No appropriate action 3
case conference, consideration of recall, Not clear 4
formal warning)? No situation arose 5
No such licence condition(s) 6
No licence on file 7
46. If there were licence condition(s) Yes, (all) implemented, and promptly 1
requiring the offender to take certain (All) implemented but (some/all) could have been more promptly 2
action (e.g. to attend a programme, Not (all) implemented 3
receive treatment, or reside at a hostel) None implemented 4
have they all been implemented (to Not clear 5
date)? No such licence condition(s) 6
No licence on file 7

Risk Assessment/Supervision Planning


8 9
47. Is there a sufficient assessment , either in the Yes 1
supervision plan (SP) or in a formal risk assessment Yes, but not sufficient 2
document, of the risk of the offender’s causing serious No direct victim(s) 3
harm to the victim(s) of the offence? No SP/risk assessment document 4
48. Is there a sufficient8 assessment9, either in the Yes 1
supervision plan or in a formal risk assessment Yes, but not sufficient 2
document, of the risk of the offender’s causing serious No SP/risk assessment document 3
harm to the public?
49. Is there a sufficient8 assessment9, either in the Yes 1
supervision plan or in a formal risk assessment Yes, but not sufficient 2
document, of the risk of the offender causing serious No SP/risk assessment document 3
harm to staff?
50. Was a written supervision plan completed within Yes 1
15 working days of release (including up to 15 days No 2
prior to release)? Supervision plan not, or imprecisely dated 3
No supervision plan 4
51. Was the supervision plan always reviewed at least Yes 1
every 16 weeks? No 2
Licence ran for less than 16 weeks 3
No supervision plan 4
52. (T) Is there a final review on termination? Yes 1
No 2
No supervision plan 3
53. (T) Was an assessment of risk of harm to the Yes 1
public and/or victim reviewed at least every 16 weeks? No 2
No (initial) risk of harm assessment 3
Licence ran for less than 16 weeks 4
54. For offenders considered Very High or High risk of Yes 1
causing serious harm to the public (in OASys), was a No 2
sufficient risk management plan (either within the Not considered high or very high risk of serious
supervision plan or formal risk management harm to public 3
document) available within 5 working days of release,
or the date at which a previously lesser risk was
identified as having risen to High or Very High?

8
Sufficient in context of the case.
9
For any case where OASys was already in operation in the area when it commenced, your view of the sufficiency of the assessment should take
account as to whether OASys was used appropriately.
Resettlement v 4
Appendix 4

EMPLOYMENT, EDUCATION AND ACCOMMODATION ISSUES


(for completion at termination only – circle one from each column)

55. (T) Employment status


Immediately prior to Immediately At termination of
start of custody following release licence

Employed (full or part time) 1 1 1


Temporary or casual work 2 2 2
Education or training 3 3 3
Unemployed currently but has been in employment
at some stage during post release supervision 4
Unemployed but appointment made for job
interview 5
Unemployed 6 6 6
Unavailable for work 7 7 7
Unclear from record 8 8 8

56. (T) Accommodation status

Settled 1 1 1
Not settled 2 2 2
Unclear from record 3 3 3

Departures from national standards

57. (T) If there were any (exceptional) departures from national standards other than breach were these approved by
managers in advance?

Yes always 1
Sometimes but not always 2
No, never 3
Not applicable 4

Resettlement v 4
Appendix 4

For use locally by middle manager reader:

Strengths:

Weaknesses/areas for improvement:

Resettlement v 4
Appendix 5

NATIONAL PROBATION DIRECTORATE

MONITORING OF NATIONAL STANDARDS (REVISED 2002)


AND EFFECTIVENESS OF SUPERVISION

DRUG TREATMENT & TESTING ORDER (DTTO)


Notes:
For questions with several options, please circle one answer (except where multiple answers permitted).
In counting working days from one event to another, treat “day one” as the first working day after the first event, but
include the day of the second event in the count. So e.g. the day of the court order should not be counted but the day of
the appointment should. Do not count Saturdays, Sundays or public holidays as working days.
If information as to compliance with the standard is not clear, record this as the standard not having been met, on the
basis that the information should be clearly recorded.
Monitoring of cases 6 months after commencement cases should cover all questions other than those marked “(T)”.
Monitoring at termination should cover all questions other than those marked “(C)”.
Shaded questions are optional. NPD no longer requires the data from these, but areas can continue to use them for local
monitoring.

Probation area code (two-digit numerical code, as form 20) ………….


Data Period ………….
Officer code of middle manager reader ………….
Team code ………….
Officer code of supervising officer ………….
Is this case being sampled as a termination? Y/N
Date this form was completed (by the monitor) dd____/mm____/yy____
Date of commencement of order dd____/mm____/yy____
(T) Date of termination of order dd____/mm____/yy____

1. Offender’s reference code ……..……


2. Gender of offender (please circle) M / F
3. Offender race/ethnicity code (new two character code, as set out in guidance)
………

4. Age of offender (at commencement) (write in numbers)


5. Type of concurrent Order, i.e. imposed on same day as DTTO (You may circle more than one):
NONE 1
CRO WITH NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS 2
CRO WITH RESIDENCE REQUIREMENT (OTHER THAN FOR RESIDENTIAL TREATMENT) 3
CRO WITH REQUIREMENT FOR RESIDENTIAL TREATMENT 4
CRO INCLUDING REQUIREMENT FOR ACCREDITED PROGRAMME 5
CRO WITH ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT(S) OTHER THAN A RESIDENCE REQUIREMENT OR FOR
ACCREDITED PROGRAMME 6
CPO 7
If any other additional requirement(s), write wording as on Order or summarise:

6. Length of DTTO (months) (write in numbers) ….………


7. Is this a lower intensity DTTO? Yes 1
No 2
Unclear 3

DTTO v 4
Appendix 5

8. Is this a case from a register of offenders who pose a risk of causing serious harm to the public or to
victim(s) (equivalent to High or Very High risk of harm in OASys)?
Yes 1
No 2
Unclear 3

DTTO Assessment
9. Timeliness of DTTO Assessment: Within 15 working days of the original request for the PSR 1
When was the DTTO assessment Within 5 working days of the presentation of the PSR 2
completed? [One answer only – choose In 20 or less working days of the original request for the PSR 3
highest on list if more then one applies] More than 20 working days after the original request for the PSR 4
Not clear 5

Contact, compliance and enforcement


10. Promptness of 1 Probation appointment arranged: 1
st
Yes 1
Was the first appointment with the probation service arranged to take place for within one working No 2
day of the making of the order?
11. Promptness of 1st Probation appointment achieved: 2 Yes 1
Did the first appointment with the probation service take place within one working day of the making No 2
of the order?
12. Promptness of 1st treatment provider3 appointment arranged: 1 Yes 1
Was the first appointment with the treatment provider2 arranged to take place for within two working No 2
days of the making of the order?
13. Promptness of 1st treatment provider3 appointment achieved: 2 Yes 1
Did the first appointment with the treatment provider take place within two working days of the No 2
making of the order?
4
14. Level of total contact arranged An average of less than 10 hours per week 1
4
DURING first 13 weeks of the order: An average of 10 or more hours per week 2
Counting all contact, including treatment, An average of 15 or more hours per week4 3
what level of total contact was arranged An average of 20 or more hours per week4 4
to take place by the end of the first 13 Not applicable, breach proceedings underway and manager's
weeks of the order? Divide the total hours authorisation to offer no further appointments is clearly recorded
arranged by the total number of weeks4 on file 5
[Select one/highest only] Not applicable, offender in custody or long-term sickness 6
Not clear 7
15. Level of total contact achieved An average of less than 10 hours per week4 1
DURING first 13 weeks of the order: An average of 10 or more hours per week4 2
Counting all contact, including treatment, An average of 15 or more hours per week4 3
what level of total contact was achieved An average of 20 or more hours per week4 4
by the end of the first 13 weeks of the Not applicable, breach proceedings underway and manager's
4
order? [Select one/highest only] authorisation to offer no further appointments is clearly recorded
on file 5
Not applicable, offender in custody or long-term sickness 6
Not clear 7

1 st
Appointments arranged: Appointments should be counted as ‘arranged’ whether they are defined all at one time (e.g. ‘every weekday from 1
May from 10.00 am until 3.00 p.m. for the next 13 weeks’) or made one at a time - e.g. at each appointment the next appointment is made. This
applies to other references to “appointments arranged”.
2
Appointments achieved: If an offender turns up at the office without an appointment but a member of staff sees them for a substantive
interview this should be counted here (and further below) as an appointment taking place. This applies to other references to “appointments taking
place” or “attended”.
3
Note that in some probation areas the NPS itself might be the 'treatment provider'.
4
Count the first 13 weeks of the Order or to termination if sooner.
DTTO v 4
Appendix 5

16. Level of total contact arranged Less than 6 hours per week4 1
4
AFTER the first 13 weeks of the order: An average of 6 or more hours per week 2
Counting all contact, including treatment, An average of 9 or more hours per week4 3
what level of total contact was arranged An average of 12 or more hours per week4 4
to take place after the first 13 weeks of Not clear 5
the order? Divide the total hours arranged No relevant weeks4 after first 13 weeks of the order 6
by the total number of weeks in the
relevant period4 [Select one/highest only]
17. Level of total contact achieved Less than 6 hours per week4 1
AFTER the first 13 weeks of the order: An average of 6 or more hours per week4 2
Counting all contact, including treatment, An average of 9 or more hours per week4 3
what level of total contact was achieved An average of 12 or more hours per week4 4
after the first 13 weeks of the order?4 Not clear 5
[Select one/highest only] No relevant weeks4 after first 13 weeks of the order 6
18. Timeliness of investigating
failures:
On the occasions of an apparent Yes, always 1
failure to comply was action taken Sometimes but not always 2
within 2 working days to determine the No, on none of the occasions 3
reasons for failure? There were no apparent failures 4
19. Recording of Offender’s
explanation and Supervisor's
opinion
(For the apparent failures to comply:
(a) is the offender’s explanation Yes, always, and clearly within 7 working days 1
(or lack) clearly recorded within Yes always recorded but not always clearly within 7 working days 2
seven working days of the No 3
failure? There were no apparent failures 4

(b) is the supervisor’s opinion of Yes, always, and clearly within 7 working days 1
whether explanation acceptable Yes always recorded but not always clearly within 7 working days 2
or unacceptable clearly recorded No 3
within seven working days of the There were no apparent failures 4
failure5?
20. Where the supervisor’s opinion on Yes, always 1
whether the apparent failure was Sometimes but not always 2
Acceptable or Unacceptable5 is No, for none of the opinions 3
recorded, does this appear to be an No opinions were recorded 4
appropriate assessment? There were no apparent failures 5

Note: ENFORCEMENT OF UNACCEPTABLE FAILURES: The section below applies to unacceptable failures to comply with the
requirements of the order. It includes throughout (in the same way as any failures in respect of attendance with the supervising officer) any
unacceptable failures, including:
• unacceptable behaviour
• failure to attend at a treatment provider and/or partnership agency as a requirement of supervision

For questions concerning action on unacceptable failures to comply (Q21 – 22) please:

(a) Record action taken as a result of (apparently) the unacceptable failure concerned, even if by the time the action is taken a further
failure(s) has occurred.

(b) Record action (if any) taken as a result of the unacceptable failure once designated as such; not the means (e.g. letter or home visit)
used to discover reason for apparent failure.

(c) If there are more than 2 unacceptable (or undesignated) failures in the 6 months, record action just on first 2.

(d) Count any failure not designated as either acceptable or unacceptable as unacceptable.

(e) If a failure is clearly designated as acceptable but you think it should have been unacceptable (and/or the supervisor has not
explained the designation), treat it as acceptable for purposes of question 21 and 22.

Breach action7, taken within 10 working days8 of the failure 1

5
The record must show explicitly either the words “acceptable” or “unacceptable”, or employ a clear and consistent area-wide recording
convention which designates both Acceptable and Unacceptable failures as such (e.g.: U, A)
NOTE: You must count any failure not clearly designated as either Acceptable or Unacceptable as UNACCEPTABLE. If a failure is clearly
designated as Acceptable but you think it should have been Unacceptable (and/or the officer has not explained the designation), you must still mark
it as Acceptable for the purposes of question 19. Question 20 is the one that seeks the file reader’s opinion.
DTTO v 4
Appendix 5

21. (C) Action on 1st Unacceptable Breach action7, taken within 10 working days8 of the failure 1
failure: Breach action7, taken more than 10 working days8 after the 2
What action6 was taken as a result of the failure
first Unacceptable failure to comply? Formal final written warning 3
N.B. Failure to attend shall be reckoned Other action 4
as an unacceptable failure to comply No apparent action 5
only once in respect of any one day. No unacceptable failure 6
nd
22. (C) Action on 2 unacceptable Breach action7 taken within 10 working days8 of the failure 1
6
failure: What action was taken as a Breach action7 taken more than 10 working days8 after the failure 2
result of a second unacceptable failure Other action 3
to comply within a 12-month period? No apparent action 4
[See again the three notes above] No second unacceptable failure 5
23. (C) Action after 2nd unacceptable Yes 1
failure: No 2
If – contrary to the requirement of Not applicable 3
national standards – breach action was
not taken as a result of (or before) a
second unacceptable failure, was it
taken subsequently?
24. (C) If breach action not taken as a Yes, and reasons fully recorded 1
result of (or before) second Yes, and reasons not fully recorded 2
unacceptable failure has the line No 3
manager made an entry endorsing the Not applicable 4
decision and given full reasons in the
case record?
25. (C) How many acceptable absences have there been? None 1
1-2 2
3-5 3
6-10 4
More than 10 5
26. (C). If breach action was taken, was the Offender Additional Yes 1
Information Sheet completed (as per PC 17/04)? No 2
Not applicable 3
27. (C) If breach action was taken, was the order allowed to continue Yes 1
by the court? No 2
Not applicable 3
28. (C) If it was not allowed to continue, what was the court outcome? Fine 1
Additional CP hours 2
Order revoked and re-sentenced 3
Order expired 4
Not applicable 5
29. (C) If the order was revoked and the offender re-sentenced, what Custody 1
was the sentence? New community sentence 2
Awaiting sentence 3
Not applicable 4

6
Description of action taken: Ensure that you are recording the action (if any) taken as a result of a failure being designated an Unacceptable
failure, not the means (e.g. letter or home visit) employed to ascertain the reason for the apparent failure. Sometimes one letter serves both
functions, in which case it meets the criterion of “action taken” - provided that the failure remains designated as an Unacceptable failure. If the
officer later in the record re-designates the failure Acceptable this question must be applied instead to the first failure if there is one in the case
record that remains designated Unacceptable.
7
What qualifies as breach action: Application made for summons or warrant to return offender to court for breach, (based on the date of the
application). This may mean going to court and actually taking out a summons or warrant, or it may mean notifying a court or delegated authority by
letter, secure e-mail, fax or telephone that breach action has been decided on and asking that arrangements be made for the officer to take out a
summons or warrant. . This may also include cases that have been listed in a breach court through locally agreed administrative procedures.
Breach action is NOT “papers passed to breach officer” or “decided to breach him/her” or “discussed case with SPO and it was decided to go for
breach”. There must be clear evidence of contact having been made with the court or delegated authority itself. If there is some doubt as to
whether breach action (on the above basis) has been taken, answer “other action”.
8
Timing of action taken: Sometimes a further failure takes place before action is taken in response to the previous failure, e.g when there are
failed appointments on consecutive days. However, provided that it is explicitly clear from the record that the action being taken is in response to
(or “as a result of”) that previous failure, any breach action will meet the standard if it is taken within 10 working days of that failure, even if a further
failure takes place in the interim. If this point is NOT clear from the record though, give the answer “Other action”. If there are more than two
unacceptable (or undesignated) failures in a 12 month period, record just action on first two.
DTTO v 4
Appendix 5

Testing
30. Frequency of testing achieved Two tests or more per week, with at least 2 tests every calendar
DURING first 13 weeks of the order: week 1
What frequency of testing was achieved An average of 2 tests per week, with no more than 2 calendar
by the end of the first 13 weeks of the weeks with less than two tests 2
order? Divide the total number of tests An average of 1 test or more per week 3
achieved by the total number of weeks9. An average of less than 1 test per week 4
[Select one/highest only] Not clear 5
31. Frequency of testing achieved One test or more per week, with a test in every single calendar
AFTER the first 13 weeks of the week8 1
order: An average of one test or more per week, not on a test-every-
What frequency of testing was achieved week basis 2
after the end of the first 13 weeks of the An average of less than one test per week 3
order? Divide the total number of tests Not clear 4
achieved by the total number of weeks9 No relevant weeks9 after first 13 weeks of the order 5
in the relevant period. [One/highest only]
32. Where the minimum standard of Offender non-attendance 1
testing twice per week in the first 13 Offender admitted drug use and DID sign the admission form 2
weeks, or/and once per week after 13 Offender’s refusal, NOT complying with the Order10 3
weeks (with testing in every single week) Offender inability to produce a sample 4
was not met, what was the reason, in the Tester omitted to arrange (sufficient) tests 5
file reader’s opinion? Not clear 6
(You may circle more than one of these) Not applicable (minimum standard met or exceeded, OR no
relevant weeks) 7

Court Reviews
Content of the Review Reports: Please indicate whether or not each of the following four elements required by
National Standards were in the reports prepared for the first and second Review Hearings held on this Order:
1st review: Yes 1
33. The test results No 2
Unclear 3
No 1st review 4
st
1 review: Yes 1
34. The views of the treatment provider as to the No 2
treatment and testing of the offender Unclear 3
No 1st review 4
st
1 review: Yes 1
35. The record of the offender in keeping all No 2
appointments Unclear 3
st
No 1 review 4
st
1 review: Included well enough 1
36. Judgements by supervising officer as to the Included, but not well enough 2
offender’s attitude and response to the Order as a Not included 3
whole. No 1st review 4
nd
2 review: Yes 1
37. The test results No 2
Unclear 3
No 2nd review 4
nd
2 review: Yes 1
38. The views of the treatment provider as to the No 2
treatment and testing of the offender Unclear 3
No 2nd review 4

9
Count the first 13 weeks of the Order or to termination if sooner; or up to any explicit decision to cease offering appointments while breach action
was underway because the offender was unco-operative/disruptive and that for these or other similar reasons it was clear that no useful purpose
would be served by offering further appointments.
The count of weeks for questions 40 - 42 should also exclude if relevant:
- any week where the offender was in custody;
- any periods of medically certificated sickness of more than 2 consecutive weeks.
10
DTTO National Standards state that “The only circumstance in which offenders shall not always be required to provide a sample is if they have
admitted drug use in advance of the test.” But they must sign a form to that effect, AND be offered a test. If the offender has orally admitted drug
use, but refuses to sign the form confirming that admission, and then also refuses a test, that refusal still constitutes a “failure to comply” and must
therefore be managed within the National Standards for Enforcement, as covered earlier.
DTTO v 4
Appendix 5
2nd review: Yes 1
39. The record of the offender in keeping all No 2
appointments Unclear 3
No 2nd review 4
2nd review: Included well enough 1
40. Judgements by supervising officer as to the Included, but not well enough 2
offender’s attitude and response to the Order as a Not included 3
whole. No 2nd review 4

Risk Assessment/Supervision Planning

41. Content of risk assessment: Yes 1


Is there a sufficient11 assessment, either in the No 2
supervision plan (SP) or in a formal risk assessment No direct victim(s) 3
document, of the risk of the offender’s causing serious No SP/risk assessment document 4
harm to the victim(s) of the offence?
42. Is there a sufficient11 assessment, either in the SP Yes 1
or in a formal risk assessment document, of the risk of No 2
the offender’s causing serious harm to the public? No SP/risk assessment document 3
43. Is there a sufficient11 assessment, either in the SP Yes 1
or in a formal risk assessment document, of the risk of No 2
the offender causing serious harm to staff? No SP/risk assessment document 3
44. Timeliness of 1st supervision plan11: Yes 1
Was a written supervision plan completed within 15 No 2
working days of the order being made? No supervision plan 3
45. Regularity of supervision plans: Yes 1
Was the supervision plan always reviewed at least No 2
every 16 weeks? Order ran for less than 16 weeks 3
No supervision plan 4
46. (T) Is there a final review on termination? Yes 1
No 2
No supervision plan 3
47. Use of OASys:
(a) Is there evidence of an OASys assessment being Yes 1
completed in this case? No 2

(b) If yes, is the offender's PNC number recorded? Yes 1


No 2
Not applicable 3
48. Timeliness of 1st risk assessment: Yes 1
For offenders considered (in OASys) as High or Very No 2
High risk of causing serious harm to the public, was a Not considered High or Very High risk of serious
sufficient11 risk management plan (either within the harm to the public 3
supervision plan or formal risk management
document) available within 5 working days of the order
being made, or the date at which a previously lesser
risk was identified as having risen to High or Very
High?
(T) Regularity of risk assessments: Yes 1
49. (Applies to all cases) Some review, but not as frequent/regular 2
Was an assessment of risk of harm to the public No 3
and/or victim reviewed at least every 16 weeks? No (initial) risk of harm assessment 4
Order ran for less than 16 weeks 5
50. Quality of joint management of case: Very good 1
Overall, how would you rate the joint management of Satisfactory 2
the various elements of supervision? (Probation Not satisfactory 3
supervision, treatment provider, concurrent Order(s)) Very poor 4

11
The DTTO assessment for the original sentencing court counts as part of the PSR for the purpose of assessing the PSR, but it can also count as
st
the 1 supervision plan for the purpose of this exercise.
DTTO v 4
Appendix 5

Employment, Education and Accommodation


(for completion at termination only – for first two questions circle one from each column)

51. (T) Employment status Immediately prior to order At termination


Employed (full or part time) 1 1
Temporary or casual work 2 2
Education or training 3 3
Unemployed currently but has been in employment at some
stage during supervision on order 4
Unemployed but appointment made for job interview 5 5
Unemployed 6 6
Unavailable for work 7 7
Unclear from record 8 8

52. (T) Accommodation status


Settled 1 1
Not settled 2 2
Unclear from record 3 3

Departures from National Standards


(for completion at termination only)

53. (T) If there were any (exceptional) Yes always 1


departures from national standards other Sometimes but not always 2
than breach, were these approved by No, never 3
managers in advance? Not applicable 4

DTTO v 4
Appendix 5
Notes: Please use this section for making brief observations in exceptional cases only under the
following three headings (continue overleaf if necessary)

Strengths:

Weaknesses/areas for improvement:

Diversity issues:

DTTO v 4
Appendix 6

Guidance to areas for National Standards Monitoring (REVISED 2004)

Area Co-ordinators

1. Probation Circular 133/2001, issued on 10 September 2001, requested areas to


nominate an area co-ordinator of at least ACO grade to organise the monitoring exercise
within the area, including extraction of the sample, allocation of the case reading work,
collation of the forms centrally and sending the data to NPD, as below. A list of area co-
ordinators is attached at Annex A. Areas are asked to check their details and notify any
changes to Ed Stradling, National Probation Directorate, Room 362, Horseferry House,
Dean Ryle Street, London SW1P 2AW, (telephone 020 7217 0758/fax 020 7217 8986), or e-
mail to: Ed.Stradling@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk.

Extraction of samples

2. The area co-ordinator should identify, at a central point, the following cases each month:

(a) the first 20% (by date) of commencements of each of:


• Community Rehabilitation Orders (CROs) in the month 6 months previously (e.g. for
July, identify relevant commencements in January)
• Community Punishment Orders (CPOs) in the month 6 months previously
• Community Punishment and Rehabilitation Orders (CPROs) in the month 6 months
previously
• Drug Treatment & Testing Orders (DTTOs) in the month 6 months previously
• licences (i.e. releases), excluding lifer cases, in the month 6 months previously

(b) the first 7% (by date) of the terminations in the previous month of each of
• CROs
• CPOs
• CPROs
• DTTOs
• Licences, excluding lifer cases

3. If information on terminations the previous month is not available at a central point in the
area in sufficient time to extract the sample, the sample can instead be based on
terminations in the month before that.

4. The samples at (a) and (b) should exclude:

• any order which commenced prior to 1 April 2000, or any licence case where release
was prior to 1 April 2000

• any case where there are concurrent or consecutive orders or licences, except where
a CRO is concurrent with a DTTO, in which case the DTTO should be monitored as
normal, but not the CRO

• any case transferred in from outside the area, or formally transferred out from the
area during the period under review. This means that the whole of the period of
supervision in the community (and in the case of prison licences pre-release work as
well) should have been carried out by the area concerned

• any CPOs supervised by YOTs, or CPROs where the CP element is supervised by


the YOT
• any new or pilot orders, such as Drug Abstinence Orders or Drug Abstinence Orders
Requirements

• any case where the sentencer has specified that National Standards should not
apply.

5. Where a case is excluded as above from (a) or (b), the next case commencing or
terminating (respectively) in strict date order, in the relevant month, should be chosen.

6. Apart from these exclusions however, no other case should be excluded from the
samples.

7. It is recognised that for some areas the cases defined by the above sampling
arrangement may not be evenly spread between work units (e.g. teams or divisions) in a
given month. Within the context of these general arrangements, areas may if they wish sub-
divide the total sample (as defined above) between divisions or teams pro rata to their size,
so as to ensure that all units and parts of the area are covered in a reasonably
representative way. However within each unit cases should be selected in strict date order,
on the above basis. If areas do sub-divide the sample in this way, they will need to be able
to demonstrate, for audit validation purposes, that this subdivision has been done just to
ensure a representative spread of cases, without systematically over or under sampling any
part of the area, and that within each unit cases have indeed been selected in strict date
order.

8. The area co-ordinator should retain a record either electronic or on paper, including the
lists of cases in date order, indicating clearly how the samples for each month were chosen
according to the above criteria, for audit and validation purposes. The record for each data
set should be retained for 15 months.

Reading of cases and completion of forms/NSMART

9. Cases should be allocated to and read by SPOs/other middle managers, who will,
according to local arrangements:
• either complete the on-screen questionnaires on NSMART and forward the electronic
data to a central co-ordination point for collation
• or complete paper forms and forward these to the area's information section for inputting
onto NSMART

(Where there is uncertainty as to what is a “middle manager”, the general principle for this
purpose is that cases should be read by a manager who supervises staff with prime
responsibility for supervising cases; or by another manager of the same grade.)

10. As far as possible each SPO/“middle manager” should read the sampled
cases/PSRs done by the staff he/she supervises, partly so that this can inform
supervision of those staff. It is intended that this should certainly be the position in the
majority of cases. However, where this would result in an unequal distribution (e.g. where
some SPOs head larger generic teams and others smaller more specialist teams) some of
the cases from the larger teams can instead be allocated to SPOs with smaller teams or to
senior practitioners with responsibility for the quality of work of their colleagues, for a more
even distribution of work. Similarly if the relevant SPO is on extended leave, the cases for
that month should be allocated to other SPO(s), or the ACO. But where SPOs or other
staff monitor cases that are not from their unit, they should feed back comments from
their scrutiny to the relevant SPO for use in supervision of the staff concerned.

11. The above arrangements define the number of cases that should be monitored by an
area each month for the national monitoring system. Areas may though of course locally if
they wish ask SPOs to monitor a larger number of cases, for staff supervision or other
purposes, and indeed this wider use of NSMART is to be encouraged. However, only the
data for the cases specified above should be returned to NPD (as paragraph 16 below).

12. In scrutinising orders and licence cases, the reader is likely to need to have available full
information on the case, both that held electronically and that held in paper form. The
information required is likely to comprise:
• basic factual information
• PSR(s) / SSRs where relevant
• supervision plan and any reviews (including OASys documentation if OASys has been
used)
• any separate risk assessments (including relevant assessment for CPO), and reviews
• contact logs, including records of attendance at programmes or with other agencies
which the offender attended under the direction of the supervising officer plus a record of
any enforcement action
• any record of the acceptability/non-acceptability of failures including relevant screen
prints (whether or not these are held on the main screen/record)
• any more detailed records of interviews
• (if not covered by the above) for CPOs, record of hours worked on each occasion, and of
cumulative count of hours worked
• any correspondence.

13. Where paper forms are being completed, monitors are asked to:

• ensure that they use version 4 of the monitoring forms for CROs, CPOs, CPROs,
Resettlement and DTTO monitoring forms (shown by "v.4" in the bottom left hand
corner of the forms)

• answer every unshaded question apart from those marked (T) (termination) where
reading is of cases at 6 months and all questions apart from those marked (C)
(commencement) where reading cases at termination. Shaded questions are
optional and it is for local management to decide which of these questions should be
answered in any given month

• ensure that the answer given is clear and clearly legible. Amendments (if any)
should be made clearly, preferably using red ink

• for questions with numbered response options (the large majority) circle the number
not the description

• where responses are numbers, enter numbers (as numerals) not words (e.g. “7” not
“seven”)

Where NSMART is being completed, users are asked to:

• ensure version 2 of NSMART is used

• follow the on-screen instructions carefully

• start a new session at the start of data entry for the new reporting month, otherwise
choose continuing session if appending data
• make sure all questions that require completion have been answered and archive
only when all records for the reporting month have been entered.

14. In assessing the case, the reader should make judgements on the basis of what is
recorded, and not make suppositions about what has not been recorded. If information as to
compliance with the national standard is not clear, or not recorded, the question should be
answered as the standard not having been met, on the basis that the information should
have been clearly recorded. In that event, the need for better recording would then certainly
be an issue for the SPO/middle manager to raise in supervision with the staff member
concerned.

15. Guidance and definitions on certain specific items are as follows:

Data Period

This is a 4 character numeric code for the month and year to which the reading of the data
relates. So, for example, the data period code for cases to be read in July 2004 at the 6
month stage (those which had commenced in January 2004) will be 0704; the code for those
to be read in February 2005 (having terminated in January 2005) will be 0205. The data
period code should therefore identify the forms relating to the reading for a particular month.

Officer code of middle manager reader


Officer code of supervising officer
These are codes of up to 4 characters. The details are a matter of choice for the area
provided they identify these two staff members uniquely within the area. (A number of areas
have a 4-character code for staff members and where relevant that code would be used
here.) The area co-ordinator will need to define the precise codes to be used here.

Team code
This is a code of up to 3 characters. The details are a matter of choice for the area provided
they identify the relevant team/unit uniquely within the area. The area co-ordinator will need
to define the position here.

Offender’s reference code


This is a code of up to 8 characters. The details are a matter of choice for the area provided
they identify the offender uniquely within the area. (It is likely that this will usually be the
CRN number.) The area co-ordinator will need to define the position here.

Offender race/ethnicity code


For the offender race/ethnicity code, areas should use the Census 2001 categories, listed
below. Areas should have re-categorised all of their caseload by now. It is important that
these specific codes be used for this purpose, rather than any other system currently in use
in the area.

Definition of working day


“Working days” comprise all days except for weekends and public holidays. “Privilege days”
which some areas add to Bank Holidays, should be counted as ordinary working days for the
purpose of this monitoring.

Collation of data and sending to NPD

16. Monitors should send completed forms or NSMART data sets for a given month to the
area co-ordinator. It will be necessary first to make photocopies of the forms or printouts
from NSMART for staff supervision purposes (if this has not already taken place).
17. The area co-ordinator should:

• check that all cases allocated for monitoring (as at paragraph 9 above) have been
returned, and chase up if necessary;

• if paper forms have been used, check briefly that:

- all relevant questions have been answered (i.e. for orders/licences: for “6
month” cases, all questions other than those marked (T); and for “termination”
cases, all questions other than those marked (C);

- that all answers are clear (particularly if any have been amended);

- that appropriate codes have been used (e.g. for offender race and ethnicity,
and for data period);

• and liaise as appropriate with the monitor if they have not been

• ensure that where paper forms have been used the sample is complete and arrange for
inputting onto NSMART

• merge all of the NSMART data for the area for that month and send it, as one workbook
comprising five separate worksheets (CRO, CPO, CPRO, resettlement and DTTO),
preferably by e-mail to: NPD.DATA@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk or alternatively on floppy disk
to Ed Stradling, NPD, Room 362, Horseferry House, Dean Ryle Street, London SW1P
2AU, to arrive by the 15th of the following month.

Queries

18. Any queries or problems on the monitoring arrangements on the part of readers should
be referred in the first instance within the area to the area co-ordinator. If this requires
guidance from NPD, areas should contact Ed Stradling (details above).
ANNEX A

Area Co-ordinators for National Standards Monitoring

Probation Area Area Co-Ordinator


Avon & Somerset Frank Meadows (Head Office) 0117 915 1305
Bedfordshire Martin Scott (Head Office) 01234 213541
Cambridgeshire Dot Clarke (Head Office) 01223 712345
Cheshire Sandra Link (Head Office) 01244 394500
Cumbria Annette Hennessy 01228 560057
Derbyshire Michael Slade (Head Office) 01629 55422
Devon & Cornwall Mark Overend, 22 Lemon Street, Truro TR1 2LS, (01872)
326252
Dorset Nick Heape (Head Office) 01305 224786
Co. Durham Sue Hine (Head Office) 0191 3839083
Essex Steve Johnson-Proctor (Head Office) 01376 501626
Gloucestershire Julia Oulton (Head Office) 01452 426250
Hampshire Richard Pearce (Head Office) 01962 842202
Hertfordshire Carol Cann 01992 504444
Humberside Voni Alexander (Head Office) 01482 867271
Kent Alan Dowie (Head Office) 01622 350825
Lancashire Phil Crooks (Head Office) 01772 201209
Leicestershire & Rutland Trevor Worsfold (Head Office) 0116 251 6008
Lincolnshire Stephen Spurden 01522 523308/520776
London Wayne Brazier, (Head Office) 7960 1692
Greater Manchester Phil Kelly (Head Office) 0161 872 4802
Merseyside Peter Murray, 4th floor, Head Office 0151 9209201
Norfolk Judith Blackman, (Head Office) 01603 220100
Northamptonshire Roger Pearse (Head Office) Tel: 01604 658000
Northumbria Barry Taylor (Head Office) 0191 281 5721
Nottinghamshire Gill Francis 0115 840 6500
Staffordshire Rob Mandley (Head Office) 01785 223416
Suffolk Julia Stephens-Row (Head Office) 01473 408130
Surrey Jim Gritton 01483 860191
Sussex Adrian Smith (Head Office) 01273 669966
Teesside Alistair Morrison 01642 230533
Thames Valley Maxine Myatt 01869 255300
Warwickshire Andy Wade (Head Office) 01926 405800
West Mercia Jeff Jones/Julie Masters 01562 820071
West Midlands Anne Brannigan 0121 248 6666
Wiltshire Barrie Higgins (Head Office) 01225 781952
North Yorkshire Kevin Robinson (Head Office) 01609 778644
South Yorkshire Ian Menary (Head Office) 0114 276 6911
West Yorkshire Imogen Brown (Head Office) 01924 885300
Dyfed-Powys Jeremy Corbett, (The Limes, Temple Street, Llandrindod
Wells, LD1 5DP) 01267 221567
Gwent Adam Gotley (Head Office) 01495 762462
North Wales Ray Murphy (Head Office) 01492 513413
South Wales Julia Woodberry (Head Office) 029 2078 5070
ANNEX B

'Census 2001' Race & Ethnicity Codes

White: British W1
White: Irish W2
White: Other W9

Mixed: White & Black Caribbean M1


Mixed: White & Black African M2
Mixed: White & Asian M3
Mixed: Other M9

Asian or Asian British: Indian A1


Asian or Asian British: Pakistani A2
Asian or Asian British: Bangladeshi A3
Asian or Asian British: Other A9

Black or Black British: Caribbean B1


Black or Black British: African B2
Black or Black British: Other B9

Chinese O1
Other Ethnic Group O9

Refusal NS