NATIONAL STANDARDS MONITORING

PURPOSE
To inform areas of new arrangements to 'streamline' the monitoring of National Standards.

Probation Circular
REFERENCE NO: 24/2004 ISSUE DATE: 30/04/04 IMPLEMENTATION DATE: 1 May 2004 EXPIRY DATE: May 2009 TO: Chairs of Probation Boards Chief Officers of Probation Secretaries of Probation Boards CC: Board Treasurers Regional Managers AUTHORISED BY: Roger McGarva ATTACHED: Annex A Appendices 1-6

ACTION
Areas are requested to implement these changes from May.

SUMMARY
In order to reduce bureaucracy and free up management time for supervision, NPD is reducing the amount of information it collects from areas in the monthly monitoring of National Standards. From the May data period onwards we will only require core information necessary for reporting performance on matters such as enforcement, compliance and contact. Monitoring of other, supporting information will become optional and areas can collect this for their own purposes as and when they wish. Further details are provided in Annex A. Revised monitoring forms and guidance are attached as Appendices 1-6. NSMART has been revised accordingly and is being issued to area National Standards co-ordinators. The deadline for the May returns has been put back to 20 June.

RELEVANT PREVIOUS PROBATION CIRCULARS
PC 34/03: Revised National Standards Monitoring Arrangements

CONTACT FOR ENQUIRIES
By e-mail to: Ed.Stradling@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk or by telephone on 020 7217 0758.

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? Date this form was completed (by the monitor) Date of commencement of order

…………. …………. …………. …………. ………….

Y/N dd____/mm____/yy____ dd____/mm____/yy____ dd____/mm____/yy____ ………………… M / F …………… … ………...

(T) Date of termination of order
1. Offender’s reference code 2. Gender of offender (please circle) 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 CRO including requirement for accredited programme CRO with additional requirement(s) other than for accredited programme 6. Length of order (months) (write in numbers)

1 2 3 .………. 1 2 3

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

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 order? 9. Did the first appointment1 take place within 5 working days of the making of the order? 10. Were 12 appointments arranged2 to take place in the first 12 weeks? Yes No, offender in custody or long term sickness3 No, breach proceedings underway and manager's authorisation to offer no further appointments is clearly recorded on the file 11. Were at least 12 appointments attended in the first 12 weeks? 12. Were at least 6 appointments arranged to take place in the second 12 weeks? No Yes No Yes No, offender in custody or long term sickness
3

Yes No Yes No

1 2 1 2 1 2

3 4 1 2 1 2

No, breach proceedings underway and manager's authorisation to offer no further appointments is clearly recorded on file No 13. Were at least 6 appointments attended in the second 12 weeks? 14. (T) After first 24 weeks, were at least monthly contacts arranged to take place? Order ran for less than 24 weeks Yes No Order ran for less than 24 weeks Yes No, offender in custody or long term sickness
3

3 4 5 1 2 3 1 2 3

No, breach proceedings underway and manager's authorisation to offer no further appointments is clearly recorded on file No Order ran for 24 weeks or less 15. (T) After first 24 weeks did contact take place at least monthly throughout order (whether or not order now terminated)? 16. Did a home visit take place? Yes No Order ran for 24 weeks or less Yes No, offender resident in hostel (now “approved premises”) No, offender homeless or NFA No Yes, and within 4 weeks of the order being made Yes, but not within 4 weeks No No accredited programme requirement Yes definitely Yes probably Might have done more Should definitely have done more

4 5 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4

17. If there is accredited programme requirement, has programme (or specified pre-programme phase) commenced? 18. Did the supervisor do all she/he could to achieve the required level of contact in this case?

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.) 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.
2

1

CRO v 4

Appendix 1
19. On the occasions of an apparent failure to comply (including any on an additional requirement), was action taken within 2 working days to determine the reasons for failure? 20. For the apparent failures to comply (including any on additional requirement): (a) is the offender’s explanation (or lack) clearly recorded within seven working days of the failure? Yes, always recorded and clearly within seven working days Yes, but not always clearly within seven working days Sometimes but not always No There were no apparent failures (b) is the supervisor’s opinion of whether explanation acceptable or unacceptable clearly recorded within seven working days of the failure4 Yes, always recorded and clearly within seven working days Yes, but not always clearly within seven working days Sometimes but not always No There were no apparent failures Yes, always Sometimes but not always No, for none of the opinions No opinions were recorded There were no apparent failures 1 2 3 4 5 Yes, always Sometimes but not always No, on none of the occasions There were no apparent failures 1 2 3 4

1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

21. Where the supervisor’s opinion on whether the apparent failure was acceptable or unacceptable is recorded, does this appear to be an appropriate assessment?

Note: (a) (b) (c)

for questions concerning action on unacceptable failures to comply (Q22 – 23) please: 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. 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. If there are more than 2 unacceptable (or undesignated) failures in the 6 months, record action just on first 2.

(d) (e)

Count any failure not designated as either acceptable or unacceptable as unacceptable. 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. 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.

(f)

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 failure to comply? Breach action5,taken within 10 days of the failure Breach action5, taken more than 10 days after the failure Formal final written warning Other action No apparent action No unacceptable failure Breach action5, taken within 10 days of the failure Breach action5, taken more than 10 days after the failure Other action No apparent action No second unacceptable failure Yes No Not applicable 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4

23. (C) Action as a result6 of a second unacceptable failure to comply within a 12 month period?

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

Risk Assessment/Supervision Planning
31. Is there a sufficient assessment8, either in the supervision Plan (SP) or in a formal risk assessment document, of the risk of the offender’s causing serious harm to the victim(s) of the offence? 32. Is there a sufficient7 assessment8, either in the supervision plan or in a formal risk assessment document, of the risk of the offender’s causing serious harm to the public?
5 7

Yes Yes, but not sufficient No direct victim(s) No SP/risk assessment document Yes Yes, but not sufficient No SP/risk assessment document

1 2 3 4 1 2 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”. 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

33. Is there a sufficient7 assessment8, either in the supervision plan or in a formal risk assessment document, of the risk of the offender causing serious harm to staff? 34. Was a written supervision plan completed within 15 working days of the order being made? 35. Was the supervision plan always reviewed at least every 16 weeks? 36. (T) Is there a final review on termination? 37. (a) Is there evidence of an OASys assessment being completed in this case? (b) If yes, is the offender's PNC number recorded? 38. (T) Was an assessment of risk of harm to the public and/or victim reviewed at least every 16 weeks? 39. For offenders considered Very High or High risk of causing serious harm to the public (in OASys), was a sufficient risk management plan (either within the 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?

Appendix 1
Yes Yes, but not sufficient No SP/risk assessment document Yes No No supervision plan Yes No Order ran for less than 16 weeks No supervision plan Yes No No supervision plan Yes No Yes No Not applicable Yes No No (initial) risk of harm assessment Order ran for less than 16 weeks Yes No Not considered very high or high risk of serious harm to public 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 1 2 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 1 2 3

Employment, Education And Accommodation Issues
(for completion at termination only – circle one from each column) 40. (T) Employment status Employed (full or part time) Temporary or casual work Education or training Unemployed currently but has been in employment at some stage during supervision on order Unemployed but appointment made for job interview Unemployed Unavailable for work Unclear from record 41. (T) Accommodation status Settled Not settled Unclear from record 1 2 3 1 2 3 Immediately prior to order 1 2 3 At termination 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

6 7 8

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 Sometimes but not always No, never Not applicable 1 2 3 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? Date this form was completed (by the monitor) Date of commencement of order

…………. …………. …………. …………. ………….

Y/N dd____/mm____/yy____ dd____/mm____/yy____ dd____/mm____/yy____

(T) Date of termination of order

1. Offender’s reference code 2. Gender of offender (please circle) 3. Offender race/ethnicity code (new two character code, as set out in guidance)

………………… M / F

……… 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 or victim(s) (equivalent to High or Very High risk of harm in OASys)? ……... ..……. Yes No Unclear 1 2 3

CPO v4

Appendix 2

Assessment
7 (a). Is there evidence of an OASys assessment being completed in this case? (b). If yes, is the offender's PNC number recorded? 8. Was the first appointment (for assessment) arranged to take place within five working days of the order being made? 9. Did the first appointment (for assessment) take place within 5 working days of the order being made? Yes No Yes No Not applicable Yes, and made at court Yes, and made after court No Yes No 1 2 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2

M

Contact, compliance and enforcement
10. Was the first work session arranged to take place within 10 working days of the order being made? 11. Did the first work session take place within 10 working days of the order being made? 12. Was the offender offered a minimum average of five hours work a week throughout the order (to date)?1 13. Was the average weekly work rate a minimum of 5 hours over the order as a whole (to date)?1 14. Did the supervisor do all she/he could to achieve the required level of contact in this case? 15. (T) If order terminated; was an allowance made for completing basic literacy or other work necessary to 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, was action taken within 2 working days to determine the reasons for failure? 17. For the apparent failures to comply: (a) is offender's explanation (or lack) clearly recorded within seven working days of the failure? Yes, always, and clearly within seven working days Yes always recorded but not always clearly within seven working days No There were no apparent failures Yes, always, and clearly within seven working days Yes always recorded but not always clearly within seven working days No There were no apparent failures 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 Yes No N/A Yes No N/A Yes No Yes No Yes definitely Yes probably Might have done more Should definitely have done more Yes No 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 1 2 1 2 3 4 1 2

M

Yes, always Sometimes but not always No, on none of the occasions There were no apparent failures

1 2 3 4

(b) is officer’s opinion of whether explanation acceptable or unacceptable clearly recorded within seven working days of the failure2?

1

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).

th

CPO v4

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

Note: (a) (b) (c) (d) (e)

for questions concerning action on unacceptable failures to comply (Q19– 20) please: 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. 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 If there are more than 2 unacceptable (or undesignated) failures in the 6-monthperiod, record action just on first 2. count any failure not designated as either acceptable or unacceptable as unacceptable 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 unacceptable failure to comply?

20. (C) Action as a result4 of a second unacceptable failure to comply within a 12 month period?

21. (C) If - contrary to the requirement of national standards - breach action was not taken as a result of (or before) a second unacceptable failure, was it taken subsequently? Yes, and reasons fully recorded 22. (C) If breach action not taken as a result of (or before) second unacceptable failure, has Yes, and reasons not fully recorded the line manager made an entry endorsing the No Not applicable decision and given full reasons in the case record? None 23. (C) How many acceptable absences have there been? 1-2 3-5 6-10 More than 10 Yes 24. (C). If breach action was taken, was the Offender Additional No Information Sheet completed (as per PC 17/04)? Not applicable Yes 25. (C) If breach action was taken, was the order allowed to continue No by the court? Not applicable

Breach action3, taken within 10 days of the failure Breach action3, taken more than 10 days after the failure Formal final written warning Other action No apparent action No unacceptable failure Breach action3 taken within 10 days of the failure Breach action3, taken more than 10 days after the failure Other action No apparent action No second unacceptable failure Yes No Not applicable

1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3

Q

1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 1 2 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”. 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”.
4

3

CPO v4

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

27. (C) If the order was revoked and the offender re-sentenced, what was the sentence?

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

Mon

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 Sometimes but not always No, never Not applicable 1 2 3 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? Date this form was completed (by the monitor) Date of commencement of order

…………. …………. …………. …………. ………….

Y/N dd____/mm____/yy____ dd____/mm____/yy____ dd____/mm____/yy____

(T) Date of termination of order
1. Offender’s reference code 2. Gender of offender (please circle) 3. Offender race/ethnicity code (new two character code, as set out in guidance)

………………… M / F

………… 4. Age of offender (at commencement) (write in numbers) 5. Order type: CPRO with no additional requirements CPRO including requirement for accredited programme CPRO with additional requirement(s) other than for accredited programme 6. Length of CR (community rehabilitation) element (months) (in numbers) 1 2 3 ………. ………...

CPRO v 4

Appendix 3
7. Length of CP (community punishment) element (hours) (in numbers) ………. 1 2 3

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

Contact, compliance and enforcement
9. (a) Was the first CR appointment arranged to take place for within 5 working days of the making of the order?, (b) Was the first CP work session arranged to take place for within 10 working days of the order? 10. (a) Did the first CR appointment take place1 within 5 working days of the order, (b) Did the first CP work session take place within 10 working days of the order? 11. (a) In the first 12 weeks of the order were at least 12 CR appointments arranged2? Yes No, offender in custody or long term sickness3 No, breach proceedings underway and manager's authorisation to offer no further appointments is clearly recorded on file No No, CR element deferred with management authorisation Yes No, offender in custody or long term sickness3 No, breach proceedings underway and manager's authorisation to offer no further appointments is clearly recorded on file No CP element completed before 12 weeks, but with CP assessment and sufficient weekly, CP work sessions arranged appropriately while CP element in operation 12. (a) In the first 12 weeks of the order did at least 12 CR appointments take place? No, CP element deferred with management authorisation Yes No Order as whole ran for less than 12 weeks No, CR element deferred with management authorisation Yes No CP element completed before 12 weeks, but CP assessment and weekly CP work sessions took place while CP element in operation Order as whole ran for less than 12 weeks No, CP element deferred with management authorisation Yes No Yes No N/A Yes No Yes No N/A 1 2 1 2 3 1 2 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4

(b) In the first 12 weeks of the order were at least 1 CP assessment and at least 11 CP work sessions arranged2?

5 6 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 5

M

(b) In the first 12 weeks of the order did 1 CP assessment and at least 11 CP work sessions take place?

R d c t

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.

1

CPRO v 4

Appendix 3
13. (a) In the second 12 weeks of the order were at least 6 CR appointments arranged 2? Yes No, offender in custody or long term sickness3 No, breach proceedings underway and manager's authorisation to offer no further appointments is clearly recorded on file No Order as whole ran for less than 24 weeks No, CR element deferred with management authorisation Yes 3 No, offender in custody or long term sickness No, breach proceedings underway and manager's authorisation to offer no further appointments is clearly recorded on file No CP element completed before 24 weeks, but with CP assessment and sufficient, weekly CP work sessions arranged appropriately while CP element in operation Order as whole ran for less than 24 weeks No, CP element deferred with management authorisation Yes No Order as whole ran for less than 24 weeks No, CR element deferred with management authorisation 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 1 2 1 2 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4

(b). In the second 12 weeks of the order were at least 12 CP work sessions arranged2?

14 (a). In the second 12 weeks of the order did at least 6 CR appointments take place? (b). In the second 12 weeks of the order did at least 12 CP work sessions take place?

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

Mo

Mo

1 2 3 4

4

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

th

CPRO v 4

Appendix 3
(b) is the supervisor’s opinion of whether explanation acceptable or unacceptable clearly recorded within seven working days of the failure5? 21. Where the supervisor’s opinion on whether the apparent failure was acceptable or unacceptable is recorded, does this appear to be an appropriate assessment?
Note: (a) (b)

Yes, always, and clearly within seven working days Yes always recorded but not always clearly within seven working days No There were no apparent failures Yes, always Sometimes but not always No, for none of the opinions No opinions were recorded There were no apparent failures

1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 5

Mo

for questions concerning action on unacceptable failures to comply (Q22 – 23) please: 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. 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 If there are more than 2 unacceptable (or undesignated) failures in the 6 months, record action just on first 2. 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 count any failure not designated as either acceptable or unacceptable as unacceptable 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. .

(c) (d) (e) (f)

22. (C) Action as a result of first unacceptable failure to comply?

23. (C) Action as a result7 of a second unacceptable failure to comply within a 12 month period?

24. (C) If – contrary to the requirement of national standards – breach action was not taken as a result of (or before) a second unacceptable failure, was it taken subsequently? Yes, and reasons fully recorded 25. (C) If breach action not taken as a result of Yes, and reasons not fully recorded (or before) second unacceptable failure has the No line manager made an entry endorsing the Not applicable decision and given full reasons in the case record? None 26. (C) How many acceptable absences have there been? 1-2 3-5 6-10 More than 10

Breach action6,taken within 10 days of the failure Breach action6, taken more than 10 days after the failure Formal final written warning Other action No apparent action No unacceptable failure Breach action6, taken within 10 days of the failure Breach action6, taken more than 10 days after the failure Other action No apparent action No second unacceptable failure Yes No Not applicable

1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 5

M

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”.

5

CPRO v 4

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

30. (C) If the order was revoked and the offender re-sentenced, what was the sentence?

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

M

M

M

8 9

sufficient in the context of the case 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? b) skills? c) literacy? d) availability for work? e) any particular placement needs such as cultural or religious considerations? f) experience of racism and/or other discrimination? 38. (T) Is there a final review on termination? 39. (T) Was an assessment of risk of harm to the public and/or victim reviewed at least every 16 weeks? 40. For offenders considered Very High or High risk of causing serious harm to the public (in OASys), was a sufficient risk management plan (either within the 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? 41. For the CP element, was a written assessment of risks made before the CP placement started? Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No N/A Yes No 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 3 1 2 1 2 1 2 3 4 1 2 3

Yes No Yes No No (initial) risk of harm assessment Order ran for less than 16 weeks Yes No Not considered very high or high risk of serious harm to public

M

Yes No Assessment not, or imprecisely, dated

1 2 3

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

M

CPRO v 4

Appendix 3

Employment, Education And Accommodation Issues
(for completion at termination only – circle one from each column) 47. (T) Employment status Employed (full or part time) Temporary or casual work Education or training Unemployed currently but has been in employment at some stage during supervision on order Unemployed but appointment made for job interview Unemployed Unavailable for work Unclear from record 48. (T) Accommodation status Settled Not settled Unclear from record 1 2 3 1 2 3 Immediately prior to order 1 2 3 At termination 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

6 7 8

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 Sometimes but not always No, never Not applicable 1 2 3 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? Date this form was completed (by the monitor) Date of commencement of licence (T) Date of termination of licence 1. Offender’s reference code 2. Gender of offender (please circle) 3. Offender race/ethnicity code (new two character code, as set out in guidance)

…………. …………. …………. …………. ………….

Y/N dd____/mm____/yy____ dd____/mm____/yy____ dd____/mm____/yy____ ………………… M / F …………

4. Age of offender (at commencement of licence) (years, in numbers) 5. Licence type:

………... 1 2 3 4 5

ACR, under 21, sentence less than 12 months ACR, 12 months and over but less than 4 years DCR, 4 years and over NPD, 4 years and over Other

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 public or victim(s) (equivalent to High or Very High risk of harm in OASys)? Yes No Unclear

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

Yes, clearly To a limited but sufficient extent Insufficiently Not at all Not applicable Yes, clearly To a limited but sufficient extent Insufficiently Not at all Not applicable Very good Satisfactory Not satisfactory Very poor Not applicable Yes No Yes definitely Yes probably Might have done more Should definitely have done more Yes, and within 10 working days of request Yes, but not within 10 working days of request No No indication that HDC was considered Very good Satisfactory Not satisfactory Very poor Not applicable

1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 5

b) licence conditions?

14. If yes to Q10 or Q11, please assess overall quality of the report.

15. From the information available in the record, was there anything that suggests a need for an additional licence condition, but no such condition was made? 16. Did the supervisor do all she/he could to ensure appropriate arrangements for release including licence conditions? 17. If HDC was considered by the prison, was an assessment of the suitability of the proposed accommodation, and any comments on the suitability of the offender, provided to the prison? 18. If yes (option 1 or 2) to Q17, please assess overall quality of the HDC assessment.

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 place within one working day of release? 20. Was the offender seen by the supervisor or their representative within one working day of release? 21. Was a home visit to the offender arranged2 to take place within 10 working days of release? Yes No Yes No Yes No, but was arranged to take place subsequently No, offender resident in approved premises No, offender released on HDC No, offender released on HDC No, offender homeless or NFA No Yes, and within 10 days of release Yes, but not within 10 days No Yes No, offender in custody or long term sickness4 No, breach proceedings underway and manager's authorisation to offer no further appointments is clearly recorded on file No Licence ran for less than 4 weeks Yes No Licence ran for less than 4 weeks Yes, and within 4 weeks of release Yes, but not within 4 weeks No No plans for attendance on accredited programme Yes No, offender in custody or long term sickness4 No, breach proceedings underway and manager's authorisation to offer no further appointments is clearly recorded on file No Licence ran for less than 3 months Yes No Licence ran for less than 3 months Yes No, offender in custody or long term sickness4 No, breach proceedings underway and manager's authorisation to offer no further appointments is clearly recorded on file No Licence ran for 3 months or less Yes No Licence ran for 3 months or less Yes definitely Yes probably Might have done more Should definitely have done more 1 2 1 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 1 2 3 4

22. Did a home visit take place3? 23. Was weekly contact arranged2 between the supervising officer and the offender throughout the first 4 weeks (counting a home visit as a contact)?

24. Did at least 5 contacts take place3 throughout the first 4 weeks (including the initial appointment, and counting a home visit as a contact)? 25. If it is planned that the offender attend an accredited programme, has the programme (or specified pre-programme phase) commenced? 26. Was at least fortnightly contact arranged2 with the offender throughout the second and third months following release?

27. Were at least fortnightly appointments attended3 throughout the second and third months following release? 28. Was at least monthly contact arranged2 after the third month following release?

29. Were monthly appointments attended3 after the third month following release (to date)? 30. Did the supervisor do all she/he could to achieve the required level of contact in this case?

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

2

Resettlement v 4

Appendix 4
31. On occasions of a failure to comply (including on an additional licence condition) was action taken within 2 working days to determine the reasons for failure? 32. For the apparent failure to comply (including any on an additional licence condition): (a) is offender’s explanation (or lack) clearly recorded within seven working days of the failure? Yes, always Sometimes but not always No, on none of the occasions There were no apparent failures 1 2 3 4

Yes, always, and clearly within seven working days Yes always recorded but not always clearly within seven working days No There were no apparent failures

1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 5

(b) is officer’s opinion of whether Yes, always, and clearly within seven working day explanation acceptable or Yes always recorded but not always clearly within seven working days unacceptable clearly recorded No within seven working days of the There were no apparent failures failure5? 33. Where the supervisor’s opinion on whether the Yes, always apparent failure was acceptable or unacceptable is Sometimes but not always recorded, does this appear to be an appropriate No, for none of the opinions assessment? No opinions were recorded There were no apparent failures
Note: (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) for questions concerning action on unacceptable failures to comply (Q34 – 36) please:

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. 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 If there are more than 3 unacceptable (or undesignated) failures, record just action on first 3 Count any failure not designated as either acceptable or unacceptable as unacceptable Include any unacceptable failures on any additional requirement (including with a partnership agency) which formed part of a special licence condition 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 unacceptable failure to comply?

Breach action/recall6, taken within 10 days of the failure Breach action/recall6, taken more than 10 days after the failure Formal written warning Other action No apparent action No unacceptable failure

1 2 3 4 5 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 unacceptable failure to comply? Breach action/recall6 taken within 10 days of the failure Breach action/recall6, taken more than 10 days after the failure Formal written warning by ACO or equivalent Other action No apparent action No second unacceptable failure 6 Breach action/recall , taken within 10 days of the failure Breach action/recall6, taken more than 10 days after the failure Other action No apparent action No third unacceptable failure Yes No Not applicable 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3

36. (C) Action as a result7 of third unacceptable failure to comply?

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

1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 1 2 1 2 3 4 5 6

Additional licence conditions NB: does not apply to HDC, which is a separate licence
44. If there were licence condition(s) requiring the offender to refrain from certain activities (e.g. not to come within a certain distance of a particular address), did any situation arise that required the supervisor to take action to seek to ensure compliance? Yes No Not clear No such licence condition(s) No licence on file 1 2 3 4 5

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 officer take all appropriate action to address the situation (e.g. multi-agency case conference, consideration of recall, formal warning)? Yes definitely Some appropriate action but not all No appropriate action Not clear No situation arose No such licence condition(s) No licence on file Yes, (all) implemented, and promptly (All) implemented but (some/all) could have been more promptly Not (all) implemented None implemented Not clear No such licence condition(s) No licence on file 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

46. If there were licence condition(s) requiring the offender to take certain action (e.g. to attend a programme, receive treatment, or reside at a hostel) have they all been implemented (to date)?

Risk Assessment/Supervision Planning
47. Is there a sufficient assessment , either in the supervision plan (SP) or in a formal risk assessment document, of the risk of the offender’s causing serious harm to the victim(s) of the offence? 48. Is there a sufficient8 assessment9, either in the supervision plan or in a formal risk assessment document, of the risk of the offender’s causing serious harm to the public? 49. Is there a sufficient8 assessment9, either in the supervision plan or in a formal risk assessment document, of the risk of the offender causing serious harm to staff? 50. Was a written supervision plan completed within 15 working days of release (including up to 15 days prior to release)? 51. Was the supervision plan always reviewed at least every 16 weeks? 52. (T) Is there a final review on termination? 53. (T) Was an assessment of risk of harm to the public and/or victim reviewed at least every 16 weeks? 54. For offenders considered Very High or High risk of causing serious harm to the public (in OASys), was a sufficient risk management plan (either within the supervision plan or formal risk management 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 9

Yes Yes, but not sufficient No direct victim(s) No SP/risk assessment document Yes Yes, but not sufficient No SP/risk assessment document Yes Yes, but not sufficient No SP/risk assessment document Yes No Supervision plan not, or imprecisely dated No supervision plan Yes No Licence ran for less than 16 weeks No supervision plan Yes No No supervision plan Yes No No (initial) risk of harm assessment Licence ran for less than 16 weeks Yes No Not considered high or very high risk of serious harm to public

1 2 3 4 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 1 2 3

8 9

Sufficient in context of the case. 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 start of custody Employed (full or part time) Temporary or casual work Education or training Unemployed currently but has been in employment at some stage during post release supervision Unemployed but appointment made for job interview Unemployed Unavailable for work Unclear from record 56. (T) Accommodation status Settled Not settled Unclear from record 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 Immediately following release 1 2 3 At termination of licence 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 6 7 8 5 6 7 8

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 Sometimes but not always No, never Not applicable 1 2 3 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? Date this form was completed (by the monitor) Date of commencement of order

…………. …………. …………. …………. ………….

Y/N dd____/mm____/yy____ dd____/mm____/yy____ dd____/mm____/yy____ ……..…… M / F ………

(T) Date of termination of order
1. Offender’s reference code 2. Gender of offender (please circle) 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 CRO WITH NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS CRO WITH RESIDENCE REQUIREMENT (OTHER THAN FOR RESIDENTIAL TREATMENT) CRO WITH REQUIREMENT FOR RESIDENTIAL TREATMENT CRO INCLUDING REQUIREMENT FOR ACCREDITED PROGRAMME CRO WITH ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT(S) OTHER THAN A RESIDENCE REQUIREMENT OR FOR ACCREDITED PROGRAMME CPO 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 No Unclear 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

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 No Unclear 1 2 3

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

Contact, compliance and enforcement
Yes 10. Promptness of 1 Probation appointment arranged: 1 No Was the first appointment with the probation service arranged to take place for within one working day of the making of the order? Yes 11. Promptness of 1st Probation appointment achieved: 2 Did the first appointment with the probation service take place within one working day of the making No of the order? Yes 12. Promptness of 1st treatment provider3 appointment arranged: 1 Was the first appointment with the treatment provider2 arranged to take place for within two working No days of the making of the order? Yes 13. Promptness of 1st treatment provider3 appointment achieved: 2 No Did the first appointment with the treatment provider take place within two working days of the making of the order? 4 An average of less than 10 hours per week 14. Level of total contact arranged 4 An average of 10 or more hours per week DURING first 13 weeks of the order: Counting all contact, including treatment, An average of 15 or more hours per week4 what level of total contact was arranged An average of 20 or more hours per week4 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 Not applicable, offender in custody or long-term sickness [Select one/highest only] Not clear 15. Level of total contact achieved An average of less than 10 hours per week4 DURING first 13 weeks of the order: An average of 10 or more hours per week4 Counting all contact, including treatment, An average of 15 or more hours per week4 what level of total contact was achieved An average of 20 or more hours per week4 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 Not applicable, offender in custody or long-term sickness Not clear
st

1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

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.

1

st

DTTO v 4

Appendix 5
16. Level of total contact arranged AFTER the first 13 weeks of the order: Counting all contact, including treatment, what level of total contact was arranged to take place after the first 13 weeks of the order? Divide the total hours arranged by the total number of weeks in the relevant period4 [Select one/highest only] 17. Level of total contact achieved AFTER the first 13 weeks of the order: Counting all contact, including treatment, what level of total contact was achieved after the first 13 weeks of the order?4 [Select one/highest only] 18. Timeliness of investigating failures: On the occasions of an apparent failure to comply was action taken within 2 working days to determine the reasons for failure? 19. Recording of Offender’s explanation and Supervisor's opinion (For the apparent failures to comply: (a) is the offender’s explanation (or lack) clearly recorded within seven working days of the failure? (b) is the supervisor’s opinion of whether explanation acceptable or unacceptable clearly recorded within seven working days of the failure5? 20. Where the supervisor’s opinion on whether the apparent failure was Acceptable or Unacceptable5 is recorded, does this appear to be an appropriate assessment? Less than 6 hours per week4 4 An average of 6 or more hours per week An average of 9 or more hours per week4 An average of 12 or more hours per week4 Not clear No relevant weeks4 after first 13 weeks of the order Less than 6 hours per week4 An average of 6 or more hours per week4 An average of 9 or more hours per week4 An average of 12 or more hours per week4 Not clear No relevant weeks4 after first 13 weeks of the order 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4

Yes, always Sometimes but not always No, on none of the occasions There were no apparent failures

Yes, always, and clearly within 7 working days Yes always recorded but not always clearly within 7 working days No There were no apparent failures Yes, always, and clearly within 7 working days Yes always recorded but not always clearly within 7 working days No There were no apparent failures Yes, always Sometimes but not always No, for none of the opinions No opinions were recorded There were no apparent failures

1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 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) (b) (c) (d) (e) 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. 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. If there are more than 2 unacceptable (or undesignated) failures in the 6 months, record action just on first 2. Count any failure not 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 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
5

1

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 failure: What action6 was taken as a result of the first Unacceptable failure to comply? N.B. Failure to attend shall be reckoned as an unacceptable failure to comply only once in respect of any one day. nd 22. (C) Action on 2 unacceptable 6 failure: What action was taken as a result of a second unacceptable failure to comply within a 12-month period? [See again the three notes above] 23. (C) Action after 2nd unacceptable failure: If – contrary to the requirement of 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 result of (or before) second unacceptable failure has the line manager made an entry endorsing the decision and given full reasons in the case record? Breach action7, taken within 10 working days8 of the failure Breach action7, taken more than 10 working days8 after the failure Formal final written warning Other action No apparent action No unacceptable failure Breach action7 taken within 10 working days8 of the failure Breach action7 taken more than 10 working days8 after the failure Other action No apparent action No second unacceptable failure Yes No Not applicable 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3

Yes, and reasons fully recorded Yes, and reasons not fully recorded No Not applicable

1 2 3 4

25. (C) How many acceptable absences have there been?

26. (C). If breach action was taken, was the Offender Additional Information Sheet completed (as per PC 17/04)? 27. (C) If breach action was taken, was the order allowed to continue by the court? 28. (C) If it was not allowed to continue, what was the court outcome?

29. (C) If the order was revoked and the offender re-sentenced, what was the sentence?

None 1-2 3-5 6-10 More than 10 Yes No Not applicable Yes No Not applicable Fine Additional CP hours Order revoked and re-sentenced Order expired Not applicable Custody New community sentence Awaiting sentence Not applicable

1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4

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.

6

DTTO v 4

Appendix 5

Testing
30. Frequency of testing achieved DURING first 13 weeks of the order: What frequency of testing was achieved by the end of the first 13 weeks of the order? Divide the total number of tests achieved by the total number of weeks9. [Select one/highest only] 31. Frequency of testing achieved AFTER the first 13 weeks of the order: What frequency of testing was achieved after the end of the first 13 weeks of the order? Divide the total number of tests achieved by the total number of weeks9 in the relevant period. [One/highest only] 32. Where the minimum standard of testing twice per week in the first 13 weeks, or/and once per week after 13 weeks (with testing in every single week) was not met, what was the reason, in the file reader’s opinion? (You may circle more than one of these) Two tests or more per week, with at least 2 tests every calendar week An average of 2 tests per week, with no more than 2 calendar weeks with less than two tests An average of 1 test or more per week An average of less than 1 test per week Not clear One test or more per week, with a test in every single calendar week8 An average of one test or more per week, not on a test-everyweek basis An average of less than one test per week Not clear No relevant weeks9 after first 13 weeks of the order Offender non-attendance Offender admitted drug use and DID sign the admission form Offender’s refusal, NOT complying with the Order10 Offender inability to produce a sample Tester omitted to arrange (sufficient) tests Not clear Not applicable (minimum standard met or exceeded, OR no relevant weeks) 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 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: Yes 1st review: No 33. The test results Unclear No 1st review st Yes 1 review: No 34. The views of the treatment provider as to the Unclear treatment and testing of the offender No 1st review st Yes 1 review: No 35. The record of the offender in keeping all Unclear appointments st No 1 review st Included well enough 1 review: Included, but not well enough 36. Judgements by supervising officer as to the Not included offender’s attitude and response to the Order as a No 1st review whole. nd Yes 2 review: No 37. The test results Unclear No 2nd review nd Yes 2 review: No 38. The views of the treatment provider as to the Unclear treatment and testing of the offender No 2nd review 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 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: 39. The record of the offender in keeping all appointments 2nd review: 40. Judgements by supervising officer as to the offender’s attitude and response to the Order as a whole. Yes No Unclear No 2nd review Included well enough Included, but not well enough Not included No 2nd review 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4

Risk Assessment/Supervision Planning
41. Content of risk assessment: Is there a sufficient11 assessment, either in the supervision plan (SP) or in a formal risk assessment document, of the risk of the offender’s causing serious harm to the victim(s) of the offence? 42. Is there a sufficient11 assessment, either in the SP or in a formal risk assessment document, of the risk of the offender’s causing serious harm to the public? 43. Is there a sufficient11 assessment, either in the SP or in a formal risk assessment document, of the risk of the offender causing serious harm to staff? 44. Timeliness of 1st supervision plan11: Was a written supervision plan completed within 15 working days of the order being made? 45. Regularity of supervision plans: Was the supervision plan always reviewed at least every 16 weeks? 46. (T) Is there a final review on termination? 47. Use of OASys: (a) Is there evidence of an OASys assessment being completed in this case? (b) If yes, is the offender's PNC number recorded? 48. Timeliness of 1st risk assessment: For offenders considered (in OASys) as High or Very High risk of causing serious harm to the public, was a sufficient11 risk management plan (either within the 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: 49. (Applies to all cases) Was an assessment of risk of harm to the public and/or victim reviewed at least every 16 weeks? 50. Quality of joint management of case: Overall, how would you rate the joint management of the various elements of supervision? (Probation supervision, treatment provider, concurrent Order(s)) Yes No Yes No Not applicable Yes No Not considered High or Very High risk of serious harm to the public 1 2 1 2 3 1 2 3 Yes No No direct victim(s) No SP/risk assessment document Yes No No SP/risk assessment document Yes No No SP/risk assessment document Yes No No supervision plan Yes No Order ran for less than 16 weeks No supervision plan Yes No No supervision plan 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 1 2 3

Yes Some review, but not as frequent/regular No No (initial) risk of harm assessment Order ran for less than 16 weeks Very good Satisfactory Not satisfactory Very poor

1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 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 Employed (full or part time) Temporary or casual work Education or training Unemployed currently but has been in employment at some stage during supervision on order Unemployed but appointment made for job interview Unemployed Unavailable for work Unclear from record 52. (T) Accommodation status Settled Not settled Unclear from record Immediately prior to order 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 At termination 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1 2 3

1 2 3

Departures from National Standards
(for completion at termination only) 53. (T) If there were any (exceptional) departures from national standards other than breach, were these approved by managers in advance? Yes always Sometimes but not always No, never Not applicable 1 2 3 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 coordinators 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 email 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 subdivide 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. should be made clearly, preferably using red ink Amendments (if any)

• • •

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

ANNEX B 'Census 2001' Race & Ethnicity Codes White: British White: Irish White: Other Mixed: White & Black Caribbean Mixed: White & Black African Mixed: White & Asian Mixed: Other Asian or Asian British: Indian Asian or Asian British: Pakistani Asian or Asian British: Bangladeshi Asian or Asian British: Other Black or Black British: Caribbean Black or Black British: African Black or Black British: Other Chinese Other Ethnic Group Refusal W1 W2 W9 M1 M2 M3 M9 A1 A2 A3 A9 B1 B2 B9 O1 O9 NS