You are on page 1of 51



To introduce the framework and documentation for undertaking a self- REFERENCE NO:
assessment of Enhanced Community Punishment. 31/2004
To give details of five briefing events.
ACTION: 2 June 2004
Chief Officers should:
• Undertake the first area self-assessment exercise between October and IMPLEMENTATION DATE:
December 2004 Immediate
• Advise the NPD ECP Programme Manager and relevant Regional What
Works Manager of the date arranged for the self-assessment exercise in EXPIRY DATE:
their area by 30 June 2004 June 2009
• Submit nominations for the briefing events to the NPD ECP Programme
Manager by 18 June 2004.
Chairs of Probation Boards
Chief Officers of Probation
This circular contains the self assessment guidance and checklist to be used
by areas for the Quality Management of Enhanced Community Punishment. Secretaries of Probation Boards
The Post-Implementation Review marked the end of the sign-off process and
this is a new annual exercise to ensure the quality of ECP is sustained. CC:
The self-assessment framework is consistent in format with that which is to Regional Managers
be used for the Quality Management of Accredited Programmes although Regional What Works managers
the detail is specific to ECP. Board Treasurers


N/A Sarah Mann, Head of
Interventions; Roger McGarva,
Janet Corcoran, Enhanced Community Programme Manager, Room 253 Performance Management
Tel: 020 7217 8877
Guidance notes and self
assessment form for Enhanced
Community Punishment Schemes

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


This process is adapted from the European Excellence Model and requires a self –assessment to be undertaken by area
staff, covering ECP systems, processes, outcomes. It represents a move on from the Sign off and Post-Implementation
Review, the principal purpose of which was to ascertain that the components of ECP were in place. The focus of this
exercise is on the quality of delivery and the benefits which are being realised.

Structure of the Quality Management Framework:

The Quality Management Process will comprise two stages:

• The first stage will require a group of ECP staff in each area to ensure that the evidence in relation to the
criteria is available and accessible and to complete the self-assessment form on the basis of this. It will not be
necessary for areas to physically collect the evidence, simply to cite its availability and be prepared to
produce it for verification if required during the second stage of the process. This exercise will result in a
provisional quality score. There is no intention at present that the score will affect the counting of

• The second stage will involve a Regional Validation Team to validate the score which areas reached through
self-assessment. This stage will not begin until all area self-assessments have been completed. There will be
input from the Quality Systems Manager and ECP team at NPD, as well as the Inspectorate, in arranging and
conducting these meetings which will be attended by the Regional What Works Manager and a range of local
staff. The validation event will produce a final, agreed Quality Score.


• Five one day briefing events will be held for area staff. These will provide further detail on the assessment
and validation processes. Nominees should ideally be the people who will be involved in organising the self-
assessment exercise in areas or those who are well positioned to cascade this input.

Friday 9 July 2004: Manchester

Friday 16 July 2004: Croydon
Wednesday 8 September 2004: Peterborough
Wednesday 22 September 2004: Bristol
Tuesday 28 September 2004: Leeds

Areas can nominate between two and five people to attend these and should submit names and, where
possible, two choices of date, to by June 18 2004. Information on
timings and venues will then be circulated to attendees

• Area Self-Assessment meetings should be scheduled to take place between October and December 2004
and the date, time and venue should be submitted to by June 30 2004

• Regional Validation Meetings will take place between January and March 2005

• An overall national Quality score will be available by May 2005.

Reporting to Correctional Services Accreditation Panel:

Quality Scores will be reported to NPD and an annual report and summary of the process will be made available to the
panel at the first scheduled meeting after the completion of the exercise.

PC31/2004 - Quality Management of Enhanced Community Punishment 2

ECP Self Assessment Guidance Form

Guidance Notes for Self assessment

The self assessment framework is an opportunity for the area to look at the way it runs ECP.

The tools/documents provided by the Quality Management Team (QMT) for the purpose of quality assessment are as follows:

• ECP Self Assessment Guidance Form

• ECP Self Assessment Form

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

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

The second stage involves validation of the scores set by areas. In order to be able to complete the validation the area will be required to nominate representatives
to form a regional verification team which will be facilitated by the Quality Systems Manager. Prior to the validation event areas will be informed which evidence
needs to be available on the day for validation. A final score will then be available to the area.
Guidelines on Collating Evidence

The Quality Assessment process is, in line with Probation Service Policy, evidence based. Quality Assessment is more about finding evidence to show whether or
not an area has met a specific pre determined criteria. The ECP Self Assessment Guidance Form is structures around Performance Standards and makes specific
what the evidence is required and how it should be scored in terms of quality rating.

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

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

Types of Evidence

Possible sources of evidence are suggested in the document in relation to each of the criteria. These are not prescriptive and areas are free to use other means
where they can effectively evidence a criterion. Whilst evidence should be drawn from a range of sources, quality is more important than quantity. Some pieces of
evidence can appropriately be used in relation to several criteria and should be cross-referenced on the form.

Evidence should be current and the usual interpretation of this is that it should have been produced within the last twelve months. An exception to this would be
items such as a long term strategy document which had continued relevance. In such cases the most recent version should be used.

Sources of evidence in ECP units will include policy and practice documentation; scheme documentation as set out in the core manual; letters, e-mails and meeting
notes; beneficiary surveys and feedback; staff portfolios; offender GSL portfolios; details of accredited awards; workgroup rotas; training plans; promotional
material; press coverage; data reports.

As a guiding principle Mandatory Elements require a higher degree of evidence to achieve a Score 2 than Important Elements. However, where National Standards
targets apply this is reflected in the scoring regardless of the level of importance placed on the criterion. Likewise where it is imperative to maintain scheme integrity
this approach has been adopted.
Committed Leadership & Supportive Management
A 1 Committed Leadership (Mandatory)
The senior management of the area should be openly and explicitly committed to the proper running of the scheme through policy and public statements.

Evidence required Method of Checking/Evidence Scoring

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

Evidence required Method of Checking/Evidence Scoring

1. Organisational chart outlines the management • Area documentation, including organisational chart. Score 2
structures for the delivery of the scheme. Evidence 1-3.
• Job descriptions for all staff.
2. Competency-based job descriptions exist for all staff Score 1
• Five sets of relevant minutes during the last 12
involved in the scheme, case management and in Evidence (any two).
months indicating attendance.
support roles.
3. Minutes of relevant divisional/functional Score 0
management meetings demonstrate integration of Fewer than two evidence points.
the scheme within the case management process and
effective communication across the area. Minutes
indicating, for example:
¾ Quality Assurance Managers regular input at
unit meetings.
¾ Mechanism for interaction of ECP staff and
CPRO Case Managers.
¾ Regular ECP management meetings.
A 3 Effective communication with sentencers resulting in Sentencer Satisfaction (Important)
There is high quality, proactive communication with local sentencers and clerks to the justices about the scheme, including written information. As a result Sentencers have a
good understanding of the scheme and are confident in the outcomes of the scheme.

Evidence required Method of Checking/Evidence Scoring

1. Communication with judges, magistrates and • Date of meeting and name of manager who Score 2
magistrates’ clerks, for example: attended. Evidence 1-3 and sentencer awareness/satisfaction is
75% and above.
¾ Presentation to sentencers by managers, • Programme of Sentencer training event(s).
¾ Input into magistrates training.
• Relevant minutes of meetings during the last 12 Score 1
2. Minutes of liaison meetings between sentencers and months. Evidence (any two) and sentencer
probation staff. For example: awareness/satisfaction is between 50% and 74%.
• Copy of leaflet for sentencers.
¾ ECP agenda item.
• Minutes, written presentations and information Score 0
3. Information leaflets for sentencers and clerks leaflets. Sentencer Satisfaction is less than 50%.
explaining the scheme should be available and
• Sentencer Satisfaction Surveys.
systematically distributed.
4. Sentencer Satisfaction Surveys indicate that
Sentencers feel well informed about the scheme.
5. Sentencer Satisfaction Surveys indicate Sentencers
have confidence in the scheme.
Scheme Management Responsibilities
B 1 Resources and facilities for pre placement work sessions (Important)
Suitable resources and facilities to be available, consistent with the Estates Standards Manual, to enable the delivery of each element of the scheme.

Evidence required Method of Checking/Evidence Scoring

1. The room should be well lit and well ventilated, with • Score 2
Physical check of the group rooms, audio visual
minimum outside noise/disruption. The group rooms at 90% and above of the locations met
facilities and other necessary tools and equipment. the evidence required.
2. Comfortable chairs in each room (padded, fairly
upright chairs with arms may be most appropriate). • Sampling of audio/videotapes to ensure that the
recordings are of sufficient quality to enable external If these requirements have not been met, but there is
3. Desks/tables to enable offenders to complete monitoring and internal quality assurance to take evidence that plans are in place to bring any deficiency
written work (as minimum participants should be up to standard within 3 months the criterion can be
supplied with clipboards). place.
considered fully met.
4. Adequate supply of flipcharts/stands.
Score 1
5. OHP and screen must be provided.
The group rooms at 65% - 89% of the locations met the
6. Video monitoring equipment and sound system of requirements.
sufficient quality to enable the Pre-Placement Work
Session to be assessed by the Quality Assurance Score 0
Managers and external auditors.
The group rooms at less than 65% of the locations met
7. Audio/Video monitoring equipment is of sufficient the requirements.
quality to enable the Post Sentence Assessment
Interview session to be assessed by the Quality
Assurance Managers and external auditors.
8. Secure facilities for the cataloguing and storage of all
audio and videotapes produced in Post Sentence
Assessment Interview and Pre Placement Work
Session. Videotapes/audiotapes should be retained
for Quality Assurance Management and audit
purposes. Following an audit, all recordings made
prior to the quality assessment need no longer be
B2 Resources and facilities for work placements (Mandatory)
Provision of good quality projects meeting the requirements of Placement Quality Standards (PQS), with a safe working environment for staff, offenders and third parties
suitable for the delivery of the relevant elements of the scheme.

Evidence required Method of Checking/Evidence Scoring

1. Completed risk assessments addressing all aspects of • Records evidence that Health and Safety risk Score 2
health and safety. assessments have been completed in all cases. Evidence 1-7.
2. Placement Quality Standards checklists are • Score 1
Records evidence that a review of Placement Quality Evidence (any five).
completed for the placement and the offender. Standards checklists has been undertaken by Quality
Assurance Manager every 12 weeks. Score 0
3. Sanitary facilities are available.
Fewer than five evidence points.
4. Tools, equipment and personal protective clothing • Records evidence that sanitary facilities, tools,
are maintained to required Health and Safety equipment, personal protective clothing and
standards. materials meet the required standards.

5. There is a sufficient amount of material available to • First Aid Course registers and Certificates.
complete the work.
• A sample from the register of staff skills and
6. First Aid facilities are available and appropriate to qualifications, matched with work plans.
the nature of the project.
7. In the supervising and/or tutoring of offenders staff
have the required level of competence to deliver the
tasks as defined in the work plan.
B 3 Provision of information about the scheme (Important)
There should be a set of leaflets for offenders, sentencers and staff clearly describing the scheme and its requirements.

Evidence required Method of Checking/Evidence Scoring

1. Appropriate leaflets for the audience, including • Copies of leaflet(s), for offenders, sentencers and Score 2
meeting the requirements of cultural diversity. staff. In 75% and above cases scheme specific copies of
leaflets are available to staff, sentencers and offenders. In
2. Leaflets given to offenders in advance (or at the • Contents of leaflet(s). addition the leaflets must contain the following:
time) of sentence to fully inform them about the • Compliance
• Case records indicate offender has received the
leaflet(s), including when they were given. • Enforcement
3. Conditions of attendance and consequences of
• QMT Case File Reading Form Question 12. • Complaints procedures
failing to comply fully outlined in the information • Cultural diversity issues
leaflet(s). • Customised for the target audience at a level that
4. Complaints procedure outlined in a leaflet(s). allows the reader to fully understand the leaflet
• Case records indicate offenders have received
the leaflet(s), including when they were given.
NB – it may be the case that all of this information will
be contained in a single leaflet or in many. If any one of the required elements is omitted from the
leaflets, the score should be reduced to 1.

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

Where a required element is omitted the score should be

reduced to 0.

Score 0
In less than 50% of cases scheme specific copies of
leaflets are available to staff, sentencers and offenders.
B 4 Managing attendance (Mandatory)
Offender attendance and absence are managed to achieve the required National Performance Management target for offender completions. Attendance is managed to achieve
coherent delivery with full impact for all undertaking the scheme.

Evidence required Method of Checking/Evidence Scoring

1. Area policy document on offender • Area documentation on enforcement of attendance Score 2
attendance/enforcement. and enhancing completion rates. In 90% and above cases all of the following elements
have been achieved:
2. Area documentation outlining how • CP database or local equivalent.
• The attendance register indicates that only the
completion rates will be enhanced over time.
• Attendance registers. permitted number of absences from the scheme has
3. Attendance registers demonstrate that been allowed.
• QMT Case File Reading Form Question 18.
offenders’ attendance conforms to the requirements • When appropriate letters have been sent out to
of the scheme and National Standards. offenders in line with National Standards relating to
4. CP database or local equivalent
• There is evidence of good liaison between scheme
information confirming attendance by each offender
staff and Case Managers.
and completion rates. Score 1
5. Evidence of discussion between the In 65% - 89% of cases the required elements have been
CPRO Case Manager and scheme staff when achieved.
offenders have missed sessions for acceptable or
unacceptable reasons. Where an attendance register is not maintained the score
should be 0, even if there is good communication
6. Evidence of action taken by the CPRO between scheme staff and Case Managers.
Case Manager or scheme staff when offenders are Score 0
absent. In less than 50% of cases the required elements have
been achieved.
B 5 Avoidance of cancellation or disruption to sessions (Important)
Sessions are not cancelled or disrupted owing to offender crises, high workload or other pressures, and arrangements exist to deal with crises outside of the scheme.

Evidence required Method of Checking/Evidence Scoring

1. Frequency of sessions conforms to requirements of • Sampling of audio and videotapes of Post Sentence Score 2
national standards and the ECP scheme. Assessment Interviews and Pre Placement Work In 75% and above cases all of the following elements
Sessions. have been achieved;
2. Arrangements are made to deal with
• Sessions have been delivered in line with the
offenders’ problems outside of the work sessions. • Rotas for staffing placements. planned schedule
This should be outlined in briefing meetings to
offenders prior to the start of their work placement • CP database or local equivalent to check out planned • There is a back-up system in place which
e.g. covered in Post Sentence Assessment Interviews sessions against actual sessions. provides staff cover during times of sickness
or Pre Placement Work Sessions. absence or annual leave
• Work sessions are only cancelled in exceptional
3. Planning meetings to discuss and ensure circumstances (See Definitions – page 43)
consistent staffing for each aspect of the scheme. • The frequency of sessions conforms to the
4. Contingency planning to cope with requirements and the ECP scheme
inclement weather and transport difficulties. Score 1
In 50%- 74% of cases the required elements have been

Score 0
In less than 50% of cases the required elements have
been achieved.
B 6 Timeliness (Important)
All offenders commence the scheme within the specified period.
For CPROs, the timing may be different on occasions to permit other work to be completed, e.g. a programme of drug detoxification, completion of accredited programme.
Details are given in the scheme’s guidance on integrated case management and this sequencing must be followed.

Evidence required Method of Checking/Evidence Scoring

Score 2
1. Written evidence of offenders commencing the • Check timeliness of commencements via CP database Evidence 1-2.
scheme within the required timescale. or local equivalent.
2. In CPRO cases, rehabilitation work • QMT Case File Reading Form Questions 15 and 16. Score 1
undertaken where an offender is assessed as not Evidence (any one).
• Interviews with offenders, scheme staff and Case
being ready or able to start CP work within ten
Managers to check on the timeliness of Score 0
working days is documented in the case record.
commencements and any Guided Skills Learning No evidence.
Reasons are recorded and work is undertaken to get
offender CP ready.
B 7 Size of work parties (Mandatory)
For group placements, the optimum group size is 6 offenders to one supervisor.

Evidence required Method of Checking/Evidence Scoring

Score 2
1. The number of offenders attending any • The number of available placements is sufficient for In 90% or above cases the size of the group does not
placement at any one time does not routinely exceed the caseload. exceed six offenders to one supervisor.
the maximum ratio.
• Attendance records.
Score 1
• Throughput reports. In 65% to 89% cases the size of the group does not
• CP database or local equivalent exceed six offenders to one supervisor.

Score 0
Less than 65% cases the size of the group does not
exceed six offenders to one supervisor.
B 8 Staff Selection (Mandatory)
A staff selection procedure meeting the requirements of the scheme’s manual is in place and only staff meeting the defined criteria are selected to deliver it.

Evidence required Method of Checking/Evidence Scoring

Score 2
1. All potential scheme staff receive written information • Area training documentation, e.g. information for Evidence 1-4.
about what is involved in running the scheme from potential scheme staff, selection/deselection policies
the scheme manager and/or the Quality Assurance and procedures. Score 1
• Local HR records confirming assessment centre and Evidence (any three).
2. Assessment centre procedures exist and are followed. training dates for all staff and outcomes.
Score 0
3. Written policy/manual confirming that only those Fewer than three evidence points.
staff who meet the defined criteria, e.g. fully trained
by accredited trainers, deliver the scheme.
4. A process to deal with under performance by staff.
B 9 Staff roles and competencies (Important)
Differences in role between grades or posts are reflected in job descriptions. A defined set of competencies exist for each staff role involved in the scheme, using those specified
in the core manual for the scheme.

Evidence required Method of Checking/Evidence Scoring

1. Job descriptions are available for all scheme staff. • Job descriptions. Score 2
In 75% and above cases both of the following elements
2. Staff roles are discussed and people are clear about • Appraisal/supervision notes. have been achieved:
their areas of responsibility.
• Area documentation outlining the core competencies
3. Published list of core competencies consistent with for each staff role. • Staff have been provided with competency-
the requirements of scheme manual. based job descriptions based on relevant
occupational standards, commensurate with
4. Where one person holds more than one role, this their roles and the requirements of the scheme
conforms to the restrictions specified in the core manual.
manual. • Staff have been appraised in the past 12 months
against the defined set of competencies
appropriate to their role(s).

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

Score 0
In less than 50% of cases the required elements have
been achieved.
B 10 Training arrangements for new staff (Mandatory)
Training courses are available for all roles involved in delivering the scheme. The training delivered conforms to the ECP training manual. All staff are required to undertake this
training before delivering the scheme.

Evidence required Method of Checking/Evidence Scoring

1. There is a record of all relevant training (where • Local HR records confirming that scheme specific Score 2
available) and other staff development work training has taken place. Evidence 1-2.
undertaken by scheme staff, including the core
• Area documentation listing the training undertaken Score 1
training for it.
by scheme staff. Evidence (any one).
2. Supervision notes/appraisal documents including
• Interviews with supervisors/tutors and other
post training portfolios where appropriate Score 0
scheme staff.
demonstrate an ongoing attention to staff No evidence.
development needs for each member of staff • Completed competence evidence records
involved in delivering the scheme.
B 11 Staff Knowledge of the theory, concepts and methods used in this scheme (Mandatory)
All relevant staff have a knowledge of scheme theory, evidence, objectives and methods used sufficient for the effective delivery of the scheme.

Evidence required Method of Checking/Evidence Scoring

1. Scheme staff have been assessed as competent at the • Evidence of assessment on scheme staff from Line Score 2
point of completion of the post training portfolio by Managers, Quality Assurance Manager or training Evidence 1-2.
Line Manager or Quality Assurance Manager. section.
Score 1
2. The scheme manual is readily available to all staff for • Documentation accessible to all staff. Evidence 1 must be present.
Score 0
No evidence or only evidence 2.
B 12 Staff appraisal (Important)
All members of staff involved with the scheme have their competence to perform their assigned role assessed annually through the appraisal process. Staff whose performance is
assessed as below the acceptable standard but making progress should be given further training and other assistance to improve their performance and a date set for review. Staff
who are not making progress in achieving the required standard of performance should not take any further part in running the scheme.

Evidence required Method of Checking/Evidence Scoring

1. Appraisal documents record an assessment of the • Appraisal documents of staff Score 2
competency of staff to deliver the scheme. 75% of evidence including evidence 1.
• Supervision notes, including audio/video monitoring
2. Video monitoring forms completed by the Quality forms and development plans where required. Score 1
Assurance Manager identify strengths and areas 50% to 74% of evidence including evidence 1.
• Records from training section regarding remedial
where performance needs to be improved.
3. A plan of remedial action is recorded by the Quality Score 0
• Policy available. Less than 50% of evidence.
Assurance Manager, for scheme staff who are
underperforming, including a date to review • Review of Quality Assurance Group (QAG) video
progress. monitoring.

4. There is a process to deal with under performance

by staff.
B 14 Implementation of monitoring and evaluation design (Mandatory)
Interview and observation show that monitoring and evaluation arrangements are working as intended and are understood and supported by all staff involved. This should
include both input and feedback of data to managers and practitioners at local level.

Evidence required Method of Checking/Evidence Scoring

1. An area policy document explains the monitoring • Area policy document and relevant guidelines Score 2
and evaluation arrangements and outlines the roles available. 90% and above of evidence.
and responsibilities of relevant staff to accurately
• CP database or local equivalent completed fully and
record data and provide individual and summary Score 1
reports. 65-89% and above of evidence.
• Evidence that the reports generated are circulated to
2. There are guidelines for completing CP database or
relevant managers and staff. Score 0
local equivalent information.
Less than 65% of evidence.
3. There are guidelines regarding systems, processes,
roles and responsibilities for the retrieval of
summary data for reports to CP staff and managers.
Quality Assurance Management
C 1 Staff supervision and quality of practice (Mandatory)
All staff involved in the scheme receive support and supervision at a frequency specified in the core manual. This will enable skills to be developed and problems resolved.

Evidence required Method of Checking/Evidence Scoring

1. Video/audio monitoring forms completed on each • Five audio/video monitoring forms completed by Score 2
supervisor/tutor by the Quality Assurance Manager. the Quality Assurance Manager covering one set Evidence 1-3.
For audit and quality assurance purposes, the Quality from five different staff members during the past 12
Assurance Manager is required to review selections months outlining their strengths and areas for Score 1
from 10% of post-sentence interviews and 10% of improvement. Two pieces of evidence including evidence 1.
pre-placement work sessions.
• Supervision notes covering five additional staff Score 0
2. Pro Social Modelling Action checklists completed as members during the past 12 months. Fewer than two evidence points or lack of evidence 1.
specified in the core manual.
• Pro Social Modelling action checklists.
3. Supervision, informed by audio video monitoring
• Pro Social Modelling Quality Assurance Group
and direct observation of practice, demonstrate
monitoring forms.
attention to skills development, identification of
good practice and resolution of problems
encountered by staff in delivering the scheme.
C2 Supporting skills necessary to run schemes (Important)
From interview, observation, appraisal and training audits all relevant staff have supporting skills sufficient to deliver the scheme.

Evidence required Method of Checking/Evidence Scoring

1. Reviews for all staff to check training undertaken • Staff development plan. Score 2
and areas where further work required. Evidence 1-3.
• Audio/video monitoring forms completed by
2. Audio/video and direct observation, documented Quality Assurance Manager. Score 1
training and developmental needs for relevant staff. Evidence (any two).
• Quality Assurance Manager notes from direct
3. Supporting skills audit informed by the supervision observation demonstrating attention to skills
and appraisal process and reflected in the area’s acquisition. Score 0
overall training strategy. Fewer than two evidence points.
• Staff competence evidence records, when available
• Training reviews for all relevant staff.
C3 Assessment of offender suitability (Mandatory)
Routine monitoring results confirm the profile of those entering the scheme is consistent with the schemes design in relation to criminogenic needs, the level of risk of
reoffending and the level of risk of harm/dangerousness.

Evidence required Method of Checking/Evidence Scoring

1. Use of approved targeting matrix for the scheme • Check local CP database or local equivalent to Score 2
that measures: ensure profile is consistent with offenders’ needs, If 90% or above offenders who commenced the scheme
• Offender’s criminogenic needs level of risk of reoffending and risk of conform to the eligibility and suitability criteria of the
• Risk of reoffending harm/dangerousness. scheme as assessed by OASys.
• Level of risk of harm/dangerousness. • Area documentation, including targeting matrix and Score 1
2. Use of OASys. OASys documents. Area documentation should also If 65 – 89% conform.
include written statements about exclusion criteria.
3. Use of evaluation monitoring from local CP
database or local equivalent. • Analysis of OASys and PSR monitoring data to Score 0
ensure appropriate targeting. If less than 65% conform.
4. Written guidance on grounds for exclusion.
• QMT Case File Reading Form Question 12.
C 4 Offender knowledge and understanding of the scheme’s requirements (Important)
The requirements of the scheme are clearly communicated on at least two occasions to each offender verbally and in writing, and there is evidence from signed consent forms,
observation and/or interview that offenders know and understand the requirements.

Evidence required Method of Checking/Evidence Scoring

1. CP Assessment Form signed by the offender. • CP Assessment Forms signed by offender. Score 2
In 75% of cases or above.
2. Scheme requirements are explained to the offender • Case records confirming that requirements of the
verbally by the CP supervisor and/or the Case scheme have been explained to the offender on at Score 1
Manager. least two occasions. In 50 – 74% of cases.
• Pre placement session
• QMT Case File Reading Form Question 13.
• Initial interview Score 0
In less than 74% of cases.
C 5 Adherence to scheme’s core manual (Mandatory)
All elements of the scheme should be delivered in line with the core manual and demonstrate close adherence to the aims and objectives.

Evidence required Method of Checking/Evidence Scoring

1. All cases subject to a Pre Placement Work session, • Post Sentence Assessment Interviews and pre Score 2
Post Sentence Assessment Interview and have a CP placement work session documentation All four evidence requirements are met in 90% or more
supervision plan. cases.
• QMT Case File Reading Question 7.
2. Allocation of offenders to placements on the basis Score 1
• Audio and video recordings of Post Sentence
of individual needs and risk of harm assessment. All four evidence requirements are met in 65 – 89% of
Assessment Interviews and pre-placement work
3. The delivery of “Problem Solving at Work” and sessions. cases.
Guided Skills Learning is informed by the assessor
• Pro Social Modelling action checklists and Placement Score 0
process and related to offender need.
Quality Standards checklists. All four evidence points are met in less than 65% of
4. Placements are delivered according to the guidelines cases.
for Pro Social Modelling and Placement Quality
Standards in the core manual.
C6 Practice is informed by monitoring and evaluation evidence (Important)
Consistent use is made of monitoring and evaluation information, as it becomes available, by those with most direct responsibility (e.g. scheme managers giving regular
consideration to attendance and completion information, supervisors to offender feedback on the quality of work undertaken, and tutors regarding progress in guided learning).

Evidence required Method of Checking/Evidence Scoring

1. Reviewing monitoring and evaluation information • Minutes of senior managers meetings held during the Score 2
on a unit, area and regional basis. last 12 months. Evidence that area practice has been improved in the
light of information from other areas operating the
2. Awareness of unit and area differences in • Minutes of operational manager meetings held scheme.
performance and analysis of possible reasons for during the last 12 months. Minutes of senior managers meetings held during the last
these, e.g. where it has been shown that particular
• Minutes of scheme staff meetings held during the 12 months
units or areas have consistently performed better in Minutes of operational managers meetings held during
last 12 months.
terms of reduced attrition rates or greater “offender the last 12 months.
readiness” to comply with the scheme. • Evidence (e.g. meeting notes, reformulated policy or Minutes of scheme staff meetings during the last 12
practice guidance) that area practice has been months.
3. Regular discussion by senior and middle managers
improved in the light of information from other
e.g. of attendance and completion information and
areas operating the scheme. Score 1
records of actions taken as a consequence.
Where one of the above elements is missing.
4. Regular discussion by scheme staff e.g. of offender
feedback and monitoring data and record of actions Score 0
taken as a consequence. If two or more elements are missing.
Quality of Delivery
D1 Pro Social and Cognitive Skills Modelling (Mandatory)
Staff are applying pro social techniques and modelling practical problem solving skills with offenders.

Evidence required Method of Checking/Evidence Scoring

1. Offender assessments and supervision plans outline • Pro Social Modelling action checklists Score 2
how Pro Social Modelling and Problem Solving at 90% or above of evidence present.
• Pro Social Modelling videotapes and monitoring
Work will be used.
checklists. Score 1
2. Applying the guidelines for the pro social delivery of
• Three sets of notes/videos from Pro Social 65% - 89% of evidence present.
CP contained in the ECP core manual.
Modelling Quality Assurance Groups.
3. Involving offenders as much as possible in planning Score 0
• Observation of practice on site by trained assessors. Less than 65% of evidence present.
the work, and involving them in discussions and
decisions about how tasks may be accomplished. • Documentation of termination interviews and
questionnaires (sample size).
4. CP placement providers are aware of the need to
provide pro social role models.
5. Using inclusive and non-discriminatory language and
challenging anti social language and behaviour.
6. Applying rules and expectations in a transparent and
fair way.
D2 Guided Skills Learning (Mandatory)
The provision of Guided Skills Learning where identified in the Post Sentence Assessment Interviews. In these cases the delivery of Guided Skills Learning should be specified
in the supervision plan.

Evidence required Method of Checking/Evidence Scoring

1. Guided Skills Learning is included as a SMART • QMT Case File Reading Form Question 9. Score 2
objective in the supervision plan. Evidence 1-3.
• Protocols/service level agreements with colleges and
2. Tutor time is available to deliver Guided Skills other providers. Score 1
Learning. Evidence (any two).
• Offender portfolios.
3. An integrated case management policy to ensure
• CP Supervision Plans Score 0
Guided Skills Learning is delivered through the
order. Fewer than two evidence points.
D3 Placement Quality Standards (Mandatory)
All placements conform to the ECP Placement Quality Standards.

Evidence required Method of Checking/Evidence Scoring

1. Policy and guidelines to staff on the implementation • Sampling of completed Placement Quality Standards Score 2
of Placement Quality Standards. checklists. Evidence 1-4.
2. Protocol or service level agreements have been • Site visits to check quality of placements. Score 1
agreed with placement providers.
• Evidence of a process to discontinue or improve Evidence (any three).
3. Use of the Placement Quality Standards checklist. placements when they fail the Placement Quality
Standards checklist. Score 0
4. Remedial action is taken when placements fall below Fewer than three evidence points.
the required standard. • Review of placement forms.
• Documentation of termination interviews and
questionnaires (sample size).
D4 Personal communication skills (Mandatory)
Effective engagement and communication with offenders. Pro social attitudes and practical problem solving skills are skilfully modelled by staff. This includes challenging pro
criminal or anti social attitudes and behaviour.

Evidence required Method of Checking/Evidence Scoring

1. Use of open questions to facilitate learning. • Pro Social Modelling checklists and monitoring Score 2
forms. 90% or above of evidence present.
2. Listening and allowing for answers.
• Three set of notes from Quality Assurance Groups. Score 1
3. Summarising points and reflects back.
• Local HR records or local equivalent for 65% - 89% of evidence present.
4. Challenges offence supporting views.
tutor’s/supervisor’s records of offender engagement.
5. Offenders encouraged to explain and validate ideas Score 0
• Documentation of interviews with offenders to check Less than 65% of evidence present.
for themselves.
what they had learned/gained from the scheme.
6. Demonstrate awareness of responsivity issues
• Observation of videotapes/review of audiotapes of
(including race equality).
Post Sentence Assessment Interviews.
7. Encourage participants to make self-motivating
8. Offenders encouraged making links from the
different elements of the ECP scheme.
9. Offenders are engaged by positive and skilled
communication of tutors/supervisors.
D5 Scheme delivered addressing race equality and wider diversity issues (Mandatory)
Race equality and wider diversity issues are effectively addressed, whether arising from scheme delivery or offender response. Staff are alert to these issues, they always respond
appropriately and show that they have considered and developed strategies for responding.

Evidence required Method of Checking/Evidence Scoring

1. All staff are alert to issues of race equality and wider • CP database or local equivalent to check staff Score 2
diversity. composition of groups. 90% or above of evidence present.
2. Range of placements includes potential of having • Area policy/practice documents. Score 1
beneficiaries from minority ethnic groups.
• Offender questionnaire. (Sampling women ethnic 65% - 89% of evidence present.
3. Placement managers and supervisors ensure cultural minority)
relevance of work undertaken for all offenders. Score 0
Less than 65% of evidence present.
4. Sensitivity to cultural diversity in the allocation of
individual offenders to specific placements or tasks.
5. Tutors/supervisors challenge racist, sexist or other
inappropriate attitudes or behaviour.
6. Diversity Training.
7. Managers consider staff composition for supervising
groups, e.g. to ensure sufficient minority ethnic and
women staff available to supervise groups with
minority ethnic or women offenders respectively.
8. Policy/practice documents about promoting
diversity within the delivery of the scheme.
9. Areas have not adopted a default position where
women and minority ethnic offenders have
automatically been assigned to individual
D6 Group management skills (Mandatory)
Supervisors and tutors manage groups effectively to facilitate learning by offenders. Disruption by participants is minimised.

Evidence required Method of Checking/Evidence Scoring

1. Offenders well briefed about the task they will be • Pro Social Modelling video monitoring forms Score 2
undertaking. completed by the Quality Assurance Manager and Evidence 1-5.
Pro Social Modelling checklist.
2. Appropriate verbal style (clearly spoken, warm, Score 1
encouraging, gives judicious praise). • Staff supervision notes, Quality Assurance Group Evidence (any four).
monitoring forms and video recordings of Quality
3. Uses appropriate language (shows awareness of race
Assurance Groups, unit meeting notes recording Score 0
equality and wider diversity issues).
discussion of practice issues raised. Fewer than four evidence points.
4. Group managed well (control of whole group,
disruptive and quiet members).
5. Uses verbal/non-verbal encouragement (warm,
open, listens.).
Integrated Case Management
E 1 Initial supervision plan sets relevant objectives for the offender (Mandatory)
Specific objectives are set for the offender and are recorded in the initial supervision plan and regularly reviewed.

Evidence required Method of Checking/Evidence Scoring

1. Assessments should be based on OASys and the • QMT Case File Reading Form Questions 8, 10 and Score 2
ECP assessment form. 11. Evidence 1-4.
2. SMART objectives are set for all offenders. The Score 1
Case Manager should clearly record what will be Evidence (any three).
achieved through the specific elements of the
scheme. Score 0
3. In CPRO cases, evidence that the supervision plan Fewer than three evidence points.
integrates CP work within an overall work plan for
the offender.
4. Use of OASys to inform assessment.
E2 Effective liaison arrangements (Improtant)
There should be effective liaison between the Case Manager, scheme staff, and placement providers to ensure the delivery of the supervision plan.

Evidence required Method of Checking/Evidence Scoring

Score 2
1. Consistent contribution to the Post Sentence • CP database or local equivalent and area case In 75% and above cases there is evidence of action
Assessment Interviews process by all relevant staff recording systems. points following the post scheme review meeting
as required by the ECP guidelines for integrated case
• QMT Case File Reading Form Questions 17 and 22. between the Case Manager and scheme staff.
• ECP offender termination questionnaire (sample Score 1
2. For CPRO cases, the case records for each part of
size). 50% - 74% of evidence present.
the order or contact are accessible to the others.
3. Case records support a joint approach to supervision Score 0
planning and enforcement for CPROs cases. Less than 50% of evidence present.
4. The case records show, and interviews with selected
staff indicate, the effective operation of Post
Sentence Assessment Interviews.
5. Effective communication between the Case Manager
and other CP staff.
6. Joint supervision planning for CPRO cases.
E3 Supporting the offender through all phases of the scheme (Mandatory)
Management of the scheme ensures that opportunities are taken to motivate and support offenders at every stage of contact.

Evidence required Method of Checking/Evidence Scoring

1. Offenders are fully briefed about the expectations • Area guidance and offender information leaflets. Score 2
and opportunities of CP work. Evidence 1-3.
• QMT Case File Reading Form Questions 14 and 21.
2. Case records demonstrate that the Case Manager and
• Pro Social Modelling action checklists and Score 1
other relevant staff have properly prepared the Evidence (any two).
audio/video monitoring checklists.
offender for the scheme, e.g. discussion of practical
obstacles to participation. • ECP offender termination questionnaire. Score 0
3. Work is done to address any problems with an Fewer than two evidence points.
offender’s attitude, motivation, participation or
attendance on the scheme.
E4 Understanding and knowledge of scheme methods (Important)
Case Managers of CPO’s and CPROs have an understanding of the aims and objectives of the scheme and the skills to undertake the role, e.g. address poor offender motivation
or engagement.

Evidence required Method of Checking/Evidence Scoring

1. Attendance on the training module for the ECP • Area or regional training database. Score 2
scheme. Evidence 1-3.
• Training audit/staff appraisal documents/supervision
2. Training audit of Case Managers to assess their level notes feedback from line manager/Quality Assurance Score 1
of skills necessary to motivate offenders and Manager (one set from 5 different Tutors during the Evidence (any two).
maximise their engagement on the scheme. last 12 months) Area training strategy.
3. Training strategy to address the areas of unmet need. Score 0
Fewer than two evidence points.
E5 Monitoring of attendance and enforcement (Mandatory)
Responsibility for the monitoring of attendance and the enforcement of orders is clearly defined with appropriate systems in place. There is evidence of effective enforcement in
all cases.

Evidence required Method of Checking/Evidence Scoring

1. Case records that note an offender’s • QMT Case File Reading Form Questions 19 and 20. Score 2
attendance/non-compliance and any necessary Evidence 1-3.
• Area enforcement policy.
enforcement action.
• CP database or local equivalent to identify Score 1
2. Area policy and guidance documents on Evidence (any two).
offender’s compliance/ non-compliance.
enforcement conform to the requirements of
national standards and the ECP guidelines for Score 0
integrated case management. Fewer than two evidence points.
3. Action on enforcement takes place within the agreed
national standards timetable.
E6 Documentation (Important)
The case record shows that all relevant documentation is completed.

Evidence required Method of Checking/Evidence Scoring

1. Timely and accurate CP database or local • CP database or local equivalent. Score 2
equivalent returns. Evidence 1-2.
• QMT Case File Reading Form Question 26.
2. Case records containing all relevant documentation, Score 1
e.g. Evidence (any one).
¾ OASys assessment
¾ supervision plan Score 0
¾ CP assessment form No evidence points.
¾ offender needs
¾ placement quality matrix
¾ offender contact log.
E7 End of scheme review (Important)
There is a supervision plan review at the end of the CP work for each offender. Objectives are identified in appropriate cases to strengthen and build on the progress made and
to achieve successful community reintegration. (see Definition p 43)

Evidence required Method of Checking/Evidence Scoring

1. Supervision plan review identifies any areas of work • QMT Case File Reading Questions 23, 24 and 25. Score 2
not sufficiently covered during the scheme that the Three or more evidence points.
• Quality Assurance Manager reviews of Supervision
offender needs to address.
Plans. Score 1
2. Summary of overall progress and performance on Evidence (any two).
• ECP offender termination questionnaire.
the scheme.
3. SMART objectives set in the supervision plan review Score 0
document. Fewer than two evidence points.

4. Attention paid to ongoing community reintegration

F 1 Highly valuable reparation work for local communities (Mandatory)
ECP orders have a visible effect on reparation work within local communities. Work is of benefit to the local community.

Evidence required Method of Checking/Evidence Scoring

1. Beneficiaries satisfaction with the work of the ¾ Letters of praise. Score 2
Service All evidence must be present.
¾ Letters of complaint.
2. Proportion of work which contributes to community Score 1
¾ Beneficiary surveys.
safety as outlined in area business plan or minimum One piece of evidence must be present.
of 25% of business. ¾ Numbers of applications to become beneficiaries
¾ Area business plan Score 0
None of evidence present.

F 2 Taxpayers receive excellent value for money from the ECP Scheme (Mandatory)
ECP provides is value for money and provides benefits to the taxpayer.

Evidence required Method of Checking/Evidence Scoring

1. Reduced unit cost of ECP Order ¾ Area order cost data. Score 2
Evidence 1-3
2. Reduced ECP Order breaches. ¾ Area quarterly ECP Order breaches data.
3. ECP staff more interchangeable with more flexible ¾ National standards monitoring data Score 1
working patterns. Evidence (any two)
¾ CP database.
¾ HR database Score 0
Fewer than two evidence points
F 3 ECP Scheme Offender compliance (Mandatory)
ECP orders meet the National target of compliance of 70%

Evidence required Method of Checking/Evidence Scoring

1. ECP Orders compliance rate. ¾ National standards monitoring. Score 2
70% or more orders are successfully completed.
. ¾ Local case management systems
Score 1
60-70% of orders are completed.

Score 0
Fewer 60% of orders are completed.

F 4 ECP Scheme has been beneficial for offenders (Mandatory)

Offenders regard that the scheme was beneficial to them.

Evidence required Method of Checking/Evidence Scoring

1. Offenders report benefits of scheme ¾ Offender questionnaire. Score 2
Evidence 1-2.
2. Awards obtained. ¾ Basic skills awards
Score 1
Evidence (any one).

Score 0
No evidence.
F 5 Staff ownership of the scheme (Mandatory)
There is full ownership of the scheme by managers, supervisors and other relevant staff, e.g. court personnel and Case Managers. ECP staff have high level of morale/job
satisfaction from their role in ECP scheme.

Evidence required Method of Checking/Evidence Scoring

1. Evidence of consistent appropriate proposal of CP • Case records to verify attendance by Community Score 2
across the area. For example: Rehabilitation Case Managers and Enhanced Evidence (any four), but must include evidence point 1
Community Punishment Case Managers at post- & 2.
¾ Commencements across the area at or above the
sentence assessment interview. Score 1
national average.
• Area & NPD statistics. Evidence (any three), but must include evidence point 1
2. There is a Post Sentence Assessment interview or 2.
conducted by an Enhanced Community Punishment • Numbers and percentage of Case Managers, PSR
Case Manager where the order is Community authors and other relevant personnel e.g. admin, PO, Score 0
Punishment only. Where the order is a Community Middle Mangers who attended briefing events and Fewer than three evidence points or evidence points 1
and 2 missing.
Punishment and Rehabilitation Order the interview other relevant training.
will be conducted by the Community Rehabilitation
• Date of meeting and attendance list/training record.
Case Managers together with the Enhanced
Community Punishment Case Manager. • ECP staff exit questionnaires and feedback.
3. Case Managers, Pre-Sentence Report (PSR) authors • ECP staff retention/turnover rates.
and other relevant personnel to attend briefing event • ECP staff sickness rates.
or other accredited training courses as required.
• Training and development budgets in relation to
¾ All middle mangers attend briefing events or ECP.
other accredited training courses.
¾ Admin support staff has been to briefing • Staff survey data.
4. Investment in ECP staff skills and development.
5. Career opportunities for ECP staff within ECP and
the wider service.
F 6Maximising inclusion (Important)
The scheme is designed for a broad range of placements for offenders. Assessment and support arrangements should exist so that women, black, ethnic minority and offenders
with disabilities can fully participate in the scheme.

Evidence required Method of Checking/Evidence Scoring

1. Placements offer a range of hours that cover • Review Placement Quality Standards checklist Score 2
weekends and evenings. forms. 75% of evidence including evidence 4.
2. Assessment and support arrangements should exist • CP placement registers/database. Score 1
so that women, minority ethnic offenders and 50% - 74% of evidence including evidence 4.
• An offender questionnaire.
offenders with disabilities can fully participate in the
scheme. • Notes of meetings with community groups about Score 0
placement opportunities. Less than 50% of evidence or where evidence 4 has not
3. Consultation with ethnic minority and other
communities or groups over potential placement • Area Policy on singleton placements. been achieved.
opportunities to maximise inclusion. • QMT Case File Reading Form Question 27.
4. A range of placements are available to ensure access • Offender Portfolios.
to the scheme and address race equality and wider
diversity issues.
5. Consultation with offenders on the basis of race,
gender, disability, sexual orientation, religion, age,
regarding their experience of placements and
potential opportunities to maximise inclusion.
6. Written policy confirming that there should be no
singleton placements of women or minority ethnic
offenders, unless agreed to by scheme participant.
7. Take up of accredited awards through Guided Skills
Learning by women minority ethnic offenders with
disabilities proportional to the representation in the
area case load.
The following definitions are given in an attempt to aid understanding of the key concepts contained within the ECP Self Assessment Documents.


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

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


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

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

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

¾ Assessing and matching offenders appropriately to the scheme.

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

Community Re-integration

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

Exceptional Circumstances

“There is an unforeseen or unavoidable event, which is outside the Scheme Manager/Supervisor’s control and which any reasonable person would conclude would render
it impractical to continue with the scheduled session.” Based upon the principle contained in Probation Circular 92/2001 (Appendix 7).