QUALITY MANAGEMENT OF ENHANCED COMMUNITY PUNISHMENT

PURPOSE
To introduce the framework and documentation for undertaking a selfassessment of Enhanced Community Punishment. To give details of five briefing events.

Probation Circular
REFERENCE NO: 31/2004 ISSUE DATE: 2 June 2004 IMPLEMENTATION DATE: Immediate EXPIRY DATE: June 2009 TO: Chairs of Probation Boards Chief Officers of Probation Secretaries of Probation Boards CC: Regional Managers Regional What Works managers Board Treasurers AUTHORISED BY: Sarah Mann, Head of Interventions; Roger McGarva, Head of Regions and Performance Management ATTACHED: Guidance notes and self assessment form for Enhanced Community Punishment Schemes

ACTION:
Chief Officers should: • Undertake the first area self-assessment exercise between October and December 2004 • Advise the NPD ECP Programme Manager and relevant Regional What Works Manager of the date arranged for the self-assessment exercise in their area by 30 June 2004 • Submit nominations for the briefing events to the NPD ECP Programme Manager by 18 June 2004.

SUMMARY
This circular contains the self assessment guidance and checklist to be used by areas for the Quality Management of Enhanced Community Punishment. 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. The self-assessment framework is consistent in format with that which is to be used for the Quality Management of Accredited Programmes although the detail is specific to ECP.

RELEVANT PREVIOUS PROBATION CIRCULARS
N/A

CONTACT FOR ENQUIRIES
Janet Corcoran, Enhanced Community Programme Manager, Room 253 Tel: 020 7217 8877 Email: Janet.Corcoran@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk

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

Enforcement, rehabilitation and public protection

Background: 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 completions. 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.

Timetable: • 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 selfassessment 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 Liam.Carolan@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk 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 Liam.Carolan@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk 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. Scoring As a guiding principle Mandatory Elements require a higher degree of evidence to achieve a Score 2 than Important Elements. However, where National Standards targets apply this is reflected in the scoring regardless of the level of importance placed on the criterion. Likewise where it is imperative to maintain 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 • business plan about the importance assigned to the delivery of the scheme. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

8.

Area documentation, including annual business plan, Score 2 training strategy, policy statements and relevant 90% of evidence including 1-3 must be present. senior management/divisional management minutes. Score 1 Specific targets set in line with NPD targets. • Annual business plan. 65% to 89% of evidence including any two of evidence 1-3 must be present. ‘What Works’ strategy detailing targets for running • “What Works” strategy. ECP. • Targets in above documents. Score 0 Attendance by senior managers at staff Less than 65% of evidence. None of evidence 1-3 is • Other documentation, including copies of awareness/briefing setting days for the scheme. present. presentations made by senior managers to staff 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 New staff had attended briefing events. titles. Communication with all staff in support of service • Attendance list for new staff with dates of events. delivery. For example: • Minutes of five meetings during the last 12 months. Unit meeting minutes, Newsletter, • Copies of internal bulletins. E-mails. • Copies of e-mails to the whole of the service. Evidence of regular discussion in senior management meetings about the effective delivery of • Evidence of public statements & resource allocations for the current financial year. the scheme, e.g. discussion of operational issues and guidance issued to staff, decisions made on basis of evidence. For example: 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 Score 2 Evidence 1-3. Score 1 Evidence (any two). Score 0 Fewer than two evidence points.

1. Organisational chart outlines the management • Area documentation, including organisational chart. structures for the delivery of the scheme. • Job descriptions for all staff. 2. Competency-based job descriptions exist for all staff • Five sets of relevant minutes during the last 12 involved in the scheme, case management and in months indicating attendance. support roles. 3. Minutes of relevant divisional/functional management meetings demonstrate integration of the scheme within the case management process and effective communication across the area. Minutes indicating, for example: Quality Assurance Managers regular input at unit meetings. Mechanism for interaction of ECP staff and CPRO Case Managers. 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 1. Communication with judges, magistrates’ clerks, for example: magistrates and Method of Checking/Evidence • • • • • • Scoring

Presentation to sentencers by managers, Input into magistrates training. 2. Minutes of liaison meetings between sentencers and probation staff. For example: ECP agenda item. 3. Information leaflets for sentencers and clerks explaining the scheme should be available and 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.

Date of meeting and name of manager who Score 2 Evidence 1-3 and sentencer awareness/satisfaction is attended. 75% and above. Programme of Sentencer training event(s). Relevant minutes of meetings during the last 12 Score 1 Evidence (any two) and sentencer months. awareness/satisfaction is between 50% and 74%. Copy of leaflet for sentencers. Minutes, written presentations and information Score 0 Sentencer Satisfaction is less than 50%. leaflets. Sentencer Satisfaction Surveys.

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 Score 2 Physical check of the group rooms, audio visual The group rooms at 90% and above of the locations met facilities and other necessary tools and equipment. the evidence required. 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 monitoring and internal quality assurance to take evidence that plans are in place to bring any deficiency up to standard within 3 months the criterion can be place. considered fully met. Score 1 The group rooms at 65% - 89% of the locations met the requirements. Score 0 The group rooms at less than 65% of the locations met the requirements.

1. The room should be well lit and well ventilated, with • minimum outside noise/disruption. 2. Comfortable chairs in each room (padded, fairly • upright chairs with arms may be most appropriate). 3. Desks/tables to enable offenders to complete written work (as minimum participants should be supplied with clipboards). 4. Adequate supply of flipcharts/stands. 5. OHP and screen must be provided. 6. Video monitoring equipment and sound system of sufficient quality to enable the Pre-Placement Work Session to be assessed by the Quality Assurance Managers and external auditors. 7. Audio/Video monitoring equipment is of sufficient 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

retained.

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 • health and safety. 2. Placement Quality Standards checklists completed for the placement and the offender. 3. Sanitary facilities are available. 4. Tools, equipment and personal protective clothing • are maintained to required Health and Safety standards. 5. There is a sufficient amount of material available to • complete the work. • 6. First Aid facilities are available and appropriate to 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. are •

Records evidence that Health and Safety risk Score 2 Evidence 1-7. assessments have been completed in all cases. Score 1 Records evidence that a review of Placement Quality Evidence (any five). Standards checklists has been undertaken by Quality Score 0 Assurance Manager every 12 weeks. Fewer than five evidence points. Records evidence that sanitary facilities, tools, equipment, personal protective clothing and materials meet the required standards. First Aid Course registers and Certificates. A sample from the register of staff skills and qualifications, matched with work plans.

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 • meeting the requirements of cultural diversity. 2. Leaflets given to offenders in advance (or at the • time) of sentence to fully inform them about the • scheme. 3. Conditions of attendance and consequences of • failing to comply fully outlined in the information leaflet(s). 4. Complaints procedure outlined in a leaflet(s). NB – it may be the case that all of this information will be contained in a single leaflet or in many.

Copies of leaflet(s), for offenders, sentencers and Score 2 In 75% and above cases scheme specific copies of staff. leaflets are available to staff, sentencers and offenders. In Contents of leaflet(s). addition the leaflets must contain the following: • Compliance Case records indicate offender has received the leaflet(s), including when they were given. • Enforcement • Complaints procedures QMT Case File Reading Form Question 12. • Cultural diversity issues • Customised for the target audience at a level that allows the reader to fully understand the leaflet • Case records indicate offenders have received the leaflet(s), including when they were given. If any one of the 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 1. 2. 3. Area policy document attendance/enforcement. on Method of Checking/Evidence offender • how • Scoring

Area documentation outlining completion rates will be enhanced over time.

• Attendance registers demonstrate that • offenders’ attendance conforms to the requirements of the scheme and National Standards. CP database or local equivalent information confirming attendance by each offender and completion rates. Evidence of discussion between the CPRO Case Manager and scheme staff when offenders have missed sessions for acceptable or unacceptable reasons. Evidence of action taken by the CPRO Case Manager or scheme staff when offenders are absent.

4.

5.

Area documentation on enforcement of attendance Score 2 In 90% and above cases all of the following elements and enhancing completion rates. have been achieved: CP database or local equivalent. • The attendance register indicates that only the permitted number of absences from the scheme has Attendance registers. been allowed. QMT Case File Reading Form Question 18. • When appropriate letters have been sent out to offenders in line with National Standards relating to attendance. • There is evidence of good liaison between scheme staff and Case Managers. Score 1 In 65% - 89% of cases the required elements have been achieved. Where an attendance register is not maintained the score should be 0, even if there is good communication between scheme staff and Case Managers. Score 0 In less than 50% of cases the required elements have been achieved.

6.

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 • national standards and the ECP scheme. 2. Arrangements are made to deal with offenders’ problems outside of the work sessions. • This should be outlined in briefing meetings to offenders prior to the start of their work placement • e.g. covered in Post Sentence Assessment Interviews or Pre Placement Work Sessions. Planning meetings to discuss and ensure consistent staffing for each aspect of the scheme. Contingency planning to cope inclement weather and transport difficulties. with

3. 4.

Sampling of audio and videotapes of Post Sentence Score 2 Assessment Interviews and Pre Placement Work In 75% and above cases all of the following elements have been achieved; Sessions. • Sessions have been delivered in line with the Rotas for staffing placements. planned schedule CP database or local equivalent to check out planned • There is a back-up system in place which provides staff cover during times of sickness sessions against actual sessions. absence or annual leave • Work sessions are only cancelled in exceptional circumstances (See Definitions – page 43) • The frequency of sessions conforms to the requirements and the ECP scheme Score 1 In 50%- 74% of cases the required elements have been achieved. Score 0 In less than 50% of cases the required elements have been achieved.

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 Check timeliness of commencements via CP database Evidence 1-2. or local equivalent. QMT Case File Reading Form Questions 15 and 16. Interviews with offenders, scheme staff and Case Managers to check on the timeliness of Score 0 commencements and any Guided Skills Learning No evidence. (GSL). Score 1 Evidence (any one).

1. Written evidence of offenders commencing the • scheme within the required timescale. 2. In CPRO cases, rehabilitation work • undertaken where an offender is assessed as not • being ready or able to start CP work within ten working days is documented in the case record. 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 1. The number of offenders attending any placement at any one time does not routinely exceed the maximum ratio. Method of Checking/Evidence • • • • Scoring Score 2 The number of available placements is sufficient for In 90% or above cases the size of the group does not the caseload. exceed six offenders to one supervisor. Attendance records. Score 1 Throughput reports. In 65% to 89% cases the size of the group does not exceed six offenders to one supervisor. CP database or local equivalent 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 Area training documentation, e.g. information for Evidence 1-4. potential scheme staff, selection/deselection policies and procedures. Score 1 Local HR records confirming assessment centre and Evidence (any three). training dates for all staff and outcomes. Score 0 Fewer than three evidence points.

1. All potential scheme staff receive written information • about what is involved in running the scheme from the scheme manager and/or the Quality Assurance Manager. • 2. Assessment centre procedures exist and are followed. 3. Written policy/manual confirming that only those 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 1. Job descriptions are available for all scheme staff. Method of Checking/Evidence • Job descriptions. Appraisal/supervision notes. Area documentation outlining the core competencies for each staff role. Scoring Score 2 In 75% and above cases both of the following elements have been achieved: • Staff have been provided with competencybased job descriptions based on relevant occupational standards, commensurate with their roles and the requirements of the scheme manual. Staff have been appraised in the past 12 months against the defined set of competencies appropriate to their role(s).

2. Staff roles are discussed and people are clear about • their areas of responsibility. • 3. Published list of core competencies consistent with the requirements of scheme manual. 4. Where one person holds more than one role, this conforms to the restrictions specified in the core manual.

Score 1 In 50%- 74% of cases the required elements have been achieved. Score 0 In less than 50% of cases the required elements have been achieved.

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 • available) and other staff development work undertaken by scheme staff, including the core • training for it. 2. Supervision notes/appraisal documents including • post training portfolios where appropriate demonstrate an ongoing attention to staff development needs for each member of staff • involved in delivering the scheme.

Local HR records confirming that scheme specific Score 2 Evidence 1-2. training has taken place. Area documentation listing the training undertaken Score 1 by scheme staff. Evidence (any one). Interviews with supervisors/tutors and other Score 0 scheme staff. No evidence. Completed competence evidence records

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. reference. 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 Appraisal documents of staff Supervision notes, including audio/video monitoring forms and development plans where required. Records from training section regarding remedial action. Scoring Score 2 75% of evidence including evidence 1. Score 1 50% to 74% of evidence including evidence 1. Score 0 Less than 50% of evidence.

1. Appraisal documents record an assessment of the • competency of staff to deliver the scheme. • 2. Video monitoring forms completed by the Quality Assurance Manager identify strengths and areas • where performance needs to be improved.

3. A plan of remedial action is recorded by the Quality • Policy available. Assurance Manager, for scheme staff who are underperforming, including a date to review • Review of Quality Assurance Group (QAG) video monitoring. progress. 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 Score 2 90% and above of evidence. Score 1 65-89% and above of evidence. Score 0 Less than 65% of evidence.

1. An area policy document explains the monitoring • Area policy document and relevant guidelines available. and evaluation arrangements and outlines the roles and responsibilities of relevant staff to accurately • CP database or local equivalent completed fully and record data and provide individual and summary accurately. reports. • Evidence that the reports generated are circulated to 2. There are guidelines for completing CP database or relevant managers and staff. local equivalent information. 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 Five audio/video monitoring forms completed by the Quality Assurance Manager covering one set from five different staff members during the past 12 months outlining their strengths and areas for improvement. Scoring Score 2 Evidence 1-3. Score 1 Two pieces of evidence including evidence 1.

1. Video/audio monitoring forms completed on each • supervisor/tutor by the Quality Assurance Manager. For audit and quality assurance purposes, the Quality Assurance Manager is required to review selections from 10% of post-sentence interviews and 10% of pre-placement work sessions. • 2. Pro Social Modelling Action checklists completed as specified in the core manual. • 3. Supervision, informed by audio video monitoring • and direct observation of practice, demonstrate attention to skills development, identification of good practice and resolution of problems encountered by staff in delivering the scheme.

Supervision notes covering five additional staff Score 0 members during the past 12 months. Fewer than two evidence points or lack of evidence 1. Pro Social Modelling action checklists. Pro Social Modelling Quality Assurance Group monitoring forms.

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 Staff development plan. Scoring Score 2 Evidence 1-3.

1. Reviews for all staff to check training undertaken • and areas where further work required. • 2. Audio/video and direct observation, documented training and developmental needs for relevant staff. • 3. Supporting skills audit informed by the supervision and appraisal process and reflected in the area’s overall training strategy. • •

Audio/video monitoring forms completed by Quality Assurance Manager. Score 1 Evidence (any two). Quality Assurance Manager notes from direct observation demonstrating attention to skills Score 0 acquisition. 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 Check local CP database or local equivalent to ensure profile is consistent with offenders’ needs, level of risk of reoffending and risk of harm/dangerousness. Scoring Score 2 If 90% or above offenders who commenced the scheme conform to the eligibility and suitability criteria of the scheme as assessed by OASys.

1. Use of approved targeting matrix for the scheme • that measures: • Offender’s criminogenic needs • Risk of reoffending • Level of risk of harm/dangerousness. • 2. Use of OASys. 3. Use of evaluation monitoring from local CP • database or local equivalent. 4. Written guidance on grounds for exclusion. •

Area documentation, including targeting matrix and Score 1 OASys documents. Area documentation should also If 65 – 89% conform. include written statements about exclusion criteria. Analysis of OASys and PSR monitoring data to Score 0 If less than 65% conform. ensure appropriate targeting. 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 1. CP Assessment Form signed by the offender. Method of Checking/Evidence • CP Assessment Forms signed by offender. Scoring Score 2 In 75% of cases or above.

2. Scheme requirements are explained to the offender • verbally by the CP supervisor and/or the Case Manager. • Pre placement session • • Initial interview

Case records confirming that requirements of the scheme have been explained to the offender on at Score 1 least two occasions. In 50 – 74% of cases. QMT Case File Reading Form Question 13. 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 Score 2 All four evidence requirements are met in 90% or more cases. Score 1 All four evidence requirements are met in 65 – 89% of cases. Score 0 All four evidence points are met in less than 65% of cases.

1. All cases subject to a Pre Placement Work session, • Post Sentence Assessment Interviews and pre placement work session documentation Post Sentence Assessment Interview and have a CP supervision plan. • QMT Case File Reading Question 7. 2. Allocation of offenders to placements on the basis • Audio and video recordings of Post Sentence of individual needs and risk of harm assessment. Assessment Interviews and pre-placement work sessions. 3. The delivery of “Problem Solving at Work” and Guided Skills Learning is informed by the assessor • Pro Social Modelling action checklists and Placement process and related to offender need. Quality Standards checklists. 4. Placements are delivered according to the guidelines 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 • on a unit, area and regional basis. 2. Awareness of unit and area differences in • performance and analysis of possible reasons for these, e.g. where it has been shown that particular • units or areas have consistently performed better in terms of reduced attrition rates or greater “offender • readiness” to comply with the scheme. 3. Regular discussion by senior and middle managers e.g. of attendance and completion information and records of actions taken as a consequence. 4. Regular discussion by scheme staff e.g. of offender feedback and monitoring data and record of actions taken as a consequence.

Minutes of senior managers meetings held during the Score 2 Evidence that area practice has been improved in the last 12 months. light of information from other areas operating the Minutes of operational manager meetings held scheme. during the last 12 months. Minutes of senior managers meetings held during the last Minutes of scheme staff meetings held during the 12 months Minutes of operational managers meetings held during last 12 months. the last 12 months. 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. improved in the light of information from other areas operating the scheme. Score 1 Where one of the above elements is missing. Score 0 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 Pro Social Modelling action checklists Scoring Score 2 90% or above of evidence present.

1. Offender assessments and supervision plans outline • how Pro Social Modelling and Problem Solving at • Work will be used. 2. Applying the guidelines for the pro social delivery of • CP contained in the ECP core manual. 3. Involving offenders as much as possible in planning • the work, and involving them in discussions and • decisions about how tasks may be accomplished. 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.

Pro Social Modelling videotapes and monitoring checklists. Score 1 Three sets of notes/videos from Pro Social 65% - 89% of evidence present. Modelling Quality Assurance Groups. Score 0 Observation of practice on site by trained assessors. Less than 65% of evidence present. Documentation of termination interviews and questionnaires (sample size).

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 QMT Case File Reading Form Question 9. Scoring Score 2 Evidence 1-3.

1. Guided Skills Learning is included as a SMART • objective in the supervision plan. • 2. Tutor time is available to deliver Guided Skills Learning. • 3. An integrated case management policy to ensure • Guided Skills Learning is delivered through the order.

Protocols/service level agreements with colleges and other providers. Score 1 Evidence (any two). Offender portfolios. CP Supervision Plans Score 0 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 • of Placement Quality Standards. 2. Protocol or service level agreements have been • agreed with placement providers. • 3. Use of the Placement Quality Standards checklist. 4. Remedial action is taken when placements fall below the required standard. • •

Sampling of completed Placement Quality Standards Score 2 Evidence 1-4. checklists. Site visits to check quality of placements. Score 1 Evidence of a process to discontinue or improve Evidence (any three). placements when they fail the Placement Quality Score 0 Standards checklist. Fewer than three evidence points. 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 1. Use of open questions to facilitate learning. 2. Listening and allowing for answers. 3. Summarising points and reflects back. 4. 5. 6. 7. Method of Checking/Evidence Scoring

• Pro Social Modelling checklists and monitoring Score 2 90% or above of evidence present. forms. • Three set of notes from Quality Assurance Groups.

Score 1 • Local HR records or local equivalent for 65% - 89% of evidence present. Challenges offence supporting views. tutor’s/supervisor’s records of offender engagement. Score 0 Offenders encouraged to explain and validate ideas • Documentation of interviews with offenders to check Less than 65% of evidence present. for themselves. what they had learned/gained from the scheme. Demonstrate awareness of responsivity issues • Observation of videotapes/review of audiotapes of (including race equality). Post Sentence Assessment Interviews. Encourage participants to make self-motivating statements.

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 90% or above of evidence present. composition of groups. diversity. 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. minority) 3. Placement managers and supervisors ensure cultural Score 0 relevance of work undertaken for all offenders. 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 placements.

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 Score 2 Evidence 1-5. Score 1 Evidence (any four). Score 0 Fewer than four evidence points.

1. Offenders well briefed about the task they will be • Pro Social Modelling video monitoring forms completed by the Quality Assurance Manager and undertaking. Pro Social Modelling checklist. 2. Appropriate verbal style (clearly spoken, warm, • Staff supervision notes, Quality Assurance Group encouraging, gives judicious praise). monitoring forms and video recordings of Quality 3. Uses appropriate language (shows awareness of race Assurance Groups, unit meeting notes recording equality and wider diversity issues). discussion of practice issues raised. 4. Group managed well (control of whole group, disruptive and quiet members). 5. Uses verbal/non-verbal open, listens.). encouragement (warm,

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 Evidence 1-4. ECP assessment form. 11. 2. SMART objectives are set for all offenders. The Case Manager should clearly record what will be achieved through the specific elements of the scheme. 3. In CPRO cases, evidence that the supervision plan integrates CP work within an overall work plan for the offender. 4. Use of OASys to inform assessment. Score 1 Evidence (any three). Score 0 Fewer than three evidence points.

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 CP database or local equivalent and area case In 75% and above cases there is evidence of action recording systems. points following the post scheme review meeting QMT Case File Reading Form Questions 17 and 22. between the Case Manager and scheme staff. ECP offender termination questionnaire (sample Score 1 size). 50% - 74% of evidence present. Score 0 Less than 50% of evidence present.

1. Consistent contribution to the Post Sentence • Assessment Interviews process by all relevant staff as required by the ECP guidelines for integrated case • management. • 2. For CPRO cases, the case records for each part of the order or contact are accessible to the others. 3. Case records support a joint approach to supervision planning and enforcement for CPROs cases. 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 Area guidance and offender information leaflets. QMT Case File Reading Form Questions 14 and 21. Pro Social Modelling action checklists audio/video monitoring checklists. ECP offender termination questionnaire. Scoring Score 2 Evidence 1-3.

1. Offenders are fully briefed about the expectations • and opportunities of CP work. • 2. Case records demonstrate that the Case Manager and • other relevant staff have properly prepared the offender for the scheme, e.g. discussion of practical • obstacles to participation. 3. Work is done to address any problems with an offender’s attitude, motivation, participation or attendance on the scheme.

and Score 1 Evidence (any two). Score 0 Fewer than two evidence points.

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 Area or regional training database. Scoring Score 2 Evidence 1-3.

1. Attendance on the training module for the ECP • scheme. • 2. Training audit of Case Managers to assess their level of skills necessary to motivate offenders and maximise their engagement on the scheme. 3. Training strategy to address the areas of unmet need.

Training audit/staff appraisal documents/supervision notes feedback from line manager/Quality Assurance Score 1 Manager (one set from 5 different Tutors during the Evidence (any two). last 12 months) Area training strategy. 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 QMT Case File Reading Form Questions 19 and 20. Area enforcement policy. Scoring Score 2 Evidence 1-3.

1. Case records that note an offender’s • attendance/non-compliance and any necessary • enforcement action. • 2. Area policy and guidance documents on enforcement conform to the requirements of national standards and the ECP guidelines for integrated case management. 3. Action on enforcement takes place within the agreed national standards timetable.

CP database or local equivalent to identify Score 1 Evidence (any two). offender’s compliance/ non-compliance. Score 0 Fewer than two evidence points.

E6 Documentation (Important) The case record shows that all relevant documentation is completed. Evidence required Method of Checking/Evidence Scoring Score 2 Evidence 1-2. Score 1 Evidence (any one). Score 0

1. Timely and accurate CP database or local • CP database or local equivalent. equivalent returns. • QMT Case File Reading Form Question 26. 2. Case records containing all relevant documentation, e.g. OASys assessment supervision plan CP assessment form offender needs placement quality matrix offender contact log.

No evidence points.

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 Score 2 Three or more evidence points. Score 1 Evidence (any two). Score 0 Fewer than two evidence points.

1. Supervision plan review identifies any areas of work • QMT Case File Reading Questions 23, 24 and 25. not sufficiently covered during the scheme that the • Quality Assurance Manager reviews of Supervision offender needs to address. Plans. 2. Summary of overall progress and performance on • ECP offender termination questionnaire. the scheme. 3. SMART objectives set in the supervision plan review document. 4. Attention paid to ongoing community reintegration issues.

Outcomes
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 1. Beneficiaries satisfaction with the work of the Service 2. Proportion of work which contributes to community safety as outlined in area business plan or minimum of 25% of business. Method of Checking/Evidence Letters of praise. Letters of complaint. Beneficiary surveys. Numbers of applications to become beneficiaries Area business plan Scoring Score 2 All evidence must be present. Score 1 One piece of evidence must be present. 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 1. Reduced unit cost of ECP Order 2. Reduced ECP Order breaches. 3. ECP staff more interchangeable with more flexible working patterns. Method of Checking/Evidence Area order cost data. Area quarterly ECP Order breaches data. National standards monitoring data CP database. HR database Scoring Score 2 Evidence 1-3 Score 1 Evidence (any two) 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 1. ECP Orders compliance rate. . Method of Checking/Evidence National standards monitoring. Local case management systems Scoring Score 2 70% or more orders are successfully completed. 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 1. Offenders report benefits of scheme 2. Awards obtained. Method of Checking/Evidence Offender questionnaire. Basic skills awards Scoring Score 2 Evidence 1-2. 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 • across the area. For example: Commencements across the area at or above the national average.

Case records to verify attendance by Community Rehabilitation Case Managers and Enhanced Community Punishment Case Managers at postsentence assessment interview. Area & NPD statistics.

Score 2 Evidence (any four), but must include evidence point 1 & 2. Score 1 Evidence (any three), but must include evidence point 1 or 2.

• 2. There is a Post Sentence Assessment interview conducted by an Enhanced Community Punishment • Case Manager where the order is Community Punishment only. Where the order is a Community Punishment and Rehabilitation Order the interview will be conducted by the Community Rehabilitation • Case Managers together with the Enhanced • Community Punishment Case Manager. 3. Case Managers, Pre-Sentence Report (PSR) authors • and other relevant personnel to attend briefing event • or other accredited training courses as required. • All middle mangers attend briefing events or other accredited training courses. Admin support staff has been to briefing • events. 4. Investment in ECP staff skills and development. 5. Career opportunities for ECP staff within ECP and the wider service.

Numbers and percentage of Case Managers, PSR authors and other relevant personnel e.g. admin, PO, Score 0 Middle Mangers who attended briefing events and Fewer than three evidence points or evidence points 1 and 2 missing. other relevant training. Date of meeting and attendance list/training record. ECP staff exit questionnaires and feedback. ECP staff retention/turnover rates. ECP staff sickness rates. Training and development budgets in relation to ECP. Staff survey data.

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 • weekends and evenings. 2. Assessment and support arrangements should exist • so that women, minority ethnic offenders and • offenders with disabilities can fully participate in the • scheme. 3. Consultation with ethnic minority and other communities or groups over potential placement • opportunities to maximise inclusion. • 4. A range of placements are available to ensure access • 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

Review Placement Quality Standards checklist Score 2 75% of evidence including evidence 4. forms. CP placement registers/database. An offender questionnaire. Score 1 50% - 74% of evidence including evidence 4.

Notes of meetings with community groups about Score 0 placement opportunities. Less than 50% of evidence or where evidence 4 has not been achieved. Area Policy on singleton placements. QMT Case File Reading Form Question 27. Offender Portfolios.

area case load.

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

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: Assessing and matching offenders appropriately to the scheme. Tackling discrimination to overcome obstacles to the successful and beneficial completion of the scheme. 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. 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).