REVISED TARGETING STRATEGY

PURPOSE
• • To advise areas of the targeting strategy and matrix for all Offending Behaviour Programmes and other interventions. To inform areas of changes to targeting criteria for General Offending Behaviour Programmes (GOBPs).

Probation Circular
REFERENCE NO: 38/2004 ISSUE DATE: 02 July 2004 IMPLEMENTATION DATE: Immediate EXPIRY DATE: June 2006 TO: Chairs of Probation Boards Chief Officers of Probation Secretaries of Probation Boards CC: Board Treasurers Regional Managers AUTHORISED BY: David Perry Director of Service Delivery ATTACHED: Annex A: Factors to be taken into account when using the targeting matrix Annex B: Targeting matrix

ACTION
Chief Officers should ensure that: • all relevant staff are aware of targeting strategy; • the revised targeting criteria for GOBPs are applied as intended by following the guidelines outlined in Annexes A and B.

SUMMARY
The targeting strategy is based on research and analysis from a number of sources. It provides guidelines for probation areas in referring offenders to different types of intervention which are appropriate to their risk and needs. There are some significant changes to targeting of GOBPs which include: • increasing the minimum Offender Group Reconviction Scale (OGRS) score for offenders targeted to GOBPs to 40; • making a clear distinction between referrals to GOBPs and referrals to specific offence type programmes which might be based on risk of harm; • introducing new exclusion criteria based on recent criminal history and levels of inter-personal skills. The effect of these changes means there will be an improvement in the discrimination between offenders suitable for GOBPs, Enhanced Community Punishment (ECP) and other specialist programmes. The targeting matrices are designed to cover the present sentencing structure and will need to be reviewed when the new sentences are enacted.

RELEVANT PREVIOUS PROBATION CIRCULARS
PC32/2000 PC96/2000 PC41/2003

CONTACT FOR ENQUIRIES
Danny Clark, Interventions Unit, Room 226, Horseferry House

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

Enforcement, rehabilitation and public protection

INTRODUCTION
The targeting strategy presented in this paper attempts to bring together research and analysis from a number of sources. It provides guidelines for probation areas in referring offenders to different types of intervention which are appropriate to their risk and needs. The strategy is informed by the analysis of OASys data, the recent research findings from the Think First Programme and the ongoing Offending Behaviour Programme Pathfinders research. It incorporates earlier targeting advice given to areas for Enhanced Community Punishment, Intensive Interventions and Offending Behaviour Programmes. The success of the targeting strategy is reliant on the timely good quality use of OASys. Once probation areas have implemented OASys, they do not need to complete individual targeting matrices for the GOBPs or the Substance Misuse Programmes. There are some elements of selection for the other specialist programmes that are not contained in OASys at present. The targeting to interventions is set within the current community sentencing structure, but the targeting to specific types of interventions would be applicable after the introduction of the new sentencing framework. Changes recommended in these targeting guidelines are in line with the policy of lower risk offenders receiving disposals other than community penalties. The main body of the circular consists of the targeting matrix and accompanying guidelines. The significant changes to targeting of GOBPs are highlighted below. • • • • • The minimum OGRS score for offenders targeted to GOBPs is increased from 31 to 40. A clear distinction is made between referrals to GOBPs and referrals to specific offence type programmes which might be based on risk of harm rather than likelihood of reconviction. The guidelines recommend that offenders with a high likelihood of reconviction (OGRS 75 and over) should be referred to GOBPs provided that plans are put into place to increase the probability of completion. New exclusion criteria are introduced based on recent history of breach or increasing levels of offending (represented by 4 or more convictions for separate offences at the last court appearance). An ‘obstacle to exclusion’ criteria for group based programmes is introduced based on levels of inter-personal skills.

• The minimum criminogenic needs level for GOBPs is set at a score of 7 or a minimum score of 4 with at least one score of 2 on the relevant items in section 11 of OASys. The new exclusion criteria move towards targeting based on current status and evidence of readiness to change, rather than being entirely based on criminal history. A projection of the overall effects of these changes based on the OASys data demonstrates that there will still be enough offenders eligible for programmes to meet current targets when applying the revised criteria. Annex A describes factors to be taken into account when using the targeting matrix and Annex B contains the targeting matrices.

GUIDELINES FOR TARGETING MATRIX
USING THE MATRIX TO IDENTIFY A SUITABLE INTERVENTION
How to use the tables The targeting matrix consists of three tables. Assessors should use the three tables together to ensure they select the most suitable intervention. Table 1 allows for an intervention to be chosen on the basis of risk of harm and likelihood of reconviction from a list of those which are appropriate. Table 2 provides a crosscheck that an offender is eligible for an intervention in terms of risk, need and offence type. It also provides an indication of other work required. Table three highlights exclusions and any obstacles which need to be overcome before the offender can realistically participate in the intervention. PC38/2004 - Revised Targeting Strategy 2

Table 1 is a two dimensional matrix based on ‘Risk of Harm’ and’ Likelihood of Reconviction‘ as defined in OASys. This matrix is a development of an earlier one developed to assist targeting to Enhanced Community Punishment. Each cell in the matrix is defined by a specific combination of ‘Risk of harm’ and ‘Likelihood of reconviction’. This revised matrix is expanded to have 5 levels of ‘Likelihood of reconviction’ and 4 levels of ‘Risk of Harm’ which allows for a finer discrimination between types of Offending Behaviour Programme appropriate at each level. It also includes a wider range of interventions than the original matrix. Each cell contains a list of the disposals suitable for an offender who meets the cell definition, enabling the assessor to choose the most appropriate option. Table 2 lists all the interventions separately. The target group for each intervention in terms of ‘Risk of Harm’ and ‘Likelihood of Reconviction ‘is represented by the shaded areas. The lighter shading indicates categories of offender who could benefit from an intervention delivered on its own. The solid black shading indicates categories who could benefit from the intervention provided it was part of a wider package of measures. For example, programmes might require additional structured input or be sequenced with other interventions. The final column gives an indication of the offender group or criminogenic needs/risk factors addressed by the intervention. The limited space does not allow all needs criteria to be included so in some cases further assessment is indicated. Assessors should refer to the individual intervention assessment matrices for the full list of needs criteria for any intervention. Table 2 allows the assessor to check that any intervention they are proposing is suitable for the offender. Programmes which are not likely to be widely available in the near future such as Choices (the lower risk substance misuse programme) and the Women’s Acquisitive Offending Programmes are not included in the table. Table 3 maps possible obstacles to participation against each intervention. The shaded cells indicate where obstacles are relevant to the specific intervention. It should be noted that an obstacle is not necessarily a reason to exclude an offender from participating in an intervention. Most obstacles should be considered as factors which require special attention or issues which need addressing before an offender participates in the intervention. Please see suggested table format. Exclusions can be based on offenders' characteristics or issues affecting availability. A new exclusion criterion is introduced for programmes, based on a recent increase in delinquent/criminal behaviour. For further information about targeting to individual programmes, areas should contact the programme implementation manager responsible for the programme. Think First, Cognitive Booster and Drink Impaired Drivers - David Skyner 0207 217 8044. David.Skyner@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk ETS, ART and CALM - Jim Cowley 0207 217 8814. Jim.Cowley@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk ASRO, OSAP and PRISM - Diane Anderson 0207 217 8895 mailto:Diane.Anderson3@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk Domestic Violence, and Priestley One to One - Sue Pearce 0207 217 8081 Sue.Pearce@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk Sex Offender Programmes - David Middleton 0207 217 8183 David.Middleton2@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk

PC38/2004 - Revised Targeting Strategy

3

ANNEX A: FACTORS TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT WHEN USING THE TARGETING MATRIX
Custodial sentences - Table 1 does not include a custodial sentence as an option, because it is primarily concerned with the range of community interventions. However, there will be some occasions when offenders who pose a High Risk of Harm or High Risk of Reconviction may not be suitable for any Community Sentence. There will also be instances where the seriousness of the offence inevitably suggests a Custodial Sentence. Assessors should be aware that the targeting and guidance provided in this document do not preclude recommending a Custodial Sentence on such occasions. Combining Interventions - Assessors should bear in mind that interventions are usually not exclusive of one another and in instances where risk and need require greater input this can often be achieved by sequencing interventions. Some disposals form a wrap within which more than one intervention is embedded. For example a Community Punishment & Rehabilitation Order (CPRO) may include a requirement to attend an offending behaviour programme as well as ECP which will support the programme work. A Drug Testing & Treatment Order (DTTO) will always include attendance at an offending behaviour programme. Curfew orders - can be used as a sentence in their own right or alongside other sentences where a significant degree of restriction of liberty is required or where it would aid rehabilitation. Curfew orders with electronic monitoring should normally be restricted to offenders with Medium to High Risk of Reconviction or Medium to High Risk of Harm. Sequencing programmes - means arranging for an offender to attend two programmes consecutively. Sequencing will normally take place when the Likelihood of Reconviction is high and when an offender has a wide range of criminogenic needs which makes them suitable for more than one programme. Sequencing will normally consist of pairing a General Offending Behaviour Programme with a more specialist programme, however, on occasions two specialist programmes may be sequenced. Analysis of OASys data from probation areas suggests that the most common combination will be a GOBP and a substance misuse programme. Assessors should also consider combinations of offending behaviour programmes with other interventions addressing needs associated with reconviction such as basic skills and employment. The decision to recommend a sequence of programmes should be made at the beginning of sentence or PSR stage. Drug Treatment and Testing Orders (DTTO) - Tables 1 and 2 do not distinguish between the standard and less intensive versions of DTTO. This is because the sentence given by the court will be the same. The level of DTTO applicable in a specific case will often be a matter of clinical judgement. In general though, higher risk cases will be expected to receive the more intensive intervention. All DTTOs should be supported by attendance at an accredited substance misuse and/or other accredited offending behaviour programme. For Very High Risk of Harm offenders it is assumed that substance misuse programmes will only be undertaken within the structure of a DTTO. Sex offenders - Most sex offenders will be eligible for some level of accredited Sex Offender Treatment Programme (SOTP). This is reflected in Table 2 where all groups are shaded. The level of intervention required is assessed through Risk Matrix 2000, and the structured assessment which forms part of the SOTP. High Risk of Harm or High Likelihood of Reconviction sex offenders are unlikely to receive a community sentence. But, should this occur, additional input to manage risk effectively in the community should be considered. Violent Offenders - NPS has two accredited programmes for violent/aggressive offenders, these are Aggression Replacement Training (ART) and Controlling Anger and Learning to Manage it (CALM). Both these programmes are most suitable for offenders in the Medium to High Likelihood of Reconviction range and the Medium to High Risk of Harm. Tables 1 and 2 reflect that violent offenders with a Medium or High Risk of Harm may be placed on ART and

CALM even if their likelihood of reconviction is low. If offenders with a High Risk of Harm are undertaking ART or CALM additional structured input will be required as part of the risk management plan. The needs criteria for ART and CALM vary slightly, but probation areas will only be running one or the other programme. Both programmes focus on the attitudinal problems, emotional management, inter-personal difficulties and perceptual triggers associated with aggressive behaviour. They are unlikely to be sufficient on their own for offenders whose violent or aggressive behaviour is primarily instrumental. Domestic Violence - The conviction history for perpetrators of domestic violence is likely to reflect a smaller fraction of their offending than for some other groups of offenders. Therefore, there is no lower likelihood of reconviction criteria for this group. The SARA (Spousal Abuse Risk Assessment) inventory will be used to assess risk with this group. Consultation with programme staff is recommended in all domestic cases being considered for a DV programme. General Offending Behaviour Programmes - Research into the effectiveness of GOBPs has shown that they do not reduce the reconviction rate for offenders who have a low likelihood of reconviction (OGRS score less than 40). Therefore, the targeting criteria have been revised so that only those having an OGRS above 40 are recommended for GOBPs. This does not apply to specific offence programmes where an increased Risk of Harm may indicate a need for the programme. This change is represented in Table 1 by having a new likelihood of risk category based on OGRS scores between 31 and 40 for which specific, but not general offending, programmes should normally be considered. Other changes to the Target group for GOBPs around exclusions/obstacles to completion are shown in Table 3 and Appendix 2. Cognitive Skills Booster Programme - is not listed separately from the other GOBPs in Tables 1-3. It is appropriate for all offenders who have successfully completed a GOBP. It should be noted that the booster on its own does not constitute the additional structured work required for offenders with a Higher Likelihood of Reconviction. The Cognitive Skills Booster Programme can be used together with a GOBP where an offender receives a longer supervision order. For offenders who have completed a GOBP in custody a licence condition to attend the Cognitive Skills Booster Programme as directed should be considered. The Cognitive Skills Booster Programme can also be a requirement of a new supervision order if it can be verified that an offender has successfully completed a GOBP as part of an earlier recent sentence. Drink Impaired Drivers Programme - this programme is only suitable for a limited number of offenders who have few convictions other than for drinking and driving offences. Therefore it is unlikely to be suitable for those in the Higher Likelihood of Reconviction Category. The DIDs programme should only be considered where offenders do not meet the criteria for other offending behaviour programmes. A first drink driving offence would not normally require attendance at DIDs unless there are aggravating factors. Assessors should consider the courses organised by the Department of Transport as an alternative option. Enhanced Community Punishment - is targeted at offenders who merit a community sentence and are suitable for work in the community. ECP is specifically designed to address needs in the following areas, education, employability, lifestyle and associates, attitudes and cognitive skills (which are not so great as to require at General Offending Behaviour Programme). Where additional offending related needs exist or Likelihood of Reconviction is high a CPRO should be considered. ECP will not be suitable for offenders with a High Risk of Harm unless this can be managed safely in the community in which case a CPRO may be suitable. Low Risk of Harm and Low likelihood of Reconviction - The assumption for this group of offenders is that they will receive a disposal other than a community sentence unless ECP is merited by the severity of the offence.

Annex B: Targeting Matrix
Table 1. Targeting matrix based on likelihood of reconviction and risk of harm

Likelihood of Reconviction
High OGRS OASys 76+ 100+

RISK OF HARM
Low
ISM,ICCP CRO/CPRO – GOBP or specific offence programme (DIDS, SOTP, IDAP, ART/CALM) + additional structured work or sequenced programmes CRO – ASRO/OSAPP/PRISM CRO–alone if unsuitable for OBPs CPRO Curfew order CRO/CPRO - GOBP or specific offence programme (DIDS, SOTP, IDAP, ART/CALM) CRO – ASRO/OSAPP/PRISM CRO –alone if unsuitable for OBPs CPRO CPO Curfew order CRO - GOBP or specific offence programme DIDS, SOTP, IDAP, ART/CALM) CRO –alone if unsuitable for OBPs CPRO CPO Curfew order CRO –DIDS,SOTP, IDAP CRO/CPRO -alone CPO Curfew order without EM Fine

Medium
DTTO, ISM, ICCP CRO/CPRO – GOBP or specific offence programme (DIDS, SOTP, IDAP, ART/CALM) + additional structured work or sequenced programmes CRO – ASRO/OSAPP/PRISM CRO –alone if unsuitable for OBPs CPRO Curfew order DTTO, ICCP CRO/CPRO - GOBP or specific offence programme (DIDS, SOTP, IDAP, ART/CALM) CRO – ASRO/OSAPP/PRISM CRO–alone if unsuitable for OBPs CPRO CPO Curfew order CRO - GOBP or specific offence programme DIDS, SOTP, IDAP, ART/CALM) CRO –alone if unsuitable for OBPs CPRO CPO Curfew order CRO –DIDS, SOTP, IDAP ART or CALM CRO/CPRO – alone CPO Curfew order without EM

High
Consider MAPPP DTTO, ICCP CRO – GOBP or specific offence programme ( SOTP IDAP ART/CALM)+ additional structured work or sequenced programmes CRO – ASRO/OSAPP/PRISM with additional work or sequenced programme CRO –alone if unsuitable for OBPs Consider MAPPP DTTO, ICCP CRO – GOBP or specific offence programme ( DIDS SOTP IDAP) CRO ART/CALM sequenced with additional structured work CRO – ASRO/OSAPP/PRISM CRO –alone if unsuitable for OBPs Consider MAPPP, ICCP CRO – GOBP or specific offence programme ( DIDS SOTP IDAP) CRO ART/CALM sequenced with additional structured work CRO –alone if unsuitable for OBPs

Very high
MAPPP DTTO, ICCP CRO – GOBP or specific offence programme (SOTP IDAP ART/CALM)+ additional structured work or sequenced programmes CRO –alone if unsuitable for OBPs

Medium high

50-75

71- 99

MAPPP DTTO, ICCP CRO – GOBP or specific offence programme (SOTP IDAP ART/CALM sequenced or with additional structured work CRO –alone if unsuitable for OBPs

Medium

41-49

56 70

MAPPA ICCP CRO – GOBP or specific offence programme ( OTP IDAP ART/CALM sequenced or with additional structured work CRO –alone if unsuitable for OBPs

Medium Low

31-40

41-55

Low

U30

U40

CPO-only where merited severity of offence Fine Conditional discharge

by

CRO with DIDs, SOTP, IDAP ART or CALM CRO/CPRO – alone CPO Curfew order without EM

CRO – specific offence programme (DIDS SOTP IDAP) CRO ART/CALM sequenced or with additional structured work CRO –alone if OBP not appropriate CPRO – (only if risk of harm safely managed) CRO with DIDs, SOTP, IDAP ART or CALM CRO – alone if OBP not appropriate CPRO – (only if risk of harm safely managed)

MAPPA CRO – specific offence programme ( SOTP IDAP ART/CALM) with additional structured risk work CRO –alone if OBP not appropriate

MAPPA CRO – specific offence programme ( SOTP IDAP ART/CALM) CRO –alone if OBP not appropriate

PC38/2004 - Revised Targeting Strategy

1

Table 2. Targeting for individual interventions by likelihood of reconviction, risk of harm and needs Interventions OGRS ISM ICCP DTTO Sex offender Programmes Domestic violence Violent offender programmes, ART & CALM Substance misuse ASRO,OSSAP and PRISM
GOBPs: Think first, ETS, R&R, Priestley Drink, impaired drivers Enhanced community punishment

RISK OF HARM AND LIKELIHOOD OF RECONVICTION LOW RISK OF HARM MEDIUM RISK OF HARM HIGH RISK OF HARM L M M/H H L M M/H H L M M/H H -41 41-50 51-75 75+ -41 41-50 51-75 75+ -41 41-50 51-75 75+

Needs - summary

Prolific offenders low substance misuse & other needs 18-20 years only –multiple needs high risk custody Drugs dependency plus high level of other needs (5+) Sexual offence/motivation risk assessed by matrix 2000 History of Domestic Violence risk is assessed by SARA Violent offence/ history. Anger, social skill or attitude deficits (OASys) Offence linked to substance misuse. OASys indicates Substance misuse problem Cognitive deficits identified in section 11 OASys. (Additional work unless R&R OGRS 75+) Needs related to drink driving only Employment, lifestyle and attitude needs and/or some limited cognitive skill deficits only, unless part of CPRO Categories of offender who would benefit from interventions delivered on as a stand alone Categories of offender who would benefit from intervention, if delivered as part of a wider package.

Key

PC38/2004 - Revised Targeting Strategy

2

Table 3.Exclusion and ‘obstacle’ Criteria Covering Multiple Interventions
Intervention Factor and relevant part of OASys OASys Sections 1-12
Serious Mental ill health Learning Difficulties / Low IQ Poor Basic skills Interpersonal problems Serious Psycholo gical disorder

Section 13: issues affecting availability
Alcohol / Drug misuse Chaotic lifestyle Religious/ cultural requests ETE comm itment Carer/ Domestic Issues Physical health Trans port

Other
Breach or many recent offences ~ A ge ov er 20 Gender (female offenders)

ISM ICCP DTTO √ Sex offender Domestic violence Violent offender Substance misuse GOBP* Drink/Drive √ ECP ** √ √ √ √ √ √ √

√ √

Key: √ Excluded from this programme Potential obstacle. May not be suitable for this programme depending on individual circumstances. * Obstacles to attending a group GOBP can often be resolved by referral to the Priestley One to One Programme. ** ECP is designed to accommodate most disabilities and personal circumstances. Local procedures should be used to check that suitable work is available. ~ Based on items 1.2 re-sentencing for breach & 1.3 in OASys number of conviction at last court appearance. # Due to the low numbers of female offenders, singleton placements may be necessary for any intervention these should always be carefully considered and discussed with the offender. Some specific programmes are not accredited or fully accredited for female offenders.
PC38/2004 - Revised Targeting Strategy 3