Probation Circular

GUIDANCE ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF PRACTICE RECOMMENDATIONS ARISING FROM AN HMIP INDEPENDENT REVIEW OF A SERIOUS OFFENCE CASE, FEBRUARY 2006
PURPOSE
To issue practice guidance to Areas and ensure that urgent improvements are embedded in Area performance across England and Wales.

REFERENCE NO: 15/2006 ISSUE DATE: 13 April 2006 IMPLEMENTATION DATE: 31 May 2006 EXPIRY DATE: April 2007 TO: Chairs of Probation Boards Chief Officers of Probation Secretaries of Probation Boards CC: Board Treasurers Regional Managers AUTHORISED BY: John Scott Head of Public Protection & Licensed Release Unit Sarah Mann Head of Interventions Unit Richard Mason Head of Offender Management Unit ATTACHED: Annex A – National Practice Guidance Annex B – Template for Implementation Action Plan Annex C – Template for notification of changes in risk management/release plans.

ACTION
Chief Officers are required to: • Ensure that all staff are advised of the importance and content of this circular • Produce an implementation action plan to be submitted to the Public Protection Unit and to Regional Managers by 31 May 2006 • Deliver effective implementation of the five ‘key’ recommendations and 31 practice recommendations • Prepare for audits to be undertaken during July and October 2006. Boards are required to: • Receive regular reports on progress to implement the action plan. Regional managers are required to: • Put arrangements in place to audit implementation after three months and whether the recommendations have been embedded in practice after six months.

SUMMARY
In December 2005, Damien Hanson and Elliot White were convicted of the murder of John Monckton and the attempted murder of his wife, Homeyra Monckton. The Home Secretary commissioned an urgent investigation, which was undertaken by Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Probation. The Home Secretary accepted all five of the key recommendations without hesitation and made a commitment to Parliament to issue guidelines to all probation areas in relation to the 31 practice recommendations in the report. This circular contains existing and new guidance in relation to each specific practice recommendation, and Areas are required to give the highest priority to implementation and effective continued delivery of the guidance.

National Probation Directorate
Horseferry House, Dean Ryle Street, London, SW1P 2AW

RELEVANT PREVIOUS PROBATION CIRCULARS
References to relevant circulars are incorporated into Annex A.

CONTACTS FOR ENQUIRIES
Offender Management – Lisa.cox2@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk or 020 7217 0683 Drugs – Claire.Wiggins3@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk or 020 7217 8646 Approved Premises – Felicity.hawksley@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk or 020 7217 0773 MAPPA – Tim.Bryan2@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk or 020 7217 0747 Pre & Post Release – Jo.Thompson8@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk or 020 7217 8823 Public Protection – Tessa.webb7@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk or 020 7217 0935

PC15/2006 – Guidance on the Implement of Practice Recommendations Arising from HMIP Independent Review of Serious Offence Case, February 2006

2

EXISTING AND NEW PRACTICE GUIDANCE ARISING FROM HM CHIEF INSPECTOR’S INVESTIGATION INTO DAMIEN HANSON AND ELLIOT WHITE

Introduction This circular brings together existing and new guidance, which relates to the specific practice recommendations arising from the Independent Serious Further Offence Review published on 28 February 2006. Annex A contains the recommendations and guidance with identified lead officials at the National Probation Directorate. Areas are required to implement this guidance and communicate the changes to all relevant staff by 31 May 2006. Annex B contains a template for Areas to complete and return to the Public Protection Unit and to the appropriate Regional Manager by 31 May 2006. Annex C contains a template for use in notification of changes in the risk management plan or release plan in parole cases. A separate letter has been sent by the Director of the National Probation Service to all Chairs and Chief Officers to accompany the issuing of this circular. It is vital to emphasise the priority of learning from the lessons of the cases of Damien Hanson and Elliot White and the importance of achieving the changes necessary to increase the National Probation Service’s ability to protect the public. Summary of the Findings and Key Recommendations from HMIP Areas are required to respond to the following broad ‘key’ recommendations, which provide the context for the specific practice recommendations: Doing the job properly: the public is entitled to expect all reasonable actions to be taken to minimise risk. That did not happen in these cases. Key Recommendation: NOMS should be able to demonstrate that action has been taken to minimise risk. Enforcement action should take place for all failures to comply with conditions. Lead responsibility in managing cases: there was a lack of clarity, due to poor organisation, as to who was responsible for managing the Hanson case, which led directly to the deficiencies identified. Key Recommendation: there should be continuity and clarity of lead responsibility, particularly for high risk of harm offenders. Updating Parole Board decisions: there is no clarity about whose responsibility it is to review a decision if an offender’s circumstances change between the decision to release and the actual release. Key Recommendation: the parole board should specify what should happen in situations where release is dependent on a requirement which in practice cannot be met. Improving Risk of Harm work nationally: a number of factors have hindered improvement, including the fact that only in April 2005 were risk of harm performance targets set for the first time; the existence of specialist teams, which leads to discontinuity and lack of knowledge of risk of harm issues by generalist officers; and the complexities of performance management in a field, which is essentially about professional judgement Key Recommendation: Chief Officers should ensure that Area structures support risk of harm work, including clarity of lines of responsibility. Future independent reviews Key Recommendation: in exceptional cases of serious further offending, the Probation Inspectorate should undertake and publish a formal review, in order to hold the authorities to account and to inform good practice.

PC15/2006 – Guidance on the Implement of Practice Recommendations Arising from HMIP Independent Review of Serious Offence Case, February 2006

3

Delivering Change and Improvements Delivering the national recommendations provides the context for this Probation Circular. The specific practice guidance is wide-ranging and covers: • • • • • • • • • • • • • • The importance of focusing on issues of risk of harm as well as resettlement during pre- and post-release contact Offender management Operation of conditions and exclusion zones for parolees Referral to MAPPA Interventions Drugs work Approved premises Assessment and completion of OASys Working with partner organisations Internal transfer of cases Management of risk of serious harm Breach timeliness Contemporaneous record keeping Delivery of National Standards

It is imperative that each Probation Area responds urgently to implement the guidance and to embed the improvements across every unit. Regional Managers will undertake two audits to provide evidence that the whole Service has moved quickly to learn the lessons from the Hanson and White investigation. The Head of Regions and Performance will inform you in due course about the structure and content of the two audits, which will provide assurance to Ministers that the recommendations have been implemented within three months and embedded in practice within six months (by 31 October 2006). London Probation Area is developing an additional separate action plan to respond to eight London specific practice recommendations by 13 April 2006. It is anticipated that the Home Secretary will give the Risk of Harm Improvement Board an expanded brief, and the Head of Public Protection and Licensed Release, who chairs the Board, will have national oversight of the effectiveness of the delivery of Area and national plans.

PC15/2006 – Guidance on the Implement of Practice Recommendations Arising from HMIP Independent Review of Serious Offence Case, February 2006

4

Annex A - Hanson and White National Practice Guidance – Issued 13th April 2006
WHITE Report reference no: HM Chief Inspectors Recommendations Guidance Lead Officials Timescale for Implementation for new guidance?

8.1

An offender who is in breach of the requirements of a court order should be brought back to court promptly as required by the National Standards for the Probation Service. This not only makes for good quality offender management but also is vital for public confidence in the supervision of offenders in the community. The importance of clear contemporaneous record keeping by all Probation staff should be emphasised as the bedrock for the responsible and accountable management of offenders

Existing guidance is to be found in National Standards 2005, General Standard (GS) 9. “Where the offender fails to comply with the sentence, the offender manager will take steps to promptly enforce the requirements of the sentence”. Specific guidance on compliance is found in Specific Standards 9.1 to 9.9.

Richard Mason (Head of Offender Management Unit)

8.2

National Standards 2005, SS1.4 requires full and accurate records to be kept on designated computer systems. The recording of contact is a critical process of offender management. Offender Managers are responsible for collating information on all planned and unplanned contacts, including where the offender is subject to interventions, and for maintaining and updating the record of contact. Staff should ensure that all contacts (including those with external partners) are entered on the Area’s case management system. • Entries should be recorded, as far as possible, on the day the event occurred and no later than the following day. • After each planned or unplanned contact, the Offender Manager should make a record both of the contact itself and of what is planned. This means that should another member of staff have to view the case they will be able

Richard Mason (Head of Offender Management Unit)

to make an accurate assessment of progress against the sentence plan. • Where an offender is subject to a range of different interventions, the Offender Manager should ensure that information about that offender’s attendance is recorded in one place. Where an offender fails to attend an appointment, the Offender Manager should record the date of the absence, whether it was acceptable or not and evidence in support of the decision, including evidence produced by the offender to explain his/her absence. A decision to treat an absence as acceptable should be authorised by a line manager.

8.3

Achieving early first contact with people under supervision is not only a requirement of National Standards but also it conveys the seriousness of supervision to the offender and sets the pattern for future contact and compliance. Where an offender manager takes action for breach of an order by an offender, that officer should exercise clear lead responsibility for ensuring that the breach action is properly and promptly progressed until the matter comes to court. Where contact is resumed with an offender who has been out of touch with the offender manager for more

Existing guidance is to be found in National Standards 2005 GS4. “Offender managers will commence the sentence promptly and induct the offender into the requirements of the sentence and the expectations being placed upon them.”

Richard Mason (Head of Offender Management Unit)

8.4

Existing guidance is to be found in PC 43/2004. Once enforcement proceedings have been initiated, it remains the responsibility of the Offender Manager to monitor those proceedings and ensure that the matter is dealt with at Court. In those Areas that use dedicated breach officers, the Offender Manager nevertheless retains overall responsibility for the case and for the case records. In addition, the Offender Manager should ensure that any person or agency involved in delivering interventions is informed as to the progress and outcome of the Court hearing. The Offender Manager must ensure that the offender: • • provides information on any significant changes in circumstances understands the requirements of his/her sentence including his/her

Richard Mason (Head of Offender Management Unit)

8.5

Richard Mason (Head of Offender

than a month for whatever reason there should be a special face-to-face interview to confirm the requirements of the order or licence.

responsibility to report to the Offender Manager and any intervention providers and notify the Offender Manager of a change of address • • • understands the enforcement process and expected behaviour.

Management Unit)

In addition the Offender Manager should: review the latest OASys assessment and sentence plan and update them within 5-working days of resumed contact make contact with any individuals or agencies responsible for delivering interventions within 5-working days. Where the offender represents a high or very high risk of serious harm, such information should be provided to significant partners no later than 24 hours after that contact.

8.6

Where an offender under the supervision of the Probation Service appears in court for breach of a previous order a full Pre-sentence Report based on a full current OASys assessment should be prepared by the offender manager wherever possible.

The majority of cases that come back to court for the order to be revoked need a full OASys assessment and a Standard Delivery Report. In many cases, there will already be a recent OASys assessment on the system which can quickly be consulted and updated. However in most breach cases, where the court will simply want (under the terms of the CJA 03), to make an existing order more onerous, such a level of assessment and analysis will be unnecessary. The court will need a Fast Delivery Report or a short breach report. The following interim guidance builds on the Home Office Probation Service National Standards for DTTOs and DRRS and NPD guidance on DRRS issued as PC 57/2005. (More general guidance on the DRR and ATR in light of 12 months implementation will be issued in the summer). The Offender Manager must record all relevant information about the sentence in such a way that someone not familiar with the case can make an accurate assessment of what has happened throughout the order and what is scheduled to take place. The record should demonstrate that all relevant National Standards have been complied with or that any departures from the standards have been authorised by a manager. Information recorded should include information relating to • the implementation of all parts of the DTTO and in the case of the DRR any other requirements

Richard Mason (Head of Offender Management Unit)

8.7

In all DTTO cases the offender manager should be responsible for maintaining an up-to-date record that collates all contact with the offender, including attendance on programmes and drug testing appointments and results.

Sarah Mann (Head of Interventions Unit)

• • • • • • • •

details of how minimum contact times are delivered. As indicated in PC 57/2005, compliance with minimum contact times has been unacceptably low and this may be linked to poor recording practice contacts with the treatment provider or any person designated by them test administration and results, results of any confirmatory testing dates and summaries of court reviews details of any failed appointments and subsequent enforcement action feedback relating to the implementation of any other requirements information regarding compliance or otherwise with National Standards dates of next appointments with the Offender Manager, treatment provider and any other agency involved in delivering the order.

It is acknowledged that with DTTOs/DRRs there may be large amounts of material from a range of sources for example from CJITS, CARATS, staff delivering accredited programmes and treatment providers. It is therefore important that the information is recorded in one place and that it is easily accessible in hard copy or electronic format in keeping with area policy.

8.8

Where an offender has demonstrated a poor level of compliance with a previous court order or licence a Presentence Report should not propose a similar sentence unless there are special reasons stated in the report

When considering the suitability of a further community order proposal the report writer should: • assess the offender’s reasons for non-compliance, for example whether it was related to drug/alcohol issues that required stabilisation or mental health problems that required treatment assess the offender’s motivation to comply with the order and to address his/her offending related needs consider any significant changes in the offender’s circumstances since the previous order was made. These might include positive factors such as the length of time between the previous order being made & the current court proceedings and also negative ones such as an increase in the likelihood of reconviction or risk of serious harm. make clear why, despite previous poor compliance, a community order is still suitable.

Richard Mason (Head of Offender Management Unit)

• •

8.9

The offender manager should ensure that proper written information about the offender is made available to appropriately registered programme providers, and this should include copies of the Pre-sentence Report, OASys assessment and a copy of the court order or licence.

Relevant information needs to pass from the offender manager to the organisation delivering the intervention taking into account issues of confidentiality. In order to manage a DTTO or DRR effectively, treatment providers and any other agency involved in delivering any part of the order/licence need timely and relevant information from the Offender Manager in order to locate their work in its wider context. The Offender Manager should send copies of relevant documentation within twenty four hours of the case being allocated if possible and as a minimum before the first appointment with another agency. The documentation must include copies of the court order and licence to ensure all parties are clear about the statutory authority underpinning the order. The order or licence should include details of all court imposed requirements and in the case of licences any additional conditions. The requirements and conditions should be explained to the offender and he/she should sign and date the order to confirm that they have understood their implications. Similarly the Offender Manager should liaise with all other parties involved in delivering any part of the order/licence to ensure they that they understand what it is they are required to deliver and how this will be done in accordance with National Standards. This should be supported by locally agreed protocols regarding information sharing and should be explicitly stated in contracts with providers. Other information which should be shared with parties involved in delivering part of the order/licence includes: • • • • • Copies of Pre-sentence Report and OASys assessment Copies of other relevant assessments e.g. psychiatric reports Conformation of first or next appointment with Offender Manager or other agencies where known Conformation of the Offender Manager’s name and contact details Any additional information relating to risk of harm to self, staff, children and vulnerable adults or to the public

Richard Mason (Head of Offender Management Unit)

8.10

There should be clear protocols in place requiring effective two-way communication between offender managers and programme providers, including a minimum standard for joint case reviews

Protocols should be negotiated and embedded in the service level agreements that will govern probation delivery in the future. We shall ensure that suitable arrangements are in place to cover existing offender manager/provider relationships. Communication between the Offender Manager and programme or treatment provider is essential to enable effective delivery of the order. The Offender Manager may have information from a range of sources which is relevant to the treatment provider, for example information relating to increasing risk or about possible barriers to completion of the order/licence . The Offender Manager requires information regarding the programme or treatment interventions in order to assess progress and compliance with the order as a whole. Where Areas contract directly with a provider, protocols regarding communication and information sharing should be agreed between offender managers and providers directly. Where provision is contracted via a DAT joint commissioning group or other commissioning body, the protocols should be specified in the contract and the detailed requirements included in the service level agreement. All parties should be held to account for compliance with the protocol either through contract reviews between the Probation Area and the or through the joint commissioning and review process. As minimum protocols should require: • • • • • • • • • • Daily feedback re appointments kept (including duration if counting towards minimum contact times) and a brief summary of what happened during the contact. Daily feedback of failed appointments and any follow up action by the treatment provider or subsequent contact with the offender Confirmation of next appointments A weekly feedback sheet summarising all contacts The results of test, tests refusals and confirmatory testing together with any observations/comments from the offender Any information relating to risk management or indicators of increasing risk to self, staff, children and vulnerable adults or to the public Any action taken to manage the risks Any action required by the other agency A summary of any planned enforcement action, change in home circumstances or current situation such as employment Regular three way meetings with the Offender Manager, treatment provider and offender to review progress and address barriers to

Sarah Mann (Head of Interventions Unit) / Richard Mason (Head of Offender Management Unit)

completion of the order. These meetings should take place at a minimum to coincide with the initial sentence plan and reviews, before court reviews, or at other critical points in the order such as prior to breach proceedings. Meetings should be held more frequently if an offender is at risk of dropping out of the order in order to motivate the offender and to try to remove obstacles to completion. The National Standard for DRRS may be amended to reflect this. that there are arrangements to enable all DRRs/DTTOs cases to be reviewed jointly by the Offender Manager and treatment provider.

8.11

Wherever possible the drugtesting element of a DTTO should be held where the programme is provided. Where this is not possible the results of drug tests should always be copied immediately to the programme provider whilst an offender is on the programme

It is acknowledged that it will not always be possible for drug testing to be carried out at the site where treatment is delivered. Drug testing is an important element of the DTTO/DRR and is an important factor in assessing the offender’s response to the order. When considered in conjunction with other factors it can be an indication of enhanced risk and of potential problems with compliance. Drug Testing should be carried out and recorded in accordance with National Standards SS8.11 to SS8.15. Results should be communicated to relevant parties on the same day or exceptionally by the end of the next working day. As a minimum the test result should be communicated to the Offender Manager and treatment provider. The Offender Manager should consider who else should be informed of tests results such as staff delivering accredited programmes. The notification should include • • • • • Test results and which if any drugs there was a positive test result for Whether or not the offender disputes the test The offender’s response to the test including any explanations for the test result Arrangements for any confirmatory testing and when the results of this will be sent A summary of any action taken or planned as a result of the positive test, particularly of any assessed increase in risks of re-offending or harm.

Sarah Mann (Head of Interventions Unit)

The above actions should be recorded on the offender’s file. All test results should be included in reports for court review hearings. Guidance issued as PC 57/2005 explicitly states that it is good practice to discuss all enforcement decisions with treatment providers. This includes

8.12

Unless there are exceptional and urgent reasons, a person

Sarah Mann

under statutory supervision should never be discharged from a programme without a prior discussion between the programme provider and the offender manager

determining if an absence is acceptable or unacceptable and when breach is to be instigated whether the report will propose whether the requirement should be allowed to continue. It therefore follows that there should be a discussion between the Offender Manager and provider before any decision relating to successful completion of the order. Treatment/programmed provider should therefore not normally suspend or terminate their contact with an offender without first discussing this with the Offender Manager and the Offender Manager should not instigate breach proceedings without discussing this with the treatment/programme provider. Exceptions to this would be where a unilateral decision by the provider to suspend an offender can be justified on the grounds of risk, for example, if an offender threatens or assaults a member of staff, other participants or anyone involved in the delivery of the programme. In these circumstances, the treatment provider should contact the Offender Manager as soon as practicable and within 24 hours to inform them of action taken and the reasons for this. National standards SS9.15 indicate that there should be a presumption that offenders in breach of an order/requirement should be invited to continue with the order during the breach process. Exceptions to this would include if an offender is completely un co operative or if there is an assessed on going risk of harm to staff, offenders or other users of probation premises. Response to supervision during the period in which breach action is being processed should be included in the report to the court hearing the breach. PC 57 states that if there are differences of opinion between the proposed actions between offender managers and providers that cannot be resolved they should be referred to the respective line managers. Whilst agreement by all parties is likely to be the preferred outcome, the Probation Service has the final decision regarding all matters relating to enforcement of an order.

(Head of Interventions Unit)

HANSON Report reference no: 10.1 HM Chief Inspectors Recommendations Guidance Lead Officials Timescale for Implementation

Contact with a prisoner before release should focus on issues of Risk of Harm as well as resettlement. Wherever possible there should be continuity of contact with one offender manager (i.e. it is not helpful to design in discontinuities).

Existing guidance: The principle underpinning the NOMS Offender Management Model is that “each offender is under the overall direction of the same offender manager throughout each period of continuous engagement with the service” – see PC 83/2005; the Implication of the Offender Management Model for Service Delivery Structures; and PC 09/2006, Offender Management for Custodial Sentences. This should achieve continuity of supervision by one offender manager from the point of pre sentence report preparation to the end of sentence. The introduction of offender management for custodial sentences begins later in the year to align with the introduction of Custody Plus sentence. OASys section R11 focuses on risk management issues - PC 10/2005 Public Protection Framework, Risk of Harm & MAPPA Thresholds. The Risk of Harm must be reviewed and updated within 5 days of release for High or Very High Risk of Serious Harm Offenders and within 15 days for offenders assessed as Medium Risk of serious harm. The Risk of Harm assessment and Risk Management Plan are incorporated in the Sentence Plan. The timeliness of sentence planning is addressed in the National Standards 2005. Appendix 3 of PC 34/2004 Parole Assessment Reports contains a checklist for the Home Probation Officer’s Report which includes under paragraph 4 clear guidance on the production of a risk assessment which separates the risk of reoffending from the risk of serious harm. Guidance in relation to parole assessment reports is being revised to take into account the Offender Management Model, the delivery of information to the Parole Board and any new/revised guidance highlighted in these recommendations.

John Scott (Head of Public Protection Unit)

Areas should already be following national guidance.

10.2

The Probation Service should ensure that a full OASys assessment is completed and that the findings are always made available to the parole panel considering an application for early release on licence.

Existing guidance: The purpose of the parole assessment report (PAR) is to provide the Board with a summary of the probation service’s assessment of the risks posed by an offender and of how those risks will be managed in the community (PC 34/2004 Parole Assessment Reports), both the risk of re-offending and the risk of serious harm. It is important, therefore, that a comprehensive risk assessment is completed for PARs. The risk assessment should make it clear that a full OASys has been completed. The assessment should identify what the risk factors are and how they will be managed. It should be noted that the decision to release the offender is for the Board. PARs always need to include details of what plans are in place for managing risk in the community. Currently, officials are meeting with representatives of the Parole Board to clarify the precise information needs of the Board. We intend to issue guidance, under a new circular, later this year, to help offender managers provide the comprehensive assessments that the Board needs to inform its judgements.

John Scott (Head of Public Protection Unit)

10.3

The Parole Board should review its current policy on the question of a member interviewing the offender and reporting independently to parole panels when considering high-risk cases. Parole panels and probation staff should be reminded of the importance of static factors in the assessment of risk, and the particular difficulty of assessing offenders where their previous offences involve instrumental violence. Existing guidance: The core offender assessment tool OASys includes the collation of static factors and calculation of the Offender Group Reconviction Scale. OASys also provides detailed attention to key criminogenic risk factors that are dynamic and therefore subject to change. The quality assurance of OASys and the application of the assessment to risk management and sentence planning are therefore critical. It is important that parole assessment reports give careful and considered attention to the static factors as well as dynamic indicators and are informed by an up to date, thorough and completed OASys assessment in every instance.

The Parole Board

10.4

John Scott (Head of Public Protection Unit)

Critically the assessment of risk of harm turns on the balance between the ‘impact’ of further offending and the ‘imminence’: namely does the offender’s behaviour present “a risk which is life threatening and/or traumatic, and from which recovery, whether physical or psychological can be expected to be difficult or impossible”. Proposed action: The Parole Board will be invited to join the membership of the Risk of Harm Improvement board. The Risk of Harm Improvement Board will commission a literature review of the use of dynamic and static risk factors in the assessment of risk of harm in respect of instrumental violence and the range of specific risk assessment tools and interventions currently available. The review will also be asked to make any recommendations to the Risk of Harm Improvement Board to identify any gaps in provision and options to extend the availability of specific assessment tools. The Board will also consider the potential to expand the interventions portfolio to address this type of offending behaviour, where there is an indication that this would be helpful. The Risk of Harm Training resource pack that has been commissioned from De Montfort University will be launched at the national risk of harm workshop in June 2006The pack includes training material which addresses the importance of attention to static and dynamic risk indicators, along with attention to bias and error in assessment. Further guidance to support the implementation of the training material will be issued shortly to make sure that all Probation Areas complete an audit of staff skills in respect of their understanding and under pinning knowledge of assessment and management of risk of harm. Instrumental violence indicators include violent offences committed purposefully rather than impulsively, pre planning, pre meditation and the identification of potential victim/s and often the abuse of power. For offenders indicating such behaviour (past behaviour is a good indicator), anger management interventions that seek to improve the offender’s capacity to control their behaviour are considered to be wholly inappropriate and have the potential to equip the offender with additional control mechanisms and increase his/her capacity to manipulate a situation to their advantage and power. (Examples of instrumental violence - pre planned robbery equipped with weapons, domestic abuse, stalking).

Interpersonal/ expressive violence – indicators include loss of temper, unplanned violence as a result of altercation - may be fuelled by alcohol/substance misuse, results in loss of personal control, (examples include criminal damage, public disorder, argument resulting in brawling and fighting behaviour) . Where the offender demonstrates capacity for reflection and learning, he/she can benefit from cognitive self change interventions to improve consequential thinking skills.

10.5

Whenever possible prisoners serving sentences for instrumental violence should be tested in open prison conditions prior to release on parole. If scrutinised carefully, a prisoner’s personal statement to a parole panel may on occasions provide a unique source of important evidence about the prisoner’s state of mind and the reality of any future plans. Where an exclusion zone is included as a condition of a parole licence it should be framed as narrowly and specifically as possible both to achieve its specific purpose and to enable feasible enforcement Existing guidance: PC 16/2005 CJA 2003 Early Release and Recall (Paras 22-32 & Annex C. Additional licence conditions can only be inserted if it is lawful To be lawful the condition has to be both necessary and proportionate. Necessary means that no other means of managing a particular risk is available or appropriate; and proportionate means that the restriction on the offender’s liberty is the minimum required to manage the risk. PC 28/2003 Victim Contact Work: Guidance on Recent Court Judgments (Paras 1.9-1.15 & Annex A)

The Prison Service.

10.6

The Parole Board

10.7

John Scott (Head of Public Protection Unit)

The Craven judgment has highlighted the need for extra care when considering requesting an exclusion zone as a licence condition. It means that careful attention needs to be given to the precise areas from which the offender’s exclusion is necessary, taking into account the issue of proportionality. Since both victims and offenders have rights under Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) with respect to private and family life, it is important to weigh up the circumstances of each parties in setting exclusion zones and to reach a conclusion based on proportionality.

10.8

The Probation Service should ensure that an offender is not required to report to a Probation Office or other facility within an exclusion zone unless there are quite exceptional circumstances that are agreed and recorded in advance by a senior manager.

Existing guidance as per 10.7 (PC 16/2005 & PC: 28/2003) The exclusion zone should be as specific as possible and it is necessary to provide a map on which the proposed boundaries of the exclusion zone are marked clearly. The offender must be left in no doubt as to where exclusion zone begins and ends. The ‘Being on Licence’ leaflet should be deployed in induction appointments so that the terms of the licence and additional licence conditions are explained and clearly understood. A declaration of understanding should be signed by the offender. Exclusion zones must be carefully enforced in order to be reasonable. Although the condition could be imposed, the supervising officer may grant occasional access if, for example, it is shown that the offender has close family in the exclusion zone. In such cases, the wording of the licence condition should contain reference to such access being subject to prior approval of the supervising officer. When such a request is granted, it should be worded as follows: “Shall not seek to enter… as defined in the attached map, without the prior approval of your supervising officer”. This will enable the offender to enter the area if it becomes necessary but only with the express permission of the supervising officer. Where an offender is subject to an exclusion requirement, the supervising officer should seek to avoid issuing reporting instructions within the exclusion area unless they are agreed and recorded in advance by a senior manager at ACO level or equivalent. In terms of the probation office or treatment provider being located within the exclusion zone, and where the exclusion reflects a request from victims, the Victim Liaison Officer should be informed as to the precise time and date of the offender’s attendance at the location within the exclusion zone.

John Scott (Head of Public Protection Unit)

The consequences of the offender not adhering to the set appointments and the times at which they are permitted within the exclusion zone should be clearly spelt out and enforced. CJA03 ‘Being on Licence’ leaflet (NPD CJA03/LICI) for offenders also refers. 10.9 The Parole Board should specify clearly how it wishes to deal with situations where the decision to grant early release is seen as particularly dependent on some specific requirement such as accommodation or location, and where the situation changes between the date of a decision and the prisoner’s release date. This is for the Parole Board. However, to ensure that the Board is notified The Board’s Business Plan for 2006/07 includes objectives to review the process for amending conditions and to implement changes of changes in circumstances, a new template has been produced. New guidance: A notification report template (at Annex C of this PC) has been devised for use by Probation Areas which provides a means by which changes in circumstances which impact upon risk assessment and risk management/release plans can be promptly shared with the Parole Board. In the event, the completed report should be submitted directly to the post panel team in the Parole Board via fax. Guidance about completing this form will be prepared and issued separately prior to implementation on 31 May. John Scott (Head of Public Protection and Licensed Release) Christine Glenn (Chief Executive)

10.10

When imposing a geographical exclusion as a licence condition proper attention should be paid to its feasibility, purpose and the impact on victim(s).

Existing guidance: As 10.7 & 10.8 Guidance already exists on purpose and feasibility under Appendix C of PC 16/2005 and the rights of the victim(s) in PC 28/2003.

John Scott (Head of Public Protection Unit) Christine Glenn (Chief Executive)

10.11

The Probation Service should ensure that the relevant prison is informed immediately if it appears that a specific requirement of a parole licence is not likely to be met

New guidance: As 10.9 – If the Parole Board has yet to consider the case the completed report template should be submitted to the prison Parole Clerk via email to the custody e-mail box (e-mail custody.prisonname@hmps.gsi.gov.uk). See Annex C.

John Scott (Head of Public Protection Unit)

If the Parole Board has issued a release decision, the Probation Area should forward the completed report to the Prison Governor (or Director) as well as the Parole Board’s post panel team. PSO 6000 Parole Manual (para 5.19.3) instructs all prison Governors (or Directors) to “put in place local procedures to ensure effective liaison with field probation officers in order to satisfy themselves that the release arrangements will be in accordance with those agreed by the Board or the Secretary of State. Governors must be satisfied that such arrangement have been put in place before effecting release.”

10.12

Where release under licence from prison is contingent on an offender going to a particular address or area and this subsequently changes a further assessment of Risk of Harm should be undertaken before release is confirmed.

New guidance: Where there are significant changes in circumstances – such as where the original proposal for accommodation falls through -, the OASys Risk of Serious Harm analysis should be reviewed. This will form the basis of the part of the process of risk management planning and the information sharing with prison and Parole Board wherever there is a significant change of circumstances. The prison needs to be instantly informed of significant changes and alternative arrangements or contingencies need to be sought in line with the reviewed risk management plan. See Annex C.

John Scott (Head of Public Protection Unit)

10.13

In the case of parolees there should be a clear expectation about the purpose and length of residence in an approved premise.

New guidance: In cases where an offender would be accommodated in an Approved Premises if released by the Board, the offender manager should explain in the PAR how long the offender is likely to stay in the Approved Premises and what the purpose of the stay is. That is, the length and purpose of any stay in an Approved Premises must be an integral part of the risk management plan that is presented to the Board. PC37/2005 states that offender managers, in referring offenders to Approved Premises, must provide the hostel manager with: • a supervision plan setting out the purpose and intended length of the period of residence, and the proposed move-on plan: and • a risk management plan, setting out the contribution that residence in the Approved Premises and interventions are intended to make to managing the offender’s risk.

John Scott (Head of Public Protection Unit)

10.14

Consideration should be given by the Parole Board and the National Offender Management Service to a multi-disciplinary review procedure for high profile cases involving serious further offences by parolees.

Both the NPD and the Parole Board already carry out reviews where offenders have committed serious further offences whilst under supervision. The Head of Public Protection and Licensed Release will take this recommendation forward in discussion with the Parole Board and issue further advice, as appropriate.

John Scott (Head of Public Protection Unit) Christine Glenn (Chief Executive)

Joint proposal by 01.07.06

10.15

The importance of clear contemporaneous record keeping by all Probation staff should be emphasised as the bedrock for the responsible and accountable management of offenders. There should be clear protocols in place requiring effective two-way communication between Probation offender managers and accommodation providers, including a minimum standard for joint case reviews.

See comments on 8.2

Richard Mason (Head of Offender Management Unit) John Scott (Head of Public Protection Unit) PC by 13.04.06

10.16

Existing guidance: PC37/2005 states that offender managers, in referring offenders to Approved Premises, must provide the hostel manager with: • a supervision plan setting out the purpose and intended length of the period of residence, and the proposed move-on plan: and • a risk management plan, setting out the contribution that residence in the Approved Premises and interventions are intended to make to managing the offender’s risk. The hostel manager should place a copy of the supervision plan and the risk management plan on the offender’s file. The offender manager should meet relevant hostel staff as often as is necessary to manage the risk posed by the offender. Meetings should be augmented by regular exchanges of information. Such exchanges should take place at least once a week.

10.17

There should be clear and

Existing guidance - PC54/2004 - The MAPPA Guidance, & PC10/2005 Public

Richard

unambiguous guidance in every Probation Area for the referral of cases to MAPPA.

Protection Framework, Risk of Harm & MAPPA Thresholds: PC10/2005 section 5 places a requirement on offender managers to formally record into the risk management plan that Level 2 or 3 MAPPA processes have been considered to assist in the management of the risk of serious harm. OASys section R.11 provides the facility for this addressed. Where a decision is taken not to manage the risk under MAPPA Level 2 or 3 for an offender assessed as high/ very high risk of serious harm, the offender manager must ensure that the reasons for this decision are clearly recorded onto the risk management plan. The Multi Agency Public Protection Arrangements provide a management framework to strengthen the risk management of offenders who present a high or very high risk of harm. MAPPA Levels provide an indication of the level of management of the case; they are not an assessment of the risk of serious harm. The assessment of serious harm must be clearly recorded on the OASys assessment. Assigning the appropriate MAPPA management level for offenders who meet • Category 1 Registered Sex Offender • Category 2 Serving 12months or more for sexual or violent offence • Category 3 Other - identified as presenting a high/ very high risk of harm or exceptional risk management circumstances Assignment of MAPPA levels 1-3 must take place immediately for relevant cases if the offender is in the community and under supervision. For serving prisoners the MAPPA level should be assigned at either 6 months pre the known release date (or immediately if serving less than 6 months) or at the occasion of the preparation of the parole assessment report for the first parole hearing and again at all subsequent reviews for early release. In each instance referral to MAPPA must be informed by current and completed OASys assessment. Offenders who are currently serving longer prison sentences who do not meet the above criteria should be only identified as a MAPPA nominal. For long term serving prisoners, the risk management planning and sentence planning should remain fully aligned with the assessed risk of serious harm through OASys.

Mason (Head of Offender Management Unit)

Referral to MAPPA Level 2 or 3 should take place at the point where it is necessary and realistic to engage the relevant agencies in the community who are required to strengthen the risk management activity. There may be some instances where duty to cooperate agencies will need to be engaged earlier than 6 months pre release. However, in order to introduce improved consistency of the referral process and active engagement of duty to cooperate agencies in the community this clarification has been introduced. There has been evidence of MAPPA Levels assigned at the commencement of lengthy prison sentences which have not been accompanied by active MAPPA level 2 or 3 meetings until the offender has completed several years of the prison sentence and there is the necessity to plan for management on release. • This additional guidance will be incorporated into the revised MAPPA guidance due to be completed in 2006.

With respect to the collation of data for the MAPPA Annual reports, Areas should have in place mechanisms in place to account for offenders who are in the community being managed at each MAPPA level. This data will be required for the annual reports 2006/07. The rollout of NOMIS and ViSOR should provide the long term supporting recording mechanisms.

10.18

The quality of OASys assessments of likelihood of re-offending and Risk of Harm should be an offender management priority.

The importance of good offender assessment has been made clear in PCs 48/05 and 49/05 (both June 2005) and in subsequent communications and staff events. Chapter 8 of the OASys Manual on Risk of Harm assessment and management is being revised and will be re-issued in the summer.

Richard Mason (Head of Offender Management Unit) Richard Mason (Head of Offender Management Unit) PC by 13.04.06

10.19

There should be minimum standards for internal transfers of cases within offices, including standards relating to timeliness, to ensure continuity of lead responsibility for managing the case.

Existing guidance is provided in PC 52/2004. This Circular is in the process of being updated to reflect changes flowing from the Offender Management Model.

Annex B

New Practice Guidance Arising from HM Chief Inspector’s Investigation into Damien Hanson and Elliott White

TEMPLATE FOR IMPLEMENTATION ACTION PLAN

Probation Area:

Lead Senior Manager: Contact details: Telephone: Email:

Date of completion: Plan approved by:

Date:

To be submitted by 31 May 2006 to PPU and Regional Managers

Key Recommendations Report HM Chief Inspector’s Referenc Recommendations e No.
1 Doing the job properly • all reasonable action taken to keep to a minimum risk of harm to others. • all offenders be required to comply with conditions • enforcement in accordance with National Standards Lead Responsibility in managing cases • apply principles of continuity and clarity of lead responsibility throughout sentence Updating Parole Board Release Decisions • informing the Parole Board where the situation changes between decision and date of release • achieving clarity of responsibility for making decisions Improving Risk of Harm work • the way the Area is structured and managed to increase effectiveness of risk harm work

Plans for Implementation

Plans to Embed in Practice

Lead Officer Timescale for Implementat ion

2

3

4

5

Future Independent Reviews • implementation of PC8/2006 in revised Serious Further Offence procedures

WHITE Report HM Chief Inspector’s Referenc Recommendations e No.
8.1 An offender who is in breach of the requirements of a court order should be brought back to court promptly as required by the National Standards for the Probation Service. This not only makes for good quality offender management but also is vital for public confidence in the supervision of offenders in the community. The importance of clear contemporaneous record keeping by all Probation staff should be emphasised as the bedrock for the responsible and accountable management of offenders Achieving early first contact with people under supervision is not only a requirement of National Standards but also it conveys the seriousness of supervision to the offender and sets the pattern for future contact and compliance. Where an offender manager takes action for breach of an order by an offender, that officer should exercise clear lead responsibility for ensuring that the breach action is properly and

Plans for Implementation

Plans to Embed in Practice

Lead Officer

Timescale for Implementa tion

8.2

8.3

8.4

8.5

promptly progressed until the matter comes to court. Where contact is resumed with an offender who has been out of touch with the offender manager for more than a month for whatever reason there should be a special face-to-face interview to confirm the requirements of the order or licence.

8.6

Where an offender under the supervision of the Probation Service appears in court for breach of a previous order a full Pre-sentence Report based on a full current OASys assessment should be prepared by the offender manager wherever possible.
In all DTTO cases the offender manager should be responsible for maintaining an up-to-date record that collates all contact with the offender, including attendance on programmes and drug testing appointments and results. Where an offender has demonstrated a poor level of compliance with a previous court order or licence a Pre-sentence Report should not propose a similar sentence unless there are special reasons stated in the report The offender manager should ensure that proper written information about the offender is made available to

8.7

8.8

8.9

8.10

8.11

8.12

appropriately registered programme providers, and this should include copies of the Pre-sentence Report, OASys assessment and a copy of the court order or licence. There should be clear protocols in place requiring effective two-way communication between offender managers and programme providers, including a minimum standard for joint case reviews Wherever possible the drug-testing element of a DTTO should be held where the programme is provided. Where this is not possible the results of drug tests should always be copied immediately to the programme provider whilst an offender is on the programme Unless there are exceptional and urgent reasons, a person under statutory supervision should never be discharged from a programme without a prior discussion between the programme provider and the offender manager

HANSON Report HM Chief Inspector’s Referenc Recommendations e No.
10.1 Contact with a prisoner before release should focus on issues of Risk of Harm as well as resettlement. Wherever possible there should be continuity of contact with one offender manager (i.e. it is not helpful to design in discontinuities). The Probation Service should ensure that a full OASys assessment is completed and that the findings are always made available to the parole panel considering an application for early release on licence. Parole panels and probation staff should be reminded of the importance of static factors in the assessment of risk, and the particular difficulty of assessing offenders where their previous offences involve instrumental violence. Where an exclusion zone is included as a condition of a parole licence it should be framed as narrowly and specifically as possible both to achieve its specific purpose and to enable feasible enforcement

Plans for Implementation

Plans to Embed in Practice

Lead Officer

Timescale for Implementa tion

10.2

10.4

10.7

10.8

The Probation Service should ensure that an offender is not required to report to a Probation Office or other facility within an exclusion zone unless there are quite exceptional circumstances that are agreed and recorded in advance by a senior manager. Where an exclusion zone is included as a condition of a parole licence it should be framed as narrowly and specifically as possible both to achieve its specific purpose and to enable feasible enforcement The Probation Service should ensure that an offender is not required to report to a Probation Office or other facility within an exclusion zone unless there are quite exceptional circumstances that are agreed and recorded in advance by a senior manager. Where release under licence from prison is contingent on an offender going to a particular address or area and this subsequently changes a further assessment of Risk of Harm should be undertaken before release is confirmed. In the case of parolees there should be a clear expectation about the

10.10

10.11

10.12

10.13

purpose and length of residence in an approved premise. 10.15 The importance of clear contemporaneous record keeping by all Probation staff should be emphasised as the bedrock for the responsible and accountable management of offenders. There should be clear protocols in place requiring effective two-way communication between Probation offender managers and accommodation providers, including a minimum standard for joint case reviews. There should be clear and unambiguous guidance in every Probation Area for the referral of cases to MAPPA. The quality of OASys assessments of likelihood of reoffending and Risk of Harm should be an offender management priority. There should be minimum standards for internal transfers of cases within offices, including standards relating to timeliness, to ensure continuity of lead responsibility for managing the case.

10.16

10.17

10.18

10.19

Annex C

NOTIFICATION OF CHANGES TO RISK MANAGEMENT/RELEASE PLAN IN PAROLE CASES
THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT IS TO INFORM THE PAROLE BOARD OF ANY CHANGES WHICH IMPACT UPON RISK ASSESSMENT OR THE RISK MANAGEMENT PLAN: a) AFTER A PAROLE ASSESSMENT REPORT (PAR) HAS BEEN SUBMITTED TO THE PAROLE BOARD AND BEFORE THEIR DECISION HAS BEEN MADE, OR b) AFTER A PAROLE BOARD DECISION TO RELEASE HAS BEEN MADE Please tick relevant option as appropriate.

PROBATION DETAILS
Name Address Probation Area Telephone number (Direct Line/Mobile No.) Fax number Email address

OFFENDER DETAILS
Name Date of birth Prison establishment OASys Risk of Serious Harm level OASys Likelihood of Reconviction MAPPA level Index offence Type of licence Low Low 1 DCR 2 Prison No. Parole Ref No. Medium Medium 3 Extended Sentence High High Very high

Date of PAR report (attached)
The purpose of this report is to notify the Parole Board and relevant prison immediately when there has been a development in the release plan which impacts upon the risk assessment and risk management plan, in either of the following events: a) After a Parole Assessment Report has been submitted and the arrangements outlined for release have changed prior to the Parole Board considering the case. In these instances, this report must be submitted to the Parole Board via the prison Parole clerk by e-mail to the custody e-mail box ‘custody.prisonname@hmps.gsi.gov.uk’ b) After the Parole Board have issued a release direction. In these instances, this report must be submitted direct to the Parole Board, (by fax to the Post Panel Team on 0207 217 0342), copied to the Prison Governor (or Director) via the Parole clerk by e-mail to ‘custody.prisonname@hmps.gsi.gov.uk. The report must address the following:

1. Summary and implications of developments

2. Current review of risk assessment in relation to risk of serious harm and reoffending.

3. Outline of any further identified areas of risk as a result of the developments.

4. Revised risk management/release plan including requirement of licence and licence conditions 5. Recommendation for release

Name: Signed: Date:

The Parole Board will send their response to the Probation contact on the front of this form.

Parole Board Response