You are on page 1of 22

UNCLASSIFIED

Probation
Circular

PC20/2007 – APPROVED PREMISES PERFORMANCE


IMPROVEMENT STANDARDS: GUIDANCE ON
SECOND ROUND OF AUDITS

IMPLEMENTATION DATE: 2 July 2007 EXPIRY DATE: 31 March 2008

TO: Chairs of Probation Boards, Chief Officers of Probation, Secretaries of Probation Boards, Chairs
of Voluntary Management Committees
CC: Board Treasurers, Regional Managers

AUTHORISED BY: Gordon Davison, Acting Head, Public Protection Unit


ATTACHED: Annex A: Statistics – 2006 Returns – by Approved Premises
Annex B: Statistics – 2006 Returns – by Region
Annex C: Standards & scoring/action planning form
Annex D: Equality Impact Assessment Form
RELEVANT PREVIOUS PROBATION CIRCULARS
PC37/2005, PC19/2006
CONTACT FOR ENQUIRIES
mike.tennant@justice.gsi.gov.uk or 020 7217 8226

PURPOSE
a) To report on the first round of performance standards audits
b) To require Chief Officers of Probation, Boards and Chairs of Voluntary-Managed
Committees (VMCs) to undertake a second round of audits
c) To provide further guidance on the audit process

ACTION
Chief Officers and Chairs of VMCs are asked to ensure that this Circular is disseminated to
relevant senior managers, Approved Premises managers and offender managers, and to key
partners including those represented on LCJBs and MAPPA SMBs. All Approved Premises are
to undertake a second audit using the standards and additional guidance. The audit results
should be submitted to the Public Protection Unit, and copied to the relevant Regional Manager
and Regional Offender Manager (ROM), by 30 September 2007.

SUMMARY
Performance Standards for Approved Premises were introduced in 2006. This PC reports on the
first set of audits and provides additional guidance on aspects of the audit process to inform the
2007 audit round.

ISSUE DATE – 18 June 2007


UNCLASSIFIED 1 of 5
UNCLASSIFIED

BACKGROUND

1. PC19/2006 introduced a set of performance improvement standards for Approved Premises.


Drawing on earlier work undertaken as part of the Approved Premises Pathfinder, the
standards were designed as a tool to gauge current performance and to identify areas for
improvement. They sought to create a national framework to support and evaluate the
delivery of public protection and interventions by Approved Premises. All Approved
Premises were required to undertake an audit using the standards, to draw up action plans
and to submit the audit scores and action plans to the PPU, copied to Regional Managers.

ANALYSIS OF THE 2006 RETURNS

2. Annex A shows the scores for each Approved Premises against each of the 10 standards.
Key points to note are:

¾ the average total score across the whole estate was 30


¾ nine Approved Premises scored above 35, with the highest being 39
¾ seven scored below 25, with the lowest being 21
¾ the lowest scored standard was AP6: Relationship With Local Community, with
an average score of 2.1
¾ the second lowest standard was AP10: Diversity & Maximising Inclusion (2.5
average)
¾ the highest scored standard was AP3: Risk Management & Enforcement, with an
average score of 3.5
¾ the next highest were AP2: MAPPA Arrangements and AP5: Compliance &
Enforcement (both 3.4 average)

3. Annex B shows the scores by Region. Key points are:

¾ three Regions averaged 33 or more, with the highest being 35


¾ three Regions averaged below 30, with the lowest being 28 (in two Regions)

4. Whilst these scores will be of value at the local level, it is difficult to draw any wider
conclusions from them because of considerable variations in the methods and processes
used to conduct the audits. PC19/2006 was, by design, not overly prescriptive about
process in order to give local managers flexibility to utilise the standards as a self-audit tool.
Examples of the different approaches taken include:

¾ Some Approved Premises were awarded a maximum score of 4 for a particular


standard, even though areas for improvement were noted.
¾ Others were awarded lower scores of 1 or 2 for a particular standard, but no
areas for improvement were identified
¾ Some Probation Areas scored each of their Approved Premises the same across
all 10 standards, whilst others scored each Approved Premises individually
¾ Some Approved Premises scored each component of every standard, resulting in
'partial' scores (e.g. 3.6); in these cases, the figures were rounded down or up as
appropriate
¾ In some places the Approved Premises Manager conducted the audit, in others a
senior manager did so, and in some Areas there was an element of cross-
premises validation

PC20/2007
Approved Premises Performance
Improvement Standards:
Guidance on Second Round of ISSUE DATE – 18 June 2007
Audits UNCLASSIFIED 2 of 5
UNCLASSIFIED

5. There were differences also in the action plans. Some simply listed a set of issues or
matters for attention (e.g. ‘waking night cover’, ‘recall policy’, ‘community liaison plan’), whilst
others provided more detail on how, by whom and by when improvements were to be
delivered (e.g. ‘SPO to draw up home leave procedure for AP residents by 31/10/06’,
‘Manager to consult ACO on whether a separate AP communication strategy is required,
and if so to implement by 30/11/06’). Analysis of the different approaches taken to scoring,
and to the action plans, has usefully informed thinking about how future audit rounds should
be conducted.

GUIDANCE ON THE AUDIT PROCESS FOR 2007-08

6. Approved Premises are again required to undertake an audit using the performance
improvement standards, which can be found at Annex C. The standards themselves remain
unchanged. In order to promote a more consistent and objective approach to the audits,
Probation Areas and VMCs must ensure that an element of validation is built into the
process. There are different ways in which this might be achieved: a team of auditors might
conduct all the audits within an Area; Approved Premises managers might audit premises
other than their own; senior managers might play some role in the process; the audits could
be undertaken on a regional basis.

7. The actual method adopted is a matter for local decision. The important point is that the
judgments made should carry a degree of detachment which inspires confidence in the
robustness of the internal audit process. The scoring and action planning form (Annex C,
Appendix 1) asks those responsible for its completion to describe briefly the local validation
process. Additionally, in order to provide a measure of external validation, the NOMS
Performance and Improvement Unit (PIU) will, during the latter half of 2007-08, visit a small
number of premises to review their audit returns and processes.

THE SCORING METHOD

8. Each Approved Premises must be audited separately so as to achieve a unique score. The
form for scoring the audit is set out in Appendix 1 to Annex C. The scoring system has been
modified to clarify and simplify the process. The new range of scores are:

0 - No evidence
1 - Less than half the criteria are met
2 - More than half the criteria are met
3 - Standard fully met

9. Individual components of each standard need not be scored. All that is required is a single
score reflecting the extent to which the standard as a whole has been met. By way of
example: performance standard AP1: Resources for High Risk Work has 12 components. If
there is evidence for none of those criteria the score would be 0; evidence for 4 criteria
would give a score of 1; evidence for 8 criteria would score 2; and only if there was evidence
for all 12 criteria would the score be 3.

ACTION PLANS

10. Action plans should be drawn up following the completion of the audit process, specifying
what measures will be taken to improve performance and deal with any shortcomings raised
by the audit. Plans should be approved by the senior manager responsible for Approved

PC20/2007
Approved Premises Performance
Improvement Standards:
Guidance on Second Round of ISSUE DATE – 18 June 2007
Audits UNCLASSIFIED 3 of 5
UNCLASSIFIED

Premises or, in the case of voluntary-managed premises, by the Chair of the VMC. The
action plan phase of the audit process is even more important than the scoring, since it is
the quality and scope of action plans that will drive improvements to policy, procedure and
practice.

11. Action plans should be 'SMART' – there may be several versions of the acronym, but the
following is a useful guide:

S - specific, significant, stretching


M - measurable, meaningful, motivational
A - agreed, attainable, achievable, acceptable, action-oriented
R - realistic, relevant, reasonable, rewarding, results-oriented
T - time-limited, timely, tangible, trackable

12. 'SMART' objectives ought to be well defined. They should specify what is to be done, by
whom and within what timeframe. The scoring and action planning form has been modified
to encourage this approach. All key stakeholders should agree the action plan, which should
be deliverable within the available resources, knowledge and training. Where action plans
cover a large number of standards and criteria, the requirement to identify target completion
dates will enable managers to prioritise those which are most important and urgent.

AUDIT RETURNS AND REVIEWS

13. Once the audit is completed, and endorsed by the senior manager or VMC Chair, a copy of
the scoring sheet and action plan for each Approved Premises should be submitted
electronically to the Approved Premises Team in the PPU:
approvedpremises@justice.gsi.gov.uk. A copy should be sent, as last year, to the relevant
Regional Manager, and henceforth to the ROM as well. Whilst a final decision has yet to be
made on how Approved Premises will be commissioned, the audit process provides an
opportunity for Probation Areas to involve and inform the ROM about the work they do in
Approved Premises. Areas may wish to consider whether the Regional Manager and/or the
ROM would wish to play a role in the local validation process.

14. The deadline for submission of the scoring sheet and action plan is 30 September 2007.
This has been moved from the 2006 deadline (July) on the basis of feedback from
operational colleagues which suggested that an autumn deadline would fit better with the
business planning cycle.

15. Progress in delivering the action plan should be monitored locally every three months by the
relevant senior manager. Reviews should be recorded in writing and copied to Regional
Managers and ROMs. There is no requirement to submit quarterly reviews to the PPU.

DEVELOPING THE PERFORMANCE FRAMEWORK FOR APPROVED PREMISES

16. The decision to omit the occupancy target from the SLA for 2007-08 means that there are
no cash-linked targets for Approved Premises this year. This is an interim arrangement in
order to allow detailed consideration to be given to the development of a more coherent
suite of performance measures for the Estate. During the course of 2007-08 the PPU will be
working in collaboration with the NOMS Performance Management Unit (PMU) to develop a
new set of Approved Premises metrics. The new metrics are likely to include measures
connected to admissions criteria, risk reduction and successful outcomes.
PC20/2007
Approved Premises Performance
Improvement Standards:
Guidance on Second Round of ISSUE DATE – 18 June 2007
Audits UNCLASSIFIED 4 of 5
UNCLASSIFIED

17. It is anticipated that the new metrics will be included in the Integrated Probation
Performance Framework (IPPF) from April 2008. Results from the annual performance
standards audits will sit alongside the metrics as part of the IPPF. Discussions are currently
underway with PMU and PIU on how best to incorporate the validated audit results into the
IPPF.

PC20/2007
Approved Premises Performance
Improvement Standards:
Guidance on Second Round of ISSUE DATE – 18 June 2007
Audits UNCLASSIFIED 5 of 5
ANNEX A

PERFORMANCE IMPROVEMENT STANDARD RETURNS 2006 – BY APPROVED


PREMISES

Q No AP Name Area Region AP1 AP2 AP3 AP4 AP5 AP6 AP7 AP8 AP9 AP10 TOTAL
1 Ashley Ho (Vol) A&S SW 3 4 4 3 4 2 4 4 4 4 36
2 Bridge Ho A&S SW 3 4 4 3 4 2 4 4 4 4 36
3 Brigstocke Rd A&S SW 3 4 4 3 4 2 4 4 4 4 36
4 Glogan Ho A&S SW 3 4 4 3 4 2 4 4 4 4 36
5 Bedford Beds East 3 4 3 3 4 2 3 3 2 1 28
6 Napier Rd Beds East 4 3 4 4 4 2 4 4 3 3 35
7 Peterborough Cambs East 4 3 4 3 4 3 3 3 4 3 34
8 Bunbury Ho Cheshire NW 3 2 2 3 2 2 3 3 2 2 24
9 Linden Bank Cheshire NW 3 2 2 3 2 2 3 3 2 2 24
10 Bowling Green Cumbria NW 3 2 2 3 3 1 3 2 3 3 25
11 Burdett Lodge Derby E Mids 3 3 4 3 3 3 3 3 4 3 32
12 Lawson Ho D&C SW 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 3 2 36
13 Meneghy Ho D&C SW 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 3 2 36
14 The Pines Dorset SW 3 4 3 4 3 1 3 4 3 2 30
15 Weston Dorset SW 3 4 3 4 3 1 3 4 3 2 30
16 Basildon Essex East 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 4 2 2 27
17 Ryecroft Glos SW 3 3 3 3 3 4 3 3 2 3 30
18 Hestia Battersea (Vol) Lon Lon 2 2 3 3 3 1 2 3 3 2 24
19 Hestia Streatham (Vol) Lon Lon 2 2 4 3 3 1 2 3 2 2 24
20 Kath Price Hughes (Vol) Lon Lon 2 3 3 3 4 1 3 2 3 1 25
21 Kelley Ho (Vol) Lon Lon 2 2 3 4 4 1 3 3 3 2 27
22 Beckenham Rd Lon Lon 3 4 3 3 4 1 3 3 3 3 30
23 Camden Ho Lon Lon 4 3 3 4 3 1 3 4 2 2 29
24 Canadian Ave Lon Lon 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 2 3 28
25 Ealing Lon Lon 3 4 3 4 3 1 3 4 2 2 29
26 Ellison Ho Lon Lon 3 3 4 3 3 2 3 3 2 2 28
27 Kew Lon Lon 3 4 3 3 3 4 3 2 3 2 30
28 Seafield Lodge Lon Lon 3 4 4 4 4 2 2 4 3 2 32
29 Tulse Hill Lon Lon 4 3 4 3 3 2 3 3 2 3 30
30 Westbourne Ho Lon Lon 3 2 3 3 3 1 3 3 2 3 26
31 Ascot Ho GM NW 3 4 4 3 4 2 3 3 3 3 32
32 Bradshaw Ho GM NW 3 4 4 3 4 2 3 3 3 3 32
33 Chorlton GM NW 3 4 4 3 4 2 3 3 3 3 32
34 Hopwood Ho GM NW 3 4 4 3 4 2 3 3 3 3 32
35 St Josephs GM NW 3 4 4 3 4 2 3 3 3 3 32
36 Wilton Place GM NW 3 4 4 3 4 2 3 3 3 3 32
37 Withington Rd GM NW 3 4 4 3 4 2 3 3 3 3 32
38 Dickson Ho Hants SE 3 4 3 4 3 3 3 3 2 3 31
39 Southampton Hants SE 3 4 3 4 3 3 3 3 2 3 31
40 The Grange Hants SE 3 4 3 4 3 3 3 3 2 3 31
41 Queens Rd Humb Y&H 3 4 3 2 3 2 2 3 3 2 27
42 Scunthorpe Humb Y&H 3 4 3 2 3 2 2 3 3 2 27
43 Fleming Ho Kent SE 3 3 4 3 3 2 3 1 3 2 27
44 Haworth Ho Lancs NW 2 3 3 4 4 1 3 3 2 2 27
45 Highfield Ho Lancs NW 3 4 4 4 3 2 3 3 2 3 31
46 Howard Ho L&R E Mids 3 4 4 3 4 3 3 2 4 3 33
47 Kirk Lodge L&R E Mids 3 4 4 3 4 3 3 2 4 3 33
48 Wordsworth Ho Lincs E Mids 4 3 3 3 4 4 3 2 3 2 31
49 Adelaide Ho (Vol) Mersey NW 3 4 4 3 4 1 4 3 2 3 31
50 Canning Ho Mersey NW 3 4 4 3 4 1 4 3 2 3 31
51 Merseybank Mersey NW 3 4 4 3 4 1 4 3 2 3 31
52 Southwood Mersey NW 3 4 4 4 3 2 3 3 3 2 31
Q No AP Name Area Region AP1 AP2 AP3 AP4 AP5 AP6 AP7 AP8 AP9 AP10 TOTAL

(Note – table continues overleaf)


PERFORMANCE IMPROVEMENT STANDARD RETURNS 2006 – BY APPROVED
PREMISES

(Continued from previous page)

Q No AP Name Area Region AP1 AP2 AP3 AP4 AP5 AP6 AP7 AP8 AP9 AP10 TOTAL
53 John Boag Ho Norfolk East 3 3 3 3 3 2 4 3 2 3 29
54 Bridgewood Northants E Mids 3 3 3 3 4 2 3 3 4 3 31
55 Ozanam Ho (Vol) N'bria NE 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 39
56 St Christophers (Vol) N'bria NE 3 3 4 4 4 0 4 4 4 3 33
57 Cuthbert Ho N'bria NE 3 4 4 3 3 0 4 3 4 3 31
58 Pennywell N'bria NE 3 4 4 3 3 0 4 3 4 3 31
59 Plas-Y-Wern N Wal Wales 3 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 35
60 Ty Newydd N Wal Wales 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 3 28
61 South View N Yorks Y&H 3 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 26
62 Astral Grove Notts E Mids 4 4 4 3 4 2 4 4 3 3 35
63 Southwell Ho Notts E Mids 4 4 4 3 4 1 4 4 3 3 34
64 Trent Ho Notts E Mids 3 4 4 3 4 2 3 3 4 2 32
65 Quay Ho S Wal Wales 3 3 3 4 3 2 3 3 2 2 28
66 Mandeville Ho S Wal Wales 3 3 3 4 3 1 3 3 2 2 27
67 Norfolk Pk S Yorks Y&H 3 3 3 2 3 3 2 3 3 2 27
68 Rookwood S Yorks Y&H 3 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 32
69 Town Moor S Yorks Y&H 3 4 3 3 3 2 2 3 3 2 28
70 Staitheford Ho Staffs W of Mids 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 3 2 25
71 Wenger Ho Staffs W of Mids 3 2 3 3 2 3 3 2 3 1 25
72 Wharflane Ho Staffs W of Mids 4 4 4 4 3 3 4 3 2 3 34
73 Lightfoot Ho Suffolk East 3 4 3 4 3 1 3 3 3 3 30
74 The Cottage Suffolk East 3 4 3 4 3 1 3 3 3 3 30
75 St Catherines Priory Surrey SE 3 2 2 2 3 4 3 3 3 2 27
76 Brighton Sussex SE 2 3 3 2 3 1 3 3 2 1 23
77 Nelson Ho Tees NE 4 4 4 4 4 2 4 4 4 3 37
78 The Crescent Tees NE 4 4 4 4 4 2 4 4 4 3 37
79 Elizabeth Fry (Vol) TV SE 4 4 4 3 3 3 4 4 3 3 35
80 Abingdon Rd TV SE 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 35
81 Clarks Ho TV SE 2 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 2 27
82 Manor Lodge TV SE 4 3 4 3 4 4 4 4 3 3 36
83 Milton Keynes TV SE 3 3 4 3 4 3 3 3 2 2 30
84 St Leonards TV SE 3 3 4 4 4 1 3 3 2 2 29
85 McIntyre Ho Warks W of Mids 3 4 4 3 4 3 3 3 3 2 32
86 Kenilworth Rd Warks W of Mids 3 4 4 3 4 3 3 3 3 2 32
87 Braley Ho W Mer W of Mids 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 2 3 30
88 Bilston W Mids W of Mids 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 2 3 3 28
90 Crowley Ho W Mids W of Mids 3 3 3 3 4 2 3 4 4 3 32
91 Elliott Ho W Mids W of Mids 3 4 4 3 3 2 4 2 3 1 29
92 Stonnall Rd W Mids W of Mids 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 2 3 3 27
93 Sycamore Lodge W Mids W of Mids 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 30
94 Welford Ho W Mids W of Mids 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 3 2 2 26
95 Cardigan Ho (Vol) W Yorks Y&H 3 2 3 3 3 4 3 4 3 2 30
96 Ripon Ho (Vol) W Yorks Y&H 3 3 4 3 3 1 3 4 3 2 29
97 St Johns (Vol) W Yorks Y&H 3 4 4 3 3 2 3 3 2 2 29
98 Albion St W Yorks Y&H 2 2 4 2 2 0 2 2 4 1 21
99 Elm Bank W Yorks Y&H 3 2 2 2 3 1 3 3 2 2 23
100 Holbeck W Yorks Y&H 3 3 3 2 3 1 3 3 2 2 25
101 Wakefield W Yorks Y&H 3 3 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 2 33
Q No AP Name Area Region AP1 AP2 AP3 AP4 AP5 AP6 AP7 AP8 AP9 AP10 TOTAL
Average Scores 3.1 3.4 3.5 3.2 3.4 2.1 3.1 3.1 2.9 2.5 30.3
Max Scores 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
Min Scores 2 2 2 2 2 0 2 1 2 1
ANNEX B

PERFORMANCE IMPROVEMENT STANDARD RETURNS 2006 – BY REGION (including


the voluntary-managed premises in each region)

No of No of VM
Region APs Areas AP1 AP2 AP3 AP4 AP5 AP6 AP7 AP8 AP9 AP10 TOTAL APs
E Mids 8 5 3.4 3.6 3.8 3 3.9 2.5 3.3 2.9 3.6 2.8 33 -

East 7 5 3.3 3.4 3.3 3.4 3.4 1.7 3.3 3.3 2.7 2.6 30 -

London 13 1 2.9 3 3.3 3.3 3.3 1.5 2.8 3.1 2.5 2.2 28 4

NE 6 2 3.5 3.8 4 3.7 3.7 1.3 4 3.7 4 3 35 2

NW 16 5 2.9 3.6 3.6 3.2 3.6 1.7 3.2 2.9 2.6 2.8 30 1

SE 12 5 3.1 3.3 3.4 3.3 3.3 2.7 3.2 3 2.5 2.4 30 1

SW 9 4 3.2 3.9 3.7 3.4 3.7 2.2 3.7 3.9 3.3 3 34 1

Wales 4 2 3 3.3 3.3 3.8 3.3 2.5 3 2.5 2.5 2.5 30 -

W of Mids 12 4 3.1 3.3 3.3 3.1 3.1 2.3 3.1 2.8 2.8 2.3 29 -

Y&H 13 4 2.9 3.1 3.2 2.6 3 2.2 2.6 3.1 2.8 2.1 28 3

Averages 3.1 3.4 3.5 3.2 3.4 2.1 3.1 3.1 2.8 2.5 31 -
APPROVED PREMISES PERFORMANCE IMPROVEMENT STANDARDS

ANNEX C

Contents

AP1 RESOURCES FOR HIGH-RISK WORK


AP2 HIGH RISK MAPPA ARRANGEMENTS IN PLACE AND KNOWN
AP3 RISK MANAGEMENT & ENFORCEMENT
AP4 MONITORING & SURVEILLANCE
AP5 COMPLIANCE & ENFORCEMENT
AP6 RELATIONSHIP WITH LOCAL COMMUNITY
AP7 SUICIDE & SELF HARM
AP8 ILLEGAL DRUGS POLICY & PROCEDURES
AP9 RESETTLEMENT & REINTEGRATION
AP10 DIVERSITY & MAXIMISING INCLUSION

Appendix 1 SCORING AND ACTION PLANNING FORM

Page 1 of 12
APPROVED PREMISES PERFORMANCE IMPROVEMENT STANDARDS

AP1 Resources For High-Risk Work

Description:

The AP has resources necessary to enable it to carry out work for the management of high
risk of harm offenders.

Evidence of how the criterion will be met:

1 Regular health and safety risk assessment is carried out on the building.
2 Specific health and safety work relating to the safe management of high risk cases.
3 AP can store confidential information safely.
4 AP has CCTV that assists with the management of high risk cases.
5 AP has sufficient staff to monitor residents, carry out room searches and curfew
checks.
6 AP follows its policy for dealing with controlled entry and exit of the building.
7 AP follows its policy on dealing with violent situations.
8 Regular engagement with/contributions to MAPPA work.
9 Relevant documentation including up-to-date OASys accompanies all referrals
10 Mandatory use of ‘personal attack alarms’ to assist staff safety.
11 A structured regime which facilitates the provision of enhanced supervision and
monitoring of high risk offenders.
12 An up-to-date contingency plan is available, which is reviewed regularly and shared
with the emergency services.

Methods for Managers to check and local area senior managers to audit and verify:

A Copies of health and safety risk assessments, resident entry and exit and action plans.
B Copy of AP contingency plan.
C Inspection of CCTV system and record of compliance with the personal alarms policy.
D Interviews with AP manager, staff and key MAPPA staff.
E AP has policies on controlled entry and exit of the building and on dealing with violent
situations.
F Meetings between AP and MAPPA staff.
G Documentation evidencing regime and resident compliance rates.

Page 2 of 12
APPROVED PREMISES PERFORMANCE IMPROVEMENT STANDARDS

AP2 High Risk MAPPA Arrangements In Place And Known

Description:

Offenders subject to MAPPA have the relevant public protection plan in place.

Evidence of how criteria will be met:

1 Assessments should be based on OASys and AP supervision plan.


2 MAPP level at which residents are being managed is recorded clearly on the resident’s
file/case record
3 A public protection plan/up-to-date risk assessment is in the resident’s file, together
with minutes of MAPPP meetings.
4 An up-to-date risk management plan is in the resident’s file.
5 Records of regular joint meetings between the AP staff, MAPPA colleagues and
offender manager in line with MAPPA requirements.
6 Regular reviews of the resident noted in team meeting minutes.

Methods for Managers to check and local area senior managers to audit and verify:

1. Review offender records and OASys documentation.


2. Consider outcomes of National Standards monitoring.

Page 3 of 12
APPROVED PREMISES PERFORMANCE IMPROVEMENT STANDARDS

AP3 Risk Management & Enforcement

Description:

The case file shows that all relevant documentation is completed and available at the AP
in respect of risk management and enforcement.

Evidence of how criteria will be met:

1 Offender records contain all relevant and up-to-date documentation, e.g. OASys
assessment and sentence plan, offender contact log, MAPPA arrangements and
information to facilitate an emergency recall.
2 Written evidence in offender records and/or the AP log of effective case
management/liaison with offender manager and appropriate sharing of information
3 AP has written policy on emergency recall.
4 AP staff have access to list of police contacts for emergency recall and breach of bail.
5 Duty manager and ACO rota.

Methods for Managers to check and local area senior managers to audit and verify:

1. AP records.
2. Offender records, eg keywork notes, e mails between AP and offender managers,
notes of review meetings with offender managers
3. Policy on recall and breach of bail.
4. Written evidence of police contacts.

Page 4 of 12
APPROVED PREMISES PERFORMANCE IMPROVEMENT STANDARDS

AP4 Monitoring & Surveillance

Description:

Staff carry out monitoring and surveillance in line with AP Handbook, local AP policy
(including drug and alcohol testing) and individual risk management plans.

Evidence of how the criterion will be met:

1 AP staff use OASys and AP supervision plan to identify those residents needing
monitoring and surveillance.
2 AP has systems and procedures which are compatible with local area policy, for
recording and communicating information, including interface with local MAPPA.
3 AP has written policy and procedure for drug/alcohol testing.
4 Evidence from team meeting minutes, supervision notes, appraisals etc that staff
understand their monitoring and surveillance roles.
5 Documented evidence of feedback to offender manager on monitoring and surveillance
work with the resident.
6 AP has a confidentiality policy.

Methods for Managers to check and local area senior managers to audit and verify:

1. AP policy on curfew checks, use of ‘tagging equipment’, room checks, door entry and
CCTV.
2. Policy meets standards set out in AP Handbook.
3. Drug and alcohol testing policy and procedure.
4. Written evidence that manager is checking that policy and processes for monitoring
and surveillance are being followed.

Page 5 of 12
APPROVED PREMISES PERFORMANCE IMPROVEMENT STANDARDS

AP5 Compliance & Enforcement

Description:

Responsibility for the monitoring of compliance and the enforcement of orders/licences is


clearly defined with appropriate systems in place. There is evidence of effective
enforcement in all cases and clear evidence and documentation with regard to the link with
risk management.

Evidence of how criteria will be met:

1 Clear case records that note an offender’s attendance/non-compliance and any


necessary enforcement action.
2 AP policy and guidance documents on enforcement conform to the requirements of
National Standards, area enforcement policy and the national AP rules.
3 Periodic quality assurance exercises to ensure enforcement practice is being followed.
4 Written evidence that action on enforcement takes place within the agreed National
Standards timetable.
5 Documented arrangements with police for arrest of residents.

Methods for Managers to check and local area senior managers to audit and verify:

1. Case records.
2. Interviews with offender managers.
3. Interviews with AP staff.
4. Copy of AP rules.
5. Evidence of appropriate enforcement action in individual cases.
6. Interview with local police.
7. National standards monitoring outcomes with regard to enforcement.

Page 6 of 12
APPROVED PREMISES PERFORMANCE IMPROVEMENT STANDARDS

AP6 Relationship With Local Community

Description:

A robust, proactive strategy for developing links with the local community and a policy for
managing those relationships.

Evidence of how the criterion will be met:

1 Local community support group based at AP eg where appropriate friends of the AP


group.
2 AP active in local community group where appropriate.
3 If appropriate, residents active in local community events.
4 AP has written strategy for community engagement.
5 Senior managers and AP Managers meet local neighbours.
6 AP has policy and process for dealing with complaints from neighbours.
7 Documented evidence of use of police intelligence.
8 Local ward councillors/MPs briefings.
9 Record of complaints and use of complaints procedure.

Methods for Managers to check and local area senior managers to audit and verify:

A Copies of policies.
B Reports by local manager on relationship with neighbours.
C Records of meetings with neighbours.
D Minutes of community liaison meetings.
E Documented evidence of resident participation in local events.
F Reports on complaints and use of complaints procedure.

Page 7 of 12
APPROVED PREMISES PERFORMANCE IMPROVEMENT STANDARDS

AP7 Suicide & Self-harm

Description:

AP should have in place a policy and robust supporting procedures and systems for work
with offenders who are assessed as high risk of suicide or self harm.

Evidence of how the criterion will be met

1 Protocol in place to ensure sharing of information between HMPS and probation


area/AP
2 Liaison with prisons, mental health practitioners and services.
3 Evidence that OASys assessments of harm to self are used to identify at-risk residents
and to inform appropriate strategies for supporting and managing those residents
4 Procedures in place for notifying staff and on-call managers of potential risk.
5 Staff trained to identify risk and to respond appropriately.
6 Procedures in place for notifying key partners and stakeholders.
7 Requirement that staff carry out regular and frequent checks to locate whereabouts
and condition of all residents and systems in place for recording these checks.
8 Medication systems which are compatible with NPS operational instructions and the
local Health and Safety requirements.
9 Strategy for supervising offenders who are at risk of suicide/ self harm.
10 Staff trained in First Aid.

Methods for Managers to check and local area senior managers to audit and verify:

A A written policy for working with offenders who are assessed as at risk of suicide and or
self harm.
B Evidence that information is sought at the referral stage of risk of suicide or self harm
C Documentation to evidence supporting arrangements with local medical and mental
health services.
D Evidence of staff training (including relief staff).
E Evidence of systems for communicating risk to other key partners and stakeholders.
F Evidence of regular and frequent checks carried out by staff on all offenders.
G Interviews with all AP staff including awareness of self-harm and deaths in AP policy.

Page 8 of 12
APPROVED PREMISES PERFORMANCE IMPROVEMENT STANDARDS

AP8 Illegal Drugs Policy & Procedures

Description:

AP has a policy and procedure for dealing with residents who are using illegal drugs.
All AP will have facilities for on site drug testing and supporting policies, procedures and
protocols

Evidence of how the criteria will be met:

1 AP has a drugs policy and procedure.


2 AP has a policy regarding the role of the unit in the provision of drug treatment.
3 Staff are aware of the AP procedures.
4 The requirement for drug testing is incorporated in AP documentation which is made
available to offenders, prisons and key stakeholders.
5 Management Committees will incorporate drug testing into their Annual Business
Plan/report and all AP will have facilities and equipment for on site drug testing.
6 Probation areas/Management Committees will require reports on testing and treatment
from AP managers and partners.
7 Staff will receive training and support in the administration of testing.
8 Arrangements will be in place with partner agencies to facilitate entry into treatment.
9 Staff are trained and receive briefings on working with illegal drug misusers.
10 AP has policy for storage and handling of prescribed medication and the disposal of
'sharps'.
11 AP will have in place a policy and supporting procedures for the disposal of any illegal
drugs found in AP.

Methods for Managers to check and local area senior managers to audit and verify:

A Copy of AP drug policy and procedure.


B Facilities and equipment available on-site
C Access to Area drug treatment resources.
D AP staff interviews.
E Copies of testing and training audits.
F List of staff who have attended drugs training.
G Protocols for working with partner agencies.
H Key work records reflect AP adherence to testing and entry into treatment.

Page 9 of 12
APPROVED PREMISES PERFORMANCE IMPROVEMENT STANDARDS

AP9 Resettlement & Reintegration

Description:

The AP has enables residents to access housing advice services to facilitate move-on
resources for the residents either through Supporting People arrangements and
appropriate referrals to local authorities and other housing providers.

Evidence of how the criterion will be met:

1 Residents have a written resettlement plan prepared by the offender manager or AP


key worker based on OASys and other risk management tools.
2 Residents have access to housing advice services.
3 High-risk resident resettlement issues feature on the local MAPPA agenda
4 AP has links to local Supporting People services.
5 AP are part of local Supporting People policy.

Methods for Managers to check and local area senior managers to audit and verify:

A Copies of resettlement plans in residents’ files.


B AP mentioned in local Supporting People and Homelessness strategies.
C Evidence of residents accessing resettlement or housing advice services.
D Minutes of MAPPA meetings.

Page 10 of 12
APPROVED PREMISES PERFORMANCE IMPROVEMENT STANDARDS

AP10 Diversity & Maximising Inclusion

Description:

The AP regime is designed for a broad range of offenders. Assessment and support
arrangements should exist so that women, ethnic minority offenders, residents who are
gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender and offenders with disabilities can fully participate in
the AP interventions.

Evidence of how the criterion will be met:

1 APs are explicitly included in the Area Diversity Plan.


2 APs have their own annual Diversity Plan.
3 All staff receive training in diversity.
4 Diversity objectives are set in appraisals
5 AP provide data on admissions and departures based on race, ethnicity, gender and
disability.
6 Provision of meals to cover all dietary needs.
7 Access to interpreting and translation services.
8 Staffing profile of AP in relation to resident group. A sufficient range of interventions are
available to ensure broad access to the residents.
9 Regular consultation with women, black and minority ethnic and offenders with
disabilities over potential opportunities to maximise inclusion.
10 Offender feedback questionnaires, broken down by race and gender, used to
demonstrate to offenders that AP develop its policies based on their feedback.
Completion of any Race Equality Impact Assessments.
11 Process for dealing with complaints exists and is public.

Methods for Managers to check and local area senior managers to audit and verify:

A Area and AP documentation including Diversity Plans.


B Copies of reports on admissions, departures, and resident feedback.
C Resident feedback reports.
D Interviews with senior managers, AP managers and deputy managers and all other AP
staff. List of community and faith resources, AP Diversity Plan and reports on reviews.
E Race Equality Impact Assessments.
F Posters advertising community and religious resources.
G Reports on the usage of the complaints procedure

Page 11 of 12
APPROVED PREMISES PERFORMANCE IMPROVEMENT STANDARDS

APPENDIX 1

Scoring and Action Planning Form

Name of Approved Premises: .......................................................................


Name of manager(s)/staff completing audit: .......................................................................
Date of audit: .......................................................................
Name of senior manager reviewing audit: .......................................................................
Validation process: .......................................................................

Each criterion will be scored as:


0 - No evidence
1 - Less than half the criteria are met
2 - More than half the criteria are met
3 - Standard fully met

NB - Component criteria of each standard must not be scored individually

Standard Score Action points By whom By when

AP1 Resources For High-Risk


Work

AP2 High-Risk MAPPA


Arrangements In Place
And Known
AP3 Risk Management &
Enforcement

AP4 Monitoring & Surveillance

AP5 Compliance &


Enforcement

AP6 Relationship With Local


Community

AP7 Suicide & Self-Harm

AP8 Illegal Drugs Policy &


Procedures

AP9 Resettlement &


Reintegration

AP10 Diversity & Maximising


Inclusion

Total Score

Maximum Potential Score 30

Page 12 of 12
NPS Race Equality Impact Assessment template

Annex D

NPS EQUALITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT TEMPLATE

A. INITIAL SCREENING

1. Title of function, policy or practice (including common practice)


Is this a new policy under development or an existing one?

• New PC20/2007 Approved Premises Performance Improvement Standards 2007-08:


Guidance on the Second Round of Audits
• Existing policy

2. Aims, purpose and outcomes of function, policy or practice


What is the function, policy or practice addressing? What operational work or employment/HR
activities are covered? What outcomes are expected?

¾ To report on the first round of audits, to require Chief Officers of Probation, Probation Boards and
Voluntary-Managed Committee Chairs to conduct a second audit round, and to provide further
guidance on the audit process
¾ The PC is a follow-up to PC19/2006, which introduced the Performance Improvement Standards
as part of a national framework to support and evaluate the delivery of public protection and
interventions by Approved Premises
¾ During 2006-07 all APs were required to undertake audits using the standards and to submit the
results, including action plans, to the Public Protection Unit (PPU).
¾ All APs will be required to undertake the same audit process for 2007-08.

¾ The standards are:


ƒ Resources for high-risk work
ƒ High risk MAPPA arrangements in place and known
ƒ Risk management & enforcement
ƒ Monitoring & surveillance
ƒ Compliance & enforcement
ƒ Relationship with local community
ƒ Suicide & self-harm
ƒ Illegal drugs policy & procedures
ƒ Resettlement & reintegration
ƒ Diversity & maximising inclusion

¾ The standard for Diversity & maximising inclusion states that APs are designed for a broad range
of offenders and provide assessment arrangements for women, ethnic minority offenders,
residents who are gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender, and offenders with disabilities. The
standard comprises:
o Approved Premises are explicitly included in the Area Diversity Plan
o Approved Premises have their own annual Diversity Plan
o All staff receive training in diversity
o Diversity objectives are set in appraisals
o Approved Premises provide data on admissions and departures based on race,
ethnicity, gender and disability
o Provision of meals to cover all dietary needs
o Access to interpreting and translation services

1
NPS Race Equality Impact Assessment template

o Staffing profile of Approved Premises in relation to resident group. A sufficient range of


interventions are available to ensure broad access to the residents
o Regular consultation with women, black and minority ethnic and offenders with
disabilities over potential opportunities to maximise inclusion
o Offender feedback questionnaires, broken down by race and gender, used to
demonstrate to offenders that Approved Premises develop its policies based on their
feedback. Completion of any Race Equality Impact Assessments.
o Process for dealing with complaints exists and is public

¾ The expected outcomes are:


• That all APs will be audited according to the specified process
• That all APs will address any identified areas for improvement

3. Target groups

Who is the policy aimed at? Which specific groups are likely to be affected by its implementation? This could be
staff, service users, partners, contractors. For each equality target group, think about possible positive or
negative impact, benefits or disadvantages, and if negative impact is this at a high medium or low level.
Give reasons for your assessment. This could be existing knowledge or monitoring, national research, through
talking to the groups concerned, etc. If there is possible negative impact a full impact assessment is needed.
The high, medium or low impact will indicate level of priority to give the full assessment. Please use the table
below to do this.

Equality target group Positive impact – Negative impact - Reason for


could benefit could assessment and
disadvantage explanation of
possible impact
Women Yes NA A standard
Men Yes NA specifically covers
Asian/Asian British people Yes NA the issue of
Black/Black British people Yes NA diversity and
Chinese people or other groups Yes NA equality
People of mixed race Yes NA
White people (incl Irish people) Yes NA
Travellers or Gypsies Yes NA
Disabled people Yes NA
Lesbians, gay men & bisexual people Yes NA
Transgender people Yes NA
Older people over 60 Yes NA
Young people (17-25) & children Yes NA
Faith groups Yes NA

4. Further research/questions to answer

As a result of the above, indicate what questions might need to be answered in the full impact assessment and
what additional research or evidence might be needed to do this.

None required.

Initial screening done by: Paul Douglas

Position: Policy Adviser, Approved Premises Team, PPU, NOMS

Date 29 March 2007


2