Probation Circular

UNCLASSIFIED

NPS PERFORMANCE TARGETS AND MEASURES 2006-2007: GUIDANCE
PURPOSE
To provide Probation Areas with detailed supplementary information of NPS Performance Targets and Measures.

REFERENCE NO: 28/2006 – Revised ISSUE DATE: 13 July 2006 (revised December 2006) IMPLEMENTATION DATE: Immediate EXPIRY DATE: 31 March 2010 TO: Chairs of Probation Boards Chief Officers of Probation Secretaries of Probation Boards CC: Board Treasurers Regional Managers AUTHORISED BY: Roger McGarva, Head of Regions and Performance Unit ATTACHED:
Annex A – NPS Performance Targets and Performance Measures 2006 – 2007 Guidance Annex B – National Standards Monitoring Guide to Calculations (Revised for Monitoring from April 2006) Annex C – Basket of National Standards contacts – arranged and achieved: Summary of Relevant Questions 206-07 Annex D – Use of Form 20 and 30 in performance reporting Annex E – Staff Sickness Calculation Guidance

ACTION
Local Areas to take note of the information in the Annexes to this Probation Circular and ensure that staff involved in performance monitoring, management and reporting are aware of the content, particularly the due dates for returns.

SUMMARY
This circular provides, in respect of NPS Performance Targets and Measures, information and guidance on: • • • • Data sources Calculation rules Method and frequency of data collection Contacts and deadlines

It is a single reference document that will be up-dated periodically to include any new or additional guidance as the need arises. Areas can access the most recent version of the Annex via EPIC. It is important to note the introduction of a uniform deadline across the majority of returns. This is to avoid confusion over due dates and to be able to meet demands for reporting. The deadline date for the majority of returns is now the 15th of the month following the end of the reporting period. Exceptions to this rule are identified in Annex A. The implementation date is July 2006. Therefore all relevant returns covering the July reporting period will be due on 15th August.

RELEVANT PREVIOUS PROBATION CIRCULARS
PC06/2006: Business Planning 2006-07 PC16/2006: NPS Offender Employment Target 2006/07

CONTACT FOR ENQUIRIES
Stephen.Spurden2@Homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk Mobile: 07767770201 or 0207 217 8801

National Probation Directorate
Abell House, John Islip Street, London, SW1P 4LH

UNCLASSIFIED
Principal Changes to PC28/2006 as revised December 2006

Annex A • • • • • • • • • • Revised breakdown of contents of Weighted Scorecard (page 4) PT1 – additional guidance PT3 – additional guidance PT4 – additional guidance PT5 – additional guidance PM2 – additional guidance PM3– additional guidance PM4– additional guidance PM5– additional guidance PT10 – additional guidance

Annex B • • Provided more detail on how compliance (PT 7) is calculated Added explanation of how comparative accommodation status is calculated for shadow PM 5

Annex C • Clarified the approach to calculation, removed reference to averaging percentages.

Addition of two new annexes • • D – Use of Form 20 and 30 in performance reporting E – Staff Sickness Calculation Guide

Revised PC28/2006 – NPS Performance Targets and Measures 2006-2007: Guidance

UNCLASSIFIED

2

Annex A National Probation Service Performance Targets and Performance Measures 2006 – 2007: Guidance

Context The performance management framework in the NPS is a model that has been designed to help the NPD and Probation Areas assess their achievements and identify priorities for improvement. It works on two levels, national and local, and brings together strategies, plans, policies and performance indicators, to enable performance to be effectively and efficiently monitored in an open and transparent way. Critical to the framework is the provision of timely and accurate performance information from the 42 probation areas. Quality assurance and validation of the data starts with the local areas. Performance Targets and Measures are set by ministers after preparatory work by the NPD and the NOMS Strategy and Performance Section. Government allocates the resources that the NPS has available to meet the targets. They relate directly to the National Probation Service’s key priorities. Shadow Targets are introduced so that performance can be monitored to give a baseline before their introduction as a Performance Target in the following year. Time pressures and political priorities can mean that a new target is introduced without passing through the “shadow” stage. Although the goal is to maintain a stable set of targets and measures throughout the year adjustments may be necessary if circumstances change e.g. reduction in the ICCP completions target because of a lower than anticipated number of commencements, because of changes in government priorities. Within constraints the NPD takes responsibility for: • Suggesting targets that are SMART • Minimising the risk that targets will create perverse incentives • Making the best possible use of information that is collected from Areas to answer questions from government and other “customers” that would otherwise trigger frequent “ad hoc” data gathering activity by Areas • Devising monitoring arrangements that are achievable • Controlling the demands that monitoring places on Areas – creating whole organisation performance reports on 42 Areas with no national offender management database cannot be resource neutral • Designing Performance Measures to support or place a target in a broader context. An example is the Performance Measures (9 and 10) that relate to the accredited programmes completion target (PT 11).

Collecting data on performance Each Area monitors performance against targets and measures and feeds this information to the NPD, usually through monthly returns. The information is used by Areas to identify strengths and areas for improvement. This can cut through all levels, for example the monthly National Standards monitoring arrangements were

PC 28 Annex A revised December 2006 1

explicitly designed to meet the needs of the NPD for aggregate information and of Areas to have a detailed insight into the practice of those managing offenders. This “self report” approach keeps Areas in touch with their own performance and relies on integrity and internal quality assurance processes. Validation Data quality begins with Probation Areas. Areas are required to ensure that the data they send is as accurate and up-to-date as possible within the deadlines set. Where errors are identified, Areas are asked to re-submit corrected / revised returns. Areas are provided with comprehensive guidance and instruction on how to measure and count elements of data in relation to targets and measures. HMI Probation had assisted for several years with a validation exercise in relation to information on enforcement, a ministerial priority. This task is no longer appropriate to HMI Probation, as the NPD now has management responsibility for ensuring the quality of area data. It is important that the NPS can demonstrate that the collection, processing, compiling and reporting of performance data in respect of key performance indicators is sufficiently robust and reliable as to allow management to place confidence in the reported figures and to make decisions accordingly. Last year, the NPD commissioned Audit and Assurance Unit (AAU) to validate the collection process and data in relation to enforcement, accredited programmes and basic skills. The final report in June 2005 concluded that overall, AAU were satisfied that NPD guidance relating to the monitoring of National Standards, Basic Skills and Accredited programmes was being adhered to. One of the AAU recommendations was the setting up of a Quality and Delivery Team which the NPD has now implemented. The team will, in due course, provide assurance on all aspects of the NPS work whilst HMI Probation will continue to have a role in relation to the validation of NPD approaches to quality assurance. HMI Probation has also commented on the quality of area information in the course of its inspection programme over the years, and this will continue under the Offender Management Inspection programme. How the NPD uses and reports the data that Areas provide on performance Performance information is aggregated at the level of Areas, Regions and England and Wales as a whole. It is used within the NPD and NOMS to check progress and identify strong performance that could be replicated elsewhere and problems that may need a central response and support to achieve improvement. The principal publications in which it appears are: Regional Individual Target Performance Report (ITPR) Regions and Performance at the NPD compile ITPRs for each Region each month. The documents summarise performance, at the regional and at Area level, against the Performance Targets set in the NPS Business Plan. If a target is numeric actual performance is compared to the profiled targets issued by the NPD. The ITPR is sent to the Regional Manager to discuss performance “highs” and “lows” with Chief Officers so as to disseminate successful practice and set in train plans for improvement activity where appropriate. Regional Managers inform Regions and Performance of remedial action in respect of any target that is at risk so that the centre is kept informed of developments.

PC 28 Annex A revised December 2006 2

National ITPR The national ITPR summarises performance for England and Wales as a whole. Section heads at the NPD write a commentary on maintenance and improvement work and discuss this at a monthly review meeting with representatives from Regions and Performance. When the ITPR has been finalised, after the review meeting, it is used as the basis for the Director of the National Probation Service’s (Roger Hill) regular reviews of performance at the NOMS Performance Board. Data and commentary from the national ITPR feeds into the “Performance Report on Offender Management Targets” (PROMT, published by NOMS, that covers Prison and Probation service targets. The audience for this is ministers, senior managers, interested staff across NOMS, stakeholders and members of the public. National Performance Report and Weighted Scorecard The NPS publishes a national performance report including the weighted scorecard every quarter. This is a public document that has wide circulation and is placed on the NPS website. It contains a foreword by the Director of Probation which highlights the successes and achievements, outlines the vision and direction that he has set for the organisation and encourages better performance to ensure targets are met. The introduction presents high level results on each of the performance indicators, commenting on progress towards the target and drawing comparisons with previous years. This is followed by a chapter each for all of the targets and measures which details national trend information and area and regional breakdowns with RAG analysis. The weighted scorecard measures the performance of each of the 42 areas across the set of performance targets and measures that are included in it. These are weighted in relation to their importance and are classed, for descriptive purposes, as the Key Performance Indicators (KPIs). The elements of the scorecard – the KPIs can be added or removed or have their weightings amended at any point in time to reflect the prevailing priorities. The scorecard can therefore provide a snapshot assessment of performance. Areas are measured against their targets for each KPI. Performance is measured as the relative gap between the target and the actual level achieved. A negative score on any KPI indicates that performance was below target whilst a positive score indicates above target performance. The more above target an area is, the higher the positive score they will attract. Similarly the more below target an area performance the larger the negative score they will generate. Performance on each of the KPIs against target is aggregated to produce a single score upon which areas can be ranked. It is updated and published routinely every quarter alongside the NPS Performance Reports but it is also used internally on an ad-hoc basis to assess performance using the latest available information. The main aim of the scorecard has been to facilitate performance improvement. It has achieved this by enabling us to: • • Create a performance orientated culture Identify the areas that need extra help to improve.

PC 28 Annex A revised December 2006 3

• •

Create an open system of shared information that enables strengths and weaknesses to be easily identified and promotes area dialogue and best practice sharing. Provide a fair and accurate assessment of overall area performance across the board.

It has also provided a number of pleasant side effects: • • It has improved data quality and timeliness It has helped Chief Officers set priorities

The current set of KPIs that are used is shown below alongside their targets and weightings.
KPI Unpaid work completions DRR completions Skills for life referrals Employment gained Accredited programme completions High Risk assessments PPO Assessments Court Report Timeliness1 Complete, timely ethnicity data Enforcement Compliance (PT 7)2 Compliance (PM 2) 2 Sickness absence
1

Target 100% (of profile) 100% (of profile) 100% (of profile) 100% (of profile) 100% (of profile) 90% 90% 90% 95% 90% 85% 70% 9 days

Weighting 10 10 5 7 10 10 10 10 10 10 7 3 10

Court report timeliness • Standard Delivery PSR for Magistrates’ Courts completed within 15 working days (subject not RIC) [weighting of 1] • Standard Delivery PSR for Magistrates’ Courts completed within 10 working days (subject was RIC) [weighting of 1] • Fast Delivery PSR for Magistrates’ Courts completed within 5 working days [weighting of 1] (note that the FDR element that is reported outside the Weighted Scorecard as part of the composite score for PT4 remains the proportion completed on the same or next working day) • Reports for Crown Courts to be completed by the date set by the Court [weighting of 7] Weighting is 10 overall for the aggregate of performance Compliance • PM 7 (weighting = 7): The proportion of arranged appointments which the offender attends in the first 26 weeks • PM 2 (weighting = 3): The proportion of cases that reach the 6 months stage without requiring breach action

2

Communication An important aspect of the performance management framework is the speed, efficiency and presentation of the way the NPD communicates with Areas and stakeholders. As well as the formal publications which routinely present performance information the NPD have developed formats for communicating different messages. The format dictates the level of importance of the message and its intended PC 28 Annex A revised December 2006 4

audience. For example, Probation Circulars provide information, guidance and instruction for Chief Officers with any actions for them clearly displayed on the cover sheet. Unit Updates, e.g. Regions and Performance Updates communicate new or revised policy and provide useful information to ACOs and practitioners about how policies should be implemented. Data Standards and definitions The remainder of this document details how data is collected, validated and used to report on Performance Targets and measures so that Areas and stakeholders are fully aware of the basis of Individual Target Performance Reports (monthly) and national Performance Reports (quarterly). These documents are widely used in government and are the “window” through which ministers most often view the National Probation Service.

PC 28 Annex A revised December 2006 5

Probation Performance Targets and Measures: 2006/07
Target and subject Description and weighted score card status Data source and calculation rules Method/ and Frequency of collection Data collection Deadline contact/ Policy lead 15th of month Probation following Circular reporting period 77/2005 PC82/2005 Reference Material

PT 1 High/Very High Risk of Harm Offenders

90% of risk of full analyses, risk management plans and OASys sentence plans on high/very high risk of harm offenders are completed within 5 working days of the commencement of the order or release into the community

Return by Areas to NPD based on checking OASys and offender management records. Calculated as the number “on target” as a proportion of all High/Very High Risk of Harm Orders and Licences that commenced in the month (only those classed as H/VH ROH on date of commencement or release). To be “on target” all three tests must have been passed i.e. Risk of Harm analysis and Risk Management Plan and OASys Sentence plan completed within 5 days of commencement of order or release. Completion of the sentence plan means the detailed plan and not the outline plan done at PSR stage. For the purposes of meeting the targets 'completed' means that the plan or assessment has been written, but not necessarily countersigned, within 5 working days. Countersigning is still required, but will not be measured within 5 working days for PT1.

Monthly return Ed Stradling/ to NPD.Data@ho meoffice.gsi.g ov.uk John Scott

Weighted Scorecard Status = 10

PT 2 Victim Contact

The documentation, where already in place, should be updated within 5 working days of release in order to support the significant change of circumstances of release from prison. 85% of victims to be contacted within Return by Areas to NPD based on local records. Quarterly Keith Ward/ 8 weeks of an offender receiving 12 return to NPD or more months imprisonment for a Calculated as the number of victims contacted within 8 serious sexual or violent offence weeks as a proportion of the total number of victims John Scott Not in Weighted Scorecard

Last day of third Probation month following Circular reporting period 71/.2005

PC 28 Annex A revised December 2006

6

Target and subject

Description and weighted score card status

Data source and calculation rules

Method/ and Frequency of collection

Data collection Deadline contact/ Policy lead

Reference Material

PT 3 Prolific & Other Priority Offenders

90% of risk of harm screenings/full analyses (as appropriate) and OASys sentence plans are completed on Prolific and other Priority Offenders (PPOs) within 5 working days of the commencement of the order or release into the community Weighted Scorecard Status = 10

Return by Areas to NPD based on checking OASys and offender management records. Calculated as the number “on target” as a proportion of all PPOs that commenced in the month (only those classed as a PPO by the local CDRP on date of commencement or release). To be “on target” both tests must have been passed i.e. Risk of Harm screening and, if appropriate full risk of harm analysis and the OASys Sentence plan completed within 5 days of commencement of order or release. By completion of the sentence plan we mean the detailed plan and not the outline plan done at PSR stage. For the purposes of meeting the targets 'completed' means that the plan or assessment has been written, but not necessarily countersigned, within 5 working days. Countersigning is still required, but will not be measured within 5 working days for PT 3. The documentation, where already in place, should be updated within 5 working days of release in order to support the significant change of circumstances of release from prison.

Monthly return Ed Stradling/ to NPD.Data@ho meoffice.gsi.g ov.uk Robin Brennan

15th of month Probation following Circular reporting period 77/2005 (Annex B of PC 79/2005 is relevant)

PC 28 Annex A revised December 2006

7

Target and subject

Description and weighted score card status

Data source and calculation rules

Method/ and Frequency of collection

Data collection Deadline contact/ Policy lead

Reference Material

PT 4 90% of PSRs to be completed within Timeliness of the required time, i.e. court reports • on the day requested for fast delivery PSRs to magistrates’ courts; • within 15 working days for standard delivery PSRs to magistrates’ courts, except where the offender is remanded in custody in which case the timescale is 10 working days; • by the date set by the commissioning court for Crown Courts Weighted Scorecard Status = 10
(Note that the fast delivery PSR element used in calculating the Weighted Scorecard is the proportion completed within 5 working days) Performance against each element will be calculated separately over an aggregate “score” of total reports meeting target as a proportion of total reports completed. The Crown Court PSRs element has a weighting of 7 and the three Magistrates’ Courts elements have a weighting of 1 each .

Source is the monthly reports extract (Form 30) returns to RDS-NOMS. On the day requested for fast delivery PSRs to magistrates’ courts (sentencing court) – analysis of all written fast delivery PSRs and oral PSRs for magistrates’ courts with a date completed in the reporting period. On target if the date completed is on the same working day or no more than one working day after the date requested. Within 15 working days for standard delivery PSRs to magistrates’ courts (sentencing court), except where the offender is remanded in custody in which case the timescale is 10 working days – analysis of Standard Delivery PSRs for magistrates’ courts with a date completed in the reporting period. On target if the date completed is no more than 15 working days after the date requested in the community and 10 working days if RIC. By the date set by the commissioning court for Crown Courts (sentencing court) – analysis of Standard Delivery PSRs, Fast Delivery PSRs and oral PSRs for crown courts with a date completed in the period. On target if the date completed is on or before the date required. See also Annex D Source is the monthly reports extract (Form 30) returns to RDS-NOMS. Calculated by counting all PSRs (Standard, Fast Delivery and Oral) completed in the period (sentencing court + magistrates’). Measure is of the proportion of the total that are classified as Fast Delivery – both written and oral.

Monthly Ed Stradling/ Reports Extract (Form30) Richard Mason returns to RDS – NOMS

Last day of RDS – NOMS month following guidance on reporting period data extract for Court Reports Extract (Form 30) Annex D to this Probation Circular

PM 1 40% of PSRs for Magistrates’ Courts Proportion of to be fast delivery PSRs that are Fast Delivery

Monthly Ed Stradling/ Reports Extract Richard Mason (Form30) returns to RDS – NOMS

Last day of RDS – NOMS month following guidance on reporting period data extract for Court Reports Extract (Form 30) Annex D to this Probation Circular

PC 28 Annex A revised December 2006

8

Target and subject

Description and weighted score card status

Data source and calculation rules

PT 5 50,000 successful completions of Unpaid work Unpaid Work

Return by Areas to NPD based on local records. Reason for termination recorded in offender management database. Weighted Scorecard Status = 10 Successful completion: CPO and CP element of CPRO = specified number of hours completed (code 30) Post CJA 2003 UPW requirement = Expired (normal) [code 50] or Completed (including early good progress) [code 51]. Additional hours for breach of a CPO or CPRO are excluded. Extra hours imposed by the court for breach of an existing CJA Community Order or SSO that includes Unpaid Work should NOT be counted. However, if the court makes an additional requirement of Unpaid Work on a CJA Community Order or SSO where there was originally no Unpaid Work requirement, then this should be counted. PT 6 Initiate breach proceedings in Monthly National Standards monitoring returns – Enforcement accordance with National Standards results of “file reads” by Areas entered in the within 10 working days in 90% of NSMART Excel workbook. cases Overall performance figures exclude DTTOs and COs/SSOs with DRRs and are an aggregate of the figures for Orders, Licences and High Risk cases. Weighted Scorecard Status = 10 Calculation rules are at Annex B. PT 7 PT 7: Compliance: the proportion of Monthly National Standards monitoring returns – Compliance arranged appointments which the results of “file reads” by Areas entered in the offender attends in the first 26 weeks. NSMART Excel workbook. Target is 85%. Overall performance figures exclude DTTOs and COs/SSOs with DRRs and are an aggregate of the Weighted Scorecard Status = 7 figures for Orders, Licences and High Risk cases. Calculation rules are at Annex B. PM 2 Compliance: the proportion of cases Monthly National Standards monitoring returns – Compliance that reach the six months stage results of “file reads” by Areas entered in the without requiring breach action (no NSMART Excel workbook. DTTO/DRRs are second unacceptable failure to excluded. comply with an order, no third Calculation rules are at Annex B. unacceptable failure to comply with a licence) Target is 70%. Weighted Scorecard Status = 3

Method/ and Frequency of collection Monthly return to NPD

Data collection Deadline contact/ Policy lead Ed Stradling/

Reference Material

Jill Shaw

15th of month Annex D to this following PC includes a reporting period list of reasons for termination categorized as Successful, Not Successful or Excluded from calculations.

Monthly Ed Stradling/ NSMART return to NPD

15th of month Annex B following PC13/2005 reporting period PC38/2005 PC43/2005

Roger McGarva Monthly Ed Stradling/ NSMART return to NPD Roger McGarva 15th of month Annex B following reporting period

Monthly Ed Stradling/ NSMART return to NPD Roger McGarva

15th of month Annex B following reporting period

PC 28 Annex A revised December 2006

9

Target and subject

Description and weighted score card status

Data source and calculation rules

PM 3 Compliance

Compliance: the average number of acceptable failures to attend appointments in orders and licences during the first 26 weeks.

Monthly National Standards monitoring returns – results of “file reads” by Areas entered in the NSMART Excel workbook. DTTO/DRRs are excluded. Calculation rules are at Annex B.

Method/ and Frequency of collection Monthly NSMART return to NPD

Data collection Deadline contact/ Policy lead Ed Stradling/

Reference Material

15th of month Annex B following reporting period

Roger McGarva

PM 4 Compliance

Not in weighted scorecard Compliance: the proportion of orders Orders and licences with a termination date in the and licences that terminate reporting period. Successful terminations are successfully Order/period expired; Specified number of hours completed; Terminated early for good progress. Unsuccessful are: Revoked for failure to comply with requirements; revoked following imposition of custody Not in weighted scorecard for a further offence; order expired – breach outstanding; Revoked for a further offence (non custodial); terminated because of conviction of an offence; warrant for arrest remained unexecuted 12 months after issue; variation of sentence to full-time custody (Intermittent Custody only) Excluded from the calculation are: Revoked because of other change of circumstances; order substituted by a conditional discharge; person died; terminated for other reason; change of after-care category; revoked (on application). DTTO/DRRs are included. Monthly National Standards monitoring returns – results of “file reads” by Areas entered in the NSMART Excel workbook. Calculation rules are at Annex B.

Monthly Ed Stradling/ Last day of Probation month following Listings reporting period Extract (Form20) Gary Renshaw/ returns to RDS Rachel Councell – NOMS. Analysis of date of termination and reason for termination of order or licence.

RDS - NOMS guidance on data extract for Probation Listings (Form 20) Annex D to this PC

PM 5 Shadow measure: The proportion of Accommodati offenders in suitable accommodation on at the end of the order/licence compared to the proportion in suitable accommodation at order commencement or immediately prior to release on licence

Monthly Ed Stradling NSMART return to NPD Jill Shaw

15th of month following reporting period

PC 28 Annex A revised December 2006

10

Target and subject

Description and weighted score card status

Data source and calculation rules

Method/ and Frequency of collection

Data collection Deadline contact/ Policy lead

Reference Material

PT 8 Skills for life

48,000 Skills for life referrals Weighted Scorecard Status = 5

PT 9 15,000 unemployed offenders Employment gaining employment Weighted Scorecard Status = 7

Return by Areas to NPD based on local records. NP definition of a Skills for Life Referral is: Where an Individual Referral Record has been completed and agreed with the learner/offender; OR Where a learner/offender has attended a “taster” Skills for Life course; OR Where a learner/offender is referred to Skills for Life provision, has completed & agreed their Individual Learning Plan; OR The learner/offender has completed at least two sessions. Return by Areas to NPD based on local records. The rules regarding what constitutes achieving the target are in the Guidance Notes built into the monthly return.

Monthly and Ed Stradling/ Quarterly returns to NPD

Roger Stevens

15th of month PC27/2006 following reporting period (Please disregard deadline given in PC27-06)

Monthly Ed Stradling/ returns to NPD

Ian Henshaw PM 6 12,000 offenders placed in Employment employment that is retained for four weeks Not in weighted scorecard PT10 5,000 successful DTTO/DRR DTTO/DRR completions Completions Weighted Scorecard Status = 10 Return by Areas to NPD based on local records. The rules regarding what constitutes achieving the measure are in the Guidance Notes built into the monthly return. Monthly Ed Stradling/ returns to NPD

Ian Henshaw Return by Areas to NPD based on local records. Monthly return Ed Stradling / Reason for termination in the month recorded in to NPD offender management database. Successful completion = order expired, revoked for good progress, expired (normal), completed (early good progress). Annex D to this Circular contains a full list of reasons Claire Wiggins for terminations with categorization as Successful, Not Successful and Excluded. Monthly return Ed Stradling / to NPD Claire Wiggins

15th of month Guidance following Notes in the reporting period monthly return Excel workbook issued as PC16/2006. 15th of month Guidance following Notes in the reporting period monthly return Excel workbook issued as PC16/2006. 15th of month E-mail from Ed following Stradling dated reporting period 1/04/05 PC 57/2005 PC 61/2005 PC 80/2005 Annex D to this Circular 15th of month E-mail from Ed following Stradling dated reporting period 1/04/05 PC 57/2005

PM 7 DTTO/DRR Starts

16,000 DTTO/DRR commencements Return by Areas to NPD based on local records. Commencements in the month recorded in offender management database. Not in weighted scorecard

PC 28 Annex A revised December 2006

11

Target and subject

Description and weighted score card status

Data source and calculation rules

Method/ and Frequency of collection

Data collection Deadline contact/ Policy lead

Reference Material

PM 8 DTTO/DRR first contact

90% of first contacts on DTTOs/DRRs arranged with (a) the probation service for within one working day and (b) the treatment provider for within two working days Not in weighted scorecard

Monthly National Standards monitoring returns – results of “file reads” by Areas entered in the NSMART Excel workbook. Calculation rules are at Annex B.

Monthly Ed Stradling/ 15th of month NSMART following return to NPD Roger McGarva/ reporting period Claire Wiggins

E-mail from Ed Stradling November 16.11.2005 PC 57/2005

PT 11 17,500 accredited programme Accredited completions including 1,200 sex Programmes offender treatment programme completions and 1,200 domestic violence programme completions

PM 9 Accredited programme starts

Record all accredited programme completions (main sessions completed) in IAPS. IAPS recording process is to go into each person’s record who has finished and mark the main phase on the referral as completed. The date to be used for the main phase completed is the date of attendance at Weighted Scorecard Status = 10 the last main session. Performance against the weighted Data source is IAPS Monthly Throughput report drawn scorecard will be assessed in relation down centrally. to the overall accredited programmes completion target. Note that Regional Managers will have negotiated with each Area to apportion contributions to meeting the regional sub-targets. Percentage of offenders starting an “Starting” in the measure = date of attendance at first accredited programme out of the total main session i.e. commencement in IAPS. number of programme requirements Take the cohort of offenders recorded in IAPS as having been sentenced to a requirement to attend an Not in weighted scorecard accredited programme 12 months ago (e.g. in January 2006 take those sentenced in December 2004, in February 2006 take those sentenced in January 2005). From these calculate what proportion had started the programme within the 12 month period as the measure of performance.

See PC45/2005 for schedule of last date for data entry in IAPS and date IAPS report will be run centrally.

Ed Stradling/ Danny Clark Alison Sims and Michele Taylor for details of IAPS extract used in reporting

Annex B Last day of Probation month following Circular reporting period 45/2005 PC 85/2005 PC 18/2006

IAPS

Ed Stradling/ Danny Clark Alison Sims and Michele Taylor for details of IAPS extract used in reporting

Last day of Probation month following Circular reporting period 45/2005

PC 28 Annex A revised December 2006

12

Target and subject

Description and weighted score card Data source and calculation rules status

Method/ and Frequency of collection

Data collection contact/ Policy lead Ed Stradling/ Danny Clarke Alison Sims and Michele Taylor for details of IAPS extract used in reporting

Deadline

Reference Material

PM 10 Accredited programme completions

Percentage of offenders completing an accredited programme out of the total who attend the first session Not in weighted scorecard

“Total who attend the first session” = commencements IAPS as per PM9 above. Measured by tracking, in IAPS, of those who attend session 1 (or the relevant “first” session in bus stopped cases joining a programme run part way through) of an accredited programme the number that complete the programme. The key date is the date on which the programme was completed. Therefore a report on performance against the measure for the period December 2005 would be based on all “runs” of programmes that were completed in that month. All “runs” of programmes that complete in the period will be included in the analysis. “Runs” of programmes that were abandoned part way through will be excluded.

Last day of Probation month following Circular reporting period 45/2005

PT 12 Minority ethnic staff

Achieve regionally set employment targets for minority ethnic staff Not in weighted scorecard

Source is annual “census” returns to NPD. Record Ethnicity status of all new and existing members of staff currently employed by the Area on an annual basis, using REM template provided.

Annual Helen Smith/ ‘census’ returns to NPD Marjorie Harris

31st January

PC 28 Annex A revised December 2006

13

Target and subject

Description and weighted score card status

Data source and calculation rules

Method/ and Frequency of collection (a) Annual ‘census’ returns to NPD; (b) Monthly Probation Listings to RDS NOMS (Form 20)

Data collection Deadline contact/ Policy lead (a) Helen Smith; End of month following (b) Gary reporting period Renshaw: RDSNOMS

Reference Material

PT 13 Race & Ethnic Monitoring of Offenders and Staff

95% of race and ethnic monitoring data on (a) staff and (b) offenders is returned on time and using the correct (Census 2001) classifications Weighted Scorecard Status = 10

PT 14 Sickness absence

Reduce sickness absence in the National Probation Service to an average of 9 days per member of staff per year Weighted Scorecard Status = 10

Source for offenders is Probation Listings extract from offender management databases sent to RDS-NOMS. The data set is offenders commencing Orders, custodial sentences or Resettlement Licences in the period. “Refusals” are excluded from the calculations. Those with a 2001 census code are counted as meeting the target. Those with no race code recorded and those with a race code other than those used in Census 2001 (16+1 codes) are counted as not having met the target. Timeliness - as long as the Form 20 information is supplied to RDS-NOMS within the deadline of the last day of the month following the reporting month, the area gets credited with the proportion of cases with valid codes. If Form 20 information had not been supplied to RDS-NOMS within that deadline 1% is deducted from the performance figure for every working day that the returns are late. If no return is made the Area scores zero. Source for staff is annual “census” returns to the NPD so good performance relies on Human Resources Sections recording the race & ethnicity status of all members of staff currently employed by the Area. Return to NPD by Areas based on local staff sickness records. Record total days staff sickness in 3 categories and total “staff years” during month. Calculation rules are available but are not issued with this document as they are about to be updated. Guidance on this will be issued separately shortly.

a) NPD HR guidance 1999 b) RDS guidance on data extract for Probation Listings (Form 20) Annex D to this Circular

Marjorie Harris

Monthly return Ed Stradling/ to NPD Nick Jones

15th of month Probation following Circular reporting period 85/2001

PC 28 Annex A revised December 2006

14

Annex B

NATIONAL STANDARDS MONITORING
Guide to Calculations (Revised for Monitoring from April 2006)

Purpose This document sets out the calculations to be used for reporting on performance against the standards that are measured in the monthly National Standards monitoring exercise, including those that form part of the service’s Performance Targets (PTs) and Performance Measures (PMs). NPD will produce quarterly reports covering the PTs and PMs covered in this guidance together with some of the other key standards. The question numbers used within relate to version 6.1 of the paper form for Community Orders, version 7.1 of the Resettlement form, version 2.1 of the High/Very High Risk of Harm form and version 5.1 of NSMART.

Contents Page I. Community Orders II. Resettlement III. High/Very High Risk of Harm Annex C: Basket of National Standards contacts (arranged and achieved): Summary of Relevant Questions 2006-07 1 - 11 12 - 21 22 - 27

PC 28 Annex B revised December 2006

1

I. COMMUNITY ORDERS
Contact: Offender Management Allocation of case Question No. Calculation Expressed as Relevant Target / Measure 12 (CJA Order Commencements only) = 1 / (1+2) % --

1st Appointment arranged to take place Question No. Calculation Expressed as Relevant Target / Measure 1st Appointment took place Question No. Calculation Expressed as Relevant Target / Measure 14 (Commencements only) = 1 / (1+2) % Basket of National Standards contacts (took place) 13 (Commencements only) = 1 / (1+2) % Basket of National Standards contacts (arranged)

Home visit took place within 10 working days Question No. Calculation Expressed as Relevant Target / Measure 15 (Commencements only) = 1 / (1+2+3) % Basket of National Standards contacts (took place)

First 16 weeks: 16 appointments arranged (Tier 2, 3 & 4) Question No. Calculation Expressed as Relevant Target / Measure 16 (Commencements only) = (1+3) / (1+2+3) % Basket of National Standards contacts (arranged)

First 16 weeks: 16 appointments took place (Tier 2, 3 & 4) Question No. Calculation Expressed as Relevant Target / Measure 17 (Commencements only) = (1+3) / (1+2+3) % Basket of National Standards contacts (took place)

PC 28 Annex B revised December 2006

2

Appointments arranged (Tier 1) Question No. Calculation Expressed as Relevant Target / Measure Appointments took place (Tier 1) Question No. Calculation Expressed as Relevant Target / Measure 19 (Terminations only) = 1 / (1+2) % -18 (Terminations only) = 1 / (1+2) % --

Contact: Drug Rehabilitation Requirement (DRR) or DTTO 1st offender management appointment arranged Question No. Calculation Expressed as Relevant Target / Measure 23 (Commencements only) = 1 / (1+2) % PM 8

1st offender management appointment took place Question No. Calculation Expressed as Relevant Target / Measure 24 (Commencements only) = 1 / (1+2) % --

1st appointment with treatment provider arranged Question No. Calculation Expressed as Relevant Target / Measure 25 (Commencements only) = 1 / (1+2) % PM 8

1st appointment with treatment provider took place Question No. Calculation Expressed as Relevant Target / Measure 26 (Commencements only) = 1 / (1+2) % --

First 16 weeks: minimum hours contact per week arranged Question No. Calculation Expressed as Relevant Target / Measure 27 (Commencements only) = 1+2 / (1+2+3) % --

First 16 weeks: minimum hours contact per week took place Question No. Calculation Expressed as Relevant Target / Measure 28 (Commencements only) = 1+2 / (1+2+3) % --

PC 28 Annex B revised December 2006

3

Frequency of testing Question No. Calculation Expressed as Relevant Target / Measure 29 (Commencements only) = 1 / (1+2) % --

Review at conclusion of requirement (Tier 2, 3 and 4) Question No. Calculation Expressed as Relevant Target / Measure 30 (Terminations only) = 1 / (1+2) % --

Programme Requirement/CRO or CPRO with Programme Requirement Commencement within six weeks Question No. Calculation Expressed as Relevant Target / Measure 32 (Commencements only) = 1 / (1+2) % --

Review at conclusion of requirement (Tier 2, 3 and 4) Question No. Calculation Expressed as Relevant Target / Measure 33 (Terminations only) = 1 / (1+2) % --

Specified Activity Requirement Commencement within 15 working days Question No. Calculation Expressed as Relevant Target / Measure 35 (Commencements only) = 1 / (1+2) % --

First four weeks: minimum three contacts arranged Question No. Calculation Expressed as Relevant Target / Measure 36 (Commencements only) = 1 / (1+2) % Basket of National Standards contacts (arranged)

First four weeks: minimum three contacts took place Question No. Calculation Expressed as Relevant Target / Measure 37 (Commencements only) = 1 / (1+2) % Basket of National Standards contacts (took place)

PC 28 Annex B revised December 2006

4

Review at conclusion of requirement (Tier 2, 3 and 4) Question No. Calculation Expressed as Relevant Target / Measure 38 (Terminations only) = 1 / (1+2) % --

Supervision Requirement/CRO/CR element of CPRO Commencement within 15 working days Question No. Calculation Expressed as Relevant Target / Measure 40 (Commencements only) = 1 / (1+2) % --

First 16 weeks: 16 appointments arranged Question No. Calculation Expressed as Relevant Target / Measure 41 (Commencements only) = 1 / (1+2) % Basket of National Standards contacts (arranged) Note: Q.16 covers the same ground for Tiers 2, 3 and 4, so in order to avoid double-counting, only Tier 1 data will count towards the “basket” for Q.41. First 16 weeks: 16 appointments took place Question No. Calculation Expressed as Relevant Target / Measure 42 (Commencements only) = 1 / (1+2) % Basket of National Standards contacts (took place) Note: Q.17 covers the same ground for Tiers 2, 3 and 4, so in order to avoid double-counting, only Tier 1 data will count towards the “basket” for Q.42. Review at conclusion of requirement (Tier 2, 3 and 4) Question No. Calculation Expressed as Relevant Target / Measure 43 (Terminations only) = 1 / (1+2) % --

Unpaid Work Requirement/CPO/CP element of CPRO First work session arranged within 10 working days Question No. Calculation Expressed as Relevant Target / Measure 45 (Commencements only) = 1 / (1+2) % Basket of National Standards contacts (arranged)

PC 28 Annex B revised December 2006

5

First work session took place within 10 working days 46 (Commencements only) Question No. = 1 / (1+2) Calculation % Expressed as Basket of National Standards contacts (took place) Relevant Target / Measure Average 6 hrs/week arranged Question No. Calculation Expressed as Relevant Target / Measure Average 6 hrs/week took place Question No. Calculation Expressed as Relevant Target / Measure

47 (Commencements only) = 1 / (1+2) % Basket of National Standards contacts (arranged)

48(Commencements only) = 1 / (1+2) % Basket of National Standards contacts (took place)

Review at conclusion of requirement (Tier 2, 3 and 4) 49 (Terminations only) Question No. = 1 / (1+2) Calculation % Expressed as -Relevant Target / Measure

Compliance & Enforcement Enforcement action taken within 10 working days (relevant cases) Enforcement action is initially measured on the basis of what happened in relation to the second unacceptable failure, but because appropriate breach action could have been taken on the first unacceptable failure, and the performance measure relates to the case not to the number of breaches, credit may need to be given by way of an upward adjustment to the initial calculation, where breach action was taken on a first unacceptable failure. In such cases, this is done by looking at the data in relation to each of unacceptable failure questions together and there are three types of pattern, listed in the table below. Pattern A: Where appropriate breach action (value = 1) is recorded for both the first and second unacceptable failures, there is no need to adjust the data as the fact the case was breached has already been counted in the original calculation. Pattern B: Where appropriate breach action (value =1) is recorded on the first unacceptable failure and some action, but not that required (value = 2-4) is recorded on the second unacceptable failure an upward adjustment to the number of cases breached (the numerator) is made, but the overall total of cases (the denominator) is not adjusted as the case has already been counted as part of the initial calculation. Pattern C: Where there was no second unacceptable failure but appropriate breach action (value =1) was recorded on the first unacceptable failure, then both the number of cases breached (the numerator) and the total of cases (the denominator) are increased as the case was not counted in the original calculation. Note that the overall enforcement figures for Performance Target 6 exclude DTTOs and COs/SSOs with a DRR and are an aggregate of the figures for Orders, Resettlement Licence and High Risk cases. The cases for exclusion are identified in NSMART from the following questions: Community Order NS Monitoring form: Question 6 Order type = (h) DTTO OR (i) CJA Community Order or (j) CJA SSO IF also recorded as having a DRR (response d) in Question 11. The same principle is applied to the High/Very High ROH monitoring form.

PC 28 Annex B revised December 2006

6

Enforcement action taken within 10 working days (relevant cases) Question No. Calculation Adjustment Expressed as Relevant Target/Measure 50 & 51 (Commencements only) Q. 51 = 1 / (1+2+3+4) Use Q.50 and check values across Qs. 50 & 51 as per table below % PT 6

Adjustment • Assume the calculated result comes to 5 of 10 cases • The following table shows the possible responses in Q.50 and Q.51 then adjusts the result: Pattern A B C Q.50 1 1 1 Q.51 1 2, 3 or 4 5 Result 5 of 10 becomes: 5 of 10 6 of 10 6 of 11

Enforcement action taken whether or not within 10 working days (relevant cases) Question No. Calculation Adjustment Expressed as Relevant Target/Measure 50 & 51 (Commencements only) Q.51 = (1+2) / (1+2+3+4) Use Q.50 and check values across Qs.50 & 51 as per table below % --

Adjustment • Assume the calculated result comes to 5 of 10 cases • The following table shows the possible responses in Qs.48 & 49 then adjusts the result Pattern A B C Q.50 1 or 2 1 or 2 1 or 2 Q.51 1 or 2 3 or 4 5 Result 5 of 10 becomes: 5 of 10 6 of 10 6 of 11

Compliance Note that the overall compliance figures for Performance Target 7 exclude DTTOs and COs/SSOs with a DRR and are an aggregate of the figures for Orders, Resettlement Licence and High Risk cases. The cases for exclusion are identified in NSMART from the following questions: Community Order NS Monitoring form: Question 6 Order type = (h) DTTO OR (i) CJA Community Order or (j) CJA SSO IF also recorded as having a DRR (response d) in Question 11. The same principle is applied to the High/Very High ROH monitoring form.

Number of contacts arranged/number of contacts achieved Question No. Calculation Expressed as Relevant Target/Measure Qs. 20 & 21 (Commencements only) n. entered in Q.21/n. entered in Q.20 x 100 % PT 7

Note: to perform the above calculation it is first necessary to exclude any cases where the answer to Q 20 or Q 21 is ‘N/A’, is missing or is otherwise invalid, e.g. text.

PC 28 Annex B revised December 2006

7

In addition, if the number of appointments attended exceeds the number arranged, then the number attended is capped at the level of those arranged, e.g. Q 20 records that 26 appointments were arranged and Q 21 shows that 30 were attended. For the purposes of this calculation this will be treated as 26 arranged and 26 attended.

No breach action required Question No. Calculation Expressed as Relevant Target/Measure Q. 51 (Commencements only) Q. 51 = 5 / (1+2+3+4+5) % PM 2

An order is deemed to be compliant, in this measure, if there has been no second unacceptable failure to comply during the first six months after commencement.

Acceptable Absences Question No. Calculation Expressed as Relevant Target/Measure 52 (Commencements only) n. entered in Q.52/n. cases (cumulative) Average PM 3

Completion of additional information sheet Question No. Calculation Expressed as Relevant Target/Measure 53 (Commencements only) 1/(1+2) % --

Order allowed to continue (non-CJA Orders) Question No. Calculation Expressed as Relevant Target/Measure 54 (Commencements only) 1/(1+2) % --

Additional penalty where breached and allowed to continue (non-CJA Orders) Question No. Calculation Expressed as Relevant Target/Measure 55 (Non-CJA Order commencements only) Frequency count of response options except 4 & 7 % --

Outcome following breach (CJA Orders) Question No. Calculation Expressed as Sentence following revocation Question No. Calculation Expressed as Relevant Target/Measure 57 (Commencements only) Frequency count of response options except 6 & 7 % -56 (CJA Order commencements only) Frequency count of response options except 4 & 7 %

PC 28 Annex B revised December 2006

8

Risk Assessment & Sentence Planning Timeliness of Risk of Harm assessment Question No. Calculation Expressed as Relevant Target/Measure 58 (Commencements only) 1 / (1+2) % --

Appropriate evidence as basis of initial RoH assessment Question No. Calculation Expressed as Relevant Target/Measure 59 (Commencements only) 1 / (1+2+3) % --

Justification for level of Risk of Harm Question No. Calculation Expressed as Relevant Target/Measure Timeliness of Sentence Plan Question No. Calculation Expressed as Relevant Target/Measure 61 (Commencements only) (1+2) / (1+2+3+4) % -60 (Commencements only) 1 / (1+2+3+4) % --

Copying of Sentence Plan to other relevant persons/agencies Question No. Calculation Expressed as Relevant Target/Measure 62 (Commencements only) 1 / (1+2+3) % --

Alignment of sentence plan with risk of harm assessment Question No. Calculation Expressed as Relevant Target/Measure 63 (Commencements only) 1 / (1+2+3+4) % --

Sufficiency of risk assessment/risk management plan in relation to risk of harm to victim(s) Question No. Calculation Expressed as Relevant Target/Measure 64 (Commencements only) 1 / (1+2+4) % --

PC 28 Annex B revised December 2006

9

Sufficiency of risk assessment/risk management plan in relation to risk of harm to the public Question No. Calculation Expressed as Relevant Target/Measure 65 (Commencements only) 1 / (1+2+3) % --

Sufficiency of risk assessment/risk management plan in relation to risk of harm to staff Question No. Calculation Expressed as Relevant Target/Measure 66 (Commencements only) 1 / (1+2+3) % --

Review of risk of harm within 16 weeks Question No. Calculation Expressed as Relevant Target/Measure 67 (Commencements only) 1 / (1+2) % --

Review of sentence plan within 16 weeks Question No. Calculation Expressed as Relevant Target/Measure Final review on termination Question No. Calculation Expressed as Relevant Target/Measure 69 (Terminations only) 1 / (1+2) % -68 (Commencements only) 1 / (1+2) % --

Overall quality of risk of harm assessment and risk management Question No. Calculation Expressed as Relevant Target/Measure 70 1 / (1+2) % --

PC 28 Annex B revised December 2006

10

Accommodation Question No. Calculation 71 (Terminations only) Calculate: 1 / (1+2) expressed as % (a) immediately prior to order and (b) at termination Then calculate difference (b) – (a). Any case which has an answer of ‘Unclear from record’ to one or both questions. % PM 5 (Shadow measure)

Exclusions Expressed as Relevant Target/Measure

Note: to obtain a combined result (orders plus licences) for PM 5, areas should do as follows: (i) (ii) (iii) aggregate the numbers in suitable accommodation prior to order and prior to release on licence repeat for those in unsuitable accommodation calculate the total proportion of ‘suitable’, i.e. (i) / [(i) + (ii)], expressed as a percentage. This gives the combined figure for the proportion in suitable accommodation prior to NPS supervision (‘X%’) aggregate the numbers in suitable accommodation at termination of order and termination of licence repeat for those in unsuitable accommodation calculate the total proportion of ‘suitable’, i.e. (iv) / [(iv) + (v)], expressed as a percentage. This gives the combined figure for the proportion in suitable accommodation at the end of supervision (‘Y%’) Subtract ‘X%’ from ‘Y%’ to give the percentage point improvement or deterioration.

(iv) (v) (vi)

(vii)

PC 28 Annex B revised December 2006

11

II. RESETTLEMENT
Pre-release work If HDC – assessment of suitability of accommodation Question No. Calculation Expressed as Relevant Target / Measure 11 1 / (1+2+3) % --

Quality of HDC assessment in relation to suitability of the proposed accommodation Question No. Conditions Calculation Expressed as Relevant Target / Measure 12 Answer to Q.11 is 1or 2(‘Yes’) 1 / (1+2) % --

Quality of HDC assessment in relation to any risk of harm that the offender may present Question No. Conditions Calculation Expressed as Relevant Target / Measure 13 Answer to Q.11 is 1or 2(‘Yes’) 1 / (1+2) % --

Quality of HDC assessment in relation to any comments on the suitability of the offender Question No. Conditions Calculation Expressed as Relevant Target / Measure 14 Answer to Q.11 is 1or 2(‘Yes’) 1 / (1+2) % --

Did pre-release documentation/report arrive at the prison within the time scale requested? Question No. Calculation Expressed as Relevant Target / Measure 15 1 / (1+2) % --

Did pre-release documentation/report/PAR include proposals for licence conditions? Question No. Calculation Expressed as Relevant Target / Measure 16 1 / (1+2) % --

If pre-release documentation/report/PAR did not include proposals for licence conditions even though there were issues to address is there explanation for why no proposal made? Question No. Conditions Calculation Expressed as Relevant Target / Measure 17 Answer to Q.16 is 2(‘No’) 1 / (1+2) % --

PC 28 Annex B revised December 2006

12

Did pre-release documentation/report/PAR include proposals for licence conditions relating to drug misuse? Question No. Calculation Expressed as Relevant Target / Measure 18 1 / (1+2) % --

If pre-release documentation/report/PAR did not include proposals for licence conditions even though there were drug related issues to address is there explanation for why no proposal made? Question No. Conditions Calculation Expressed as Relevant Target / Measure 19 Answer to Q.18 is 2(‘No’) 1 / (1+2) % --

Parole eligible cases – was the PAR provided within the required time scale? Question No. Calculation Expressed as Relevant Target / Measure 20 1 / (1+2) % --

PAR – section on offence analysis and offending behaviour of satisfactory quality Question No. Calculation Expressed as Relevant Target / Measure 21.1 1 / (1+2) % --

PAR – section on offender information of satisfactory quality Question No. Calculation Expressed as Relevant Target / Measure 21.2 1 / (1+2) % --

PAR – section on victim information of satisfactory quality Question No. Calculation Expressed as Relevant Target / Measure 21.3 1 / (1+2) % --

PAR – section on assessment of risk of serious harm of satisfactory quality Question No. Calculation Expressed as Relevant Target / Measure 21.4 1 / (1+2) % --

PC 28 Annex B revised December 2006

13

PAR – section on assessment of likelihood of re-offending of satisfactory quality Question No. Calculation Expressed as Relevant Target / Measure 21.5 1 / (1+2) % --

PAR – section on assessment of risk management plan of satisfactory quality Question No. Calculation Expressed as Relevant Target / Measure 21.6 1 / (1+2) % --

PAR – section on assessment of resettlement/sentence plan of satisfactory quality Question No. Calculation Expressed as Relevant Target / Measure 21.7 1 / (1+2) % --

PAR – report overall of satisfactory quality Question No. Calculation Expressed as Relevant Target / Measure 21.8 1 / (1+2) % --

PAR – was based on at least one face to face interview or video conference with the offender Question No. Calculation Expressed as Relevant Target / Measure 21.9 1 / (1+2) % --

Contact: Offender Management 1st appointment arranged on day of release or next working day Question No. Calculation Expressed as Relevant Target / Measure 22 (Commencements only) 1 / (1+2) % Basket of National Standards contacts (arranged)

1st appointment took place on day of release or next working day Question No. Calculation Expressed as Relevant Target / Measure 23 (Commencements only) 1 / (1+2) % Basket of National Standards contacts (took place)

PC 28 Annex B revised December 2006

14

Further appointment arranged within 3 working days of release Question No. Calculation Expressed as Relevant Target / Measure 24 (Commencements only) 1 / (1+2) % Basket of National Standards contacts (arranged)

Further appointment took place within 3 working days of release Question No. Calculation Expressed as Relevant Target / Measure 25 (Commencements only) 1 / (1+2) % Basket of National Standards contacts (took place)

Home visit took place within 10 working days Question No. Calculation Expressed as Relevant Target / Measure 26 (Commencements only) = 1 / (1+2+3) % Basket of National Standards contacts (took place)

First 16 weeks: 16 appointments arranged (Tier 2, 3 & 4) Question No. Calculation Expressed as Relevant Target / Measure 27 (Commencements only) = (1+3) / (1+2+3) % Basket of National Standards contacts (arranged)

First 16 weeks: 16 appointments took place (Tier 2, 3 & 4) Question No. Calculation Expressed as Relevant Target / Measure Appointments arranged (Tier 1) Question No. Calculation Expressed as Relevant Target / Measure Appointments took place (Tier 1) Question No. Calculation Expressed as Relevant Target / Measure 30 (Terminations only) = 1 / (1+2) % -29 (Terminations only) = 1 / (1+2) % -28 (Commencements only) = (1+3) / (1+2+3) % Basket of National Standards contacts (took place)

PC 28 Annex B revised December 2006

15

Compliance & Enforcement Enforcement action taken within 10 working days (relevant cases) Enforcement action for licences is initially measured on the basis of what happened in relation to the third unacceptable failure, but because appropriate breach action could have been taken on the first or second unacceptable failure, and the performance measure relates to the case not to the number of breaches, credit may need to be given by way of an upward adjustment to the initial calculation, where breach action was taken on a first unacceptable failure. In such cases, this is done by looking at the data in relation to each of unacceptable failure questions together and there are three types of pattern, listed in the table below. Pattern A: Where appropriate breach action (value = 1) is recorded for any two of the three unacceptable failures), there is no need to adjust the data as the fact the case was breached has already been counted in the original calculation. Pattern B: Where appropriate breach action (value =1) is recorded on the first unacceptable failure (or on the first or second for resettlement cases) and some action, but not that required (value = 2-4) is recorded on the second or third unacceptable failure, an upward adjustment to the number of cases breached (the numerator) is made, but the overall total of cases (the denominator) is not adjusted as the case has already been counted as part of the initial calculation. Pattern C: Where there was no second or third unacceptable failure, but appropriate breach action (value =1) was recorded on either the first or second unacceptable failure, then both the number of cases breached (the numerator) and the total of cases (the denominator) are increased as the case was not counted in the original calculation. Question No. Calculation Adjustment Expressed as Relevant Target / Measure 33, 34 & 35 (Commencements only) Q.35 = 1 / (1+2+3+4) Use Qs.33 & 34 and check values across Qs. 33, 34 & 35 as per table below % PT 6

Adjustment • Assume the calculated result comes to 5 of 10 cases • The following table shows how the responses in Qs. 34, 35 & 36 then adjusts the result Pattern A B C A B C A B C A B C A B C Q.33 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2, 3, 4 or 5 2, 3, 4 or 5 2, 3, 4 or 5 6 6 6 Q.34 1 1 1 2, 3, 4 or 5 2, 3, 4 or 5 2, 3, 4 or 5 6 6 6 1 1 1 1 1 1 Q.35 1 2, 3 or 4 5 1 2, 3 or 4 5 1 2, 3 or 4 5 1 2, 3 or 4 5 1 2, 3 or 4 5 Result 5 of 10 becomes: 5 of 10 6 of 10 6 of 11 5 of 10 6 of 10 6 of 11 5 of 10 6 of 10 6 of 11 5 of 10 6 of 10 6 of 11 5 of 10 6 of 10 6 of 11

PC 28 Annex B revised December 2006

16

Enforcement action taken whether or not within 10 working days (relevant cases) Question No. Calculation Adjustment Expressed as Relevant Target / Measure 33, 34 & 35 (Commencements only) Q.35 = (1+2) / (1+2+3+4) Use Qs.33 & 34 and check values across Qs.33, 34 & 35 as per table below % --

Adjustment • Assume the calculated result comes to 5 of 10 cases • The following table shows how the responses in Qs. 34, 35 & 36 then adjusts the result Pattern A B C A B C A B C A B C A B C Q.33 1 or 2 1 or 2 1 or 2 1 or 2 1 or 2 1 or 2 1 or 2 1 or 2 1 or 2 3, 4 or 5 3, 4 or 5 3, 4 or 5 6 6 6 Q.34 1 or 2 1 or 2 1 or 2 3, 4 or 5 3, 4 or 5 3, 4 or 5 6 6 6 1 or 2 1 or 2 1 or 2 1 or 2 1 or 2 1 or 2 Q.35 1 or 2 3 or 4 5 1 or 2 3 or 4 5 1 or 2 3 or 4 5 1 or 2 3 or 4 5 1 or 2 3 or 4 5 Result 5 of 10 becomes: 5 of 10 6 of 10 6 of 11 5 of 10 6 of 10 6 of 11 5 of 10 6 of 10 6 of 11 5 of 10 6 of 10 6 of 11 5 of 10 6 of 10 6 of 11

Compliance Number of contacts arranged/number of contacts achieved Question No. Calculation Expressed as Relevant Target/Measure Qs. 31 & 32 (Commencements only) n. entered in Q.32/n. entered in Q.31 x (100) % PT 7

Note: to perform the above calculation it is first necessary to exclude any cases where the answer to Q 31 or Q 32 is ‘N/A’, is missing or is otherwise invalid, e.g. text. In addition, if the number of appointments attended exceeds the number arranged, then the number attended is capped at the level of those arranged, e.g. Q 31 records that 26 appointments were arranged and Q 32 shows that 30 were attended. For the purposes of this calculation this will be treated as 26 arranged and 26 attended.

No breach action required Question No. Calculation Expressed as Relevant Target/Measure 35 (Commencements only) Q. 35 = 5 / (1+2+3+4+5) % PM 2

In this measure a licence is deemed to be compliant if there has been no third unacceptable failure to comply during the first six months of the licence period being monitored.

PC 28 Annex B revised December 2006

17

Acceptable Absences Question No. Calculation Expressed as Relevant Target/Measure 36 (Commencements only) n. entered in Q.36/n. cases (cumulative) Average PM 3

Outcome of recall request to RRS – proportion awaiting an outcome Question No. Calculation Expressed as 37 (Commencements only) 4/(1+4) %

Risk Management Plan sent to RRS within 15 days of offender’s return to custody Question No. Calculation Expressed as 38 (Commencements only) 1 / (1+2) %

Outcome following breach – young offenders Question No. Calculation Expressed as 39 (Commencements only) Frequency count of response options except 4 and 5 %

Additional Licence Conditions Appropriate action taken to ensure compliance with licence conditions Question No. Condition Calculation Expressed as 42 Answer to Q. 41 is 1 1 / (1+2+3+4) %

Implementation of licence conditions Question No. Calculation Expressed as 43 (1+2) / (1+2+3+4+5) %

Implementation of licence conditions relating specifically to misuse of drugs Question No. Calculation Expressed as 44 (1+2) / (1+2+3+4+5) %

Risk Assessment & Sentence Planning Timeliness of Risk of Harm assessment Question No. Calculation Expressed as Relevant Target/Measure 45 (Commencements only) 1 / (1+2) % --

PC 28 Annex B revised December 2006

18

Appropriate evidence as basis of initial RoH assessment Question No. Calculation Expressed as Relevant Target/Measure 46 (Commencements only) 1 / (1+2+3) % --

Justification for level of Risk of Harm Question No. Calculation Expressed as Relevant Target/Measure Timeliness of Sentence Plan Question No. Calculation Expressed as Relevant Target/Measure 48 (Commencements only) (1+2) / (1+2+3+4) % -47 (Commencements only) 1 / (1+2+3+4) % --

Copying of Sentence Plan to other relevant persons/agencies Question No. Calculation Expressed as Relevant Target/Measure 49 (Commencements only) 1 / (1+2+3) % --

Alignment of sentence plan with risk of harm assessment Question No. Calculation Expressed as Relevant Target/Measure 50 (Commencements only) 1 / (1+2+3+4) % --

Sufficiency of risk assessment/risk management plan in relation to risk of harm to victim(s) Question No. Calculation Expressed as Relevant Target/Measure 51 (Commencements only) 1 / (1+2+4) % --

Sufficiency of risk assessment/risk management plan in relation to risk of harm to the public Question No. Calculation Expressed as Relevant Target/Measure 52 (Commencements only) 1 / (1+2+3) % --

Sufficiency of risk assessment/risk management plan in relation to risk of harm to staff Question No. Calculation Expressed as Relevant Target/Measure 53 (Commencements only) 1 / (1+2+3) % --

PC 28 Annex B revised December 2006

19

Review of risk of harm within 16 weeks Question No. Calculation Expressed as Relevant Target/Measure 54 (Commencements only) 1 / (1+2) % --

Review of sentence plan within 16 weeks Question No. Calculation Expressed as Relevant Target/Measure Final review on termination Question No. Calculation Expressed as Relevant Target/Measure 56 (Terminations only) 1 / (1+2) % -55 (Commencements only) 1 / (1+2) % --

Overall quality of risk of harm assessment and risk management Question No. Calculation Expressed as Relevant Target/Measure 57 1 / (1+2) % --

Drug Interventions Attendance at first appointment Question No. Conditions Calculation Expressed as Relevant Target/Measure Completion of intervention Question No. Conditions Calculation Expressed as Relevant Target/Measure 60 (Terminations only) Answer to Q.58 is 1 (‘Yes’) 1 / (1+2) % -59 Answer to Q.58 is 1 (‘Yes’) 1 / (1+2) % --

Drug Testing of PPOs Twice-weekly testing during first 16 weeks Question No. Conditions Calculation Expressed as Relevant Target/Measure 65 Answer to Q.63 or Q.64 is 1 (‘Yes’) 1 / (1+2) % --

PC 28 Annex B revised December 2006

20

Weekly testing after first 16 weeks Question No. Conditions Calculation Expressed as Relevant Target/Measure Recall following positive tests Question No. Conditions Calculation Expressed as Relevant Target/Measure 68 Answer to Q.67 is 1 (‘Yes’) 1 / (1+2) % -66 Answer to Q.63 or Q.64 is 1 (‘Yes’) 1 / (1+2) % --

Engagement in drugs interventions where not recalled following positive tests Question No. Conditions Calculation Expressed as Relevant Target/Measure 69 Answer to Q.67 is 1 (‘Yes’) 1 / (1+2) % --

Accommodation

Question No. Calculation

70 (Terminations only) Calculate: 1 / (1+2) expressed as % (a) immediately following release and (b) at termination of licence Then calculate difference (b) – (a). (Note: The position prior to start of custody can also be used for comparison, but this does not contribute to Performance Measure 5). % PM 5 (shadow measure)

Expressed as Relevant Target/Measure

To calculate the combined result (for orders and licences) for PM 5 please refer to the notes on page 11.

PC 28 Annex B revised December 2006

21

III. HIGH/VERY HIGH RISK OF HARM
Quality of Risk Assessment, Risk Management and Review Appropriate evidence as basis of initial RoH assessment Question No. Calculation Expressed as Relevant Target/Measure 11 1 / (1+2+3) % --

Justification for level of Risk of Harm Question No. Calculation Expressed as Relevant Target/Measure 12 1 / (1+2+3+4) % --

Use of appropriate headings in risk management plan Question No. Calculation Expressed as Relevant Target/Measure 13 1 / (1+2) % --

Alignment of sentence plan with risk of harm assessment Question No. Calculation Expressed as Relevant Target/Measure 14 1 / (1+2+3+4) % --

Sufficiency of risk assessment/risk management plan in relation to risk of harm to victim(s) Question No. Calculation Expressed as Relevant Target/Measure 15 1 / (1+2+4) % --

Sufficiency of risk assessment/risk management plan in relation to risk of harm to the public Question No. Calculation Expressed as Relevant Target/Measure 16 1 / (1+2+3) % --

Sufficiency of risk assessment/risk management plan in relation to risk of harm to staff Question No. Calculation Expressed as Relevant Target/Measure 17 1 / (1+2+3) % --

Timely review of risk of harm assessment, risk management plan and sentence plan Question No. Calculation Expressed as Relevant Target/Measure 18 1 / (1+2) % --

PC 28 Annex B revised December 2006

22

Appropriate implementation of risk management plan and objectives in sentence plan Question No. Calculation 19 (1+2) / (1+2+3+4) (Alternatively, count the frequency of the response options 1-4 ) % --

Expressed as Relevant Target/Measure

Appropriate identification and management of changes to risk of harm, including to victims Question No. Calculation 20 (1+2) / (1+2+3+4) (Alternatively, count the frequency of the response options 1-4 ) % --

Expressed as Relevant Target/Measure Contact: Offender Management

Home visit took place within 10 working days Question No. Calculation Expressed as Relevant Target/Measure 21 1 / (1+2+3) % --

Average weekly number of appointments arranged during first 16 weeks Question No. Calculation 22 (1+2) / (1+2+3) (Alternatively, count the frequency of the response options 1-3) % --

Expressed as Relevant Target/Measure

Average weekly number of appointments that took place during first 16 weeks Question No. Calculation 23 (1+2) / (1+2+3) (Alternatively, count the frequency of the response options 1-3) % --

Expressed as Relevant Target/Measure

PC 28 Annex B revised December 2006

23

Compliance & Enforcement (a) Community Orders (i) Enforcement action taken within 10 working days (relevant cases) Please refer to general notes on page 16. Question No. Calculation Adjustment Expressed as Relevant Target/Measure 26 & 27 Q. 27 = 1 / (1+2+3+4+5) Use Q.27 and check values across Qs. 26 & 27 as per table below % PT 6

Adjustment: • Assume the calculated result comes to 5 of 10 cases • The following table shows the possible responses in Q.26 and Q.27 then adjusts the result: Pattern A B C Q.26 1 1 1 Q.27 1 2, 3, 4 or 5 6 Result 5 of 10 becomes: 5 of 10 6 of 10 6 of 11

(ii) Enforcement action taken whether or not within 10 working days (relevant cases) Question No. Calculation Adjustment Expressed as Relevant Target/Measure 26 & 27 Q.27 = (1+2) / (1+2+3+4+5) Use Q.27 and check values across Qs.26 & 27 as per table below % --

Adjustment: • Assume the calculated result comes to 5 of 10 cases • The following table shows the possible responses in Qs.26 & 27 then adjusts the result Pattern A B C Compliance Number of contacts arranged/number of contacts achieved Question No. Calculation Expressed as Relevant Target/Measure 24 & 25 n. entered in Q.25/n. entered in Q.24 x 100 % PT 7 Q.26 1 or 2 1 or 2 1 or 2 Q.27 1 or 2 3 or 4 or 5 6 Result 5 of 10 becomes: 5 of 10 6 of 10 6 of 11

Note: to perform the above calculation it is first necessary to exclude any cases where the answer to Q 24 or Q 25 is ‘N/A’, is missing or is otherwise invalid, e.g. text. In addition, if the number of appointments attended exceeds the number arranged, then the number attended is capped at the level of those arranged, e.g. Q 24 records that 26 appointments were arranged and Q 25 shows that 30 were attended. For the purposes of this calculation this will be treated as 26 arranged and 26 attended.

PC 28 Annex B revised December 2006

24

No breach action required Question No. Calculation Expressed as Relevant Target/Measure 27 Q. 27 = 6 / (1+2+3+4+5) % PM 2

An order is deemed to be compliant, in this measure, if there has been no second unacceptable failure to comply during the first six months after commencement. Acceptable Absences Question No. Calculation Expressed as Relevant Target/Measure 29 n. entered in Q.29/n. cases (cumulative) Average PM 3

Additional penalty where breached and allowed to continue (non-CJA Orders) Question No. Calculation Expressed as Relevant Target/Measure 31 Frequency count of response options except 4 % --

Outcome following breach (CJA Orders) Question No. Calculation Expressed as Sentence following revocation Question No. Calculation Expressed as Relevant Target/Measure 33 Frequency count of response options except 4 % -32 Frequency count of response options except 4 %

(b) Licences (i) Enforcement action taken within 10 working days (relevant cases) Please refer to general notes on page 25. Question No. Calculation Adjustment Expressed as Relevant Target/Measure 26, 27 & 28 Q.28 = 1 / (1+2+3+4) Use Qs.26 & 27 and check values across Qs. 26, 27 & 28 as per table below % PT 6

PC 28 Annex B revised December 2006

25

Adjustment • Assume the calculated result comes to 5 of 10 cases • The following table shows how the responses in Qs. 26, 27 & 28 then adjusts the result Pattern A B C A B C A B C A B C A B C Q.26 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2, 3, 4 or 5 2, 3, 4 or 5 2, 3, 4 or 5 6 6 6 Q.27 1 1 1 2, 3, 4 or 5 2, 3, 4 or 5 2, 3, 4 or 5 6 6 6 1 1 1 1 1 1 Q.28 1 2, 3 or 4 5 1 2, 3 or 4 5 1 2, 3 or 4 5 1 2, 3 or 4 5 1 2, 3 or 4 5 Result 5 of 10 becomes: 5 of 10 6 of 10 6 of 11 5 of 10 6 of 10 6 of 11 5 of 10 6 of 10 6 of 11 5 of 10 6 of 10 6 of 11 5 of 10 6 of 10 6 of 11

(ii) Enforcement action taken whether or not within 10 working days (relevant cases) Question No. Calculation Adjustment Expressed as 26, 27 & 28 Q.28 = (1+2) / (1+2+3+4) Use Qs.26 & 27 and check values across Qs.26, 27 & 28 as per table below %

Adjustment • Assume the calculated result comes to 5 of 10 cases • The following table shows how the responses in Qs. 26, 27 & 28 then adjusts the result Pattern A B C A B C A B C A B C A B C Q.26 1 or 2 1 or 2 1 or 2 1 or 2 1 or 2 1 or 2 1 or 2 1 or 2 1 or 2 3, 4 or 5 3, 4 or 5 3, 4 or 5 6 6 6 Q.27 1 or 2 1 or 2 1 or 2 3, 4 or 5 3, 4 or 5 3, 4 or 5 6 6 6 1 or 2 1 or 2 1 or 2 1 or 2 1 or 2 1 or 2 Q.28 1 or 2 3 or 4 5 1 or 2 3 or 4 5 1 or 2 3 or 4 5 1 or 2 3 or 4 5 1 or 2 3 or 4 5 Result 5 of 10 becomes: 5 of 10 6 of 10 6 of 11 5 of 10 6 of 10 6 of 11 5 of 10 6 of 10 6 of 11 5 of 10 6 of 10 6 of 11 5 of 10 6 of 10 6 of 11

PC 28 Annex B revised December 2006

26

(iii) Compliance Note that the overall compliance figures for Performance Target 7 exclude DTTOs and COs/SSOs with a DRR and are an aggregate of the figures for Orders, Resettlement Licence and High Risk cases.

Number of contacts arranged/number of contacts achieved Question No. Calculation Expressed as Relevant Target/Measure Qs. 24 & 25 n. entered in Q.25/n. entered in Q.24 x (100) % PT 7

Note: to perform the above calculation it is first necessary to exclude any cases where the answer to Q 24 or Q 25 is ‘N/A’, is missing or is otherwise invalid, e.g. text. In addition, if the number of appointments attended exceeds the number arranged, then the number attended is capped at the level of those arranged, e.g. Q 24 records that 26 appointments were arranged and Q 25 shows that 30 were attended. For the purposes of this calculation this will be treated as 26 arranged and 26 attended. No breach action required Question No. Calculation Expressed as Relevant Target/Measure 28 Q. 28 = 5 / (1+2+3+4+5) % PM 2

In this measure a licence is deemed to be compliant if there has been no third unacceptable failure to comply during the first six months of the licence period being monitored.

Acceptable Absences Question No. Calculation Expressed as Relevant Target/Measure 29 n. entered in Q.29/n. cases (cumulative) Average PM 3

Outcome of recall request to RRS – proportion awaiting an outcome Question No. Calculation Expressed as 34 3/(1+3) %

Outcome following breach – young offenders Question No. Calculation Expressed as 36 Frequency count of response options except 4 %

Risk Management Plan sent to RRS within 15 days of offender’s return to custody Question No. Calculation Expressed as 35 1 / (1+2) %

PC 28 Annex B revised December 2006

27

PC 28 Annex B revised December 2006

28

Annex C Basket of National Standards contacts – arranged and achieved: Summary of Relevant Questions 2006-07
Note that the “Basket” of National Standards contacts is no longer routinely used by the NPD, in Performance Reports or the Weighted Scorecard, to assess the performance of Areas. Areas may continue to find the model useful locally.
Appointments arranged in accordance with National Standards Community Orders Q.13: First appointment with offender manager arranged Q.16: 16 appointments with offender manager arranged in first 16 weeks Q.36: Three contacts arranged on specified activity requirement in first 4 weeks Q.41: 16 appointments arranged on supervision requirement in first 16 weeks (Tier 1 only) Q.45: First unpaid work session arranged within 10 working days Q.47: Average of 6 hours unpaid work per week arranged Licences Q.22: First appointment with offender manager arranged on day of release or next working day Q.24: Further appointment arranged within 3 working days of release Q.27: 16 appointments with offender manager arranged in first 16 weeks

Appointments attended in accordance with National Standards Community Orders Q.14: First appointment with offender manager took place Q.15: Home visit took place within 10 working days (Q.21 on High/Very High Risk of Harm form) Q.17: 16 appointments with offender manager took place in first 16 weeks Q.37: Three contacts took place on specified activity requirement in first 4 weeks Q.42: 16 appointments took place on supervision requirement in first 16 weeks (Tier 1 only) Q.46: First unpaid work session took place within 10 working days Q.48: Average of 6 hours unpaid work per week took place Licences Q.23: First appointment with offender manager took place on day of release or next working day Q.25: Further appointment took place within 3 working days of release Q.26: Home visit took place within 10 working days (Q.21 on High/Very High Risk of Harm form) Q.28: 16 appointments with offender manager took place in first 16 weeks

PC28 Annex C revised December 2006

Calculation of Basket of National Standards contacts – arranged and

achieved
This section gives an example of how the results for individual questions are combined to give a single performance result for each measure. The overall result for each measure is calculated by aggregating the number of appointments across orders and licences. Appointments arranged in accordance with National Standards Community Orders Question Q.13: First appointment with offender manager arranged Q.16: 16 appointments with offender manager arranged in first 16 weeks Q.36: Three contacts arranged on specified activity requirement in first 4 weeks Q.41: 16 appointments arranged on supervision requirement in first 16 weeks (Tier 1 only) Q.45: First unpaid work session arranged within 10 working days Q.47: Average of 6 hours unpaid work per week arranged ORDERS SUB-TOTAL Numerator Denominator Result 11 10 2 2 12 11 2 2

7 6 38

7 7 41 93%

Licences Question Q.22: First appointment with offender manager arranged on day of release or next working day Q.24: Further appointment arranged within 3 working days of release Q.27: 16 appointments with offender manager arranged in first 16 weeks LICENCES SUB-TOTAL Numerator Denominator Result 3 3

3 2 8

3 3 9 89%

Basket of National Standards contacts arranged: RESULT (%)

46

50

92%

PC28 Annex C revised December 2006

Appointments attended in accordance with National Standards Community Orders Question Q.14: First appointment with offender manager took place Q.15: Home visit took place within 10 working days (Q.21 on High/Very High Risk of Harm form) Q.17: 16 appointments with offender manager took place in first 16 weeks Q.37: Three contacts took place on specified activity requirement in first 4 weeks Q.42: 16 appointments took place on supervision requirement in first 16 weeks (Tier 1 only) Q.46: First unpaid work session took place within 10 working days Q.48: Average of 6 hours unpaid work per week took place ORDERS SUB-TOTAL Numerator Denominator Result 10 2 12 3

9 1 2

11 2 2

6 4 34

7 7 44 77%

Licences Question Q.23: First appointment with offender manager took place on day of release or next working day Q.25: Further appointment took place within 3 working days of release Q.26: Home visit took place within 10 working days (Q.21 on High/Very High Risk of Harm form) Q.28: 16 appointments with offender manager took place in first 16 weeks LICENCES SUB-TOTAL Numerator Denominator Result 2 3

3 1

3 1

2 8

3 10 80%

Basket of National Standards contacts achieved: RESULT (%)

42

54

78%

PC28 Annex C revised December 2006

Annex D – Probation Circular 28/2006 Using Form 20 and Form 30 data to report performance against targets and measures The Form 30 extract is used to report performance against PT4 and PM1. The Form 20 extract is used to report performance against PM4 and the offender element of PT13. Please see targets in tabular form in Annex A to Probation Circular 28 of 2006. 1. Form 30 (Monthly Reports extract) 1.1 Selection criteria in the extract The extract selects by date of sentence – reports are included in a month’s return according to the date of sentence. Sentence date, date report completed/typed, final disposal and report type have to be present. The extract only includes specific court report types: the 3 PSR’s (CJO, CJF and CJS), Bail Information Reports, Breach Reports and Court reviews. An exceptions report is produced by some versions of the extract and this should be used to ensure that the final extract is as accurate and complete as possible before submission. 1.2 Extract Routines The extract is run each month in arrears and the deadline for return to RDS-NOMS is the end of the month following the reporting month. The From 30 extract reports sentences, with an associated court report, in the month. If a belated entry is made into a legacy case management system once the extract for that month has been run it will not get reported. There is no “catch-up”. An extract for the month of June 2006 would be run as close to the end of July as possible. The Form 30 extract returns court reports that had a sentence made in June, regardless of the date on which the report was requested, required or completed. The extract could include reports completed in any month – June 2006 or before. 1.3 Monitoring performance To monitor performance over time each month’s extract will be added to the previous ones and analysed using the following columns: Area, report type, date report completed, date requested, date required, RIC flag and sentencing court type as appropriate to the Target or Measure. For monitoring purposes a court report “belongs” to the month in which it was completed/typed. It is accepted that some reports will be “missed”; they will never appear in the monitoring data as very late entries will not be included. This simple example makes the point. June 2006 extract is run on 28th July and submitted to RDS – NOMS. On 31st July a member of staff in the Area discovers a court result notification. It has a date of sentence of 19th June 2006 and is in respect of a Standard Delivery PSR completed on 12th June 2006. The member of staff enters the information on the offender management database. That record will not appear in the monitoring data.

PC 28 Annex D Appended December 2006

Whether or not a report subject was remanded in custody can only be identified if the designated field in the offender management database has been completed correctly. Reports written on subjects who were Remanded in Custody during the report writing period (i.e. during the period from date requested to date completed) are identifiable by a ‘Y’ (Yes) in column ‘BW’ in the extract spreadsheet. Areas need have procedures in place to ensure that the RIC status is recorded correctly. Previous months’ performance figures will change as each monthly extract is added to a database to give data for the year to date. This is because extracts governed by sentence date will include court reports with a date completed that is prior to the sentence date. In many instances the date the report completed will not be in the same calendar month as the sentence date. Data analysis for performance year 2006 – 2007 begins with the extract run in May 2006 containing data on sentencing in April 2006. Form 30 extracts from each month thereafter are added. The final report on overall performance for the year is based on Form 30 extracts run in May 2006 – May 2007. If Areas wish to track performance using the same sources as those used centrally they should use the monthly extracts as supplied to RDSNOMS. 1.3.1 SDRs on subjects that are RIC completed for Magistrates’ Courts within 10 working days of request Select from the data source Report type = CJS Court type (sentencing, column AT) = M Custodial Remand = Y Completed date = in the period required Requested date = is not blank and does not post-date the completed date. On target if no more than 10 working days from requested date to completed date. Date of request counts as day zero.

1.3.2 SDRs on subjects that are NOT RIC completed for Magistrates’ Courts within 15 working days of request Select from the data source Report type = CJS Court type (sentencing, column AT) = M Custodial Remand = N or blank Completed date = in the period required Requested date = is not blank and does not post-date the completed date. On target if no more than 15 working days from requested date to completed date. Date of request counts as day zero. PC 28 Annex D Appended December 2006

1.3.3 Court Reports completed for Crown Courts completed by the date required Select from the data source Report type = CJS, CJF and CJO Court type (sentencing, column AT) = C Completed date = in the period required Required date = is not blank and does not post-date the completed date. On target if the date completed is on or before the date required. 1.3.4 Fast Delivery Reports for Magistrates’ Courts completed on the day requested Select from the data source Report type = CJF and CJO Court type (sentencing, column AT) = M Completed date = in the period required Requested date = is not blank and does not post-date the completed date. On target if no more than 1 working day from requested date to completed date. Date of request counts as day zero. Note that the same data set and approach to calculation is used in reporting on the proportion of FDRs that are completed in five working days – on target if no more than 5 working days from requested date to completed date. 1.3.5 Proportion of PSRs for Magistrates’ Courts that are fast delivery Select from the data source Report type = CJF and CJO Court type (sentencing, column AT) = M Completed date = in the period required Calculated by counting all PSRs (Standard, Fast Delivery and Oral) with a date completed in the period where sentencing court = Magistrates’. Measure is of the proportion of the total that are classified as Fast Delivery – both written and oral. 1.4 How RDS-NOMS compiles the data set RDS – NOMS compile each months returns into one data set. There will be a point when the data set becomes too large and earliest months will be archived. Data is stored in an Access database and in RDS NOMS own database. Extracts from Areas have to be checked and added to the database. The data set for analysis is generally available 6 – 8 weeks after the end of the reporting month. PC 28 Annex D Appended December 2006

2. Form 20 (Probation Listings) – terminations section 2.1 Selection criteria in the extract The extract selects by date of termination. The extract selects both terminations of requirements in a Community Order or SSO where the Order itself is still running and terminations of the Order (sentence) itself. It reports a line for each requirement, licence condition and sentence as it is terminated. Therefore a community sentence with say three requirements, which would be reported as 4 commencements (1 sentence and 3 requirements – assuming they are ‘commenced’), will have a termination for each of those lines. The only ‘terminations’ that are not reported are transfers out. So if an order starts in area “a”, transfers to area “b” and then is completed in area “c”, area a will report the commencement, area c will report the termination. The extract shows only custodial and community sentences/licences. There are no built in exclusions e.g. because data is missing in specified fields. If the field that drives the parameter is completed, the termination will be selected. Most of the extracts provide a ‘check’. In the extract there is an additional worksheet on terminations (L3A “Changes to terminations details submitted in previous RDS returns”). This reports changes that have been made on the system in the three months since the termination data was submitted. After three months, amendments cease to be notified. 2.2 Extract Routines The extract is run each month in arrears e.g. Form 20 return for June is set at reporting period 1st June 2006 to 30th June 2006 – the date field used in this selection is “termination date”. 2.3. Monitoring performance In monitoring performance against PM4 (Compliance: the proportion of orders and licences that terminate successfully) it is the reason for termination of the sentence or licence that counts, not the reason for termination of each requirement. Orders and Licences are allocated to a reporting month by date of termination. See list of reasons for termination in section 2.5 below.

PC 28 Annex D Appended December 2006

PT13 sets a target of 95% of race and ethnic monitoring data on offenders to be returned on time ands using the correct (Census 2001) classifications. The data set is offenders commencing Orders, custodial sentences or resettlement licences in the period so it is the date of commencement that governs which reporting month the commencement is allocated to. “Refusals” to self classify are excluded from the calculations. Those with a 2001 census code are counted as meeting the target. Those with no race code recorded and those with a race code other than those used in Census 2001 (16+1 codes) are counted as not having met the target. Timeliness - as long as the Form 20 information is supplied to NOMS within the deadline of the last day of the month following the reporting month, the area gets credited with the proportion of cases with valid codes. If Form 20 information had not been supplied to RDS-NOMS within their deadlines 1% is deducted from the performance figure for every working day that the returns are late. If no return is made the Area scores zero. Performance data on the year to date is built by combining the data from each month. 2.4 How RDS-NOMS compiles the data set The data set is a compilation of the returns from each month. Currently this is stored in RDS-NOMS own database. Commencements only are also loaded into an Access database.

PC 28 Annex D Appended December 2006

2.5 Reasons for termination – successful, not successful or excluded. Code Text description Type 01 Order expired Pre CJA sentences 02 Terminated early for good Pre CJA sentences progress 06 Order substituted by conditional Pre CJA sentences discharge order 20 Period expired Pre CJA sentences 21 Terminated early for good Pre CJA sentences progress 30 Specified number of hours Pre CJA sentences completed 50 Expired (normal) Post CJA 2003-Reasons for Terminations of Sentence – All types 51 Completed (early good progress) Post CJA 2003-Reasons for Terminations of Sentence – All types 03 04 Revoked for failure to comply with requirements Revoked following imposition of a custodial sentence for a further offence Suspended sentence activated Revoked for a further offence – non custodial Terminated early because of conviction of an offence Variation of sentence to full time custody (*Intermittent Custody only) Revoked for failure to comply with requirements Revoked following imposition of a custodial sentence for a further offence Revoked for further offence Revoked (further offence) Revoked (failure to comply) Pre CJA sentences Pre CJA sentences

Category Successful Successful Successful Successful Successful Successful Successful Successful Not successful Not successful

12 18 22 26

Pre CJA sentences Pre CJA sentences Pre CJA sentences Post CJA 2003-Reasons for Terminations of Sentence – All types

Not successful Not successful Not successful Not successful

31 32

Pre CJA sentences Pre CJA sentences

Not successful Not successful

38 53 55

Pre CJA sentences Post CJA 2003-Reasons for Terminations of Sentence – All types Post CJA 2003-Reasons for Terminations of Sentence – All types

Not successful Not successful Not successful

PC 28 Annex D Appended December 2006

Code 05

Text description Type Category Revoked because of other change Pre CJA sentences Exclude of circumstances 13 Person died Pre CJA sentences Exclude 14 Person died Pre CJA sentences Exclude 15 Order expired – breach Pre CJA sentences Exclude outstanding 19 Terminated for other reason Pre CJA sentences Exclude 23 Lapsed contact (voluntary Pre CJA sentences Exclude supervision) 24 Person died Pre CJA sentences Exclude 25 Change of through-care category Pre CJA sentences Exclude 29 Terminated for other reason Pre CJA sentences Exclude 33 Revoked because of other change Pre CJA sentences Exclude of circumstance 34 Warrant for arrest remaining Pre CJA sentences Exclude unexecuted twelve month after issue (1) 36 Person died Pre CJA sentences Exclude 39 Revoked/terminated for other Pre CJA sentences Exclude reason 52 Expired (breach listed/recall Post CJA 2003-Reasons for Terminations of Sentence – All Exclude requested) (1) types 54 Revoked on application Post CJA 2003-Reasons for Terminations of Sentence – All types Exclude 58 Terminated (death) Post CJA 2003-Reasons for Terminations of Sentence – All types Exclude 59 Terminated (other reasons) Post CJA 2003-Reasons for Terminations of Sentence – All types Exclude 61 Not Known (not NPS supervised) Post CJA 2003-Reasons for Terminations of Sentence – All types Exclude (1) Note that these categorisations are open to debate. Raise at Data Standards Group – another view could be that these are “Not Successful”?

PC 28 Annex D Appended December 2006

PC 28 Annex D Appended December 2006

Annex E - Probation Circular 28/2006 NATIONAL PROBATION SERVICE NATIONAL COUNTING RULES FOR SICKNESS ABSENCE

SICKNESS ABSENCE COUNTING RULES AND CALCULATION The counting and calculation of sickness absence will continue to be based on the guidance contained in Annex 'E' to the 1998 Cabinet Office document Working Well together: Managing Attendance in the Public Sector (attached to PC85/01 and included again here for reference), but with the addition of some further guidance recommended by the internal auditors. The auditors expressed concern that smaller areas could be disadvantaged financial by long-term sickness absence in respect of individuals recuperating from major operations and that absence which may be considered as falling within the remit of the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA). Within the overall total of sickness absence recorded within the Probation Area the revised sickness absence return allows for the breakdown of the days lost through absence into : • • • Short term sickness absence Long term sickness absence DDA related sickness absence

Whereas the statistical return will continue to reflect the overall absence rate in order to monitor the SDA target as per Treasury requirements, Areas may argue that their sickness absence has been skewed by long term and DDA absence. We will consider the effects of this as a mitigating circumstance when determining area achievement against the sickness absence target and the allocation of resources as part of the performance link The first return for 2002-03 will be for the quarter April to June. Thereafter the returns will become monthly. The timetable for returns will be as follows: Quarterly return April-June - by end of July Monthly Returns July - by end of August August - by end of September (and so on)

PC 28 Annex E appended December 2006

DEFINITIONS DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION ACT absence is that which falls within the meaning of the: Disability Discrimination Act 1995 Under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 it is unlawful for an employer to treat an employee less favourably for a reason related to a disability without justification. A disability is defined as a physical or mental impairment that has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on a person’s ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities. An employer also has a duty to make reasonable adjustments to physical premises or working arrangements to prevent an employee from being placed at a substantial disadvantage. Physical or mental impairment ‘Mental impairment’ must be a ‘clinically well recognised illness’ Conditions such as MS and heart disease are physical impairments Learning and psychiatric disabilities are mental impairments Conditions specifically excluded from the Act include the following: • • • addiction to alcohol, nicotine or other substance; tendency to set fires hay fever

An impairment affects normal day to day activities only if it affects: • • • • • • • • • mobility; manual dexterity; physical co-ordination; continence; ability to lift, carry or otherwise move every day objects; speech, hearing or eyesight; memory or ability to concentrate, learn or understand; memory or ability to concentrate, learn or understand; perception of risk of physical danger (Para 4(1) Schedule 1 DDA 1995)

Substantial Adverse Effect An adverse effect is substantial where it is: • • • a limitation going beyond the normal differences in ability which exist among people; more than would be produced by the sort of physical or mental conditions experienced by many people which have only minor effects; more than ‘minor’ or ‘trivial’

PC 28 Annex E appended December 2006

Long term Schedule 1, paragraph 2 states that an impairment is long-term if: • • • it has lasted 12 months it is likely to last at least 12 months It is likely to last for the rest of the affected person’s life.

Recurrent Impairments If the impairment qualifies, but subsequently ceases to have this effect, it is treated as continuing if it is ‘likely to recur’, e.g. epilepsy. Medical Treatment An impairment that is controlled or corrected by medical treatment is treated as continuing to have substantial adverse effect (special provision is made for sight defects – Schedule 1, Para 6(3)). Counselling constitutes ‘medical treatment’ under the Act. Progressive Conditions A condition that is likely to develop over time so as to have a substantial effect on normal day-to-day activities in the future (e.g. HIV infection, Multiple Sclerosis) will be treated as having a ‘substantial’ adverse effect if it has ‘some’ effect on ability to carry out normal day-today activities. (Schedule 1, Para 8) Employers have to: Make allowances for disabled persons to be absent during working hours for rehabilitation, assessment or treatment. They also have to be aware and make allowance for the absence of the disabled person being absent from work as a consequence of their disability. LONG TERM SICKNESS ABSENCE: Is defined as a single period of sickness absence of more than 20 working days. SICKNESS ABSENCE OF MORE THAN 6 MONTHS In normal circumstances an employee who has achieved six months absence in a rolling twelve-month period should move to half pay. If employees are placed on half pay their absences should be counted as if they were working their normal contracted hours. SICKNESS ABSENCE OF MORE THAN 12 MONTHS In normal circumstances an employee who has achieved twelve months absence should move off pay. Employees who are placed off pay should still be counted as an absence from work. Clearly Areas will in these cases look at the continued appropriateness of the employees ability to continue with the NPS.

PC 28 Annex E appended December 2006

SECONDEES Should be shown absent against the unit to which they are seconded TEMPORARY STAFF Not employed by the NPS and not form part of that Area's establishment should not be counted for sickness absence purposes.

Recording absence for individuals In line with the Cabinet Office guidelines, each Area and the NPD should aim to record all sickness absence on a database for all employees. In the absence of a NPS National IS/IT system it is not possible to determine the minimum information that Areas should hold about staff, but they should consider how they may want to use the aggregated data set for analysis. However useful data for each employee might include age, sex, grade, ethnic origin, location, whether full-time or part-time with contracted hours, the number of days attendance expected per week and the date employment started or finished. A Sickness Absence Policy that accords to the recommendations of the Internal Auditor will be negotiated through the NNC of the PBA but will require the adoption of individual Sickness Management Files. Further advice on the Calculation The relevant calculation is given at paragraph E9 of Working Together, i.e. the average days absence per staff year (not the calculation at E10, which gives the percentage of time lost). Because the calculation relates to sickness absence during the period concerned (i.e. the quarter April - June 2002 or, from July onwards, the month), areas should ensure that the 'total staff years' figure which they enter at section D of the revised monitoring return is for the quarter or month rather than for the year. As a rule of thumb, the total staff years for the quarter will be approximately one quarter of the number of full-time equivalent (FTE) staff (or one twelfth if calculating staff years for the month). This is because a 'staff year' is defined as one full time person working for one year. So, for example, if the FTE figure were 100, the total staff years for the year would be 100, and hence the staff years for the quarter would be 25). However, an area's FTE figure may well have fluctuated within the period in question, so in order to make a precise calculation of total staff years for the period, areas will need to take account of those staff who were employed for part of the period and their working patterns, and so calculate their contribution in terms of staff years during the period (see paragraph E9 of Working Together).

PC 28 Annex E appended December 2006

(From Annex E to Working Well Together: Managing Attendance in the Public Sector – Cabinet Office, 1998) Measuring absence E.1 We recommend in Chapter 5 adopting a standard minimum method of recording sickness absence: days lost by sickness absence out of the number of days on which an employee was expected to work. E.2 To compare sickness absence rates between organisations or between parts of an organisation the number of days lost needs to be expressed as a percentage in order to take account of different leave entitlements. We recommend for comparative purposes, using percentages calculated as follows: days lost by sickness absence days on which an employee was expected to work E.3 The following paragraphs recommend good practice for recording absence for individuals, and discuss how to calculate the recommended statistics for comparison between organisations. Recording absence for individuals E.4 Organisations should aim to record all sickness absence on a database for all employees. We do not recommend the minimum information which organisations should hold about staff, but they should consider how they may want to use the aggregated dataset for analysis. However useful data for each employee might include age, sex, grade, location, whether full-time or part-time with contracted hours, the number of days attendance expected per week and the date employment started or finished. • For full-time staff record the number of days an individual is absent when contracted to work as a spell, a continuous period of absence. • For part-time staff record the number of hours absent in a spell (excluding hours not contracted to work and meal breaks). Convert to days by dividing the number of hours by the length of the standard working day. If it is not feasible to record hours, record in fractions of the standard working days. • Include all spells of sickness and industrial injury but exclude maternity leave.

• Record a half day if absent for that time for a medical or dental appointment, or if the employee reports for work but later returns home due to illness. • Do not include periods of annual leave, or days not contracted to work, for example weekends if contracted to work Monday to Friday.

PC 28 Annex E appended December 2006

E.5 Many organisations record detailed causes of sickness with which to monitor an individual’s sickness absence. This is for individual organisations to decide and we make no recommendations here. It is only of value to record detailed specific causes of sickness if the information is accurate and there is a defined need for the data. E.6 An employee’s absence record over a period will show the total number of days absent out of those contracted and the number and length of spells of absence. The results can be used to trigger management action for various types of absence, see Chapter 5. Measuring absence for groups of individuals E.7 A well organised data set collected as defined above can provide a variety of analyses to inform management and provide information from which valid comparisons can be made across and within organisations. E.8 Aggregate records for individual staff to calculate the percentage of time lost or average number or days lost though sick absence. All staff records should be included in the analyses whether absence is recorded or not. E.9 Assuming the period to be analysed is a full year the most simple measure is the average number of days lost per staff year which can be converted for comparison across organisations to the percentage of time lost due to absence. It is calculated Total number of days lost through absence/ total staff years during the year “A staff year” equals the number of days a full-time employee is contracted to work, i.e. excluding weekends or other rest days, annual leave including bank holidays and any other “privilege” leave days. This is usually about 225 to 230 days depending on leave entitlement. Include all staff employed during the year. Where staff work part time or for part of the year a fraction of the year should be derived. Assuming for this example 225 days: • • • • Full-time all year = 1 staff year (225 working days) Full-time part year: employed for 100 working days = 4/9 staff years (i.e. 100/225) Part-time all year: contracted 18.5 hours a week where full time hours are 37 = ½ staff year (i.e. 18.5/37, equivalent to 112.5 working days) Part-time part of year: employed 18.5 hours a week for 100 weeks = ½ x 4/9 = 2/9 staff years equivalent to 50 working days

A section with the above 4 staff was contracted to work for 2 1/6 (2.167) staff years. If the section were absent for a total of 20 days this would be equivalent to 9.23 days absent (20/2.167) per staff year. E.10 The percentage of time lost due to absence is calculated

PC 28 Annex E appended December 2006

Total days lost through absence/ (Total staff years x working days in year) or Average days lost/ working days in year Using the above example 20/(2 1/6 x 225) or 9.23/225 = 4.1% of time lost due to sickness absence. Combining results for several organisations E.11 Where the results for several organisations are to be aggregated centrally the individual organisations should supply the following information: • • • Average number of days lost for the specified period Total staff years for the period The assumed number of working days in the period

E.12 The average of the all the organisations should be calculated by weighting each average by the number of staff years in that organisation.

PC 28 Annex E appended December 2006

Sickness Absence SDA: Quarterly/Monthly Monitoring Return 2005-06 Sickness Absence Monthly Monitoring Return 2005-06 Probation Area:

Month/Year:

(a) Total Days Short Term Sickness Absence

(b) Total Days Long Term Sickness Absence

(c) Total Days DDA related Sickness Absence (d) Total Staff "Years" During month Average Days Absence Per Staff Year (a+b+c)/d

Area Contact Name

Telephone Number

Please return completed form via email: NPD.DATA@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk

PC 28 Annex E appended December 2006