You are on page 1of 63

Probation

Circular
UNCLASSIFIED

NPS PERFORMANCE TARGETS AND


REFERENCE NO:
MEASURES 2006-2007: GUIDANCE 28/2006 – Revised

PURPOSE ISSUE DATE:


To provide Probation Areas with detailed supplementary information of NPS 13 July 2006 (revised December
Performance Targets and Measures. 2006)

ACTION IMPLEMENTATION DATE:


Local Areas to take note of the information in the Annexes to this Probation Immediate
Circular and ensure that staff involved in performance monitoring,
management and reporting are aware of the content, particularly the due EXPIRY DATE:
dates for returns. 31 March 2010

SUMMARY TO:
This circular provides, in respect of NPS Performance Targets and Chairs of Probation Boards
Measures, information and guidance on: Chief Officers of Probation
Secretaries of Probation Boards
• Data sources
• Calculation rules CC:
• Method and frequency of data collection Board Treasurers
• Contacts and deadlines Regional Managers

It is a single reference document that will be up-dated periodically to include AUTHORISED BY:
any new or additional guidance as the need arises. Areas can access the Roger McGarva,
most recent version of the Annex via EPIC. Head of Regions and
Performance Unit
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 ATTACHED:
to meet demands for reporting. The deadline date for the majority of returns Annex A – NPS Performance Targets
and Performance Measures 2006 –
is now the 15th of the month following the end of the reporting period. 2007 Guidance
Exceptions to this rule are identified in Annex A. The implementation date is Annex B – National Standards
July 2006. Therefore all relevant returns covering the July reporting period Monitoring Guide to Calculations
(Revised for Monitoring from April
will be due on 15th August. 2006)
Annex C – Basket of National
RELEVANT PREVIOUS PROBATION CIRCULARS Standards contacts – arranged and
PC06/2006: Business Planning 2006-07 achieved: Summary of Relevant
Questions 206-07
PC16/2006: NPS Offender Employment Target 2006/07
Annex D – Use of Form 20 and 30 in
performance reporting
CONTACT FOR ENQUIRIES Annex E – Staff Sickness Calculation
Stephen.Spurden2@Homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk Mobile: 07767770201 Guidance
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 Target Weighting


Unpaid work completions 100% (of profile) 10
DRR completions 100% (of profile) 10
Skills for life referrals 100% (of profile) 5
Employment gained 100% (of profile) 7
Accredited programme completions 100% (of profile) 10
High Risk assessments 90% 10
PPO Assessments 90% 10
Court Report Timeliness1 90% 10
Complete, timely ethnicity data 95% 10
Enforcement 90% 10
Compliance (PT 7)2 85% 7
Compliance (PM 2) 2 70% 3
Sickness absence 9 days 10

1
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
2
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

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 Description and weighted score Data source and calculation rules Method/ Data collection Deadline Reference
subject card status and contact/ Material
Frequency
of collection Policy lead

PT 1 90% of risk of full analyses, risk Return by Areas to NPD based on checking OASys Monthly return Ed Stradling/ 15th of month Probation
High/Very management plans and OASys and offender management records. to following Circular
High Risk of sentence plans on high/very high risk Calculated as the number “on target” as a proportion NPD.Data@ho reporting period 77/2005
Harm of harm offenders are completed of all High/Very High Risk of Harm Orders and meoffice.gsi.g PC82/2005
Offenders within 5 working days of the Licences that commenced in the month (only those ov.uk
commencement of the order or classed as H/VH ROH on date of commencement or John Scott
release into the community release).

To be “on target” all three tests must have been


Weighted Scorecard Status = 10 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.

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.
PT 2 85% of victims to be contacted within Return by Areas to NPD based on local records. Quarterly Keith Ward/ Last day of third Probation
Victim 8 weeks of an offender receiving 12 return to NPD month following Circular
Contact or more months imprisonment for a Calculated as the number of victims contacted within 8 reporting period 71/.2005
serious sexual or violent offence weeks as a proportion of the total number of victims

John Scott
Not in Weighted Scorecard

PC 28 Annex A revised December 2006 6


Target and Description and weighted score Data source and calculation rules Method/ Data collection Deadline Reference
subject card status and contact/ Material
Frequency
of collection Policy lead

PT 3 90% of risk of harm screenings/full Return by Areas to NPD based on checking OASys Monthly return Ed Stradling/ 15th of month Probation
Prolific & analyses (as appropriate) and OASys and offender management records. to following Circular
Other Priority sentence plans are completed on Calculated as the number “on target” as a proportion NPD.Data@ho reporting period 77/2005
Offenders Prolific and other Priority Offenders of all PPOs that commenced in the month (only those meoffice.gsi.g (Annex B of PC
(PPOs) within 5 working days of the classed as a PPO by the local CDRP on date of ov.uk 79/2005 is
commencement of the order or commencement or release). relevant)
release into the community Robin Brennan
To be “on target” both tests must have been passed
Weighted Scorecard Status = 10 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.

PC 28 Annex A revised December 2006 7


Target and Description and weighted score Data source and calculation rules Method/ Data collection Deadline Reference
subject card status and contact/ Material
Frequency
of collection Policy lead

PT 4 90% of PSRs to be completed within Source is the monthly reports extract (Form 30) Monthly Ed Stradling/ Last day of RDS – NOMS
Timeliness of the required time, i.e. returns to RDS-NOMS. Reports month following guidance on
court reports • on the day requested for On the day requested for fast delivery PSRs to Extract reporting period data extract for
fast delivery PSRs to magistrates’ courts (sentencing court) – analysis of all (Form30) Richard Mason Court Reports
magistrates’ courts; written fast delivery PSRs and oral PSRs for returns to RDS Extract (Form
• within 15 working days for magistrates’ courts with a date completed in the – NOMS 30)
standard delivery PSRs to reporting period. On target if the date completed is on Annex D to this
magistrates’ courts, except the same working day or no more than one working Probation
where the offender is day after the date requested. Circular
remanded in custody in
which case the timescale is Within 15 working days for standard delivery PSRs to
10 working days; magistrates’ courts (sentencing court), except where
• by the date set by the the offender is remanded in custody in which case the
commissioning court for timescale is 10 working days – analysis of Standard
Crown Courts Delivery PSRs for magistrates’ courts with a date
completed in the reporting period. On target if the
Weighted Scorecard Status = 10 date completed is no more than 15 working days after
(Note that the fast delivery PSR element the date requested in the community and 10 working
used in calculating the Weighted days if RIC.
Scorecard is the proportion completed
within 5 working days) By the date set by the commissioning court for Crown
Performance against each element will be Courts (sentencing court) – analysis of Standard
calculated separately over an aggregate
“score” of total reports meeting target as a
Delivery PSRs, Fast Delivery PSRs and oral PSRs for
proportion of total reports completed. The crown courts with a date completed in the period. On
Crown Court PSRs element has a target if the date completed is on or before the date
weighting of 7 and the three Magistrates’ required.
Courts elements have a weighting of 1 See also Annex D
each .
PM 1 40% of PSRs for Magistrates’ Courts Source is the monthly reports extract (Form 30) Monthly Ed Stradling/ Last day of RDS – NOMS
Proportion of to be fast delivery returns to RDS-NOMS. Reports month following guidance on
PSRs that Calculated by counting all PSRs (Standard, Fast Extract Richard Mason reporting period data extract for
are Fast Delivery and Oral) completed in the period (Form30) Court Reports
Delivery (sentencing court + magistrates’). Measure is of the returns to RDS Extract (Form
proportion of the total that are classified as Fast – NOMS 30)
Delivery – both written and oral. Annex D to this
Probation
Circular

PC 28 Annex A revised December 2006 8


Target and Description and weighted score Data source and calculation rules Method/ Data collection Deadline Reference
subject card status and contact/ Material
Frequency
of collection Policy lead
PT 5 50,000 successful completions of Return by Areas to NPD based on local records. Monthly return Ed Stradling/ 15th of month Annex D to this
Unpaid work Unpaid Work Reason for termination recorded in offender to NPD following PC includes a
management database. reporting period list of reasons
Weighted Scorecard Status = 10 Successful completion: for termination
CPO and CP element of CPRO = specified number of Jill Shaw categorized as
hours completed (code 30) Successful, Not
Post CJA 2003 UPW requirement = Expired (normal) Successful or
[code 50] or Completed (including early good Excluded from
progress) [code 51]. Additional hours for breach of a calculations.
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 – Monthly Ed Stradling/ 15th of month Annex B
Enforcement accordance with National Standards results of “file reads” by Areas entered in the NSMART following PC13/2005
within 10 working days in 90% of NSMART Excel workbook. return to NPD reporting period PC38/2005
cases Overall performance figures exclude DTTOs and PC43/2005
COs/SSOs with DRRs and are an aggregate of the
figures for Orders, Licences and High Risk cases. Roger McGarva
Weighted Scorecard Status = 10 Calculation rules are at Annex B.
PT 7 PT 7: Compliance: the proportion of Monthly National Standards monitoring returns – Monthly Ed Stradling/ 15th of month Annex B
Compliance arranged appointments which the results of “file reads” by Areas entered in the NSMART following
offender attends in the first 26 weeks. NSMART Excel workbook. return to NPD reporting period
Target is 85%. Overall performance figures exclude DTTOs and
COs/SSOs with DRRs and are an aggregate of the Roger McGarva
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 – Monthly Ed Stradling/ 15th of month Annex B
Compliance that reach the six months stage results of “file reads” by Areas entered in the NSMART following
without requiring breach action (no NSMART Excel workbook. DTTO/DRRs are return to NPD reporting period
second unacceptable failure to excluded.
comply with an order, no third Calculation rules are at Annex B. Roger McGarva
unacceptable failure to comply with a
licence) Target is 70%.
Weighted Scorecard Status = 3

PC 28 Annex A revised December 2006 9


Target and Description and weighted score Data source and calculation rules Method/ Data collection Deadline Reference
subject card status and contact/ Material
Frequency
of collection Policy lead
PM 3 Compliance: the average number of Monthly National Standards monitoring returns – Monthly Ed Stradling/ 15th of month Annex B
Compliance acceptable failures to attend results of “file reads” by Areas entered in the NSMART following
appointments in orders and licences NSMART Excel workbook. DTTO/DRRs are return to NPD reporting period
during the first 26 weeks. excluded.
Calculation rules are at Annex B. Roger McGarva

Not in weighted scorecard


PM 4 Compliance: the proportion of orders Orders and licences with a termination date in the Monthly Ed Stradling/ Last day of RDS - NOMS
Compliance and licences that terminate reporting period. Successful terminations are Probation month following guidance on
successfully Order/period expired; Specified number of hours Listings reporting period data extract for
completed; Terminated early for good progress. Extract Probation
Unsuccessful are: Revoked for failure to comply with (Form20) Gary Renshaw/ Listings (Form
requirements; revoked following imposition of custody returns to RDS Rachel Councell 20)
Not in weighted scorecard for a further offence; order expired – breach – NOMS. Annex D to this
outstanding; Revoked for a further offence (non Analysis of PC
custodial); terminated because of conviction of an date of
offence; warrant for arrest remained unexecuted 12 termination
months after issue; variation of sentence to full-time and reason for
custody (Intermittent Custody only) termination of
Excluded from the calculation are: Revoked because order or
of other change of circumstances; order substituted by licence.
a conditional discharge; person died; terminated for
other reason; change of after-care category; revoked
(on application).
DTTO/DRRs are included.

PM 5 Shadow measure: The proportion of Monthly National Standards monitoring returns – Monthly Ed Stradling 15th of month
Accommodati offenders in suitable accommodation results of “file reads” by Areas entered in the NSMART following
on at the end of the order/licence NSMART Excel workbook. return to NPD reporting period
compared to the proportion in Calculation rules are at Annex B. Jill Shaw
suitable accommodation at order
commencement or immediately prior
to release on licence

PC 28 Annex A revised December 2006 10


Target and Description and weighted score Data source and calculation rules Method/ Data collection Deadline Reference
subject card status and contact/ Material
Frequency
of collection Policy lead

PT 8 48,000 Skills for life referrals Return by Areas to NPD based on local records. Monthly and Ed Stradling/ 15th of month PC27/2006
Skills for life NP definition of a Skills for Life Referral is: Quarterly following
Weighted Scorecard Status = 5 Where an Individual Referral Record has been returns to NPD reporting period
completed and agreed with the learner/offender; OR (Please
Where a learner/offender has attended a “taster” Skills disregard
for Life course; OR Roger Stevens deadline given
Where a learner/offender is referred to Skills for Life in PC27-06)
provision, has completed & agreed their Individual
Learning Plan; OR
The learner/offender has completed at least two
sessions.
PT 9 15,000 unemployed offenders Return by Areas to NPD based on local records. Monthly Ed Stradling/ 15th of month Guidance
Employment gaining employment The rules regarding what constitutes achieving the returns to NPD following Notes in the
Weighted Scorecard Status = 7 target are in the Guidance Notes built into the monthly reporting period monthly return
return. Excel workbook
Ian Henshaw issued as
PC16/2006.
PM 6 12,000 offenders placed in Return by Areas to NPD based on local records. Monthly Ed Stradling/ 15th of month Guidance
Employment employment that is retained for four The rules regarding what constitutes achieving the returns to NPD following Notes in the
weeks measure are in the Guidance Notes built into the reporting period monthly return
monthly return. Excel workbook
Not in weighted scorecard Ian Henshaw issued as
PC16/2006.
PT10 5,000 successful DTTO/DRR Return by Areas to NPD based on local records. Monthly return Ed Stradling / 15th of month E-mail from Ed
DTTO/DRR completions Reason for termination in the month recorded in to NPD following Stradling dated
Completions offender management database. reporting period 1/04/05
Weighted Scorecard Status = 10 Successful completion = order expired, revoked for PC 57/2005
good progress, expired (normal), completed (early PC 61/2005
good progress). PC 80/2005
Annex D to this Circular contains a full list of reasons Claire Wiggins Annex D to this
for terminations with categorization as Successful, Not Circular
Successful and Excluded.
PM 7 16,000 DTTO/DRR commencements Return by Areas to NPD based on local records. Monthly return Ed Stradling / 15th of month E-mail from Ed
DTTO/DRR Commencements in the month recorded in offender to NPD following Stradling dated
Starts management database. reporting period 1/04/05
Not in weighted scorecard Claire Wiggins PC 57/2005

PC 28 Annex A revised December 2006 11


Target and Description and weighted score Data source and calculation rules Method/ Data collection Deadline Reference
subject card status and contact/ Material
Frequency
of collection Policy lead

PM 8 90% of first contacts on Monthly National Standards monitoring returns – Monthly Ed Stradling/ 15th of month E-mail from Ed
DTTO/DRR DTTOs/DRRs arranged with (a) the results of “file reads” by Areas entered in the NSMART following Stradling
first contact probation service for within one NSMART Excel workbook. return to NPD Roger McGarva/ reporting period November
working day and (b) the treatment Calculation rules are at Annex B. Claire Wiggins 16.11.2005
provider for within two working days
PC 57/2005
Not in weighted scorecard
Annex B
PT 11 17,500 accredited programme Record all accredited programme See Ed Stradling/ Last day of Probation
Accredited completions including 1,200 sex completions (main sessions completed) in IAPS. PC45/2005 for Danny Clark month following Circular
Programmes offender treatment programme IAPS recording process is to go into each person’s schedule of reporting period 45/2005
completions and 1,200 domestic record who has finished and mark the main phase on last date for Alison Sims and
violence programme completions the referral as completed. The date to be used for the data entry in Michele Taylor PC 85/2005
main phase completed is the date of attendance at IAPS and date for details of
Weighted Scorecard Status = 10 the last main session. IAPS report IAPS extract PC 18/2006
Performance against the weighted Data source is IAPS Monthly Throughput report drawn will be run used in reporting
scorecard will be assessed in relation down centrally. 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.
PM 9 Percentage of offenders starting an “Starting” in the measure = date of attendance at first IAPS Ed Stradling/ Last day of Probation
Accredited accredited programme out of the total main session i.e. commencement in IAPS. Danny Clark month following Circular
programme number of programme requirements Take the cohort of offenders recorded in IAPS as reporting period 45/2005
starts having been sentenced to a requirement to attend an Alison Sims and
Not in weighted scorecard accredited programme 12 months ago (e.g. in January Michele Taylor
2006 take those sentenced in December 2004, in for details of
February 2006 take those sentenced in January IAPS extract
2005). From these calculate what proportion had used in reporting
started the programme within the 12 month period as
the measure of performance.

PC 28 Annex A revised December 2006 12


Target and Description and weighted score card Data source and calculation rules Method/ Data collection Deadline Reference
subject status and contact/ Material
Frequency
of collection Policy lead

PM 10 Percentage of offenders completing “Total who attend the first session” = commencements IAPS Ed Stradling/ Last day of Probation
Accredited an accredited programme out of the as per PM9 above. month following Circular
programme total who attend the first session Measured by tracking, in IAPS, of those who attend Danny Clarke reporting period 45/2005
completions session 1 (or the relevant “first” session in bus
Not in weighted scorecard stopped cases joining a programme run part way Alison Sims and
through) of an accredited programme the number that Michele Taylor
complete the programme. The key date is the date on for details of
which the programme was completed. Therefore a IAPS extract
report on performance against the measure for the used in reporting
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.

PT 12 Achieve regionally set employment Source is annual “census” returns to NPD. Annual Helen Smith/ 31st January
Minority targets for minority ethnic staff Record Ethnicity status of all new and existing ‘census’
ethnic staff members of staff currently employed by the Area on returns to NPD Marjorie Harris
Not in weighted scorecard an annual basis, using REM template provided.

PC 28 Annex A revised December 2006 13


Target and Description and weighted score Data source and calculation rules Method/ Data collection Deadline Reference
subject card status and contact/ Material
Frequency
of collection Policy lead

PT 13 95% of race and ethnic monitoring Source for offenders is Probation Listings extract from (a) Annual (a) Helen Smith; End of month a) NPD HR
Race & data on (a) staff and (b) offenders is offender management databases sent to RDS-NOMS. ‘census’ following guidance 1999
Ethnic returned on time and using the The data set is offenders commencing Orders, returns to (b) Gary reporting period
Monitoring of correct (Census 2001) classifications custodial sentences or Resettlement Licences in the NPD; Renshaw: RDS- b) RDS
Offenders period. “Refusals” are excluded from the calculations. (b) Monthly NOMS guidance on
and Staff Weighted Scorecard Status = 10 Those with a 2001 census code are counted as Probation data extract for
meeting the target. Those with no race code recorded Listings to Probation
and those with a race code other than those used in RDS NOMS Marjorie Harris Listings (Form
Census 2001 (16+1 codes) are counted as not having (Form 20) 20)
met the target. Timeliness - as long as the Form 20 Annex D to this
information is supplied to RDS-NOMS within the Circular
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.
PT 14 Reduce sickness absence in the Return to NPD by Areas based on local staff sickness Monthly return Ed Stradling/ 15th of month Probation
Sickness National Probation Service to an records. Record total days staff sickness in 3 to NPD following Circular
absence average of 9 days per member of categories and total “staff years” during month. Nick Jones reporting period 85/2001
staff per year Calculation rules are available but are not issued with
Weighted Scorecard Status = 10 this document as they are about to be updated.
Guidance on this will be issued separately shortly.

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 1 - 11
II. Resettlement 12 - 21
III. High/Very High Risk of Harm 22 - 27

Annex C: Basket of National Standards contacts (arranged and achieved):


Summary of Relevant Questions 2006-07

PC 28 Annex B revised December 2006 1


I. COMMUNITY ORDERS
Contact: Offender Management

Allocation of case

Question No. 12 (CJA Order Commencements only)


Calculation = 1 / (1+2)
Expressed as %
Relevant Target / Measure --

1st Appointment arranged to take place

Question No. 13 (Commencements only)


Calculation = 1 / (1+2)
Expressed as %
Relevant Target / Measure Basket of National Standards contacts (arranged)

1st Appointment took place

Question No. 14 (Commencements only)


Calculation = 1 / (1+2)
Expressed as %
Relevant Target / Measure Basket of National Standards contacts (took place)

Home visit took place within 10 working days

Question No. 15 (Commencements only)


Calculation = 1 / (1+2+3)
Expressed as %
Relevant Target / Measure Basket of National Standards contacts (took place)

First 16 weeks: 16 appointments arranged (Tier 2, 3 & 4)

Question No. 16 (Commencements only)


Calculation = (1+3) / (1+2+3)
Expressed as %
Relevant Target / Measure Basket of National Standards contacts (arranged)

First 16 weeks: 16 appointments took place (Tier 2, 3 & 4)

Question No. 17 (Commencements only)


Calculation = (1+3) / (1+2+3)
Expressed as %
Relevant Target / Measure Basket of National Standards contacts (took place)

PC 28 Annex B revised December 2006 2


Appointments arranged (Tier 1)

Question No. 18 (Terminations only)


Calculation = 1 / (1+2)
Expressed as %
Relevant Target / Measure --

Appointments took place (Tier 1)

Question No. 19 (Terminations only)


Calculation = 1 / (1+2)
Expressed as %
Relevant Target / Measure --

Contact: Drug Rehabilitation Requirement (DRR) or DTTO

1st offender management appointment arranged

Question No. 23 (Commencements only)


Calculation = 1 / (1+2)
Expressed as %
Relevant Target / Measure PM 8

1st offender management appointment took place

Question No. 24 (Commencements only)


Calculation = 1 / (1+2)
Expressed as %
Relevant Target / Measure --

1st appointment with treatment provider arranged

Question No. 25 (Commencements only)


Calculation = 1 / (1+2)
Expressed as %
Relevant Target / Measure PM 8

1st appointment with treatment provider took place

Question No. 26 (Commencements only)


Calculation = 1 / (1+2)
Expressed as %
Relevant Target / Measure --

First 16 weeks: minimum hours contact per week arranged

Question No. 27 (Commencements only)


Calculation = 1+2 / (1+2+3)
Expressed as %
Relevant Target / Measure --

First 16 weeks: minimum hours contact per week took place

Question No. 28 (Commencements only)


Calculation = 1+2 / (1+2+3)
Expressed as %
Relevant Target / Measure --

PC 28 Annex B revised December 2006 3


Frequency of testing

Question No. 29 (Commencements only)


Calculation = 1 / (1+2)
Expressed as %
Relevant Target / Measure --

Review at conclusion of requirement (Tier 2, 3 and 4)

Question No. 30 (Terminations only)


Calculation = 1 / (1+2)
Expressed as %
Relevant Target / Measure --

Programme Requirement/CRO or CPRO with Programme Requirement

Commencement within six weeks

Question No. 32 (Commencements only)


Calculation = 1 / (1+2)
Expressed as %
Relevant Target / Measure --

Review at conclusion of requirement (Tier 2, 3 and 4)

Question No. 33 (Terminations only)


Calculation = 1 / (1+2)
Expressed as %
Relevant Target / Measure --

Specified Activity Requirement

Commencement within 15 working days

Question No. 35 (Commencements only)


Calculation = 1 / (1+2)
Expressed as %
Relevant Target / Measure --

First four weeks: minimum three contacts arranged

Question No. 36 (Commencements only)


Calculation = 1 / (1+2)
Expressed as %
Relevant Target / Measure Basket of National Standards contacts (arranged)

First four weeks: minimum three contacts took place

Question No. 37 (Commencements only)


Calculation = 1 / (1+2)
Expressed as %
Relevant Target / Measure 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. 38 (Terminations only)


Calculation = 1 / (1+2)
Expressed as %
Relevant Target / Measure --

Supervision Requirement/CRO/CR element of CPRO

Commencement within 15 working days

Question No. 40 (Commencements only)


Calculation = 1 / (1+2)
Expressed as %
Relevant Target / Measure --

First 16 weeks: 16 appointments arranged

Question No. 41 (Commencements only)


Calculation = 1 / (1+2)
Expressed as %
Relevant Target / Measure 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. 42 (Commencements only)


Calculation = 1 / (1+2)
Expressed as %
Relevant Target / Measure 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. 43 (Terminations only)


Calculation = 1 / (1+2)
Expressed as %
Relevant Target / Measure --

Unpaid Work Requirement/CPO/CP element of CPRO

First work session arranged within 10 working days

Question No. 45 (Commencements only)


Calculation = 1 / (1+2)
Expressed as %
Relevant Target / Measure Basket of National Standards contacts (arranged)

PC 28 Annex B revised December 2006 5


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

Average 6 hrs/week arranged


Question No. 47 (Commencements only)
Calculation = 1 / (1+2)
Expressed as %
Relevant Target / Measure Basket of National Standards contacts (arranged)

Average 6 hrs/week took place


Question No. 48(Commencements only)
Calculation = 1 / (1+2)
Expressed as %
Relevant Target / Measure Basket of National Standards contacts (took place)

Review at conclusion of requirement (Tier 2, 3 and 4)


Question No. 49 (Terminations only)
Calculation = 1 / (1+2)
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. 50 & 51 (Commencements only)


Calculation Q. 51 = 1 / (1+2+3+4)
Adjustment Use Q.50 and check values across Qs. 50 & 51 as per table
below
Expressed as %
Relevant Target/Measure 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 Q.50 Q.51 Result 5 of 10 becomes:


A 1 1 5 of 10
B 1 2, 3 or 4 6 of 10
C 1 5 6 of 11

Enforcement action taken whether or not within 10 working days (relevant cases)

Question No. 50 & 51 (Commencements only)


Calculation Q.51 = (1+2) / (1+2+3+4)
Adjustment Use Q.50 and check values across Qs.50 & 51 as per table
below
Expressed as %
Relevant Target/Measure --

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 Q.50 Q.51 Result 5 of 10 becomes:


A 1 or 2 1 or 2 5 of 10
B 1 or 2 3 or 4 6 of 10
C 1 or 2 5 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. Qs. 20 & 21 (Commencements only)


Calculation n. entered in Q.21/n. entered in Q.20 x 100
Expressed as %
Relevant Target/Measure 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. Q. 51 (Commencements only)


Calculation Q. 51 = 5 / (1+2+3+4+5)
Expressed as %
Relevant Target/Measure 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. 52 (Commencements only)


Calculation n. entered in Q.52/n. cases (cumulative)
Expressed as Average
Relevant Target/Measure PM 3

Completion of additional information sheet

Question No. 53 (Commencements only)


Calculation 1/(1+2)
Expressed as %
Relevant Target/Measure --

Order allowed to continue (non-CJA Orders)

Question No. 54 (Commencements only)


Calculation 1/(1+2)
Expressed as %
Relevant Target/Measure --

Additional penalty where breached and allowed to continue (non-CJA Orders)

Question No. 55 (Non-CJA Order commencements only)


Calculation Frequency count of response options except 4 & 7
Expressed as %
Relevant Target/Measure --

Outcome following breach (CJA Orders)

Question No. 56 (CJA Order commencements only)


Calculation Frequency count of response options except 4 & 7
Expressed as %

Sentence following revocation

Question No. 57 (Commencements only)


Calculation Frequency count of response options except 6 & 7
Expressed as %
Relevant Target/Measure --

PC 28 Annex B revised December 2006 8


Risk Assessment & Sentence Planning

Timeliness of Risk of Harm assessment

Question No. 58 (Commencements only)


Calculation 1 / (1+2)
Expressed as %
Relevant Target/Measure --

Appropriate evidence as basis of initial RoH assessment

Question No. 59 (Commencements only)


Calculation 1 / (1+2+3)
Expressed as %
Relevant Target/Measure --

Justification for level of Risk of Harm

Question No. 60 (Commencements only)


Calculation 1 / (1+2+3+4)
Expressed as %
Relevant Target/Measure --

Timeliness of Sentence Plan

Question No. 61 (Commencements only)


Calculation (1+2) / (1+2+3+4)
Expressed as %
Relevant Target/Measure --

Copying of Sentence Plan to other relevant persons/agencies

Question No. 62 (Commencements only)


Calculation 1 / (1+2+3)
Expressed as %
Relevant Target/Measure --

Alignment of sentence plan with risk of harm assessment

Question No. 63 (Commencements only)


Calculation 1 / (1+2+3+4)
Expressed as %
Relevant Target/Measure --

Sufficiency of risk assessment/risk management plan in relation to risk of harm to victim(s)

Question No. 64 (Commencements only)


Calculation 1 / (1+2+4)
Expressed as %
Relevant Target/Measure --

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. 65 (Commencements only)


Calculation 1 / (1+2+3)
Expressed as %
Relevant Target/Measure --

Sufficiency of risk assessment/risk management plan in relation to risk of harm to staff

Question No. 66 (Commencements only)


Calculation 1 / (1+2+3)
Expressed as %
Relevant Target/Measure --

Review of risk of harm within 16 weeks

Question No. 67 (Commencements only)


Calculation 1 / (1+2)
Expressed as %
Relevant Target/Measure --

Review of sentence plan within 16 weeks

Question No. 68 (Commencements only)


Calculation 1 / (1+2)
Expressed as %
Relevant Target/Measure --

Final review on termination

Question No. 69 (Terminations only)


Calculation 1 / (1+2)
Expressed as %
Relevant Target/Measure --

Overall quality of risk of harm assessment and risk management

Question No. 70
Calculation 1 / (1+2)
Expressed as %
Relevant Target/Measure --

PC 28 Annex B revised December 2006 10


Accommodation

Question No. 71 (Terminations only)


Calculation Calculate:

1 / (1+2) expressed as %

(a) immediately prior to order and (b) at termination

Then calculate difference (b) – (a).


Exclusions Any case which has an answer of ‘Unclear from record’ to one
or both questions.
Expressed as %
Relevant Target/Measure PM 5 (Shadow measure)

Note: to obtain a combined result (orders plus licences) for PM 5, areas should do as follows:

(i) aggregate the numbers in suitable accommodation prior to order and prior to release
on licence
(ii) repeat for those in unsuitable accommodation
(iii) 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%’)
(iv) aggregate the numbers in suitable accommodation at termination of order and
termination of licence
(v) repeat for those in unsuitable accommodation
(vi) 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%’)
(vii) Subtract ‘X%’ from ‘Y%’ to give the percentage point improvement or deterioration.

PC 28 Annex B revised December 2006 11


II. RESETTLEMENT
Pre-release work

If HDC – assessment of suitability of accommodation

Question No. 11
Calculation 1 / (1+2+3)
Expressed as %
Relevant Target / Measure --

Quality of HDC assessment in relation to suitability of the proposed accommodation

Question No. 12
Conditions Answer to Q.11 is 1or 2(‘Yes’)
Calculation 1 / (1+2)
Expressed as %
Relevant Target / Measure --

Quality of HDC assessment in relation to any risk of harm that the offender may present

Question No. 13
Conditions Answer to Q.11 is 1or 2(‘Yes’)
Calculation 1 / (1+2)
Expressed as %
Relevant Target / Measure --

Quality of HDC assessment in relation to any comments on the suitability of the offender

Question No. 14
Conditions Answer to Q.11 is 1or 2(‘Yes’)
Calculation 1 / (1+2)
Expressed as %
Relevant Target / Measure --

Did pre-release documentation/report arrive at the prison within the time scale requested?

Question No. 15
Calculation 1 / (1+2)
Expressed as %
Relevant Target / Measure --

Did pre-release documentation/report/PAR include proposals for licence conditions?

Question No. 16
Calculation 1 / (1+2)
Expressed as %
Relevant Target / Measure --

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. 17
Conditions Answer to Q.16 is 2(‘No’)
Calculation 1 / (1+2)
Expressed as %
Relevant Target / Measure --

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. 18
Calculation 1 / (1+2)
Expressed as %
Relevant Target / Measure --

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. 19
Conditions Answer to Q.18 is 2(‘No’)
Calculation 1 / (1+2)
Expressed as %
Relevant Target / Measure --

Parole eligible cases – was the PAR provided within the required time scale?

Question No. 20
Calculation 1 / (1+2)
Expressed as %
Relevant Target / Measure --

PAR – section on offence analysis and offending behaviour of satisfactory quality

Question No. 21.1


Calculation 1 / (1+2)
Expressed as %
Relevant Target / Measure --

PAR – section on offender information of satisfactory quality

Question No. 21.2


Calculation 1 / (1+2)
Expressed as %
Relevant Target / Measure --

PAR – section on victim information of satisfactory quality

Question No. 21.3


Calculation 1 / (1+2)
Expressed as %
Relevant Target / Measure --

PAR – section on assessment of risk of serious harm of satisfactory quality

Question No. 21.4


Calculation 1 / (1+2)
Expressed as %
Relevant Target / Measure --

PC 28 Annex B revised December 2006 13


PAR – section on assessment of likelihood of re-offending of satisfactory quality

Question No. 21.5


Calculation 1 / (1+2)
Expressed as %
Relevant Target / Measure --

PAR – section on assessment of risk management plan of satisfactory quality

Question No. 21.6


Calculation 1 / (1+2)
Expressed as %
Relevant Target / Measure --

PAR – section on assessment of resettlement/sentence plan of satisfactory quality

Question No. 21.7


Calculation 1 / (1+2)
Expressed as %
Relevant Target / Measure --

PAR – report overall of satisfactory quality

Question No. 21.8


Calculation 1 / (1+2)
Expressed as %
Relevant Target / Measure --

PAR – was based on at least one face to face interview or video conference with the
offender

Question No. 21.9


Calculation 1 / (1+2)
Expressed as %
Relevant Target / Measure --

Contact: Offender Management

1st appointment arranged on day of release or next working day

Question No. 22 (Commencements only)


Calculation 1 / (1+2)
Expressed as %
Relevant Target / Measure Basket of National Standards contacts (arranged)

1st appointment took place on day of release or next working day

Question No. 23 (Commencements only)


Calculation 1 / (1+2)
Expressed as %
Relevant Target / Measure 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. 24 (Commencements only)


Calculation 1 / (1+2)
Expressed as %
Relevant Target / Measure Basket of National Standards contacts (arranged)

Further appointment took place within 3 working days of release

Question No. 25 (Commencements only)


Calculation 1 / (1+2)
Expressed as %
Relevant Target / Measure Basket of National Standards contacts (took place)

Home visit took place within 10 working days

Question No. 26 (Commencements only)


Calculation = 1 / (1+2+3)
Expressed as %
Relevant Target / Measure Basket of National Standards contacts (took place)

First 16 weeks: 16 appointments arranged (Tier 2, 3 & 4)

Question No. 27 (Commencements only)


Calculation = (1+3) / (1+2+3)
Expressed as %
Relevant Target / Measure Basket of National Standards contacts (arranged)

First 16 weeks: 16 appointments took place (Tier 2, 3 & 4)

Question No. 28 (Commencements only)


Calculation = (1+3) / (1+2+3)
Expressed as %
Relevant Target / Measure Basket of National Standards contacts (took place)

Appointments arranged (Tier 1)

Question No. 29 (Terminations only)


Calculation = 1 / (1+2)
Expressed as %
Relevant Target / Measure --

Appointments took place (Tier 1)

Question No. 30 (Terminations only)


Calculation = 1 / (1+2)
Expressed as %
Relevant Target / Measure --

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. 33, 34 & 35 (Commencements only)


Calculation Q.35 = 1 / (1+2+3+4)
Adjustment Use Qs.33 & 34 and check values across Qs. 33, 34 & 35
as per table below
Expressed as %
Relevant Target / Measure 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 Q.33 Q.34 Q.35 Result 5 of 10


becomes:
A 1 1 1 5 of 10
B 1 1 2, 3 or 4 6 of 10
C 1 1 5 6 of 11
A 1 2, 3, 4 or 5 1 5 of 10
B 1 2, 3, 4 or 5 2, 3 or 4 6 of 10
C 1 2, 3, 4 or 5 5 6 of 11
A 1 6 1 5 of 10
B 1 6 2, 3 or 4 6 of 10
C 1 6 5 6 of 11
A 2, 3, 4 or 5 1 1 5 of 10
B 2, 3, 4 or 5 1 2, 3 or 4 6 of 10
C 2, 3, 4 or 5 1 5 6 of 11
A 6 1 1 5 of 10
B 6 1 2, 3 or 4 6 of 10
C 6 1 5 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. 33, 34 & 35 (Commencements only)


Calculation Q.35 = (1+2) / (1+2+3+4)
Adjustment Use Qs.33 & 34 and check values across Qs.33, 34 & 35 as
per table below
Expressed as %
Relevant Target / Measure --

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 Q.33 Q.34 Q.35 Result 5 of 10


becomes:
A 1 or 2 1 or 2 1 or 2 5 of 10
B 1 or 2 1 or 2 3 or 4 6 of 10
C 1 or 2 1 or 2 5 6 of 11
A 1 or 2 3, 4 or 5 1 or 2 5 of 10
B 1 or 2 3, 4 or 5 3 or 4 6 of 10
C 1 or 2 3, 4 or 5 5 6 of 11
A 1 or 2 6 1 or 2 5 of 10
B 1 or 2 6 3 or 4 6 of 10
C 1 or 2 6 5 6 of 11
A 3, 4 or 5 1 or 2 1 or 2 5 of 10
B 3, 4 or 5 1 or 2 3 or 4 6 of 10
C 3, 4 or 5 1 or 2 5 6 of 11
A 6 1 or 2 1 or 2 5 of 10
B 6 1 or 2 3 or 4 6 of 10
C 6 1 or 2 5 6 of 11

Compliance

Number of contacts arranged/number of contacts achieved

Question No. Qs. 31 & 32 (Commencements only)


Calculation n. entered in Q.32/n. entered in Q.31 x (100)
Expressed as %
Relevant Target/Measure 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. 35 (Commencements only)


Calculation Q. 35 = 5 / (1+2+3+4+5)
Expressed as %
Relevant Target/Measure 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. 36 (Commencements only)


Calculation n. entered in Q.36/n. cases (cumulative)
Expressed as Average
Relevant Target/Measure PM 3

Outcome of recall request to RRS – proportion awaiting an outcome

Question No. 37 (Commencements only)


Calculation 4/(1+4)
Expressed as %

Risk Management Plan sent to RRS within 15 days of offender’s return to custody

Question No. 38 (Commencements only)


Calculation 1 / (1+2)
Expressed as %

Outcome following breach – young offenders

Question No. 39 (Commencements only)


Calculation Frequency count of response options except 4 and 5
Expressed as %

Additional Licence Conditions

Appropriate action taken to ensure compliance with licence conditions

Question No. 42
Condition Answer to Q. 41 is 1
Calculation 1 / (1+2+3+4)
Expressed as %

Implementation of licence conditions

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

Implementation of licence conditions relating specifically to misuse of drugs

Question No. 44
Calculation (1+2) / (1+2+3+4+5)
Expressed as %

Risk Assessment & Sentence Planning

Timeliness of Risk of Harm assessment

Question No. 45 (Commencements only)


Calculation 1 / (1+2)
Expressed as %
Relevant Target/Measure --

PC 28 Annex B revised December 2006 18


Appropriate evidence as basis of initial RoH assessment

Question No. 46 (Commencements only)


Calculation 1 / (1+2+3)
Expressed as %
Relevant Target/Measure --

Justification for level of Risk of Harm

Question No. 47 (Commencements only)


Calculation 1 / (1+2+3+4)
Expressed as %
Relevant Target/Measure --

Timeliness of Sentence Plan

Question No. 48 (Commencements only)


Calculation (1+2) / (1+2+3+4)
Expressed as %
Relevant Target/Measure --

Copying of Sentence Plan to other relevant persons/agencies

Question No. 49 (Commencements only)


Calculation 1 / (1+2+3)
Expressed as %
Relevant Target/Measure --

Alignment of sentence plan with risk of harm assessment

Question No. 50 (Commencements only)


Calculation 1 / (1+2+3+4)
Expressed as %
Relevant Target/Measure --

Sufficiency of risk assessment/risk management plan in relation to risk of harm to victim(s)

Question No. 51 (Commencements only)


Calculation 1 / (1+2+4)
Expressed as %
Relevant Target/Measure --

Sufficiency of risk assessment/risk management plan in relation to risk of harm to the public

Question No. 52 (Commencements only)


Calculation 1 / (1+2+3)
Expressed as %
Relevant Target/Measure --

Sufficiency of risk assessment/risk management plan in relation to risk of harm to staff

Question No. 53 (Commencements only)


Calculation 1 / (1+2+3)
Expressed as %
Relevant Target/Measure --

PC 28 Annex B revised December 2006 19


Review of risk of harm within 16 weeks

Question No. 54 (Commencements only)


Calculation 1 / (1+2)
Expressed as %
Relevant Target/Measure --

Review of sentence plan within 16 weeks

Question No. 55 (Commencements only)


Calculation 1 / (1+2)
Expressed as %
Relevant Target/Measure --

Final review on termination

Question No. 56 (Terminations only)


Calculation 1 / (1+2)
Expressed as %
Relevant Target/Measure --

Overall quality of risk of harm assessment and risk management

Question No. 57
Calculation 1 / (1+2)
Expressed as %
Relevant Target/Measure --

Drug Interventions

Attendance at first appointment

Question No. 59
Conditions Answer to Q.58 is 1 (‘Yes’)
Calculation 1 / (1+2)
Expressed as %
Relevant Target/Measure --

Completion of intervention

Question No. 60 (Terminations only)


Conditions Answer to Q.58 is 1 (‘Yes’)
Calculation 1 / (1+2)
Expressed as %
Relevant Target/Measure --

Drug Testing of PPOs

Twice-weekly testing during first 16 weeks

Question No. 65
Conditions Answer to Q.63 or Q.64 is 1 (‘Yes’)
Calculation 1 / (1+2)
Expressed as %
Relevant Target/Measure --

PC 28 Annex B revised December 2006 20


Weekly testing after first 16 weeks

Question No. 66
Conditions Answer to Q.63 or Q.64 is 1 (‘Yes’)
Calculation 1 / (1+2)
Expressed as %
Relevant Target/Measure --

Recall following positive tests

Question No. 68
Conditions Answer to Q.67 is 1 (‘Yes’)
Calculation 1 / (1+2)
Expressed as %
Relevant Target/Measure --

Engagement in drugs interventions where not recalled following positive tests

Question No. 69
Conditions Answer to Q.67 is 1 (‘Yes’)
Calculation 1 / (1+2)
Expressed as %
Relevant Target/Measure --

Accommodation

Question No. 70 (Terminations only)


Calculation 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).
Expressed as %
Relevant Target/Measure PM 5 (shadow 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. 11
Calculation 1 / (1+2+3)
Expressed as %
Relevant Target/Measure --

Justification for level of Risk of Harm

Question No. 12
Calculation 1 / (1+2+3+4)
Expressed as %
Relevant Target/Measure --

Use of appropriate headings in risk management plan

Question No. 13
Calculation 1 / (1+2)
Expressed as %
Relevant Target/Measure --

Alignment of sentence plan with risk of harm assessment

Question No. 14
Calculation 1 / (1+2+3+4)
Expressed as %
Relevant Target/Measure --

Sufficiency of risk assessment/risk management plan in relation to risk of harm to victim(s)

Question No. 15
Calculation 1 / (1+2+4)
Expressed as %
Relevant Target/Measure --

Sufficiency of risk assessment/risk management plan in relation to risk of harm to the public

Question No. 16
Calculation 1 / (1+2+3)
Expressed as %
Relevant Target/Measure --

Sufficiency of risk assessment/risk management plan in relation to risk of harm to staff

Question No. 17
Calculation 1 / (1+2+3)
Expressed as %
Relevant Target/Measure --

Timely review of risk of harm assessment, risk management plan and sentence plan

Question No. 18
Calculation 1 / (1+2)
Expressed as %
Relevant Target/Measure --

PC 28 Annex B revised December 2006 22


Appropriate implementation of risk management plan and objectives in sentence plan

Question No. 19
Calculation (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. 20
Calculation (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. 21
Calculation 1 / (1+2+3)
Expressed as %
Relevant Target/Measure --

Average weekly number of appointments arranged during first 16 weeks

Question No. 22
Calculation (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. 23
Calculation (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. 26 & 27


Calculation Q. 27 = 1 / (1+2+3+4+5)
Adjustment Use Q.27 and check values across Qs. 26 & 27 as per table
below
Expressed as %
Relevant Target/Measure 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 Q.26 Q.27 Result 5 of 10 becomes:


A 1 1 5 of 10
B 1 2, 3, 4 or 5 6 of 10
C 1 6 6 of 11

(ii) Enforcement action taken whether or not within 10 working days (relevant cases)

Question No. 26 & 27


Calculation Q.27 = (1+2) / (1+2+3+4+5)
Adjustment Use Q.27 and check values across Qs.26 & 27 as per table
below
Expressed as %
Relevant Target/Measure --

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 Q.26 Q.27 Result 5 of 10 becomes:


A 1 or 2 1 or 2 5 of 10
B 1 or 2 3 or 4 or 5 6 of 10
C 1 or 2 6 6 of 11

Compliance

Number of contacts arranged/number of contacts achieved

Question No. 24 & 25


Calculation n. entered in Q.25/n. entered in Q.24 x 100
Expressed as %
Relevant Target/Measure 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.

PC 28 Annex B revised December 2006 24


No breach action required

Question No. 27
Calculation Q. 27 = 6 / (1+2+3+4+5)
Expressed as %
Relevant Target/Measure 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. 29
Calculation n. entered in Q.29/n. cases (cumulative)
Expressed as Average
Relevant Target/Measure PM 3

Additional penalty where breached and allowed to continue (non-CJA Orders)

Question No. 31
Calculation Frequency count of response options except 4
Expressed as %
Relevant Target/Measure --

Outcome following breach (CJA Orders)

Question No. 32
Calculation Frequency count of response options except 4
Expressed as %

Sentence following revocation

Question No. 33
Calculation Frequency count of response options except 4
Expressed as %
Relevant Target/Measure --

(b) Licences

(i) Enforcement action taken within 10 working days (relevant cases)

Please refer to general notes on page 25.

Question No. 26, 27 & 28


Calculation Q.28 = 1 / (1+2+3+4)
Adjustment Use Qs.26 & 27 and check values across Qs. 26, 27 & 28 as per
table below
Expressed as %
Relevant PT 6
Target/Measure

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 Q.26 Q.27 Q.28 Result 5 of 10


becomes:
A 1 1 1 5 of 10
B 1 1 2, 3 or 4 6 of 10
C 1 1 5 6 of 11
A 1 2, 3, 4 or 5 1 5 of 10
B 1 2, 3, 4 or 5 2, 3 or 4 6 of 10
C 1 2, 3, 4 or 5 5 6 of 11
A 1 6 1 5 of 10
B 1 6 2, 3 or 4 6 of 10
C 1 6 5 6 of 11
A 2, 3, 4 or 5 1 1 5 of 10
B 2, 3, 4 or 5 1 2, 3 or 4 6 of 10
C 2, 3, 4 or 5 1 5 6 of 11
A 6 1 1 5 of 10
B 6 1 2, 3 or 4 6 of 10
C 6 1 5 6 of 11

(ii) Enforcement action taken whether or not within 10 working days (relevant cases)

Question No. 26, 27 & 28


Calculation Q.28 = (1+2) / (1+2+3+4)
Adjustment Use Qs.26 & 27 and check values across Qs.26, 27 & 28 as per
table below
Expressed as %

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 Q.26 Q.27 Q.28 Result 5 of 10


becomes:
A 1 or 2 1 or 2 1 or 2 5 of 10
B 1 or 2 1 or 2 3 or 4 6 of 10
C 1 or 2 1 or 2 5 6 of 11
A 1 or 2 3, 4 or 5 1 or 2 5 of 10
B 1 or 2 3, 4 or 5 3 or 4 6 of 10
C 1 or 2 3, 4 or 5 5 6 of 11
A 1 or 2 6 1 or 2 5 of 10
B 1 or 2 6 3 or 4 6 of 10
C 1 or 2 6 5 6 of 11
A 3, 4 or 5 1 or 2 1 or 2 5 of 10
B 3, 4 or 5 1 or 2 3 or 4 6 of 10
C 3, 4 or 5 1 or 2 5 6 of 11
A 6 1 or 2 1 or 2 5 of 10
B 6 1 or 2 3 or 4 6 of 10
C 6 1 or 2 5 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. Qs. 24 & 25


Calculation n. entered in Q.25/n. entered in Q.24 x (100)
Expressed as %
Relevant Target/Measure 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. 28
Calculation Q. 28 = 5 / (1+2+3+4+5)
Expressed as %
Relevant Target/Measure 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. 29
Calculation n. entered in Q.29/n. cases (cumulative)
Expressed as Average
Relevant Target/Measure PM 3

Outcome of recall request to RRS – proportion awaiting an outcome

Question No. 34
Calculation 3/(1+3)
Expressed as %

Outcome following breach – young offenders

Question No. 36
Calculation Frequency count of response options except 4
Expressed as %

Risk Management Plan sent to RRS within 15 days of offender’s return to custody

Question No. 35
Calculation 1 / (1+2)
Expressed as %

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 Licences


Q.13: First appointment with offender Q.22: First appointment with offender
manager arranged manager arranged on day of release or next
working day
Q.16: 16 appointments with offender Q.24: Further appointment arranged within 3
manager arranged in first 16 weeks working days of release
Q.36: Three contacts arranged on specified Q.27: 16 appointments with offender
activity requirement in first 4 weeks manager arranged in first 16 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

Appointments attended in accordance with National Standards


Community Orders Licences
Q.14: First appointment with offender Q.23: First appointment with offender
manager took place manager took place on day of release or next
working day
Q.15: Home visit took place within 10 working Q.25: Further appointment took place within
days (Q.21 on High/Very High Risk of Harm 3 working days of release
form)
Q.17: 16 appointments with offender Q.26: Home visit took place within 10 working
manager took place in first 16 weeks days (Q.21 on High/Very High Risk of Harm
form)
Q.37: Three contacts took place on specified Q.28: 16 appointments with offender
activity requirement in first 4 weeks manager took place in first 16 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

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 Numerator Denominator Result

Q.13: First appointment with offender 11 12


manager arranged
Q.16: 16 appointments with offender 10 11
manager arranged in first 16 weeks
Q.36: Three contacts arranged on specified 2 2
activity requirement in first 4 weeks
Q.41: 16 appointments arranged on 2 2
supervision requirement in first 16 weeks
(Tier 1 only)
Q.45: First unpaid work session arranged 7 7
within 10 working days
Q.47: Average of 6 hours unpaid work per 6 7
week arranged
ORDERS SUB-TOTAL 38 41 93%

Licences

Question Numerator Denominator Result

Q.22: First appointment with offender 3 3


manager arranged on day of release or next
working day
Q.24: Further appointment arranged within 3 3 3
working days of release
Q.27: 16 appointments with offender 2 3
manager arranged in first 16 weeks
LICENCES SUB-TOTAL 8 9 89%

Basket of National Standards contacts 46 50 92%


arranged: RESULT (%)

PC28 Annex C revised December 2006


Appointments attended in accordance with National Standards

Community Orders

Question Numerator Denominator Result

Q.14: First appointment with offender 10 12


manager took place
Q.15: Home visit took place within 10 2 3
working days (Q.21 on High/Very High Risk
of Harm form)
Q.17: 16 appointments with offender 9 11
manager took place in first 16 weeks
Q.37: Three contacts took place on specified 1 2
activity requirement in first 4 weeks
Q.42: 16 appointments took place on 2 2
supervision requirement in first 16 weeks
(Tier 1 only)
Q.46: First unpaid work session took place 6 7
within 10 working days
Q.48: Average of 6 hours unpaid work per 4 7
week took place
ORDERS SUB-TOTAL 34 44 77%

Licences

Question Numerator Denominator Result

Q.23: First appointment with offender 2 3


manager took place on day of release or
next working day
Q.25: Further appointment took place within 3 3
3 working days of release
Q.26: Home visit took place within 10 1 1
working days (Q.21 on High/Very High Risk
of Harm form)
Q.28: 16 appointments with offender 2 3
manager took place in first 16 weeks
LICENCES SUB-TOTAL 8 10 80%

Basket of National Standards contacts 42 54 78%


achieved: RESULT (%)

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 RDS-
NOMS.

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 Category
01 Order expired Pre CJA sentences Successful
02 Terminated early for good Pre CJA sentences Successful
progress
06 Order substituted by conditional Pre CJA sentences Successful
discharge order
20 Period expired Pre CJA sentences Successful
21 Terminated early for good Pre CJA sentences Successful
progress
30 Specified number of hours Pre CJA sentences Successful
completed
50 Expired (normal) Post CJA 2003-Reasons for Terminations of Sentence – All types Successful
51 Completed (early good progress) Post CJA 2003-Reasons for Terminations of Sentence – All types Successful

03 Revoked for failure to comply with Pre CJA sentences Not successful
requirements
04 Revoked following imposition of a Pre CJA sentences Not successful
custodial sentence for a further
offence
12 Suspended sentence activated Pre CJA sentences Not successful
18 Revoked for a further offence – Pre CJA sentences Not successful
non custodial
22 Terminated early because of Pre CJA sentences Not successful
conviction of an offence
26 Variation of sentence to full time Post CJA 2003-Reasons for Terminations of Sentence – All types Not successful
custody (*Intermittent Custody
only)
31 Revoked for failure to comply with Pre CJA sentences Not successful
requirements
32 Revoked following imposition of a Pre CJA sentences Not successful
custodial sentence for a further
offence
38 Revoked for further offence Pre CJA sentences Not successful
53 Revoked (further offence) Post CJA 2003-Reasons for Terminations of Sentence – All types Not successful
55 Revoked (failure to comply) Post CJA 2003-Reasons for Terminations of Sentence – All types Not successful

PC 28 Annex D Appended December 2006


Code Text description Type Category
05 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
Month/Year:
Area:

(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
Telephone
Contact
Number
Name

Please return completed form via email:


NPD.DATA@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk

PC 28 Annex E appended December 2006