Probation Circular

OFFENDER ASSESSMENT SYSTEM (OASYS) QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN
PURPOSE
This Circular publishes the OASys Quality Management Plan (“QMP”) and includes an Action Plan template for completion and return to the NOMS OASys team. REFERENCE NO: 48/2005 ISSUE DATE: 30 June 2005 IMPLEMENTATION DATE: Immediate EXPIRY DATE: January 2008 TO: Chairs of Probation Boards Chief Officers of Probation Secretaries of Probation Boards Regional What Works Managers HM Inspectorate of Probation Regional Offender Managers CC: Board Treasurers Regional Managers

ACTION
Probation Areas are asked to: • Introduce quality control procedures at first and second levels as set out in the QMP. • Identify a senior manager to take responsibility for the QMP. • Complete and return the Action Plan template by 31 August. • Participate in regional benchmarking events. Regional Managers, through the Regional Forums, are asked to: • Co-ordinate and lead the regional benchmarking events in accordance with Appendix 3 of the QMP • Provide summary reports as per Appendix 3

SUMMARY
The NPS has done well in its implementation of OASys but it needs a framework to help ensure consistently high quality OASys completion across all 42 areas. OASys is common to both the NPS and Prison Service and, in keeping with this, the QMP is a joint probation/prison development. It is being published formally to the NPS today through this Circular. Final sign off in the Prison Service is expected shortly. Implementation of the QMP is a key component of the Assessment and Management of Risk of Harm Action Plan which is explained in detail in PC49/2005.

AUTHORISED BY: Richard Mason Head of OASys and CJA unit ATTACHED: • • • • OASys QMP with 4 of its six Appendices Action Plan template for completion and return Appendix 5 Appendix 6

RELEVANT PREVIOUS PROBATION CIRCULARS
This Circular should be read in conjunction with PC 49/2005

CONTACTS FOR ENQUIRIES
John Bourton – OASys NPS Implementation manager: 020 7217 8908 Pauline Hill – OASys NPS training manager: 020 7217 0696 Dave Whitfield – OASys HMPS implementation manager: 020 7217 5825

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

Please refer to the following attachments: • • • • OASys QMP with 4 of its six Appendices Action Plan template for completion and return Appendix 5 Appendix 6

PC482005 –Offender Assessment System (OASYS)Quality Management Plan

2

OASys Quality Management Plan

Version 6 July 2005

Table of Contents
1 Introduction 1.1 Purpose 1.2 Scope 1.3 The Priority of Quality Management 1.4 Operational and non-operational quality management 1.5 Quality Management terminology Framework 2.1 National Offender Management Service 2.2 National Probation Service 2.3 HM Prison Service Quality Standards 3.1 Origins 3.2 HM Prison Service 3.3 National Probation Service Quality Control 4.1 ‘What makes a Good OASys?’ 4.2 Operational quality control 4.2.1 Routine quality requirements 4.2.2 First-level local quality requirements (HMPS) 4.2.3 First-level local quality requirements (NPS) 4.2.4 Second-level local quality requirements (HMPS & NPS & NOMS) 4.2.5 Training quality control 4.2.6 Assessment Consistency Videos Quality Assurance 5.1 First-Party QA – Establishment / Probation Area level 5.2 Second-Party QA – regional level 5.3 Second-Party QA – national level 5.4 Third-Party QA – independent validation 5.5 Quality Measurement 5.5.1 O-DEAT analysis to date 5.5.2 Performance measurement 5.5.3 IT-enabled quality measurement 5.5.4 Remote / non-contemporaneous monitoring of interviews Assessment tool validation 6.1 In-house validation and revision 6.2 External evaluation and validation 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 6 7 7 7 8 8 8 8 9 9 9 9 9 9 10 10 10

2

3

4

5

6

OASys Quality Management Plan

2

01/07/05

Appendices 1. Quality management terminology (from ISO 9000) 2. “What Makes a Good OASys” Quality checking document 3. NOMS Quality Control Events 4. Notes for completion of Quality Monitoring Form 5. Quality Monitoring Form NPS 6. Quality Monitoring Form HMPS

OASys Quality Management Plan

3

01/07/05

OASys Quality Management Plan (QMP)
1 1.1 Introduction Purpose The purpose of the OASys QMP is to establish a clear system of quality planning, control and assurance common to the National Probation Service (NPS) and Her Majesty’s Prison Service (HMPS), so that managers and stakeholders can have confidence in the adequacy and consistency of assessments in both Services. Scope The OASys QMP is chiefly concerned with operational quality management (see 1.4). Its primary aim is to manage quality in business-as-usual mode, rather than to assess the progress of implementation; however, quality control and assurance during implementation is also covered in this plan. It is designed to comply with general quality management strategies in both Services. The Priority of Quality Management There is a clear need to demonstrate accuracy of data, professionalism and consistency of assessments both within and between the two Services. The OASys Programme Board is determined to achieve a fully joined-up assessment and planning system; staff of either Service or any discipline must have confidence in the assessments and reviews, as offenders pass through and from one sentence to the next. The confidence of other stakeholders, particularly the courts, the Parole Board, and Inspectorates is also important. Operational and non-operational quality management • Operational quality management takes as definitive the versions of the OASys assessment tool in use at a given time, and manages the quality of application of that instrument. • Non-operational quality management concerns the validation and revision of the OASys instrument itself.

1.2

1.3

1.4

The bulk of this Plan concerns operational quality management (Sections 2 to 5). Nonoperational quality management is covered briefly in Section 6. 1.5 Quality Management terminology The definitions for terms used in this document are taken from ISO 9000 and are summarised in Appendix 1 below. Framework National Offender Management Service The National Offender Management Service (NOMS) standards unit is developing a way forward that will integrate National Probation Service (NPS) and HM Prison Service (HMPS) quality planning within the NOMS strategy. There is not yet sufficient detail in this planning to provide a framework for the OASys QMP. It is essential that common or at
4 01/07/05

2 2.1

OASys Quality Management Plan

least compatible quality standards are established in all agencies using OASys. 2.2 National Probation Service The Quality Management System which has been proposed for interventions and related work within the NPS provides for internal audit within probation areas, and two levels of second-party audit, at regional and national levels. The OASys QMP has been designed to be compatible with the NPS QMS, provided that the quality standards established in relation to OASys in the NPS QMS are compatible with NOMS and those of other CJ agencies HM Prison Service HMPS Planning Group currently administers the performance monitoring system within the Service. Area Performance Co-ordinators facilitate a level of quality verification, while Standards Audit Unit fulfils the validation function at national level. HMPS is undertaking a review of its quality and performance management processes.The OASys QMP has been designed to be compatible with existing HMPS systems, provided that the quality standards established in relation to OASys in the HMPS Performance Standards are compatible with those of NOMS and other CJ agencies.

2.3

3 3.1

Quality Standards Origins Each Service had legacy (largely non-IT based) offender assessment and intervention planning systems, with performance and quality standards attached. Whilst these legacy systems have now been replaced by OASys their performance and quality standards remain useful in formulating appropriate standards for OASys. More determinative are the results of research on quality and effectiveness in the use of such tools and of OASys in particular. The OASys Data, Evaluation and Analysis Team (O-DEAT) in the central OASys Unit considered quality assurance and inter-rater reliability in considerable depth in relation to OASys use in both Services. Their key findings related specifically to the OASys pilots, and informed a number of amendments and changes to OASys in the last two years. This work clearly demonstrated the importance of building QA into the development and operation of OASys. HM Prison Service A revised version of the HMPS Performance Standard on OASys was issued in April 2005. This Standard will be used as the basis of both internal self-audit at establishment level and audit at national level by Standards Audit Unit, based on the ‘critical baselines’ in the Standard. Prison Service Order 2205 (Offender Assessment and Sentence Management using OASys) and the accompanying guidance document provides all the supporting information required for audit. National Probation Service NPS National Standards were revised and republished under cover of PC 15/2005 and contain a number of performance requirements relating to OASys assessments.

3.2

3.3

OASys Quality Management Plan

5

01/07/05

4 4.1

Quality Control ‘What makes a Good OASys?’ A number of quality measurement tools have been produced and deployed in the NPS, at both national and regional levels, under the general heading ‘What Makes a Good OASys?’. The joint OASys business team (NPS/HMPS) has developed these, with guidance from (O-DEAT, into an instrument for checking quality on a routine basis, and into a more detailed Quality Monitoring Form for more comprehensive measurement for audit purposes. The Quality Monitoring Form comes in a “locked” and an “unlocked” version, for use in custody and the community respectively. Use of the forms is described in more detail below, and the forms and guidance notes for completion are included in the Appendices Operational quality control Routine quality requirements All OASys reviews in HMPS, and all those carried out in the NPS by staff whose level of seniority or experience requires it, are countersigned by local staff. These counter signatories are accredited for this role either by job grade or by appointment on the basis of proven competence. The NPS has a one-day training course for counter-signers which is provided in addition to the core OASys training. This has recently been developed by the OASys training team into a single course for supervisors/countersigners in both Services, and will be launched on a regional basis from September 2005 . A revised version of the ‘What makes a good OASys?’ instrument is attached at Appendix 2 and will be provided to all counter signatories, together with anonymised examples of good practice, as the basis for their quality checking. The OASys Manual and the Help material in the IT systems provide the comprehensive guidance which is needed to support the use of this instrument. The internal quality assurance should cover: • assessor interviewing skills (including pro-social modelling and motivational interviewing techniques) • collateral information gathering • use of the manual/help prompts • inputting, evidencing, evaluation and scoring of criminogenic factors • clear logical connection between risk/needs assessment and targets set • appropriate and ‘smart’ supervision/sentence planning

4.2 4.2.1

4.2.2

First-level local quality requirements (HMPS establishments) 10% of completed HMPS assessments should be checked by the establishment OASys Manager, in order to verify the quality of monitoring by supervisors. This will be documented on paper, until and unless a facility for recording and tracking these firstlevel checks is incorporated into the IT system. For the purpose of quality checking, use may be made of either of the two forms attached at Appendices 2 and 6.

OASys Quality Management Plan

6

01/07/05

4.2.3

First-level local quality requirements (NPS Areas) With effect from the publication of this plan, all OASys assessors are to have a minimum of two assessments per quarter checked using the “What Makes a Good OASys “ Checklist (Appendix 2). (This procedure replaces the initial implementation plan which required checking of the first 100 completed assessments and regular reviews thereafter). NPS Areas are to put in place procedures to ensure that line-managers/ countersigners carry out this task, and that the results are collated and recorded. It is strongly suggested that the checklist results are used as evidence in individual appraisals and for performance improvement purposes. Areas may choose to use the Quality Monitoring Form at Appendix 5 if preferred, although resource issues may mean that the use of this tool is selective. In addition to the individual quality check of assessors, areas are advised to introduce internal benchmarking events at team/district/area level in line with para 4.2.4 below, using the Quality Monitoring form at Appendix 5.

4.2.4

Second-level quality requirements (NPS regions & HMPS areas & NOMS) Since 2003, a number of NPS regions have been undertaking benchmarking exercises at regional level. These have involved probation areas, and latterly Prison Service establishments. The benefit to be gained from these exercises has been well demonstrated, and what to date has been best practice must now form a major element in the QMP. The QMP introduces a requirement to conduct benchmarking events at regular intervals. These events should involve staff from both HMPS and the NPS, and will make use of the Quality Monitoring Forms to gather information for the purposes of quality assurance and quality improvement. They will be organised jointly by the NPS Regional Forums, for which the Regional Managers are responsible, and HMPS Area Co-ordinators and should invite the participation of the central NOMS OASys team. Further details of these events are provided at Appendix 3.

4.2.5

Training quality control This was the first step taken to ensure that OASys training was delivered to a high and consistent standard. The NPS national OASys training team monitored training quality consistently, until the national roll out of OASys was completed. Its members observed the delivery of training events in 18 of the 42 probation areas (43%). With the exception of a couple of events general feedback of the QA visits indicated that the training delivery had been ‘excellent’ (both in delivery and preparation). Where it was felt that the training delivery had not reached the required level of competence this was discussed with the trainers at an appropriate time and/or fed back to managers. In the Prison Service, trainees received training in risk assessment and interviewing skills prior to starting their core OASys training. This additional training was a response

OASys Quality Management Plan

7

01/07/05

to some of the quality assurance findings from the pilots, which identified gaps in relation to interview skills and risk assessment. Unlike the NPS, HMPS have trained designated staff in each establishment. Assessors and Supervisors were themselves assessed for competence and then accredited. HMPS OASys training was delivered by a central team. From April 2005 training became the responsibility of Training and Development Group, based at Prison Service College, Newbold Revel. The quality of the national training delivery has been monitored by the training manager and by external experts; HMPS OASys HQ staff and NPD OASys specialists. The combined NOMS OASys team will now take responsibility for ensuring the maintenance and consistency of OASys training delivered to both Services. This involves liaison with the HMPS Training and Development Group and the NPS HR Training Project Manager and the Programmes Implementation Training Manager in the NPD Interventions Unit. 4.2.6 Assessment Consistency Videos The OASys team will produce a series of video assessments during 2005/6 that can be used to train, monitor and assess the quality of assessments being produced in the operational field. These videos will be focused on the response of an offender to interview questioning and process and will be presented to a group of assessors to measure the consistency of information collected whilst observing the interviews. Joint training between Services can be accommodated using this method as feed back from the assessment consistency videos can be returned using the paper based assessment format. The assessment consistency videos will also form part of a future initial training package and be used by ODEAT for use in inter-rater reliability studies. 5 5.1 Quality Assurance First-level QA – HMPS establishment / Probation Area level Local self-audit will apply the key audit baselines defined in the respective Standards (as outlined in Section 3), within the Service frameworks defined in Section 2. This is distinct from the quality control activities summarised in Section 4. In HMPS (in line with the current procedures for all Standards) the OASys Standard should be self-audited at least once every two years. Second-level QA – HMPS Area level/Probation regional level OASys Area and Regional QA systems will be integrated into general area and regional management strategies. They are not at present a formal element in QA, but they will enable area and regional managers to discern trends and patterns. The following information will be available: • Outputs from regional benchmarking and peer review exercises • Management information reports from the OASys IT systems • Reports from O-DEAT on regional quality and performance

5.2

OASys Quality Management Plan

8

01/07/05

5.3

Third-level QA – national level The HMPS and NPS national OASys teams will monitor performance and quality, on the basis both of samples of complete reviews (by random or targeted selection) and of aggregated information from MIS systems. They will report the results to senior management in each Service, on a regular basis. However, QA at national level will chiefly be carried out by O-DEAT, subject to availability of staff, as commissioned by the OASys Programme Board, or by either Service, or as otherwise determined by the appropriate authority. Quality Measurement O-DEAT analysis to date O-DEAT now have access to over half a million probation OASys assessments. Testing of the IT link to prison OASys assessments is currently taking place and will be migrated to the O-DEATsystem when testing is complete (later in 2005). Analysis of assessments has produced a diverse and rich source of information that has proved useful in monitoring the quality of assessments. Through this analysis it has been possible to feedback promptly to areas either at a regional or national level to highlight potential training needs.

5.4 5.4.1

5.4.2

Performance measurement Performance measurement is relatively straightforward when MIS systems and appropriate reporting functionality is available in the IT systems. The HMPS OASys team now undertakes monthly performance monitoring by this means. Monthly reports on completion of assessments will be made in HMPS to the Director of Operations and all Area Managers. Further measures of effectiveness and of efficiency can be informed by the analysis of OASys MIS aggregated data (e.g. mapping risk of harm scores in OASys against subsequent incidents involving harm). IT-enabled quality measurement IT-enabled analysis of data will be applied wherever the nature of the data permits it. ODEAT is in the process of purchasing Clemantine software for text analysis. More straightforwardly measurable criteria (e.g. the proportion of data fields left empty) can be analysed by the use of research tools already in use by O-DEAT.

5.4.3

5.4.4

Remote / non-contemporaneous monitoring of interviews The use of video recordings as a medium for monitoring the quality of risk assessment interviews and the integrity of offender programme delivery has been successfully employed within the Prison Service and more recently by probation areas. This methodology as a means of monitoring ‘slippage’ in OASys risk assessment interviews could be employed by areas to quality assure their staff interviews.

OASys Quality Management Plan

9

01/07/05

In the future it would be beneficial for the OASys team to identify areas that are already utilising this approach and to further encourage its use across the service. O-DEAT can provide advice to areas on how this process can be implemented. 6 6.1 Assessment tool validation In-house validation and revision An internal study examining the inter-rater reliability of OASys within the Probation Service was conducted in summer 2004. A Prison Service inter-rater reliability study will be conducted in early autumn 2005. External evaluation and validation In the same way, external validation of the OASys instrument may be invited or commissioned by the OASys Programme Board. No formal provision for such evaluation is made in this plan, but the Programme Board is committed to it.

6.2

OASys Quality Management Plan

10

01/07/05

APPENDIX 1 TO OASys QMP QUALITY MANAGEMENT TERMINOLOGY (FROM ISO 9000) The following terms and definitions are used in this document, and are taken from ISO 9000:

Term Quality Management System Quality Management Quality Planning

Definition Management system to direct and control an organisation with regard to quality Co-ordinated activities to direct and control an organisation with regard to quality Part of quality management focused on setting quality objectives and specifying necessary operational process and resources to fulfil the quality objectives Part of quality management focused on fulfilling quality requirements Part of quality management focused on providing confidence that quality requirements will be fulfilled Part of quality management focused on increasing the ability to fulfil the quality requirements Extent to which planned activities are realised and planned results achieved Relationship between result achieved and resources used Degree to which a set of inherent characteristics fulfil requirements Need or expectation that is stated, generally implied or obligatory.

Quality Control Quality Assurance Quality Improvement Quality Requirements: Effectiveness Quality Requirements: Efficiency Quality Requirement

OASys Quality Management Plan

11

01/07/05

APPENDIX 2 TO OASys QMP

What makes a good OASys?
Quality Checklist for use by Managers, Supervisors and Countersigners OFFENDER NAME: PNC: CASE REF NO: ASSESSOR NAME: CHECKER NAME: DATE OF DATE OF ASSESSMENT: QUALITYCHECK: Completing OASys Sections 1-13
1 2 3 4 5 Has all essential Case ID information been recorded accurately? Name, PNC number, DOB, Gender, REM, Postcode, Sentence Details Clear Analysis: There is no contradiction within a section or between sections Evidence boxes have been completed to support the scores as per the manual/help (except Section 13 which is not scored) Positive and negative factors have been identified Links to risk of serious harm and to offending behaviour are consistent with evidence and scores Yes No

Comments:

6.2.1 6

Risk of Serious Harm

Yes

No

7

8 9 10 11

Clear Analysis. There is no contradiction within a section or between sections. The processing and interpretation of information reaches a clear conclusion – what risk factors exist and what needs to change? If the decision has been taken not to undertake a full risk analysis (although identified from the screening) the reasons for this are considered, reasonable and supported by evidence Only information that can be shared with the offender has been included in the risk of serious harm full analysis section There is a clear understanding of the difference between the risk of reoffending and the risk of serious harm The risk assessment takes account of behaviour as a whole and not only offences The Risk Management Plan is specific and focused as to how risk of harm issues will be reduced and managed by the Service and other agencies, where appropriate

OASys Quality Management Plan

12

01/07/05

12 13 14 15 16

In the Risk Management Plan use has been made of the headings as per PC10/05? (see note1) Is the Risk of Harm Assessment clear and specific where the offender is managed by level 2 or 3 of MAPPA? Where the response in the screening form is ‘Don’t know’ have further enquires been made as appropriate? Countersigning has taken place as appropriate Have the Risk of Harm Assessment and Risk Management Plan been reviewed and updated? Review/Transfer/Termination (see note 1)

Comments:

OASys and Reports for the Courts (Probation staff only)
17 18 19 20 21 22 6.2.2 Is it clear that OASys was completed prior to the preparation of the report for the Court? Was Section 2 of OASys 1-13 appropriately taken into account in the Offence Analysis section Were Sections 3-12 of OASys 1-13 taken into account appropriately in the offender assessment section? Was the OASys assessment of risk of serious harm taken into account appropriately in the in the report section relating to risk of harm? Does the proposal reflect the OASys assessment? The outline sentence plan clearly reflects the risks and needs identified by OASys Comments

Yes

No

6.3
23 24 6.4 6.5

Sentence Planning
Has the self-assessment questionnaire (SAQ) been fully completed by the offender and dated? SMART Plan – A clear plan. The sentence plan clearly identifies what work is to be done by the offender, gives clear timescales. How will progress be measured (and dates), who will be involved?

Yes

No

OASys Quality Management Plan

13

01/07/05

25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32

6.6 6.7 6.8 6.9

Are objectives linked to the risk of serious harm given priority? Are there clear links to the Risk Management Plan? Is there evidence to indicate that the SAQ responses have been taken into account when writing the sentence plan? The plan was completed within the timescales laid down by National Standards and Prison Service Orders

6.10 The plan has been countersigned as appropriate 6.11 Is it evident that the offender has been given an opportunity to read the plan and comment? 6.12 Has the plan been reviewed in accordance with National Standards and Prison Service Orders? 6.13 On completion of the sentence has the final review been completed?

6.14

Comments:

NOTE 1: Probation Circular 10/05 sets out headings which should be used within the existing text box for the Risk Management Plan in OASys. These are 1) Other agencies involved, 2) Existing support/controls, 3) Added measures for specific risks, 4) Who will undertake the actions and by when, 5) Additional conditions/requirements to manage the specific risks, 6) Level of contact. PC 10/05 also reinforces the requirement to review the Risk Assessment and Management Plans particularly when new information is received.

OASys Quality Management Plan

14

01/07/05

APPENDIX 3 TO OASys QMP NOMS QUALITY CONTROL EVENTS GUIDE TO OASys REGIONAL/AREA QUALITY ASSURANCE BENCHMARKING Aims Regional benchmarking events will: • • • • Provide evidence of the extent to which standards are being met provide assurance of the quality of OASys assessments produced by probation areas and prison establishments within a region/area provide feedback for practitioners to improve the quality of their assessments provide evidence for local management of the efficiency and effectiveness of their quality management planning

Structure The following points are taken from the collected experiences from a number of events held throughout 2003/4 and are best practice guidelines rather than mandatory requirements. • The event should be led by an independent manager (e.g. RWWM, Area Coordinator, NOMS OASys team) • Members should be a mix of assessors, supervisors, line-managers • Members should be drawn from all areas/establishments being quality assured • Members should not monitor assessments from their own area/establishment • All members should monitor the same sample assessment and discuss the marking in order to establish a common standard • The independent manager should second check at least one monitoring form produced by each member • As a guide, members can expect to monitor one complete assessment per hour and five is about the maximum per individual per day • The process for selecting assessments for monitoring needs to be agreed beforehand. Clearly a random selection process is preferred, but needs to be transparent • Agreement needs to be reached beforehand on what paperwork is required for each assessment that is to be monitored. This might include copies of the PSR, MAPPP minutes, or the entire case file, according to what is being monitored • Monitoring forms need to include text to support the marking. • Feedback for individual assessors should be positive and constructive and aimed at improving performance • Copies of the monitoring forms should be returned to the relevant assessor • Common themes that emerge during the event should be identified and collated (Flipchart?)
OASys Quality Management Plan 15 01/07/05

• The collated scores and common themes from all the Monitoring forms should be compiled in a report which should be sent by the [independent manager] who is he/she? to all participating areas/establishments, with a copy to NOMS OASys team • Future events should review previous event reports for measures of progress.

OASys Quality Management Plan

16

01/07/05

APPENDIX 4 TO OASys QMP - OASys QUALITY ASSURANCE FORMS

NOTES FOR COMPLETION Introduction
This appendix explains how to complete the OASys Quality Assurance Forms at appendices 5 and 6. There are separate probation and prison versions of the QA forms for use in the community or in custodys.The OASys Quality Assurance forms were developed with contributions and advice from HM Inspector of Probation, Probation Areas, colleagues in the Public Protection and Courts Unit at NPD, members of the OASys User Group and Prison Service colleagues.The forms are designed to offer Probation Areas and the Prison Service a standardised tool by which to judge the quality of completed OASys assessments. Please read through these notes before undertaking a quality assurance exercise.

Using the Forms Each component of OASys requires marking as excellent, good/satisfactory,etc) based on how competently that component has been completed.

OASys component Case ID and Offence(s) Analysis OASys 1/OASys 2 (sections 3 –13) Risk of Harm Screening and Full Analysis OASys and Reports for Courts Sentence Planning Sentence Planning/Review/Transfer/Termination

Section Value score(SV)box number SV 1 SV 2 SV 3 SV 4A (Probation Service only) SV 4B SV 4C

7

The total marks awarded to all these boxes should be used to complete the Quality Rating Section on page 2, where guidance on definitions for the overall marking of excellent, etc, can also be found. The total mark will provide a quality rating of the whole of the OASys document whilst also identifying good practice and areas for improvement (if any) in each component of OASys. Marking will need to be adjusted if less than three sections of OASys are being assessed. (Comments have been received as to the limited size of the comments box at the end of each section. These can of course be ‘stretched’ and made as long as is felt necessary but page breaks may then need amending). Important Note: Reference is made, particularly within the Risk of Harm Section, to Probation Circular 10/2005 – Public Protection Framework, Risk of Harm and MAPPA Thresholds. Section 7 of that Probation Circular sets out headings to be used within the existing text box in the OASys Risk Management Plan. These are: 1 Other Agencies involved 2 Existing support/controls

OASys Quality Management Plan

17

01/07/05

3 Added measures for specific risks 4 Who will undertake the actions and by when 5 Additional conditions/requirements to manage the specific risks 6 Level of contact

Quality Assessors, in both the Prison and Probation Service, should take account of whether or not these headings have been used in the Risk Management Plan and the use of the headings, as well as the content of the Risk Management Plan, should be reflected in the scorings.

Quality Rating Criteria NOTE: THE LAYOUT AND ALIGNMENT OF THE TICKS AND ARROWS AND SUBARROWS NEEDS CHECKING AS A NUMBER OF LINES ARE OUT OF ALIGNMENT.
Case ID and Offence Analysis Mark as Excellent Case ID and Section 1 are fully complete Analysis of Offence(s) There is a clear analysis of the offence(s) Each Section is fully completed. Evidence boxes completed to support scores as per the manual Mark as Good/satisfactory Case ID and Section 1 are fully complete Analysis of Offence(s) There is a clear analysis of the offence(s) No more than one evidence box is incomplete Mark as Unsatisfactory Case ID and Section 1 are mostly complete Analysis of Offence(s) Offence(s) analysis is not clear No more than three evidence boxes are incomplete Mark as Poor Case ID and Section 1 have missing information Analysis of Offence(s) Offence Analysis is not clear Evidence boxes have not been completed Sections 3 -13 (OASys1/2) Mark as Excellent All sections completed and there are no missing items

OASys Quality Management Plan

18

01/07/05

Clear analysis. There is no contradiction within a section or between sections The processing and interpretation of information reaches a clear conclusion – what risk factors need to change and which protective factors require support Evidence boxes completed to support scores as per the manual (Even when the score is 0) Positive as well as negative factors identified Links to risk of serious harm and to offending behaviour are consistent with evidence and scores Mark as Good/satisfactory No more than one item, per section, missing from sections 3 – 9 Sections 10 – 13 are complete Clear analysis. There is no contradiction within a section or between sections. The processing and interpretation of information reaches a clear conclusion – what risk factors need to change and which protective factors require support Evidence boxes completed to support scores as per the manual. (Even when score is 0) Positive as well as negative factors identified Link to risk of serious harm and to risk of re-offending are consistent with evidence and scores Mark as Unsatisfactory Sections 10 –12 are complete. Other sections have no more than two data items in any one section The analysis of what risk factors need to change, and which protective factors need support, is not clear. There is contradiction between some sections Evidence boxes are completed but do not support scoring as per the manual Item link to risk of serious harm and risk of re-offending is not always consistent with the evidence recorded Mark as Poor All sections have missing information Evidence is missing or unclear No evidence to indicate that manual has been used to help complete the scored sections Item link to risk of serious harm and risk of re-offending has not been consistently recorded Risk of Serious Harm Mark as Excellent Clear analysis. There is no contradiction within a section or between sections. The processing and interpretation of information reaches a clear conclusion – what risk factors exist and need to change If the decision has been taken not to undertake a full risk analysis (if identified from the screening) the reasons for this are clear and acceptable Only information that can be shared with the offender has been included in the risk of serious harm full analysis section There is a clear understanding of the difference between risk of re-offending and risk of serious harm The risk assessment takes account of behaviour as a whole and not just offences Risk Management Plan is specific and focused as to how risk of harm issues will be reduced and managed by the Service and other agencies, where appropriate (PC10/05) Countersigning has taken place as appropriate

OASys Quality Management Plan

19

01/07/05

Mark as Good/satisfactory Clear analysis. There is no contradiction within a section or between sections. The processing and interpretation of information reaches a clear conclusion – what risk factors exist and need to change If the decision has been taken not to undertake a full risk analysis (if identified from the screening) the reasons for this are clear and acceptable Only information that can be shared with the offender has been included in the Risk of harm full analysis There is an understanding of the difference between risk of re-offending and risk of serious harm The risk assessment takes account of behaviour as a whole and not just offences Risk Management Plan is specific and focused as to how risk of harm issues will be reduced and managed by the Service and other agencies, where appropriate(PC10/05) Countersigning has not taken place as appropriate Mark as Unsatisfactory There is some contradiction within a section or between sections Where a decision has been taken not to complete a full risk of harm analysis (if identified from the screening) the reasons for this are not clearly recorded or acceptable Only information that can be shared with the offender has been included in the Risk of harm full analysis The assessment indicates confusion between the risk of serious harm and the risk of reoffending Risk Management Plan is available. No clear indication of how Service or other agencies will reduce or manage risk (PC10/05) Countersigning has not taken place as appropriate Mark as Poor Risk of Harm section is unclear Where a decision has been taken not to complete a full risk of harm analysis (if identified by the screening) the reasons for this are not recorded and/or are unacceptable The assessment demonstrates a lack of understanding between the risk of re-offending and the risk of harm No clear indicator as to who is at risk (if applicable) and/or how risk will be reduced or managed by the Service and other agencies (PC10/05) Countersigning has not taken place as appropriate OASys and Reports for the Courts (Probation only) Mark as Excellent It is clear that OASys was completed prior to the preparation of the report for Court (as appropriate) Section 2 of OASys1/2 was appropriately taken into account in the offence analysis section Sections 3-12 of OASys taken into account appropriately in the offender assessment section of the report The OASys assessment of risk of harm was taken into account appropriately in the report section relating to risk of harm The outline sentence plan clearly reflects the risks and needs identified by OASys

OASys Quality Management Plan

20

01/07/05

Mark as Good/satisfactory It is clear that OASys was completed prior to the preparation of the report for Court (as appropriate) Section 2 of OASys1/2 was appropriately taken into account in the offence analysis section Sections 3-12 of OASys taken into account appropriately in the offender assessment section of the report The OASys assessment of risk of harm was taken into account appropriately in the report section relating to risk of harm The outline sentence plan does not clearly reflect the risks and needs identified by OASys Mark as Unsatisfactory It is clear that OASys was completed prior to the preparation of the report for Court (as appropriate Section 2 of OASys 1/2 was not appropriately taken into account in the offence analysis section Sections 3-12 of OASys was taken into account appropriately in the offender assessment section of the report The OASys assessment of the risk of harm was not taken into account appropriately in the report section relating to risk of harm The outline Sentence Plan is not clear Mark as Poor It is clear that the OASys was not completed prior to the preparation of the report (but should have been) Section 2 of OASys 1/2 was not taken into account in the offence analysis section Sections 3-12 of OASys was not taken into account appropriately in the offender assessment section of the report The OASys assessment of the risk of harm was not taken into account appropriately in the report section relating to risk of harm The outline sentence plan is not clear Sentence Planning Mark as Excellent The Self Assessment Questionnaire (SAQ) has been fully completed by the offender and dated SMART Plan – A clear plan. The Sentence Plan clearly identifies what work is to be done by the offender, gives clear time scales, how progress will be measured and states who will be involved. Objectives linked to risk of serious harm are given priority There are clear links to the Risk Management Plan as appropriate Evidence to indicate that the SAQ responses have been taken into account when writing the sentence plan The plan was completed within time-scales laid down by National Standards/Prison Service Orders The plan has been countersigned as appropriate Evident that the offender has been given the opportunity to read the plan and comment Mark as Good/satisfactory The Self Assessment Questionnaire has been completed by the offender and dated SMART Plan – A clear plan. The Sentence Plan clearly identifies what work is to be done by the offender, gives clear time scales, how progress will be measured and states who will be involved. Objectives linked to risk of serious harm are given priority

OASys Quality Management Plan

21

01/07/05

There are clear links to the Risk Management Plan as appropriate Evident that the SAQ responses have been taken into account when writing the Sentence Plan The Sentence Plan was completed within timescales laid down by National Standards/Prison Service Orders Evident that offender has been given the opportunity to read the plan and comment The Sentence Plan has not been countersigned as appropriate Mark as Unsatisfactory Sentence Plan is available but not clear No evidence that offender was given the opportunity of completing the Self Assessment Questionnaire OR a SAQ is present but not completed in a way that is beneficial to the OASys process No evidence to indicate that the offender has seen the plan and has been offered the opportunity to comment The Sentence Plan has not been countersigned as appropriate The Sentence Plan was completed within given timescales laid down by National Standards/Prison Service Orders Mark as Poor Unclear or absent sentence plan No evidence to indicate that offender completed the Self Assessment Questionnaire OR a SAQ is present but not completed in a way that is beneficial to the OASys process No evidence to indicate that the offender has seen the plan and been offered the opportunity to comment The plan has not been countersigned as appropriate The plan, if present, was not completed within the timescales laid down by National Standards/Prison Service Orders Reviews, Transfers and Termination Mark as Excellent New objectives linked to risk of serious harm are given priority SMART Plan The Risk of Harm Assessment and the Risk Management Plan have been reviewed and updated The Transfer/Termination Plan is fully completed There is a clear statement of what work has been achieved Evident that offender has been given the opportunity to read the Sentence Plan and make comment The Sentence Plan has been completed in accordance with National Standards/Prison Service Orders The plan has been countersigned as appropriate Mark as Good/satisfactory New objectives linked to risk of serious harm are given priority SMART Plan The Risk of Harm Assessment and the Risk Management Plan have been reviewed and updated The Transfer/Termination Plan is fully completed There is a clear statement of what work has been achieved

OASys Quality Management Plan

22

01/07/05

Evident that offender has been given the opportunity to read the Sentence Plan and make comment The plan has been completed in accordance with National Standards/Prison Service Orders timescales The plan has not been countersigned as appropriate Mark as Unsatisfactory Sentence Plan is available but not clear Not clear what work has been achieved The Transfer/Termination Plan is complete No evidence to indicate that the offender has been given the opportunity to read the sentence plan and comment The Sentence Plan has been completed in accordance with National Standards/Prison Service Orders timescales The Sentence Plan has not been countersigned as appropriate Mark as Poor Sentence Plan is unclear or absent Transfer and Termination incomplete There is no clear indication as to what has been achieved Not clear the Risk of Harm Assessment and/or the Risk Management Plan have been reviewed and updated The Sentence Plan (if present) has not been completed within National Standards/Prison Service Orders timescales The Sentence Plan (if present) has not been countersigned as appropriate

OASys Quality Management Plan

23

01/07/05

APPENDIX 5 TO OASys QMP National Offender Management Services - COMMUNITY

OASys QUALITY ASSURANCE FORM
Case Name Case Ref No PNC No

Race & Ethnic Monitoring Code

Gender (M/F)

Assessment Stage PLEASE TICK

Court Report

Commence

Review

Termination

Other type of report (please state)

Name OASys completed by Quality assurance completed by

Office/Location

Grade

Which of the following components of OASys are being monitored? OASys one/ OASys two (please specify) Risk of Harm Screening Risk of Harm Full Analysis Outline Plan Initial Sentence Plan Self Assessment Questionnaire Review / Transfer / Termination Plan

Yes

No

1

Quality Ratings from each section
Excellent
SV1 SV2 SV3 SV4 A SV4 B SV4 C Good/Satisfactory

Unsatisfactory

Poor

Quality Rating (add scores from sections) SV1 – SV4C) ** Scoring will need to be adjusted if less than three sections of OASys are being assessed (Poor)** (Excellent) (Unsatisfactory)** (Good/Satisfactory)** No excellent scores, No more than one No excellent scores, no Nor more than three no satisfactory section marked as more than one section sections marked as scores, more than satisfactory, no satisfactory, no marked as satisfactory three sections marked unsatisfactory and no unsatisfactory, and no and no more than one as unsatisfactory or poor scores poor scores poor score poor OV OVERALL COMMENTS Strengths Areas for Improvement

2

1.CASE IDENTIFICATION AND OFFENDING INFORMATION
Yes Fully 1A Has case ID and Offending Information been entered?
Date of Sentence OGRS Score

Yes Partially

No

See Comments

Date OASys completed

%

2. ANALYSIS OF OFFENCE(S)
Yes Fully Yes Partially No See Comments

2A

Have all boxes been completed to support the evidence?
Excellent Good / Satisfactory Unsatisfactory Poor

SV1

Overall, how do you rate the quality of this section?

Please enter comments to support the score for SV1

3-13. DYNAMIC CRIMINOGENIC FACTORS 3 Accommodation
Yes Fully Yes Partially No See Comments

3A

Has evidence been recorded to support the scoring? Excellent Good / Satisfactory Unsatisfactory Poor

3B

How do you rate the quality of this section?

4. ETE
Yes Fully 4A Has evidence been recorded to support the scoring? Excellent 4B How do you rate the quality of this section? Good / Satisfactory Unsatisfactory Poor Yes Partially No See Comments

3

5. Financial
Yes Fully 5A Has evidence been recorded to support the scoring? Excellent 5B How do you rate the quality of this section? Good / Satisfactory Unsatisfactory Poor Yes Partially No See Comments

6. Relationships
Yes Fully 6A Has evidence been recorded to support the scoring? Excellent 6B How do you rate the quality of this section? Good / Satisfactory Unsatisfactory Poor Yes Partially No See Comments

7. Lifestyle & Associates
Yes Fully 7A Has evidence been recorded to support the scoring? Excellent 7B How do you rate the quality of this section? Good / Satisfactory Unsatisfactory Poor Yes Partially No See Comments

8. Drug Misuse
Yes Fully 8A Has evidence been recorded to support the scoring? Excellent 8B How do you rate the quality of this section? Good / Satisfactory Unsatisfactory Poor Yes Partially No See Comments

9. Alcohol Misuse
Yes Fully 9A Has evidence been recorded to support the scoring? Excellent 9B How do you rate the quality of this section? Good / Satisfactory Unsatisfactory Poor Yes Partially No See Comments

4

10. Emotional Wellbeing
Yes Fully 10A Has evidence been recorded to support the scoring? Excellent 10B How do you rate the quality of this section? Good / Satisfactory Unsatisfactory Poor Yes Partially No See Comments

11. Thinking and Behaviour
Yes Fully 11A Has evidence been recorded to support the scoring? Excellent 11B How do you rate the quality of this section? Good / Satisfactory Unsatisfactory Poor Yes Partially No See Comments

12. Attitudes
Yes Fully 12A Has evidence been recorded to support the scoring? Excellent 12B How do you rate the quality of this section? Good / Satisfactory Unsatisfactory Poor Yes Partially No See Comments

13. Health & Other Considerations
Yes Fully 13A Have boxes been completed to support the evidence? Excellent 13B How do you rate the quality of this section? Good / Satisfactory Unsatisfactory Poor Yes Partially No See Comments

OVERALL: Sections 3 - 13
Excellent Good / Satisfactory Unsatisfactory Poor

SV2

Overall, how do you rate the quality of this section?

Pleas enter comments to support the score for SV2

5

RISK OF HARM SCREENING
Yes RHS1 Has the screening been completed? See comments No N/A See comments

If OASys completed by Probation Officer RHS2 RHS3 RHS4 Does the screening indicate a full risk of harm analysis is required? If yes, has the full analysis been completed? If a decision has been made not to complete the full analysis, are the reasons for not doing so considered, reasonable and supported by explanation and evidence? (see notes) Has countersigning taken place (as appropriate)?

Yes

No

N/A

RHS5

If OASys completed by PSO/TPO RHS6 RHS7 Does the risk of harm screening indicate a full risk of harm analysis is required? If yes, has the full analysis been completed? If a decision has been made not to complete the full analysis, are the reasons for not doing so considered, reasonable and supported by explanation and evidence? (see notes) Has the section been countersigned in accordance with policy and procedures?

Yes

No

N/A

See comments

RHS8

RHS9

RISK OF HARM FULL ANALYSIS, RISK OF HARM SUMMARY & RISK OF RECONVICTION SUMMARY
Yes RHF1 RHF2 RHF3 RHF4 RHF5 Is there a sound analysis of the risk factors – where present? Is there a clear understanding evidenced of the difference between risk of re-offending and the risk of serious harm? Does the risk assessment take account of behaviour as a whole rather than simply offending behaviour? Are entries sufficiently specific e.g. who is at risk? Where the response on OASys is “Don’t know”, have further enquiries been made as appropriate? Does the risk of harm assessment fully support the decision to manage an offender at MAPPA level 2 or 3? Is the Risk Management Plan specific and focused as to how risk of harm issues will be reduced and managed by the Service and other agencies, where appropriate (medium/high/very high)? In the Risk Management Plan has use been made of the headings as given in Section 7 of PC 10/05? (see notes) Does the Risk Management Plan specifically identify where the offender is managed by level 2 or 3 of MAPPA? No N/A Comments

RHF6

RHF7

RHF8

RHF9

6

Has countersigning taken place appropriately?
RHF 10 RHF 11 RHF 12 Where Probation Officer assesses risk as High or Very High? Where full analysis not completed despite indication from the screening that this should happen? Where grades other than Probation Officer have completed the full analysis, risk management plan? Excellent

Yes

No

N/A

Comments

Good / Satisfactory

Unsatisfactory

Poor

SV3

Overall, how do you rate the quality of this section?

Please enter comments to support the score for SV3

COMPLETE ONLY ONE OF THE FOLLOWING SECTIONS: A OASys & Reports for Courts B Sentence Planning (Initial Plan) C Sentence Planning (Review/Transfer/Termination)

A

OASys & Reports for Courts
Yes Yes No No Yes Fully Yes Partially No N/A Comments

Type of report – please circle
Fast Track Standard Delivery

OP1 OP2 OP3 OP4

OP5 OP6 OP7

Was OASys completed prior to the preparation of the report? Was Section 2 of OASys taken into account appropriately in the offence analysis section of the report? Were sections 2-12 of OASys taken into account appropriately in the offender assessment section of the report? Was the OASys assessment of risk of reconviction taken into account? Was the OASys assessment of risk of harm taken into account appropriately in the report section relating to likelihood of harm to the public? Does the proposal reflect the OASys assessment? Does the outline sentence plan reflect the risks and needs identified by OASys?

7

Excellent

Good / Satisfactory

Unsatisfactory

Poor

Overall, how do you rate the quality of this section? Please enter comments to support score for SV4A SV4A

B

Sentence Planning (Initial Plan)
Yes Fully Yes Partially No See comment

Self Assessment Questionnaire
SAQ1 Has the self-assessment questionnaire been completed and dated? Yes SSP1 SSP2 SSP3 SSP4 SSP5 SSP6 SSP7 SSP8 SSP9 SSP10 SSP11 SSP12 SSP13 Are objectives linked to the OASys assessment of risk of harm? Are objectives linked to the OASys assessment of risk of reconviction? Are those objectives relating to risk of serious harm given priority? Are there clear links to the Risk Management Plan as appropriate? Is there a clear statement of what is to be achieved? Is there a clear indication of how progress will be managed? Is it clear who will do the work? Are timescales clearly measurable? Do the objectives focus on what the offender will be doing? Is there evidence to indicate that the self-assessment responses have influenced the sentence planning objectives? Have appropriate referrals been made to programmes? Was the sentence plan completed in accordance with National Standards after community sentence imposed or offender released from prison? Has the plan been countersigned in accordance with policy and procedure? No N/A

8

Excellent

Good / Satisfactory

Unsatisfactory

Poor

SV4B

Overall, how do you rate the quality of this section?

Please comment to support score for SV4B

C

Sentence Planning (Review/Transfer/Termination) On Termination answer only questions marked with ‘T’
Yes No N/A

RTT1 RTT2 RTT3 RTT4

Have OASys sections 1-13 been reviewed appropriately? Have objectives from previous plans been reviewed? Has the Risk of Harm Assessment been reviewed and updated? Has the Risk Management Plan been reviewed and updated? (Med, High, Very High)

Yes RTT5 RTT6 RTT7 RTT8 RTT9 RTT10 RTT11 RTT12 RTT13 RTT14 RTT15

No

N/A

Are new objectives linked to the OASys assessment of risk of harm? Are new objectives linked to the OASys assessment risk of harm reconviction? Are those objectives relating to risk of serious harm given priority? Are there clear links to the Risk Management Plan as appropriate? Is there a clear statement of what is to be achieved? Is there a clear indication of how progress will be measured? Is it clear who will do the work? Are timescales clearly measurable? Do the objectives focus on what the offender will be doing? Have appropriate referrals been made to programmes? Has the plan been countersigned in accordance with policy and procedure?

9

T T T T T

T1 T2 T3 T4 T5

Have OASys sections 1-13 been reviewed appropriately? Is there a review of the previous plan? Is there a clear statement of what work is achieved? What is the final risk of reconviction score? What is the final risk of harm score?

Excellent

Good / Satisfactory

Unsatisfactory

Poor

Overall, how do you rate the quality of this section? Please comment to support score for SV4C SV4C

PLEASE ENTER THE SCORES FOR SV1 - SV4C in the quality rating table on page two

10

APPENDIX 6 TO OASys QMP National Offender Management Services - CUSTODY OASys QUALITY ASSURANCE
Case Name Prison ID PNC No

Race & Ethnic Monitoring Code

Gender (M/F)

Assessment Stage PLEASE TICK

Commence

Review

Termination

Release

Name OASys completed by Quality assurance completed by Which of the following components of OASys are being monitored? OASys one/ OASys two (please specify) Risk of Harm Screening Risk of Harm Full Analysis Sentence Plan (at start of custodial sentence) Self Assessment Questionnaire Review / Transfer / Termination Plan

Location

Grade

Yes

No

1

Quality Ratings from each section
Excellent SV1 SV2 SV3 SV4 B SV4 C Quality Rating (add scores from sections SV1 – SV4C) **Scoring will need to be adjusted if less than three sections of OASys are being assessed (Poor)** (Excellent) (Unsatisfactory)** (Good/Satisfactory)** No excellent scores, No more than one No excellent scores, no Nor more than three no satisfactory section marked as more than one section sections marked as scores, more than satisfactory, no satisfactory, no marked as satisfactory three sections marked unsatisfactory and no unsatisfactory, and no score and no more than as unsatisfactory poor scores poor scores one poor score scores or poor OV Good/Satisfactory Unsatisfactory Poor

OVERALL COMMENTS Strengths Areas for Improvement

2

1.

CASE IDENTIFICATION AND OFFENDING INFORMATION
Yes Fully Yes Partially No See Comments

1A

Has Case ID and Offending Information been entered? Date of Sentence SPRP Predictor %

Date OASys completed

2.

ANALYSIS OF OFFENCE(S)
Yes Fully Yes Partially No See Comments

2A

Have all boxes been completed to support the evidence?
Excellent Good / Satisfactory Unsatisfactory Poor

SV1

Overall, how do you rate the quality of this section?

Please enter comments in support of score for SV1

3-13. DYNAMIC CRIMINOGENIC FACTORS 3. Accommodation
Yes Fully 3A Has evidence been recorded to support the scoring? Yes Partially No See Comments

Excellent 3B How do you rate the quality of this section?

Good / Satisfactory

Unsatisfactory

Poor

4.

ETE
Yes Fully Yes Partially No See Comments

4A

Has evidence been recorded to support the scoring? Excellent Good / Satisfactory Unsatisfactory Poor

4B

How do you rate the quality of this section?

3

5.

Financial
Yes Fully Yes Partially No See Comments

5A

Has evidence been recorded to support the scoring? Excellent Good / Satisfactory Unsatisfactory Poor

5B

How do you rate the quality of this section?

6.

Relationships
Yes Fully Yes Partially No See Comments

6A

Has evidence been recorded to support the scoring? Excellent Good / Satisfactory Unsatisfactory Poor

6B

How do you rate the quality of this section?

7.

Lifestyle & Associates
Yes Fully Yes Partially No See Comments

7A

Has evidence been recorded to support the scoring? Excellent Good / Satisfactory Unsatisfactory Poor

7B

How do you rate the quality of this section?

8.

Drug Misuse
Yes Fully Yes Partially No See Comments

8A

Has evidence been recorded to support the scoring? Excellent Good / Satisfactory Unsatisfactory Poor

8B

How do you rate the quality of this section?

9.

Alcohol Misuse
Yes Fully Yes Partially No See Comments

9A

Has evidence been recorded to support the scoring? Excellent Good / Satisfactory Unsatisfactory Poor

9B

How do you rate the quality of this section?

4

10.

Emotional Wellbeing
Yes Fully Yes Partially No See Comments

10A

Has evidence been recorded to support the scoring? Excellent Good / Satisfactory Unsatisfactory Poor

10B

How do you rate the quality of this section?

11. Thinking and Behaviour
Yes Fully 11A Has evidence been recorded to support the scoring? Excellent 11B How do you rate the quality of this section? Good / Satisfactory Unsatisfactory Poor Yes Partially No See Comments

11.

Attitudes
Yes Fully Yes Partially No See Comments

12A

Has evidence been recorded to support the scoring?

Excellent 12B How do you rate the quality of this section?

Good / Satisfactory

Unsatisfactory

Poor

13.

Health and other considerations
Yes Fully Yes Partially No See Comments

13A

Have boxes been completed to support the evidence? Excellent Good / Satisfactory Unsatisfactory Poor

13B

How do you rate the quality of this section?

OVERALL: Sections 3 - 13
Excellent Good / Satisfactory Unsatisfactory Poor

SV2

Overall, how do you rate the quality of this section?

Please enter comments in support of score for SV2

5

RISK OF HARM SCREENING
Yes RHS1 Has the screening been completed? Does the screening indicate a full risk of harm analysis is required? If yes, has the full risk of harm analysis been completed? If a decision has been made not to complete the full analysis are the reasons for not doing so considered, reasonable and supported by evidence? Has countersigning taken place (as appropriate)? No N/A See comments

RHS2 RHS3 RHS4 RHS5

RISK OF HARM FULL ANALYSIS, RISK OF HARM SUMMARY & RISK OF RECONVICTION SUMMARY
Yes RHF1 RHF2 RHF3 RHF4 RHF5 RHF6 Is there a sound analysis of the risk factors – where present? Is there a clear understanding evidenced of the difference between risk of re-offending and the risk of serious harm? Does the risk assessment take account of behaviour as a whole rather than simply offending behaviour? Are entries sufficiently specific e.g. who is at risk? Where the response on OASys is “Don’t know”, have further enquiries been made as appropriate? Does the risk of harm assessment fully support the decision to manage an offender at MAPPA level 2 or 3? Is the Risk MANAGEMENT plan specific and focused as to how risk of harm issues will be reduced and managed by the Service and other agencies, where appropriate? (Med, High, Very High) Does the Risk Management Plan specifically identify where the offender is managed by level 2 or 3 of MAPPA? Yes No N/A Comments No N/A Comments

RHF7

RHF8

Has countersigning taken place appropriately?
RHF 9

In accordance with Prison Service arrangements for OASys?
Excellent Good / Satisfactory Unsatisfactory Poor

SV3

Overall, how do you rate the quality of this section?

Please enter comments in support of score for SV3

6

COMPLETE ONLY ONE OF THE SECTIONS B or C: B C B Sentence Planning (Initial/Review) at start of custodial sentence Sentence Planning (Review/Transfer/Termination) Sentence Planning (Initial/Review Plan) Start of custodial sentence
Yes

Self-Assessment Questionnaire
Fully
SAQ1

Yes Partially

No

See Comment

Has the self-assessment questionnaire been completed and dated?

Yes SSP1 SSP2 SSP3 SSP4 SSP4 SSP5 SSP6 SSP7 SSP8 SSP9 SSP10 SSP 11 SSP12 Are objectives linked to the OASys assessment of risk of harm? Are objectives linked to the OASys assessment of risk of reconviction? Are those objectives relating to risk of serious harm given priority? Are there clear links to the Risk Management Plan as appropriate? Is there a clear statement of what is to be achieved? Is there a clear indication of how progress will be managed? Is it clear who will do the work? Are timescales clearly measurable? Do the objectives focus on what the offender will be doing? Is there evidence to indicate that the self-assessment responses have influenced the sentence planning objectives? Have appropriate referrals been made to programmes?

No

N/A

Was the sentence plan completed in accordance PSO timescales?
Has the plan been countersigned by the Supervisor appropriately?

Excellent

Good / Satisfactory

Unsatisfactory

Poor

SV4B

Overall, how do you rate the quality of this section?

Please enter comments in support of score for SV4B

7

C

Sentence Planning (Review/Transfer/Termination) On Termination answer only questions marked with ‘T’

Yes

No

N/A

RTT1 RTT2 RTT3 RTT4

Have OASys sections 1-13 been reviewed appropriately? Have objectives from previous plans been reviewed? Has the risk of harm assessment been reviewed and updated? Has the Risk Management plan been reviewed and updated? (Med, High, Very High)

Yes RTT3 RTT4 RTT5 RTT6 RTT7 RTT8 RTT9 RTT10 RTT11 RTT12 RTT13

No

N/A

Are new objectives linked to the OASys assessment of risk of harm? Are new objectives linked to the OASys assessment of risk of harm reconviction? Are there clear links to the Risk Management Plan as appropriate? Are those objectives relating to risk of serious harm given priority? Is there a clear statement of what is to be achieved? Is there a clear indication of how progress will be measured? Is it clear who will do the work? Are timescales clearly measurable? Do the objectives focus on what the offender will be doing? Have appropriate referrals been made to programmes? Has the plan been countersigned by the Supervisor (as appropriate)? Have OASys sections 1-13 been reviewed appropriately? Is there a review of the previous plan? Is there a clear statement of what work is achieved? What is the final risk of reconviction score? What is the final risk of harm score?

T T T T T

T1 T2 T3 T4 T5

8

Excellent

Good / Satisfactory

Unsatisfactory

Poor

SV4C

Overall, how do you rate the quality of this section?

Please enter comments in support of score for SV4C

PLEASE ENTER THE SCORES FOR SV1 – SV4C in the quality rating table on page two

9

PC 48/2005: OASys QMP AREA ACTION PLAN FOR RETURN TO THE OASYS TEAM Probation area: OASys Lead Manager: Grade: Address: Telephone: Email: 1. Please describe the procedures that you have put in place to manage 1st level quality control checks (QMP para 4.2.3 refers)? Comments:

2. Please describe the procedures that have been put in place to deliver 2nd level quality requirements (QMP para 4.2.4 refers)? Comments:

3. How do you intend to demonstrate quality improvements in your OASys assessments to staff and to stakeholders on a regular basis? Comments:

4. Please can you summarise evidence of quality improvement that you have gathered since implementing OASys in your area. (Examples of best practice will be shared). Comments:

Please return to John Bourton, NPS OASys Implementation Manager John.bourton@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk By 31st August 2005