PROLIFIC and other PRIORITY OFFENDER

SCHEME

(PPOs)

“THE LONDON MODEL”

GUIDANCE FOR SETTING UP AND RUNNING

PROLIFIC AND OTHER PRIORITY OFFENDER
SCHEMES FOR ADULT OFFENDERS IN
LONDON

4th Edition
June 2007
Foreword
By Mark Gilks, Chief Executive of Hounslow Borough Council and Chair of the
London PPO Steering Group

The Prolific and other Priority Offender scheme has grown from strength to strength
since its launch by the Prime Minister on the 30th March 2004. CDRPs, together with
the Metropolitan Police, London Probation, the Prison Service, Crown Prosecution
Service, the Youth Justice Board, Government Office for London and others have
continued to focus on strong partnership working to ensure that the scheme remains
a success.

In July 2005, the first edition of the ‘London Model’ PPO Guidance was published.
This provided operational guidance around setting up and delivering schemes in
London.

This document is the third edition of the ‘London Model’, an updated version which
reviews the first, reflects new policy, clarifies issues around delivery and provides
examples of good practice that have emerged.

Main additions include further guidance on PPO / DIP alignment, prison service in
relation to the PPO scheme and a tool kit included as an appendix to review your
schemes.

At the beginning of 2007 the Home Office decided that the PPO teams should be
aligned with the Criminal Justice Intervention Teams (CJITS). The idea is that drug
using offenders who are continuing to test positive on arrest and are not complying
with treatment offered by the DIP will be identified and referred to the PPO panel for
consideration. On the other hand drug using PPOs who had complied with treatment
and stopped using can be removed from the PPO list and managed by the CJIT.
This would be contingent upon a number of factors such as no indications of
offending. The alignment concept also reinforces the need for proper co-ordination
of the work of the offender manager and the person who is organising the drug
treatment. In intensive DIP boroughs it is recommended that a member of the CJIT
is part of the PPO team.

As with the second edition, this document is intended to offer practical guidance as
to how the PPO scheme can be implemented in London. It is not intended to be
prescriptive but to set out models we believe work well and which schemes may wish
to adopt. It emphasises the need for close partnership working in order to succeed
and encourages delivery through small co-located teams. However, where
resources and local circumstances make this impractical, CDRPs may wish to
organise implementation differently, possibly through a virtual joint-agency team or
by cross-borough working.

This document was drafted and updated by representatives from the police,
probation, prison services, CPS and NTA together with the Government Office for
London.

I have recently assumed the Chair of the London PPO Steering Committee. I am
encouraged by the progress of schemes in London to date and the impact they are
beginning to have on reducing crime in the capital. I do hope that you will make use
of this guidance to assist you further in delivery.

Mark Gilks
Contents

Foreword…………………………………………………………………………....... 2
A. Introduction………………………………………………………………….. 4
1. The Prolific and other Priority Offender Strategy………............... 4
B. Regional Structures………………………………………………………… 6
2. London PPO Steering Group……………………………………….. 6
3. London PPO Action Team……………………………..................... 7
4. London PPO Practice Fora…………………………………………. 7
C. Local Structures…………………………………………………………… 8
5. Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships………...................... 8
6. Borough Criminal Justice Group……………………………………. 8
7. PPO Steering Group…………………………………………………. 8
8. PPO Panel…………………………………………………………….. 10
9. PPO Team…………………………………………………………….. 12
10. Specific Roles of the PPO Team Members……………………….. 14
D. Identification and Assessment…………………………………………... 18
11. Definition of a PPO…………………………………………………... 18
12. Identification and selection…………………………………………. 18
13. Cross-border offenders …………………………………………….. 20
14. Information for Offenders…………………………………….......... 21
15. Overlap with other categories of offenders……………………….. 22
E. Offender Management…………………………………………….............. 24
16. Offender Assessment………………………………………………... 24
16. a Domestic Violence…………………………………………………… 24
17. Action Plans………………………………………………………….. 25
18. PPOs in the community……………………………………………… 26
19. Pre-sentence reports and community orders……………………... 26
20. PPOs in prison custody……………………………………………… 27
21. Release from prison…………………………………………………. 28
22. Enforcement…………………………………………………………... 30
22. a Drug Testing on Licence…………………………………………….. 31
23. Intelligence……………………………………………………………. 32
24. Police Support………………………………………………………… 33
25. Transfers………………………………………………………………. 33
26. PPO De-selection………………………………………….. 34
F. Performance Management, Monitoring and Evaluation…………… 36
27. Performance Management, Monitoring and Evaluation…………. 36
Appendix 1 – Extract from London Premium Service Protocol……... 37
Appendix 2 – PPOs – London Approach……………………………… 41
Appendix 3 – London PPO Prioritisation Matrix………………………. 42
Appendix 4 – PPO Leaflet………………………………………………. 46
Appendix 5 – DIP PPO Model………………………………………….. 47
Appendix 6 – DIP Criteria for referrals to PPO scheme……………... 48
Appendix 7 – PPO Check List / Tool Kit………………………………. 49
Appendix 8 – Glossary…………………………………………………... 51
 A. Introduction
1. The Prolific and other Priority Offender Strategy

1.1 Home Office research suggests that within the group of 100,000 of the most prolific
offenders in England & Wales, a smaller group of 5,000 ‘super-prolific’ offenders are responsible
for 9% of all crime. The Prolific and other Priority Offender (PPO) strategy, introduced by the
Home Office in September 2004, asks Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships (CDRPs),
together with Local Criminal Justice Groups, to provide an enhanced programme of monitoring
and interventions aimed at these offenders and young people at risk of becoming the super-
prolific offenders of the future. It is composed of three complementary strands:

• prevent and deter: prevent the most at risk young offenders from becoming the PPOs
of the future through appropriately targeted youth justice interventions, supported by
community-based interventions to tackle the risk factors that drive young people to
offend;

• catch and bring to justice1: ensure that PPOs are consistently prioritised through the
criminal justice system;

• rehabilitate and resettle: rehabilitation of PPOs who are in custody or serving

sentences in the community, through closer working between all relevant agencies, and
through continued post-sentence support.2

1.2 This guidance aims to assist CDRPs in London to implement the catch and bring to
justice and rehabilitate and resettle strands of the PPO strategy by providing a framework for a
regional approach, setting minimum standards and suggesting good practice. This framework
envisages the creation of co-located, multi-agency practitioner teams dedicated to the
management and monitoring of PPOs within each London borough. We believe this approach
encourages effective sharing of intelligence and efficient deployment of resources.

1.3. A Home Office analysis of the most serious drug using PPOs show that this group
commit a greater quantity and variety of offences, than other offenders dealt with by either the
PPO or Drug Intervention Programme teams. The PPO guidance aims to assist CDRPs in
London to bring about a closer alignment between PPO and DIP schemes.

1.4 While we believe that a consistent approach by the 32 London boroughs and the
Corporation of London will help resource planning, performance management and cross
borough tracking of offenders, we appreciate that some CDRPs may wish to implement
elements of the strategy differently to reflect the individual profile of their boroughs and the
resources available to them. We also appreciate that some boroughs are exploring cross-
borough approaches and that the operational models they adopt will reflect this.

1.5 Although this guidance has been informed by good practice in other regions of England
and Wales, we acknowledge it may need to be reviewed to reflect best practice in London as
this develops and in the light of changes in the legal and regulatory framework. This revised
version of the London Model represents the second such review.

1
This is the London name for the Home Office’s “catch & convict” strategy.
2
The Home Office has issued guidance on each of these three strands: “Prolific and Other Priority Offender
Strategy, Initial Guidance: Catch and Convict Framework, July 2004”, “Prolific and Other Priority Offender
Strategy, Supplementary Guidance: Rehabilitate and Resettle Framework, September 2004” and “Prolific and
Other Priority Offender Strategy, Guidance Paper 3, Prevent and Deter, September 2004”. These documents are
available on the Governments Crime Reduction Website: www.crimereduction.gov.uk/PPO
4
1.6 CDRPs are also responsible for the prevent and deter strand of the PPO strategy. In
practice, it is likely that the youth offending teams will be the key delivery vehicles for this. This
document does not therefore provide detailed guidance on the implementation of prevent and
deter. The Youth Justice Board provided initial guidance to youth offending teams on their work
in relation to all three strands of the PPO strategy in November 20043. Further operational
guidance on prevent and deter in London is now available.4

1.7 The London Resettlement Board has developed a Reducing Re-Offending and
Resettlement Strategy for London, part of which deals with the rehabilitate and resettle strand of
the PPO strategy. This London Resettlement Strategy is available by emailing
resettlementstrategy.gol@go-regions.gsi.gov.uk.

3
Prolific and Other Offenders Strategy: Guidance for YOTs (November 2004) available from the Youth Justice
Board website at www.youth-justice-board.gov.uk (search “PPO”)
4
PPO scheme - The London Model: Supplementary Guidance Relating to the Prevent and Deter Strand, available at
http://www.gos.gov.uk/gol/Community_safety/?a=42496
5
B. Regional Structures
The London PPO Scheme Steering Group, PPO Action Team and PPO Practice Forum have
been set up to facilitate implementation of the PPO strategy. The composition and terms of
reference of these groups is set out below. Once the PPO strategy has been substantially
implemented throughout London, this structure will be reviewed and some or all elements may
be disbanded.

London PPO
Steering Group

London PPO
Action Team

London PPO
Practice Forum

2. London PPO Steering Group

2.1 The members of the London PPO Scheme Steering Group are: Chair: Chief Executive of
a London Borough Council, Members: National Treatment Agency, Regional Manager, London
Probation, Chief Operations Officer, Government Office for London, Home Office Regional
Director, Youth Justice Board, Regional Manager, HM Prison Service, Area Managers
Representative and Metropolitan Police Service, Commander Crime and Criminal Justice.

2.2 It meets once a quarter.

2.3 The terms of reference are to provide strategic policy and direction on the
implementation of the PPO strategy in London by:

• Formulating policy for London having regard to national advice and guidelines;
• Monitoring progress of the strategy’s implementation across London;
• Negotiating allocation of resources for the strategy through partner agencies at a pan-
London level;
• Commissioning joint agency research and analysis of the strategy;
• Advising the Home Office of any changes necessary for effective implementation;
• Ensuring effective marketing of the strategy in London;
• Liaising with other stakeholders such as London Community Safety Partnership, London
Criminal Justice Board and Borough Criminal Justice Groups;
• Considering inter-relationship of the PPO strategy with other pan-London strategies such
as the Resettlement Strategy;
6
 • Seeking high-level solutions to barriers to implementation as they arise.

3. London PPO Action Team

3.1 The London PPO Action Team reports to the London PPO Scheme Steering Group.

3.2 It is composed of representatives from the Government Office for London, Local
Authorities, Metropolitan Police Service, Probation, Youth Justice Board, Crown Prosecution
Service, Drug Intervention Programmes and Prisons.

3.3 It meets once every six weeks.

3.4 The terms of reference are to implement decisions of the Steering Group by:

• Engaging with CDRPs to assist understanding and implementation of the PPO scheme;
• Monitoring the progress of the strategy’s implementation within CDRPs; including the
alignment of the PPO and DIP teams.
• Disseminating examples of best practice and related documents to all CDRPs and
schemes;
• Monitoring background of offenders targeted by the scheme to ensure compliance with
applicable legislation;
• Guiding individual agency contribution to the implementation of the scheme.

4. London PPO Practice Fora

4.1 The PPO Practice Forum is a practitioners’ forum. PPO leads within CDRPs and
Community Safety Managers will meet two or three times a year to discuss problems and share
best practice. Representatives from GOL and the police, prison, probation services and the DIP
will also attend.

4.2 Practitioners will agree the agenda for this forum. Issues identified, but not solved,
during the course of the meeting will be referred to the London PPO Project Team and, if
appropriate, the London PPO Steering Group for resolution.

4.3 The police and probation services also hold practitioners fora in which they seek to
resolve operational issues as they arise.

7
C. Local Structures
5. Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships

5.1 Each CDRP is responsible for developing a PPO strategy and setting up and running a
CDRP scheme that both meets national criteria and addresses local needs. It also has a key
role to play in marketing the benefits of the local PPO scheme, particularly in terms of the
benefits to services reaching their management objectives and ensuring that each partner
contributes to its successful operation. Where resources are limited, CDRPs may wish to
consider sharing resources across boroughs. It may facilitate the operational implementation of
the scheme if the pairing arrangements used by London Probation are followed.

5.2 We recommend that each CDRP commission a PPO Steering Group (see below) to
produce and implement the PPO strategy on its behalf. Most CDRPs have already done this
and have found it an effective way to bring the many agencies that contribute to the PPO
strategy together to agree a common strategic vision.

5.3 We recommend that the PPO scheme should be represented on the DIP steering group
in order to support the alignment of the two schemes.

6. Borough Criminal Justice Group

6.1 Each Borough Criminal Justice Group (BCJG) is responsible for ensuring the
implementation of a premium service protocol prioritising the passage of PPOs through the
criminal justice system. The London Criminal Justice Board has developed a premium service
protocol, the “London Premium Service Protocol”5, for priority crimes. This requires that PPOs
who are charged with an offence are prosecuted promptly and dealt with speedily by the Crown
Prosecution Service, courts, police, probation, prison service and youth offending services. The
London protocol reflects the recently produced national document, “Prolific and other Priority
Offender Strategy: Premium Service”6. An extract from the London Premium Service Protocol
(PSP), dealing with the PPO strategy, is attached at Appendix 1.

6.2 The Borough Criminal Justice Group and CDRPs should also ensure that the number of
PPOs identified within the borough is appropriate, bearing in mind the capacity of local criminal
justice agencies to provide a premium service.

6.3 Good links between CDRPs and Borough Criminal Justice Groups are essential to the
success of a local strategy. CDRPs may wish to invite a member of the Borough Criminal
Justice Group to sit on the CDRP to facilitate closer working.

7. PPO Steering Group

7.1 We recommend that the CDRP commission a PPO Steering Group to produce and
implement the PPO strategy on its behalf. Members could be drawn from the following:

• Police
• Probation
• YOT

5
A hard copy or electronic copy of the full document, the “London Premium Service Protocol” is available by
contacting the LCJB Communications Unit: LCJB.Comms-London@cps.gsi.gov.uk or you can access a copy on the
following London agency intranets: www.cps.gov.uk, www.met.police.uk, www.city-of-london.police.uk,
www.glmca.org.uk
6
For a full copy of this document see Annexe A: Probation Circular 79/2005: PPOs: Summary of Actions and
Monitoring Arrangements, available at www.probation.homeoffice.gov.uk: policies section
8
 • DIP
• CPS
• Health
• Local Authority Education Services
• Adult and Community Services
• Housing
• Jobcentre Plus
• Local Employment, Training & Education agencies
• Victim Support

In addition, the PPO Steering Group may wish to invite a prison representative to attend from
time to time. Those London boroughs who house a prison establishment may wish to seek
more permanent membership from the relevant prison in order to develop closer strategic links
between the establishment and local PPO scheme.

7.2 Suggested tasks of the PPO Steering Group could include the following:

• Establishing a clear interface with the Reducing Re-Offending and Resettlement

Strategy7 and Prevent & Deter Strand of the PPO scheme
• Ensuring clear and relevant strategic links between the PPO scheme and other
local support services, e.g. accommodation, ETE, health, drugs and alcohol.
• Review and revision of local policies and information sharing protocols (see 8.4)
including those relevant to the DIP and PPO schemes/case loads.
• Ensuring that Home Office Performance Management Framework (PMF) returns
are timely and accurate
• Establish whether PPOs who repeatedly test positive for drugs fail to reduce their
offending and have disproportionate impact on local crime statistics.
• Monitor the achievement of LAA targets on PPOs.
• Completion of performance reports for the CDRP as and when required
• Production of an annual business or action plan for the PPO scheme
• Promotion of a victim and community engagement focus to the PPO scheme
• Local PR and marketing work, for example, considering the role of local media in
promoting the scheme and planning briefings events for relevant local agencies
• Identification of all costs associated in delivering the PPO scheme; and
• Identication of opportunities for income and resource generation, including
resources for offender support services (see good practice example below).
• Ensuring clear and strategic operational links between DIP and PPO schemes,
including monitoring the effectiveness of alignment in terms of reduced re-
offending.

Good Practice: Steering Group Resource Generation

The London Borough of Enfield has consistently managed to secure

around £20,000 per financial year in additional local funding for it’s PPO
scheme. In the initial stages the additional funding was designed to
provide enhanced ETE opportunities for PPOs, such as a place on a
scaffolding course, as well as supporting crisis intervention work, such
as providing temporary cheap hotel accommodation and food vouchers.

The Enfield funding continues to support these services as well as

7
see section 1.7 for details
9
 enabling other aspects of the scheme to develop. In the financial year
2006-2007 Enfield were able to block purchase counselling services for
PPOs. In the forthcoming financial year 2007-08 the Enfield scheme
plans to use part of the additional funding to develop a PPO/volunteer
programme with SOVA (Society of Voluntary Associates).

Additional funding for the Southwark scheme has enabled the

development of a programme of volunteer mentors. Mentors work with
individual PPOs and can provide enhanced levels of personal support
and guidance to PPOs.

7.3 It would be good practice if the PPO Steering Group carried out an equality impact
assessment8 of the scheme and implement any recommendations for improvement that this
assessment identifies.

It is anticipated that changes to the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 will make it easier to share
information for the broad purpose of reducing crime and disorder. The PPO Steering Group
should produce an information sharing protocol explaining how the benefits of sharing data
freely need to be balanced with the restrictions of the Data Protection Act 1998. The Home
Office has produced a national protocol specifically for the purposes of the PPO scheme
(available at www.crimereduction.gov.uk/PPOminisite01.htm), which should be used as a
foundation upon which local protocols can be built. It may be that CDRPs existing information
sharing protocols already meet the purposes of the PPO scheme, or will do so after minor
amendment. There should be routine information sharing between the DIP and PPO teams
about who is on the PPO list and the DIP and CARAT (prison based drug teams) caseload.
This will assist in the effective case management of drug misusing PPOs.

7.4 We recommend that the PPO Steering Group set up a PPO Panel, which will be
accountable to it. The Chair of this PPO Panel should be a member of the PPO Steering
Group. Membership and functions of the Panel are set out below.

8. PPO Panel

8.1 Experience from other regions suggests that permanent membership of the panel should
comprise those local agencies that have an active role to play in the management of PPOs.
Recent Home Office research has reinforced the need for a multi-agency approach (see 8.3
below). Each CDRP/PPO Steering Group should decide which agencies need to be included
and ensure that membership and attendance at meetings is consistent and appropriate. Initial
Home Office guidance suggested the following:

• Police
• Probation
• Prison9 (see below).
• YOT
• DIP
• Health

8
a method of identifying the likely equality implications of the implementation of the scheme in terms of race
equality, gender equality, disability equality and other key equality areas. The assessment should also address the
task of taking all reasonable steps to ensure that members of different groups are not adversely affected compared to
others.
9
It is anticipated that prison representatives will attend, on a case-by-case basis, where it is necessary to contribute
over and above normal information exchange.
In addition a prison representative should attend as standard when the offender is in custody.
10
 • Education
• Adult and Community Services
• Housing
• Employment/Jobcentre Plus
• London Fire Brigade
• Police Problem Solving Advisor

It may be appropriate in some boroughs to have a member representing the community/special

interest group. Boroughs may also wish to invite a representative from a local victim’s group,
such as Victim Support. This may help schemes develop a clearer victim focus and enhance
community relations.

8.2 As with the Steering Group representation, boroughs housing a London prison(s) may
wish to seek more permanent panel membership from the prison service in order to develop
closer links and promote good practice.

Good Practice: Through the Prison Gates

The London Borough of Islington has a permanent representative from

HMP Pentonville on their PPO Panel. Developing this relationship has
proved particularly important for the management of remand cases.
PPOs on remand are now able to access prison programmes formerly
only available to serving inmates.

8.3 The initial Home Office evaluation10 of the first phase of the PPO strategy highlighted the
importance of trying to match agency representation on PPO operational groups with the
offending related needs of PPOs. This report identified that the most prevalent factor linked to
offending for PPOs was education, training and employment (ETE) problems. Conversely
however, few schemes had secured the involvement of appropriate ETE agencies that can
address these needs. The recent publication of the full national evaluation document11 supports
these early findings. It highlights the different and more complex needs of PPOs in relation to
housing, drug misuse and ETE. We would therefore strongly recommend that boroughs review
their panel membership to reflect the specific offending related needs of PPOs12. We view it as
crucial that panel membership includes representation from appropriate local drug treatment,
housing and ETE service providers.13

8.4 A core function of the PPO Panel is to ensure that all relevant agencies participate in the
selection and de-selection of PPOs. A multi-agency decision making body will help to ensure
that suitable candidates are targetted and may also guard against decisions being made for
inappropriate reasons. Panels should aim to develop local procedures within agencies that can

10
“Early Findings from the Prolific and other Priority Offenders Evaluation”, Home Office, 2005. For copies visit:
www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pubs/intro1.html
11
“An Impact Assessment of the Prolific and other Priority Offender programme”, Home Office online report, Paul
Dawson and Lucy Cuppleditch, Home Office Online Report 08/07 - available at
http://www.crimereduction.gov.uk/ppo/ppominisite09.htm
12
“Early Findings from the Prolific and other Priority Offenders Evaluation”, Home Office, 2005. ibid , report ranks
the top 10 offending related needs of PPOs as drawn from OASys data as, 1. ETE, 2. thinking & behaviour, 3.
criminal lifestyle and associates, 4. drug misuse, 5. accommodation problems, 6. relationship problems, 7. finance
problems (management of), 8. emotional well-being, 9. alcohol abuse, 10. pro-criminal attitudes.
13
“The National PPO Evaluation – research to inform and guide practice, Home Office Online Report 09/07, Paul
Dawson – available at http://www.crimereduction.gov.uk/ppo/ppominisite09.htm
11
systematically identify potential PPOs rather than rely upon new cases coming to light on an ad
hoc basis. Selection and de-selection processes should aim to be transparent, defensible and
robust14

8.5 The importance of representation from the DIP on the PPO panel is to ensure that the
most problematic drug misusing offenders are considered for inclusion in the PPO scheme
where they will benefit from the more intensive PPO offender management regime.

8.6 The importance of representation from the Social Services Department is to ensure that
PPO schemes are appropriately child-focused and the welfare of all children effected by PPOs
is thoroughly safeguarded.

8.7 PPO panels could choose to receive offender feedback in the form of monitoring reports
at the termination of a PPOs licence and /or community sentence to identify barriers to progress
and successful factors during their PPO journey. This could be useful in highlighting areas of
good practice.

8.8 The tasks of the PPO Panel could include:

• Selection of PPOs for the scheme;

• Review of PPOs on the scheme;
• De-selection of PPOs from the scheme;
• Ensuring that PPOs removed from the list who have been drug misusers in the
past continue to be seen by the DIP team for relapse prevention as part of their
exit strategy.
• Ensuring PPOs are receiving a premium service;
• Contribution to and review of PPO action plans, ensuring that OASys, J Track
and DIRWEB are updated;
• Maintaining clear and accurate records of panel meetings;
• Developing the expertise of the scheme;
• Collating information about the offenders, which can be reported to the PPO
Steering Group.

8.9 The frequency of panel meetings is a matter for individual CDRPs. During the start up
phase of the scheme we advised that a PPO Panel meeting should take place at least once a
month. In practice most schemes have continued to meet on a monthly basis.

9. PPO Team

9.1 Early experiences from other regions suggested that a co-located core team with day-
to-day responsibility for the operation of a PPO scheme would have a significant impact on its
success. The recent Home Office national evaluation of PPO schemes supports the co-located
approach and recommends that such arrangements are put in place.15 Where the achievement
of full co-location is not possible it is good practice to organise virtual team arrangements which
include the DIP, such as shared desk space between agencies and multi-agency PPO team
meetings. The focus is to ensure processes are in place for effective and frequent contact
between CJITs and PPO Teams. The PPO team should share an understanding of the
outcomes that the team is working towards for the PPOs, which should cut across agency
disciplines. As non-statutory offenders will be included in the PPO Scheme, London Probation
has agreed to provide an additional Probation Service Officer to be part of this team. As London
probation is not funded to do non-statutory work, the probation service officer should be funded

14
“The National PPO Evaluation – research to inform and guide practice”, ibid, p.2
15
ibid, p. 3
12
through the CDRP and this post will be a subject within LAA bids. We recommend that the PPO
Team should include:

• A Senior Probation Officer

• Probation Officer
• Probation Service Officer
• Police Officer
• Adminstrative Support Worker
• Drugs Worker

9.2 In the intensive DIP boroughs the PPO team should include a DIP worker because it is
likely that a significant proportion of PPOs will have serious drugs problems and will be eligible
for referral to the DIP.

9.3 The PPO Team should be working closely with other agencies such as ETE and housing
service providers. These relationships will be crucial if the offending relating needs of PPOs are
to be adequately addressed, as outlined in 8.3. As such schemes should aim to develop these
relationships and consider different strategies for including these partners in service provision
for PPOs.

Good practice: Work with local Housing Providers

The PPO team in Hackney has worked closely with Hackney Homeless
Persons Unit and other registered social landlords to ensure that
offenders on the scheme have some accommodation on release. Safe
housing enables the PPO team to supervise the offender and ensure
that they attend drug programmes if necessary and complete
programmes designed to reduce their offending.

9.4 The core function of the PPO Team is offender management of all PPOs. This should
involve:

• Completing OASys assessments, including risk of harm analysis and OASys

sentence plans and reviewing these.16
• Writing, implementing and reviewing action plans17;
• Maintaining regular and frequent face-to-face contact with PPOs in the
community (schemes should aim for 4 scheduled contacts per week);
• Carrying out background checks with Social Services Departments (SSDs)
• Working with the DIP to ensure that drug misusing PPOs are properly assessed,
referred to and given appropriate treatment without delay. PPOs are not case
managed by the CJIT; however a member of the CJIT may act as a key worker.
• Monitoring and robust enforcement of statutory cases;
• Motivating non-statutory cases to participate in the scheme;
• Preparing pre-sentence reports on PPO cases;

16
NB. Completion of a full OASys assessment and sentence plan is mandatory for statutory PPOs and non-statutory
offenders should be encouraged to take part in an OASys assessment. Initial OASys assessments must meet the 5
day target
17
The OASys sentencing plan will inform the action plan for those offenders under statutory supervision.
13
 • Keeping up-to-date and accurate records, including case history to support CJA
2003 requirements;
• Referring PPOs to appropriate offending behaviour programmes and agencies
which can address their offending related needs, such as drug treatment
providers
• Visiting PPOs in prison - single agency or joint agency visits
• Attending court
• Regular home visits to PPOs – single agency or joint agency visits
• Liaising with external agencies to monitor and review progress;
• Exchanging information and intelligence with the police;
• Making contact with the offender’s family;
• Contributing to the remand management, sentence and release planning of
PPOs, preparation of early release reports (Release on Temporary Licence
(ROTL), Home Detention Curfew (HDC), and Parole Assessment Reports
(PARS)) with home assessments based on a visit to the proposed release
address;
• Completion of local and nationally required performance management data
returns
• Liaising with other agencies to identify potential PPOs
• Administering and processing PPO referral information
• Referring cases to the PPO Panel
• Engaging community resources that provide interventions for offenders
• Marketing the PPO initiative locally
• Providing a local advice point for the PPO scheme
• Meeting released PPOs at the prison gate

10. Specific roles of PPO Team members

10.1 The role of the Senior Probation Officer should include:

• Management and development of the PPO scheme on behalf of the PPO

Steering Group
• Line management of probation staff and matrix management of other PPO team
members
• Providing reports to the Steering Group on progress of and impediments to the
PPO scheme
• Being an active member of the PPO Panel, which could include chairing the
Panel
• Marketing the PPO scheme to local stakeholders, including sentencers
• Identifying local resources for inclusion in the PPO scheme
• Directing PPO Team staff
• Ensuring continuity of service provision during periods of staff absence
• Carrying out regular reviews of the PPO scheme against pre-defined targets and
performance indicators and recommending improvements to the scheme
• Acting as the designated officer responsible for ensuring that the processing of
personal data is in accordance with the Data Protection Act 1998.
• Working with the local courts, Crown Prosecution Service and Borough Criminal
Justice Group to ensure the Premium Service Protocol is implemented.
• Working with police, Crown Prosecution Service and prisons to ensure effective
use and maintenance of J-track.
• Developing service level agreements with local organisations to provide
interventions for PPOs.
• Ensuring that information about a PPO that moves from one area to another is
provided to the CDRP in the new area.

14
 • Ensuring that the National Probation Service 5 day OASys performance target is
met.
• Disseminating relevant information including good practice examples to staff

10.2 In line with the implementation of NOMS and the Criminal Justice Act 2003 London
probation has restructured its offender management arrangements. In all London
boroughs (except Hackney) the PPO team is managed by the same SPO who manages
the Substance Misuse Team.

10.3 The role of the Probation Officer should include:

• Undertaking offender management of statutory PPOs

• Regular review of cases including identifying those potentially suitable for
removal from the scheme
• Providing information to the PPO Panel
• Screening PPO referrals
• Assisting with local marketing of the PPO Scheme
• Liaising with other organisations

10.4 The role of the Probation Service Officer should include:

• Undertaking offender management of non-statutory PPOs and supporting the

Probation Officer’s work with statutory PPOs.
• Regular review of cases including identifying those potentially suitable for
removal from the scheme
• Assisting with local marketing of the PPO Scheme
• Liaising with other organisations

10.5 The role of the PPO team Police Officer should include:

• Providing internal operational intelligence and information exchange

• Providing external information and intelligence exchange
• Liaising with other agencies
• Screening PPO referrals
• Visiting PPOs at home with other PPO team members or alone
• Attending meetings with PPOs during office visits
• Follow up home visits following non-attendance at a scheduled appointment
• Contributing to formal assessments and court reports
• Providing police expertise to the PPO scheme
• Providing a link with the local police, in particular Core Teams and Safer
NeighbourhoodTeams
• Informing the police borough tasking and co-ordinating process for effective
monitoring/targeting of PPOs
• Visiting PPOs in prison, with other PPO team colleagues or alone
• Meeting released PPOs at the prison gate
• Carrying out drug testing requirements
• Attending court

The role played by the police officer on the PPO Team is in addition to that undertaken by the
Borough Police PPO Liaison Officer/PPO Intelligence Support Function.

The Borough Police Liaison Officer role was established to facilitate the introduction of the
“Catch and Bring to Justice” element of the scheme. It is anticipated that this role, normally
within the Borough Intelligence Unit, will continue to support the police officer in the PPO Team
as it provides a link between borough briefing, tasking and intelligence processes and the police
15
officer in the PPO Team. Specific tasks in relation to the intelligence function include the
following:

10.6 The role of the Borough Police Liaison Officer should include:

• Oversee and tasking of Intelligence flow with borough core PPO Team
• Facilitate effective identification of new PPOs through intelligence gathering and
liaison with PPO Team/CDRP Panel
• Utilise NIM process for effective targeting and inclusion in Control Strategy
• Conduct daily checks of databases and update subject logs
• Update daily briefing sheets/sites
• Assist investigating officers in ongoing matters concerning PPOs while in custody
• Prepare briefings for Borough Tasking meetings
• Access to Emerald and J Track systems for intelligence gathering
• Ensure effective research criteria identified for PPOs to include Open Source
• Ensure circulation of wanted PPOs
• Conduct prisoner location checks
• Arrange for bail and curfew checks within local Tasking process
• Ensure training and awareness of the PPO scheme on the BOCU
• Liaison with and tasking of Safer Neighbourhood Teams
• Liaison with courts and prisons regarding offender results and locations
• Liaison with CPS

Note: it is not normally appropriate for the PPO Team Police Officer to act as the arresting
officer in a PPO case as this may confuse his/her role within the team. If a PPO needs to be
arrested, the PPO Team Police Officer should arrange for other officers to arrest him or her.

10.7 The role of the Administrative Support Worker could include:

• Administering referrals to and removals from the PPO scheme

• Liaising with other agencies, providing and collating referral information for
presentation to the PPO Panel.
• Developing local data collation systems as required
• Providing analysis and reports to the PPO Panel, PPO Steering Committee and
CDRP
• Co-ordinating the completion of Home Office Performance Management
Framework monthly returns and other reporting requirements
• Developing links with information officers within all key stakeholder organisations
to ensure required data is submitted
• Assisting with the development of a local information sharing protocol
• Maintaining data records including updating J-Track where appropriate
• Tracking and monitoring the offending of individual offenders through J-track and
DIRweb
• Ensuring that the case file is established
• Producing relevant case documentation
• Administering the sentence plan
• Monitoring compliance and reporting to the Offender Manager
• Scheduling and adminstering reviews
• Administering enforcement proceedings
• Producing case monitoring data

16
10.8 The role of the Drugs Worker18 should include:

• Providing assessments of PPOs’ drug use

• Making referrals to appropriate treatment
• Providing counselling
• Providing care co-ordination
• Contributing to pre-sentence reports, reviews and action plans
• Agreeing a care plan with the PPO
• Liaising with CARATs and CJITs in formulating release plans for PPOs in prison.
• In liaison with CJIT to identify those individuals who repeatedly test positive and
determine whether they should be referred to PPO panel or identify if they are
currently on the PPO list.

18
The decision of whether the drug worker is co-located and has a link role remains a local decision (see 16.4)
17
D. Identification and Assessment
11. Definition of a PPO

11.1 The London definition of an adult PPO (18 years and over) is:

• there are six or more indications of criminal activity (convictions and/or reliable
intelligence) by this person over a two-year period and

• he or she has been involved in an offence of relevance to the Public Service

Agreements 1 and 419 e.g. personal robbery, residential burglary, vehicle crime or
another crime of equivalent local priority and significance and

• where, for the majority of individuals, offending is motivated by drug or alcohol abuse.20

However, it is important that where an offender under 18 is offending prolifically and not
responding to interventions provided under the Prevent & Deter strand, consideration
should be given to selecting that person as a PPO and including them in the Catch & Bring to
Justice strand.

London PPO schemes can include both ‘statutory’ and ‘non-statutory’ offenders. These are
currently defined as follows

• Statutory offenders are offenders subject to statutory supervision by the probation or

youth offending services, including offenders who are subject to Community Orders, and
those who are on licence following release from the custodial term of a prison sentence.
Adult offenders who receive custodial sentences of less than 12 months are not currently
subject to supervision on licence.

• Non-statutory offenders are offenders not currently subject to statutory supervision by

the probation service or youth offending teams.

12. Identification and Selection

12.1 Referrals to a PPO scheme can come at any stage from any one of the key agencies
outlined in the Home Office guidance:21

• Police
• Probation
• Prison
• YOT
• CPS
• DIP
• Health
• Education
• Social Services
• Housing

19
PSA 1 is “to reduce crime by 15%, and further in high crime areas by 2007/8. PSA 4 is “ to reduce the harm
caused by illegal drugs including substantially increasing the number of drug misusing offenders entering treatment
through the criminal justice system.”
20
For further information, see Appendix 2.
21
Prolific and other Priority Offenders Strategy, Initial Guidance, Catch and Convict Framework, July 2004
18
 • Employment/Jobcentre Plus
• Voluntary organisations
• Connexions

12.2 it is envisaged that most referrals are likely to come from the police, probation, DIP and
youth offending services. The police will analyse police databases, recent crime trends and
other intelligence received in accordance with the National Intelligence Model (NIM). This
process will identify those who are causing the greatest harm to their communities based on
criminal activity and national and local priorities. The probation and youth offending services will
assess risk of re-offending through the use of the OASys and ASSET assessment systems
respectively. Each agency will decide the most appropriate stage in their systems for identifying
offenders for referral to the PPO scheme. For example relevant senior probation officers should
consider the appropriateness for the scheme of all offenders as a routine part of case allocation
and review.

12.3 DIP will have local criteria in place for identification and referral of substance misusing
offenders they are in contact with to PPO panel. For DIP Criteria please see Appendix 6.

12.4 Once an agency has identified an offender as a potential PPO, it should complete as
much of the London Prioritisation Matrix (see Appendix 3) as it can in respect of that offender
and send it to a member of the PPO Team.

12.5 On receiving a referral, the police, probation and DIP worker if available in the PPO
Team should complete the remainder of the London Prioritisation Matrix and decide, on the
basis of the matrix, whether to refer the offender to the PPO Panel for it to decide whether
he/she should be included on the scheme.

12.6 If the PPO Team decide to refer the offender to the PPO Panel, they should circulate
his/her details to members of the PPO Panel prior to the next panel meeting. This will allow
individual members of the Panel to consider referrals and seek additional information about
them prior to the next meeting.

12.7 At the panel meeting, the PPO Panel should discuss the case and decide whether the
potential PPO should be selected for the scheme. They should record the reasons for their
decision on the London Prioritisation Matrix and in the minutes of the panel meeting.

12.8 If the PPO Panel accepts a referral, a J-Track entry will be made by the police to enable
the PPO to be tracked through the criminal justice system. A subject profile will be created by a
police analyst using information from partners. An ‘Information Marker’ will also be entered onto
the offender’s PNC record. An offender’s PPO status will also be identified on Delius and
OASys by probation staff.

12.9 The case will then be allocated to a PPO offender manager who will draw up an action
plan within five working days, using information from the London Prioritisation Matrix and the
panel discussion of the case and information from the OASys assessment where appropriate. If
a full OASys assessment of a statutory offender has not been carried out previously, this should
be completed within five working days of the commencement of a Community Order or release
from prison on licence. In all other cases staff should aim to complete an OASys assessment
as soon as possible and ideally within five working days of acceptance onto the PPO scheme.

12.10 When the PPO Panel selects a new PPO, the police will provide a Form 30222 to the
PPO Panel. The PPO Panel will be responsible for keeping it updated. The Form 302 (and
OASys if the PPO consents to an OASys assessment) will be used as the basis for drawing up

22
This form is used to manage a number of problems or people where there is a central theme.
19
action plans for non-statutory offenders. It can also be used, together with the OASys
assessment, to inform the action plans of statutory offenders. The Form 303 can be used to
assign tasks to particular agencies.

12.11 Drug misuse can be identified through testing on arrest. When a PPO is arrested for a
non-trigger offence, inspector’s discretion to test should be sought. In the case of a positive test
the PPO should be prioritised for assessment and treatment through the CJIT if not already
known to treatment services.
.
12.12 Where a PPO is sent to prison on remand or sentence, the PPO offender manager
should liaise with the prison service PPO liaison officer with a view to sharing information and
action plans. PPOs serving a sentence of over one year will be allocated an offender supervisor
in the offender management unit of the prison

12.13 For non-statutory PPOs in custody and PPOs not subject to an OASys based supervision
plan the PPO offender manager should liaise with the establishment to ensure clarity and
appropriate continuity in release planning. Drug treatment will be overseen by the CARAT
teams who should be discussing the co-ordination of individual offender’s treatment with the DIP
members of the local PPO teams in order to ensure that ongoing needs for drug treatment in the
community are met.

13. Cross-border Offenders

13.1 In the majority of cases, a PPO will reside in the borough of the CDRP that identified
him/her. Offender management, interventions and review will therefore be contained within one
borough. However, there may be cases where an offender is identified as a PPO by the CDRP
where he/she offends rather than where he/she lives. PPOs who live and offend in different
boroughs are known as ‘cross-border’ or ‘cross-scheme’23 offenders. In these cases the
following guidance will apply.

13.2 Within London Probation it has been agreed that if an offender appears on the PPO list
in one borough then that individual should be treated as a PPO throughout London regardless
which borough they live. This means that if the offender lives in a borough where he/she is not
on the CDRP PPO list he/she should still be supervised by the PPO team in the borough where
he/she resides and receives the same levels of enhanced supervision available to all PPOs.
The PMF and London Prioritisation Matrix applies to and should only be completed by the
borough where they are offending, Probation may need to keep an alternative list of PPOs if
they are supervising several offenders within this category.

13.3 The offender manager should always be an officer from the PPO team where the
offender resides (home borough). They will be responsible for the case management of the
individual and associated tasks, for example, ensuring an OASys is completed within 5 working
days and that their PPO status is flagged on Delius24. These arrangements will require ongoing
liaison with the borough in which the PPO offends (offending borough).

13.4 The same arrangements apply to PPOs on the DIP caseload. The CJIT in the home
borough will be responsible for drug treatment and will accept referrals from the PPO team in
the borough where the drug misusing PPO is offending.

13.5 All members of the PPO team should be actively involved in the case management of
the offender in the home borough. For the police liaison officer this may mean that they have to

23
Home Office PPO ‘Cross-scheme offenders’ guidance, Jan ’07, available at -
http://www.crimereduction.gov.uk/ppo/ppominisite09.htm
24
London Probation’s computerised case management system
20
go ‘off borough’ or liaise with colleagues in another borough regarding offending behaviour and
police intelligence.

13.6 Cross-border offenders should have one action plan, written and implemented by the
offender manager. In some circumstances it might be that the PPO is discussed at the PPO
panels in both the home borough and the offending borough. The home borough may wish to
focus on the probation centred case management aspects as of the case, whereas the
offending borough should focus more on the police input and offending behaviour. As a general
principle arrangements should be agreed by both boroughs which aim to keep the management
of the case as straightforward as possible and ensure that both boroughs are fully updated on
the individual’s progress.

13.7 The home borough should be treated as the active borough for the purposes of all
monitoring activity. This includes the Home Office PMF return and OASys/NS monitoring.
These arrangements should be made clear to all PPO team staff to ensure that duplication in
monitoring is avoided. For the same reasons it is important that cross-border PPOs do not
appear on more than one CDRP PPO list.

14. Information for Offenders

14.1 We recommend that PPO schemes in London adopt a ‘carrot and stick’ approach to
offender management, the ‘carrot’ being the enhanced levels of support services offered to the
PPO and the ‘stick’ being the increased (unwanted) police attention, should the offender choose
not to comply. In order for this approach to be successful, it is crucial that the offender is made
aware of their status as a PPO and provided with adequate information about the scheme. The
quality of information provided to PPOs has recently been linked with improving offender self-
motivation.25 Offenders should be informed of their status as soon as possible ideally within 5
working days following the Panel decision to include them on the scheme. It should be
explained that all PPOs, whether statutory or non-statutory, will receive the following:

• Increased police monitoring and attention;

• Fast tracking through the criminal justice system;
• Supervision from a dedicated offender manager from the PPO team;
• Enhanced support levels to change his/her behaviour and stop offending.

14.2 The support should include accommodation, substance misuse, education, employment
and training, health, finance, dept and benefit management, children and families and offending
behaviour programmes. PPO schemes will have to arrange interventions for non-statutory
offenders with local providers.

14.3 Offenders should be informed of their status as PPOs during a face-to-face meeting
between the offender and a police and probation member of the PPO Team. The offender
should be given clear information about expected levels of contact with the PPO team26 and full
details of the consequences of non-compliance. Information provided should include details
about scheme selection and de-selection processes. The offender should be provided with
written information about the scheme to keep for reference. An example of a scheme leaflet is
attached at Appendix 4.

14.4 When planning the interview with the offender, the PPO Team should also consider
involving his/her partner or family in the process, as family support may contribute to the
offender’s commitment to, and ultimate success, on the scheme.

25
“The National PPO Evaluation – research to inform and guide practice”, ibid
26
see ‘PPOs in the Community’, 18.2
21
 Good Practice: Family Involvement
The PPO team in Hillingdon have provided several good examples of
how the inclusion of an offender’s family member has enhanced the
experience of the PPO scheme for the individual. In one case involving
two brothers there is now a clear and helpful two-way exchange of
information between the family and the local PPO scheme. This
provides support for the offenders in complying with the various
requirements of their action plans and gives PPO team staff access to
an additional source of information about various aspects of the
offenders’ behaviour.

14.5 Where an offender is in prison when he/she is identified as a PPO, a member of the
PPO Team should also visit him/her in prison and inform him/her of his/her status. Ideally this
should be a joint agency visit. The offender’s action plan can also be discussed during this
visit.

15. Overlap with other categories of offender

15.1 Some offenders may be identified both as Multi-Agency Public Protection

Arrangement (MAPPA) offenders and potential PPOs. Each case should be considered on its
merits and after discussion between the MAPPA Panel and PPO Team. The presumption is
that where an offender sits should reflect where a person could be best managed. In general
the PPO scheme should not normally be used as a vehicle for the management of risk of harm.
It is anticipated that Level 1, Category 2 MAPPA offenders (lower level single agency risk
managed violent offenders) will be suitable for management within the PPO scheme. This will
ensure that he/she is more closely monitored. If the risk of harm level escalates the case should
be referred into the local MAPPA structure for further assessment and a decision may be taken
that the offender is no longer suitable for inclusion in the PPO scheme. It may be that in rare
cases, with local agreement, Level 2 MAPPA offenders can remain within the PPO scheme. In
such circumstances, decision-making must be clearly documented. In general, the inclusion of
an offender in two sets of local Panel arrangements (MAPPA and PPO) should be avoided27.

15.2 It is anticipated that many offenders identified as PPOs will have serious drug problems.
Some of these will be subject to Drug Rehabilitation Requirements and others who are in court
for sentence will be recommended for a Drug Rehabilitation Requirement. Following the
principles of end to end offender management, an offender who are identified as PPOs while
they are under the supervision of the substance misuse OMU should remain with their offender
manger in that unit if they are undergoing intensive treatment. Offenders with less entrenched
drugs problems and in receipt of less intensive treatment should be considered for transferral to
the PPO team without delay. Existing PPOs who are sentenced to a DRR will remain with their
offender manager in the PPO team. DRRs require a specialist approach with which the PPO
team will need to be familiar. This includes an understanding of drug misuse and how it impacts
on offending, liaison with treatment agencies, preparation of court review reports and consistent
monitoring of starts and completions. Where PPOs are supervised in the substance misuse
OMUs, these teams will need to liaise closely with the PPO team to ensure that these offenders
are offered the premium service available to all PPOs. In some boroughs the PPO and the
substance misuse OMUs have more or less merged.

27
See MAPPA Guidance Manual, National Probation Directorate, 2003 available on the probation website,
www.probation.homeoffice.gov.uk (search MAPPA)
22
15.3 Any PPOs under the age of 18, Young Prolific and Priority Offenders, should
continue to be offender managed by the youth offending teams. It is expected that the majority
of young offenders will be managed within the prevent and deter strand of the PPO strategy
(see “The London Model: Supplementary Guidance Relating to the Prevent and Deter
Strand”28). However, youth offending team managers may decide that a young offender who is
not responding to supervision would benefit from the additional surveillance and monitoring
provided to the catch and bring to justice cohort. In these cases, the YOT manager should
complete the London Prioritisation Matrix in respect of that offender and send it, together with
other information about him or her to the PPO Panel.

15.4 The Drug Intervention Programme operates in 21 London boroughs and the City of
London in its intensive form and in is non intensive form in the remaining 11. Its aim is to
identify drug-using offenders at every point in the criminal justice system, assess their needs
and refer them to treatment. The DIP comprises real or virtual, borough based teams of drugs
workers who operate from police stations, courts, probation offices and treatment facilities. If
resources permit, a DIP worker may be located in the PPO team as an effective way of ensuring
that all PPOs get access to an assessment for drug misuse and referral to treatment if
appropriate. The DIP worker can also assume a care co-ordination role and take responsibility
for the planning and review of an offender’s drug treatment. All London boroughs receive
money from the DIP for the through and after care of drug using offenders. In early 2007 the
Home Office required the DIP and PPO teams to establish closer working arrangements than
previously. This takes the form of the following actions:

• Closer location of PPO and CJIT teams

• Effective information sharing between CJIT and PPO team
• CJIT involvement in selecting PPOs
• Coordinated case management reviews
• Priority access to CJIT case load for PPOs
• Joint monitoring the progress of their substance misusing PPOs

28
available at http://www.gos.gov.uk/gol/Community_safety/?a=42496
23
E. Offender Management
16. Offender Assessment

16.1 A thorough assessment of the offender and his/her circumstances is essential to the
provision of a realistic action plan. We recommend that the OASys tool be used to carry out
this assessment wherever possible. For statutory offenders completion of OASys is
mandatory. All other non-statutory PPOs should be encouraged to complete an OASys
assessment with their offender manager.

16.2 Information from the PPO Panel should also be fed into the assessment process to
identify factors that are contributing to an individual’s offending behaviour such as substance
misuse or unemployment. These factors will be matched with a range of interventions that aim
to address the problem and prevent re-offending and will form the basis of the offender’s action
plan and inform sentencing options for a community order. It is therefore important to ensure
that there is comprehensive representation at the PPO panel from local agencies, such as ETE
providers and housing associations, if an offender’s assessed needs are to be matched with
locally available services (see 9.3, PPO Panel).

16.3 The probation staff in the PPO Team should ensure that a full OASys and a full risk of
harm assessment is completed for all adult statutory PPO cases. This should be done within
five days of a community order being made or release from prison on licence. OASys
assessments on non-statutory adult cases can only be carried out with the offender’s consent,
which they should be encouraged to give. If non-statutory PPOs refuse to consent, Form 302
should be used as the basis for the action plan.
16.4 All PPOs should be referred to DIP to ascertain whether they are known, and, if not, for
a screening and assessment to be made.

16 a. Domestic Violence

16a.1 When the PPO scheme was originally established in September 2004, before the London
Probation was properly involved, the MPS decided to include domestic violence perpetrators in
the PPO targeting matrix in order to raise the profile of domestic violence as an offence, to
ensure that it was given proper attention by the police throughout London. It was envisaged that
this would enable and encourage the police to concentrate more resources on apprehending
these offenders. At this early stage in the scheme catch and bring to justice was the only
operational strand and the lists were in the main decided by the police. The role of the resettle
and rehabilitate strand in work with domestic violence perpetrators was not fully understood.
When London Probation became involved with PPOs in April 2005 the Resettle and Rehabilitate
strand became operational. From this time London Probation expressed concern about working
with DV perpetrators, particularly those with no statutory involvement, because it was not clear
how the victim would be protected.

16a.2 Following meetings between the MPS and LP and an examination of the current DV
cases, there is now broad agreement that the PPO scheme is not the best place for the
management of DV perpetrators whose sole offending is DV. However, it may be appropriate
for DV perpetrators to be PPOs because they also commit other types of offences. In the longer
term it is envisaged that Project Umbra will oversee the management of domestic violence at a
local level. The MPS RAMP (Risk Assessment Management Panel) initiative is likely to be the
most appropriate arrangement for the risk management of DV perpetrators alongside other
problematic cases, such as mentally disordered offenders and others who fall outside of the
statutory MAPPA framework. It is agreed that the PPO scheme is not the right vehicle for the
management of risk of harm.
24
16a.3 Domestic Violence will be removed from the prioritisation matrix and as a short term
arrangement, DV offenders should only be included in the PPO scheme in boroughs where
other more appropriate multi-agency arrangements do not yet exist. They must be selected and
managed with a multi-agency approach, which involves the two strands. Multi-agency
assessment and management also applies to PPOs where offences of domestic violence come
to light after they have been identified as PPOs through other offences.

Boroughs which already have other specialist arrangements for managing DV in place will not
include any DV perpetrators in their scheme. Boroughs with no arrangements may wish to
continue to use the PPO scheme for DV perpetrators in the short term, in exceptional
circumstances, in the absence of anything more appropriate.

The majority of DV offenders in PPO schemes will be committing other offences which make
them appropriate for the PPO scheme apart from the DV. However the DV will still need to be
managed properly.

16a.4 Guidance for management of DV cases:

• No DV case should be included in the PPO list without a full multi-agency victim-focused
panel discussion which can agree an action plan.

• Cases which are not considered suitable for the PPO scheme should continue to be
dealt with by the local police Community Safety Unit.

• The manager of the PPO team should make contact with the local domestic violence co-
ordinator, or domestic violence forum, in order in order to get advice, and identify
appropriate services to support and safeguard the victim.

• Panel chairs should ensure that there is a representative in attendance from the local
domestic violence forum who can propose action to ensure the safety of the victim in
individual cases.

• Offenders must be made aware of their PPO status otherwise this undermines the whole
‘carrot and stick’ ethos of the scheme.

• Schemes, through the offices of the probation officers and the police, should positively
aim to influence prosecution and sentencing practices, in order to promote the use of
statutory orders or custody to facilitate more effective and enforceable work with this
type of offender.

• The London PPO Implementation Group will liaise with and, if necessary, send a
representative to the Project UMBRA Steering Group in order to contribute to policy
development concerning the management of domestic violence.

17. Action plans

17.1 The action plan is the key document for the offender management of each PPO
(statutory and non-statutory) and should reflect the premium service offered to that PPO.

17.2 Where an OASys assessment has been carried out and a sentence plan drawn up, this
will form the basis of the action plan. The PPO Team should aim to produce each PPO’s
action plan within 5 working days of that PPO being placed on the scheme. Action plans
should be reviewed and updated at least once every 16 weeks in order to reflect any change in
the PPO’s circumstances.
25
17.3 The action plans of PPOs on DTTO/DRRs will be subject to a monthly review by the
sentencing court for the first four months of the order and then should be reviewed quarterly.

Good Practice: Action Plan Reviews

In the London Borough of Newham PPO Team staff meets every

Monday to review and update PPO action plans. Frequent and regular
reviews help target finite resources and staff time. It also promotes an
inclusive and dynamic multi-agency perspective to the management of
each individual PPO.

18. PPOs in the community29

18.1 London Probation will allocate a named offender manager for each PPO. For statutory
cases this will be a probation officer and for non-statutory offender, a probation service officer.
PPOs will be located in tier 4 of the NOMS’ offender management banding of interventions,
receiving the highest level of surveillance and control and the most comprehensive level of
interventions and resources.

18.2 An action plan should aim for at least 4 contacts per week between the offender and
the local PPO scheme. Contacts should be face-to-face and scheduled in advance to take
place between either the offender manager, other members of the PPO Team or other agencies
as set out in the PPO’s action plan. Home visits should be made frequently and form a routine
part of the supervision process. Interventions might include:

• Offending behaviour programmes

• Drug or alcohol treatment
• Education/employment/training advice
• Skills for life
• Mentoring
• Mental health treatment and support
• Housing advice
• Monitoring and surveillance
• Drug testing on licence

19. Pre-sentence reports (PSRs) and community orders

19.1 When a PPO is due in court for sentence, one of the probation officers in the PPO
Team should write a full30 pre-sentence report. If the offence falls within the appropriate
sentencing band a community order with relevant requirements should be proposed. A
proposal for a community order should always include a ‘supervision requirement’ and there
should also be a presumption in favour of an accredited ‘programme requirement’. The report
should not make reference to the PPO scheme as such, but should outline the sentence plan
and its intensive nature in some detail. This may persuade the court to make a community

29
i.e. on a community order, licence from prison, non-statutory offenders, on bail.
30
A full or standard delivery pre-sentence report as opposed to a fast delivery or short format report.
26
order in cases that might otherwise have attracted a short custodial sentence. NPD Circular
51/200431 provides specific guidance on how to include information about the PPO scheme.

20.2 Under the Home Office Tough Choices scheme for drug using offenders, which is
managed by DIP, those arrested for a trigger offence will be tested for drugs and if positive will
be required to undergo a drug misuse assessment. If they refuse to cooperate with the
assessment, or decline to accept recommended treatment, they may be refused bail when they
come to court. From April 2007 following initial required assessments drug using offenders will
also be required to undertake a follow up assessment. PPO teams should be informed when a
PPO DIP client tests positive and information concerning the assessment and treatment of
PPOs should be shared with the PPO team in order to inform the action plan and sentencing
proposals.

Good Practice: Attendance at Court

In the boroughs of Barking & Dagenham and Havering there is an

expectation that the offender manager and the PPO police officer both
attend court when a PPO is appearing. This demonstrates to the
offender that PPO Team staff are committed to that individual. It can
also assist the court with sentencing as staff are available to report on
an offender’s response to supervision and monitoring.

20. PPOs in prison custody

20.1 All London Area prison establishments have dedicated members of staff to deal with
PPOs, and a first and second point of contact, a list of which are updated by London Area office
on a regular basis. The staff in the borough PPO teams should ensure that they have regular
liaison with these staff.

20.2 PPOs going into custody should be identified on J-track by the CPS and the court
service should stamp their warrants of detention in red with PPO. This information will be
passed to the prison. In reality this does not always happen and it has been necessary for the
PPO liaison officers in the prisons to contact the PPO teams directly to find out which of their
prisoners are PPOs. As soon as a PPO is identified the liaison officer will flag up their status on
prisons database system – Local Inmate Database System (LIDS) and the warrant will be
stamped PPO if it has not already been done.

20.3 The PPO liaison officer or the manager of the offender management unit (OMU) must
ensure that the following are informed of the PPOs presence in the prison:

• The offender manager who is holding the case in the PPO team
• The police borough operational command unit, who will advise the PPO team if
necessary

20.4 The PPO liaison officer will inform the manager of the OMU of the PPOs entering the
prison so that they will be given priority for interventions and programmes identified in the
OASys assessment if there is one. If they have been know to the CJIT in the community the
prison drugs co-ordinator will inform the OMU so that drug treatment can be arranged.

20.5 The PPO should receive a visit from a member of the PPO team, usually the offender
manager, between one and three months from the start of the sentence or remand period. The
purpose of the visit is to inform the PPO that they are still on the scheme and will be prioritised
for interventions. This will be organised through the manager of the OMU.

31
Available on the probation website www.probation.homeoffice.gov.uk (search 51/2004)
27
20.6 Periodic contact by letter and telephone should be maintained while the PPO is in
custody, and a member of the PPO team should visit the offender at least once towards the end
of their sentence or remand period in order to develop the PPO’s action plan for their transition
back into the community, and to maintain a relationship with them.

20.7 From November 2006 PPOs sentenced to twelve months imprisonment or more will be
subject to offender management phase 2. They will be allocated an offender supervisor (OS) in
the OMU of the prison where they are received into custody. The OS will interview the PPO at
an early stage, usually within 5 days, so it is important that the OASys assessment is sent to the
receiving prison immediately to assist the OS. The OS is responsible for liaising with the
offender manager and implementing the sentence plan while the PPO remains in the same
prison. The offender manager will revise the proposal made in the pre-sentence report in the
light of the sentence passed and the information from the OS. A sentence plan will be prepared
within 16 weeks of sentence for PPOs with 2 years or more to serve and within 8 weeks of
sentence for those with less than two years to go. If an OASys was not completed at the time
the sentence was passed the offender manager should interview the PPO as soon as possible
and liaise with the OS.

20.8. As part of phase 2 the sentence plan and OASys assessment will be reviewed at least
every 12 months and between 2 and 8 weeks before release. Review meetings are arranged
and lead by the offender manger, and include the OS and any specialist person or provider of
interventions, such as the CARAT team, involved with the case. At the end of the period in
custody a release plan including licence conditions will be formulated to ensure a smooth
transition into the community, building on rehabilitative work done in the prison.

20.9. The PPO liaison officer in the prison must inform the relevant borough operational
command unit if a PPO is to be transferred to another prison, psychiatric hospital or immigration
detention centre. This information will be passed to the PPO team.

21. Release from prison

21.1 Before a PPO convicted for an offence prior to 4 April 2005 (even if sentenced after that
date) and serving more than twelve months is released, he/she will have appropriate conditions
inserted into his/her supervision licence. If he/she is serving more than four years
imprisonment, these conditions will be decided by the Parole Board but if he/she is serving less
than four years they will be standard licence conditions which can be added to by the prison
governor, in consultation with his/her offender manager. Exceptionally, the prison governor
may, through the Release and Recall Section of the Home Office, ask to impose additional
conditions, based on risk and need. For all PPOs being released on licence there should be a
presumption in favour of additional licence conditions32. Offender managers should also
ensure that the views of the police are sought when assessing the need for additional licence
conditions33. Following release, if the PPO does not comply with his/her licence conditions,
he/she may be recalled to prison but may appeal to the Parole Board against any such recall.

21.2 PPOs sentenced for an offence committed after 4 April 2005, regardless of the length of
their sentence (unless it is of indeterminate length), will be released at the half way stage of
their sentence. The court can recommend licence conditions but these are not compulsory if
inappropriate at the time of release. The prison governor and offender manager will decide the
licence conditions at the time of release. Again, there should be a presumption in favour of

32
“Prolific and other Priority Offender Strategy: National Premium Service Specification”, Office for Criminal
Justice Reform. Contact LCJBComms@cjs.gsi.gov.uk. Document also available as an annexe to Probation Circular
79/2005 “PPOs: Summary of Actions and Monitoring Arrangements”
33
Ibid.
28
additional licence conditions and consultation with the police should take place. PPOs, like
other prisoners, will be subject to recall if they do not comply with their licence conditions. They
may make representations against this recall and have the right to an oral hearing if these are
not successful. If a PPO is recalled to prison, the offender manager/supervisor must inform the
prison PPO liaison officer that this has happened.

22.3 For PPOs being considered for early release on Home Detention Curfew (HDC) the
offender manager should ensure that the HDC assessment properly includes the views of the
police. In particular, police colleagues may be able to provide additional intelligence information
about the offender’s proposed release address. Ideally, the home visit to assess the suitability
of the address should be jointly carried out by police and probation members of the PPO team.

21.4 Irrespective of the date of offence, conviction or sentence, if an adult PPO is serving a
sentence of less than twelve months, he/she will be released without being subject to
supervision or licence. (Young offenders serving sentences of less than twelve months are
subject to supervision on licence for three months). However he/she can volunteer to be
supervised in the community as part of the PPO scheme, and should be encouraged to do so,
although failure to comply will not result in any action.

21.5 The prison service will inform the police and the owning CDRP at least 28 days before a
PPO is released from prison, wherever possible. Occasionally executive decisions resulting in
immediate or imminent release will mean this is not possible.

21.6 In the case of PPOs serving less than twelve months, the offender manager should visit
the PPO no sooner than one month before release to agree an action plans on release. In the
case of a drug user it is important that the CARAT team is contacted to ensure that the action
plan complements and does not duplicate nor interfere with other plans for release that may
have been made. The action plan should outline interventions that will promote rehabilitation
and resettlement. This should be shared with the discharging establishment at least 5 working
days before the PPO’s release. It is likely that if the PPO contributes to this process, he/she is
likely to co-operate with the interventions. Where possible and appropriate, a member of the
PPO Team should meet the PPO at the prison gate to provide early intervention and support.
Where this isn’t possible, the PPO Team should arrange a contact with the PPO as early as
possible, normally on the same working day as release.

Good Practice: At the Prison Gate

The short period of time following release from prison and the first
appointment with the PPO team is often crucial to the successful
rehabilitation of a vulnerable PPO, especially those with substance use
problems. For this reason many London schemes try to meet
vulnerable PPOs at the prison gate and escort them back to their home
borough.

In a former case in Enfield an ex-drug using PPO with numerous

convictions for car theft was assessed whilst in prison as needing
assistance with housing, ETE and drug treatment upon release. On the
day of release he was met by PPO team staff and escorted to a pre-
arranged appointment with the housing office. He was provided with
temporary housing due to the high risk of re-offending if he remained
homeless. On the same day he was also registered with the local DIP
and referred for drug treatment and counselling. This PPO was
subsequently assisted in obtaining temporary employment in the

29
 building trade and the PPO scheme was able to purchase work boots
and trousers for him.

This offender would not have received this level of intensive and early
interventions had he not been identified as a PPO. Based on his
previous behaviour there is a high likelihood that he would have swiftly
reverted to former patterns of drug use and re-offending.

22. Enforcement

22.1 For statutory offenders, requirements of community orders and conditions of licence
outlined in the action plan will be enforced according to probation national standards.34
Probation staff are however reminded that National Standards set the minimum levels of contact
with offenders and PPOs should be required to report more frequently. As outlined earlier,
schemes should aim for 4 face-to-face contacts per week with PPOs35. The intended frequency
of contact with a statutory PPO should be outlined in their OASys sentence plan. Non-statutory
offenders will be on the scheme on a voluntary basis. Every effort should be made to
encourage them to participate in the scheme and fulfil the actions outlined in the action plan.

22.2 Statutory PPOs are entitled to receive the same warnings as other offenders subject to
community penalties and licences. Members of the PPO Team should visit the PPO at home
the first time he/she fails to meet an appointment. This will help to reinforce the PPO’s sense of
being subject to focused engagement and intensive supervision. Once a decision has been
made instigate breach proceedings for a community order, the offender manager will ensure
that the PPO is fast tracked through London Probation’s enforcement systems36 in accordance
with the aims of the London Premium Service Protocol37.

22.3 The offender manager will need to decide in each case whether a warrant rather than
summons should be applied for. This decision should be made in consultation with the police
and should take into account intelligence information. In cases where the offender’s
whereabouts are not known then it is usual for a warrant to be applied for as there is no address
at which to issue a summons. In other cases any application for a warrant should be made on
the basis of the immediate risk of harm presented to the public by the PPO. If the case
manager cannot satisfy this criteria then it is unlikely that an application for a warrant will be
appropriate. In general any application for a warrant should be made on the basis of the risk of
harm presented by the individual rather than explicit reference to the offender as a PPO. Once
issued, the police will prioritise the execution of all PPO warrants.38

22.4 Normal procedures for the enforcement of licences can be followed for PPOs as
arrangements already exist for breach to be processed within 24 hours.

34
“National Standards for the supervision of Offenders in the Community 2005”, available at
www.probation2000.com.
35
See ‘PPOs in the Community’, section 20
36
see “PPOs: Supplementary Guidance for London Probation Staff”, London Probation intranet, Operational
Policies
37
See The London Premium Service Protocol for Prolific and Priority Offenders, London Criminal Justice Board
38
All PPO warrants will be regarded as ‘grade A’ for the purposes of execution, ibid.
30
22 a. Drug Testing on Licence

22a.1 The Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000 allows for the drug testing of offenders
on community orders and licenses who are convicted of a trigger offence. Following a pilot in
nine probation areas, it was decided, mainly for financial reasons, to implement drug testing
only for post custodial licensees who are classified as PPOs. Probation Circular 34/2005
provides the main source of guidance.

22a.2 An offender is eligible for drug testing who:

• Has been designated a PPO by local definition

• Is over 18 years
• Has been convicted of a trigger offence. These offences are acquisitive and class A
drugs offences (PC34 2005 Annex A)
• Will be released on a period of statutory supervision.
• Whose drug misuse is a contributing factor to the index offence.

In London drug testing will be applied to those whose offences were committed after 4th April
2005.

22a.3 A request for a drug testing condition to be included in the licence of an offender
sentenced to a standard determinate sentence should be made to the prison governor at least
14 days before the prisoner is due to be released. The application should include brief reasons
for the request. Form DT2 which is Annex B of PC 34/2005 should be used. The licence
condition should read: Attend (insert name and address of the premises) as reasonably
required by the probation officer to give an example of oral fluid in order to test whether you
have any specified Class A drugs (heroin or crack/cocaine) in your body, for the purpose of
ensuring that you are complying with the condition of your licence requiring you to be well
behaved.

22a.4 The probation service is responsible for the testing of PPOs, unless the offender is
subject to a Drug Rehabilitation Requirement. All probation areas have been given additional
money by the National Probation Directorate to purchase drug testing equipment and testing
kits.

London probation has contracts to provide oral fluid testing kits with three testing equipment
providers, Cozart, Altrix and Quantum Diagnostics. These are paid for through the borough
ACO budgets. The NPD will provide additional funds for this purpose.

Testing will normally be undertaken by probation staff, unless good will arrangements have
been made with the DIP for drugs workers to include PPOs in their responsibilities.

22a.5 On release PPOs should be tested twice weekly for the first 16 weeks and once a week
thereafter. Tests should be two days apart to avoid double counting. Offenders who test
positive on three consecutive occasions or two non-consecutive occasions in a six week period
will be in breach of their licence condition. They should be recalled to custody unless they:

• Are engaged with treatment

• Are complying with other licence requirements
• Do not present an unacceptable risk to the public.

31