Abstract
Transforming Rehabilitation – Early Implementation Reviews 3 & 4
HMI Probation Transforming Rehabilitation Review – Early Implementation 3
This Report, as the title indicates, is the third in a series of inspections into the implementation of the Transforming Rehabilitation arrangements. The Journal reported on the findings of the first Inspection in the June 2015 edition. This covered the period April – September 2014 and the second Inspection, published in May 2015 was based on fieldwork undertaken at the end of 2015 (the fourth in the series is summarized below). The purpose of these reports (including the current one) is to assess progress against government objectives rather than engage in the political and wider professional debates about Transforming Rehabilitation.
In terms of methodology, this Inspection focused on work undertaken at the point of sentence and allocation by the National Probation Service (NPS), work undertaken by the Community Rehabilitation Companies (CRCs) and the NPS to manage offenders and the interfaces between the two organizations in respect of enforcement and risk review. The fieldwork took place between March and May 2015. In three Local Delivery Units (LDUs) the Inspection team also examined practice regarding the Risk of Serious Recidivism (RSR) tool in greater detail. Some 38 NPS offender managers and 100 CRC offender managers were interviewed, and six focus groups for middle managers in the NPS and six for middle managers in the relevant CRC were held. In addition, 36 offenders were interviewed using a semi-structured interview tool. As would be expected the case samples varied: The case samples from the CRCs and NPS are different in many regards. The main differences relate to risk of serious harm levels and Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements (MAPPA) status. The NPS sample also contained a much higher proportion of license cases and a lower proportion of female cases. (p. 9) Assisting sentencing and the assignment of cases Early Work in the CRCs Early work in the NPS The breach and escalation of cases initially managed by the CRC The views of offenders
There is also an adequate Summary and Key Issues section which highlights the following:
Assisting sentencing and the assignment of cases
Communication between the NPS and the CRCs was improving. There was, however, little discussion between them over appropriate proposals for reports. Further, there were still too many cases without a sufficient Risk of Serious Harm screening and where necessary a full analysis of the risk of serious harm in place before allocation.
A Risk of Serious Recidivism score had been calculated in almost all cases. Based on the information on the case management system, the case was with the right organization. Further investigation of Risk of Serious Recidivism scores, however, showed that a number were inaccurate, when compared with the inspector’s calculation, and that a few cases were being allocated incorrectly.
The Case Allocation System had been completed in less than two-thirds of cases. Where it was done, it was completed on time and the inspectors also saw an improvement in the quality of the information it contained, with fewer sections marked not known.
Due to the demands to see offenders quickly, there was a shift towards group induction, particularly within the CRCs.
Early work in the CRCs
Most cases were assigned to an identified offender manager within one working day of sentence. Fewer than half of the cases inspected, however, had their first appointments with their offender managers within five working days of sentence.
The Offender Assessment System likelihood of reoffending assessment was sufficient in just over half of cases. Sentence plans were not always completed in good time and did not always address the factors relating to offending or wider diversity issues and barriers to engagement.
Many of the offenders supervised by a CRC had committed violent offences or had been involved in domestic abuse. There were concerns about protecting children in a number of cases. Only two-thirds of Risk of Serious Harm screenings and half of full risk of harm analyses were sufficient. An effective risk management plan was in place in fewer than half of all relevant cases.
Early work in the National Probation Service
Almost all sampled cases were allocated within one working day and seen by their offender managers within two working days. Diversity issues and barriers to engagement were identified in the majority of cases; however, plans to address these issues were only developed in two-thirds of relevant cases. Most cases had a sufficient assessment of the likelihood of reoffending but timeliness was an issue. Sentence plans were sufficient in two-thirds of cases and where completed generally did contain appropriate objectives.
Most cases had a Risk of Serious Harm screening in place but some staff had taken too long to complete them. Full risk of harm assessments were sufficient in just over half of the cases we inspected. Assessments did not always draw on all available sources of information and the analysis of the risk to children was not good enough in too many cases. Poor quality assessments led almost inevitably to poor quality risk management plans.
The frequency and type of contact was good in most cases, and in the majority of interventions had been delivered as planned. Where offenders failed to comply, a robust response occurred and an appropriate use of the enforcement process was utilized. More home visits should have been made, however, where offenders posed a risk of serious harm to the public and in Child Protection cases.
Enforcement
Overall, the enforcement process was variable, with some LDUs still experiencing high rejection rates for breach packs. Many had been returned for spelling and grammatical errors or to question proposals. The best examples were found in LDUs that had established good quality assurance processes and positive relationships between CRC staff and NPS prosecution staff, making swift enforcement more likely.
Recording was not clear in half of the breach cases inspected and this made it difficult to determine if the required timescales had been met.
Risk escalation
The process of escalating cases to the NPS in the event of an increase in an offender’s risk of serious harm was improving. Staff confidence had grown and there was a greater investment in the value of the process in most of the LDUs visited.
In some LDUs the process was described by staff and managers as working well; however, that was not the case in all LDUs with some staff highly critical of their local processes.
There was considerable debate among CRC and NPS managers concerning cases where an offender had been arrested or charged but then not convicted of a serious offence. In some instances, the NPS had been left holding an escalated case which was not classified as posing a high risk of serious harm. Better communication between CRCs and the NPS would help to streamline the process.
The Report includes the inevitable list of recommendations which can be found on page 8 at the end of the Summary and Key Issues section. It is the style of this Journal that those who review Research and Reports do so in a straightforward manner, free of critical discussion, in order to give the reader a summary which may either obviate the need to read the whole document or perhaps spark interest that can be followed up. I must comment, however, that it seemed to be a considerable oversight not to highlight one important inspection finding that remains tucked away at the very end and is not even referred to in the Summary and Key Issues:
The above findings are similar to what we found in our earlier inspection. The vast majority of offenders are satisfied with the services and support they received from both the NPS and the CRCs at all stages of the assessment and supervision process. Court reports were seen as mostly accurate and fair, induction was informative and clear on expectations. Offenders felt their offender managers were, in most cases, helping them as much as they could to make progress. Where there was enforcement action, offenders were not negative about the reasons or the process. As noted in our previous report, there have been major changes to the provision of services to offenders through the introduction of new providers and processes. From the offender’s point of view these changes do not appear to have had a negative impact. (pp. 37−38)
HMI Probation Transforming Rehabilitation Review – Early Implementation 4
Following quickly on from Transforming Rehabilitation – Early Implementation 3, also reported on in the current edition, this 4th publication reports on the continuing inspection into the implementation of the Transforming Rehabilitation arrangements. In terms of methodology, this inspection focused on work undertaken at the point of sentence and allocation by the National Probation Service (NPS), work undertaken by the Community Rehabilitation Companies (CRCs) and the NPS to manage offenders, and the interfaces between the two organizations.
The fieldwork took place in July and August 2015 and examined some 134 cases that had been allocated to the CRCs. Of these, 78 were community orders, 31 suspended sentence supervision orders and 25 licences. There were also 45 NPS cases in the sample. Thirteen were community orders, eight suspended sentence supervision orders and twenty-four licences. As reported in the previous Inspection Report – Early Implementation 3, the case samples from the CRCs and NPS are different in a number of important respects. Additionally, 35 NPS offender managers and 84 CRC offender managers were interviewed and five focus groups for middle managers in the NPS and five for middle managers in the relevant CRC were held. Some 32 offenders were also interviewed using a semi-structured interview tool.
Once again, the report is structured under the headings used for Report 3 although there is no separate reporting of the breach and escalation of cases initially managed by the CRC: 6. Assisting sentencing and the assignment of cases 7. Early work in the CRCs 8. Early work in the NPS 9. The views of offenders
It is unfortunate that the Report does not include a Summary & Key Issues section at the beginning of the Report but there is a useful Recommendations section which highlights the new recommendations flowing from this inspection with a review of progress against the recommendations from the previous reports. Amongst the key points highlighted under the report’s headings were:
Assisting sentencing and the assignment of cases
The type of report prepared for sentencing was appropriate in most of the cases in our sample and a report had been provided in all cases resulting in a community or suspended sentence order.
The inspection found clear proposals for community sentences in most cases and almost all of those cases where a report actually resulted in a community sentence.
Inspectors found no written record of just over one-third of the oral reports that were presented in court.
As in previous inspections, Inspectors continued to see current Community Rehabilitation Company (CRC) cases appearing at court with no evidence of any consultation with the offender manager by National Probation Service (NPS) court staff prior to the case being dealt with. CRC staff continued to express their dissatisfaction at not being able to contribute in a formal and structured way to pre-sentence reports on their current cases.
The Risk of Serious Recidivism (RSR) assessment was completed in almost all cases allocated to the CRC, and most had been done either before or on the date of sentence.
The Inspection did not find any cases in our sample where the RSR score was over the threshold that required automatic allocation to the NPS and there were no other factors that required automatic allocation to the NPS.
In most cases where a Case Allocation System (CAS) assessment had been completed this was done on or before the day of sentence.
The CAS was not completed or was missing in slightly more than one-quarter of cases allocated to CRCs.
Of particular concern were cases where the completed CAS did not indicate the need for a full risk of serious harm analysis, but we found other information that did.
A full RoSH analysis was not completed prior to allocation in more than one-third of cases where one was required .
Almost all cases were allocated to the NPS or CRCs by the next working day after sentence.
Early work in the CRCs
Most of the offenders in the sample that had been released from custody on licence had an appointment within one working day of release, and all within five working days.
Just under half of inspected cases had their first appointment with the assigned offender manager. The remainder were with a duty officer or a group induction.
Most individual and group inductions were timely and individualized.
Overall, only half of all the cases had an appointment with their assigned offender manager within five working days of sentence or release.
There was sufficient assessment of diversity factors and potential barriers to engagement in two-thirds of cases.
In one-quarter of community sentence cases the first appointment (with any member of staff) was more than a week after sentence.
The likelihood of reoffending had been assessed at the start of sentence in most cases.
An informed and timely sentence plan had been produced in more than two-thirds of cases. Only 7 per cent of cases had no plan.
An initial Risk of Serious Harm screening had been done in most cases, and most were timely. A small proportion were inaccurate.
Although an initial likelihood of reoffending assessment was usually completed, one-quarter were of insufficient quality.
It was often difficult for the assigned offender manager to know whether NPS staff at court had requested police domestic abuse or children’s services checks, and whether or not information had been received back.
Less than two-thirds of cases had a sufficient initial full RoSH analysis where this was necessary.
One-fifth of cases in the sample did not have a risk management plan where it was required.
Diversity factors and potential barriers to engagement were not taken into account in planning the work in more than one-third of cases.
All reasonable action had been taken to minimize the offender’s risk of harm to others and protect the public in less than two-thirds of cases.
Reviews of the work with the offender, and their likelihood of reoffending, were of sufficient quality in three-quarters of the cases where they had been done.
Insufficient overall progress has been made in addressing the factors identified as making the offender more likely to reoffend in more than half of the cases.
There had been no review of the risk of harm assessment and management plan in nearly half of the cases where it was required. The quality of reviews was insufficient in more than one-third of those completed (see recommendation 32).
Early work in the National Probation Service
The first appointment (arranged with any member of staff) was within two working days of sentence or release from custody in half of the inspected cases.
Only half of offenders had the first appointment arranged with the assigned offender manager. This was noticeably lower than in our previous two inspections.
Three-quarters of all inductions were timely and individualized.
More than half of the cases had an appointment with the assigned offender manager within five working days of sentence or release, with a further third within ten working days.
There was sufficient assessment of diversity factors and potential barriers to engagement in most cases.
The likelihood of reoffending had been assessed at the start of sentence in nearly all cases, and most were of sufficient quality.
An initial Risk of Serious Harm screening had been done in all cases, and most were timely and accurate. A full analysis had been done in all cases where it was required.
Child Protection and safeguarding issues were clearly recorded in most cases, in contrast to CRC cases where the proportion was much lower.
All cases had an initial risk management plan where required, most were timely, and more than three-quarters were of sufficient quality.
Diversity factors and potential barriers to engagement were taken into account in planning the work in three-quarters of cases.
The facility to require contact under the sentence management component of court orders was not generally well understood.
Initial and repeated home visits were done in the majority of the cases where they were needed. This is noticeably higher than for CRC cases.
Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements operated effectively in all four applicable cases.
ViSOR was used effectively in 8 out of the 12 relevant cases.
Child Protection procedures were used effectively in 15 out of 16 relevant cases.
Less than one-fifth of the offenders in the sample had been convicted of a further offence.
All reasonable action had been taken to minimize the offender’s risk of harm to others and protect the public in most cases.
The offender was sufficiently involved in the review of their progress in two-thirds of cases, a somewhat higher figure than for CRC cases.
There had been a review of the risk of harm assessment and management plan in most of the cases where it was required.
The views of offenders
Most offenders had a generally positive experience of the preparation of pre-sentence reports, although, as previously, one area for improvement identified was greater attention to individual circumstances such as health or childcare.
Most reported receiving clear induction that emphasized the requirements of their supervision. Some had been subject to enforcement processes as a consequence of not keeping appointments, and talked of their personal situations being responded to flexibly.
The level of contact reported by respondents was consistent with the case assessment data. The offenders described a good balance in work with them between a focus on their offending behaviour, and other legitimate needs (such as housing and employment).
Overall, most of those who took part in the interviews reported a positive experience. One respondent under NPS and CRC supervision respectively said: I really trust my probation officer and believe that she wants me to succeed. I really needed someone to encourage me. [they] have been really good; when I’ve contacted them I always get a response. My experience with them has been very good.
It is not clear whether this will be the last Early Implementation inspection. The outgoing Chief Inspector, Paul Wilson, comments in his Foreword that whilst the focus on systems and processes operating within the new arrangements is fully justified, a new regime of inspections – Quality & Impact − will commence in April 2106. Nevertheless, there may well be a further publication on the operation of the Through The Gate Resettlement Service to Short Term Prisoners which of course was a key element of the Transforming Rehabilitation programme (HMIP, 2016: 5).
Transforming Rehabilitation – Early Implementation 3 (November 2015) and 4 (January 2016), published by HM Inspectorate of Probation, are both available online at: www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprobation