Research evidence
2.24 There has been little research undertaken to
discover whether enforcing orders to national standards has any impact on reconviction
rates. HMIP suggested to the Home Office Research, Development and Statistics Directorate
that such a piece of research should be commissioned. An initial scoping study was
undertaken during the early part of 2000, the tentative preliminary findings of which
suggested that there was a correlation between enforcing orders to the standards and lower
reconviction. In the small case samples examined actual reconviction compared with
predicted was highest when no enforcement action was taken and actual reconviction
compared with predicted reduced when action was taken. This suggests that ensuring
offenders comply with their orders is worthwhile both because it is an expectation of the
courts, the public and politicians but also because it is has a positive impact on
reducing the likelihood of the reconviction of offenders supervised in the community.
Further research work is being undertaken to ascertain whether these tentative findings
are confirmed.
Note:
1 It should be noted that this KPI is based
on performance throughout the length of the order/ licence and not just the first three
months as in the ACOP audits.
3. Findings
3.1 The findings of this study are based on
fieldwork undertaken as part of the overall thematic inspection, as described in chapter
one:
- ten services were visited for one day and a sample
of case records was read in January 2000
- all 54 services in England and Wales received a
short questionnaire seeking details of their use of information.
- specific and detailed documentation was requested
from each service due to be visited
- ten services were visited for two days and a
programme was devised which enabled Inspectors to examine how well the services used
information and information systems
- groups of staff and managers, members of the
probation committee and representatives of local agencies were interviewed. Inspectors
used a standard interview schedule to enable comparative information to be collected
across all 10 services.
3.2 In addition the study has been informed by
the findings of the validation exercise which HMIP undertook in August 1999 for the first
ACOP audit and by the regular area and thematic inspections which include examination of
case files against national standards.
Findings from case records
3.3 In the first validation exercise 273 cases
and in the second 296 cases were examined in the services visited. Most of the cases
examined had been managed appropriately and only a minority required breach action. A very
small number of cases were identified in which no action was taken even though it was
required by national standards.
3.4 There were however some significant
shortcomings in enforcement practice including:
- a failure to record the explanation provided by
the offender for not complying with the order
- the absence of any indication on the record of
whether the failure was acceptable or unacceptable
- a lack of clarity in warning letters which meant
that Inspectors regarded a significant number as reminders rather than warnings
- a failure to record contacts with partnership
organisations or attendance at programmes run by the service
- a failure to indicate on the record whether the
line manager had authorised a deviation from national standards, particularly in relation
to not taking breach action after three unacceptable failures
- a common shortcoming of not initiating breach
action within ten working days of the third unacceptable failure.
3.5 However, Inspectors also identified a number
of positive features including:
- all services had approached the exercise
critically and with integrity
- a number of services e.g. Northumbria had followed
up failures to attend on the same day
- there was a good use of warning letters in several
services e.g. Oxfordshire and Buckinghamshire
- most records were clear and up to date although
the services on CRAMS stated that the system was not user friendly
- in a number of services there was good practice in
obtaining sick notes e.g. Somerset
- most of the areas had placed the onus on
justifying a failure to report on the offender. This was particularly apparent in
Wiltshire where the CPO had issued a letter to all offenders in November 1999 making it
clear that this was now service policy
- there was a sensible use of discretion in a number
of cases.
Fieldwork visits
3.6 10 services (as listed in chapter one)
were visited in February and March 2000 as part of the wider inspection on the use of
information. In four of those services, North Wales, Middlesex, Northumbria and Wiltshire
the fieldwork had a specific focus on the use of information in ensuring compliance with
national standards. All 10 services had provided information on enforcement practice in
advance of the inspection visits. In addition, the questionnaire sent to all 54 services
on information issues, included questions directly related to enforcement issues.
Responses were received from all areas.
3.7 As indicated in chapter two a set of
inspection standards relating to compliance with national standards were established. The
main findings of the inspection in relation to these standards are set out below.
a) effective systems are in
place, and are used, to monitor regularly the performance of the service against national
standards
3.8 In all four services visited, sampling of
cases to monitor compliance with national standards occurred on a regular basis. Senior
Probation Officers (SPOs) did this sampling in three areas and in the other service main
grade staff completed a form on their own cases which was then validated by administrative
staff. The results were collated by the information unit and formed the basis of quarterly
reports to the probation committees. These reports varied in style and content but all
contained information on performance trends. There was evidence that the probation
committees used these documents to hold senior staff to account e.g. in one service
deterioration in the performance of one division had led to a special report at the
instigation of a member of the committee.
3.9 The questionnaire sent to all services
showed considerable variation in the way in which services monitored national standards
and this reflected the fact the Home Office Probation Unit had not defined the
expectations of how this should be done. The Home Office NPSISS team had identified a
computerised reporting tool (GQL) to obtain information from the CRAMS database on matters
such as compliance with national standards. This was launched in early 1998 but at the
time of this inspection in early 2000 very little progress had been made by the Home
Office in implementing this software effectively. A very small number of services were
using the tool in a significant way and they had done so only by utilising the skills of
local staff and investing money from their own revenue budgets to make the software work
satisfactorily. Most of the services that used CRAMS in a significant way were unable to
obtain monitoring data through GQL and had to extract the information manually from the
electronic database and then enter it into another piece of software. This was not
satisfactory either in terms of the time required or effectiveness. Even if GQL had been
made available universally, only about twenty services were using CRAMS in a way that
would have allowed it to be deployed.
3.10 The majority of services sampled cases
manually in order to obtain basic monitoring data. The methodology used was satisfactory
in most services although a number relied on self-reporting arrangements where probation
officers completed their returns on their own cases and there was no validation mechanism.
This arrangement was not satisfactory. All services needed to have in place methods of
auditing cases, which were conducted independently of the supervising officer.
3.11 A small number of services using the
Integrated Case Management System (ICMS)2 were capable
of producing electronic data on compliance with national standards. HMIP were able to
observe this system in operation and was impressed with:
- the range of reports available to managers to
monitor performance against national standards at an area / division / team / individual
level
- the facility to allow managers easy access to case
records to pursue poor performance
- the scope for main grade staff to use the system
to monitor their own performance in a self-regulatory way.
3.12 The absence of an effective national
computerised system to monitor national standards is a matter of serious concern to HMIP.
The issues it raises will be considered more fully in the thematic report on the use of
information but it should be noted that lack of effective monitoring reduces the capacity
of probation committees and managers to ensure that the national standards are being
applied appropriately. The two ACOP audits were conducted largely because of the absence
of appropriately generated information at a national and local level. HMIP inspection
events have become for some services and for Ministers the main source of information on
performance in relation to compliance with national standards. This in itself is a matter
of serious concern because inspection events take place only periodically and should be
able to make use of and validate local monitoring not have to undertake the basic
monitoring.
3.13 HMIP is aware that the development of a
successful computerised case record system that enables appropriate electronic monitoring
of national standards is unlikely to be completed in the immediate future. However, the
potential of the ICMS and other comparable systems should be investigated as a matter of
urgency to see if an early resolution of this problem can be achieved. A clear plan needs
to be devised by the Home Office to enable this to be achieved as soon as possible and
services need to be kept informed of progress. In the interim, national direction should
be provided on the monitoring of national standards. This should include its frequency,
content and method together with a framework for reporting the results to probation
committees and the Home Office so that comparative data can be made available to assist
services to improve their performance.
3.14 It is therefore recommended that:
The Home Office should:
- issue a probation circular containing instructions
to areas on the monitoring of national standards which should specify the frequency,
content and method together with a framework for reporting the results to probation
committees and making the data available nationally for comparative purposes
- urgently investigate the potential of ICMS and
other established case management systems to monitor national standards
- prepare and publish an action plan with a clear
timetable on the introduction of an electronic method of monitoring of national standards
that can be used by all services .
b) effective
procedures exist to ensure that managers examine the performance of staff in relation to
compliance with national standards
3.15 In all the services visited supervision
of staff took place on a regular basis and included discussion of performance in relation
to compliance with national standards. Examples of good practice included:
- in all the services SPOs read cases to examine
levels of compliance with national standards and discussed it in supervision with officers
- in three services there was a clear expectation
set by senior managers that targets in staff appraisal documents would include reference
to compliance with national standards
- most SPOs used a mixture of data including
knowledge from sampling exercises, the summary sheets contained in files which listed
contacts with offenders and in some cases local systems they had developed themselves
- discussion took place in team and divisional
meetings on compliance issues
- in Middlesex the new community service (CS) case
management system provided information on performance of individual staff. The service
intended to extend this system to the management of all orders by April 2000
- in most services there was an expectation that
poor performance would lead to a demand from senior managers for an explanation and in at
least one disciplinary action had been taken against individuals.
3.16 Some poor practice was identified including:
- an absence of routine information on levels of
compliance with national standards by individual members of staff. This meant that some
middle managers resorted to obtaining the data by using "ad hoc" systems that
were time consuming and reduced their availability for other duties
- poor performance on breach by individual staff was
not tackled even when known to managers
- senior managers did not always use "hard
information" when supervising middle managers.
c) effective mechanisms exist to
enable staff to know whether individual cases are meeting the requirements of national
standards
3.17 Only one of the four services inspected
was on CRAMS and using the case log facility. The staff stated that it was not user
friendly and could not deliver an overview of individual performance. There was particular
concern expressed by services visited as part of the wider thematic inspection about the
"clumsy" structure of the system that made it difficult to use the case log both
to enter and review data. This was a complaint made by staff at all grades and managers,
in particular, stated that it was hard to review a case quickly.
3.18 Three of the four services visited used
a paper-based system to provide a simple mechanism to monitor contact levels with
offenders. Whilst this was effective it involved staff in additional paper work that
should not have been necessary bearing in mind the high level of computerisation that
existed in all of the services. One of the services was about to introduce CRAMS whilst
the other two were in the process of developing their own case recording and case
management systems because of their dissatisfaction with the arrangements made by the Home
Office.
3.19 The questionnaire sent to all 54
services indicated that, because of their frustrations with the inadequacies of CRAMS, a
number of services were developing local computerised case record systems for similar
reasons. This is wholly unsatisfactory state of affairs given the desire to have a
national case record system and the investment of public money already devoted to CRAMS.
However, as part of the wider thematic inspection on the use of information,
Cambridgeshire were visited because of their long established use of ICMS. As noted in
paragraph 3.11, ICMS appeared capable of meeting this inspection standard. Whilst the use
of a number of different case management systems in the long term will not be desirable,
it would be valuable to explore fully the potential of existing established systems to
meet this standard.
d) services are able to use the
local guidelines relating to the fair, vigorous and effective enforcement of community
orders and licences
3.20 All the services visited had in place
local enforcement action plans and/or guidelines on national standards. Three of the
services had developed enforcement action plans in 1999 to support the ACOP initiative.
All the staff seen by HMIP were positive about these initiatives and regarded the
guidelines devised as useful especially in relation to judgements about acceptable /
unacceptable failures to attend. Staff welcomed good local guidance as they regarded
managing compliance and enforcement issues as complex and often difficult.
3.21 A minority of staff in several of the
services did not know the results of their service’s performance in the ACOP audit.
It was a matter of concern to HMIP that not all staff fully appreciated the context in
which ACOP had launched their initiative on enforcement although there was evidence in all
the services that senior managers had taken the issue seriously and had attempted to
communicate effectively. It is vital that individual staff are informed regularly of their
individual, team and wider service performance and how it compares with the national
average and Home Office targets.
3.22 All the services visited as part of the
wider thematic inspection, provided HMIP with information in advance on the work that they
had undertaken on enforcement in 1999. The quality of the leadership provided by senior
managers was particularly notable. There was impressive evidence of action plans,
guidelines and local audits to support the ACOP initiative. This was most commendable. It
was also notable that across the 10 services visited performance on the key national
standard, i.e. breach was above the national average, i.e. 70 per cent as against 62 per
cent based on the ACOP audit results.
3.23 Whilst it is not possible, based on the
limited nature of this study to conclude that the action plans and guidelines had
necessarily led to better performance, HMIP believes all services would benefit from
developing a local action plan on enforcement, supported by guidelines on National
Standards. It is therefore recommended that:
Chief Probation Officers
should make use of the local results of the ACOP audits, monitoring data collected for the
KPI and the findings of this study, including the checklists contained in Annex 1, in
order to ensure that the implementation of National Standards 2000 is fully effective.
HMIP will make use of the
checklists in inspecting local service practice.
Other significant enforcement
issues
3.24 A number of other significant issues
emerged from the fieldwork including:
- the use of discretion by POs and SPOs
- training for staff on enforcement issues
- the use of specialist staff
- work with other agencies
- the role of support staff.
These are discussed in more detail in the rest of
this chapter.
The use of discretion by POs and
SPOs
3.25 The three sets of national standards have
contained different definitions of the use of discretion.
The 1992 National Standards stated that:
"In many respects, the standards lay down
expected norms rather than outright requirements, with the clear onus on practitioners and
managers to record and justify any necessary departures from these norms in individual
cases."
The 1995 National Standards was more precise
with greater emphasis on the role of the line manager: was more precise
with greater emphasis on the role of the line manager:
"Where, in exceptional circumstances, a
judgement is taken to depart from a requirement of the standards, this should be
authorised by the appropriate line manager and the reasons for it should be clearly
recorded and justified."
National Standards 2000 are even more
explicit in that they emphasise that decisions have to be taken in individual cases and
require that:
2000 are even more
explicit in that they emphasise that decisions have to be taken in individual cases and
require that:
"The standards be adhered to in all but
exceptional individual circumstances and that any decision to depart from them be endorsed
by the designated line manger on the offender’s record, giving full reasons."
This change had been prompted by HMIP identifying
during inspections that some probation committees and/or CPOs had decided to "set
aside" a particular national standard for a group of offenders because of local
circumstances. Such a use of discretion is not appropriate under National Standards 2000.
3.26 The inspection revealed a range of
approaches to the way services judged the acceptability of a failure to attend:
- one service had issued a staff circular stating
that "all absences will be deemed unacceptable unless the offender can prove
otherwise. It is likely that very few absences will be considered acceptable"
- another had circulated a policy document that
contained eight pages of detailed guidance on "managing missed appointments".
This provided a framework for decision making and did address the role of the SPO.
However, it was complicated and may not have been used extensively by main grade staff
- a third service provided advice on acceptability
by identifying behaviour that was not acceptable such as: forgot the appointment, turned
up on the wrong day, overslept, conflicting appointments where notice could have been
given but was not, missed prearranged transport where this was avoidable and lateness
without an acceptable reason. This guidance also stated that the SPO should consider
mental health problems; drug problems with clear evidence that the offender is working at
reduction and does not pose a risk to the public; bereavement or personal crisis. An
important rider was added, "In all these cases it is essential that the situation can
be retrieved and the aims and objectives of the order can still be fulfilled".
3.27 There was value in all these approaches and
the staff in the services involved clearly appreciated the fact that guidance had been
provided given the complex judgements their work with offenders required them to make.
3.28 During the inspection Inspectors saw many
cases where supervision of difficult and reluctant offenders was handled firmly and with
skill, resulting in the most improbable people being held to the requirements of their
court orders. A number of cases demonstrated the complexity of using discretion
appropriately.
Case A
A young man was on probation for the
possession of heroin. He was reporting to his PO regularly and undertaking a
detoxification programme that made it difficult for him to sleep. On one occasion he
failed to attend and then telephoned to say that he had "slept in". The PO
accepted the explanation on the basis that he had been "meticulous with appointments
thus far and the sleep in was probably needed rather than sheer self indulgence". The
order continued with high levels of contact and at the time of the inspection had not
resulted in further failures.
Proper use of discretion had enabled the order
to continue successfully and showed the value of taking all aspects of the offender’s
circumstances and his previous pattern of reporting into account.
Case B
A man on CS failed to attend because it was
his wedding anniversary. His girlfriend, not his wife, rang several days later to provide
this excuse. The failure was marked correctly as unacceptable. Two weeks later he rang to
say he could not do his CS because he had split cooking oil on his leg. He was not able to
provide medical evidence and this was again recorded as unacceptable because the service
followed a policy of placing the onus on the offender to bring the proof.
This demonstrated a clear use of authority by
the PO and the value of clear guidelines.
Case C
A man of 22 on probation had numerous
previous convictions for petty offences and had been subject to previous community
penalties and post custody licences. During the current orders, he continued to commit
petty offences regularly and failed to report. Each time he was breached or re offended
the court placed him on a new probation order. At the time of reading the file he was
subject to his fourth successive order but was showing signs of responding – his
probation officer had succeeded in ensuring he kept 10 appointments and the offender had
not been rearrested.
This case showed the difficulty presented by
persistent petty offenders for courts and the service; his offending was not usually
serious enough to warrant imprisonment but for a lengthy period he was unable to comply
with his order and kept re offending. There were positive signs of him responding but
probation staff needed to be rigorous in holding him to his order.
Case D
This man was on probation and a community
psychiatric nurse was also involved because the man had a combination of problems caused
by the misuse of drugs and severe epilepsy. He failed appointments and was breached
following the service’s policy. However, it was never very likely that he would be
able to maintain a steady pattern of appointments because of the nature of his medical
condition and the psychiatrist had confirmed this in writing.
This was a case that might have been
considered as within the category covered by exceptional individual circumstances. This
does not mean that all offenders who are mentally ill should be regarded as incapable of
reporting as directed. However, there may be individual cases that contain complex factors
that justify a more flexible approach to enable regular contact to take place.
3.29 All these cases required the officers to use
their professional judgement and discretion. Guidance was provided to services ahead of
implementation of National Standards 2000 in a Probation Circular on enforcement of orders
(24/00), which emphasised:
"In supervising offenders, probation
staff will need to continue to use their professional discretion and judgement taking into
account all the circumstances of the case. The Standards should be applied using the
service’s knowledge of an offender, the risks posed and the offender’s response
to supervision to date. Staff are accountable for the use of their judgement and in
departing from the Standards discretion can be exercised only with the authority of a
manager".
It will be important that
probation service managers have in place adequate systems to enable them to monitor and
support this expectation.
Training for staff on enforcement
issues
3.30 All the services visited had provided
specific training on the enforcement process in court. Several services had also provided
training to staff generally on enforcement and compliance issues. This had been seen as
valuable by main grade and support staff. Such an approach was particularly commendable
because it reflected a strategy that saw improved compliance as requiring the contribution
of all staff. HMIP believes that there would be merit in the Home Office commissioning a
national training programme for all relevant probation staff on the use of professional
judgement and discretion, enforcement of community penalties and the process of effective
prosecution of breach.
The use of specialist staff
3.31 All the services had introduced specialist
breach staff into courts who were normally probation service officers (PSOs). This use of
staff enabled probation officer resources to be freed for other work with offenders and
was a valuable and sensible use of resources. Some services had provided detailed advice
to staff on the roles of respective staff in the enforcement process. The provision of
standard documentation for use by staff in taking breach action was particularly useful.
Work with other agencies
3.32 There was considerable local variation in
relation to practice in obtaining summonses and warrants. The use of local protocols with
other criminal justice agencies had been helpful in most areas although HMIP were told
that some court officials had refused to negotiate such agreements. The value of protocols
was reduced if they failed to contain measures of performance. They also needed to be
subject to both monitoring and regular review. It was a matter of serious concern to HMIP
that in some areas there was considerable delay in processing cases once enforcement
action had been initiated. This was exacerbated by the failure in some areas to execute
warrants expeditiously. In one division of a large metropolitan service, over 800 warrants
for the breach of community orders and licences were still waiting to be served. A
concurrent survey being conducted by the Home Office Probation Unit would provide further
valuable information about the position nationally.
3.33 In 1999 HMIP undertook a joint study with
the other five criminal justice inspectorates on "Casework Information Needs within
the Criminal Justice System". A key finding was:
"Difficulties were reported with regard
to breach proceedings, for example in getting sufficient court time set aside for cases
and in the speedy execution of warrants. Closer co-operation between police, court staff
and probation staff, in order to eliminate current problems with the issuing of summons
and warrants and their subsequent execution will be needed to improve the enforcement of
community orders and licences."
3.34 The joint study examined inter agency
agreements on a range of issues and identified:
- the importance of the commitment of all agencies
in a locality
- the inadequacy of practical monitoring and
evaluation of the agreements. Too often the agreements were seen as an end in themselves
and not as a tool to improve performance
- the importance of the agreements addressing not
just quantitative aspects of information exchange but also the quality and reliability of
the data.
3.35 As a result the study made a specific
recommendation to the national Trial Issues Group for implementation at a local level
that:
- a local strategy be developed for the exchange of
casework information that is consistent and compatible with the implementation of the IBIS
strategy
- all agency agreements include outcome targets
which are then monitored and evaluated
- a range of approaches to inter agency agreements
be developed in order to use the most appropriate means to solve individual problems.
This provides probation areas with the
opportunity to develop further the work that is already taking place on inter agency
agreements to support enforcement practice.
3.36 It is therefore recommended that:
Chief Probation Officers should review their
current inter agency arrangements on enforcement and seek to negotiate local agreements to
ensure that breaches are processed quickly.
The role of support staff
3.37 Most support / administrative staff were
aware of the importance of improving levels of compliance. Some services had included them
in training events and file reading teams to ensure that they understood the importance of
their contribution. Where training on enforcement issues had been provided it had included
the role of support staff in taking messages and dealing with offenders. This was
particularly commendable. In some services very effective use of email and electronic case
systems enabled support staff to record their contacts with offenders directly onto the
case file and book alternative appointments. However there was a danger in all the
services visited of messages sent by email being missed in the absence of an officer on
leave or through sickness. National Standards 2000 emphasise that compliance is the
responsibility of the service as a whole and it would be valuable for all areas to review
their administrative arrangements to ensure that email is regularly checked in the absence
of staff.
Note:
2 ICMS was developed from 1994
by a consortium of services including Bedfordshire, Cambridgeshire, Norfolk, Suffolk and
East Sussex
4. The Way Forward
4.1 In March 2000 the Home Office, ACOP and HMIP
collaborated in the launch of National Standards 2000. Ten regional seminars were
organised for senior and middle managers to explain the changes and to encourage work on
ensuring the effective implementation of the new standards. A presentation on
"Achieving Compliance and Engaging Offenders Effectively" was made jointly by
the Home Office and HMIP. HMIP based its presentation on the findings from its regular
area and thematic inspections, from the ACOP audit validation exercises and from the
fieldwork visits for this study.
4.2 In order to assist services in the continuing
drive for improvement in meting national standards, this chapter sets out the content of
the presentation which was aimed principally at middle managers because of their key role
in:
- ensuring offenders are supervised according to
National Standards 2000
- arranging cover for absent colleagues
- setting a positive tone within the team
- promoting a clear and consistent message.
4.3 The main message was that:
- the Home Secretary expects compliance with orders
to improve
- better enforcement is a means to an end –
effective work with offenders to reduce their likelihood of reoffending
- National Standards 2000 incorporate the principles
and methods known to be most effective in reducing reoffending
- the aim is to increase contact levels and reduce
missed appointments not to increase the number of offenders breached
- but when offenders fail to comply they must be
breached and returned to court promptly.
4.4 HMIP reported that there were a number of key
areas of practice that services needed to address including:
- recording
- middle manager supervision
- systems to support enforcement
- links with courts
- monitoring arrangements
- service culture.
Recording
4.5 Recording had been and remained a
requirement of national standards. Inspectors found in the ACOP audits and regularly in
inspections poor practice in recording including:
- inconsistent recording of attendance at groups /
partnership agencies
- insufficient linkage between records of offenders
who were on both probation and CS orders or who were on combination orders
- no record of the explanation for the failure
provided by the offender
- a failure by staff to record whether the absence
was acceptable or unacceptable
- recording of multiple failures by individual
offenders with no action taken by probation staff and no explanation of the decision not
to breach.
4.6 Guidance issued by HMIP in November 1999 on
recording practice in relation to enforcement is reproduced in Annex 1.
Middle manager supervision
4.7 Where supervision of staff by middle managers
was effective it was characterised by:
- examination of records in a proactive way, i.e.
the manager read a selection of cases not just those identified by the officer
- making an entry on the case records to authorise
deviations from national standards, with a clear explanation as to how the judgement had
been reached
- routine monitoring of the whole team’s
workload to identify failure to enforce as required
- proper questioning as to whether staff were being
sufficiently stringent in judging explanations for non-attendance.
Systems to support enforcement
4.8 The services which had been most
successful in improving their performance on compliance had the following characteristics:
- strong and visible leadership on the issue from
the probation committee and the CPO
- recognition of the key role of administrative and
support staff in interacting with offenders, taking messages and preparing breach papers
- effective use of PSOs as specialist enforcement
officers, not just in court but in following up non-attendance very rapidly
- middle managers who provided critical oversight of
individual staff performance
- Assistant Chief Officers of Probation (ACPO) who
recognised their responsibility in supporting middle managers and holding them to account
- supervising officers who recognised their
responsibility to account for their day to day decision making and "set the
tone" for offenders.
Links with courts
4.9 Successful services had worked well with
local courts to have in place:
- arrangements for summons / warrants to be issued
quickly
- court listing times that maximised the use of
probation staff resources
- support from sentencers when the order was made
which emphasised to offenders the importance of compliance
- links with CPS so that sentencing on the original
offence could take place quickly in breach cases
- sentencers who understood that breach should be
taken seriously and even when the order was allowed to continue offenders were made aware
that they had not "got off".
monitoring arrangements
4.10 As indicated above all services had
experienced difficulty in establishing effective and efficient systems to monitor national
standards because of the inadequacy of the national case record system. The most effective
systems were those which were:
- simple and up to date
- included a sufficiently large sample or the whole
workload when electronic systems were available
- able to provide performance information on
individual teams and officers
- able to identify trends in performance
- made minimal demands on staff in terms of the
provision of data.
service culture
4.11 Successful services had been able to
develop a service culture which promoted change and a willingness to be accountable for
performance against the standards. In those services:
- staff believed in the importance of improving
levels of compliance
- messages to offenders were clear and information
was written in an appropriate way recognising the learning difficulties of some offenders
- a prompt and effective start was made to orders /
licences
- staff kept to their responsibilities, i.e. avoided
being late or missing appointments with offenders
- staff believed that they could be effective in
challenging and changing offenders behaviour
- offenders were seen regularly so that a pattern of
effective work was established which engaged the individual in tackling the issues which
resulted in their offending behaviour.
4.12 In some services HMIP found the beginnings
of a culture of self-regulation where staff at all levels understood the importance of
improving levels of compliance with national standards and were using information to
improve their own and each others performance. Successful organisations have good systems
of accountability but also enable self regulation, with each person taking responsibility
for improving their own performance.
4.13 The leadership of ACOP began that process
nationally in 1999 – it is essential that this is continued and owned by all the
staff working in the probation service. This study has found good examples in local
services of the establishment of effective systems which enable staff to work to the
highest standards. Annex 1 sets out checklists to assist services to ensure that local
systems are effective.
4.14 This study has made three recommendations to
assist in the process of continued improvement in meeting the expectations of Ministers,
the public and the service itself of how community penalties should be supervised:
1. The Home Office should:
- issue a probation circular containing instructions
to areas on the monitoring of national standards which should specify the frequency,
content and method together with a framework for reporting the results to probation
committees and making the data available nationally for comparative purposes
- urgently investigate the potential of ICMS and
other established case management systems to monitor national standards
- prepare and publish an action plan with a clear
timetable on the introduction of an electronic method of monitoring of national standards
that can be used by all services .
2. Chief Probation Officers should make use of
the local results of the ACOP audits, the monitoring data collected for the KPI and the
findings of this study, including the checklists contained in Annex 1, in order to ensure
that the implementation of National Standards 2000 is fully effective.
HMIP will make use of the
checklists in inspecting local service practice.
3. Chief Probation Officers should review
their current inter agency arrangements on enforcement and seek to negotiate local
agreements to ensure that breaches are processed quickly.
5. Annex 1- Enforcement action
plans and guidance
5.1 Most of the area is involved in the
thematic inspection on the use of information had an enforcement action plan. HMIP
considers that this is good practice and strongly recommends that all areas adopt this
approach. All the services visited as part of this enforcement study also had guidelines
on national standards and these were well regarded by staff.
5.2 Based on HMIP’s general inspection
evidence, the specific information gathered for this study and the work of HMIP’s
enforcement improvement working group the following checklists on enforcement action plans
and local guidance on national standards have been developed. This annex also includes the
advice on recording practice which HMIP provided to ACOP and NAPO in November 1999.
Enforcement Action Plans
5.3 Does the action plan address the
following issues?
- the overall responsibility of the probation
committee to ensure that enforcement practice improves and a clear outline of its role in
the process
- the role of the chief officers’ group in
ensuring compliance with orders
- the identification of a senior manager to
coordinate work on enforcement.
- the changes that followed the introduction of the
new National Standards in April 2000 including transitional arrangements
- a clear communications strategy to ensure that
staff are fully informed of local and national developments and the progress made
- the inclusion of objectives to improve enforcement
performance in all plans within the service i.e. the Annual plan, divisional/teams plans
and individual appraisal performance targets
- the provision of regular reports on compliance
with national standards/enforcement to the probation committee and staff on at least a
quarterly basis
- the provision of information in these reports in
an area / divisional / team /individual format with data on gender / ethnicity included to
ensure equity of treatment
- the circulation and discussion of these reports
throughout the service in management meetings and individual supervision
- the use of information provided from external or
independent sources i.e. HMIP’s inspections, ACOP audits etc so that local findings
can be compared with national data
- the use of staff supervision at all levels of the
service to improve enforcement performance based on the use of "hard"
information
- the explicit expectation that poor performance by
any staff in relation to enforcement will lead to appropriate action being initiated
either by the probation committee or managers
- the provision of guidance and training on
enforcement practice to all staff including clerical/administrative grades
- in advance of the production of a national
leaflet, information for offenders setting out to their responsibilities under national
standards and the consequences of failures to comply
- the negotiation of a protocol with other local
agencies in the criminal justice system to ensure that breaches are processed quickly
- the establishment of local monitoring of the time
taken to issue summonses / warrants; to serve warrants; to process cases
- the use of appropriate language with offenders to
reinforce their obligations whilst under supervision e.g. making not offering appointments
- the careful use of language orally and in writing
to ensure that the offender fully understands the requirements of the order/licence,
recognising the level of learning difficulties that exist within the workload supervised
by the probation service.
Local Guidance on national
standards
5.4 Does the local guidance address the
following issues?
- the role of staff supervision by all managers with
particular reference to the importance of reading files and using "hard"
information obtained through monitoring and sampling exercises
- recording practice including the role of middle
and senior managers in authorising deviations from national standards
- clarification on who is responsible for the
overall management of combination orders
- the use of appointment cards to provide clarity in
the service’s expectations of the offender
- making sufficient appointments to ensure that if
some are missed it is still possible for the required number to take place, particularly
in the first 3 months
- a definition of what constitutes a contact and
advice on how to judge whether a failure to report on time is acceptable or unacceptable
- advice and how to determine the acceptability/and
acceptability of failures to comply (see below)
- handling absences allegedly caused by sickness
including policy on paying for sick notes from GPs
- mandatory use by all staff of standard warning
letters
- the role of specialist non - PO staff in the
breach process
- the provision of training / briefing events for
sentencers on enforcement issues
- procedures relating to the initiation and
prosecution of breach action
- the documentation required for breach action and
advice on the management of contested breaches
- arrangements for ensuring that offenders continue
to be supervised in the absence of their PO through sickness or leave. This principle
should also apply to the responsibility of ACPOs to ensure that appropriate management
support is available to POs in seeking authorisation to deviate from national standards
- the provision of training for
reception/administrative staff to support the policy with particular reference to how
contact with offenders seeking to change appointments is managed.
5.5 In relation to acceptable / unacceptable
absence, guidance should be provided within the framework of National Standards 2000 and
be consistent with PC 24/00. It might usefully include:
- a statement that the onus to prove an explanation
lies with the offender
- examples of explanations that are not normally
considered acceptable
- the importance of taking into account the
offender’s response in relation to compliance throughout the order when judging the
explanation for a failure
- the need to consider the offender’s wider
context including mental health and substance misuse issues.
5.6 Deviations from National Standards 2000
must always relate to an individual case. There can be no "blanket" approval for
deviation particularly for such reasons as local workload management issues. In judging
whether a case merits deviation from the standards managers should consider the case to be
exceptional. In all such cases it is essential that supervision can be sustained and the
aims and objectives of the order be fulfilled.
Recording practice
5.7 The following guidance on recording practice
was provided by HMIP to both ACOP and NAPO in November 1999. It outlines the way that HMIP
examine records in inspection programmes.
5.8 General
- HMIP judge practice against national standards
- Recording is itself an essential national standard
- if it is not recorded HMIP work on the basis that
it has not happened
- in file reading exercises a working day is judged
as the one following the incident e.g. if an offender fails to report on a Monday the
officer should take action within two working days i.e. Tuesday and Wednesday to seek an
explanation. Working days are days when the office is normally open i.e. Monday to Friday
even for CS where work does take place at weekends.
5.9 Enforcement
- the officer should record the offender’s
explanation for not attending
- the officer should record whether it is acceptable
or not – if nothing is recorded HMIP will regard it as unacceptable
- if the area has a standard practice about how to
mark failures as acceptable or unacceptable e.g. circling or highlighting them, this must
be followed
- the officer should record the action taken if the
failure is considered unacceptable
- SPOs have the authority to authorise deviations
from national standards in exceptional circumstances but this has to be recorded on the
file together with the reasons.
5.11 Finally, HMIP would emphasise that the aim
of better enforcement should be to increase levels of compliance so that fewer offenders
in the long term are breached and that more work can be undertaken to tackle
offenders’ behaviour and the offending related problems which face them.
6.
Annex 2- Inspection Standards
6.1 The thematic inspection on the "Use of
Information in the Probation Service" used the following set of standards. Each of
the three studies undertaken as part of the thematic focused on the particular and
relevant aspects of the standards.
NPSISS
1. Relevant, accurate and timely information
should be accessible to all staff, where appropriate, at any location from a single source
as an integral part of their working environment
Core information needs
1. Services meet the requirements of the data
protection act 1986
2. Effective systems exist, and are used, to
provide the probation committee with comprehensive and timely information on the
performance, workload, outcomes and costs of the service in the context of local and
national circumstances
3. Staff, at all levels of the service,
receive appropriate information that is used to improve both individual and corporate
performance
4. Effective systems exist to provide operational
information including that required to manage the risk of harm presented by offenders, and
that it is used appropriately
5. Effective systems are in place to enable the
service to respond fully, accurately and promptly to the Home Office’s regular
requests for information and statistical returns, and the service responds accordingly
6. The service is able to respond appropriately to
requests from stakeholders and other interested parties for information
Achieving compliance with
national standards
1. Effective systems are in place, and are used,
to monitor regularly the performance of the service against national standards
2. Effective procedures exist to ensure that
managers examine the performance of staff in relation to compliance with national
standards
3. Effective mechanisms exist to enable staff to
know whether individual cases are meeting the requirements of national standards
4. Services are able to use the local
guidelines relating to the fair, vigorous and effective enforcement of community orders
and licences
The deployment of resources
1. Information that is required on the deployment
of resources to achieve the service’s objectives is available
2. Effective systems are in place to provide
information on the cost of service activities, including staff time, and its relationship
to the outcomes of the work
3. Decisions on the creation and
implementation of policy are made on the basis of consideration of different costed
options
Crime and Disorder
1. Services are contributing to the statutory
crime and disorder partnerships, in accordance with the requirements of the Home Office
guidance manual
2. Effective information systems exist that
demonstrate how the probation service contributes to the process of developing and
implementing strategies for reducing crime and disorder.
7.
Glossary of abbreviations
ACO Assistant chief officer
ACOP Association of Chief
Officers of Probation
ACPO Assistant chief probation
officer
CPO Chief probation officer
CRAMS Case record administration
and management system
CS Community service
HMIP HM Inspectorate of Probation
HMCIP HM Chief Inspector of
Probation
ICMS Integrated case management
system
NAO National Audit Office
NPSISS National Probation Service
Information Systems Strategy
PIP Performance Inspection
Programme
PO Probation officer
PSO Probation services officer
Q&E Quality and effectiveness
SPO Senior probation
officer
