Offender Management Inspection (OMI) Programme (2006-2009)
The first Offender Management Inspection (OMI) Programme visited all 42 NOMS areas over a three-year period from May 2006. The inspection programme was carried out in association with HM Inspectorate of Prisons.
OMI reports are available here.
The primary purpose of the OMI Programme was to assess the quality of start to end offender management, both in custody and the community, against HMI Probation's published criteria, in relation to assessment, interventions and initial outcomes. We assessed this by taking a sample of cases to be read by a team of inspectors and assessors (including staff from the area itself) who then conducted interviews with offender managers. This was the primary source of evidence for OMI. In addition there were meetings and group interviews with service users and other staff. The supporting management arrangements in each area were assessed via a mixture of written evidence and meetings.
Offender Management Inspection in the Community
We looked at 110 - 160 individual offender cases, made up of licences, community orders and custody cases. The main strands of our methodology were:
Offender management interviews
An offender manager was normally interviewed about a case for between one and two hours. It may also have been appropriate for the offender supervisor to attend as well, if they have had significant input to the case. Offender managers should be prepared to discuss the case in depth and were asked to explain their thinking and to show where to find supporting evidence in the record. As part of any custody case interview, the offender supervisor would have been invited to take part in a telephone interview.
Groups
Whilst the offender manager has responsibility for the supervision of each offender, other people from a range of organisations could have contributed significantly to the management of each case. This starts before the court process, and with agencies whose role is to address offending related issues such as substance misuse and accommodation needs. A selection of key workers delivering an intervention for or on behalf of probation, or case administrators, were invited to attend group meeting. These groups were designed to provide HMI Probation with representative views about the front-line operation of offender management.
We used individual interviews to access the views of offenders and victims.
Meetings
Those who are: chief officers, senior managers, board members, middle managers, strategic heads/leaders of a partnership agency, may have been invited to attend a meeting. These meetings were designed to provide HMI Probation with evidence about the management and leadership of the area.
OMI criteria phase 2
Published in February 2007, to reflect phase 2 of the Offender Management Model, these formed the basis of our inspection of offender management and included the inspection of high priority cases with a custodial element. They gave a high priority to the diversity agenda and to work relating to risk of harm to others.
OMI criteria phase 2 (PDF 0.42mb)
OMI scoring methodology
Note setting out the OMI scoring methodology (PDF 0.02mb)
OMI toolkit
The toolkit provided offered explanatory notes to help assessors form judgements in the assessment of cases for OMI. These notes were cross-referenced to the questions in the OMI Cases Assessment Tool. They did not make those judgements but rather informed them. They provided contextual details needed by assessors to form conclusions.
These notes had a potential second use. They can act as a reference point for those doing probation work with offenders. They outlined to staff what it is HMI Probation hopes to find. This could be a useful aid to promoting good practice, benchmarking best practice, and assuring the quality of work, whether in an ongoing way, or specifically as part of preparation for inspection.
This updated version of the Toolkit was in use from November 08.
- OMI toolkit - part one (PDF 0.25mb)
- OMI toolkit - part two (PDF 1.00mb)
Practice examples in the offender management inspection programme
This document is an amalgamation of good practice examples from all Offender Management Inspection reports.
OMI Good Practice Examples (PDF 0.37mb)
Offender Management in Prisons
Following the introduction of offender management arrangements in custody from November 2006, a new joint methodology for the inspection of offender management arrangements in prison, including outcomes for prisoners, was developed by HMI Probation and HMI Prisons. Since its application in early 2007, this shared methodology has sought to avoid inspection duplication for establishments.
Criteria for offender management inspection in prisons (PDF 0.17mb)
HMI Probation joined HMI Prisons on some of their inspections to assess the quality of offender management arrangements for prisoners who were within the scope of the National Offender Management Model. This joint approach to inspection was designed to reduce the burden of inspection on prisons.
As part of the inspection we met with:
offender management unit (OMU) practitioners (offender supervisors and case administrators). This meeting was designed to provide Inspectors with representative views about the front line operation of offender management.
operational and strategic managers (Governor/ Director, Deputy Governor, Head of Reducing Reoffending, Head of Learning and Skills, offender supervisor coordinator, OMU manager, senior probation officer, public protection manager). This meeting was designed to provide Inspectors with evidence about the operational and strategic management and leadership of the prison in respect of offender management.
An offender management survey was also issued to a random selection of prisoners who were in scope of the National Offender Management Model
The joint element of the inspection usually lasted for one day. Thereafter, HMI Prisons followed up any outstanding issues or queries on behalf of both Inspectorates for the rest of the inspection period.
A summary of initial findings formed part of HMI Prisons’ feedback at the end of the week and the key points were reflected in the prison report of the inspection. Following the conclusion of inspections in a region, a joint report was published setting out findings from the prisons inspected. This could have included recommendations for improvement, as well as highlighting examples of good practice.
Risk of Harm Inspection Module
Sometimes, following a poor OMI result, we identified the need for a further focused inspection of Risk of Harm work. It was in such cases, where reinspection is needed, when the Risk of Harm Inspection Module (RoHIM) would be undertaken.
In addition, the principles from RoHIM, of examining the quality of Risk of Harm work, could have been relatively easily applied by probation areas as a self-assessment tool.
Risk of harm inspection module: reinspection
The primary purpose of an OMI RoHIM was to assess the quality of Risk of Harm work delivered with offenders against HMI Probation’s published criteria in relation to areas of assessment, interventions and management and leadership arrangements. The results of the RoHIM (and also a full OMI) produced a Risk of Harm Thread score – a percentage score indicating the quality of Risk of Harm work within the area which was assessed as being at least good enough.
The reinspection used a similar methodology to an OMI, but on a smaller scale, using fewer inspection staff and looking at approximately 50% of the cases – including community orders, licences and custody cases falling within offender management arrangements. Interviews with offender managers and offender supervsiors about the Risk of Harm issues in the cases were supplemented by meetings with managers and members of the local MAPPA to discuss developments in the management and leadership arrangements in relation to Risk of Harm within the area since the OMI. A RoHIM was likely to be held approximately 12 months after the due publication date of the original OMI report. This gave the area sufficient opportunity to have implemented changes in policy and/ or practice, as required, based on findings from the OMI. The RoHIM report was published approximately ten weeks after the inspection has taken place.
Risk of Harm Inspection Module Criteria (PDF 0.36mb)
Risk of harm inspection module: self-assessment tool
The RoHIM could have also been used as a self-assessment of the quality of Risk of Harm work across an area or parts of an area, in a similar way to how HMI Probation undertook inspections. This could also have been an ideal continued use of the skills of the Area Assessors – who were trained by HMI Probation for the OMI and who would have been familiar with the questions used in the RoHIM and in undertaking inspection activity.
Questions from the RoHIM, coupled with the toolkit definition of standards for good practice, could also have been used as a quality assurance mechanism during in-depth case-specific supervision with offender managers. For example, using the RoHIM questions and relevant toolkit guidance to objectively assess the quality of Risk Management Plans.
For areas to get the best from the RoHIM, it is worth considering buying the computer software that HMI Probation use, which enables data from multiple cases to be inputted onto “Infopath” forms, aggregated and analysed quickly and easily. (The software is relatively cheap to buy – please email for further details.)
Risk of harm inspection module tool used by HMI Probation (Word 1.10mb)
The primary purpose of the OMI Programme was to assess the quality of start to end offender management, both in custody and the community, against HMI Probation's published criteria, in relation to assessment, interventions and initial outcomes