HM Inspectorate of Probation

Transcription

1 HM Inspectorate of Probation Effective Supervision Inspection of the National Probation Service for England & Wales Reference report on results across for 42 probation areas inspected between 2003 and 2006, including results on diversity issues October 2007 Independent inspection of probation and youth offending work

2 This reference report provides, for future reference and record purposes, aggregate results from HMI Probation s Effective Supervision Inspection (ESI) programme, which inspected all 42 probation areas in England and Wales over the period 2003 to The report includes analyses of results by the diversity characteristics of offenders, and also examples of good diversity practice identified in the course of the ESI. KEY FINDINGS Overall, the results showed a reasonable level of performance in broad terms, but also indicated considerable scope for improvement in specific aspects of work. For about three-quarters of key measures of performance, 60% or more of all offender cases sampled were rated sufficient or excellent ( above the line ). However for less than a third of the key measures were 75% or more of all cases rated sufficient or excellent ( above the line ). In less than two-thirds of cases (60%) had a satisfactory risk of harm assessment of the offender been done at the start of supervision. This result reflected the recurring need identified in the ESI programme - for improvement in the assessment and management of the risk of offenders causing harm to others. In about three-quarters of all cases appointments and work sessions were arranged in accordance with national standards. For most of the measures relating to the delivery of interventions, the proportions of cases with satisfactory work were around 80% or more. In only about a half of all cases was work relating to victim issues satisfactory. In 44% of all cases there was satisfactory evidence of a positive change in offenders attitudes, beliefs and behaviour at the time of inspection (usually 9-10 months into supervision). The proportions of cases with satisfactory quality of work tended to be better for community orders than for licences. In aggregate across all 42 areas, the quality of offender assessment scored 64%, the quality of interventions 76%, and the initial outcomes (based on the information available) 72%. When results were analysed by diversity characteristics of offenders: the quality of work with women offenders was relatively better than for men the quality of work with white offenders was relatively better than for black and minority ethnic (BME) offenders, across a number of aspects of supervision when analysed by disability, or by age, most results showed no 1

3 significant differences. However, where there were differences, the quality of work with disabled offenders was somewhat better than that with non-disabled; and work with older offenders somewhat better than with younger. Some of these results particularly on ethnicity - are of concern and require further consideration. Of the six groupings of areas considered, the Medium Size, Higher Density grouping tended to show the best results, and the Small size, Higher Density grouping the weakest. 2

4 Foreword This report provides, for future reference and record purposes, aggregate results for all probation areas from our Effective Supervision Inspection (ESI) programme following its completion in We believe that through the ESI we built up an important body of information about probation work overall and the factors that contribute to effectiveness. The report includes analyses by ethnicity and other diversity characteristics of offenders which we were not usually able to consider in the ESI reports on individual areas in view of the small numbers of cases often involved. The results also include results on work with offenders assessed as posing a high risk of harm to others. Some of the results raise matters which will need further consideration, and we are putting them forward to facilitate consideration, both by practitioners and by policy makers. Among other things, some of the results by diversity characteristics, particularly in respect of ethnicity, raise a continuing concern, in indicating that on a number of aspects of work, the quality of work with white offenders is still relatively better than with black and minority ethnic (BME) offenders. However, the ESI inspection also identified a considerable number of examples of good practice in respect of diversity, and we are recording these here for consideration and to encourage wider use. The point here is that during the period of this inspection programme there were numerous examples of excellent diversity practice in Probation Areas across the country. But overall a sufficient standard of certain aspects of work was not achieved as frequently with BME offenders as with white offenders. Compared with the past, the gap is closing, but there is further to go. We will be publishing in due course similar results from the Offender Management inspection (OMI) programme, the successor to ESI. ANDREW BRIDGES HM Chief Inspector of Probation October 2007 Background HM Inspectorate of Probation completed its three-year Effective Supervision Inspection (ESI) of the 42 Areas of the National Probation Service for England and Wales (NPS) in March A report on each area was published at the time of the inspection. We have also previously published aggregate results from the ESI for the first 14, and the first 29, areas inspected, and are now publishing, in this reference report, results for all 42 areas. The main element of the ESI was the scrutiny of a random sample of offender cases through reading the associated files and interviewing offender managers who dealt with the case. Samples were usually 100 cases (rising to 160 in large metropolitan areas, and 240 for London), which had been under supervision for approximately nine to ten months. The cases sampled cover both community orders and licence on release from custody. 3

5 Cases were assessed on defined and published inspection criteria focusing on three main aspects of probation supervision: The quality of assessments carried out on the offender, particularly of risk of harm to others and of likelihood of reoffending; The quality of interventions carried out with the offender; The initial outcomes of the interventions, both in relation to criminogenic factors such as employment, accommodation and substance misuse, and also whether there was any reduction in risk of harm to others or likelihood of reoffending. For each case, the scrutiny included an examination of the case file and an indepth interview with the case manager, based on a defined set of questions which reflected the inspection criteria. For each question, the main assessment was whether the work in that case was excellent or sufficient ( above the line ) or whether it was not sufficient or poor ( below the line ). For the purpose of making some comparison between probation areas in the ESI, they were divided into six groupings or families, grouping together those with similar characteristics in terms of size and population density. Areas in the same grouping were visited in the same year in order to facilitate comparisons within the group. The groupings comprised the following areas: Metropolitan Large size, Large size, Medium size, Small size, Small size, Areas high density lower density higher density higher density low density Greater Avon and Manchester Essex Somerset Cheshire Bedfordshire Cumbria Devon and London Hampshire Cornwall Derbyshire Cambridgeshire Dyfed-Powys Merseyside Kent Humberside Durham Dorset Gloucestershire Northumbria Lancashire Sussex Gwent Northamptonshire Lincolnshire South Yorkshire Nottinghamshire Thames Valley Hertfordshire Surrey Norfolk West Midlands South Wales West Mercia Leicestershire and Rutland Warwickshire North Wales West Yorkshire Staffordshire North Yorkshire Teesside Suffolk Wiltshire 4

6 RESULTS PRESENTED IN THIS REFERENCE REPORT Results are presented for 4,535 offender cases sampled across the 42 areas during the ESI. The 4,535 is a very large sample to use for analysis, having a confidence interval of only +/-1.5% at the 95% confidence level. Results are shown for a number (29) of key questions from the defined set used in the scrutiny of cases (as above), and are the proportion of cases whose work was rated sufficient or excellent (ie above the line ) for that question. The report presents results for these key questions for the 42 areas in aggregate: all the cases overall (Table 1); for cases assessed as posing a risk of harm to others (Table 1); by licence cases compared to community orders (Table 2); by certain key diversity characteristics of the offender gender (Table 4), ethnicity (Table 5), disability (Table 6) and age (Table 7); by the six family groupings (Table 8). The tables indicate (see footnote to Table 1) whether the difference between results is statistically significant at the 0.1%, 1% and 5% levels, respectively. Other differences are likely to have arisen by chance. Table 1 shows results for all the 29 questions. However, it should be noted that, to avoid excessively detailed analyses, the remainder of the relevant tables (Tables 2, and 4-8) show results only for questions for which there were statistically significant differences with respect to the factors in the analysis. Results for questions for which differences with respect to this factor were not significant are omitted. The report also presents scores for the main aspects of NPS work, for the 42 probation areas in aggregate (Table 3), and by individual area (Graphs 2-4). In interpreting the results, and particularly those for individual areas, it should be borne in mind that they derive from inspections carried out over a threeyear period. As well as these aggregate analyses, the report also includes examples of good practice in respect of diversity issues (see Foreword). These are set out in the Annex. 5

7 OVERALL FINDINGS AND HIGH RISK OF HARM CASES Table 1 shows results for all the cases overall, and for high risk of harm cases, based on the scrutiny of the case file and interview with the case manager: for the majority (20 of the relevant 28) of the key questions considered, 60% or more of all cases were rated sufficient or excellent (ie above the line ) however for only eight of the 28 questions (less than a third) were 75% or more of all cases rated sufficient or excellent in less than two thirds of cases (60%) had a satisfactory risk of harm assessment been done at the start of supervision. This proportion varied substantially across individual areas. In this connection it is also of note that the proportion of cases with satisfactory risk of harm assessment was considerably higher (63%) where OASys had been used, compared to where it had not been (52%). in only about 40% of relevant cases had a satisfactory re-assessment of risk of harm been undertaken following an incident which might give rise to concerns in 69% of all cases (and 73% of high risk of harm cases) a satisfactory likelihood of reoffending assessment had been undertaken in 74% of all cases appointments and work sessions were arranged in accordance with national standards for most of the questions relating to the delivery of interventions, the proportions of cases with satisfactory work were around 80% or more in only about 50% of all cases was work relating to victim issues satisfactory in about 45% of all cases there was satisfactory evidence of a positive change in offenders attitudes, beliefs and behaviour, at the time of inspection (9-10 months into supervision for most offenders). Perhaps not surprisingly, this proportion was lower for high risk of harm cases in 72% of high risk of harm cases, changes in risk of harm were identified and managed satisfactorily at the time of inspection, 80% of all offenders had not been reconvicted of an offence committed since the start of the supervision. in about 60% of all cases, initial supervision plans were satisfactorily sensitive to race and diversity issues. In about 85% of all cases, the delivery of interventions was sensitive to race and diversity issues 6

8 Table 1 29 Key measures of probation supervision % Above the line All cases High Risk of harm cases % Above the line N Significance 1 n Satisfactory risk of harm assessment at start of supervision 60% % 866 Satisfactory risk of harm assessment at least every 16 weeks 26% % 852 *** Satisfactory risk of harm assessment following significant incidents 41% % 413 *** Satisfactory likelihood of reoffending and criminogenic factors assessment 69% % 862 ** Appropriate interventions identified to address offending and reintegration 68% % 865 Plan sensitive to race and diversity issues 62% % 696 Initial Supervision Plan integrates MAPPA (or other risk management) plan % 491 Appointments / work sessions arranged to National Standards 74% % 866 Judgements on absences appropriate 84% % 675 * Appropriate interventions carried out 66% % 847 Appropriate reason for not proceeding with accredited programme 70% % 360 Appropriate action to implement additional order requirements 77% % 525 * Victim issues addressed 52% % 801 *** Work to raise awareness of victim 51% % 765 *** Work and resources directed at reintegration 78% % 791 Delivery of interventions sensitive to race and diversity issues 84% % 673 Consideration given to effective methods 80% % 862 Interventions appropriate to risk of harm 84% % 864 *** Changes in risk of harm identified and managed 61% % 571 *** Appropriate action on public protection 77% % 216 No conviction for further offences since commencement of order or licence 80% % 795 * Progress on first priority criminogenic factor 62% % 835 ** Progress on second priority criminogenic factor 60% % 797 *** Progress on third priority criminogenic factor 58% % 742 *** Evidence of positive change in offenders' attitudes, beliefs and behaviour 44% % 823 *** Progress where thinking skills are the first priority criminogenic factor 58% % 271 * Progress where alcohol is the first priority criminogenic factor 66% % 78 Progress where drugs / solvent misuse is the first priority criminogenic factor 68% % 60 Offender compliance with order or licence 67% % That is, how likely it is that the difference between the result for all cases and for high risk of harm cases was due to chance alone (*** being <0.001 or highly statistically significant, ** being <0.01 or very statistically significant, and * <0.05 or achieving statistical significance). 7

9 RESULTS FOR LICENCE CASES AND COMMUNITY ORDERS The ESI covered the full range of sentences supervised by the NPS. However, the majority (77%) of the total sample of cases scrutinised were community orders. The Community Rehabilitation Order was the most common in the sample making up 42% of the cases scrutinised. Graph 1 Orders and licences in the ESI sample 45% 42% 40% 35% 30% 25% 25% 20% 15% 14% 10% 10% 5% 0% Community Rehabilitation Order Community Punishment Order Automatic Conditional Release licence Community Punishment & Rehabilitation Order 6% Discretionary Conditional Release licence 2% 2% Other licence Intensive Control & Change Programme 1% 0% NPD licence Life licence Table 2 shows results analysed by whether licence or community order: For 20 of the 29 key questions there were statistically significant results between community orders and licence cases Of these questions showing statistically significant results, the majority (about two-thirds) showed better results for community orders In particular, the proportion of cases with a satisfactory initial risk of harm assessment was considerably higher for community orders (64%) than for licence cases (46%) Also, for most of the questions relating to the delivery of interventions, the proportions of cases with satisfactory work were higher for community orders than for licences However, the proportion of cases where offenders had not been convicted of an offence committed since the start of supervision, and the proportion of cases where the offender complied with the terms of the supervision, were higher for licences than for community orders. 8

10 Table 2: Key results by whether licence or community order Licence % Above the line Community Order % Above the line n Significance n Satisfactory risk of harm assessment at start of supervision 46% 1,058 64% 3,457 *** Satisfactory risk of harm assessment following significant incidents 31% % 861 *** Satisfactory likelihood of reoffending and criminogenic factors assessment 59% 1,056 73% 3,431 *** Appropriate interventions identified to address offending and reintegration 61% 1,053 70% 3,441 *** Plan sensitive to race and diversity issues 55% % 2,735 *** Appointments / work sessions arranged to National Standards 77% 1,057 73% 3,452 * Judgements on absences appropriate 86% % 3,144 Appropriate interventions carried out 60% 1,042 68% 2,879 *** Appropriate reason for not proceeding with accredited programme 64% % 973 *** Victim issues addressed 48% 1,015 53% 2,203 * Work to raise awareness of victim 45% % 1,856 *** Delivery of interventions sensitive to race and diversity issues 78% % 2,674 *** Consideration given to effective methods 74% 1,053 82% 3,441 *** Interventions appropriate to risk of harm 79% 1,052 86% 3,449 *** Changes in risk of harm identified and managed 66% % 1,252 * No conviction for further offences since commencement of order or licence 88% % 3,149 *** Progress on first priority criminogenic factor 67% 1,012 61% 3,204 ** Progress on second priority criminogenic factor 63% % 2,910 * Progress on third priority criminogenic factor 61% % 2,549 * Offender compliance with order or licence 75% 1,013 64% 3,148 *** 9

11 SCORES FOR MAIN ASPECTS OF NPS WORK Scores for the 42 areas in aggregate For each area inspection, scores were calculated for each of the inspection criteria, and from these, scores calculated for the main sections of the inspection noted above the quality of assessments, the quality of the interventions and the initial outcomes of the interventions. The scores were based mainly on the scrutiny of the case file and interview with the offender manager, including the results for the key questions set out in Table 1, but also took account of results from interviews with other people significantly involved in the supervision, and with the offender where available. The scores were published in the report on the area. We have now calculated a set of scores, in a similar way, for the 42 areas in aggregate. This therefore provides some indication of the performance of the NPS as a whole, although based on inspections taking place over the 3 year period. The scores are shown in Table 3. Table 3 ESI scoring for all areas in aggregate Quality of assessments Assessment of risk of harm 53% Assessment of likelihood of re-offending 77% Case management 59% Documentation 73% Section score 64% Quality of interventions Managing attendance and enforcement 84% Delivering appropriate supervision 68% Diversity needs 83% Responsivity 77% Management of risk of harm 70% Section score 76% Quality of initial outcomes Interventions delivered with desired outcomes 68% Improvements are sustainable 65% Interventions demonstrate value for money 81% Section score 72% 10

12 The results therefore show aggregate scores for quality of assessments, interventions and initial outcomes of 64%, 76% and 72%, respectively. These results therefore show relatively high performance on interventions, particularly on managing attendance and enforcement. They show relatively poor performance on the quality of assessments of risk of harm, in line with the results noted in Table 1. In interpreting the results, it should be borne in mind that the information on initial outcomes is based on what is available on the case at the point at which we carry out the inspection, but that this is necessarily somewhat limited and provisional. Scores by individual area Graphs 2-4 show the scores for each of the main sections (quality of assessment, quality of interventions and initial outcomes) by individual area. The results show greater variation between areas for quality of assessment than for quality of interventions. Graph 2: Effective Supervision Inspection scores for quality of assessment 100% 75% 87% 82%82% 78% 76%76%76%74%74%74%73%72% 70%70% 69%68%68% 67%67%67% 66%65%65%65%65%64% 62%62%62% 61%60%59%57% 55%55% 53%53% 49%48%47% 50% 44%44% 25% 0% County Durham Teesside Cheshire Suffolk North Wales Kent Derbyshire Lincolnshire Northumbria Lancashire Humberside Essex Surrey Merseyside West Mercia North Yorkshire Norfolk Devon & Cornwall West Yorkshire Hampshire Gwent Dyfed-Powys Sussex Leicestershire & Rutland South Yorkshire Wiltshire Avon & Somerset Dorset Greater Manchester Gloucestershire Warwickshire West Midlands Nottinghamshire Bedfordshire Cumbria Northants Thames Valley Hertfordshire London Cambridgeshire South Wales Staffordshire Section B Area Scores NPS Average 11

13 Graph 3: Effective Supervision Inspection scores for quality of interventions 100% 75% 87% 86%85%85%84%84%84%83%83%81%81%80%79%79%79%79%79%78%77%77%77%77%77%76%76%76%76%76%75%75%74%74% 72%72%72% 69%68% 66%66% 65%62%62% 50% 25% 0% County Durham Northumbria Cheshire Suffolk Teesside Kent Lancashire Derbyshire West Yorkshire Essex North Yorkshire Surrey Lincolnshire Norfolk North Wales Sussex South Yorkshire Leicestershire & Rutland Humberside Merseyside Hampshire Wiltshire Avon & Somerset West Mercia Devon & Cornwall Greater Manchester Bedfordshire Staffordshire Dyfed-Powys Dorset Northants Warwickshire Gloucestershire Gwent Nottinghamshire Cumbria West Midlands Hertfordshire London Thames Valley Cambridgeshire South Wales Section C Area Scores NPS Average Graph 4: Effective Supervision Inspection scores for quality of initial outcomes 100% 75% 81% 79%79%78%78%78%77%77%77%76%76%75%75%75%75%75%74%74%74%73%73%73%73%73%73%73% 71% 70%70%69%69%66%65%65%65%64%63%62%62%62% 60% 59% 50% 25% 0% Northumbria Kent Surrey County Durham Cheshire Teesside Avon & Somerset Humberside Lancashire Derbyshire Essex Norfolk Dorset Lincolnshire Staffordshire West Yorkshire Devon & Cornwall North Wales West Mercia Greater Manchester Hampshire Merseyside North Yorkshire Suffolk Sussex Dyfed-Powys Warwickshire Gloucestershire Gwent South Yorkshire Northants Bedfordshire Cambridgeshire Leicestershire & Rutland West Midlands Wiltshire London Cumbria Hertfordshire Nottinghamshire South Wales Thames Valley Section D Area Scores NPS Average 12

14 RESULTS ANALYSED BY DIVERSITY CHARACTERISTICS Introduction Diversity is a key issue for probation practice, and it is therefore very important to analyse our results for the key questions by gender, ethnicity, disability and age to facilitate consideration as to whether the quality of supervision varies by these factors. Tables 4-7 are based on analysis of the aggregate results for the 42 areas for the key questions used for Table 1, by gender (Table 4), ethnicity (Table 5), disability (Table 6) and age (Table 7). However, as noted, these tables only show results for those questions for which there were statistically significant differences with respect to the diversity characteristic concerned. Full tables are available on request by contacting our Information Manager, (Kevin.Ball@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk, tel: ) 13

15 Table 4: Findings by gender For 13 of the 29 question measures, there were no statistically significant differences by gender of the offender. However for each of the 16 measures where there were significant differences by gender, the results for women offenders were better ie a higher proportion of cases rated sufficient or excellent ( above the line ). This was markedly so, among other things, for carrying out appropriate interventions, directing work and resources at reintegration, giving consideration to appropriate methods, and the appropriateness of interventions and their level to the risk of harm. In part some of these differences may reflect differences between the supervision of orders and licences and between violent and non-violent offences. However further analysis, allowing for these factors, suggests that nonetheless some of the differences by gender do remain. Women also demonstrated more evidence of positive change during their supervision than men. Table 4 Key results by gender of offender % Above the line Male Female % Above the line n Significance n Satisfactory risk of harm assessment at start of supervision 59% 3,931 65% 597 ** Satisfactory risk of harm assessment following significant incidents 39% 1,032 50% 133 * Satisfactory likelihood of reoffending and criminogenic factors assessment 69% 3,910 75% 590 ** Appropriate interventions identified to address offending and reintegration 67% 3,913 74% 594 *** Appropriate interventions carried out 65% 3,408 74% 525 *** Appropriate reason for not proceeding with accredited programme 69% 1,270 80% 158 ** Work and resources directed at reintegration 77% 3,230 87% 514 *** Delivery of interventions sensitive to race and diversity issues 84% 2,871 87% 539 * Consideration given to effective methods 79% 3,914 86% 593 *** Interventions appropriate to risk of harm 83% 3,921 91% 593 *** Changes in risk of harm identified and managed 60% 1,532 69% 192 * Progress on first priority criminogenic factor 61% 3,673 68% 557 ** Progress on second priority criminogenic factor 59% 3,363 67% 526 *** Progress where drugs / solvent misuse is the first priority criminogenic factor 66% % 89 * Evidence of positive change in offenders' attitudes, beliefs and behaviour 42% 3,059 51% 468 ** Offender compliance with order or licence 66% 3,627 70% 546 * 14

16 Table 5 Findings by ethnicity Analysis has been carried out for BME offenders as a group. We have given consideration to producing results for specific BME groups within this, but the sample sizes are too small to produce reliable analyses for comparisons. Of the analysis by white and BME offenders: There were statistically significant differences between White and BME Groups for 18 of the 29 key measures. For virtually all of these 18 measures, the results for white offenders were better than for BME offenders. The proportion of cases with an initial sentence plan that is sensitive to race and diversity issues was considerably lower for BME offenders (45%) than for white offenders (64%). Among other things, BME offenders were also relatively less likely than white offenders to have had a satisfactory likelihood of reoffending and criminogenic factors assessment, less likely to have appropriate interventions identified or have those interventions carried out, and less likely to have had work and resources directed at reintegration. BME offenders were also less likely to have shown evidence of making progress on their first priority criminogenic factor. These results - showing relatively poorer quality of work with BME offenders across a number of aspects of supervision - raise issues of concern which require further consideration. 15

17 Table 5 Key results by ethnicity of offender White groups % Above the line BME groups % Above the line n Significance n Satisfactory risk of harm assessment at start of supervision 60% 3,949 55% 492 * Satisfactory risk of harm assessment at least every 16 weeks 27% 3,877 17% 479 *** Satisfactory risk of harm assessment following significant incidents 42% 1,019 27% 116 ** Satisfactory likelihood of reoffending and criminogenic factors assessment 71% 3,923 60% 490 *** Appropriate interventions identified to address offending and reintegration 69% 3,931 57% 488 *** Plan sensitive to race and diversity issues 64% 3,017 45% 448 *** Plan integrates MAPPA (or other risk management) plan 37% % 47 * Appointments / work sessions arranged to National Standards 75% 3,942 63% 492 *** Appropriate interventions carried out 67% 3,428 59% 429 *** Appropriate reason for not proceeding with accredited programme 29% 1,273 40% 133 ** Appropriate action to implement additional order requirements 78% 1,582 70% 182 * Work to raise awareness of victim 51% 2,443 45% 269 * Work and resources directed at reintegration 79% 3,265 69% 405 *** Delivery of interventions sensitive to race and diversity issues 86% 2,889 73% 450 *** Consideration given to effective methods 81% 3,930 70% 490 *** Interventions appropriate to risk of harm 85% 3,936 79% 491 ** Progress on first priority criminogenic factor 63% 3,688 54% 462 *** Progress where thinking skills are the first priority criminogenic factor 60% 1,099 49% 160 ** 16

18 Table 6 findings by disability status Disabled offenders were more likely to be older than non-disabled offenders. Disabled offenders were also more likely than non-disabled to be on postrelease supervision, were more likely to be sex offenders, and more likely to be high risk of harm offenders. Findings For the large majority of the key measures (23 of 29), there were no statistically significant differences between disabled offenders and others However for all but one of the 6 measures where there were significant differences, the results for disabled offenders were relatively better The results for directing work and resources at reintegration, and for giving consideration to methods likely to be most effective, were both better for disabled offenders than non-disabled Changes in risk of harm were satisfactorily identified and managed in 68% of disabled cases compared to 59% of non-disabled cases. This may reflect the relatively higher proportion of disabled offenders who are high risk of harm, as noted above. Table 6 Key results by disability status of offender % above the line Disabled Not disabled % above the line n Significance N Appropriate reason for not proceeding with accredited programme 79% % 1,134 *** Work and resources directed at reintegration 83% % 3,037 *** Consideration given to effective methods 85% % 3,718 ** Changes in risk of harm identified and managed 68% % 1,345 ** Evidence of positive change in offenders' attitudes, beliefs and behaviour 40% % 2,854 * Offender compliance with order or licence 71% % 3,460 * 17

19 Table 7 findings by age of offender For convenience, the analysis has grouped offenders into years, years and 50+ age brackets. Findings For the majority of the key measures, there were no statistically significant differences in results for the different age groups However, for each of the measures where there were significant differences, the results for older offenders were relatively better than for younger Among other things, the proportions of offenders who had not been convicted of an offence committed since start of supervision, and the proportions of offenders complying with the order or licence, were both higher for the older offenders. This may reflect a maturation process producing greater compliance with increasing age. % Above the line % Above n the line N % Above the line n Significance Appointments / work sessions arranged to National Standards 75% 1,356 73% 2,778 81% 333 ** Appropriate interventions carried out 65% 1,101 66% 2,470 74% 313 * Victim issues addressed 50% % 2,078 64% 270 *** Work to raise awareness of victim 47% % 1,756 64% 232 *** Delivery of interventions sensitive to race and diversity issues 86% % 2,119 90% 255 ** Consideration given to effective methods 80% 1,353 79% 2,767 86% 333 * Interventions appropriate to risk of harm 85% 1,351 83% 2,776 88% 332 * No conviction for further offences since commencement of order or licence 77% 1,208 80% 2,557 90% 304 *** Offender compliance with order or licence 59% 1,235 68% 2,580 87% 307 *** 18

20 Results analysed by Family groupings Schedule of ESI Area Inspections Where possible we inspected areas in the same Family group in the same time-frame. The table below shows the schedule of inspection. Area First week of inspection Family Nottinghamshire 09 June 2003 Large size, high density Derbyshire 16 June 2003 Medium size, higher density Leicestershire & Rutland 23 June 2003 Medium size, higher density Lancashire 01 September 2003 Large size, high density Cheshire 15 September 2003 Medium size, higher density Kent 29 September 2003 Large size, high density Hampshire 13 October 2003 Large size, high density Hertfordshire 17 November 2003 Medium size, higher density Essex 01 December 2003 Large size, high density Teesside 12 January 2004 Medium size, higher density Durham 26 January 2004 Medium size, higher density Gwent 09 February 2004 Medium size, higher density South Wales 23 February 2004 Large size, high density Staffordshire 08 March 2004 Medium size, higher density West Midlands 19 April 2004 Metropolitan Areas Norfolk 26 April 2004 Small size, low density Suffolk 24 May 2004 Small size, low density Greater Manchester 07 June 2004 Metropolitan Areas Merseyside 05 July 2004 Metropolitan Areas Cumbria 06 September 2004 Small size, low density Northumbria 20 September 2004 Metropolitan Areas Gloucestershire 04 October 2004 Small size, low density Wiltshire 01 November 2004 Small size, low density Dyfed-Powys 08 November 2004 Small size, low density North Wales 06 December 2004 Small size, low density North Yorkshire 10 January 2005 Small size, low density West Yorkshire 24 January 2005 Metropolitan Areas South Yorkshire 07 February 2005 Metropolitan Areas Lincolnshire 14 February 2005 Small size, low density London 04 April 2005 Metropolitan Areas Humberside 18 April 2005 Large size, lower density Bedfordshire 09 May 2005 Small size, higher density West Mercia 23 May 2005 Large size, lower density Warwickshire 06 June 2005 Small size, higher density Northamptonshire 20 June 2006 Small size, higher density Cambridgeshire 19 September 2005 Small size, higher density Surrey 03 October 2005 Small size, higher density Sussex 07 November 2005 Large size, lower density Avon & Somerset 16 January 2006 Large size, lower density Thames Valley 30 January 2006 Large size, lower density Devon & Cornwall 13 February 2006 Large size, lower density Dorset 27 February 2006 Small size, higher density 19

21 RESULTS ANALYSED BY FAMILY GROUPING The six HMI Probation Family Groups are as shown on page 5. Within the sample of 4,535 cases they comprise: Metropolitan Areas (including London) - 23% of cases Large size, high density areas - 13% of cases Medium size, higher density areas - 18% of cases Small size, low density areas - 20% of cases Large size, lower density areas 13% of cases Small size, higher density areas 13% of cases Results are in Table 8. Again, results are only shown for those measures where there were statistically significant differences Findings There were statistically significant differences between groupings for 24 of the 29 key questions The medium size, higher density grouping showed the relatively strongest performance The small size, higher density grouping showed the relatively weakest performance overall. The Metropolitan grouping showed the relatively next weakest performance. 20

22 Table 8 Metropolitan areas % Above the line Large size, high density % Above the line Large size, lower density % Above the line Medium size, higher density % Above the line Small size, higher density % Above the line Small size, low density % Above the line n Significance n n n n n Satisfactory risk of harm assessment at start of supervision 56% 1,071 62% % % % % 887 *** Satisfactory risk of harm assessment at least every 16 weeks 18% 1,043 33% % % % % 875 *** Satisfactory risk of harm assessment following significant incidents 34% % % % % % 231 *** Satisfactory likelihood of reoffending and criminogenic factors assessment 63% 1,069 67% % % % % 879 *** Appropriate interventions identified to address offending and reintegration 64% 1,066 69% % % % % 886 *** Plan sensitive to race and diversity issues 55% % % % % % 682 *** Plan integrates MAPPA (or other risk management) plan 30% % 79 31% 98 50% % 80 44% 119 ** Appointments / work sessions arranged to National Standards 67% 1,070 81% % % % % 887 *** Judgements on absences appropriate 79% % % % % % 764 *** Appropriate interventions carried out 63% % % % % % 808 ** Appropriate reason for not proceeding with accredited programme 37% % % % % % 323 ** Appropriate action to implement additional order requirements 78% % % % % % 377 ** Victim issues addressed 50% % % % % % 626 * Work to raise awareness of victim 49% % % % % % 516 ** 21

23 Table 8 Metropolitan areas % Above the line Large size, high density % Above the line Large size, lower density % Above the line Medium size, higher density % Above the line Small size, higher density % Above the line Small size, low density % Above the line n Significance n n n n n Work and resources directed at reintegration 74% % % % % % 729 ** Delivery of interventions sensitive to race and diversity issues 81% % % % % % 651 ** Consideration given to effective methods 78% 1,065 80% % % % % 885 ** Interventions appropriate to risk of harm 84% 1,067 83% % % % % 885 *** No conviction for further offences since commencement of order or licence 83% 1,066 79% % % % % 886 ** Progress on first priority criminogenic factor 62% 1,060 66% % % % % 888 ** Progress on third priority criminogenic factor 60% % % % % % 849 ** Progress where thinking skills are the first priority criminogenic factor 55% % % 93 70% % % 327 ** Evidence of positive change in offenders' attitudes, beliefs and behaviour 44% % % % % % 751 * Offender compliance with order or licence 66% % % % % % 820 * 22

24 Table 8 Annex GOOD PRACTICE EXAMPLES ON DIVERSITY IDENTIFIED IN ESI Good practice examples in respect of diversity are set out in the attached, using the same headings as in ESI, ie: - assessment - interventions - initial outcomes - management issues 23

25 INCREASING COMPLIANCE A comprehensive checklist used at the induction stage to assist the offender to comply, exploring possible obstacles to engagement and issues of diversity. (Cambridgeshire) Basic skills tutor obtained a diagnosis of dyslexia. Steps taken to provide remedial education and the case manager also adapted the way he managed the order using telephone reminders rather than letters. After much motivational work and support from the case manager and a partnership, Mr B passed a level 1 literacy exam. It was noted that his enthusiasm was renewed after the success of his level 1 pass and this helped to reinforce his efforts to complete the ART programme. Mr B also agreed to explore the possibility of attending a college course after the ART programme. (Norfolk) An offender with learning difficulties was attending the adapted sex offender programme. The requirements of the order and the rules of the group were explained by his case manager and reiterated by the tutors at the start of each individual or programme session. Asking him to comment on them helped to check his understanding. He was given his own folder with a copy of the rules to carry with him. (Northamptonshire) IDENTIFYING INDIVIDUAL NEEDS Following the identification of a hereditary illness the Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements plan shifted focus to enable him to obtain appropriate medical, accommodation and social care. (Norfolk) Consideration of the methods, type and pace of the work likely to be most successful. (Nottinghamshire) Exploring how experiences as a young mixed race male had impacted on his attitude to offending. (Wiltshire) ASSESSMENT SUPERVISION PLANNING The community sentence included a condition of psychiatric treatment. The supervision plan took into account information from social services and the psychiatric services, pulling this together into a very comprehensive package of interventions which clearly identified what was being tackled by which agency. (Warwickshire) Completion of a very thorough assessment of needs and level of functioning. The detailed supervision plan that was produced contained objectives written in a very simple and straightforward style that was appropriate to the offender s level of understanding. (South Yorkshire) CONSIDERING THE CONTEXT Community punishment staff were aware of the potential problems of placing minority ethnic offenders in predominantly white groups and would take appropriate action, such as discussing the placement with the offender and ensuring alternatives were available if necessary. (Cumbria) A case manager supplemented the Offender Assessment System by working with offenders to establish their learning style based on Honey, P and Mumford, A (1992) The Manual of Learning Styles. This work enabled the case manager to adapt their approach and the methods used to match the learning style of the offender. (Suffolk)

26 HMI PROBATION EFFECTIVE SUPERVISION INSPECTION Diversity Good Practice Examples in Relation to Assessment Criteria Example Probation Area Page No A Successful Completion Checklist was a comprehensive checklist used at the induction Cambridgeshire 21 stage to assist the offender to comply, exploring possible obstacles to engagement. It comprised a list of questions worked through with the offender, covering possible diversity issues, anticipated difficulties with travel to the probation office and tips for remembering appointments. Community punishment staff were aware of the potential problems of placing minority Cumbria 23 ethnic offenders in predominantly white groups and would take appropriate action, such as discussing the placement with the offender and ensuring alternatives were available if necessary. Jane was a young woman who had not previously given much thought to the Essex 21 consequences of her offending. The case manager supervising her had carried out a very careful analysis of her needs and learning styles in an attempt to discover the best way to work with her. Jared, in his early 20s, was placed on a community rehabilitation order for offences of criminal damage. He had had a difficult and disrupted education, and at the start of supervision his case manager used the basic skills tutor to obtain a diagnosis of dyslexia. As a result of this assessment steps were taken to provide remedial education and the case manager also adapted the way he managed the order and used telephone reminders rather than letters to inform Jared of his appointments and secure compliance. 24

27 The probation officer undertook some research into the family circumstances of an offender and found that other family members suffered from a genetic degenerative illness and his behaviour suggested he might also be suffering from this condition. Medical tests were arranged and he was diagnosed with the illness. The Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements plan shifted focus to enable him to obtain appropriate medical, accommodation and social care. Mr B had literacy problems and he was assessed by a partnership agency. Mr B participated in an anger management programme (ART). After much motivational work and support from the case manager and the partnership, Mr B passed a level 1 literacy exam. It was noted that Mr B s enthusiasm was renewed after the success of his level 1 pass and this helped to reinforce his efforts to complete the ART programme. Mr B also agreed to explore the possibility of attending a college course after the ART programme. An offender with learning difficulties was attending the adapted sex offender programme. The requirements of the order and the rules of the group were explained by his case manager and reiterated by the tutors at the start of each individual or programme session. Asking him to comment on them helped to check his understanding. He was given his own folder with a copy of the rules to carry with him. Julie was placed on a community rehabilitation order for shoplifting but her offending history was very much linked to her drug misuse, her association with other individuals with similar problems and her consequent poor employability. The case showed good consideration of the methods, type and pace of the work likely to be most successful, which included referral to basic skills services and specific focus in supervision on her drug problems and the risk they presented of her reoffending. A case manager supplemented the Offender Assessment System by working with offenders to establish their learning style based on Honey, P and Mumford, A (1992) The Manual of Learning Styles. This work enabled the case manager to adapt their approach and the methods used to match the learning style of the offender. Norfolk Northamptonshire 27 Nottinghamshire 22 Suffolk 24

28 The community sentence included a condition of psychiatric treatment. The supervision plan took into account information from social services and the psychiatric services, pulling this together into a very comprehensive package of interventions which clearly identified what was being tackled by which agency. A case manager had recorded her plans to undertake individual work with an offender to explore how his experiences as a young mixed race male had impacted on him and his attitude to offending, particularly violent offending. Bernard was man with learning difficulties convicted of a series of indecent assaults against a seven year old girl. He had difficulty understanding the seriousness of his offences and the purpose of supervision. The case manager conducted a very full assessment of Bernard s needs and level of functioning. The detailed supervision plan that was produced contained objectives written in a very simple and straightforward style that was appropriate to Bernard s level of understanding. Warwickshire 24 Wiltshire 22 South Yorkshire 21

29 ACCREDITED PROGRAMMES External funding for a worker to assist offenders with dyslexia issues on the Think First Programme. (Bedfordshire) The Drink Impaired Drivers programme offered one-to-one work with women instead of the main group work programme. Arrangements for offenders to access a particular accredited programme where this was not readily available in their locality. (Dyfed/Powys) Case manager and tutor on the Priestley 1:1 programme ensured that interventions took account of an offender s dyslexia, for example reading questions to him, checking out understanding and reinforcing learning. (Leicestershire & Rutland) Buddying system for minority ethnic offenders who did not wish to be the sole non-white member of a group. (Teesside) DELIVERING OFFENDER MANAGEMENT Home visits completed to offenders who were unable to travel to the office. (Dorset) Allocation to a Welsh speaking offender manager. (Dyfed/Powys) The case manager researched bi-polar affective disorder and organised training for colleagues. Three-way meetings between the offender, case manager and community psychiatric nurse were part of supervision. (Hampshire) The case manager obtained a copy of the victim impact statement and arranged for it to be translated into Portuguese so that the offender could be challenged about the impact on the victim. (London) Intensive supervision sessions between programme sessions to reinforce learning for an individual who had limited spoken English. (Greater Manchester) Providing a filofax to offenders to record appointments and useful information. Assessment of learning styles to engage the offender s interest and plan to work with the individual in the most effective way. (Suffolk) INTERVENTIONS UNPAID WORK A Czech national sentenced to a community punishment order had his needs assessed and was placed with other foreign nationals some of who had the same language. (Cambridgeshire) A minority ethnic offender with work and childcare needs, placed on an individual project allowing the completion of a long order in 12 weeks. (Cumbria) A mid week women s community punishment group, with a female supervisor. The group was scheduled to enable those with childcare responsibilities to work flexible hours. (Cumbria) Sending motivational letters to offenders at key points in a lengthy period of community punishment, writing when the offender had 100 hours left to go, and contacting them again upon successful completion. Using motivated offenders on community punishment to support other less motivated. (Northumbria) Guided skills learning involving offenders attending a pre-placement work session followed by observed practice on site with the completion of a portfolio. (Northumbria) A bus equipped with facilities to provide basic skills assessments and training. COMMUNITY REINTEGRATION Attendance at study sessions and, as a result, the offender gained qualifications. (Devon/Cornwall) A learning café where offenders could learn and apply vocational and basic skills. (Dorset) Meeting with several members of her family, friends and neighbours whom the offender had identified as potential support. A plan was agreed about how they could best provide support. (Suffolk) Floating support for an isolated offender including being visited weekly at home and issues such as literacy, social isolation and employment addressed. (West Midlands)