HM Inspectorate of Probation AUDIT OF ACCREDITED PROGRAMMES North-West Region of the National Probation Service for England and Wales Report on: Greater Manchester Probation Area – Think First June 2001 Greater Manchester Probation Area Audit Report 2 Greater Manchester Probation Area Audit Report Acknowledgements: We are grateful for the cooperation of staff from the Greater Manchester Probation Area in completing this audit. The audit team comprised: Christine Fiddes Andy Bonny Rosanna Heal Deputy Audit Manager Breda Leyne Alan MacDonald Kate White Audit Manager Inspection and Audit Officers Frances Flaxington HM Acting Deputy Chief Inspector of Probation Glossary ACE Assessment, Case Recording and Evaluation System CO Chief Officer HMIP HM Inspectorate of Probation IAPS Interim Accredited Programmes Software IQR Implementation Quality Rating JAP Joint Accreditation Panel LSI-R Level of Service Inventory-Revised N/A Criteria not assessed OASys Offender Assessment System OGRS Offender Group Reconviction Scale PSO Probation Service Officer SPO Senior Probation Officer Contents Page Context: 4 Scoring Approach: 4 Overview: 5 Findings and recommendations: 6 SECTION A: COMMITTED LEADERSHIP 7 SECTION B: PROGRAMME MANAGEMENT RESPONSIBILITIES 9 SECTION C: QUALITY OF PROGRAMME DELIVERY 19 SECTION D: CASE MANAGEMENT RESPONSIBILITIES 22 Next Steps 25 Scoring summary sheet: 27 3 Greater Manchester ...
Glossary ACE Assessment, Case Recording and Evaluation System CO Chief Officer HMIP HM Inspectorate of Probation IAPS Interim Accredited Programmes Software IQR Implementation QualitygRatin JAP Joint Accreditation Panel LSI-RLevelofServiceInve-nRteovriysed N/A Criteria not assessed OASys Offender Assessment System OGRS Offender Group Reconviction Scale PSO Probation Service Officer SPO Senior Probation Officer
Contents
Context: Scoring Approach: Overview: Findings and recommendations: SECTION A: COMMITTED LEADERSHIP SECTION B: PROGRAMME MANAGEMENT RESPONSIBILITIES SECTION C: QUALITY OF PROGRAMME DELIVERY SECTION D: CASE MANAGEMENT RESPONSIBILITIES Next Steps Scoring summary sheet:
Greater Manchester Probation Area Audit Report Context: Programmes achieving accredited status have undergone a rigorous process of development toensuretheyhavemaximumimpactintermsofreducingcrteinofgfewn-deillnteg.steSdele programmesishoweveronlypartofthewiptihctourteeffective implementation by probation areas much of the positive influence on offenders’ behaviour may be lost. Establishingrobustqualityassurancesystemsandindaerpreandgesforacmentdutitnadercdeti programmes is therefore crucial. HMIP is responsible for auditing accredited programmes o the JAP. Each probation area will be assessed against the delivery criteria given in the P StandardsManualJun,ew20hi0c1halsooutlineshowthesecriteriaaretobemetandevidenced. Scoring Approach: The criteria for the delivery of accredited programmes have been divided into 4 sections. The andtheoverallweightingassignedforeachsellcotiwosn:,areasfo Committed leadership and supportive management 20% Programme management responsibilities 30% Quality of programme delivery 30% Case management responsibilities20% Each criterion is scorFedullaysMet(2 marksL),argely Me(t1Mark)orNot Met(0 marks). Thescoringsummarysheetattheendofthisreportshowsthemarksawardefdorforeachcrit those criteria designated as Mandatory (see Performance Standards Manual) the mark give Thisdenotesthecriticacltitmhpesaecriteriahaveontheeffectivedeliveryofprogrammes.The marks awarded for each section are shown and then expressed as a % by dividing the t of marks scored by the maximum available, and multiplying by 100. SectdiointBo7idenahseb sub-sections for ease of scoring. To determine an area’s IQR, the scores for each section are multiplied by the appropriate fa account of the relevant weightings given above. The % totals for each section are then adde give the IQR. 4
Greater Manchester Probation Area Audit Report Overview: ·Greater Manchester had devolved the delivery of the Think First programme to 5 clus Three had already begun to deliver Think First programmes and the remaining 2 we “go live later in the year. ·methods: assessing the quality of advance informatiThe audit comprisedpri4ncipal interviews with staff and offenders; observation of videotaped programme sessions; file reading. ·grammewereintrpprotfotehpordeeveliorysurnifvlovidehtnwiAfatsfoegnareddeweiv including senior, district, programme and treatment managers, programme tut managers and court personnel. ·sites within the clusters were visited and in each of these loFour programme delivery accommodation and generasllicafoceitidmeornfEhettotstaseSatdnrasdManual.·A total of 9 randomly chosen programme sessions from 3 separate groups were sel video monitoring purposes, but 2 of the tapes could not be observed due to te difficulties.·crethfwiaeritoeerhT4.2,B3anB4.ontreessdesaesaswtaeanlyar1Dd.8.ehTaerasategdelivery and so relatively inexperienced tutors were inevitably assigned to run T together(B4.2);nationalplanswereawaitedforongoingtrainingfor(Be4x.p3e)riencedtut as well as the accreditation of the cognitive behavioural booster programme to offender learning (D1.8). ·This audit report refers solely to the quality of delivery of the Think First programme i Manchester. 5
Greater Manchester Probation Area Audit Report Findings: GreaterMcahnesterfullyengagedinthisauditprocess.Thequalityoftheadvanceinformationwas high and the commitment of the senior management team evident. Staff at all grades forthcomingandkeentodiscovertheirstrengthsanpdroavreor.sanftmenomfibooediVoitavres practice demonstrated a satisfactory level of programme delivery and programme manag were given due attention. The main area for development was in case management, which was perhaps not surprisin uncetrainty nationally as to what constitutes the most effective case management arrangemen case managers were well informed about, and supportive of, the Think First programme. By clearerlinksbetweenprogrammestaffandcaspreogmreasnsagmerasd,ebyanoffenderontheprogramme could be better integrated within supervision planning. There was a recognition at this early stage of audit that this had been a standard setting exercise for HMIP as well as for the GreahteefatfularegretroehaMcnrrePtstionrobaa.WAre opportunity this has presented for HMIP and for the interest shown in the process. Recommendations: The CO should ensure that the area: ·talrrfellaanofsevomeramorandimprovesitcotaoisncluuterenffrsdeorfsgofohiTat;tegrirsntinkF ·all staff involved in the delivery or managerial oversreviews training requirements for staff competence is enhanced; ·sesumoedivinoritonsrmfogfiefotdaietertnsupthesionervieenosdnifividalduuttsordanotepxolerpartciceissu·establishes a deselection procedure for tutors who fail to deliver the programme to th ·district manager to cancel or postpone programmesrequires the prior approval of the ·ngeibnsiosssellahtiwytiunitnfcostafureenseotarmmrpgocahsoreto3nsuttagissdelive tutors; ·establishes a consistent framework and approach to supporting the delivery of Think e.g.bystandardisingiodnocsucsahmatnetppr-ogstramme reports; ·so that offenders are supported at all stagreviews case management arrangements guidance on how case managers can reinforce the learning of offenders undertaking t ·clearlyrallsdo-cepreogramme work with offenders to ensure that participants are fully pr ·sets SMART objectives in supervision plans and reviews; ·cevirosdenetiplyuortehiwhtthprgilemmiddersanagtnoitamnlbaneoanrmfoerornfice practice. 6
Greater Manchester Probation Area Audit Report SECTION A: COMMITTED LEADERSHIP A1.1 Committed leadership2 DescriptionT:he senior management of the area should be openly and explicitly committ running of the programme through polic.yand public statements GreaterMahnecsterhashada-sltoanngdingcommitmenttoWhatWorksand-beavsieddenpcreacdtice,hosting a number of international What Works conferences during the 1990s. Since being cho asoneofthe3originalpathfinderareasfortheMcGtuiprreogTrhainmkmFier,sGreaterManchester’ssenior management support for the Think First programme and for What Works generally ha evident. This judgement was confirmed by the quality of the advance information received fr andbythedetakilneodwledgeofseniormanagersaboutwhatconstitutedprogrammeeffectivene Strengths: ·Greater Manchester’s Think First Implementation Plan 2000 provided comprehensive IthadbeenupdatedinMay2001andaddressedthekeyelemneanltspfpuoorsati,gtanio including race equality and diversity issues. ·Senior managers had played a lead role in context setting days for the programme. T close fit between public statements in support of Think First and the allocation of n resourscetoruniteffectively,e.g.grouproomswereofahigh standard. Areas for improvement: ·A number of district managers had not yet attended a context setting event. ·Insufficient attention had been given to the ongoing training needs o.f relevant s supporting skills for programme tutors and booster training for treatment managers. A1.2 Management structures1 DescriptioEnf:fective line management structures exist for the proper operation of the p thiswithincasemasntarugcetmurenst.Adequate time should be set aside for the effective man programme. Strengths: ·Greater Manchester supplied an organisational chart outlining the management struct programmedelivery.Clearco-mbpaesteniovnidevlstrfafteisfoditnosxedsercpidjobncy managing the programme. ·demonstrated that they fully understood their role in managing, delivering or sStaff the programme. Areas for improvement: ·evilermaniedgnaisAfingnaciekytsfafniovvltproportionofingdrehtgramproe.og.me,programme and treatment managers, had other operational and management resp that affected the time allocated to the oversight of Think First. 7