South Wales FINAL audit report 17 September 2002

Yukta

Description

HM Inspectorate of Probation AUDIT OF ACCREDITED PROGRAMMES Welsh Areas of the National Probation Service for England and Wales Report on: South Wales Probation Area – Reasoning and Rehabilitation ? Probation Area Audit Report September 2002 Draft Report – 31 October 2002 South Wales Probation Area Audit Report Acknowledgements: We are grateful for the cooperation of staff from the South Wales Probation Area in completing this audit. The audit team comprised: Kate White Andy Bonny Mary Barnish Deputy Audit Manager Eileen O’Sullivan Alan MacDonald Inspection and Audit Officers Audit Manager Di Askwith HM Inspector of Probation Glossary ACE Assessment, Case Recording and Evaluation System CO Chief officer DTTO Drug Treatment and Testing Order HMIP HM Inspectorate of Probation IAPS Interim Accredited Programmes Software IQR Implementation Quality Rating LSI-R Level of Service Inventory-Revised N/A Criteria not assessed NPD National Probation Directorate OASys Offender Assessment System OGRS Offender Group Reconviction Scale PSO Probation service officer PSR Pre-sentence report R&R Reasoning and Rehabilitation SSR Specific Sentence Report Contents Page Context: 4 Scoring Approach: 4 Overview: 5 Findings: 6 SECTION A: COMMITTED LEADERSHIP 8 SECTION B: PROGRAMME MANAGEMENT RESPONSIBILITIES 10 SECTION C: QUALITY OF PROGRAMME DELIVERY 20 SECTION D: CASE MANAGEMENT RESPONSIBILITIES 23 Next Steps: 26 Scoring ...

Sujets

• management
• managers

Informations

• Publié par: Megar
• Nombre de lectures: 17
• Langue: English

Extrait

 

   

  HM Inspectorate of Probation  

AUDIT OF  ACCREDITED  PROGRAMMES

Welsh Areas of the National Probation Service for England and Wales

Report on: South Wales Probation Area– Reasoning and Rehabilitation

 

 

? Probation Area Audit Report  

  Draft Report – 31 October 2002  

September 2002 

eaArud Aatobn ioelaWrP soS htu gements:cknowled  t   A tiR pero rapeoo che tor flufetarg era eW    Walouthhe Som t frftsfao  fitno   T t.diau itud aheoc maet :desirpm robaes P Aretionc mo anini glpte SuO’ivll  I an pensoitcna nuA d tid   Kate White  MaryB rainhs E   liee n nA  noitaborP fo  y utep   D nyon Bdy sAwkD    i ecsrfOif ctornspeHM I ith     reM tigana aneg r lA uAid taM nald  Aud an MacDo

Page 4 4 5 6 8 10 20 23 26 26

3

Contents

Glossary ACE CO DTTO HMIP IAPS IQR LSI-R N/A NPD OASys OGRS PSO PSR R&R SSR

   

Contex t: Scoring Approach: Overvie w: Finding s: SECTION A: COMMITTED LEADERSHIP SECTION B: PROGRAMME MANAGEMENT RESPONSIBILITIES SECTION C: QUALITY OF PROGRAMME DELIVERY SECTION D: CASE MANAGEMENT RESPONSIBILITEIS  Next Steps: Scoring summary sheet:

Assessment, Case Recording and Evaluation System Chief officer Drug Treatment and Testing Order HM Inspectorate of Probation Interim Accredited Programmes Software Implementation Qualitny g Rati Level of Service Inve-nRteovriyse d Criteria not assessed National Probation Directorate Offender Assessment System Offender Group Reconviction Scale Probation service officer Pre-sentence report Reasoning and Reithan tiolib Specific Sentence Report

South Wales Probtaion Area Audit Repor t   Context: Programmes achieving accredited status have undergone a rigorous process of development to ensure they have maximum itemrpmasc t oifn  reducing reoffending. Sel-etcetsitneg d wperllogrammes  is however only part of the p– icwtiutrheo ut effective implementation by probation areas much of t positive influence on offenders’ behaviour   may be lost. Establishing robust quality ncaes ssuyrastems and independent audit arrangements for accred programmes is therefore crucial. HMIP is responsible for auditing accredited programmes o the Correctional Services Accreditation Panel. Each probation area will hbe   aaiagt nsesssd sere ydlevi criteria given in the Performance Standards Manual June 2001, which also outlines how thes to be met and evidenced. Scoring Approach: The criteria for the delivery of accredited programmes have been divided isnet o four sections.  sections, and the overall weighting assigned for each section, are as follows: Committed leadership and supportive management 20% Programme management responsibilities 30% Quality of programme delivery 30% Case management responsib   i   liti   es     20% Each criterion is scorFeudl   lays    Met(   2 marksL),a   rgely Me(t1 Mark) oNrot Met(0 marks). The scoring summary sheet at the end of this report shows the marks awar–d efod r for each crit those criteria designated as Mandatory (see tPaenrfdoarrmdas nMcae nSual) the mark given is doubled.  This denotes the critical impact these criteria have on the effective delivery of programmes. The marks awarded for each section are shown and then expressed as a % by dividing the t of marks scoreydthbe maximum available, and multiplying by 100. Section B has been divid seven s-usbections for ease of s coring. To determine an area’s IQR, the scores for each section are multiplied by the appropriate fa account of the relevant inwgesi gghitven above. The % totals for each section are then added toget give the IQR.   4

 

South Wales Probation Area Audit Report   Overview: ·   audit visit took place in July 2002.The ·   This report relates to one accredited general offending behaviour group work prog R&R. ·    ollwhf tesi as,siv deti hcierew R&R fro runninglevire y mifevd  WthouSas wesal. HMIP by  Checks on resources and facilities were also carried out and informal discussions h programme administrators. ·   The aud; nsobcdvansemsa ssfoa ne t einmar s:ntmelerpmoc tiuof desie im aftionforatrvn ioo randomly selected videotaped programme sessions; a case file reading exercise; an with staff and offenders. ·   Interviews were held with senior managers, the information manager, a programme and treatment manager. nRteatpirvesse of the following staff groups were also interviewe programme tutors, case managers and PSR writers. Eleven offenders were interviewe ·   ot nas wseesss ac tidua noiretir1D8.edn O–.   This decision was taken because plans were awaited nationall yt hfeo raccreditation of the Cognitive Skills Booster Programme to reinf offender learning. ·   HMIP monitored 12 R&R videos, randomly selected from three different delivery sites.    5

South Wales Probtaion Area Audit Repor t   Findings: In April 2001 the three former services had combined oinutoh   on Area. ProbatiWlasen weS het ehT  challenge was to build from that po-inwti daen  parroegaramme delivery system which was owned by a staff, gave sentencers confidence and delivered R&R at a consistently high standard to offend In year one of implemioenht ehwloa rcso sment tee managetatganam roines ,ntmeitmmcot enem not sufficiently focused on the What Works agenda generally or on accredited programmes i The area lacked key implementation documents which might haver  sohf aRp&edR    t.oul-olraey tsreihtf  Staff were given insufficient guidance about their respective roles in supporting programm large number of tutors were trained but then not deployed to deliver, and some delivery s inadequately resourced.  Tmhea ncagsement task was not clearly defined   or integrated. There was confusion amongst sentencers and assessment staff about targeting and suitabilit lack of a reliable programme schedule led to long delays for many offendeersn caen od na  loss of co the part of staff. This was especially unfortunate becau-so  folac lolgntanding links wiR eht ht R&e programme. The unification of three separate databases, and the limitations of IAPS, prov hurdles to good communication and to trhine g maonnd iteovaluation of R&R. Attrition rates were  extremely high and the number of completers in 2001/2002 was very low. Since April 2002 there had been considerable improvements to the supporting context for R formation of a dedicated prog ruanimt. mTehse majority of this work had yet to bear fruit, but muc credit should go to the considerable efforts and commitment of programme and treatment moving to establish a structure for programme delivery in South Wales. gT uRt&orRs  two ear e deliverin high standard, with much evidence of the mindful tutoring areas should be aiming for in y implementation. This level of delivery was achieved by those tutors who were open to learnin excellent treatment management regime. If the area galvanises its leadership commitment, and strengthens case management arrang be better able to build on some very encouraging programme management achievements standard of delivery. Recommendatio ns The CO should   suentret hae thaera : ·   a What Works strategy which builds accredited programme capacity andimplements proactive leadership and maximise programme completions (A1.1); ·   prioritises adequate programme and treatmenot   maindaagnementn ait   ildelince  quaveryhaen noitrpsivo (A1.2 ); ·   setting events for all staff with senior managementdesigns a programme of context delivery to model commitment to accredited programmes and( Afo1s.t1e, r Af1u.l l3 )o;rganisation ·   ongoing liaison with sentencers to bring about closer aliimplements a strategy for practice and area objectives and to maximise suitable programme orders and comple ·   tien ve, aontilap eht dnivormirpvosets i&R Rel derivis y,setyap  gniparticular attenitnot  oormos zi out’ rooms (B1.1); ·   with a view to making them more comprehensivereviews its R&R information leaflets prior to sentence (B1.2); ·   elemi pmtnylrueggyrateants    tstmm etaetdnnaeca o enhance prograitirl noe andreddessstt a monitoring of the timeliness of programme commencement (B2.1, B2.4); ·   ssmeasse of s, radetnaidroc t tu tnd writte oral ansiset ehtsnaaddrenotaltin ve ptooitaig nni nmrof centre outcomes, and puts in place a tutor deselection policy (B3.1);   6