Cheshire Audit Report - final 23 October 2001

Chuin - Administrator

Le téléchargement nécessite un accès à la bibliothèque YouScribe
Tout savoir sur nos offres

25 pages

English

Le téléchargement nécessite un accès à la bibliothèque YouScribe
Tout savoir sur nos offres

A propos
Informations
Extrait

Description

HM Inspectorate of Probation AUDIT OF ACCREDITED PROGRAMMES North-West Region of the National Probation Service for England and Wales Report on: Cheshire Probation Area – Think First June 2001 Cheshire Probation Area Audit Report 2 Cheshire Probation Area Audit Report Acknowledgements: We are grateful for the cooperation of staff from the Cheshire 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 ACO Assistant Chief Officer CO Chief Officer HMIP HM Inspectorate of Probation 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 PSR Pre-sentence report 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: 26 3 Cheshire Probation Area Audit Report Context: Programmes achieving accredited status ...

Sujets

management

managers

Informations

Publié par	Chuin
Nombre de lectures	31
Langue	English

Extrait

HM Inspectorate of Probation

AUDIT OF ACCREDITED PROGRAMMES

North-West Region of the National Probation Service for England and Wales

Report on: Cheshire Probation Area Think First

June 2001

Cheshire

Probation

Area

Audit

Report

ri eehhstaoirPboCAcowknt or tidupeR rA nA aeful for re gratest :eWa elgdmenethm ro fffta sf noitarepooc eht coma in AretionoraberP seih ehCprom camCh: edis enitsirR seddiFing plet audthishT eti . tetuaid Itepensioctann uA d tidiffOsrecosanna Heal Bred aeLny eaKetW ih dlanoDcaM nalA Frr genaMat diAueDupnn y yoBA dnager Manuditty ApsnIotcehC y feitiba onofr ro Pxanitgnonaec slFng Deput HM Acti

Page 4 4 5 6 7 9 19 22 25 26

Contex t: Scoring Approach: Overvie w: Findings and recommendations: SECTION A: COMMITTED LEADERSHIP SECTION B: PROGRAME MANAGEMENT RESPONSIBILITIES SECTION C: QUALITY OF PROGRAMME DELIVERY SECTION D: CASE MANAGEMENT RESPONSIBILITIES Next Steps Scoring summary sheet:

Contents:

Glossary: ACE Assessment, Case Recording and Evaluation System ACO Assistant Chief Officer CO Chief Officer HMIP HM Inspectorate of Probation IQR Implementation Quality Rating JAP Joint Accreditation Panel LSI-R Level of Service Inve-nRteovriyse d N/A Criteria not assessed OASys Offender Assessment System OGRS Offender Group Reconviction Scale PSR Pre-sentence report SPO Senior Probation Officer

Cheshire Probation Area Audit Report Context: Programmes achieving accredited status have undergone a rigorous process of development to ensure they have maximum impact in terms of reducing reoffe-ntdeisntge.d Sperloegctrianmg mwelsl is however lyo npart of the pictu rwei thout effective implementation by probation areas much of t positive influence on offenders’ behaviour may be lost. Establishing robust quality assurance systems and independent audit arrangements for programmes hies retfore crucial. HMIP is responsible for auditing accredited programmes on be the JAP. Each probation area will be assessed against the delivery criteria given in the P Standards Manual June 2001, which also outlines how et htoe sbee crmitetriaced.idenar ve dn Scoring Approach: The criteria for the delivery of accredited programmes have been divided into 4 sections. The and the overall weighting assigned for each section, are as follows: Committed leadership and suppomrtaivnea geme nt 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 summsahreye t at the end of this report shows the marks awarded fo rf oer ach criterion those criteria designated as Mandatory (see Performance Standards Manual) the mark give This denotes the critical impact these criteria have on vtehrey eoffs. ammep rgoriletiec dve 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. Section B has been di 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

Cheshire Probation Area Audit Report Overview: · 4 sitesrun fromf rnkhiir F ted Theemma ot p tsrgorion obate Prshirdelus hch darAaeehC the beginning of January 2001. It was the only accredited programme available in although a number o-fa cncornedited programmes continued in relation to domestic violen sex ofefnders and responsible driving. ·The audit was undertaken during June 2001 and comprised of 3 main stages: the pr advance information by the area; video monitoring of programme delivery; and a vi area during which case file reanditenrgv iaenwds i were condu cted. ·A wide range of staff involved in the delivery and support of the accredited program interviewed, including the ACO with responsibility for effective practice, the prog manager, one treatment manager, caseg emthaenra gweitrhs to uniheirnaget magorp ,sr emmar tutors and PSR writers. Three of the 4 programme delivery sites were visited and i held with 4 offenders. ·Nine session videotapes from 3 programmes were assessed. The case file reading in all ofenders referred to the 3 programmes whether or not they had commenced Think · egats ylrae n aats waa re aheritewea nre aoterhTfo eeht irc B4.3 and D1.8. Tsssees d 4B2. , delivery of Think First and so relatively inexperienced tutbolrys awsseirgen einde tvoit arun programmes together (B4.2); national training for experienced tutors was not yet in pl and the accreditation of the cognitive behavioural booster programme to reinforce learning was awaited by the probatio8n) .area (D1. ·This audit focused entirely on the implementation of Think First. 5

Cheshire Probation Area Audit Report Findings: Cheshire Probation Area engaged fully in the audit process. The advance information was pr logical and accessible way and staff were receptive teos itscrhdoug isssinusuo thgdiaue tht.sivit Senior managers had appointed enthusiastic, committed programme staff who had been full were ready to implement the programme from January 2001. It was unfortunate that the between training and iemnptlaetimon, combined with problematic targeting criteria, had contribut low referrals, which limited the evidence of practice available. The main areas for developm policy and strategy, particularly monitoring and evaluationo na inndt oi tsa rienat epglraint nd angni managerial oversight. Implementing the new targeting instructions and making the move fr to an allocation culture was also an important priority for the area. Recommendation s: The CO should ensure that the area: ·entatin implems aenidatlun,ioti nwo sifiti dearet ats nomygo ringnito eva andds opelev information base informing programme delivery and managerial oversight; ·includes accredited programmes in its priority performance measures; ·givsefurther attention to the provision of separate and accessible break out rooms; ·moves from a referral towards an allocation culture to ensure national targets are me · a stnema ycilopattr snd mtoy egsi examidnnataetnd ece ace tnhan noietar ;si dnelpmcudoa sepr ·ons eragan msecacnesba cificeps es; cerdsorll are pro-prgmaemw ro kna daction taken by ·has a written policy and procedure to confirm that only those staff meeting the cri programmes and explain how thsoelset cwho,de oare port supl bew liotsr sut,da elesteec a dreon e t ·focuses supervision of programme tutors towards performance and skills; ·knowledge of programmes throughout the area, in particreinforces ownership and PSR writers; · dna nemow rof snith etyrinomiecssbili oht ecarogrammeity of psyapruf tien tonerthtt a on accredited programmes. 6

Cheshire Probation Area Audit Report SECTION A: COMMITTED LEADERSHIP A1.1 Committed leadership1 DescriptioTn:h nyl t of the arem roinesnemeganae auodlb epoe shtimm dett otp eh endlixptlcicoy repor running of the programme through polic.y and public statements Strength s: ·for 2001/2004 outlined the area’s commitment to the delivery of acThe Draft Plan programmes and was supported with adoduirtcioe ns.al res ·All senior managers had attended a context setting day and the ACO with responsi programmes had attended and led other training events. ·Thwas ere tcvifeefertc eiditact nomoc inumf afa vialo stl hsriee A“llC eh-mails. Areas for improvemt: en ·Limited evidence was provided of monitoring and evaluation to assist the structu programme delivery and managerial oversight. ·review of the “Strategic Plan for the ImplemeSenior managers acknowledged that a Accredited Programmesid eanntidfi cation of action beyond January 2001 was required. ·insufficient evidence of regular discussion by senior managers regarding pThere was implementat ion. A1.2 Management structures1 DescriptioEnf:f tsne tfotceemagan mnelie ivrtngeoitafo n reprepoamgr imehe tro psee tcruu pro the xist this within case management structures. Adequate time should be set aside for the eff program me. Strength s: ·aico detejbovitctiips onthwiss aCelraj bod serc rof ffatsmme ograr pre foallbvaiare esew 2001/200 2. ·An organisational chart identified line management structures for all programme staff. ·Implementation Group had involved those responsiThe establishment of a McGuire case management in programme implementation. Areasfor improveme nt: ·Wihsl tht eintegration of pemit-tramargorp orut tmeinthwis eamc saemtnanegts h unia benefits, it also created time management tensions for tutors with responsibiliti operational units. · the tasks outliutotsrr feeltcdef oe th denS niitce1 no emmargorp rof sontiipcres dobJ management manual, but links to the person specification and core competencies Appendix 5 were less clear. 7