Probation

Circular

GUIDANCE ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF

PRACTICE RECOMMENDATIONS ARISING FROM REFERENCE NO:
AN HMIP INDEPENDENT REVIEW OF A SERIOUS 15/2006
OFFENCE CASE, FEBRUARY 2006
ISSUE DATE:
PURPOSE 13 April 2006

To issue practice guidance to Areas and ensure that urgent improvements IMPLEMENTATION DATE:
are embedded in Area performance across England and Wales. 31 May 2006

ACTION EXPIRY DATE:

April 2007
Chief Officers are required to:
• Ensure that all staff are advised of the importance and content of this TO:
circular Chairs of Probation Boards
• Produce an implementation action plan to be submitted to the Public Chief Officers of Probation
Protection Unit and to Regional Managers by 31 May 2006 Secretaries of Probation Boards
• Deliver effective implementation of the five ‘key’ recommendations
and 31 practice recommendations CC:
• Prepare for audits to be undertaken during July and October 2006. Board Treasurers
Regional Managers
Boards are required to:
AUTHORISED BY:
• Receive regular reports on progress to implement the action plan.
John Scott
Regional managers are required to: Head of Public Protection &
Licensed Release Unit
• Put arrangements in place to audit implementation after three
months and whether the recommendations have been embedded in
Sarah Mann
practice after six months.
Head of Interventions Unit
SUMMARY
Richard Mason
In December 2005, Damien Hanson and Elliot White were convicted of the Head of Offender Management
murder of John Monckton and the attempted murder of his wife, Homeyra Unit
Monckton. The Home Secretary commissioned an urgent investigation,
ATTACHED:
which was undertaken by Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Probation. The
Home Secretary accepted all five of the key recommendations without Annex A – National Practice
Guidance
hesitation and made a commitment to Parliament to issue guidelines to all
Annex B – Template for
probation areas in relation to the 31 practice recommendations in the report. Implementation Action Plan
Annex C – Template for
This circular contains existing and new guidance in relation to each specific notification of changes in risk
practice recommendation, and Areas are required to give the highest priority management/release plans.
to implementation and effective continued delivery of the guidance.

National Probation Directorate

Horseferry House, Dean Ryle Street, London, SW1P 2AW
RELEVANT PREVIOUS PROBATION CIRCULARS

References to relevant circulars are incorporated into Annex A.

CONTACTS FOR ENQUIRIES

Offender Management – Lisa.cox2@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk or 020 7217 0683

Drugs – Claire.Wiggins3@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk or 020 7217 8646

Approved Premises – Felicity.hawksley@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk or 020 7217 0773

MAPPA – Tim.Bryan2@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk or 020 7217 0747

Pre & Post Release – Jo.Thompson8@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk or 020 7217 8823

Public Protection – Tessa.webb7@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk or 020 7217 0935

PC15/2006 – Guidance on the Implement of Practice Recommendations Arising from HMIP Independent Review of
Serious Offence Case, February 2006 2
EXISTING AND NEW PRACTICE GUIDANCE ARISING FROM HM CHIEF INSPECTOR’S INVESTIGATION INTO
DAMIEN HANSON AND ELLIOT WHITE

Introduction

This circular brings together existing and new guidance, which relates to the specific practice recommendations arising
from the Independent Serious Further Offence Review published on 28 February 2006. Annex A contains the
recommendations and guidance with identified lead officials at the National Probation Directorate. Areas are required to
implement this guidance and communicate the changes to all relevant staff by 31 May 2006. Annex B contains a template
for Areas to complete and return to the Public Protection Unit and to the appropriate Regional Manager by 31 May 2006.
Annex C contains a template for use in notification of changes in the risk management plan or release plan in parole
cases.

A separate letter has been sent by the Director of the National Probation Service to all Chairs and Chief Officers to
accompany the issuing of this circular. It is vital to emphasise the priority of learning from the lessons of the cases of
Damien Hanson and Elliot White and the importance of achieving the changes necessary to increase the National
Probation Service’s ability to protect the public.

Summary of the Findings and Key Recommendations from HMIP

Areas are required to respond to the following broad ‘key’ recommendations, which provide the context for the specific
practice recommendations:

Doing the job properly: the public is entitled to expect all reasonable actions to be taken to minimise risk. That did not
happen in these cases.
Key Recommendation: NOMS should be able to demonstrate that action has been taken to minimise risk.
Enforcement action should take place for all failures to comply with conditions.

Lead responsibility in managing cases: there was a lack of clarity, due to poor organisation, as to who was responsible
for managing the Hanson case, which led directly to the deficiencies identified.
Key Recommendation: there should be continuity and clarity of lead responsibility, particularly for high risk
of harm offenders.

Updating Parole Board decisions: there is no clarity about whose responsibility it is to review a decision if an offender’s
circumstances change between the decision to release and the actual release.
Key Recommendation: the parole board should specify what should happen in situations where release is
dependent on a requirement which in practice cannot be met.

Improving Risk of Harm work nationally: a number of factors have hindered improvement, including the fact that only in
April 2005 were risk of harm performance targets set for the first time; the existence of specialist teams, which leads to
discontinuity and lack of knowledge of risk of harm issues by generalist officers; and the complexities of performance
management in a field, which is essentially about professional judgement
Key Recommendation: Chief Officers should ensure that Area structures support risk of harm work,
including clarity of lines of responsibility.

Future independent reviews

Key Recommendation: in exceptional cases of serious further offending, the Probation Inspectorate should
undertake and publish a formal review, in order to hold the authorities to account and to inform good practice.

PC15/2006 – Guidance on the Implement of Practice Recommendations Arising from HMIP Independent Review of
Serious Offence Case, February 2006 3
Delivering Change and Improvements

Delivering the national recommendations provides the context for this Probation Circular. The specific practice guidance
is wide-ranging and covers:

• The importance of focusing on issues of risk of harm as well as resettlement during pre- and post-release contact
• Offender management
• Operation of conditions and exclusion zones for parolees
• Referral to MAPPA
• Interventions
• Drugs work
• Approved premises
• Assessment and completion of OASys
• Working with partner organisations
• Internal transfer of cases
• Management of risk of serious harm
• Breach timeliness
• Contemporaneous record keeping
• Delivery of National Standards

It is imperative that each Probation Area responds urgently to implement the guidance and to embed the improvements
across every unit.

Regional Managers will undertake two audits to provide evidence that the whole Service has moved quickly to learn the
lessons from the Hanson and White investigation. The Head of Regions and Performance will inform you in due course
about the structure and content of the two audits, which will provide assurance to Ministers that the recommendations
have been implemented within three months and embedded in practice within six months (by 31 October 2006).

London Probation Area is developing an additional separate action plan to respond to eight London specific practice
recommendations by 13 April 2006.

It is anticipated that the Home Secretary will give the Risk of Harm Improvement Board an expanded brief, and the Head
of Public Protection and Licensed Release, who chairs the Board, will have national oversight of the effectiveness of the
delivery of Area and national plans.

PC15/2006 – Guidance on the Implement of Practice Recommendations Arising from HMIP Independent Review of
Serious Offence Case, February 2006 4
 Annex A - Hanson and White National Practice Guidance – Issued 13th April 2006

WHITE

Report HM Chief Inspectors Guidance Lead Timescale for

reference Recommendations Officials Implementation
no: for new
guidance?

8.1 An offender who is in breach Existing guidance is to be found in National Standards 2005, General Standard Richard
of the requirements of a court (GS) 9. “Where the offender fails to comply with the sentence, the offender Mason
order should be brought back manager will take steps to promptly enforce the requirements of the sentence”.
(Head of
to court promptly as required Specific guidance on compliance is found in Specific Standards 9.1 to 9.9.
Offender
by the National Standards for
Management
the Probation Service. This
Unit)
not only makes for good
quality offender management
but also is vital for public
confidence in the supervision
of offenders in the
community.

8.2 The importance of clear
contemporaneous record
keeping by all Probation staff
should be emphasised as the
bedrock for the responsible
and accountable
management of offenders
National Standards 2005, SS1.4 requires full and accurate records to be kept on Richard
designated computer systems. Mason
The recording of contact is a critical process of offender management. Offender (Head of
Managers are responsible for collating information on all planned and unplanned Offender
contacts, including where the offender is subject to interventions, and for Management
maintaining and updating the record of contact. Staff should ensure that all Unit)
contacts (including those with external partners) are entered on the Area’s case
management system.
• Entries should be recorded, as far as possible, on the day the event
occurred and no later than the following day.
• After each planned or unplanned contact, the Offender Manager should
make a record both of the contact itself and of what is planned. This means
that should another member of staff have to view the case they will be able

8.3 Achieving early first contact
with people under
supervision is not only a
requirement of National
Standards but also it conveys
the seriousness of
supervision to the offender
and sets the pattern for
future contact and
compliance.
8.4 Where an offender manager
takes action for breach of an
order by an offender, that
officer should exercise clear
lead responsibility for
ensuring that the breach
action is properly and
promptly progressed until the
matter comes to court.
8.5 Where contact is resumed
with an offender who has
been out of touch with the
offender manager for more
to make an accurate assessment of progress against the sentence plan.
• Where an offender is subject to a range of different interventions, the
Offender Manager should ensure that information about that offender’s
attendance is recorded in one place.
• Where an offender fails to attend an appointment, the Offender Manager
should record the date of the absence, whether it was acceptable or not and
evidence in support of the decision, including evidence produced by the
offender to explain his/her absence. A decision to treat an absence as
acceptable should be authorised by a line manager.
Existing guidance is to be found in National Standards 2005 GS4. “Offender Richard
managers will commence the sentence promptly and induct the offender into the Mason
requirements of the sentence and the expectations being placed upon them.”
(Head of
Offender
Management
Unit)
Existing guidance is to be found in PC 43/2004. Richard
Mason
Once enforcement proceedings have been initiated, it remains the responsibility
of the Offender Manager to monitor those proceedings and ensure that the (Head of
matter is dealt with at Court. In those Areas that use dedicated breach officers, Offender
the Offender Manager nevertheless retains overall responsibility for the case Management
and for the case records. Unit)
In addition, the Offender Manager should ensure that any person or agency
involved in delivering interventions is informed as to the progress and outcome
of the Court hearing.
The Offender Manager must ensure that the offender: Richard
Mason
• provides information on any significant changes in circumstances
(Head of
• understands the requirements of his/her sentence including his/her
Offender
 than a month for whatever
reason there should be a
special face-to-face interview
to confirm the requirements
of the order or licence.
8.6 Where an offender under the
supervision of the Probation
Service appears in court for
breach of a previous order a
full Pre-sentence Report
based on a full current
OASys assessment should
be prepared by the offender
manager wherever possible.
8.7 In all DTTO cases the
offender manager should be
responsible for maintaining
an up-to-date record that
collates all contact with the
offender, including
attendance on programmes
and drug testing
appointments and results.
responsibility to report to the Offender Manager and any intervention Management
providers and notify the Offender Manager of a change of address Unit)
• understands the enforcement process and expected behaviour.
In addition the Offender Manager should:
• review the latest OASys assessment and sentence plan and update them
within 5-working days of resumed contact
• make contact with any individuals or agencies responsible for delivering
interventions within 5-working days. Where the offender represents a high
or very high risk of serious harm, such information should be provided to
significant partners no later than 24 hours after that contact.
Richard
The majority of cases that come back to court for the order to be revoked need a
Mason
full OASys assessment and a Standard Delivery Report. In many cases, there
will already be a recent OASys assessment on the system which can quickly be (Head of
consulted and updated. Offender
Management
However in most breach cases, where the court will simply want (under the Unit)
terms of the CJA 03), to make an existing order more onerous, such a level of
assessment and analysis will be unnecessary. The court will need a Fast
Delivery Report or a short breach report.
The following interim guidance builds on the Home Office Probation Service
Sarah
National Standards for DTTOs and DRRS and NPD guidance on DRRS issued
Mann
as PC 57/2005. (More general guidance on the DRR and ATR in light of 12
months implementation will be issued in the summer). The Offender Manager (Head of
must record all relevant information about the sentence in such a way that Interventions
someone not familiar with the case can make an accurate assessment of what Unit)
has happened throughout the order and what is scheduled to take place. The
record should demonstrate that all relevant National Standards have been
complied with or that any departures from the standards have been authorised
by a manager.
Information recorded should include information relating to
• the implementation of all parts of the DTTO and in the case of the DRR
any other requirements

8.8 Where an offender has
demonstrated a poor level of
compliance with a previous
court order or licence a Pre-
sentence Report should not
propose a similar sentence
unless there are special
reasons stated in the report
• details of how minimum contact times are delivered. As indicated in PC
57/2005, compliance with minimum contact times has been
unacceptably low and this may be linked to poor recording practice
• contacts with the treatment provider or any person designated by them
• test administration and results, results of any confirmatory testing
• dates and summaries of court reviews
• details of any failed appointments and subsequent enforcement action
• feedback relating to the implementation of any other requirements
• information regarding compliance or otherwise with National Standards
• dates of next appointments with the Offender Manager, treatment
provider and any other agency involved in delivering the order.
It is acknowledged that with DTTOs/DRRs there may be large amounts of
material from a range of sources for example from CJITS, CARATS, staff
delivering accredited programmes and treatment providers. It is therefore
important that the information is recorded in one place and that it is easily
accessible in hard copy or electronic format in keeping with area policy.
When considering the suitability of a further community order proposal the report Richard
writer should: Mason
• assess the offender’s reasons for non-compliance, for example whether it (Head of
was related to drug/alcohol issues that required stabilisation or mental Offender
health problems that required treatment Management
Unit)
• assess the offender’s motivation to comply with the order and to address
his/her offending related needs
• consider any significant changes in the offender’s circumstances since the
previous order was made. These might include positive factors such as the
length of time between the previous order being made & the current court
proceedings and also negative ones such as an increase in the likelihood of
reconviction or risk of serious harm.
• make clear why, despite previous poor compliance, a community order is
still suitable.
8.9 Relevant information needs to pass from the offender manager to the Richard
The offender manager
organisation delivering the intervention taking into account issues of Mason
should ensure that proper
confidentiality. In order to manage a DTTO or DRR effectively, treatment
written information about the (Head of
providers and any other agency involved in delivering any part of the
offender is made available to Offender
order/licence need timely and relevant information from the Offender Manager in
appropriately registered Management
order to locate their work in its wider context. The Offender Manager should
programme providers, and Unit)
send copies of relevant documentation within twenty four hours of the case
this should include copies of
being allocated if possible and as a minimum before the first appointment with
the Pre-sentence Report,
another agency. The documentation must include copies of the court order and
OASys assessment and a
licence to ensure all parties are clear about the statutory authority underpinning
copy of the court order or
the order. The order or licence should include details of all court imposed
licence.
requirements and in the case of licences any additional conditions. The
requirements and conditions should be explained to the offender and he/she
should sign and date the order to confirm that they have understood their
implications. Similarly the Offender Manager should liaise with all other parties
involved in delivering any part of the order/licence to ensure they that they
understand what it is they are required to deliver and how this will be done in
accordance with National Standards. This should be supported by locally agreed
protocols regarding information sharing and should be explicitly stated in
contracts with providers. Other information which should be shared with parties
involved in delivering part of the order/licence includes:

• Copies of Pre-sentence Report and OASys assessment

• Copies of other relevant assessments e.g. psychiatric reports
• Conformation of first or next appointment with Offender Manager or
other agencies where known
• Conformation of the Offender Manager’s name and contact details
• Any additional information relating to risk of harm to self, staff, children
and vulnerable adults or to the public
8.10 There should be clear
protocols in place requiring
effective two-way
communication between
offender managers and
programme providers,
including a minimum
standard for joint case
reviews
Sarah
Protocols should be negotiated and embedded in the service level agreements Mann
that will govern probation delivery in the future. We shall ensure that suitable
(Head of
arrangements are in place to cover existing offender manager/provider
Interventions
relationships. Communication between the Offender Manager and programme
Unit) /
or treatment provider is essential to enable effective delivery of the order. The
Richard
Offender Manager may have information from a range of sources which is
Mason
relevant to the treatment provider, for example information relating to increasing
risk or about possible barriers to completion of the order/licence . The Offender (Head of
Manager requires information regarding the programme or treatment Offender
interventions in order to assess progress and compliance with the order as a Management
whole. Where Areas contract directly with a provider, protocols regarding Unit)
communication and information sharing should be agreed between offender
managers and providers directly. Where provision is contracted via a DAT joint
commissioning group or other commissioning body, the protocols should be
specified in the contract and the detailed requirements included in the service
level agreement. All parties should be held to account for compliance with the
protocol either through contract reviews between the Probation Area and the or
through the joint commissioning and review process.
As minimum protocols should require:
• Daily feedback re appointments kept (including duration if counting
towards minimum contact times) and a brief summary of what happened
during the contact.
• Daily feedback of failed appointments and any follow up action by the
treatment provider or subsequent contact with the offender
• Confirmation of next appointments
• A weekly feedback sheet summarising all contacts
• The results of test, tests refusals and confirmatory testing together with
any observations/comments from the offender
• Any information relating to risk management or indicators of increasing
risk to self, staff, children and vulnerable adults or to the public
• Any action taken to manage the risks
• Any action required by the other agency
• A summary of any planned enforcement action, change in home
circumstances or current situation such as employment
• Regular three way meetings with the Offender Manager, treatment
provider and offender to review progress and address barriers to
 completion of the order. These meetings should take place at a
minimum to coincide with the initial sentence plan and reviews, before
court reviews, or at other critical points in the order such as prior to
breach proceedings. Meetings should be held more frequently if an
offender is at risk of dropping out of the order in order to motivate the
offender and to try to remove obstacles to completion. The National
Standard for DRRS may be amended to reflect this.
• that there are arrangements to enable all DRRs/DTTOs cases to be
reviewed jointly by the Offender Manager and treatment provider.

It is acknowledged that it will not always be possible for drug testing to be

8.11 Wherever possible the drug- Sarah
carried out at the site where treatment is delivered. Drug testing is an important
testing element of a DTTO Mann
element of the DTTO/DRR and is an important factor in assessing the offender’s
should be held where the
response to the order. When considered in conjunction with other factors it can (Head of
programme is provided.
be an indication of enhanced risk and of potential problems with compliance. Interventions
Where this is not possible the
Drug Testing should be carried out and recorded in accordance with National Unit)
results of drug tests should
Standards SS8.11 to SS8.15. Results should be communicated to relevant
always be copied
parties on the same day or exceptionally by the end of the next working day. As
immediately to the
a minimum the test result should be communicated to the Offender Manager
programme provider whilst
and treatment provider. The Offender Manager should consider who else should
an offender is on the
be informed of tests results such as staff delivering accredited programmes. The
programme
notification should include

• Test results and which if any drugs there was a positive test result for
• Whether or not the offender disputes the test
• The offender’s response to the test including any explanations for the
test result
• Arrangements for any confirmatory testing and when the results of this
will be sent
• A summary of any action taken or planned as a result of the positive
test, particularly of any assessed increase in risks of re-offending or
harm.

The above actions should be recorded on the offender’s file. All test results
should be included in reports for court review hearings.

Guidance issued as PC 57/2005 explicitly states that it is good practice to

8.12 Unless there are exceptional Sarah
discuss all enforcement decisions with treatment providers. This includes
and urgent reasons, a person Mann
under statutory supervision
should never be discharged
from a programme without a
prior discussion between the
programme provider and the
offender manager
determining if an absence is acceptable or unacceptable and when breach is to
(Head of
be instigated whether the report will propose whether the requirement should be
Interventions
allowed to continue. It therefore follows that there should be a discussion
Unit)
between the Offender Manager and provider before any decision relating to
successful completion of the order. Treatment/programmed provider should
therefore not normally suspend or terminate their contact with an offender
without first discussing this with the Offender Manager and the Offender
Manager should not instigate breach proceedings without discussing this with
the treatment/programme provider. Exceptions to this would be where a
unilateral decision by the provider to suspend an offender can be justified on the
grounds of risk, for example, if an offender threatens or assaults a member of
staff, other participants or anyone involved in the delivery of the programme. In
these circumstances, the treatment provider should contact the Offender
Manager as soon as practicable and within 24 hours to inform them of action
taken and the reasons for this.
National standards SS9.15 indicate that there should be a presumption that
offenders in breach of an order/requirement should be invited to continue with
the order during the breach process. Exceptions to this would include if an
offender is completely un co operative or if there is an assessed on going risk of
harm to staff, offenders or other users of probation premises. Response to
supervision during the period in which breach action is being processed should
be included in the report to the court hearing the breach.
PC 57 states that if there are differences of opinion between the proposed
actions between offender managers and providers that cannot be resolved they
should be referred to the respective line managers. Whilst agreement by all
parties is likely to be the preferred outcome, the Probation Service has the final
decision regarding all matters relating to enforcement of an order.
HANSON

Report HM Chief Inspectors Guidance Lead Timescale for

reference Recommendations Officials Implementation
no:

10.1 Contact with a prisoner before John Areas should

Existing guidance:
release should focus on issues Scott already be
of Risk of Harm as well as following national
The principle underpinning the NOMS Offender Management Model is that (Head of
resettlement. Wherever guidance.
“each offender is under the overall direction of the same offender manager Public
possible there should be
throughout each period of continuous engagement with the service” – see PC Protection
continuity of contact with one
83/2005; the Implication of the Offender Management Model for Service Unit)
offender manager (i.e. it is not
Delivery Structures; and PC 09/2006, Offender Management for Custodial
helpful to design in
Sentences. This should achieve continuity of supervision by one offender
discontinuities).
manager from the point of pre sentence report preparation to the end of
sentence. The introduction of offender management for custodial sentences
begins later in the year to align with the introduction of Custody Plus sentence.

OASys section R11 focuses on risk management issues - PC 10/2005 Public

Protection Framework, Risk of Harm & MAPPA Thresholds. The Risk of Harm
must be reviewed and updated within 5 days of release for High or Very High
Risk of Serious Harm Offenders and within 15 days for offenders assessed as
Medium Risk of serious harm.

The Risk of Harm assessment and Risk Management Plan are incorporated in
the Sentence Plan. The timeliness of sentence planning is addressed in the
National Standards 2005.

Appendix 3 of PC 34/2004 Parole Assessment Reports contains a checklist for

the Home Probation Officer’s Report which includes under paragraph 4 clear
guidance on the production of a risk assessment which separates the risk of re-
offending from the risk of serious harm. Guidance in relation to parole
assessment reports is being revised to take into account the Offender
Management Model, the delivery of information to the Parole Board and any
new/revised guidance highlighted in these recommendations.
10.2 The Probation Service should John
Existing guidance:
ensure that a full OASys Scott
assessment is completed and
The purpose of the parole assessment report (PAR) is to provide the Board with (Head of
that the findings are always
a summary of the probation service’s assessment of the risks posed by an Public
made available to the parole
offender and of how those risks will be managed in the community (PC 34/2004 Protection
panel considering an
Parole Assessment Reports), both the risk of re-offending and the risk of serious Unit)
application for early release on
harm. It is important, therefore, that a comprehensive risk assessment is
licence.
completed for PARs. The risk assessment should make it clear that a full OASys
has been completed. The assessment should identify what the risk factors are
and how they will be managed. It should be noted that the decision to release
the offender is for the Board. PARs always need to include details of what plans
are in place for managing risk in the community.
Currently, officials are meeting with representatives of the Parole Board to clarify
the precise information needs of the Board. We intend to issue guidance, under
a new circular, later this year, to help offender managers provide the
comprehensive assessments that the Board needs to inform its judgements.
10.3 The Parole Board should The Parole
review its current policy on the Board
question of a member
interviewing the offender and
reporting independently to
parole panels when
considering high-risk cases.

10.4 Parole panels and probation John Scott

Existing guidance:
staff should be reminded of the (Head of
importance of static factors in Public
The core offender assessment tool OASys includes the collation of static factors
the assessment of risk, and Protection
and calculation of the Offender Group Reconviction Scale. OASys also provides
the particular difficulty of Unit)
detailed attention to key criminogenic risk factors that are dynamic and therefore
assessing offenders where
subject to change. The quality assurance of OASys and the application of the
their previous offences involve
assessment to risk management and sentence planning are therefore critical. It
instrumental violence.
is important that parole assessment reports give careful and considered
attention to the static factors as well as dynamic indicators and are informed by
an up to date, thorough and completed OASys assessment in every instance.
Critically the assessment of risk of harm turns on the balance between the
‘impact’ of further offending and the ‘imminence’: namely does the offender’s
behaviour present “a risk which is life threatening and/or traumatic, and from
which recovery, whether physical or psychological can be expected to be
difficult or impossible”.

Proposed action:
The Parole Board will be invited to join the membership of the Risk of Harm
Improvement board.
The Risk of Harm Improvement Board will commission a literature review of the
use of dynamic and static risk factors in the assessment of risk of harm in
respect of instrumental violence and the range of specific risk assessment tools
and interventions currently available. The review will also be asked to make any
recommendations to the Risk of Harm Improvement Board to identify any gaps
in provision and options to extend the availability of specific assessment tools.
The Board will also consider the potential to expand the interventions portfolio to
address this type of offending behaviour, where there is an indication that this
would be helpful.

The Risk of Harm Training resource pack that has been commissioned from De
Montfort University will be launched at the national risk of harm workshop in
June 2006The pack includes training material which addresses the importance
of attention to static and dynamic risk indicators, along with attention to bias and
error in assessment. Further guidance to support the implementation of the
training material will be issued shortly to make sure that all Probation Areas
complete an audit of staff skills in respect of their understanding and under
pinning knowledge of assessment and management of risk of harm.

Instrumental violence indicators include violent offences committed purposefully

rather than impulsively, pre planning, pre meditation and the identification of
potential victim/s and often the abuse of power. For offenders indicating such
behaviour (past behaviour is a good indicator), anger management interventions
that seek to improve the offender’s capacity to control their behaviour are
considered to be wholly inappropriate and have the potential to equip the
offender with additional control mechanisms and increase his/her capacity to
manipulate a situation to their advantage and power. (Examples of instrumental
violence - pre planned robbery equipped with weapons, domestic abuse,
stalking).
 Interpersonal/ expressive violence – indicators include loss of temper,
unplanned violence as a result of altercation - may be fuelled by
alcohol/substance misuse, results in loss of personal control, (examples include
criminal damage, public disorder, argument resulting in brawling and fighting
behaviour) . Where the offender demonstrates capacity for reflection and
learning, he/she can benefit from cognitive self change interventions to improve
consequential thinking skills.

10.5 Whenever possible prisoners The Prison

serving sentences for Service.
instrumental violence should
be tested in open prison
conditions prior to release on
parole.

10.6 If scrutinised carefully, a The Parole

prisoner’s personal statement Board
to a parole panel may on
occasions provide a unique
source of important evidence
about the prisoner’s state of
mind and the reality of any
future plans.

10.7 Where an exclusion zone is Existing guidance: John

included as a condition of a Scott
parole licence it should be
PC 16/2005 CJA 2003 Early Release and Recall (Paras 22-32 & Annex C. (Head of
framed as narrowly and
Additional licence conditions can only be inserted if it is lawful To be lawful the Public
specifically as possible both to
condition has to be both necessary and proportionate. Necessary means that no Protection
achieve its specific purpose
other means of managing a particular risk is available or appropriate; and Unit)
and to enable feasible
proportionate means that the restriction on the offender’s liberty is the minimum
enforcement
required to manage the risk.

PC 28/2003 Victim Contact Work: Guidance on Recent Court Judgments (Paras

1.9-1.15 & Annex A)

10.8 The Probation Service should
ensure that an offender is not
required to report to a
Probation Office or other
facility within an exclusion
zone unless there are quite
exceptional circumstances that
are agreed and recorded in
advance by a senior manager.
The Craven judgment has highlighted the need for extra care when considering
requesting an exclusion zone as a licence condition. It means that careful
attention needs to be given to the precise areas from which the offender’s
exclusion is necessary, taking into account the issue of proportionality.
Since both victims and offenders have rights under Article 8 of the European
Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) with respect to private and family life, it is
important to weigh up the circumstances of each parties in setting exclusion
zones and to reach a conclusion based on proportionality.
Existing guidance as per 10.7 (PC 16/2005 & PC: 28/2003) John
Scott
The exclusion zone should be as specific as possible and it is necessary to
(Head of
provide a map on which the proposed boundaries of the exclusion zone are
Public
marked clearly. The offender must be left in no doubt as to where exclusion
Protection
zone begins and ends. The ‘Being on Licence’ leaflet should be deployed in
Unit)
induction appointments so that the terms of the licence and additional licence
conditions are explained and clearly understood. A declaration of understanding
should be signed by the offender.
Exclusion zones must be carefully enforced in order to be reasonable. Although
the condition could be imposed, the supervising officer may grant occasional
access if, for example, it is shown that the offender has close family in the
exclusion zone. In such cases, the wording of the licence condition should
contain reference to such access being subject to prior approval of the
supervising officer. When such a request is granted, it should be worded as
follows: “Shall not seek to enter… as defined in the attached map, without the
prior approval of your supervising officer”. This will enable the offender to enter
the area if it becomes necessary but only with the express permission of the
supervising officer.
Where an offender is subject to an exclusion requirement, the supervising officer
should seek to avoid issuing reporting instructions within the exclusion area
unless they are agreed and recorded in advance by a senior manager at ACO
level or equivalent. In terms of the probation office or treatment provider being
located within the exclusion zone, and where the exclusion reflects a request
from victims, the Victim Liaison Officer should be informed as to the precise time
and date of the offender’s attendance at the location within the exclusion zone.

10.9 The Parole Board should
specify clearly how it wishes to
deal with situations where the
decision to grant early release
is seen as particularly
dependent on some specific
requirement such as
accommodation or location,
and where the situation
changes between the date of a
decision and the prisoner’s
release date.
The consequences of the offender not adhering to the set appointments and the
times at which they are permitted within the exclusion zone should be clearly
spelt out and enforced.
CJA03 ‘Being on Licence’ leaflet (NPD CJA03/LICI) for offenders also refers.
This is for the Parole Board. However, to ensure that the Board is notified The John Scott
Board’s Business Plan for 2006/07 includes objectives to review the process for
(Head of
amending conditions and to implement changes of changes in circumstances, a
Public
new template has been produced.
Protection
New guidance: and Licensed
Release)
A notification report template (at Annex C of this PC) has been devised for use
by Probation Areas which provides a means by which changes in circumstances Christine
which impact upon risk assessment and risk management/release plans can be Glenn
promptly shared with the Parole Board. In the event, the completed report
(Chief
should be submitted directly to the post panel team in the Parole Board via fax.
Executive)
Guidance about completing this form will be prepared and issued separately
prior to implementation on 31 May.

10.10 When imposing a geographical Existing guidance: John

exclusion as a licence As 10.7 & 10.8 Scott
condition proper attention
Guidance already exists on purpose and feasibility under Appendix C of PC (Head of
should be paid to its feasibility,
16/2005 and the rights of the victim(s) in PC 28/2003. Public
purpose and the impact on
Protection
victim(s).
Unit)
Christine
Glenn
(Chief
Executive)
10.11 The Probation Service should John
New guidance:
ensure that the relevant prison Scott
is informed immediately if it
As 10.9 – If the Parole Board has yet to consider the case the completed report (Head of
appears that a specific
template should be submitted to the prison Parole Clerk via email to the custody Public
requirement of a parole licence
e-mail box (e-mail custody.prisonname@hmps.gsi.gov.uk). See Annex C. Protection
is not likely to be met
Unit)

10.12 Where release under licence
from prison is contingent on an
offender going to a particular
address or area and this
subsequently changes a
further assessment of Risk of
Harm should be undertaken
before release is confirmed.
10.13 In the case of parolees there
should be a clear expectation
about the purpose and length
of residence in an approved
premise.
If the Parole Board has issued a release decision, the Probation Area should
forward the completed report to the Prison Governor (or Director) as well as the
Parole Board’s post panel team. PSO 6000 Parole Manual (para 5.19.3)
instructs all prison Governors (or Directors) to “put in place local procedures to
ensure effective liaison with field probation officers in order to satisfy themselves
that the release arrangements will be in accordance with those agreed by the
Board or the Secretary of State. Governors must be satisfied that such
arrangement have been put in place before effecting release.”
New guidance: John
Scott
Where there are significant changes in circumstances – such as where the
(Head of
original proposal for accommodation falls through -, the OASys Risk of Serious
Public
Harm analysis should be reviewed. This will form the basis of the part of the
Protection
process of risk management planning and the information sharing with prison
Unit)
and Parole Board wherever there is a significant change of circumstances.
The prison needs to be instantly informed of significant changes and alternative
arrangements or contingencies need to be sought in line with the reviewed risk
management plan. See Annex C.
John
New guidance:
Scott
In cases where an offender would be accommodated in an Approved Premises (Head of
if released by the Board, the offender manager should explain in the PAR how Public
long the offender is likely to stay in the Approved Premises and what the Protection
purpose of the stay is. That is, the length and purpose of any stay in an Unit)
Approved Premises must be an integral part of the risk management plan that is
presented to the Board. PC37/2005 states that offender managers, in referring
offenders to Approved Premises, must provide the hostel manager with:
• a supervision plan setting out the purpose and intended length of the
period of residence, and the proposed move-on plan: and
• a risk management plan, setting out the contribution that residence in
the Approved Premises and interventions are intended to make to
managing the offender’s risk.
10.14 Consideration should be given Both the NPD and the Parole Board already carry out reviews where offenders John Joint proposal
by the Parole Board and the have committed serious further offences whilst under supervision. Scott by 01.07.06
National Offender
The Head of Public Protection and Licensed Release will take this (Head of
Management Service to a
recommendation forward in discussion with the Parole Board and issue further Public
multi-disciplinary review
advice, as appropriate. Protection
procedure for high profile
Unit)
cases involving serious further
offences by parolees. Christine
Glenn
(Chief
Executive)
10.15 The importance of clear See comments on 8.2 Richard
contemporaneous record Mason
keeping by all Probation staff
(Head of
should be emphasised as the
Offender
bedrock for the responsible
Management
and accountable management
Unit)
of offenders.

10.16 There should be clear John PC by 13.04.06

Existing guidance:
protocols in place requiring Scott
effective two-way
PC37/2005 states that offender managers, in referring offenders to Approved (Head of
communication between
Premises, must provide the hostel manager with: Public
Probation offender managers
• a supervision plan setting out the purpose and intended length of the Protection
and accommodation providers,
period of residence, and the proposed move-on plan: and Unit)
including a minimum standard • a risk management plan, setting out the contribution that residence in
for joint case reviews. the Approved Premises and interventions are intended to make to
managing the offender’s risk.
The hostel manager should place a copy of the supervision plan and the risk
management plan on the offender’s file.
The offender manager should meet relevant hostel staff as often as is necessary
to manage the risk posed by the offender. Meetings should be augmented by
regular exchanges of information. Such exchanges should take place at least
once a week.
10.17 There should be clear and Richard
Existing guidance - PC54/2004 - The MAPPA Guidance, & PC10/2005 Public
unambiguous guidance in
every Probation Area for the
referral of cases to MAPPA.
Protection Framework, Risk of Harm & MAPPA Thresholds: Mason
(Head of
PC10/2005 section 5 places a requirement on offender managers to formally
Offender
record into the risk management plan that Level 2 or 3 MAPPA processes have
Management
been considered to assist in the management of the risk of serious harm.
Unit)
OASys section R.11 provides the facility for this addressed.
Where a decision is taken not to manage the risk under MAPPA Level 2 or 3 for
an offender assessed as high/ very high risk of serious harm, the offender
manager must ensure that the reasons for this decision are clearly recorded
onto the risk management plan.
The Multi Agency Public Protection Arrangements provide a management
framework to strengthen the risk management of offenders who present a high
or very high risk of harm. MAPPA Levels provide an indication of the level of
management of the case; they are not an assessment of the risk of serious
harm. The assessment of serious harm must be clearly recorded on the OASys
assessment.
Assigning the appropriate MAPPA management level for offenders who meet
• Category 1 Registered Sex Offender
• Category 2 Serving 12months or more for sexual or violent offence
• Category 3 Other - identified as presenting a high/ very high risk of
harm or exceptional risk management circumstances
Assignment of MAPPA levels 1-3 must take place immediately for relevant
cases if the offender is in the community and under supervision. For serving
prisoners the MAPPA level should be assigned at either 6 months pre the
known release date (or immediately if serving less than 6 months) or at the
occasion of the preparation of the parole assessment report for the first parole
hearing and again at all subsequent reviews for early release. In each instance
referral to MAPPA must be informed by current and completed OASys
assessment.
Offenders who are currently serving longer prison sentences who do not meet
the above criteria should be only identified as a MAPPA nominal. For long term
serving prisoners, the risk management planning and sentence planning should
remain fully aligned with the assessed risk of serious harm through OASys.
 Referral to MAPPA Level 2 or 3 should take place at the point where it is
necessary and realistic to engage the relevant agencies in the community who
are required to strengthen the risk management activity. There may be some
instances where duty to cooperate agencies will need to be engaged earlier
than 6 months pre release. However, in order to introduce improved consistency
of the referral process and active engagement of duty to cooperate agencies in
the community this clarification has been introduced. There has been evidence
of MAPPA Levels assigned at the commencement of lengthy prison sentences
which have not been accompanied by active MAPPA level 2 or 3 meetings until
the offender has completed several years of the prison sentence and there is
the necessity to plan for management on release.

• This additional guidance will be incorporated into the revised MAPPA

guidance due to be completed in 2006.

With respect to the collation of data for the MAPPA Annual reports, Areas
should have in place mechanisms in place to account for offenders who are in
the community being managed at each MAPPA level. This data will be required
for the annual reports 2006/07. The rollout of NOMIS and ViSOR should provide
the long term supporting recording mechanisms.

10.18 The quality of OASys The importance of good offender assessment has been made clear in PCs Richard
assessments of likelihood of 48/05 and 49/05 (both June 2005) and in subsequent communications and staff Mason
re-offending and Risk of Harm events. Chapter 8 of the OASys Manual on Risk of Harm assessment and
(Head of
should be an offender management is being revised and will be re-issued in the summer.
Offender
management priority.
Management
Unit)
10.19 There should be minimum Existing guidance is provided in PC 52/2004. This Circular is in the process of Richard PC by 13.04.06
standards for internal transfers being updated to reflect changes flowing from the Offender Management Model. Mason
of cases within offices,
(Head of
including standards relating to
Offender
timeliness, to ensure continuity
Management
of lead responsibility for
Unit)
managing the case.
Annex B

New Practice Guidance Arising from HM Chief Inspector’s Investigation into Damien Hanson and Elliott White

TEMPLATE FOR IMPLEMENTATION ACTION PLAN

Probation Area:

Lead Senior Manager:

Contact details: Telephone: Email:

Date of completion:

Plan approved by:

Date:

To be submitted by 31 May 2006 to PPU and Regional Managers

Key Recommendations
Report HM Chief Inspector’s Plans for Implementation Plans to Embed in Practice Lead Officer Timescale
Referenc Recommendations for
e No. Implementat
ion
1 Doing the job properly
• all reasonable action taken to
keep to a minimum risk of
harm to others.
• all offenders be required to
comply with conditions
• enforcement in accordance
with National Standards
2 Lead Responsibility in managing
cases
• apply principles of continuity
and clarity of lead
responsibility throughout
sentence

3 Updating Parole Board Release

Decisions
• informing the Parole Board
where the situation changes
between decision and date of
release
• achieving clarity of
responsibility for making
decisions
4 Improving Risk of Harm work
• the way the Area is structured
and managed to increase
effectiveness of risk harm work
5 Future Independent Reviews
• implementation of PC8/2006 in
revised Serious Further
Offence procedures
WHITE
Report HM Chief Inspector’s Plans for Implementation Plans to Embed in Practice Lead Timescale
Referenc Recommendations Officer for
e No. Implementa
tion
8.1 An offender who is in breach of the
requirements of a court order should
be brought back to court promptly as
required by the National Standards for
the Probation Service. This not only
makes for good quality offender
management but also is vital for public
confidence in the supervision of
offenders in the community.
8.2 The importance of clear
contemporaneous record keeping by
all Probation staff should be
emphasised as the bedrock for the
responsible and accountable
management of offenders
8.3
Achieving early first contact with people
under supervision is not only a
requirement of National Standards but
also it conveys the seriousness of
supervision to the offender and sets the
pattern for future contact and
compliance.
8.4 Where an offender manager takes
action for breach of an order by an
offender, that officer should exercise
clear lead responsibility for ensuring
that the breach action is properly and
 promptly progressed until the matter
comes to court.
8.5 Where contact is resumed with an
offender who has been out of touch with
the offender manager for more than a
month for whatever reason there should
be a special face-to-face interview to
confirm the requirements of the order or
licence.
8.6
Where an offender under the
supervision of the Probation Service
appears in court for breach of a
previous order a full Pre-sentence
Report based on a full current
OASys assessment should be
prepared by the offender manager
wherever possible.
8.7
In all DTTO cases the offender
manager should be responsible for
maintaining an up-to-date record that
collates all contact with the offender,
including attendance on programmes
and drug testing appointments and
results.
8.8 Where an offender has demonstrated a
poor level of compliance with a previous
court order or licence a Pre-sentence
Report should not propose a similar
sentence unless there are special
reasons stated in the report
8.9 The offender manager should ensure
that proper written information about the
offender is made available to
 appropriately registered programme
providers, and this should include
copies of the Pre-sentence Report,
OASys assessment and a copy of the
court order or licence.
8.10 There should be clear protocols in place
requiring effective two-way
communication between offender
managers and programme providers,
including a minimum standard for joint
case reviews
8.11 Wherever possible the drug-testing
element of a DTTO should be held
where the programme is provided.
Where this is not possible the results of
drug tests should always be copied
immediately to the programme provider
whilst an offender is on the programme
8.12 Unless there are exceptional and urgent
reasons, a person under statutory
supervision should never be discharged
from a programme without a prior
discussion between the programme
provider and the offender manager
HANSON
Report HM Chief Inspector’s Plans for Implementation Plans to Embed in Practice Lead Timescale
Referenc Recommendations Officer for
e No. Implementa
tion
10.1
Contact with a prisoner before release
should focus on issues of Risk of
Harm as well as resettlement.
Wherever possible there should be
continuity of contact with one offender
manager (i.e. it is not helpful to design
in discontinuities).
10.2 The Probation Service should ensure
that a full OASys assessment is
completed and that the findings are
always made available to the parole
panel considering an application for
early release on licence.
10.4
Parole panels and probation staff
should be reminded of the importance
of static factors in the assessment of
risk, and the particular difficulty of
assessing offenders where their
previous offences involve instrumental
violence.
10.7
Where an exclusion zone is included
as a condition of a parole licence it
should be framed as narrowly and
specifically as possible both to
achieve its specific purpose and to
enable feasible enforcement
10.8
The Probation Service should ensure
that an offender is not required to
report to a Probation Office or other
facility within an exclusion zone
unless there are quite exceptional
circumstances that are agreed and
recorded in advance by a senior
manager.
10.10
Where an exclusion zone is included
as a condition of a parole licence it
should be framed as narrowly and
specifically as possible both to
achieve its specific purpose and to
enable feasible enforcement
10.11
The Probation Service should ensure
that an offender is not required to
report to a Probation Office or other
facility within an exclusion zone
unless there are quite exceptional
circumstances that are agreed and
recorded in advance by a senior
manager.
10.12
Where release under licence from
prison is contingent on an offender
going to a particular address or area
and this subsequently changes a
further assessment of Risk of Harm
should be undertaken before release
is confirmed.
10.13
In the case of parolees there should
be a clear expectation about the
 purpose and length of residence in an
approved premise.
10.15
The importance of clear
contemporaneous record keeping by
all Probation staff should be
emphasised as the bedrock for the
responsible and accountable
management of offenders.
10.16
There should be clear protocols in
place requiring effective two-way
communication between Probation
offender managers and
accommodation providers, including a
minimum standard for joint case
reviews.
10.17
There should be clear and
unambiguous guidance in every
Probation Area for the referral of
cases to MAPPA.
10.18
The quality of OASys assessments of
likelihood of reoffending and Risk of
Harm should be an offender
management priority.
10.19
There should be minimum standards
for internal transfers of cases within
offices, including standards relating to
timeliness, to ensure continuity of lead
responsibility for managing the case.
Annex C

NOTIFICATION OF CHANGES TO RISK

MANAGEMENT/RELEASE PLAN
IN PAROLE CASES
THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT IS TO INFORM THE PAROLE BOARD OF
ANY CHANGES WHICH IMPACT UPON RISK ASSESSMENT OR THE RISK
MANAGEMENT PLAN:
a) AFTER A PAROLE ASSESSMENT REPORT (PAR) HAS BEEN
SUBMITTED TO THE PAROLE BOARD AND BEFORE THEIR DECISION HAS
BEEN MADE, OR
b) AFTER A PAROLE BOARD DECISION TO RELEASE HAS BEEN MADE
Please tick relevant option as appropriate.

PROBATION DETAILS
Name
Address

Probation Area
Telephone number
(Direct Line/Mobile
No.)
Fax number
Email address

OFFENDER DETAILS
Name
Date of birth Prison No.
Prison establishment Parole Ref No.

OASys Risk of Serious Low Medium High Very high

Harm level
OASys Likelihood of Low Medium High
Reconviction
MAPPA level 1 2 3
Index offence
Type of licence DCR Extended Sentence
 Date of PAR report
(attached)

The purpose of this report is to notify the Parole Board and relevant prison immediately when there
has been a development in the release plan which impacts upon the risk assessment and risk
management plan, in either of the following events:
a) After a Parole Assessment Report has been submitted and the arrangements outlined for release
have changed prior to the Parole Board considering the case. In these instances, this report must be
submitted to the Parole Board via the prison Parole clerk by e-mail to the custody e-mail box
‘custody.prisonname@hmps.gsi.gov.uk’
b) After the Parole Board have issued a release direction. In these instances, this report must be
submitted direct to the Parole Board, (by fax to the Post Panel Team on 0207 217 0342), copied to the
Prison Governor (or Director) via the Parole clerk by e-mail to ‘custody.prisonname@hmps.gsi.gov.uk.

The report must address the following:

1. Summary and implications of developments

2. Current review of risk assessment in relation to risk of serious harm and

reoffending.

3. Outline of any further identified areas of risk as a result of the developments.

4. Revised risk management/release plan including requirement of licence and

licence conditions

5. Recommendation for release

Name:

Signed:

Date:
The Parole Board will send their response to the Probation contact on the front of this
form.

Parole Board Response