Implementation of the Deliver Accredited Programmes Specification - PI 01/2012 - PSI 07/2012

UNCLASSIFIED

Implementation of the Deliver Accredited Programmes Specification

This instruction applies to : Reference : Probation Trusts PI 01/2012 Prisons PSI 07/2012 Issue Date Effective Date Expiry Date Implementation Date 06 March 2012 01 April 2012 28 February 2016 Issued on the authority of NOMS Agency Board For action by Trust Contract Managers Prison SLA managers For information Chairs of Probation Trusts Chief Executives of Probation Trusts Deputy Directors of Custody Prison Governors Contact Patrick Connelly Senior Commissioning Manager - Rehabilitation, North West and West Midlands Community Commissioning Group Directorate of Commissioning and Commercial National Offender Management Service Email: [email protected] Mob: 07889 601597 Associated documents Deliver Accredited Programmes; Service Specification Operating Models Direct Service Costs & Assumptions document Cost Spreadsheets See these documents at: http://www.justice.gov.uk/about/noms/noms-directory-of-services- and-specifications.htm Replaces the following document which is hereby cancelled :- None

Audit/monitoring: Compliance with these mandatory actions will be monitored through the regular contractual review process between probation providers and NOMS and the regular review between prison establishments and NOMS

UNCLASSIFIED UNCLASSIFIED PAGE 1

Background

This PI / PSI supports and enacts the Deliver Accredited Programmes Specification which was first issued for preview publication on 4th November 2011. It applies to offenders who attend an accredited programme within the custodial or community settings.

An accredited programme is a systematic series of activities that are evidence-based and congruent with the “What Works” literature and which have been accredited by the Correctional Services Accreditation Panel (CSAP). Programmes vary in length and complexity and are targeted according to risk and need. It is essential that the programme is delivered as intended and in a manner that engages and motivates the offender.

Desired Outcomes

That the Service Specification for Accredited Programmes is delivered throughout England and Wales under existing Trust contracts and Prison Service Level Agreements to achieve the outcomes and outputs in the service specification;

 The seriousness, frequency and volume of re-offending is reduced  The risk of serious harm is reduced  The programme is successfully completed as a requirement of a sentence of the court, the sentence plan in custody and/or a requirement of a licence upon release

Mandatory Actions

There is an existing expectation that Trusts and Establishments must deliver Accredited Programmes according to the relevant Programme manuals and the Service Specification reinforces this expectation. All of the outputs in the specification are mandatory. The requirement is that implementation of the Specification is to begin from 1st April 2012 and to be fully and demonstrably complete by 1st October 2012.

Resource Impact

The Specification is supported by a set of non mandatory costed operating models which relate to the current suite of Accredited Programmes. There are two types of operating model;

 Portfolio Management which captures some of the indirect costs applicable to Accredited Programmes. This corresponds to Part A (rows 1 to 8) of the service specification and is an exception to the general rule regarding indirect costs in that it contains some elements that are commonly regarded as out of scope for SBC cost treatment. The relevant service elements are specific organisational requirements related to the delivery of Accredited Programmes which are additional to the general management costs

 Programme-specific operating models for each Accredited Programme. These correspond to Part B of the service specification (rows 9 to 25) and aim to capture an efficient model for delivering the service. They have been developed using; the programme manuals, guidance from the interventions group and findings from fieldwork carried out in Probation Trusts. Where a programme is delivered in both custody and community, separate operating models have been developed in recognition of the different timings and costs associated with efficient delivery of programmes in the different operating environments.

This instruction does not introduce any new processes. However, NOMS is currently undertaking a review of Accredited Programmes in consultation with the Correctional Services Accreditation Panel (CSAP). The existing costed operating models will provide valuable data to inform this review which will rationalise existing programme provision by identifying opportunities to introduce

PSI 07/2012 – PI 01/2012 UNCLASSIFIED ISSUE DATE 06/03/2012 UNCLASSIFIED PAGE 2 further savings and increase efficiency in programme delivery. A range of new programmes which will replace the current suite are due to be introduced in a phased process throughout 2012/13.

Policy and strategic context

The provision of a suite of accredited programmes delivered in both custody and community settings is part of the broader NOMS strategy to reduce re-offending. Accredited Programmes have been subject to a substantial amount of empirical research when compared with other interventions and there is considerable national and international evidence to support their effectiveness. The evidence base for each programme is described within its theory manual and is a fundamental part of accreditation process.

In the community accredited programmes are normally delivered as a requirement of a Community Order or a Suspended Sentence Order or as a condition of a licence upon release from prison, as defined by section 202 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. Within prisons Accredited Programmes are delivered as part of the sentence plan. Programmes are accredited by CSAP and are currently supported and audited by NOMS Interventions Unit (formerly NOMS Rehabilitation Services Group or RSG). There are four sub- categories of programmes:

 Cognitive and Motivational,  Sexual Offending,  Violence including Domestic Violence  Substance Misuse Programmes.

A programme completion includes both the delivery of the programme and any required pre- or post-core sessions which form part of its overall design.

Guidance

National Standards 2011 Practice Framework - available on the EPIC website

 Annex A: Notes on Operating and Costing Models (much of this has previously been published as part of the Implementation guidance for this service specification)

Contacts

For further information about this Instruction please contact:

Patrick Connelly Senior Commissioning Manager - Rehabilitation, North West and West Midlands Community Commissioning Group Directorate of Commissioning and Commercial [email protected]

(signed)

Digby Griffith, National Operational Services, NOMS

PSI 07/2012 – PI 01/2012 UNCLASSIFIED ISSUE DATE 06/03/2012 UNCLASSIFIED PAGE 3

Annex A

Notes on Operating and Costing Models

1. The operating models for each specific accredited programme cover both management responsibilities and operational delivery and aim to capture an efficient model for delivering the service. They have been developed using the programme manuals, existing NOMS guidance, stakeholder consultation and findings from fieldwork carried out in Probation Trusts and prisons.

2. The development of the operating models and therefore the costs has been developed by the SBC programme in collaboration with the NOMS clinical team for each programme and has also built upon the ‘efficiencies’ put in place as a result of the recommendations in the SBC Early Priorities work.

3. Where a specific accredited programme is delivered both in custody and the community, separate operating models have been developed in recognition of the different timings and costs associated with efficient models for the delivery of programmes in different operating environments.

4. With regard to staffing costs; we have, for grading in the community, referenced Job Evaluation profiles, using the most efficient band of staff for each activity to meet the requirements set by the manuals. For custody models, the costs reflect the most efficient use of staff based on current guidance as to which grades can be employed.

5. For community models, we have also taken account of:

 Significantly higher costs for evening and weekend delivery  Higher attrition in the community  Staff and offender travel

6. Where necessary, the operating models refer providers to the manuals, which detail the delivery requirements of each programme as approved by the accreditation process. This is in order to avoid unnecessary duplication.

7. The brief for this specification project was to ensure that offender management activities are identified where these activities directly support the programme. The expectations of the offender manager role to support the successful completion of the Programme are outlined in the programme specific manuals.

8. The Criminal Justice Act 2003 implementation guidance was that a supervision requirement should be imposed by the court when a programme requirement was made to allow for offender management activities to support the successful completion of the programme. This policy has been reviewed and it is not now considered to be necessary for all Accredited Programmes, particularly those aimed at low risk offenders to be accompanied by a supervision requirement. Offender management activities in both community and in the custodial setting where applicable, are identified and costed within the models if the activity would not happen but for the existence of the programme requirement and particularly if the activity is identified within the programme manual. . 9. NOMS is undertaking a review of Accredited Programmes in consultation with CSAP. Therefore the costed efficient operating model for each current Accredited Programme developed during the specification process will provide valuable data to inform this review regarding plans for rationalising existing programme provision. Given this review the remit

PSI 07/2012 – PI 01/2012 UNCLASSIFIED ISSUE DATE 06/03/2012 UNCLASSIFIED PAGE 4

of the SBC project did not include making recommendations as to the mix of programmes delivered between custody and community nor in identifying opportunities for introducing further savings and efficiencies in programme delivery ( i.e. in addition to the SBC Early Priorities recommendations).

10. It is anticipated that the outcome of the current review may be that some of the Accredited Programmes, for which operating models have been published, will not be provided in future and some new programmes may be commissioned to replace them. However as NOMS is committed to ensuring that all the services it commissions are specified by 1st April 2012 we have had to include all current accredited provision. Therefore existing providers should be aware that the published operating and costing models are not the end state and that work is coming through to replace / improve the Accredited Programmes that NOMS will commission in future.

PSI 07/2012 – PI 01/2012 UNCLASSIFIED ISSUE DATE 06/03/2012 UNCLASSIFIED EIA PAGE 1

HQ policy Equality Impact Assessment

Implementation of the Deliver Accredited Policy Programmes Specification

Policy lead Operational Services and Interventions Group Group National Operational Services Directorate

What is an Equality Impact Assessment (EIA)?...... 3 Your Equalities team...... 3 The EIA process...... 3 Stage 1 – initial screening...... 4 Aims...... 4 Effects...... 4 Evidence...... 5 Stakeholders and feedback...... 5 Impact...... 6 Local discretion...... 7 Summary of relevance to equalities issues...... 7 Monitoring and review arrangements...... 7

PSI 07/2012 – PI 01/2012 UNCLASSIFIED ISSUE DATE 06/03/2012 UNCLASSIFIED EIA PAGE 2 What is an Equality Impact Assessment (EIA)? An EIA is a systematic appraisal of the (actual or potential) effects of a function or policy on different groups of people. It is conducted to ensure compliance with public duties on equality issues (which in some areas go beyond a requirement to eliminate discrimination and encompass a duty to promote equality), but more importantly to ensure effective policy making that meets the needs of all groups. Like all other public bodies, the National Offender Management Service is required by law to conduct impact assessments of all functions and policies that are considered relevant to the public duties and to publish the results.

An Equality Impact Assessment must be completed when developing a new function, policy or practice, or when revising an existing one. In this context a function is any activity of the Prison Service, a policy is any prescription about how such a function is carried out, for instance an order, instruction or manual, and a practice is the way in which something is done, including key decisions and common practice in areas not covered by formal policy.

If you are completing this document as part of the OPG process, you must complete and return it together with the final Business case for OPG approval and publication alongside the PC/PSI/PSO.

Your Equalities team It is important that all policies are informed by the knowledge of the impact of equalities issues accumulated across the organisation. Early in the policy development process, and before commencing the EIA, please contact the relevant equalities team to discuss the issues arising in your policy area.  HR issues – Staff Diversity and Equality Team – 020 7217 6090 or [email protected]  Service delivery issues relating to gender and younger offenders – Women and Young People’s Group – 020 7217 5048 or [email protected]  All other service delivery issues – Race and Equalities Action Group – 020 7217 2521 or [email protected]

The EIA process The EIA has been constructed as a two-stage process in order to reduce the amount of work involved where a policy proves not to be relevant to any of the equalities issues. The initial screening tool should be completed in all cases, but duplication of material between it and the full EIA should be avoided. For instance, where relevance to an equalities issue is self-evident or quickly identified this can be briefly noted on the initial screening and detailed consideration of that issue reserved for the full EIA. Further guidance on this will be given by the relevant equalities team.

Stage 1 – initial screening The first stage of conducting an EIA is to screen the policy to determine its relevance to the various equalities issues. This will indicate whether or not a full impact assessment is required and which issues should be considered in it. The equalities issues that you should consider in completing this screening are:  Race  Gender  Gender identity  Disability  Religion or belief  Sexual orientation  Age (including younger and older offenders).

Aims What are the aims of the policy? This joint Prison Service Instruction (PSI) / Probation Instruction (PI) is being issued to complement the publication of the relevant Specification. It will support the delivery of Accredited Programmes to offenders within the custodial or community settings. It is also applicable to Therapeutic Communities.

The intention is that the Specification will be delivered throughout England and Wales under existing Trust contracts and Prison Service Level Agreements in order that;  The seriousness, frequency and volume of re-offending is reduced  The risk of serious harm is reduced  The programme is successfully completed as a requirement of a sentence of the court, the sentence plan in custody and/or a requirement of a licence upon release

Effects What effects will the policy have on staff, offenders or other stakeholders? There is an existing expectation that Trusts and Establishments must deliver Accredited Programmes according to the relevant Programme manuals and the Service Specification reinforces this expectation. All of the outputs in the specification are mandatory.

Evidence Is there any existing evidence of this policy area being relevant to any equalities issue?

Identify existing sources of information about the operation and outcomes of the policy, such as operational feedback (including local monitoring and impact assessments)/Inspectorate and other relevant reports/complaints and litigation/relevant research publications etc. Does any of this evidence point towards relevance to any of the equalities issues?

The PSI/PI consolidates and standardises existing practice. It does not introduce any new processes and there is no direct evidence that there are current issues relating to this particular policy. Each of the offending behaviour and other programmes that it covers has been accredited by the Correctional

Services Accreditation Panel. Although this screening document primarily deals with the Specification reference has been made to the EIA status of the existing suite of accredited programmes in the annex attached. Some of the programmes predate the introduction of EIAs, many of these are due to be replaced by new programmes in the next 12 to 18 months. The Interventions Unit (IU) has made a commitment to ensure that all of its programmes are Equality Impact assessed; the details for each programme are contained in the annex to this document. Training and advice will be provided by equalities unit.

Stakeholders and feedback Describe the target group for the policy and list any other interested parties. What contact have you had with these groups? The policy is aimed at staff who deliver accredited programmes in the custodial or community settings. The policy has been jointly developed by the Interventions Unit within the Operational Services and Intervention Group (OSIG), and SBC colleagues. The specification and related documentation is based upon extensive fieldwork in Probation Trusts, prison establishments, and Therapeutic Communities. There has also been close liaison with the clinical teams within the Interventions Unit who are responsible for each Accredited Programme. In addition there has been consultation with; Interventions Unit Audit Directors of Commissioning Performance management group NOMS HR Women Offenders Policy group Operations Directorate Lead DOM for the specification at that time Probation Business Users Group Probation Inspectorate Trade Unions Probation Chiefs Association Probation Association Prison Governors meeting

Do you have any feedback from stakeholders, particularly from groups representative of the various issues, that this policy is relevant to them? Feedback from the identified stakeholders listed above has been used to inform the drafting of this policy. Specific feed back in relation to gender that was received from the women’s policy group has been incorporated into the specification.

Impact Could the policy have a differential impact on staff, prisoners, visitors or other stakeholders on the basis of any of the equalities issues? The policy does not introduce any new practice but consolidates and standardises the delivery of Accredited programmes. Each of the accredited programmes that are covered by the policy are also subject to the accredited programmes audit criteria which include;  Arrangements are in place to identify and address learning needs of

offenders/prisoners  Arrangements are in place to support women and minority ethnic offenders/prisoners and ensure that they can access appropriate programmes  Complaints are managed  Safe systems of work are in place for staff  Compliance with best practice is enhanced

The policy does not change any of the above audit requirements. The specification includes specific elements;  that providers must comply with the audit,  meet the diverse needs of offenders/ prisoners and staff development needs and  That rooms used for groups are accessible and equipped to the required standard.

Accredited Programmes are subject to separate approval for men and women by the CSAP.

Local discretion Does the policy allow local discretion in the way in which it is implemented? If so, what safeguards are there to prevent inconsistent outcomes and/or differential treatment of different groups of people? All of the outputs in the Specification are mandatory. Local providers are subject to regular Audit.

Summary of relevance to equalities issues

Strand Yes/No Rationale

No As noted above the impact that this policy Race may have on equality issues has been No Gender (including considered in the development of the gender identity) specification. It does not change existing No practice significantly nor introduce new Disability practice that will have any material impact No Religion or belief upon equality issues. However, it is No Sexual orientation recognised that each Accredited Programme should also be considered in its No Age (younger offenders) own right as part of the development and No Age (older offenders) implementation process for that specific programme. (The annex attached outlines the current EIA status for the current suit of Accredited Programmes.)

If you have answered ‘Yes’ to any of the equalities issues, a full impact assessment must be completed. Please proceed to STAGE 2 of the document.

If you have answered ‘No’ to all of the equalities issues, a full impact assessment will not be required, and this assessment can be signed off at this stage. You will, however, need to put in place monitoring arrangements to ensure that any future impact on any of the equalities issues is identified.

Monitoring and review arrangements Describe the systems that you are putting in place to manage the policy and to monitor its operation and outcomes in terms of the various equalities issues. There is no necessity for a review of this screening. However, each of the EIAs conducted for the accredited programmes will require a review and this will be detailed within the relevant EIA document. State when a review will take place and how it will be conducted.

Name and signature Date

Policy lead

Head of group

Annex Accredited Programme Status of Equality Impact Interventions Assessment Unit Contact Thinking Skills Completed January 2009 Caroline Programme (TSP) Bridgewater Focus on Resettlement Planned – April - June 2012 Caroline (FOR) Programme Bridgewater Women’s Programme Planned – April - June 2012 Caroline (WP) Bridgewater One to One (OTO) Programme will be replaced by Caroline Programme RESPOND which will be completed Bridgewater once the programme is designed. Alcohol Related Violence Planned – April - June 2012 Caroline (ARV) Programme Bridgewater Focus Programme Planned – April - June 2012 Caroline Bridgewater Prisons - Addressing Completed Aug 2009 Caroline Substance Related Bridgewater Offending (P-ASRO) Programme will be replaced by Programme Building Skills for Recovery with EIA Planned – April - June 2012

Short Duration Drug Programme will be replaced by Caroline Programme (SDP) Building Skills for Recovery with EIA Bridgewater Planned – April - June 2012

Addressing Substance Programme will be replaced by Caroline Related Offending Building Skills for Recovery with EIA Bridgewater (ASRO) Programme Planned – April - June 2012

Drink Impaired Drivers Planned – April - June 2012 Caroline Programme (DID) Bridgewater Offender Substance Programme will be replaced by Caroline Abuse Programme Building Skills for Recovery with EIA Bridgewater (OSAP) Planned – April - June 2012

Low Intensity Alcohol Planned – April - June 2012 Caroline Programme (LIAP) Bridgewater Controlling Anger and Programme will be replaced by the Paul Learning to Manage it Resolve programme with EIA Planned Weatherstone (CALM) – April - June 2012

Healthy Relationships Programme will be replaced by the Paul Programme -High Building Better Relationships Weatherstone Intensity (HRP-HI) programme with EIA Planned – April - June 2012

Healthy Relationships Programme will be replaced by the Paul

Programme - Moderate Building Better Relationships Weatherstone Intensity (HRP-MI) programme with EIA Planned – April - June 2012

Aggression Replacement Programme will be replaced by the Paul Programme (ART ) Resolve programme with EIA Planned Weatherstone – April - June 2012

Integrated Domestic Programme will be replaced by the Paul Violence Programme Building Better Relationships Weatherstone (IDAP) programme with EIA Planned – April - June 2012

Choices, Actions, To be completed April – June 2012 Ian Garret Relationships, Emotions (CARE) Chromis EIA completed in 2008 and reviewed Ian Garret in 2011 Core Sex Offender Programme will be replaced with the Adam Carter Treatment Programme High and Low Intensity Programmes (C-SOTP) which will have an EIA included ahead of its resubmission for full accreditation in 2013 Adapted Sex Offender Programme will be replaced with the Adam Carter Treatment Programme High and Low Intensity Programmes (A-SOTP) (Becoming which will have an EIA included ahead New Me) (BNM) of its resubmission for full accreditation in 2013 Extended Sex Offender Programme will be replaced with the Adam Carter Treatment Programme High and Low Intensity Programmes (E-SOTP) which will have an EIA included ahead of its resubmission for full accreditation in 2013 Rolling Sex Offender Programme will be replaced with the Adam Carter Treatment Programme High and Low Intensity Programmes (Rolling SOTP) which will have an EIA included ahead of its resubmission for full accreditation in 2013 Core Sex Offender Programme will be replaced with the Adam Carter Treatment Programme High and Low Intensity Programmes (C-SOTP) Better Lives which will have an EIA included ahead Booster (BLB) of its resubmission for full accreditation in 2013 Adapted Sex Offender Programme will be replaced with the Adam Carter Treatment Programme High and Low Intensity Programmes (A-SOTP) ‘Better Lives’ which will have an EIA included ahead Booster (BLB) of its resubmission for full accreditation in 2013 Healthy Sexual Programme will be replaced with the Adam Carter Functioning (HSF) High and Low Intensity Programmes Programme which will have an EIA included ahead of its resubmission for full

accreditation in 2013 Northumbria Sex Programme will be replaced with the Sharon Avis Offender Group Work High and Low Intensity Programmes Programme (N-SOGP) which will have an EIA included ahead of its resubmission for full accreditation in 2013 Community Sex Offender Programme will be replaced with the Sharon Avis Group Programme (C- High and Low Intensity Programmes SOGP) which will have an EIA included ahead of its resubmission for full accreditation in 2013 Thames Valley Sex Programme will be replaced with the Sharon Avis Offender Group High and Low Intensity Programmes Programme (TV-SOGP) which will have an EIA included ahead of its resubmission for full accreditation in 2013 Internet Sex Offender Programme will be replaced with the Sharon Avis Treatment Programme High and Low Intensity Programmes (i-SOTP) which will have an EIA included ahead of its resubmission for full accreditation in 2013

PSI 07/2012 – PI 01/2012 UNCLASSIFIED ISSUE DATE 06/03/2012