Implementation of the Deliver Curfew Requirement Specification

UNCLASSIFIED

Implementation of the deliver curfew requirement specification This instruction applies to : Reference :

Probation Services PI 12/2011 Issue Date Effective Date Expiry Date 26 September 2011 1 October 2011 31 March 2013 Issued on the authority of NOMS Agency Board For action by Trust Contract Managers For information Chairs of Probation Trusts Chief Executives of Probation Trusts

Contact Bernadette McCarthy, Directorate of Commissioning and Commercial [email protected]

Associated documents Community Curfew Order Requirement Protocol (currently forms part of PC 23/2005)

Replaces the following documents which are hereby cancelled : None

Audit/monitoring :

Compliance with these Mandatory Actions will be monitored through the regular contractual review process between Probation Providers and NOMS

Introduces amendments to the following documents. None

UNCLASSIFIED UNCLASSIFIED Page 1

CONTENTS

Section Subject Is relevant to 1 Executive Summary All Staff 2 Operational Instructions All Staff 3 Policy and strategic context All staff 4 Guidance All staff Annex A Service Specification All staff Annex B Guidance on probation specific All staff outputs

LINK TO SPECIFICATIONS http://www.justice.gov.uk/about/noms/noms-specification-benchmarking-and-costing- programme/index.htm

1. Executive summary

Background

1.1 The Service Specification for Deliver Curfew Requirement was issued to probation trusts on 26/04/11 with implementation to begin from 1 October 2011, and to be fully demonstrable by 1 April 2012 (specification attached at Annex A). There are currently five electronic monitoring (EM) contracts nationally which are due to expire on 31/03/13. This instruction applies to offenders who receive a curfew as a requirement under the Community Order or Suspended Sentence Order. It does not apply to those offenders released from custody on Home Detention Curfew or anyone given an electronic monitoring requirement as a condition of bail.

1.2 The curfew requirement is one of the twelve requirements that can be imposed as part of a community order or a suspended sentence order under the Criminal Justice Act 2003.

Desired outcomes

1.3  That the Deliver Curfew Requirement service specification is delivered throughout England and Wales under existing trust contracts to achieve the outcomes and outputs in the service specification.  That effective, swift and ongoing communication exists between offender managers and EM providers  That the service specification delivers, as intended, a range of benefits.

Mandatory actions

PI 12/2011 UNCLASSIFIED Issue date 26/09/2011 UNCLASSIFIED Page 2

1.4 Trusts must ensure that the management of curfew requirements are delivered in accordance with the service specification. All of the outputs in the specification are mandatory.

Resource Impact

1.5 As the provision and operation of an electronic monitoring system is a contracted-out service the specification is not therefore supported by an Operating Model, Direct Service Costs and Assumptions Document or Cost Spreadsheet.

1.6 The service elements listed as ‘Probation Trust responsibilities’ at rows 34-48 of the Service Specification are not costed within this specification. These service elements provide further detail regarding responsibilities which relate directly to this service but they have been and will be more generally specified and costed within:

 The Court Services specification covering liaison and advice to Courts  The Assessment and Reports Pre-Sentence specification covering the assessment of offenders and provision of reports to courts  The Manage the Sentence for a Community Order/Suspended Sentence Order and Deliver Supervision Requirement specifications, which, where applicable, cover additional probation activities and costs for engaging providers of other requirements (such as specialist assessment, liaison and/or enforcement).

2. Operational instructions

2.1 The requirement is that the specification is to be implemented from 1 October 2011, with full implementation to be demonstrated by 1 April 2012.

2.2 Rows 1-30 of the Service Specification summarise the current business contract with the EM providers in an SBC format. Rows 31-33 introduce planned new expectations for EM providers in promoting offender compliance but their outputs will not become operational until NOMS advises further. Rows 34- 48 are Probation Trust responsibilities. Where they are not currently fully delivered, probation trusts will need to put in place arrangements to meet the specific outputs. The guidance contained in Annex B to this instruction contains Probation Trust responsibilities.

3. Policy and strategic context

3.1 The legislative framework for the EM (electronically monitored) curfew is contained in section 204 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. This allows for offenders to be curfewed ‘at a place so specified’ for not less than two and not more than 12 hours a day (on days the curfew operates) for a period not exceeding six months. The majority of curfew requirements are electronically monitored, with a very small number of orders made without an electronic monitoring requirement at the courts discretion. Where a curfew requirement is made without an EM requirement, there are a small number of outputs that must be delivered (these have been added to the service specification at Annex A) The curfew can be used either as a stand alone requirement or included in a package of up to 12 requirements attached to a Community Order or Suspended Sentence Order.

3.2 The current five regional contracts for EM are held by two companies. Serco holds two and G4S holds three. The contracts are due for renewal in April 2013.

3.3 Each community order with a curfew requirement has a responsible officer for enforcement. If the curfew is part of an order with other requirements, an offender manager from a

probation trust is the responsible officer. Where there is a multi-requirement order containing curfew, swift and effective communication between the EM provider and probation is essential, particularly where there is a violation of the curfew that may lead to breach. Once the EM provider passes information to probation regarding a violation, the offender manager should communicate their decision on whether breach proceedings will be instigated back to the EM provider as soon as possible.

3.4 If the curfew is a single requirement, the EM provider is responsible for all enforcement action. Where there may be concurrent community sentences, including a standalone curfew requirement, the responsible officer for enforcement of the standalone is the EM provider. However, there should be communication between probation and the EM provider on the enforcement of either order.

4. Guidance

4.1 Annex A contains the service specification and Annex B provides guidance on the relevant probation outputs.

4.2 PC 23/2005 – New Electronic Monitoring Contracts. This document contains the current protocol between the EM providers and trusts, and sets out specific responsibilities for each party.

4.3 PC 25/2005 – Criminal Justice Act 2003 Implementation Guidance. This PC contains information on curfew, and examples of combinations of orders.

4.4 National Standards 2011 Practice Framework (available on EPIC)

Annex A - Deliver Curfew Requirement Service Specification Document http://www.justice.gov.uk/about/noms/noms-specification-benchmarking-and-costing- programme/index.htm

Annex B - Relevant probation outputs from the specification

Organisational Liaison – Rows 34 to 35 (these rows apply to multi-requirement orders including curfew)

 There are arrangements in place to deal effectively with breach and enforcement issues involving probation staff and EM providers via a nominated single point of contact

 Working protocols and routine liaison established with EM providers including arrangements for information exchange.

Where curfew is part of a multi-requirement order, the probation offender manager is responsible for breach in the case of violation. The Joint Inspection by HMI Probation in 2008 (‘A Complicated Business – A joint inspection of electronically monitored curfew requirement, orders and licences’) found that many offender managers, and their managers in turn, appeared not to have understood the violations framework which inevitably impacted on the integrity of the enforcement process and led to delays in issuing warning letters and instigating breach proceedings. Offender managers

PI 12/2011 UNCLASSIFIED Issue date 26/09/2011 UNCLASSIFIED Page 4 should familiarise themselves with the violation policy. This will allow them to fully engage and discuss with the offender any compliance issues; if there are any particular issues, these can be addressed at an early stage and so potentially avoid a breach of the curfew.

Probation staff should ensure there are effective lines of communication in place with the relevant EM provider, and that information relating to breach is shared in a timely way. In particular, where information has been passed from the provider to the offender manager regarding curfew violations, the decision as to whether breach proceedings will be instigated should be communicated to the EM provider as soon as possible.

Targeting – Rows 36 to 37 (these rows apply pre-sentence)

 The judiciary and eligible offenders (and their representatives) are made aware of EM provision as a curfew requirement

 The use by courts of EM provision as a curfew requirement is actively managed to prioritise those offenders most at risk of a custodial sentence

Probation trusts should actively consider and recommend the use of EM as a curfew requirement to prioritise those offenders most at risk of a custodial sentence. Staff should consider a more creative approach to the use of curfew when writing pre-sentence reports or giving an oral report, particularly in addressing offending behaviour and promoting compliance as part of intensive packages in multi-requirement orders (e.g curfewing an offender the night before their unpaid work requirement begins). Additionally, staff may wish to consider recommending electronic monitoring as a penalty for breach of an existing order,

Probation trusts should consider, when recommending the appropriate sentencing option to the court, the purpose of the curfew requirement and whether any additional rehabilitative elements should be considered. However, there will be cases where curfew, as a standalone requirement, is entirely appropriate.

Assessment – Rows 38 to 40 (rows 38-39 apply pre sentence and row 40 applies post sentence to all offenders given a curfew)

 Prospective curfewees are assessed for suitability

 Courts are informed as to the offender’s suitability for an EM curfew requirement through oral or written reports.

 Offenders with an EM curfew requirement understand their responsibilities before they leave court.

Before making an order imposing a curfew requirement, the court must obtain and consider information about the proposed address, including information regarding the attitude of persons likely to be affected by the presence of the offender. Offender managers, when writing pre- sentence reports or giving an oral report should consider the use of more individualised curfews to take account of offending behaviour patterns, domestic arrangements, chaotic lives etc so that particular vulnerabilities can be addressed.

The requirements of the order should be explained to the offender before they leave court as is defined in the Court specification. The role of the offender manager is not to duplicate this process but they should ensure that the offender clearly understands the information which has been provided to them.

OM Liaison with EM providers – Rows 41 to 44 (these rows apply to multi-requirement orders including a curfew)

 Offender managers inform EM providers at the earliest opportunity of their contact details to assist risk management and enforcement liaison

 The contribution of the EM curfew requirement to the risk management of each service user is clearly defined in the offender manager’s risk management plan and sentence plan.

 Offender managers inform EM providers at the earliest opportunity about the service user’s vulnerability or risk of harm to others including changes to behaviour that indicate an increased risk to EM staff.

 Offender Managers inform EM providers at the earliest opportunity of offenders who are subject to MAPPA and/or PPO arrangements.

In the inspection report, it was found that communication between offender managers and the EM provider was poor or non-existent. This specification requires the offender manager to provide their contact details to the EM provider at the earliest opportunity to ensure swift and effective channels of communication. This will assist in smooth information exchange throughout the order, particularly if a violation occurs which may lead to breach.

The offender manager should include the curfew in developing the risk management and sentence plan. Fieldwork for the specification, and findings from the inspectorate report, indicated that there has been a tendency to view curfew as solely the responsibility of the EM provider; the specification seeks to ensure all requirements within the order are considered as part of the risk management and sentence plans. This may be particularly relevant where OASys is being updated e.g. prior to MAPP meetings or enforcement action.

Offender managers should ensure EM providers are informed of any relevant actions arising from MAPP meetings. In the unlikely event that a standalone curfew is given to a Mappa level 2 or 3 offender, the electronic monitoring provider has a duty to co-operate with the Responsible Authority (Mappa Guidance 2009 provides further information). It may be necessary to invite a representative from the EM provider to attend a MAPP meeting.

Offender Compliance – Rows 45 to 46 (these rows apply to multi-requirement orders including a curfew)

 Compliance with the EM curfew requirement is proactively promoted by offender managers

 Through the use of existing discretion and/or formal court amendment offender managers oversee the flexible application of the curfew requirement to maximise offender compliance and rehabilitation.

Offender managers should use their discretion appropriately when considering reasons for non- compliance. Account should be taken of individual circumstances. Offender managers should keep the relevance and use of the electronically monitored curfew under review to maximise offender compliance and rehabilitation. They should use their professional discretion when applying to the court for amendment as appropriate.

Enforcement of the Curfew Requirement – Rows 47 to 48 (these rows apply to multi- requirement orders including a curfew)

 When notification is received by the offender manager that an offender is deemed to have violated the curfew requirement threshold, a written warning or breach action is triggered within prescribed timescales unless an acceptable reason is provided.

 Offender managers report back to EM providers as to the outcome of the provider’s notification that an offender is deemed to have violated the EM curfew requirement.

As referred to earlier in this guidance, lack of communication between probation and the EM provider has meant the provider is not always notified of the outcome of breach action, whether it be a decision to take no action, to issue a warning letter or to start breach proceedings. This output requires offender managers to provide that information to the provider and to ensure it is communicated as soon as possible.

(signed)

Colin Allars Director of Probation and Contracted Services

Stage 1 – initial screening - Equality Impact Assessment 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? To support the Deliver Curfew Requirement Specification which was published in April 2011, with implementation to begin in October 2011.

Effects What effects will the policy have on staff, offenders or other stakeholders? The policy provides guidance on the outputs from the specification, for which probation staff are directly responsible. As this policy relates to the electronic monitoring of offenders and as there are two electronic monitoring providers operating under contract to NOMS, there are existing protocols in place between probation trusts and the EM contractors for managing this service.

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?

No evidence. Protocols between probation trusts and the contractors set out specific requirements where the offender is a young person or female.

Stakeholders and feedback Describe the target group for the policy and list any other interested parties. What contact have you had with these groups? Offenders sentenced to a Community Order who are given a curfew requirement.

Do you have any feedback from stakeholders, particularly from groups representative of the various issues, that this policy is relevant to them? The legislation for the curfew requirement is contained in the Criminal Justice Act 2003 and the Community Order was implemented in 2005. This policy is intended to support the recently published Deliver Curfew Requirement specification and provides guidance to probation staff on key issues, where they are responsible for the relevant output. The Electronic Monitoring team in NOMS, Sentencing Policy and Penalties Unit, Public Protection and Mental Health Group (as it was then known) and Probation colleagues were consulted on the draft instruction.

Impact Could the policy have a differential impact on staff, prisoners, visitors or other stakeholders on the basis of any of the equalities issues? No

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? The policy provides guidance relating to the specifications. Probation trusts will be expected to deliver the outputs from the specification, will full implementation demonstrable from April 2012.

Summary of relevance to equalities issues

Strand Yes/No Rationale

No Race No Gender (including gender identity) No Disability No Religion or belief No Sexual orientation

Strand Yes/No Rationale

No Age (younger offenders) No Age (older offenders)

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. The specifications require probation trusts to deliver the outcomes and these will be audited. There are also contracts with the electronic monitoring companies which must be delivered to the required standards.

State when a review will take place and how it will be conducted. Review is ongoing through audit.

Name and signature Date Bernadette McCarthy 13 July 2011 Policy lead

Gordon Davison, Head of Offender 13 September Head of group Management and Public Protection Group 2011

PI 12/2011 UNCLASSIFIED Issue date 26/09/2011