Greater Manchester  Audit Report  - final 23 October 2001
25 Pages
English
Downloading requires you to have access to the YouScribe library
Learn all about the services we offer

Greater Manchester Audit Report - final 23 October 2001

-

Downloading requires you to have access to the YouScribe library
Learn all about the services we offer
25 Pages
English

Description

HM Inspectorate of Probation AUDIT OF ACCREDITED PROGRAMMES North-West Region of the National Probation Service for England and Wales Report on: Greater Manchester Probation Area – Think First June 2001 Greater Manchester Probation Area Audit Report 2 Greater Manchester Probation Area Audit Report Acknowledgements: We are grateful for the cooperation of staff from the Greater Manchester Probation Area in completing this audit. The audit team comprised: Christine Fiddes Andy Bonny Rosanna Heal Deputy Audit Manager Breda Leyne Alan MacDonald Kate White Audit Manager Inspection and Audit Officers Frances Flaxington HM Acting Deputy Chief Inspector of Probation Glossary ACE Assessment, Case Recording and Evaluation System CO Chief Officer HMIP HM Inspectorate of Probation IAPS Interim Accredited Programmes Software IQR Implementation Quality Rating JAP Joint Accreditation Panel LSI-R Level of Service Inventory-Revised N/A Criteria not assessed OASys Offender Assessment System OGRS Offender Group Reconviction Scale PSO Probation Service Officer SPO Senior Probation Officer Contents Page Context: 4 Scoring Approach: 4 Overview: 5 Findings and recommendations: 6 SECTION A: COMMITTED LEADERSHIP 7 SECTION B: PROGRAMME MANAGEMENT RESPONSIBILITIES 9 SECTION C: QUALITY OF PROGRAMME DELIVERY 19 SECTION D: CASE MANAGEMENT RESPONSIBILITIES 22 Next Steps 25 Scoring summary sheet: 27 3 Greater Manchester ...

Subjects

Informations

Published by
Reads 17
Language English

Exrait

 
  
 HM Inspectorate of Probation 
AUDIT OF  ACCREDITED  PROGRAMMES
North-West Region of the National Probation Service for England and Wales
Report on: Greater Manchester Probation Are–a  Think First
 
June 2001
 
Greater
 
 2
 
Manchester
Probation
Area
Audit
Report
 
Mar hencGrteeat Reportrea AudiabitnoA tsreP or gre aWe: tsenemgdelwonkcA  of sion eratcoopht of ruf larettibaro Pa re Aonlpmoc niua sihte frotaffe Grm th raMaeettsrecnehishrnetiid Fs deasoR annlaeHerB dit. The audit tae mocpmires:dC reciffO tiduA dnep Dnyon BdyAns  ehWK tayeenadL on aectiInspite ganaF reduA M tixilatongncra Fes taManegtu yuAidacDonaldr Alan Mf Pror oion obatfeihC yttcepsnI ct AHMn puDeg in
  
3
Page 4 4 5 6 7 9 19 22 25 27
Glossary ACE Assessment, Case Recording and Evaluation System CO Chief Officer HMIP HM Inspectorate of Probation IAPS Interim Accredited Programmes Software IQR Implementation QualitygRatin JAP Joint Accreditation Panel LSI-R Level of Service Inve-nRteovriyse d N/A Criteria not assessed OASys Offender Assessment System OGRS Offender Group Reconviction Scale PSO Probation Service Officer SPO Senior Probation Officer
Contents
Contex t: Scoring Approach: Overvie w: Findings and recommendations: SECTION A: COMMITTED LEADERSHIP SECTION B: PROGRAMME MANAGEMENT RESPONSIBILITIES SECTION C: QUALITY OF PROGRAMME DELIVERY SECTION D: CASE MANAGEMENT RESPONSIBILITIES Next Steps Scoring summary sheet:
Greater Manchester Probation Area Audit Report  Context: Programmes achieving accredited status have undergone a rigorous process of development to ensure they have maximum impact in terms of reducing crteinofgf ewn-de illnteg.s teSde le programmes is however only part of th– ew iptihctourteeffective implementation by probation areas much of the positive influence on offenders’ behaviour may be lost. Establishing robust quality assurance systems and indaerpreandges for acmentduti tna  dercdeti programmes is therefore crucial. HMIP is responsible for auditing accredited programmes o the JAP. Each probation area will be assessed against the delivery criteria given in the P Standards Manual Jun,e  w20hi0c1h also outlines how these criteria are to be me t and evidenced. Scoring Approach: The criteria for the delivery of accredited programmes have been divided into 4 sections. The and the overall weighting assigned for each sellcotiwosn :, are as fo Committed leadership and supportive management 20% Programme management responsibilities 30% Quality of programme delivery 30% Case management responsib i litie s   20% Each criterion is scorFedul lays  Met( 2 marksL),a rgely Me(t1 Mark) or Not Met(0 marks). The scoring summary sheet at the end of this report shows the marks awar–d efdo rf or each crit those criteria designated as Mandatory (see Performance Standards Manual) the mark give This denotes the criticaclt  itmhpesae criteria have on the effective delivery o f programmes. The marks awarded for each section are shown and then expressed as a % by dividing the t of marks scored by the maximum available, and multiplying by 100. SectdiointBo 7 i denah seb sub-sections for ease of scoring. To determine an area’s IQR, the scores for each section are multiplied by the appropriate fa account of the relevant weightings given above. The % totals for each section are then adde give the IQR.  4
Greater Manchester Probation Area Audit Report  Overview: ·Greater Manchester had devolved the delivery of the Think First programme to 5 clus Three had already begun to deliver Think First programmes and the remaining 2 we “go live” later in the year. ·methods: assessing the quality of advance informatiThe audit comprisedpri4ncipal interviews with staff and offenders; observation of videotaped programme sessions; file reading. ·gramme were intrppro tfot ehp ordee veli orysur ni fvlovi deht nwiA fats fo egnar ed deweiv including senior, district, programme and treatment managers, programme tut managers and court personnel. ·sites within the clusters were visited and in each of these loFour programme delivery accommodation and generasl licafoceitid meornf Ehe ttotstaseS atdnrasd Manual. ·A total of 9 randomly chosen programme sessions from 3 separate groups were sel video monitoring purposes, but 2 of the tapes could not be observed due to te difficultie s. ·cre thf  wiaerito eerhT4.2, – B3 an B4.on tre essdesaesas wt  a eanlyar1D d .8. ehTaeras ateg delivery and so relatively inexperienced tutors were inevitably assigned to run T together (B4.2); national plans were awaited for ongoing training for( Be4x.p3e) rienced tut as well as the accreditation of the cognitive behavioural booster programme to offender learning (D1.8). ·This audit report refers solely to the quality of delivery of the Think First programme i Manchest er.   5
     
Greater Manchester Probation Area Audit Report  Findings: Greater Mcahnester fully engaged in this audit process. The quality of the advance information was high and the commitment of the senior management team evident. Staff at all grades forthcoming and keen to discover their strengths anpdr oavreor.sanft me n omf ibo oediVoitavres practice demonstrated a satisfactory level of programme delivery and programme manag were given due attention. The main area for development was in case management, which was perhaps not surprisin uncetrainty nationally as to what constitutes the most effective case management arrangemen case managers were well informed about, and supportive of, the Think First programme. By clearer links between programme staff and caspre ogmreasnsa gmerasd, e by an offender on the programme could be better integrated within supervision planning. There was a recognition at this early stage of audit that this had been a standard setting exercise for HMIP as well as for the Greahteefat fulare gre t ro ehaMcn rreP tstionrobaa. W Are opportunity this has presented for HMIP and for the interest shown in the process. Recommendatio ns: The CO should ensure that the area: · talrrfell aano f sevomer a mor and improves itcotaoisnc luuterenffrsdeor fs go fo hiTat;t egrirsntink F ·all staff involved in the delivery or managerial oversreviews training requirements for staff competence is enhanced; ·sesum oediv inoritons rmfog fiefotd aietertn sup thesionervieen o sdni fividalduut ts ord anote pxolerp artcice issu ·establishes a deselection procedure for tutors who fail to deliver the programme to th ·district manager to cancel or postpone programmesrequires the prior approval of the ·ngei bnsiosssel la htiw ytiunitnf costafure  ens eotarmmrpgoca hs or eto 3nsut tagiss delive tutor s; ·establishes a consistent framework and approach to supporting the delivery of Think e.g. by standardising iodno csucsa hmatnet ppr-ogstramme reports; ·so that offenders are supported at all stagreviews case management arrangements guidance on how case managers can reinforce the learning of offenders undertaking t ·clearlyr  allsdo-cepreogramme work with offenders to ensure that participants are fully pr ·sets SMART objectives in supervision plans and reviews; ·ce viros deneti plyuort ehiwhtthp r gile mmidders anagt noitamnlbane oanrmfoerornf ice practi ce.  6
Greater Manchester Probation Area Audit Report  SECTION A: COMMITTED LEADERSHIP A1.1 Committed leadership2  DescriptionT:h e senior management of the area should be openly and explicitly committ running of the programme through polic.y and public statements Greater Mahnecster has had a- sltoanngding commitment to What Works and- beavsiedde npcreacdtice, hosting a number of international What Works conferences during the 1990s. Since being cho as one of the 3 original pathfinder areas for the McGtu iprreo gTrhainmk mFier,s Greater Manchesters senior management support for the Think First programme and for What Works generally ha evident. This judgement was confirmed by the quality of the advance information received fr and by the detakilneodw ledge of senior managers about what constituted progra mme effectivene Strength s: ·Greater Manchester’s Think First Implementation Plan 2000 provided comprehensive It had been updated in May 2001 and addressed the key elemneanl tspfp u oorsat i,gtanio including race equality and diversity issues. ·Senior managers had played a lead role in context setting days for the programme. T close fit between public statements in support of Think First and the allocation of n resoursc eto run it effectively, e.g. group rooms were of a high standard. Areas for improvem ent: ·A number of district managers had not yet attended a context setting event. ·Insufficient attention had been given to the ongoing training needs o.f relevant s supporting skills for programme tutors and booster training for treatment managers. A1.2 Management structures1  DescriptioEnf:f ective line management structures exist for the proper operation of the p this within case masntarugcetmurenst. Adequate time should be set aside for the effective man program me. Strength s: ·Greater Manchester supplied an organisational chart outlining the management struct programme delivery. Clear co-mbpaeste ni ovnidevlstr f afteisfod itno sxed sercpid jobncy managing the programme. ·demonstrated that they fully understood their role in managing, delivering or sStaff the programme. Areas for improvem ent: ·evilerman  iedgnais Afingnaciek ytsfa fniovvlt proportion of ing  d rehtgram proe.og.me, programme and treatment managers, had other operational and management resp that affected the time allocated to the oversight of Think First.   7