East Riding of Yorkshire - Justice Inspectorates · 6 Core Case Inspection of youth offending work...

Core Case Inspection of youth offending work in England and Wales

Report on youth offending work in:

East Riding of Yorkshire

2010ISBN: 978-1-84099-379-0

2 Core Case Inspection of youth offending work in East Riding of Yorkshire

Core Case Inspection of youth offending work in East Riding of Yorkshire 3

Foreword

This Core Case Inspection of youth offending work in the East Riding of Yorkshire took place as part of the Inspection of Youth Offending programme. We have examined a representative sample of youth offending cases from the area, and have judged how often the Public Protection and the Safeguarding aspects of the work were done to a sufficiently high level of quality.

We judged that the Safeguarding aspects of the work were done well enough 45% of the time. With the Public Protection aspects, work to keep to a minimum each individual�s Risk of Harm to others was done well enough 48% of the time, and the work to make each individual less likely to reoffend was done well enough 58% of the time. A more detailed analysis of our findings is provided in the main body of this report, and summarised in a table in Appendix 1. These figures can be viewed in the context of our findings from Wales and the regions of England inspected so far � see the Table below.

We found that, whilst processes were largely in place, the quality of assessments and plans required significant improvement as did the response to diversity, particularly in the delivery of interventions.

Overall, we consider this a disappointing set of findings; however, YOT staff and managers were keen to learn from the inspection to improve practice. We are confident that the YOT management team, with the support of the Management Board, will implement the recommendations contained within the report.

Andrew Bridges HM Chief Inspector of Probation

February 2011

Scores from Wales and the English regions that have

been inspected to date

Lowest Highest Average

Scores for East Riding of Yorkshire

�Safeguarding� work (action to protect the young person)

38% 91% 67% 45%

�Risk of Harm to others� work (action to protect the public)

36% 85% 62% 48%

�Likelihood of Reoffending� work (individual less likely to reoffend)

50% 87% 69% 58%


Acknowledgements

We would like to thank all the staff from the YOT, members of the Management Board and partner organisations for their assistance in ensuring the smooth running of this inspection.

Lead Inspector Jane Attwood

Practice Assessor Chris Simpson

CCI Assessor Mal Saville

Support Staff Andy Doyle

Publications Team Alex Pentecost; Christopher Reeves

Editor Alan Macdonald


Contents

Page

Acknowledgements 4

Scoring � and Summary Table 6

Recommendations 7

Next steps 7

Service users� perspective 8

Sharing good practice 9

1. ASSESSMENT AND SENTENCE PLANNING 10

1.1 Risk of Harm to others (RoH) 10

1.2 Likelihood of Reoffending (LoR) 11

1.3 Safeguarding 12

2. DELIVERY AND REVIEW OF INTERVENTIONS 14

2.1 Protecting the public by minimising Risk of Harm to others 14

2.2 Reducing the Likelihood of Reoffending 15

2.3 Safeguarding the child or young person 15

3. OUTCOMES 17

3.1 Achievement of outcomes 17

3.2 Sustaining outcomes 18

Appendix 1: Summary 19

Appendix 2: Contextual information 20

Appendix 3a: Inspection data chart 21

Appendix 3b: Inspection data 22

Appendix 4: Role of HMI Probation and Code of Practice 22

Appendix 5: Glossary 23


Scoring � and Summary Table

This report provides percentage scores for each of the �practice criteria� essentially indicating how often each aspect of work met the level of quality we were looking for. In these inspections we focus principally on the Public Protection and Safeguarding aspects of the work in each case sample. Accordingly, we are able to provide a score that represents how often the Public Protection and Safeguarding aspects of the cases we assessed met the level of quality we were looking for, which we summarise here. We also provide a headline �Comment� by each score, to indicate whether we consider that this aspect of work now requires either MINIMUM, MODERATE, SUBSTANTIAL or DRASTIC improvement in the immediate future.

Safeguarding score:

This score indicates the percentage of Safeguarding work that we judged to have met a sufficiently high level of quality. This score is significant in helping us to decide whether an early further inspection is needed.

Score:

45%

Comment:

SUBSTANTIAL improvement required

Public Protection � Risk of Harm score:

This score indicates the percentage of Risk of Harm work that we judged to have met a sufficiently high level of quality. This score is significant in helping us to decide whether an early further inspection is needed.

Score:

48%

Comment:


Public Protection - Likelihood of Reoffending score:

This score indicates the percentage of Likelihood of Reoffending work that we judged to have met a sufficiently high level of quality.

Score:

58%

Comment:


We advise readers of reports not to attempt close comparisons of scores between individual areas. Such comparisons are not necessarily valid as the sizes of samples vary slightly, as does the profile of cases included in each area�s sample. We believe the scoring is best seen as a headline summary of what we have found in an individual area, and providing a focus for future improvement work within that area. Overall our inspection findings provide the �best available� means of measuring, for example, how often each individual�s Risk of Harm to others is being kept to a minimum. It is never possible to eliminate completely Risk of Harm to the public, and a catastrophic event can happen anywhere at any time � nevertheless a �high� RoH score in one inspected location indicates that it is less likely to happen there than in a location where there has been a �low� RoH inspection score. In particular, a high RoH score indicates that usually practitioners are �doing all they reasonably can� to minimise such risks to the public, in our judgement, even though there can never be a guarantee of success in every single case.


Recommendations (primary responsibility is indicated in brackets)

Changes are necessary to ensure that, in a higher proportion of cases:

(1) a good quality assessment and plan, using Asset, is completed when the case starts (YOT Manager)

(2) specifically, a good quality assessment of the individual�s vulnerability and Risk of Harm to others is completed at the start, as appropriate to the specific case (YOT Manager)

(3) as a consequence of the assessment, the record of the intervention plan is specific about what will now be done in order to safeguard the child or young person from harm, to make them less likely to reoffend, and to minimise any identified Risk of Harm to others (YOT Manager)

(4) assessments and plans of work with the case are regularly reviewed and correctly recorded in Asset with a frequency consistent with national standards for youth offending services (YOT Manager)

(5) there is evidence in the file of regular quality assurance by management, especially of screening decisions, as appropriate to the specific case (YOT Manager).

Next steps

An improvement plan addressing the recommendations should be submitted to HM Inspectorate of Probation four weeks after the publication of this inspection report. Once finalised, the plan will be forwarded to the Youth Justice Board to monitor its implementation.


Service users� perspective

Children and young people

Fifty-six children and young people completed a questionnaire for the inspection.

◈ All respondents reported that their YOT worker had discussed either their referral order contract or their sentence plan with them and that they had been told what would happen when they came to the YOT. Asked if they felt that YOT staff were really interested in helping them, the majority of children and young people said that they were and that YOT staff listened to what they had to say.

◈ Most said that the YOT had taken action to address the things they wanted help with and that the YOT had made it easy for them to understand how they could help. A typical response was �explained things and did not get cross. Listened to me and my mum.�

◈ Nearly two-thirds of children and young people felt that things had improved for them as a result of their work with the YOT and 90% of respondents felt that they were less likely to reoffend. Responses included �get on better with mum, and school. Think about mates more and drink less� and �making better decisions in life and knowing what I want to do when I am older.�

Victims

Fourteen questionnaires were completed by victims of offending by children and young people.

◈ All respondents said that the YOT had explained the service that it offered and had taken their needs into account. With the exception of one victim, all felt that the YOT had paid attention to their safety and that they had been able to discuss any worries that they had about the offence.

◈ Nine victims had benefited directly from work done by the child or young person and most respondents were completely satisfied with the service they had received from the YOT. Representative of comments made was the view of one victim �Although myself and my son have not been with YOT for long I feel the help and support I have been given up to now has been brilliant and hope the next few months carry on the same way�.


Sharing good practice

Below are examples of good practice we found in the YOT.

Delivery and Review of Interventions

General Criterion:

2.2

Tony, an accommodated 18 year old male assessed as having learning difficulties, received a ten month referral order for a sexual offence against a young person living in the same residential unit. Through MAPPA, consideration was given to the most suitable programme of work to be carried out, with a specialist YOT worker or, given Tony�s age, through partnership provision by probation. The local authority was attempting to find a therapeutic residential placement for him. It was agreed that if Tony stayed within the local area, probation would deliver, on a one-to-one basis, an adapted, accredited programme designed for sex offenders with a learning difficulties.

In the interim, the YOT specialist sexual abuse worker started a programme of supervision with Tony, including the monitoring of his behaviour within the residential unit.

When a placement was identified in the local area, probation commenced delivery of the programme and provided feedback to the YOT. The YOT case manager continued to carry out weekly home visits to oversee risk and vulnerability, and to carry out specific exercises, identified with probation, to support his learning on the programme.

Outcomes

General Criterion:

3.2

Oliver, a 17 year old male, had served a four month DTO during which he attained qualifications in Food Hygiene/Safety and Industrial Cleaning.

On release, with the help of Connexions, he compiled his CV and circulated it direct to a number of hotels and restaurants in the area. He was successful in securing a position as a chef at a local hotel and told his YOT worker that, as a result, he was drinking less alcohol, not mixing with his previous peer group and now felt that he had structure in his life.

All names have been altered.


1. ASSESSMENT AND SENTENCE PLANNING

1.1 Risk of Harm to others (RoH):

General Criterion:

The assessment of RoH is comprehensive, accurate and timely, takes victims� issues into account and uses Asset and other relevant assessment tools. Plans are in place to manage RoH.

Score:

60%

Comment:

MODERATE improvement required

Strengths:

(1) A RoSH screening had been carried out and completed on time in 95% of cases. Where the need was indicated, a full RoSH analysis had been carried out and completed on time in 92% of the cases.

(2) An RMP had been completed in all of the nine relevant cases and carried out on time in all but one.

(3) The two MAPPA cases had been identified, classified appropriately and notified promptly to MAPPA.

Areas for improvement:

(1) The accuracy of RoSH screenings was judged to be insufficient in 53% of cases and the quality of RoSH analyses was judged to be insufficient in 54%. In 7 out of 12 relevant cases the risk to victims was not fully considered and previous behaviour and diversity issues had not been taken into account in six cases.

(2) RoSH analyses did not draw fully on other agencies previous assessments and/or information from victims in 78% of cases. We judged the classification of RoSH to be incorrect in 24% of cases with the majority of these being too low.

(3) Of the nine RMPs completed, five were judged to be of insufficient quality. The main areas where plans were considered deficient were the clarity of roles and responsibilities and taking account of victims� issues.

(4) Where there was no need for an RMP, RoH issues had not been recognised or acted upon in 78% and 77% of cases respectively.


(5) Details of assessment and management of RoSH were not communicated sufficiently well in 61% of cases. Management oversight of RoH assessment and RMPs was judged ineffective in 68% and 44% of cases respectively.

1.2 Likelihood of Reoffending:

General Criterion:

The assessment of the LoR is comprehensive, accurate and timely and uses Asset and other relevant assessment tools. Plans are in place to reduce LoR.

Score:

46%

Comment:


Strengths:

(1) Initial assessments of LoR had been carried out in 97% of cases; 84% of those were completed on time. There was active engagement with the child or young person to carry out the assessment in 81% of cases.

(2) There was an intervention plan or referral order contract in place and completed on time in all cases. The majority reflected sentencing purposes (81%) and included interventions to address thinking and behaviour (94%) and attitudes to offending (94%). Where relevant, interventions to address substance misuse (84%) and to support education (84%) were also included.

(3) During the custodial period, reviews of intervention plans were carried out at appropriate intervals in 89% of cases.


(1) Learning styles were not included in the initial assessment in 38% of cases and there was no active engagement with parents/carers in 39%. In 65% of cases, information from the questionnaire What do YOU think? was not taken into account. Contact with other agencies to inform the initial assessment was insufficient in a number of cases (children�s social care services 38%; ETE providers 32%; emotional/mental health services 68%; and substance misuse services 74%).

(2) Reviews of initial assessments and community intervention plans did not occur at the appropriate intervals in 32% and 51% of cases respectively.

(3) There were a number of reasons why intervention plans were judged to be deficient. They did not sufficiently address offending-related factors in 32% of cases. There were a significant number of plans where emotional/mental health, living arrangements and/or family and personal relationships were


identified as problem areas but not included in plans. Learning styles were not incorporated in 92% of cases and RMPS were not integrated in 84%. Safeguarding needs were not taken into account in 84% of cases and only 7% responded appropriately to diversity needs. Less than one-quarter of plans set realistic timescales and under half set relevant goals or focused on achievable change. Objectives were not prioritised according to RoH (85%), sequenced according to offending-related need (59%), sensitive to diversity issues (91%) and did not include appropriate Safeguarding work (84%). Victim�s issues were not taken into account in 35% of cases.

(4) Of the ten custodial sentence plans, four were not completed on time and three did not sufficiently address offending-related factors. Half did not include living arrangements and three did not address emotional/mental health issues. Less than half of the plans addressed attitudes to offending or motivation to change. A significant number did not integrate RMPs (83%) or take into account Safeguarding needs (71%) and none responded appropriately to diversity needs. None of the objectives were prioritised according to RoH or sequenced according to offending-related need and only 13% of custodial plans included appropriate Safeguarding work.

(5) The active engagement of children and young people and their parents/carers in the planning process was judged insufficient in 37% and 50% of cases respectively. The involvement in the planning process of other YOT workers and external agencies including children�s services, ETE providers, emotional/mental health and substance misuse services was also judged to be insufficient.

1.3 Safeguarding:

General Criterion:

The assessment of Safeguarding needs is comprehensive, accurate and timely and uses Asset and other relevant assessment tools. Plans are in place to manage Safeguarding and reduce vulnerability.

Score:

47%

Comment:


Strength:

(1) Vulnerability screenings were carried out in 97% of cases with 95% completed on time.



(1) We judged vulnerability screenings to be of insufficient quality in 66% of cases and found that Safeguarding needs had not been reviewed as appropriate in 50% of cases.

(2) Of the cases requiring a VMP, 67% did not have one. Of those that had been completed, 83% were not carried out on time, 89% were judged to be of insufficient quality and 83% did not inform interventions. In one out of eight custodial cases the secure establishment was not made aware of vulnerability issues prior to, or immediately on, sentence.

(3) There had been no YOT contribution to other plans relating to children�s welfare in 94% of cases.

(4) Management oversight of the assessment of vulnerability was judged to be ineffective in 88% of cases.

OVERALL SCORE for quality of Assessment and Sentence Planning work: 48%

COMMENTARY on Assessment and Sentence Planning as a whole:

The process of assessment and planning was largely understood and carried out by practitioners, however understanding of the wider issues and purpose was less embedded in the YOT and the quality was variable. Hence, Asset and sentence plans were in place but often did not take into account, or analyse, all relevant factors. Vulnerability was often seen as relating only to self-harm or suicide. RoSHs frequently concentrated on the current offence rather than the child or young person themselves, thereby ignoring previous offences or other behaviour. Standard, pre-printed referral order contracts typified the process oriented focus of the YOT.


2. DELIVERY AND REVIEW OF INTERVENTIONS

2.1 Protecting the public by minimising Risk of Harm to others (RoH):

General Criterion:

All reasonable actions have been taken to protect the public by keeping to a minimum the child or young person�s RoH.

Score:

43%

Comment:

DRASTIC improvement required

Strengths:

(1) Effective use was made of MAPPA in the two relevant cases; decisions were clearly recorded, followed through and acted upon and reviewed appropriately. The contribution to MAPPA of YOT staff in the community was effective. Case managers had also contributed effectively to multi-agency meetings in custody in 80% of cases.

(2) Appropriate resources had been allocated according to the assessed RoH in 84% of cases.


(1) The review of RoH was not carried out within the required timescales or following a significant change in 58% of cases. Changes in RoH factors were not anticipated wherever feasible (76%), identified swiftly (57%) or acted upon appropriately (52%). The contribution of case managers to multi-agency meetings in the community was effective in only 58% of cases.

(2) Purposeful home visits had not been carried out in accordance with the level of RoH and Safeguarding needs in 70% and 64% respectively.

(3) A full assessment of the safety of victims had not been carried out in 78% of cases and in 73% high priority had not been given to victim safety.

(4) Specific interventions to manage RoH were not delivered as planned in 59% of community cases and 67% of custodial cases; only one-quarter were reviewed following a significant change.

(5) Management oversight of RoH was judged to be ineffective in 74% and 60% of community and custodial cases respectively.


2.2 Reducing the Likelihood of Reoffending:

General Criterion:

The case manager coordinates and facilitates the structured delivery of all elements of the intervention plan.

Score:

58%

Comment:


Strengths:

(1) Delivered interventions in the community were designed to reduce reoffending (81%) and implemented in line with the intervention plan (73%). The YOT had been involved appropriately in the review of interventions in custody in 80% of relevant cases.

(2) Appropriate resources had been allocated in line with the assessed LoR in 76% of cases.


(1) Delivered interventions in the community were not appropriate to learning style (63%), of good quality (37%), sequenced appropriately (74%) or reviewed appropriately (74%). Diversity issues were not incorporated in 74% of cases.

(2) Children and young people in the community were not actively motivated and supported by YOT workers in 32% of cases. This rose to 40% of children and young people in custody. Parents/carers had not been actively engaged in the community in 47% of cases or during the custodial period in 33%.

2.3 Safeguarding the child or young person:

General Criterion:

All reasonable actions have been taken to safeguard and reduce the vulnerability of the child or young person.

Score:

39%

Comment:

DRASTIC improvement required


Strength:

(1) For children and young people in custody, YOT staff had worked with ETE providers to promote Safeguarding and well-being in all cases.


(1) Immediate action to Safeguard and protect the child or young person, or any other affected child or young person, had not been taken in all cases and necessary referrals to other agencies to ensure Safeguarding had not always been made.

(2) Work with other agencies to promote Safeguarding in the community had not been carried out in a number of cases (children�s social care services 55%, emotional/mental health services 70% and substance misuse services 48%). For those children and young people in custody the position was similar or worse.

(3) Work with other agencies to ensure continuity of provision in the transition from custody to community was not carried out sufficiently well in most cases.

(4) Specific interventions to promote Safeguarding in the community were identified and delivered in only 52% and 33% of relevant cases. This improved for those in custody but was still low at 71% identified and 43% delivered.

(5) The management oversight of Safeguarding and vulnerability was judged to be ineffective in 86% of cases in the community and in all relevant custodial cases.

(6) Staff promoted the well-being of children and young people throughout their sentence in only 61% of cases in the community and 40% of custodial cases.

OVERALL SCORE for quality of Delivery and Review of Interventions work: 47%

COMMENTARY on Delivery and Review of Interventions as a whole:

The geography of the area made meetings with children and young people difficult to manage in some instances. Hence all young people in Bridlington were seen at the office whilst, in other places, contact was all by home visit irrespective of age, ability to travel or suitability of home as a venue for carrying out offending behaviour work. Additionally, the YOT did not reimburse travel expenses to children and young people. We saw a significant number of orders with too many workers involved. It was difficult to accept that the child or young person or their parent/carers would be able to develop productive working relationships with so many staff. We saw some review meetings where the only professional present was the team leader who had had no previous contact with the child or young person. Again, it seemed to us that process was driving the work.


3. OUTCOMES

Our inspections include findings about initial outcomes, as set out in this section. In principle, this is the key section that specifies what supervision is achieving, but in practice this is by necessity just a snapshot of what has been achieved in only the first 6-9 months of supervision, and for which the evidence is sometimes only provisional.

3.1 Achievement of outcomes:

General Criterion:

Outcomes are achieved in relation to RoH, LoR and Safeguarding.

Score:

57%

Comment:



(1) We judged that RoH had not been effectively managed in 57% of cases. This was predominantly due to the assessment and/or planning being insufficient.

(2) Where a child or young person had not complied with the requirements of the sentence, enforcement action had been taken sufficiently well in only 60% of cases.

(3) In 71% of cases there had not been a reduction in risk factors linked to Safeguarding.

(4) All reasonable action to keep the child or young person safe had not been taken in 38% of cases. This was predominantly due to assessment and/or planning being insufficient and appropriate referrals not being made.


3.2 Sustaining outcomes:

General Criterion:

Outcomes are sustained in relation to RoH, LoR and Safeguarding.

Score:

47%

Comment:



(1) In half of the sampled cases full attention was not paid to community integration issues in either community or custody cases.

(2) Similarly, action to ensure that positive outcomes were sustainable had not been taken during the custodial phase in 80% of cases or in the community in 55% of cases.

OVERALL SCORE for quality of Outcomes work: 53%

Core

Cas

e In

spec

tion o

f yo

uth

offen

din

g w

ork

in E

ast

Rid

ing o

f York

shire

19

Ap

pen

dix

1:

Su

mm

ary

East

Rid

ing

of Y

orks

hire

CC

IG

ener

al C

riter

ion

Scor

es

60%

46%

47%

48%

43%

58%

39%

47%

57%

47%

53%

0%25

%50

%75

%10

0%

1.1:

Ris

k of

Har

m to

oth

ers

� as

sess

men

t and

pla

nnin

g

1.2:

Lik

elih

ood

of R

eoffe

ndin

g �

asse

ssm

ent a

nd p

lann

ing

1.3:

Saf

egua

rdin

g �

asse

ssm

ent a

nd p

lann

ing

Sect

ion

1: A

sses

smen

t & P

lann

ing

2.1:

Pro

tect

ing

the

Publ

ic b

y m

inim

isin

g R

isk

of H

arm

to o

ther

s

2.2:

Red

ucin

g th

e Li

kelih

ood

of R

eoffe

ndin

g

2.3:

Saf

egua

rdin

g th

e ch

ild o

r you

ng p

erso

n

Sect

ion

2: In

terv

entio

ns

3.1:

Ach

ieve

men

t of o

utco

mes

3.2:

Sus

tain

ing

outc

omes

Sect

ion

3: O

utco

mes


Appendix 2: Contextual information

Area

East Riding of Yorkshire YOT was located in the Yorkshire & the Humber region of England.

The area had a population of 314,113 as measured in the Census 2001, 10.2% of which were aged 10 to 17 years old. This was slightly lower than the average for England/Wales, which was 10.4%.

The population of East Riding of Yorkshire was predominantly white British (98.8%). The population with a black and minority ethnic heritage (1.2%) was below the average for England/Wales of 8.7%.

Reported offences for which children and young people aged 10 to 17 years received a pre-court disposal or a court disposal in 2008/2009, at 32 per 1,000, were below the average for England/Wales of 46.

YOT

The YOT boundaries were within those of the Humberside police and probation areas. The East Riding of Yorkshire PCT covered the area.

The YOT was located within the Housing and Public Protection section of the East Riding of Yorkshire Council Directorate of Environment and Neighbourhood Services. It was managed by the YOT Manager.

The YOT Management Board was chaired by the Director of Children, Family and Adult Services.

The YOT Headquarters and the operational work of the YOT was based in Skirlaugh. ISSP was provided by the team.

YJB National Indicator Performance Judgement

The YJB National Indicator Performance Judgement available at the time of the inspection was dated 10 June 2010.

There were five judgements on reoffending, first time entrants, use of custody, accommodation, employment, education and training.

On these dimensions, the YJB scored East Riding of Yorkshire YOT 14 out of a maximum of 28 (for English YOTs); this score was judged by the YJB to be performing adequately.

East Riding of Yorkshire YOT�s reoffending performance was judged by the YJB to be static and was close to similar �family group� YOTs.

For a description of how the YJB�s performance measures are defined, please refer to:

http://www.yjb.gov.uk/en-gb/practitioners/Monitoringperformance/Youthjusticeplanning/

Core

Cas

e In

spec

tion o

f yo

uth

offen

din

g w

ork

in E

ast

Rid

ing o

f York

shire

21

Ap

pen

dix

3a:

Insp

ect

ion

data

ch

art

Cas

e Sa

mpl

e: E

thni

city

3800

Whi

te

Bla

ck &

Min

ority

Eth

nic

Oth

er G

roup

s

Cas

e Sa

mpl

e: S

ente

nce

Type

9

19

10

Firs

t Tie

r

Com

mun

ityS

uper

visi

on

Cus

tody

Cas

e Sa

mpl

e: R

isk

of H

arm

4

34

Hig

h/V

ery

Hig

hR

OH

Not

Hig

h R

OH

Cas

e Sa

mpl

e: G

ende

r

31

7

Mal

e

Fem

ale

Cas

e Sa

mpl

e: A

ge a

t sta

rt o

f Sen

tenc

e

11

26

1

Und

er 1

6 ye

ars

16-1

7 ye

ars

18+

year

s


Appendix 3b: Inspection data

Fieldwork for this inspection was undertaken in October 2010.

The inspection consisted of:

◈ examination of practice in a sample of cases, normally in conjunction with the case manager or other representative

◈ evidence in advance

◈ questionnaire responses from children and young people, and victims

We have also seen YJB performance data and assessments relating to this YOT.

Appendix 4: Role of HMI Probation and Code of Practice

Information on the Role of HMI Probation and Code of Practice can be found on our website:

http://www.justice.gov.uk/inspectorates/hmi-probation

The Inspectorate is a public body. Anyone wishing to comment on an inspection, a report or any other matter falling within its remit should write to:

HM Chief Inspector of Probation 2nd Floor, Ashley House

2 Monck Street London, SW1P 2BQ


Appendix 5: Glossary

ASB/ASBO Antisocial behaviour/Antisocial Behaviour Order

Asset A structured assessment tool based on research and developed by the Youth Justice Board looking at the young person�s offence, personal circumstances, attitudes and beliefs which have contributed to their offending behaviour

CAF Common Assessment Framework: a standardised assessment of a child or young person�s needs and of how those needs can be met. It is undertaken by the lead professional in a case, with contributions from all others involved with that individual

CAMHS Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services: part of the National Health Service, providing specialist mental health and behavioural services to children and young people up to at least 16 years of age

Careworks One of the two electronic case management systems for youth offending work currently in use in England and Wales. See also YOIS+

CRB Criminal Records Bureau

DTO Detention and Training Order: a custodial sentence for the young

Estyn HM Inspectorate for Education and Training in Wales

ETE Education, Training and Employment: work to improve an individual�s learning, and to increase their employment prospects

FTE Full-time equivalent

HM Her Majesty�s

HMIC HM Inspectorate of Constabulary

HMI Prisons HM Inspectorate of Prisons

HMI Probation HM Inspectorate of Probation

Interventions; constructive and restrictive interventions

Work with an individual that is designed to change their offending behaviour and/or to support public protection. A constructive intervention is where the primary purpose is to reduce Likelihood of Reoffending. A restrictive intervention is where the primary purpose is to keep to a minimum the individual�s Risk of Harm to others. Example: with a sex offender, a constructive intervention might be to put them through an accredited sex offender programme; a restrictive intervention (to minimise their Risk of Harm) might be to monitor regularly and meticulously their accommodation, their employment and the places they frequent, imposing and enforcing clear restrictions as appropriate to each case. NB. Both types of intervention are important

ISSP Intensive Supervision and Surveillance Programme: this intervention is attached to the start of some orders and licences and provides initially at least 25 hours programme contact including a substantial proportion of employment, training and education

LoR Likelihood of Reoffending. See also constructive Interventions

LSC Learning and Skills Council

LSCB Local Safeguarding Children Board: set up in each local authority (as a result of the Children Act 2004) to coordinate and ensure the effectiveness of the multi-agency work to safeguard and promote the welfare of children in that locality.


MAPPA Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements: where probation, police, prison and other agencies work together locally to manage offenders who pose a higher Risk of Harm to others

Ofsted Office for Standards in Education, Children's Services and Skills: the Inspectorate for those services in England (not Wales, for which see Estyn)

PCT Primary Care Trust

PPO Prolific and other Priority Offender: designated offenders, adult or young, who receive extra attention from the Criminal Justice System agencies

Pre-CAF This is a simple �Request for Service� in those instances when a Common Assessment Framework may not be required. It can be used for requesting one or two additional services, e.g. health, social care or educational

PSR Pre-sentence report: for a court

RMP Risk management plan: a plan to minimise the individual�s Risk of Harm

RoH Risk of Harm to others. See also restrictive Interventions

�RoH work�, or �Risk of Harm work�

This is the term generally used by HMI Probation to describe work to protect the public, primarily using restrictive interventions, to keep to a minimum the individual�s opportunity to behave in a way that is a Risk of Harm to others

RoSH Risk of Serious Harm: a term used in Asset. HMI Probation prefers not to use this term as it does not help to clarify the distinction between the probability of an event occurring and the impact/severity of the event. The term Risk of Serious Harm only incorporates �serious� impact, whereas using �Risk of Harm� enables the necessary attention to be given to those offenders for whom lower impact/severity harmful behaviour is probable

Safeguarding The ability to demonstrate that all reasonable action has been taken to keep to a minimum the risk of a child or young person coming to harm.

SIFA Screening Interview for Adolescents: Youth Justice Board approved mental health screening tool for specialist workers

SQIFA Screening Questionnaire Interview for Adolescents: Youth Justice Board approved mental health screening tool for YOT workers

VMP Vulnerability management plan: a plan to safeguard the well-being of the individual under supervision

YJB Youth Justice Board for England and Wales

YOI Young Offenders Institution: a Prison Service institution for young people remanded in custody or sentenced to custody

YOIS+ Youth Offending Information System: one of the two electronic case management systems for youth offending work currently in use in England and Wales. See also Careworks

YOS/T Youth Offending Service/Team

Date post:	18-Sep-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	5 times
Download:	0 times

East Riding of Yorkshire - Justice Inspectorates · 6 Core Case Inspection of youth offending work...

Documents