Going to Hell in a Handcart 2

Following on from yesterday's post regarding new plans for PSR's in London, readers might be interested to see what London Napo's thoughts on it are:-

Thank you for the opportunity to provide our comments on the new PSR strategy for London in regard to the production of Pre Sentence Reports across London area.

We have consulted with some of our members both in Courts and in field teams. Overall, the initial response has been positive, particularly with the general principle of only completing a full PSR & OASys on high risk of harm, Scheduled (15) cases. We welcome that there is a recognition of increasing demands on field, in terms of caseloads, Parole Reports, Oral Hearings and the numerous additional tasks associated with case management.

We appreciate that the proposals are now live, and due to be rolled out in London imminently. We are also aware that this model appears to be the direction of travel for the NPS.

We are of the view that in order for the strategy to be effective the following should be fully considered:

• Resource implications:

Correct levels of staffing will be required in the new reconfigured Court teams in order to ensure efficient and effective service delivery. We understand that with the greater use of Short Format Reports, especially in the Magistrates' Court, should be supplemented with good quality training in report writing and risk assessments skills. We appreciate that there are already experienced members of Court staff who have the skills and knowledge to assist with such training.

• We welcome the distinction, and the provisions provided for cases of domestic violence. We however have some concerns that the expectation is for them to be completed in five working days. Thought should be given to key partnership agencies who are required to provide us with information in a timely fashion. Suffice to say that all key service level agreements will need to be revisited. We are aware that some key agencies are finding it difficult to sustain their service level agreement with the NPS. For example, safeguarding checks will need to be completed fairly quickly this has not always been the case in some courts. Given the amount of time allocated for the preparation of these new reports, we can only surmise that our members will continue to be under stress. We would hope the model allows flexibility in such cases.

• We understand that there is essentially no change to the way high risk of harm (dangerousness assessments) are allocated and understand that these reports will be prepared by qualified Probation Officers.

• We also are of the view that there should be clear guidance on cases which fall outside of the high risk of harm dangerousness assessments but requiring a full PSR and OASys, particularly those involving mental health, personality disorders, chronic substance misuse and domestic violence, not necessarily deemed to be high risk but cases displaying complex offending behaviour needs.

• We would like to be assured that any new templates are AT compatible.

Overall we welcome this strategy with professional judgement central to the decision making process. We also note that the E3 Blue Print is recommending dedicated court teams and appropriate administrative staff which appear to be in line with this new strategy.

Going to Hell in a Handcart

With the 'marketisation' of probation, everything's now about the money and here we have another step towards eroding the PSR, but "HMCTS and Magistrates welcome the direction of travel" apparently. Would that be going to hell in a handcart I wonder?  

Strategy for the production of Pre-Sentence Reports across NPS London

The revised Probation Instruction ‘Determining Reports for Court’ supports the national move towards producing a greater number of Pre-Sentence Reports as ‘Short Format Reports’. This is due to be published Autumn 2015, NPS London is working towards this model of practice. The direction of travel was previously set by PI 05/2011 and the new PI builds on practice that is already underway.

The PI will change the language of Pre-Sentence Reports introducing the use of Short Format Reports (SFRs) to enable the NPS to increase the efficiency with which reports are provided to Court and to allow the flexibility to use staff resources to meet the demands from Court under the Transforming Summary Justice (TSJ) agenda. SFRs replace both fast delivery reports (FDRs) and oral reports. The expectation is that the report will be delivered in the most effective manner to support safe sentencing. The current FDR and oral Report templates should continue to be used in the interim.

HMCTS and Magistrates welcome the direction of travel of the PI. The demands on Courts are increasing and they want to receive succinct reports delivered orally on the day where possible. Only where the Court requires a dangerousness assessment or in cases of very high risk should a standard delivery report be provided and a full OASys assessment. Prompt sentencing is also in many cases better for victims as it facilitates a speedy resolution to what can be protracted proceedings.

These developments take into account the following interdependencies:

• changes in Court practices
• demands of TSJ and better case management at Crown Courts; the changes in the nature of the NPS workload
• increasing demands on field PO’s in terms of caseload, parole reports, oral hearings and additional tasks
• use of standard delivery reports and their place within the contractual arrangements between NPS and CRC;
• the purpose of sentencing as set out in the new Probation Instruction 
• the balance of the work between pre and post sentence elements of an offender journey.

Nationally, London remains the most expensive among NPS Divisions in the production of reports for Court. Part of the rationale for this work is to reduce the cost of producing pre-sentence reports at Court. While this cannot be achieved overnight, this is an objective we are working towards over the next 3 months.

The following set of principles are to be applied across London Courts:

1. Courts to make every effort to complete reports on the day as an oral report.

2. Where the report can only be delivered in writing, because additional third party information is required or as a result of sensitivity around the case, this should be undertaken as a short format report in 0 – 5 working days.

3.This approach applies to both Magistrates and Crown Courts. All Courts are required to complete as much work as possible as ‘on the day’ reports. Additionally Courts are required to work as a national organisation and all work should be prioritised, regardless of the address of the offender.

4. Only those offences which require a dangerousness assessment or are high risk of harm, are done with a full Layer 3 OASys and in SDR format. All other adjourned reports are completed as short format reports with a Layer 1 OASys and an RSR/CAS, including a full ROSH analysis where one is triggered.

5. If a Layer 3 OASys assessment already exists, a Layer 3 assessment should be pulled through selecting "PSR other offences committed" as the purpose; updating Section 1 (Offending Information/OGRS), Section 2 (Offence Analysis), RoSH screening and the RoSH full analysis (if required).

6. Where the enablers for a report on the day are not present (i.e. DV call out information), and a report needs to be adjourned, where appropriate the report will be written as a short format report for workload management purposes, with additional time allocated if needed.

7. NPS Court staff must initiate safeguarding checks regarding children and adults where appropriate. It may not be required to adjourn sentence until the outcome of the checks is known as safeguarding work continues ihto the supervision of the order, the determining factor will be the offence type and if the outcome could significantly alter the sentence. The Court should be made aware if information is not yet received and a record made in CAS.

8. If an officer considers that a report merits a full SDR with associated OASys, they should consult their SPO. These should be reserved for high-risk cases.

9. Reports continue to be completed by the appropriate grade of staff (i.e. PO’s for HIGH risk cases, Sex Offences, Serious Violence – the guidelines for this do not change from those currently in place).

10. For this approach to be effective and for providers to receive the necessary information they need to manage their cases we MUST ensure that where triggered in the CAS or where the offender is deemed MEDIUM risk of harm a FULL RISK OF SERIOUS HARM (Risk Sections R1 to R10 in OASys) is completed. Check the OASys override (in the screening) – i.e. the bit that makes defensible decision not to complete full analysis.

The allocation of Reports to Sessional report authors should follow the same principles as outlined in this document and attract the appropriate remuneration.

Longer term position:

➢ The PI for Report Determination is due out later this year and will reinforce this position.
➢ There will be a standard nDelius report template for use in all Courts nationally. This will be one template which can be adapted for use as an oral, short format. The current template in nDelius is sufficient at present for use across NPS London. Standard delivery reports will continue to be completed in OASys.
➢ Community cases allocated to the NPS continue to require an OASys Initial Sentence Plan within 10 days of attendance at an initial appointment.
➢ Resourcing of Courts remains a key priority within NPS London and across the NPS.