Mike Cooper, Senior Probation Service Officer firstname.lastname@example.org
1.1 Multi-agency monthly case conferencing takes place in all
divisions / districts. The purpose is for partners to assess the suitability of
offenders for inclusion in the PPO/IOM cohort. New referrals and current PPO/IOM
cases should be reviewed against planned interventions in order to manage the
risk of re-offending across the three strands.
Although similar case discussion takes place across
the meetings, some guidance may be of use for chairs and partnership members to
ensure a consistent approach, particularly when the chair is absent and this
role is undertaken by a deputy or newly appointed chair.
1.2 A model of good multi-agency risk management exists in MAPPA
case conferencing. Some of this good practice may assist the development of
PPO/IOM case conferencing and help to ensure some consistency in each district
hub / BCU.
recent developments underpin the need for a consistent, transparent process and
a clear audit trail where all partnership members are aware of their individual
and joint responsibilities.
This does not
mean to imply any criticism of current good practice, but some inconsistencies
exist in what should be a similar, robust process across West
1.3 Why review the current process? These opinions are my own having
visited each district on more than one occasion. I have previous knowledge of
MAPPA case conferencing and investigating Serious Further Offences (SFOs). My
findings are as follows:
At present some of the case
discussion is not focussed and evidenced against planned interventions in each
strand. Sometimes the discussion can appear too anecdotal. The process and
accountability needs to robust to withstand scrutiny, particularly if subjected
to a Serious Case Review; Serious Further Offence etc.
The means by which the
panned intervention(s) are recorded and reviewed are not consistent in each
The PPO/IOM ‘refresh’ and
separate DYO case conferencing will allow time for fewer cases to be discussed.
The agreed 16 week review process (which ties in with OASys reviews) should
facilitate planned review dates across the cohort. The agreed date will assist in the attendance
by the Offender Manager or their representative, and relevant agencies
delivering the intervention.
16 week reviews are the
maximum review period (apart from longer-term custody cases) and significant
changes in risk or strand will result in a case review request to the SPOC
prior to the 16 week point.
Where commissioned 3rd
sector are the designated case manager they should have equal partnership
status. Attendance from their manager at the meeting should be the norm to
All partners should be
encouraged to nominate offenders for consideration. At present the majority are
identified by Police intelligence / arrest information and by the Probation
Service. A clear, multi-agency referral route needs to be consistently in
Licence conditions should
be discussed and agreed across the partnership 3 months prior to release (5
months prior to release for potential HDC cases, if the time frame allows).
Licence Conditions should be proportionate to the level of risk posed and seek
to balance ‘control’ and ‘rehabilitative’ measures.
Transfer of cases between
BCUs needs clarity regarding the ‘home’ address. The transfer of which should
only been approved when the address is stable.
Multiple BCU / level 2 offenders need to have consistent and unambiguous
ownership in the home BCU.
support should be in place, ideally one person per BCU/case conference, and
this person acts as a SPOC. Clear
timelines for conveying information to agencies in order for them to consider
the cases prior to the meetings should be consistent.
attendance should be encouraged, particularly from ASBO unit, housing, ETE and
treatment providers as core members. Individual partner agencies should be
invited to attend where they are involved in delivering the intervention. The
‘named’ person against the intervention should facilitate this.
A number of different forms
and minutes/actions are in use for recording case information/progress/reviews
etc. These should be standardised, possibly on the model devised by NE Leeds.
A clear, unambiguous,
Confidentiality Statement should be in place. It is not envisaged that all
PPO/IOM conference attendees sign this at this stage, but it should be
distributed at the start of the meeting.
PPO/IOM Case Conferencing Aide Memoir for Chair
Introduction by Chair
Offender Information – new PPO/IOM referrals for consideration
Offender details – age, offence and current CJ status.
Chair ascertains nominating agency and who is to contribute to case management. Notes who wish to speak.
Current situation of the offender – agency and strand.
Case discussion and agreement to register as PPO/IOM offender.
Planned intervention(s) to manage risk – identification of lead case manager and who is responsible for the intervention(s).
Review date set and recorded.
Review Process – standard 16 weeks
Introduction of case, strand and lead agency review period.
Revised multi-agency scoring.
Summary of previous intervention(s).
Case manager or their representative invited to summarise progress against agreed interventions.
Interventions reviewed and further objectives set.
Registration and strand appropriate to manage the risk of re-offending
Cases that fall outside 3 or 4 above (recent
arrests/intelligence; changes in risk etc that fall outside 16 week period)
Clearly not all cases will
slot into these time frames for selection and reviews. Therefore provision for discussion of these cases should be made following the bullet points in 3 and 4 above.
Again a review date must be set against what interventions are agreed.
Prison Releases – currently registered PPO/IOM cases
Cases should be discussed three months prior to release to ensure informed risk management upon release. 5 months in HDC cases, if sentence length allows
Prison intelligence should be included from the Offender Supervisor (via Probation representative) for PPOs and/or the seconded prison staff.
Licence Conditions should be agreed and noted in the minutes. They should seek to balance ‘control’ and ‘rehabilitation’ and be proportionate to manage the risk and facilitate rehabilitation.
The majority of PPO/IOM will be ‘standard’ 24 hour recall. If by exception a 2 hour recall is agreed at the meeting, this will need authorisation from the district Assistant Chief Officer (ACO) for Probation. The minutes need to reflect those exceptional ‘emergency’ recall cases.
PPO/IOM Case Conferencing Confidentiality Statement
In working with offenders, victims and other members
of the public all agencies have agreed boundaries of confidentiality.
information contained and discussed in PPO/IOM case conferencing meetings
respects those boundaries of confidentiality and is shared under an
The case is discussed where the circumstances of the presenting risk to the public outweighs those rights of confidentiality.
The PPO/IOM meetings are closed under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 under one or more of the following reasons:
(a) Investigations and proceedings by Public Authorities (S.30(1) (B)
(b) Health and Safety (S.38)
(c) Personal Information (S.40)
(d) Information provided in confidence (S.41)
The discussion and decision of the meeting take account of Article 8.2 European Court of Human Rights, with particular reference to:
(e) Public Safety
(f) The prevention of crime and disorder
(g) The protection of health and morals
(h) The protection of the rights and freedoms of others.
documentation will be marked ‘Restricted’
The minutes of PPO/IOM meetings should
not be photocopied or the contents shared outside the meeting without the
agreement of the Chair. Printed minutes should be kept in the RESTRICED or
CONFIDENTIAL section of agency files.
disclosure within your agency is felt necessary to manage the presenting risk,
permission should be sought from the PPO/IOM chair and a decision made as to
what information can be shared