Create your own Brochure

[Skip to content]

Search our Site
Sunday 19 November 2017
.

West Yorkshire Integrated Offender Management PPO/IOM Case Conferencing Guidance

Version: KR/P/4/1.0

Author: West Yorkshire Police

October 2009

 

 

Contacts

Mike Cooper, Senior Probation Service Officer michael.cooper@westyorkshire.pnn.police.uk

 

 

Introduction

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.

 

Furthermore, 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 Yorkshire.

 

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 district.

  • 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 ensure consistency.

  • 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 place.

  • 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.

  • Dedicated administrative 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.

  • Greater partnership 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

  • Purpose of the meeting.

  • Participants’ introduction (role and agency).

  • Apologies and those invited by not in attendance noted in minutes.

 

 

Confidentiality Statement

  • All attendees agree to abide by confidentiality statement (printed copy circulated at the meeting)

 

 

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.

 

The information contained and discussed in PPO/IOM case conferencing meetings respects those boundaries of confidentiality and is shared under an understanding that:

 

  • 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.

 

All 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.

 

If further 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