An inspection of the Offender Management Model
| Date | 01 March 2009 |
| Published date | 01 March 2009 |
| DOI | 10.1177/02645505090560010302 |
| Author | Emma Cluley |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
An inspection of the Offender Management Model
This report details the findings of a joint inspection by the Inspectorates of Proba-
tion and Prisons into the application of the Offender Management Model (OMM)
in London. This joint inspection is the first where there has been a Director of
Offender Management in post. The OMM began being implemented in April 2005,
with the focus being on community sentences and post release licences. Phase II
started in November 2006 and included offenders over the age of 18 who were
serving determinate sentences and who posed a high or very high risk of harm,
or were identified as prolific and other priority offenders (PPO). Phase III extended
the model to include those sentenced to Imprisonment for Public Protection. This
phase requires the probation areas to appoint an offender manager (OM) to
manage the whole sentence from the start of the custodial period. The inspection
included meeting with OMU practitioners, operational managers and strategic
managers. A voluntary survey of a representative sample of the prison population
was carried out.
Communication between prison and probation was generally good and there
was a commitment to the objectives of offender management. However there were
problems with the quality of the communication including the use of video-link
facilities between prison and probation, and prison OMU staff reported not being
able to get details of MAPPA (Multi-agency Public Protection Arrangements) levels
from OMs swiftly. The frequency of contact with the offender manager and the
offender was often low. Some offenders did not have allocated offender managers
and offender supervisors (OS) required more training, particularly in the area of
public protection. The attendance of the OM to sentence planning meetings varied.
Initiatives to develop the quality of sentence planning were evidenced, although
the inspection found little evidence of offenders being actively involved with their
sentence planning. OMU staff being able to access the case recording system
(delius) helped strengthen communications and information sharing.
Induction processes were identified as informative and that they were address-
ing practical issues, including helping the offender maintain contact with family.
The contact between the OS and the offender become infrequent as the sentence
progressed.
The Offender Assessment System (OASys) is a key assessment tool and critical
to the joint sentence management of offenders by prison and probation. Delays
with receiving the initial assessment were found and so could not be used as part
of the induction process in prison. The report highlights that assessments from
other prison staff and other agencies were not woven into the OASys and that
offenders’ general engagement was given limited attention.
The survey of 65 prisoners identified that 10 were under age 21, 24 were from
BME communities, six were foreign nationals, three had sentences under 12 months,
15 were recalled to prison and 18 identified themselves has having a disability.
These figures indicate the diverse nature of the population. The inspection found
that diversity issues tended to focus solely on race equality issues.
The role out of the OMM has largely focused upon those offenders who present
the greatest risk of harm or prolific offenders, thus public protection is a clear
Probation Journal
72 56(1)
To continue reading
Request your trial