Thematic review of Rehabilitation Activity Requirements
| DOI | 10.1177/0264550517710873a |
| Author | Emma Cluley |
| Date | 01 June 2017 |
| Published date | 01 June 2017 |
| Subject Matter | Research & reports |
Thematic review of Rehabilitation Activity Requirements
HMI Probation have undertaken a thematic review of Rehabilitation Activity
Requirements (RARs) following identifying concerns from other inspections. Reha-
bilitation Activity Requirements (RARs) can be imposed as part of a Community
Order (CO) or a Suspended Sentence Order (SSO). This element of the sentence is
specifically focused upon reducing potential re-offending. RARs became available
to the courts in England and Wales in April 2015 following the implementation of
the Offender Rehabilitation Act 2014. During April–June 2016, 19,021 community
or suspended sentences were made, of which 36 per cent included a RAR. This is a
44 per cent increase from April–June 2015.
This thematic review inspected 72 cases at sentencing stage and 12 cases at
management stage. Staff were interviewed and processes observed, including
visiting projects that were involved with RAR delivery.
Court liaison – The number of days imposed for a RAR did not correlate with the
level of seriousness of offending. This was partly because there was no guidance
about how to determine the appropriate number of days and there was low
awareness of the projects available and the time required to undertake an inter-
vention with projects. The inspection found that the number of days imposed was
slightly higher than those recommended in PSRs. There was potential over-use of the
RARs over accredited programmes, and this was attributed to workload pressures
and the number of assessments undertaken on the day, limiting the extent of the
assessment process.
Management of RARs: Planning and delivery – The purpose of RARs was to
enable a more detailed assessment after sentence following allocation to the NPS or
CRC. It was generally found that these post-sentence assessments were insufficient.
The reasons for offending were identified correctly, but the focus of the work was
generally influenced by activities that were available rather than being directly
linked to offending factors. On occasion, factors that were not related to offending
were prioritized and in some cases no activities were planned that addressed
offending. Public protection was not sufficiently addressed within the use of the RAR.
The best sentence planning incorporating RARs was found in standalone docu-
ments, and it was viewed that the standard assessment tool (OASys) was not con-
ducive to reflecting the activity and number of days. There was low discipline with
setting reviews, planning and poor management of the RARs during the sentence, to
the extent that, in some cases, the RAR activity was not likely to be completed by the
end of the sentence.
Provision of RARs: Strategy and content – It was found that RARs were being used
in a similar way to supervision and activity requirements, with over 50 per cent of
the RAR days being delivered by the responsible officer. The resources being used
internally to develop group or one-to-one packages were low, and so implemen-
tation was reliant on the skills of individual officers, with no library of working
materials available. It was found that CRCs were reliant on external providers to
deliver RARs; however, not all provision was yet in place. Some examples of
creative, well thought-out and useful provision were identified, although this was
Research & reports 157
To continue reading
Request your trial