UNCLASSIFIED
SENTENCE PLANNING
This instruction applies to :-
Reference :-
Prisons
Providers of Community Services
Probation Trusts
Issue Date
Effective Date
PSI 41/2012
AI 10/2012
PI 21/2012
Expiry Date
17 December 2012
17 December 2012
16 December 2016
Issued on the
authority of
For action by
NOMS Agency Board
All staff responsible for the sentence planning and management of
offenders
All prisons
Contracted Prisons*
Probation Trusts
Contract Managers in Probation Trusts
NOMS managed services
Providers of community services
* If this box is marked, then in this document the term Governor also applies to Directors
of Contracted Prisons
Instruction type
For information
Provide a summary of
the policy aim and the
reason for its
development / revision
Service specification support/service improvement
Offender Managers, Offender Supervisors
This Instruction sets out the expectations for staff with regard to
sentence planning and highlights the mandatory nature of these
processes for all offenders, and particularly those offenders subject to
indeterminate sentences or the new extended determinate sentence,
introduced by the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders
(LASPO) Act 2012.
Contact
Miranda Wilkinson - Offender Assessment and Management Section ,
Offender Management and Public Protection Group
Miranda.wilkinson@noms.gsi.gov.uk - Tel 0300 047 5580
Associated documents PSI 14/2012 – PI 09/2012 - Implementation of the Service Specification
for “Manage the Sentence: Pre and Post Release from Custody”
(transitional version)
National Standards for the Management of Offenders (2011)
Audit/monitoring: Deputy Directors of Custody, Controllers and NOMS Senior Community
Managers will monitor compliance with the mandatory actions set out in this Instruction.
For NOMS managed Attendance Centres the Directorate of Probation and Contracted Services will
monitor compliance with the mandatory actions set out in this Instruction.
Providers of community services must demonstrate compliance with these actions when required
by contract managers from the Directorate of Probation and Contracted Services.
UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED
Page 2
CONTENTS
Hold down ‘Ctrl’ and click on section titles below to follow link
For reference by:
Section
Subject
1
Executive Summary
1.2
Background
1.7
Desired outcomes
1.8
Application
1.9
Mandatory actions
1.11
Resource impact
2
Sentence Planning
2.3
Foreign national offenders
2.4
Offender engagement
2.6
Setting objectives and activities
2.11
Sequencing
2.14
Appropriate activities
2.16
Sentence plan reviews
2.21
Termination
PSI 41/2012
AI 10/2012
PI 21/2012
Probation and prison staff,
and providers of community
services, involved in the
sentence planning and
management of offenders.
UNCLASSIFIED
Probation and prison staff
involved in the sentence
planning and management of
offenders.
ISSUE DATE 17/12/2012
UNCLASSIFIED
Page 3
1.
Executive Summary
1.1
This Instruction sets out the expectations for staff with regard to sentence planning. It
provides clarity regarding requirements in relation to the sentence planning process, and
highlights the mandatory nature of these processes particularly as they apply to offenders
subject to indeterminate sentences or the new extended determinate sentence, introduced
by the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders (LASPO) Act 2012.
Background
1.2
All offenders subject to a community order or a custodial sentence (where the offender will
be supervised on licence on release) are required to have an assessment of their
criminogenic needs and associated risks, and a sentence plan, constructed to address the
identified needs and risks. These must be reviewed throughout the sentence. Since the
introduction of the service specifications for ‘Manage the Community Order/Suspended
Sentence Order’, and ‘Manage the Custodial Sentence’, the responsibilities and
requirements of this process have been clarified. Depending on the type of sentence the
offender is serving, the person responsible for overseeing the process and producing and
reviewing the assessment and sentence plan will either be the community-based Offender
Manager or the custody-based Offender Supervisor. For establishments holding young
people, training plans will be developed and will be carried out by a person deemed
appropriate by the Governor. Paragraph 1.9 explains further below.
1.3
Whenever this Instruction refers to a ‘plan’ or a ‘review’ it is referring to the process of
information gathering and discussion, involving the offender and others, as well as the
written plan or review that has resulted, as part of an OASys update. In cases where the
offender is assessed as posing a risk of serious harm that is medium or higher, a risk
management plan will also be required and should be reviewed.
1.4
It is essential that this process involves the offender him/herself, so that the offender is
engaged in the process and therefore involved in considering what actions might be
needed to reduce the risk s/he poses, both in terms of causing serious harm and further
offending.1
1.5
The LASPO Act introduces two new extended determinate sentences, one for those aged
18 or over at conviction and one for those under 18 at conviction. Those sentences replace
the Sentence of Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPP) and existing extended sentences
(EPP). Depending on the offence committed and/or the length of the sentence imposed,
offenders sentenced to the extended determinate sentence will either be released
automatically at the two-thirds point of the custodial term or subject to parole board review.
For this second group, the offender will be able to apply to the Parole Board for release on
licence at the two-thirds point of the custodial term. Release may be granted at this stage or
following further review by the Parole Board. It is important to note, however, that the
offender will automatically be released at the end of their custodial term if they have not
been released previously.
1.6
It is therefore particularly important for this group of offenders, and others subject to
discretionary release, to engage with the sentence planning and review process. This is in
order to demonstrate their understanding of what they will be required to undertake, their
willingness or ability to change and show they have taken steps to reduce their risk of
causing serious harm through reoffending during their sentence.
1
There is a body of research literature related to desistance from offending which provides evidence in support of this
approach. For further reference see McNeil & Weaver, 2010
PSI 41/2012
AI 10/2012
PI 21/2012
UNCLASSIFIED
ISSUE DATE 17/12/2012
UNCLASSIFIED
Page 4
Desired outcomes
1.7
This Instruction has been issued to ensure that staff are aware of:

the requirement to complete an assessment and sentence plan for all offenders
(except those sentenced to less than 12 months where there will not be supervision
on licence, and those with a single curfew or exclusion requirement); and,

the requirement to engage offenders in this process; and,

the requirement to review sentence plans for progress against objectives and to
amend actions or interventions in the plan where needed.
Application
1.8
Section 2 of this Instruction provides guidance on the sentence planning process.
Mandatory actions
1.9
Contract Managers in Probation Trusts and NOMS and Governors in prisons must ensure
that staff are aware of, and comply with, the mandatory requirements which are
summarised below:

All offenders subject to a suspended sentence order, community order (except
those with a single curfew or exclusion requirement), or who will be subject to
supervision on licence (i.e. those serving a custodial sentence of 12 months or
more, and 18-20 year olds sentenced to less than 12 months) must have a
sentence plan, based on an assessment of their risks and offending-related needs.
For young people who meet these criteria, the training plan must retain its emphasis
on education as well as reducing risk.

Community-based Offender Managers must produce the assessment and sentence
plan and oversee delivery for the following groups of offenders:
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
v.

Custody-based Offender Supervisors must produce the assessment and sentence
plan and oversee delivery for the following groups of offenders:
i.
ii.
PSI 41/2012
AI 10/2012
PI 21/2012
All those subject to suspended sentence orders and community orders (NB
whilst a sentence plan is not required for single requirement curfew and
exclusion, risk information should be obtained prior to sentence and sent to
Electronic Monitoring suppliers)
Those subject to IPP sentences
Those subject to extended determinate sentences introduced by the LASPO
Act 2012
PPO offenders serving custodial sentences
Those serving custodial sentences who are assessed as posing a high or
very high risk of causing serious harm to others
Those subject to life sentences
Those subject to a determinate sentence of 12 months or more, where the
offender is assessed as posing a low or medium risk of causing serious
harm to others
UNCLASSIFIED
ISSUE DATE 17/12/2012
UNCLASSIFIED
1.10
Page 5

Unpaid work providers must produce the assessment and sentence plan and
oversee delivery for offenders subject to a community order with a single
requirement for unpaid work

Offenders must be actively engaged in the sentence planning process

Assessments and sentence plans must be reviewed during the course of, and at the
end of, the sentence whenever there is a significant change that impacts on the risk
of re-offending and/or serious harm posed by the offender, which may include
where a transfer has taken place, the offender is due to be released from custody,
and/or one or more objectives in the sentence plan has been achieved.
Attendance Centre regional managers must ensure that that staff are aware of, and comply
with, the mandatory requirements which are summarised below:

All offenders subject to a community order with a stand-alone attendance centre
requirement must have a sentence plan

Offenders must be actively engaged in the sentence planning process

The sentence plan must be reviewed, wherever possible with the offender,
whenever there is a significant change in circumstances and/or following breach
action if the requirement to attend continues.
Resource Impact
1.11
The arrangements set out in this instruction are already in place and defined in the National
Standards for the Management of Offenders (2011) Practice Framework and Prison
Service Instruction 14/2012. This instruction re-affirms the existing requirements and draws
attention to the particular requirement for comprehensive sentence plans for those subject
to the extended determinate sentence and those who received an IPP under the previous
legislation.
(signed)
Digby Griffith
Director of National Operational Services, NOMS
PSI 41/2012
AI 10/2012
PI 21/2012
UNCLASSIFIED
ISSUE DATE 17/12/2012
UNCLASSIFIED
2.
Page 6
Sentence Planning
2.1
The sentence plan is the key tool for identifying what an offender will do during their
sentence, based on an assessment of the factors associated with their offending, to
achieve the aims of the sentence. Alongside reducing the likelihood of reoffending and
promoting resettlement, one of the key aims of the sentence plan is to reduce the risk of
serious harm the offender poses, particularly for offenders subject to an extended
determinate or indeterminate sentence, as they have received this sentence based on an
assessment of their ‘dangerousness’. Whether it can be demonstrated that the offender has
been directed to and engaged with appropriate activities and interventions, in order to
reduce the risk s/he poses, is a key consideration for the Parole Board in determining
whether to direct release. However, the main consideration will be whether there is clear
evidence that the offender has demonstrated positive changes in his/her behaviour,
thinking and attitudes, and that there is a clear plan in place to manage any residual risk the
offender poses when determining whether to direct the offender’s release from custody.
2.2
The focus of sentence planning should be on achieving outcomes supported by defined
actions or activity. The plan should cover the whole of the sentence, and define clearly:

the overall outcomes to be achieved through the sentence plan

the actions to be put in place to achieve the intended outcomes (the steps or work
activity needed)

what is expected of the offender in terms of the objectives they are aiming to
achieve in support of an action or outcome, and

who will have overall responsibility for ensuring the plan is delivered.
Foreign national offenders
2.3
Sentence planning for foreign national offenders can be complex, especially if the offender
is likely to be removed from the United Kingdom at the end of the custodial period of their
sentence. Although not all foreign national offenders will be so removed, it is important that
they have a realistic understanding of their position from the outset. A foreign national
offender who is likely to be removed from the United Kingdom by the United Kingdom
Border Agency should be encouraged to consider actions aimed at preparing for their
release in the home country as a consequence of their removal from the UK. They should
be made aware of the availability of early removal under the Early Removal Scheme, the
availability of assistance under the Facilitated Returns Scheme, and the possibility for
transfer to their country of origin to serve their sentence under prisoner transfer
arrangements (see PSI 52/2011 – Immigration, Repatriation and Removal Services).
Establishing links with appropriate charities or organisations representing their communities
in the United Kingdom may also support effective resettlement.
Offender engagement
2.4
An offender should be engaged as an active participant in preparing the plan. Research
evidence suggests that, if the offender feels engaged in their sentence, and the sentence
plan is drawn up collaboratively, they will be more likely to identify, and take responsibility
for, actions they need to undertake to address their offending behaviour. This may include
asking the offender to identify what factors would support successful resettlement, where
they are in custody, and what may need to be put in place to prevent protective factors
being disrupted, such as family relationships, housing and employment. The offender
PSI 41/2012
AI 10/2012
PI 21/2012
UNCLASSIFIED
ISSUE DATE 17/12/2012
UNCLASSIFIED
Page 7
manager and offender supervisor should encourage the offender to have a direct
investment in their sentence plan and in achieving its outcomes, in order to promote
compliance.
2.5
Where the offender is subject to an IPP, life or extended sentence with discretionary
release, s/he must demonstrate to the Parole Board that his/her risk is manageable in the
community, in order to obtain release on licence. If s/he is not fully engaged with the
sentence plan, the offender manager or offender supervisor must ensure the offender is
aware that if s/he does not comply with the sentence plan, and does not demonstrate a
change in behaviour or attitudes associated with offending and work towards identified
objectives, this may affect his/her chances of being released.
Setting objectives and actions
2.6
Sentence plans must be realistic and attainable in order to be effective in providing
offenders with an opportunity to address offending related factors and reduce risk.
Objectives should be specific, measurable, achievable, realistic, and time-bound (SMART)
and actions to support these should be set out in order of priority.
2.7
It is important that plans do not simply contain a list of interventions, programmes or
activities that the offender may be suitable for or are available, but that they comprise
activities which are directly related to the outcomes or objectives to be achieved, based on
the assessed risks and offending-relating needs. Actions and objectives should be
prioritised according to the level of risk the offender poses and in line with the areas most
strongly associated with their offending. They should balance personal risk factors such as
drug dependency or poor problem solving with social risk factors such as housing,
employment and strengthening relationships and community ties.
2.8
It is also important that activities are not included in an offender’s sentence plan that are
unachievable, either because the offender does not meet the suitability criteria for particular
interventions, or where they are suitable but no intervention can be delivered within the
timescale of the sentence. In both cases, it will be essential to look for alternative activities
or interventions that are achievable and that best target the risks and needs of the offender.
2.9
Throughout the course of a sentence it is likely that the actions will change, but the overall
outcomes are likely to remain the same. Staff should consider setting incremental actions
that will allow an offender to demonstrate change, and, therefore an impact on the risk they
pose, over a period of time. This has the added value of setting out clear expectations for
the offender.
2.10
Where an offender is not motivated to change it may only be possible to set limited
outcomes and actions; in these instances, the focus may be on monitoring and risk
management, although it is important to note that motivation may increase and decrease
over time and that offender managers and offender supervisors should seek to enhance
motivation to change wherever possible. However, where the offender is subject to release
at the discretion of the Parole Board, it will be important to ensure the offender is aware that
unwillingness to engage with the sentence plan is likely to affect the Board’s decision on
his/her suitability for release.
Sequencing
2.11
Actions required of the offender should be sequenced logically, according to what must
take priority, bearing in mind both the offender’s own priorities and the need to crossreference with the risk management plan and parole eligibility and review dates. It may be
important to provide services which stabilise and motivate an individual before providing an
PSI 41/2012
AI 10/2012
PI 21/2012
UNCLASSIFIED
ISSUE DATE 17/12/2012
UNCLASSIFIED
Page 8
intervention targeted at reducing their risk of reoffending or causing serious harm. For
example, an offender with a chronic substance misuse problem may need to address this
before they are in a position to address their offending behaviour.
2.12
Actions should be set out in manageable steps for the offender, offender manager, offender
supervisor and service providers. Where an offender is serving a custodial sentence, there
may be some objectives and activities which could suitably be undertaken following
release, and should be planned to follow on from earlier supporting activity. This must be
planned in consultation with the community based offender manager to ensure appropriate
provision can be put in place.
2.13
Adequate sequencing also involves ensuring sufficient continuity of services and support, in
particular with regards to the transition from custody to community. Where resources are
limited, it will be important to consider where and when such activities could take place. For
example, where an offender is suitable for a particular accredited programme but this is not
available within the establishment the offender is currently placed in, or there is a long
waiting list, this may be set as an activity to be undertaken following transfer to a relevant
establishment. It will then be essential to plan activities prior to the programme work
commencing, in order to maximise the impact on the main risk factors. This will be
especially important for demonstrating that the offender is addressing and reducing the risk
they pose, where the Parole Board will be considering their suitability for release.
Appropriate activities
2.14
Education, employment and accommodation are prevalent problems for a high proportion
of offenders. These are likely to be essential elements for the majority of sentence plans.
However, not all offenders will be suitable for or need offending behaviour programmes,
even if they have committed a serious offence and they have been sentenced to an
indeterminate prison sentence or an extended determinate sentence. These types of
interventions may be more suitable for medium and higher risk offenders, while lower risk
offenders will benefit from access to services available within the ‘core offer’ as described in
PSI 12/2012 – Rehabilitation Services Specification - Custody. In these circumstances, the
offender manager, offender supervisor, and key workers should work together with the
offender to review the assessment and available activities and interventions and come to a
joint agreement on how the objectives in the plan will be achieved. All alternative avenues
for meeting recorded objectives and encouraging sentence progression should be
considered. This is particularly important for offenders whose release is at the discretion of
the Parole Board.
2.15
Most of NOMS accredited programmes require a certain level of cognitive functioning, or
literacy/comprehension of English for offenders to gain fully from participation, although a
sex offender programme has been adapted to be suitable for those with a lower IQ, and
there is a currently a pilot for an adapted Thinking Skills Programme. Where adapted
programmes are not available, and appropriate activity is being considered for offenders
with a learning disability or difficulty, a more individualised approach may be needed. Some
offence-focused work to reduce risk of serious harm can be undertaken on a one-to-one
basis using specially developed materials. Where English is not the offender’s first
language, consideration should be given to delivering such material through an interpreter.
Offender managers and offender supervisors and psychology staff should discuss the full
range of available options that will support offenders to address identified offending related
factors and record this in the sentence plan.
Sentence planning reviews
PSI 41/2012
AI 10/2012
PI 21/2012
UNCLASSIFIED
ISSUE DATE 17/12/2012
UNCLASSIFIED
Page 9
2.16
The assessment and sentence plan must be reviewed whenever there is a significant
change that impacts on the risk of re-offending and/or serious harm posed by the offender.
This will include where a transfer has taken place, the offender is due to be released or
approaching a parole review, and/or one or more objectives in the sentence plan has been
achieved or conversely where progress is not being made and alternative options need to
be considered.
2.17
Where the offender is in custody, offender managers and offender supervisors are required
to participate in sentence plan reviews for all ‘in scope’ offenders. In addition, where the
prisoner is low or medium risk of serious harm but will be released on licence, while the
offender supervisor has the primary role, offender managers are required to take part in
pre-release activity to support effective planning for release. This may not require
attendance in person, but could be managed by video/telephone conference or by written
contribution.
2.18
The sentence planning review process should be used to: review information (including
information from other staff and agencies) that builds on existing assessments; verify
changes in an offender’s behaviour; adapt or change actions that are completed or no
longer appropriate; and to explore the full range of available resources to meet outstanding
offending related factors. It is also a critical opportunity to recognise and record progress,
which is important for both the offender and for the Parole Board when assessing the
prisoner’s suitability for release.
2.19
Offender Management staff should work with colleagues in partner organisations and/or
prisons to ensure that relevant services are made available to support the aims of the
sentence plan.
2.20
A review of the sentence plan must be accurately recorded and documented. Where
activities and interventions are no longer appropriate to address risk of serious harm and
offending they must be removed from the plan at the earliest convenience.
Termination
2.21
A review of the sentence plan on termination of sentence must always take place,
assessing the progress that has been made over the course of the sentence, drawing on
the views of the offender and the judgement of the offender manager, offender supervisor
and, where relevant, key workers. This provides an opportunity to commend progress such
as compliance with interventions and particularly changes in behaviour and attitudes. It
must also consider what actions the offender could take in the future to maintain and
develop any progress they have made or, where insufficient progress has been made, to
take steps in future to avoid reoffending.
PSI 41/2012
AI 10/2012
PI 21/2012
UNCLASSIFIED
ISSUE DATE 17/12/2012
UNCLASSIFIED
EIA
Page 1
EQUALITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT
PSI 41 / 2012 - AI 10/2012 - PI 21/2012 – SENTENCE PLANNING
Stage 1 – initial screening
The first stage of conducting an EIA is to screen the policy to determine its relevance to the various
equalities issues. This will indicate whether or not a full impact assessment is required and which
issues should be considered in it. The equalities issues that you should consider in completing this
screening are:







Race
Gender
Gender identity
Disability
Religion or belief
Sexual orientation
Age (including younger and older offenders).
Aims
What are the aims of the policy?
This Instruction sets out the expectations for staff with regard to sentence planning and highlights
the mandatory nature of these processes for all offenders, and particularly those offenders subject
to indeterminate sentences or the new extended determinate sentence, introduced by the Legal
Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders (LASPO) Act 2012. The aim is to set out clear
expectations in relation to the sentence planning process, and to emphasise the centrality of
effective sentence planning and delivery for ensuring the offender progresses through his/her
sentence. This is particularly important for those whose release, or early release, is at the
discretion of the Parole Board, as the Board will want evidence that the offender has actively
attempted to address their behaviour in order to reduce the risk they pose. One way in which this
may be demonstrated is through engagement with the sentence plan.
Effects
What effects will the policy have on staff, offenders or other stakeholders?
The effect of the policy will be to ensure staff are clear on the requirements with regard to
sentence planning, in terms of the need for clear collaboration and communication between staff
and the offender, the need for setting and reviewing realistic goals, and the need to make changes
where activities are no longer achievable or progress is not being made.
The effect on offenders will be to re-emphasise the need to engage with the sentence planning
process and make clear that, where their release is subject to a Parole Board decision, if they are
seen to be failing to comply with the sentence plan, this may have a detrimental affect on their
release prospects. This is in keeping with existing policy, but is set out in an instruction here for the
first time.
Evidence
Is there any existing evidence of this policy area being relevant to any equalities issue?
Identify existing sources of information about the operation and outcomes of the policy, such as operational
feedback (including local monitoring and impact assessments)/Inspectorate and other relevant
PSI 41/2012
AI 10/2012
PI 21/2012
UNCLASSIFIED
ISSUE DATE 17/12/2012
UNCLASSIFIED
EIA
Page 2
reports/complaints and litigation/relevant research publications etc. Does any of this evidence point towards
relevance to any of the equalities issues?
The recent HMI Probation report on Offender Management highlighted that, while sentence
planning has improved, plans were often focused on process driven targets (e.g. ‘complete
programme’) rather than objectives based upon the changes need in behaviour, attitudes or
lifestyle (e.g. ‘improved anger management’). It did not highlight any particular issues relating to
equalities, rather it highlighted the need for greater clarity on sentence planning expectations for
staff involved in the work.
A judicial review was previously brought against NOMS by an offender who had a learning
disability. NOMS lost the case because it was found that, although the sentence plan outlined
interventions that may have addressed the risks associated with his offending, due to the
offender’s learning disability, he was unable to fully participate in the intervention and no
amendments were made to the sentence plan to take account of this. The instruction has been
drafted using this and other similar cases as a basis for providing clearer guidance on the process
to follow and the considerations to be borne in mind.
Stakeholders and feedback
Describe the target group for the policy and list any other interested parties. What contact have
you had with these groups?
The target group is offender managers and offender supervisors who will be working with
offenders sentenced to community orders or custodial sentences, for whom a sentence plan is
required. We have consulted with representative of these groups in producing this instruction and
had no adverse feedback. Feedback was that the instruction was clear and logical.
The secondary group is the offenders themselves. There is a body of desistance literature
underpinning NOMS’ Offender Engagement Programme, which emphasises the importance of
engaging with offenders to help them to move away from offending. Part of that evidence supports
the need for individualised sentence planning, which engages the offender in that process. We can
extrapolate from the research evidence that that this policy is likely to have a beneficial impact.
The development of this instruction has been informed by feedback received over a period of time,
highlighting the need for clearer guidance on what is required in the sentence planning process, its
purpose, and how to tailor plans according to individual needs or sentence type. The two key
groups that have been identified as needing particular attention are those subject to indeterminate
sentences, and those with learning disabilities. In writing this instruction, legal advice has been
sought to ensure that the policy is appropriate and suitable for these groups of offenders, as well
as others. No specific feedback was received with regard to other protected characteristics, but
existing NOMS policies and service specifications underline the need to ensure appropriate
support is provided to other groups. Women offenders may request a female offender manager or
supervisor, and where English is not an offender’s first language, arrangements should be made to
ensure they can access appropriate interventions, e.g. through the use of an interpreter. Prisons
and probation trusts should ensure such provision is available
Do you have any feedback from stakeholders, particularly from groups representative of the
various issues, that this policy is relevant to them?
There have been a number of judicial reviews brought against NOMS in which we have lost or had
to concede. These were where sentence plans set out a suitable and necessary intervention but
the offender was incapable of benefitting or engaging in the intervention due to physical or learning
disabilities, and the plan had not been adapted to be suitable for his needs. This effectively set the
offender up to fail. The instruction has been drafted with the learning from these cases firmly in
mind.
PSI 41/2012
AI 10/2012
PI 21/2012
UNCLASSIFIED
ISSUE DATE 17/12/2012
UNCLASSIFIED
EIA
Page 3
Feedback from similar challenges by indeterminate sentence prisoners has also been taken into
account, including the recent ruling by the European Court of Human Rights in the cases of three
prisoners subject to IPP sentences (Brett James, Nicholas Wells and Jeffrey Lee).These cases
make clear that sentence plans must be realistic and highlight the importance not only of
appropriate interventions being available, but also the need to target activities appropriately and
not solely rely on accredited programmes where these are unavailable or even unsuitable for an
individual.
Impact
Could the policy have a differential impact on staff, prisoners, visitors or other stakeholders on
the basis of any of the equalities issues?
The policy is not intended to have a differential impact on any group on the basis of the equalities
issues, and we do not anticipate it doing so. We expect it will have the positive effective of
ensuring that each plan is tailored to the each offender’s assessed risks and individual needs.
Local discretion
Does the policy allow local discretion in the way in which it is implemented? If so, what
safeguards are there to prevent inconsistent outcomes and/or differential treatment of different
groups of people?
Local discretion applies in that each sentence plan should be tailored to each individual. However,
the requirement that all offenders should have a sentence plan, and be actively encouraged to
engage with the process, and involved in setting their own targets, should counter any potential to
differential treatment.
Summary of relevance to equalities issues
Strand
Race
Gender (including
gender identity)
Disability
Religion or belief
Sexual orientation
Age (younger offenders)
Age (older offenders)
PSI 41/2012
AI 10/2012
PI 21/2012
Yes/No
Rationale
No
No
While it may be harder for an offender whose first language
is not English to engage with the sentence planning process
and any subsequent interventions, this instruction is not
introducing a new set of practice requirements; rather, it
confirms previous expectations. As such, the issue is more
one of offenders being able to access suitable support such
as interpreters. This is covered by existing policies and
associated equality impact assessments.
Any targets or activities on a sentence plan should be
identified in collaboration with the offender, and tailored to
his/her risk factors and individual needs
While offenders with learning disabilities may be positively
affected by publication of this instruction, the issue for this
group is more relevant for eligibility criteria for particular
programmes or interventions, which are covered by their own
set of guidance and impact assessments. This instruction
simply emphasises the need to ensure offenders are not set
up to fail by referring them to programmes in which they will
be unable to engage.
Any targets or activities on a sentence plan should be
identified in collaboration with the offender, and tailored to
his/her risk factors and individual needs
As above.
No
As above.
No
As above.
No
No
No
UNCLASSIFIED
ISSUE DATE 17/12/2012
UNCLASSIFIED
EIA
Page 4
If you have answered ‘Yes’ to any of the equalities issues, a full impact assessment must be completed. Please
proceed to STAGE 2 of the document.
If you have answered ‘No’ to all of the equalities issues, a full impact assessment will not be required, and this
assessment can be signed off at this stage. You will, however, need to put in place monitoring arrangements to
ensure that any future impact on any of the equalities issues is identified.
Monitoring and review arrangements
Describe the systems that you are putting in place to manage the policy and to monitor its
operation and outcomes in terms of the various equalities issues.
Sentence planning forms part of two existing programmes of work: the Offender Engagement
Programme and the Offender Management Change Programme. There is work underway through
these programmes to develop monitoring and quality assurance measures in relation to work to
engage with offenders, particularly on sentence planning, and on the delivery of offender
management more widely. These will provide information on the way in which sentence planning is
being carried out and the effect of the policy.
State when a review will take place and how it will be conducted.
A review will be undertaken after the policy has been in place for 12 months. This will take account
of any learning from the above-mentioned programmes, as well as learning from the
implementation of the new Extended Determinate Sentence.
Policy lead
Head of group
PSI 41/2012
AI 10/2012
PI 21/2012
Name and signature
Date
Miranda Wilkinson
10 Oct 2012
Gordon Davison
17 Oct 2012
UNCLASSIFIED
ISSUE DATE 17/12/2012