Community Corrections
July-September 2014
Risk assessment and risk management principles
Effectiveness of Intensive Correction Orders
Factors that influence successful completion
Contents
Introduction
2
About the newsletter
Risk management in Community Corrections
Research and Literature
3
Bonds, suspended sentences and reoffending: Does the length of the order matter?
Exploring the black box of community supervision
The impact of intensive correction orders on reoffending
An experimental demonstration of training probation officers in evidence-based community
supervision
Enhanced adherence to Risk-Need-Responsivity: Making quality a matter of policy
Discussion
Statistics
5
Offender populations
Community activities
Completion rates, order length and risk
In Practice
7
Defining risk
Risk assessment
Risk management
Case notes and record keeping
Office Profiles
9
Mt Druitt
Gunnedah
Standards and KPIs
11
Overview
Assessment Integrity
General information
12
Policy
Legislation
Community Corrections
Academy
Probation and Parole Officers Association
Public Service Association
Contacts
15
1
Introduction
About the newsletter
This is the first edition of the new Community Corrections newsletter. The purpose of the newsletter is to provide a
mechanism for communicating relevant research, statistics, updates and ideas, as well as information about Community
Corrections and other areas within CSNSW.
More detailed information, such as the full text of research articles, will be made available on the intranet. All staff are
encouraged to review this material, and to provide any feedback or suggestions. It is intended that this newsletter will be
issued quarterly.
To access the Community Corrections newsletter online, go to;
Home >>Organisation >>Community Corrections >>Community Corrections Newsletter
Risk management in Community Corrections
Following a significant reform over the last year, interspersed with high media and political focus on issues such as
parolee management, Community Corrections is continuing to work to define its new role clearly. The key is finding the
right balance of risk management between the rehabilitative and compliance based approaches, which has long been
reflected in the dual support and authority roles of the Community Corrections Officer.
One focus for Community Corrections is to obtain the right balance in our approach to risk management, which is a key
theme in this edition of the newsletter. Managing risk is our core business, but it is a concept which is often
misinterpreted. With a high focus on high impact and immediate risks to community safety it can be easy to minimise
other important factors which also need to be managed with a view to long term outcomes. For example, reoffending
that occurs after a sentence / period of supervision has been completed, and the longer term negative impacts of risk
mitigation strategies such as incarceration compared to the obvious short term effectiveness of incapacitation.
When considering how to manage risk, it is essential to recognise that assessing risk is a judgment of probability. It is
impossible to either predict or control the future behaviour of any given individual, whether high risk or low risk.
However, we can work to reduce (but not eliminate) risk, and make a good outcome more probable (not certain), by
ensuring our decisions are founded in robust, verified information, are rational and evidence based, and perhaps most
importantly, that we understand why we are making them. It can be easy to slip into the assumption that policy exists
the way it does simply ‘just because’, or that it reflects only one particular set of interests. One intended outcome of the
current newsletter, and other related strategies, is to improve overall awareness of how the evidence base feeds into
current policy and practice, and of how different demands are balanced against multiple interests and risks.
An essential part of building evidence based practice is the ability to assess and report on implementation. It is not
sufficient to simply state that we are engaged in evidence based practice, or to have these reflected in policy and
procedures; these have to be carried out. The ‘Black Box’ research carried out in Canada, home of the Risk-NeedsResponsivity model, underscores the importance of not just having an evidence-based model in place, but ensuring it is
implemented (see page 3). The Key Performance Indicators and Standards for Community Operations provide a
quantitative and qualitative framework for assessing some of these key components. Whilst both have been in place
since 2012, roll out of the Standards at an operational level is now beginning to take focus, supported by reviews by the
Operational Performance Review Branch.
A key direction for Community Corrections is therefore to continue to work to improve how we manage risk by
encouraging and supporting sound, professional, evidence based decision making. This will be supplemented by systems
of accountability that can both demonstrate our achievements in delivering effective offender management in the
community, and assist in continuing to improve how we do so.
2
Research and Literature
Bonds, suspended sentences and reoffending:
Does the length of the order matter?
(S.Poynton and D.Weatherburn, 2013, NSW)
Exploring the black box
supervision
(J. Bonta et al, 2008, Canada)
of
community
Method
Reoffending rates were compared for all offenders who
had received good behaviour bonds and suspended
sentences of differing lengths between 2006 and 2008.
Long bonds were defined as those of 24 months or
longer, and long suspended sentences as 12 months or
longer. Offenders were matched on a range of variables
including age, gender, residence, offence type, and prior
history. Comparisons were also made between
supervised and unsupervised orders.
Method
Audio recordings were made of 211 interviews between
62 probation officers and their clients. Interviews were
reviewed to assess whether officers addressed identified
criminogenic needs with the offender. Case plans were
also reviewed to determine if identified needs had a
corresponding intervention strategy.
Results
On average, there was evidence that offenders who
received longer orders had slightly lower rates of
reoffending than those with shorter orders. There was
no difference in reoffending found between bonds and
suspended sentences, and no difference between
supervised and unsupervised orders.
Results
Overall, adherence to risk-needs-responsivity principles
was found to be poor. In the majority of cases the full
range of identified needs were not identified in the case
plan. Unsurprisingly, most interviews subsequently failed
to address identified risks, or to engage in behaviour
change strategies. The study suggested that information
regarding offender risk and needs generated from
assessment was lost in the case plan, and that yet more
information was lost / was not utilised in supervision.
Comments
Comments
This study did not account for dynamic risk variables, such as
those measured on the LSI-R, which may contribute to
understanding the absence of any supervision effect. Both LSI-R
and order length are also significant factors in completion rates for
community orders. See page 8 for more information relating to the
relationship between completion rates, risk, and order length.
This study underscores the importance of implementing risk needs
responsivity principles down to the individual level. Minimum
standards identify frequency of contact in line with these principles,
but each offender must be assessed as an individual. The content of
each interview should be informed by the risk assessment and case
plan, and targeted to addressing offending attitudes and behaviours.
The impact of intensive correction orders on reoffending
(C.Ringland and D.Weatherburn, 2014, NSW)
Method
Reoffending data was collated for 993 offenders with periodic detention and 1058 offenders with supervised suspended
sentences, against matched groups of the same number of ICO offenders who were sentenced between 2011 and 2012.
Offenders were matched on a range of variables including demographic characteristics, characteristics of the index court
appearance, prior convictions and penalties received, and LSI-R assessment scores (for suspended sentences only).
Results
The reoffence rates for intensive correction orders were 33% lower than for periodic detention. There was no
significant difference in reoffending between ICOs and supervised suspended sentences once LSI-R scores were
accounted for. The absence of LSI-R matching for periodic detention means that the results need to be treated with
caution, as LSI-R is strongly correlated to reoffending rates. The study also noted the similarities in the supervision
levels provided across both ICOs and suspended sentences.
Comments
This study provides support for the idea that the order itself does not appear to play a significant role in affecting outcomes, as both ICO and
Section 12 orders had similar reoffending results. The application of case management and supervision are of greater relevance; although
caution needs to be exercised in drawing definitive conclusions due to the inability to match the periodic detention group on LSI-R.
3
Research and Literature
An Experimental Demonstration of Training
Probation
Officers
in
Evidence-Based
Community Supervision
(J. Bonta et al, 2011, Canada)
Enhanced
Adherence
to
Risk-NeedResponsivity: Making Quality a Matter of Policy
(D. Andrews, 2006, Canada)
Summary
The following are reviewed as key requirements to
effective outcomes using Risk-Needs-Responsivity:
Method
51 probation officers were provided training in relation
to improving awareness and application of Risk-NeedsResponsivity, including interview technique, and
compared to 29 who were not. Audiotapes of interviews
with offenders were analysed for both groups of officers
both pre and post training, across 328 offenders.
∙
∙
∙
Results
Average interview duration for all groups was around 25
minutes. Analysis of audiotapes found that officers with
training demonstrated significantly better adherence to
risk-needs-responsivity principles, in particular targeting
of criminogenic need, and greater use of cognitive
behavioural techniques. Reoffending rates for both
groups were similar for all offenders supervised prior to
the training. However, reoffending reduced significantly
(from 47% to 25%) for offenders supervised by the
officers with improved adherence to RNR in interview.
∙
∙
∙
Comments
The outcomes of this study provide very strong support for the
idea that even a relatively short intervention with an offender
can be effective, provided the right issues are targeted.
∙
Use of structured and validated risk assessment.
Never assign low risk cases to intensive service;
provide the minimum necessary, and do not
confuse seriousness of offending with likelihood
of reoffence.
Provide more intensive services to moderate and
high risk cases.
Target multiple areas of criminogenic needs, not
just the more obvious or easy ones (such as
substance abuse).
Always utilise cognitive behavioural and social
learning influences, based in high quality
interpersonal relationships. Utilise techniques
such as modelling, reinforcement of new skills,
and motivational interviewing.
Managers also need to demonstrate good
relationship and modelling skills when managing
staff.
Provide ongoing quality assurance and
correction mechanisms and ensure staff are
provided adequate supervision and support.
Full references and text versions of all articles are available via the Community Corrections intranet site.
Discussion
Several of the articles above are well known by now, and with good reason. The outcomes of failing to properly
implement evidence based practice at the ground level should be self-evident, but are easy to overlook in an
environment with competing priorities, and heightened public anxiety over community based offenders. To what extent
it could be presumed the findings apply to NSW is uncertain; the NSW articles cited here provide evidence both for and
against effective supervision, and neither addresses the qualitative aspects of offender interactions.
Nonetheless, these articles highlight several key points. Foremost amongst these is that a supervising officer has the
capacity to effect change through direct intervention with the offender, provided Risk-Needs-Responsivity principles are
adhered to. Factors such as order type or order length provide context, but can complicate administration and create an
illusion of difference where there is none. This is why most supervised offenders are managed under a single risk
assessment and supervision model; the offender’s risks and needs remain the same irrespective of the order type.
The direction of Community Corrections is towards ensuring the use of quality case management as an effective risk
management strategy, meaning case management which is consistent with the Standards for Community Operations*,
and employs Risk-Need-Responsivity principles. Effective decision making around offender management should always
be the foremost consideration in supervision, rather than the type of order. Order type is still relevant to overall risk, as
it can provide a general indicator of other factors such as seriousness of offending or consequences of breach; however
it is important not to confuse seriousness of offending with likelihood of reoffence.
*(on the Intranet go to Home >Organisation >Governance and Continuous Improvement >Operational Performance Review Branch >Community Corrections >Standards and KPIs)
4
In Practice
The more likely it is that an offender will commit an
offence, the more important it is that strategies are
employed to manage the relevant risk factors.
Resources should be targeted towards those offenders
at highest risk, in line with RNR principles. If an
intervention need is identified for a low risk offender,
refer the offender to services outside of the criminal
justice system where possible. Further criminal justice
intervention for low risk offenders may at worst
increase risk, since most will not reoffend anyway.
Defining and managing risk
Even the lowest risk offenders can, and will, commit
further offences. Most will be minor, some will be
serious. It is sometimes suggested that targeting low
risk offenders provides early intervention to prevent
offending later, or that little can be achieved with high
risk offenders. So why do we focus on high risk?
The activities undertaken by Community Corrections
are focused on reducing risk to the community,
including risk of reoffending, but it is important to
understand that it is impossible to eliminate risk entirely.
Key risk assessment tools
Level of Service Inventory – Revised (LSI-R)
Risk is an indicator of probability; of 100 low risk
offenders it is probable that around 10 of them will
commit further offences (ie, 10% will reoffend).
However, it is impossible to predict which 10 specific
individuals this will be. Reducing reoffending therefore
means intervening with all 100 offenders, even though
90 would not have reoffended anyway. Of the other 10
offenders, a 10% reduction in offending equals only 1
less reoffence. In comparison, for 100 high risk
offenders, around 80 will reoffend; a 10% reduction
therefore means 8 fewer reoffences.
The LSI-R is an internationally validated tool which
assesses criminogenic need and the likelihood of
recidivism. In NSW less than 6% of offenders assessed
as low risk will return to custody under sentence within
2 years, compared to 68% of high risk offenders.
The LSI-R also provides a guide to assessment of the
criminogenic needs of offenders. However, the LSI-R
result is only indicative and does not give any significant
detail about the individual offender. For example, a
score of 5 on the AOD domain could reflect either
situational binge drinking or long term drug
dependency. Furthermore, some individuals may have,
for example, binge drinking issues which are not at all
related to their offending. It is important to use the full
range of information gathered during the assessment to
inform the assessment and case plan for the individual.
Good supervision should mean adherence to evidence
based practice, and fewer negative outcomes overall.
Bear in mind that even if significant reductions in
reoffending are achieved, amongst a high risk group
more than half may still reoffend. If no reduction is
achieved most low risk offenders will not reoffend,
and a small number of low risk offenders will always
go on to further crime. It is also very easy to look back
after the fact and find cases that seem to support
alternate approaches. This might be the low risk
offender who goes on to a career in serious crime, or a
high risk offender who ceases crime after a religious
conversion. Such individual cases make interesting
anecdotes, but are not always good evidence on which
to base practice. Remember that even if there is only a
1% chance of a given outcome, for a population of
16,000, it will occur 160 times.
Community Impact Assessment (CIA)
The CIA rating was developed within CSNSW to
indicate the likely severity of consequences of further
offending. This considers other factors such as
community and judicial confidence and the seriousness
of the penalty. Although the CIA is not solely a tool for
predicting reoffending, OIMS data suggests rates of
serious violent and sexual offending are higher for Tier
3 offenders, compared to other Tier 1 offenders with
the same LSI-R rating.
The more serious the consequences, the more
important it is that adequate checks are conducted to
maintain the integrity of case management and also
ensure any change in short term risk is identified
quickly. Importantly, more serious consequences do not
necessarily mean that intervention is necessary – the
CIA in part is intended to improve RNR adherence by
treating the two issues seperately. This is why override
on the LSI-R should only occur when there is evidence
for increased likelihood of offending, and should not
occur solely on the basis of seriousness of the offence.
In practice it is therefore important to focus on the
aspects of offender management we know have the
greatest impact on reducing overall risk, based on
empirical research. These features include sound risk
assessment, a focus on medium to higher risk
offenders, developing thorough case plans which
target key criminogenic needs in a manner sensitive to
individual responsivity factors, and supervision which
adheres to the plan and directly works to challenge
attitudes and factors that increase risk.
5
In Practice
Decision making and risk
Good risk management means making good decisions. This may mean decisions about a case management strategy, a
recommendation in a report, an exemption, an interview with an offender, or prioritising workload. Try to think about
why you are working with the offender, rather than focusing on the problem, and also consider what arguments might
prove your point of view wrong. Whilst it is not necessary to analyse every aspect of every decision in detail, consider:
What outcome are you trying to achieve?
If there are several; which is most important?
What information do you have to base your decision on?
What information is critical and what might be helpful but not essential?
How reliable is that information?
If key information is not yet known, what is a likely worst case scenario and what does that mean?
What are the likely risks both now and in the future; and what are the likely consequences?
To the community?
To the offender?
To the organisation?
To yourself / other staff?
What course of action best balances all of the relevant risks?
Addressing one risk can often mean exacerbating another.
Consider the impact of limited time / resources; focus on the most important issues first.
Does a quick fix now mean a worse problem later on, or the same problem coming back?
What would a different decision mean?
What is the most likely outcome of doing it differently?
Is there a better option?
What would be the most likely outcome of doing nothing at all?
What are the requirements of policy and legislation?
Is there a strict requirement, or some flexibility; what can you control?
Are you relying on ‘the way things have always been done’, or sure your knowledge is current?
Is how you interpret policy sensible when considering why the policy is there?
What do the Standards for Community Operations require?
Could you justify the decision later on if you had to, irrespective of the outcome?
If unsure, seek a second (or third) opinion. Also refer to the Standards for Community Operations, which provide a
high level guide to the key elements that need to be achieved in each area. Making a good decision is not usually about
coming up with the right answers, it is about having the right reasons. Complying with policy without considering why
you are doing it, or what the specific risks are, can still result in poor risk management. Think about the possible
outcomes, use professional judgement to determine the best option for managing the risk, and record the reasons.
Case notes
Case notes can seem like a mundane administrative task, but nonetheless can play a key role in offender management by:
-
-
Ensuring that other staff members are able to access case management information about the offender,
especially during transfer to another location, or admission / release from custody.
Providing a reminder to ensure key issues are followed up at the next contact, keeping supervision focused.
Providing evidence if a matter is challenged at court, or for the next officer that has to write a report.
Assisting with police investigations or coronial inquiries.
For these reasons, case notes must provide a clear and concise record of all offender management activities and must be
entered in a timely manner. Consider what information you would want to know if it were someone else’s offender and
you were transferred the case the next day. To avoid cluttering offender management records, minimise using case notes
for administrative purposes where possible.
6
Statistical Trends
Community population
As at 1 June 2014
Total offenders*
Male
14252
Female
2475
Total*
16758
Active offenders only*
12220
2157
14404
Total supervision
Total community service work
10451
3337
1854
516
12326
3859
Court based parole
SPA parole
S9
S10
S12
Bail supervision
Intensive correction order
Community service order
Home detention
Drug court
All other (eg federal recog, interstate)
2194
1328
4459
127
1503
50
1031
2312
51
225
412
259
109
1064
55
287
10
125
393
23
52
56
2454
1438
5537
183
1792
74
1156
2711
74
277
469
*Total offenders is the count used in the Offender Population Report, and counts all orders active in OIMS, including
suspensions, expired orders, and orders that have not yet commenced. Active offenders excludes these orders. Note that some
offenders may have multiple orders, and are counted once in each category, and once in the overall total.
**Includes a small number of offenders where gender has not yet been recorded.
Institutional
As at 1 June 2014
Total offenders in custody
Sentenced
Appellant
Remand
Male
10024
Female
715
Total
10739
6901
318
2805
450
24
241
7351
342
3046
Reports
Average reports per month, June 2013 to June 2014
Total
Court advice
Full pre-sentence
Short pre-sentence
ICO assessment
HD assessment
679
880
191
23
Pre release
Full pre release
Supplementary
123
70
7
Statistical Trends
Population changes in the last 10 years
Total community offenders as at June each year
Total active offenders by community work and supervision
Note: ICOs are counted in both community work and supervision, some offenders may have a CSO and a concurrent supervision order
Completion rates
Successful completion of community based orders is a performance measure which is reported in the Report on
Government Services (RoGS) and Annual Report. NSW tends to have one of the highest completion rates in Australia.
Successful completions sound straightforward, but can be complex to understand. For example, whilst reoffending is
typically measured over a standard time period (eg 2 years), completion rates are simply based on whenever the order is
completed. An offender completing a 3 month order is counted the same as one completing a 3 year order, even though
the first offender might reoffend at 4 months. Factors such as LSI-R profile can also make a big difference, as below.
Completion rate – by LSI-R rating
Completion rate- medium risk only, by months supervised
Average (all offenders)
Average (medium offenders)
Although there are often differences in completion rates between different order types, these tend to reflect population
and order characteristics, not a more successful order. For example, ICOs tend to be low risk and cannot be terminated,
bonds tend to be higher risk but a large percentage are terminated early, effectively reducing their length. Similarly,
parolees have the lowest completion rates of any order type; but they also have the highest LSI-R risk profile, have more
conditions to breach, and SPA parolees in particular can be subject to many years of supervision.
Assuming that a high completion rate is a good outcome assumes completion is all about good behaviour, and ignores
the role of supervision in directly preventing harm to the community. Breach of an order, particularly a custody based
order, may be necessary at times to protect the community and prevent a more serious reoffence occurring.
Subsequently, high completion rates could either reflect positive behaviour change or a failure to report breaches or
non-compliance with community work, whilst low completion rates could reflect failure to change behaviour, or
improvements in detecting and acting on risk of harm to the community.
Whilst this makes completion rates an ambiguous statistical measure (this is the main reason it is not used in operational
KPIs) successful completion of an order is nonetheless an important case management objective, provided community
safety is not compromised as a result.
8
Community Corrections Offices
Mt Druitt
Location
Mt Druitt is a suburb of Sydney, located 43
kilometres west of the Sydney central
business district, in the local government
area of the City of Blacktown.
Major issues and challenges
Mt Druitt has been categorised as the most disadvantaged postcode in
Sydney. Unemployment, reliance on social welfare, alcohol and drugs
are entrenched issues within the community, with up to five generations
exhibiting the same disadvantaged factors. Some of these issues are
related to generational transfer within the Aboriginal and Pacific
Whilst only covering a small geographic Islander populations, exacerbated by a lack of cultural-specific services
region (less than fifty square kilometres), Mt for the latter. Domestic Violence (DV) is the central offence related
Druitt has a high offender population issue within the community at Mt Druitt.
density.
Local Initiatives and Achievements
Staff
In partnership with Blacktown City Council, offenders subject to
Office manager – Ashan Ponniah
community service orders (or those whose order contains a community
3 Unit Leaders
service work component) are engaged in the Graffiti Cleaning and
1 Senior Psychologist (shared with Penrith Beautification Project. As the name suggests, offenders are set to work
Community Corrections)
removing graffiti from areas in the local community, as well as
1 Aboriginal Client Service Officer
landscaping and general environmental maintenance work such as
1 Pacific Islander Client Service Officer
rubbish collecting. This not only provides valuable work opportunities
15 Community Corrections Officers (CCO), which satisfy the community service work component of orders, but it
including 13 general CCOs, 1 CCO has had a significantly positive impact on improving the aesthetics of
dedicated to Community Service Orders and the Blacktown LGA.
1 CCO dedicated to court duty
2 CSO administrative assistants
Mt Druitt Community Corrections is an active partner in Family
3 Clerical officers (with half a position Violence Integrated Case Management. In response to the high DV
temporarily transferred from Parramatta population in the Blacktown LGA, the Mt Druitt Police LAC, Family
Community Corrections)
and Community Services, and Mt Druitt Family Violence Services
convene to determine how particular DV offenders can be case
Offenders
managed most effectively – in partnership - to create a safer community.
As at February 2014, Mt Druitt Community
Corrections
was
supervising
258 Blacktown LGA is one of the only locations in the Sydney Metropolitan
probationers, 108 parolees, 106 community area that has a reporting centre which provides services for Aboriginal
service orders and 45 intensive correction offenders. Marrin Weejali is an Aboriginal Cultural and Spiritual Healing
orders.
Centre which provides holistic health services to the local Indigenous
(and non-Indigenous) community. The aim of the organisation is to give
22% of the Mt Druitt Community hope to their clients and help them to change their lives for the better,
Corrections caseload relates to Indigenous lifting them out of despair to live healthy and dignified lives. A variety
offenders.
of AOD are offered, along with general community and health services.
Mt Druitt Community Corrections also has a
high number of Pacific Islander offenders.
However, due to the labelling of subgroups
which loosely identify within the term
“Pacific Islander”, exact numbers are
difficult to quantify.
“The Shed” was established in 2004 as a partnership between the
University of Western Sydney (UWS), the Men’s Health Information
and Resource Centre (UWS), and the Holy Family Church at Mount
Druitt. The Shed provides support to men who are considered to be at
risk of serious stress and suicide, generally as a result of cumulative
stress often due to disadvantaged situations. Most of these men are of
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander origin.
Mt Druitt Community Corrections works in tandem with both The
Shed and Marrin Weejali to ensure that appropriate referrals are made as
an important complement to offenders’ case plan.
9
Community Corrections Offices
Gunnedah
Location
Gunnedah is 80 km west of Tamworth, in
the central North West of NSW. The land is
mostly flat, fertile farmland with low hills; a
dry climate, cold in winter and very hot in
summer (frequently 40 degrees in December
and January). People earn a living largely
through farming and mining. The traditional
owners are the Kamilaroi people.
Major issues and challenges
Gunnedah Community Corrections covers from roughly 50 km to the
South, to Coonabarabran and surrounds; at least 100kms to the West, to
Pilliga and Wee Waa; and about 150 km to the North – a diameter of
about 250kms. That means a drive of at least 100kms one day a week on
long straight roads and some dirt, for home visits to outlying areas. The
officers meet offenders for appointments at the Court Houses in those
small towns and also undertake Court Duty once a month. Each officer
tends to be the expert in that town and represents CSNSW with the
Police, the Magistrate and other services.
Staff
Office manager – Christina Hill
There are no external service providers at all for DV, mental mealth or
3 Community Corrections Officers, all very alcohol and other drugs in Narrabri or Wee Waa. There is no treatment
experienced.
available for sex offenders in any town covered by Gunnedah
1 part time CSO administrative assistant
Community Corrections. However, video link to the CSNSW Forensic
1 part time clerical officer
Psychology Services is available 2 days per week. The geographic spread
1 field officer
makes running programs particularly difficult, and the local wildlife can
also make getting out in the field hazardous at times. The Manager’s
Offenders
private car is currently undergoing body work after hitting a hare at
There are about 120 offenders on the 100km/h. It is said that kangaroos are bad, but wombats are the worst,
caseload, including CSOs and ICOs. These writing off cars and then ambling off.
are spread across a big area, so face-to-face
contact is labour intensive, usually involving Local Initiatives and Achievements
significant travel.
The strength of Gunnedah Community Corrections is its staff. The
small staff group is committed, energetic and loyal with a real team
About 50% of offenders managed by mentality; covering for each other in times of difficulties and responding
Gunnedah Community Corrections are enthusiastically to involvement in big picture decisions. Half the staff are
Indigenous, and approximately 40% of country people and the office has the country can do attitude to solving
offenders have committed DV offences. The problems.
predominant proportion of the population is
T1/Medium and most are younger men. Within an exceptional team, there are exceptional individuals. For
There is a minority of high needs offenders example, the community service field officer, James, who mentors the
from networks that include endemic offenders as well as supervising their work. Gunnedah Community
problems such as alcohol/other drug abuse, Corrections has achieved a CSO program and completion rate of 83%
violence, and child sexual abuse.
overall in last 3 months, of which the Indigenous offender success rate
is almost double that of non-Indigenous. This is accounted for largely
by James’ team on the CSO/ICO bus. One young Aboriginal offender,
who is usually very guarded and had no prior employment experience,
recently described his work sessions on the CSO bus as ‘fun’. This may
give the impression that the team is not doing any work but, in fact,
James works the offenders harder than they have worked in their lives,
giving them the experience of what it is to take satisfaction in a job well
done. Several previously unemployed men have gained employment
after undertaking CSO with James.
There is capacity to grow the CSO and ICO program, especially in the
outlying towns of Narrabri and Wee Waa. The projection is that with
the embedding of reliable agencies (with carefully selected supervisors)
in these towns, the CSO/ICO bus and field officer can concentrate on
areas nearer to home, reducing extended travel time and increasing
available work time, especially for ICO offenders.
10
Standards and KPIs
Overview of Standards and KPIs
The Standards for Community Operations (the ‘Standards’) and Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) were first developed in 2012
to assist managers and staff to enhance quality service delivery to offenders in the community. They also form the basis
for assessment during reviews undertaken by the Operational Performance Review Branch.
Standards and KPIs are grouped into six key areas, including Assessment and Planning, Supervision, Reports, Community Service
Work, Administration and Record Keeping, and Office Management.
The Standards are outcome focused and are intended to assist staff in moving away from process driven work practices
to a culture of contemplating why they are performing a task, and what they are trying to achieve. The Standards have
been developed to allow scope for personal work practices and professional judgement and do not generally provide a
prescriptive framework for offender management. In some areas such prescription may however be given within policy.
The KPIs are based on key business processes which either directly or indirectly support quality outcomes, and are able
to be measured directly from OIMS data.
The Standards and KPIs should be viewed as complementary measures of performance, with common outcomes.
Below is an overview of the Standards and KPI structure for Assessment Integrity, which is the first section of the key area
of Assessment and Planning. The full Standards documents provide more detail regarding the purpose and evaluation of
the Standards, and can be found online via the Community Corrections homepage.
1.1 Assessment Integrity
Outcome
Through the use of verified information an offender’s criminogenic/ responsivity needs are accurately identified,
assessed and interpreted.
Benefits
-
Risks
-
Accurate assessments provide an evidence based foundation for case management.
The accurate identification of key risk factors enables these areas to be targeted and managed appropriately.
A valid assessment assists in maintaining accountability for case management decisions.
Verification limits the opportunity for the offender to provide misleading information.
The accurate and consistent application of assessments assists in the prioritisation of limited resources towards
offenders with higher risks / needs.
Poorly administered assessments undermine the integrity of the assessment process.
Poor assessments may result in key risk areas being mistakenly identified or overlooked, with offenders more
likely to be referred to inappropriate interventions and / or level of interventions.
Standards
1.1.S.1.1
1.1.S.1.2
1.1.S.1.3
KPIs
1.1.K.1.1
1.1.K.1.2
The assessment is based on verified information which addresses all relevant areas of risk.
The assessment outcome is based on appropriate interpretation of available information.
The overriding of an assessment reflects a sound assessment of risk factors which have not
been reflected in the initial scoring.
Less than 10% of new LSI-R's are overridden, OR, less than 10% of all supervised offenders
have overridden LSI-R's.
At least 90% of LSI-Rs are verified with at least one of both personal and official sources of
information, with 3 to 5 (low-high risk) sources of information overall.
11
General Information
Standards Training
Several sessions of training in the Standards for Community Operations (not to be confused with the Service Delivery Standards)
have been undertaken by the Operational Performance Review Branch. The positive feedback received from initial
sessions resulted in expansion to include all locations within the Sydney Districts. Further training is being coordinated
across remaining Districts. Unit leaders and managers were targeted, with a view to raising awareness with staff during
case reviews. The Standards compliment the KPIs, and provide the qualitative elements of service delivery across
assessment, supervision, report writing, community service, and administration. All staff are encouraged to access the
Standards, with the objective being to embed the Standards as a key reference tool in daily business.
Funded Partnership Initiative
The Funded Partnership Initiative (FPI) is nearing the end of a tender process. The FPI includes several projects which
will benefit Community Corrections, such as the Initial Transition Service (ITS) and Transitional Supported
Accommodation (TSA). These provide funding to non-government agencies to provide services for offenders, with a
focus on higher risk offenders, and give Community Corrections much more control over which offenders receive what
services. The tender process is yet to be finalised, but announcements will be made as soon as this occurs. Locations
involved with ITS sites recently attended a 2 day workshop at the Academy to work through practical issues regarding
implementation of the program.
Assistant Commissioner
The Assistant Commissioner of Community Corrections, Rosemary Caruana, has been visiting numerous offices around
the state, both to provide feedback on key directions and issues for Community Corrections, and to meet with staff. In
the last few months she has attended Long Bay, Fairfield, Batemans Bay and Nowra offices, and most recently
Armidale, Tamworth and Gunnedah.
New Legislation
Recent Memoranda
Bail Act 2013
2014/8 Invitation for Senior Community Corrections
Officer Intake
The basis of bail decisions under the new act is the risk
presented by the offender to victims, the community,
or of failure to attend court. This may influence bail
decisions for offenders on community orders in
circumstances such as breach application or reoffence.
2014/9 Changes to Community Corrections’ Director
Reporting Lines
2014/10 Policy regarding revocation prior to release of
court based parole orders
Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Amendment
Act 2014
The act provides a number of minor amendments.
These include civil liability in relation to community
service work performed by offenders residing in
residential facilities, and mandatory supervision for
parole orders issued where an offender is dying, or
under exceptional extenuating circumstances.
2014/11 Clarification regarding co-signing reports to
the State Parole Authority
2014/12 Expression of Interest – Development
Opportunities
2014/13 Changes to procedures for listing applications
for extension and revocation of community service
orders at the Local Court
Drug Court Legislation Amendment Bill 2014
This provides amendments affecting the operation of
the Compulsory Drug Treatment Correctional Centre,
including minor changes to eligibility, and suspension
of parole consideration whilst subject to a drug
treatment order; that is, that offenders subject to
treatment orders are not eligible to be considered for
parole.
2014/14 Community Corrections Working Groups
2014/15 Removal of SPA warnings as a response to
ICO breaches
2014/16 Community Corrections involvement in the
reinstatement of periodic detention orders
12
General Information
Offender Programs Training Unit
Motivational Interactions
The concept of motivational interviewing (MI) evolved from experience in the treatment of problem drinkers, and was
first described in a 1983 article published in Behavioural Psychotherapy. MI is a style that works to facilitate intrinsic
motivation within an individual to promote behaviour change. It is a goal-oriented, client-centred approach for eliciting
behaviour change by helping individuals explore and resolve ambivalence.
MI employs four basic interaction skills which include the ability to ask open ended questions, the ability to provide
affirmations, the capacity for reflective listening, and the ability to periodically provide summary statements to the
individual. The Motivational Interactions course run by the Offender Programs Training Unit will assist you in
developing these skills to make your supervision interviews a more effective tool for behaviour change.
Working With Sex Offenders
Do you sometimes sit at your desk wondering if there are some other case management strategies that you could be
implementing when managing sex offenders? Well good news! The Offender Programs Training Unit is currently
developing a new Working with Sex Offenders training course.
This course will look at the operational requirements when managing sex offenders as well as assisting you to develop
your case management skills. The program will cover a number of areas including assessments, treatment programs,
report preparation, home visits and challenging behaviour. In addition to this there will be a number of guest
presentations which will provide you with information on the services available within the criminal justice system that
you can engage with in order to more effectively supervise sex offenders.
Contact the Offender Programs Training Unit for further information regarding the above courses.
Public Service Association
The Public Service Association (PSA) was first established in 1889, and has grown to include around 40,000 members
across the public service, making it one of the largest trade unions in Australia. A key objective of the PSA is to ensure
fair and reasonable treatment of its members in any matters related to their employment within the public service.
The Community Corrections (Vocational Branch) Advisory Group (CC(VB)AG) is the representative group for
Community Corrections members of the PSA. The CC(VB)AG regularly meets with senior management to represent
members in relation to a range of issues that affect staff, including health and safety, pay and conditions, workload, and
resourcing. This includes negotiation of industrial relations agreements such as the criteria for Senior Community
Corrections Officers, which was recently amended with the overwhelming support of a member ballot, and changes to
the workload model.
In addition to supporting members through employment related issues, union membership provides other benefits,
including journey insurance, which provides cover in case of injury to or from the workplace, discounts on a range of
products and services through Union Shopper, and legal and welfare services for personal as well as work related
matters. Go to http://psa.asn.au/resources/value-added-services/ for more information.
In order to ensure the PSA is able to represent you effectively, whether you are a CCO, administrative assistant or
manager, it is important that you get involved and provide feedback to your local representative. If you are unsure of
who your local representative is, contact the chair of the CC(VB)AG Carmen Wells (at Nowra) on 4424 6700, or to join
the PSA, call 1300 772 679.
The CC(VB)AG meets with senior management on a quarterly basis. The next meeting is scheduled for 27 August.
13
General Information
Probation and Parole Officers Association
The Probation and Parole Officers’ Association of New South Wales was established in 1975 and presently comprises
over 280 members. An elected executive body champions the aims and objectives of the association, which are to:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Deal as a representative body at appropriate levels with matters of concern and interest
Participate in and facilitate the exchange of information and ideas around community offender management
and other Australian States and international jurisdictions
Publish all material for circulation amongst members
Increase knowledge and theory of the methods of Probation and Parole within the correctional sphere
Increase public awareness of the scope and content of Probation and Parole practices
Liaise with relevant bodies and individuals in the interests of the Association and Probation and Parole.
By joining PPOANSW, you automatically become a member of the national Probation and Community Corrections
Officers Association (PACCOA) through an affiliation agreement. This entitles you to attend PACCOA Conferences at
the member rate and network with other Community Corrections Officers and practitioners throughout Australia.
The PPOA recently held a development day on 26 June at the University of Western Sydney. A total of 90 staff
attended, to hear speakers such as Professor Karl Roberts and Professor David Tait discuss topics including assessing
risk of stalking based violence and mandatory sentencing.
Coming events
21 August 2014
Annual general meeting, followed by awards presentation for the 1st year officer and Alan
Brush award for excellence. Held at the Novotel Sydney Central, commencing 5pm.
29-31 October 2014
PACCOA conference in Launceston Tasmania. Content includes academic presentations and
skills development workshops.
For more details please visit www.ppoansw.com.au, and follow us on Facebook for updates.
14
Contacts
Queanbeyan
Silverwater
Sutherland
Tamworth
Taree
Tumut
Wagga Wagga
Wellington
Windsor
Wollongong
Wyong
Young
Community Corrections Offices
Albury
Armidale
Bankstown
Batemans Bay
Bathurst
Bega
Blacktown
Bourke
Bowral
Broken Hill
Burwood
Campbelltown
Casino
Cessnock
City
City - court duty
Coffs Harbour
Cooma
Coonamble
Dee Why
Dubbo
Fairfield
Forbes
Glen Innes
Gosford
Goulburn
Grafton
Griffith
Gunnedah
Hornsby
Hurstville
Inverell
Kempsey
Lake Macquarie
Lismore
Lithgow
Liverpool
Long Bay Parole Unit
Maitland
Moree
Mt. Druitt
Muswellbrook
Newcastle
Newtown
Nowra
Orange
Parramatta
Penrith
Port Macquarie
(02) 6058-8100
(02) 6772-2073
(02) 9707-2144
(02) 4472-4987
(02) 6332-2737
(02) 6492-3144
(02) 9854-5250
(02) 6870-8000
(02) 4861-3777
(08) 8082-3000
(02) 9745-2211
(02) 8796 1900
(02) 6662-4311
(02) 4991-1702
(02) 9265-7500
(02) 9287-7118
(02) 6652-6933
(02) 6452-1903
(02) 6822-1988
(02) 9982-7266
(02) 6883-5000
(02) 8717-4600
(02) 6851-9900
(02) 6732-2644
(02) 4324-3744
(02) 4824-2299
(02) 6643-2585
(02) 6964-2242
(02) 6742-5220
(02) 9479-2100
(02) 9579-6200
(02) 6721-0309
(02) 6561-3100
(02) 4956-5533
(02) 6623-7200
(02) 6352-1555
(02) 9612-0800
(02) 9289-2172
(02) 4933-4333
(02) 6750-7800
(02) 8886-6000
(02) 6549-0600
(02) 4918-7998
(02) 9550-4056
(02) 4424-6700
(02) 6361-4666
(02) 9685-2666
(02) 4777-8400
(02) 6583-6677
(02) 6229-7500
(02) 9521-3544
(02) 6763-3700
(02) 6552-7599
(02) 6947-4104
(02) 6932-7400
(02) 6845-4311
(02) 4571-6000
(02) 4267-6500
(02) 4355-7700
(02) 6382-3599
Other
Academy
(02) 9804-5444
Balund-A
(02) 6660-8600
Child Protection
child.protection@dcs.nsw.gov.au
ESO team
(02) 9854-5200
IC&T helpdesk
(02) 8346-1245
Miruma
(02) 4993-2212
Nunyara COSP
(02) 9289-2950
OPRB (Standards/KPIs) (02) 8346 1403
Policy Unit
com.policy@dcs.nsw.gov.au
Statewide Disabilities
sds@dcs.nsw.gov.au
Staff Support
1300 363 202
StaffSupport@dcs.nsw.gov.au
15