UNCLASSIFIED
OFFENDER MANAGEMENT – PSYCHOLOGIST’S REPORT FORMAT SPR E
This instruction applies to :
Reference:
NOMS Agency staff (Headquarters)
Prisons
AI 13/2011
PSI 36/2011
AMENDED
Issue date
Expiry Date
Effective Date
Implementation Date
9 December 2011
9 December 2011
Issued on the authority of
For action by
4 May 2015
NOMS Agency Board
Director High Security, Functional Directors with responsibility
for Offender Management, Lead Psychologists, HQ
Psychologists who prepare SPR E Reports, Governors,
Heads of Psychology, Heads of Offender Management,
Psychological Staff in Contracted out Prisons
For information
All staff in NOMS HQ and Prison Establishments.
Contact
Jo Bailey, NOMS Lead Psychologist
Jo.bailey@noms.gsi.gov.uk, 1440 743108
Associated documents
PSO4700, PSO6010, PSO 2700
Updates the required format for the submission of SPRE Reports Psychologists’ Report
Audit/monitoring :
Compliance checks will be undertaken by Lead Psychologists. Additional compliance checks may
be undertaken Offender management Audit procedures.
Ad-hoc monitoring will be undertaken by Heads of Psychology.
UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED
Page 1
CONTENTS
Section
1
Annex A
Annex B
Subject
Executive Summary
Report Format
Equality Impact Assessment
1.
Executive summary
1.1
Background
Applies to
Psychologists
Psychologists
Psychologists
1.1.1 This instruction sets out the requirement for the format of Psychologists’ Reports (SPR E)
that are submitted to the Parole Board Review Process.
1.1.2 It also sets out the requirement for the format of Psychologists’ reports submitted as a part
of the Sentence Planning and Review Process other than for Parole Board Review
purposes.
1.1.3 The format replaces that specified in PSO 6010 at Annex 2 under SPRE, and is the format
anticipated at that Annex. Establishment hard copies of PSO6010 should have copies of
the SPRE Format replaced by Annex A of this instruction.
1.2
Desired outcomes
1.2.1 This Instruction aims to ensure that reports submitted to the Parole or Sentence Planning
Review process by Psychologists are standardised and meet an appropriate professional
standard.
1.3
Application
1.3.1 All Psychological staff preparing reports on offenders as a part of the Parole and Sentence
Planning Review processes as defined in Annex 2 of PSO6010 (SPRE).
1.3.2 All Lead Psychologists and other Psychological staff having contact with the Parole or
Sentence Planning Review process should familiarise themselves with the required format.
1.1.4 Mandatory actions
1.4.1 All
staff
must
adhere
to
the
mandatory
actions
detailed
in
this
instruction.
1.4.2 All Psychologists will use the attached format (Annex A) for reports submitted on offenders
as a part of the Parole and Sentence planning review processes.
1.4.3 Governors and Psychology Managers and Supervisors must ensure that the mandatory
actions are followed and checks on compliance and quality are carried out at scheduled
intervals.
1.5
Resource Impact
1.5.1 There will be no direct resource impact on staff in NOMS headquarters or in Prison
Establishments resulting from this Instruction.
PSI 36/2011& AI 13/2011
UNCLASSIFIED
Issue date 09/12/2011
UNCLASSIFIED
Page 2
1.6
Guidance
1.6.1
All formal psychological testing and semi structured assessment procedures undertaken
should take place with full consideration of the Equality based needs of the offender.
Contacts;
If you require further information about this PSI please contact:
Jo Bailey
NOMS Lead Psychologist
Jo.bailey@noms.gsi.gov.uk, 1440 743108
Amendment approved for publication by Tony Watson
p.p. Digby Griffith
Director of National Operational Services
PSI 36/2011& AI 13/2011
UNCLASSIFIED
Issue date 09/12/2011
UNCLASSIFIED
Page 3
Annex A:
FORMAT for PSYCHOLOGY REPORTS
SPR E
Front Cover Sheet
1.
Introduction
The introduction should contain details of the report writer. For example:
2.

Name of report writer

Job title and professional qualifications of report writer

(If trainee, name of supervisor, and job title)

Relevant experience of report writer, and length of time in relevant employment

‘Professional’ statement (i.e. BPS/HPC affiliations)
Issues to be addressed and context of report
Report Purpose/Context: This section should contain an overview of the Purpose of the
Report in order to contextualise the report for the reader(s). A clear statement of purpose
also reduces the potential for the report to be used out of context and potentially create
professional difficulties.
3.
Methods of assessment
To include:

Knowledge of the offender

Report Disclosure

Sources of information accessed

Methods of assessment (e.g. structured assessments/clinical
assessments/psychometric assessments)
4.
Documented background
This section will provide a summary of the case history of the offender. It will refer to any
pertinent factors relating to the offenders circumstances now or at the time of the offence
that have a bearing on risk:
These may include aspects of childhood, intimate
relationships, wider family, medical or psychiatric history, education or employment
situation, social or leisure interests. Such factors may also be discussed at a later stage as
‘protective factors’.
PSI 36/2011& AI 13/2011
UNCLASSIFIED
Issue date 09/12/2011
UNCLASSIFIED
5.
Page 4
Psychological assessment: (Offender)
This section should provide a current assessment of risk (of whatever type presented/being
assessed) under subheadings that the report writer considers relevant. For example, these
may include:
6.

Presentation during assessment

View of current proceedings

Psychometric assessment

Clinical assessment
Conclusion and opinion in relation to specific areas of instruction
The ‘Summary and Recommendations’ part of the report will draw the issues together. The
aim is that, if the reader reads just one section of the report, it will be this one which will
make the conclusions clear. In some cases, it may be that it is most helpful to the reader to
have the Conclusion/Summary and Opinion as two separate sections.
Appendices
1.
Glossary of technical terms
2.
List of documents examined
3.
Statement of methodology
4.
References
PSI 36/2011& AI 13/2011
UNCLASSIFIED
Issue date 09/12/2011
UNCLASSIFIED
Page 5
Annex B
HQ policy
Equality Impact Assessment
Policy Psychologist’s Reporting to the Parole Board and within
Policy lead
Group
Directorate
Offender Management Requirements
Jo Bailey
Psychology
Operations
The EIA process
The EIA has been constructed as a two-stage process in order to reduce the amount of work involved where a
policy proves not to be relevant to any of the equalities issues.
The initial screening tool should be completed in all cases, but duplication of material between it and the full EIA
should be avoided. For instance, where relevance to an equalities issue is self-evident or quickly identified this can
be briefly noted on the initial screening and detailed consideration of that issue reserved for the full EIA.
Further guidance on this will be given by the relevant equalities team.
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?
Psychologists providing reports for HMPS in respect of the Generic Parole Process are
required to follow a template that meets the requirements of the Public Protection Manual, the
Offender Management process, Indeterminate Sentence Prisoner Policy Professional
Standards as set down by the Health Professions Council and the requirements of the Parole
Board (S32(6)CJA1991).
Specifically in the report they should consider the Parole Board requirements that:
In assessing the level of risk to life and limb presented by a lifer, the Parole Board shall
consider the following information, where relevant and where available, before directing the
lifer's release, recognizing that the weight and relevance attached to particular information may
PSI 36/2011& AI 13/2011
UNCLASSIFIED
Issue date 09/12/2011
UNCLASSIFIED
Page 6
vary according to the circumstances of each case:
a) the lifer's background, including the nature, circumstances and pattern of any previous
offending;
b) the nature and circumstances of the index offence, including any information provided in
relation to its impact on the victim or victim's family;
c) the trial judge's sentencing comments or report to the Secretary of State, and any probation,
medical, or other relevant reports or material prepared for the court;
d) whether the lifer has made positive and successful efforts to address the attitudes and
behavioural problems which led to the commission of the index offence;
e) the nature of any offences against prison discipline committed by the lifer;
f) the lifer’s attitude and behaviour to other prisoners and staff,
g) the category of security in which the lifer is held and any reasons or reports provided by the
Prison Service for such categorisation, particularly in relation to those lifers held in Category A
conditions of security;
h) the lifer's awareness of the impact of the index offence, particularly in relation to the victim
or victim’s family, and the extent of any demonstrable insight into his /her attitudes and
behavioural problems and whether he/she has taken steps to reduce risk through the
achievement of life sentence plan targets;
i) any medical, psychiatric or psychological considerations (particularly if there is a history of
mental instability);
j) the lifer's response when placed in positions of trust, including any absconds, escapes, past
breaches of temporary release or life licence conditions and life licence revocations;
k) any indication of predicted risk as determined by a validated actuarial risk predictor model,
or any other structured assessments of the lifers risk and treatment needs
l) whether the lifer is likely to comply with the conditions attached to his or her life licence and
the requirements of supervision, including any additional non-standard conditions;
m) any risk to other persons, including the victim, their family and friends
The SPRE is the template that has been designed to address these requirements,. The use of
the SPRE by psychologists provides a policy whereby reports meet broader instructional and
legislative requirements This EIA addresses the impact and use of this template and proposed
practice guidance in terms of those offenders on whom reports are prepared to assist the
Parole Board in respect of the 7 areas where risk of Equality of Opportunity being diminished
applies.
Effects
What effects will the policy have on staff, offenders or other stakeholders?
Staff: primarily the introduction of the standardised template will impact on trainee and
qualified (Registered) Psychologists both in direct employment and those commissioned to
complete reports on behalf of the Secretary of State in respect of both the Offender
Management and Parole Board Review processes. Secondary impact will be on those staff and
offender management involved staff who are in receipt of the reports. The effects will be
PSI 36/2011& AI 13/2011
UNCLASSIFIED
Issue date 09/12/2011
UNCLASSIFIED
Page 7
greater clarity in reports and expectations of reporting Psychologists. For those not familiar
with the style and content of reporting produced there is likely to be a need for effective
communication of the changes and their purpose. For the Psychologist Practitioner responsible
for the report(s) (either as Author or Supervisor) an expectation of capacity is inherent in the
design and subject to process awareness of the ISP and Parole Board Systems (PSO 4700 &
PSO 6010). This capacity to deliver such reports is an expectation of the requirements of the
Health Profession Council (HPC) for registrants. In terms of this EIA, there are no substantive
changes to the process or policy that would impact any differently than current arrangements,
except that Psychologists and others with a longer length of service will be required to alter
‘custom and practice’ and adjust to the revised process.
Offenders: Offenders on whom reports are prepared will be in receipt of an assessment/risk
management report about them that will be consistent across establishments and their sentence
whilst in custody. Reports will be in keeping with best practice following consultation with
specialists in the field of forensic psychology, risk assessment/management, offender
management practice and with reference to civil practice procedures recognised in a formal
court setting. The report style and approach is designed to be of maximum benefit to all users,
including the offender as the service user, in keeping with HPC requirements of Registrant
Psychologists.
Stakeholders: Offenders’ Legal Representatives (and their commissioned report writers),
members of the Parole Board, Offender Representative Groups and Treasury Solicitors are the
key stakeholders external to NOMS. Internally, policy leads for Psychology, Interventions,
Equality and Offender Management are key non delivery stakeholders within NOMS. The
effect on these groups will be that the report template will be a consistent, recognised,
organisational approach to the provision of Psychological risk assessment/management
information to the Parole Review process. As such the ability of the stakeholder to engage with
NOMS and its delivery staff in respect of Psychological Reports will be enhanced through
increased accessibility and consistency of format.
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
reports/complaints and litigation/relevant research publications etc. Does any of this evidence point towards
relevance to any of the equalities issues?
Offender Management EIA (completed in July 2008)
This EIA, identifies that the following considerations should be made, which apply to the SPRE
as a particular component of the OM process:
-Race – In line with HMIP recommendations1 (Sentence Plans) – quality assurance measures
should be put in place to ensure that there are no inequalities in reports prepared for white and
ethnic minority group offenders.
Disability – Paperwork and documentation is not available to staff or offenders in Braille or
electronic forms for those with dyslexia/learning difficulties or visual impairments.
Gender - The Corston Report (March 2007) stated that “there must also be an investment in
more rigorous training and ongoing support and supervision for all those charged with meeting
the complex needs of women”. In the context of the SPRE reporting specialists need to be
familiar with and responsive to the needs of female offenders as distinct from those of male
offenders.
Gender Identity – There is a need for improved cultural awareness which should incorporate the
needs of transgender offenders.
Thematic Report (2000) ‘Towards Race Equality.
PSI 36/2011& AI 13/2011
UNCLASSIFIED
1
Issue date 09/12/2011
UNCLASSIFIED
Page 8
Sexual Orientation – staff find a sexuality awareness training programme useful in ensuring that
they can effectively target the specific needs of individuals.
Age – the needs of older and younger offenders can often be very different and staff need to be
sensitised to issues arising in respect of how individual needs will vary with age.
HMIP Thematic Report (2009) ‘Disabled Prisoners’
- National survey of 5,793 prisoners of whom 864 identified themselves as having a
disability. Of these 5% were ISPs.
- Table 1 shows proportion by agegroup
Table 1 (Table 3 in the original report) Breakdown of age of those who considered themselves
to have a disability and percentage within each age group
Age group
Age of prisoners with a
Disability (%)
8%
23%
26%
22%
21%
Under 21
21 to 29
30 to 39
40 to 49
50 and over
-
% of prisoners within each
age group with a disability
13%
9%
15%
20%
37%
Disability is a cross age feature that does however co-vary with age.
Recommendations relevant to the current EIA are:
1.34 Reasonable adjustments should be made to allow full access to the regime and facilities for disabled prisoners,
which should be maintained and reviewed according to updated needs assessments.
1.37 Prison forms should be accessible to all prisoners, and those with learning or literacy difficulties should receive
help from a member of staff or an official prisoner carer/mentor scheme to complete them.
Foreign National Prisoner Data
Data provided by the Justice Statistics Analytical Services show that, on 31 March 2010, there
were a total 7,499 prisoners serving life sentences. This figure comprise 6,755 UK nationals,
691 foreign nationals and a further 33 prisoners whose nationality was not recorded. This
suggests that in terms of accessibility, 10.23% at least of lifers are unlikely to have English as
their first language. The current (May 2010) total ISP population is 13,000.
Statistics on Race and the Criminal Justice System 2008/09
The most recent Data presented under Section 59 of the CJA 1991 is presented at Table2 (5.04
in the original document)
White
Black
Asian
Mixed
Unknown
All
BME
All
2.7%
Chinese
or
Other
0.3%
2005
81.7%
10.3%
4.5%
0.7%
17.7%
65,670
2006
80.9%
10.6%
4.8%
2.8%
0.2%
0.7%
18.4%
66,160
2007
80.6%
10.6%
4.9%
3.0%
0.2%
0.6%
18.7%
67,767
2008
79.7%
11.1%
5.2%
3.2%
0.3%
0.6%
19.8%
70,751
2009
79.6%
10.9%
5.4%
3.4%
0.3%
0.3%
20.1%
71,231
Given
these data,
the
revised
SPRE
format
should
reflect
any
cultural or other race specific individual needs or considerations.
HMIP Thematic Report (2004) Older Prisoners
20% of male lifers expect to be released beyond the age of 60 years and 2% of female lifers.
At p68 in recommendations made for national policy HMIP state:
PSI 36/2011& AI 13/2011
UNCLASSIFIED
Issue date 09/12/2011
UNCLASSIFIED
Page 9
“The Prison Service should undertake research into how to manage those who deny sex
offences, support them to confront offending and develop appropriate interventions and
appropriate environments”
The revised SPRE has a direct bearing on this issue.
EIA on Revised Indeterminate Sentence Prisoner PSO 4700
The outcome of the EIA conducted in this respect concluded that there were no direct equality
issues arising and in terms of monitoring states that:
“As the framework of the policy applies to all ISP equally, no specific monitoring will be put in
place. The monitoring already in place for the processes, e.g. categorisation etc. will continue to
be used. The policy holders for these other processes will be directly accountable for this
monitoring”
Health Professions Council, Standards of Conduct, Performance and Ethics (SCPE)
Under the Health Professions Act (2001) Section 60 (as amended2009), all Practitioner
Psychologists must be Registered with the Council in order to Practice and use the title
‘Forensic Psychologist’ (or any other protected Psychologist Title). NOMS is in the process of
requiring that all staff employed as Qualified Psychologists are Registered and that all Trainee
Psychologists are following an HPC approved traing route to Registration.
In the SCPE Psychologists Standard 1 states that:
“You are personally responsible for making sure that you promote and protect the best interests
of your service users. You must respect and take account of these factors when providing care or
a service, and must not abuse the relationship you have with a service user. You must not allow
your views about a service user’s sex, age, colour, race, disability, sexuality, social or economic
status, lifestyle, culture, religion or beliefs to affect the way you treat them or the professional
advice you give. You must treat service users with respect and dignity. If you are providing care,
you must work in partnership with your service users and involve them in their care as
appropriate.”
As such the SPRE format needs to facilitate psychological reports to be prepared and delivered
in a manner that does not breach this practice requirement.
Stakeholders and feedback
Describe the target group for the policy and list any other interested parties. What contact have
you had with these groups?
Target group is the Parole Board primarily and Offender Assessment & Management Unit and
Public Protection and Mental Health Group Unit (PPMHG) as possible secondary clients. In
terms of policy ownership nationally, Regional Psychologists are the primary client.
Consultation with colleagues in the Parole Board has been ongoing, as has consultation with
OAMU, on the production of the draft template and guidelines by Regional Psychologists and
other Psychologists in Policy and Delivery groups.
Other interest Groups and contact information:
- Safer Custody and Operational policy Group (SCOP) – to be consulted
- Equality Group (EG) – Contact initiated – Meeting held at draft Initial Assessment and
ongoing.
PSI 36/2011& AI 13/2011
UNCLASSIFIED
Issue date 09/12/2011
UNCLASSIFIED
-
Page 10
Womens Group and Young People’s Group – (WG/YPG) – to be consulted
Offender Health (OH) – contacted and agreed to review EIA in consultation stage
Prisoner Groups – yet to be consulted
Treasury Solicitors (TSols) – aware and yet to be consulted
Rehabilitation Services Group – (RSG) – Involved in part in template drafting – further
consultation planned more widely in the Group
Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons – (HMIP) – yet to be consulted
Professional Body (BPS) – yet to be consulted
Do you have any feedback from stakeholders, particularly from groups representative of the
various issues, that this policy is relevant to them?
-
-
-
-
Parole Board – supportive of draft template produced to date
OAMU – Group owning the SPR and OM process
Regional Psychologists – developed draft to date – acting on behalf of profession in
regions and on behalf of DOMs
PPMHG – Interest given policy responsibility for Public protection processes, of which
the SPRE is a critical part for ISPs
EG – Interests arises from previous legal challenges to reporting of risk information by
Psychologists
WG &YPG – Interest arises from needs of female offenders as distinct from males and
the differing needs of young prisoners (see evidence above)
OH – Interest in terms of how SPRE EIA and template fits with SPRG (Psychiatric
Report) and areas of overlap in reporting of Personality and Learning Disorders. DH
colleagues may be using SPRE format for reporting on PIPEs
Prisoner Groups – Interest in terms of accessibility of template content.
TSols– Interest in terms of defensibility of NOMS policy in an area that has seen a
number of Judicial Reviews launched.
RSG – Interested both as Psychologists and Service Policy leads in interventions. Also
in relation to interface with SPRD (Key worker) report and potentially has links to other
specialist reports such as the SARN and DARNA. Feedback to date is supportive of the
change
HMIP – Interest arises from the Thematic Report on Disabled Prisoners in 2009 and
general duty to measure Prison performance (and by inference policy) against the
Healthy Prisons assessment.
BPS – Interest in terms of Ethical and professional Practice of Psychologists and their
reputation in the Public Sector and broader society
Impact
Could the policy have a differential impact on staff, prisoners, visitors or other stakeholders on
the basis of any of the equalities issues?
There is a potential differential Impact on prisoners in terms of issues related to:
Disability (Learning Disorder, Visual/hearing Impairment, Physical )
Race (Cultural differences)
Age (individual needs)
Gender (needs of offender groups)
PSI 36/2011& AI 13/2011
UNCLASSIFIED
Issue date 09/12/2011
UNCLASSIFIED
Page 11
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?
As it is a proposed national template there is no discretion in the structure, although within the
content adjustments are possible.
Summary of relevance to equalities issues
Strand
Race
Gender (including
gender identity)
Disability
Religion or belief
Sexual orientation
Age (younger offenders)
Age (older offenders)
Yes/No
Rationale
Yes
At least 10% of Lifers are FNPs with differing cultural and
language needs. In addition, within the EEA and the UK
the cultural context of behaviour as assessed will vary. Use
of Psychometric testing will need to reflect this for
example.
Male and Female offenders differ in their needs in relation
to risk management through psychological assessment and
interventions
The needs of Learning Disabled offenders are specific
therapeutically. In terms of accessibility there is relevance
for not only LD offenders but also sensory impairment,
traumatic brain injury and physical access (to assessment
interviews)
Yes
Yes
No
No
Covered by considerations under Gender
Yes
The needs of younger people in respect of psychological
Assessment are different to those of the mainstream adult
population.
With increasing age, issues related to needs, and processing
of information will vary. Desistance based on
chronological age is also a consideration
Yes
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.
A review of the original issued PSI was carried out with stakeholders over the 4 weeks of October
2011. Consequently this revised version has been agreed for post review issue.
PSI 36/2011& AI 13/2011
UNCLASSIFIED
Issue date 09/12/2011
UNCLASSIFIED
Page 12
State when a review will take place and how it will be conducted.
A full review will take place 12 months prior to the expiry of the current PSI (May 2014) or at a
time that prior to that if national policy pertaining to the delivery of Psychological Reports to the
Parole Board is varies.
Name and signature
Policy lead
Head of group
Date
Jo Bailey (
Jo Bailey
PSI 36/2011& AI 13/2011
UNCLASSIFIED
Issue date 09/12/2011