UNCLASSIFIED
Service Specification for Unpaid Work/Community Payback and Community
Payback Operating Manual: Delivering the Sentence of Unpaid Work Edition 2
This instruction applies to:-
Reference:-
Probation Services and Other Providers of Community
Payback
Issue Date
Effective Date
Implementation Date
1 November 2012
1 April 2013
PI 17/2012
Issued on the
authority of
For action by
Expiry Date
31 March 2017
NOMS Agency Board
All staff responsible for the development and publication of policy and
instructions:Probation Trust Chief Executives
Providers of Community Payback
All staff responsible for the delivery of Community Payback
*If this box is marked, then in this document the term Governor also applies to Directors of
Contracted Prisons except where specified
Instruction type
For information
Provide a summary of
the policy aim and the
reason for its
development/ revision
Contact
Service Specification Support
Offender Managers
Introduces a revised Service Specification for Unpaid Work/Community
Payback to achieve immediacy of start and intensive working for
offenders on Unpaid Work.
David Renouf, Senior Manager, Community Commissioning Group David.Renouf@noms.gsi.gov.uk
David Mead, Community Payback Manager, Community
Commissioning Group - David.Mead@noms.gsi.gov.uk 0300 047 5203
Associated documents Service Specification for Unpaid Work / Community Payback, Operating
Model, Direct Service Costs & Assumptions, and Cost Spreadsheet
Replaces the following documents which are hereby amended:
The Service Specification for Unpaid Work / Community Payback and The Operating Manual for
Community Payback: delivering the sentence of Unpaid Work issued as PI 02/2010
Audit/monitoring:
NOMS Senior Community Managers will monitor compliance with the mandatory actions set out in
this Probation Instruction. Providers of Community Payback must demonstrate compliance with
these actions from 1 April 2013.
Introduces amendments to the following documents:
The Service Specification for Unpaid Work / Community Payback and Operating Manual for
Community Payback: Delivering the Sentence of Unpaid Work. Copies of the Operating Manual
and Service Specification on EPIC will be replaced by the revised documents; hard copies must be
amended or cross referenced locally.
UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED
PAGE 2
CONTENTS
Hold down “Ctrl” and click on section titles below to follow link
Section
Subject
For reference by:
1
Executive Summary
All staff
2
Operational Instruction
All staff
3
Annex A - Service Specification for
Unpaid Work/ Community Payback
All staff responsible for the
management and delivery of
Community Payback
4
Annex B - Community Payback Operating
Manual: Delivering the Sentence of
Unpaid Work
All staff responsible for the
management and delivery of
Community Payback
PI 17/2012
UNCLASSIFIED
ISSUE DATE 01/11/2012
UNCLASSIFIED
1.
PAGE 3
Executive Summary
Background
1.1
This instruction introduces the revised Service Specification for Unpaid Work / Community
Payback (Annex A) and a revised Community Payback Operating Manual: delivering the
sentence of Unpaid Work. (Annex B). This is the second edition of the Community
Payback Operating Manual replacing that issued in February 2010 and implemented April
2010.
1.2
The Green Paper, Breaking the Cycle; effective punishment, rehabilitation and sentencing
of offenders, proposed that offenders should start Community Payback more immediately
after sentence and that the working day and week on Community Payback should be more
demanding and akin to a standard working week/day experienced by members of the
public. These measures are designed to increase public confidence in Community
Payback. These proposals are now policy and incorporated into the Service Specification
for Unpaid Work/Community Payback.
1.3
It was originally intended that this Specification would be implemented across the Country
through the Community Payback competition. The competition for Community Payback
delivery in London has now concluded and the new contractor for London will deliver to this
Specification from service commencement in October 2012. Future competition for the
delivery of Community Payback in other parts of the country is currently under
consideration as part of the wider review of probation services. In order to keep to agreed
timescales for the implementation of intensive Community Payback and ensure consistency
in sentence delivery, NOMS requires Probation Trusts to implement the revised
Specification by way of the community commissioning round and contract variation for
2013/14. It is recognised that many Trusts have been preparing for the Community
Payback competition so are aware of this Specification. Many will be advanced in planning
and/or implementing the new requirements and in delivering Community Payback more
cost effectively.
Desired outcomes
1.4
That Community Payback is delivered throughout England and Wales in accordance with
the revised Service Specification for Unpaid Work/Community Payback and in line with the
instructions, guidance and standards contained in the Community Payback Operating
Manual.
Mandatory actions
1.5
Contract Managers in Probation Trusts must ensure that from the 1st April 2013 Community
Payback is delivered in accordance with the new Service Specification as mandated by the
Trust Contract. Staff delivering Community Payback therefore must ensure that the outputs
and outcomes in the Service Specification are met and that there is also compliance with
the revised Operating Manual from 1st April 2013.
Resource Impact
1.6
The resource requirements for Community Payback are set out in the Specification,
Benchmarking and Costing Programme documents that support the Community
Payback/Unpaid Work Service Specification. The Specification has been revised to reflect
changes in response to the Green Paper. Probation Trusts are now required to align their
delivery of Community Payback with the requirements of the revised Service Specification
and the second edition of the Operating Manual and to ensure compliance with
requirements from 1st April 2013. These changes include commencing offenders on
PI 17/2012
UNCLASSIFIED
ISSUE DATE 01/11/2012
UNCLASSIFIED
PAGE 4
community payback within seven calendar days of sentence; intensive working for
unemployed offenders and a longer working day for offenders subject to Community
Payback.
1.7
The introduction of a more intensive pattern of work for eligible unemployed offenders will
produce one off implementation costs. These costs will be incurred as the volume of
offenders and numbers of Unpaid Work hours requiring intensive Community Payback rises
to its peak during the first year of delivery before settling at a new mean of delivery. During
this transition phase Trusts are required to supervise more offender hours per week. In
managing this spike in demand Trusts will need to increase the weekly capacity of work
placements and reconfigure staffing and resources to provide the increased rate of
supervision and case management required for offenders attending 4 days per week.
1.8
NOMS will use the Commissioning round for 2013/14 to require Probation Trusts to
introduce these changes and implementation costs will need to be factored into baseline
budgets for 2013/14.
1.9
It is not intended that the introduction of these changes will lead to a rise in the total volume
of Unpaid Work hours ordered by the Courts and usual demand management strategies will
continue to apply. Within the first year of intensive Community Payback the volume of
hours to be worked intensively will level and efficiencies are projected arising largely
through providing the longer working day and an anticipated improved compliance as
offenders complete orders at a faster rate.
(Signed)
John Scott
Deputy Director of Community
Probation and Contracted Services Directorate
PI 17/2012
UNCLASSIFIED
ISSUE DATE 01/11/2012
UNCLASSIFIED
PAGE 5
2.
Operational Instruction
2.1
The revised Service Specification for Unpaid Work / Community Payback defines the
service to be provided, including the required outcome(s) and outputs. The revised
Operating Manual follows the structure of the Specification and is designed to provide the
detailed operational instructions, standards and guidance necessary to implement the
Specification. Both documents require the following specific changes to be implemented:


All offenders to be scheduled to commence work within seven calendar days of
sentence, having completed appropriate induction.
A minimum seven hour working day per week for all offenders on Community
Payback
A minimum 28 hour working week on Community Payback for eligible unemployed
offenders. Details of eligible offenders can be found in the Operating Manual.
2.2
The specific changes identified above, as part of the revised Specification, must be
implemented for all Unpaid Work Requirements imposed by Courts from 1st April 2013.
There is no requirement to apply these changes to offenders subject to existing orders as of
the 31st March 2013. Trusts may however wish to introduce a minimum seven hour
working day for all offenders subject to UPW Requirements during the transition phase and
beyond and seek to negotiate a more intensive pattern of work with all eligible unemployed
offenders to facilitate increased throughput and efficiencies.
2.3
Chief Executives of Probation Trusts must ensure that the delivery of Community Payback
in their trust area is reorganised in accordance with the provisions in the revised
Specification and Operating Manual by 1st April 2013.
2.4
The manual can be found electronically on EPIC. For ease of use, the Annexes are in
Word format. In the future the Operating Manual will be further updated as necessary.
PI 17/2012
UNCLASSIFIED
ISSUE DATE 01/11/2012
UNCLASSIFIED
PAGE 6
Annex A
Service Specification for Unpaid Work/ Community Payback
PI 17/2012
UNCLASSIFIED
ISSUE DATE 01/11/2012
UNCLASSIFIED
PAGE 7
Annex B
OMNI Users
Community Payback Operating Manual: Delivering the Sentence of Unpaid Work
NOMS Users
Community Payback Operating Manual: Delivering the Sentence of Unpaid Work
PI 17/2012
UNCLASSIFIED
ISSUE DATE 01/11/2012
UNCLASSIFIED
EIA
PAGE 8
EQUALITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT
PI 17/ 2012 - Service Specification for Unpaid Work/Community Payback and
Community Payback Operating Manual: Delivering the Sentence of Unpaid Work
Edition 2
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?





To introduce a revised Service Specification for Unpaid Work/Community Payback and a
revised Community Payback Operating Manual that supports the Specification. The
Specification defines the key outcomes and outputs required of Community Payback
schemes across England and Wales. The Community Payback Operating Manual
provides further guidance and minimum standards required for Community Payback
delivery.
The revised Specification introduces the following new outcomes and outputs;- all offenders to commence on first community payback work session with 7
calendar days of sentence
- all offenders to work a minimum 7 hour day per week on Community Payback
- eligible unemployed offenders to be instructed to work a minimum of 28 hours per
week on Community Payback.
Both documents reflect MoJ and NOMS policy and strategic objectives of providing a
sentence designed to ensure Community Payback provides a credible punishment for
offenders which is demanding; provides effective reparation to local communities and
strengthens public confidence in community sentences.
Both documents will ensure the effective and consistent delivery of Community Payback
across England and Wales.
The Specification and Manual is designed for use by any provider of Community Payback
from the public, private or voluntary sectors.
Effects
What effects will the policy have on staff, offenders or other stakeholders?
Staff
 The policy defines the key outcomes and outputs required of Community Payback schemes
and the Operating Manual provides a framework of instruction and guidance for staff
PI 17/2012
UNCLASSIFIED
ISSUE DATE 01/11/2012
UNCLASSIFIED




EIA
PAGE 9
delivering Community Payback.
The policy aims to ensure that providers of Community Payback are clear about what services
are to be delivered and within what boundaries.
The Operating Manual informs staff about the considerations to be taken into account in
decisions about how Community Payback is delivered.
The Operating Manual considers each element of the provision and describes the standards
to be applied and reporting mechanisms.
The Operating Manual provides staff with clarity about what they are accountable for and how
their individual roles fit into the overall equitable provision of Community Payback.
Offenders
The Specification and Operating Manual is written for provider organisations to ensure that:
 Offenders receive equitable access to Community Payback provision.
 Reasonable adjustments are made to ensure that Community Payback can be made available
to offenders with particular needs relating to protected characteristics.
 Offenders receive consistent and fair treatment.
 Offenders are aware of the expected standard of behaviour and conduct whilst undertaking
Community Payback.
 Every effort is made to ensure that all offenders have the opportunity to successfully complete
Community Payback sentences.
Stakeholders
The Specification and Operating Manual is written for provider organisations but it can inform and
assist other stakeholders (including members of the public) to:
 Understand the benefits that Community Payback can provide to all sections of local
communities.
 Understand what can reasonably be expected of providers of Community Payback.
 Recognise the flexibility and limitations on local decision making by providers.
 Be better informed about Community Payback provision.
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?
Unpaid Work as a sentence of the Court has been delivered since the 1970’s when Community
Service was first developed as an alternative to custody. The following is an assessment of the
most recent caseload data and relevant equalities issues pertaining to Community Payback.
Age
Percentage of offenders starting unpaid work requirements as part of a community or suspended
sentence order in 2011-12
Age
Age Distribution
Community Order
Suspended Sentence
in General
Order
Population
18-20
6% (15 -19 years) 15%
14%
21-24
7%
19%
19%
25-29
7%
18%
18%
30-39
13%
25%
25%
40-49
15%
16%
16%
50-59
12%
5%
6%
60 and over
22%
1%
2%
PI 17/2012
UNCLASSIFIED
ISSUE DATE 01/11/2012
UNCLASSIFIED
EIA
PAGE 10
In addition to the above in 2011 3.4% of the total Community Payback caseload were offenders of
16 and 17 years of age subject to unpaid work requirements of a Youth Rehabilitation Order.
Providers of Community Payback will continue to be responsible for the delivery of unpaid work
requirements to offenders in this age group.
During 2008 NOMS termination data showed that 71% of adult offenders successfully completed
unpaid work requirements. During the same period the successful completion rate for Community
Punishment orders imposed in respect of 16 and 17 year old offenders was 43%. Since this time
the percentage of adults successfully completing Community Payback sentences has increased
to 76%. Successful outcomes for 16 and 17 year olds subject to unpaid work requirements as
part of a Youth Rehabilitation Order have not improved.
The 18 -24 year age group constitutes 43% of the unpaid work caseload. OASys data shows that
the needs of this group are greater than older adult offenders, in areas of training, education,
employment, lifestyle and associates.
OASys data also indicates that offenders over the age of 40 have greater needs in relation to
emotional well being and alcohol misuse.
There is potential for disproportionate impact in relation to age and providers of Community
Payback should take steps to ensure this impact is mitigated. The Community Payback Operating
Manual advises that separate provision and additional support is made available to ensure
equality of outcomes for younger offenders. YOTs should be consulted on the provision of
appropriate work placements for young offenders and on the management on those offenders.
Older offenders may also require additional support and referral to provision within the community
to address alcohol dependency and other needs.
Disability
There is no data available relating to the prevalence of disability amongst the Community
Payback caseload. A Ministry of Justice survey of prisoners serving less than 4 years published
in 2010 found that 34% reported having a longstanding illness, disability, or infirmity. The
Department of Health estimate that 1.2 million people in the general population of England as a
mild or moderate learning disability. The Prison Reform Trust has suggested that between 20%
and 30% of offenders have learning difficulties or learning disabilities which interfere with their
ability to cope with the criminal justice system, which suggests that people with learning disability
may be over represented in the criminal justice system. The Department for Business Innovation
and Skills found that in 2008/09 69% of offenders entering into learning had a prior attainment at
or below level one (the level expected of an 11 year old).
It is therefore necessary for providers of Community Payback to ensure that work placements are
available which are able to accommodate the needs of offenders with disabilities. Disabled
offenders should not be allocated to work which they would not be capable of undertaking.
Individual or agency placements are often able to offer work for offenders who are unable to do
more demanding manual work and providers are encouraged to increase the proportion of
agency placements to accommodate varying offender needs but also to develop the cost
effectiveness of Community Payback.
The Community Payback assessment process is intended to assist in the identification of
information to ensure suitable placements for offenders with disabilities. Providers must also
ensure that information and instructions given to offenders is in a form which is comprehensible,
taking account of potential learning disability and low levels of literacy. Offenders with learning
difficulties or autistic spectrum disorders may require greater support to successfully complete
their sentences.
The expectation that unemployed offenders will complete their sentences intensively could result
in a potentially disproportionate impact on disabled offenders, who may have difficulty working for
PI 17/2012
UNCLASSIFIED
ISSUE DATE 01/11/2012
UNCLASSIFIED
EIA
PAGE 11
a minimum of four days each week. However, guidance in relation to suitability for intensive
Community Payback is clear that instructions to work intensively must be appropriate and
reasonable given the circumstances of the offender.
Gender reassignment
No data is available regarding the number of offenders sentenced to Community Payback who
are planning to undergo, are undergoing, or have undergone gender reassignment. There is
potential for disproportionate impact and providers should have regard to the guidance provided
by the Operating Manual in relation to gender reassignment.
Marriage and civil partnership
No data is available in relation to the number of offenders sentenced to Community Payback who
are married, or in civil partnerships. The likelihood of disproportionate impact in relation to this
protected characteristic is lower, but cannot be ignored by providers of Community Payback,
particularly given that it may result in disproportionate impact when combined with other protected
characteristics.
Race
The table below shows the percentage of offenders sentenced to unpaid work as part of a
community or suspended sentence order starting in 2011-12 by ethnicity.
Ethnicity
White
Black
Asian or
Mixed
Other
Unknown
Chinese
Community 82%
6%
4%
3%
1%
3%
Order
Suspended 80%
7%
6%
3%
1%
3%
Sentence
Order
Data provided by the Office for National Statistics shows that Black people make up 3% of the
population and Asian people 6% of the population. There is therefore evidence from the above
and similar figures in relation to other sentencing options to suggest there is a potential for a
disproportionate impact on grounds of race. Providers of Community Payback should be aware of
this and put in place strategies to mitigate the impact.
During consultation on the original Specification a concern was expressed that the introduction of
distinctive Community Payback clothing may impact disproportionately on BME offenders,
because of the stigmatisation they could potentially face from their own communities. There have
been no reported incidents of this nature since the introduction of the distinctive clothing in
December 2008. However there may be potential for disproportionate impact, which will need to
be taken into account in placement allocation. The Operating Manual makes it clear that
distinctive clothing should not be used if there is a risk to the public, staff or offenders. This risk
includes risk of racially abusive behaviour.
Religion and belief
The religion and beliefs of offenders subject to community orders is not known. The table below
provides the religions of offenders sentenced to less than 12 months in custody in 2009.
Christian
Muslin
Hindu and Sikh
Anglican
22%
8%
2%
Roman Catholic 16%
Free Church
1%
Other Christian 4%
Section 217(2) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 places a duty on responsible officers to ensure,
so far is as practicable, that instructions given to offenders do not conflict or interfere with their
PI 17/2012
UNCLASSIFIED
ISSUE DATE 01/11/2012
UNCLASSIFIED
EIA
PAGE 12
religious beliefs. In order to avoid disproportionate impact providers of Community Payback must
ensure that offenders who observe religious beliefs are not instructed to report for work on
religious holidays.
There is anecdotal evidence that some offenders face disproportionate impact in their faith
communities as a result of stigma, following conviction for an offence. In the context of
Community Payback providers should ensure that potential disproportionate impact of this nature
is minimised by not requiring offenders to undertake Community Payback work in their own local
communities.
Sex
The table below shows the percentage of offenders sentenced to unpaid work as part of a
community or suspended sentence order in 2009 by gender
Gender
Community Order
Suspended Sentence
Order
Male
87%
88%
Female
13%
12%
Data provided by the National Statistical Office shows that the gender split of the population is
49% male and 51% female. Men are therefore significantly overrepresented in the Community
Payback cohort than in the general population. This has potential implications for women
sentenced to Community Payback and if insufficient attention is paid to the needs of women,
there is potential for a disproportionate impact on women.
Women commit far less crime than men. In 2004/05 there were 1,120,200 (83%) men arrested for
recorded crime offences compared with 233,600 (17%) women. However, as the Corston Report
noted women with histories of violence and abuse are over represented in the criminal justice
system. Up to 50% of women in prison reported having experienced violence at home compared
with a quarter of men. One in three women in prison has suffered sexual abuse compared with
less than one in ten men. The Community Payback Operating Manual recommends that separate
provision should be made available for women, so they are not required to work in predominantly
male groups, where they may be potentially vulnerable.
Mental health problems are also far more prevalent among women in prison than in the male
prison population or in the general population. A Social Exclusion Unit study published in 2002
found that 70% of women prisoners suffered from two or more mental disorders, 35 times the
level in the general population.
Women offenders therefore potentially have more complex needs and vulnerabilities for which it
will be necessary for providers of Community Payback to make adjustments if women sentenced
to Community Payback are not to be disadvantaged. Women offenders are also more likely to be
providers of care for dependants and may often face particular problems making suitable
arrangements for the care of their children when undertaking Community Payback. This may
preclude carers who are unemployed from being instructed to work their sentences intensively.
Dependant care responsibilities may require more flexible working hours and placements which
are within easy travelling distance. The needs of new mothers and mothers to be should also be
carefully assessed to inform placement and management decisions.
Sexual orientation
No information is available in relation to the sexual orientation of offenders sentenced to
Community Payback. Disproportionate impact is clearly possible if offenders are subject to
harassment as a result of their sexual orientation when undertaking Community Payback.
Providers should therefore be aware of this potential disproportionate impact by allocating all
offenders to work placements which are appropriate given their individual needs.
PI 17/2012
UNCLASSIFIED
ISSUE DATE 01/11/2012
UNCLASSIFIED
EIA
PAGE 13
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 Community Payback Specification and Operating Manual is provided primarily to inform
NOMS Commissioning and for provider organisations. However it also has relevance for partner
organisations, beneficiaries, sentencers, offenders and their representatives.
The following organisations were consulted during the preparation of the first edition of the
Operating Manual and the views expressed have informed this version of the Manual:
 NAPO
 UNISON
 Association of Black Probation Officers
 National Disability Staff Network
 Youth Justice Board
 Children’s Commissioner
 Probation Association
 Probation Trusts
 LAGIP
 The Community Payback National Reference Group
 NOMS and other relevant MoJ staff.
The views expressed by stakeholders and operational feedback since the release of the first
version of the Operating Manual in January 2010 has been taken into consideration in this
second version of the Manual.
The Specification and Community Payback Operating Manual aims to give providers of
Community Payback instructions and guidance to ensure the sentence is delivered consistently
and does not result in any diverse group being excluded from participation or disproportionately
impacted by undertaking Community Payback. The Operating Manual is clear that providers must
seek to ensure that the diverse needs of offenders, staff and members of the public are
appropriately assessed and addressed.
Consultation with probation trusts has revealed that due to financial constraints, many of the
current providers are not able to provide separate provision for 16 and 17 year old offenders, as
required by the Operating Manual. For similar reasons some probation trusts have not been in a
position to fully meet the guidance the Manual provides in relation to the allocation of women to
suitable work placements.
User Voice was commissioned by NOMS in October 2010 to advise how service users might be
engaged to improve the delivery, effectiveness and level of offender engagement in Community
Payback. Their recommendations have been included in the revised Specification and second
version of the Operating Manual. The second version of the Operating Manual retains the
requirements for providers to survey offender and beneficiaries regarding their views of
Community Payback and these will be incorporated into the performance measures applied to
providers.
Do you have any feedback from stakeholders, particularly from groups representative of the
various issues, that this policy is relevant to them?
Feedback from stakeholders has identified that it has not been consistently possible to make
appropriate provision for all 16 and 17 year old offenders, all women and to a lesser extent
offenders with more severe disability. In relation to 16 and 17 year old offenders NOMS has been
involved in discussions with the Youth Justice Board and others. As a result it is now agreed that
YOTs should be consulted in relation to the management of young people subject to Community
Payback and YOTs will provide support and advice to young offenders and offender managers to
facilitate compliance and sentence completion.
PI 17/2012
UNCLASSIFIED
ISSUE DATE 01/11/2012
UNCLASSIFIED
EIA
PAGE 14
The work undertaken by User Voice identified the need for better engagement with offenders, in
relation to the management of work placements, the maximisation of existing skills, and making
Community Payback more responsive to the needs of local communities. Offenders also
expressed views on better ways of providing support to vulnerable offenders, increasing
motivation and compliance and maximising skills development. Given this providers are required
to complete regular surveys of offenders and to ensure offenders are fully engaged in the
sentence planning process.
Impact
Could the policy have a differential impact on staff, prisoners, visitors or other stakeholders on
the basis of any of the equalities issues?
Impacts identified at this stage are summarised in the above screening.
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?
The Specification and Manual provides for both mandatory requirements and non-mandatory
guidance. Implementation is the responsibility of providers.
Current performance data does not include the all necessary data to enable Community Payback
outcomes to be used for equalities monitoring purposes. Segmentation data is available on age,
sex and ethnicity. Successful bidders in the competition for Community Payback delivery in
London will be required to provide information relating to outcomes of Community Payback
sentences which are capable of analysis for equality purposes. The introduction of national Delius
will provide further capability for monitoring purposes.
Summary of relevance to equalities issues
Strand
Yes/No
Race Yes
Rationale
See summary rationale provided above
Gender (including gender
identity)
Yes
See the summary rationales provide above in relation to
sex and gender assignment above
Disability
Yes
Summary rationale provided above
Religion or belief
Yes
See rationale provided above
Sexual orientation
Yes
See rationale provide above
Age (younger offenders)
Yes
See rationale provided above
Age (older offenders)
Yes
See rationale provided above
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
PI 17/2012
UNCLASSIFIED
ISSUE DATE 01/11/2012
UNCLASSIFIED
EIA
PAGE 15
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.
The delivery of Community Payback will be subject to ongoing monitoring and the performance of
providers of Community Payback will be subject to ongoing monitoring and performance reviews
as part of the contract management by NOMS. . National Delius will provide improvements in the
collection and reporting of outcome information and of the analysis of providers’ performance in
relation to key equalities criteria.
State when a review will take place and how it will be conducted.
June 2014. The review will be conducted in consultation with stakeholders and using available
outcome data.
Name and signature
Policy lead
Head of group
PI 17/2012
Date
David Renouf
15 June 2012
Marin Copsey
24 August 2012
UNCLASSIFIED
ISSUE DATE 01/11/2012
UNCLASSIFIED
EIA
PAGE 16
Stage 2 – full Equality Impact Assessment
Where relevance to one or more equalities issues has been identified during the Initial Screening, a full
equality impact assessment must be carried out.
This involves the collection of monitoring data and other relevant information and consultation with
stakeholders with a view to producing a full account of the relevant equalities issues and an action plan to
address them.
Summary of issues identified during initial screening
Briefly identify which equalities issues you will be considering and the results of the initial
screening.
Age – While the provision of Community Payback for offenders under the age of 18 continues to
be combined with that of adults there is ongoing concern that the service provided does not meet
the particular needs of younger offenders. Many young offenders would benefit from additional
support and a working environment which is geared specifically toward their level of ability,
understanding and maturity. The Operating Manual requires providers to consult with Youth
Offending Teams concerning the most appropriate unpaid work placements for young offenders
which also meet health and safety needs and support child safeguarding. Young people are not
required to wear high visibility clothing and should not be allocated to worksites on which they are
made visible to the public in other ways. Providers of Community Payback are also required to
have agreement with Youth Offending Teams to enable a young person to be referred to
specialist provision for additional support to meet any specific needs identified during sentence
delivery. Monitoring by outcome in relation to this protected characteristic will continue.
Disabilities – Providers will continue to be consulted in relation to provision for offenders with
disability. Anecdotal evidence suggests that most current providers accommodate offenders with
physical disability by allocating them to individual placements. Monitoring of Community Payback
outcomes in relation to this protected characteristic is not possible. Alternative monitoring
arrangements will therefore need to be devised. The NOMS contracts with providers will require
them to respond to ad hoc requests for information from NOMS.
Gender Assignment – No evidence is available or is likely to be available in relation to Community
Payback outcomes for people who are considering undergoing, are undergoing or have
undergone gender reassignment. It will therefore be necessary to monitor providers’ ability to
successfully deliver Community Payback to people with this protected characteristic by other
means, such as ad hoc requests for information.
Race – A potential disproportionate impact has been identified. Community Payback outcome by
race will be monitored by PCMS and providers performance monitored and reviewed as part of
the contract management.
Religion and Belief - No evidence is available or is likely to be available in relation to Community
Payback outcomes for people of different religions and beliefs. It will therefore be necessary to
monitor providers’ ability to successfully deliver Community Payback to people with this protected
characteristic by other means, such as ad hoc requests for information.
Gender – There is evidence that women sentenced to Community Payback may be
disadvantaged and therefore experience a disproportionate sentence impact. This may for
example result from women being required to work in predominantly male work groups, which
may result in reduced compliance or breach. Women are also more likely to be responsible for
the dependant care of others, which may be difficult to arrange and maintain. Moving forward the
Community Payback sentence outcome will be monitored by gender.
Sexual Orientation - No evidence is available or is likely to be available in relation to Community
PI 17/2012
UNCLASSIFIED
ISSUE DATE 01/11/2012
UNCLASSIFIED
EIA
PAGE 17
Payback outcomes for people of different sexual orientations. It will therefore be necessary to
monitor providers’ ability to successfully deliver Community Payback to people with this protected
characteristic by other means, such as ad hoc requests for information.
Management and monitoring
Describe the systems in place to manage the policy and to monitor its operation and outcomes.
Comment on the adequacy of the systems and note any improvements that you will make to them. Include
a description of and/or extracts from recent monitoring results and provide analysis of them.
The delivery of Community Payback by probation trusts is currently monitored by NOMS. The
successful bidders to deliver the sentence from the private, social enterprise and voluntary
sectors will also be subject to contract monitoring by NOMS to ensure they meet NOMS equality
expectations and current legislation. All Providers of Community Payback are subject to
inspection by HMIP.
Evidence
If you have not already done so in Stage 1, identify other 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.
Summarise and discuss recent relevant evidence from these sources.
See stage 1 and refer to monitoring proposals in outlined above.
Consultation
If you have not already done so in Stage 1, identify the target group and other interested parties.
Explain how you have involved stakeholders, both generally in the development of the policy and
specifically how groups representative of the relevant equalities issues (including ‘hard-to-reach groups’)
have been engaged as part of the EIA process.
Capture main points of feedback from them.
See stage 1 and plans outlined to require providers of Community Payback to consult with
service users.
PI 17/2012
UNCLASSIFIED
ISSUE DATE 01/11/2012
UNCLASSIFIED
EIA
PAGE 18
Discussion
Consider and compare results from previous sections.
Consider in particular issues of stakeholder confidence and local discretion.
The development of the Community Payback Operating Manual has sought to take account of
views expressed by a range of stakeholders following the issue of the Unpaid Work Manual in
2010. Stakeholder feedback is available from a number of sources, including comments and
correspondence from sentencers, Ministers, MP’s. local politicians and members of the public.
The perceptions of offenders and beneficiaries have also routinely been collected at local level
and in future will inform the management of contracts with trusts and other providers of
Community Payback by NOMS.
The Specification and Operating Manual contains mandatory actions and non-mandatory
guidance. In order to deliver Community Payback effectively to local communities, providers must
have sufficient discretion to tailor the service to the needs of those communities. The Operating
Manual is clear that providers must comply with NOMS equality expectations. All Community
Payback providers must demonstrate that diversity is integral and embedded in their delivery
models. This will include the use of effective systems to demonstrate equality of outcomes and
stakeholder engagement, including engagement with service users
Private providers of Community Payback will perform a public function under the Equality Act
2010 and will be required to exercise the general public sector duties required by section 149(2)
of the Act and specific duties set out in secondary legislation.
Conclusion
Summarise and make an overall assessment of the impact of the policy or function on the
relevant equalities issues. Identify any adverse impact on any group.
Highlight examples of success and good practice.
Describe the key issues that remain to be addressed.
This Equality Impact Assessment demonstrates that Community Payback may have a
disproportionate impact on some offenders, unless steps are taken to mitigate any negative
consequences which may result from the sentence.
People under the age of 40 years are disproportionately represented on the Community Payback
caseload, while those of 60 years and over are a very small proportion of the caseload in
comparison to the proportion in the general population. The needs of older offenders may be
increased by disability and providers of Community Payback will need to access work placements
which are suitable for older offenders.
The available evidence suggests that people with learning disabilities may be over represented in
the criminal justice system. Providers of Community Payback must take this into consideration
when devising information leaflets and giving offenders instructions. Intensive Community
Payback may place excessive demands on disabled offenders and it may not be reasonable to
instruct these offenders to work intensively at a minimum of four days each week.
Black people are significantly over represented in the Community Payback caseload. The needs
of black offenders must be taken into consideration by providers of Community Payback.
There is some evidence that provision for women and young offenders has not consistently met
the needs of these two groups. The Operating Manual proposes that separate provision should
be available for both groups. Women and young people should not be required to work with older
PI 17/2012
UNCLASSIFIED
ISSUE DATE 01/11/2012
UNCLASSIFIED
EIA
PAGE 19
or male offenders. Careful consideration should also be given to whether women and young
people should be required to work intensively. Women are more likely to have carer
responsibilities and young people may require additional support to sustain attendance at
Community Payback worksites four days a week. Moving forward all providers of Community
Payback will be required to demonstrate they are compliant with the requirements of the
Operating Manual, NOMS equality expectations and legislation.
Action plan
Issue to be addressed
Action to be taken
Manager responsible
Target date
Review of outcome and
breach data by the
protected
characteristics
identified in the
Equality Act 2010.
Review of Form 20 relating
to relevant protected
characteristics data. This is
currently available in respect
of sex, age and ethnicity.
Following the introduction of
PCMS, data will become
available in relation to
additional protected
characteristics.
David Renouf
June 2014
Publication
Describe the arrangements for making the document available to the various stakeholders.
This impact assessment will be published on Epic and on the MoJ website.
Review
Indicate method for reviewing progress on the action plan and proposed date for formal review
of the EIA.
This EIA will be reviewed in June 2015.
Policy lead
Head of group
PI 17/2012
Name and signature
Date
David Renouf
28 September 2012
Martin Copsey
24 August 2012
UNCLASSIFIED
ISSUE DATE 01/11/2012