UK Home Office: PC48 2005

Probation
Circular
OFFENDER ASSESSMENT SYSTEM REFERENCE NO:

(OASYS) QUALITY MANAGEMENT 48/2005
PLAN ISSUE DATE:

30 June 2005
PURPOSE
This Circular publishes the OASys Quality Management Plan (“QMP”) and IMPLEMENTATION DATE:
includes an Action Plan template for completion and return to the NOMS
Immediate
OASys team.
EXPIRY DATE:
ACTION
January 2008
Probation Areas are asked to:
• Introduce quality control procedures at first and second levels as set out
TO:
in the QMP.
• Identify a senior manager to take responsibility for the QMP. Chairs of Probation Boards
• Complete and return the Action Plan template by 31 August. Chief Officers of Probation
• Participate in regional benchmarking events. Secretaries of Probation Boards
Regional What Works Managers
Regional Managers, through the Regional Forums, are asked to: HM Inspectorate of Probation
• Co-ordinate and lead the regional benchmarking events in accordance Regional Offender Managers
with Appendix 3 of the QMP
• Provide summary reports as per Appendix 3 CC:
Board Treasurers
SUMMARY
Regional Managers
The NPS has done well in its implementation of OASys but it needs a
framework to help ensure consistently high quality OASys completion across
all 42 areas. OASys is common to both the NPS and Prison Service and, in
keeping with this, the QMP is a joint probation/prison development. It is AUTHORISED BY:
being published formally to the NPS today through this Circular. Final sign off Richard Mason
in the Prison Service is expected shortly. Head of OASys and CJA unit
Implementation of the QMP is a key component of the Assessment and ATTACHED:

Management of Risk of Harm Action Plan which is explained in detail in • OASys QMP with 4 of its
PC49/2005. six Appendices
• Action Plan template for
RELEVANT PREVIOUS PROBATION CIRCULARS completion and return
This Circular should be read in conjunction with PC 49/2005 • Appendix 5
• Appendix 6
CONTACTS FOR ENQUIRIES
John Bourton – OASys NPS Implementation manager: 020 7217 8908
Pauline Hill – OASys NPS training manager: 020 7217 0696
Dave Whitfield – OASys HMPS implementation manager: 020 7217 5825
National Probation Directorate

Horseferry House, Dean Ryle Street, London, SW1P 2AW
Please refer to the following attachments:
• OASys QMP with 4 of its six Appendices

• Action Plan template for completion and return
• Appendix 5
• Appendix 6
PC482005 –Offender Assessment System (OASYS)Quality Management Plan 2

OASys
Quality
Management
Plan
Version 6
July 2005
Table of Contents
1 Introduction 4
1.1 Purpose 4
1.2 Scope 4
1.3 The Priority of Quality Management 4
1.4 Operational and non-operational quality management 4
1.5 Quality Management terminology 4
2 Framework 4
2.1 National Offender Management Service 4
2.2 National Probation Service 5
2.3 HM Prison Service 5
3 Quality Standards 5
3.1 Origins 5
3.2 HM Prison Service 5
3.3 National Probation Service 5
4 Quality Control 6
4.1 ‘What makes a Good OASys?’ 6
4.2 Operational quality control 6
4.2.1 Routine quality requirements 6
4.2.2 First-level local quality requirements (HMPS) 6
4.2.3 First-level local quality requirements (NPS) 7
4.2.4 Second-level local quality requirements (HMPS & NPS & NOMS) 7
4.2.5 Training quality control 7
4.2.6 Assessment Consistency Videos 8
5 Quality Assurance 8
5.1 First-Party QA – Establishment / Probation Area level 8
5.2 Second-Party QA – regional level 8
5.3 Second-Party QA – national level 9
5.4 Third-Party QA – independent validation
5.5 Quality Measurement 9
5.5.1 O-DEAT analysis to date 9
5.5.2 Performance measurement 9
5.5.3 IT-enabled quality measurement 9
5.5.4 Remote / non-contemporaneous monitoring of interviews 9
6 Assessment tool validation 10

6.1 In-house validation and revision 10
6.2 External evaluation and validation 10
OASys Quality Management Plan 2 01/07/05

Appendices
1. Quality management terminology (from ISO 9000)
2. “What Makes a Good OASys” Quality checking document
3. NOMS Quality Control Events
4. Notes for completion of Quality Monitoring Form
5. Quality Monitoring Form NPS
6. Quality Monitoring Form HMPS

OASys Quality Management Plan (QMP)
1 Introduction
1.1 Purpose
The purpose of the OASys QMP is to establish a clear system of quality planning,
control and assurance common to the National Probation Service (NPS) and Her
Majesty’s Prison Service (HMPS), so that managers and stakeholders can have
confidence in the adequacy and consistency of assessments in both Services.
1.2 Scope
The OASys QMP is chiefly concerned with operational quality management (see 1.4).
Its primary aim is to manage quality in business-as-usual mode, rather than to assess
the progress of implementation; however, quality control and assurance during
implementation is also covered in this plan. It is designed to comply with general quality
management strategies in both Services.
1.3 The Priority of Quality Management

There is a clear need to demonstrate accuracy of data, professionalism and consistency
of assessments both within and between the two Services. The OASys Programme
Board is determined to achieve a fully joined-up assessment and planning system; staff
of either Service or any discipline must have confidence in the assessments and
reviews, as offenders pass through and from one sentence to the next. The confidence
of other stakeholders, particularly the courts, the Parole Board, and Inspectorates is also
important.
1.4 Operational and non-operational quality management

• Operational quality management takes as definitive the versions of the OASys
assessment tool in use at a given time, and manages the quality of application of that
instrument.
• Non-operational quality management concerns the validation and revision of the
OASys instrument itself.
The bulk of this Plan concerns operational quality management (Sections 2 to 5). Non-
operational quality management is covered briefly in Section 6.
1.5 Quality Management terminology

The definitions for terms used in this document are taken from ISO 9000 and are
summarised in Appendix 1 below.
2 Framework
2.1 National Offender Management Service
The National Offender Management Service (NOMS) standards unit is developing a way
forward that will integrate National Probation Service (NPS) and HM Prison Service
(HMPS) quality planning within the NOMS strategy. There is not yet sufficient detail in this
planning to provide a framework for the OASys QMP. It is essential that common or at

least compatible quality standards are established in all agencies using OASys.
2.2 National Probation Service

The Quality Management System which has been proposed for interventions and related
work within the NPS provides for internal audit within probation areas, and two levels of
second-party audit, at regional and national levels. The OASys QMP has been designed
to be compatible with the NPS QMS, provided that the quality standards established in
relation to OASys in the NPS QMS are compatible with NOMS and those of other CJ
agencies
2.3 HM Prison Service

HMPS Planning Group currently administers the performance monitoring system within
the Service. Area Performance Co-ordinators facilitate a level of quality verification,
while Standards Audit Unit fulfils the validation function at national level. HMPS is
undertaking a review of its quality and performance management processes.The OASys
QMP has been designed to be compatible with existing HMPS systems, provided that
the quality standards established in relation to OASys in the HMPS Performance
Standards are compatible with those of NOMS and other CJ agencies.
3 Quality Standards
3.1 Origins
Each Service had legacy (largely non-IT based) offender assessment and intervention
planning systems, with performance and quality standards attached. Whilst these legacy
systems have now been replaced by OASys their performance and quality standards
remain useful in formulating appropriate standards for OASys. More determinative are the
results of research on quality and effectiveness in the use of such tools and of OASys in
particular. The OASys Data, Evaluation and Analysis Team (O-DEAT) in the central
OASys Unit considered quality assurance and inter-rater reliability in considerable depth
in relation to OASys use in both Services. Their key findings related specifically to the
OASys pilots, and informed a number of amendments and changes to OASys in the last
two years. This work clearly demonstrated the importance of building QA into the
development and operation of OASys.
3.2 HM Prison Service

A revised version of the HMPS Performance Standard on OASys was issued in April
2005. This Standard will be used as the basis of both internal self-audit at
establishment level and audit at national level by Standards Audit Unit, based on the
‘critical baselines’ in the Standard. Prison Service Order 2205 (Offender Assessment
and Sentence Management using OASys) and the accompanying guidance document
provides all the supporting information required for audit.
3.3 National Probation Service

NPS National Standards were revised and republished under cover of PC 15/2005 and
contain a number of performance requirements relating to OASys assessments.

4 Quality Control
4.1 ‘What makes a Good OASys?’
A number of quality measurement tools have been produced and deployed in the NPS,
at both national and regional levels, under the general heading ‘What Makes a Good
OASys?’. The joint OASys business team (NPS/HMPS) has developed these, with
guidance from (O-DEAT, into an instrument for checking quality on a routine basis, and
into a more detailed Quality Monitoring Form for more comprehensive measurement for
audit purposes. The Quality Monitoring Form comes in a “locked” and an “unlocked”
version, for use in custody and the community respectively. Use of the forms is
described in more detail below, and the forms and guidance notes for completion are
included in the Appendices
4.2 Operational quality control
4.2.1 Routine quality requirements
All OASys reviews in HMPS, and all those carried out in the NPS by staff whose level of
seniority or experience requires it, are countersigned by local staff. These counter
signatories are accredited for this role either by job grade or by appointment on the basis
of proven competence. The NPS has a one-day training course for counter-signers
which is provided in addition to the core OASys training. This has recently been
developed by the OASys training team into a single course for
supervisors/countersigners in both Services, and will be launched on a regional basis
from September 2005 .
A revised version of the ‘What makes a good OASys?’ instrument is attached at

Appendix 2 and will be provided to all counter signatories, together with anonymised
examples of good practice, as the basis for their quality checking. The OASys Manual
and the Help material in the IT systems provide the comprehensive guidance which is
needed to support the use of this instrument.
The internal quality assurance should cover:

• assessor interviewing skills (including pro-social modelling and motivational
interviewing techniques)
• collateral information gathering
• use of the manual/help prompts
• inputting, evidencing, evaluation and scoring of criminogenic factors
• clear logical connection between risk/needs assessment and targets set
• appropriate and ‘smart’ supervision/sentence planning
4.2.2 First-level local quality requirements (HMPS establishments)

10% of completed HMPS assessments should be checked by the establishment OASys
Manager, in order to verify the quality of monitoring by supervisors. This will be
documented on paper, until and unless a facility for recording and tracking these first-
level checks is incorporated into the IT system. For the purpose of quality checking, use
may be made of either of the two forms attached at Appendices 2 and 6.

4.2.3 First-level local quality requirements (NPS Areas)
With effect from the publication of this plan, all OASys assessors are to have a minimum
of two assessments per quarter checked using the “What Makes a Good OASys “
Checklist (Appendix 2). (This procedure replaces the initial implementation plan which
required checking of the first 100 completed assessments and regular reviews
thereafter).
NPS Areas are to put in place procedures to ensure that line-managers/ countersigners
carry out this task, and that the results are collated and recorded. It is strongly
suggested that the checklist results are used as evidence in individual appraisals and for
performance improvement purposes. Areas may choose to use the Quality Monitoring
Form at Appendix 5 if preferred, although resource issues may mean that the use of this
tool is selective.
In addition to the individual quality check of assessors, areas are advised to introduce
internal benchmarking events at team/district/area level in line with para 4.2.4 below,
using the Quality Monitoring form at Appendix 5.
4.2.4 Second-level quality requirements (NPS regions & HMPS areas & NOMS)
Since 2003, a number of NPS regions have been undertaking benchmarking exercises
at regional level. These have involved probation areas, and latterly Prison Service
establishments. The benefit to be gained from these exercises has been well
demonstrated, and what to date has been best practice must now form a major element
in the QMP.
The QMP introduces a requirement to conduct benchmarking events at regular intervals.

These events should involve staff from both HMPS and the NPS, and will make use of
the Quality Monitoring Forms to gather information for the purposes of quality assurance
and quality improvement. They will be organised jointly by the NPS Regional Forums, for
which the Regional Managers are responsible, and HMPS Area Co-ordinators and
should invite the participation of the central NOMS OASys team. Further details of these
events are provided at Appendix 3.
4.2.5 Training quality control

This was the first step taken to ensure that OASys training was delivered to a high and
consistent standard.
The NPS national OASys training team monitored training quality consistently, until the
national roll out of OASys was completed. Its members observed the delivery of training
events in 18 of the 42 probation areas (43%). With the exception of a couple of events
general feedback of the QA visits indicated that the training delivery had been ‘excellent’
(both in delivery and preparation).
Where it was felt that the training delivery had not reached the required level of
competence this was discussed with the trainers at an appropriate time and/or fed back
to managers.
In the Prison Service, trainees received training in risk assessment and interviewing
skills prior to starting their core OASys training. This additional training was a response

to some of the quality assurance findings from the pilots, which identified gaps in relation
to interview skills and risk assessment.
Unlike the NPS, HMPS have trained designated staff in each establishment. Assessors
and Supervisors were themselves assessed for competence and then accredited.
HMPS OASys training was delivered by a central team. From April 2005 training
became the responsibility of Training and Development Group, based at Prison Service
College, Newbold Revel. The quality of the national training delivery has been
monitored by the training manager and by external experts; HMPS OASys HQ staff and
NPD OASys specialists.
The combined NOMS OASys team will now take responsibility for ensuring the
maintenance and consistency of OASys training delivered to both Services. This
involves liaison with the HMPS Training and Development Group and the NPS HR
Training Project Manager and the Programmes Implementation Training Manager in the
NPD Interventions Unit.
4.2.6 Assessment Consistency Videos

The OASys team will produce a series of video assessments during 2005/6 that can be
used to train, monitor and assess the quality of assessments being produced in the
operational field. These videos will be focused on the response of an offender to
interview questioning and process and will be presented to a group of assessors to
measure the consistency of information collected whilst observing the interviews.
Joint training between Services can be accommodated using this method as feed back
from the assessment consistency videos can be returned using the paper based
assessment format.
The assessment consistency videos will also form part of a future initial training package
and be used by ODEAT for use in inter-rater reliability studies.
5 Quality Assurance
5.1 First-level QA – HMPS establishment / Probation Area level
Local self-audit will apply the key audit baselines defined in the respective Standards (as
outlined in Section 3), within the Service frameworks defined in Section 2. This is distinct
from the quality control activities summarised in Section 4. In HMPS (in line with the
current procedures for all Standards) the OASys Standard should be self-audited at least
once every two years.
5.2 Second-level QA – HMPS Area level/Probation regional level

OASys Area and Regional QA systems will be integrated into general area and regional
management strategies. They are not at present a formal element in QA, but they will
enable area and regional managers to discern trends and patterns. The following
information will be available:
• Outputs from regional benchmarking and peer review exercises
• Management information reports from the OASys IT systems
• Reports from O-DEAT on regional quality and performance

5.3 Third-level QA – national level
The HMPS and NPS national OASys teams will monitor performance and quality, on the
basis both of samples of complete reviews (by random or targeted selection) and of
aggregated information from MIS systems. They will report the results to senior
management in each Service, on a regular basis. However, QA at national level will
chiefly be carried out by O-DEAT, subject to availability of staff, as commissioned by the
OASys Programme Board, or by either Service, or as otherwise determined by the
appropriate authority.
5.4 Quality Measurement

5.4.1 O-DEAT analysis to date
O-DEAT now have access to over half a million probation OASys assessments. Testing
of the IT link to prison OASys assessments is currently taking place and will be migrated
to the O-DEATsystem when testing is complete (later in 2005).
Analysis of assessments has produced a diverse and rich source of information that has
proved useful in monitoring the quality of assessments.
Through this analysis it has been possible to feedback promptly to areas either at a
regional or national level to highlight potential training needs.
5.4.2 Performance measurement

Performance measurement is relatively straightforward when MIS systems and
appropriate reporting functionality is available in the IT systems. The HMPS OASys
team now undertakes monthly performance monitoring by this means. Monthly reports
on completion of assessments will be made in HMPS to the Director of Operations and
all Area Managers. Further measures of effectiveness and of efficiency can be informed
by the analysis of OASys MIS aggregated data (e.g. mapping risk of harm scores in
OASys against subsequent incidents involving harm).
5.4.3 IT-enabled quality measurement

IT-enabled analysis of data will be applied wherever the nature of the data permits it. O-
DEAT is in the process of purchasing Clemantine software for text analysis.
More straightforwardly measurable criteria (e.g. the proportion of data fields left empty)
can be analysed by the use of research tools already in use by O-DEAT.
5.4.4 Remote / non-contemporaneous monitoring of interviews

The use of video recordings as a medium for monitoring the quality of risk assessment
interviews and the integrity of offender programme delivery has been successfully
employed within the Prison Service and more recently by probation areas.
This methodology as a means of monitoring ‘slippage’ in OASys risk assessment

interviews could be employed by areas to quality assure their staff interviews.

In the future it would be beneficial for the OASys team to identify areas that are already
utilising this approach and to further encourage its use across the service.
O-DEAT can provide advice to areas on how this process can be implemented.
6 Assessment tool validation

6.1 In-house validation and revision
An internal study examining the inter-rater reliability of OASys within the Probation Service
was conducted in summer 2004. A Prison Service inter-rater reliability study will be
conducted in early autumn 2005.
6.2 External evaluation and validation

In the same way, external validation of the OASys instrument may be invited or
commissioned by the OASys Programme Board. No formal provision for such
evaluation is made in this plan, but the Programme Board is committed to it.

APPENDIX 1 TO OASys QMP
QUALITY MANAGEMENT TERMINOLOGY (FROM ISO 9000)
The following terms and definitions are used in this document, and are taken from ISO
9000:
Term Definition
Quality Management Management system to direct and control an organisation with

System regard to quality
Quality Management Co-ordinated activities to direct and control an organisation with

regard to quality
Quality Planning Part of quality management focused on setting quality objectives

and specifying necessary operational process and resources to
fulfil the quality objectives
Quality Control Part of quality management focused on fulfilling quality

requirements
Quality Assurance Part of quality management focused on providing confidence that

quality requirements will be fulfilled
Quality Improvement Part of quality management focused on increasing the ability to

fulfil the quality requirements
Quality Requirements: Extent to which planned activities are realised and planned
Effectiveness results achieved
Quality Requirements: Relationship between result achieved and resources used

Efficiency
Quality Degree to which a set of inherent characteristics fulfil
requirements
Requirement Need or expectation that is stated, generally implied or obligatory.

What makes a good OASys?

Quality Checklist for use by Managers, Supervisors and Countersigners
OFFENDER NAME: PNC:
CASE REF NO:
ASSESSOR NAME: CHECKER NAME:
DATE OF DATE OF
ASSESSMENT: QUALITYCHECK:
Completing OASys Sections 1-13 Yes No

1 Has all essential Case ID information been recorded accurately? -
Name, PNC number, DOB, Gender, REM, Postcode, Sentence Details
2 Clear Analysis: There is no contradiction within a section or between
sections
3 Evidence boxes have been completed to support the scores as per the
manual/help (except Section 13 which is not scored)
4 Positive and negative factors have been identified
5 Links to risk of serious harm and to offending behaviour are consistent
with evidence and scores
Comments:
Yes No
6.2.1 Risk of Serious Harm
6 Clear Analysis. There is no contradiction within a section or between
sections. The processing and interpretation of information reaches a
clear conclusion – what risk factors exist and what needs to change?
7 If the decision has been taken not to undertake a full risk analysis
(although identified from the screening) the reasons for this are
considered, reasonable and supported by evidence
8 Only information that can be shared with the offender has been
included in the risk of serious harm full analysis section
9 There is a clear understanding of the difference between the risk of re-
offending and the risk of serious harm
10 The risk assessment takes account of behaviour as a whole and not
only offences
11 The Risk Management Plan is specific and focused as to how risk of
harm issues will be reduced and managed by the Service and other
agencies, where appropriate

12 In the Risk Management Plan use has been made of the headings as
per PC10/05? (see note1)
13 Is the Risk of Harm Assessment clear and specific where the offender
is managed by level 2 or 3 of MAPPA?
14 Where the response in the screening form is ‘Don’t know’ have further
enquires been made as appropriate?
15 Countersigning has taken place as appropriate
16 Have the Risk of Harm Assessment and Risk Management Plan been
reviewed and updated? Review/Transfer/Termination (see note 1)
Comments:
OASys and Reports for the Courts (Probation staff only) Yes No
17 Is it clear that OASys was completed prior to the preparation of the
report for the Court?
18 Was Section 2 of OASys 1-13 appropriately taken into account in the
Offence Analysis section
19 Were Sections 3-12 of OASys 1-13 taken into account appropriately in
the offender assessment section?
20 Was the OASys assessment of risk of serious harm taken into account
appropriately in the in the report section relating to risk of harm?
21 Does the proposal reflect the OASys assessment?
22 The outline sentence plan clearly reflects the risks and needs identified
by OASys
6.2.2 Comments
Yes No
6.3 Sentence Planning
23
6.4 Has the self-assessment questionnaire (SAQ) been fully
completed by the offender and dated?
24
6.5 SMART Plan – A clear plan. The sentence plan clearly identifies
what work is to be done by the offender, gives clear timescales.
How will progress be measured (and dates), who will be
involved?

25
6.6 Are objectives linked to the risk of serious harm given priority?
26
6.7 Are there clear links to the Risk Management Plan?
27
6.8 Is there evidence to indicate that the SAQ responses have been
taken into account when writing the sentence plan?
28
6.9 The plan was completed within the timescales laid down by
National Standards and Prison Service Orders
29
6.10 The plan has been countersigned as appropriate
30
6.11 Is it evident that the offender has been given an opportunity to
read the plan and comment?
31
6.12 Has the plan been reviewed in accordance with National
Standards and Prison Service Orders?
32
6.13 On completion of the sentence has the final review been
completed?
6.14
Comments:
NOTE 1: Probation Circular 10/05 sets out headings which should be used within the existing text
box for the Risk Management Plan in OASys. These are 1) Other agencies involved, 2) Existing
support/controls, 3) Added measures for specific risks, 4) Who will undertake the actions and by
when, 5) Additional conditions/requirements to manage the specific risks, 6) Level of contact. PC
10/05 also reinforces the requirement to review the Risk Assessment and Management Plans
particularly when new information is received.

NOMS QUALITY CONTROL EVENTS
GUIDE TO OASys REGIONAL/AREA QUALITY ASSURANCE BENCHMARKING
Aims
Regional benchmarking events will:
• Provide evidence of the extent to which standards are being met
• provide assurance of the quality of OASys assessments produced by probation areas
and prison establishments within a region/area
• provide feedback for practitioners to improve the quality of their assessments
• provide evidence for local management of the efficiency and effectiveness of their quality
management planning
Structure
The following points are taken from the collected experiences from a number of events held
throughout 2003/4 and are best practice guidelines rather than mandatory requirements.
• The event should be led by an independent manager (e.g. RWWM, Area Coordinator,
NOMS OASys team)
• Members should be a mix of assessors, supervisors, line-managers
• Members should be drawn from all areas/establishments being quality assured
• Members should not monitor assessments from their own area/establishment
• All members should monitor the same sample assessment and discuss the marking in
order to establish a common standard
• The independent manager should second check at least one monitoring form produced
by each member
• As a guide, members can expect to monitor one complete assessment per hour and five
is about the maximum per individual per day
• The process for selecting assessments for monitoring needs to be agreed beforehand.
Clearly a random selection process is preferred, but needs to be transparent
• Agreement needs to be reached beforehand on what paperwork is required for each
assessment that is to be monitored. This might include copies of the PSR, MAPPP
minutes, or the entire case file, according to what is being monitored
• Monitoring forms need to include text to support the marking.
• Feedback for individual assessors should be positive and constructive and aimed at
improving performance
• Copies of the monitoring forms should be returned to the relevant assessor
• Common themes that emerge during the event should be identified and collated
(Flipchart?)

• The collated scores and common themes from all the Monitoring forms should be
compiled in a report which should be sent by the [independent manager] who is
he/she? to all participating areas/establishments, with a copy to NOMS OASys team
• Future events should review previous event reports for measures of progress.

APPENDIX 4 TO OASys QMP - OASys QUALITY ASSURANCE FORMS
NOTES FOR COMPLETION
Introduction
This appendix explains how to complete the OASys Quality Assurance Forms at appendices 5 and
6. There are separate probation and prison versions of the QA forms for use in the community or in
custodys.The OASys Quality Assurance forms were developed with contributions and advice from
HM Inspector of Probation, Probation Areas, colleagues in the Public Protection and Courts Unit at
NPD, members of the OASys User Group and Prison Service colleagues.The forms are designed to
offer Probation Areas and the Prison Service a standardised tool by which to judge the quality of
completed OASys assessments.
Please read through these notes before undertaking a quality assurance exercise.
Using the Forms

Each component of OASys requires marking as excellent, good/satisfactory,etc) based on how
competently that component has been completed.
OASys component
7 Section Value score(SV)box
number
Case ID and Offence(s) Analysis SV 1
OASys 1/OASys 2 (sections 3 –13) SV 2
Risk of Harm Screening and Full Analysis SV 3
OASys and Reports for Courts SV 4A (Probation Service only)
Sentence Planning SV 4B
Sentence SV 4C
Planning/Review/Transfer/Termination
The total marks awarded to all these boxes should be used to complete the Quality Rating Section
on page 2, where guidance on definitions for the overall marking of excellent, etc, can also be found.
The total mark will provide a quality rating of the whole of the OASys document whilst also
identifying good practice and areas for improvement (if any) in each component of OASys.
Marking will need to be adjusted if less than three sections of OASys are being assessed.
(Comments have been received as to the limited size of the comments box at the end of each
section. These can of course be ‘stretched’ and made as long as is felt necessary but page breaks
may then need amending).
Important Note:
Reference is made, particularly within the Risk of Harm Section, to Probation Circular 10/2005
– Public Protection Framework, Risk of Harm and MAPPA Thresholds.
Section 7 of that Probation Circular sets out headings to be used within the existing text box
in the OASys Risk Management Plan. These are:
1 Other Agencies involved

2 Existing support/controls

3 Added measures for specific risks
4 Who will undertake the actions and by when
5 Additional conditions/requirements to manage the specific risks
6 Level of contact
Quality Assessors, in both the Prison and Probation Service, should take account of
whether or not these headings have been used in the Risk Management Plan and the
use of the headings, as well as the content of the Risk Management Plan, should be
reflected in the scorings.
Quality Rating Criteria

NOTE: THE LAYOUT AND ALIGNMENT OF THE TICKS AND ARROWS AND SUB-
ARROWS NEEDS CHECKING AS A NUMBER OF LINES ARE OUT OF ALIGNMENT.
Case ID and Offence Analysis
Mark as Excellent
9 Case ID and Section 1 are fully complete
Analysis of Offence(s)
9 There is a clear analysis of the offence(s)
9 Each Section is fully completed.
9 Evidence boxes completed to support scores as per the manual
Mark as Good/satisfactory
9 Case ID and Section 1 are fully complete
9 There is a clear analysis of the offence(s)
9 No more than one evidence box is incomplete
Mark as Unsatisfactory
¾ Case ID and Section 1 are mostly complete
¾ Offence(s) analysis is not clear
¾ No more than three evidence boxes are incomplete
Mark as Poor
¾ Case ID and Section 1 have missing information
¾ Offence Analysis is not clear
¾ Evidence boxes have not been completed
Sections 3 -13 (OASys1/2)
Mark as Excellent
9 All sections completed and there are no missing items

9 Clear analysis. There is no contradiction within a section or between sections
9 The processing and interpretation of information reaches a clear conclusion – what risk
factors need to change and which protective factors require support
9 Evidence boxes completed to support scores as per the manual (Even when the score is 0)
9 Positive as well as negative factors identified
9 Links to risk of serious harm and to offending behaviour are consistent with evidence and
scores
9 No more than one item, per section, missing from sections 3 – 9
9 Sections 10 – 13 are complete
9 Clear analysis. There is no contradiction within a section or between sections. The
processing and interpretation of information reaches a clear conclusion – what risk factors
need to change and which protective factors require support
9 Evidence boxes completed to support scores as per the manual. (Even when score is 0)
9 Positive as well as negative factors identified
9 Link to risk of serious harm and to risk of re-offending are consistent with evidence and
scores
¾ Sections 10 –12 are complete. Other sections have no more than two data
items in any one section
¾ The analysis of what risk factors need to change, and which protective
factors need support, is not clear. There is contradiction between some sections
¾ Evidence boxes are completed but do not support scoring as per the manual
¾ Item link to risk of serious harm and risk of re-offending is not always consistent
with the evidence recorded
Mark as Poor
¾ All sections have missing information
¾ Evidence is missing or unclear
¾ No evidence to indicate that manual has been used to help complete the
scored
sections
¾ Item link to risk of serious harm and risk of re-offending has not been consistently recorded
Risk of Serious Harm
Mark as Excellent
9 Clear analysis. There is no contradiction within a section or between sections.
The processing and interpretation of information reaches a clear conclusion – what risk
factors exist and need to change
9 If the decision has been taken not to undertake a full risk analysis (if identified from the
screening) the reasons for this are clear and acceptable
9 Only information that can be shared with the offender has been included in the risk of serious
harm full analysis section
9 There is a clear understanding of the difference between risk of re-offending and risk of
serious harm
9 The risk assessment takes account of behaviour as a whole and not just offences
9 Risk Management Plan is specific and focused as to how risk of harm issues will be reduced
and managed by the Service and other agencies, where appropriate (PC10/05)
9 Countersigning has taken place as appropriate

9 Clear analysis. There is no contradiction within a section or between sections.
The processing and interpretation of information reaches a clear conclusion – what risk
factors exist and need to change
9 If the decision has been taken not to undertake a full risk analysis (if identified
from the screening) the reasons for this are clear and acceptable
9 Only information that can be shared with the offender has been included in the
Risk of harm full analysis
9 There is an understanding of the difference between risk of re-offending and
risk of serious harm
9 The risk assessment takes account of behaviour as a whole and not just offences
9 Risk Management Plan is specific and focused as to how risk of harm issues will
be reduced and managed by the Service and other agencies, where appropriate(PC10/05)
9 Countersigning has not taken place as appropriate
¾ There is some contradiction within a section or between sections
¾ Where a decision has been taken not to complete a full risk of harm analysis
(if identified from the screening) the reasons for this are not clearly recorded or
acceptable
¾ Only information that can be shared with the offender has been included in the
Risk of harm full analysis
¾ The assessment indicates confusion between the risk of serious harm and the risk of re-
offending
¾ Risk Management Plan is available. No clear indication of how Service or other
agencies will reduce or manage risk (PC10/05)
¾ Countersigning has not taken place as appropriate
Mark as Poor
¾ Risk of Harm section is unclear
¾ Where a decision has been taken not to complete a full risk of harm analysis
(if identified by the screening) the reasons for this are not recorded and/or are unacceptable
¾ The assessment demonstrates a lack of understanding between the risk of re-offending and
the risk of harm
¾ No clear indicator as to who is at risk (if applicable) and/or how risk will be reduced or
managed by the Service and other agencies (PC10/05)
¾ Countersigning has not taken place as appropriate
OASys and Reports for the Courts (Probation only)
Mark as Excellent
9 It is clear that OASys was completed prior to the preparation of the report for Court
(as appropriate)
9 Section 2 of OASys1/2 was appropriately taken into account in the offence analysis
section
9 Sections 3-12 of OASys taken into account appropriately in the offender assessment
section of the report
9 The OASys assessment of risk of harm was taken into account appropriately in the
report section relating to risk of harm
9 The outline sentence plan clearly reflects the risks and needs identified by OASys

9 It is clear that OASys was completed prior to the preparation of the report for Court (as
appropriate)
9 Section 2 of OASys1/2 was appropriately taken into account in the offence analysis section
9 Sections 3-12 of OASys taken into account appropriately in the offender assessment section
of the report
9 The OASys assessment of risk of harm was taken into account appropriately in the report
section relating to risk of harm
9 The outline sentence plan does not clearly reflect the risks and needs identified by OASys
¾ It is clear that OASys was completed prior to the preparation of the report for Court (as
appropriate
¾ Section 2 of OASys 1/2 was not appropriately taken into account in the offence analysis
section
¾ Sections 3-12 of OASys was taken into account appropriately in the offender assessment
¾ The OASys assessment of the risk of harm was not taken into account appropriately in the
¾ The outline Sentence Plan is not clear
Mark as Poor
¾ It is clear that the OASys was not completed prior to the preparation of the report (but should
have been)
¾ Section 2 of OASys 1/2 was not taken into account in the offence analysis section
¾ Sections 3-12 of OASys was not taken into account appropriately in the offender assessment
¾ The OASys assessment of the risk of harm was not taken into account appropriately in the
¾ The outline sentence plan is not clear
Sentence Planning
Mark as Excellent
9 The Self Assessment Questionnaire (SAQ) has been fully completed by the offender and
dated
9 SMART Plan – A clear plan. The Sentence Plan clearly identifies what work is to be done by
the offender, gives clear time scales, how progress will be measured and states who will be
involved. Objectives linked to risk of serious harm are given priority
9 There are clear links to the Risk Management Plan as appropriate
9 Evidence to indicate that the SAQ responses have been taken into account when writing the
sentence plan
9 The plan was completed within time-scales laid down by National Standards/Prison Service
Orders
9 The plan has been countersigned as appropriate
9 Evident that the offender has been given the opportunity to read the plan and comment
9 The Self Assessment Questionnaire has been completed by the offender and dated
9 SMART Plan – A clear plan. The Sentence Plan clearly identifies what work is to be done by
the offender, gives clear time scales, how progress will be measured and states who will be
involved. Objectives linked to risk of serious harm are given priority

9 There are clear links to the Risk Management Plan as appropriate
9 Evident that the SAQ responses have been taken into account when writing the Sentence
Plan
9 The Sentence Plan was completed within timescales laid down by National
Standards/Prison Service Orders
9 Evident that offender has been given the opportunity to read the plan and comment
9 The Sentence Plan has not been countersigned as appropriate
¾ Sentence Plan is available but not clear
¾ No evidence that offender was given the opportunity of completing the Self
Assessment Questionnaire OR a SAQ is present but not completed in a way that
is beneficial to the OASys process
¾ No evidence to indicate that the offender has seen the plan and has been
offered the opportunity to comment
¾ The Sentence Plan has not been countersigned as appropriate
¾ The Sentence Plan was completed within given timescales laid down by National
Mark as Poor
¾ Unclear or absent sentence plan
¾ No evidence to indicate that offender completed the Self Assessment
Questionnaire OR a SAQ is present but not completed in a way that is beneficial to the
OASys process
¾ No evidence to indicate that the offender has seen the plan and been offered
the opportunity to comment
¾ The plan has not been countersigned as appropriate
¾ The plan, if present, was not completed within the timescales laid down by National
Reviews, Transfers and Termination
Mark as Excellent
9 New objectives linked to risk of serious harm are given priority
9 SMART Plan
9 The Risk of Harm Assessment and the Risk Management Plan have been reviewed and
updated
9 The Transfer/Termination Plan is fully completed
9 There is a clear statement of what work has been achieved
9 Evident that offender has been given the opportunity to read the Sentence Plan and make
comment
9 The Sentence Plan has been completed in accordance with National Standards/Prison
Service Orders
9 The plan has been countersigned as appropriate
9 New objectives linked to risk of serious harm are given priority
9 SMART Plan
9 The Risk of Harm Assessment and the Risk Management Plan have been reviewed and
updated
9 The Transfer/Termination Plan is fully completed
9 There is a clear statement of what work has been achieved

9 Evident that offender has been given the opportunity to read the Sentence Plan and make
comment
9 The plan has been completed in accordance with National Standards/Prison Service Orders
timescales
9 The plan has not been countersigned as appropriate
¾ Sentence Plan is available but not clear

¾ Not clear what work has been achieved
¾ The Transfer/Termination Plan is complete
¾ No evidence to indicate that the offender has been given the opportunity to read the
sentence plan and comment
¾ The Sentence Plan has been completed in accordance with National Standards/Prison
Service Orders timescales
¾ The Sentence Plan has not been countersigned as appropriate
Mark as Poor
¾ Sentence Plan is unclear or absent
¾ Transfer and Termination incomplete
¾ There is no clear indication as to what has been achieved
¾ Not clear the Risk of Harm Assessment and/or the Risk Management Plan have been
reviewed and updated
¾ The Sentence Plan (if present) has not been completed within National Standards/Prison
Service Orders timescales
¾ The Sentence Plan (if present) has not been countersigned as appropriate

National Offender Management Services ² - COMMUNITY
OASys QUALITY ASSURANCE FORM
Case Name Case Ref No PNC No
Race & Ethnic Monitoring Code Gender (M/F)
Assessment Court Other type of

Commence Review Termination
Stage Report report (please state)
PLEASE
TICK
Name Office/Location Grade
OASys completed by
Quality assurance
completed by
Which of the following components of OASys are being monitored? Yes No
OASys one/ OASys two (please specify)
Risk of Harm Screening
Risk of Harm Full Analysis
Outline Plan
Initial Sentence Plan
Self Assessment Questionnaire
Review / Transfer / Termination Plan
1
Quality Ratings from each section
Excellent Good/Satisfactory Unsatisfactory Poor
SV1
SV2
SV3
SV4
A
SV4
B
SV4
C
Quality Rating (add scores from sections) SV1 – SV4C)
** Scoring will need to be adjusted if less than three sections of OASys are being assessed
(Poor)**
(Excellent) (Good/Satisfactory)** (Unsatisfactory)**
No excellent scores,
No more than one Nor more than three No excellent scores, no
no satisfactory
section marked as sections marked as more than one section
satisfactory, no
scores, more than
satisfactory, no marked as satisfactory
unsatisfactory and no three sections marked
unsatisfactory, and no and no more than one
poor scores as unsatisfactory or
poor scores poor score
poor
OV
OVERALL COMMENTS
Strengths Areas for Improvement
2
1.CASE IDENTIFICATION AND OFFENDING INFORMATION
See
Yes Fully Yes Partially No
Comments
Has case ID and Offending Information been
1A
entered?
Date of Sentence OGRS Score

Date OASys completed %
2. ANALYSIS OF OFFENCE(S)
Yes See
Yes Fully No
Partially Comments
2A Have all boxes been completed to support the evidence?
Excellent Good / Unsatisfactory Poor

Satisfactory
Overall, how do you rate the quality of
SV1
this section?
Please enter comments to support the score for SV1
3-13. DYNAMIC CRIMINOGENIC FACTORS
3 Accommodation
Yes See
Yes Fully No
Partially Comments
3A Has evidence been recorded to support the scoring?
Good /
Excellent Unsatisfactory Poor
Satisfactory
How do you rate the quality of this
3B
section?
4. ETE
Yes See
Yes Fully No
Partially Comments
Good /
Satisfactory
4B How do you rate the quality of this section?
3
5. Financial
Yes See
Yes Fully No
Partially Comments
Good /
Satisfactory
6. Relationships
Yes See
Yes Fully No
Partially Comments
Good /
Satisfactory
7. Lifestyle & Associates
Yes See
Yes Fully No
Partially Comments
Good /
Satisfactory
8. Drug Misuse
Yes See
Yes Fully No
Partially Comments
Good /
Satisfactory
9. Alcohol Misuse
Yes See
Yes Fully No
Partially Comments
Good /
Satisfactory
4
10. Emotional Wellbeing
Yes See
Yes Fully No
Partially Comments
Good /
Satisfactory
11. Thinking and Behaviour
Yes See
Yes Fully No
Partially Comments
Good /
Satisfactory
12. Attitudes
Yes See
Yes Fully No
Partially Comments
Good /
Satisfactory
13. Health & Other Considerations
Yes See
Yes Fully No
Partially Comments
Have boxes been completed to support the
13A
evidence?
Good /
Satisfactory
OVERALL: Sections 3 - 13
Excellent Good / Satisfactory Unsatisfactory Poor
Overall, how do you rate the quality

SV2
of this section?
Pleas enter comments to support the score for SV2
5
RISK OF HARM SCREENING
See
Yes No N/A
comments
RHS1 Has the screening been completed?
See
If OASys completed by Probation Officer Yes No N/A
comments
Does the screening indicate a full risk of harm
RHS2
analysis is required?
RHS3 If yes, has the full analysis been completed?

If a decision has been made not to complete the full
analysis, are the reasons for not doing so
RHS4
considered, reasonable and supported by
explanation and evidence? (see notes)
RHS5 Has countersigning taken place (as appropriate)?
See
If OASys completed by PSO/TPO Yes No N/A
comments
Does the risk of harm screening indicate a full risk
RHS6
of harm analysis is required?
RHS7 If yes, has the full analysis been completed?

analysis, are the reasons for not doing so
RHS8
considered, reasonable and supported by
explanation and evidence? (see notes)
Has the section been countersigned in accordance
RHS9
with policy and procedures?
RISK OF HARM FULL ANALYSIS, RISK OF HARM SUMMARY

& RISK OF RECONVICTION SUMMARY
Yes No N/A Comments
Is there a sound analysis of the risk factors – where

RHF1
present?
Is there a clear understanding evidenced of the
RHF2 difference between risk of re-offending and the risk
of serious harm?
Does the risk assessment take account of behaviour
RHF3
as a whole rather than simply offending behaviour?
RHF4 Are entries sufficiently specific e.g. who is at risk?
Where the response on OASys is “Don’t know”,

RHF5
have further enquiries been made as appropriate?
Does the risk of harm assessment fully support the

RHF6 decision to manage an offender at MAPPA level 2 or
3?
Is the Risk Management Plan specific and focused
as to how risk of harm issues will be reduced and
RHF7
managed by the Service and other agencies, where
appropriate (medium/high/very high)?
In the Risk Management Plan has use been made of
the headings as given in Section 7 of PC 10/05?
RHF8
(see notes)
Does the Risk Management Plan specifically identify

RHF9 where the offender is managed by level 2 or 3 of
MAPPA?
6
Has countersigning taken place appropriately? Yes No N/A Comments
RHF Where Probation Officer assesses risk as High or

10 Very High?
RHF Where full analysis not completed despite indication
11 from the screening that this should happen?
RHF Where grades other than Probation Officer have
12 completed the full analysis, risk management plan?

SV3
of this section?
Please enter comments to support the score for SV3
COMPLETE ONLY ONE OF THE FOLLOWING SECTIONS:

A OASys & Reports for Courts
B Sentence Planning (Initial Plan)
C Sentence Planning (Review/Transfer/Termination)
A OASys & Reports for Courts
Type of report – please circle

Fast Track Yes No
Standard Delivery Yes No
Yes Yes
No N/A Comments
Fully Partially
Was OASys completed prior to the
OP1
preparation of the report?
Was Section 2 of OASys taken into
OP2 account appropriately in the offence
analysis section of the report?
Were sections 2-12 of OASys taken into
OP3 account appropriately in the offender
assessment section of the report?
Was the OASys assessment of risk of
OP4
reconviction taken into account?
Was the OASys assessment of risk of
harm taken into account appropriately in
OP5
the report section relating to likelihood of
harm to the public?
Does the proposal reflect the OASys
OP6
assessment?
Does the outline sentence plan reflect the
OP7
risks and needs identified by OASys?
7

SV4A
of this section?
Please enter comments to support score for SV4A
B Sentence Planning (Initial Plan)

Yes Fully Yes Partially No See comment
SAQ1 Has the self-assessment questionnaire
been completed and dated?
Yes No N/A
SSP1 Are objectives linked to the OASys assessment of risk of harm?
Are objectives linked to the OASys assessment of risk of

SSP2
reconviction?
SSP3 Are those objectives relating to risk of serious harm given priority?
SSP4 Are there clear links to the Risk Management Plan as appropriate?
SSP5 Is there a clear statement of what is to be achieved?
SSP6 Is there a clear indication of how progress will be managed?
SSP7 Is it clear who will do the work?
SSP8 Are timescales clearly measurable?
SSP9 Do the objectives focus on what the offender will be doing?
Is there evidence to indicate that the self-assessment responses

SSP10
have influenced the sentence planning objectives?
SSP11 Have appropriate referrals been made to programmes?

Was the sentence plan completed in accordance with National
SSP12 Standards after community sentence imposed or offender released
from prison?
Has the plan been countersigned in accordance with policy and
SSP13
procedure?
8

SV4B
of this section?
Please comment to support score for SV4B
On Termination answer only questions marked with ‘T’
Yes No N/A
RTT1 Have OASys sections 1-13 been reviewed appropriately?
RTT2 Have objectives from previous plans been reviewed?
RTT3 Has the Risk of Harm Assessment been reviewed and updated?
Has the Risk Management Plan been reviewed and updated? (Med, High,
RTT4
Very High)
Yes No N/A
RTT5 Are new objectives linked to the OASys assessment of risk of harm?
RTT6
Are new objectives linked to the OASys assessment risk of harm
reconviction?
RTT7 Are those objectives relating to risk of serious harm given priority?
RTT8 Are there clear links to the Risk Management Plan as appropriate?
RTT9 Is there a clear statement of what is to be achieved?
RTT10 Is there a clear indication of how progress will be measured?
RTT11 Is it clear who will do the work?
RTT12 Are timescales clearly measurable?
RTT13 Do the objectives focus on what the offender will be doing?
RTT14 Have appropriate referrals been made to programmes?
RTT15
Has the plan been countersigned in accordance with policy and
procedure?
9
T T1 Have OASys sections 1-13 been reviewed appropriately?
T T2 Is there a review of the previous plan?
T T3 Is there a clear statement of what work is achieved?
T T4 What is the final risk of reconviction score?
T T5 What is the final risk of harm score?

SV4C
of this section?
Please comment to support score for SV4C
PLEASE ENTER THE SCORES FOR SV1 - SV4C in the quality rating table on page two
10
National Offender Management Services - CUSTODY
OASys QUALITY ASSURANCE
Case Name Prison ID PNC No
Race & Ethnic Monitoring Code Gender (M/F)
Assessment
Commence Review Termination Release
Stage
PLEASE TICK
Name Location Grade
OASys completed by
Quality assurance
completed by
Which of the following components of OASys are being monitored? Yes No
OASys one/ OASys two (please specify)
Risk of Harm Screening
Risk of Harm Full Analysis

Sentence Plan (at start of custodial
sentence)
Review / Transfer / Termination Plan
1
Quality Ratings from each section
Excellent Good/Satisfactory Unsatisfactory Poor
SV1
SV2
SV3
SV4
B
SV4
C
Quality Rating (add scores from sections SV1 – SV4C)

**Scoring will need to be adjusted if less than three sections of OASys are being assessed
(Poor)**
(Excellent) (Good/Satisfactory)** (Unsatisfactory)**
No excellent scores,
No more than one Nor more than three No excellent scores, no
no satisfactory
section marked as sections marked as more than one section
satisfactory, no
scores, more than
satisfactory, no marked as satisfactory
unsatisfactory and no three sections marked
unsatisfactory, and no score and no more than
poor scores as unsatisfactory
poor scores one poor score
scores or poor
OV
OVERALL COMMENTS
Strengths Areas for Improvement
2
1. CASE IDENTIFICATION AND OFFENDING INFORMATION
See
Yes Fully Yes Partially No
Comments
Has Case ID and Offending Information been
1A
entered?
Date of Sentence SPRP

Date OASys completed %
Predictor
2. ANALYSIS OF OFFENCE(S)
Yes See
Yes Fully No
Partially Comments
2A Have all boxes been completed to support the evidence?
Excellent Good / Unsatisfactory Poor

Satisfactory
Overall, how do you rate the quality of
SV1
this section?
Please enter comments in support of score for SV1
3-13. DYNAMIC CRIMINOGENIC FACTORS
3. Accommodation
Yes See
Yes Fully No
Partially Comments
Good /
Satisfactory
How do you rate the quality of this
3B
section?
4. ETE
Yes See
Yes Fully No
Partially Comments
Good /
Satisfactory
3
5. Financial
Yes See
Yes Fully No
Partially Comments
Good /
Satisfactory
6. Relationships
Yes See
Yes Fully No
Partially Comments
Good /
Satisfactory
7. Lifestyle & Associates
Yes See
Yes Fully No
Partially Comments
Good /
Satisfactory
8. Drug Misuse
Yes See
Yes Fully No
Partially Comments
Good /
Satisfactory
9. Alcohol Misuse
Yes See
Yes Fully No
Partially Comments
Good /
Satisfactory
4
10. Emotional Wellbeing
Yes See
Yes Fully No
Partially Comments
Good /
Satisfactory
11. Thinking and Behaviour
Yes See
Yes Fully No
Partially Comments
Good /
Satisfactory
11. Attitudes
Yes See
Yes Fully No
Partially Comments
Good /
Satisfactory
13. Health and other considerations
Yes See
Yes Fully No
Partially Comments
Have boxes been completed to support the
13A
evidence?
Good /
Satisfactory
OVERALL: Sections 3 - 13

SV2
of this section?
5
RISK OF HARM SCREENING
See
Yes No N/A
comments
RHS1 Has the screening been completed?
Does the screening indicate a full risk of harm

RHS2
analysis is required?
If yes, has the full risk of harm analysis been
RHS3
completed?
RHS4 analysis are the reasons for not doing so
considered, reasonable and supported by evidence?
RHS5 Has countersigning taken place (as appropriate)?
RISK OF HARM FULL ANALYSIS, RISK OF HARM SUMMARY

& RISK OF RECONVICTION SUMMARY
Yes No N/A Comments
Is there a sound analysis of the risk factors – where

RHF1
present?
Is there a clear understanding evidenced of the
RHF2 difference between risk of re-offending and the risk
of serious harm?
Does the risk assessment take account of behaviour
RHF3
as a whole rather than simply offending behaviour?
RHF4 Are entries sufficiently specific e.g. who is at risk?
Where the response on OASys is “Don’t know”,

RHF5
have further enquiries been made as appropriate?
Does the risk of harm assessment fully support the
RHF6 decision to manage an offender at MAPPA level 2 or
3?
Is the Risk MANAGEMENT plan specific and focused
as to how risk of harm issues will be reduced and
RHF7
managed by the Service and other agencies, where
appropriate? (Med, High, Very High)
Does the Risk Management Plan specifically identify
RHF8 where the offender is managed by level 2 or 3 of
MAPPA?
Has countersigning taken place appropriately? Yes No N/A Comments
RHF In accordance with Prison Service

9 arrangements for OASys?

SV3
of this section?
6
COMPLETE ONLY ONE OF THE SECTIONS B or C:
B Sentence Planning (Initial/Review) at start of custodial

sentence
B Sentence Planning (Initial/Review Plan)

Start of custodial sentence
Self-Assessment Questionnaire
Yes Yes No See
Fully Partially Comment
SAQ1 Has the self-assessment questionnaire been
completed and dated?
Yes No N/A
SSP1 Are objectives linked to the OASys assessment of risk of harm?
Are objectives linked to the OASys assessment of risk of

SSP2
reconviction?
SSP3 Are those objectives relating to risk of serious harm given priority?
SSP4 Are there clear links to the Risk Management Plan as appropriate?
SSP4 Is there a clear statement of what is to be achieved?
SSP5 Is there a clear indication of how progress will be managed?
SSP6 Is it clear who will do the work?
SSP7 Are timescales clearly measurable?
SSP8 Do the objectives focus on what the offender will be doing?
Is there evidence to indicate that the self-assessment responses

SSP9
have influenced the sentence planning objectives?
SSP10 Have appropriate referrals been made to programmes?
Was the sentence plan completed in accordance PSO

SSP 11
timescales?
SSP12 Has the plan been countersigned by the Supervisor appropriately?

SV4B
of this section?
Please enter comments in support of score for

SV4B
7
On Termination answer only questions marked with ‘T’
Yes No N/A
RTT1 Have OASys sections 1-13 been reviewed appropriately?
RTT2 Have objectives from previous plans been reviewed?
RTT3 Has the risk of harm assessment been reviewed and updated?
Has the Risk Management plan been reviewed and updated? (Med, High,
RTT4
Very High)
Yes No N/A
RTT3 Are new objectives linked to the OASys assessment of risk of harm?
RTT4
Are new objectives linked to the OASys assessment of risk of harm
reconviction?
RTT5 Are there clear links to the Risk Management Plan as appropriate?
RTT6 Are those objectives relating to risk of serious harm given priority?
RTT7 Is there a clear statement of what is to be achieved?
RTT8 Is there a clear indication of how progress will be measured?
RTT9 Is it clear who will do the work?
RTT10 Are timescales clearly measurable?
RTT11 Do the objectives focus on what the offender will be doing?
RTT12 Have appropriate referrals been made to programmes?
RTT13 Has the plan been countersigned by the Supervisor (as appropriate)?
T T1 Have OASys sections 1-13 been reviewed appropriately?
T T2 Is there a review of the previous plan?
T T3 Is there a clear statement of what work is achieved?
T T4 What is the final risk of reconviction score?
T T5 What is the final risk of harm score?
8

SV4C
of this section?
Please enter comments in support of score for

SV4C
PLEASE ENTER THE SCORES FOR SV1 – SV4C in the quality rating table on page two
9
PC 48/2005: OASys QMP
AREA ACTION PLAN FOR RETURN TO THE OASYS TEAM
Probation area:
OASys Lead Manager:

Grade:
Address:
Telephone:
Email:
1. Please describe the procedures that you have put in place to manage 1st
level quality control checks (QMP para 4.2.3 refers)?
Comments:
2. Please describe the procedures that have been put in place to deliver 2nd
level quality requirements (QMP para 4.2.4 refers)?
Comments:
3. How do you intend to demonstrate quality improvements in your OASys

assessments to staff and to stakeholders on a regular basis?
Comments:
4. Please can you summarise evidence of quality improvement that you have
gathered since implementing OASys in your area. (Examples of best practice
will be shared).
Comments:
Please return to John Bourton, NPS OASys Implementation Manager

John.bourton@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk
By 31st August 2005

UK Home Office: PC48 2005

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

UK Home Office: PC48 2005

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Probation

OFFENDER ASSESSMENT SYSTEM REFERENCE NO:

PLAN ISSUE DATE:

Implementation of the QMP is a key component of the Assessment and ATTACHED:

National Probation Directorate

• OASys QMP with 4 of its six Appendices

PC482005 –Offender Assessment System (OASYS)Quality Management Plan 2

6 Assessment tool validation 10

OASys Quality Management Plan 2 01/07/05

OASys Quality Management Plan 3 01/07/05

1.3 The Priority of Quality Management

1.4 Operational and non-operational quality management

1.5 Quality Management terminology

OASys Quality Management Plan 4 01/07/05

2.2 National Probation Service

2.3 HM Prison Service

3.2 HM Prison Service

3.3 National Probation Service

OASys Quality Management Plan 5 01/07/05

A revised version of the ‘What makes a good OASys?’ instrument is attached at

The internal quality assurance should cover:

4.2.2 First-level local quality requirements (HMPS establishments)

OASys Quality Management Plan 6 01/07/05

The QMP introduces a requirement to conduct benchmarking events at regular intervals.

4.2.5 Training quality control

OASys Quality Management Plan 7 01/07/05

4.2.6 Assessment Consistency Videos

5.2 Second-level QA – HMPS Area level/Probation regional level

OASys Quality Management Plan 8 01/07/05

5.4 Quality Measurement

5.4.2 Performance measurement

5.4.3 IT-enabled quality measurement

5.4.4 Remote / non-contemporaneous monitoring of interviews

This methodology as a means of monitoring ‘slippage’ in OASys risk assessment

OASys Quality Management Plan 9 01/07/05

6 Assessment tool validation

6.2 External evaluation and validation

OASys Quality Management Plan 10 01/07/05

QUALITY MANAGEMENT TERMINOLOGY (FROM ISO 9000)

Quality Management Management system to direct and control an organisation with

Quality Management Co-ordinated activities to direct and control an organisation with

Quality Planning Part of quality management focused on setting quality objectives

Quality Control Part of quality management focused on fulfilling quality

Quality Assurance Part of quality management focused on providing confidence that

Quality Improvement Part of quality management focused on increasing the ability to

Quality Requirements: Relationship between result achieved and resources used

Requirement Need or expectation that is stated, generally implied or obligatory.

OASys Quality Management Plan 11 01/07/05

What makes a good OASys?

Completing OASys Sections 1-13 Yes No

OASys Quality Management Plan 12 01/07/05

OASys Quality Management Plan 13 01/07/05

OASys Quality Management Plan 14 01/07/05

OASys Quality Management Plan 15 01/07/05

OASys Quality Management Plan 16 01/07/05

NOTES FOR COMPLETION

Using the Forms

1 Other Agencies involved

OASys Quality Management Plan 17 01/07/05

Quality Rating Criteria

Case ID and Offence Analysis

Sections 3 -13 (OASys1/2)