Publication - Corporate report

Scottish Advisory Panel on Offender Rehabilitation: annual report 2018-2020

Published: 11 Sep 2020

Scottish Advisory Panel on Offender Rehabilitation (SAPOR) annual report covers activity undertaken in 2018 to 2019 and in 2019 to 2020.

23 page PDF

386.3 kB

23 page PDF

386.3 kB

Contents
Scottish Advisory Panel on Offender Rehabilitation: annual report 2018-2020
Appendix A - Accreditation Standards

23 page PDF

386.3 kB

Appendix A - Accreditation Standards

Design Standard A1 - The Need for The Programme Is Clearly Stated and Based on Robust Evidence or Reasoned Argument Informed by Relevant Theory.

Criteria used to assess and evidence How each Design Standard has been met:

  • Evidence of the need for such a programme in Scotland, including explanation of the ways in which it will contribute to reducing reoffending, promoting desistance and
  • Details of the specific population for whom the programme is intended
  • The intended outcomes of the programme should be described

Design Standard A2 - The Programme Is Based on A Model of Change Clearly Stated and Based on Robust Research Evidence and Informed by Relevant Theory.

Criteria used to assess and evidence How each Design Standard has been met:

A model of change that details how the proposed intervention will lead to the expected outcomes and which locates the programme’s role in the wider process of supporting desistance

  • Include reference to theoretical and empirical evidence that demonstrates the effectiveness of the chosen approach in relation to participant type/targeted nature of offending
  • Theoretical model of change on which the intervention is based
  • Evidence base supporting this model of change
  • Criminogenic needs and dynamic risk factors targeted by this intervention
  • Measurable goals and expected outcomes
  • Clear model (e.g. table or diagrammatic) which illustrates the programme theory, and the theoretical links between its components and individual change outcomes.
  • Clear description of how the programme addresses risk factors linked to reoffending and/or increases protective factors linked to desistance.
  • Details of the criminogenic needs, risk and protective factors linked to and targeted by programme content, with attention to how the proposed content utilises and builds on participants’ strengths and resources.

Design Standard A3 - The Programme's Methods Are Clearly Stated and Based on Robust Evidence Informed by Relevant Theory.

Criteria used to assess and evidence How each Design Standard has been met:

  • Summary of the activities participants engage in, for how long and in what order
  • Methods to achieve intended programme outcomes
  • Methods to motivate and maintain engagement of participants and encourage their participation in the process of change
  • Methods to connect with and support individual participants in the wider processes of rehabilitation, sentence planning and case management, in order to support desistance, and how they link together.

Design Standard A4 - The Programme Uses Appropriate Methods to Select Participants.

Criteria used to assess and evidence How each Design Standard has been met:

  • Clear selection/exclusion criteria: explain exactly who the service or programme is designed for, and how the right people will be identified and selected. This explanation should include an account of the risk, needs and responsivity characteristics of the target population. .
  • An appropriate referral processes
  • Details of how participants learn what the programme aims to do for them and how it fits into their overarching support plan and process of change.
  • Assessment methods and procedures for selection and identification of needs, risks and strengths, which include details of opportunities of participant input into this process
  • Means of securing feedback to and from participants, and, where relevant, others (for example, partners, family members, case managers, etc.) and how that feedback will be collated, analysed and used to inform a) individual support plans b) quality assurance/programme monitoring to inform the development of the programme

Design Standard A5 - The Programme Design Is Responsive to Individual Participant’s Characteristics and Needs, Encouraging Participation and Maximising Benefit for Participants.

Criteria used to assess and evidence How each Design Standard has been met:

  • Clear attention to all stages of the programme (e.g. preparation, motivation and engagement, core delivery, maintenance and follow up)
  • Detail of programme length, composition (e.g. if rolling, or open/closed) and mode of delivery (e.g. group size and/or per individual)
  • Number, length and frequency of sessions
  • Sequencing of components
  • Means of supporting participants who have missed sessions or are experiencing difficulties
  • Processes for excluding/removing participants before programme completion
  • Processes for re-introducing participants
  • A clear account of how the programme contributes and links in to wider processes of rehabilitation, sentence planning and case management, to support desistance
  • A clear account of how the methods used in the programme take account of participants’ learning needs; their diverse backgrounds; and protected characteristics.

Design Standard A6 - The Programme Design Includes Appropriate Criteria and Methods for Selection (And, Where Necessary, De-Selection) and Management of Staff.

Criteria used to assess and evidence How each Design Standard has been met:

  • Person specifications and role descriptions for managers and staff, including details of the knowledge, skills and values required to deliver the programme, including with respect to diversity issues; and also with respect to the complexity of the programme, degree of practitioner skill, and discretionary judgement involved in its effective and ethical delivery
  • Guidance on numbers and composition of programme staff
  • Selection and de-selection processes for programme staff that are recorded and transparent
  • Training (as defined within the Training Manual), supervision and support methods for all programme staff, including consideration of potential risks, and the provision of additional external support, where appropriate. (Programme staff can include: programme managers, delivery managers, case managers, psychometric testers, group workers – to permit full integration of programme management with case management to meet wider offender needs. All staff to be trained before delivering their part of the programme). A record of staff training is to be maintained.

Design Standard A7 - The Submission Identifies Appropriate Support, Resources and Conditions Needed for Successful Implementation, Including Specification of How and Where the Programme Fits in With Wider Sentence Planning/Case Management Processes.

Illustrative Criteria used to evidence How each Design Standard has been met:

  • Organisational support (strategic and practical) for the programme; clarity as to where it fits with wider service delivery plans and approaches
  • Specific resources required e.g. personnel, accommodation, materials
  • Methods for maintaining programme integrity e.g. change control processes devised
  • Monitoring, recording and auditing the delivery of programme sessions
  • Links to case management/sentence planning processes to support desistance
  • Links to any relevant risk assessment and risk management processes.

Design Standard A8 - There Is an Appropriate Monitoring and Evaluation Framework, and The Sponsor Demonstrates A Commitment to Carry This Out.

Illustrative Criteria used to evidence How each Design Standard has been met:

  • Provision of evaluation specification including details of:
  • Clear logic model of the underlying programme theory identifying the criminogenic needs and/or desistance factors linked to and targeted by programme content and which operationalises short, medium and long term (where feasible to measure) outcomes
  • On-going internal monitoring of programme delivery, including procedures for collection of service user feedback
  • On-going internal monitoring of progress during the programme, including methods and procedures for data collection
  • Internal monitoring of progress at the end of the programme, including methods and procedures for data collection
  • Process evaluation
  • Outcome evaluation
  • Data analysis
  • Qualitative data from participants and, where appropriate others (e.g. partners, family members, case managers, etc.).
  • Formative and summative feedback to designers, sponsors and delivery agencies.
  • Details of methods for reporting progress, both during and after the programme, including to those people responsible for sentence or case review and/or release/recall decision making
  • Details of how the routinely collected evaluation data are examined and fed back into ongoing programme development and improvement.

Design Standard A9 - Arrangements for The Governance of and Accountability for The Effective Delivery of The Programme Are Clearly and Explicitly Stated, and Agreement on The Role of Any External Bodies Has Been Secured.

Illustrative Criteria used to evidence How each Design Standard has been met:

  • Quality assurance of programme delivery within delivery organisations including details of internal audits.
  • Quality assurance of training within delivery organisations
  • Written commitment from responsible officers in delivery organisations to deliver programmes as designed
  • For community based programmes, establishing a National Implementation Group or equivalent, comprising representatives of all local authorities and/or prisons involved in the delivery of a specific programme to oversee governance once initial implementation processes have been completed

Design Standard A10: For Reaccreditation Only - The Feedback, Monitoring and Evaluation Outcomes and Details of Changes Made to The Programme Are Clearly Delineated

Criteria used to assess and evidence How each Design Standard has been met:

  • Clear outline of any changes made to the programme and the reasons for this.
  • Details of findings and conclusion from the monitoring and quality assurance process and how they have influenced programme design, supports and resources
  • Details of empirical findings and conclusions with regard to both process and outcomes of the programme and how they have influenced programme design.
  • Details of any feedback from participants, partners/family members facilitators, and case managers and how it is has influenced programme design

Contact

Email: ComjA1@gov.scot