Pre-sentence reports (PSRs) are the key tool used by YOTs to demonstrate their credibility and effectiveness in the eyes of courts and sentencers. In areas where the profile of offenders is more serious and challenging, it is especially critical that attention is paid to the quality and effectiveness of PSRs in influencing sentencing decisions.
Work carried out by the YJB’s Community, Secure and Resettlement Programme Support highlighted the need for improvement in specific aspects of PSR writing. Two key tasks for YOTs to focus on are:
- developing in-house PSR writing workshops
- building more robust quality assurance processes.
PSR workshops
Training in relation to assessment is now available nationally in the form of Effective Practice In-Service Training in Assessment, Planning Interventions and Supervision. PSR training is addressed on a regional basis through the Board’s HR Consortia (for information, contact your regional HR and learning development adviser).
In the course of monthly supervision with staff and regular gate-keeping of PSRs, managers acquire additional insight into specific areas in need of further development. YOTs should feed this information into the development of in-house workshops targeting PSR-writing skills. This can be achieved by following the process outlined below.
Click to download an example structure for a PSR workshop [127Kb Word document, opens in new window].
Aim
To target specific skills deficits relating to PSR writing, identified locally, with a view to improving the quality of PSRs produced by the YOT.
Target audience
All PSR writers within the YOT, focusing on those who write PSRs less often and therefore may need further training (e.g. in YOTs which are structured in such a way that they have a court team and a post-court/supervision team, focusing on the supervision team).
Facilitators
- operational manager responsible for court/PSRs
- 1–2 practitioners/senior practitioners/practice development assessors/practice teachers experienced in PSR writing and/or keen on developmental role
Possible models for delivery
- Each session builds on the previous one
- This enables participants to follow one case through the process
- Such a model requires a commitment on the part of staff to attend all sessions as missing one will adversely affect learning
- Each session stands alone
- Limits the opportunity for consistency and continuity of learning
- Provides greater flexibility for attendance, participation and time management
Participants and sessions
The training is for a maximum of eight people, to be held over approximately six sessions of two hours each.
Materials
The sessions should be informed by:
Approach
Workshops will be maximally effective if they involve a high level of participation and interaction to enable staff to rehearse new skills.
Quality assurance
Good practice suggests that there should be a robust quality assurance process in place that serves to ensure that reports meet the necessary standard before going to court. These processes can take different forms. This section aims to provide an overview of the main models and their respective merits.
Pre-PSR quality assurance
Following this model, quality assurance input is provided prior to the report being written. It can be done prior to the initial PSR interview in order to guide the assessor in his/her interview. Alternatively, if time constraints prevent this, it can be done post-interview. It is best used as a method of targeting those cases that are most at risk of receiving a custodial sentence and ensuring quality in these reports.
|
Aim |
to maximise the chances of the sentencing outcome being in line with the PSR proposal (concordance) by:
-
bringing together the professionals relevant to that case to discuss the issues, needs and risks with a view to agreeing a potential package that can be proposed
-
providing management support early in the process
-
making resource decisions early in the process
-
ensuring a detailed and high quality proposal that targets all identified needs and risks |
|
People
|
- operational manager responsible for court/PSRs
- PSR author
- ISSP manager
- other workers who may be appropriate, e.g. drugs worker, accommodation worker
|
|
Information required |
- PSR request
- CPS papers
- sentencing history
- YOT files (where young person is previously known)
|
|
Frequency |
Weekly, following allocation of PSRs
|
|
Process
|
- Relevant operational manager reviews all PSR requests and identifies those PSRs where there is a particularly high risk of custody. The criteria for ‘high risk of custody’ are set locally and will depend on specific local issues
- Basic information is recorded (name, date of next court appearance)
- A meeting with all relevant workers is convened by the PSR author’s line manager
- At the meeting, agreements about PSR proposal are recorded on a designated form
- All forms are collated and outcomes recorded and monitored
- The PSR is prepared accordingly and sent to court
|
|
Outcome
|
A detailed and high quality PSR and proposal that is effective in:
- influencing sentencing outcome
- maximising the use of appropriate community sentences and programmes
- increasing the credibility of the YOT
|
Post-PSR quality assurance
Quality assurance can and should also take place after the PSR has been written as a final safeguard before the report is sent to court. One advantage of this is that the model is less resource intensive. Often, however, it takes place at the last minute, when pressure is on to get the report to court on time and therefore the integrity of the process can be diminished. A further advantage is that it is an opportunity to see the report in full and therefore provides an opportunity for form as well as content to be checked.
|
Aim |
to maximise the chances of the sentencing outcome being in line with the PSR proposal (concordance) by:
- checking the form and content of a drafted report before it is sent to court
|
|
People |
|
|
Information/tools required |
- PSR
- PSR gate-keeping form
- PSR request
- CPS papers and sentencing history
- Completed Asset
|
|
Process |
- Colleague checks PSR against agreed quality assurance template and identifies any amendments required. Any disagreement is referred to a manager
- Designated manager checks PSR against agreed quality assurance template and identifies any amendments required
- A weekly panel of designated staff discuss the reports that are due in court that week and agree any amendments that are required
|
|
Outcome |
A detailed and high quality PSR and proposal that is effective in:
- influencing sentencing outcome
- maximising the use of appropriate community sentences and programmes
- increasing the credibility of the YOT.
|
A number of the YOTs participating in the project have developed processes and materials relating to the quality of PSRs, training and quality assurance.
- Southwark YOT has devised and implemented ‘At Risk of Custody Panels’ for those PSRs most at risk of receiving a custodial outcome. Email florence.kroll@southwark.gov.uk.
- Lambeth YOT has developed a series of five PSR workshops targeting specific skills. Email lduffus2@lambeth.gov.uk.
- Derby City YOT has developed PSR practice guidance detailing necessary content and process. Email julia.crane@derby.gov.uk.