Saturday, 9 February 2019

Let's Have a RAR Day

With the MoJ publishing revised guidance, now seems as good a time as any to consider what those mysterious 'RAR days' are all about:-  

1. What is the rehabilitation activity requirement?

This guidance is to explain what the rehabilitation activity requirement (known as ‘RAR’) is and how it should be used. This guidance has been produced by the Ministry of Justice probation policy team.

The RAR is one of the requirements that can be included within a community order or suspended sentence order. The main purpose is to secure someone’s rehabilitation, restoring service users to a purposeful life in which they do not reoffend.

The RAR was introduced in 2014 under the Offender Rehabilitation Act to allow providers of probation services greater flexibility to decide on the best ways to rehabilitate individuals. Community rehabilitation companies (CRCs) were encouraged to access a diverse range of rehabilitation providers from the private, voluntary and social sectors.

The RAR replaces what would previously have been undertaken as part of both the supervision and specified activity requirements. What would have previously been known as ‘supervision’ is now split between RAR interventions and offender management activity by the responsible officer (RO). The RO oversees progress of the order and develops a close, trusting relationship with the individual to support them in successfully completing the requirements they’re subject to.

The RO plans with the service user how to use the ‘RAR days’ allocated by the court and which activities to take part in to help their rehabilitation, tailored to their specific needs.


2. RAR in sentencing

The court can decide to include a RAR as part of a community order or a suspended sentence order. They do not have to include a RAR. A RAR should be proposed when the person has clear rehabilitative needs, when appropriate activities are available and where these needs cannot be met by an accredited programme or a treatment requirement.

To assist sentencers, National Probation Service (NPS) court officers should make clear proposals that specifically identify the rehabilitative needs to be addressed and the number of days needed to do so.

Where needs can be met by an accredited programme or treatment requirement, this is the preferred intervention. This is because accredited programmes are evidence based and should achieve improved outcomes if provided to the right people in the right way. A RAR should only be allocated alongside an accredited programme if it can address additional rehabilitative activities that are not addressed by the programme. The RO can offer additional appointments to secure compliance and help maintain motivation.

Treatment requirements are delivered in partnership with locally commissioned substance misuse or mental health treatment services. These partnerships bring together the resources and skills to help those with mental health and substance misuse difficulties. Consent is required for all treatment requirements.

Drug rehabilitation requirements (DRRs) can be given when the court is satisfied that the service user is dependent on or misuses drugs, and that treatment is likely to help and is available.

Alcohol treatment requirements (ATRs) can be given when the court is satisfied that a service user is dependent on alcohol and that treatment is likely to help and is available. The service user’s dependency on alcohol does not have to have caused or contributed to the offence for which they’ve been convicted.

Mental health treatment requirements (MHTRs) can be given where the court is satisfied that an offender has a mental health condition that’s treatable either in a community setting or as an outpatient in a non-secure setting. MHTRs can be used for any mental health issue, including personality disorders, and the treatment offered can cover a wide range of interventions from therapy for depression and anxiety through to secondary and psychiatric care.

3. Assessing rehabilitative needs


A RAR could be used to address someone’s needs in the following areas:

  • accommodation
  • education, training and employment
  • relationships
  • lifestyle and associates
  • non-dependent alcohol misuse (ATRs are intended for those who are alcohol dependent and DRRs for those who misuse illegal drugs)
  • emotional management (MHTRs are intended for all diagnosed mental health conditions, apart from those that require a hospital or guardianship order)
  • attitudes, thinking and behaviour
  • finance, benefits and debt
These are the needs that evidence shows either predict reoffending if they are not met, or if they are addressed will contribute to the stability people need to be able to deal with other significant issues.

In general, the more of these needs the person has, the greater their risk of reoffending. The NPS advises the court in a pre-sentence report on an appropriate maximum number of RAR activity days that might be needed and why. The court cannot set what specific rehabilitation activities should be done.

The court specifies the maximum number of RAR days that someone can be instructed to participate in activities. The number of RAR days allocated should take into account the complexity and severity of someone’s needs and their risk of reoffending. The RAR is not designed to be used as a punishment.

There’s no maximum number of RAR days but the ‘offender group reconviction scale’ (OGRS) score, based on age, gender and criminal history, should be the main guide to the number of days proposed. This is because there’s a clear link between the OGRS score and the number of rehabilitative needs. Longer RARs should be reserved for those with a higher risk of reoffending as they will have the most needs to address.

OGRS score  Average number of needs  RAR intensity  Guideline number of RAR days
0 to 24%        2.4                                                                          n/a
25 to 49%      3.2                                      Low intensity          RAR 1 to 15 days
50 to 74%      4.4                                      Medium intensity    RAR 15 to 25 days
75 to 90%      4.4                                      High intensity         RAR 25 to 60 days
Over 90%      6.2                                      High intensity         RAR 25 to 60 days

People with an OGRS score of less than 25% present a low likelihood of reoffending and are unlikely to benefit from rehabilitative interventions. It should only be in exceptional circumstances that they’re identified as needing a RAR. There would need to be clear indication of dynamic risk factors linked to an increased risk of reoffending.

In relation to identifying the rehabilitative needs of sex offenders, OGRS is not a good predictor of sexual reoffending. The factors most strongly predictive of sexual offending include: unusual sexual interests, attitudes that support sexual offending, poor emotional relationships with adults and a lack of self-management. The NPS court officer needs to assess if any of these factors exist and should be addressed by RAR interventions. If they’re eligible for an accredited programme, that should be the intervention of choice. It may be necessary to propose more RAR days if other stabilisation needs are identified.

The pre-sentence report should provide enough information about someone’s needs for the court to understand what their RAR is likely to focus on and why this should contribute to their rehabilitation.

People under probation supervision frequently have a wide range of needs. The important task is to identify the needs that, for that person, need addressing to reduce their risk of reoffending.

4. RAR in sentence planning

After sentencing, the assigned RO completes an initial assessment and, with the service user, decides on the interventions that will be done within the RAR, how they’ll be delivered, how often the person attends and what outcomes they’re aiming to achieve. This forms part of the ‘sentence plan’. It’s important to focus on the needs that are predictive of reoffending.

A RAR ‘day’ does not mean continuous activity throughout a whole day. All activities need to be enforceable. The activities that count as 1 day could include:

  • individual face-to-face planned and structured sessions designed to address identified needs
  • a planned activity with a third-party provider
  • 2 or more separate planned activities or sessions in the same day
If someone’s circumstances change in the course of the order, the RO can amend the number and type of activities to ensure they continue to meet the person’s needs. However, the number of RAR days cannot exceed that proposed by the court.

The sentence given by the court states the maximum number of RAR days that someone can be instructed to attend. If the RO believes that the agreed outcomes have been achieved through a lower number of RAR days than specified by the court, or through an alternative method, this needs to be recorded on Delius (the probation case management system) with the reasons explained.

5. What counts as a RAR activity

A RAR activity must be a pre-planned, structured intervention to address someone’s identified need to support their rehabilitation. The RO and the service user should agree the desired outcomes ahead of the activities, so that progress can be tracked.

Probation providers will have different interventions they can offer as part of a RAR to address the needs that are strongly predictive of reoffending. These are likely to include activities in the areas of:

  • accommodation
  • education, training and employment
  • relationships
  • lifestyle and associates
  • non-dependent alcohol misuse (ATRs are intended for those who are alcohol dependent and DRRs for those who misuse illegal drugs)
  • emotional management (MHTRs are intended for all diagnosed mental health conditions)
  • attitudes, thinking and behaviour
  • finance, benefits and debt
  • specific interventions for women
This is not a full list. Other activities could be included as a RAR as long as it’s planned, structured, clearly meets rehabilitative needs and there’s a rationale as to why it should work.

The activity could be as part of a group or could be individual ‘face-to-face’. An activity is usually delivered by a third party on behalf of the RO, but could be by the RO themselves if there’s no existing intervention available.

The RO must also undertake additional offender management activities, which include motivation, promoting and sustaining hope, supporting compliance, enforcement, public protection and overseeing the overall direction and sequencing of activities in the order. These appointments do not count as RAR days and the RO can offer as many of these as they feel are necessary during the course of the order. There will also be other unstructured discussions between the RO and the service user to support them in addressing their identified needs. These discussions are crucial to the building of a positive relationship with the service user, but do not count as RAR days.

6. Selecting RAR activities

The RO needs to understand the person’s needs that lie behind the offence and select an existing intervention to addresses these. If no suitable activity exists then they must record this on Delius (the probation case management system) with the reasons explained.

Examples of activities could include:

  • programmes designed to address specific issues such as emotional management
  • enforceable appointments with a specialist organisation to help achieve outcomes relating to housing or financial needs
  • working with a mentor, for example to attend college, go to the library or help prepare a CV
  • structured sessions with a RO, third sector provider or in-house specialist to help improve an individual’s ability to solve problems, make good decisions or access and maintain engagement with other services
7. Delivering RAR activities

RAR activities can be delivered by a sub-contracted provider (where there are arrangements to monitor attendance, as these are legally enforceable), an in-house specialist or by the RO. When the RO is delivering RAR interventions, this should be recorded as such, as it’s distinct from their offender management activity. The RO should ensure the service user is engaging with the process and making progress.

All appointments instructed by the RO, whether delivered by the RO or other RAR provider, are enforceable.

The RO should be assessing whether the person’s needs are being met through the planned interventions and making changes if appropriate. The provider of the RAR activity should be reporting back on attendance, progress and suggested next steps.

The service user cannot be instructed to attend more RAR days than those given in their sentence. The RAR days do not necessarily need to be spaced out for the duration of the sentence, they can be completed whenever is most appropriate.

After completing the RAR activities to address the risk of reoffending, the RO can signpost the service user to further support if needed.

The outcome of the RAR intervention needs to be recorded on Delius. This should reflect whether the desired outcomes that were agreed as part of the initial sentence plan have been achieved. The RO needs to confirm that this counts as the completion of the RAR. If fewer days have been completed, the RO needs to record the rationale for taking this decision, a description of the progress that’s been made and the outcome achieved.

31 comments:

  1. The RO plans with the service user how to use the ‘RAR days’ allocated by the court

    To assist sentencers, National Probation Service (NPS) court officers should make clear proposals that specifically identify the rehabilitative needs to be addressed and the number of days needed to do so.

    The court cannot set what specific rehabilitation activities should be done.

    The pre-sentence report should provide enough information about someone’s needs for the court to understand what their RAR is likely to focus on and why this should contribute to their rehabilitation.

    If the RO believes that the agreed outcomes have been achieved through a lower number of RAR days than specified by the court, or through an alternative method, this needs to be recorded on Delius (the probation case management system) with the reasons explained.

    ------------------------------------------------

    No wonder that sentencers are confused & uncertain about community penalties.

    Low/Med Risk case: the Court is asked to impose a specific number of RAR days based upon identified needs & a clear proposal by NPS court staff, and then...

    ... the CRC supervising staff member has to develop a "close trusting relationship" & plan how to use the allocated RAR days, but not all of those days need be used if they can enter a good enough reason on delius.

    As a sentencer I'm concerned that either or both NPS court staff & CRC staff are making shit up. The NPS's "clear specific proposal" at Court is the basis of my sentencing decision, yet CRC staff subsequently redefine the sentence both in terms of requirement & length without any need to advise or approach the Court. Then, as long as its recorded on a CRC computer record, the CRC get paid.

    Sounds like the MP IPSA scheme or a Work Programme scam to me. There's simply no verifiable accountability.

    And Sentencers are left clueless as to the efficacy of sentencing.

    Best of all, its 4 years on & no-one seems to give a shit.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Actually CRC's do not receive any financial return for the RAR as it sits outside services which are in scope of the payment mechanism.

      Delete
    2. That makes perfect sense - because it seems to me that whilst the RAR is upheld in court by the NPS & sentencer as a critical element of the package, the CRCs are effectively ignoring the RAR element... which comes back to the point made by 9/2/19 @07:04, i.e. "no verifiable accountability" of the delivery of the sentence. All the CRC is focusing on is meeting its "in scope" targets to pocket the cash. Actually...

      Delete
    3. The whole system is broken. I made it clear to the court that due to the circumstances and losing my licence I had to leave my job. Putting me out of work and having severe complications to my mental health. I haven't seen my RO in over two months...

      I now lack the confidence to leave the house to find work. Every time I've brought this up I've been silenced in group therapy.

      I've been given an application form for a company that went into liquidation over a year ago. I've been promised counseling since September and still nothing.

      Nearly every time I went for Community service there was an issue. Twice I wasn't allowed on the minibus because the ROs can't send simple messages between each other to update community service lists. I was sentenced to 120 hours and worked about 4 as the rest of the time worked wasn't planned or we'd already been the the same site raking up leaves the previous day.


      The whole process is bogus and is clearly a way of milking taxpayers money. ROs are saleried above 25k and the things I've witnessed would be cause for disaplinary action.

      Who do I complain to? Know one. Why? Who's going to listen and care?

      I'm now dependant on cannabis because that's all CS is... New contacts for your phone book. Just so far cats can take your money for something they don't do.


      None of issues have been addressed and the company behind this is incompetent....

      Delete
  2. The Court: We're considering the partial differential equation ∂u∂t = −v∂u∂x. What is the general analytic form for the solution to this equation, and how can this solution be interpreted physically?

    NPS: I think we can do something with that & we'll apply a von Neumann stability analysis. Give us 10 days & my CRC colleagues will work on it.

    CRC: What? Fuck that! delius will clearly show that we spent 10 days trying to develop a forward-time centred-space scheme. What we actually did each week was sit in the conference room & watch the complete Back To The Future trilogy followed by the seven Terminator films. RAR completed!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If you take the astrophysics with a pinch of salt, I do know that watching films for a few weeks was how one group completed their RARs in one CRC. I've no idea what was recorded on delius, nor will I risk being identified by logging on to have a look!

      Delete
  3. RAR's are a complete waste of time and dodgy. Just bosh em in a group with no standard of quality for an 1 hour for several sessions. Job done.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Social impact bonds and childhood trauma. Not specific to probation, but interesting reading nonetheless
    https://wrenchinthegears.com/2019/02/05/ace-adverse-childhood-experience-scores-part-of-the-pay-for-success-plan/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

    ReplyDelete
  5. we have minimal RAR things in our place so a RAR is basically a 1-1 with supervisor. RARs are stupid idea anyway.

    ReplyDelete
  6. The clients don't understand why they have to attend appointments that aren't counted as RAR days and i've never found anything that clearly explains this to show them

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No-one understands anything. Its all utter bollox-speak made up by lickspittle simple serpents desperate to please, to leave their mark, to guarantee a secure pension then fuck off to enjoy a comfortable life with occasional consultancy work.

      "The service user cannot be instructed to attend more RAR days than those given in their sentence"

      BUT...

      "The RO must also undertake additional offender management activities, which include motivation, promoting and sustaining hope, supporting compliance, enforcement, public protection and overseeing the overall direction and sequencing of activities in the order. These appointments do not count as RAR days and the RO can offer as many of these as they feel are necessary during the course of the order. There will also be other unstructured discussions between the RO and the service user to support them in addressing their identified needs. These discussions are crucial to the building of a positive relationship with the service user, but do not count as RAR days."

      Its all very Grayling-esque, e.g. "in addition to due diligence by senior DfT staff, checks on Seaborne Freight were conducted by three leading independent companies: law firm Slaughter and May, advisory services company Deloitte, and Mott MacDonald, a consultancy."

      Today:

      "Seaborne Freight: Firm with no ships has Brexit ferries contract cancelled"

      Delete
  7. "The RO must also undertake additional offender management activities, which include... promoting and sustaining hope..."

    Just buy them a lottery ticket every week. The price of the ticket will go to good causes.

    ReplyDelete
  8. 1. In 2000 the courts sentenced 1.42 million offenders

    2. The courts sentenced 106,200 people to immediate custody in 2000, the highest figure for over 50 years.

    5. The number of pre-sentence reports (PSRs) written in 2000 [was] 241,300...

    8. The total number of people starting community sentences in 2000 was... about 122,000.

    https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20110218141312/http://rds.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs/probation2000.pdf

    Anyone got any recent figures for comparison?

    ReplyDelete
  9. I have questioned with my managers the legality of asking a service user to attend appointments with me once they have completed ALL their RAR days and / or a standalone requirement ( ATR / DID's etc given with no RAR's ) especially if on an SSO that can't be returned to court for good progress - response is we have to be seen to be offering them appointments - I've not really had a clear response to what happens when they fail or recusr to attend as they have completed their requirements - apart from SSO's are the cord accepting revocation for good progress once requirements ( RAR's ) have completed ??

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. With regard to SSO's over 12mths if supervision period is 12mths but operational period is 24mths then we have to see them bi-monthly after the 12mths for the remainder BUT if on standalone UPW the just get terminated - they are so contradictor I mean, why is it fair for UPW to get terminated but community requirements on SSO get dragged in for pointless appointment??

      Delete
  10. Sorry should have said " refuse " and " courts "

    ReplyDelete
  11. It's often said that sentencers no longer have confidence in private probation companies, hence a big fall in community sentences being imposed.
    But after reading today's blog post I'm wondering if it's not much more then a lack of confidence.

    accommodation
    education, training and employment
    relationships
    lifestyle and associates
    non-dependent alcohol misuse (ATRs are intended for those who are alcohol dependent and DRRs for those who misuse illegal drugs)
    emotional management (MHTRs are intended for all diagnosed mental health conditions)
    attitudes, thinking and behaviour
    finance, benefits and debt
    specific interventions for women.

    Apart from the time taken to develop RARs by an understaffed workforce with high caseloads, a lot of the interventions listed can only be provided at some cost to the private companies.
    When their only purpose is to generate the maximum amount of profit, surely the privateers see RARs as a drain on revenue?

    'Getafix

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. My recall is that RARs were intended to promote the innovation by private companies and their partners, typically 3rd sector and voluntary, so that a smorgasbord of targeted rehabilitative interventions were available to refer to. RARs equalled income with added bonus for success, reduced reoffending triggering payment by results payments. Simples!

      Delete
  12. CRC's are selling RAR activities / interventions to NPS and potentially anyone else that wants to buy

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Problem was no one bought them due to being shite and a waste of money

      Delete
  13. As far as I am aware UPW should be completed by 12 months, if it has and the operational period is 24 month, then the SSO still remains and there should be some form of undefined contact for the remaining 12 months, not actually terminated.

    ReplyDelete
  14. ref a tweet from "@debjase":

    "Looking at some of the comments on the blog there is a mixture of knocking #probation CRCs and analysing the usefulness of ORA and RAR days. Some of this Neither helpful or fair to CRC colleagues who try and work professionally under ridiculous circumstances! #HackedOffPO"

    In our area the 'shafting' was done by the powerful chumocracy that was Trust senior management who, using the deception of some mythical Harry Potter spell, decided (1) who was going to be NPS management & then (2) who they wanted in their teams. This was even to the point of persuading/bullying staff who had opted for the CRC route.

    The NPS bodies seem to be less despairing than the many experienced staff across grades who were shafted to the CRC - of which all but a handful remain - but the NPS management is pitiful, the service is not in good shape & bullying is rife. Although the CRC is crap-to-dire here (see what I did there?), the NPS landscape is a minefield policed by a coterie of passive-aggressives.

    The CRC management are simply clueless & woeful, the CRC is a laughing stock (magistrates openly make jokes about them) &, as the tweet suggests, CRC staff trying to deliver a professional service are at their wits end, i.e. "hacked off". Their dedication & commitment is diluted, tainted & negated by the CRC 'brand'.

    I read the comments on here as quite rightly targetting Grayling etc, MoJ, Spurr, HMPPS/NPS, CRC management & the sycophants i.e. the architects, the minsters, the civil servants, the greedy thieves & the collaborators, who persist with the lie that TR is working.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Just reading this in the Guardian and wondering who will meet the cost.
    It seems to me that someone's trying to reinvent probation work!

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/feb/09/university-pioneers-scheme-to-rehabilitate-sex-offenders

    'Getafix

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well spotted. Although I knew of the criticisms, I wasn't aware of this bit of news that appears in the article:

      "Last year the main sex offender treatment programme for England and Wales was scrapped by the Ministry of Justice after a report revealed it led to more reoffending."

      So does that mean there's NO specialist treatment scheme for sex offenders at present?

      Delete
    2. University launches scheme to rehabilitate sex offenders

      Sex offenders will be given support to help find a job and make new friends under a pioneering scheme run by a university and backed by police. The initiative aims to integrate people back into society to prevent them committing further crimes.

      Offenders will visit a centre, the first of its kind in the UK, where they will receive employment training – from management skills to writing CVs – as well as help with building a supportive social circle, finding new hobbies or learning basic skills such as cooking.

      The strategy’s advocates say that, while they realise it will be controversial, it will reduce reoffending rates. The aim is to work with up to 100 people in the first year.

      “We want to make sure they won’t reoffend because they will have found a niche in society, a way of reintegrating,” said Professor Belinda Winder, head of the sexual offences, crime and misconduct research unit at Nottingham Trent University, which is piloting the scheme.

      “It’s for people who are going to be rejected, who feel desperate, lonely, isolated, a vicious circle which can contribute to reoffending. We are going to break that vicious cycle, but it’s difficult to know if people are going to be able to stomach this.”

      Although programmes already exist to help support convicted sex offenders, the Nottingham scheme, adopted by the Corbett Centre for Prisoner Reintegration, is said to be the world’s first holistic approach to fully integrating sex offenders back into society.

      Last year the main sex offender treatment programme for England and Wales was scrapped by the Ministry of Justice after a report revealed it led to more reoffending.

      Researchers found that prisoners completing the programme – which was designed to challenge the behaviour of male sex offenders with psychological techniques to change their thinking – were more likely to commit further crimes. Reoffending rates for sex offenders are between 10 to 14%.

      The centre itself will have police from the Nottinghamshire’s force on site at various times during the week so they can meet sex offenders on licence, a move that will help save time and resources tracking down their whereabouts.

      Nottinghamshire’s police and crime commissioner Paddy Tipping said: “This groundbreaking piece of work will hopefully set the new standard for post-sentence reintegration into the community. It’s absolutely logical.

      “If we can rehabilitate offenders and support them as they return to live in the community, they will be safer and less likely to reoffend. This in turn means there will be fewer victims of sexual abuse and harm. It’s an ambitious project and I’m proud to be involved.” The centre will be housed at a university-owned building in the middle of the city.

      “We’re mindful of the difficulties of what we’re doing,” said Winder. “But remember that people are free to walk anywhere in the city and go, for instance, to Costa Coffee.”

      The centre will be launched this week by Safer Living Foundation (SLF), a partnership between HMP Whatton in Nottinghamshire and the school of social sciences at Nottingham Trent University.

      Lynn Saunders, chair and co-founder of SLF and governor of HMP Whatton, said the centre was a “much needed resource”.

      Winder added: “We’re giving people somewhere to go to help them to build a better new life, to get the support they want rather than, for example, wandering around the train station.” She added that two other UK regions had already expressed interest in adopting the model.

      10-14% -The reoffending rate for sex offenders in England and Wales

      121,000 - The number of sexual offences recorded by police in England and Wales in the year ending March
      2017

      14% - The increase in the number of sexual offences compared with 2016, the highest since the Sexual Offences Act was introduced in 2003

      Delete
  16. https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/chris-graylings-catalogue-failure-13-13978573

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 1. £14m handed to a ferry firm with no ferries
      2. THAT disastrous train timetable launch
      3. The great Virgin Trains East Coast 'bailout'
      4. A book ban for prisoners that the High Court crushed
      5. Court fees that 'pushed the innocent to plead guilty'
      6. Employment tribunal fees ruled illegal by the Supreme Court
      7. Legal aid cuts that unfairly hit domestic violence victims...
      8... And prisoners
      9. A £6m jail training contract with that bastion of human rights, Saudi Arabia
      10. An 'unsustainable' £200m jail maintenance contract
      11. A £23million prisoner tagging scheme
      12. Privatising prisons and probation
      13. Benefit claimants working without pay

      Delete
  17. What's a PSR?
    Honestly though just looked at last week's 11 newly allocated cases and only one had an Oral report. Most of mine plead guilty and the "Court Appearances" entry states, "No Court Duty Officer available".
    No RARs with mine, though previously I saw very little correlation between RAR days imposed and an OGRS, the calculation of the OGRS in the main being post sentencing.
    With regard to the SSO length and additional requirements, my understanding is that a 24m SSO with 12 or 18 m supervision or UPW is returned to Court when the elements are complete and the SSO remains as a standalone.

    On a different note, how easy have others found it to transfer between CRC's .... Particularly Pre release transfers.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. London is very difficult to transfer too

      Delete
    2. Tell me about it. Took me 3 weeks to get a first appointment!

      Delete