REVISED TARGETING STRATEGY

PURPOSE
Probation
•

•
To advise areas of the targeting strategy and matrix for all Offending
Behaviour Programmes and other interventions.
To inform areas of changes to targeting criteria for General Offending
Circular
Behaviour Programmes (GOBPs).
REFERENCE NO:
38/2004
ACTION
Chief Officers should ensure that:
ISSUE DATE:
• all relevant staff are aware of targeting strategy;
02 July 2004
• the revised targeting criteria for GOBPs are applied as intended by
following the guidelines outlined in Annexes A and B.
IMPLEMENTATION DATE:
SUMMARY Immediate
The targeting strategy is based on research and analysis from a number of
sources. It provides guidelines for probation areas in referring offenders to EXPIRY DATE:
different types of intervention which are appropriate to their risk and needs. June 2006
There are some significant changes to targeting of GOBPs which include:
• increasing the minimum Offender Group Reconviction Scale (OGRS) TO:
score for offenders targeted to GOBPs to 40;
• making a clear distinction between referrals to GOBPs and referrals to Chairs of Probation Boards
specific offence type programmes which might be based on risk of harm; Chief Officers of Probation
• introducing new exclusion criteria based on recent criminal history and Secretaries of Probation Boards
levels of inter-personal skills.
CC:
The effect of these changes means there will be an improvement in the
discrimination between offenders suitable for GOBPs, Enhanced Community Board Treasurers
Punishment (ECP) and other specialist programmes. The targeting matrices Regional Managers
are designed to cover the present sentencing structure and will need to be
reviewed when the new sentences are enacted. AUTHORISED BY:
David Perry
RELEVANT PREVIOUS PROBATION CIRCULARS Director of Service Delivery
PC32/2000
PC96/2000
ATTACHED:
PC41/2003
Annex A: Factors to be taken into
account when using the targeting
CONTACT FOR ENQUIRIES matrix
Danny Clark, Interventions Unit, Room 226, Horseferry House
Annex B: Targeting matrix

National Probation Directorate

Horseferry House, Dean Ryle Street, London, SW1P 2AW General Enquiries: 020 7217 0659 Fax: 020 7217 0660

Enforcement, rehabilitation and public protection

INTRODUCTION

The targeting strategy presented in this paper attempts to bring together research and analysis from a number of sources.
It provides guidelines for probation areas in referring offenders to different types of intervention which are appropriate to
their risk and needs.

The strategy is informed by the analysis of OASys data, the recent research findings from the Think First Programme and
the ongoing Offending Behaviour Programme Pathfinders research. It incorporates earlier targeting advice given to areas
for Enhanced Community Punishment, Intensive Interventions and Offending Behaviour Programmes.

The success of the targeting strategy is reliant on the timely good quality use of OASys. Once probation areas have
implemented OASys, they do not need to complete individual targeting matrices for the GOBPs or the Substance Misuse
Programmes. There are some elements of selection for the other specialist programmes that are not contained in OASys
at present.

The targeting to interventions is set within the current community sentencing structure, but the targeting to specific types
of interventions would be applicable after the introduction of the new sentencing framework. Changes recommended in
these targeting guidelines are in line with the policy of lower risk offenders receiving disposals other than community
penalties. The main body of the circular consists of the targeting matrix and accompanying guidelines.

The significant changes to targeting of GOBPs are highlighted below.

• The minimum OGRS score for offenders targeted to GOBPs is increased from 31 to 40.

• A clear distinction is made between referrals to GOBPs and referrals to specific offence type programmes
which might be based on risk of harm rather than likelihood of reconviction.

• The guidelines recommend that offenders with a high likelihood of reconviction (OGRS 75 and over) should
be referred to GOBPs provided that plans are put into place to increase the probability of completion.

• New exclusion criteria are introduced based on recent history of breach or increasing levels of offending
(represented by 4 or more convictions for separate offences at the last court appearance).

• An ‘obstacle to exclusion’ criteria for group based programmes is introduced based on levels of inter-personal
skills.

• The minimum criminogenic needs level for GOBPs is set at a score of 7 or a minimum score of 4 with at least
one score of 2 on the relevant items in section 11 of OASys.

The new exclusion criteria move towards targeting based on current status and evidence of readiness to change, rather
than being entirely based on criminal history. A projection of the overall effects of these changes based on the OASys
data demonstrates that there will still be enough offenders eligible for programmes to meet current targets when applying
the revised criteria.

Annex A describes factors to be taken into account when using the targeting matrix and Annex B contains the targeting
matrices.

GUIDELINES FOR TARGETING MATRIX

USING THE MATRIX TO IDENTIFY A SUITABLE INTERVENTION
How to use the tables

The targeting matrix consists of three tables. Assessors should use the three tables together to ensure they select the
most suitable intervention. Table 1 allows for an intervention to be chosen on the basis of risk of harm and likelihood of
reconviction from a list of those which are appropriate. Table 2 provides a crosscheck that an offender is eligible for an
intervention in terms of risk, need and offence type. It also provides an indication of other work required. Table three
highlights exclusions and any obstacles which need to be overcome before the offender can realistically participate in the
intervention.

PC38/2004 - Revised Targeting Strategy 2

Table 1 is a two dimensional matrix based on ‘Risk of Harm’ and’ Likelihood of Reconviction‘ as defined in OASys. This
matrix is a development of an earlier one developed to assist targeting to Enhanced Community Punishment. Each cell in
the matrix is defined by a specific combination of ‘Risk of harm’ and ‘Likelihood of reconviction’. This revised matrix is
expanded to have 5 levels of ‘Likelihood of reconviction’ and 4 levels of ‘Risk of Harm’ which allows for a finer
discrimination between types of Offending Behaviour Programme appropriate at each level. It also includes a wider range
of interventions than the original matrix. Each cell contains a list of the disposals suitable for an offender who meets the
cell definition, enabling the assessor to choose the most appropriate option.

Table 2 lists all the interventions separately. The target group for each intervention in terms of ‘Risk of Harm’ and
‘Likelihood of Reconviction ‘is represented by the shaded areas. The lighter shading indicates categories of offender who
could benefit from an intervention delivered on its own. The solid black shading indicates categories who could benefit
from the intervention provided it was part of a wider package of measures. For example, programmes might require
additional structured input or be sequenced with other interventions. The final column gives an indication of the offender
group or criminogenic needs/risk factors addressed by the intervention. The limited space does not allow all needs
criteria to be included so in some cases further assessment is indicated. Assessors should refer to the individual
intervention assessment matrices for the full list of needs criteria for any intervention. Table 2 allows the assessor to
check that any intervention they are proposing is suitable for the offender. Programmes which are not likely to be widely
available in the near future such as Choices (the lower risk substance misuse programme) and the Women’s Acquisitive
Offending Programmes are not included in the table.

Table 3 maps possible obstacles to participation against each intervention. The shaded cells indicate where obstacles
are relevant to the specific intervention. It should be noted that an obstacle is not necessarily a reason to exclude an
offender from participating in an intervention. Most obstacles should be considered as factors which require special
attention or issues which need addressing before an offender participates in the intervention. Please see suggested table
format. Exclusions can be based on offenders' characteristics or issues affecting availability. A new exclusion criterion is
introduced for programmes, based on a recent increase in delinquent/criminal behaviour.

For further information about targeting to individual programmes, areas should contact the programme implementation
manager responsible for the programme.

Think First, Cognitive Booster and Drink Impaired Drivers - David Skyner 0207 217 8044.
David.Skyner@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk

ETS, ART and CALM - Jim Cowley 0207 217 8814. Jim.Cowley@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk

ASRO, OSAP and PRISM - Diane Anderson 0207 217 8895 mailto:Diane.Anderson3@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk

Domestic Violence, and Priestley One to One - Sue Pearce 0207 217 8081 Sue.Pearce@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk

Sex Offender Programmes - David Middleton 0207 217 8183 David.Middleton2@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk

PC38/2004 - Revised Targeting Strategy 3

ANNEX A: FACTORS TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT WHEN USING THE
TARGETING MATRIX

Custodial sentences - Table 1 does not include a custodial sentence as an option, because
it is primarily concerned with the range of community interventions. However, there will be
some occasions when offenders who pose a High Risk of Harm or High Risk of Reconviction
may not be suitable for any Community Sentence. There will also be instances where the
seriousness of the offence inevitably suggests a Custodial Sentence. Assessors should be
aware that the targeting and guidance provided in this document do not preclude
recommending a Custodial Sentence on such occasions.

Combining Interventions - Assessors should bear in mind that interventions are usually not
exclusive of one another and in instances where risk and need require greater input this can
often be achieved by sequencing interventions. Some disposals form a wrap within which
more than one intervention is embedded. For example a Community Punishment &
Rehabilitation Order (CPRO) may include a requirement to attend an offending behaviour
programme as well as ECP which will support the programme work. A Drug Testing &
Treatment Order (DTTO) will always include attendance at an offending behaviour
programme.

Curfew orders - can be used as a sentence in their own right or alongside other sentences
where a significant degree of restriction of liberty is required or where it would aid
rehabilitation. Curfew orders with electronic monitoring should normally be restricted to
offenders with Medium to High Risk of Reconviction or Medium to High Risk of Harm.

Sequencing programmes - means arranging for an offender to attend two programmes

consecutively. Sequencing will normally take place when the Likelihood of Reconviction is
high and when an offender has a wide range of criminogenic needs which makes them
suitable for more than one programme. Sequencing will normally consist of pairing a General
Offending Behaviour Programme with a more specialist programme, however, on occasions
two specialist programmes may be sequenced. Analysis of OASys data from probation areas
suggests that the most common combination will be a GOBP and a substance misuse
programme. Assessors should also consider combinations of offending behaviour
programmes with other interventions addressing needs associated with reconviction such as
basic skills and employment. The decision to recommend a sequence of programmes should
be made at the beginning of sentence or PSR stage.

Drug Treatment and Testing Orders (DTTO) - Tables 1 and 2 do not distinguish between
the standard and less intensive versions of DTTO. This is because the sentence given by the
court will be the same. The level of DTTO applicable in a specific case will often be a matter
of clinical judgement. In general though, higher risk cases will be expected to receive the
more intensive intervention. All DTTOs should be supported by attendance at an accredited
substance misuse and/or other accredited offending behaviour programme. For Very High
Risk of Harm offenders it is assumed that substance misuse programmes will only be
undertaken within the structure of a DTTO.

Sex offenders - Most sex offenders will be eligible for some level of accredited Sex Offender
Treatment Programme (SOTP). This is reflected in Table 2 where all groups are shaded.
The level of intervention required is assessed through Risk Matrix 2000, and the structured
assessment which forms part of the SOTP. High Risk of Harm or High Likelihood of
Reconviction sex offenders are unlikely to receive a community sentence. But, should this
occur, additional input to manage risk effectively in the community should be considered.

Violent Offenders - NPS has two accredited programmes for violent/aggressive offenders,
these are Aggression Replacement Training (ART) and Controlling Anger and Learning to
Manage it (CALM). Both these programmes are most suitable for offenders in the Medium to
High Likelihood of Reconviction range and the Medium to High Risk of Harm. Tables 1 and 2
reflect that violent offenders with a Medium or High Risk of Harm may be placed on ART and
CALM even if their likelihood of reconviction is low. If offenders with a High Risk of Harm are
undertaking ART or CALM additional structured input will be required as part of the risk
management plan. The needs criteria for ART and CALM vary slightly, but probation areas
will only be running one or the other programme. Both programmes focus on the attitudinal
problems, emotional management, inter-personal difficulties and perceptual triggers
associated with aggressive behaviour. They are unlikely to be sufficient on their own for
offenders whose violent or aggressive behaviour is primarily instrumental.

Domestic Violence - The conviction history for perpetrators of domestic violence is likely to
reflect a smaller fraction of their offending than for some other groups of offenders.
Therefore, there is no lower likelihood of reconviction criteria for this group. The SARA
(Spousal Abuse Risk Assessment) inventory will be used to assess risk with this group.
Consultation with programme staff is recommended in all domestic cases being considered
for a DV programme.

General Offending Behaviour Programmes - Research into the effectiveness of GOBPs

has shown that they do not reduce the reconviction rate for offenders who have a low
likelihood of reconviction (OGRS score less than 40). Therefore, the targeting criteria have
been revised so that only those having an OGRS above 40 are recommended for GOBPs.
This does not apply to specific offence programmes where an increased Risk of Harm may
indicate a need for the programme. This change is represented in Table 1 by having a new
likelihood of risk category based on OGRS scores between 31 and 40 for which specific, but
not general offending, programmes should normally be considered. Other changes to the
Target group for GOBPs around exclusions/obstacles to completion are shown in Table 3 and
Appendix 2.

Cognitive Skills Booster Programme - is not listed separately from the other GOBPs in
Tables 1-3. It is appropriate for all offenders who have successfully completed a GOBP. It
should be noted that the booster on its own does not constitute the additional structured work
required for offenders with a Higher Likelihood of Reconviction. The Cognitive Skills Booster
Programme can be used together with a GOBP where an offender receives a longer
supervision order. For offenders who have completed a GOBP in custody a licence condition
to attend the Cognitive Skills Booster Programme as directed should be considered. The
Cognitive Skills Booster Programme can also be a requirement of a new supervision order if it
can be verified that an offender has successfully completed a GOBP as part of an earlier
recent sentence.

Drink Impaired Drivers Programme - this programme is only suitable for a limited number of
offenders who have few convictions other than for drinking and driving offences. Therefore it
is unlikely to be suitable for those in the Higher Likelihood of Reconviction Category. The
DIDs programme should only be considered where offenders do not meet the criteria for other
offending behaviour programmes. A first drink driving offence would not normally require
attendance at DIDs unless there are aggravating factors. Assessors should consider the
courses organised by the Department of Transport as an alternative option.

Enhanced Community Punishment - is targeted at offenders who merit a community

sentence and are suitable for work in the community. ECP is specifically designed to address
needs in the following areas, education, employability, lifestyle and associates, attitudes and
cognitive skills (which are not so great as to require at General Offending Behaviour
Programme). Where additional offending related needs exist or Likelihood of Reconviction is
high a CPRO should be considered. ECP will not be suitable for offenders with a High Risk of
Harm unless this can be managed safely in the community in which case a CPRO may be
suitable.

Low Risk of Harm and Low likelihood of Reconviction - The assumption for this group of
offenders is that they will receive a disposal other than a community sentence unless ECP is
merited by the severity of the offence.
Annex B: Targeting Matrix

Table 1. Targeting matrix based on likelihood of reconviction and risk of harm

Likelihood of RISK OF HARM

Reconviction Low Medium High Very high
OGRS OASys
High 76+ 100+ ISM,ICCP DTTO, ISM, ICCP Consider MAPPP MAPPP
CRO/CPRO – GOBP or specific CRO/CPRO – GOBP or specific DTTO, ICCP DTTO, ICCP
offence programme (DIDS, SOTP, offence programme (DIDS, SOTP, CRO – GOBP or specific offence CRO – GOBP or specific offence programme
IDAP, ART/CALM) + additional IDAP, ART/CALM) + additional programme ( SOTP IDAP (SOTP IDAP ART/CALM)+ additional
structured work or sequenced structured work or sequenced ART/CALM)+ additional structured structured work or sequenced programmes
programmes programmes work or sequenced programmes CRO –alone if unsuitable for OBPs
CRO – ASRO/OSAPP/PRISM CRO – ASRO/OSAPP/PRISM CRO – ASRO/OSAPP/PRISM
CRO–alone if unsuitable for OBPs CRO –alone if unsuitable for with additional work or sequenced
CPRO OBPs programme
Curfew order CPRO CRO –alone if unsuitable for
Curfew order OBPs
Medium 50-75 71- 99 CRO/CPRO - GOBP or specific DTTO, ICCP Consider MAPPP MAPPP
offence programme (DIDS, SOTP, CRO/CPRO - GOBP or specific DTTO, ICCP DTTO, ICCP
high IDAP, ART/CALM) offence programme (DIDS, SOTP, CRO – GOBP or specific offence CRO – GOBP or specific offence programme
CRO – ASRO/OSAPP/PRISM IDAP, ART/CALM) programme ( DIDS SOTP IDAP) (SOTP IDAP ART/CALM sequenced or with
CRO –alone if unsuitable for CRO – ASRO/OSAPP/PRISM CRO ART/CALM sequenced with additional structured work
OBPs CRO–alone if unsuitable for OBPs additional structured work CRO –alone if unsuitable for OBPs
CPRO CPRO CRO – ASRO/OSAPP/PRISM
CPO CPO CRO –alone if unsuitable for
Curfew order Curfew order OBPs
Medium 41-49 56 – CRO - GOBP or specific offence CRO - GOBP or specific offence Consider MAPPP, ICCP MAPPA
programme DIDS, SOTP, IDAP, CRO – GOBP or specific offence ICCP
70 programme DIDS, SOTP, IDAP, ART/CALM) programme ( DIDS SOTP IDAP) CRO – GOBP or specific offence programme (
ART/CALM) CRO –alone if unsuitable for CRO ART/CALM sequenced with OTP IDAP ART/CALM sequenced or with
CRO –alone if unsuitable for OBPs additional structured work additional structured work
OBPs CPRO CRO –alone if unsuitable for CRO –alone if unsuitable for OBPs
CPRO CPO OBPs
CPO Curfew order
Curfew order
Medium 31-40 41-55 CRO –DIDS,SOTP, IDAP CRO –DIDS, SOTP, IDAP ART or CRO – specific offence MAPPA
CRO/CPRO -alone CALM programme (DIDS SOTP IDAP) CRO – specific offence programme ( SOTP
Low CPO CRO/CPRO – alone CRO ART/CALM sequenced or IDAP ART/CALM) with additional structured
Curfew order without EM CPO with additional structured work risk work
Fine Curfew order without EM CRO –alone if OBP not CRO –alone if OBP not appropriate
appropriate
CPRO – (only if risk of harm safely
managed)
Low U30 U40 CPO-only where merited by CRO with DIDs, SOTP, IDAP ART CRO with DIDs, SOTP, IDAP ART MAPPA
severity of offence or CALM or CALM CRO – specific offence programme ( SOTP
Fine CRO/CPRO – alone CRO – alone if OBP not IDAP ART/CALM)
Conditional discharge CPO appropriate CRO –alone if OBP not appropriate
Curfew order without EM CPRO – (only if risk of harm safely
managed)

PC38/2004 - Revised Targeting Strategy 1

Table 2. Targeting for individual interventions by likelihood of reconviction, risk of harm and needs

Interventions RISK OF HARM AND LIKELIHOOD OF RECONVICTION Needs - summary

LOW RISK OF HARM MEDIUM RISK OF HARM HIGH RISK OF HARM
L M M/H H L M M/H H L M M/H H
OGRS -41 41-50 51-75 75+ -41 41-50 51-75 75+ -41 41-50 51-75 75+
ISM Prolific offenders low substance
misuse & other needs
ICCP 18-20 years only –multiple needs
high risk custody
DTTO Drugs dependency plus high level
of other needs (5+)
Sex offender Sexual offence/motivation risk
Programmes assessed by matrix 2000
Domestic History of Domestic Violence risk
violence is assessed by SARA
Violent offender Violent offence/ history. Anger,
programmes, social skill or attitude deficits
(OASys)
ART & CALM
Substance Offence linked to substance
misuse misuse. OASys indicates
Substance misuse problem
ASRO,OSSAP
and PRISM
GOBPs: Think Cognitive deficits identified in
first, ETS, R&R, section 11 OASys. (Additional
Priestley work unless R&R OGRS 75+)
Drink, impaired Needs related to drink driving only
drivers
Enhanced Employment, lifestyle and attitude
community needs and/or some limited
punishment cognitive skill deficits only, unless
part of CPRO

Key Categories of offender who would benefit from interventions delivered on as a stand alone

Categories of offender who would benefit from intervention, if delivered as part of a wider package.

PC38/2004 - Revised Targeting Strategy 2

Table 3.Exclusion and ‘obstacle’ Criteria Covering Multiple Interventions
Intervention Factor and relevant part of OASys
OASys Sections 1-12 Section 13: issues affecting availability Other
Serious Learning Poor Inter- Serious Alcohol Chaotic Religious/ ETE Carer/ Physical Trans Breach A Gender
Mental Difficulties Basic personal Psycholo / Drug lifestyle cultural comm Domestic health port or many ge (female
ill / Low IQ skills problems gical misuse requests itment Issues recent ov offenders)
health disorder offences er
~ 20
ISM √
ICCP √ √
DTTO
√
Sex
offender √
Domestic √
violence √
Violent
offender √
Substance
misuse √
GOBP*
√ √
Drink/Drive
√ √ √
ECP **

Key:
√ Excluded from this programme
Potential obstacle. May not be suitable for this programme depending on individual circumstances.
* Obstacles to attending a group GOBP can often be resolved by referral to the Priestley One to One Programme.
** ECP is designed to accommodate most disabilities and personal circumstances. Local procedures should be used to check that suitable
work is available.
~ Based on items 1.2 re-sentencing for breach & 1.3 in OASys number of conviction at last court appearance.
# Due to the low numbers of female offenders, singleton placements may be necessary for any intervention these should always be
carefully considered and discussed with the offender. Some specific programmes are not accredited or fully accredited for female
offenders.

PC38/2004 - Revised Targeting Strategy 3